Amazing Facts or Amazing Paranoia?
by Ervin Taylor, March 18, 2015: I’m not sure how the Amazing Facts (AF) organization of Doug Batchelor obtained my mailing address. I have my suspicions, but that’s for another day. However this happened, I, along with thousands of other Adventists, received the AF January 2015 Historic Prophecy Headlines.
Upon reading the title, “The Rapid Progression of Papal Power,” I instantly recalled reading something similar, but dated in the 1930s. It was a broadside that promoted an Adventist evangelistic meeting on the topic of “We Know the End Is Near! Will You Be Ready?” How did those Adventists living in the 1930s know that the “End Is Near”? They had two ways of knowing this. First, they believed that they had an infallible prophet who confirmed that Adventism had the one, and only, correct interpretation of the apocalyptic visions of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. And second, they knew that the Roman Catholic Church was active in attempting to bring peace to Europe. We know how that effort turned out.
Fast forward to 2015. Is it possible that the brand of Adventism represented by the AF organization has learned nothing over the last almost-80 years? This obviously is a rhetorical question since the obvious answer is, “No, nothing has been learned.”
A few years ago, I published a book review of George Knight’s The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism. The central thesis of this volume is that “if Adventism loses its apocalyptic vision, it has lost its reason for existing as either a church or a system of education.” The author was convinced that “if Adventism’s apocalyptic big picture isn’t valid, the most sensible thing is to shut up shop, go home, and do something meaningful with our lives.” In another section, he argues that “Adventism became strong by proclaiming that it had a prophetic message for our time.”
The book begins with the question, “Why be Adventist?” The author says that some “can’t help it” because they were “born that way.” For others it is “an addiction.” He informs his readers that he was neither born Adventist nor is he addicted to it. For him, “[t]here have to be good reasons . . . to be an Adventist—or even remain one” (p. 7). To the author, being born an Adventist is neither a “good reason” to be an Adventist nor to remain one.
He continues by asking: “Why have a Seventh-day Adventist Church? What function or use does it have? Is it important or even necessary? Is it merely another denomination that turns out to be a bit stranger than some of the others because of its ‘hang-up’ with the seventh day and certain dietary issues?”
Dr. Knight sees three types of Adventists. At one end of a continuum are “Adventist Adventists,” who view everything taught by the church as being uniquely Adventist. In the middle are “Christian Adventists” who find “meaning in the evangelical framework that we share with other Christians.” At what he calls the other “extreme end” are Adventist “Christian Christians” who are “overjoyed to be evangelical and shy away from Ellen White, the eschatological implications of the Sabbath, the heavenly sanctuary, and so on.”
The author suggests that “Adventism in the early twenty-first century, especially in developed nations, has largely moved beyond such ‘primitive’ and unsophisticated ideas … Rich and increased with politically correct assumptions, [first world Adventism has] lost that sanctified arrogance that made us believe that we had a message that the whole world must hear” (p. 15). The result, he argues, is “[s]hrinkage in the [non-immigrant segments of the] North American Division (and other developed world sectors of the church).” Later he notes “shrinkage among born-in American members…in the North American Division” as well as the aging of these populations (p. 54). Part of the reason for this, he argues, is that “Adventism has to a large extent lost the apocalyptic foundation of its message” (p. 15).
To illustrate his point, he relates an experience at a “symposium of Seventh-day Adventist religion scholars who were addressing the issue of why they personally were Seventh-day Adventists.” Despite testimonies “from across the theological spectrum,” all of the presentations, Knight thinks, “shot wide of the mark.” Why was this? To Dr. Knight, it was because “the reasons largely centered on cultural and relationship issues…a lot of warm fuzzies of religion.” For “insiders,” he suggests, this approach is “O.K.” But “as an outsider to the club of the born-in-the-church community, I saw absolutely no reason to become Seventh-day Adventist from what I heard…” If Adventism is just a bunch of “warm fuzzies” then, he argues, “there is no really good reason to be an Adventist unless you were born that way or are so socially and culturally impoverished that you lack other satisfying alternatives” (p. 16).
The author of The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism was a talented, highly motivated, and prolific Adventist writer. Even though his area of doctoral studies was neither theology nor history, Dr. Knight made major contributions to scholarship in his series of books on the development of Adventist theology, history, and identity. In this book, he paints an accurate picture of significant elements of contemporary First World Adventism which have evolved away from an interest in apocalyptic prophecy. Some, including this reviewer, would see this development as the result of a natural maturation process that should be welcomed and nurtured. In stark contrast, Knight reacts very negatively to such developments within North American and First-world Adventism elsewhere. And, we can assume, so do Doug Batchelor and the supporters of his organization.
An interesting coincidence is that both Dr. Knight and Doug Batchelor are converts to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Dr. Knight appears to be speaking primarily from the perspective and emotional experience of a convert to Adventism, though these events for him occurred many decades ago. In that context, his theological perspective might be considered to be an excellent example of where theology is primarily biography, recast in cosmic or metaphysical terms. For his part, Doug Batchelor is happy to tell us about his biography, which included stints in a cave.
To Dr. Knight, Adventists who are born into this faith community and whose identity with respect to Adventism is primarily sociological or cultural are, at best, second-class Adventists—or worse. They are, in his words, “playing at church.” To him, these Adventists “can’t help it” because either they were “born that way” or they are so “socially and culturally impoverished that [they] lack other satisfying alternatives.” He is dismissive of Adventists whose identity, to quote him, is “largely centered on cultural and relationship issues.” These reasons are to him “a lot of warm fuzzies.”
His attitude toward Adventists who do not share his views as to the basis of their adherence to Adventist Christianity is illustrated by his brief summary of a conversation he had with a “certain Adventist intellectual” some years ago: “After talking over Adventism a bit, he wondered out loud how someone as smart as I could believe all that stuff [traditional sectarian Adventist theology and particularly its eschatology]. I [Dr. Knight] responded with the suggestion that I didn’t see why someone as intelligent as he was would remain in Adventism if he didn’t believe it.”
Perhaps it is a part of Dr. Knight’s insistence on exhibiting a “proper” amount of “sanctified arrogance” (his words) that he is willing to express so openly, with such little regard (bordering on contempt) for a large group of his fellow church members in North America and other parts of the First World. He should be commended for being honest and open in his expression of opinion. This is certainly refreshing in the Adventist subculture. However, to some his attitude might be viewed, at best, as disappointing, or, at worst, simply arrogant.
Since Dr. Knight sees virtue in expressing “sanctified arrogance,” we might note that his comments might remind a reader of the types of attitudes that one would be more likely to associate with someone who was a founding member of the Adventist Theological Society or who believes that the opinions and works of Colin Standish and Russell Standish make positive contributions to the contemporary life of the Adventist Church.
On the other hand, I would think that many educated North American Adventists who were born into the church would very much agree that his question, “Why have a Seventh-day Adventist Church?” is an important question to address. It does indeed, as he says, “raise complex issues…[that] ought to stand at the center of discussion.” If a reader takes Dr. Knight literally, he appears to be arguing that the one and only valid reason for the 21st-century Adventist Church to exist is to advocate boldly, with some relatively minor exceptions, a 19th-century theological system created in the context of a uniquely American-denominated experience, built on a particular take on apocalyptic prophecy endorsed by the visions of Ellen G. White.
If a reader is interested in considering a much more hopeful and positive approach to answering the question “Why be an Adventist?,” one might begin by consulting Richard Rice’s Believing, Behaving, Belonging: Finding New Love for the Church (2002). Dr. Rice’s book can be read as antidote to the retrogressive and negative tone of Dr. Knight’s book and the “ministry” of Doug Batchelor and the AF organization, Rice provides a forward-looking, progressive vision for a mature 21st-century Adventist Christian church, not the nightmare scenario of a retrogressive sect-type Adventism caught up in a 19th-century time warp.
If the Adventist Church as an institution seeks to implement the positions espoused in this book even more than they already have, it will result in consigning 21st-century Adventism to being regarded as a small, marginalized sect as far as mainstream Western civil and religious society is concerned. But that is perhaps precisely what Dr. Knight and Mr. Batchelor have in mind!
A good overview and explanation of various views on various levels, Dr. Taylor. But no matter how and what view people will eventually take, the simple fact that the Advent Movement was based on an historical event that took place in heaven. Namely, Jesus went from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place and began to judge the church.
This historical event is just as real as the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus back to heaven. So to be a SDA, you must accept this historical event as well as the explanation given by EGW of what it meant, past, present, and future. No one can be a Christian who denies the historical Christ event. And neither can you be a SDA if you deny the 1844 historical event.
These are both non-negotiable events of history and are the motivating factor to prepare people for the close of probation, time of trouble and second coming. In both events, law and gospel remain continually active and neither does away with the other. That is, obedience to the law does not negate the gospel, nor does the gospel negate the dynamic function of the law, “Obey and live, disobey and die.” This is God’s eternal covenant with all created moral beings.
I tend to agree Bill. SDAism is fairly precise as to its doctrinal pillars, so it should be easy for anyone, esp the brighter among you, to work out if they believe things that way. So Dr Knight is quite at liberty to ask why those who are born into Adventism remain there once they no longer see things through that C19 Adventist lens. I think ‘social’ reasons rank fairly highly, but I would have thought that real commitment to the principle of SDAism required more than conveninece of social relations.
And Yes, I know some say that SDA has no creed, truth is progressive etc, but some things are ‘pillars,’ and not to be changed.
One of these is 1844 and the historical walk that Jesus took from HP to MHP in the heavenly sanctuary. This is related directly to His Day of Atonement work. ‘THe cleansing of the sanctuary’ is still equated with the great antitypical Day of Atonement is it not?
And the great antitypical Day of Atonement is based firmly on Dan 8.14, ‘…. unto 2,300 days…. then sanctuary shall be cleansed/justified/restored,’ is it not?
And using the principle that one prophetic day is equivalent to one year of literal solar/earth time, then by most reckonings, the year 1844 is determined as the year that this antitypical day of Atonement began?
I am presuming a yes answer to these questions. Because there is a question of simple logic which has occurred to me, and I claim no originality in asking it. Just that I’ve not heard an explanation for it. Question is this: If Antitypical Day of Atonement takes place as a direct consequence of the conclusion of a day/year prophecy, why is it that the great DAY of Atonement has so far taken 170 days? ie, 170 years, soon to be 171.
Is the logic flawed? Is there an explanation, Bill? Since you are firmly committed to the historicity of these things, I thought you might be willing to venture an opinion? Why has God now changed (inexplicably) away from the year/day principle, right at the climax of the most significant year/day prophecy of all time, now at the end of all things, and in a matter so crucial to the salvation of the world? In 1844, ‘a day for a year’ applies. In 1845, the ‘principle’ no longer stands.
Any suggestions?
I think Erv is on-point when he raises the question of “Amazing Paranoia” over 1844. Visitors to many congregations do not have to wait long to be confronted with strong defenses of traditional interpretations of Daniel 8:14 and vigorous rejection of scripture-based questions about that view that deserve careful study. In those places it can be easy to leave with the impression that the church exists to argue about an obscure prophetic point at a date in the distant past instead of being relevant to the present.
This paranoia goes so deep into the corporate and social psyche of the church that it is having exactly the effect Satan wants: total nullification of the spiritual vigor that might make someone want to love God and become a disciple of Jesus. This is clearly reflected in the snail-slow and even negative growth rates in church membership in the countries of the old industrialized world.
Because of the negative impact continued discussions about 1844 are having on the church, I believe the entire topic has turned into one of the “foolish and stupid arguments” the Apostle Paul counseled Timothy to avoid “because they produce quarrels” (2 Tim 2:23). When are we going to heed Paul’s counsel and focus our attention on the present guidance and power of God to transform us and the topics that matter today so we can begin changing the world around us?
There were quite a few memorable events occurring in 1844:
The first news report was telegraphed.
Goodyear patented vulcanization of rubber.
Y.M.C.A. was formed.
May 21: William Millers first predicted return of Jesus.
Brigham Young elected President of LDS.
Oct. 22. Miller’ second date for Jesus’ appearance.
Pick which was most important to the world?
I would choose Goodyear’s vulcanization of rubber without that invention, automobiles and their huge impact on the world today would not have been nearly so successful.
For Adventists: two failed predictions, both revised, are the most important. Or are they?
So, Elaine, you are saying that you want to equate the invention of the tire by Goodyear to the cleansing of the sanctuary as written in Daniel 8:14?!
I’m sure that Mr. Sorensen meant to write that “The Adventist Movement was initially based on an presumed historical event that was supposed to have taken place in heaven. According to traditional Adventist teaching, Jesus was supposed to have traveled from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place and began to judge the church. To traditional Adventists,this presumed historical event is just as real as the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus back to heaven.” .
He also might have said “ahistorical” event rather than “an historical” event.
There are so many assumptions and presumptions to arrive at this belief that it strains the average mind, and raises far more questions than honest answers.
Bill,
You seem a little confused. You claim that “the Advent Movement was based on an historical event that took place in heaven.” Historical events are human, recordeed and verifiable events that took place on the planet Earth. What the SDAs claim to have happened in 1844 is an ASSUMED event, based an interpretation.
To the question: “Why don’t more people accept the eschatological aspects of sanctuary teaching,
including a pre-Advent judgment taking place now?” in his article “CHRIST AT HIS SANCTUARY
Toward Adventist-Evangelical Dialogue,” Roy Gane, professor of Hebrew at Andrews University answers:
“The fact that nothing happened on earth in 1844 to prove the beginning of a new phase of salvation in heaven. Acceptance of this, as with other Christian beliefs, is based on faith in the biblical evidence alone.”
So, acccording to Gane, 1844 must be accepted on faith, because there is no verifiable historical event that can confirm it.
Read my research paper “Adventist Historicism Reexamined And Critiqued” posted on Academia.edu in order to understand the difference between genuine historical events and fictional pseudo-historical events, and to reach with me the conclusion that the SDA theology is not historicist, but pseudo-historicist.
It’s difficult for me to understand why people completely ignore the whole Book of Hebrews, that has a clear message, just to favor one obscure verse from the OT.
I think it’s more of a spiritual/denominational pride issue, an EGO issue. It can’t be religious in essence. Religion usually supports intellectual honesty, and ignoring Hebrews on purpose doesn’t sound much honest to me.
“… an historical event that took place in heaven…”
The only problem Bill is that the “event” can’t be found in the Bible. The major challenge to this hypothesis is of course the Book of Hebrews – that clearly teaches a completely different story.
Those who are unsure should read the Book of Hebrews several times in a row, always the whole book at once. If one learns what Hebrews teaches so clearly, it becomes obvious that there is no room for any adventure into this “historical event that took place in heaven”…
Bill, I believe you will be pleasantly surprised upon observing some souls in heaven, which on Earth you considered
heretics and reprobates.
I can determine, Earl, who is a heretic, but only God can determine who is reprobate.
I can only give Dr Taylor a B or at most B plus for his thesis. He spends a lot of time criticising those like Knight who suggest you can’t be an Adventist without believing in the Advent. However he doesn’t really offer a solution, except for a very scant allusion to Richard Rice. I wish he had not simply knocked others and spent more time arguing his own positive theory.
Just as a matter of logic, I struggle how one can be an Adventist without believing in the Advent. Dr Knight may be flawed but Dr Taylor’s theory seems nonsense. Moreover, I wonder if Dr Rice is suggesting an abandonment of Advent belief or if Dr Taylor is somewhat misappropriating his work.
Why would I belong to a tennis club if I don’t play tennis? Why join the NRA if I hate guns? You may be right in hating both tennis and guns but that is to confuse the issue of why one would deliberately choose to belong to a group whose values one does not share.
Dr Knight was one of a team that assisted me and examined me on my own doctoral dissertation. I regard him as a genuine Christian and all-round decent bloke. Dr Taylor has, however, identified the blind spot that any SDA apologist displays, George Knight included.
That blind spot is an apparent inability to objectively analyse SDA theology. Both George Knight and Doug Batchelor suffer from the same malady. The issue under discussion, SDA eschatology, is a good example. Starting with the investigative judgment hypothesis and moving to elements such as the sealing, the latter rain, the loud cry, the shaking, the time of trouble, Sunday laws and the death decree, it all adds up to a human construct devised by gathering in an arbitrary manner a selection of analogies from all over the scriptures and stringing them together as glass beads on a plausible but dubious thread. It is a unique string that has not persuaded the wider Christian world simply because it is recognised as only one probable end-time scenario among thousands of other possibilities.
As one who was born a SDA and still attends their worship services, among other denominational services, I believe I have something more positive to offer to people.
But doesn’t dr Taylor go beyond merely attacking sad eschatological models to all models that believe in the second advent. I don’t think dr Taylor could accept catholic models of eschatology either.
“…apparent inability to objectively analyse SDA theology”? So true! Looking at some of the comments posted on this website now and in the past could make an observer think the church should change its’ name to “1844 Debate Society.”
There is far more to the Gospel and scripture than 1844. Get over it, folks! Move along! There’s nothing for you to gain by looking backward when God has so much else to teach us today.
“Starting with the investigative judgment hypothesis and moving to elements such as the sealing, the latter rain, the loud cry, the shaking, the time of trouble, Sunday laws and the death decree, it all adds up to a human construct devised by gathering in an arbitrary manner a selection of analogies from all over the scriptures and stringing them together as glass beads on a plausible but dubious thread.”
That may be your opinion, Milton, and you have a right to believe it as a free moral being. But it is not the view of a bible believing SDA. Your scenario could just as easily apply to someone who takes the NT account of Christ by the apostles, and reject their testimony by the same reasoning.
As to the delay of time mentioned earlier, if the implications of what the 1844 message was comprehended and advocated, the time would not have gone on so long. Motivation is based on knowledge and understanding. The unfolding of the events will surely motivate some who have either never heard the message, and, perhaps bring back some who have adopted an attitude of skepticism, unbelief and doubt.
EGW stated that in the future, the door will be shut to those who have had opportunity and refused to enter the MHP for the final atonement, while it remains open to those who have never heard the message. God has no higher level of motivation to prepare people for future events than He has given to the Advent movement. Reject the message and you will certainly not be motivated to prepare for the future events. And at some point, the door will shut to those who scorn the truth and opt for delusions contrary to the message.
It is called the “sealing message” where people are settled into the truth both intellectually and spiritually (EGW). If people won’t be persuaded by scripture, then they won’t be persuaded by any other means. Just like the Christ event. If the evidence in scripture can not persuade people to believe and accept Jesus, no amount of “evidence” will change their mind, “Though one rose from the dead” as the parable states.
If the devil can remove any fear of delusion, he will accomplish his goal of final deception. “What must I do to be saved?” is a continuing and ongoing challenge to all of us. A false gospel destroys this challenge and “I’m Ok, you’re OK” is the final end. There is no cure for this attitude.
Perhaps we feel the need as Adventists to instill fear by replacing the concept of “hell” with new terrors. My impression is that very, very, very few converts will be “scared into the kingdom.” They can be scared into the baptistery tank, but few remain active once the threat is lifted, as in the case of the Millerites who renounced their “delusion” at midnight, October 22, 1844.
If these beliefs of Adventism have been around for more than 150 years and no non-SDA scholar has agreed with that scenario, how is it possible to convince the far better educated individuals today to accept? If it only makes sense to Adventists, that is no different than Scientology is believed by a small part of society, also. But if Adventists have as their mission to convince the world of this very imaginative picture, it is becoming less successful in the better educated areas of the world that is losing members.
Perhaps it makes no difference that as the evidence is growing that it is the less educated portion of the world is largely those that are accepting Adventism. So why the continued evangelical,revival and reformation with distribution of the G.C. in the great urban centers? Why not in the areas of the word where
more conversions are the norm?
God’s truth is not measured by numbers of people who accept or don’t accept it. Narrow is the way that leads to eternal life and few there be that find it.
Bill: “As to the delay of time mentioned earlier…”
Bill, I was not referring to a mere ‘delay of time.’ Nothing like it. I was asking why, if the ‘year-day PRINCIPLE’ is valid, Why would that ‘principle’ break down on the final, climactic DAY of the prophecy?
Either God has no principles, or the year-day principle is no principle at all.
As usual Elaine has moved us to an important point in this discussion which causes the following question to be posed: Who else than someone with limited educational background (I did not say intelligence) would accept the classical Adventist understanding of biblical prophecy? Responses to this question are solicited.
Not all elements I agree. But what exactly is classical sad eschatology? For example Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in a pre advent investigative judgment. They just think it started in 31 AD not 1844. All theology evolves, as much as Bill denies that.
But does DrTaylor actually reject the baby and not merely the bath water? Does he reject notmerely the sad model of eschatology but all models? Could he or Elaine accept the Nicene Creed affirmation in a second coming, judgment and resurrection?
We need to distinguish sad models from the broader concept of second advent itself. Dr Taylor’s attack on Kinght, Bachelor and sda eschatology does nothing to address his original wider question of whether the end is coming and whether we should be ready for it as Jesus taught.
Attacking the tea leaves of the sda eschatology chart, as dr Taylor does, does not address the issue of whether one can be an Adventist without believing the advent? Can one even be a Christian without believing in the Second Coming? Reading Paul and the Nicene Crred I suspect the answer is no.
Autocorrect has turned sda into sad. Fitting pun?
“sad” rather than “sda”? A “Fitting pun?” An very appropriate pun from many perspectives. Pure genius.
Is this a case, Steve, where even the stones (there is a lot of silica in stone) are crying out, trying to tell you something? Maybe not just a pun after all.
Well, Dr. Taylor, I consider the reasoning of Elaine as childish at best and totally bogus in reality. What “brilliant” scholar who accepted the SDA position would not actually become a SDA?
So what Pagan scholar who rejected Christ would be a credible source to refer to, as a good reason to reject Christanity?
As the man said, “I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.”
Perhaps Mr. Sorensen could provide the name of some 21st Century “brilliant biblical scholar” who was not an SDA who accepted the SDA position on prophecy? Now that would be a front page lead story in the Adventist Review. Perhaps the editor of Adventist Today might be persuaded to also develop a story ar9ound such an individuals—if one existed.
Academia is populated above 95% (in my decades-long experience) with ultra-liberal scholars who exhibit the very anomaly being discussed here.
Some of the greatest as to research, whose own research has supported much of the truth from a beiever’s perspective, still have no faith and don’t believe for an instant that an INFINITE-PERSONAL GOD has self-revealed in Scripture.
Why then this devotion to determining the meaning of Scripture? It is illogical, and the same can be said of the position that seems to have been taken here.
Given who t hese “brilliant biblica scholars” are, the likelihood of their espousing the gospel and the hour of God’s judgment having come is nil. “GOSPEL TRUTH HARDENS WHEN IT DOES NOT SAVE.”
The very suggestion of “who accepted SDAdventism?” suggests a lack of faith that is fatal to understanding truth. Please note that Ellen White was very clear that the time was coming when the SDAdventist “church” WOULD APPEAR TO FALL.
We are approaching that time. (Boy, if those SDAs in the 1930s had seen Pope Francis instead of Pope Pius, they would have REALLY been excited! Has the work of the papacy ever since Leo’s encyclical in 1895 that the
Roman Church must become the conscience of the developing world-state gone unnoticed?)
This same question of whether brilliant people accepted the truth was any kind of a test of truth was answered by the BRILLIANT Apostle Paul, who noted that few of the wise as the world saw it had or would accept the truth.
They do not/cannot understand the Wisdom of God, Paul says. To hear the negative anti-bliblical position parroted here is interesting to say the least.
On another matter, an important question has been raised.
The parallelism of 7 days, 6 of labor one of rest, seven months,6 or labor one of rest, seven years, six of labor one of rest, is alluded to WAY MORE than the two proof texts which SDAs are taught, Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34. Way more!
Cycles were naturally inter-related and parallel. The constant rule applies SIMILARITY OF APPEARANCE EQUALS SIMILARITY OF ESSENCE. They were essentially the shorter or longer versions of the same thing!
The question is the original intent of the 2,300 somethings — NOT “days” but “evenings-mornings” a phrasing drawn right from Temple theology (which is the subject) and most impressively defined in the First Creation Story, Gen 1:1-2:3.
In that setting once-up-a-time SDAs insisted (quite accurately) that the time periods involved were seven LITERAL 24-hour “days”. What, then, is the implication of that for the wording in Daniel 8:14 and is the SDA interpretation AN EXEGETICAL ONE OR ONE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF ANALOGY.
EXEGESIS AND ANALOGY BOTH VALID
Since time was cyclic in the ancient world, analogies of events in the past to those in the future were common. The horrors of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD were to be seen as a microcosm of what the whole world would become at the end of the age.
The horrors of Domitian’s 96 AD attempt to save himself by destroying every Christian man, woman, and child in the imperial province of Roman Asia (the day was already set) was a microcosm of how the righteous remnant throughout the world will face annihilation on a set day throughout the world. (Think Haman in Esther.
Giving the origin of why THIS PARTICULAR NUMBER would help explain the anomaly that has been raised.
Well put. i concur, being in academia myself, I have become used to the fact that academicians who call themselves Christians do not reflect for the most part the general sentiment of the word fellowship of the saints. They rely on sitting on a tower scrutinizing every argument of the doctrines and judging everything else but their own faith and experience with the Lord. In that they are far from inspiring as role models of models of faith and dedication to God’s work. Knowledge typically puffs up more than it builds up. There is a knowledge that is experiential and affects one spiritually with insight and faith. There is one that is purely intellectual and just based on pure reasoning and is not spiritual. Many fall for the last and leave the first thinking that will get them anywhere, but in the end of the day, it leaves one more distant from Lord, devoid of his voice in their hearts and runing on their own little human fuel
Bill,
Here is a statement from Froom about the kind of evidence the SDAs must provide for their beliefs:
“We may well observe –
1. That intelligent faith is based on sound, unassailable fact. It is not built on pleasing fables and transitory feelings. It is not founded on pious hopes and plausible assumptions. It is not reared upon unreliable traditions and imaginative folklore. Instead, it is built upon solid, trustworthy, factual evidence.
2. That it is impossible for God to lie, and inconceivable that He should deceive. He never contradicts the laws of truth and evidence that He has established upon which we are to base our faith and verify our findings, and by which we are to evaluate and check all evidence. The truth of God ever accords with the highest demands of reverent reason, historical fact, and scientific procedure.
3. That truth has nothing to fear either from reverent investigation or from the attacks of hostile perversion. If it be truth, it is bound ultimately to triumph over its detractors. Indeed, the more it is buffeted, the brighter it shines and the more majestic it stands forth in its towering majesty.
Such observations are pertinent because, along with our increasing growth and the inevitable prominence that comes as a result, especially as we enter the crisis time of earth’s last hour, we shall become the center of the world’s critical and ofttimes hostile scrutiny. Every position we hold will then become the object of bitter attack. It therefore behooves us to know, as never before, the certainty and surety of the foundations upon which our faith is built. It is imperative for us to be assured and established beyond reasonable question upon every major fact of our prophetic faith. We are specifically admonished by the Spirit of prophecy – and such counsel is buttressed by our own commons sense – that these fundamentals are to be verified beyond a reasonable doubt. We are further told that if we are not so prepared and buttressed, the “wisdom of the world’s great ones will be too much for us.”23 18 (18L. E. Froom, “The Advent Message Built Upon The Foundations of Many Generations,” in Our Firm Foundation, volume II (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1953), 102-103.)
The queestion is: Which is “solid, trustworthy, factual evidence” that supports the notion that Jesus moved in a wheelchair from a room to another room in the “celestial Aaronic tent” as Ellen White claims?
Eduard
Erv, I think it is fair to say that SDA church is reasonably well peopled with folks of education and intelligence, but who have had to come to terms with the ‘problems’ of Adventism in their own way.
Eg, I recently worked with an SDA young doctor, who has a strong family background in Adventism. One day I made the briefest mention of things religious/theological. ‘Oh,’ he said, “I don’t really bother with that. I just turn up on Saturday.”
OTOH, folks like Steve simply ignore/cut out entirely/reconfigure how they think about certain doctrines, even ‘pillars’ of the faith. Eg, the climax, from our earthly point of view, of that sad eschatology, is ‘standing in the presence of a holy God without a mediator.’ This is the earthly end-point for the believer. It occurs at the end of that ‘historical’ movement of Jesus from HP to MHP and then out again.
Does Steve hold to that view of the IJ? He didn’t last time I pressed him on the issue. But he holds to some type of IJ. Eastern Orthodox, perhaps?
So, outside of family/social reasons for a lot of educated people who are ‘born into’ the church, remaining with it, there seems to be scant conviction of the traditional pillars of the faith. One could argue also that the less-educated third world converts are largely attracted to the organisation for its social benefits also. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If it is true, it simply ought be recognised.
For the rest, their faith in Adventism requires acceptance of ‘contextual island’ type theology, anti-Christian ideas of ‘standing alone’ in holiness before God, and of ‘principles’ that break down at the crucial moment.
“Come out of her, My people.”
We may in one sense be without a mediator because if Christ brings his reward with him then it presupposes some sort of judgment already occurring. However it is largely a moot point because subjectively one would never know it. If one was sanctified to perfection then you’d also have to be humble to think you weren’t perfect and need a mediator.
Moreover, we can scoff at IJ which is held by Catholics and orthodox but where do ultra liberals stand in rejecting traditional atonement theories as well? I suspect there is not much room for a mediator in their theologies either.
But I think Serge’s assessment of my approach to sad (sda) eschatology is pretty fair. I think it fair to say I uphold traditional sda ideas but equally approach it radically different from say Bill. I understand other denominations for a start, and see Adventist within wider Christianity. A leader not a replacement of other denominations.
I’ve been studying this question for about forty years now. At this point in time, my answer is that it is not a question of education OR a question of intelligence. It is, rather, a question of culture. Even if it is true that, here in the United States, the majority of adult citizens no longer consider themselves protestant, we live in a protestant culture that encourages a personal exploration of the evidence and personal rather than institutional religion.
In countries where institutional religion is the norm, a person is more likely to think that joining the Seventh-day Adventist organization consists of accepting it as THE conduit of spiritual and doctrinal authority.
Someone asked whether our denomination has become an 1844 debate society. In the years between 1844 and 1960, that is exactly what the advent movement was.
There are some, in the twenty-first century who imagine that when Ellen Harmon White put pen to paper, all discussion ended.
That era was a bit more complicated than that.
Our organization may continue to “grow” in the sense of acquiring new members in countries where people are accustomed to authoritarianism in both religion and civil government. It may continue to grow by adding people who not converted except in the sense of changing denominational affiliation. But if or when the denomination succeeds in ending the debate that started in 1844, the death knell will have been rung.
Roger Metzger
The educated people of Jesus day did not accept His teaching either.
The Second Coming of Christ is [not] a ‘sad’ eschatological event for those who believe. It is in fact [t]he most joyful occasion we can look forward to by faith that will usher in the next chapter of our human existence. It is the sum total of our hope and expectations. Jesus will return as [h]e has promised.
The only sad part will be the fact that many will be lost, not because they lack intelligence, but because of their education induced indoctrination which has persuaded them to cast doubt on what the Bible teaches concerning Jesus’ return. Yet we can readily find that many from within the ranks of the educated indoctrinated, who are boldly sceptical about religious eschatology, will happily believe far fetched pre-historic sci-fi theories that are based on the mere assumptions of the (guess who?) – educated indoctrinated.
The higher the education: the higher the indoctrination. That is why they cherry pick what to disbelieve. The decision to disbelieve therefore is merely based on a perceived worldview of cherry-picked assumptions. Of course I don’t expect them to believe this either: it’s not on the disbeliver’s cherry-picking list.
That is true Trevor. Look at architecture. Only a professional would call good what most of us using common sense knows is horrible.
Amazing Facts was given the boot as a student ministry program for campuses and Joe Crews was told that the studies were too heavy for students thereby giving way for liberal forums to get students under their clutches. Of course we all know that learning rocket science is much lighter stuff. The Amazing facts ministry has throughout its existence been instrumental in leading thousands of souls to Christ and as a result directly translates to greater growth in the Adventist Church and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Pastor Doug Batchelor is clearly dedicated to the work of soul winning and provides a good example of what Adventists today should be like. Amazing facts under his watch has continued its remarkable work and is a well established and highly organised international ministry. Amazing Paranoia seems to be a more appropiate title for the Amazing Facts detractors and lacks substance.
• International programs such as Reach India, Millennium of Prophecy in New York, Faith Odyssey in Manila, and evangelistic outreaches in Africa, Korea, South America, and more have reaped more than 150,000 baptisms worldwide.
• Amazing Facts has more than 100,000 students in our various internet- and mail-based Bible schools, reaching many not open to personal visits.
• At http://www.amazingfacts.org, you can study the Bible, order powerful Christian resources, stream video and audio, and read inspiring articles and books absolutely free. For more great Bible study and dependable spiritual resources, you can also visit http://www.bibleuniverse.com and http://www.sabbathtruth.org!
• Bible Answers Live, a live call-in program hosted by Pastor Doug, is carried on more than 100 stations around North America including Sirius XM. It can also be heard around the world on the internet every Sunday night at 7 p.m. Pacific Time.
• Amazing Facts TV programs broadcast on cable and satellite networks all around the world, including ABC Family, Lifetime Network, The Church Channel, The Word Network, National Religious Broadcasters network, SAFE TV, 3ABN and the HOPE channel and Lifestyle TV in Scandinavia. We reach more than a billion households worldwide.
• Amazing Facts is a multifaceted, soul-winning ministry committed to proclaiming the gospel and the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14. We believe in the imminent return of Jesus Christ and in doing our part to lift Him up to the entire world.
Amazing Facts was given the boot as a student ministry program for campuses and Joe Crews was told that the studies were too heavy for students thereby giving way for liberal forums to get students under their clutches. Of course we all know that learning rocket science is much lighter stuff. The Amazing facts ministry has throughout its existence been instrumental in leading thousands of souls to Christ and as a result directly translates to greater growth in the Adventist Church and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Pastor Doug Batchelor is clearly dedicated to the work of soul winning and provides a good example of what Adventists today should be like. Amazing facts under his watch has continued its remarkable work and is a well established and highly organised international ministry. Amazing Paranoia seems to be a more appropiate title for the Amazing Facts detractors and lacks substance.
• International programs such as Reach India, Millennium of Prophecy in New York, Faith Odyssey in Manila, and evangelistic outreaches in Africa, Korea, South America, and more have reaped more than 150,000 baptisms worldwide.
• Amazing Facts has more than 100,000 students in our various internet- and mail-based Bible schools, reaching many not open to personal visits.
• At http://www.amazingfacts.org, you can study the Bible, order powerful Christian resources, stream video and audio, and read inspiring articles and books absolutely free. For more great Bible study and dependable spiritual resources, you can also visit http://www.bibleuniverse.com and http://www.sabbathtruth.org!
• Bible Answers Live, a live call-in program hosted by Pastor Doug, is carried on more than 100 stations around North America including Sirius XM. It can also be heard around the world on the internet every Sunday night at 7 p.m. Pacific Time.
• Amazing Facts TV programs broadcast on cable and satellite networks all around the world, including ABC Family, Lifetime Network, The Church Channel, The Word Network, National Religious Broadcasters network, SAFE TV, 3ABN and the HOPE channel and Lifestyle TV in Scandinavia. We reach more than a billion households worldwide.
• Amazing Facts is a multifaceted, soul-winning ministry committed to proclaiming the gospel and the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14. We believe in the imminent return of Jesus Christ and in doing our part to lift Him up to the entire world.
Amazing Facts was given the boot as a student ministry program for campuses and Joe Crews was told that the studies were too heavy for students thereby giving way for liberal forums to get students under their clutches. Of course we all know that learning rocket science is much lighter stuff. The Amazing facts ministry has throughout its existence been instrumental in leading thousands of souls to Christ and as a result directly translates to greater growth in the Adventist Church and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Pastor Doug Batchelor is clearly dedicated to the work of soul winning and provides a good example of what Adventists today should be like. Amazing facts under his watch has continued its remarkable work and is a well established and highly organised international ministry. Amazing Paranoia seems to be a more appropiate title for the Amazing Facts detractors and lacks substance.
• International programs such as Reach India, Millennium of Prophecy in New York, Faith Odyssey in Manila, and evangelistic outreaches in Africa, Korea, South America, and more have reaped more than 150,000 baptisms worldwide.
• Amazing Facts has more than 100,000 students in our various internet- and mail-based Bible schools, reaching many not open to personal visits.
• At the amazing facts website you can study the Bible, order powerful Christian resources, stream video and audio, and read inspiring articles and books absolutely free.
• Bible Answers Live, a live call-in program hosted by Pastor Doug, is carried on more than 100 stations around North America including Sirius XM. It can also be heard around the world on the internet every Sunday night at 7 p.m. Pacific Time.
• Amazing Facts TV programs broadcast on cable and satellite networks all around the world, including ABC Family, Lifetime Network, The Church Channel, The Word Network, National Religious Broadcasters network, SAFE TV, 3ABN and the HOPE channel and Lifestyle TV in Scandinavia. We reach more than a billion households worldwide.
• Amazing Facts is a multifaceted, soul-winning ministry committed to proclaiming the gospel and the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14. We believe in the imminent return of Jesus Christ and in doing our part to lift Him up to the entire world.
TH: I can’t understand why you and others on here don’t admit that people, personalities, and mindsets are different, and God is not like any of them, and they have no “in” with Him. Only He knows the mind/heart of each one.
However, how we view and treat others with differing ideas does tell about our character.
I personally am not drawn to Doug Batachelor’s approach, but glad he appeals to many others in and out of the church. I have met nonmembers who think he is great, but I’ve also seen nonmembers get up and leave when he or one of his assistants preaches.
We can have a close relationship with Christ in all the camps, but the individual decides whether he or she is for or against Christ. There are many antiChrists in the world, and not just one religion.
SDA basics have a lot to share if they frame it around Christ, but many don’t and only show paranoia. Conversion to Jesus may not come at hearing convincing prophecy or doctrine, but is only a beginning and not the whole picture.
I am happy to learn that “Amazing Facts was given the boot as a student ministry program for campuses and Joe Crews was told that his studies were fundamentalist propaganda, and students should be encouraged to think for themselves and gain a mature understanding of the bible and what it teaches.” Excellent.
I am thankful that my experience as a student missionary was not at Amazaing Facts. I shudder to think how being associated with the ultra-orthodoxy of Joe Crews might have molded me. Instead, a year in Korea teaching conversational English and Bible opened my eyes to the realities of mission outreach and the challenges of presenting the Gospel in different cultures. One of the biggest lessons I learned in that year was that God was only partly discovered inside the tiny and tightly-closed doctrinal box that I had been taught. Instead, He was infinite, ultimately powerful and transcended the viewpoints we called “doctrines.”
Christianity itself, let alone Adventism, cannot exist without its apocalyptic message and vision. The ‘full’ gospel includes prophecies of end-time events and how the world will be destroyed by fire. It’s what the Bible teaches.
It is however not uncommon among well educated people to also make predictions and share apocalyptic visions in similar fashion as their religious counterparts. How quaint. Here are a few scientists making some apocalytic predictions, including Stephen Hawking who shows much concern for our planet’s destruction by nuclear disaster.
Big Think ran an article on this and here is a snippet below:
“Even if humans manage to avoid a nuclear stand-off over the next thousand years, our fate on this planet is still pretty much certain. University of Sussex astrophysicist Dr. Robert Smith says eventually the aging Sun will accelerate global warming to a point where all of Earth’s water will simply evaporate.
“Life on Earth will have disappeared long before 7.6 billion years,” says Smith, “Scientists have shown that the Sun’s slow expansion will cause the temperature at the surface of the Earth to rise. Oceans will evaporate, and the atmosphere will become laden with water vapor, which (like carbon dioxide) is a very effective greenhouse gas. Eventually, the oceans will boil dry and the water vapor will escape into space. In a billion years from now the Earth will be a very hot, dry and uninhabitable ball.”
Finally, between the next thousand years or so that Hawking says it will take man to make the planet uninhabitable and the billion years it will take for the sun to turn our planet into an arid wasteland, there is always the chance that a nearby supernova, an asteroid, or a quick and painless black hole could do us in.”
Recently I heard that scientists have observed (I don’t know how)that the “Universe is expanding”. An interesting theory. My understanding of the workings of the planetary system is that the planets are held in their orbital positions by magnetic forces repelling each planet, sun and stars away from each other, thus preventing a collision. Scientists have only come up with the “Gravity” principle, which, for me is a flawed and ridiculous idea; I can’t understand that theory, unless “Gravity” for them, means magnetic force. We all know planets are made from matter comprising of various minerals including magnetic particles, etc. Iron ore also plays its role . So imagine, then, if moving Iron ore from one area of the planet to another, which would destabilize the earth’s mineral distribution, this would no doubt affect the orbiting cycle in relation to its predetermined distance from the moon and sun, thus also causing abnormal weather patterns. I’m not a scientist, so excuse my lack in explaining myself through a thesis hundreds of pages long. Getting back to the “expanding universe”. I see this to be a strange theory because if the universe was expanding doesn’t that mean planets are moving outward from the center? Center of which place or region? Nevertheless, if the planets, or universe are expanding outward, without another planet or star to replace the space/area in which each planet or star originally occupied, then the logical conclusion would be that the universe is falling apart? Or collapsing? Given that the planets are governed by magnetic forces, that collapsing or expanding process would be disastrous, would it not? I’m glad God has everything in His control. Just an idea to ponder.
Daniel, I’m not scientist, but even I know you are clueless. You can’t be taken seriously on any account with such demonstrably vacuous statements.
“Clueless”? In matters pertaining to the wisdom of this world and its self glorifying intelligence, that’s me, “clueless”.
I see you are not a scientist? Interesting that you found fault with my comment. You must then believe what the scientists are saying? How else would you conclude that what I was saying is utter nonsense?
They say global warming is causing rising sea levels. Even if the melting ice is increasing the volume of the sea, how can that be measured when the earth is floating on the water? If there are places on earth which experience sea levels rising, then those areas are sinking. The cities which are now under the sea are there because people have overloaded that land causing it to
sink. Venice is a good example. Loading a ship causes it to sink lower into the water, not the water to rise.
How do I know the earth floats on the sea? Not by any human knowledge or wisdom.
Mr. Boshell, please do not make any more direct “you” statements to other readers who comment. Find a less aggressive way to express your opinions. __ Monte Sahlin, CEO, Adventist Today
OK
I’m not a scientist either, but I do know (thanks to Wikipedia) that the expanding universe idea is nothing new. Hubble’s law was discovered in the late 1920’s and has been a useful part of astronomy ever since.
IPSO, the International Programme for the State of the Oceans has said repeatedly that unless HUGE changes are made EVERY LIVING THING WILL DIE IN THE SEA BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY.
At their last meeting they moved that up to “within this generation.” They place their hope on INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT developing that is big enough to handle these problems. In other words, they want a world-government leader to appear and “save” us.
(Need I mention that “anti” in Greek does not mean “against” but “instead of/in place of” and it is someone who comes in place of Christ who will exercise the supernatural powers described in Rev 13. There is nothing far-fetched in the SDA eschatology on these point.)
Two important conclusions: No oceanographer in IPSO has any interest in Bible prophecy that I know of. That one of the plagues envisions the end of life in the oceans as virtually certain (unless and Antichrist-like figure arises, as will certainly happen)is irrelevant to this body.
It is certain that not EVERY detail of SDA eschatology derived from the 18th century and culminating in the Powerscourt Conferences came true. That was too soon to understand many things that now make sense. Ellen White hoped that Adventists would keep moving forward and often would have to bow down and admit that they were wrong on some points.
That hope has not been fulfilled, as Adventism has developed two poles: one side that wants to stick with every detail (not what the prophet said to do) and another that wants to throw the whole thing out as irrelevant.
It will all get sorted out soon enough.
Having a historic focus on the apocalyptic is one thing. Using it to give us urgency in teaching the far larger volume and depths of reality about God is our challenge. Unfortunately, a hard-core group of tradition-defenders are so severely hung-up on the apocalyptic that it is often the majority of their spiritual existence. Thus they have been spiritually neutered by Satan instead of empowered by the Holy Spirit. Let’s keep the apocalyptic in perspective. It is the one percent that should be motivating us to teach the other 99% about God and His redeeming love.
That’s a good reason Christ must return. It’s a miracle that humans haven’t destroyed themselves so far. I think the flood story shows God had to interfere before they did, and He had no connection with humans. So He saved the few that still communicated with Him.
Well, I understand the dilemma that Dr. Taylor and many others have about “living in the sight of a Holy God without an intercessor.”
EGW is totally misunderstood by this phrase and idea. Like many things people will say or advocate, it is assumed that you understand some basic theology and they don’t re-explain what they assume you already know. And this is how we must understand and read the New Testament. As an example, Paul assumes his readers of his letters already know some basic Old Testament theology and so he does not start from “scratch” but simply adds a more comprehensive understanding of what has been known before hand. So, the new testament is not written in a vacuum, and neither does EGW set forth her position without some basic assumptions that she assumes the readers already know.
“Living in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor” does not mean we live a life apart from a biblical relationship to God by way of Jesus Christ. It is a two party relationship. Christ is the husband and the church (individuals) are the bride. Even the investigative judgment is not a judgment of the individual apart from this “husband/wife” scenario. Christ does not stand in our place without us and be judged in our place as our Substitute and Surety. Neither do we stand alone as our works are judged to determine a fitness for heaven. Christ and the believer are judged together as a single unit like husband and wife.
Neither do we live through the time of trouble without a mediator that would imply we stand alone without Christ and His merits. The issue is willful rebellion and rejection of Christ, and Jesus ceases to plead for the rebellious who have rejected Him and there is now no mediator for sins of rebellion. Probation has closed for the wicked and the door of mercy and forgiveness is closed.
Probation never closes for the righteous and our most severe testing comes during the time of trouble. Sad to say, many SDA’s now and in the past have failed to understand this issue, and have a faulty view of what they term “The Final Generation Theology”. No one is sinless, unless they are “in Christ” and He makes up any mistakes in judgment for His people. Christ alone is inherently sinless because He is both God and man in one person. EGW states this eternal principle when she says, “In ourselves we are sinners, but in Christ we are righteous.”
This could also be said of the sinless angels who have never fallen. But they are never considered apart from Christ nor do they claim any sinlessness in themselves.
