You are not logged in.
Is the Sanctuary, in connection with the 2300 days, a pillar for Seventh-day Adventism?
In 1851, Ellen White wrote:
But such subjects as the Sanctuary, in connection with the 2300 days, the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus, are perfectly calculated to explain the past Advent movement, show what is our present position, and establish the faith of the doubting, and give certainty to the glorious future. These, I have frequently seen, were the principal subjects on which the messengers should dwell.
A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White 1851, page 51
In 1853, James White wrote:
For about nine years, then, since 1844, Christ has been ministering for us in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, before the ark of God's testament, containing his holy law, the ten commandments ; and the third angel is now flying through heaven with the last message of mercy, and proclaiming those commandments to guilty man, that they may keep God's law, and avail themselves of the world's great sacrifice, whose blood is now being plead before the mercy-seat, to make an atonement in their behalf.
http://www.covenantforum.com/cgi-bin/di … 2#POST5012
Youth's Instructor, August, 1853.
Looking back, James White wrote in 1868
The truth and work of God in this movement commencing with the labors of William Miller, and reaching to the close of probation, is illustrated by these three angels. The first was a time message, and related to the Judgment. The second described the condition of corrupted Christianity. The third is a solemn warning relative to what men may not do, and what they must do, in order to be saved at the coming of Christ. These angels illustrate the three great divisions of the genuine movement...
The work of cleansing this sanctuary, at the close of the 2300 days, is a subject which should materially interest all Adventists. It pertains to the confession, pardon, and blotting out of sins. A correct and intelligent faith sees the adorable Redeemer in the most holy of the true tabernacle, offering his blood before the mercy seat for the sins of those who have broken the law of God beneath it in the ark. True faith reaches within the second vail, where Jesus and the ark of God are seen. There, by the law we have the knowledge of sin, and through the blood of Jesus we may find pardon, and share eternal redemption. The subject of the cleansing of this sanctuary, then, is one of most thrilling interest, especially to all Adventists. It is the key to the great Advent movement, making all plain. Without it the movement is inexplicable.
Seventh-day Adventists dwell upon this subject with great delight. It opens to them the ark of God, in which is seen the ten precepts of his law. They keep them. It presents Jesus before the mercy-seat, ready to plead the cause of sinners, who in the spirit of penitence and confession, go to him for help. They love and seek to obey him, so that it is said of them, Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. They treat upon the subject of the sanctuary in their sermons and books, and find a place for it among the symbols of prophecy upon their charts. Seventh-day Adventists cannot spare the subject of the sanctuary, as it is the great center around which all revealed truth relative to salvation clusters, and contributes more toward defining their present position, than any other.
http://www.covenantforum.com/cgibin/dis … 9#POST4999
Life incidents, pp. 302-309
Some assert that James and Ellen White were wrong about the importance of 1844. But, this teaching cannot be said to be a fraud. It is the best representation of Adventism available. And, it includes the teaching, i.e. doctrine, that the time prophecy of Daniel 8:14 met its fulfillment in the fall of 1844.
To step away from 1844 as a valid end to the 2300 day prophecy is to step away from a central doctrine of pioneer Seventh-day Adventists.
Offline
Which is why many have done just that: stepped away.
Poor exegesis is not a good model for beginning a new church. As it turns out, a better hermeneutic and exegesis shows conclusively that the only translation possible to proves this is a poor and inaccurate one on which to build a church.
Offline
Poor exegesis is not a good model for beginning a new church.
I rather like James White's Biblical thinking. Also, how a church starts is not quite as important as how it progresses.
The Seventh-day Adventist movement began with an eschatological error. It is hard to imagine a more inauspicious way to begin a church.
Traditional Adventists have been referred to as TSDA's. I agree with Tom that the pioneers were not TSDA's. The TSDA's came along later. So, I will refer to the Pioneer Seventh-day Adventists, or PSDA's. These include primarily James and Ellen White, Joseph Bates and those who concurred with them.
The early Adventists found comfort in the story of Jonah. After all, Ninevah was not destroyed in the 40 days predicted. They also found Revelation 10 quite descriptive of their experience. They had, like John, eaten the Little Book Daniel. It was sweet to the taste. Ellen White found the time leading up to October 22, 1844 to be the most wonderful time of her life. It was bitter to the belly. The disappointment of October 23, 1844 was embedded in the memories of all who experienced it. Yet, they found meaning and direction in the words, You must prophesy again.
As I examine the early pioneer movement of Seventh-day Adventists, the PSDA's, I see the leading pioneers as careful, centrist in their self-perception, Christian leaders building an organization as they believed the Holy Spirit was guiding them.
They came out of the devastating 1844 experience determined not to set time again. Much of the practical, good sense of the pioneer days came from James White's leadership.
Consider some of the practical church building decisions, many of which came out of those early days:
To accept that the Sanctuary to be cleansed was in heaven.
To utilize the three angels messages as the focus of the new movement with Keeping the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus as the core of that focus.
The Keeping the Commandments of God focused on the Sabbath. Adventism became a Sabbatarian movement. Most of its perception of its role in Christianity revolved around the Sabbath. This allowed Adventism to find a niche within Christendom.
To acknowledge the Bible as final authority even over the spiritual gift of prophecy.
To publish the views of the group in a periodical and to publish communications from believers therein.
To organize.
To develop health concepts and institutions; conservative in nature and supportive of medical training.
To continue the camp meeting practice on an annual basis.
To develop the Sabbath School, lessons, and a Youth periodical.
To decide to take on the world as their mission field.
To adopt the Biblical practice of tithing and apply it to assist in spreading the Gospel.
To develop a philosophy of Education and institutions committed to that philosophy.
To allow for new emphasis on faith in Christ within the rustic structure of second generation Adventism 1888.
To maintain a respect for Ellen White and her claim to be a spokeswoman for God's ideas without incorporating her writings into the Biblical canon.
To organize further the institutions of the church to allow for both unity and diversity; both much needed by 1900.
Message edited by Don on July 16, 2009
Offline
the only translation KJV possible to prove this is a poor and inaccurate one on which to build a church.
I agree that some of our SDA use of the KJV does not hold up. But, I disagree that the KJV is a poor and inaccurate translation. It has its place in serious Bible study but Bible students are wise to consult a variety of translations before coming to their conclusions.
Offline
Is it not a fact that the pioneers who found the Dan. 8:14 prophecy, relied ONLY on the KJV which is inaccurate in saying twenty-three hundred days instead of the more accurate wording: three hundred morning and evenings?
That's a totally different rendering, isn't it?
Offline
Is it not a fact that the pioneers who found the Dan. 8:14 prophecy, relied ONLY on the KJV
It seems we underestimate the persistence of the Millerites to reason out their stance. The Advent leaders studied their opposition meticulously. They noted every argument and offered a counter-argument.
Without posting the original material, here are some links which illustrate my point:
Note that some are DjVu files.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/GetDjVuControl.asp
to learn more about DjVu.
Josiah Litchs argument re: Mr. Dowlings view in his
ADDRESS TO THE PUBLIC, AND ESPECIALLY THE CLERGY, ON THE NEAR APPROACH OF THE GLORIOUS, EVERLASTING KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH, AS INDICATED BY THE WORD OF GOD, THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, AND SIGNS OF THE PRESENT TIMES.
In his December 10, 1842 edition of the Midnight Cry, Joshua V. Himes, in a gutsy move, publishes
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/M … pts&page=1
which includes Millerism Refuted on page one and Reply on page two. Many issues are addressed; one being the 2300 or 1150 days contention.
In the Millerite Signs of the Times, the matter is addressed in the
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/SOT-M/SOT-M1840-10/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=2" target="_blank
August 15, 1840 edition on pages 1 and 2 by the Rev. William Allen D.D.
The Advent movement called for careful reading and thinking. It was a movement which invited debate and reasoning. These three links give a taste of that mood. Those involved in promoting the Advent message did so through argument not through charisma.
The early Adventists studied the issues right to the bone. They studied prior translations, resorted to arguments from the Hebrew and from respected commentators of their day. To contend that they relied on the KJV alone is incorrect.
Offline
To contend that they relied on the KJV alone is incorrect.
Nothing that you post refutes that statement.
Offline
Elaine, you wrote earlier:
Is it not a fact that the pioneers who found the Dan. 8:14 prophecy, relied ONLY on the KJV
The answer to this is, No, it is not a fact. The links provided, plus other examples can be rallied, demonstrate that the early Adventists explored the meaning of words in the Hebrew and Greek plus considered other translations. One I ran across which I had never heard of before was by a Bishop Robert Lowth.
Just as some of us today examine an issue from every possible angle, translation, etc. so our early Adventist forebears did the same.
Offline
It is one thing to approach the Scriptures with a sense of openess to being taught, and quite another when you already know where your answers need to go. This goes for both sides of the issues of course.
Even in the science lab, theories lead to proofs, but 2 + 2 still equals 4 no matter what the theory.
In Bible research you can make the Hebrew word for restore as in restoration of the temple appear as CLEANSE, and whose going to argue very vigorously? Not the ones who want it to read CLEANSE.
Offline
It is one thing to approach the Scriptures with a sense of openess to being taught, and quite another when you already know where your answers need to go. This goes for both sides of the issues of course.
