You are not logged in.
Sal said: Thank you for your comments.
Maybe some day, SDAs like David R., Frank, John, and Anthony will repent and act like Christians.
That will be a glorious day when we Christians can all work together for the Kingdom of God.
So don't be disheartened by the TSDA's, just keep on speaking the truth. I know that it will produce good fruit.
Your Brother in Christ,
Sal
Offline
Inviting Doug Batchelor to come over here and discuss Adventist Reform would be like inviting Caiaphas, the high Priest of Old Covenant Judaism, to discuss the New Covenant with Jesus. It could never happen.
Gal. 3:12 the Law is not of faith;
Luke 11:23 “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters.
The OC, which features law, control, and force, does not mix with faith, mercy, and freedom. The OC and the NC are mortal enemies, with very different views about God, man and salvation; only one can survive.
See:
http://www.dougbatchelor.com/
A Perfect Christian
http://www.yourchristianspace.com/blog/ … batchelor/
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/0 … -converged
Doug Batchelor represents the OC, thus he will never come Online with us to discuss Adventist Reform, which is a NC paradigm. He is the High Priest of Traditional Adventism, and as such he has no intention of admitting any error or losing control of his religious empire that he has worked so hard to build over the years. Those in power plan to stay in power, regardless what anyone says, and regardless if what they are doing is a scam. If it makes money, that is all that matters to those in control. This is business. Serious business. But not Gospel business.
John 11:47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs.
John 11:48 “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
John 11:49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all,
John 11:50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”
John 11:53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.
Batchelor is very much like his ancestor, Caiaphas; he too is committed to defend his OC worldview and his position in it. Thus, Caiaphas, err, I mean Batchelor, would rather shut this site down and force everyone to listen to his mindless propaganda and doctrinal delusion, if he could. But he can’t.
So he just ignores the issues and pretends all the critics are wrong and that only the SDA hierarchy knows all truth and should control the world. He, like Caiaphas, has staked his life on tradition and dishonesty.
Moreover, Batchelor knows that he would fare no better at defending Traditional Adventism over here than Clifford Goldstein, who ran away in utter defeat and humiliation in front of the entire Online community. So rather than admit that there is a problem with TA, he pretends all is well.
Back in 2007, Batchelor wrote an article about Perfection and used Noah and Job to prove his point. The link no longer works. But a discussion still stands at JR’s site called:
Doug Batchelor's Perfectionism
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 12415.html
If Doug Batchelor has anything to say, he needs to start by responding to what has already be posted on that thread by Tom Norris.
But don’t hold your breath. He is not able to be post any rebuttal, much less come online and answer questions. He does not understand the Gospel, much less be willing to discuss it in public. The NC is beyond the comprehension of those who champion the OC. And so it will ever be unless people can confess their false doctrines and repent.
AMAZING MYTHS AND BLASPHEMIES, by Tom Norris
As for the Amazing Facts article: Amazing Facts should be called "Amazing Myths" or "Amazing Blasphemies." The late Joe Crews was a great legalist that championed Traditional Adventism. Neither he, nor Doug Bachelor understands the Gospel, much less Historic Adventism or the fundamentals of Protestant theology. Their teachings represents that of Uriah Smith and the Battle Creek SDA's as they too promoted the confusion of character perfection through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Such doctrine is horrible and very wrong at every level, even as it is full of double-talk and error. It is the typical SDA garbage that led to the destruction of the Battle Creek Empire in the 19th century as well as the same result in the 20th century after Glacier View.
But the SDA's just don't get it. They never seem to learn anything.
This article is so confused and wrong that it makes no sense unless you understand that the goal is to promote the unique brand of Sabbatarian perfection from the confused and dishonest SDA's. Then it makes sense because there is a plan behind it, as well as a hierarchy that is out of control.
Amazing Facts is the modern voice of Traditional Adventism. They promote convoluted and dishonest propaganda that the vast majority of Adventist's have already repudiated, and correctly so. Thus, both the Hierarchy and Amazing Facts are wasting their time because this absurd and twisted theology will never catch on with anyone anymore. It will never grow the church as the leaders hope. On the contrary, it will destroy the Advent Movement, which it is doing for all to see.