A failure to grasp this reality has created much confusion in Adventism both past and present and created a false dilemma that need not be present in Adventist theology. Separation from Christ is sin. As soon as Adam and Eve rejected Christ, they were sinners, and they ate of the tree as proof of this fact. Sin is dimly understood by more than a few and confusion reigns.
Keep in mind Bill that many are reading and in their minds interpreting “Christ” to be a figure of mercy only. The “love” this Christ preaches is a namby-pamby judgment-free multiculturalism.
It is exactly that multiculturalism that is being taught and indoctrinated into the young. The “Christ” who is to come will exactly fit the pc mold. Repeating, in the words of Ellen White “many of the same gracious truths Christ taught while on earth” but carefully omitting and avoiding others, Satan will receive the worship he so desperately desires, as shouts of “Christ has come” ring across the world.
The Islamic extremists have an eschatology too. They have been taught that at the end of the age a Caliphate will be established by a war beginning in Syria that will be fought all the way to Jerusalem.
But that the “infidels” (Christians and Jews) will fight like demons against the Caliphate. At the last moment, when it looks like the Caliphate will fail, Issa –JESUS– will appear in his role as “Prince of Peace” and bring peace to the nations.
They are looking for Christ to come. The dispensationalists, Protestant and Catholic alike, are looking for Christ to appear and set up an earthly kingdom shortly. We hear this preached every Sunday.
The orthodox Jews so far prepared to rebuild the Third Temple are just waiting for the Messiah/Christ to spear and give them the word.
The Eastern existential and subjective religions have always shown interest in any supernatural revelation. The Bible says that the terrible period of warfare happens “BUT THE END IS NOT YET” said Christ. The weariness of constant war and the fear of human annihilation are calculated to bring the nations to the feet of Satan as Christ.
In “The False Revival” Ellen White says that before the time for the “Latter Rain” (a collective symbol for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the remnant) has fully come, SATAN WILL ATEMPT TO PREVENT IT BY BRINGING A GREAT FALSE REVIVAL IN THOSE CHURCHES HE CAN BRING UNDER HIS POWER.
Take a look at fundamentalism today and the great “prophetic” (really pathetic) movement now captivating tens of thousands.
I’m willing to stick with the main outline of Adventist eschatology (understanding that some things were wrong and don’t hold up exegetically) but I’m certainly not going to throw it out.
But we constantly have to keep repeating WHICH CHRIST we are talking about.
“Separation from Christ is sin”. “Sin is dimly understood by more than a few and confusion reigns”. Well put.
“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible”. (Heb. 11:3)
The human mind, and also every creature, could not have begun to develope without the Word of God laying the foundation—the Corner Stone. But through man’s fall and rebellion he saw fit to reject that precious Corner Stone. Thus we now see the result of that building which is indeed confusion. So how will anyone realise the severity of sin and the price which Jesus had to pay whilst sinful man continues to hold, stubbornly, onto his human intellectual wisdom, not to mention his denial of transgression and unrighteousness, and therefore need of repentance? Today, in this sinful world, admitting one has done wrong and repenting is almost no-existent. Jesus sad, “If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, be removed into the sea, and it will be done”. With the faith of Jesus we can indeed move mountains, but I say, you cannot move the stubborn heart of man. For this is only possible with God.
Says the prophet: “Who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap; and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.” [Malachi 3:2, 3.] Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort, they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative Judgment is going forward in Heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth. This work is more clearly presented in the messages of Revelation 14.
When this work shall have been accomplished, the followers of Christ will be ready for his appearing… GC 425
What’s to misunderstand, Bill?
“What happens after 9-11-2001?” The turning point in World History. Religion is a spiritual worship of Our Creator God, or no god? Will Our Creator reveal Himself? Will mankind survive without a higher power? So why worry, if you have no God? You and I won’t survive the world, turning into a fiery ball . . .I have a choice, you don’t.
Who made those stars? God or not god? Yes, there are voices coming from space. Yes, the aliens are friendly. We met one, named Jesus. . .He came to die for me, to show His love and commitment to defend Ten Laws that rules the Universe.
The voices say: “Come and see.” Come and see” Come and see” Peace being taken from the earth . . .because of those who rebel against God and vex His Holy Spirit. . .
Does God care? Yes! Does He desire respect and dignity for His Kingdom? YES! Will He demand your love? NO! Your freedom is your choice to trust Him or leave Him. . .
I am intrigued with Bill Sorensen’s claim that my view of SDA eschatology “is not the view of a bible believing SDA.” He completely missed my point. My point is that it is precisely because I am a Bible believer that I and millions more reject the SDA scenario of latter-day events. Scripture contains no such connected thread of events. Rather, the scenario is a contrived concoction.
I smiled to myself when Bill turned to EGW for the remainder of his comments. That’s where the scenario is found. It is not found in scripture.
I happen to be comfortable with the idea that a SDA should base their views on scripture alone, as we profess to do.
Other comments seem to think I was debunking the Second Coming. Go back to my original post and you will notice I didn’t mention the SC at all.
I shall add an anecdote to finish: Back in 1958 Robert Brinsmead was dismissed from College for writing an essay denying that Turkey was part of the fulfilment of Daniel 11. Most SDA theologians of the day, together with the laity, believed they were so right. Today, we hear nothing about Turkey’s part in prophetic fulfilment. Brinsmead himself now laughs at the whole episode and says the debate was a waste of time.
We, and George Knight especially, should learn from history. One lesson we should learn is not to construct end-time scenarios from crystal balls because all too often we have had to eat shattered glass.
Ah, Milton. Had RDB but had the foresight to shift focus to ISIS, then he would surely have received an A+ and the plaudits of his teachers. Will it even mean anything if the Caliphate forms and marches on Jerusalem? Again.
As Des always said, its risky to interpret prophecy by the morning newspaper. He should have said, ‘its risky to try to interpret prophecy. And pointless.’
And yet, a couple of posts above, we have another (?paranoid) scenario where a World Government will be called for in order to solve the ‘severe and getting rapidly worse’ climate problems. Wow, within 25 years (is that a generation?) the sea will boil dry.
Now I have no opinion re climate change. If the scientists can’t agree, or at least convince everyone, who am I to hold a belief one way or another? Can’t say its changed much in my lifetime. (yes, my willing ignorance/pessimism is appalling)
My question relates to this world government thing. So what? Look at history. City states merged into small countries, merged into larger countries, usually along language lines. A few countries grew powerful, colonised other lands, wiped out the indigenous populations, (btw,did the Indians/Aborigines have an eschatology?) etc, and now dominate the world as super-powers. Sorry, only one superpower left. The evil communists have been seen off the stage of world history. (Anyone remember when the priests promoting world revolution, Central America anyway, were the poster boys for the return of papal supremacy? No… well, you should be paying better attention.) And still SDAs are free to worship in the USA. But why and how would it be any different if there was a world government? There is already a world financial superpower, which basically dictates economic policy, worldwide. And as we know, what is govt all about? ‘Its the economy, stupid!’ Yes, maybe climate policy is a means to increase this economic power, but again I ask, so what?
Does Paul’s teaching no longer apply? (Did he change his mind when Nero had his head off?)
Rom 13. 1 ¶ Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? …
4 for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
6 For this cause ye pay tribute also; ….
7 ¶ Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
Anything else is bordering on the…
The globalist world-state is nearly fixed in place.
The question to be decided is whether the American Empire or the Chinese Empire will end up in the leadership/control position.
The Beast from the Earth in Rev 13 has many identifiers. We can say who will be in control in that last determining factor.
A world-state is not paranoia, and a typical “the sea will boil dry” nonsense does not dismiss the state of the oceans nor what the experts say about it. Some will of course play the fool and deny everything. The problem with deniers is that trying to prove a negative (“that will not happen”) is and always has been an error in logic.
In fact, the whole thread seems to be based on this assumption: “SDAdventist eschatology, as it represents late 18th century historicism, has not come true and will not come true.”
Two points: SDAdventist eschatology is not of a single piece. Some of it in t he main is quite sound Biblical views, and some of it is late 18th century confusion. The dark day in May 1798, and the death of Pope Pius VI in 1798 were not signs of the end.
However, the second point is even more important: Trying to argue that since the main Biblical outline has not yet happened it will not happen is the classic error in logic of trying to prove a negative.
Pointless. Useless. And a fallacy.
As to Romans 13, it has not been withdrawn. AND IT ONLY HALF OF THE BIBLICAL STORY. I love it when people ride a hobbyhorse and pull quotes out of the air that do not apply. When the Antichrist rises, he will NOT be a minister of God for good. This is to prepare to worship Satan and believe it is Christ.
What DOES apply to the coming time is NOT Romans 13, but the direct, simple, straight answer of Peter in behalf of all the apostles, when the Sanhedrin threatened them with death AFTER THEY DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE ORDER NOT TO PREACH IN THE NAME OF JESUS.
There being extreme obvious limits on human authority, and the obvious problem that human authority frequently mimics Satan not God, the apostolic response was the only correct one under the circumstances we described:
“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them,saying, ‘We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.’
“But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:28,29
Anything else is a twisting of the Scriptures and is the very kind of thing we can expect the antichrist to say in claiming to be God’s man of the hour. Hmmmmmmmm.
“I smiled to myself when Bill turned to EGW for the remainder of his comments. That’s where the scenario is found. It is not found in scripture.”
Milton, this is your opinion as I stated. I only quoted and referred to EGW as the true bible position as a SDA understands it. To claim we do not follow the bible is bogus. Our position is has been proven over and over on many levels from the bible only. I have a jail ministry and never refer to EGW or anyone else for that matter when I explain Dan. 8:14. You create a false dilemma that suits your agenda to claim SDA’s don’t follow the bible. Just because you choose to interpret scripture different than historic Adventism does not mean we don’t follow the bible.
I assume that before the final end, God will “force” those who misuse and/or misinterpret scripture to eventually admit they have abandon the bible. Luther and the Reformation “forced” Rome to finally admit they do not hold to scripture as a final authority, but they claim the church is the authority over the bible.
So, EGW says of the final church community as they are confronted by unbelievers, “Show us from the bible our error.” GC
She obviously thinks they can’t do it and has great confidence in the SDA message as we near the end as a clear bible presentation of truth and the final events, including the Sabbath/Sunday issue.
The devil’s work today is to create as much confusion as possible about the bible and thus he hopes to undermine its message and authority. He is have considerable success even in the SDA church as many claim the bible is not clear on several issues like creation and male headship. Some opt for “principle based theology” which is nothing more than human speculation over clear declarations of bible precepts. Rome sits by and watches Protestantism self destruct with Adventism following right behind.
Rome is more than happy to affirm “principle based theology”. In a practical application, it would mean it does not matter what day you keep holy, as long as you “love God” and honor Him on some level. And “the church” will determine in what way we do this and any rebellion against the church, is rebellion against God who has ordained the final authority in religious matters to the church.
So, many in Adventism join the “bandwagon” and sell out truth for the sake of “unity” while abandoning scripture as the final authority, claiming it is not clear enough, so the church must decide. Cleaver, but not bible.
I sympathize with your concern. Still, have you ever considered that you might have become so focused on identifying the false and warning about it that you have become unaware of truth and unempowered to share it?
Let me give you an example of this on a parallel spiritual theme: the Holy Spirit. If you pick-up any Adventist publication over the last 40 years talking about the Holy Spirit you probably will be looking at something focused on exposing the faults in their theology so we can claim to be right. Typically those articles and books concluded that the church must guard against the falseness of those other teachings but wait for the true outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. As a result we have become so focused on identifying and exposing the false that we don’t know enough about the true Holy Spirit to recognize Him at work!
God has far more imnportant spiritual topics where we will profit spiritually by giving them our attention than 1844. Focusing incessantly on identifying what we perceive as falseness about such a minor topic prevents us from knowing those greater truths and becoming empowered by God to actually be doing the work of soul-winning that He wants us to be doing.
Bill,
You are claiming too much for Adventism, and that is not good. But for Ellen White the “sanctuary doctrine” would be little more than nice bedtime story. I have spent the past two years examining the elements of this “sanctuary doctrine,” and I have demonstrated that: 1. historicism is not a valid hermeneutic, 2. the “year-day principle” has no linguistic or biblical basis, 3. the little horn in Daniel 8 is not Rome, but Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 4. there is no historical evidence that something happened in heaven in 1844. As Gane stated, this idea must be accepted by faith.
Check my documents on Academia.edu. Taking Froom’s advice that “It is imperative for us to be assured and established beyond reasonable question upon every major fact of our prophetic faith,” and that “We are specifically admonished by the Spirit of prophecy – and such counsel is buttressed by our own commons sense – that these fundamentals are to be verified beyond a reasonable doubt,” I have verified again the SDA “sanctuary doctrine” and found it unbiblical.
1. Historicism arose I the fourth century long before modern exegesis came about. It is, therefore, limited in its interpretation. But many points the late historicists of the 18th century concluded WERE, in fact,Biblically correct.
2. Can’t figure out where this came from. It is a recognized rule and has been for a very long time that time cycles are interchangeable due to their similarity under the always present rule in ancient though: SIMILIARITY EQUALS SAMENESS OF ESSENCE AND INTERCHANGEABILITY. Think water and wine.
In fact, comparing the rules for six days of labor and the seventh of rest, six months of the double growing season in Palestine (they overlapped) and the seventh of harvest and rest, six years of labor and the seventh of rest, is based on that interchaneability.
And there are many many references more than the two standard “proof texts” that days and years are interchangeable.
3. Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the king whom the Jews fought in the Maccabean War, 167-164 BC. He was a legitimate king of one of the four Greek dynasties that developed from Alexander’s empire.
In Daniel 7 we have Neo-Babylonia represented by the lion. The next empire was the bear with three ribs in its mouth, and one shoulder higher than another, the higher coming up last. That is beyond doubt the Medo-Persian coalition that tesulted in the Persian Empire.
Next comes the leopard with FOUR HEADS. That is certainly the Hellenistic Alexandrian Empire and the four divisions into which it was split on Alexander’s early and untimely death. (Actually there were first six-way rivalries, then a five-way rivalry, and then it settled into four and only four founding kings, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy and Seleucus.
THE NEXT BEAST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE FOUR. In Daniel 8 we read, further, that when Persia and Greece met in titanic warfare, that the notable horn was Alexander and was snapped off, and out of it came four horns. Those are the four heads of the leopard.
IN THE NEXT EMPIRE an evil little horn arises by putting down three other kings and their kingdoms. This never happened with Antiochus. The evil king of dark countenance in Ch 8 this evil king rises at THE LATTER END OF THEIR (THE FOUR HORNS) RULE.
The Seleucid Syrian dynasty of which Antiochus was a part lasted another century after him, surrendering to Pompey in 60 BC. Their constant rivals the Ptolemies ended when Cleopatra died in 30 BC.
The timing was WAY off for Antiochus.
Further, Daniel is not a work of propaganda against a pagan king, or if it is it is the lousiest piece of propaganda in history, being IN LOVE WITH Nebuchadnezzar and Darius the Mede both. And showing nothing but mockery to Belshazzar, whose violation of the temple vessels meth with IMMEDIATE DEATH which most definitely did NOT happen to Antiochus.
CONTINUED
The king described in Daniel 8 is further discussed in the final week of the Seventy Weeks of Years. In Daniel 11:21 this figure is described:
“In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given; he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.”
ALL OF THIS IS WRONG FOR ANTIOCHUS.
1. He may have been contemptible, but he certainly was not interloper, being the legitimate king (in 167 BC) of a dynasty founded in 330 BC.
2. He did not appear without warning, but took the throne when Antiochus III the Great was succeeded by his older brother Seleucus IV came to the throne and bargained for his release as a hostage from the Roman Republic.
Seleucus was in turn assassinated by a real usurper, one Heliodorus, whom Antiochus IV had killed. Since the son of his now-dead older brother was still a hostage to the Roman Republic, Antiochus proclaimed himself the heir of his father and older brother. There were no other heirs free to take the throne, and, moreover, this is hardly the stuff of a coup. In fact, ANTIOCHUS MURDERED THE USURPER. Daniel 11:21 most definitely does not fit him at all!
The evil little horn puts down the previous ten kings. Antiochus did no such thing. And he had nothing to do with bringing to end any of the other three Greek dynasties. The Romans did that.
The 2300 evenings-mornings have nothing whatever to do with any period of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Be careful when you blindly follow a liberal interpretation, as our liberal colleagues have a tendency to ignore or hide the numerous examples of their fallacious reasoning.
Again I ask, where did this exact number, 2,300 evenings-mornings come from? What appalled Daniel in Daniel 8? (It was not the time period.)
Where else does this time period appear in Daniel?
Why do Adventists traditionally (and quite correctly) insist that the evening-morning sequence in the First Creation Story (Gen 1:1-2:3) means exactly and only ONE LITERAL 24-HOUR PERIOD, only to ignore that reality in Daniel 8?
Intellectual investment in cherished beliefs seems to transform otherwise analytical, intelligent people into parrots of religious propaganda. The Amazing Fact of Adventism end time scenario is that it never happened, can’t, but discussion goes on as if there is no failure.
As I look over all the defensive comments here and elswhere on this forum I see smart people fervantly defending the deceased Adventist eschatolgy with the same energy they turn to scorn equally dead and vacuous theological propsitions in other religious systems.
Could it be that because Adventism now rests on a crumbled foundation and the pain of it is too much to bear? Years ago, when I told my mother, a life long Adventist, I was leaving Adventism, her immediate words to me, were, “you mean I’ve done all this for nothng?”
So, maybe it isn’t just intellectual.
Can’t happen? Who told you THAT whopper? And when did trying to prove a negative become anything other than a classical error in logic? It is one of the regularly-defined fallacies.
At least since 5the century BC Greece.
If anything changes, let me know.
I very much appreciate the comments of Dr. Hook. He is indeed correct about Dr. Knight being a fine Christian gentleman. Issues discussed on this forum are rarely about the morality of individuals (there are exceptions, such as that of Pipen). The focus should always be on the ideas and opinions that individuals hold.
I notice the comments continue to refer back to 1844, what a pity an unbiased appraisal of the current Church teachings regarding Daniel 8:9-14 is still future.
When the current teachings are considered objectively, it is clear there are very basic flaws that apply to the various Adventist interpretations of Daniel 8:9-14. However as long as it is a disfellowshipping offence to question the Church’s teachings, there is little likely hood there will be genuine attempt to resolve the difficulties associated with these positions as it requires a change in our human nature that many are not prepared to address.
As Daniel 8:9-14 has challenged Bible scholars for centuries, it appears the following articles may shed some light as to why Adventists react the way they do when traditional beliefs, or cherished doctrines, are questioned.
Ignorance Is Bliss When It Comes to Challenging Social Issues. — The less people know about important complex issues such as the economy, energy consumption and the environment, the more they want to avoid becoming well-informed. Science Daily (Nov. 21, 2011).
And the more urgent the issue, the more people want to remain unaware. APA’s Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
We believe before we reason. Once beliefs are formed, we seek out confirmatory arguments and evidence to justify them. We ignore contrary evidence or make up rationalizations to explain it away. We do not like to admit we are wrong. We seldom change our minds. Michael Schemer, The Believing Brain — How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truth.
Additional truth is before us, but we have to be prepared to move on if we are to receive it.
The only One who can change a person’s mind is God, and only then if the person submits to that Power to contradict and correct the mistaken beliefs from the past.
“First, they believed that they had an infallible prophet who confirmed that Adventism had the one, and only, correct interpretation of the apocalyptic visions of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation”
Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
Yes, this is a bad thing since the prophet insisted that she was not infallible. It was some of her followers in the late 19th and early 20th Century who gave her that status. Those of us living in the late 20th and early 21st Century should know better.
Infallible in what way though……when under inspiration she spoke the truth according to her….
Yes.
Has anyone stopped to seriously consider some other amazing facts?
World population: 7 billion +
China: 1.4 Bil, virtually all secular, fiercely independent national government.
India: 1.2 Bil, mostly Hindu, one of the longest continuous religious traditions on the planet.
First/Western/Christian ‘world,’ maybe 1 Bil. These days, mostly secular in outlook. RC Church makes it into the headlines mostly to report arrest of another cleric for child sexual abuse. Likelihood of significant ‘moral influence’ on the majority western mind, profoundly small.
Moslem: Approx 1Bil. Friday is THE day to worship the true God.
The rest are various groupings, of secular, other religions/philosophies, eg, Eastern/Russian Orthodoxies, etc.
There is hardly a discernible world mood at present to be calling for Il Papa to save anyone from anything.
And then there are the Jews. Small in number, huge in influence/power. ‘The Jewish Lobby’ in the US is Lobby Group numero uno, bar none. How does SDA eschatology deal with the Jews? Are they likely to be persuaded to surrender their Sabbath in favour of a RC-based universal Sunday Law?
Here is a nice little irony in the making: The orthodox Jews are so attached to their shabat that they do not wish to share. Only Jews should be keeping shabat, they say.
So, given the power of the Jewish lobby, it could be that if SDAs (and S. Baptists et al) wish to continue to ‘keep Sabbath,’ they might need to be circumcised and become proselytes. (Galations will have come full circle).
As for the real power in the world at large, the ‘money power,’ it is hard to see them prohibiting anyone from buying and selling. That is the source of their wealth and power, so prohibiting even small groups is a bit of a nonsense, to them. Keeping those cash registers pumping is what they want.
No, I think modern realities, far removed from C19 New England, would suggest a more fitting ‘end-time scenario’ be called for. If its even necessary.
But for me and my house, Ro 14:17 – For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Well, it is obvious the forum genders many individuals who are more than certain that the whole 1844 scenario is bogus. But it may well be like Noah and the flood when the vast majority mocked and ridiculed his message until it was too late.
Many fundamental position of Adventism were not discovered nor formulated by SDA pioneers. Not the least of which is the year-day principle. And it is still used by some to explain a different scenario than our own. We did not originate the Sabbath for the Christian community. Nor, the state of the dead. Nor an end time judgment at the end of the world based on the believer’s works. These concepts were articulated and accepted long before SDA pioneers agreed that they were biblical.
We located the timing of the end time judgment. We articulated a 1000 years period in heaven and a third coming as clearly stated in Rev. 20. Two resurrections. One before and one after the 1000 years.
Certainly Daniel had a specific concern as the promise of Israels return to Palestine was near. He wanted to know when. Neither is it unusual for the answer he got to be a comprehensive answer to a limited question. Thus, the answer was not easily applied in his own mind because of his limited question.
Just so, Matt. 24 follows this same format of a limited question with a comprehensive answer. Those who asked the question assumed the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world was all one and the same event. We know better now. Just as we know the answer God gave Daniel was far more comprehensive that his limited understanding of his present situation vs a future application.
None the less, as I stated in my post above, the final issue is the bible and what it teaches. And I am convinced that those who abandon historic SDA doctrine will also eventually admit they are abandoning the bible. I think it is already happening and will only be a little longer until the conclusion will be obvious.
And the major argument used against the bible today, even in Adventism, is the bible is not understandable nor clear, so we must use some “principle based theology” to discern truth and its application. It is pretty obvious to me as I see the SDA church in a “self destruct” mode because it can not discipline false doctrine since it can’t define it.
Bill, its only when one abandons the SDA hermeneutic, based as it is on literalist and materialist assumptions that one can begin to appreciate the NT in all of its spiritual glory. Far from abandoning the Bible, the sincere seeker would fare much better by abandoning the fallacious, external, futuristic, fear-driven SDA view of things, because only then can one ask, and receive, the leading of the Holy Spirit into Truth, as it is in Jesus.
Hi Bill,
Don’t you think the following is a bit over the top? “— I am convinced that those who abandon historic SDA doctrine will also eventually admit they are abandoning the bible.”
Now the first basic question regarding the historist understanding of Daniel 8 is: When did the Roman Empire fall?
As the fall of the Roman Empire is confirmed by history,the historist application of Daniel 8:9-12 stands or falls on this date.
Unfortunately as those who believe the Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D. are unable to provide any historical evidence to this end, and as the Roman Empire did not fall until 1453 A.D. it is clear Rome and the Papacy ruled concurrently from 538 AD to 1453 A.D.when the Eastern Roman Empire was finally overthrown by the Ottoman Turks.
This puts paid to the traditional historist position that the rule of Rome and the Papacy was successive as history is very clear these two great statecraft and churchcraft powers ruled the divided kingdom concurrently for 915 years.
Consequently I propose it is not correct to assume that those who abandon the traditional Adventist historist position, as applied to Rome and the Papacy, will eventually abandon the Bible.
The fall of the Western Empire was as uaual replaced by another political secular power. The papacy did not rule Europe. (It did not rise to temporal rule in AD 538 — no such thing happened then, and in fact it had been a temporal power for centuries by then) and it most certainly did not suffer a mortal wound in AD 1798 as the late historicists supposed.
In fact, the death of Pius VI in France in 1798 was followed, in the usual way, with a conclave to elect a new pope. The Atheist Directorate was gone, but the new dictator, Napoleon, supposed that his candidate would allow the French government to appoint all clerics from priest to cardinal.
OF COURSE the papacy could not agree to such a move. The man Napoleon supposed would succumb to him was chosen, the first cousin of the previous pope, Pius VII. In the Concordat of 1801 the papacy won every point.
Napoleon’s great aim was to end the SECULAR POWER that had ruled Europe for a thousand years. And that was the Holy Roman Empire. He did in fact succeed in destroying the last vestiges of that empire. Despite the occasional misimpression that the papacy ruled Europe as secular rulers, that is simply not the case.
There were times when strong popes got the better of the emperor, but times when the reverse was true.
The key to the identity of the seven heads or imperial periods in Revelation 17 is that in each period we are looking for THE SECULAR POWER that 1. succeded the previous one, and 2. contained the great body of believers, and 3. was a persecuting power.
Your proposition here is centuries old heralded by many others with versions appropriate to their times. They are in their graves. Your belief is fine, but it won’t impede your resolution to the same end. Belief and reality are strangers. Realty survives the grave, belief doesn’t.
Please forgive my ignorance, but if the 2,300 days are literal days, was there anything of historical significance that happened at the end of that time period?
Also, isn’t it possible to believe the historicist interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies without believing the SdA interpretation of the IJ thread?
Since Daniel 8 specifies in 9-14 2,300 EVENINGS-MORNINGS it speaks in Temple language of 2,300 literal days. The application as YEARS came into existence with “The Blessed” Joachim of Fiore’s extremely influential commentary on Daniel and Revelation published in AD 1198.
Joachim turned the 1,260 days (the second half of the 70th Week, in Daniel 8 to 12) into YEARS for the first time, positing years 1 to AD 1260 as the intended period, at which time Christ would come.
Hence the SECOND GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT in AD 1260 when Christ did not come. (The first Great Disappointment, based on Augustine, was in AD 1000 when Christ did not come. Attribution of “great” disappointments to Miller is based on considerable ignorance of church history and historical theology.
Bob, if the 2,300 evenings-mornings were intended to be days, where do they fit into Daniel’s scheme of Seventy Weeks of Years? How was this exact figure arrived at? Where is this period referenced further in Daniel?
Is Joachim’s expansion of days into years of part of the Seventieth Week of Years correct? Were not those “weeks” already an expansion of days into years? Did Joachim make a mistake in expanding the same time period a second time?
Is taking literal days and saying it means years an allowable method of Biblical interpretation? If so, how?
OK, I’m trying to understand this. The 490-year prophecy means years because the text says so and it started in 457 BC.
I don’t see where a beginning of the 2,300 days is stated. So why do some use 457 BC as its starting point?
Bob Hawley, your question is a very perceptive and vital one.
Why is 457 BC used as the starting point for the 2,300 days?
The SDA answer goes something like this: 457 BC is the starting date for the 490 year prophecy. The 490 year prophecy is an explanation of the 2,300 days. Therefore, the two time prophecies begin at the same time. Therefore, the 2,300 days also begins at 457 BC.
This answer contains a number of significant flaws. I will mention only two in order to be brief.
One: The assertion that the two prophecies begin at the same time is an ASSUMPTION. If 490 is accepted as part of the larger 2,300 there is no reason to assume the 490 forms the FIRST part of the 2,300. The fact is that the 490 segment could form any stretch on the 2,300 spectrum.
Two: It defies the historical facts to say that 457 BC is the date to start the 490 years. Daniel 9 specifies that the time to start counting is “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem.” There are 2 such commandments mentioned in scripture —- the 457 BC one in Ezra 7 and the 444 BC one in Nehemiah 1-6, both indicating substantial rebuilding had already taken place. So, was there another earlier commandment? Yes, the story surrounding it is well documented in scripture even though the wording of the commandment is not there. We are all familiar with the story, how the captives returned from Babylon and started to rebuild the city, only to be stopped by the locals complaining they had no authority to rebuild. A delegation was sent east and after some rummaging in the archives the commandment was indeed found and relayed back to Jerusalem where it silenced the locals and rebuilding eventually resumed. The Book of Haggai describes the palatial homes that had been built (prior to the stop work) and the rebuilding of the new temple. Haggai was written approx. 520 BC, long before 457 BC. The original commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was made when the captives first returned to Jerusalem and started building about 538 BC. That is the proper time to start counting off the 490 years.
That 490 years was a time of probation. The prophecy of Daniel 9 is clear that its fulfilment was dependant on the nation living righteously. An historical study of the inter-testamental period clearly demonstrates how miserably the returned nation failed God in that respect. The prophecy of Daniel 9 was therefore never fulfilled.
SDAs will try anything to arrive at 1844 —- the use of the year-day hypothesis that has been tried and brought failure every time, dubious assumptions, unacceptable interpretations of Hebrew words, rejection of historical facts in scripture and the twisting of historical facts outside scripture to suit preconceived conclusions.
It was approximately the length of time until the temple was desecrated and Zeus was offered sacrifices. Read 1st and 2nd Macabees.
“Consequently I propose it is not correct to assume that those who abandon the traditional Adventist historist position, as applied to Rome and the Papacy, will eventually abandon the Bible.”
Well, only time can prove the issue one way or the other. Many have already abandon the bible and even admit it. So why should I change my view in light of the present and on-going evidence?
Today, the SDA church is more interested in unity than scriptural loyalty. Just read Dan Jackson’s article on Spectrum. His claim that “God is leading the church” and all the rest of his exhortation could just as easily be the advice they gave Martin Luther when he demanded accountability of church leaders to the scriptures.
Like one comment stated, his view is “sit down and shut up.”
So, who is going to lead? Himself of course. I know we should respect our leaders, but I say it is nothing but blow hard hyper-bole. Let our leaders show some real humility and admit they don’t know the bible and need help and instruction on many issues.
Well, I know no one was ever won to Christ and His truth by scorn, ridicule and contempt. And even when Jesus was very confrontational, He was never mean spirited. It is an issue we all have difficulty with being sinful by nature. I think some bible writers and characters had the same difficulty like Elijah on Mt. Carmel, and Paul in his letter to the Galatians.
But I think it is correct to say in regard to Dan Jackson, honesty of intention will not take the place of following a clear bible mandate. Like our civil government, they need to “man up” and do their job, or not take the job at all. It is easier to play politics in the church just like the world, than to do your job. It may not be popular, but if the situation demands it, do it. Our leaders are way too patronizing. Now we have the Gay movement demanding full acceptance and they stand at the door calling “let me come in, or I’ll huff and I’ll puff and blow your house in.”
And this applies to more than few other issues that have been accepted on the basis of “Pluralism” and “big tent” theology in the SDA church. We fear secular authority more than God and His word.
Hi Bill,
You ask,”So why should I change my view in light of the present and on-going evidence?”
I am not asking you to to on that basis. I am proposing you should be open to changing your view on the basis of a strict historical and grammatical application of Daniel 8:9-14.
From my first interaction on these boards some three or four years ago, Dr. Taylor and some of his sidekicks, will every now and then make mention in one way or another that educated people leave traditional Adventist beliefs in favour of liberal worldviews because the education they buy gives them certain powers of discernment and adjudicative savvy that mysteriously qualifies them as arbiters of what is, or is not, biblical truth. They are quick to dismiss the exponential growth of the church in the Third World by saying that the people there only do so because of a lack of education and therefore are more gullible and easily persuaded to follow traditional Adventist teachings. Would they say the same about the Twelve Disciples?
Again, they fail to take into consideration the fact that there are many well educated Bible believing Adventists in both the First and Third world countries who hold true to traditional Adventist beliefs and practice, who humbly accept what the Bible teaches by faith. I will readily concede that Adventists who hold true to our Fundamental Beliefs, whether they are educated or not, are largely deficient in one major characteristic that their counterparts enjoy in liberal measure: intellectual arrogance.
Perhaps the meaning of the term ‘highly educated’ is related more to one’s groupthink or indoctrination rather than actual wisdom concerning spiritual matters or beliefs. The work of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Bible – and even God himself, are all therefore subordinate to the mindset and prowess of this groupthink.
While they may not say this openly, the usual condescending tone does suggest some sort of prejudice towards Adventists in the TW where the majority are poor humble people who aren’t well educated. Let’s face it: they’re saying that lesser educated people aren’t smart and are therefore less intelligent. They will deny this of course. The thought has crossed my mind that perhaps there is an element of clandestine racism on the part of those with such prejudice – but I will give them the benefit of the doubt regarding this for now. However – prejudice it is.
Would they therefore consider someone with no formal education who does not subscribe to traditional Adventist beliefs for whatever reason as smart, intelligent, progressive and not gullible? Are they saying that the Holy Spirit gives more enlightenment to the educated, and more especially the educated in the First World?
Whilst speaking to someone from the US a few years ago when US President Obama was elected, the excited person said that it was the ‘educated’ people in America that elected him as potus. Now just imagine the same ‘educated’ people giving Adventists tips on spiritual matters and doctrinal beliefs.
Hi Trevor,
Well said.”Now just imagine the same ‘educated’ people giving Adventists tips on spiritual matters and doctrinal beliefs.”
For a number of years I have attempted to get a clarification regarding the Church’s current understanding of Daniel 8:9-14, and in particular for our church leaders to confirm or deny whether teachings such as the following represent the preferred understanding of this vexing passage. Not surprisingly, without success.
— only one power in history fits the description of the little horn – the Roman Catholic Church. Pfandl, Daniel, p. 63.
He (Martin Probstle) concluded that in Daniel 8 not only is Babylon missing but also pagan Rome. He sees the little horn in both chapters describing only the papacy; BRI, email, 23/08/2011.
The treatment of the little horn in Daniel 8 should amplify the statement concerning the little horn in Daniel 7 rather than introduce another entity.” Shea, DARCOM, Vol. 1, p. 42.
“The Little Horn – Part 1 (Dan. 8:9, 10, 23-25). — After a discussion on how this little horn would oppose truth, it is revealed that it would be allowed to do so for “two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” (Dan. 8:14).” Teachers SS Quarterly, April-June, 2002, p. 44-45.
“But then, the little horn (8:9) does something that no other kingdom has done: It goes against the Prince of the Host in the heavenly sanctuary.” 2002 Teachers SS Quarterly, p. 41.
“The same picture is used in Daniel 8. The little horn attacks the heavenly host and casts “down some of the host”. (vs 10); it then goes into the sanctuary where he “exalted himself as the Prince of the host” (vs. 11, NKJV). The little horn is attacking heaven and a ministry in heaven. p. 44. — 2. A host is placed over the daily ministry. Hence the text says that the horn misappropriated the daily ministry of Christ and then “set over,” or appointed, its own host to control or minister it.” 2002 Teachers SS Quarterly, p. 48.
If the above is an example of the Adventist educated, then it is little wonder doctrine has become the leading reason Adventists are leaving the church.
A papal host controlling the heavenly sanctuary for 2,300 years, really!!
Ranald:
The power behind the papacy is the dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan (Rev. 12:9). This power has been attacking the Prince of the Heavenly Host for far longer than 2,300 years.
These last few demonstrate the problems of taking historicism right from “The Blessed” Joachim of Fiore and adopting it whole-hog. While Joachim’s 1198 AD commentary is by far the most influential in history (look at how he has influenced SDAdventist teaching) it is not exegetically sound.
It is a fact, amazing or not, that SDAs have an “end of world” obsession that is out of balance with the other truths of the Bible. Every generation (of Christians) must have believers who keep their focus on the final events of the plan of salvation. Some people would lose their way if not continually reminded of the promises of John 14:1-3 and Acts 1:11.
SDA evangelism scripts quote Matthew 24:6 “… the end is not yet” and Matthew 24:8 “All these are but the beginning of the birth pains”. (ESV) Then the script claims that those verses describe the end of the world when Jesus said the exact opposite–“not yet”. After 9/11/2001, many sermons were preached that this is it, this time. Obviously, no one really knows what they are talking about, only God, just as Jesus said in verse 36.
But we must remember the promise, because in this is the reward for the life we choose to live. It has been 170-171 years since 1844, because of the mercy of God, just as it was in Noah’s day. It did not take Noah 120 years to build a boat, but God was waiting for everyone who would be saved to make their final choice.
While we are living under the shelter of God’s grace, we should be sharing with the world the “amazing fact” that God loves them and teach them that someday, He will give them a different and better life than the one that they have here. We should not tell them that it might be tomorrow, because we know it won’t be. And we should not tell them that it will be in the next century, because it might be much sooner than that–that is not paranoia, that is the exciting event we have to look forward to.
The entire unique SDA message can be taught using only 5 chapters: Daniel 7-8 and Revelation 12-14. But SDAs should also use the rest of the Bible to preach the most important part of God’s message which is unconditional and unending love.
The one Christian church for most of its history used the fear of hell to keep people in line. Which has been more effective: fear of hell or fear of not being ready for the second coming?
Fear of not being ready for the second coming is based on a misunderstanding of what we are supposed to be doing to get ready. People who are ready will be obeying and worshiping God, but that is not what makes a person ready. Being ready is having a relationship with God where you talk to Him and He talks to you regularly, and sharing that experience with others. It’s not work and it’s not hard.
Richard,
I believe that you have put your finger on the major issue Adventism has been confronting. What the church has been preaching is not the Gospel, but Daniel and Revelation. LaRondelle states that this excessive focus on the two books has led to the neglect of the preaching of the Gospel.
Eduard
I’m not real big into prophetic calculations and nuances over Daniel and Revelation. I read George Knight’s book and I have heard enough beastly preaching as he calls it to last me a lifetime.
I knew an SDA who used 1844 as a combination to a lock for his shop. While he was away on vacation, another church member figured out the combination and got into this guys shop while he was gone. The dog followed him in. The dog was old and laid down inside the shop. The intruder didn’t know the dog had followed him into the shop, so when he left the dog got locked inside the shop.
The owner’s daughter, who was feeding the dog couldn’t figure out what had happened to him. When the owner returned a week later, he found his beloved pet dead inside the shop.
So mark that casualty up to 1844. To some SDA’s the sun rises and sets over 1844. Let’s see now Daniel 8:14. Hmm. Rearrange the numbers 814 to 184 and add 4 for the 4th commandment and you get 1844. I think that should about do it.
I studied the history of the Blair Sunday Law Amendment of the late 1800’s. I was amazed to find not one mention of theICatholic Church lobbying for it. I know a lot of sincere Catholics, but i have no use for Catholicism. It’s a pay, pay, pay religion. Pay for confession, pay for indulgences, pay to get out of purgatory. It’s man-made righteousness to the hilt with the pope looked up to as a God.
I love many of the writing of EGW. Some things I toss as irrelevant for today. We need to be careful that we do not make her the equivqlent of an SDA pope. She certainly contributed much to the founding of Adventism and served a great pastoral role. but I think a big mistake was made when she was basicly cannonized as a authoritative source for truth. She is not to be the acid test of the scriptures, but the other way around.
The Bible is its own interpreter. Line upon line, precept upon precept.
With that said, I believe the teachings of Jesus give us more of a detail as to the judgement we need to be looking at. It is found in Matthew 25. It is the last parable of Jesus before his crucifixion. It would seem to me the last thing he tells about what will divide the saved from the lost when He comes is in the parable of the sheep and the goats.
What counts in the judgement is what you have done to the least of these. At the end there will be 2 classes, the merciful and the merciless. After the third angel in Revelation 14, Jesus is portrayed as sitting on a throne with a sickle in his hand. Three more angels follow the previous 3 angels. There are a total of 6 in Revelation 14. Jesus comes to harvest the world, the saved and the lost, the merciful and the merciless. “be merciful as your heavenly father is merciful” Luke 6:36. Look at the list of merciful things Jesus talks about in Matthew 5 in the sermon on the mount, before he closes with “Therefore you will be perfect, as your Father in heaven is…
Tom: I agree. If we have a relationship with God that allows us to be merciful as He is, we have nothing to be paranoid about. If you are afraid of Him, then you are planning to be a weeper and a teeth gnasher (Matthew 25:30). That is an amazing fact.
Some of us may feel like Daniel in the Lions Den. With the assurance that God will send His angel’s and shut the Lion’s mouth.
Any talk about the end of the world before the event was relevant through out human history and all through the bible. But only bible Adventism can speak of this historical event as a present reality “even at the doors”. If you think this makes no difference, nor ratchet up the intensity, motivation and interest in “What must I do to be saved?”, you must have a poor comprehension of the real import of the SDA message.
As for Daniel’s prophecies, I have already stated there was a present application and a far more comprehensive application than Daniel could perceive. Yet some of you continue to demand that there is only a singular historical application and thus, any future meaning and application is bogus. And of course, then you can claim the SDA view does not fit your “limited application” view.
Some are influenced by your Dr. Ford limited view and even try to convince us that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place ministry at His ascension. So, instead of taking the Christ event and placing it at the end of the world as it should be, you try to take the end of the world and place it at the Christ event. This false flip flop causes a false understanding of the historical process and confounds law and gospel in meaning and application.
EGW Adventism is built on a solid rock foundation that is immoveable and needs no adjustment to some false gospel meaning and application. If people will “listen and learn” from the spiritual instrumentality God has ordained, they would be secure from novices who twist and turn scripture to their own destruction.
Namely, the Christ event must be put at the end of the world, and not place the end of the world at the Christ event. As George Eldon Ladd stated, “Jesus broke into human history and brought the life of the age to come into the present historical process.” So for 33 years we saw how the life of the age to come is to be lived, and Jesus also made an atonement for sin. As believers, we “by faith” begin to live the life of the age to come before it is officially installed in the historical process.
Bible Adventism will survive all the onslaughts and the honest in heart will find the truth as it is in Jesus. So, “The wicked will do wickedly and not understand, but the wise will understand.”
So “EGW Adventism” is different from “Bible Adventism.”? That is an excellent distinction. Well stated!
Many times prophets are shown things that are real things used as symbols. I recommend the last three chapters of the first edition of “Studies in the Sanctuary and the Atonement” in this regard.
It is clear that there are phases in the atonement. How those phases are symbolized is important to understand. There is always a danger in over-literalizing a symbol.
That has two bad effects. It may undermine other parts of Scripture by insisting on the literal (which the prophet will have described in exactly those literal terms) and it may make the ignorant and unstable reject it and thus the truth it seeks to convey.
Bill could we correspond directly?
Bill:
In answering the question, “What Must I Do to Be Saved?”, the Adventist emphasis has been on doing, rather than on being. Adventists create the impression that keeping the ten commandments, especially the Sabbath, is a requirement for salvation. Although it is true that the ones who are saved will be respectful and obedience to all of God’s commands, that is not the criteria for the salvation of anyone. You have to know God, love Him, and be His friend. Adventists need to turn the focus toward relationship and de-emphasize obedience.
Bill,
Let’s cut it to the chase: What HISTORICAL EVENT happened in 1844? All you need in order to provide evidence for your fictional “investigative judgment” to show from human historical records what happened in heaven in 1844.
If you cannot provide than evidence, then you are wasting our time.
Eduard
Since when does “human historical records” prove or disprove ANYTHING in the Word of God? That is secular thinking at it’s finest we thinks…
As for the SDA doctrines, there is a TON of proof that the first ways of belief are NOT today’s ways, that is for sure and can be proven by “human historical records”.
It just boils down to what you believe, the first beliefs of the SDA, or today’s beliefs that line up more with the world….we feel that if you call yourself a SDA, then you SHOULD line up with the historical beliefs, just like ANY denomination that holds true to it’s denomination.
If you don’t, then it really does not matter what the argument is, it is irrelevant to those who hold to the tradition & core values of their denomination, be it Baptist, JW, RCC, or SDA…
Just an IMHO, YMMV yada yada type of post….take it with a grain of salt….
Bill,
Do you have an English language dictionary? A seven dollar Merriam Webster should be enough. MW states that history is “a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events.”
What is the historical record that verifies that “Jesus entered the MHP in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844”? Roy Gane states that there is no recorded historical event that privides evidence for the claim.
Forgive me, but your answer indicates that you don’t understand what a HISTORICAL EVENT truly is. A historical event is a HUMAN EVENT that took place on Planet EARTH, not an assumed event that is supposed to have happened outside our planet and for which there is no evidence.
Do you think that the gifts you get for Christmas are left under the Christmas tree for you by Santa?
Eduard
John,
Please what Shea states about the evidence for “prophetic fulfillment.” The test for prophetic fulfillment, in his perspective, is a verifiable historical event, and the source for the evidence should be extraneous to the Bible.
Eduard
I already stated the answer to this question, Jesus entered the MHP in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844. This is an historical event that transpires in heaven, not on earth. But it is an historical event, none the less.
Bill:
I am not an 1844-denier, but I think our understanding of exactly what occurred in 1844 is extremely limited. What is the significance of Christ changing His role from being our High Priest to being our Judge? Or did He? Who is being judged?
I think that it is not important to my salvation for me to know exactly what occurred. My salvation is a gift from God and I trust Him to be fair in distributing His gifts to His people.
If an event took place within time and space at a particular time and a particular place, and if that time, viewed from contemporary time on earth was in the past, then technically it was indeed a historical event.
Merriam Webster is far too brief to include all that the word implies, as you should know Eduard.
I do like what Dr Shea has proposed as the rule for prophetic fulfillment in general, though there could be exceptions.
The test in this case would be the exegetical meaning of Daniel 9:14, which, as I have said, exegetically refers to another time period within the book of Daniel, the only time period which he and his intended readers cared about.