My focus on this thread is history rather than theology.
How close can we get to understanding early Adventist pioneers? Did they link the judgment to the cleansing of the sanctuary and how soon after 1844 did they do this?
When did Adventists begin to link the idea of a judgment in the sanctuary in heaven with the first angel's message. Tom's contention on this has helped me focus on early Adventist assertions re: the Sanctuary.
Thanks, Tom.
Also, I am interested in the idea of Adventist pillars.
It was an issue in 1888. Ellen White addressed it, listed the pillars sort of. But, Tom's assertion as to what are the pillars of Adventism and Ellen White's list don't match up, IMO. That is, the Sanctuary in connection with the 2300 days is clearly considered a core teaching by her; and also by James White.
The Youth Instructors coming online provides a treasure of new information for me. Because the YI was intended for youth, its teachings tend to be the clearest we have from James White. In 1853, he produced af series of lessons on the sanctuary doctrine; lessons 42-50. I have begun to provide them online. So far, Lessons 42-44, 50 are completed. You can find them
http://www.covenantforum.com/discus/messages/584/2704.html?1247773248"
At some point, I plan to return to the theological, or doctrinal questions, but for now my interest lies in historical questions. I want to understand James White's theology.
Elaine asserted that the early Adventists relied solely on the KJV. This provided incentive thanks to Elaine to look into how they dealt with translations. I agree that the KJV was their main translation, but the level of Biblical debate rose above mere dependence on the KJV. They considered the original meaning of the Greek and Hebrew, the opinions of expert commentators, and the logical reasons for their stance.
It seems that the Millerite movement had more men of letters than did the small company of Sabbatarian Adventists. I don't think there was one who was formally educated in theology, the original languages, etc. I would describe the Sabbatarian Adventists as thoughtful amateurs on Biblical matters.
I consider myself in this category, as well, even with a B.A. in Theology. Thus, when they wanted to make a strong point they would have to rely on linguistic experts and lettered Bible commentators.
Offline
Isn't it also true that to arrive at 1844 they had to have several premises, premises that were very conditional and biased? E.g., the decree to restore Jerusalem is not one definitive date, but could possibly be several, making the 1844 date dependent on correctly identifying the beginning time. IOW, working backwards is not the best way to establish a specific date.
Also, to claim cleanse had a particular meaning, rather than restore but either one had a unique interpretation.
Do any other Christian scholars, non-SDA, agree with the findings of 1844 or the IJ date with Adventists? Shouldn't that be of importance if Adventists are the only ones who interpret this in such a unique manner?
Offline
Having a very differnt biblical interpretation could be likened to a physician who disagrees with all the established medical community in advocating a special treatment for a serious condition. Would a rational individual choose to believe that a very different treatment, completely different than the proven and recognized by the medical community be chosen for his own life?
Offline
IOW, working backwards is not the best way to establish a specific date.
In Lesson 49, James White presents this working backwards not from 1844 but from the Crucifixion.
He was to confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst middle of the week was to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. This Christ did by offering up himself a sacrifice upon the cross; when the Jewish ordinances, the sacrifice and oblation, virtually ceased. This event took place in the Spring of A. D. 31, just three and a half years later than the Autumn of A. D. 27, when Christ began his ministry; which was the beginning of the seventieth week.
Then we have found the midst, or middle, of the seventieth week to be in the Spring of A. D. 31, and that Christ, as the angel had predicted, then caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. Three and a half years more, to fill out the last half of this seventieth week, bring us to the Autumn of A. D. 34, when the seventy weeks terminate.
If then they end in the Autumn of A. D. 34, they must commence in the Autumn of B.C. 457 ; and that this is the right date, we know, because this is the only one which will answer the conditions of the prophecy ; that is. reckoning from any other date, sixty-nine weeks would not extend, as the angel states, to the Messiah the Prince; nor will sixty-nine and a half weeks from any other point bring us precisely to the crucifixion; which settles the question at once, that that is the only date that can be taken for the commencement of the seventy weeks. Here the decree went forth.
We have now seen conclusively when the seventy weeks begin, and when they end ; and we know that they are a part of the 2300 days or they could not be said to be cut off from that period ; as the word in verse 24 rendered, determined, signifies, in the original, to cut off. And if they are a part of the 2300 days and are cut off from them, then both periods must have the same commencement; hence, the 2300 days commence in the Autumn of B. C. 457.
See Lesson 49 at
Offline
Do any other Christian scholars, non-SDA, agree with the findings of 1844 or the IJ date with Adventists?
Of course, the earliest of the Sabbatarian Adventists had quite a heritage behind them for interpreting the 1260 days and the 2300 days. We are much more alone on the 2300 days now than they were.
Adventists acknowledge that they uniquely hold to the 2300 days and 1844. Out of their Sanctuary in Heaven understanding came a confirmation of the importance of God's Law and the Sabbath in particular. God's Law was in the most sacred part of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary in Heaven motif has also provided rich understanding of the Gospel. Adventists teach that Jesus is represented in every aspect of the Sanctuary.
Another interesting teaching by James White in 1853 involved the role of the papacy in defiling the Sanctuary.
Again, we read in Dan. viii, 13, about treading the sanctuary under foot; and it may be asked how a sanctuary in heaven can be trodden under foot. These expressions are figurative as will be seen by Heb. x. 29, which speaks of treading under foot the Son of God. The sanctuary can be trodden under foot in the same sense that the Son of God, its Minister can. Thus the Pope has trodden under foot the sanctuary, by calling his own sanctuary or temple, the temple of God, and turning away the worship of men from the temple of God in heaven to his own sanctuary at Rome.—
And he has trodden under foot the Son of God, the Minister of that sanctuary, by exalting himself above all that is called God, and assuming to be the head of the church in the place of Jesus Christ.
See Lesson 50
http://www.covenantforum.com/discus/mes … 1247338153
James White did not expand on this but it is quite significant that the need for restoration , the more accepted meaning of cleanse, of the Protestant Gospel was highlighted early on.
______________________________
R. F. Cottrell, a former Seventh-day Baptist who refused to join the Millerites because they did not keep the Sabbath, highlighted the Heavenly Sanctuary in a poem dated 1852. Note how he integrates the Law of God and the Sanctuary messages into one:
Review and Herald, May 27, 1852, page 1.
THE ARK.
BY R. F. COTTRELL.
When ancient Israel met the foe,
That aimed at them a deadly blow,
Though oft their prospect seemed most dark,
They triumphed when they had the Ark.
The Ark when borne to Jordans tide,
Caused its deep waters to divide;
They need no boat in which to embark;
They cross—because they have the Ark.
They march around old Jericho,
Its towering walls are laid full low—
Hear ye that mighty shouting? Hark!
They triumph, for they have the Ark.
Where was the strength by which it wrought,
And to its bearers victory brought ?
It was a chest of wood—but mark !
THE LAW OF GOD was in the Ark.
When men oppose that law of love,
They lack the wisdom from above ;
Deluded souls! they're in the dark,
Without the truth—without the Ark.
The remnant in these latter days
Will triumph sure ; give God the praise !
They, of the beast, refuse the mark.
They keep Gods law—they have the Ark.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/R … pts&page=1
Message edited by Don on July 17, 2009
Offline
then they end in the Autumn of A. D. 34, they must commence in the Autumn of B.C. 457 ; and that this is the right date, we know, because this is the only one which will answer the conditions of the prophecy ; that is. reckoning from any other date, sixty-nine weeks would not extend, as the angel states, to the Messiah the Prince; nor will sixty-nine and a half weeks from any other point bring us precisely to the crucifixion; which settles the question at once, that that is the only date that can be taken for the commencement of the seventy weeks. Here the decree went forth.
A premise always begins with an IF which is how this begins. IOW, they began with the crucifixion, then went backward to discover the correct date: a date of which there were several when the order to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. The choice of a certain one was predicated on its fitting the theory.
We are much more alone on the 2300 days now than they were.
Adventists acknowledge that they uniquely hold to the 2300 days and 1844.
That should be a little worrisome to be alone in the sea of biblical scholars who have no dedicated investment in proving the evidence for belief in a time prophecy such as 1844. But, to each his own. The Mormons also have a unique doctrine and prophecy and have millions of adherents, proving that there are always followers for most any new idea.
Offline
Don,
A few points to consider:
Who actually knows what exact year Jesus began his ministry, or was even born, for that matter?
Anyone have the exact date for the crucifixion?
457 B.C. was not a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. It was a temple decree of which there were several. This decree had to do with the need to enforce temple laws. Ezra 6:14
The only king that gave a decree to rebuild Jerusalem was Cyrus, 538.
Where is it determined in the Bible that the 70 weeks is part of the 2300 days?
The 2300 days is the time given the little horn to desecrate the sanctuary at which time HE will be thrown out. Nothing said about cleaning out our sins from the sanctuary.
The word used by SDA interpretation for cleanse, in order to sound like the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day Atonement is not the same Hebrew word as is used for the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. It's a word used exclusively in Daniel 8, and it means RESTORE. Has nothing to do with cleansing the sanctuary from the sins of the saints.
I could go on but it's bringing up old conflicts which I have settled for myself long ago and it's exhausting to go there again. If you're interested I could go on, but I doubt it. You've probably heard all this before.