MISUSE OF SCRIPTURE
As for the confused Jew, Doug Batchelor, no one should pay any attention to his cultic garbage. He is like a naked man sitting in a dark cave called Traditional Adventism, refusing to turn on the lights and examine what he is teaching. He is neither a theologian nor a historian. Rather, he is paid by the SDA church to promote this awful propaganda that is destroying the Advent Movement.
To illustrate this point, note how the author speaks of Noah and Job as the paragons of virtue, even using scripture to make his point. However, the confused Batchelor ignores the fact that Noah was a manufacturer of wine, and a sloppy drunk that committed incest. Does this behavior represent the ideal? Is this the "righteous behavior" that all should strive to emulate? Hardly.
So why point to Noah and pretend that he was really righteous, and that he had achieved some wonderful level of Sanctification when it is obvious that he was a great sinner and a drunk?
Batchelor also misunderstands the book of Job and ignores the fact that Job was not really righteous and without sin when the story concludes. So he must have only read the front part that seemed to support his views, because the rest of the book tells a very different doctrine from what he is teaching
In fact, at the end of the book, things are very different from the beginning. Which is why when Job declared himself innocent, and not a sinner, God did not buy it for a second and strongly disagreed. Job had not reached sinlessness or any such vaunted spiritual position.
So the story of Job is not about a "righteous" or fully sanctified person as the author claims. It is about the futility of any mortal claiming to be righteous, without guilt or sin.
It shows that while Job THOUGHT he was sanctified and "righteousness in his own eyes," he was not, not, not any such thing. He too was a great sinner as far a God was concerned. This is the way that heaven views all mortals. But the SDA's have their own spin on Job and everything else.
Here are some passages from Job that proves Doug Batchelor is ignorant of the scriptures, and that he is using them in a very dishonest and self-serving manner. Let all see how the TSDA's manipulate the scriptures to support their false doctrines.
Job 32:1 Then these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.
Job 32:2 But the anger of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram burned; against Job his anger burned because he justified himself before God.
Job 32:3 And his anger burned against his three friends because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.
Thus, Elihu correctly chastised Job for thinking he was "righteous" and without sin.
Job 33:1 “However now, Job, please hear my speech,
And listen to all my words.
Job 33:5 “Refute me if you can;
Array yourselves before me, take your stand.
Job 33:6 “Behold, I belong to God like you;
I too have been formed out of the clay.
Job 33:8 “Surely you have spoken in my hearing,
And I have heard the sound of your words:
Job 33:9 ‘I am pure, without transgression;
I am innocent and there is no guilt in me.
Job 33:10 ‘Behold, He invents pretexts against me;
He counts me as His enemy.
Job 33:11 ‘He puts my feet in the stocks;
He watches all my paths.’
Job 33:12 “Behold, let me tell you, you are not right in this,
For God is greater than man.
The story ends with God rebuking Job for his self-righteous position, and with Job repenting for thinking that he was without sin.
Job 40:6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said,
Job 40:7 “Now gird up your loins like a man;
I will ask you, and you instruct Me.
Job 40:8 “Will you really annul My judgment?
Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?
Job 42:1 Then Job answered the LORD and said,
Job 42:2 “I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
Job 42:3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
“Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
Job 42:4 ‘Hear, now, and I will speak;
I will ask You, and You instruct me.’
Job 42:5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear;
But now my eye sees You;
Job 42:6 Therefore I retract,
And I repent in dust and ashes.”
So much for the example of Job being righteous. He was not righteous or sinless and both Job and Doug Batchelor were very wrong to think otherwise. Therefore, the story of Job does not support the point that we can be "perfect Christians."
In fact, it teaches the OPPOSITE because even as good as Job was, (and he was a sincere, dedicated, and heaven acknowledged follower of God), he was not really righteous, or sinless, and thus he deserved all his bad fortune like any other sinner.
Which is why he had to "repent in dust and ashes" at the end of the story. This is hardly the same as reaching a sinless state of being as the SDA's teach. In fact, it is the opposite!