Since the reference is to the eschatological war, when the massed powers of evil all attack the covenant land at once and Messiah dies in the middle of the week, during the last seven years of the Seventy Weeks of Years, it is there that all the key elements come together in Daniel.
SDAdventists in the past have insisted (and quite correctly at that!) that the repeated phrase “evening/morning” in the First Creation Story is Temple language. AND THT THE PHRASE MEANS ONLY 24-HOUR EARTH DAYS. In fact, all sorts of Temple terminology is found in the First Creation Story (Gen 1:1 to 2:3) for in the ancient mind The Cosmos was itself a giant temple.
In prior Messianic Kingdom prophecies the righteous remnant of the Hebrews (not just Jews) and of all the Gentile nations would have been gathered in to the covenant land. Their prosperity under God’s blessing, and Satan’s activity, would have eventually moved them to attack God’s people.
In all previoous prophets, that attack is met with God’s destruction of the evil massed powers.
IN DANIEL SOMETHING NEW HAPPENS. THE EVIL NATIONS CONQUER. GOD’S KING IS KILLED. GOD’S PEOPLE ARE OVER-RUN. THIS IS WHAT DANIEL FINDS APPALLING IN DANIEL 8.
In the mix of all this Daniel is told that this conquest of God’s people, and the evil king’s control of the Temple would continue for 2,300 EVENINGS-MORNINGS. If we insist (correctly)as stated above, that “evenings-mornings” means 24-hour days, we’re looking for 2,300 literal days.
WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? HOW WAS THAT FIGURE ARRIVED AT? WHAT TYPE OF EXEGETICAL METHOD ARE WE USING WHEN THE ORIGINAL MEANING WAS NOT FULFILLED AND WE TRANSFER “DAYS” TO “YEARS” AND IS THAT A VALID METHOD OF INTERPRETATION?
That is the only issue involved here. Period. All this claptrap about “historical evidence” is a meaningless red herring that has nothing to do with sound doctrine.
Dr. Taylor says: “It was some of her followers in the late 19th and early 20th Century who gave her that status.”
—–
Dear Dr. Taylor, pray tell me sir, where is at least one statement that provides evidence for your claim that some [Ellen White] ‘followers in the late 19th and early 20th Century’ said she was infallible. Surely there must be ample evidence of this since you make such a bold claim.
And on that point, see right here on Adventist Today (surprisingly enough) the archives for June, 2014, the article “Precious Gems from the Pen of Inspiration.”
When I asked Dr. Taylor where the statement is, I meant to quote at least one reference. It’s not asking for much is it? Perhaps you [JM] may want to quote a reference where late 19th and early 20th century persons made such a statement that Ellen White was ‘infallible.’
I think the statement made by Taylor was a sweeping generalization that fits his personal views about the current situation. I doubt that anyone in the late 19th century made any such claims, except the bogus ones made by Dudley Canright in “Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced.”
Everyone commenting should be very aware of the sad figure of Canright. Many here are only parroting what he said first, and not doing it as well, to boot.
The references I pointed to here on Adventist Today are from the pen of Ellen White, clearly stating what she said on this point.
However, let me add that in the late 90s and first decade of the new century the pamphlets “The Fundamentas” were published in book form. These crystallized “fundamentalism” and my SDAdventists were sucked into the false premises of fundamentlist claims.
Look at eh conundrums found among the SDAdventist Bible teachers at the 1919 Prophetic Conferences and see how deeply infected they were with fundamentalist heresies. Little doubt that their confusion would have been completely solved if they had taken heed to what Ellen White wrote on this topic.
As it was, it was clear that SDAdventism was well on the way to a fundamentlist concept of inspiration despite what we find in Selected Messages and here actual practice and comments on her actual practice in producing her writings.
If you are unfamiliar with the 1919 Bible Conferences, please be sure to get a hold of former General Conference archivist Bert Haloviak’s great research in “In the Shadow of the Daily” where Ellen White’s clearly changed position on the subject mystified the Bible teachers, who should not have been mystified at all.
Ellen White’s visions did not move toward the esoteric; they moved toward sound doctrine. All the way from the Christian Connection’s retention of the Arian Heresy that Christ was a created being to the highest Christology of Nicea, “in Him was life — original — unborrowed — underived.”
(The Advent Christians didn’t manage that, lacking prophetic guidance, and their present offshoot, the Jehovah’s Witnesses retain the Arian Heresy precisely because they lacked prophetic guidance.)
My reference to the archives of AT was to bolster your point.
I wrote “my SDAventists” which in a sense is correct (yup, I was born into it) but I meant to write that “MANY” SDAs were sucked into the Fundamentlast Heresy about inspiration.
If Mr. Hammond would bother to read Dr. Knight’s book on the development of Adventist theology he might note that Dr. Knight has a chapter on the Fundamentalist phase of Adventism that lasted until the early 1940s. One of the reasons that the record of 1915 bible conference was “lost” for many decades was because of the rise to dominance of Fundamentalism within Adventism in the early 20th Century.
I wrote: “If you are unfamiliar with the 1919 Bible Conferences, please be sure to get a hold of former General Conference archivist Bert Haloviak’s great research in “In the Shadow of the Daily” where Ellen White’s clearly changed position on the subject mystified the Bible teachers, who should not have been mystified at all.”
Fundamentalism did affect the understanding of the teachers gathered at the 1919 Bible Conference, no question. Funamentalism still infects SDAdventism, the deniers as much as the believers, since deniers are simply those who found that their fundamentalist ideas did not work, often, and threw the whole system out as their inappropriate response.
On the point of the Messianic Kingdom prophecies, about which most people are utterly blank, the SDAdventist interpretation was — surprisingly — early and correct and managed to avoid most of the pitalls of historicism, of which there are many.
See SDA Bible Commentary IV, the essay “The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy” especially the section “How the Plan Would Have Worked.”
If the Sanctuary service outlined in the old testament is typical, then there has to be a Real or antitypical heavenly service that it is patterned after. We need to fit an antitypical service in real time somehow. We are experiencing all the prophecies that portend the end times – rapidly-. God’s timing varies from our concept of time , but we do see a time of “delay” and a need to remain faithful. Maybe we needd to joind Paul and concenetrate on Christ and Him crucifiied
But Paul’s writing from first to last are filled with eschatology. Christ and Him crucified is about the atonement.
Ellen White in contradistinction to Protestant sects, and in equal contradistinction to Roman Catholicism’s misunderstanding of a continuing atonement, said the ATONEMENT continued in phases.
The life, death, resurrection of Christ was all atonement. And in a sense, each phase is COMPLETE UNTO ITSELF. Therefore the usual old Protestant idea o “THE FINISHED WORK OF JESUS” (on the cross) has partial truth if you are talking bout the Roman Church’s claim that it as a church continues the atonement through the “sacrifice of the mass.”
But in Ellen White, there are other PHASES to the atonement. These phases are REPRESENTED (she in places actually makes it clear that this is what she is talking about in “moving from the Holy Place to Most Holy Place) being completed in Christ’s further heavenly ministry.
It is this point that is misunderstood and attacked. God does not need to pore over BOOKS to determine who is at last to be saved and lost, which was known before there was such a thing as time. The PURPOSE of a pre-Advent judgment is spelled out in somewhat surprising terms in some of Ellen White’s later comments that are often ignored.
May I suggest again the last three chapters of the original “Studies in the Sanctuary and the Atonement” to clarify these points.
Wow! Here is an admission and a half. The Roman Church ‘continues the atonement through the sacrifice of the mass.’ But for Ellen/SDA the atonement continues through other PHASES. Both heresies are based in the continuation of the atonement.
No thanks. I’ll rest in scripture’s ‘once for all.’
Heb 7:27 who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself.
Heb 9:12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.
Heb 9:26 else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.
Heb 10:10 By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Serge, you are a very naughty boy for quoting Hebrews (you may be able to see my tongue in cheek from where you sit). You are far too biblical. And you are certainly uncharitable in destroying the SDA invention of an atonement that has continuing phases. You have to realise that some commentators in this discussion see no difference between a completed atonement at the Cross and Christ’s intercession as an application or benefit of that finished atonement.
Let’s be positive. In view of the fact that Jesus made the perfect sacrifice at the Cross and paid the price for all my sins then why does He have to keep on paying further instalments or engaging in further phases, constantly striving to reach some other imaginary level of a perfect atonement? Serge has highlighted the answer from scripture. The Greek, ephapax, and the English translation “once” are categoric. “Once” means “once,” not “phases.”
“Serge, you are a very naughty boy….”
Mea culpa, Milton, mea maxima culpa. And in accepting your admonishment, I hope this saves me from being labelled a messiah or something.
Also, I thought by simply quoting the clear, unambiguous word of our wonderful God that it might be a positive way to incline the hearts of the fearful to listen again to His wondrous words in their simplicity and beauty.
Alas, a man (still) hears what he wants to hear…..
Thanks for highlighting the Greek. Its not my first language, more like fourth, so my efforts to explain it are likely to fall on stone-deaf ears. I often rely on Strong’s (t)rusty Concordance, and he says ephapax can also be translated as ‘once for all,’ which is how my beloved KJV does in a number of places. As you say, CATEGORIC.
While on the Greek, can you please give me/us-who-might-actually-be-interested the best translation of ‘ta hagia’ in Heb 9.12. Some translations give it in the plural, ‘the holy places.’ Doesn’t Apollonius of Alexandria (my favourite option as author) know that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary, and that God is actually confined to the Most Holy Place alone? How could Jesus (confined as He is to his earthly/resurrected body) be in two places at once?
Or maybe these ‘holy places’ (are there maybe more than two, seems possible from the plurality) actually do represent ‘phases’ and the author was born about 1800 years too early to know the facts. And what about the veil? Ah, so many questions…
Serge, the one who taught me Greek was probably the same chap who taught you. You may remember he spent a great deal of time explaining Heb 9 in addition to Heb 8:2; 10:19; 13:11. It seemed to be a hobby-horse of his for he had written a piece about ta hagia in the original SDA Bible Commentary. Earlier, in the course of his studies, he had written a thesis on the topic and for that reason even the SDAs considered him to be an authority on it. He pointed out that the Greek “ta hagia” is neuter plural or feminine singular but the context indicates it literally means “the holies” or “the holy places.” Bible commentators agree with him.
Your question prompted me to pull out my old class notes, dust them off, and read what our teacher had dictated. He said, “Nowhere does Hebrews refer to a separate Holy Place and Most Holy Place in the HEAVENLY sanctuary.” So when a translation (e.g., NIV) reads, “he entered the Most Holy Place” it is simply saying that when Jesus entered heaven at His ascension there was nothing hindering a face to face meeting, that is, there was no corner of heaven taboo for Jesus.
You float the idea that ta hagia could actually mean more than two places. That is correct because the words and context simply mean “the sanctuary in general” or “the sanctuary as a whole.” The emphasis is on Christ’s direct access to the Father, not architecture in heaven.
The fact that this picture could be painted by the Book of Hebrews in the early Christian centuries provides no room for the SDA view that Jesus entered the so-called Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 to begin another phase of His ministry. Such a view defies the linguistics and the context of the Book of Hebrews even though SDAs pride themselves in attention to linguistics and context when doing exegesis.
So Milton, what happened when I quoted Hebrews, but ALL of the passage involved? And was considering the words used?
I presume the words used are important to you, since they are what the Scripture writer actually meant, and you choose to give us a lesson on what the word “once” means. So you are a Greek scholar and know the importance of defining the words correctly in translation.
Or, maybe not.
What word or words are translated into English as “atonement” Milton? You seem to know. Here is your interesting contortion:
“In view of the fact that Jesus made the perfect sacrifice at the Cross and paid the price for all my sins then why does He have to keep on paying further installments or engaging in further phases, constantly striving to reach some other imaginary level of a perfect atonement? Serge has highlighted the answer from scripture. The Greek, ephapax, and the English translation “once” are categoric. “Once” means “once,” not “phases.”
Here are a whole set of assumptions of the sort in the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Every answer will be wrong BECAUSE THE ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG.
BTW, where did the English word “atonement” come from anyway? Did you know what words were being used in the passage Serge misquoted as being the whole story on “atonement”? Or did you just write in “atonement into the Hebrews passage because that’s what you believer, irrespective of what the writer meant?
CM, it’s not rocket science. The verb form “to make atonement” (Hebrew: kaphar) means “to cover.” The noun form “atonement” (Hebrew: kippurim) means “coverings.”
The Hebrew sanctuary service was all about providing a cover (which is a metaphor) for sin, both personal and national. We use the metaphor similarly when we borrow from the NT and say “Christ’s righteousness covers our sins.”
When a Hebrew sinner made his sacrifice he could walk away from the sanctuary knowing that his sin was completely covered or atoned for. The sin was not partially covered. The sin was not shelved in order to be dealt with at some later stage or phase such as the Day of Atonement. The D of A was a NATIONAL festival that covered NATIONAL sin and the misapplication by the priesthood (either deliberate, but usually accidental) of sanctuary ritual. SDAs would profit much from studying what the Jews themselves understand their rituals to mean rather than inventing their own Western interpretations. I recommend the 1989 commentary on Leviticus by Rabbis Scherman and Goldwurm.
The good news for a Hebrew sinner was that, after making his sacrifice, he could walk away from the sanctuary knowing by faith that his sin was completely covered. It is similar for us today. That is, as soon as we ask for forgiveness we can claim the atonement that Christ made. There is no need to doubt the quality of the cover, or the extent of the cover, or the timing of the cover because it was a perfect and once-for-all covering at the Cross.
Atonement by stages or phases is an SDA invention as part of the IJ theory.
Atonement by phases can only lead to a lack of assurance of personal salvation.
And, incidentally, I don’t see the point in raising CM’s question, “Where did the English word ‘atonement’ come from anyway?” It’s a basic rule of biblical exegesis that you study the origin and meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words, not any language you translate into. The obvious reason being that translations often loses nuances found only in the original language.
So, how does all this theorizing and dissection translate into equipping a person for practical ministry that teaches people about the transforming love and power of God in practical ways they can use?
You should be able to answer that question on your own. Why did the Holy Spirit oversee the inclusion of these things? Why did Jesus Christ reference them specifically?
REALLY?
Serge Agafonoff, are you able to read English? Is it a second or third language and difficult for you?
You constantly misread and misquote. It is part of what is most characteristic about you on these threads.
Nobody said that the atonement at the cross was continuing. Not the author of Hebrews, not me, not Ellen White.
Your simplistic readings are perhaps wishful thinking on your part.
Truth is John, English was/is not my first language. But I did get A’s for comprehension in grade school. Do you think I’m losing it?
So let me ask if you can clarify:
“Nobody said that the atonement at the cross was continuing.”
Do you therefore mean by this that there is more than one atonement, ie, more than the one made on Calvary?
How many atonements do we need? Is one more important than the other? How do we rank them?
Sorry, I told you long ago I am a simple chap. Which is why I like the NT. A beautiful story, told simply. Until you came along to set me straight, I thought I understood it. Doesn’t it bother you that you have shaken my simple faith John?
I thought it was one of those wise sayings that truth is simple, its error that has to get all complicated. Yes, I know…. I wish.
Can I ask, John……. why are your posts mostly obscure questions? That is one reason I find them nearly incomprehensible. Do you think you could just give us the answer, simply, for my benefit would be appreciated, and leave it at that? Thanks so much.
Your questions are as amazingly obtuse as anyone who wants to misunderstand. You write:
“Do you therefore mean by this that there is more than one atonement, ie, more than the one made on Calvary?” and, equally astonishingly “How many atonements do we need? Is one more important than the other? How do we rank them?”
I sincerely hope this is you being typically argumentative and refusing to learn anything than your own opinions, and not sincere questions. If they are sincere questions, you still have some work to do on your English.
So I wonder how did these questions arise from what I wrote? There is no relationship.
Let’s start with the word “at-one” in your beloved King James Version. In your beloved King James (which shows part of the problem) where is the word “ATONEMENT” found? In your beloved King James, is that same word found in ANY of the Hebrews passages you said were speaking of the atonement?
Was the LIFE of Christ also atonement? Or was it only the death? Does Christ’s impartation of the Holy Spirit bring us more “at one” with God? What about his ongoing INTERCESSION? Does Christ’s intercession and pleading the merits of his shed blood have NOTHING to do with the shedding of that blood on the cross?
Are the sheding of Christ’s blood and the intercession he makes pleading the merits of his blood two utterly separated things? Who told you so? What text said so?
(And none of this implies that the work on the cross is ongoing or not complete, so don’t bother with that red herring again.)
Be sure to answer with the actual Greek that the authors wrote rather than your opinion.
IS INTERCESSION BY DEFINITION NOT ATONEMENT? WHO SAID SO? WHO IS DEFINING THESE WORDS FOR YOU, SERGE? YOU YOURSELF?
Well, most of us have difficulty getting beyond our perceived opinions and mind set. The bible is full of parallel and contrast, as well as point and counter-point theology.
We might remind Serge that Paul says, “Be ye reconciled to God…….”
What does he think this is if it is not atonement? Paul could just as easy have said, “Be ye at one with God…..” And atonement simply means “At-one-ment”.
So there is a payment aspect of atonement and we sing, “Jesus paid it all…….” But there is also an experiencial aspect of atonement where the sinner’s mind must come into unity with the mind of God. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” Not to mention Paul statement, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling…..” This is all atonement. And is easily understood in the old covenant system of atonement by way of the sanctuary service.
While we play no part in the legal aspects of the atonement, our part in the moral reconciliation is imperative. No one obtains a fitness for heaven outside an experiencial component. And Paul certainly does not limit the word “atonement” to the finished work of the cross.
The word “atonement” like the word “salvation” is used in a far more comprehensive framework in the bible than many are willing to admit. Simply because their whole theory goes out the window without some non-biblical meaning and application that limits the atonement to the legal payment for sin. Adventism was correctly built on a comprehensive biblical view of atonement.
Mr. Sorensen states that “Most of us have difficulty getting beyond our perceived opinions and mind set.” Very true. I’m sure that is true in my own beliefs. I trust that Mr. Sorensen also believes that about his beliefs. Now that we all agree, along with Paul, that we all “look through a glass darkly” that should do away with the tendency for all of us to think we have the truth, all the truth, nothing but the truth.
“… that should do away with the tendency for all of us to think we have the truth, all the truth, nothing but the truth.”
Who believes that? I find that the more truth revealed, the more questions arise to be investigated.
BUT THE FACT THAT WE WILL BE LERNING THROUGH ETRNITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SOME THINGS ARE DECLARED IN SCRIPTURE AS ABSOLUTES. AND ANYONE WHO DEFIES THEM IS AT RISK OF ETERNAL LOSS.
The Scripture says very very clearly that “the secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the things that are/have been revealed belong to us and to our children forever.”
One truth about truth does not negate the other truth about truth.
The implication is wrong.
OF COURSE “atonement” continues, but not in the sense that the Roman Church teaches, interposing itself in the place of Christ’s priesthood. That much is obvious.
Serge was just looking for something to argue about, as usual, it seems. Had he been honest he would have known that the very passage he quoted, if he had chosen not to omit a key part, would have further made my point. Here is the WHOLE pericope
“The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever.
“Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since HE ALWAYS LIVS TO MAKE INTERCESSION FOR THEM.”
Intercession in behalf of sinners to the Father (who represents the justice of the Infinite God) is just as much ATONEMENT as the death which made intercession possible.
Anything less than this is a corruption of the gospel.
So in addition to being labelled a simpleton John now adds dishonesty to my resume. I don’t think your aspersions on my character are very nice John McCaull.
In the post to which you take exception I was responding to a single, simple point. You said that EGW teaches more than one phase of the Atonement. I simply made a brief report of some NT texts which state that the Atonement was made ‘once for all.’
And now your intellectual honesty is called into question because you claim that ‘intercession’ is a type of atonement. I think the author to the Hebrews knew the difference. Which is why he used the differentiating words that he did.
I don’t think it is I who am showing the confusion here.
Now, do you care to elaborate on your/Ellen’s thesis of the phases of the Atonement?
Serge, you are the one who implies there is no other application of the word “atonement” except the cross. Maybe you would like to tell us how you view the word “atonement” in a more comprehensive way and remove our misunderstanding of your limited view that I and other perceive you hold to?
I personally have always held the view that a person should be allowed to qualify and re-qualify as many times as necessary so as to be clearly understood. Do you do this with EGW? Or the SDA understanding and message?
In my studies of EGW, I have found that she had to qualify and re-qualify many times the points she wants to make. And the bible writers do the same. The kingdom of God is an enigma and paradox to the human mind, and so Paul states, “Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.” So, in general, for every point, there is a counter-point when communicating the word of God.
I truly believe heresy is always advocated and developed when this principle is abandon. As a simple example that is being advocated in the church today, some would claim that Jesus did not bear the wrath of God in our behalf and sin will somehow punish itself if we continue in it.
This is typical of using one aspect of truth to deny another. Sin surely has natural law punishment for a violation. But sin is also crime and punishment. A person man get cancer for smoking and suffer for a natural law violation. None the less, the same person will answer to God for ignoring His authority and injunction to care for our body, as we are “not our own” but belong to Him.
Suzie may be told not to touch the cookies mother has taken out of the oven and stay away from the stove. But Suzie may disobey her mother’s authority and get burned. Mother tends to her injury and reminds her of mother’s warning. But natural law penalty may not be sufficient, so, mother makes Suzie go to her room and forfeit somethings she wants as a penalty for disobedience to mother’s command.
Just so, Jesus did not die solely to demonstrate a natural law result of sin. He also must bear the wrath of God that we deserve for denying God’s authority to command and demand obedience. So, either/or theology ends in heresy and does not acknowledge some counter-point of truth.
You write: “In the post to which you take exception I was responding to a single, simple point. You said that EGW teaches more than one phase of the Atonement. I simply made a brief report of some NT texts which state that the Atonement was made ‘once for all.”
OH NO YOU DID NOT, FRIEND.
Let us be clear. As I asked you above, where in your “beloved King James” is the word “ATONEMENT” used? What word does it translate?
Are any of the texts you quoted inappropriately in Hebrews referring to that very same word? If not, why not? Is the desth of Christ the only “atonement” or was His life also atonement? When He suffered in the wilderness, was THAT atonement or not? What about His suffering in Gethsemane? Was He making atonement when He was scourged or not?
When He rose to seek the Father’s acceptance of His shed blood, was THAT atonement? If not, why not?
When He pleads the merits of His shed blood on the cross is the death on the cross and the pleading of the merits of the shed blood utterly divorced one from another? Who told you so? What texts told you so? CERTAINLY NOT THE TEXTS YOU QUOTED, WHICH SAY NO SUCH THING.
In your “beloved King James” where is the word “atonement” used? Is the same word in the texts you quoted that you claimed were talking about the very very same limited thing that you apparently have in your mind?
Be sure to do your Strong’s thing and stick to the language actually employed.
Well, John, I’ve been waiting, hoping that you will enlighten us on the atonement, especially the ‘phases’ thereof.
Rather than intrude any more of my error into this discussion, perhaps you might now resume with your teaching on Atonement, and its phases.
You will find three detailed articles on this very point (not the willy-nilly misquotes, application of one concept in one text to a different concept in another text, and the sort of thing you usually do!
The three are in the book “The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies” published by the Biblical Research Institute Committee of the GC of SDAs.
In fact, you should read the whole book. It MIGHT help cure you of your proof-texting and taking things out of context and misapplying one concept to another.
After all, where there is life there is hope.
Here is a link to a Jewish site on the origins of the English word At-one-ment.
http://forward.com/articles/11632/at-one-ment-/#ixzz39e34RXoA
The two Greek words in the NT which are commonly translated reconcile/reconciliation are katalaggo for Paul and hilaskomai in Hebrews. In ROm 5.11 katalaggo/katalasso is translated ‘atonement’ in KJV. As one will see in the above article, atone and reconcile have very similar meanings in English. In the Greek the distinction is more nuanced. Katalaggo has the sense of and exchange of things of value in order to repay a debt. Hilaskomai relates directly to the hilasterion, the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. It was here that the reconciliation of God and man in the Israelite cult took place.
Interstingly, there is NO OT term known as Day Of Atonement. This is only found in the plural, day of atonements, as the priest performed multiple atonements, on the day.
Lest some be tempted to say, Hah, multiple atonements clearly permits for multiple antitypical atonements, and therefore for multiple phases of atonement. This view must show that all atonements took place on the same day.
And that day was Calvary. After which Paul was able to say: Rom 5.10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled(katalasso), we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received THE atonement(katalagei).KJV/Tyndale
Yes John, I admit this may not meet your lofty standards, but we are yet to hear your defence of the multiple phases of atonement, are we not?
Do I CARE about a Jewish link to the term?
YOU BETCHA IN THE GREEK THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN HILASTERION AND KATALAGGO IS MORE NUANCED. THEY REFER TO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
WHICH IS WHY YOUR QUOTES FROM HEBREWS, TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND MISAPPLIED, DON’T WORK.
Now, more. Your unfortunate quote is as follows:
“Interstingly, there is NO OT term known as Day Of Atonement. This is only found in the plural, day of atonements, as the priest performed multiple atonements, on the day.
Lest some be tempted to say, Hah, multiple atonements clearly permits for multiple antitypical atonements, and therefore for multiple phases of atonement. This view must show that all atonements took place on the same day.”
Who are you kidding? First, there is NOT atonement IN THE SENSE OF KATALAGGO, but rather COVERING. In fact, it is the Day of Covering, and sometimes referred to as The Day of Judgment. The numerous “Day of the LORD” passages in the Old Testament refer exactly to this.
Who on earth gave you the absured idea that the antitypes of anything in the Old Testament have to be exactly the same length?
THE YEARLY CYCLE IN THE WILDERNESS SANCTUARY, AND IN THE TEMPLE ON ZION THAT REPLACED IT, SYMBOLIZED — IN “TYPE” IF YOU LIKE THAT SORT OF LANGUAGE — THE ENTIRE PLAN OF SALVATION FROM START TO FINISH.
WHAT THE SANCTUARY/TEMPLE SERVICE DID IN ONE CALENDAR YEAR (WELL, ALMOST, SINCE IT WAS ACTUALLY SHORT BY APPROXIMATELY FIVE DAYS) HAS TAKEN EONS AND IS STILL NOT DONE.
Before you start setting up and pontificating on what the rules are, you should learn much more. Again, all time cycles are interchangeable, under the always-present rule of thought in the Ancient Near East “SIMILIARITY EQUALS IDENTIFY OF ESSENCE.”
If something is similar, it is equivalent. Once again I will waste my time mentioning another of the numerous books I frequently refer you to, knowing that someone of your mindset is really not interested in reading things that would change his narrow misconceptions.
But as I said above, where there is life there is hope.
See “Before Philosophy: the Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man” to get a starting point on how the folks in the ANE actually thought.
(Not like you, hard as that is to believe.)
I see that you are a sharp user of Strong’s. He would be proud to see that given a day you can find the one use of “atonement” in your beloved King James.
Alas you found TOO MUCH. It is true that the phrase “ha yom ha kippurim” is literally “the day of the coverings/atonements”.
The last “covering/atonement” on that day is the removal of the corporate sin of Israel (conceived of now in symbol as a “thing”) and confession of those sins over the head of the second goat, which is then led away by a “fit man” (this takes awhile and is in fact dangerous) deep into the wilderness to Azazel, the king of demons.
CONTINUED
The last phase of the atonement is this part with the escapegoat and the message to Azazel that he is still held responsible for the corporate sin of Israel.
This is misunderstood. Ellen White correctly writes that this was a message to Satan that he still was to bear the consequences of those sins. Detractors, not thinking clearly, supposed Mrs White had in her befuddlement accidentally made Satan a savior!
What is described here is what we call “joint venture.” IF in my state I only drive the getaway car from the bank robbery where a guard was shot to death, and if I and my reprobates are caught, I am just as guilty of murder as they are.
I halped make that man’s murder possible. In Satan’s case, he, together with his host, are being held responsible for their major and primary effort at getting Israel to sin and thus be separated from God.
Every sin that they were instrumental in creating comes back to meet them in the end.
WHEN IS THIS END? WAS IT THE DAY CHRIST DIED?
NOPERS. NOT. NEIN. NADA. NYET.
That will come in due course at the end of the millennium. Before then there is yet two more judgments: every saved person will have loved ones and friends who were dear who did not make it to eternal life and God’s kingdom.
The saved are pictured as judging the nations of the lost during the millennium. Looking at every life in details that as humans we could never know or perceive, and entirely from God’s viewpoint, that will bring the millions upon millions of the redeemed closer and closer to God.
In effect, at the end of the millennial judgment, the saved remnant of the human race will see reality almost as if they were God.
But alas! that doesn’t do it. The lost of the Race of Adam must have their chance to see what really happened in its fullness, to see themselves as God saw them and as God worked with them.
They are utterly convinced and cry out their admission.
Convinced, but most definitely not changed, for character does not change. It becomes fixed. The lost re-affirm their choices, wanting nothing to do with an eternity of delight serving GOD OF ALL THINGS!
After a brief twitch, the at-one-ment is fully accomplished.
John I put the link there for what it has to say about the origins of the ENGLISH word ‘atonement.’
And since that is a word that is very big in SDA thinking, some people will find it also interesting. I’m not surprised that you do not.
But it does make the point that there is NO ‘yom kippur’ in the OT. ‘yom ha-kippurim,’ yes. Plural atonements. And all accomplished on the one day.
Now I guess the essence of one day is similar to the essence of any other day, but that does not make them all alike in terms of ‘salvation history.’
Tell me this. What did Jesus mean when He said on the Cross, ‘It is finished?’
And to what does the author of Hebrews refer when he says, ‘once for all?’
This is déjà vu-like because it seems we’ve previously said/discussed this, but George Knight seems to be me kind of guy.
Knight’s question, “that [he] didn’t see why someone as intelligent as [that “certain Adventist intellectual] would remain in Adventism if he didn’t believe it” remains a pertinent one. I would like to hear a non-biased, neutral behavioral scientist explain the apparent need or desire to belong to any group with which one is in fundamental disagreement.
It doesn’t exactly sound healthy to me.
It doesn’t exactly sound healthy to me either.
It sounds like someone who has a need to argue, to get even with some perceived problem or another.
It sounds like someone who is having trouble moving on and can’t get past some phase of their experience.
There is obvious cognitive dissonance there. And a felt need to continue to argue, in the hopes that someone is listening to the argument.
Contemporary church affiliation in the post modern world of the emerging church tradition is not necessarily about “belief” in isolation. It also include behavior and belonging to a faith community with the emphasis on community. For a full explanation of this approach, read Richard Rice’s book on Believing, Behaving and Belonging.
If this does not sound healthy to someone like Mr. Foster, that may just means that the personality of some individuals do not resonate. Please don’t characterize others using criteria that you have inherited.
Mm, I believe even those in the emerging church expect the adoption of some agreed set of principles, ideologies and beliefs. In any event, you can formulate clever arguments but common sense tells you it seems a nonsense for someone to belong to a group committed to propagating an ideology one personally opposes.
Why would you belong to the NRA if you hated guns? If you grew up in an NRA family, but grew up to hate guns, wouldn’t the honourable thing be to leave the NRA?
“emerging church tradition”
REALLY? Doesn’t this seem to be a wee bit of an oxymoron?
Which is emerging – the church or the tradition? Or are they emerging together?
“Let our leaders show some real humility and admit they don’t know the bible and need help and instruction on many issues.”
I think that if anyone else bothers to wade through all of the permutations of Bible beliefs and un-beliefs expressed on this web page, the reasonable conclusion would be that it is not just the leaders who must humbly admit we know less about the Bible than we like to imagine or pretend 8-).
Millions of Catholics and Jews were born into those faiths but do not practice nor hold to all the beliefs of either.
They are still Catholics and Jews.
Thousands of Adventists have similarly been born into Adventism and baptized as children. They may always claim to be Adventists by virtue of birth and baptism. Who would eject them from the only religion they have known? Non-attendance is never a reason to remove a member.
Um, that is because Judaism is as much a race as a religion. A whole section of Jesus’ teaching was devoted to debunking just that sort of teaching. We are in the kingdom by belief; not by birth. Jesus made that point as explicit as He could in pointing out even His mother and brothers were not His true family as much as disciples by faith.
If Catholics believe the same then they are simply adopting erroneous thinking at odds with Christianity. But I am not sure if the ‘official’ Catholic doctrine supports what you are saying. An ‘unbelieving’ Catholic might consider themselves still a Catholic but according to Catholic doctrine, can probably expect a rough ride. For a start, to die having committed a mortal sin without confession and last rites is a recipe for major problems. I believe Pope Benedict wrote about the very problem you now promote.
Finally, we aren’t talking about non-attendance. We are talking about people who claim to belong in the Adventist Church but basically hold to none of its teachings at all – in fact, none of Christianit’s core teachings, including the resurrection of Jesus Christ or His expected Second Coming.
People who claim to be Adventist by birth are no different from those Jews in Jesus’ day who claimed to be Children of Abraham by birth. Jesus’ didn’t have kind words for people who adopted that viewpoint. That is why the essence of Christianity is to recognise the great symbol of Jewish birth, being circumcission, is ultimatley nothing. Instead, faith is everything.
You can call yourself ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ all you like but in my mind you are only a ‘true’ one if you adhere to a basic set of beliefs. The same with Christianity more generally, which is precisely why the early Church spent so much time on creeds. Other religions are orthopraxies, we are orthodoxy.
I believe you can only be a true SDA if you go to a church where the sign outside has three angels with their three trumpets. Sorry if you are renting a church or the sign has been updated to open bible, cross and Spirit flame. Rules are rules, they never change.
“You can only be a true SDA if you go to a church where the sign outside has three angels with their three trumpets.” Priceless! Good show, golly good show! It shall be added to the catalogue of Classic Adventisms.
Just make sure there is not a cross prominently displayed on the exterior.
Last September, I was on a business trip and in a certain city in the northern part of the central USA that will go nameless. I would be there over Wednesday night so I looked-up the church’s website and found their address and that prayer meeting was scheduled. The address was right across the street from the state university. On the glass panels to one side of the door I found painted the words of the Ten Commandments and on the other side a selection from Revelation describing the angels flying through heaven and shouting. I looked-up the church’s website and looked at the calendar to be sure I was there at the right time and day. I was. But the doors were locked and the lights turned-off. Apparently having the logo of the three angels on the sign wasn’t very beneficial.
Non-attendance is a very good reason to remove someone. Calling them “a member” is an exercise in pretense.
Millions of Italians born into Catholicism do NOT call themselves Catholic, although they are habitually counted in the putative “one billion” Catholics. I use Itallians because I happen to know many Italians by birth who would scoff at the suggestion that they are Catholics because they were baptized as such in infancy.
Jews are so by ethnicity. That is a different situation.
None of this explains the obvious emotional need of some to stay and argue endlessly about that which they do not believe, as if they somehow cannot get past certain things and simply move on in life.
Plus, a lot of people claim to be Catholic but haven’t been to church in a very long time. Most Jews are Jewish only by ethnicity rather than spiritual allegiance. Study after study in industrialized nations shows that only a fraction of the people claiming to be Christian attend church three or more times per year.
If you want a good measure of this, drive past several Sunday-keeping churches near where you live and count the cars in the parking lots during their worship service. Then visit on Easter Sunday and try finding a parking space. Yet those people attending only that day will argue that they really are Christians.
Once a Catholic, that person can have a burial mass as the church only refuses that rite if they committed grave and public “sins.”
I have Catholic friends who privately disparaged the church but were buried with full Catholic rites.
Yes, I am very aware that being a Jew is both an ethnicity and religion. The majority of Jews in the U.S. are not practicing, even more atheist or agnostic.
One point most admirable about U.S. Jews is their strong belief against injustice and empathy with the underdog because they have long been the recipient of injustice and worse.
What is really amazing is the obsession of some individuals with whether other individuals are or are not “true” Adventists. As my granddaughter would say “Get a life.” Deal with your own issues.
Dr Taylor, you’re the one obsessed enough to write an entire article trying to justify why someone who doesn’t believe in the Advent of Jesus Christ can somehow, despite it making no sense whatsoever, claim to still be an “Adventist”. Something about kettles calling pots black I think?
The question of religious identity is a far question, especially for a sociologist-anthropologist such as yourself. It doesn’t help your case to tell people to get a life when they ask you fair questions as to how you come to your conclusion about Adventist identity without the need for shared belief.
It is a fair issue which you yourself have raised. It is a question as old as Jesus Christ, whose own ministry continually dealt with the issue of what made someone a member of God’s people or not.
In his day many Jews answered that question by pointing to ethnic identity, as a mere accident of birth, as a question of race, exemplified by the rite of circumcission. It seems to me that your own idea, as well as Elaine, is to essentially argue the same.
You couch your arguments in very political correct terms hidden under the guise of tolerance. However, if we take your argument to its natural conclusion, that identifying as an Adventist is not a matter of belief of agreed statements of faith but presumably a sense of belonging (most likely derrived as an accident of birth), then it seems to me you are promoting a form of racial-ethnicity.
That idea is at odds with virtually everything Jesus stood for, Paul stood for, and the other apostles stood for. As much as you and Elaine don’t like it, Christianity is a religion of belief – not race-ethnicity. It is why the formulation of Creeds, going right back to the earliest Apostles Creed, Rule of Faith and Didache, were so important.
The singular Amazing Fact of Adventism, a demonstrable hyperbole, is its self-selection as the purveyor of theological purity in a world of heresy ending “soon.”
And that is the horn of the dilemma of Adventist identity. At best, hyperbole is a rhetorical construct, a useful metaphor, at worst, a lie, in either, case, it outlives its usefulness.
Is an SDA one who subscribes to the totally failed narrative of 1844 and the multiple tenets supporting it (can’t happen since the 2300 day patently false “prediction” has run its course) or some other identifier?
Hyperbole functions, sadly, as a metaphorical gallows when propositions waved from it are shown by experience to be false. The old guard (in majority here, apparently) don’t care. The newbies wink and nod at the myth, and invent their own Adventist identity.
Like it or not, a new Adventist identity is evolving. It doesn’t much care about our blah blah blah here, or the Amazing histrionic hyperboles of ancient Adventism. In part, that’s the natural evolution of religious systems. And it is the normal process of disposal of hyperbole by a generation unmoved by it.
Bugs, your whole comment could easily be defined as “hyperbole” and applied to Christanity by any non-believer in the Christian faith. And nothing is more obvious than the fact that early Christanity shortly after the apostles passed off the scence, redefined Christanity.
It continued until the Reformation when Protestantism challenged the church to return to its original teachings and the faith established by Christ and His apostles. I would suggest that modern Adventism is in this same process and will eventually clearly define its identity with scripture, or, like Rome hold the present powers that be are beyond challenge.
We have unity, vs. truth. The same argument they gave Luther when he challenged the church by the bible. So they asked Luther how he arrived at truth. He stated it was by scripture. So, they said the Pope interprets scripture. And Luther responded, “He may interpret scripture, but he is not above it.” Luther also said, “The task of interpreting scripture belongs to the whole Christian community.”
This principle goes beyond the kind of unity Rome created, but is the same argument being advocated by many who hold leadership positions claim and contend for in the SDA church of today. So, again and again it is stated by such individuals, they hope whatever decision the church makes, all will come into unity by that decision. Such a statement shows they obviously hold unity above truth.
The final ploy being this. If they can persuade as many as they can that it is not a doctrinal or salvational issue, any opposition would simply be defined as obstinate rebellion against church authority. So, in modern Adventism, it is a Roman Catholic spirituality vs. a Protestant Reformation spirituality. In which case, the church that is already split spiritually, will necessarily eventually split in form as well as spirit. And those of you who opt for Pluralism and a “big tent” spirituality will find a ready home in the spirituality of the Catholic party. They will not only tolerate you, but welcome you with open arms as long as you will also tolerate and patronize all the various views being advocated and expressed as viable explanations of truth and its application.
Here is the response the church loves by a poster on Spectrum.
“, I will support the decision of the GC, regardless of which way the vote goes. We cannot keep ourselves distracted by these issues. We must concentrate on our greater commission which is to spread the gospel to the world so that our Lord can end this mess once and for all.”
And if we apply this principle, we can expect Sunday keepers to point to this same spirituality and ask SDA’s to abandon our Sabbath devisiveness and get on the band wagon and “spread the gospel to the whole world, so Jesus can come.”
People are so blind to the real issues inherent in the discussion on male headship vs. WO.
Bill, since you brought up this issue of inherent issues in male headship and women’s ordination, can you explain to me more of what you infer? I follow this from a distance and wonder where the issue comes from? Help me understand what you understand.
Thanks.
Brian, it is church authority vs. the word of God. I support male headship as I believe it is biblical. In which case, if the church votes for WO I must then decide to what extent I will support a church that I believe has abandon the bible.
I believe the major argument in the end will be, “We can’t tell what the bible says and means, thus, we are free to determine the issue by popular vote.” I am hopeful that those who believe Women’s ordination is biblical and a moral imperative will hold the same conviction I do. If I can not convince them of what I believe the bible teaches, and they can’t convince me otherwise about their convictions, there must necessarily be a physical split.
They must be loyal to the bible, and so must I. In the end, if we truly are studying the issue with prayer and a willing heart, God will yet create a community of believers who hold the Protestant position of the bible only as the rule of faith and practice. Any talk of “unity” is vain and worthless without this commitment to the bible.
Of course, if the church can convince the people that it is not a salvational issue, then we have spent a huge amount of money and time by the church to find this out. I think there is more politics in the issue than a sincere desire for truth on the biblical teaching. So “unity” is taking the place of pure truth. Maybe this is how the early church opted for Sunday over Sabbath keeping. And over time when they were confronted, they simply took the bible away and demanded submission to church authority.
Can it happen in the SDA church? Yes. Sinful man is sinful man still.
Bill, I feel you have waltzed around my allegation that the 1844 narrative as the foundation of Adventism is a total failure along with its manufactured supportive doctrines leaving the church no where to go but somewhere else, which it is doing on an experiential level. Smoke screens of Luther, Catholicism, Protestanism, tents, pluralism, are all useless applications of fog. Show me how and or why they new lemmings aren’t rushing from a deceased and unfulfilled narrative because they have no other honest alternative? I am more than willing to admit my error should I be shown to have hyperbolized!
Can someone give a clear explanation of the necessity of Christ’s death before our sins are pardoned and we have eligibility to heaven? Was death the only possible way and if God is omnipotent, couldn’t a simple declaration have sufficed?
My answer venture into this territory got me “edited.” See if I can slip through with this. Paganism.
I wonder if Bugs-Larry Boshell would please explain how his comments were “edited.” This is not supposed to happen on the opinions section of the AT web site except for a very specific set of reasons.
My direct email reply has beeen sent to you, Ervin.
Would Bugs-Larry Boshell please resend his email, I have not received it on my AT-email address. Please try retaylor@ucr.edu. Thank you.
There is an element of truth in that answer, for, of course the pagan religions reflect the deliberate corruption of the plan of salvation by the demons. And retain many of its central points.
The pagan gods were real, according to the prophets. And they were the fallen demonic host. But paganism had real power, not just wishful thinking.
The best deception is the one that has the most truth in it.
Ooops, I forgot. Satan doesn’t exist. Or he does exist but doesn’t want you to think so, the better to have his way with you……………..
Angry gods and blood sacrifices. Those clever pagans. It appears they counterfited the plan of salvation before there was one.
Why couldn’t the fixing plan have been truncated for the benefit of mankind by having Christ die in place of Adam’s son and got an early start on propitiating God? Or is he just lustily blood thirsty and wanted a few thousand years to pass so billions of helpless animals could be slaughtered and billions of humans could suffer and die?
That is the pagan version of God that has been adopted by Christianity and doesn’t appear to be the God of Christ.
If we as humans can create superior curative scenarios to replace the god of blood lust and the role of “fallen” humans who conveniently fit his ugly purpose, then he isn’t really god. We are as smart, no smarter, than him. And the bankruptucy of solutions with this resasoning is totally illustrated by borrowing from the pagans their version of the cure. Sorry, they had this scenario first.
What is there really to know about God? Jesus is reported to have said if a child asks for food do you give him a rock? No. You give him nourishment. In my mind that is all one needs, or can know, about God. We are not now, never have been, “lost,” but always now and forever “found” in the aura of Love that is the presence of God in human life. Blood sacrifice is a spectator sport for humans by humans, nothing more.
OH BUGSY BABY, DID YOU EVER LEARN ADVENTITST THEOLOGY IS THE FIRST PLACE,OR ARE YOU JUST A KIDDER?
The plan of salvation existed BEFORE TIME EXISTED. BEFORE SPACE EXISTED. BEFORE ANYTHING FINITE EXISTED.
Silly silly you!
The pagans weren’t “clever” but the demons were. You prove it regularly.
Since your premise is nonsense, there isn’t anything else to say. Note: the gospel hardens when it does not save. Who said that?
JM, I sat in Graham and Mervyn Maxwells classes and dozens of other Adventist scholars through ny 17 years of Adventist education through seminary, so was certainly exposed. Never heard that from any of them. But the God you credit for dreaming up sin and the cure for it “before space existed” also gave me a mind to recognize baloney when I saw it. And I see in your wild claim. The fable you spout wouldn’t make a good plot for a science fiction novel. Where in Adventist theological training did you get it?
You are welcome to your understanding. There are countless theories, propostions, explaining the human condition, the cause and cure. Million of past proponents of every version and shade are in their grave, your destiny and mine. So there is a real since we are “silly” together as we joust a bit over stuff that doesn’t effect our outcome, and exists only in our minds.
The Infinite God is the source of all life, the ground of all being. Nothing can exist apart from His interceding.
Sin is separation from God’s moral being, in its simplest core. The Bible says this.
It also pictures God as saying (Isaiah) “All those who hate Me love death.”
Death is not the wages of sin because God said so. It is the lightbulb going out when the power is shut off.
God has a moral purpose in keeping sin and sinners going until He makes a final demonstration of the nature of sin. When the logical moral conclusion to sin is made, He will end it.
Jesus said there was a time coming on earth so bad that it would be unlike anything since there was a nation upon the earth. PERHAPS HE WAS JUST PARANOID.
That time is not outside of God’s will, it is simply the final demonstration which I mentioned.