Offline
I could go on but it's bringing up old conflicts which I have settled for myself long ago and its exhausting to go there again.
I can understand what I would call burn out on the issues. Your questions are useful for my study. As I have mentioned earlier, my main interest is the history of how the early Adventist leaders, James White primary among them, explained things. At some point, I will take your questions and see if any of these early Adventists addressed them.
You will notice that I am not using EGW to examine these things. I am a strong supporter of EGW for her role in Adventism. I don't view her role as that of establishing doctrine. Eventually, in my historical quest, I will examine her statements on all this. She did have considerable influence among the believers; leaders and rank and file alike.
Offline
Just to add some general thoughts - The Bible tells us not worry about when Christ will return. Nobody knows the hour etc. So what does Miller et all do? They figure out Christ is returning on October something 1844, and expect God to bless them in that quest.
When all those people, wearing ascension robes, climbed down that mountain in Maine to their unplowed fields and to pick up their lives again they were faulted for not having faith to keep believing the revised version where, not only did the interpreters know when Jesus was going to return, but, now, which room in heaven he was occupying at any given time. This placed saving faith not in Christs redeeming work, but in the interpretations of a handful of people who thought they had direct access to information not made known to Gods people for almost two thousand years before; and they called it present truth, as if truth changes with time.
Salvation is, and always has been, in Christ as presented in the Gospel he asked us to take to the world. There was no other gospel, or present truth, to follow.
Every age has had its Antichrists and the possibility of Armageddon and in the end, the watch has been passed along to the next generation. When all is said and done, Christs return is as near as our last breath. We have no need to know the day and the hour.
Our individual responsibility for spreading the Gospel is as wide as our lives have made it; and its not about number baptized and clothes donated. It has nothing to do with dollars on a Christmas tree or prayer for wilted fruit trees that miraculously begin to bear so that the investment coffers can be filled.
We have factored the Gospel down to rituals just like the Jews did with their worship; and have made Gods sanctuary in the broadest terms a place where money is made by reprinting books with new and spectacular covers, but interiors that have needed revision for a very long time.
All in all, it leaves many of us to walk the path alone; and to make some sense of the path behind us.
Message edited by sirje on July 17, 2009
Offline
they were faulted for not having faith to keep believing the revised version where, not only did the interpreters know when Jesus was going to return, but, now, which room in heaven he was occupying at any given time.
Yes, those days just after October 22, 1844 seem narrow in scope. It is almost as though they were living in a fog and could not discern things broadly and generously. This is why we must not measure our steps based on their experience. There is much to learn from those times.
Offline
There is much to learn from those times.
What we learn is that human nature never changes. There will always be people who believe God speaks to them in a special way, giving them information no one else has - ie: the Jews; SDAs; JWs; member of every schism in history; Branch Dividians, more recently; the cool Coolaid crowd; the bunch who got all dressed up to take a ride on a comet; etc, etc, etc.
What this says is that men are desperate and they haven't a clue as to what the Gospel of Christ is about. Perhaps that is the ultimate example of breaking the 10th commandment - wanting to sit on the right hand of God.
Offline
SDA like any denomination evolves, grows, learns. To use such terms on Traditional SDAs and not on say, Catholics who recnetly repented for the Inquistion, or Lutherans who have to know their influence on Hitler, or Presbyterians who have to know that predestination presented in a Hyper-Calvinist way is in left field:
This thread is totally unfair to SDAs and their contribution to Christiandom, though maybe flawed, SDAs can hold their head up high, but keep studying.
Offline
Tom, can anyone access the archives at the White estate? My understanding is that only privilaged people can get in there.
Offline
In a continued and futile attempt to defend TA, Pastor Don asks: “Is the Sanctuary, in connection with the 2300 days, a pillar for Seventh-day Adventism?”
First off, the Pillars are not just for the SDAs. These key doctrinal pillars of the Advent Movement are for the entire Laodicean church. They have universal application for all denominations, even as every pillar must be grounded in the NT.
So if there are to be any special pillars for the SDAs, then something is very wrong.
Second, this wording about “the Sanctuary in connection with the 2300 days,” is just another way to say the Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary. That’s all it is, a synonym for the early doctrine of the CHS.
This pillar came about because of Edson’s correction to Miller’s Sanctuary error in Dan 8:14. Thus he defended the revised calculation of the 2300-day prophecy by changing the expected event at the end of the 2300 days to something else.
The doctrine of the CHS taught that the Marriage of the Lamb must take place before Jesus could return to earth. This short, undefined administrative act, which involved the “blotting out sins” in the HS, followed the 2300 days, rather then the Second Coming as Millerite eschatology expected.
Third, note that this wording and description is the opposite of the IJ, which was not invented when this statement was made. If it had been, they would have said the “Sanctuary in connection with the Pre-Advent Judgment.” But there was no PAJ involved in the CHS. That would come later with the addition of the IJ, which was never a pillar.
The CHS, which is the #5 pillar, had zero to do with any pre advent Judgment in heaven. This popular, Takoma Park teaching about the IJ has turned out to be mythical, overrated, and disastrous for Adventists. Which is why it was NEVER a pillar in the first place, nor will it ever be a pillar any more than the various versions of the 2300 days and other points, like the YDP.
Fourth: While the original doctrine of the Heavenly Sanctuary was not about any kind of pre-advent Judgment, it was about the 10 Commandments. Thus the Moral law is part of this pillar and was an important clue that helped the PSDAs discover the next pillar, which was the 7th day Sabbath. The Moral Law is part of the CHS pillar, but not the 2300 days or any type of pre-advent Judgment.
Fifth: While Ellen White says SDAs should “dwell” on the CHS, that was then. She would not say it later, because they were “dwelling” on other points.
No on should assume that an 1851 quote would be applicable many years later to the SDAs, much less to us today. So don’t think any SDA should start pushing the CHS today as if it were a relevant doctrine that needs special attention and defense.
I don’t know if this is what you were trying to do, but many TSDAs play this game and thus take Ellen White out of historical context in order to try and prove their contemporary point.
In conclusion:
The 2300 days is not a pillar, because it was full of error about the time and the event; but Jesus being our Mediator in the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the Moral Law is also located, is true doctrine. Jesus mediates for mankind in the HS, and he has been there since the first century, and the law before that. Thus, the CHS is a true pillar, and so too the 10 C’s that are part of this pillar.
In 1853, James White wrote:
quote:
For about nine years, then, since 1844, Christ has been ministering for us in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, before the ark of God's testament, containing his holy law, the ten commandments ; and the third angel is now flying through heaven with the last message of mercy, and proclaiming those commandments to guilty man, that they may keep God's law, and avail themselves of the worlds great sacrifice, whose blood is now being plead before the mercy-seat, to make an atonement in their behalf. Sabbath School Lesson 50, Youths Instructor, August, 1853.
--------------------------------------------------
Note that James White is not talking about the IJ when he talks about the CHD. He does not mention it because it did not exist at this point in history.
Note also: There is no pre-Advent Judgment involved with this #5 pillar about the CHS .
The entire Adventist Community is going to have to change their thinking about the IJ. Why? Because the IJ was invented after this 5th pillar was erected. It was an incorrect addition to a genuine pillar. Which is bad enough. But the SDAs compounded this error by claiming it was the #2 Judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7 when it was no such thing.
Note how the PSDAs tied the 10 C’s, which are in the HS, to the 3rd Angels Message. This is correct theology and history and again explains why this was such an important doctrine for the SDAs. Without this 5th pillar, they could not have developed the 3rd Angels Message.
Don said: Some assert that James and Ellen White were wrong about the importance of 1844.
Who is asserting what? And what is this talk about the “importance” of 1844? What does that remark even mean? Many things are important, but that does not make them pillars for future generations.
Besides, what “pillar” are you talking about? Do you even know what you are saying?
You need to stop trying to defend the confusion of TA and speak to the real points of history and theology that are under discussion.
While the various events of 1843 and 1844 were obviously “important” for the Advent Movement, that does not make every event or interpretation, much less any date, sacred.
There is no 1844 pillar! It is a myth from the Takoma Park apologists. Nor is the IJ a pillar anywhere in the Three Angels Messages as all the modern TSDAs have insisted. This is just myth and incompetent double-talk. Nor is there any Pre-Advent Judgment as any pillar, this too is great error.
Do Not Defend Error
Stop trying to defend TA and Glacier View. There is no point any more. This is a discussion about the facts of history and how badly the church leaders have fooled everyone with their manipulations about history and doctrine.
The date of Oct 22, 1844 is not the start of any new kind of ministry in heaven as they believed. This was an error, instead of a pillar. But the correction to Dan 8:14, and the Moral law, as well as Jesus being in the HS is a pillar of truth that will stand forever. But not the errors. They must all be removed from the pillars.
There is no need for SDAs to make up pillars or pretend that certain errors must be defended as if they were doctrinal truth. The real pillars can stand on their own, in their proper place. But not the phantom ones that get so much attention from the TSDAs. They go in the trash.
Don said: But, this teaching cannot be said to be a fraud.
What teaching are you speaking about? What pillar are you trying to defend and promote?
The IJ is a fraudulent pillar that was really no pillar at all. It is not to be confused with the #2 Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message, which is the Second Coming. Or with the #5 pillar, which is the CHS that was discovered on Oct 23, 1844.