The story of Job proves the opposite of what the SDA's are trying to teach. Shame on the incompetent SDA Apologists. They are deceivers and blasphemers, unable to understand the Gospel or treat the Word with respect or honesty. They all need to follow the example of Job and "retract" their confused doctrines and "repent in dust and ashes."
So neither the book of Genesis nor Job supports what Batchelor and the SDA's teach about sanctification, and neither does any other books of the Bible. The TSDA's are legendary for their misguided attempts to manipulate the Word and teach false doctrine. And here is but another example of their deceit and incompetence.
Through the use of the proof text method, Batchelor makes a mockery out of the Protestant hermeneutic as he manipulates the Bible for his own self-serving ends.
Such dishonest behavior is outrageous and unacceptable.
The SDA's have obviously come to the place where they are so full of double-talk and deception that they are not able to deal with scriptures or church history in a responsible or honest manner. They just grab a text here and there to make their points, along with some Ellen White, also taken out of context, so that they can promote their false doctrines to the ignorant. It is very wicked behavior, especially coming from those that preach about sanctification and sinlessness.
The TSDA's are the world's greatest hypocrites. They will ignore whatever they don't like and overlook what they don't understand, which is a lot, all so that they can make their confused and legalistic points. These worthless apologists, with their endless personal stories and proof texting are making fools out of themselves, even as they are far away from comprehending the true Gospel.
There is no place in the Adventist Movement for such false shepherds and their confused doctrines. Amazing Facts is a cesspool of false doctrine, even as Doug Batchelor is a self-condemned wolf for all to see. Shame on those that teach a false Gospel.
IMPOSSIBLE DOCTRINES
While the author admits he has not achieved full and total sanctification, neither has he stopped sinning as yet, he goes on to say that this is nonetheless the proper goal of all that are not "counterfeit Christians."
So the SDA's have set up a doctrine for all to embrace, even as they admit to not achieving it. What is the point of such double-talk? Why promote fantasy doctrines that will never be achieved? As if cognitive dissonance were a gift of the Spirit?
Why promote doctrines that are against the Gospel and against the Word?
This is madness as well as blasphemy. The SDA's are the worlds most confused and dishonest church, having no idea what the Gospel actually means, or how one is saved. They do not understand the Word or Historic Adventism, even as they promote a false spirituality that they admit they have not yet achieved. What a mess.
In fact, the confused Batchelor claims that we "are commanded to be perfectly surrendered." But that is not even a term found in scripture. So the SDA's rush to invent new doctrines to accompany their delusions about the IJ, another term that does not exist in the Bible.
To be "perfectly surrendered" is SDA code for promoting Sanctification as part of the Gospel. It is the same nonsense that Venden promoted as he tried to present legalism in a more palatable package to counter Dr. Ford's correct, Protestant Gospel.
But there is no such doctrine as salvation by relationship or surrender. Salvation is by faith in the finished work of Christ, not by our works of surrender or relationship. Thus the church is not commanded to proclaim either sanctification or the need for perfect surrender, none of which is the Gospel.
Thus the false Gospel of the SDA's is being featured in this article, even a Roman Catholic "process" Gospel that no Protestant should ever support or follow. Traditional Adventism is cultic nonsense and no one should think otherwise. Such theology is blasphemy, as is this teaching that Jesus asks us to be "fully surrendered" or "sinless."
Where does Jesus say that our sanctification is part of the Gospel? Where does the NT teach that our obedience to the law is part of the Gospel? And that we must achieve a certain level of righteousness and sanctification to be saved? Who has reached this level? Where are these special men and women?
The Bible does not teach that any Christian has achieved full sanctification or sinlessness, nor that such a state is necessary for salvation. Although Job was called "righteous," he was only so by imputation, and thus in reality he proved to be a great sinner in need of repentance, just like all sinners.
Thus no Christian is to ever think or claim that they are not sinful, and in need of repentance. Not because they are really good, like Job or Noah, but because they are really bad--like Job and Noah. There are no really good people in the Bible, except Jesus. All the others were very sinful.