IF God is the absolutely moral unselfish Being that He claims in His self-revelation in time and space as Father, Son, and Spirit, then HE CANNOT KEEP SIN ALIVE BEYOND ITS MORAL USEFULNESS.
When the entire universe sees the final horror of what sin leads to, that is the guarantee that “iniquity will not arise a second time.”
You are speaking about something that is logically impossible. If God could simply explain sin away He would have done so. The question Satan raised was if God was an absolutely moral loving Being, would He stand by the results of the choice of other beings in creation? (The question of whether God was actually the Creator of Life, or merely a more evolved being was stuck to the first one.)
Hence the problem of justice and mercy. Lucifer urged that if God allowed him to die and claimed that was justice, where was the equally important moral concept of MERCY?
If on the other hand, God kept sinners alive and no death transpired, did that mean the death was not simply an arbitrary act on the part of God? OR if God chose to forgive, where would JUSTICE GO?
God cannot make a square circle. God cannot make a stone so heavy He cannot lift it. God cannot make an irresistible force and an immovable object and both be part of reality. There will never be a round square.
The Creator took the death that should have ensued when sin entered the universe upon Himself. Thus the absolute of justice was upheld, for only the Creator’s death — not seeing through the portals of the tomb — would meet and go beyond the death of all created beings.
And then for those who so chose, whoever they might be, God could and would extend mercy, having already upheld justice. The central theme is how to get justice and mercy together and uphold both moral absolutes.
Elaine, Islam might be the right religion for you.
Elaine you should already know the major arguments for that. You know there are three major atonement theories: Christus Victor (Great Controversy); penal substitution and moral influence.
But no one knows. As C S Lewis explains, people still ate food and knew it satisfied their hunger before modern science had explained how the digestive system worked. If you follow the religion of Christianity (as opposed to say Islam), then no, a simple declaration of forgiveness was not enough. Again, the three major atonement theories explain why.
For me personally, Christus Victor explains it best. N. T. Wright hones in on the text in Collosians about Jesus’ death shaming the evil powers of this world.
What I think this means is that Christ had to die to shame Lucifer, who claimed to be a freedom fighter. This is the most ancient view. It is also the view most natural for Adventists, as greatly illustrated in the Record Keeper Series (which ironically the GC forbid from showing but you can watch on Youtube).
” You know there are three major atonement theories: Christus Victor (Great Controversy); penal substitution and moral influence.”
And they are all correct in a biblical context. Error is when you play off one against the other.
Reading Stephen Foster’s comments I am wondering if he ever considers that his attitude amounts to saying “There is a good percentage of the Adventist Church that do not want you here”. I wonder if he considers the sociological aspects of members of a church with that attitude? It would seem to me that that is a very damaging attitude to have, the implications of that for new members would amount to a very unwelcoming church. It would seem to me there is a need for some sort of a balancing act to enable a church that can accept and respect people and one that demands that it’s historical beliefs must be maintained.
Ron good try at using shame mate, but it is never a good argument.
To use my well-worn analogy, consider a member of the NRA who hates guns. Is it not a fair question to ask why they remain a member, and not just a member but a very involved member and contributor to “NRA-Today”, if they hate guns so much?
We’re not talking about a race – we are talking about an organisation or movement with shared beliefs and shared ideology. Isn’t it weired if someone attacks that belief and ideology, and then complains when others ask why they choose to remain attached to that group as a matter of self-identity?
The devil wanted to stay in heaven so he could take over. Is there a parallel here?
And God expelled him.
May I ask Mr. Ferguson the point he wishes to make in saying: “And God expelled him [Satam].” I think I know, but I would not like to put words in Mr. Fergusson’s mouth.
It was not an argument it was a question. Now it appears you are stuck in repeat mode and simply repeating what was said earlier in this thread rather then attempting to answer the question.
Sometimes it is a good idea to do some self evaluation, that is how people are able to grow. But if a question causes you shame…then perhaps you know the answer but don’t want to admit it.
Mr.Sorensen argues: “I am hopeful that those who believe Women’s ordination is biblical and a moral imperative will hold the same conviction I do. If I can not convince them of what I believe the bible teaches, and they can’t convince me otherwise about their convictions, there must necessarily be a physical split.”
Why must there be a split? It appears that it is the traditionalists who are arguing that there should be a split over the WO issue. The progressives/liberals are not suggesting that we have a split over this issue. ‘
Why is it so difficult for us to simply recognize that there are differences of opinion over this and we can all live together without requiring one group to accept another groups beliefs?
It is a simple matter: Allow the Divisions or Union Conferences to vote on this. Some will vote to ordain women and some will not. What is the problem?
Why must we convince one another of anything? Why are we arguing instead of testifying about the power of God we have experienced and the amazing things we have seen the Holy Spirit doing when we allow Him to work through us?
Thank you Bill for your explanation on where you see the church and its use of Biblical authority.
I have positioned myself to better follow the Lord outside of the local “community” because I was not allowed to within that SDA “community”. I sought to be involved and followed the Lord and the church manual in regards to Personal Ministries and was told to just go do something on my own and stop bothering with the congregational approach because the people are not interested in sharing God’s love with the outside.
So I came to realize there was not enough love there to share, not with me or with outsiders. In George Barna’s words I left the church to become the church. In the last year and a half since, I have grown in my love of God and been challenged to tears in the process. In all of it I see God moving before me and working similarly in other’s lives as I am continually encouraged to make the hard choices, if God is moving that way.
What I cannot see in the New Testament is our use of the “Pastor” and the distinction of “clergy” and “laity”. Therefore in this male headship and women’s ordination issue I do not see an issue relevant to my Bible reading. I hear a business discussing why or why not it is going to discriminate. I hear women demanding equal benefits for an employed position. I do not see my role as head of the family challenged. I also do not see God’s church under attack simply because I do not believe that God’s church is a business or a denomination.
It is my understanding that the corporate logo for Laodicea is a pulpit in front of a pew. It is in that environment that Loadicea has any relevancy and strength. Where did Jesus find that church? Behind a closed door where they claim to be with Him, because they already have the Truth. However, Jesus stands there on the outside of the church declaring that He is not in there with them. He is working, but not there.
Anyway just wanted to say that.
I appreciate your comments, Brian. Some of us have had a similar experience. I was head elder of a church that was very conservative. The conference didn’t like our agenda and placed a new pastor more akin to their own spirituality. I did not create the main controversy, but several of our young elders did. I supported them in their concerns. None the less, the conference did all in their power and influence to destroy my influence in the church. I withdrew for the sake of the spirituality of my wife and also myself.
But, I believe God raised up the Advent movement for a purpose and the movement is degenerating into a political movement more than a bible community. And I still think can is using the church on some level. None the less, a time will come when that usefulness will come to an end, unless the church quits playing games and becomes deadly serious about the bible and loyalty to it.
And “no” Dr. Taylor, we can’t “just get along” when the bible is challenged. I know the liberal element can, because they don’t really care that much about the bible. And if they can obscure its meaning and claim that the bible is too ambiguous for a clear definitive position on any subject, “the church” can define itself and its own authority beyond scripture.
I am still a member of the SDA church and support the bible teachings the church supports. But we are all individually on probation and the church as a whole is on probation as well. There is no “unconditional election” for the individual, nor is there one for the church as a denomination. Yet this idea is being sold over and over by many leaders with the continual exhortation that “God is in control”, when what they mean is they are in control and we must accept their self appointed authority over and above the bible.
So, like others, I will wait and see how the church responds over the various conflicts over the biblical issues confronting the church today. Historically, it don’t seem very encouraging in view of history, but God may have a way of “forcing” the issue as He has done in the past. EGW suggests “sinners will be shaken out”. And she calls the shaking a “terrible ordeal.”
The “ordeal” part has surely begun. How the outcome materializes is yet to be seen. None the less, God can and will create a community of believers who hold the bible as the final authority and the church accountable to scripture, and not the other way around. There is be no “unity” as long as this principle is not advocated.
Thank you for your gracious response. I think I understand now a part of your motivation in your replies.
I have some questions as to your understanding of the “shaking”. That term was applied to me in 2013 and I internet searched it and came away thinking it was misapplied to me.
First question, Is there a biblical equivalent or precedent of the “shaking” to come?
Second question, Is it possible that the “shaking” is of the righteous out of the denomination and the tables are in fact turned on “the church” by them being sent away, who actually love and follow God through Scripture and the Holy Spirit?
Third question, Until the last couple of years I thought that being SDA brought with it immunity from “Babylon”. Is it tenable to believe that “Babylon” should also be applied to the SDA institution?
Thank you again for your thoughtful considerations.
Interestingly, Bill, the “can’t we all just get along” script, the “love-is-ever-mercy-never-justice” folks will find that when Satan comes as Christ they finally have the “Christ” they have been worshipping.
While Ellen White correctly portrays the rise of the human Antichrist (always masculine singular) as “by the activity of Satan” as Paul puts it, few realize the power and impact of Satan appearing ON EARTH in majesty — compare the Marian apparitions.
The word “activity” is “energeia” and is NEVER referenced to human power, but always supernatural power. Satan will “exert” himself to make sure that the masses know that the Antichrist (the final and absolute one) is “god’s man of the hour” and must be obeyed.
Ellen White describes Satan as repeating “many of the same gracious truths the Savior taught while on earth,” but they are HIGHLY EDITED so that obedience, the hour of judgment, is carefully omitted.
Mrs White wrote that the church (speaking in small “c” of the SDAdventist church) would appear to fall. There is no guarantee that the rest of that statement will come true.
For Ellen White there was much more “precious truth” to be revealed, and “we” (SDAs again) “will often have to bow down and admit we were wrong” as to doctrine. I have found neither any admission that much of the late 18th century historicism is factually and theologically wrong, nor much in the way of precious further light THOUGH SUCH HAS BEEN CLEARLY REVEALED.
Actually, Bill, the mess you see on these threads, every wind of doctrine, opinion rules over plain Scriptural teachings, exegesis is a foreign word, is all the result of SDAdventism corporately failing to keep up with further revelation of truth.
There isn’t much left to fight for, sadly.
God has at His disposal many other means.
A dozen years ago I received a fantastic blessing when God revived my faith that was dying under the oppression of traditional Adventism. He revived me and a group of others by motivating us to split from the congregation where we were to form a new church. We’re Adventist, but different in many ways. We’re known as the “safe” church where you can go with spiritual problems and find fellowship and healing, where you can minister God’s love as He motivates you. So I understand your experience in “leaving the church to become THE CHURCH.” I trust that God is blessing you in your path and that greater blessings are in your future.
I would like to thank A-today for allowing me to post on their forum. Something Spectrum will not allow. They claim liberality, but are in fact a bunch of self righteous bigots who block any real challenge to their agenda of liberalism. Yes, they allow people like Kevin Paulson to post. It lends some credibility to their so-called “supporting ministry. David Read also posts on some occasions. But over all, it is a bigoted ministry that blocks any challenge to their ministry. They have no credibility as an open forum for discussion.
In fact, the on-line Adventist Review is far more open for comments about church issues than Spectrum. And while I disagree with many presentations on A-today, they at least are open to real challenge to the various views and presentations posted for evaluation. So, again, I say “thank you” to those in charge of this ministry.
Ah Bill…., calling bigots those who disagree with you will never count points in you favor – anywhere. Participating on Spectrum is simple provided one respects other people, even those one disagrees with. The software they use now is superb for a good interaction.
Discussing ideas is one thing, attacking people, calling them bigots, etc., is certainly not discussing “ideas!”
A couple of weeks ago, I attended a panel discussion on eschatology at LLU. One man kept making the point that all the charts outlining last day events got it all wrong. He made that statement several times. However, he never said what they got wrong. I find assertions like that useless and stupid. If he thinks they got it wrong, then he must know what is right else how he would know it was wrong. He needs to tell me what they got wrong and why it is wrong.
Eschatology should be important part of SDA theology. Rev. 1:3 says “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” I read in Rev.10:2 about an angel having an open book. In verse 6 he says that there should be time on longer. SDA’s have interpreted the little book as being the Book of Daniel, and the time no longer as the of the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14, or 1844. Then in verse 9 John is told to eat the book and it was sweet as honey but bitter in is belly. SDA’s interpret that as being the Great Disappointment of 1844. Is that interpretation wrong? I don’t think so. If Revelation can’t be understood then why “blessed is he that readeth….” Revelation should be continually studied.
It seems to me the Dan 8:14 is not about an investigative judgment, although it could have a duel application. I’m hard pressed to believe that the little horn could in any way defile the heavenly sanctuary. A better reading of Dan 8:14 is a restoration of the sanctuary. The Gospel was preached the Israelites in the form of the Sanctuary. Consequently the Sanctuary is symbolic of the Gospel. The little horn usurped the Gospel and it was the function of the movement that came out of the 1844 disappointment to restore that Gospel.
In the last copy of Atoday one article brought out that the SDA church is teaching two Gospels. How can we preach the Gospel to the world when we are confused? What happened the Gospel presented in 1888? Why do we now have two? Doesn’t Matt. 24:14 say that the gospel will be preached in all the world and then the end will come? If we have a confused gospel then how is it being preached?
“Third question, Until the last couple of years I thought that being SDA brought with it immunity from “Babylon”. Is it tenable to believe that “Babylon” should also be applied to the SDA institution?”
Brian, this is the most important question and how we perceive the answer will also determine our spirituality. I answered it before by stating there is no unconditional election for any church or church member. The SDA church was not Babylon in its formative years and EGW warned against that idea being applied to the Adventist movement in its early stages.
None the less, that was over 150 years ago and to claim it could never apply to the SDA denomination is not credible. It would mean the church is infallible in its reception of truth and not subject to false doctrine and/or teaching.
The truth is, the church may triumph, but this can only happen if it acknowledges the possibility of failure. Just as it applies to any individual. But the lines are being drawn on this issue and people find it convenient to think and say, “Well, whatever the church decides, I’ll go along with.” This sets the stage for total apostacy without accountability to biblical mandates. So if church leaders can convince members that issues being considered are not salvational, they can pull off their agenda of unity simply for the sake of unity.
Those with strong biblical convictions will never “buy” this agenda and unless the false spirituality is abandon, a physical split is the reality. But no matter how it all plays out, there will certainly be a “shaking” of sorts that will divide the church. In fact, the church is already divided internally and can’t survive without a clear identity defined that all agree to. It don’t seem likely this will happen, so the outcome is in the making.
This is, of course, exactly how the papacy came into existence. The bishops of Rome were extremely conservative politically, naturally.
And that meant they managed successively to side with the correct Christology and against various blatant heresies such as Arianism and pelagianism. But at the same time they were fostering the worst, more subtle errors.
Rome was the center of the world, and the other bishops, over time, ceded final authority to whatever the Roman bishops and their head bishop decided. It took only a couple of centuries for the process to be complete.
Any idea that the papacy did not come to be until AD 313, or came to temporal power only in AD 538 is wildly off the mark.
“Babvylon” was not merely a religious institution. It was also a culture. It developed banking at t he infamous “etemen-an-ki” the temple/tower of heaven and earth berated already in Genesis.
Yes, there is no ELECT CHURCH that cannot be cast off. MOST OF THE PROPHETIC MATERIAL IS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE AND KINGS OF THE HEBREW MONARCHIES THAT THEY WERE NOT AUTOMATICALLY AND FOREVER GOD’S CHOSEN, ALWAYS TO BE SHIELDED FROM GOD’S JUDGMENTS.
Israel was mowed down in 723 BC and Judah finally annihilated in 586 BC. That historical reality did nothing to convince the Jews of Jesus day and the 39 years following His warning that the Temple would never be destroyed, or the Jews ever again exiled.
“We are step by step repeating the history of ancient Israel.” Who said that?
There is no question that eschatology has traditionally been an important part of SDA theology. It is very debatable if that has been a good or bad thing. I would vote that, on the whole, it has been a negative factor. It created the image that we “know” the future. And then when the future does not turn out as we predicted, we look silly almost as silly as when we say that our collective behaviors can speed up the Second Coming. Strange. It’s almost as if we have a theological death wish.
You should have been much more precise in writing the article and in this comment.
The main elements of SDAdventist late 18th century historicism — despite it obvious weaknesses and frequent departures from the exegetical meaning of the prophecies — was always correct.
And it coming to pass. The globalist world-state predicted in Revelation 13 is nearly here, with only a final confrontation between the Chinese Empire and the American Empire to prove that human life will not continue without a world-government overseeing the nations.
The decline of nature to the point where even the experts say life cannot continue on the planet unless HUGE changes are made (and who is to make those changes except a world-leader with the control of every nation?) and an attempt will be made by the antichrist figure to “save” the human race….
Let’s see, loss of marine life, loss of drinkable water, pandemics, global warming, the sun scorching mankind with intense heat (whether men or the sun are ultimately to blame) all predicted by experts not the slightest interested in Bible prophecy.
And then there is that demonic activity by spiritualism going forth to the kings of the earth, then the whole world. DO YOU REALLY NOT KNOW THAT THE LEADING SPIRITUALIST MEDIUMS ARE KEPT VERY BUSY CONSULTING MOST OF THE WORLD’S LEADERS? REALLY?
The Roman Church has never said, since Pope Leo addressed this in 1895, that the Roman Church should rule the new world order. Instead pope after pope has lobbied for the world-state in which the Roman Church and its chief bishop would act as the “conscience of the world” (look up the encyclical.)
That “conscience” has always interposed in place of God’s authority. Wake up and smell the dying roses.
The most remarkable thing about this otherwise absurd thread is that the obvious rejoinder to its mistaken intent would be the famous line from the novel: JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE PARANOID DOESN’T MEAN THEY’RE NOT OUT TO GET YOU.
It’s almost as if, by intense purposeful ignoring of these realities you have a death wish.
It appears that classic Adventist conspiracy theories are alive and well–but, except for an continuing obsession with the Roman Catholic Church, has now been given a new cast of characters. It is indeed Amazing Paranoia.
JM,
It is not true that “the main elements of SDA dventist late 18th century historicism — despite it obvious weaknesses and frequent departures from the exegetical meaning of the prophecies — was always correct.” You have made a statement that you cannot defend with serious empirical data.
The opposite is true. Almost nothing of the SDA interpretation of Daniel and Revelation can be defended with factual historical evidence, but it is just wishful thinking.
It is a demonstrable and demonstrated fact that along the centuries the Bible interpreters have read INTO the Bible their times and their events. This is what the SDAs have done since Miller’s times and until now – and if the past indicates a dependable trend, this kind of pseudo-interpretation of Daniel and Revelation will continue into the future.
Historicism is dead. Read my document,”Adventist Historicism Reexamined and Critiqued” on Academia.edu. I have provided in that document, from SDA sources, ample evidence the SDA theologians have failed to support their claims and assumptions with true historical facts and that the the claims they have made are false. The notion that the SDA historicism is viable and true is a lie.
The SDA historicism has failed all all counts from the false definition to its application. The SDAs are pseudo historicists. While they claim that they depend on historical events to validate their claims of prophetic fulfillment, research indicates that the claimed historical events are actually INVENTED, and that what is presented as “proof” for prophetic fulfillment are distorted historical facts and fabricated historical events.
The alarmist claims you have made are nothing new.You must remember the repeated time settings the Millerite Adventists have made, the “darkening of the sun,” the “moon turned into blood,the “greatest earthquake in world’s history – Lisbon” mentioned as specific signs of Christ’s IMMEDIATE return, and the folkloric notion that has circulated for almost two centuries among the SDA members that the world would not last beyond 2000. All nonsense.
Now, with the overwhelming evidence that what are called “prophetic predictions” the “spirit of prophecy” has made in the Great Controversy and other plagiarized books, it becomes evident that the Adventist forecasts of the future are not credible and reliable because they are not based on the Bible but on an alarmist and triumphalist distortion of Daniel and Revelation.
We must go back to the Bible and learn to read it.
It’s hilarious in a predictable way, how those who claim Adventist forecasts “in the Great Controversy and other plagiarized books…are not credible and reliable because they are not based on the Bible but on an alarmist and triumphalist distortion of Daniel and Revelation” must ignore, deny, dismiss, rationalize, and minimize that which is available in newspapers.
Yes, there is certainly a “folkloric notion” and strain among Adventists which has made its own predictions based on time setting. But it is fascinating how critics of The Great Controversy don’t seem to be able or willing to deconstruct the narrative; particularly the specific forecasts in Chapters 25, 35, and 36, in making their case.
For quite some time on these boards I’ve of course maintained that all of the animus toward and denigration of White is purposed to detract/distract from those passages. Ironically, any detailed deconstruction of those pages would initially necessitate a focus on them, and what they detail; defeating ‘the purpose.’
hello, where is document “Adventist Historicism Reexamined and Critiqued” please send me a link
thanks
http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/25/new-american-order/
JM,
What was the most recent blame Ted Wilson placed on the SDA church members? The absurd notion that they have delayed the Second Coming because they have not spread the Adventist Gospel – the beasts of Daniel and Revelation. LaRondelle is dead right when he states that the paranoid obsession with Daniel and Revelation has sabotaged the Great Comission – the preaching of the TRUE GOSPEL. See my document, “Adventist Historicism Reexamined and Critiqued.”
The SDAs have failed to preach what matters – God’s message of salvation to the world, and have let themselves drawn into a false gospel – the preaching of the beasts of Daniel and Revelation. I just got a handout through the mail that does two things:
1. Hides the identity of the preacher – the fact that he is an SDA.
2. Promises to deliver salvation to the listeners through an inept preaching of the beasts of Daniel and Revelation in total ignorance of the GOSPEL.
To claim the gospel does away with the law is being advocated by more than a few. They won’t generally state exactly what they mean, and in many cases, I suspect they don’t even know the final outcome of their non-biblical positions.
That Adventism was and is built on prophecy is obvious. And to claim our over all system of prophecy is bogus, simply states that the SDA church had no reason to come into being, and have no reason to exist today. This means, according to some, the who thing was bogus from the beginning.
But you have to put your head in the sand not to see the main emphasis of the SDA movement is being fulfilled right before our eyes. A one world government, with a one world economy and one world religion is so clearly evolving we could wonder if those who oppose Adventism watch the news.
And why should the Catholic church exert herself to a high level of influence and authority, when apostate Protestantism is doing it for them? They simply watch Protestantism self destruct with much of Adventism doing the same. No need to attack that which is destroying itself. Just let it run its own course.
The main point is this, Protestantism has abandon the bible and so has Adventism, especially when they ignored scholars who told them Women’s ordination was not biblical and male headship was ordained by God and affirmed in scripture. Since then, the SDA church has gone down hill at break neck speed and the bible is being abandon more and more as “the church” opts for political solutions to spiritual problems.
That Adventism has a faulty view of law and gospel can be clearly seen. But to attack what some would define as “legalism” and install a system of “antinomianism” is certainly no solution to the errors of modern Adventism. The real problem is that novices have risen to high levels of church influence, administration and authority. They can not explain the bible in its historical context, nor can they draw any modern lessons and application for the world today.
If the church would chide Rome for confusion about Christanity and bible truth, the words of Jesus apply to the SDA church more than to the Catholic religion when He said, “Ye worship, ye know not what.”
Simply put, the SDA church has abandon the bible and have basis to hold the people in subjection than to say, “Let the church decide and don’t rock the boat” And many, if not most church members are more than willing to do just that. The shaking earth quake in the church will surely intensify until individuals realize they must know the bible for themselves as church leaders are too ignorant of the scriptures to lead the members in the way of truth.
It is a common fallacy that one sees what he is looking for. Today, with more division between nations to believe that “one world” government will be in the near future places a false belief as soon to be fact. There is even more division between former divisions: Formerly, there was one main group of Islamic terrorists. Today, they are dividing like a growing cell: splitting each second. Nations that were formerly quite quiescent are now in opposition. With blinders, one can “see” and believe most anything.
Did you ever think that is how Christian eschatology is meant to be? Every generation really thinks it is the end, so is compelled into action.
Forget religion and just look at the environment. Is Climate Change real? I am a ‘believer’ whilst others adopt your sort of sceptism as you apply to religion. All the great reforms within Christianity (and many within the Roman Catholic Church itself) were accompanied by strong beliefs that people were living in the end days.
Nonetheless, the belief of the world’s danger spurns action, to clean up the environment and take better care of nature. Even if Climate Change is not real (or more likely not as drastic as the green-left would have us believe), the outcome of less pollution, less use of fossil fuels, less greedy and more sustainable living, is all a good thing.
And of course one day the world really will end. Even atheist scientists believe that.
Your comment proves that Elaine. The Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateralists, not to mention the Chinese and Russian globalists, would be having a good laugh at that naivete if indeed they cared.
The issue to be decided is whether the Chinese Empire or the American Empire will end up controlling the far-developed world-state, which is already behind the scenes a single financial system.
Do you know what the BIS is? It controls every aspect of your life and mine. Trying to prove a negatgive (“this cannot and will not happen”) remains a logical fallacy and has been so noted since 5th century BC Greece.
For each generation it is the end. As each generation dies, they have met their end. Their next breath will be when they are resurrected.
If this was taught and believed in this way, would we live differently, knowing that the possibility of our life ending is any time, any day? Every day would be lived differently, if we knew it was our last–not sometime in the distant future. Why shouldn’t we live with than belief?
The concept of resurrection is the sugar coating to help the pill go down the gullet of reality that this may be all there is.
Elaine, there is no difference between a soul immediately going to heaven and soul sleep for the deceased. It’s really an issue only for theoriticians.
Having spent six years as a teacher/pastor and four as a hospital chaplain, the issue of death expience was educational for me. I’m convinced that people really do live every day as if it would be there last. It seems there is somewhere in the human psyche is
Whoops, didn’t finsh, so:
a final reserve of knowledge of, and acceptance of, temporality that silently steers our being. My observance is that the final experience in dying is not that of fear of fianl judgement, but of disappointment of not living any more, or a part of that, not having fully lived. For some of the aged, it is just going to sleep.
Religion creates the disease and the cure. We live and die, a natural process, the functions of the mind a temporary process, not affecting the outcome.
“If people live as if every day is their last” why is it so often heard that: I’ll begin thinking about saving for the future when I finish paying for my: house, car, kids education, etc.? Why do so many postpone future plans and live as if life always goes on?
Didn’t Christ say that the birds of the field neither harvest nor store and compared them to how we should live?
do not worry today, tomorrow will take care of itself”
I’m suggesting there is an unconscious acceptance of the temporality of life that shows up as the grand propulsion marked by time that energizes human activity. As a grandparent I want to spend as much time as I can with my grand kids because my time is limited, I have a sense of urgency, as an example. I have to live as if life goes on while knowing it won’t. God’s judgment chamber is no where in my bucket list. Living life fully is.
The anaolgy of the birds doesn’t work here. Maybe on a zen level, but that is all. If we didn’t die we could live like the birds (who also die, but don’t pre-know it).
Elaine, I’n not sure I have addressed your question.
I doubt that there is a single Christian who does not both know and believe that.
That the Christ event stimulated an “end of the world” spirituality is true. That is because Jesus inserted the life of the age to come into the present for 33 and half years and then made an atonement for sin.
This is an “end of the world” event. So Paul says,”Once at the end of the world Christ has put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” So we must place the Christ event at the end of the world in the historical process and not claim the historical process ended with the Christ event.
None the less, part of the historical process is an end time, or “end of the world” judgment and that judgment for the church began in 1844. This historical event, like the Christ event, will certainly stimulate not only the Christian community to prepare for the second coming, but also unbelievers will be confronted with the need to repent because historical probation will soon close and the time for repentance will cease.
It is not when you die, in this context, that probation closes. It is when Jesus finishes His work of judgment. And that time will come and go with the historical process still continuing for a short season.
So the stimulus to prepare first for the close of probation and second for the coming of Jesus is ratcheted up considerable because what is discerned now, is even more dynamic than the early reality in the early church of Jesus soon return. Paul made it plain that the coming of Jesus was not a present reality for the church of his day, and told of the coming antichrist before the end.
The antichrist came, was exposed, and will again return to power as we near the end. These prophetic facts will stimulate everyone who has an interest in their personal salvation, and will also stimulate them to tell others before it is too late.
And as one person has said, “Just because you don’t believe it, won’t change it.” So, we can all believe what we want, but it won’t change the reality. Just like the flood when people refused to believe it, it didn’t change the reality. Jesus spoke of this situation for a good reason. Simply put, ignorance won’t save anyone just because they choose not to believe the truth.
“The close of probation” is an Adventist shibboleth that has absoloutely no meaning to any Christian anywhere else. In fact it has no meaning at all for anyone, even SDA’s, but only for you, Bill, and a hand full of others, maybe.
The ancients (pagans), the first developers of religious ideas viewed the world as a minature of the divine, what was up there was kind of down here. The whole scheme was replaced along the road of human development, but not quite. Adventism went the other direction. By George, we have an earthly departmentlized sanctuary, there must be one up there and, shazaaam, that is where Jesus is hanging out. But why? So he can get the timing right, go over all them human records (he’s not smart enough to do it in a flash) and jump onto that mand-hand cloud drive and rescue the sheep wandering around down here below. And once he crosses that heavenly tabernacle threshold (yes, there is a real one), too bad for mind changers here below, too late, door closed to the probation office.
Yes, Bill, I am having a little fun! As I have said before the whole scenario of Adventist end time has collapsed in ruins and this crumbled buttress is an embarrassing relic of silliness. Pipe dream. La la land. You can believe what you wish. Oh, and I still think the little horn of Daniel is prediction of the Battle of Little Big Horn in Wyoming. Soon, I will present PROOF, soon!
I have never understood where and why the “close of probation” figured so importantly in Adventist teaching.
No one has ever shown from the Bible such a phrase, or even anything remotely resembling that concept.
Two comments proving that two wrongs don’t make a right.
In the Revelation, as the plagues mount, as the Two Witnesses plague the developing rule of the Antichrist, as the world loses drinkable water, marine life, suffers huge pandemics, suffers scorching heat from the sun (no matter who actually caused it) and the demons control the thinking of the kings of the earth something dramatic happens.
In a time that Jesus said would be unlike anything since a nation was on the earth, so bad would it be, the masses will wake up to the reality of the very real possibility of the end of human life.
The terror of the masses will be answered by the antichrist, who will assure mankind that he can “save” them but they must do him absolute obeisance.
This increase of activity on the part of the demons is met with a great increase of the power of the Spirit in what is called “the Baptism of the Holy Spirit” or, in corporate terms, “the latter rain.”
So intense will the controversy be that every sentient human being will be forced to make final decisions. Ellen White CORRECTLY summarized that as a period in which what would normally have taken YEARS to accomplish will take only a matter of months.
In the end “there will be but TWO classes. Every character will be FULLY DEVELOPED.” (Who wrote that???)
A character fully developed for good is Christ’s character. A character fully developed for evil is Satan’s character. Every human walking the earth will either be Christ or Satan, and supernatural evidence will be on both sides.
Once that is accomplished, there is no point in human history continuing. It will have reached its logical moral conclusion. Hence God says
“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.”
“Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.” Gerald Wolfe
Try Rev. 22:11, Elaine.
Just because you believe doesn’t make it true.
Bugs, your theology plays off the sovereignty of God against the sovereignty of man. So according to your theology, we could ask “Since God knows everything, from beginning to end, why did He create moral beings some of which He knew would sin?” And since He did this, isn’t God responsible for sin?
So in the end, your theology creates a “false dilemma” and the worst part of all that is the fact all false doctrine motivates those who accept it to sin and justify it. False doctrine embraced forces God to shut such individuals out of heaven, because they attack His kingdom and the principles it is built on.
The Investigative Judgment is not about what God knows, or can know. It is solely about what individuals have done and is recorded in heaven. This record is the sole basis of any decision God and Christ will make concerning whether a person goes to heaven or not. It has nothing to do with the sovereignty of God but rather, the sovereignty of man.
As you can perceive, your theory makes the IJ simply inane. As an example, suppose someone’s name comes up, and they have been unfaithful and renounced their former Christian experience. But, God then says, “Well, they died in unbelief, but I know if they had lived a few weeks more, they would have repented, so, I am going to keep their name in the book of life, because I know they would have repented.”
This will never happen. It does not matter what God knows could have, or would have happened in the future. They are lost in a state of unbelief and no amount of future speculation will change the decision made based solely on the life recorded in the books.
So now we can see why the bible warns about the close of probation in the near future. Man is responsible for his own salvation based on the cross and all that the cross means. To remove human accountability as your theory does, destroys the dynamic meaning of human existence and human value. Your view genders irresponsible freedom with God solely responsible for any and all outcome concerning moral beings. But God offers us responsible freedom and thus, gives real value to human existence both now and for all eternity.
Your false doctrine will shut many out of heaven if they accept it and embrace it and act on it. Any and all false teaching leads to hell and final destruction. Instead of motivating to obedience, it motivates to sin.
I am totally amazed at how much you know, Bill, about the mind of “God.” Your inside track is precious, should be widely dispersed, announced and advertised so everyone can get the proper understanding of the activity, the meaning, the process, and the vital importance of what is happening up there in heaven. Finally, all those false doctrines can be countered by what you know. And I confess, I am greatly alarmed that the “close” of probation is on the horizen and billions of people know nothing about it. And here I am stumbling around in delusion, creating a “false dilemma,” and facing a hellish punishment because I have placed God in a tough spot of dealing with a rogue, a “worm,” lke me. And even scarier, my “false” doctrine will be responsible for keeping other souls out of heaven.
Question. If you don’t get your truth out won’t you be responosible for all the “lost” souls you would have saved had you made more of an effort to reach the entire world?
I totally respect your belief as it applies to yourself. I suggest you keep it/them to yourself, however, as public proclimation makes you/it an easy target for satire. My sense of humor is stimulated by your posts. If you see mine in the same light, it would be fair and I wouldn’t mind a bit!
“Just because you believe doesn’t make it true.”
Same thing, isn’t it, Bugs? The obvious point is that we are held accountable for not only what we know, but what we could know if we seek to understand. Error and misunderstanding is a reality in this sinful world. But to ignore any avenue of truth will not save us from the accountability to know it.
Without a doubt, most will be lost because they are convinced they are right when they are wrong. This presents a real challenge to all of us to always re-examine our position for possible error.
This means when we are challenged, we must qualify our position and meaning and explain it to ourselves as we try to communicate it to others. God’s kingdom is a paradox and even an enigma on some level. This means, for every point of truth, there is also a counterpoint that would seem to deny the original point.
How God can be sovereign and created beings be sovereign at one and the same time is not alway so easy to define or comprehend. And because of this, there is always been debate and confusion over the issue throughout human history including the believing community of God’s people.
With a little continued effort on our part and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit, as we study the bible we can discern both parallel and contrast and understand the issue as God has ordained it. We might even state it this was, “Man is as free and sovereign and God chooses for him to be.”
Meaning, if God ordains free choice for man, man is only as free as God chooses for him to be. God gives free choice, but He can also remove it. This means God’s sovereignty stands over and above our ability to choose, but it does not remove our ability to choose.
So, if God chooses to delegate a level of free choice to man, so that man himself is responsible for his own salvation, then we have no right to reject and/or abandon this responsibility and accuse God of giving us more responsibility than we can handle. We don’t like the idea of our eternal life being dependent on our own free choice. It puts us in jeopardy not to mention that God threatens us with destruction if we rebel against His system of self government.
I understand it. And if I can understand it, so can everyone else if they want to. God will teach anyone who wants to know.
God knows the “end” from the beginning. If true there will not be a need for an Investigative Judgment. God knows His sheep. He knows us individually. The “book of life” is a spiritual memory bank, in the Great heavenly eternal computer, which is the “Heart of God”. Every soul
that has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, by Faith, in God’s grace, will require no judgment. Every soul that rants & rails against the Godhead, and all atheists will have forfeited Salvation by choice, thereby grieving the Holy Spirit, the “only unforgivable
sin”. They also require no judgment as they were judged at their Earthly death. The “so called Investigative Judgment”, is a fabrication hatched in 1844 to save face for those who arrogantly “chose the time” for Christ to return to Earth, to raise to life those who love His glorious appearing, those who died in Christ Jesus. Those who accepted the coming of the Christ in 1844, over looked two vital truths, (1. Jesus said no one knew the timing except His Father in Heaven; (2. No period of global tribulation/desolation. No hearts failing of fear.
The SDA fabricated false doctrines unique to Christianity, and finally the chickens come home to roost, as the knowledgeable educated masses are unable to acknowledge the doctrines not scripturally sound. Therefore there is not a need for the existence of a SDA Church.
Earl, it’s fascinating how an organization comprised of seekers of “truth,” whose verbal reference to the totality of their church is “The Truth,” pass by without noticing the truth about their organization, so succinctly stated, without a word of rebuttal.
Again, it is imperative to know how the “close of probation” comes about. There is absolutely NO ONE who is left in the “undecided” column, and God simply assents to what mankind has done collectively and individually. Note:
In the Revelation, as the plagues mount, as the Two Witnesses plague the developing rule of the Antichrist, as the world loses drinkable water, marine life, suffers huge pandemics, suffers scorching heat from the sun (no matter who actually caused it) and the demons control the thinking of the kings of the earth something dramatic happens.
In a time that Jesus said would be unlike anything since a nation was on the earth, so bad would it be, the masses will wake up to the reality of the very real possibility of the end of human life.
The terror of the masses will be answered by the antichrist, who will assure mankind that he can “save” them but they must do him absolute obeisance.
This increase of activity on the part of the demons is met with a great increase of the power of the Spirit in what is called “the Baptism of the Holy Spirit” or, in corporate terms, “the latter rain.”
So intense will the controversy be that every sentient human being will be forced to make final decisions. Ellen White CORRECTLY summarized that as a period in which what would normally have taken YEARS to accomplish will take only a matter of months.
In the end “there will be but TWO classes. Every character will be FULLY DEVELOPED.” (Who wrote that???)
A character fully developed for good is Christ’s character. A character fully developed for evil is Satan’s character. Every human walking the earth will either be Christ or Satan, and supernatural evidence will be on both sides.
Once that is accomplished, there is no point in human history continuing. It will have reached its logical moral conclusion. Hence God says
“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.”
You wrote: “Again, it is imperative to know how the “close of probation” comes about.”
Huh? Where do you get the idea that it is imperative? What I find in scripture is that it is going to happen, but God hasn’t said when and doesn’t want us to be concerned about it because He’s given us far more important things to occupy our attention, things like actually preparing people to meet Jesus whenever He comes. Looking back over my six decades on this planet I cannot remember ever meeting a single person who was concerned about end time events who was also preparing others to meet Jesus. Most often their obesssion with end time events was driving people out of the church. So I hope you’re the first exception.
And by the way, who aaid the pre-advent judgment had anything to do with God discovering who did what? “GOD” is INFINITE, outside of time and space. Time (like space) means nothing to the infinite God.
As soon as the moral and loving God created finite beings, it was imperative that God appear WITHIN time and space, and act and communicate on the level of created beings. For reasons explained elsewhere, Father, Son, and Spirit all carry out a work of this divine self-limitation.
Did Yahweh REALLY NEED TO SEE SODOM AND GOMORRAH PERSONALLY? Was God REALLY TAKEN BY SURPRISE AT HOW BAD MANKIND HAD TURNED OUT TO BE IN THE DAYS OF NOAH?
Surely you have more understanding of Scripture, and the opposites INFINITE/FINITE, IMPERSONAL/PERSONAL and how they meet and become one in God!
Any judgment, the very concept of Christ pleading His blood to the Father, is a passion play. The government of God includes the entire universe, and the billions of worlds he has created. He always acts according to what will be clearest for created beings.
As soon as one judgment ends the millennial judgment begins. That reiterates to the saved what the unfallen worlds and angels had already seen. But that leaves out the lost. So as soon as the millennial judgment ends the judgment scene for the lost begins. Take a look at the last chapter of EGW’s GC and see a very good though too brief explanation of that event.
JM, I once read those books by Ellen White, back in the late 1990’s. I was but a baby Christian then and was in awe of God and eventually baptized due in large part to those books. You have given me reason again to go back there and learn now from my perspective today.
Thanks to you and Bill for your good faith efforts in explaining what has been revealed.
Very nice, Brian. Thank you.
The tendency for all is to slide off the train of history. The Bible continues to verify history as it unfolds. Truth is the only standard to measure any religion or idea. Mrs. White says more truth will be discovered than even the massive amount she presented in her time. Billions are spent attempting to convert people from one Christian religion to another. Those resources need to be refocused for the conversion of the 5 billion non Christians. In the end, which is not far off, it will all come down to one question. Do you believe in God?
“……. it will all come down to one question. Do you believe in God?”
James, it is a little more definitive than that. So the question would also consider “What God do you believe in?” and “How do you know the god you believe in is the true God?”
In which case, for a Protestant Christian, the answers are determined and found in the bible. If the bible is not the foundation of all truth, then we must try to determine the answers from some other source. More than a few opt out when it comes to the bible. This would include the Roman Catholic church but also more than a few other professing Christian churches. And this doesn’t even include millions who deny Christanity.
We are told in scripture that some antichrist movement and/or person will emulate to some extent bible Christanity. And we are told that it will be so close to the true, that even true believers would be deceived if it were possible. Matt. 24:24
So, Paul’s words, “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good (true).” is very relevant and even more so as we near the end of time. One modern emphasis even by some Christians, is to tell everyone we must be far less definitive concerning salvation issues and present some generic “gospel” with the idea, “one size fits all” mentality. In which case, most bible doctrine is abandon and in its place is inserted just love Jesus, your neighbor, and mankind in general. A social gospel far less definitive than is articulated in scripture. All in the name of a “higher good” than advocating particular doctrine. In the end, the bible Sabbath is the primary target to be abandon.
In order to make this idea seem necessary and workable, the bible must be attack as beyond comprehension and less definitive than many claim it is. Then “the church” can insert any idea and interpretation that suits its agenda without protest and challenge. And most will simply say, “Well, the church as decided……”
So, the issue of “unity” rises to the top of all priorities and anyone standing in opposition is considered a rebel and divisive. Few people seem to understand and see the intensity of these issues in the light of the end of the world scenario. So “…… it will all come down to one question. Do you believe in God?” will not be adequate to define truth and error.
James and Bill, here is just another perspective that someone has proposed. Not making an argument here, just sharing what I have.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2013/04/14/brennan-manning-jesus-love/
The video and question are more about our response to Truth’s Love, than in predicting end of world scenarios. Food for thought.
Larry, I submit that a Christian committed to JESUS CHRIST, lives life to the fullest. What is denied the Christian?? What lifestyle is better than a Christian lifestyle??
“Let no one judge you in what you eat, drink, or of the Sabbath Day. God does not condemn you. Let no man nor church hassle you. You have nothing to look forward to, because of your belief system, while i will traverse the UNIVERSES, in the service of my Lord. The Lord God has
fashioned us in His Spiritual Image. This means He didn’t permit us to be educated, and learned to then zap us out of existence, destroying this valuable asset body of knowledge, understanding, truth, and wisdom, just when it can be used in His valuable service. We are an immortal soul, traversing a designated path to intellectual attainment, and God will retain this most valuable asset, as He continues to expand, forever, His unique creative Cosmos.
Don’t you dare underestimate the Godhead’s eternal power, and continuation of creation, that has had no beginning and will have no ending. There will be roles to fit every soul’s talents.
***to be continued***
…….There are habitable planets in most of the galaxies, through out the Cosmos. We have no knowledge of the nature of the inhabitants or other creatures abiding there. Our God is “ALMIGHTY”. Nothing is lacking in His ability to create as He wishes. He has a special calling for Earth’s inhabitants to rule, in His power, in all parts of the Universes.
Mr.Wasemiller asks “Do you believe in God?” I would ask Mr. Wasemiller, which God? There are many versions. I assume you believe that your version is the “right” one. How do you know?
We are on the same page here, Dr. Taylor. As you know, I clearly oppose any generic Christ or Christanity that many seem to advocate and embrace. I believe many of our church leaders and teachers are woefully ignorant of the bible and cover and justify their ignorance by advocating a non-definable generic Christ and ambiguous doctrine.
In other words, their idea is “We don’t know, and neither does anyone else.” This allows them to advocate false doctrine on the basis they are free to define the Christian faith as they think it should be. It also genders a “spirit ethic” or, “We are led by the Holy Spirit and the evidence of success is proof of our conclusions.” Meaning, if it succeeds, it must be right.
Like a man who wants a car and steals it without being caught. So he concludes he must be OK, it worked. I think this is how much of our present theology is formulated and advocated.
Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic.
Dr. Taylor, you should help Mr. Wasemiller by explaining the “many vesions” of the “God” of the “Bible” and of “Mrs. White” as his post, which you refer to has now got you questioning. Perhaps you are challenging his apologetic growth or maybe you think your point is worth looking silly for? Is this where education takes us?
Bill, I like what you have to say most of the time and find them mostly informed and novel to me. I sense though that your fears of what might be have got you swinging at shadows. Do your points need to be willed to life? I don’t want to start thinking that is true.
Brian, I think the church is in far worse condition than most imagine. Like our personal experience, we seldom really see ourselves as we really are. Especially if things seem to be going along OK for the most part.
Thus, when Jesus came, people no doubt knew there was at least some need to “tweek” the system a little and improve morality in the spiritual community. But what Jesus had in mind was a major overhaul of the whole system.
And didn’t Luther hope to simply “improve” the church and correct some errors and faults in the church system of his day? But the more he learned, the more he knew no such improvement would be adequate, and a major overhaul was commanded and demanded. It didn’t take long, and he realized this was a total impossibility.
We can seriously and honestly ask, “Is it possible the SDA movement could actually develop into the final antichrist movement?” And if so, “How close are we to this reality at the present time?”
You may think this is negative. It is not. Only if we consider the possibility can the reality actually be avoided. We have “The Bible Butchers” throughout the movement, and while many may well be honestly ignorant of scripture, the result of their influence and authority will take its toll. God has always tolerated ignorance, but ignorance becomes willful rebellion when truth is ignored or opposed. The bible is filled with exhortations to “listen and learn”. Those who think they already know, don’t listen and neither do they learn. Neither are they apt to do otherwise in the near future.
What have we learned from history? Someone has well said, “Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.” But I think we can do one better. Namely, “The only thing we can ever learn from history, is that no one ever really learns from history.”