Thus, TA promotes great doctrinal and historic error and Glacier View was a monument to this fraud. I repeat, there is no IJ pillar, nor an 1844 pillar, or a 2300-day pillar. This is what Dr. Ford was saying, and he was fully correct.
There are 7 pillars in the Three Angels Messages and it is time that the SDAs understand what they are, and where they are.
Don said: It is the best representation of Adventism available.
What is “it”? What pillar are you talking about? A false and confused one obviously. Stop the double-talk and admit that what all modern SDAs have been taught about the IJ is wrong on numerous levels and must be repudiated.
Don pay attention: TA has the wrong pillars; the wrong Gospel and the wrong Judgment, even the wrong Sabbath. This is the problem. You need to admit it and stop playing games. The PSDAs do not support these great errors.
So if this nonsense is the best SDAs can do, then they are doomed, because they have it all wrong. Ellen White would never support this confusion and she does not, nor does the NT. I know you have been brainwashed to think differently, but tradition is not truth. The White Estate has deceived you and the entire Adventist Community. Time for all to admit the facts.
In fact, Clifford Goldstein should be furious right now. He joined the SDAs because of the Sabbath and the Gospel. But soon the TSDAs talked him into the cult of TA. He then became their convert, embracing the obsession of the IJ. But now he knows he has been conned. Now anyone can see that his book about 1844 is a farce, based on myth and fraud from the White Estate and the Review.
This is why he ran away from this discussion, refusing to defend his book about 1844. He understands it cannot be defended. But you tried to rehabilitate his book and this is what you are still trying to do. You have yet to admit the futility of defending TA.
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1166507859
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1013659183
What the church has taught about the IJ, and Ellen White’s support of it, is false and wrong. There is no IJ pillar. Nor is the IJ part of the Gospel, like the Judgment pillar of the Second Coming. It is time for the SDAs to confess their many errors, correct the record, and repent.
Don said: And, it includes the teaching, i.e. doctrine, that the time prophecy of Daniel 8:14 met its fulfillment in the fall of 1844.
Again. What pillar are you talking about? What is this “it”? Do you even know what you are asking?
Your attempt to defend TA has failed. No one can defend this cultic and dishonest confusion that does not, not, not, reflect what the Pioneers taught.
The Takoma Park apologists have developed a fraudulent version of the Three Angels Messages and it time that the Adventist Community understands that most of what they were taught is not supported by Ellen White or the history of the Advent Movement, much less the apostles.
Thus Glacier View was a total fraud. Dr. Ford was telling the truth about the pillars, including the Gospel and Judgment pillar, but few understood. Many still do not want to understand. Don you seem to be in that sad category. Why is that?
2300 Days Not A Pillar
If any doctrinal pillar were going to encompass and include the 2300 days, it would be the one about the Second Coming, which is the # 2 pillar in the 1st Angels Message. After all, this Message was a time message, with the Eschaton calibrated to take place at the end of the 2300 days.
But guess what? The 2300 days was not part of the #2 Pillar. It is part of the context, but not the pillar itself. The Second Coming is the pillar—not the 2300 days, which initial version was declared to be wrong by the Millerites anyway. Which is one reason such error cannot be part of any pillar. Pillars must represent truth, not error.
So don’t try and make any prophetic calculations valid, or part of any pillar just because this is what you have been indoctrinated to believe. These errors must be repudiated and confessed as wrong.
Don said: To step away from 1844 as a valid end to the 2300 day prophecy is to step away from a central doctrine of pioneer Seventh-day Adventists.
Wrong. What is this nonsense about 1844 being the central doctrine of SDAs? This is absurd and very wrong.
Why pretend that error is truth? Why pretend that the failure of the Second Coming to take place “is the central doctrine of SDAs?” This is absurd.
The primary doctrine of the Advent Movement was the Gospel and Second Coming, not the associated errors and minor points. Besides the Adventists preached that the Second Coming would take place in 1843 or early in 1844, they never expected it to occur in the fall of 1844. That date came into view because of the error of the 2300-day calculation.
So, the 2300 days was wrong from the beginning of the Advent Movement; moreover, it was never a pillar, but the Second Coming is a great pillar, even as the PROCLAMATION of it was considered FULFILLED prophecy that will stand as such until the end of the world.
While the church needs the doctrine of the Second Coming for obvious reasons, the 2300 days is no longer necessary or needed by the Advent Movement, nor was any version of it ever proven correct. It makes for good religious history for the scholars to understand, but nothing more. The Apostles never taught that the 2300 days, or the YDP is a doctrine for the church, and thus it can never be.
Stop trying to defend TA with this absurd notion that some date, and some undefined event in heaven, is the main point of all SDA theology. This is not true.
The assumption that “1844” is a pillar makes no sense. It is just the typical double-talk from the confused TSDAs that all think the IJ, and the date of Oct 22, 1844, are sacred pillars, located in the 1st Angels Message. But they are very wrong.
If you doubt this, just ask Clifford Goldstein, he has learned the hard way. Have you?
Elaine Nelson said: Which is why many have done just that: stepped away.
The Adventist Community “stepped away” from the confusion and false doctrines of TA. They got fed up with the legalism and the double-talk from the White Estate and the Review. Who can blame them?
Too bad the Adventist Community did not know that most all of what they had been taught by their 20th century leaders did NOT have the support of Ellen White.
Too bad that few knew she actually supported Dr. Ford’s views. Such a fact would have changed everything for the SDAs.
What a pity that the members did not know that the supposedly sacred pillar about the IJ never existed and that it was a complete and total myth (as a pillar).
Few also knew that the White Estate had been misrepresenting Ellen White’s life story as well as the very fundamentals of the Three Angels Messages for generations, even as few understood that the White Estate has indoctrinated them into the cult of Arthur White.
The White Estate has done a very evil thing.
Had the Adventist Community known these facts, they would have “stepped away” much sooner, or stepped on the leaders heads for promoting so much fraud and false doctrine. They would have given them the boot, and this is what they still need to do today. The SDA leaders are so dishonest that no one should respect or support them or their massive fraud about Ellen White and the Fundamentals. This is an insulting scandal that will not stand.
Elaine said: Poor exegesis is not a good model for beginning a new church. As it turns out, a better hermeneutic and exegesis shows conclusively that the only translation possible to prove this is a poor and inaccurate one on which to build a church.
SDA theology is built on the history and theology of the Millerites. The SDAs are not to be viewed as an independent denomination that started their own church. This too is pure myth and bad history. They were all Millerites. They were building on the work of others.
Don said: I rather like James Whites Biblical thinking. Also, how a church starts is not quite as important as how it progresses.
While James White was a business genius, he was not a trained theologian. So let’s understand this fact.
Also, how a church starts is critically important, and I am stunned that anyone would think otherwise. This is a very wrong statement.
Don said: The Seventh-day Adventist movement began with an eschatological error. It is hard to imagine a more inauspicious way to begin a church.
The Advent Movement is based on the Protestant Gospel and the doctrine of the Second Coming. Neither of these pillars should be considered error.
The SDAs are founded ON THE MILLERITES. They were all Millerites and this is their pedigree and history. Thus they represent the CONTINUATION of the Millerite theology of the first two Messages, viewing themselves as the developers and promoters of the 3rd Angels Message.
All SDA theology is based on the 1st and 2nd Angels Messages. Which includes the foundational pillars of the Gospel and the Second Coming. They did not start from scratch, but rather they continued on with Millers eschatological paradigm.
So the Protestant Gospel and Second Coming as the Day of Judgment is what the SDAs are based upon. While there was obviously an error about the timing of the Second Coming, the doctrine was nonetheless correct and is now an immovable pillar. Too bad that the SDAs have changed and repudiated so many of these pillars.
Don said: Traditional Adventists have been referred to as TSDAs. I agree with Tom that the pioneers were not TSDA's. The TSDAs came along later.
Good for you to understand this point. However, after a time, even the Pioneers, including James and Ellen White, morphed into TSDAs. So too did Peter and James0. Because of the Sabbath they became very legalistic and thus they did turn into TSDAs. However the IJ was not the cause, nor was it promoted as a major doctrine. It was the law and the Sabbath that turned them into legalists.
Because James White died in 1881, we will never know how he would have reacted to Waggoner’s new position about the law in Galatians and the Two Covenants. There is a chance that he would have sided with Smith, the super TA. But he would have had to divorce Ellen White first, so it would have very interesting if he had lived.
Ellen White was very much alive in 1888, and she embraced this “new light” with both hands and repudiated her past legalism, even as she worked hard to change the church’s incorrect view of the law and the Gospel.
She failed to convince Uriah Smith and the church self-destructed as a result. But the White Estate covered up this part of SDA history so that they could incorrectly make her out to be a supporter of Uriah Smith’s legalism. Thus Ellen White was presented to all as a TSDA when that was not the case after 1888. The Takoma Park leaders have foisted a massive fraud on the Adventist Community, one that has led to the disaster of Glacier View and the present crisis of identity and schism.
Shame on the White Estate for deceiving everyone about all this. Shame on any that support this wicked institution today.
Don said: So, I will refer to the Pioneer Seventh-day Adventists, or PSDAs. These include primarily James and Ellen White, Joseph Bates and those who concurred with them.