Luke 18:10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
Luke 18:11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
Luke 18:12 ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’
Luke 18:13 “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’
Luke 18:14 “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
But the good news is this: our salvation is not predicated upon our obedience to the law or the level of sanctification achieved. Which is why both Noah and Job could be saved. In fact, it is the only way; because they never reached any state of sinlessness as the SDA's incorrectly claim, and neither will we.
Thank Heaven for the Gospel.
I say again: If salvation were predicated on our sanctification--as the SDA's teach, no one would be saved. Not Noah or Job or Peter or Paul because there is no such thing as a sinless human being (except for Christ). And it is blasphemy to teach that such a sinless state can exist here on earth, prior to the Second Coming.
Miller repudiated such a doctrine and would not allow it into the Advent Movement. But apparently this has not stopped the SDA's from bringing this false doctrine into the church anyway. How sad.
MORE MISUSE OF SCRIPTURE
Although Batchelor also quoted from John to make his point, he did so in a dishonest manner. While he selectively cited John 1:9, he purposefully omitted the two texts that surround it. Why? Because they both teach the opposite of what he is saying.
But this is how the SDA's deal with the evidence; they manipulate scripture. They make it say whatever they want, while ignoring what it clearly teaches. Such is an amazing and despicable fact for all to see.
1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
This is yet another irresponsible use of scripture and another deliberate attempt to manipulate the Word, that all should be warned away from anyone that is so hermeneutically challenged as Mr. Batchelor. Only a wolf would treat the Word in such a manner. Lambs do not treat the Word like this.
MISUSE OF ELLEN WHITE
Those that support Traditional Adventism are not able to be fair or honest with the evidence. They ignore the fundamentals of Protestant theology and routinely misquote Ellen White to sustain their false doctrines. So they cheat at every opportunity, even as they slander those, like Dr. Ford, that correctly understand Protestant theology and church history.
This article promotes the SDA legalism of the 1970's when the emphasis was on Jesus, who "left us a perfect example." Jesus was the "model man" that all were to follow and emulate. This was but one of many methods that were used to promote a false version of sanctification and the Judgment. Another was Ellen White.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Batchelor also brings Ellen White forward, but she too is taken way out of context, and made to say the opposite of what she actually teaches in the Book Steps to Christ.
This becomes evident when one takes the time to read this 1892 book that actually refutes character perfection. What is amazing is that Ellen White does not endorse what Doug Batchelor would have us believe. He has been caught taking her words out of context and manipulating her writings to support his dishonest viewpoint.
This is what all SDA's do. They rummage though the Bible and the SOP in order to find the passages that they think supports their doctrines, ignoring the context and any contradictory information.
Such historical dishonesty and hermeneutical incompetence results in a circus of blasphemy and false doctrine, and this is what Amazing Facts is really all about. Mr. Batchelor is self-condemned for his disgusting and dishonest use of sources, as well as for his legions of false doctrines.
Listen to how the post 1888 Ellen White repudiated character perfection in Steps to Christ. How could Mr. Batchelor have overlooked this passage?
"The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been--just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents,-- perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. If eternal life were granted on any condition short of this, then the happiness of the whole universe would be imperiled. The way would be open for sin, with all its train of woe and misery, to be immortalized."
"It was possible for Adam, before the fall, to form a righteous character by obedience to God's law. But he failed to do this, and because of his sin our natures are fallen and we cannot make ourselves righteous. Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law. We have no righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God."
"But Christ has made a way of escape for us. He lived on earth amid trials and temptations such as we have to meet. He lived a sinless life. He died for us, and now He offers to take our sins and give us His righteousness. If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted (ACCOUNTED) righteous."
"Christ's character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned." (Page 62.)
--------------------------------------------------------
This concept that "Christ's (imputed) character (His sanctification) stands in place of your (sanctification) character" cannot be found in the pre 1888 Ellen White. In fact, it is a break through concept for the SDA's that repudiates what Uriah Smith taught and promoted all his life.
Thus Ellen White, after 1888, is repudiating this idea about making our characters "safe to save." She is not supporting Traditional Adventist legalism or the Gospel of Glacier View. Here is a very "amazing" fact for Mr. Batchelor to ponder. Ellen White does not support the Gospel or the eschatology of Amazing Facts. And neither do the Apostles or the Reformers. Now that is truly "amazing."