Thus, every generation has been doomed to repeat the same mistakes, and the bible affirms this clearly. “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it also be in the days of the coming of the Son of man.” Doesn’t this tell us no one learns from history? Will the final generation learn from history? I guess I tend to doubt it for the obvious reasons.
None the less, God will yet create a community of believers who hold the bible alone as the final authority and who not only support the scripture, but actually knows what it teaches. Now wouldn’t that be a novelty? Rev. 14:1-5
Bill, when I first began paying attention to this website last year I did not know what value it held. I did not know the characters involved by name yet or the arguments anyone was defending.
A few months back I noticed something you wrote that was a word for word phrasing of something I asked for in prayer unrelated to this site. After watching with disgust a group of Christians with signs with “Turn or Burn” last fall, I asked God for a loving counter argument, specifically, “What do you/God expect from people?”
The answer given was adept in simple reason. I shared it with some in my small circle and they were very much encouraged with it. Then like I said a few months ago I noticed something that you wrote. Bill, whether you are willing to admit it, you have been given spiritual insight that you may not fully appreciate.
When I see you go off on some random expression such as Mr. Wasemiller’s I want to redirect you to back to what God is giving you. Which is not in Mr. Wasemiller’s expression. Let Dr. Taylor go after that pointless counterpoint.
Take yourself more seriously than that petty stuff because you have a responsibility that you appear to both grasp and dismiss. Hang in there for my sake please. People ARE taking notice.
Stay true.
Rendalen wrote an article about the church on the Spectrum forum. Several people commented and responded with this comment.
“When it comes to EGW’s standing in the church today compared to the time before 1980, there is no comparison–if what I see is indicative of what’s going on. In the 1970s, when I was a member, every argument would be clinched with a quote from EGW, on all sides of every debate. Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford knew EGW’s writings almost by heart. SS lessons abounded in EGW quotes. No high-ranking official would casually drop, in writing, that they’d stopped by a coffee bar on the way to such and such a religious gathering or outing or that they’d had seen this or that movie–because EGW so clearly disapproved. Today they do. I have no doubts that in the hinterland, in the warren of small country churches, this reality may not yet have sunk in, but that’s a different matter. Think about yourself. If Spectrum asked you to lay out the 1844 dogmas of Adventism, would you build your case on EGW? Wouldn’t you agree that no doctrine that can’t be “proven” from the Bible is suspect? Before 1980 that was not the case. At that time, EGW was de facto an inspired Bible commentator; when she laid out the meaning of any text, it was God’s textual intent that she revealed.”
Hello? How accurate is his response and findings about modern Adventism? The church claims to hold EGW in high esteem and simply ignore her exhortations on almost every level. They affirm EGW just enough to deceive lay people into thinking they believe in her.
Here is a parallel example. Apostate Protestantism claims to hold the bible as the only rule of faith and practice. But when the bible Sabbath is presented, all the sudden the bible is abandon for spiritual delusions. Just like much of the SDA church does with EGW and her testimonies. you could make a list a mile long of all the things the church ignores from her testimonies. Not the least of which is her condemnation of theatrics as a viable method of evangelism and communication of bible truth.
Does the SDA church support EGW? About as much as apostate Protestantism supports the bible.
” If Spectrum asked you to lay out the 1844 dogmas of Adventism, would you build your case on EGW? Wouldn’t you agree that no doctrine that can’t be “proven” from the Bible is suspect?”
I would not for one instant trust a single writer of Spectrum (where I have been published) to flesh out the mature final 1844 doctrine as Ellen White came to view it in its fullness.
So point one is I’d have to rewrite whatever was written to strain out the misconceptions as in “Have you stopped beating your wife yet” types of assumptions.
After that I would go to exegesis of Daniel. First to 8 to 12, the first part of the book written, in Daniel’s lifetime, by the prince-prophet himself. (The problems w/Persian and Greek words never occur in this section, which has to have been complete before 535 BC.)
That would give a basis for interpreting the “three and one half years/42 months/1260 days” as not referring to the papacy.
Then on to the chiasm of Daniel 2 to 7 and why the fourth beast HAS TO BE the Roman Empire, and CANNOT BE the Seleucid kingdom (NOT an empire) and CANNOT BE king Antiochus IV Ephiphanes.
Then I would want to rush to a full exegesis of Daniel 8, comparing it to prior MESSIANIC KINGDOM PROPHECIES, finding out what is NEW in this chapter that so upsets Daniel completely.
And THEN I would compare the time involved, “2,300 evenings-morning” (NOT NOT NOT “days”) and why “The Blessed” Joachim of Fiore made a mistake in interpreting these non-days as YEARS in his 1198 AD commentary on which SDAdventists base their beliefs to this day.
Next I would do some necessary high points in Historical Theology in how Joachim’s ideas were misinterpreted and reapplied by the late historicists of the late 18th and early 19th centuries (200-150 years ago) and how the final report of the Powerscourt Conferences issued in 1831 was adopted by William Miller in his first public preaching in the year 1831.
Next I would continue with an exegesis of Daniel 8 to ask how EXACTLY 2,300 EVENINGS-MORNINGS came into existence, how this is a duplicate of OTHER TIME PROPHECIES IN DANIEL, and ask why Daniel did not find THIS aspect confusing. How were the 2,300 evenings-mornings calculated, and on what other associate of Daniel does their correct calculation depend?
Finally, I would explain the difference between EXEGESIS (the original intended meaning for the original audience and what the original author intended to convey) and what ANALOGY or THE ANALOGICAL USE OF SCRIPTURE MEANS AND DOES.
And cite maybe 10, 20, 50, 100 examples of later Scriptural authors doing exactly that. And that would entail some explanation of why time was CYCLIC in the Ancient Near East, rather than linear, and why the way one cycle ended would be duplicated later by another cycle.
CONTINUED
And then I would show how the late historicists at the Albion-Powerscourt Conferences understood/ misunderstood this process, being careful to emphasize that Miller’s ANALOGY while NOT the exegetical meaning, STILL ARRIVED AT THE CORRECT END-POINT BY ACTUALLY GETTING THE ONLY POSSIBLE CORRECT BEGINNING POINT EXACTLY CORRECT.
AND THAT ANALOGICAL APPLICATIOINS, THE SECOND USE OF SCRIPTURE, IS ITSELF A SCRIPTURAL METHOD, ONE THAT TODAY WE BETTER UNDERSTAND BECAUSE TODAY WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF TIME IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST.
That is, the late summer/fall of 457 BC, as verified later by the Elephantine Papyri, the Brooklyn Papyri, the Persian Annals, and in the second half of the 20th century the Samaria Papyri.
And that again, in a shrewd misunderstanding of “cleansing” in Daniel 8 (a completely different word and meaning than the “cleansing” in Leviticus 16 but STILL A VERY RELATED MATTER) how he and associates arrived at the CORRECT “day of atonement” in 1844.
(In case you didn’t know, it is often alleged that on top of everything else, Miller and Co. even got the wrong day for the Day of Atonement that year, a suggestion so totally bogus that it suggests the critics don’t have a clue in these matters.)
And in doing all this I would never need to quote a single word from our dear sister, she of the prophetic fame. 😉 And that is because I live now, not then, and the Holy Spirit has been pleased to oversee the resurrection of the ancient Biblical world, so that we have far more light on these matters than anyone could have had in the 19th century.
(Here I WILL quote Ellen White: ““There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 35.
“As we take up the study of God’s word, we should do so with humble hearts. All selfishness, all love of originality, should be laid aside. Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. It was the unwillingness of the Jews to give up their long-established traditions that proved their ruin. They were determined not to see any flaw in their own opinions or in their expositions of the Scriptures; but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 36.)
If you have questions about any of these points, ask something pertinent.
OK, how has all this discussion made you or anyone else more effective at growing the Kingdom of God that we’re supposed to be doing? Has it not instead drawn you into endless argument and immobilized you from drawing hearts to God as time grows shorter?
You are so wildly off the mark that it is pointless to make any detailed defense of our work in spreading the gospel. We don’t answer to you, BUT…
no surprise that you would ignore the central point that we don’t need Ellen White to sustain certain doctrines, and resort instead to the usual fallacy when your argument fails….
the AD HOMINEM fallacy, so defined since the 5th century BC. Your response is classic.
You say I am “wildly off the mark” about your “work in spreading the gospel.” If that is true, please resolve this paradox: not a single person I know or have met who engages in such discussions about details of prophecy or who quotes the writings of Ellen White to illustrate a viewpoint is actually bringing people into the church, but where such discussions are found the church is almost always losing members.
Bill, Mankind is saved by GRACE, through FAITH, in our LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, not by works, as man may boast. Perhaps there will be more resurrected to life who never studied the Bible, who never even saw a Bible. God knows the “heart” of man, whereas man generally sizes up another by their outward appearance. A man may be a Bible scholar, yet without the Holy Spirit’s guidance may have faulty interpretation.
“THE HEAVEN’S DECLARE GOD’S GLORY, THE FIRMAMENT SHOWETH HIS HANDIWORK”. Do most search the heavens, and not perceive a MAJESTIC CREATION?? All Earthly mankind can
search the heavens (especially since the launch of the HUBBLE TELESCOPE. Man has no excuse for not recognizing
the ALMIGHTY POWER OF GOD.
Milton wrote: “The prophecy of Daniel 9 was therefore never fulfilled”. That line of thought tends to lead to fulfillment of the 70 week prophecy at some time in the future?
I found your last statement even more true to the point: “…the use of the year-day hypothesis that has been tried and brought failure every time, dubious assumptions, unacceptable interpretations of Hebrew words, rejection of historical facts in scripture and the twisting of historical facts OUTSIDE SCRIPTURE to suit preconceived conclusions.” My thoughts, exactly.
Having come to an understanding that the Holy Scriptures are here for us to learn of our salvation through Jesus Christ; and having had many spiritual insights from the Spirit of God, I know and am convinced that unless we all look into the “Mirror” to see what kind of persons we are, we will never come any closer to understanding our journey with our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Holy Spirit expounds the Scriptures to us concerning Jesus Christ, He also reveals to us our own state; it goes hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other. It will confront us like nothing we have known before. But in all this we find also comfort, encouragement and the Love of God toward us through what Jesus has done for us, and is doing in our hearts in perfecting and reconciling us to God the Father through Himself.
I understand that the Old Testament has been written solely for the purpose of pointing mankind toward the coming Messiah. The Law is described as “our tutor to bring us to Christ”. The Prophets were used to communicate to His people and admonish them in many ways. And, yes, the people “failed miserably”.
Why are the time periods of Daniel so hard to work out or understand? I believe, although they give us a definite set-time-period in which the described events are to take place, they are only a summary of the events and do not give us complete understanding. This is why it says: “..the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” Dan.12:9. That time of the end was when Jesus Christ came in the flesh to do the will of His Father. It is the end of the 70 week period.
There is no place in God’s heart which needs cleansing. He is not at enmity with us. He does not need to be reconciled to mankind. He does not need to repent for doing anyone wrong. So where is the Temple/Sanctuary which must be cleansed?
Jesus now brings all this to light: “Repent”; “You must be born again”; “You are the Temple of God”; “Clean the cup on the inside first, then the outside will be clean also”; “For through Him (Jesus Christ) we both have access by one Spirit to the Father”; “The Kingdom of God is within you”, the message goes on throughout the whole of the New Testament.
As for the “Abomination which causes desolation”, we only need to search the New Testament and the answer is there also. But we will only know the truth if we accept who we really are and stop pointing the finger at others…
CONTINUED
So now, after being lead to Christ by the Law and the Prophets, the New Testament of our Lord and Savor Jesus Christ brings another dimension to our life. In accepting Him we now “press toward the goal for the prize of the UPWARD CALL OF GOD IN CHRIST JESUS” (Philippians 3:14). Salvation is being worked out in our hearts. “3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, 5 for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 BEING CONFIDENT OF THIS VERY THING, THAT HE WHO HAS BEGUN A GOOD WORK IN YOU WILL COMPLETE IT UNTIL THE DAY OF JESUS CHRIST;” (Philippians 1:3-6)
The 2300, 1290, 1335 day periods of Daniel; 42 months, time and times and half a time, etc, periods of Revelation, can only refer to 24 hour days. If it referred to years in any way, we would be excluded from our responsibilities and any involvement during these time periods. So, how does it help me if all this “cleansing of the sanctuary” is happening without any significance to me, or at another time in history? What about my heart? Am I not the Temple of God? And what about the beasts mentioned in Revelation, what part of my heart is ruled by them? There are many writers throughout the New Testament, but only one has been truly instrumental in declaring who we really are, the Apostle Paul. He calls himself “chief of sinners”. What does he intend to prove by saying that? To Glorify and declare the Mercy, forgiveness and Love of His Savour, Jesus Christ. It is personal. The history of this earth, this material world, and all people as a whole is God’s responsibility; He will “role up the heavens like cloak”, “the earth will be dissolved, being on fire”. But the salvation of our souls is our responsibility. We repent and accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour or we perish. It’s simple.
“Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty five days”. Dan.12:12. Do these days really refer to years? “But he who endures to the end will be saved” Matt.10:22; 24:13
Daniel, let’s get specific. You quoted: “I found your last statement even more true to the point: “…the use of the year-day hypothesis that has been tried and brought failure every time, dubious assumptions, unacceptable interpretations of Hebrew words, rejection of historical facts in scripture and the twisting of historical facts OUTSIDE SCRIPTURE to suit preconceived conclusions.” My thoughts, exactly.”
Hmmmmm. So you are unaware of the cylic nature of time in the Ancient Near East and the extremely common interplay between the seven days of a week, six of work and one of rest, the seven months of the double growing season, six months of labor, one of harvest, six years of labor, one year of sabbatical rest? Or that these “weeks” are described in the same grammatical terms?
Or that there are scores of such references in the OT, not just the two isolated “prooftexts” that SDAs seem to be aware of. Perhaps just one reading of the old classic which has never been surprassed would help: “Before Philosophy: the Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man” by three of the leading scholars of the 20th century would help cure you of the ignorance evidenced in the claims above.
The goals of the six infinitives were NOT completed within the 490 WEEKS OF YEARS (and I know of NO scholars who would deny that this passage refers to weeks of YEARS). They were part and parcel of the MESSICANIC KINGDOM prophecies, which must be understood before this passage can be correctly interpreted.
Here, surprisingly, the SDA Bible Commentary, despite its early production and frequent naivete, got this mostly correct. Read “The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy” in SDABC Vol 4, especially the section “How the Plan Would Have Worked” for a truncated picture of the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies.
All of the Messianic Kingdom prophecies failed to be fulfilled. For one central reason: the Jews corporately did not prepare the world for the coming Redeemer, and in fact, were themselves the chief obstacle to His work.
Yes, the gospel brings us to the necessary alternate way in which the Kingdom will come. That however is not a difficulty as to Daniel. That the time periods all refer to the same thing is self-evident if we skip the teachings of “The Blessed” Joachim of Fiore, in his 1198 AD commentary, on which late historicism was based.
That is, the late historicism that suddenly wrote THE PAPACY into Daniel, where it is never found. The 70 Weeks of Years, and especially the last week, divided into two parts, each 42 months, 1260 days, or 3 1/2 years long are directly related to the 2,300 “EVENINGS-MORNINGS” (NOT “days”) of Daniel 8.
Evenings-mornings is the standard priestly way of referring to single 24-hour day. How was the 2,300 literal days arrived at, and how is it parallel to the other time periods?
Finally, is ANALOGY (based on ancient time parallels) also valid, alongside EXEGESIS in interpreting this passage?
JM, I am fully aware of the time periods mentioned in the Old Testament.
I am not sure which “proof-texts” you are referring to. But two come to mind which correlate specific events and are clearly explained how they should be understood, that is, 1 day for each year: Eze. 4:6-17. Also, Jesus spent “40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness”, which corresponds to Israel’s 40 year journeys in the wilderness. Matt. 4:1, 2.
I do not claim to understand or know when the end of this world will come, or rather, when Jesus will appear. And I do not concern myself with the prophetic time-periods mentioned throughout the Bible in an attempt to “break the code” in knowing when the end of the world will come. My concern is where I stand with my God. As all of us should be.
During our times of tribulations and persecutions, as mentioned by Jesus, which all His followers will experience, He assures us He will be with us and bring us through victoriously. He tells us before it happens, so that when it happens, we will know what has occurred. Those prophetic time-periods mentioned in the Gospels, Daniel and in Revelation are set and determined. They are our hope and confidence that our “time of trouble” will only last for a set period.
Analogy of all of Scripture must be our guide together with the Holy Spirit’s exposition.
Check all the times 40 is used in the Bible: 40 days, 40 years. It represented an undetermined number as the chances that 40 is an accurate number for all the incidents recorded is astronomical.
“One day with God is as a thousand years, and one thousand years is as a day.”
Developing analogies on stories in the Bible has been used for hundreds of years to predict future events; events that have not happened as predicted. The Bible is a collection of accounts of how the people then lived, understood their world and their relationship to God. Interpreting Bible acounts as contemporary or future events has no relevancy to living a Christian life. God will come when it is time and only He knows the date.
JM, to clarify: I did not use Eze. 4:6-17 as a proof-text in relation to Daniel’s prophetic time-periods, but to the contrary. I was showing that when God used the day-for-year principle He made Himself perfectly clear what they represented. Daniel’s time-periods are mostly “evenings and mornings”, as in the Creation time-period, which are all 24 hour days. But for those who do not believe the 24 hour-day creation narrative, I’m sorry, because I’m not about to set out convincing anyone on that highly debatable issue. You’re on your own.
Elaine, you wrote: “One day with God is as a thousand years, and one thousand years is as a day.” Good point. Unfortunately that passage has also been taken out of context by many as proof that we can use any time-period throughout Scripture to suit our own interpretation.
AGAIN, Daniel, your base point is in error.
Time sequences — all of them — in the Ancient Near East were FIRST, CYCLIC, and SECOND, INTERCHANGEABLE.
Similarity of nature equals identify of essence, the absolute and always-working rule of the ancient mind.
To simply ignore what has been said and repeat ad nausum a mistake based on former ignorance is not sufficient. But quite common here.
Hello to all…. I just finished reading this entire discussion and this is my first experience to critique this website. I am blessed to be a third generation SDA, and to have spent 50 years playing organ in our churches. My sad conclusion is that there is every wind of doctrine blowing in and out of Adventism. Satan has done a number on countless souls with his adulterated Bible versions, and through vaious means has gotten even the elect to believe the teachings of those who have apostatised from our church, and to turn their ear from the last prophet to the remnant church. Unless we humble ourselves before God, and heed the call of Jesus in Revelation 3, we will be lost. We need the character of Christ in order to sit with Him at the great supper in heaven. Deep Bible study is needed by all. And, there is a close of probation for SDAs. It is the National Sunday Law. It will be our great test of loyalty to our Creator God. This is when the tares will leave our church, to be replaced by God’s other sheep that are now still in the fallen churches. Then, and only then, can God send the Latter Rain upon His people. Then, the final call to the world will be given, the 7 last plagues will fall, and Jesus will return for the faithful, called, and chosen. I pray that every SDA will be among the faithful, but we are told that few will be ready…..the same scenario as in Noah’s day.
Salvation for mankind is totally in the hands of our LORD and Savior JESUS. Not by any works or private interpretation of man. My prayer is for every soul to accept the GRACE of GOD, not just SDA’s. The GODHEAD knows His own. Everyone of His sons and daughters is precious to Him. He would that every single immortal soul will accept His Grace, and not grieve the Holy Spirit. Yes, the soul is immortal, yet has the freedom to opt out of God’s Grace. We know so little of the MAJESTY of the Ancient of Days, and His Infinite Power, His infinite planning for His human creation. He will not be slack in searching for His lost people. His human creatures have roles to fill in His eternal Kingdom. There will be His presence through out His ever expanding Universes for His humanity to represent Him and His ever extension of PERFECT LOVE to those resurrected to Heavenly Places, Those still on probation, until they are sanctified into the BODY of Christ, those who have good hearts, but yet lacking in total acceptance of GRACE, Agnostics, and the unknowing of worldwide other religious beliefs.
Wow, and everybody says it is supposed to be so simple. It seems to be a little more comprehensive than some have advocated.
Those who are not stimulated and influenced by the historic SDA message will simply not be ready for the close of probation, nor will they be in heaven. Sin clouds the mind to what is simple and clear from the word of God.
“The only thing we learn from history, is no one learns from history.” (At least not the majority). Adventism is on the bubble. And like most movements, given enough time, it will fall into final apostacy unless lay people save it from a leadership that is far more interested in political agendas than loyalty to the bible.
All we can do is wait and see.
However, Ellen White made a number of predictions that move beyond her own time. One of them was the apparent success of SDAdventism with an unfortunate outrcome: “The church will appear to fall.”
I’m sure you aren’t discounting that statement. Or this: “But it will not fall.”
This is sorting it out. Most of the great multitude that no man could number, who pass through the great tribulation and wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb, are NOT SDAs and many NEVER will be. The vast majority are elsewhere.
And conversely, the majority of SDAdventists are not now and are never going to be part of the final remnant. Indeed, the Revelation does not have a term such as “the remnant CHURCH” but rather a remnant from every nation, tribe, tongue, and people, a unity in diversity, not a unity of a single sect.
And again, Ellen White in her mature and sophisticated handling of the Investigative Judgment is very clear that this is done for the benefit of the universe, is a phase, and is followed by another phase in the millennium, and yet another phase at the end of the millennium when the judgment reaches its “last” and final phase.
“In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence: “Found wanting.” By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged.” 8T 247
This is one “the church” never quotes nor tries to explain. It is more than obvious EGW did not hold to the “unconditional election” the church “sells” church members but the quote of the church about to fall.
The only “church” that will not fall is the one built on Christ and remains on Christ. The SDA denomination abandon the bible several decades ago when they ordained women elders, and is now trying to desperately explain how and why this was a viable option. Not the mention many other departures from the word of God as well as an abandonment of EGW.
Now a call for prayer and the latter rain. Do they know the latter rain will only seal them in their delusions as it is a sealing work to affirm those who believe and those who don’t?
Well, as I said, we can only wait and see if and how “the church” leaders will truly repent and reverse former decisions made in the past that were not biblical. I suspect individuals can and will repent, but “the church” has never admitted anything they have done in the past as wrong, and I think it is not likely they will do so now.
Ms. Lee suggested that “Satan has done a number on countless souls with his adulterated Bible versions.” I wonder if Ms. Lee would identify which Bible versions have been adulterated?
Dr. Taylor, I think you know that some are not even translations, but interpretations that go far beyond any literal translating. Honest translating by honest scholars work earnestly to transliterate as precisely as possible without their own biased opinion of what they think it may mean. This is not any easy task. But groups of individuals working together can usually come closer to what it says without personal biases. The King James version was done in this way and probably comes closer to the original than any other.
I think we can rightly assume the Catholic church is more than willing to convolute scripture to create as much confusion as possible. with the intent to create the conclusion the bible is not really clear on salvational issues, and thus the church must interpret the bible for the people.
A Protestant bible Christian holds the position the God Himself has preserved scripture with a clear and adequate understanding that “wayfareing men, though fools, need not err therein.” Isa.
The same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers will also be present so true believers will get the same message communicated in scripture, out of the scripture. And Luther rightly said, “The task of interpreting scripture belongs to the whole Christian community.”
This in opposition to Rome who claimed only the church could accurately define and interpret scripture and all must yield their opinions to the church. Thus, Protestantism affirms that God can and will create the Christian community by the bible, and the church is subject to the bible and not the bible to the church. And herein lies the final conflict between truth and error.
Since the KJV was translated, manuscripts of portions of the Bible have been found that were not available 500 years ago. The newer translations are more accurate than the KJV. In fact, all the four translations I have on my desk have quite a few different interpretation than the older KJV.
A favorite text by Adventists in the KJV:
Rev. 22:14 “Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city.”
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter by the gates into the city” NASB
The NIB and NRSV all read: “Blessed are those who wash their robes.”
The KJV which interpreted as “do his commandments” and has been used by Adventists to prove that obedience to the commandments described ONLY the Adventists because they are the only denomination obeying ALL the commandments, meaning Sabbath, given to the Israelites, but never to Christians
AGAIN, ELAINE, AGAIN: The manuscripts are divided over which reading is the original. I put the two in front of you before so you could see how very close they are.
The editors therefore have a simple choice, and can choose based on a number of factors.
The ACTUAL proof-text that SDAdventists have used is not even the one you keep quoting. It is this:
“Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.”
There seems to be no textual issue there, so your point is moot. The other reading would do nothing to the traditional SDA claim.
Actually, if you had a point, it would be this, so listen and learn young lady! 😉 The JOHANNINE REFERENCES TO “COMMANDMENTS” NUMEROUS IN THE GOSPELS AND EPISLTES, NEVER REFR TO THE DECALOGUE.
Rather, they refer to the two great commandments of Christ, explicitly said to be “His commandments” that are not grievous to obey. Actually, the SDA proof-text, (12:17) is a bit too much anyway. Does going to church on the Sabbath mean you keep the OTHER commandments — and perfectly to boot? “In order to keep the Sabbath holy, MEN MUST THEMSELVES BE HOLY.” (Who wrote that???)
Daniel’s prophecy in Dan. 8:14 in the KJV:
“And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”
All the others: NASB, JB, RSV and NRSV read:
“For 2,300 EVENINGS AND MORNINGS then the holy place will be PROPERLY RESTORED.”
The more accurate translations reveal that 2300 evenings and mornings equals 1150 days.
This is why only the KJV is used to prove Adventists prophecy and beliefs. With the better translations, many do not accept them. When someone uses the KJV for “proof texts” present the accurate translations.
ELAINE! The “more accurate” translations reveal no such thing. Where do you get this stuff from? Oh, that’s right, you believe liberal Jewish scholars have a mystical insight into what the Hebrew means and when it doesn’t mean what it actually says.
That novel and absurd idea aside, the attempt to make the 2,300 time cycles 1150 DAYS is utterly bogus. So let’s look at what the Hebrew literally reads:
AND HE SAID TO ME
UP TO/AS LONG AS
AN EREV-BOQER UNIT
DUAL THOUSANDS AND THREE HUNDREDS
THEN {THE] HOLY PLACE WILL BE RESTORED TO ITS PROPER RIGHTEOUSNESS
So despite the lame attempt to equate this with the proximate length of the Maccabean War (duh!) the Hebrew uses “an erev-boqer unit. This is, of course, TEMPLE language, and refers to a single cycle in the Temple, the evening sacrifice at sunset (the beginning of the new day) and the morning sacrifice at dawn (the second light half of that same day).
THE HEBREWS DID NOT COUNT IN HALF NIGHTS OR HALF DAYTIMES. PERIOD.
Actually, building a temple and building the cosmos, as “the gods” did in the Enuma Elish, was considered the same thing. In fact, this identity of temple-building with cosmos-creation is the reason the First Creation Story is filled with Temple language.
And why it CORRECTLY defines “ereb boquer” as follows:
“AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING. DAY ONE!” Gen 1:5
Now stay awake, because you MIGHT catch a pattern:
“AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING. DAY TWO!” Gen 1:8
AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING. DAY THREE!” Gen 1:13
AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING. DAY FOUR!” Gen 1:19
AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING. DAY FIVE!” Gen 1:23
AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING. DAY SIX!” Gen 1:31
The seventh period is a “day” like the other 24-hour days, but is referred to simply as day three times in the short notice about the Sabbath.
The liberal trick of trying to cut the period in half to make a guesstimate of the Maccabean War is useless. AGAIN I ASK, SINCE EREVBOQER ALWAYS MEANS LITERAL DAYS, 1) WHERE DID THIS VERY PRECISE TIME PERIOD COME FROM? WHAT OTHER TIME PERIOD IN DANIEL IS IT PARALLEL TO? 2) IS THE ANALOGY OF LITERAL DAYS TO YEARS A VALID APPLICATION OF SCRIPTURE, OR WAS JOACHIM WRONG? (THIS SECOND QUESTION IS A TRICK QUESTION.)
“And there was evening, and there was morning. DAY ONE.”
There was evening and there was morning…. concepts which derive from sunset and sunrise. And yet this happened fully three ‘days’ before there was a ‘sun’ to set or rise. Was the earth even spinning on its axis?
No trick questions here JM, just a way of suggesting that all your literalness is no basis for a theology of Gen 1 or Dan 8.
Oh Serge, no trick there! Just another objection based on your misconceptions/ignorance of the facts.
FIRST, let’s deal with the matter of the 2,300 evening-morning units. THE REFERENCE TO THE FIRST CREATION STORY WAS TO POINT OUT THAT THE PHRASE IN HEBREW MEANS A SINGLE 24-HOUR CYCLE IN THE TEMPLE. NOTHING ELSE.
2,300 evening-morning units are 2,300 24-HOUR DAYS. They are NOT 1,150 days, which is an absurdity, not to mention grammatically impossible in the wording of Daniel 8:14.
You, however, with your characteristic inability to read what is being said, jumped from the sole point, the meaning of the phrase “erevboqer” in Daniel 8:14 to an entirely DIFFERENT issue. one that is neither nor nor difficult nor insightful.
While I had no interest at that point in discussing the cosmogony of the First Creation Story, now that we have cleared up what I WAS ACTUALLY talking about, let’s jump over there.
Even though you have had this explained to you a dozen or more times, we can do this as often as it takes, and each time hopefully someone else will have things clarified.
“Was the earth even spinning on its axis?” is our proof that once again (you are batting 1000 Serge) you don’t have the faintest clue of what The First Creation Story is about, exegetically!
SPINNING ON AXIS? WHAT ON EARTH??????????????
Oh, that’s right. You once again ignored the fact that the Bible is about God communicating the plan of salvation to man. And God never allowed misconceptions or straightening them out to get in the way of that communication.
You, being a FUNDAMENTALIST with FUNDAMENTALIST HERESIES don’t understand this. The First Creation Story is an answer, a polemic against the Enuma Elish, when the pagan creation myth became the official religion of Judah. (Look up the word “polemic” Serge.)
In that dark hour, when the faithless kings of Judah bowed to the Assyrian emperors and turned the holy temple over to the worship of Ba’al a faithful young priest was called to the prophetic office. His ministry especially emphasized Yahweh’s CREATORSHIP and the sign of that creatorship THE WEEKLY SABBATH.
His massive prophetic collection is FILLED with specialized priestly terminology found only here and in the First Creation Story. At the terrible crisis, this young prophet, whom we know as Isaiah of Jerusalem, taught the people a correct response to the Enuma Elish’s misconceptions.
While as usual all life developed by evolution in the devil’s doctrine, no such thing happened in God’s explanation via His spokesman. NO CONCEPT OF A PLANET HAD DEVELOPED, NOR WOULD SUCH A CONCEPT FIND POPULAR UNDERSTANDING FOR MANY MANY CENTURIES INTO THE FUTURE.
THAT IS, YOU SERGE, READ A MODERN CONCEPTION OF THE COSMOS RIGHT INTO THE CREATION STORY WHERE IT DOES NOT EXIST. So your “suggestion” is ill-conceived and based on your own lack of understanding.
CONTINUED
This is why I object to using the perfectly good phrase “the heavens and the earth” in translating this passage. Inevitably the Serges of the world are going to translate that in their minds into “the starry heavens of our vast universe and our planet earth” which is EXACTLY how most Fundamentalists read that phrase.
It means, however, the close-by sky where the close-by stars revolved attached to a crystal dome, and the ground. Yep, ground, a flat pancake that floated on the waters under the earth. The word sometimes means “dirt” and sometimes “land” and sometimes even “dust” BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN A PLANET!!!!!!!!!
(YES, I know Serge, lots of exclamation points are most unacademic indeed. But one wonders when the basics are going to hit you are you are gong to stop arguing against reality.)
Now we can continue
Thus the commandment reads familiarly, not to make images of “anything in the heavens above, in the earth/ground/land beneath NOR THE WATERS THAT ARE UNDER THE EARTH. (That’s Exodus 20:4 and parallels in Deuteronomy.)
Then the Psalmist says that the earth/ground/soil is the Yahweh’s to its fullest extent. This is so because “He founded it upon the seas, and established/stabilized it upon the rivers.”
These terms, by the way, Yamm and Nahar, are the official names of the pagan gods that were equated with the sweet (not-salt) waters of the underworld and the rivers that flowed from it and to it.
Visualize the cosmos as an egg. At the top of the crystal rotating dome is the North Star, around which all the other stars rotate.
(Everyone, Hebrews included, knew these things were so because you could see them and verify them. Clearly everywhere you dug down, even in the Great Arabian Desert, you came to the waters of the Underworld. The stars in that dark desert world seem VERY close, almost where you could touch them. That they rotate on a crystal — otherwise unseen — dome was OBVIOUS.)
Earthquakes happened when Leviathan, the ancient serpent of the Uunderworld stirred up the waters, but on the Day of Yahweh he would be decapitated by Yahweh’s great sword,.. ” and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.” Is 27:1
Another Psalmist even goes so far as to tell the pagan world that “EVERYTHING that Yahweh finds pleasing He does, in the heavens above, in the earth/ground benearth, and in the seas, even the entire abyss!” Ps 135:1.
And so forth. This tripartite cosmos is what is envisioned in Rev 12 and 13, where the Red Dragon comes down from heaven and its mirror image (chiastic equal) comes up onto the sand of the sea from the Underworld.
It is absolutely inevitable then, that John must see yet ANOTHER evil power, and it can arise ONLY from the earth, the part of the cosmos not yet represented.
IF AND ONLY IF (IFF) you understand to this point, we can go on to the other sadly deficient objection, that light and darkness could not exist on the earth without a clear…
sighting of sun and moon.
Thanks for this John, most interesting. While I am more than comfortable with the view that Gen 1,2 etc are presented from the standpoint of a very ancient and different cosmology, more alike that of the Egyptians,eg, it occurs to me that your SDA brothers and sisters must be tearing their hair out, as you steadily demolish any notion of literalness in a valid exegesis of Gen 1,2, and ipso facto Dan 8.13,14.
But do continue, I am quite comfortable with what has been said thus far. Oh, one request, you seem to have ignored the firmament? You know, the ‘waters above?’ How did they fit into this cosmology?
Last ignorant question: If we are permitted to say that
Gen 1 is based on an ancient cosmology which bears no relation to modern cosmology, and further that one can interpret ‘days’ of evening/morning WITH NO RELATION TO THE SIGHTING OF SUN OR MOON, where is the logic that says these must therefore be literal 24 hour days AS WE NOW UNDERSTND THEM, and therefore doctrines which might derive from this blending of ancient and modern can have any validity at all?
So you are claiming that “Isaiah of Jerusalem” wrote the “First Creation Story”?
Is this the same dude that wrote the story about the Ten Commandments and Mt Sinai or would that be someone else?
Ah, the old “liberal trick” again. They are certainly a sneaky bunch.
What is your point Jim? Are prophets allowed to write Scripture?
Or is the old legend that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch what you are defending? Or what?
Don’t mock inspred “dudes” …. guy.
I am not mocking prophets.
On the other hand, once again you have failed to answer my specific questions:
1) Are you claiming that “Isaiah of Jerusalem” wrote the “First Creation Story”? This should be a simple YES/NO answer, though of course you could and probably would elaborate.
2) Are you claiming that the same author who wrote the “First Creation Story” also wrote the story about the Ten Commandments and Mt Sinai? Again you could say YES or NO and you could elaborate on your answer.
3) While we are on the topic, which parts of the “Book of Isaiah” were written by “Isaiah of Jerusalem”? All of the book, or were there multiple authors and who were the others and which portions did they write? For example, do you claim the first few verses of Genesis 2 and of Isaiah 56 were written by the same author?
Mr. Sorensen suggested that”groups of individuals working together can usually come closer to what it says without personal biases. The King James version was done in this way and probably comes closer to the original than any other.” Elaine has already addressed why there is a problem with that statement in that the King James translators did not have access to many much older manuscripts which scholars in the late 19th and 20th centuries were able to consult. Also, a number of translations have been done with groups of scholars rather than one scholar.
I would also take specific issue with Mr. Sorenson’s statement that “I think we can rightly assume the Catholic church is more than willing to convolute scripture to create as much confusion as possible.” There is no evidence that Catholic scholars over the years have mistranslated any biblical text. Now the interpretations of what certain biblical passages mean by some Catholic theologians may be disputed as can the interpretations by Adventist commentators also be disputed of certain biblical passages.
Erv, one can appreciate the KJV for reasons other than its many dubious and mis-translations. Dan 8.13 would never have provided Miller and EGW with the false basic notions which prompted the silliness of a ‘cleansing’ of a heavenly sanctuary had it been better translated. But then, the KJV translators can hardly be held responsible for the foibles of theological illiterates.
I like the KJV for its ‘voice,’ the sound of its language. The poetry of it all.
But for clearer insight into meanings, one can go to the original languages, albeit through the lens of a concordance, a good strong concordance.
Or one can just ask John.
It’s 8:14 not 8:13 in the English Bibles.
Actually, the KJV authors were influenced by “The Blessed” Joachim of Fiore’s Commentary on Daniel from 1198 AD. This is the basis of most modern SDAdventist interpretation, though you know nothing of it.
Now, as I have said several times elsewhere, the word at the end of Daniel 8:14 “nitzdak” is a passive that can certainly be translated “cleansed” as one of its many legit meanings. Thus a subtle connection was made by pre-SD Adventist leaders and writings.
However, let me say quickly that “nitzdak” while meaning a restoration of a ruined and defiled Temple to its purified state most certainly refers to events at the end of the 70th Week of Years, THERE IS STILL A VERY CLOSE THEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT AND WHAT WAS TO HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AT THE END OF THE 70TH WEEK OF YEARS.
The “qdsh” is a holy place, hence “sanctuary” which means literally “holy place”. However, by Daniel’s time it most certainly meant the ruined Temple on Zion, to be rebuilt and then defiled YET AGAIN (WHICH IS THE BAD NEWS DANIEL HAD NEVER HEARD IN ANY PRIOR PROPHET ABOUT THE RESTORED MESSIANICK KINGDOM.)
Ironically, the “cleansing of the sanctuary” in Leviticus 16 is not described in that term or under that heading!
However, things going on in the 70th Week of Years have a close relationship to the events of Daniel 9 to 12, so the crossover or overlap was not to be unexpected nor was it outside the pale of related meanings that could shed light on the paragraph in Daniel 8.
However, even though EARTHLY TEMPLES AND THEIR HEAVENLY EQUIVALENT WERE THOUGHT OF AS THE SAME (SINGULAR) PLACE IN THE ANCIENT MIND, THE FOCUS IN DANIEL 8 IS ON THE RUIN OF THE TEMPLE ON ZION AND ITS RESTORATION AS A FUNCTIONING CENTR OF ONGOING ATONEMENT.
Yup, the ancients did not assume, you YOU do, Serge, that if you’re HERE you are not THERE, or if it is NOW it cannot be THEN at the same time. When at his call the young Isaiah saw Yahweh high and lifted up in majesty and his glory filled the Temple, he would not later have said he saw a “vision” in the usual “visionary” sense. He would say rather he saw the constant inner reality OF THE ONE AND ONLY TEMPLE, THE ONE ON THE EARTHLY-HEAVENLY ZION IN THE FAR NORTH (BEYOND THE NORTH STAR).
I add that only to point out that thought the paragraph at issue related to events during the 70th Week of Years, especially at the end, nevertheless BOTH the Temple on earthly Zion AND the Temple on the heavenly Zion would both (being unalterably the same thing in ancient thought) be part of the story.
A direct ancestor worked on the King James and took the only known notes. The directions of the king are clear and very extensive. Reading them and knowing the historical background helps to explain many of the odd readings, being highly political in their attempts to be useful to both Catholics and Protestants in ending the religious wars.
It should be remembered that James VI of Scotland, James I of England, was privately a devout Catholic (his mother Mary having been harried by yet another direct ancestor, John of Gowrie and his sons, the Lords of Ruthven, who nearly murdered her when killing Riccio, the papal envoy who was her personal priest and confessor.)
When Elizabeth had Mary’s head hacked off (and that is how it actually went) Mary had a dying comment that her son would rule. (That should have scared Liz, since HER mother, Anne Boleyn, had made the unlikely prophecy that her daughter would rule; the crown went around dizzyingly before it rested on the young Elizabeth, just as her mother had predicted.)
The Lords Ruthven did everything possible to make young James a Protestant, only to make him more Catholic. When the English throne became vacant the lords of England had little choice and discussed with the lords of Scotland what to do about the Scots king being a Catholic.
The compromise was that James must be an official Protestant as head of the Church of England but could privately be a Catholic, and thus came the hopes that he could end the religious wars. Which did happen. And which was in large measure accomplished by the new Bible.
So any claim that the KJV is a Protestant Bible misses the reality entirely. In fact, it quickly became so popular that the counter-reformation quickly ordered up an English alternate, the Reims-Douay Version, which is so close to the KJV that, in fact, there is no practical difference.
After all, the KJV was the creation of a Catholic king! And it is important not to make sweeping statements that can be so readily dismissed. The KJV was based on several very late and very corrupt manuscripts, as we well know. Vaticanus, Leningradensis, Sinaiticus, and many lesser manuscripts of far more ancient and accurate tradition have since comes to light.
Which is why the Church of England saw the problem and repeatedly revised the KJV. The KJV we have today is NOT the one printed in 1611. Finally, an official English Revised Version (revision of the King James, that is) was published
in 1881 but did not do well in America.
Hence the American Revised Version of 1901. Note all, that Ellen White often replaced Scripture citations in her manuscripts from these later works. In 1947 — WAY TOO SOON — the two were united into one, the Revised Standard Version.
Which came just before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the half century of work on them, and a host of other papyri and manuscripts.
What would some Adventist beliefs be without the Catholic church to blame? It’s the “victim syndrome.”
One could also say “what would Elaine’s beliefs be without the SDA church to blame”
Serge: “Or one can just ask John.” That’s one good idea, finally, in what you’ve written. It took awhile for you to get to some common sense.
However, the use of the barebones and now ancient history commentary of Strong is itself going to be self-defeating. The work though massive is filled with nonsense.
But with the minimal requirement of memorizing the Hebrew and Greek alphabets, you COULD find the words and extensive articles about them in
THE THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 15 volumes
and
THE THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 14 volumes
(or, just ask john…..)
If we would just accept the fact that there was a two fold application of the prophecy. Daniel wants to know about the restoration of the sanctuary in Palestine. The prophecy fits the answer he is looking for on a limited basis. But the primary application is the restoration of the heavenly sanctuary at the end of the world. And this is why Daniel is confused. And apparently, we aren’t doing much better.
Now Bill, we doh’t get to make it up as we go along, even if we think it is the truth.
There is not now, never has been, and never WILL be such a thing as “dual” prophecy.
If you read what was above, then you would KNOW what was going on. The paragraph in question introduces for the first time in Biblical thought the idea that AFTER the exile and restoration, when the New Covenant is put into effect (only AFTER the exile, see Deuteronomy 4 and Deuteronomy 28, 30, Jeremiah 30-33, etc) THE RESTORED MESSIANIC KINGDOM WILL SUFFER AGAIN.
In all prior MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies the land is restored, the massed evil nations invade, BUT ARE SIMPLY ANNNIHILATED BY GOD. NO SUFFERING FOR GOD’S PEOPLE.
Like most lay folks, you seem to be a blank on the Messianic Kingdom prophecies, and once again I point to a simple study on this subject that will help you understand EXEGETICALLY (THAT IS, WHAT THE AUTHOR AND INTENDED ORIGINAL AUDIENCE KNEW IT MEANS) on the Kingdom prophecies.
Go to SDA BC Vol 4, “The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy” especially the section “How the Plan Would Have Worked” to understand this. It is pretty accurate, although the author threw in occasional statements that contradicted the rest of the accurate portrayal at times.
I see that you too would be a blank if I asked yet again WHAT IS THE METHOD BY WHICH THE 2,300 evening-morning units were derived? Why THAT number? WHAT OTHER TIME PERIOD WITHIN DANIEL IS IT PARALLEL TO?
You need to learn also the difference between the original, intended, exegetical meaning and later reapplication of a prophecy to later events, by the usual method of ancient thought, that all time is cyclic, and that what did not happen in the past will happen in the future.
There is EXEGESIS (original, primary, actual meaning) and ANALOGY (secondary, later, reapplied, different than original intended meaning.)
I remind you just as much as I would naysayers that EXEGESIS IS ALWAYS PRIMARY, THAT IT ISALWAYS ESSENTIAL TO FIND THE ORIGINAL MEANING FIRST BEFORE JUMPING TO A LATER INTERPRETATION. (This one, in fact, derived entirely from “The Blessed” Joachim of Fiore, of whom you probably know nothing, but who is the real originator of the idea you are pressing.) See “Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers” by L. E. Froom
THE 2,300 TIME UNITS ARE — AGAIN — 2,300 EREVBOQUER units. Those are “evening-morning” units, the usual Temple way of stating a 24-hour day. You, no more than others, can have it your own way. IF THE DAYS OF CREATION IN THE FIRST CREATION STORY ARE LITERAL 24-HOUR DAYS — AND THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE — THEN YOU MUST HAVE THE SAME CONCLUSION IN DANIEL 8.
And we can test that by simply asking where the same time period is elsewhere IN DANIEL and how the figure 2,300 was derived. If it was literal days, then start with the key period of “literal days” in Daniel.
Daniel’s confusion and horror is what the little horn (same as in Daniel 7) does to the restored kingdom (and no, it’s not the papacy, which he would have no interest in and would not answer the question he is asking).
DANIEL’S “CONFUSION” — AND HORROR — IS PRECISELY WHAT I HAVE SAID IT WAS REPEATEDLY. IT WAS THE FACT THAT UNLIKE ALL PRIOR MESSIANIC KINGDOM PROPHECIES, THE SAINTS SUFFER UNDER THIS HORRIBLE FIGURE FOR ALMOST SEVEN YEARS.
There is a hint for you.
“Now Bill, we doh’t get to make it up as we go along, even if we think it is the truth.
There is not now, never has been, and never WILL be such a thing as “dual” prophecy.”
OH, really? Then when Jesus explained the destruction of Jerusalem, it had nothing to do with the second coming?
I guess I see more clearly why many of you are so confused about the prophecy in Daniel that has a twofold application. The restoration of the temple in Palestine and the restoration of the temple in heaven.