I like this term. But remember, the PSDAs morphed into the TSDAs. This error was confronted during the 1888 debates and was never resolved. But the point here is to understand the Ellen White would have been on Dr. Ford’s side at Glacier View. She would have repudiated most everything the White Estate and the Review were promoting. She does not support TA!
Don said: As I examine the early pioneer movement of Seventh-day Adventists, the PSDAs, I see the leading pioneers as careful, centrist in their self-perception, Christian leaders building an organization as they believed the Holy Spirit was guiding them.
Don’t misunderstand what the PSDAs were doing. They were preserving and defending the Advent Movement, meaning the first two Messages, even as they moved the paradigm forward with the discovery of the 3rd Angels Messages. Thus they saw it as their duty to carry on Miller’s great Advent Movement that they declared was the work of God.
Don said: They came out of the devastating 1844 experience determined not to set time again. Much of the practical, good sense of the pioneer days came from James Whites leadership.
Their objective was to keep the Advent Movement alive and prepare the church for the Second Coming. The Sabbath became their great mission, as well as Health Reform. Then they thought the Second Coming could take place.
Don said: Consider some of the practical church building decisions, many of which came out of those early days:
Don’t be fooled. There were plenty of errors associated with the 3rd Angels Message, as well as with the previous two. So don’t pretend that they had things fully correct. Not by a long shot.
Don said: To accept that the Sanctuary to be cleansed was in heaven.
This was not the IJ as all TSDAs have been taught. Do you now understand that the CHS is not the IJ? Do you understand that there was NO PAJ associated with Dan 8:14 until the late 1850’s? And this addition has turned out to be an error.
Don said: To utilize the three angels' messages as the focus of the new movement with Keeping the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus as the core of that focus.
Stop this talk about a “new movement.” This is not what the PSDAs were doing.
The SDAs were part of the Advent Movement, which dates from 1818. They represented the 3rd phase of this unfolding, prophetic paradigm. They vowed to defend the first two Messages as the fulfillment of prophecy, even as they discovered the Sabbath pillar and actively promoted it within the paradigm of the Three Angels Messages. They also looked forward to expanding the paradigm to a 4th and final level, which was anchored in Rev 18.
Modern SDAs have made big mistake to act as if the SDAs can believe any way they want. They are totally dependant up the Millerite eschatology for their theological history and foundation, even as they must follow the primary pillars of the PSDA. They can neither change the Messages or the Pillars, much less the fulfilled, history of the Advent Movement.
Authentic Seventh-day Adventism is defined by the Three Angels Messages. Such a definition can never be changed, and neither can any of the pillars within this paradigm.
Too bad that the modern SDAs have repudiated the Pillars and misunderstood the Messages that define and empower them.
Dr. Ford tried to correct their errors, but they would not listen. He was correctly defending the theological structure of the Adventist Apocalyptic. He was in full agreement with the PSDAs, including Ellen White. Which means that the PSDAs repudiate Glacier View and support Dr. Ford.
All genuine Adventists must repudiate Glacier View and TA.
Don posted a list of points about the PSDAs that need comment:
Don said: The Keeping the Commandments of God focused on the Sabbath. Adventism became a Sabbatarian movement. Most of its perception of its role in Christianity revolved around the Sabbath. This allowed Adventism to find a niche within Christendom.
Answer: This is correct.
So where is the IJ? It is not anywhere around is it?
The TSDAs teach that the IJ was the most important, sacred, and special of all SDA doctrines. However, such a claim is absurd nonsense. Thanks to the CHS, the 5th pillar, the SDAs discovered the importance of the Moral Law and then the Sabbath.
There was no IJ, or Pre-Advent Judgment at this time as the incompetent and foolish apologists have claimed all these years. This is just one point, out of many, that Dr. Ford was trying to explain. He knew church history and thus he exposed TA as historically and eschatologically impossible. But few could comprehend the truth.
Dr. Ford understood that propaganda is not truth, and the SDAs should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their leaders to falsify history and invent false doctrine in the name of the Pioneers. The Adventist Community has been greatly misinformed about SDA history. There is no excuse for such dishonest and wicked deception. This fraud is still being preached and published, as if it were true, and as if Ellen White supports TA, when she does not.
The IJ Not Prominent
The SDAs were obsessed about the Sabbath and this is what they promoted more than all other doctrines combined. Uriah Smith did not even write his book about the IJ until almost 1880. So Clifford Goldstein and all those that have stood up to proclaim that the IJ and 1844 are the greatest of ALL SDA pillars have made fools of themselves. They have embraced myths and legends.
Don said: To acknowledge the Bible as final authority even over the spiritual gift of prophecy.
Correct. But guess what? TA teaches a very different hermeneutic.
Even though Dr. Ford was correct to say that Ellen White did not have doctrinal authority, the leaders disagreed. Consequently, directly after Glacier View, the leaders established the 27 Fundamentals and declared that Ellen White was a source of authority for the church. This is one reason why they wanted to get rid of Dr. Ford. He opposed this misuse of Ellen White, which the church wanted to make official. After he was gone, they could do what they wanted, and they did.
I can assure you that the PSDAs would never approve of what the White Estate had done. Nor would the Apostles or Reformers. Ellen White does not support this false hermeneutic from the White Estate. She is NOT a prophet as the White Estate claims, nor does she have any doctrinal authority. This is the correct position of all the PSDAs.
Don said: To publish the views of the group in a periodical and to publish communications from believers therein.
Where do you think the SDAs found this passion for marketing and printing? It came from the Millerites. They were famous for their many publications and reading rooms. So this was neither a pillar nor original. It was good marketing, especially in an era when publishing was the primary method of communication.
Don said: To organize.
James White was the one who had the organization and building skills. Not Ellen White or even Bates. James White, with his gifts, deserves much more credit for developing the Battle Creek Empire, and Ellen White much less.
Thus, James White had the gift of “administration” and Ellen White did not. Without this gift, the paradigm of the Three Angels Messages would not have existed, nor would the SDA church, or their successful Health Empire that brought the world Breakfast Cereal.
1Cor. 12:28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
Don said: To develop health concepts and institutions; conservative in nature and supportive of medical training.
Health and Healing is the 7th pillar. Too bad that this pillar, which is a great marketing tool and metaphor for the Gospel, has been lost. The SDA Health Message played a critical role in the success of the Battle Creek denomination. It was the “right arm” of the 3rd Angels Message.
The SDAs today have no idea how the PSDAs defined or marketed their Health Message. Here is another great failing of TA. They neither proclaim the Gospel nor understand healing or the Health Message.
Luke 9:2 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing.
Luke 9:6 Departing, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.
The Gospel and physical healing are closely associated. Too bad that the SDAs have lost both.
Don said: To continue the camp meeting practice on an annual basis. To develop the Sabbath School, lessons, and a Youth periodical. To decide to take on the world as their mission field.
The SDAs copied the way other churches operated. There was nothing new or different here.
Don said: To adopt the Biblical practice of tithing and apply it to assist in spreading the Gospel.
Why be proud of error and false doctrine?
The SDAs tried a number of methods to support their ministry before they tried tithing. So it was something that evolved well after the 3rd Angels Message had been discovered and developed. It has also turned out to be a false doctrine that has zero support in the NT.
Tithing is not a pillar in the Three Angels Messages, but rather it is a great error.
While tithing is biblical, it is only so during the Old Covenant era. It has no place in the church, which is why there is not one single reference in the Bible about any Christian paying tithe or receiving tithe. The Apostolic church never tithed. They knew it was not compatible with the Gospel.
Today, tithing is a very false and dangerous doctrine. It makes war against the Gospel and the Fundamentals of the Protestant Faith. Those that participate in this hierarchical charade do not understand the New Covenant, nor do they embrace the correct Gospel. They are not Protestants, but Sabbatarian Judaizers, legalists, and Papists that have infiltrated the church.
Don said: To develop a philosophy of Education and institutions committed to that philosophy.
Nothing new here. This is what all denominations did. They were just copying what others had done. Too bad that it has all turned into propaganda. SDA schools censor their professors, and thus there is no freedom of speech or thought. So what good are such cultic institutions?
Don said: To allow for new emphasis on faith in Christ within the rustic structure of second generation Adventism of 1888.
What is this Double-talk? This calls for a WOLF-ALERT.
Your twisting and turning of history in order to defend TA is dishonest propaganda. Like all TSDAs, you fail to admit that both 1888 and Glacier View condemns the church. And so too does this continued attempt to pretend that something good took place in 1888. The 1888 debates were catastrophic for the SDAs.
The real issue for the TSDAs is their refusal to understand and embrace the Protestant Gospel. They think so much like the Jews that they have allowed the Sabbath and the law to become their gospel, even as they pretend they are Jews and pay tithe and mimic them in other ways.
Now they have gone corrupt and pluralistic, having no care for either the law or the Gospel, much less the Three Angels Messages.
The TSDAs hate the #1 pillar, upon which all others depend. This was the root cause for the disaster of both 1888 and 1980. Waggoner and Ford understood Luther’s Gospel, but they failed to insert this theology into the 3rd Angels Message. Each failure was followed by a great schism, and so the pattern goes.