Prior to 1888, all the Battle Creek theologians taught that "character perfection" was a prerequisite for salvation, and that sanctification, and thus the IJ, was part of the Gospel Plan. But after 1888, thanks to Waggoner and Luther, Ellen White grew up and understood that sanctification is not a part of the Gospel. And that our character development was not salvific at all.
See also:
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … #POST50531
CONCLUSION
There is no doctrine about any Christian having to live a certain way without a mediator. This was not a concern of the apostolic church, nor is to be one at the end of time.
Moreover, the NT teaches that nothing in the future will ever separate us from the love and mercy of God. Not even when Christ leaves the Most Holy place and travels to Earth. At no time during this period is any Christian in theological peril.
Nor is their any doctrine about sinless perfection, or even striving for such a righteous status as the SDA's teach. No sinner will ever get to heaven because of their sanctification or good works. Not Job or Noah, Peter or Paul. And certainly not any SDA's.
Our sanctification is not part of the Gospel, and it never was a part of what saves any Christian. Thus it is wrong for the SDA's to promote sanctification as they do, and to obsess about obedience to the law. Our obedience is not part of the Gospel and anyone that says otherwise is not a Protestant or a true Adventist.
Mr. Batchelor has proven himself to be very incompetent and dishonest with the Word. He teaches false doctrine from the Bible and from Ellen White, even as he is guilty of promoting a false Gospel and a false Christ.
Thus Amazing Facts blasphemes heaven with their "wretched" and worthless propaganda that is an embarrassment to the Advent Movement.
Such wicked behavior is hardly called "obedience."
So it is a good thing that Mr. Batchelor does not claim to have reached the sinless state that he teaches all must strive to achieve, because he is much further away then he thinks. He has one foot in hell already, and if he does not repent, he is a doomed man.
Those that promote TA should not lecture others about "real repentance" because they are guiltier than all others. They are the ones that need to repent and reform their awful doctrines. They are the worst of all; being hypocrites, liars, and false prophets.
The Amazing Facts crowd has the wrong Christ and the wrong Gospel, even as they have repudiated the very Fundamentals of Historic Adventism.
Ellen White does not support their doctrines, and neither should any Protestant or Adventist. Which is why none the Apostles, Reformers, or the Adventist Pioneers support what they teach. And this goes double for Ellen White. She does not support Traditional Adventism as all have been misled to believe. She does not support what Amazing Facts teaches.
Shame on the SDA church for allowing Amazing Facts to promote this cultic and legalistic garbage that is destroying the Advent Movement. They are a big reason why the church is floundering. What an amazing fact for Mr. Batchelor to process?
Let's only hope that Amazing Facts and those that control and support it will wake up and understand that Traditional Adventism is false and destructive. It is incompatible with the Gospel and the genuine version of the Three Angels Messages that Ellen White endorses. The Advent Movement will continue to self-destruct with such awful theology.
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
First Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1185930477
Offline
Tom, if there is no striving, no improvement in the Christian life that believes in Jesus, aren't you one of those that is warned about here:
2 Timothy 3: 1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power.
Isn't the Gospel to accept the gift of the cross for sin inherited by original sin, then to allow the Holy Spirit to empower our lives to improvement at least and "perfection" as requested by Jesus:
Matt 5:48 (Amplified Bible)48You, therefore, must be perfect [growing into complete maturity of godliness in mind and character, having reached the proper height of virtue and integrity], as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Doesn't the Devil rejoice and point back to the Garden of Eden and his deception of Eve, saying you can't be perfect, don't even try, only God can do it for you, Tom, with your version????
Last edited by bob_2 (01-08-12 3:56 pm)
Offline
Bob2 asked: No hope for the lot of them, EH? If any one of us are still members, especially, should at least engage "the other side" so that they have to answer for the "Faith" that is within them, hopefully using scripture in context to, SHARE, with others what they and we believe.