I think even Dr. Ford knew this obvious truth. None the less, I guess you must stumble along the best you can with a limited idea of how to understand and interpret scripture and bible prophecy.
Now Mr Sorensen, I expected more of you. AGAIN, there is not now, never was, and never will be such a thing as dual prophecy.
Rather, as I tried to explain in words of one syllable, in the ancient world time was not LINEAR as we have it today. In today’s world the events of the Exodus, David’s time 500 years later, the end of the exile, 500 years later, the coming of Christ, the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, the reformation, etc, all 500 years or so apart did not overlap.
BUT YOU MUST READ MATTHEW, THE LATEST OF THE SYNOPTICS, TO UDNERSTAND WHAT THE LORD’S ESCHATOLOGY SERMON WAS ABOUT.
Having horrified the listenders by saying the Temple would be destroyed, not one stone on another, the disciples rushed Him to privacy where they were willing to have Him speak in detail on something that was so inflammatory they didn’t want to discuss it in public.
The Second Temple was built and paid for by Rome and by its favorite client king, Herod. It sat on a precipice on three sides and on the north, where the plateau joined the other mountains, the Romans built not one,not two, but three huge solid-rock walls to bedrock.
And then placed the Fortress of Antony on the north side with the entire Tenth Legion as protector of the Temple that so enriched the Roman Empire as a whole. And made sure the hated and feared Parthians could not get at it. The fine white Italian marble in which it was sheathed was a gift from the emperor himself. Jehovah was an official god of the Roman Empire.
This largest and most magnificent Temple complex in human history would only be reduced to rubble must mean the end of the world!
Hence they asked this: “Tell us, when will this [the destruction of the Temple] be? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?”Mtt 24:3
THESE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, BUT THEY DID NOT KNOW IT.
However, the disciples, being Near Easterners themselves, would not have had trouble with the answer, which they instinctively understood. TIME IS CYCLIC. EVENTS IN ONE TIME CAN HAPPEN IN ANOTHER. THE CLOSE OF CYCLES ALWAYS ENDED WITH THE SAME WAR OVER THE SAME ISSUES.
What Jesus Christ said was not a dual prophecy. He answered each question fully. First one, then the other. That’s why some “signs” are repeated more than once. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM WAS A MICROCOSM OF THE END OF THE WORLD.
The horrors that befell the city during the long siege, and especially the final scenes in August of AD 70, were themselves prophecies of what will befall the whole world at the end of the age.
Two questions. Two answers. BUT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS INTIMATELY CONNECTED AS ABOUT THE SAME SPIRITUAL SITUATION AND SET OF EVENTS.
When you properly understand the Biblical cycles many other difficulties will disappear. Before seeking to be our instructor, please find us useful by listening and learning.
You are far more effective when you explain your own views than when you expend verbiage denigrating those who do not see things your way.
I basically agree with your explanation regarding Matthew 24. Jesus was answering two different questions even though the disciples thought they were asking one question.
Now may I ask whether it is possible that in Daniel the heavenly messenger was answering at least two different questions even though Daniel thought he was only praying for one answer?
“The horrors that befell the city during the long siege, and especially the final scenes in August of AD 70, were themselves prophecies of what will befall the whole world at the end of the age.”
Is it possible that the horrors that befell Daniel and his companions as related in the first half of the book, are applied to all of God’s people (national Israel and/or spiritual Israel – take your pick) in the vision narratives of Daniel 8-12?
I not only think it possible but think it CERTAIN that this is so exegetically. But would have to go into it more than we have so far.
I hear you.
Well we might find it a bit reassuring (or alternatively a bit disconcerting?) that we seem to agree on some things.
Apparently the same gentleman has posted comments as “John McCaull”, “JM” and “Jm”. He has previously failed to directly answer my questions about Daniel 12 which I will specifically reiterate.
1) “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” Does this refer to a time yet future in our day? Will there be a future resurrection as here predicted?
2) “But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.” When is this “time of the end”? Is it already in the past, in the present or yet in the future?
3) “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end.” Same questions as (2).
4) “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.” Same questions as (1) and (2).
5) “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.” Given its location between (2) and (3) would it not be reasonable to conclude that this time interval relates to the “time of the end”?
6) “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.” Given its location between (3) and (4) would it not be reasonable to conclude that these time intervals relate to the “time of the end”?
7) From the immediate context, is it not reasonable to conclude that (1) and (2) and (3) and (4) are parallel passages that describe the same things in somewhat different manners?
8) From the immediate context, is it not reasonable to conclude that (5) and (6) are parallel passages that describe the same things in somewhat different manners?
9) If as “JM” has previously claimed, the entirety of Daniel 8-12 is strictly a “failed” Messianic Prophecy whose fulfillment was to be entirely in the past (ie during the First Advent), then is there no hope that Daniel will rise to stand in his allotted place at some time in the future (ie the “time of the end”)?
Apparently my choice of words in question (9) has been mis-construed. By “failed” I am not referring to a failure of the Messiah, but to a failure of national Israel to accept the Messiah. To the extent that the Messianic Prophecies of the OT were contingent on the actions of national Israel, the Messiah did not complete everything that could have happened had national Israel accepted Him.
Nevertheless, the question remains whether events predicted in Daniel 12 that could or should have been fulfilled during the First Advent, still await fulfillment in the Second Advent, or whether the unfulfilled parts of Daniel’s prophecy have been abrogated.
Regarding this question I take the former view. After reading through thousands and thousands of words written by “JM” on this web site, it appears to me (though I may be mistaken) that “JM” takes the latter view.
Mr Hamstra, I gave you more than enough information to look up to find out about the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies, about which you proved you knew nothing when you made the astonishing statement that no one could say much that was precise about the coming Kingdom.
Astonishing for its sweeping ignorance and the certainty displayed that that ignorance was correct.
These things were not done in a corner, and the results of two centuries of careful study have not been hidden even from laymen preoccupied with their own private truths, their how hobbyhorses, their own “Clovis truth” as it were.
Do not think for an instant that my fleshing out the details meant that your continued clinging to false conceptions was just too difficult for me to answer. You should have been able to answer each of these exegetically on the basis of what I said.
I see that many of the questions contain half-truths and the same misconceptions you started out with, so we’ll have to deal with those as we go along. But be assured there is nothing difficult in your misapplication of the Daniel passages.
First, let’s start with the late historicist claim that “the last days” began in 1798 AD with THE END of the papacy. So when do YOU think the “last days” began? THE ONES IN DANIEL, THAT IS?
We can start right there. Answer correctly and we’re off to a good start. Answer with your usual 18th century misconceptions and we’ll have to hammer home some BIBLICAL concepts about what “the last days” meant in the Old Testament.
Point 1: the “time of the end” (terminology unique to Daniel) is not decided by Jim Hamstra. It is decided by the internal evidence of the Old Testament. Would you agree that “the time of the end” must come at about the same time as “the last days” or not?
If not, what is the difference? Please be VERY specific.
We’ll deal later with the numerous mis-statements about what I actually told you. Either you willfully misread, or you are having a serious difficulty grasping the nature of the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies.
So rather than telling me I do not understand the references to “time of the end” and “the last days” why not tell me what YOU think these phrases denote in the context of Daniel 12?
Likewise for the prediction that Daniel will rise and stand in his allotted place. When was/is this supposed to happen? Two millennia ago? Sometime in the future? Never?
I am requesting your exegesis of Daniel 12 here, not rhetoric or ad hominem attacks.
You should be able to answer these questions in a straightforward manner without recourse to thousands of words about the history of how others have mis-construed these phrases. Skip all of that and tell us how YOU construe them.
In answering whether “the time of the end” and “the last days” are synonymous, please note Daniel 10:14. Once we find the origin of “beacherith hayamim” biblically, and trace it forward, we will have the beginning of a Biblical answer to your first question about Daniel’s resurrection.
Question two: What is completely different about the resurrection described in Daniel than the resurrections as described in Paul and the Revelation?
“We’ll deal later with the numerous mis-statements about what I actually told you. Either you willfully misread, or you are having a serious difficulty grasping the nature of the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies.”
Without casting aspersions on your motives or mine, I will reprint a clarification I wrote above regarding question (9):
”
Apparently my choice of words in question (9) has been mis-construed. By “failed” I am not referring to a failure of the Messiah, but to a failure of national Israel to accept the Messiah. To the extent that the Messianic Prophecies of the OT were contingent on the actions of national Israel, the Messiah did not complete everything that could have happened had national Israel accepted Him.
Nevertheless, the question remains whether events predicted in Daniel 12 that could or should have been fulfilled during the First Advent, still await fulfillment in the Second Advent, or whether the unfulfilled parts of Daniel’s prophecy have been abrogated.
Regarding this question I take the former view. After reading through thousands and thousands of words written by “JM” on this web site, it appears to me (though I may be mistaken) that “JM” takes the latter view.
“
So why will you not give straight answers to my straight questions?
You are once again changing the subject rather than giving straight answers.
Where in these 9 specific questions do I say anything about the Papacy, Historicism, Clovis, 1798 or whatever? I am NOT here asserting what I think are the answers. I AM asking what YOU think are the answers.
You should be able to answer my straight questions with with straight answers rather than writing yet another polemical attack. I understand that you do not agree with me. Do you not think that at some point you should give straight answers as to your understanding of Daniel 12 rather than merely castigating my understanding?
“be assured there is nothing difficult in your misapplication of the Daniel passages”
In that case please skip all of the superfluous supercilious trash-talk and give us your simple answers.
You have made it abundantly clear that you disagree with me. Could you make it equally clear (and preferable concise) what you think these phrases in Daniel 12 actually mean?
No I’m right on point. I challenge you to answer the BIBLICAL QUESTIONS. I AM INDEED GOING TO GIVE AN EXEGETICALLY SOUND ANSWER TO DANIEL 8 TO 12. BUT AGAIN
IS “THE TIMEOF THE END” IN DANIEL — THE VERY THING YOU ASKED ABOUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER (THESE ARE ALL ONE QUESTION) A SYNONYM FOR “THE LAST DAYS” IN DANIEL 10:14?
Why are you unwilling to answer that simple question?????
While you’re at it, describe the difference in the resurrection as described in Daniel 12 to the resurrection descriptions in Paul’s writings and especially the Revelation.
Why are you unwilling to answer these simple questions????
You are the one who is claiming to have superior exegetical insights.
So why ask me more questions rather than simply explaining what you see in the specific phrases I cited from Daniel 12. You can skip the verses about times, months and days if you wish to make your answer simpler.
PS – Unless you are claiming there are many different resurrections I see no need to drag various NT authors into this particular discussion. If you think that Daniel and his NT counterparts are talking about the same events then this might become a rather different discussion.
Will you concede, then, that in Daniel 10 we have the beginning of the entire discussion that we are still talking about at the end of Daniel 11 and on into Daniel 12?
If so, will you concede this rather obvious but very important point, that Gabriel at the outset defines this “time of the end” as latter days”?
If so, can we in the interest of famiarity, point out that the RSV uses “latter” to stay as close to the KJV as possible (which was its mandate) and in ADVENTESE the Biblical phrase “acharith hayamim” would be “THE LAST DAYS”?
Are we on the same page so far?
I think so but I cannot tell for sure. I tend to view Daniel 8-12 as a series of related narratives, the last commencing in chapter 10.
I await your straight answers to my questions.
It might be helpful if you chose one English translation that in your opinion renders Daniel 12 most accurately. I have studied at least a half dozen in their entirety and several others in these places, and I really do not care to argue the choice of words from a specific translation (though there are a few poor choices out there). You choose.
OK here’s what I do: I base it on the original RSV, but you will notice that I digress on particular words and do the Amplified Bible thing of just adding a bunch of additional denotative or connotative meanings of a particular word where I think it is important.
Let me digress on the vision thing; this is both interesting and useful. In Daniel we have a series of visions and they get rather complex. If the second author(s), the ones who were Daniel’s disciples, had not supplied Chs 2 to 7 then Chapter 8 would be basically incomprehensible.
In Daniel 8:9-14, we have the appalling vision in which the little horn harries the restored remnant for a little less than a seven-year period. Such a thing is never mentioned in all the extensive and detailed prior MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies and Daniel is appalled.
Here is the turning point. The symbols have gotten more complex to this point and then all symbolism ends. From this point on we have only explanation, and all of it is explanation of this one short vision. (Since the “little horn” of Daniel 8 does exactly what the “little horn” of Daniel 7 does, it is unthinkable that they are anything but the same symbol, same person.)
There are in fact two words translated “vision” in this chapter. One is “mar’eh” and emphasizes what is seen in the usual sense of normal vision. The other is “chazon” and is also vision, but this one emphasizes not what particulars might have been “seen” but that this is a supernatural, visionary sense of “seeing” — what we usually mean when we say a prophet had a “vision”.
“The vision [“mar’eh” what you saw} of the evening and the morning which has been told is truth; but seal up the vision [“chazon”], for it pertains to many days.”
As time for the exile to wind down and no movement toward a restoration occurs, Daniel offers a prayer full of “Deuteronomic” phraseology, which is significant and we’ll come back to it. In answer to his pleas, the same Gabriel (God’s mighty warrior) shows up.
“… the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision [“Chazon”} at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice.” The evening sacrifice ties this even more tightly to the vision of the evening-morning units.
In Ch 8 Daniel finishes by saying there was no way to “understand” the mar’eh. In 9 Gabriel says he he has come to give understanding concerning the “understanding” (9:22).
He is, in fact, now ORDERED to understand the vision of Ch 8. But note that a decade has passed and Daniel has had plenty of time to consider and reconcile himself emotionally to the implicaitons of the “mar’eh/chazon” of Ch 8:
At the beginning of your supplications a word/command/order went forth, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly beloved; therefore consider the word/command/order and understand the vision [“mar’eh”].
Note that not only are the two “vision” words in regular interplay, but the words based on “understanding” are all tying this together. So the Seventy Weeks of Years are to finally EXPLAIN the horrifying role of the little horn.
As we look at those we find the evil king DOES appear, but only in the FINAL 70TH WEEK. And that the war is between him and “the Anointed/Messianic Prince” who is annihilated by him in the middle of that last week.
This yields the time and context for the 2,300 evening-morning units, which I explained to you earlier as identical to the 70th Week of Years. Without revisiting that (Daniel certainly would not have needed to) subtract the ten day from the civil to sacred year at the start, and the 7 months or 210 days from the END of the period, and from the initial 2,520 days (84 months x 30 days = 2520 days less 10 days less 210 days EQUALS EXACTLY 2,300 literal days using ONLY the Temple’s luni-solar calendar and ignoring intercalated days.
The Seventy Weeks does go a long way to clarify for Daniel. Jerusalem WILL be both rebuilt and restored to its former position of the greatest power west of the Euphrates. (Only the decree of Artaxerxes deals with these issues; the decrees of Cyrus and Darius don’t even come close!)
Daniel also knows now that the Davidic monarchy will be restored, and the famous “anointed one” who is to come would face the antichrist/little horn figure. But the Temple WOULD INDEED fall into the hands of the evil one, and so also the anointed, who would be cut off. And then the whole of God’s restored remnant would face annihilation.
Daniel also knows from this that the key to the long-continued series of MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies that began in Deuteronomy and run all through classical prophecy now has a precise time tied to it. He certainly understands the Seventy Weeks as a reprise of the 490 years of failure of the two Hebrew monarchies to keep covenant law!
Daniel also knows by now that the real crisis is not in his time at all, but five centuries off, during that last fateful week. He has now got two halves of 42 months or 1260 days each to work with. In addition, he has the key to how atonement will be managed.
BUT AT THE END OF 9 THINGS ARE IN DESPERATE FAILURE ALL THE SAME. DANIEL HAS LEARNED MUCH, BUT THE OUTCOME REMAINS IN DOUBT. MUCH MORE HAS TO BE SAID.
At the beginning of 10 we have some by now familiar statements. This is only a couple of years of intense activity later for Daniel. Things seem to get clearer here:
“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word/command {see Ch 9] was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshaz’zar. And the word/command was true, and it was a great conflict. And he understood [finally, there’s that word again] the word/command and had understanding of the vision [“mar’eh”].”
Notice: we’re still with Daniel 8:9-14. There is no other “mar’eh” or “chazon” involved.
For Daniel, the first and second coming of Christ is one singular event. Just as the Jews thought when Jesus came. In this light, it is obvious that Daniel is confused and why. And even though the two events of the first and second coming are all one event, none the less, it is a two phase event separated by 2,000 years.
While it was and is confusing to Daniel and apparently more than a few others, including the early disciples, it need not be confusing to us “upon whom the ends of the world are come.”
Actually, the coming of Jesus is in three phases and not just two. So there are actually three comings that make up one event. The bible often ignores time in explaining some things. And only as the historical process is fulfilled, can we see various phases to this one singular event. Even Peter runs the second and third coming together in his letter. 2 Peter 3:9-18
So the coming of Jesus is one event divided into three phases in time. “Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.”
Bill,
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Apparently you have not yet read the essay I suggested, “The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy,” especially the section “How the Plan Would Have Worked” and are unfamiliar with THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM PROPHECIES as most laymen are.
And apparently you disagree with Ellen White when she says in Desire of Ages that it was not yet too late for the Kingdom to be founded right then and there, that Jerusalem never needed to be destroyed, and that it might have remained the great metropolis of the new kingdom.
I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the original plan where no TWO comings were suggested. And ead the posts below.
The plan as it now stands has three phases.
Don’t confuse what God originally offered the Hebrews with what YOU know about today’s plan. Peter had not yet read the Revelation and never did, of course.
Spiritual things ARE INDEED SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.
Suddenly Daniel is confronted with another “mar’eh” in the heavens, a being of majestic bearing and incredible power, whose appearance drained all strength from Daniel. Indeed, when this heavenly person spoke, Daniel collapsed into unconsciousness.
We are to understand here not a symbol, but a fact. The figure before us takes us back immediately to the judgment scene in Ch 7, where the One “ancient of days” decides who shall rule the world as his viceregent.
As each of the zoomorphic emperors collapses, found wanting, the final judgment is made only when a heavenly being in human form is ushered before the Ancient One, and to him eternal rule on earth is given.
Daniel, as we can clearly see, has been in some turmoil. He has come to understand and reconcile with the unhappy future, but the way Ch 9 ends leaves him hanging. The final week falls into two clearly distinct parts. In the first, God’s kind appears and unites His people.
But the people of the prince who is coming take control of God’s people, and their king is annihilated, with nothing for himself. Thre is as yet nothing positive. The second half of the Seventieth Week is a nightmare of persecution, martyrdom, and loss of all that had been regained in the refounding of the Messianic Kingdom.
Particularly, the annihilation of God’s king must have struck the aging Davidic prince to the core. But now he looks up and sees that figure of immense power and majesty and is thus assured without any symbolism or figurative talk that God’s king is a personage of immense untold power and will, in the “end” triumph.
This apparition is called also a “mar’eh” and note how clearly it is a finalization of clarifying to Daniel what is to be. He cannot fully integrate it now, but at the time these things were to come to pass, it would be clear.
Now he is awakened to consciousness and set oh his feet by Gabriel, who opens the curtain of cosmic warfare between himself with Michael “the chief of your princes” by his side, but being withstood by “the prince — and this does not mean human prince, for we are on the cosmic level — of Persia, who was fighting Michael and Gabriel for control of Persia.
Satan himself is to be identified as the cosmic prince of Persia. I recommend the old classic “Kingship and the Gods” to see just how completely a king and the national gods were integrated as a single unit.
For three weeks as Daniel fasted and prayed over the unexplained elements of the Daniel 8 mar’eh and the Daniel 9 explanation, a battle, a piece of what we would call “the Great Controversy” was raging.
Here Daniel is reminded “Now I have come to give you understanding to your people in the last days [“beacherith hayaamim”}. For the vision [“hazon”] pertains to days yet further on.” Cf 8:26 “…the vision [“hazon”] pertains to many days yet future.”
We’re still with Daniel and the Seventy Weeks, but we have now encountered “last days” as the defining title for “the time of the end.”
Daniel is aware of the 70th Week –very aware. He knows that’s where the showdown comes. The first half of the week the Messianic Prince is in control. The second half is a nightmare, after the Messianic figure has died and God’s people are being mowed down.
All of this was the time when six infinitives were to be accomplished: In 9:24 we read:
“…to finish the transgression,
to put an end to sin, and
to atone for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal both vision [“chazon”} and prophet, and
to anoint a most holy one.”
The problem for Daniel was how to make these opposites fit together. After all, in Chapter 10, he has the vision itself (Chapter 8) and an extensive explanation of when and the goals to be met (Chapter 9).
But even though he now knows how to fit the 2,300 evening-morning sequences into the framework, and has two halves of the final week at 1,260 days each, THE STORY ENDS IN DISASTER.
THERE HAS TO BE MORE. FURTHER EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED.
Before we can go there, however, we have to back up, step back, and look more closely at Daniel’s background. There is more to HIS story than Chapters 1-7 tell us. More about his theology, his mentor, his royal pedigree and ambassadorial training that would have given him much information the modern reader is not privy to.
Simply put, Daniel was the ideal man to tell this story to in advance.
Now I know we have to get beyond the second 1,260 days in the second half of the Seventieth Week to make sense of all this. But so far we don’t have all the relevant facts.
So now I interrupt myself to work on some background material.
All serious Bible students are aware of two covenants, and “old” one at Sinai and a “new” one. But where and when the “new” one was made exactly gets a little fuzzy, based on my half century of teaching and asking who, when, where?
The second, or “new” covenant was made with Israel’s second generation in the last thirty days of Moses’ life on earth. They knew their beloved father was about to be taken from them permanently, and their familiar desert home was going to be changed for the daunting task of facing nations more numerous and powerful than themselves.
The entire covenant, including the better promises and the extended covenant ceremony is explained and covered in detail in the Book of Deuteronomy. In chapter 4 we find an important overall warning that is repeated and extended and will become important to the study of Daniel:
“When you beget children and children’s children, and have grown old in the land, if you act corruptly by making a graven image in the form of anything, and by doing what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, so as to provoke him to anger.
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you are going over the Jordan to possess; you will not live long upon it, but will be utterly destroyed.
“And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you.
“And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men’s hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
“But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
“When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you IN THE LAST DAYS {“acherith habayam”}, you will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice,”
NOW NOTICE THAT MANY CENTURIES AFTER THEIR DWELLLING ON THE LAND, IF THEY FELL INTO IDOLATRY AND ITS RELATED ACTIONS, THEY WOULD BE QUICKLY DRIVEN OFF THE LAND, MOSTLY KILLED, ONLY A FEW IN NUMBER, WHO IN THE LAND OF EXILE WOULD TURN TO GOD IN WHAT DEUTERONOMY DESCRIBES AS “THE LAST DAYS.”
This passage is reapeated and extended in the famous “Blessings and Curses of the Covenant” in Deuteronomy 28. Indeed, these words are repeated and extended in great detail. Read the latter part of that chapter.
In Chapter 30 God says that if that experience of exile really wakes them up, they will be REGATHERED TO THE COVENANT LAND.
“”And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you,…
“And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”
The earlier classical prophets look to a time when Israel will be repentant and returned to the covenant land after rebellion and exile. Hosea writes:
“Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the last days [“beacherith hayamim”].” Hos 3:5
Isaiah writes of that time: “”It shall come to pass in the last days {“beacherith hayayim”} that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it.” Is 2:2
And similarly the contemporary Micah writes: ” It shall come to pass in the last days [“beacherith hayamim”] that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised up above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it.” Mic 4:1
In the days of Josiah the prophet Jeremiah led a great revival based on the teachings of the Book of Deuteronomy. The prophets Isaiah and Micah and Hosea had predicted this very re-gathering in the pervious century. And the restoration of the Temple and open to anyone of the nations who accepted Yahweh.
The context shows it refers to the restoration of the Messianic Kingdom. Jeremiah looks forward from the increasing rebellion of his time and the inevitability of a coming exile before there can be hope of restoration:
“The anger of the LORD will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his mind. In the last days [“beacherith hayamim”] you will understand it clearly.” Jer 23:20
Only the experience of the exile would clarify their thinking so that the final development of the Kingdom could begin.
“The fierce anger of the LORD will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his mind. In the last days [“beacherith hayamim”} you will understand this.” Jer 30:24
At the time of the restoration of Israel and Judah, other nations that had been part of David’s kingdom would also be restored in “the last days”. See Jer 48:47 for example.
Ezekiel and Daniel grew up under the tutelage of Jeremiah. It is no mistake that we find this in Ezekiel referring to Gog, the great gatherer of evil forces against God’s kingdom at what WOULD HAVE BEEN the very end of time:
“After many days you will be mustered; in the last years [“beacherith hashanim”] you will go against the land that is restored from war, the land where people were gathered from many nations upon the mountains of Israel, which had been a continual waste; its people were brought out from the nations and now dwell securely, all of them.”
So far, the period after the exile when Israel would learn to love God with all their heart, is the moment the Kingdom comes into effect, the Old Testament “last days.”
Ezekiel further writes to Gog: “you will come up against my people Israel, like a cloud covering the land. In the last days [beaherith hayamim”] I will bring you against my land, that the nations may know me, when through you, O Gog, I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.” Ez 38:16
Gog, you remember, and his host were to be annihilated by God when they entered the land. Read all of Ezekiel 38 and 39 to catch how absolute this is, and how none of God’s people would be harmed. The contrast that with the horrible news in Daniel 8 and following!
By now you should be fully aware that Daniel expected the restoration IMMEDIATELY at the end of the exile, with the Kingdom set up and God’s king on the throne. (Read Psalm 2 to see the Messianic King being enthroned in the face of a massive pagan invasion.)
And, of course, you realize this was to be within his lifetime. The news in Daniel 9 is that these main events include the massive destruction of God’s people, the death of God’s king, the ruin of God’s Temple AND THIS IS NOT NOW, BUT ALMOST 500 YEARS FROM NOW from Daniel’s viewpoint!
In Daniel 2 the prince-prophet was called upon to explain to Nebuchadnezzar his dream. The prophet spoke of the metal image, the gold, silver, bronze and iron, the final kingdom being Rome. In the days of that last empire it would crumble and be destroyed by God’s kingdom!
AND THOSE DAYS WOULD, OF COURSE, BE THE USUAL “ACHERITH BAYAMIM,” THE OLD TESTAMENT’S USUAL “THE LAST DAYS.”
“…but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnez’zar what will be in the last days {“beacherith yomayya” The slight difference here is that this is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew. In both languages this says “the last days.” Dan 2:28
SO NOW WE KNOW — FROM THE BIBLE — WHAT THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS MEANT WHEN THEY SPOKE OF “THE LAST DAYS” AND WHAT IT MEANT TO DANIEL WHEN GABRIEL SAID
“[I] came to make you understand what is to befall your people in the last days [beacherith hayamim”]. For the vision is for days yet to come.” Dan 10:14
Finally, what did Daniel STILL not know? He had not yet heard of the SUCCESS of God’s king (last seen killed by the evil king!) Or of God’s people. And the final restoration of the Temple and the holy city.
The second half of the 70th week is 1260 days. But remember that the evil antichrist figure doesn’t get his full time. Seven months are deducted to bury the bodies and cleanse the land. THE AFTER THAT there must be one new moon before the Temple can be inaugurated, hence the 1290 days.
I have already spoken to you of the enthronement festival some 45 days later, thus bringing us to the 1,335 days, right on schedule, right at the end of the 70th Week and IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE PRIOR PROPHETS.
In the light of all this (sorry, this was a brief as I dared make it) your questions with some very simple, maybe simplistic answers:
1) “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” Does this refer to a time yet future in our day? Will there be a future resurrection as here predicted?
The resurrection in the Old Testament is treated as a general resurrection of the righteous and wicked who are then brought before Yahweh in “the valley of decision” east of the Temple and there judged. This one-event-for-all is changed in the more complex New Testament scheme the first and second resurrection before and after the millennium.
That’s what “the valley of decision” judgment in Joel is all about. It is also the reason that tens of thousands of orthodox Jews (and orthodox Christians) have been buried in this area just outside the east gate of the Old City.
These folks want to be first in line to get judged and go into God’s kingdom, and evidently felt quite confident about their chances!
But remember, there is a huge difference exegetically between DANIEL’S “LAST DAYS” AND ADVENTISTS’ “LAST DAYS”
“The prophet spoke of the metal image, the gold, silver, bronze and iron, the final kingdom being Rome. In the days of that last empire it would crumble and be destroyed by God’s kingdom!”
What happened to the feet of iron mixed with clay, that would not bind to one another? Does this not indicate that the “last days” in Daniel 2 come AFTER the disintegration of the Roman Empire?
The Roman Empire NEARLY came apart at the death of Nero. It was a patchwork and the emperors in succession spent much time ruthlessly quelling any hint of uprising precisely because the empire COULD HAVE fallen into pieces even in the first century.
ACCORDING TO DANIEL 2, THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. THE 490 YEARS REACH ONLY TO AD 34.
Therefore, at any time after that a brief interregnum could have occurred and the empire fallen apart. That was the plan! In fact, the whole reason that the Flavian emperor Vespasian came to the throne.
He was in the East attempting to quell the Roman-Jewish War as quickly as possible when Nero committed suicide. The War of the Three Emperors occurred precisely because three elements of the Roman army, representing distinct ethnic traditions, set up their great general as emperor, only to have another element of the army rebel and proclaim their general the new emperor.
That is how Galba, Otho, and Vitellius so quickly were dispateched when Vespasian decided against his better judgment to suspend the war with the Jews and take the great body of the armies in the east and march on Rome.
(Do you remember the “little horn” was to displace three prior horns — kings — in rising? No wonder the Chrstians of Roman Asia counted the Flavians as the Antichrist.
Of course, the very real fear of the Parthians, based on the very real reality that the late Persian Empire had clashed with Rome and won before this, is the reason Vespasian left his son Titus and a huge contingent still in Palestine in Caesarea.
It is ALSO the reason that the Romans had built such huge walls on the northern side of the Temple, with its vast wealth (half of which went to the Empire to support its costs in the East) and erected the huge Fortress of Antonia.
This event, surrounding Jerusalem and starting the siege, and then the sudden withdrawal was the sign Christ had promised and the Christians fled Judea to the free zone between Rome and Parthia we know as The Decapolis, the Ten Cities that formed the buffer between the two hated enemies.
Yes, AFTER, but you must remember THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD JESUS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE JEWS CORPORATELY. NAY MORE! ELLEN WHITE SPEAKS OF PREPARING THE WORLD FOR THE COMING OF THE REDEEMER. NONE OF WHAT HAPPENED NEEDED TO HAPPEN.
When you say “AFTER the disintegration of the Roman Empire” you made a subtle and (unintentional?) but deceitful switch! You went to THE HISTORICAL REALITY, NOT THE PROPHECY. After all, in the interest of Clovis, you can push “the disintegration of the Roman Empire into many centuries after Christ!
Be advised, however, that it could have happened in the first century and almost did. The Roman Empire was a brand-new fragile thing that its leaders feared would fall apart at any moment all during this period!
I wish that you had a larger knowledge of the full picture painted in the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies.
In Daniel, without any huge gaps of jumping away from Daniel’s own people, the stone cut out without hands that smote the image on its crumbling feet is the Kingdom of God, which SHOULD HAVE ARRIVED IN THE FIRST CENTURY.
Please note that this is why the dispensationalist finally gave up on historicism in the late 18th century in the Albion-Powerscourt Conferences that led directly to Millerism.
Look at the incongruity: we have in the prophecy ancient Babylon, ancient Persia, ancient Greece, ancient Rome and then we await the coming of the Kingdom in some fantasy that modern Europe is the vestiges of the Roman Empire WHICH IT IS NOT.
So from the collapse of Rome to the stone there is what, 12, 13, 15 centuries or more? The dispensationalists laughed. They should have. NOT EXEGESIS. Too soon for that to be obvious.
I cannot underscore the fragility of the empire in the early first century. Christ would never have been crucified if the Romans were confident of their empire. Every nobody in Podunk who uttered what might be a rebel statement was thrown up on a cross.
Augustus was heard shrieking for months after the massacre of the legions in the north by the Germanic tribes “Quintilius Varus give me back my legions.” QV couldn’t of course, since the Germans had beheaded him and sent the head to Rome.
The border in Gaul was virtually indefensible. The legions in Roman Britain were in constant danger from the Picts of Caledonia until Hadrian finally built a wall and wanted nothing to do with Scotland.
The German tribes would have crushed Rome in the reign of Augustus if Tiberius had not actually crushed the Damatians and provided a buffer that saved Italy. Grudgingly Augustus admitted rather rudely that his stepson perhaps could be a decent heir to him since the gods had killed all the ones he wanted.
And as I said, the eastern, and especially the southeastern border in the time of Christ was a constant worry. If the Jews should ever revolt….. it was unthinkable! The way would be open for the Parthians to cut the empire apart.
The Greeks in what was left of their kingdoms continued to hate and make fun of the Romans. And found it beyond belief that the gods should place such boors over the sophisticated Greeks.
No, don’t imagine for a second that the Kingdom of God could have been invaded by the massed powers of evil at the end of the 490 Years had the ground been prepared properly.
Every major world empire is always in danger of collapse. Leadership succession is always a challenge. (Ditto for large corporations, large churches, and other forms of social institutions.)
Considering that the Western portion of the Roman empire prevailed for several centuries and the Eastern at least twice as long, Rome seems to have fared far better than Greco-Macedonia which fragmented after the death of Alexander, or Medo-Persia which prevailed for a couple centuries. Not to mention the neo-Babylonian empire which prevailed for approximately a century.
Isn’t that one of the points of Daniel 2? That only the kingdom fashioned without human hands, can truly prevail? And was not this dream in response to Nebuchadnezzar’s musings regarding what would happen after he was gone?
“When you say “AFTER the disintegration of the Roman Empire” you made a subtle and (unintentional?) but deceitful switch! You went to THE HISTORICAL REALITY, NOT THE PROPHECY. After all, in the interest of Clovis, you can push “the disintegration of the Roman Empire into many centuries after Christ!
Be advised, however, that it could have happened in the first century and almost did. The Roman Empire was a brand-new fragile thing that its leaders feared would fall apart at any moment all during this period!”
Arguments and speculations about what “could have happened” in history know no limits. This is why I earlier cautioned that (in my opinion if not yours) all conclusions regarding the aspects of the OT “Messianic Kingdom” prophecies that did NOT happen because the Jews did NOT accept the Messiah, must be held very tentatively.
It is easy to assume that when people disagree with you they are ignorant or stupid. Another possibility is that they have considered the same evidence and reached different conclusions.
“in the interest of Clovis, you can push “the disintegration of the Roman Empire into many centuries after Christ!”
Since you have chosen to drag Clovis back into this discussion, I would point-out that at the Battle of Soissons (486 AD) it was indeed Clovis who eliminated the last vestige of Roman rule in Western Europe. Clovis did NOT cause the disintegration of the Roman empire. He WAS a pivotal hinge-point in transforming the ruins of said empire into the Next Big Thing in Western Europe, ie a co-dependent system of alliances between the Frankish monarchy and the Bishops of Rome. They may not have liked each other but they needed each other and exploited each other even as they abused each other. That is how co-dependency works.
“I wish that you had a larger knowledge of the full picture painted in the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies.”
Though I might not aspire to attain unto your advanced level of knowledge of these prophecies, nevertheless I might not be as ignorant thereof as you wish to believe 8-).
I recall writing to you on another Atoday web page that when I first studied the “Messianic Kingdom” prophecies of Ezekiel many years ago, I concluded that at least two aspects did NOT feasibly map to the current physical geography of the Holy Land – notably the River proceeding from the Temple (which of course has symbolic ties to the River of Life in Genesis and Revelation), and also the description of the re-apportionment of the land amongst the Tribes.
I suggested that these must be symbolic rather than literal. You suggested that in the “Messianic Kingdom” there would be a major physical reconfiguration of the Holy Land. There is no way to prove whether you are correct or incorrect since this has not happened. However I must confess to some skepticism regarding an interpretation of OT prophecy which requires not only rearranging past history but also present geography.
DISCLAIMER – I am NOT questioning God’s ability to arrange and re-arrange history and geography. I AM questioning human ability to accurately predict such rearrangements absent direct phuysical evidence.
“In Daniel, without any huge gaps of jumping away from Daniel’s own people, the stone cut out without hands that smote the image on its crumbling feet is the Kingdom of God, which SHOULD HAVE ARRIVED IN THE FIRST CENTURY.”
I agree that if the Jews had accepted the Messiah, things COULD and WOULD have happened differently. Nevertheless I have a lot less confidence than you regarding the particulars of those differences.
PS – As it happens, during 1974 to 1976 I attended a series of lectures by an elderly gentleman who had devoted much of his adult life to studying the “Messianic Kingdom” prophecies of the OT and trying to explain how they would have worked. Much of what you have written here is NOT new to me.
One thing you have written here (and on another Atoday web page) that IS new to me is your particular arrangement of the other specific time periods in Daniel into the 70th Week of Daniel 9.
By most accounts the Roman empire reached its pinnacle under Trajan.
It seems that you are saying that the era of “feet of iron and clay” was supposed to happen sometime after AD 34. In that case when was the “stone hewn without hands” supposed to put an end to all earthly kingdoms?
It seems that you might be willing to agree that in Daniel 2, the “last days” where the stone hewn without hands crushes the image, occur during the time of the feet of iron and clay, and therefore AFTER the fall of the Roman empire?
Would you also agree that the fall of the Roman empire in any prophetic scenario, would have been AFTER the 490 years of Daniel 9?
First, I would say that the Messianic Kingdom prophecies are far more specific than you seem to believe. Writing out how the scenario WOULD HAVE worked out is extensive and details are not lacking. You seem to be trying to still argue a negative, that this is not so.
Arguing a negative is beside the point. It is so, but this is not the place to rewrite the book on the details of the Messianic Kingdom prophecies.
What we have for sure is Daniel’s expansion of details on “the last days” which, beginning in Deuteronomy 4 are always the period when the New Covenant finally hits home DURING AND AFTER THE EXILE.
I WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT AGREE THAT THE ROMAN EMPIRE’S FALL WOULD HAVE BEEN “AFTER” THE SEVENTY WEEKS. Rather, to be precise, I would say that the eschatological war between the massed heathen nations who have rejected the truth, and the covenant land and its people, the righteous remnant of EVERY nation, would have begun during the 70th week and ended IN THE SECOND HALF OF THAT WEEK.
That is, after all, the whole point of the 2,300 “days” or actually “evening-morning units” in Daniel 8:14. The antichrist figure, the evil little horn, does NOT get his full 3 1/2 years mentioned in both Daniel 7:25 and in Daniel 9:27 and yet again in 11:41 ff.
In Daniel 2:40 we have “the kingdom” of Rove introduced. In the next verse that very kingdom is then divided, partly strong, partly weak. It is the same kingdom, however, not a fifth one.
In 2:42 we discover that the toes are important, the toes are the things that are partly strong partly weak.
Daniel 2 to 7 is, as I have shown extensively, but could go into more detail (I don’t think anyone argues against this). The TEN HORNS in Daniel 7 are parallel to the TOES (presumably the image — which clearly had toes — had ten of them).
Chapter 7 adds one additional detail. In Daniel’s third-person REPORT which constitutes Chapter 7, he sees the little horn for the first time. Here we have no parallel in Chapter 2. In 7 we DO have the Messianic King presented before the Ancient of Days and given rule over the earth.
It is a judgment scene, and in this victory of “the one in human form” — the heavenly “son of man” also constitutes the victory of the “for the saints” in 7:22.
(Let me add an editorial note. I presume some others may read these interchanges. Everything I write is not intended for the evil purpose of minimizing your Bibllical knowledge. I often want to set up the larger picture and add significant items that I already know from prior discussions you are fully aware of. Allow me some teaching room, since for many the whole idea of the Messianic Kingdom prophecies is completely new.)
Cont
Jim, you write: “It seems that you might be willing to agree that in Daniel 2, the “last days” where the stone hewn without hands crushes the image, occur during the time of the feet of iron and clay, and therefore AFTER the fall of the Roman empire?
Would you also agree that the fall of the Roman empire in any prophetic scenario, would have been AFTER the 490 years of Daniel 9?”
First half first. You have written “THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE” into Daniel 2. But that is a severe misreading of the text. Let me explain:
First, Daniel 2 has four and only four empires. Daniel 7, its chiastic counterpart, has four and only four beasts. The ten horns coming out of the beast are kings, but their status is already explained in Daniel 2!
in 2:40 Daniel introduces the fourth kingdom: “And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these.”
That’s his introduction, but he isn’t done talking about the fourth kingdom yet by any means. He continues: “And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it [the fourth kingdom] shall be a divided kingdom [but the very same kingdom as the previous verse/sentence!]; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay.” Dn 2:41
Further: “And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom [still on that same fourth kingdom!] shall be partly strong and partly brittle. As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.” Dn 2:42,43
The kings are trying to get the various elements of the fourth kingdom together in strength but it does not happen. Horns are always INDIVIDUAL KINGS in the Old Testament (well, in the Ancient Near East) and ARE NOT EVER new kingdoms that come out of a prior one.
That is, the ten horns are not the Alamanni, the Franks, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, etc. etc. up to ten (minus three in the rise of the little horn).
“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever.” Dn 2:44
Nope, NO FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN DANIEL 2 UNTIL THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM COMES AND DESTROYS IT. WITHIN THE 490 YEARS. THE ESCHATOLOGICAL WAR OF EZ 38 AND 39 OCCURS WITHIN THE SEVENTY WEEKS IN DANIEL 11.
Cont
Your second half is “Would you also agree that the fall of the Roman empire in any prophetic scenario, would have been AFTER the 490 years of Daniel 9?”
No. As you can see from the above. The fourth beast is the ruling kingdom when the eschatological war breaks out. The evil king usurps authority within that kingdom, removing three in his rise to power and eminence far beyond any of the others.
THERE IS NOTHING AFTER THE 490 YEARS IN DANIEL except, as you well know, thirty days after the end of the purification for the Temple to be re-inaugurated, just as The Law requires. And then another 45 days until the Enthronement Festival
But that brief period in Chapter 12 is not really what your comment was directed toward.
Summary: You missed the actual picture of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and the key point that its strength and weakness remains a key element in its demise in the eschatological war.
If all had gone according to the ideal (which God certainly knew it would not) sin and sinners would have been gone by what we call AD 34.
Daniel 2 does not use the prime theological concept “in the last day” and that term “beacherith hayamim” does not appear until Daniel 10. What Daniel 2 uses is simply “in the days of these kings” and that can only be the strong/weak kings of the fourth kingdom.
PS — Daniel, of course, would be in the first resurrection if he was not among the saint resurrected and returned to heaven in Christ’s triumph over death!
2) “But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.” When is this “time of the end”?
Sort of covered this one to death and can add a host of other Kingdom prophecies to further amplify the point. THE OLD TESTAMENT “TIME OF THE END” AND “LAST DAYS” WERE AFTER THE EXILE AND RESTORATION.
A short time after — UNTIL YOU GET TO DANIEL! Then it becomes 490 years after.
Is it already in the past, in the present or yet in the future?
Since it never happened, it isn’t in the past. If would have been if the Jews had corporately done their job. On the other hand God foreknew what would REALLY HAPPEN and never implied to His ancient people that they would fail.
That would mean that you and I would not exist. The “time of the end” or “last days” in the NEW TESTAMENT SENSE are right now.
3) “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end.” Same questions as (2).
Same answer as 2.
4) “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.” Same questions as (1) and (2).
Same answer as (1) and (2). 😉
5) “It will be for a time, times and half a time.
YES and that’s the same 3 1/2 years as in Daniel 7;25. (Nope, no papacy in Daniel despite Martin Luther.
The final Week of Years (#70) is divided into two equal parts, both 3 1/2 years or 1,260 days, TEMPLE TIME. In the first half the Messiah is alive and leading His people. In the second half he is dead and the dreadful things described in 11:45 ff. happen.
THAT IS, THE SECOND HALF OF THE FINAL WEEK IS THE PERIOD OF PERSECUTION AND HORROR. THAT IS THE TIME WHEN THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE HAS BEEN BROKEN.
When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.” Given its location between (2) and (3) would it not be reasonable to conclude that this time interval relates to the “time of the end”?
DANIEL’S “time of the end” or “last days” for sure. Not ours. That is the difference between EXEGESIS (which really is only interested in the original meaning) and analogy.
6) “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.” Given its location between (3) and (4) would it not be reasonable to conclude that these time intervals relate to the “time of the end”?
Daniel 12 gives THE REST OF THE STORY as Paul Harvey used to say. What would become of God’s king, killed in the midst of the week? And the shattering of the power of the holy people?
Michael arises, a great time of trouble, the dead are raised, the last judgment occurs at Jerusalem. That would all be accomplished by the time the 1290 days is complete. The second half of the 70th week plus 30 days to the next new moon.
Read Daniel WITH EZEKIEL!
” In the first half the Messiah is alive and leading His people. In the second half he is dead and the dreadful things described in 11:45 ff. happen.”
Are you here claiming that if the Jews had accepted Christ, then Christ would have died in the middle of the 70th “week” of years and then remained in the grave for 3+1/2 years? (as opposed to parts of 3 days?)
There is further information on the atoning death if the Jews had understood and accepted what was happening. No he would most certainly NOT have remained dead, and as I said, there would not have been a full 3 1/2 years in the second half of the week in any case.
The standing up of Michael is not dated in Daniel 12. I presume that the plan would have proceeded with full understanding on the part of God’s people what was happening!
What DID happen was only an adjustment, not a major change.
And note the parallel final week of years in Revelation.
So then are you saying that the first half of the 70th week is 1260 days but the second half is only 3 days?
What exactly do you mean by “In the second half he is dead”?
If I wrote “in the second half he is dead” I can see that would be confusing. I should have said in the second half he has already died and risen again so that the eschatological war can be conducted.
Daniel says the 70th week is 2,520 “days” long, divided into two equal “1,260 “day” periods, or more precisely “evening-morning units” to make sure the Bills of the world don’t overdo Joachim of Fiore’s claim that it all has to be turned into years.
(There is certainly an interchange of weeks of days, weeks of months, and weeks of years in Scripture, and to deny it is pointless. That is not directed to you, Jim.)