Now we are coming up to a third opportunity for the SDAs to repent and embrace the genuine Gospel and the correct version of the Three Angels Messages. If they botch it a third time, they will collapse. Is this what you want to see Don? It is what you will see if the SDAs refuse to repent and reform.
So Don, let’s be honest shall we? The SDA leaders have never allowed the Gospel to be fully or correctly taught. Not in the 19th or 20th centuries. Not even today in the 21st. Pity.
SDAs REPUDIATE THE GOSPEL
The SDA leaders did NOT allow, nor did they embrace the Protestant Gospel in 1888 or 1980. They still have not repented and changed their minds today. This is the problem. This is why things are such a mess and why the SDA church is so self-destructive and corrupt. It’s not for lack of good eschatology; they have plenty of that within the paradigm of the Three Angels Messages. It is because they have turned their backs on the Gospel.
The entire paradigm of the 3 Angels depends on the Gospel, and the SDAs have never understood this doctrine correctly. Which explains why they have the wrong Sabbath. They have the Sabbath of the legalists, because they are just like the Pharisees in the Gospel Story. But they don’t see it because they are blind to the Gospel.
The Protestant Gospel is the #1 Pillar; it has never been fully or properly understood by the SDAs. Until this grave error is corrected they are as lost as the Jews and the Papists.
Don said: To maintain a respect for Ellen White and her claim to be a spokeswoman for God's ideas without incorporating her writings into the Biblical canon.
Ha! Here is another WOLF ALERT!
The TSDAs are still not able to tell the truth about Ellen White today. The leaders have not respected her writings, choosing to hide and manipulate whatever they wanted. When she was alive, they would not listen to her during the 1888 debates, and thus she was exiled out of the Country and far, far away from Battle Creek.
So what is this propaganda that Ellen White has been treated respectfully and properly? Or that the White Estate did not teach she was a Prophet that wrote scripture. You really need to stop being so dishonest with the facts.
The leaders suppressed and hid her writings so that they could promote a false Gospel and false Judgment, in her name, that she did not support. They have even taught the church that she was a prophet like in the OT and that her writings are like scripture. But this was never her position.
The SDAs are great and persistent liars, and no one should respect or believe anything that they say about church history, Ellen White, or doctrine. Their leaders refuse to repudiate TA, or tell the truth about 1888 or Ellen White. Pastor Don is not to be trusted because he is dedicated to defending the fraud of TA.
Today, the SDA leaders, including all the Pastors, are nothing more than con men running a business that pretends to be religious. It is a great scam of epic proportions that has left the Adventists spiritually naked and damned to hell if they do not repent and correct the record.
So Don, why pretend that SDAs are innocent when they are guilty? What is the point of all this dishonestly and fraud about Ellen White and church history?
Don said; To organize further the institutions of the church to allow for both unity and diversity; both much needed by 1900.
Here is another deliberately false statement from Pastor Don. A true supporter of TA. Wolf Alert!
While the SDAs tried to re-organize in 1901, when Ellen White returned from her exile, it was not sufficient. Nor was any “diversity” allowed. This is why both Waggoner and Jones would leave the church along with many others. The Adventists self-destructed to such an extent that they had to retreat from Battle Creek and start over in Takoma Park.
Once there, they became so rigid and dishonest that the incompetent leaders led the church back into the trap of legalism and thus a repeat of 1888 was inevitable. Glacier View proved that there was no “diversity” allowed, much less correct doctrine.
Today, in an attempt to cover up the past mistakes, the SDAs now promote “pluralism.” This too is another mistake that has only led to more confusion and dishonesty.
So Don, why not stop the propaganda? It is not going to work anymore. It changes neither the facts nor anyone’s mind, even as it makes you look like a paid liar for the hierarchy.
Don Sands said: I agree that some of our SDA use of the KJV does not hold up.
Ha! This is too funny. Without the incorrect KJV version of Dan 8:14, the SDAs could not have invented their horrible doctrine of the IJ. A doctrine that is so against the Gospel, that it caused a great schism in the 1980’s that is still ongoing in nature today.
Don said: But, I disagree that the KJV is a poor and inaccurate translation. It has its place in serious Bible study but Bible students are wise to consult a variety of translations before coming to their conclusions.
The KJV is so out of date that no one should use it for serious Bible Study. Especially not the dishonest and cultic SDAs. They love it because it contains errors that help sustain their errors.
Don Sands said: It seems we underestimate the persistence of the Millerites to reason out their stance.
While the Millerites were sincere and honest, doing the best they could with the knowledge of their day, the same cannot be said of the SDAs as they matured.
The 1888 debates took place because Waggoner was studying the writings of Luther and correctly concluded that the SDAs had the wrong view of the Gospel and the law in Galatians. In spite of his “persistence” the top leaders would not honestly admit to any errors and the results were catastrophic.
Don said: The Advent leaders studied their opposition meticulously. They noted every argument and offered a counter-argument.
While the SDAs started out honest and sincere, wiling to debate every point of doctrine in public for all to see, within two generations they had become set in their ways; unable to deal with their own critics, like Waggoner, Jones, and Ellen White, much less their enemies.
In fact, it was Ellen White’s view that the leaders had become so dishonest and corrupt that they could not reason or study the Bible properly.
So your spin on things, as usual, is not honest or accurate. But this is the way of the TSDAs. This is how they are.
Today, all the SDAs can do is run from the critics and try to pretend they don’t exist. Why? Because they are unable to counter the facts, much less have a public debate about the issues. They have no credible “counter-arguments” against either Dr. Ford or Tom Norris. And this thread is just more proof of the obvious.
Don said: The Advent movement called for careful reading and thinking.
This is true of the Millerites and the early SDAs. But this open and honest attitude changed dramatically when Jones and Waggoner discovered major error in SDA theology. Then the SDAs became very dishonest and refused to have an open or honest debate.
Although Ellen White forced a public debate and tried to foster honest Reform, she failed and was exiled for her trouble. So stop trying to sanitize SDA history. You should be demanding that the White Estate correct the record and print honest books.
Don said: It was a movement, which invited debate and reasoning.
Ha! This is too funny. The SDAs ceased to honestly debate the issues in the 1880’s. Uriah Smith became angry when Jones and Waggoner suggested the possibility of error. Thus the leaders tried to silence both men, but Ellen White would not agree or allow such a thing. So they found a way to remove her as well.
In the 20th century, the SDAs once again became so corrupt that they would not allow anyone to even know how Ellen White really viewed things. She was their greatest critic, which is why they were hiding so many of her documents in the White Estate.
So let’s stop this nonsense about the SDAs being open and honest with their critics. This is absurd. In the beginning yes, but for most of the time this would not be true. And today, it is a joke. The church apologists are not ready, willing, or able to debate their many critics. They know they would lose to those like Dr. Ford and Tom Norris who have the facts.
Don said: My focus on this thread is history rather than theology.
This is not your thread, so you don’t get to define the content or the focus. This thread is about SDA history and doctrine. It is showing that TA is a fraud, and that it is based on false and manipulated history.
You are here to defend TA and the corrupt hierarchy, for which you work. You are here to support the White Estate and refute the need for Adventist Reform. This makes you a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A Protestant Pretender and a cultic supporter of great error. Pity.
Don said: How close can we get to understanding early Adventist pioneers? Did they link the judgment to the cleansing of the sanctuary and how soon after 1844 did they do this?
Do any TSDAs really want to understand the facts of history that overturn their many false obsessions? Do they really want to know the truth about Historic Adventism or 1888? Ha! If they did, we would not be having this discussion.
The fact of the matter is that SDA sanctuary doctrine, known as the CHS was not linked to any pre-advent Judgment until the late 1850’s, long after all three Messages had been formulated and the pillars established.
Moreover, this sanctuary pillar was NEVER located in the #2 position in the 1st Angels Message. Upon closer examination of the facts, TA is discovered to be a fraud. What all modern SDAs have been taught about the IJ, and the Gospel, and the Three Angels Messages is mythical and wrong. Ellen White does not, not, not, support TA or Glacier View theology.
Don asked: When did Adventists begin to link the idea of a judgment in the sanctuary in heaven with the first angel's message. Tom's contention on this has helped me focus on early Adventist assertions re: the Sanctuary. Thanks, Tom.
We have answered this question and you posted up James White’s article in 1857 that speaks to this point.
Moreover, don’t confuse any linkage with the 1st Angels Message with the actual contents of that Message. The Battle Creek SDAs never placed the IJ in the 1st Angels Message—at any time. This great error took place in Takoma Park and led to Glacier View, where the church leaders declared the fraud of TA to be correct and true, having the full support of Ellen White.
But they were lying to the Adventist Community. They have never told the truth about SDA history and doctrine and this is why others are doing it for them.
Don said: Also, I am interested in the idea of Adventist pillars. It was an issue in 1888. Ellen White addressed it, listed the pillars sort of. But, Tom's assertion as to what are the pillars of Adventism and Ellen White's list don't match up, IMO. That is, the Sanctuary in connection with the 2300 days is clearly considered a core teaching by her; and also by James White.
Ha! This is too funny. Ellen White was very clear in her listing of the pillars. There was nothing ambiguous about her list. So stop with the wolf double-talk.
I find it comical that 30 years after Glacier View, Pastor Don claims to be interested in the “pillars” of Adventism. It seems a little late for such investigation, as well as very insincere. I think this wolf is interested in trying to find a way to support and defend TA. This is why he is here and this is what he is trying to do. Like any good employee that knows his boss is watching.
As we have said before; the 2300 days is not a pillar. How can it be? Miller was wrong on this point, and all the Millerites understood this, which is why someone revised his version and came up with the date of the Second Coming as Oct 22, 1844. But even this discovery took place after the 1st Angels Message had closed.
How can something that is incorrect become a Pillar? It can’t. So the 2300 days cannot be a pillar, nor is it. Miller’s version of the 2300 days was never correct.
Don said: The Youth Instructor's coming online provides a treasure of new information for me. Because the YI was intended for youth, its teachings tend to be the clearest we have from James White. In 1853, he produced of series of lessons on the sanctuary doctrine; lessons 42-50.
Study anything you want. But you will not be able to defend TA. The IJ is not the #2 pillar in the 1st Angels Message, as all modern SDAs have been taught. The Adventist Community has been greatly deceived by its incompetent and corrupt leaders on this and many other points. Which means that Glacier View was based on a massive fraud in the White Estate. It is time to face the facts and stop pretending.
Don said: At some point, I plan to return to the theological, or doctrinal questions, but for now my interest lies in historical questions. I want to understand James White's theology.
Ha! You want to try and find a way to prove Dr. Ford and Tom Norris wrong. You are here to defend TA, not find truth. This is how wolves act. James White would condemn you, even as he would all those that support the fraud of TA.
Don said: I agree that the KJV was their main translation, but the level of Biblical debate rose above mere dependence on the KJV. They considered the original meaning of the Greek and Hebrew, the opinions of expert commentators, and the logical reasons for their stance.
In the early days they were honest and true. But during the 1888 debates the leaders relied on Tradition and past memories about what Ellen White had allegedly said. The level of the debate degenerated into a farce where censorship became the primary tool to win the debate.
So let’s keep things in historical perspective. The SDAs started out honest, but ended up corrupt. Unless they repent and correct the record they are doomed.
Today they are so full of double-talk that they dare not face their critics or have any debates. They no longer care what the facts say because they have been inventing their own story for so long that they will stick to their fraud, pretending that was has been published represents honest history when the opposite is the case. It is all such a waste of time for Adventists.
Don said: It seems that the Millerite movement had more men of letters than did the small company of Sabbatarian Adventists. I don't think there was one who was formally educated in theology, the original languages, etc.
This is sadly correct.
Don said: I would describe the Sabbatarian Adventists as thoughtful amateurs on Biblical matters.
Good description.
But the real question is what are they today? Sadly, they are professional frauds that rely on myth and published propaganda for their doctrines. They have embraced one error after another, even as they have no intention of repenting and correcting the record. The PSDAs repudiate TA, and so too should the entire Adventist Community today.
As for your category Don? You are a Laodicean Adventist wolf trying to defend TA for your corrupt employers. Be warned, this is a category for the damned. TA is poison for all that embrace it.
Elaine Nelson said: Isn't it also true that to arrive at 1844 they had to have several premises, premises that were very conditional and biased?
Miller’s articulation of the 2300 days was full of error and was judged incorrect by the summer of 1844 by the Millerites. Thus the original version of the 2300 days, that supports the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment in the 1st Angels Message, was wrong on number of levels from the very beginning of the Advent Movement.
So what is the point of trying to pretend otherwise and make pillars out of error? This is the madness of TA. The 2300 days is good history, but bad doctrine. It is not a pillar, nor does the NT promote it as such.
In fact, there never was an 1844 pillar and it is time that the SDAs understood the historic eschatology of the Three Angels Messages correctly.
Elaine said: Do any other Christian scholars, non-SDA, agree with the findings of 1844 or the IJ date with Adventists?
Ha! The SDAs don’t agree among themselves about all this, which helps explain why no other body has ever embraced their confusion about 1844 and the IJ.
TA was never true to begin with. That is was Dr. Ford was saying. He was not saying that Ellen White or the Three Angels Messages were fraudulent, but that the way the White Estate and the Review were teaching things was very incorrect and wrong.
For example, the date of the IJ is 1857, not 1844. It was an addition to the #5 pillar, which is dated on Oct 23, 1844, and called the CHS. This sanctuary pillar had zero to do with any pre-advent Judgment.
The truth of the matter is that there never was an IJ pillar in any of the Three Angels Messages, much less in the 1st, as all modern SDAs have been taught. So the closer one looks at the facts, the larger the SDA fraud becomes. Their leaders are so dishonest and so incompetent that they have destroyed themselves with their double-talk. It is sad and very stupid.
Moreover, there never was a pillar about the 2300 days or the date 1844. The SDA leaders have so mangled and manipulated Adventist history and doctrine, that TA is essentially a massive fraud based on the sloppy suppression of Ellen White’s writings in the White Estate.
The modern SDA leaders are beyond incompetent, they have reached a level of dishonesty and wickedness that is astounding to comprehend. They have become like the Jews that killed Christ and the Papists that tortured the Reformers. Let all beware the cult of the modern SDAs, and their many wolves that roam around trying to defend TA and stop Adventist Reform.
The real Story and purpose of the Advent Movement has been kept from the people. Sad.
Don Sands said: In Lesson 49, James White presents this working backwards; not from 1844 but from the Crucifixion.
So what? This proves nothing. What made sense to them, does not make it true today. Besides, there is no apostolic command to embrace the 2300 days or 1844. Why? Because there is no such doctrine in the Bible. The fact that they found the truth about the Second Coming through the study of the 2300 days is providential. But it does not make the 2300 days a doctrine for the church, much less correct.
Don Sands said: Of course, the earliest of the Sabbatarian Adventists had quite a heritage behind them for interpreting the 1260 days and the 2300 days. We are much more alone on the 2300 days now than they were.
Correct. The Millerites did not invent the 2300 days; they just pushed this Protestant eschatological model to a conclusion that started the Advent Movement at the very time when the doctrine of the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment had gone extinct. Good for them.
Don said: Adventists acknowledge that they uniquely hold to the 2300 days and 1844.
This is not much to be proud of, as Dr. Ford has proven. But the SDAs should not have cared, because the 2300 days is not a pillar. And neither is the date of 1844. The SDAs have become very confused about what is truth.
Don said: Out of their Sanctuary in Heaven understanding came a confirmation of the importance of God's Law and the Sabbath in particular.
Woops! What happened to the IJ and the pre-Advent Judgment? It is not there is it? Which means that TA is based on great error. It means that Clifford Goldstein has been misled and deceived by the SDAs. They have made a fool out of him, which is why he will not come online and discuss his book about 1844 with Tom Norris. He can see that his thesis about 1844 is impossible and wrong. So rather than admit the facts and repent, he goes silent in order to please his corrupt employers. Pity.
Don said: God's Law was in the most sacred part of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary in Heaven motif has also provided rich understanding of the Gospel. Adventists teach that Jesus is represented in every aspect of the Sanctuary.
Stop the double-talk. Admit that there is no PAJ in the CHS, and that the IJ, was NEVER the Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message.
This is what all TSDAs must do. They must admit the truth and repent of TA and admit that Dr. Ford was correct at Glacier View!
Why? Because the facts expose TA as a farce and a fraud. Are you ready to admit this and repent? Or will you continue to try and dance around the issues to please those that pay you? Perhaps the question is this: can a wolf repent and become a lamb?
Don said: R. F. Cottrell, a former Seventh-day Baptist who refused to join the Millerites because they did not keep the Sabbath, highlighted the Heavenly Sanctuary in a poem dated 1852. Note how he integrates the Law of God and the Sanctuary messages into one:
Note how the IJ does not exist in 1852! Note there is no PAJ either. See the facts that prove TA impossible and wrong.
Elaine Nelson said: That should be a little worrisome to be alone in the sea of biblical scholars who have no dedicated investment in proving the evidence for belief in a time prophecy such as 1844.
First off, there can be no “private” interpretations for any prophecy. So here is the first problem with being all-alone about prophecy. It is a signal that something is very wrong.
2Pet. 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
This apostolic rule condemns the IJ because this dubious doctrine was never the public understanding of the fulfilled prophecy of any of the Three Angels Messages.
While the Advent preaching, by Miller was considered the fulfillment of the 1st Angels Message, by thousands and thousands, the IJ never had any such public support. Nor was it ever promoted as if it were the fulfillment of the 1st Angels Message by the SDAs. Which means it is not really fulfilled prophecy at all. It is prophetic fraud and a great mistake that must be repudiated.
The IJ was turned into a pillar by a handful of Takoma Park apologists. These legalistic minds Pharisees invented their own private doctrine about the IJ, even as they dishonestly claimed that this is what Ellen White and the Pioneers supported. But they were deceiving the Adventist Community with their private myths and made up prophecy. Dr. Ford would not stand by and allow such a massive fraud about history and doctrine to go unchallenged, and this is what Glacier View was really all about.
In hindsight, we can now see that Dr. Ford was 100% correct. The IJ is not a pillar. It is not fulfilled prophecy, much less correct doctrine or eschatology. It is an incorrect and legalistic doctrine that must be totally repudiated by all that embrace the Gospel and the rest of the true pillars within the Three Angels Messages.