BUT what I DID say a number of times was that the last seven months of the second half is a period when the evil king and his vast host is already dead. The seven months of burial to cleanse the land show this.
“Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual temple intercessory ministry. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.” Dn 11:31
The king himself has not entered the land with full force. But now the disasters upon the righteous remnant described in Dan 8:9-14 are in full effect.
“He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for days.
“When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery. And some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.” Dan 11:33-35
Verses 41-45 then detail the entrance of the evil king with full force into the covenant land to destroy the last of the remnant. “Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.”
How that would happen, and the cleansing of the land, the dual resurrection and the last judgment at Jerusalem are all detailed in other prophets and are not expanded in Daniel.
The men in linen emphasize that these events all occur within the 3 1/2 years of the second half of the final week. Dn 12:7
There is ONE BRIEF TIME BEYOND THE 490 YEARS but not a long period. It is the 30 days to the re-start of the Temple and the additional 45 days to the Enthronement Festival when the actual enthronement would have occurred.
“If I wrote “in the second half he is dead” I can see that would be confusing. I should have said in the second half he has already died and risen again so that the eschatological war can be conducted.”
That was indeed a direct quote. Thank you for your clarification.
I agree with your statement elsewhere that in the Bible generally the death and resurrection of the Messiah are generally treated as a single event.
bY QUESTION 6 IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON TGHE EXEGETICAL MEANING OF “THE LAST DAYS” AND “THE TIME OF THE END” AS DANIEL AND HIS FOLLOWERS UNDERSTOOD IT FROM THE PRIOR PROPHETS.
The subject of the MESSIANIC KINDGOM PROPHECIES is one of the most important, and most ignored.
7) From the immediate context, is it not reasonable to conclude that (1) and (2) and (3) and (4) are parallel passages that describe the same things in somewhat different manners?
Well they don’t describe the exact same things, but they do describe the whole complex of events that would have occurred in the Seventieth Week had it run its course exactly as described here in Daniel.
8) From the immediate context, is it not reasonable to conclude that (5) and (6) are parallel passages that describe the same things in somewhat different manners?
Well, one more time, let’s remember:
1. First half of week, 1260 days, Messiah leading his people
2. Midst of week, Messiah cut off.
3. Second half of week, antichrist evil king in control shattering the power of God’s people.
TOTALLY NEW AND DIFFERENT FROM ANY PRIOR MESSIANIC KINGDOM PROPHECIES.
This lasts a max of 1260 days, but part of that is burying the dead of Satan and his human host both. That’s Ezekiel’s contribution to this story. And it’s important too.
9) If as “JM” has previously claimed, the entirety of Daniel 8-12 is strictly a “failed” Messianic Prophecy whose fulfillment was to be entirely in the past (ie during the First Advent), then is there no hope that Daniel will rise to stand in his allotted place at some time in the future (ie the “time of the end”
NO on two counts, which are hopefully very clear at this point. YES the Jews failed corporately. NO the kingdom did not come at that time as IT COULD HAVE. That is a failure on the part of man and human nature.
God did not fail in any sense. The atonement for sin was made. Ultimately Christ Himself will fulfill all six of the infinitives in 9:24 that describe the coming Kingdom. In no sense, however, did Christ fail. The essential key part of the atonement was completed and therefore Daniel is as secure as you and I are.
If, indeed, he is still with us on earth at all………….
“Well they don’t describe the exact same things, but they do describe the whole complex of events that would have occurred in the Seventieth Week had it run its course exactly as described here in Daniel.”
So given that the Jews rejected the Messiah, will the promises to Daniel that he will rise again and stand in his appointed place yet be fulfilled in the future?
Granted the possibility that Daniel may have been taken-back to heaven with Jesus, I think you would agree with me that if Daniel’s “appointed place” was his ancestral plot in Judah, that he is not yet standing there?
He will either rise in the first resurrection or has long since abandoned the grave. While the gospel mentions only the bodies of the saints who arose in Jerusalem, that does not necessarily exclude other Old Testament worthies who could have joined the throng of firstfruits presented to the Father.
Let me add a detail that I wish I had earlier mentioned. Daniel 10:24 uses the term of classical prophecy. Already for over two hundred years the prior prophets had been talking about the exile and coming restoration of the Kingdom and the ingathering of all the righteous Gentiles.
And then the invasion of the massed Gog and Magog forces as described in many prophets (see Psalm 2) but most expansively in Ezekiel.
(And again, never with a hint that God’s people, land, or Temple would be hurt or desecrated, which is, of course, what nearly killed Daniel!)
If we had asked any of those worthies WHEN this would be, the answer would of course have been “afterward” as in Joel, that is, after the exile. If we looked for the standard term for that time we have already found it, and it is “the last days” — “acherith bayamim” which you can see had become a standard phrase.
That’s not very precise, but in Daniel things change very significantly.
1. First, we move from “right now that the exile is ending to a reprise of 490 years of the monarchy’s failures to keep covenant, another cycle to be a “redo” to get it right this time.
2. So now we have a “when” some 490 years from an expected full detailed Persian emperor, not merely allowing the Temple to be rebuilt, but the whole city, and moreover “restoring” it to its former political power and eminence.
3. Then we have a reason for a shift in terminology to something never used before. DANIEL HAS A TIME, TIME SPECIFIC. Now “the last days” of Daniel 10 are “the appointed time of the end” which is a clear reflection of this major change.
It isn’t somewhere after the exile. It is in a specific series of events. The monarchy is to be restored in the first 49 years, along with its constant architectural symbol, the Temple on Zion. And the city, its capital.
Then for a period of 434 years, fall to fall, the monarchy and the city and the temple (all parallel and corporately a single thing) would remain intact, “but in troubled times” as things developed toward the final eschatological war.
Then in the final week we have THE Messianic King, his leadership, his atoning death and resurrection (the two are always coupled in the New Testament as a single event, not one or the other.
Then the counter-attack, general dual resurrection, the final judgment, the destruction of sinners all at “the appointed time of the end” which is a phrase that could NEVER have been used prior to Daniel’s much more specific elaboration of “the last days” based on the prior prophets MESSIANIC KINGDOM descriptions.
Of course, as I said, Zechariah then takes the events surrounding the death of the Messianic King to a further more elaborate and precise level.
Again, I ask you simple questions: What does any of this never-ending discourse on your part have to do with helping people learn how to bring others into the Kingdom of God? How has it made you more effective at bring people into the Kingdom? Persistence in such discussions is a major reason why the church growth rate in North America is so slow and why our youth are leaving in the largest numbers of any denomination. So, what value do you imagine your discourses could possibly achieve?
I remind you AGAIN that a deception is coming that would deceive the very elect (if possible).
I have seen nothing in your comments that shows you take this seriously and understand it.
Frequent mention of your holy works does not convince me, and asking “Lord what shall this man do?” has a very clear and sharp rebuke from the Lord.
Enough said.
And let me note that IF the Kingdom prophecies as given by the prior classical prophets and greatly expanded in Daniel had come to pass as written,
THEN
the place Daniel would have lived would have been in the restored Kingdom of God in Palestine, in his ancestral home, in of course the region assigned to Judah (he was a Davidide) however that eschatological section of Ezekiel had finally worked out.
If one somehow equates or measures growing God’s kingdom with baptizing people as Adventists, then it makes no sense to say that those we know to be baptizing more people as Adventists than any others in North America aren’t “concerned about end time events” and are simultaneously those who are “driving people out of the church.” Those who we know to be baptizing more people than any others in North America are preaching/teaching/sharing the gospel of Christ and are doing so within the context of the prophecies of Daniel and the three angel’s messages in Revelation 14: 6-12. That is an easily available, documented fact. Adventists happen to keep track of such. These entities therefore can be specifically identified.
These churches, ministries, and individuals are also sharing the love of God through service to those in need and happen to believe that Ellen White had a spiritual gift of prophecy as listed/identified in Scripture.
Personal anecdotal evidence is not actual data; neither is ad hominem attack and criticism.
While there are some elements of truth in your theory, it is basically a convoluted misunderstanding of everything the bible teaches on this subject. Your presentation is a helter-skelter view of Daniel, the covenants, the gospel, the law, the Christ event, and the three phase coming of Jesus in the historical process.
Just one example. EGW did not suggest that had the Jews accepted Jesus, He would not have gone back to heaven to minister in the heavenly sanctuary. She did say, had the Jews accepted Jesus, Jerusalem would have stood as the center of influence for evangelism and the gospel as a means of grace until His second coming. Chapter one in the GC.
This is typical of how you wrest and convolute scripture to support a bogus theory not in harmony with the bible.
Ignorance and arrogance often go together, remarkably.
For those not emotionally involved in saving their own pet theories, I recommend “The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies.” c. 1981 and prepared by the Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
We there provided detailed answers (correct and sound answers) to most of the questions and objections raised in this thread. On the matter of the full picture of the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies, see the brief overview in
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Vol 4, “The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy,” especially the brief section “How the Plan Would Have Worked”
I have correctly stated Ellen White’s view of the completion of that plan in The Desire of Ages, which is, of course, her later and final statement on the subject. Someone always wants to rush an Ellen White quote at us to undermine sound exegesis, especially when it invalidates a pet theory in which he or she is heavily emotionally invested.
Bill, this is not a personal attack on you.
You quoted EGW: “She did say, ‘had the Jews accepted Jesus, Jerusalem would have stood as the center of influence for evangelism and the gospel as a means of grace until His second coming.’”
The earthly Jerusalem could never have stood as the center of Christian influence, for that would be contrary to Christ, Who, came to save the whole world and not only the nation of Israel. “26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. 3:26-29
The earthly Jerusalem is today indeed the center of HUMAN NATIONAL SUPREMACY, over which wars have been fought and will continue to be fought. The truth is, God has nothing to do with it!
The nation of Israel, and especially Judah, together with Jerusalem up until the time of Christ, have served God’s purpose, but now God is working in the hearts of all individuals who are being called through Jesus Christ. The work of the Holy Spirit is not bound by any nation, language or Christian denomination. And I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for that.
You have been chided by better than me on this tendency of yours to make it up as you go along and tell us what you THINK on this or that point as if it were fact.
Since you have no concept of temples in the Ancient World, you do not understand why Christ “returning to the heavenly sanctuary” is a truly nonsense idea.
To figure out where you got that, other than in your own head, it would help if you would supply the quote from GC that you are relying on. You suggested I was wresting the Scriptures and came up only with an Ellen White misquote.
ELLEN WHITE IS NOT THE SCRIPTURES, AS SHE HERSELF WOULD TELL YOU. But more than this, I’m interested in what this alleged quote says. If you can’t find it, I will supply it for you.
Have a nice evening.
The sacrifices whould have ceased, Daniel, but the gospel would have been advocated and the Jews would still have been the primary means of grace to take the gospel to the whole world. They would have pointed to the ministry of Christ in heaven and their history would have served as a lesson to the whole world of what God had intended for the Jewish nation from the beginning.
It was never God’s purpose for Christ to come the first time and establish an earthly kingdom if the Jews had accepted Him, as some state. This misunderstanding by the Jews was just that, a misunderstanding. Daniel’s prophecy gives us a world view of the plan of salvation. Whether the Jews accepted Him or rejected Him did not alter that final overview of what God would accomplish. He simply bypassed the Jewish nation and will accomplish His goal by way of the Christian church.
After all, the primary focus from the beginning was Christ’s ministry in heaven, and some enlightened Jews knew this long before Jesus came. Abraham knew it as did Moses and the prophets. And no doubt more than a few of the people in general also understood this reality.
Daniel’s prophecy would not be altered in any significant way whether the Jews accepted Jesus or not. The bible predicted they would not, but that did not alter the prophecy and the time elements in it. Some people try desperately to undermine EGW and the SDA message. In the end, their efforts are only an exercise in futility.
The Jews still hold to unconditional election and when the final antichrist makes his move, they will no doubt embrace him as their savior. The real sad part is this, Christian’s are so biblically illiterate the will also embrace this false Christ, and not a few SDA’s will join right in. The basic spirituality of modern Adventism is anti-christ and anti-law. Adventism has embrace a false gospel and as Jesus said, “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”
Paul is wrested so far out of his true meaning and teaching that the people don’t really know what to believe or how the bible teaches law and gospel. Novices have control of the SDA church and they hold themselves above and beyond instruction. We actually have two parties, the legalists and the antinomians. Neither side can clearly articulate law and gospel in their biblical format. They oppose each other and create more and more confusion.
Both sides generally deny the doctrine of original sin. And this is the reason for a convoluted church that exists today. If you can not explain sin and the fall and its effect on the human family, how can you define atonement, salvation, and redemption? You can’t. It is simply impossible. To reject or ignore the doctrine of original sin, is to reject and ignore the bible and all it teaches.
John Wesley made this comment, “Those who reject the doctrine of original sin are but heathen still.” So, at least in principle, according to John Wesley, Adventism is simply a heathen religion.
By the way, EGW did not reject the doctrine of original sin even if she did not use this phrase. In fact, she did not use the word “Trinity” but she clearly embraced the concept. Just so, she embraced the bible doctrine of original sin, even if she did not use the phrase.
I would like to return to the big questions that have been posited in this lengthy discussion.
First let me say that as a Christian I maintain the primary purpose of both the OT and the NT is to reveal Jesus Christ to us in all of His fulness. All other purposes are secondary.
I think the exchanges between Bill Sorensen on the one hand and “JM” on the other, certainly serve to illustrate the myriad contradictions that arise between differing attempts to interpret eschatological portions of Scripture in an extremely literal manner. Any careful reading of these portions of the Bible will find both similarities and also differences in how different prophets describe “end time” events from their particular perspectives. The more literally one takes these descriptions, the more one ends-up pitting one author against another. Either they are not describing the same things or they are not describing them entirely literally, or they are dissonant voices in an ongoing babble.
Rather than attempting here to explain my own views or endorse those of someone else, let me reiterate my comments that when trying to explain things that have not happened in a directly demonstrable sense, the argument about whether they should or should not have happened, would or would not have happened, will or will not ever happen is very much a matter of interpretation.
Therefore I submit that it behooves anyone who is claiming to interpret these portions of Scripture (which I personally believe to be inspired) to begin by humbly admitting that the things of God are at best dimly understood by fallen humans, that our highest and best attempts to understand and explain are inadequate, that there yet remains the distinct likelihood that our knowledge is incomplete and even possibly wrong.
Reaching back to Dr Taylor’s original question about Doug Batchelor and the Amazing Facts ministry (which preceded Doug Batchelor by a generation) I would make the same cautionary comments.
One of the first lessons that any careful and honest student of Scripture needs to learn is how much we do NOT know and never will know in this life. When I understand the enormity of my own sins it makes me less inclined to judge the sins of my fellow humans. When I understand the enormity of my own errors it makes me less inclined to insist that anyone who differs with me is simply wrong.
Once again, Jim, you affirm your relative blankness on the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies. They are not at all as dim as you would try to maintain. Maintaining such a view on the basis of ignorance of the facts is not supportable, simply an appeal to ignorance as a proof that one cannot know the meaning.
So far I have demonstrated one basic point: that the “last days” in the Old Testament, from the very inception of the termn, always pointed to the period immediately after the exile.
That having been more than amply demonstrated, I quickly point out that Daniel is therefore, like Ezekiel, and Zechariah, in a special position to discuss that which was supposed to happen right then.
The only way to disabuse you of this false notion is to go into detail on the actual plan, which you have been tapdancing around.
As to friend Bill, he simply rejects EXEGESIS OF THE TEXT as of prime importance in establishing doctrine. He starts from the position of Joachim of Fiore and reads the text backwards. Note for instance how the Gog and Magog invasion in Ezekiel is removed to the end of the millennium, something completely new in this matter, a development of the Ezekiel material based on the rejection of Christ by the Jews and the need to reinterpret how specifics would work out.
Of course there is a close relation between ALL TIME CYCLES in the ancient time, days, months, years. What Joachim discovered about how easterners thought about time in his years in the east was simply a rediscovery of what anyone living in Biblical times would have known.
To dismiss the vast further knowledge the last century has brought on these things is nonsense. It is a mugwump appeal to “know nothing” and a direct offense to the Holy Spirit, who guides into all the truth.
There is real danger in this “every man claims what is right in his own eyes” rejection of authority as if this were the days of the Judges. What we have here — apart from the always reliable rules of exegesis — is a pooling of ignorance and OPINION based on essentially nothing.
AND we have an interesting further existentializing of the Bible by claiming that “well, MY experience didn’t work out that way, so that way is wrong” approach. People who have a hobbyhorse and who are riding it, and who are making their own personal experience universal truth are going to find that they are being led by a spirit indeed.
But not the Holy Spirit.
I take the position of the Apostle Paul who (I think you might admit) was one of the greatest Christian theological writers whose work survives. It was this Paul (nee Saul of Tarsus) who wrote that he perceived heavenly things as dim reflections in a tarnished mirror.
Perhaps you can see things more clearly than could Paul? For my part I would not make that claim.
By invoking the extreme position that “every man claims what is right in his own eyes” you have completely mis-represented what I wrote.
Read the sequel to my comment and then offer up a sound exegesis of what I wrote in its totality:
“So why bother to study prophecy and why bother to try to understand these parts of the Bible or teach them to others?
First let me say that despite our evident limitations (see my previous comment), our highest privilege as humans originally created in the Image of God, is to know and understand God to the fullest extent possible (see Jeremiah 9:23-24).”
How can you honestly construe this as “every man claims what is right in his own eyes”?
“you affirm your relative blankness on the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies. They are not at all as dim as you would try to maintain. Maintaining such a view on the basis of ignorance of the facts is not supportable, simply an appeal to ignorance as a proof that one cannot know the meaning”
Again you are attributing to me words that I never wrote. To insinuate that those who differ with you are taking an extreme position of willful or inadvertent ignorance, should be beneath your dignity. You might consider whether you are discrediting yourself more than myself with these grandiose and unwarranted assertions.
So why bother to study prophecy and why bother to try to understand these parts of the Bible or teach them to others?
First let me say that despite our evident limitations (see my previous comment), our highest privilege as humans originally created in the Image of God, is to know and understand God to the fullest extent possible (see Jeremiah 9:23-24).
Second and specifically to my brother William Noel, I must say that some people are in fact drawn to Jesus Christ by the discovery that in the OT are predictions that DID in fact occur many centuries later. And these can serve to reassure us that even if we do not understand what will happen in the future, God is not surprised. For the believer this remains true, and especially true, when prophecies are NOT fulfilled in the time and manner of our present understanding.
The entire narrative of the Crucifixion and Resurrection is about prophecies being fulfilled and/or not fulfilled, in an entirely unexpected manner, as related in the experiences of those who DID believe in Jesus, but nevertheless did not understand.
(I have often wished we had a more complete record of the discourse reported in Luke 24:27. Among other things it might shed much light on some of the debate on this very web page. 😎
That being said, I do strongly agree with brother William, that when our study and teaching of prophecies crosses-over into endless haggling over things that have NOT yet happened in any demonstrable fashion, this tends to drive people away.
“… over things that have NOT yet happened in any demonstrable fashion” is, of course, the very definition of the MESSIANIC KINGDOM prophecies, which have not happened and will not happen (though the devil will fulfill many of them as part of his final deception).
The problem I have with all this “it’s all so vague, who knows?” nonsense is that these proephecies are NOT AT ALL VAGUE.
IF it says the Gentile believers, every last one, will be gathered into the Kingdom on the Covenant Land before the final massed invasion, THEN it means the Gentile believers, every last one, will be gathered into the Kingdom on the Covenant Land before the final massed invasion.
IF it says the mountain of the House of the Yahweh will be raised above the highest hills, and the nations shall flow to it, THEN it means the mountain of the House of the Yahweh will be raised above the highest hills, and the nations shall flow to it.
The problem with this obvious lack of OBJECTIVE NORMS OF TRUTH is that the subjective “I believe with all my heart my special theory/personal experience is correct and you better accept it or you’re wrong” is that it has no way to know who’s OPINIONS are correct.
Of course I know the objectors on here are reading a late translation about an age and culture about which they know little to nothing. Of course I understand the limitations of those who have not had the blessing of insight that only an acquaintance with the FACTS can give.
Part of objective reality is having the common sense to give up one’s personal theories in the fact of FACTS. FACTS are stubborn and won’t change, no matter what epithets and claims are hurled at the messenger who brings the FACTS.
If the Ingathering of the Gentiles and the final decisions of every person had already been made before the eschatological war (for in the END, no matter WHAT CYCLE it came in, there would be but two characters, would have been but two characters, WILL BE but two characters. Every character WOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY DEVELOPED, and EVERY CHARACTER WILL BE FULLY DEVELOPED.
When probation closes it will be because every human being has made a final decision from which they will never depart. God does not close probation, He assents to the decisions made.
The Ingathering of the Gentiles and the final war, with final decisions made by every person meant that HAD THE REDEEMER DIED THE ATONING DEATH AND THE REST OF THE PROGRAMME OF EVENTS PROPHESIED, LARGE AND SMALL, HAD COME TO PASS THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ATONING INTERCESSION WHEN THE PLAN WAS DONE.
SIN AND SINNERS WOULD HAVE BEEN NO MORE. THE IDEA OF CHRIST RETURNING TO HEAVENN IN THE MIDST OF THE FINAL EVENTS IN DANIEL 11 SPEAKS TO A REMARKABLE LEVEL OF MISUNDERSTANDING AND CONFUSION.
So then how would you explain the EGW statement that the Righteousness of Christ is both our Title to Heaven and our Fitness for Heaven?
For my part I shall choose to rely upon the Character of Christ and the Atonement of Christ. To rely upon my own would be the height of arrogance and folly.
Your over all comments, Jim, are relevant to the discussion. But we must affirm that some things are clearly understood while other things are not. In which case, what we can know is important to affirm. As the bible says, “Write the vision and make it plain that wayfareing men, though fools, need not err therein.”
So the bickering will continue as to what is clear, and what is not. For a SDA who adheres to the historic faith, the year/day principle is non-negotiable. This means we can affirm that in 1844 something happened in the historical process of history and for a SDA it is the fact the Jesus passed from the holy place in the heavenly temple to enter the most Holy Place and began a work of final judgment that is followed by a “final atonement”.
People may bicker about what all that means, but the event itself is a non-negotiable doctrine for a SDA. I need not quote all the EGW comments on this issue as she affirms what I have stated. It is laid out in the chapter “Facing Life’s Record” in the GC.
I would never personally ask anyone to leave the church who did not understand the whole scenario and its implications if they admitted they simply did not know exactly what it meant.
On the other hand, anyone who has carefully studied out the subject with the affirmation they know exactly what it teaches and chooses to reject it, then they should of their own free will leave the church. And if not, and they feel a need to attack the message, they should then be dis-fellowshipped. If they are not honest enough to simply leave, then they should be reasoned with, like they did Dr. Ford, and if they still refuse to leave, then there is no other viable option.
But the fact is, there is so much false doctrine advocated in Adventism today, a person would not know where to start in the process of discipline for all the false teaching. A person could easily say, “Why are you disciplining me, while ignoring false doctrine on many other levels?” A viable question. So now we are “stuck” with “every wind of doctrine” (EGW) and each individual better know exactly what they personally believe, because the church is no longer to be trusted to communicate bible truth. The SDA church today is a “clearing house” for every “Tom, Dick, and Harry’s” opinion with the church endorsing by implication any and every possible explanation. Namely, what you don’t expose and oppose, you accept and endorse.
Some rise to levels of “spiritual icons” that are “untouchable”. And this is where we are today.
Bill, as I mentioned previously I am not attacking you.
Although my comment was in response to what EGW had said, I briefly described my understanding in relation to the EARTHLY Jerusalem and its role in history. Let me quote another two passages:
“22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” Heb 12:22-24
“24 …….For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Gal. 4:24-26
The significance of the earthly Jerusalem has ended; the New Jerusalem from Heaven is the City of the Great King—our Lord Jesus Christ.
You wrote: “Some people try desperately to undermine EGW and the SDA message. In the end, their efforts are only an exercise in futility.” If some one’s doctrine is able to be undermined, then therein lays the answer. I was not trying to undermine but correct a long-held view. As for the SDA message, I am not familiar with what that message is, so I will not comment on that point.
You wrote: “But the fact is, there is so much false doctrine advocated in Adventism today, a person would not know where to start in the process of discipline for all the false teaching.”
I think this statement summarizes more than meets the eye. I am aware that human minds draw conclusions from their own understanding of the knowledge which they posses, and to have the knowledge of God in our hearts is one thing, but to know how to correctly/rightly use that knowledge is only achievable by the Spirit of God. It is called the “Wisdom of God”. Therefore, let me ask you this: Are the “false doctrines” and “false teaching” a result of people having changed and corrupted the original early church doctrines, or has Adventism arrived at the state it now finds itself because of errors within the original doctrines?
I am not trying to push you into a corner, but I find that the more we humans attempt to interpret Scripture through our own human intelligence rather than humbling and subjecting ourselves under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, there will only be more confusion and false doctrines blowing in the wind.
I agree with much of what you write on these posts, but the subject on Jerusalem just did not sound right to me.
The Seventy Week prophecy is by far the most important and clear statement of who is the real Messiah and when does this person come? Jesus opened His work in Galilee by proclaiming “The TIME is fulfilled.”
It is evident what time that is.
The year-day principle works in specific places EXEGETICALLY.
However, in Daniel 8:14, THE Adventist text, we are looking at 2,300 “EVENING-MORNING TIME UNITS” and nothing else. Not days. Not months. Not years.
The conservative SDADventists have always held that statemenbts io the First Creation Story are absolutely determinative: “There was evening, and there was morning. Day One!” and on all the way through Day 6.
This Temple language makes it absolute that whatever we think of the First Creaton Story, it speaks of the creation of the Race of Adam in six literal 24-hour days.
BUT you can’t have it both ways. If that is so in Gen 1:1-2:3 it is so in Daniel 8:14 also.
The question then becomes rather simple: on what basis, hermeneutically, can one change the 2,300 literal 24-hour periods into years? THERE IS SUCH A BASIS, A RECOGNIZED VALID METHOD OF INTERPRETING.
If you all would quiet yourselves down and listen, this can be explained in ways that cannot be undermined by pointing out that these are days and getting absurd answers like “I don’t care what it SAYS, it MEANS “years” period.
That is, in fact, your position, Bill. The irony is that we agree that something of unique importance happened in the flow of the plan of salvation in the fall of 1844. Something that was essential before human history close.
If you would stop arguing against sound exegesis, and supplying only your opinion in its place, we could go on to how we demonstrate that Biblically in a sound exegetical way.
But perhsps each of you has a pre-determined theological pet theory that simply cannot be given up at this point, to which you are too emotionally wedded to admit it is wrong.
The problem of Tom,Dick,Harry is that when you reject sound exegesis, that is all you have left Bill. And that is indeed where SDAventism is now.
“The irony is that we agree that something of unique importance happened in the flow of the plan of salvation in the fall of 1844. Something that was essential before human history close.”
Would you mind telling us what it is that you believe happened in the fall of 1844?
Preferably without harping and carping regarding whether or why others are ignorant or mis-informed or devious or diabolical?
I don’t harp or carp (although I must say you do) but I do challenge those pesky private truths and pet theories and hobbyhorses that we are presented with so consistently, including your clovis “truth”.
See the last four chapters in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies” the unabridged 1981 edition. Copies can be had online. I just bought two.
Even Bill would learn some useful things. Cheers.
If we would all just listen to “JM’ he would teach us The Truth about the Messianic Kingdom.
On the other hand, if we would all just listen to Bill he would teach us The Truth about the heavenly Sanctuary.
As it happens I DO believe that there were Messianic Kingdom prophecies that were not completely fulfilled in the First Advent. As it happens I DO believe that some passages in Ezekiel and Daniel and Revelation can properly be explained by the year-day principle. As it happens I DO believe there are both heavenly and earthly aspects to the various Sanctuary narratives in the Bible, and that in some places the two are treated together without overt distinctions.
But I would never claim these personal Beliefs are Facts. In my epistemology Facts are things that can be empirically observed by some form of repeatable experiments. It is very difficult to have a coherent discussion when people refuse to recognize the difference between observable Facts versus Beliefs that are interpretations or conclusions based upon layers of inferences regarding Facts.
As the late Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan remarked, “everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts”.
If we could agree on the observable facts then we would need to address our hermeneutic principles (principles of interpretation). I would be willing to suggest some principles for interpreting Bible prophecies but I doubt there would be much agreement.
So unfortunately this discussion almost immediately degenerates into “I’m right and you’re wrong” and from there to insinuations about motives and understanding and education and ignorance. None of which sheds much light on the actual agreements or disagreements.
It has been my personal privilege to know some very good and very bright Bible scholars from a variety of different positions on these subjects. Invariably the best and the brightest have been able to explain not only their own conclusions but also compare them with other points-of-view, without recourse to aspersions about those who disagree with them. Some I know have even allowed people with different points of view to review their work before they published, to be certain they were fairly representing the opposing positions. And this characteristic of humble teachability, is not unique to one particular point of view.
As in other fields of inquiry, one does not really begin to understand until one realizes and is willing to admit how much one does NOT know. And one must honestly allow for the possibility that others who disagree still might know or understand something that one has overlooked.
Here lies the crux of the problem:
“But I would never claim these personal Beliefs are Facts.”
AND YOU SHOULD NOT DO SO. YOU SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THE ESSENTIAL TRAINING TO DO EXEGESIS. ALL YOUR CLOVIS THEORIES ARE IS PERSONAL OPINION THAT ILLUSTRATES THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE INTERPRETIVE BASE.
AGAIN, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU CAN JUDGE THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM PROPHECIES, ON WHICH THERE IS VIRTUAL ACADEMIC UNANIMITY AMONG THOSE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT?
THE FACT THAT YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING OR ANOTHER ABOUT THE KINGDOM PROPHECIES IS, TO PUT IT MILDLY, IRRELEVANT.
YOU CONTINUE TO CONFUSE YOUR OPINION WITH ACADEMIC RESEARCH.
In my epistemology Facts are things that can be empirically observed by some form of repeatable experiments. It is very difficult to have a coherent discussion when people refuse to recognize the difference between observable Facts versus Beliefs that are interpretations or conclusions based upon layers of inferences regarding Facts.”
You do not have an objective basis for understanding the difference between fact and opinion in exegetical research. There are, of course, different conclusions in many areas based on liberal versus conservative presuppositions (about, say, the origin of Daniel, for instance, but even there the basis for relevant discussion is not ignorance of the essentials.
That is not aspersion, by the way, it is simply FACT.
So let me summarize for you: the legalistic interpretation of the sanctuary atonement will not fly in the coming days. And the “clovis truth” will have no part in the final struggle between truth and error, except, perhaps, to confuse a few.
All “good and very bright Bible scholars” (and I wonder if you know what disciplines would actually be included in the term “Bible scholars” (?) listen to scores of “special truths” and personal hobbyhorses endlessly. I have heard hundreds of “special truths” not unlike clovis and the sanctuary atonement turned into rank legalism.
None of this is new or surprising. None of this is new that “special insights” always resist the simple reality of what the exegetical facts are.
As to the ongoing vagueness in the following, let’s get it straight:
“As in other fields of inquiry, one does not really begin to understand until one realizes and is willing to admit how much one does NOT know. And one must honestly allow for the possibility that others who disagree still might know or understand something that one has overlooked.”
The whole paragraph, designed to say the facts that shoot down my off-base theory cannot be known to be facts is irrelevant for the following reason: the basic facts about the Messianic Kingdom are known and agreed upon realities. Clovis has nothing to do with it.
With all due respect to your extensive theological training, the texts are Facts. Exegesis is based upon a set of Rules of Inference. The conclusions of your exegesis or any other exegesis are NOT Facts – at best they are conclusions based upon your accepted Rules of Inference.
All of your protestations notwithstanding, I know that not all equally trained and qualified Bible scholars agree completely regarding what are the proper Rules of Inference.
As I have repeatedly pointed-out, you are far more convincing when you explain what you believe and why, than when you expend your energy and the readers’ time trashing on the knowledge and/or motives of those who disagree.
PS – with regard to Clovis since you chose to drag him back into the discussion again, you have yet to rebut a single historical Fact that I have presented regarding this gentleman. Instead you simply assert that I am mistaken because you disagree with one of my conclusions. I can allow for the possibility that I have drawn mistaken conclusions. I can allow for the possibility that I have inaccurate observations of the Facts. Your fiat assertions on this subject shed absolutely no light on either the Facts or my conclusions, beyond the fact that that you disagree with one of my conclusions which you have made very clear.
And when or where did I ever say that Clovis had anything to do with the Messianic Kingdom?
Placing oneself on a precarious pedestal above the rest seems to blind only the perched to his everybody-except-me-is-an-idiot position. You have chopped the legs off the tower, but the blindness is permanent and the warping of space-time of his descent hasn’t cured the visual defect, or the embedded factual and reasoning deficiencies. So, what to do? Mirth might be in order. Not as an act of ridicule, but as a recognition that our relatives in the human family are just as “funny” in their way as we are in ours!
It is not my goal to chop off people’s legs or any other parts of their physical, intellectual or emotional anatomies.
My main purpose in asking very direct questions is to sort-through the tangle of assertions and try to determine what the gentleman actually believes and why. I am still trying to fit the pieces of his particular puzzle (or more accurately his particular way of assembling the puzzle) together in my head, and I wish I could get more answers to questions rather than angry rhetoric.
Though as I have repeatedly written, I do think a degree of caution is in order when discussing phenomena (physical or spiritual) that may have been predicted but have not actually been observed.
This does NOT mean these predictions are false (see my previous comments about string theory) but it does mean they are Ideas rather than Facts.
A tower leg isn’t a persons leg. The shadow of the tower has been imposed me and many others beside you. That is all. And that isn’t to say that every emission from the tower doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It’s about attitude.
True, but I would include the “tower’s legs” under “intellectual or emotional anatomies” which are for some people more important than their physical anatomies. And often we become most irrational about the things that are most important to us.
Yes, I recognize that, too, and that’s the reason for my “mirth” line.
While yet a young child my mother told me that laughing at people who are hurting isn’t nice.
Jim, my dad, who was physically handicapped, taught me the same ideal. You apparently didn’t read my whole “mirth’ line where I made it clear, I thought, my celebration of the chopping was appropriate, but measured by my own participation in the human experience of being human. (“Mirth might be in order. Not as an act of ridicule, but as a recognition that our relatives in the human family are just as “funny” in their way as we are in ours!”) My tower has been chopped down a couple of times recently on this forum by official choppers with chain saws, so I have been on the receiving end. No pain experienced, just a smile!
Stop and think about it, who is it that is “hurting” on this forum? Seems like a pretty tough bunch here!
Well then let me share a bit of “mirth” from my past with you 8-). As a former SDA Academy Bible teacher you might relate to this story.
In my Jr year at a boarding academy I took Bible Doctrines from a generally affable fellow who had a few classroom quirks that students routinely joked about (outside of class). One day he was lecturing us on the prophecies in Ezekiel when he offered a particularly outrageous explanation of something. Now most other students would either groan inwardly when this happened, or add it to their list of wacko jokes about this gent. But seeing as how I actually cared about the subject, I took it upon myself to suggest to him that what he was saying made no sense, and to explain why.
Of course I was summarily dismissed from class. At that school it meant a trip to the Principal’s office before I could return to class. At the appointed time I began to explain what had happened. With a slight smile on his face the Principal interrupted me mid-sentence and simply said “Sometimes Pastor X says some rather bizarre things in class. In the future please try not to aggravate Him.” That was the end of our visit. He handed me the signed slip and I returned to class.
From this we can see that my ineptitude for stroking professorial egos, that doubtless shortened my sojourn in academia, was already well-developed in my mid-teens.
But I am wondering, (former) Pastor Boshell, whether there might be something about the subject of Prophetic narratives (that contain a lot of symbolism and/or bizarre realism) that can bring-out the worst in my flawed relationships with certain professors?
PS – I later learned that a delegation of my friends had preceded me to the Principal and he had already heard their version of the story. Apparently my explanation of that particular passage in Ezekiel made more sens to them than the Pastor’s explanation, which was probably one reason why he dismissed me from the room 8-).
Jim, I commandeered the academy farm truck and hauled my junior New Testament class to a small nearby lake as a surprise break from the routine to go fishing. Knew it was time to return when they caught no fish and started tossing each other into the lake. But it wasn’t soon enough for them to start their next classes on time. The teachers of those classes didn’t buy my “I’m sorry, won’t happen again” act if contrition.
Had a male “constituent” show up for the same class later where we were discussing intimate relationships and the family. He went to the principal and the conference president proclaiming that that stuff shouldn’t be discussed with boys and girls in the same room. They, my bosses, required me to adjust the course to eliminate further discussions of that subject for fear of a wider repercussion (never understood why we couldn’t have partitioned by gender to assemble at different times to meet that objection).
I can’t top your story. I was the oldest of three, grew up as an adaptive personality. My pastor, teacher, chaplain experiences are the source of mirth and joy as I look back. As mentioned elsewhere, approximately 25 of those academy students are my “friends” on Facebook.
“But I am wondering, (former) Pastor Boshell, whether there might be something about the subject of Prophetic narratives (that contain a lot of symbolism and/or bizarre realism) that can bring-out the worst in my flawed relationships with certain professors?”
Careful, Hammy, you may be publicly exposing a serious cry for expensive, long term counselling. Or, my prescription, a daily dose of mathematical exploration of the current strings of the string theory might just do the job.
In Sophomore Bible class (different academy) we were studying something in the NT when some of the girls asked what was circumcision. The teacher (a former missionary pastor) handled it quite well. He gave a very general description and offered to draw a diagram on the board. The girls said “don’t bother”.
In our boarding academy fraternization between genders was very strictly controlled. But they did show informational movies in the dorms, and as I recall, one in a joint assembly.
There was no control over same-sex fraternization as at that point most of the powers-that-be assumed there was no such thing as homosexuality in the SDA church. (They were wrong but that is the subject of a different Atoday web page.)
“Stop and think about it, who is it that is “hurting” on this forum? Seems like a pretty tough bunch here!”
In my experience those who are “tough” on the outside are hurting on the inside. Under the callouses and the scar tissue lie the old wounds.
“the legalistic interpretation of the sanctuary atonement will not fly in the coming days”
If this comment was directed at Yours Truly then I am totally baffled. Where have I ever put forward a legalistic interpretation of the sanctuary atonement? Do you have any idea what I actually believe about this topic? Do you have any basis for your assumptions and assertions about what I believe, or only about trashing on me because I dared to ask you serious questions rather than blindly accepting whatever you have written?
It is truly unfortunate that you have expended so much vituperation against something I never wrote to you about, based upon assumptions that you took from somewhere else or someone else or ???
Alright, you can stop being so defensive (as you have been throughout) and take a deep breath. No Clovis has nothing to do with it, and yes, I know that is upsetting, and no, I did not see “legalism” in your remarks.
My point as I fairly clearly outlined was that each of you has been riding your own private hobbyhorse. In your case (though you have tried to evade this{ is has been completely off base “clovis speculation” and in the case of the other, an incredible misreading of the gospel and of Adventism to boot, expressed in some really scary “explanations” that are worse than the attacks he thinks he is answering.
Private hobbyhorses always set the mind against sound exegesis. What is a FACT is “the end of days/the last days” in the ENTIRE Old Testament, before and after Daniel, is the period immediately after the exile.
Another fact is that kings are symbolized by horns. The Aramaic word “malkuth” is NOT kingdoms, no matter how many incorrect historicist translations you bring up. And you don’t get to read any additional time into Daniel 9 on the basis of Daniel 2. The fourth kingdom ITSELF is partly strong, partly weak, and would be destroyed by the Kingdom of God according to Daniel. The period of the EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE is as far as Daniel gets.
All time periods in Daniel demonstrably refer to the same time period and same events.
All further information about time beyond that point (and there is considerable) is contained in the Revelation.
At this point I leave you to Clovis.
HOWEVER, WHILE WE CAN SAY WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY THAT CLOVIS AND ALL FORMS OF LEGALISM ARE NOT THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT THE ENTIRE TWO CENTURIES OF BIBLICAL RESEARCH HAVE RESULTED IN SOME THINGS BEING “KNOWN,” OTHERS PARTIALLY KNOWN, AND SOME AREAS STILL AS DARK AS DARK MATTER.
The Bible is a wonderful mix of the simple and the complex, the known and the unknown. Which all real Biblicists know.
The key is having the essential knowledge not to dismiss that which is known and confuse it with that which is still not settled. This the untrained Bible reader cannot do any more than an untrained person can pick up and read an inorganic chemistry book and both comprehend it and arrive at valid conclusions. As to your ongoing vagueness in the service of a rather sad theory,
“The secret things belong to Yahweh our God,
But the things that are revealed to us and to our children.
Forever.”
“How has this man become learned, having never been educated?”
EGW remarks in Desire of Ages that every child can learn as Christ learned. This does NOT mean that every child can become as Christ became.
How would you explain this?
For my part I would suggest that the Holy Spirit acts not only on the mind and heart of the Writer, but also on the mind and heart of the Reader.
Since Jesus promised that if He was lifted-up that He would draw all men to Him, why should we be concerned about legalism when all we need to do is lift-up the crucified, risen and soon-coming Jesus? If His amazing transforming love and redeeming power aren’t all we need, then what are you calling the Gospel?
How can the things that are revealed belong to the children?
EGW remarks in Desire of Ages that every child can learn as Christ learned. This does NOT mean that every child can become as Christ became.
Placing oneself on a precarious pedestal above the rest seems to blind only the perched to his everybody-except-me-is-an-idiot position. You have chopped the legs off the tower, but the blindness is permanent and the warping of space-time of his descent hasn’t cured the visual defect, or the embedded factual and reasoning deficiencies. So, what to do? Mirth might be in order. Not as an act of ridicule, but as a recognition that our relatives in the human family are just as “funny” in their way as we are in ours!
My reply above was meant for Jim Hamstra.
To John McCaul,
Because someone does not take a matter as seriously as you do does not mean they are deceived. What you say in your lengthy postings may be factually correct, but what does being right matter if you are not bringing people into saving relationships with God? The apostle Paul was an extremely intelligent fellow who could argue circles around you and me put together and multiplied a couple of times, but his best arguments failed him at Mars Hill and in 1 Corinthians 2:2 we find him declaring that he has determined to know nothing other than “Jesus Christ and him crucified.”
Being right about history and prophecy with the intensity you are displaying doesn’t build the Kingdom of God, it drives people away from God.
Brother William,
I basically agree with you. But I must say that with the amount of the OT and the NT that is given-over to eschatological prophecies, anyone who reads their Bible will soon encounter this stuff and if they are a thinking person they will begin to ask questions.
Believe it or not, I have even been approached by an airline employee on-duty (I have flown over a million miles and spent a lot of time in airports). She had some questions about Revelation and wondered if I knew anything about the topic. Why she chose me I have no idea but maybe God led her to me? (or maybe JM would think the Devil led her to me?) Clearly it was not a time and place for a lengthy discussion of the topic, but I gave her some simple answers and referred her to a web site that I thought might provide her with good answers.
I have also had limo drivers ask me questions about the Bible unsolicited, including the Sabbath and Revelation. And no I do not dress like a preacher or carry a big Bible under my arm (though I do carry several Bibles as well as Greek and Hebrew lexicons on my smart phone).
But from my own experience I can tell you that it is not just the Ethiopian Eunuch who ponders the prophecies while traveling or working and wonders what they mean.
I always begin to explain prophecy by saying as I wrote earlier on this page, that as a Christian the central focus of the entire Bible for me is Jesus Christ. And then I explain how that is true of prophecy as much as anything else in the Bible. And I warn them to regard with skepticism any person or book or video or web site that is not making Jesus the central focus of their teaching.
Jim,
Obviously you travel quite a bit more than I do, but when I do I always ask God to help me be a blessing to someone along the way. The Holy Spirit always works in amazing ways. Like you, I’ve had people ask me questions “out of the blue” in surprising places. So I think the two of us could have a great time together celebrating the great works of God and the ways He has chosen to use us.
I was raised an Adventist and studying the great prophecies. I used to think they were the most important thing a person could know and that it should be studied endlessly. Then I discovered the first and foremost role of prophecy is pointing us to Jesus, both as the promised Messiah and as the soon-coming Savior who will put an end to the troubles in this world. It is a love story with amazing depth and dimensions like no other that should be our consuming passion.
I might also say (and here again JM on another web page declared me totally unfit for the role) that I have over the years led several Bible classes that did in-depth studies of Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation and everything the Bible says about the Sanctuary (from Eden all the way to the end of Revelation). Each of these topics consumed 6 months to a year.
I have had non-SDAs sit-in and thank me for what I covered and how I treated the many questions. I am careful to try to distinguish between what the various Bible writers say, what we know from archaeology and from recorded history, my own opinions, some other differing opinions, and also what is NOT known with any degree of certainty. Rather than trying to tell people what to believe, I try to give them information they can use to decide for themselves. Though I do not hesitate to explain what I believe and why.
I certainly do not claim to know all of the answers. But I have had at least one gentleman who holds an advanced theology degree from a SDA institution tell me and others that I can explain this stuff better than most of his professors. (He does have a short list of two professors whom he holds in very high regard.)
DISCLAIMER – I neither profess nor aspire to being a professional theologian. I have had the pleasure of reading some very good books and spending quality time in the company of some outstanding “pros”, who hold different and well-informed positions on these questions. My own passion is to try to understand spiritual things clearly enough that I can explain them in non-technical terms to “ordinary” people. This does require a great deal of patience, as I can assimilate information much more rapidly than I can explain it. Nevertheless the process of explaining to and answering real questions from real people, forces me to refine and clarify my own understanding about the topic under consideration.
“Being right about history and prophecy with the intensity you are displaying doesn’t build the Kingdom of God, it drives people away from God.”
There are a host of people who would tell you otherwise. But why bother? You are immersed in your own private experience, and universalizing it into some truth or other. The Holy Spirit does not narrow the field to YOUR experience.
Keep that up and you will find yourself and your wonderful works are among the goats. Be warned away from where you are standing.
Where is the evidence that what you are doing is drawing people to God? Contrast that with the Barna study done last year documenting the cause factors and rate at which Adventist youth are leaving the church. That study showed SDA youth leaving the church at a rate of 46%, the highest of any Christian church. The #1 cause factor was a teaching attitude of being right about all things with continual focus on ancient prophecies while failing to help people deal with the spiritual issues they face today. In other words, your approach. So, again, I ask you to show us how all this information you keep posting helps build belief in Jesus and helps draw people to God today.
On second thought, don’t answer that. Your quickness to dismiss such simple questions and accuse shouts your inability to answer them.
Still, I am thankful for your postings their failure to provide spiritual nutrition is fueling a growing hunger in the church to find faith that works in the face of today’s spiritual challenges, a Holy Spirit-empowered relevance that will return the church in North America to vitality and growth so we can actually fulfill our mission of preparing people to meet Jesus.
Sir, there is no way you are able to know of the relationship of the HOLY SPIRIT with William. And your statement “the Holy Spirit does not narrow the field to YOUR experience”, and that he would find himself “among the goats” is, unknown and heartless, and also nullifies all of your
arrogant offerings on this thread.
Ah, Earl, but the Bible says there IS a way I can know exactly that@!
Can you think of it? I think you should find out how that can be known, since you lead with an error…..
The statement that the Holy Spirit does not narrow the field to any one individual’s personal experience is absolutely correct. That is, I cannot deny that what has happened in his personal experience MAY be perfectly valid and a leading of the Lord.
The same is true in the reverse, which is what I said. Please read carefully 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 in its ENTIRETY (and you might want to note how the same Paul responded in 2 Corinthians 10 and 11 to this kind of attack).
Much less how the Lord responded to arrogance of those who put THEIR religious experience up as the sole correct way. Like you, Earl, others have volunteered themselves to a discussion whose background they did not understand.
Sound doctrine is required for what is just ahead. Of ALL. And some are required to carry that particular part of the burden. How did the Spirit of God go from me to you and you disagree? That does not happen.
Finally, you misread. I said that the fallacy that his experience is required of all could lead him, in its subjectivity and lack of sensing how essential sound doctrine is to fall into the deception so good that even the very elect could be fooled (if possible).
I did not say he would end up there, I said “be warned” of that danger. The Lord does not reveal to anyone the final disposition of anyone else’s case until we have final evidence that they have rejected the Holy Spirit.
And I do not have such evidence in this matter. I do read some on here that if they persist in what they are saying will be in that category…..
And note how “heartless” some of the responses of the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord himself appear when taken out of context. And yes, we are to emulate them, so don’t come with the fallacy “but you are not them.”
Much was aaid about the responses that I was challenged (in a rather grumpy way at that!) to give. I put forth what was urged. And now I am finished.
You refusal to answer the simple questions you were asked makes you look like you have no experience with God that would enable you to answer.
I was weaned on Adventist eschatology and the study of Bible prophecy and have a bachelor’s degree in theology so I know the prophecies inside-out. But my ministry for God was an utter and complete failure because it was so filled with facts that there was no room for the power of God. This was really driven-home to me a number of years ago when I met a man who used to attend our church and asked him why he wasn’t attending any more. He very politely let me know that he was happy attending a Sunday-keeping church. More than that, he had been driven away by the incessant focus of people like me on prophecy and our inability to apply the teachings of Jesus to daily life. It was a “punch in the gut” moment that helped me being realizing why my ministry was such a failure.
Fortunately, God began teaching me the absolute necessity of being focused first and foremost on knowing and sharing about His awesome power to redeem and transform us, then second on growing in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. God wants us to know prophecy so we’ll see Jesus as the promised Messiah and know the times in which we live. His purpose is NOT so we will remain focused incessantly on the prophecies as you have been. He wants us to be urgent in sharing about the amazing God who loves us and who has done so much to save us.
My ministry has never been so energized or productive for God as it has been since I left my old focus on prophecy behind and began following the Holy Spirit. The difference has been so amazing that I want everyone to experience that same transformation. So, please! Lift your gaze out of the powerless and dust-covered archives of prophecy into the energized world of present-day sharing about Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit.
“You refusal to answer the simple questions you were asked makes you look like you have no experience with God that would enable you to answer.”
I answered every question with Biblical soundness and detail. So what “questions” did I “refuse” to answer, or are you again bearing false witness?
A bachelor’s degree in theology doesn’t mean you have a clue about the prophecies, so you can skip that claim! Whst you may know is late historicist mostly misinterpretation.
What makes you think that because YOU were unable to assimilate the teachings of Jesus in daily life and prophecy — even the false interpretations you were teaching — that that is true of EVEYRONE?
We have heard of your current holiness now many times, and you apparently cannot comprehend that your experience is not everyone else’s experience.
Then, in complete contradiction to your prior statement you write: “His purpose is NOT so we will remain focused incessantly on the prophecies as you have been.”
I have commented on many different subjects. These recent posts were in answer to a set of numbered questions where the questioner — LIKE YOU — claimed COULD NOT ANSWER. I did answer and then, as a result, I’m hearing from you that I am only focused on prophecy, which is, simply put, a crock. It is a lie that you could have avoided by reading more carefully.
Here is your ongoing danger: “My ministry has never been so energized or productive for God as it has been since I left my old focus on prophecy behind and began following the Holy Spirit.”
MY POOR DECEIVED BROTHER, THE HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED EVERY ONE OF THOSE PROPHECIES. HE IS THE ONE WHO WILL GUIDE “INTO ALL THE TRUTH” ACCORDING TO JESUS.
HAVE YOU BEEN BAPTIZED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT? Did you earnestly desire the higher gifts? Which did you receive? And be careful, lest you go deeper into insulting the Holy Spirit.
I warn you again, even more strongly, against this tendency to subjective misinterpretation of what is right before your eyes. I testify to you again that people by the scores are coming to Christ under a ministry that includes ALL of what the real Christ taught.
A false Christ is coming and you are priming to worship him. There is a way that “seems” (emotionally) right to a man, but the ends are the ways of death.
Enough of your claimed testimony. You have given sufficient evidence on which to evaluate it.
“the questioner — LIKE YOU — claimed COULD NOT ANSWER. I did answer”
Since I think that I am the person referred to as “the questioner” let me say that I did NOT claim that JM “could not answer”. What I said was that JM had not previously answered which is a VERY different statement.
Let me make it clear that JM did in fact answer my questions and for that I thank him sincerely. And let me add that in the light of his specific answers I can more clearly understand What he is teaching and also some of the Why. And let me also say that I agree with much though not all of what he wrote in his answers.
Unfortunately the information content in the exchange seriously deteriorated because JM strenuously objects to my assertion that one must carefully distinguish between “facts” and “inferences” in these discussions, and specifically that Exegesis is based upon a set of Rules of Inference, whereas the texts themselves are the Facts.
Finally I would like to remark that JM and WN are now locked-in an argument that is beneath their Christian dignity. Like dueling bull elk with entangled antlers, neither seems to be able to withdraw gracefully.
I would like to remind everyone who disagrees with someone else about these things that whether I am, by the Grace of God, able to perform miracles of helping others, or to explain all mysteries to others, these gifts will someday cease. What will endure are Faith, Hope and Love. And the greatest of these three is Love.
I did not invent this idea nor did that rogue ex-pastor Bugs-Larry Boshell. These words were written by the Apostle Paul who was no stranger to contentious disputes among believers. It is easy to love those who like us or agree with us or appreciate our physical or mental exertions on their behalf. The real test of love according to Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount, is how we treat people who do not like us, do not agree with us, whom we are tempted to regard or treat as “enemies”.
By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, that you love one another.
“LOVE” will be Satan’s “full gospel” when he appears as Christ in majesty.
There will be nothing about judgment or sound doctrine.
Which in fact was A MAJOR PART OF THE LORD’S MINISTRY.
And there will be no “sharp rebukes” which Paul urges on the erring. And which are so prominent in the gospels.
This false Christ will be received by the multitudes.
We must take great care to make sure we understand the whole purpose of the Great Controversy was to answer Satan’s deception that God could not be a moral God and be at once JUST AND BRINGING JUDGMENT and MERDIFUL AND FORGIVING INIQUITY.
What I wanted this individual to know clearly was that showing how a term such as “apostle” was used in contemporary society is a basic element of sound exegesis, practiced by all interpreters who know what they are doing and does not interpret the Bible by paganism.
Anyone reading my numerous comments will know that I have not interpreted the Bible by paganism, and certainly have made MAJOR exegetical interpretations of THE BIBLE. And that uncritical appeals to such an uneven source (as ironically an extra-biblical one to boot!) is not sound exegesis.
Be careful, exceedingly careful, now you speak about “LOVE” and note ALL that Paul says on this subject. GOD’S LOVE IS A PEFECT BALANCE OF JUDGMENT ASND MERCY.
“As the crowning act in the great drama of deception, Satan himself will personate Christ. The church has long professed to look to the Saviour’s advent as the consummation of her hopes. Now the great deceiver will make it appear that Christ has come. In different parts of the earth, Satan will manifest himself among men as a majestic being of dazzling brightness, resembling the description of the Son of God given by John in the Revelation. Revelation 1:13-15. The glory that surrounds him is unsurpassed by anything that mortal eyes have yet beheld. The shout of triumph rings out upon the air: “Christ has come! Christ has come!” The people prostrate themselves in adoration before him, while he lifts up his hands and pronounces a blessing upon them, as Christ blessed His disciples when He was upon the earth. His voice is soft and subdued, yet full of melody. In gentle, compassionate tones he presents some of the same gracious, heavenly truths which the Saviour uttered; he heals the diseases of the people, and then, in his assumed character of Christ, he claims to have changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and commands all to hallow the day which he has blessed. He declares that those who persist in keeping holy the seventh day are blaspheming his name by refusing to listen to his angels sent to them with light and truth. This is the strong, almost overmastering delusion. Like the Samaritans who were deceived by Simon Magus, the multitudes, from the least to the greatest, give heed to these sorceries, saying: This is “the great power of God.” Acts 8:10. {GC 624.2}
William, To know “Jesus Christ and him crucified”; absolutely right! Its all about Him, not US. And yet it is also about us; its the Love of God toward us through His Son Jesus Christ.
39 You search the Scriptures, for in them YOU THINK you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 BUT YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO COME TO ME THAT YOU MAY HAVE LIFE. John 5:39, 40
16 Do you not know that you are the TEMPLE OF GOD and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. 1 Cor.3:16, 17
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you SEEMS TO BE WISE IN THIS AGE, LET HIM BECOME A FOOL THAT HE MAY BECOME WISE. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21 Therefore LET NO ONE BOAST IN MEN. 1 Cor. 3:18-21
Amen! It has been since choosing to be a “fool for Christ” instead of relying on what knowledge I had accumulated so I could argue people into believing that I have seen God doing great things I could only dream about seeing before. I never cease to be amazed by His ability to put me in places to share His love and to provide what I need to do the task. Just this past Sunday, I had a project removing a couple medium-sized decorative trees from a widow’s yard and had extended an invitation to church members to help. Usually they’re pretty good about coming, but not this past Sunday. Instead, God sent two people from another country who were cousins of the widow and whom she did not even know were in the country or coming to visit her! They saw what was going on and immediately added their energy to the task. In her gratitude she cooked a really nice supper and invited us to join her, during which time we had a great period of celebrating the love and greatness of God. I wish you could have been there!
Indeed we are bound by the flesh which prevents us from being with one another, but free in the Spirit, through Whom we TOGETHER look to our great God and Savor Jesus Christ.
Always great to hear your experiences as you walk with Jesus.
Daniel,
Something for which I am immensely thankful to God is that He delivered me from the conceptual trap of having to be right and have “sufficient knowledge” about things like prophecy. Freedom from that burden allows me to be human and fallible, which gives my spiritual presentations much greater relevance because, like the apostle Paul, I present as one who is growing in God’s grace instead of one who has achieved. Today I see God using me in ways that I never could have imagined back when I was trying to be right about things that do not translate into practical application today. Being used by the Holy Spirit is an amazing experience and truly an adventure that I wish I had discovered decades earlier.
I remember in my earlier years hearing preachers talking about how some SDA pioneers worked themselves into early graves because their zeal to spread the message drove them to neglect their heatlh. Some went so far as to directly state that if you were not suffering for God, then you weren’t working hard enough for Him. So I felt guilty because I wasn’t suffering enough to have “proof” that I was working hard enough for God. I’ve discovered since that God doesn’t work that way because working for Him gives me the greatest joy. It is truly an adventure of discovery. Yes, I work hard. I get tired. Since I am often repairing homes, I sometimes get hurt. I have a couple scars to remind me about places I’ve been and I’ve even been in the hospital emergency room a couple times after not being careful enough. Through it all you won’t find a frown on my face because of the joy God gives me. For me, sharing God’s love is the greatest fun in the world.
“Something for which I am immensely thankful to God is that He delivered me from the conceptual trap of having to be right and have “sufficient knowledge” about things like prophecy”. So true. Another way of putting it, William, is like this: I think we can either seek the meaning of Prophecy and where it should fit into history, or LIVE it.
As we see and acknowledge Jesus working in our life, we grow in our knowledge of Him. We cannot know Him if we do not acknowledge Him and allow Him to lead us. The FAITH we have in us is His Faith; He increases our Faith which leads us to knowing Him. The Apostles said to Him: “Lord, increase our Faith”. How can we believe and TRUST Him if His Presence is not growing in US? We can’t.
“When He, the Sprit of Truth is come, He will guide you into ALL the truth.”
“Behold! I have told you beforehand, that when it comes to pass, you may believe.”
Neither of these things happens if we don’t have faith sufficient to understand that these things must be fulfilled in last-day believers AND NEVER minimized.
God’s love is a warm fire on a cold night. The jots and tittles of Adventism displayed by the mindless, endless intricacies mouthed by us know-it-alls here and elsewhere are ice bergs to the young (and anyone, perhaps) seeking a warm place to warm their souls. Adventist theologicrats, with a credible tradition of coldness from the past, create a doctrinal blizzard around the symbol of the Knocker mentioned in Revelation who stands rapping at the door. Why open the door for a blast of cold air? Ordinary people in the need of love, understanding, acceptance and most of all, direction, have no reason to hang around this church scene replete with freezing head stuff when the heart is in desperate need.
The Christ image I perceive is one who didn’t give a darn about dogma, jots and tittles, was endlessly criticized by the theologicrats of his day for it. He was the warm fire that attracted average people, “publicans and sinners.” He saw to it the crowd that took time to listen to him were fed. He fixed the shortage of wine at the wedding so the party could continue. He didn’t condemn people for being people, but was tough on self-righteousness. He never talked about a cure for death, the immediate cures he provided were temporary. Most of all, I view his mission as the revelation of a non-Jehovah blood thirsty God with a new ethic of transitioning through life via a standard of love as a portion of God. His was a cure for life.
And that is what young people, and all people, want to hear and experience. Hope in a churning world. The young don’t die, in their minds. Living forever isn’t their primary concern. How to live now is their question. Dogma, doctrines are not answers to the questions they have. That’s what the warm fire of Christ was all about. Show them Him, more of them will stick around
“Living forever isn’t their primary concern. How to live now is their question.”
The young people of today are so much worse off than in past generations. Today, with all the materialistic-time-consuming activities, drowning and distracting their minds from a quite time with the Lord Jesus; desiring to know Him through the only true source given to mankind, in the first instance—the Holy Scriptures. Being able to spend time learning about Jesus, their only Savor, is so far out of reach for them that no wonder Jesus said: “……Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” Luke 18:8. What a sad state affairs mankind now finds itself in.
John McCaul,
What? Me stop talking about the amazing things I’m seeing God do to bless my ministry for Him? Surely you jest! Your imitation of the High Priest and Sanhedrin in Acts 4:17-21 is just too funny! Why would you expect someone who is witnessing the power of God to be quiet about it? When Jesus healed people and told them to not tell anyone about it, they couldn’t keep quiet. I can’t either. I have to tell others about His marvelous works. You may accuse me of claiming holiness if you wish, but I make no claim of anything more than the privilege of being a servant of God and an eyewitness to His greatness.
You asked if I had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That you would ask such a question shows how greatly you need to study your Bible because you’re asking the wrong question. Jesus sent his disciples out to “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those that have leprosy, drive out demons” (Matthew 10:8) more than two years BEFORE Pentecost. He sent them out to minister in the power of the Holy Spirit so they would learn how to work with God and grow into a close-enough relationship with Him that they could be trusted with the greater amount of power that was given to them at Pentecost.
The Holy Spirit is promised to all believers (Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45). God empowers all believers to minister in ways that demonstrate the love and power of God. I see God doing marvelous things that are outside my capabilities and which draw the attention of people to the love and power of God. It is the same for anyone who has received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Are you seeing God do marvelous things that draw people to Jesus? If those verses in Acts are true, then anyone who claims to be a follower of God but who is not ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit IS NOT A BELIEVER. I know that is a difficult thing to believe, but it is still true. It doesn’t matter what doctrines you have embraced or what you are teaching. If you’re not empowered by the Holy Spirit, you’ve got a problem with unbelief that God will be very happy to resolve.
Now, to give you a direct answer to your question, no, I have not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the manner of Pentecost. But I am seeing God use me in ways that employ the gifts He has given me and I have seen Him working in growing power over recent years. I would be incredibly blessed to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Because it hasn’t happened yet just means, like the Disciples before Pentecost, I have more to learn from God before He will trust me with such a massive infusion of His power. Until then, I’m just going to keep-on working in the amount of power He has given me. Doing that is just way, too much fun for me to want to do anything else!
“I would be incredibly blessed to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Because it hasn’t happened yet just means, like the Disciples before Pentecost, I have more to learn from God before He will trust me with such a massive infusion of His power.”
William, you made a statement that many needed to hear. You have come to know the truth of that reality and indeed I too have known this for quite some time.
We cannot be entrusted with greater riches until we honor our requirements as Servants.
But there are greater implications to wanting to do God’s Will and actually being able to do them. God will not mock us by saying to us: “I want you to do this, or that”, knowing that we are unable to do it. God knows our hearts and the amount of Faith we have and uses us accordingly.
Although we may feel we have not received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit like that at Pentecost, does not mean the Spirit is not working in us; which is a far greater work than any one of us can do in return for God. Jesus said: “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?” That’s the Power of the Holy Spirit we need to acknowledge in our lives as we also take others by the hand and walk toward our Inheritance—Jesus Christ our Lord.
The “Testimony of Jesus” IN US is our personal guarantee that the Spirit is working in us and through us, even though we may not always see it.
Seeing that you understand this makes me very happy. The truly humbling part about it is how often God works in spite of me and my failings. Truly, my testimony about God and His power is because of His greatness in spite of my sinfulness.
No, stop witnessing to your own righteousness and the way YOU are led as the ONE CORRECT WAY.
There are varieties of service but one Spirit. You would turn Paul on his head and say yes, the whole body is an eye, and I’M THAT EYE.
IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS TO MISUNDERSTAND THE MINISTRY AND WORK OF OTHERS AND HOLD YOU WAY OF DOING THINGS UP AS THE ONLY WAY. IN FACT, YOU DID NOT “KNOW THE PROPHECIES BACK AND FORWARD” AND OTHER SIMPLE MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF YOUR OWNB INADEQUATE PRIOR EXPEIENCE.
“Now there are VARIETIES of gifts, but the same Spirit.
“And there are VARIETIES OF SERVICE, but the same Lord.
“And there are VARIETIES OF WORKING, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one.
“To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
“To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit.
“to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
“All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.”
The idea that ONE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS NECESSAARY TO SOMEONE ELSE WITH A FAR DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE IS UNBIBLICAL AND IS NOT BORNE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, BUT ANOTHER SPIRIT.
Daniel, you are wise in the Lord. Yes, the Holy Spirit will use every Christian who will be used. it is not a
sin to say the Holy Spirit is utilizing us to share the Great News of Jesus Christ, in words and ways that HE guides us. Before and after i have written messages here
and shared Jesus with others, i request HIS guidance. Often, afterwards, i reread what i have shared and am often struck with the content being not recognized as my own. Thoughts, that i had not previously held in my mind. And i again thank the Lord, for using me.
“Something for which I am immensely thankful to God is that He delivered me from the conceptual trap of having to be right and have “sufficient knowledge” about things like prophecy.”
Anyone who does not have “sufficient knowledge”, will not be in heaven. While no one will have “absolute knowledge”, all saved people will have sufficient knowledge, or they just won’t be there.
“Anyone who does not have “sufficient knowledge”, will not be in heaven.”
Where in the Bible did you find this gem?
Except you become like little children you cannot inherit the Kingdom.
According to Jesus it is your trust in Him (like a little child) not your knowledge.
Who will get there and that heaven is a known quantity are unverifiable presuppositions. In both cases it would appear to be an exercise of hope arising from a yearning and estimation there must be something better somewhere else. But no one has been there (heaven) and reported back as to its conditions or its inhabitants. So who will get there and what awaits is blah blah blah based on blah blah blah. Yes, I am aware the Christian narrative has established varied parameters for discussion, but it is still an imaginary proposal of who will populate it and what it will look like.
My point? Definitive declarations are pointless. Oh, anyway, since humans are carbonized for this earth only, apparently, wouldn’t space suits of some sort be necessary somewhere else? Of course, heaven could be a carbon copy of here!
So you are saying, you’re post is “pointless?” Why did you post it?
Yes, Bill, but my point is not as pointless as the discussion as to what is heaven and who will be there! Anyway, did you get the humor of the carbon thing?
WOW GNOSTICISM IS ALIVE AND WELL. OF COURSE, THE GNOSTIC HERESTICS THOUGHT THEY AND THEY ALONE HAD THE HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE AND THAT THOSE WHO DID NOT WERE LOST.
Satan is too smart to waste time on new deceptions when he has so many old ones that worked very well.
So, are you saying that God does not make-up for my “inadequate knowledge of prophecy” in the same way that He credits the perfect righteousness of Christ to us? Where do you get the idea that God measures how much we know in deciding our salvation? How is it possible to measure if a person has “sufficient knowledge” of prophecy? Bible prophecy was given for three primary purposes: 1) to identify Jesus as the Messiah; 2) so that we will recognize evil; and 3) so we would see where we are in the outline of history and know that Jesus is coming soon. How detailed does our knowledge of prophecy have to be for us to see those three things and be motivate us to spread the good news of salvation?
Neither requiring sound knowledge nor ignoring it is of God. Both alike are deceptions of Satan. The one is Gnosticism and the other is a lack of obedience to the Lord’s command to follow the Spirit who will “guide into ALL THE TRUTH.”
“Behold! I have told you beforehand, that when it comes to pass, you may believe.”
How would we know when it actually came to pass (as opposed to many false interpretations) if we do not follow the Spirit into all the truth? Both sound doctrine and true faith come from the Spirit.
Larry, friend! i know you aren’t interested in my concern and compassion for you. Yet i have, and do. i have found joy and peace in accepting Jesus as my Creator, my Savior, my Lord God. i am alive today because
of the grace of God. i would have been incinerated years ago, and lost eternally, from cynicism and depression.
So i have already received the gift of extended life in this transition on Earth. Extended life, only because i grasped the thread offered to me by the Holy Spirit. My faith in the Godhead exceeds all possible negatives of atheism. Just because some will not believe in God, because they can’t accept the Spiritual Dimension of Life, the miraculous happenings, without a physical proof, without a “printed program” being available at the beginning, rather than the actualities being recorded later. The scriptures included in the Holy Bible, although both TRUTH, and human person recollections, and error, there is sufficient knowledge and wisdom to accept the history, and prophecies that have proven out, and to the near future of Earth’s End Times.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
i can understand why some refuse to believe of an additional dimension of Spiritual power in the Universe
we inhabit, skepticism is a normal barrier to what is not seen. But look upward and outward, what do you see??
A panorama of “breathtaking” endlessness of magnificence
the eyes can hardly encompass, and even believe it exists
endless forever and ever and ever. The Hubble Telescope permits views of Galaxies, beyond our own, billions of light years beyond, endless, endless. How does it occur?
Yet we are a reality in this majestic happening. The Cosmos takes your breath away, thinking of how “it is”, and how “it is continuing”. Without any of our assistance. We on Earth, know by our intelligence, that nothing, nothing happens, that has value, without an intelligent invention or planning. For every “action, there is a reaction”. How is it possible that all the “REALITY” we witness of beauty, of ourselves, in our most complexity, and of what our eyes behold of the Cosmos not speak of a Almighty Originator, of it all. And the ORIGINATOR is a GOD OF LOVE, because He still is permitting Life to be created and residing on Earth for up to an 85 year sojourn, experiencing quality existence, and a late book of knowledge that tells of who created life on Earth. So Skeptics say you can’t believe the TRUTH, because you can’t see the TRUTH, but the problem is that Skeptics can’t “handle the TRUTH”.
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament
showeth His handiwork”. “Look up for your redemption draweth nigh”.
“Anyone who does not have “sufficient knowledge”, will not be in heaven. While no one will have “absolute knowledge”, all saved people will have sufficient knowledge,…”
Bill, I see you are saying, which, at first glance, means we must all have an UNDERSTANDING of Scripture and the messages which God declares through them. That is perfectly true. However, I see that you have used the word “HAVE”, “have sufficient knowledge”. That brings another reality to light, according to my understanding, that, although we “HAVE”, or posses, the Knowledge contained in Scripture pointing to Christ and our Salvation through Him, we may not always understand it. I think the reason for us not understanding many Spiritual Truths is because we do not spend enough time in Scripture reading and meditation. I do not say this in condemning anyone. Today our lives are filled with many things which keep us occupied. I think it’s a privilege if we’re able to find quiet time with our Lord Jesus Christ in Scripture reading and meditation. I have enjoyed that blessing for many years, for which I thank the Lord Jesus.
Even if we spend time just reading the Scriptures, we will, one day, reap the benefit. Because, at the right time, the Holy Spirit will open the “eyes of our understanding” and communicate Spiritual Truths and Mysteries of God which we could not know by our own understanding. By “HAVING” the Scriptures in our hearts we will be able to relate to the Words of Jesus spoken to us through the Holy Spirit. We are also able to “Test the spirits” through Scripture.
Therefore, it is true that the more knowledge we posses of the Scriptures, the more the Holy Spirit is able to show us, in a way we will understand.
“1. Cast your bread upon the waters, For you will find it after many days. 2. Give a serving to seven, and also to eight, For you do not know what evil will be on the earth.” Eccl. 11:1, 2
14 “For God may speak in one way, or in another, YET MAN DOES NOT PERCEIVE IT. 15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, While slumbering on their beds, 16 Then He opens the ears of men, And seals their instruction. 17 In order to turn man from his deed, And conceal pride from man, 18 He keeps back his soul from the Pit, And his life from perishing by the sword.” Job 33:14-18
12 “I still have many things to say to you, BUT YOU CANNOT BEAR THEM NOW. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” John 16:12-15
To be Continued.
Continue
There is a blessing in having knowledge of Scripture, but a greater blessing in Knowing Jesus Himself.
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 BLESSED IS HE WHO READS AND THOSE WHO HEAR THE WORDS OF THIS PROPHECY, AND KEEP THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN IT; FOR THE TIME IS NEAR. Rev. 1:1, 2.
We are all sojourners, it’s just that some are closer to the end than others.
“There is a blessing in having knowledge of Scripture, but a greater blessing in Knowing Jesus Himself.”
This is a “false dilemma”, Daniel.
No one can know Jesus without a knowledge of scripture. To play off knowing scripture vs. knowing Christ is not the way to gender a true spiritual experience. Jesus is the “Word”.
The first point I made is this, no one can be in heaven who does not have an adequate knowledge of who Jesus is and that knowledge is by way of the bible. Just because we can not know everything there is to know about Jesus and His Father, does not release us from the obligation and responsibility to know all we can as a fitness for heaven. Thus, we recognize that our eternal life and a viable relationship with God is dependent to some degree on ourselves. And to claim “God does everything” as some advocate, is not biblical.
While salvation is a gift, that gift comes with conditions and just because there are conditions, does not negate the fact that it is still a gift. While there is nothing we can do to earn the gift, there are things we must do to receive and appropriate the gift.
This may seem contradictory, but it is not. Many advocate the “gift” has no conditions or it is not a gift. Wrong. The only thing we need to know is this “gift” can not be earned in such a way that God owes us something if and when we fulfill the conditions. It is always a gift by way of Jesus. God owes us nothing in a legal sense. And neither were Adam and Eve meriting the favor of God in the garden before they sinned. And neither do the sinless angels merit anything from God even though they have never sinned.
The Catholic church inspired by Satan added the idea of merit and used it to their advantage to intimidate people and make money by convincing people they could “buy” salvation by giving to the church. After Luther was enlightened, he said, “I can not believe you can buy salvation like a sack of potatoes.” As we know, he labeled the Pope as the antichrist and the devil’s apostle.
Men of strong convictions make strong statements of truth. You are not likely to find anyone who would make such a statement today. It would not be politically correct in this age of tolerance and acceptance for any and all errors and false doctrine and sin. Sin is advocated and promoted even by and in the SDA church on many levels.
Unless something “radical” happens, the SDA church will surely be the final antichrist movement inspite of all their self affirmation to the contrary. We present neither law nor gospel in their biblical context. If you mis- represent one, you will necessarily mis-represent the other. All we can know for sure is that we are surely near the final end by all the signs both in the world, and especially in the SDA church.
On what scriptural basis do you believe you are qualified to know and measure when a person has adequate spiritual knowledge, what it is that they need to know, or that they are remaining in ignorance? Does your view not assume having Divine knowledge and authority?
William, I never suggested that I know when any individual has an adequate knowledge of truth. I only suggested and stated that an adequate knowledge is necessary, and God Himself will decide who knows what, and if and when they responded in an adequate way that would fit them for heaven.
Quite frankly, I am aware that the final deception is universalism that teaches everyone will eventually be saved (even the devil). EGW states it in the Great Controversy, and shows a parallel and contrast between the Jews who advocated the law outside a biblical and gospel framework and states the final deception is the gospel advocated outside a biblical norm that denies the full application of the law. The Jews perverted the law. Modern Christanity perverts the gospel.
Radical mis-applications are easily spotted. But subtle mis-applications are not so easily discerned. This is why God will judge the final motive of each individual. None the less, we must affirm that willful ignorance is equal to blatant rebellion by God’s standards. If that doesn’t challenge us to seek a clear understanding of truth, we are guilty of presumption. And I assume that presumption is the only sin that will shut anyone out of heaven. It is the unpardonable sin since it reflects an attitude of “I don’t know, I don’t need to know, and I don’t care.” And this is the attitude that a false gospel will gender that undermines the law of God. It parallels the idea that God is solely responsible for any and all outcomes and I have no accountability as to what may happen in the end. Such an idea obviously negates any judgment according to the law to determine how we have responded to the gospel. It simply doesn’t matter.
This may well be a major emphasis in Adventism that may seem subtle to some, but not so subtle to others. But it makes me keenly sensitive to any doctrine of the gospel that undermines human accountability as a determining factor on some level concerning our own salvation. We are saved by obedience to the law on some level. And we need this point advocated and emphasized clearly to avoid presumption in our Christian experience.
I think some fail to see this obvious reality that must be clearly explained in a biblical context.
I have made a wager with myself that if I ever met Mr. Sorensen personally, he would turn out to be a very positive, agreeable, fine Christian gentleman. This determination of mine is made even in the face of some very strange opinions that he holds. For example, in his most recent posting, he stated: “Unless something “radical” happens, the SDA church will surely be the final antichrist movement . . . All we can know for sure is that we are surely near the final end by all the signs both in the world, and especially in the SDA church.” With opinions like that, perhaps all he needs in a very high soap box on which to proclaim his “truths.”
Dr. Taylor, many of my non-SDA friends find me rather congenial and pretty easy to get along with. I even witness on the golf course on some level, and they respect my Christanity. The same goes for the jail ministry I do.
The “hostile environment” for me personally, is in the SDA church where I am far more confrontational for what I consider the obvious reasons. We expect more from those who profess spiritual enlightenment than those who admit they don’t know. History affirms that the most hostile environment is always those who profess the highest level of spirituality and enlightenment. Ask any old testament prophet and we see it in its full dynamic when Jesus comes the first time.
What upsets religious leaders more than any single issue is some challenge to their self proclaimed authority. They don’t really care that much about specific bible truth. Mostly because they are ignorant and don’t want to be exposed. So when exposure comes, it makes them look bad with the people, and in the case of Adventist leadership, they opt for Pluralism to cover their ignorance and claim it is a gospel attitude of tolerance and acceptance. when in fact, it is a cover for their ignorance and duplicity.
The real shaking will come if and when God decides to make an issue of some particular truth. If we are ignorant, we will be exposed, and how we respond will show what attitude we have toward scriptural challenges. It has happened again and again, even in Adventism in the past. It is still happening today on some level.
I could assume the issue before the Sabbath test will be on the doctrine of original sin. Adventism has never dealt with this basic Reformation and bible doctrine. And has actually resisted it for the most part. If EGW had not endorsed the principle of the Trinity, I doubt we would have advocated it either. In many ways, we are still more akin to a cult movement than a clear bible affirming community. We think because we know the Sabbath, state of the dead, etc…..we are automatically great theological system of truth. We are not. And our ignorance is becoming more and more obvious to better bible students. So, yes, I am far more confrontational within the SDA community. I anxiously await to see if the church community will eventually develop into the means of grace God intended from the beginning. So far, not a lot of evidence this will ever materialize.
Bill, I agree with most of what you wrote. I wasn’t saying that it was not necessary to know Scripture. Your first statement did not include “KNOWLEDGE OF WHO JESUS IS”. And, yes, “no one can be in heaven who does not have an adequate KNOWLEDGE OF WHO JESUS IS and that knowledge is by way of the bible,” in the first instance. What I meant by “a greater blessing in knowing Jesus Himself”, (actually, far greater than we could imagine) is this: “But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him”. “2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.” 1 John 3:2, 3.
By being Joined to Christ Jesus through the Spirit we receive comfort, peace, wisdom, understanding in spiritual matters, grace, mercy and Love, and much more; we are victors in this life and in the life to come.
I do not think you are placing the Scriptures above knowing Jesus Christ personally, its just that others may have misunderstood what Knowledge you were referring to.
If we hold the Scripture above the One of Whom they testify, we will not move forward, and the words of Jesus will also apply to us:
“39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” John 5:39, 40
By quoting that passage I am not condemning you or anyone else; in fact, I still search the Scriptures and have immersed myself in them for many years and found great joy in them. But there is a time, as I mentioned, when the Holy Spirit will open the “eyes of our understanding” and then, only then, will we truly know who Jesus Christ is and how He is working in our hearts. Scripture has indeed been expounded to me in ways that would shock many who do not understand Spiritual matter. And yet, what the Holy Spirit reveals to us is all clearly understood and in line with Scripture. No one can say to me: “but you can’t prove through Scripture, what you have experienced, to be the truth?” Yes, the Holy Spirit does not work contrary to Scripture, because the Spirit of God is He Who inspired the Scriptures in the first place. I know the power of the Holy Scriptures which “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”. But I trust we all have turned to the Lord Jesus, who takes away the “vail” which in the passed laid over our hearts.
Bill: “Quite frankly, I am aware that the final deception is universalism that teaches everyone will eventually be saved (even the devil).”
“We are saved by obedience to the law on some level.”
“I could assume the issue before the Sabbath test will be on the doctrine of original sin.”
I really confused Bill which of these is the final or penultimate test. The first issue of universalism has never been taught in the SDA Church to my mind – not even by Jones and Wagoner as some claim.
Your obedience to the Law mantra seems at odds with Martin Luther’s whole purpose for the Reformation, being salvation by grace alone. I struggle to see how your theology on that subject is any different from the Catholic position – perhaps you could enlighten us? In fact, Bill’s stance seems very similar to the pro-Catholic “New Paul” movement – check it out on Wikipedia everyone.
Finally re original sin are you saying you believe in it? Because again that is a rather Catholic point to take. Rather ironic too, given conservative Adventists have traditionally rejected original sin, in much the same way as Eastern Orthodox or Jewish tendencies to reject original sin.
I’d be very interested to hear a fuller-length article from Bill about everything he sees as wrong with Adventism. Especially since much of what he sees wrong seems to align with Catholic complaints against Protestantism. The conspiracy theorist might see secret Jesuit plots, but luckily I dismiss such rubbish because I work for the Government.
“Finally re original sin are you saying you believe in it? Because again that is a rather Catholic point to take. Rather ironic too, given conservative Adventists have traditionally rejected original sin,….”
First, original sin is not “Catholic” anymore than the Trinity is “Catholic.” Rome is accused of everything anyone wants to deny, even if it is biblical. All you have to say is,”OH, that Roman Catholic” and this is considered adequate to win any discussion on any given topic.
So, yes, I believe in original sin, just like every viable Protestant Reformer did. How Rome defines and applies the doctrine is not how the reformers defined and applied. Just like baptism. Just because Rome baptizes people in a non biblical way, does not negate baptism as a rite not applicable to the Christian community. Rome corrupts the atonement, the law of God, the gospel of grace, the communion service, and briefly, every other bible doctrine. It is a shoddy argument to deny any doctrine based on the fact the Rome convolutes any and every bible doctrine and therefore, we should not “believe in it”.
Yes, Adventism has been very shallow in its spirituality on many levels because, as you mentioned, the doctrine of original sin has been denied and/or ignored in our history. Thus we have a convoluted view of moral and character perfection and not a few advocate some type of “sinless perfection” that has no affinity to the doctrine of perfection as stated in the bible. Namely, Kevin Paulson, for one. Who, of course denies the doctrine of original sin and thus has no way to explain the true meaning of the atonement in its biblical comprehensive application.
He thinks if you don’t know you are committing sin, you are not sinning. How superficial is that? Of course, it allows him to defend his superficial view of obedience to the law, a false view of the nature of Christ and as I said about Rome, a false view of every bible doctrine. Paulson is exactly what’s wrong with Adventism and not a few agree with his false doctrine.
Let me make it clear, EGW does not endorse or agree with his false doctrine on sin or the atonement. He warps and twists her clear statements that support the doctrine of original sin and re-defines words that are so obvious in meaning that anyone can see and know his position is false. Here is a statement by EGW he can not explain nor twist to suit his convoluted view.
next post.
Here is her comment.
“Satan’s Power May Be Broken—Parents have a more serious charge than they imagine. The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death. But Christ steps in and passes over the ground where Adam fell, enduring every test in man’s behalf…. Christ’s perfect example and the grace of God are given him to enable him to train his sons and daughters to be sons and daughters of God. It is by teaching them, line upon line, precept upon precept, how to give the heart”
Child Guidance, 475
This is the concept that many if not most deny about original sin. That is, we inherit guilt when we have not done anything personally wrong…..yet. Sin has legal and moral implications. WE are legally “cut off” and morally depraved. Both by Adam’s sin. So all children are born cut off from God and morally depraved. That is, we are all born with the “spirit of sin”. And this spirit of sin will necessarily act out sin in the future, unless and until we are “born again”, into Christ (baptism) and have the Holy Spirit renew us into the moral image of God.
So, David says in Ps. 58, “The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray speaking lies, as soon as they are born.”
Obviously, babies don’t speak anything. But David and God and every bible believers knows that this result is an absolute in the near future. We have no “free will” until and unless the Holy Spirit reveals the option of salvation in Jesus by way of the cross. Then if we so choose, we “opt in” to the kingdom of God.
Is new to Adventism in general? It should not be, but sad to say, few recognize our true condition by way of Adam’s sin and thus undermine and minimize the real and full value of the atonement.
The true meaning of the “final atonement” is also obscured by a faulty view of sin and the fall of man. Briefly, there is no such thing as inherent sinlessness as some indicate by their false doctrine on sin and atonement. But this requires a more comprehensive reply than I can give for now.
Oh my! And all these years I thought that Guilt was a gift we get from our Mothers?
Whereas iniquity comes from our Fathers?
Bill, me thinks there will be a great number in the eternal kingdom who’ve never heard of the Holy Bible, and of Jesus Christ. Your great knowledge of prophecy and scripture is substantial, but it won’t win the golden crown. Satan knows more. Humility is a fruit of the spirit. Jesus is in favor of universalism.
Earl,
Something a lot of Christians overlook is that God is in the business of trying to redeem as many people as He possibly can, so His boundaries are often well outside the parochial lines we draw and use as a basis for guessing who will or will not be saved.
Earl, let me count the ways that you misread me (in reply to your statement above)! Several, (hundred?) anyway! I see myself as your kindred spirit! I can explain, later, if you wish. Oh, and thanks for your concern! And compassion! Your descriptions of spirituality and dimensions beyond this vulgar sphere are fine with me. I see you as a seeker of enlightenment unbounded by theological convention (that’s part of the kindred spirit thing). I enjoy reading your wide scope of possibilities of things to come. I read them as your personal testimony. All things are possible.
My fuss is the limiting illustrated at length on this forum, and elsewhere, by those who claim to know exactly what heaven is and precisely who will or won’t be there based on the concept of “lostness.” . All are buttressed by the application of multiple key texts used by each to support opposing views. Their private opinions are simply elevated to dogma. It is one thing to have a personal belief, it is another to claim publically others are wrong and you are correct.
I do accept Jesus as the revelation of the God of love, who showed through words and deeds that Love is the operation of “foundness,” where people are not in contempt of God for being human. In the metaphor of the lost sheep and the shepherd, the prodigal sheep don’t have to confess anything or even know that it is lost. The shepherd only cares that he has found it. That is the God of Jesus.
Earl, I am a seeker of enlightenment, a skeptic of “truth.” Being a “skeptic” is not necessarily an ossified state. “Where’s the Beef?” As I see it a “skeptic” is a candidate for enlightenment. The theologicrats, those who spout their opinions as “Truth” appear to have frozen minds and a quick dismissal as “atheists” of any who controvert them. The attainment of enlightenment is a personal quest with a resultant personal understanding which can be offered, shared, and refined. It is a personal recipe of “truth” if one wishes to label it so. But it cannot universally be “The Truth.”
I live in a state of love, hope, and optimism. Those three things have grown out of and replaced many skeptical views inhabiting portions of my life. Is there still some skepticism lurking in me? Yep! But, by the way, not of you and your sincerity, or your faith!
I’m happily a work in progress!
Earl, somehow, my name pasted in as “b.” So this is my correction! I’m sure I’m not hard to figure out!
Bill”Obviously, babies don’t speak anything. But David and God and every bible believers knows that this result is an absolute in the near future. We have no “free will” until and unless the Holy Spirit reveals the option of salvation in Jesus by way of the cross. Then if we so choose, we “opt in” to the kingdom of God.”
Bill I am not unsympathetic to your views. If sin is only an act, then why do say animals die? They clearly have done no ‘act’ other than their natures. That suggests to me that sin is more than just an act but actually a state. The whole world is deeply broken.
To me that actually isn’t legalism but the opposite. It means that our whole condition is bankrupt and simply focusing on individual acts isn’t enough. Jesus doesn’t forgive us from some legalistic individual transgression, but heals and transforms our entire condition.
That said, what about babies? Again, RCs take original sin too far in using it to demand infant affusion. However, I would broadly agree with how you talk about ‘opting-in’ when old enough given the choice.
I am also not against sanctification and even perfection if presented in the right non-legalistic frame of mind. In Greek the word “salvation” (Acts 2:21) is “so-tay-ree’-ah” (σωτηρία), from the root “so-zo” (σῴζω) and is found 164 times in the Bible. As many no doubt know, it doesn’t simply mean saved in the sense of having one’s sins forgiven, although that is certainly an important aspect. It is broader than that. The word is also translated as “whole” or “made whole”.
Much of this is linked to the idea of “theosis” – being more God-liked. Both scripture and Ellen White talk about it. It is also very much emphasised in Eastern Orthodoxy.
My major criticism of SDA Last Generation Theology is the inferrance that we can achieve this ourselves. The true irony is if and when we are sinless, we would never know it or admit it, because that would be the sin of pride. Even Jesus refused to be called good. Even in human we will forever feel such grattitude and unworthiness in recognition of the grace of Christ.
In 3 Selected Messages page 314 EGW states that the faith of believing parents covers their children from the condemnation of the law and then she refers to the blood on the door post before the Exodus from Egypt to keep their children from the destroying angel. So it is more than obvious that EGW endorses the concept of guilt and condemnation by way of Adam’s sin.
Like many ideas, there is nothing wrong with defending and teaching a Last Generation Theology if it is taught and kept in a biblical framework. The problem arises when a false idea is attached to what condition people are in who live in this time frame. They will attain moral perfection and/or character perfection. But it is not sinless perfection because we are born in sin, and this remains a reality until Jesus comes. John Wesley rightly said, “Sin remains, but does not reign.” And this statement affirms the possibility of moral perfection as being the person who gets the victory over all sin, even while sin remains as part of his being. It is a paradox that Luther also affirmed when he said, “We are righteous and sinful at one and the same time.” When someone tries to explain away the paradox, all they can come up with is heresy.
The enigmas of parallel and contrast have always created problems for any theologian who wants to formulate some neat and precise system of theology but it can’t be done. For every point, there is a counter-point that will not harmonize in a precise way the original affirmation.
As born again Christians, we begin to live in the life of the age to come, while still living in this sinful age of rebellion. And we belong to both ages and have an identity from Adam, and also have a faith identity with Christ. So we are always in a state of forgiveness because we are always guilty as a child of Adam. And Paul can say, “There is therefore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.”
He does not say the are not guilty continually, but states they are forgiven continually. So the lack of condemnation is not because they are innocent, but because they are in a state of forgiveness. On the other hand, they are innocent because they “walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.” How do you explain it in some “logical” fashion that makes sense to someone without the Holy Spirit? You don’t, and you can’t. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
Like the nature of Christ, we can not explain it, we simply accept it and just so, we accept the fact that we are “righteous and sinful at one and the same time.” And by the way, I only chide Kevin Paulson because he is high profile and I refer to him as the “poster child” of apostacy in Adventism. He represents more than a few who are deluded about sin and atonement. But pontificates as though he is highly enlightened but fits the scenario of “blind and knowest not” the Jesus claims for this last day church.
Hurrah! In the end I got a blog from where I can actually get useful information concerning my study and
knowledge.