What all SDAs have been taught about the definition of Prophecy is very wrong. The Three Angels Messages, when correctly understood, represent true prophecy and correct doctrines that will stand forever. But the IJ is not correct doctrine or prophecy.
So all must distinguish the false eschatology of TA from the genuine prophetic Messages that were viewed as fulfilled prophecy.
Elaine said: But, to each his own. The Mormons also have a unique doctrine and prophecy and have millions of adherents, proving that there are always followers for most any new idea.
Uniqueness does not mean truth. Nor does the fact that many people happily embrace myth and confusion. There is a true version of the Three Angels Messages, and this is what is unique to SDAs. But they have little idea about these things. They have wasted their time trying to defend myths and fraud, even as they have handed over the Advent Movement to wolves.
Sirje Walkowiak said: Don; A few points to consider: Who actually knows what exact year Jesus began his ministry, or was even born, for that matter?
Anyone have the exact date for the crucifixion?
If these dates were important, the NT would have contained them for all to see. So while the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ are the greatest of doctrines, the dates are not doctrinal pillars for the church.
This also proves that the 2300 days are not to be viewed as doctrine.
The Gospel is the greatest of all doctrines, but not the dates, which were purposefully left out of the Gospel Story for a reason. The Jews had a colander, and thus it would have been very easy for the Holy Spirit to make sure these dates made it into the NT. But it never happened. It was not a mistake, but by design.
In fact, when the apostles asked Jesus about the date of the Second Coming, the answer was none of their business. Not even Jesus or the Angels in heaven know such things.
Matt. 24:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Matt. 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone
So what gives the SDAs the right to come along and start making this date and that date part of doctrinal Faith? Dates are not pillars; events are, but not dates.
Thus 457 B C is not doctrine, and neither is 538, or any date, for any Gospel event. While we know that there were real dates involved, they are not doctrine, nor is it the duty of the church to preach any dates as doctrine.
Thus Christmas is a total fraud. It is not true doctrine and every NT scholar knows that this is not the correct date for Jesus birth. But yet how many think otherwise? The date of Dec 25 is a total fraud and so too any date associated with 1844, which was never a pillar as the SDAs pretend.
The SDAs have become like the Jews who could not stop inventing doctrines and laws. They both take the smallest point and find a way to make many rules and laws where none should exist.
Sirje said: I could go on but it's bringing up old conflicts which I have settled for myself long ago and it's exhausting to go there again. If you're interested I could go on, but I doubt it. You've probably heard all this before.
Don is primarily interested in defending TA and trying to impress himself and his employer with his knowledge of Adventism. He is not here to promote Adventist repentance or reform, but to fight against it.
Pastor Don is paid by the church, and thus he is here to support TA, regardless of the facts. No one should be fooled. No SDA Pastor is free to be honest or tell the truth. They are all hired wolves that must do as their Alpha wolves command.
Don Sands replied to Sirje and said: I can understand what I would call burn out on the issues.
Ha! Notice that Pastor Don refuses to take any responsibility for the “burn out” of the Adventist Community. Nor does he offer any solutions. Although he claims to care, he does not care enough to repudiate the fraud of TA that has been brought to us by the White Estate and the Review, with the full support from brainwashed Pastors like himself.
In fact, he is here to defend the very points that have caused so much confusion, stress, and burn out. So this man is a wolf. He has been part of the problem for 30 years, and he still remains a problem for all SDAs that want to find a way out this disaster called TA. It is people like him that have caused this catastrophe and he should be ashamed of himself.
Don said to Sirje: Your questions are useful for my study.
Ha! Wolves always think of themselves first. They care neither for truth or people. It is all about them and their needs.
Moreover, he fails to understand that you were not really asking questions, but stating the issues that cannot be answered by the hierarchy.
But he ignores these very issues and pretends that he has launched a big study when he is doing no such thing. Wolves are great double-talkers and trained liars. They are pros at deception and diversion. All lambs must beware of the wolves, especially the ones that pretend to be friendly and caring. They the worst kind.
Don said: As I have mentioned earlier, my main interest is the history of how the early Adventist leaders, James White primary among them, explained things.
Don, who are you trying to fool? This thread is about exposing the fraud of TA and correcting the record. You are here to defend TA and try to refute Adventist Reform. So let’s be honest shall we?
Your failure to respond to the questions, and to deal honestly with the issues is obvious to all. You are here for your own twisted purposes, not to find truth. James White would quickly denounce you and all that support TA.
Don said: At some point, I will take your questions and see if any of these early Adventists addressed them.
Ha! You have been an SDA Pastor for 30 years, and yet, you are still not ready to answer questions from those that have repudiated TA? At what point will you have enough information to defend TA and show us that you have been right all these years and Dr. Ford wrong?
Besides, who are you to “take questions”? As if you were an expert? As you admit, before these discussions, you did not even know how to define the Three Angels Messages properly! So you are hardly an expert. Rather, you are a cultic amateur who must repent and unlearn many things before you will be able to teach others anything.
There can be no compromise when it comes to truth. There is only one Gospel and one version of the Three Angels Messages. You either embrace the truth or you don’t. There is no halfway place. It is all truth or nothing.
Don said: You will notice that I am not using EGW to examine these things.
This is a mistake. Why would you omit Ellen White as a historical source in the study of SDA history? This makes no sense. I use Ellen White all the time, and so should you. She has written so much, that she cannot be ignored or excluded as a historical witness.
Besides, she condemns TA so strongly, that this is the real reason why you want to avoid her. This is the same game that the White Estate has been playing for years. This is why they were hiding so much of her material. They too like to avoid using too much Ellen White. But this is all wrong. To correctly understand Ellen White is to condemn TA and embrace Adventist Reform.
Don said: I am a strong supporter of EGW for her role in Adventism.
What does this double-talk mean? What role for her are you embracing? The one from the White Estate that pretends she is an OT Prophet and has doctrinal authority? This what TA teaches? Are you now repudiating the White Estates position as well as that found in the 27 Fundamentals?
Do you also support the fraud of the hierarchy that hides and manipulates Ellen White’s writings? You do if you are a TSDA?
Do you teach that the IJ is the Judgment pillar from Historic Adventism, like all TSDAs? If so, you do not support Ellen White.
While you pretend to support Ellen White, she does not support you, or the White Estate, or TA. So stop playing games. You are a “strong supporter” of the White Estate’s fraud and the traditions of TA. They too make this absurd claim to support and defend Ellen White, when they are her worst enemy.
I know Ellen White, and she does not like or support you. You are her enemy, and so too anyone that embraces TA and Glacier View.
Like all those under the spell of TA, you do not understand what Ellen White believes or why. You don’t comprehend the definition or purpose of the Three Angels Messages, and thus you are no friend of James or Ellen White.
Don said: I don't view her role as that of establishing doctrine.
Ha! This is old news. Froom came out very strong in Movement of Destiny showing that Ellen White was not the source of doctrine. James White was also clear a
Offline
Tom,
I have a few comments on you comments -
You said that "Miller never sold his farm and didn't give a specific date for Christ's return, only a time range of months."
I don't care a hoot about what Miller did or didn't do. Eventually Miller bolted - fine. That left the few that did sell their farms or at least didn't work them in an expectation of the Second coming. This was the group that was thought of as abandoning the TRUTH, when they left the movement in disappointment. I don't blame them. The apocalyptic fervor was real and a factor in this interpretation of the Bible and the final days. This happens in every age. We read present conditions into Bible predictions all the time. There's been enough time to see that this was a mistake but SDA church history still upholds these interpretations, giving them new legitimacy, and making excuses why God revealed thus and such then but did it for some good reason even though it was wrong. That's nonsense.
Truth is progressive, but only in the way it is applied to current life norms and even personal applications. The basic truth stands through time. The Gospel is still the Gospel - which may be applied differently in every age, but it does not change to include all manner of extras. That was made pretty clear by Paul.
When Jesus said He was sending the HS to lead us into all truth he did not mean the Gospel was going to be saying something else in the future. Ask the average SDA what is meant by the Gospel and you will get everything from soup to nuts literally when the health message is included.
SDAs may have found profound truth in the midst of profound error. Why sift through all this SDA irrelevancy to find the bits of profound truth when its all there in the Bible for the taking. I'm sure the Catholics have included profound truth in their version of the Gospel but I don't see any SDA acknowledging that, when in fact, many of the current and historic SDA practices arise from the influence of the Catholic church on the formulation of the Bible and what is interpreted to be in it - the Trinity for one.
Being ready for the Second coming is talked about in the Bible but we can't be any more ready than to focus on the historic Gospel as presented by Christ. We have no idea what day or hour we breathe our last breath - that is the second coming for any of us. So yes, we should be ready but not with dates and charts, and throwing people out of the church for not believing in them. It's just plain silly.
Offline
As one formerly called a Brinsmeadite, affecting my relationships in the SDA denomination, my job offers in the denomination, and eventually my looking outward confidently, not without some fear, to see what other denominations had to offer, I can appreciate what Sirje has just said. The SDA church has little to offer if they continue with inquisition like moves when we all don't agree with each other.
Tom, what difference does it make what is in that EGW vault at Andrews, and how I relate to that devotional writer that undereducated, and physically ill individual?
Offline