Tom said; After Glacier View, it became clear that the SDA Leaders were committed to their OC views about salvation. Although Dr. Ford offered them a clear Gospel path to go forward within the Adventist Apocalyptic, they choose to follow and defend Traditional Adventism, regardless of the evidence.
Consequently, they refused to admit any error and vowed to defend the IJ, Tithe, and their OC view of the 7th day Sabbath, and on and on. Doug Batchelor is part of this ongoing, unholy, anti-Gospel enterprise of deceit and false doctrine. There is no compromise with such an anti-Gospel agenda, nor is there any hope for these men unless they repent.
Doug Batchcelor is the modern day Uriah Smith. He is acting like the legalistic and unbelieving Battle Creek leader that also refused to hear the Gospel and repent when given the opportunity to do so.
Listen to Ellen White condemn Uriah Smith in 1890 for fighting against Waggoner’s correct view of the law and the Gospel. Understand that her words also apply to our time, even to Doug Batchelor, Clifford Goldstein, and all that support TA.
Battle Creek, Mich. March 8, 1890
(S-59-1890)
Ellen White to Brother Smith:
Although my letter sent to you seemed to have not the influence I hoped it would have, still I do not, I will not let you go.
Night before last, the Lord opened many things to my mind. It was plainly revealed what your influence has been, what it was in Minneapolis.
I knew for day by day the Lord revealed this to me, and ever since that meeting I have known that you were deceived and deceiving others that you will not only have in the day of final accounts to meet your own course of action but the result of your influence upon other minds.
You have refused my testimonies given me for you from the Lord just as much have you labored to make them of none effect as did Korah, Dathan and Abiram. You have done this and thus it is charged against you in the books of heaven…
I feel the tenderest compassion for you. I would give my life to the torture and death if it would save your soul. But you have the experience of others who have walked in the same pathway where you have set your feet. You have traced their history who have despised counsel and made of none effect the testimonies. Why not change this order of things before it is too late, everlasting too late. You cannot make right wrong or truth error, neither can you make error truth and wrong right.
You are by your influence doing what other men have done before you, closing the door to your own soul where if God should send light from heaven, not one ray would penetrate to your soul because you closed the door so it should not find access there…
Do not labor so hard to do the very work Satan is doing. This work was done in Minneapolis. Satan triumphed. This work has been done here. (Battle Creek)
Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother Dan Jones, Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented,
When you had received the true light which shineth, you would not have imitated or gone over the same manner of interpretation and misconstruing the Scriptures as did the Jews.
What made them so zealous? Why did they hang on the words of Christ? Why did spies follow him to mark His words that they could repeat and misinterpret and twist in a way to mean that which their own unsanctified minds would make them to mean.
In this way, they deceived the people. They made false issues. They handled those things that they could make a means of clouding and misleading minds.
The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted.
As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had and know Brother Smith, Porter, Jones or any one will never be prepared to receive light, either to establish or refute their position until every one of you are men truly converted before God.
I would not now after the manner you have, all of you, treated the light God has given you, depend upon your knowledge or interpretation of the Scriptures, believing you to be under the control of the Spirit of God, unless you should fall upon the Rock and be broken.
If you turn from one ray of light fearing it will necessitate an acceptance of positions you do not wish to receive, that light becomes to you darkness, that if you were in error, you would honestly assert it to be truth. I speak the things I know.
Ellen White,
The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, Page 599
Today, all SDA leaders have become like Uriah Smith; in the dark, embracing many false views about the scriptures and the Gospel. They are great deceivers, full of hatred against Gospel truth, and Amazing Facts stands condemned for all to see. Make no mistake, Ellen White would condemn Doug Batchelor just like she did Uriah Smith, and so too should we all.
Glacier View was a repeat of the 1888 debate that destroyed the Battle Creek Empire of the SDA’s. When you read the above, instead of Waggoner, substitute Dr. Ford, even as the Law in Galatians equals the doctrine of the IJ.
This is why the modern SDA leaders hid the real story about the 1888 debates, - so they could hide what Ellen White was really saying about the law and the Gospel and thus justify TA. Just as the Battle Creek leaders were in the dark, dishonestly fighting against the Gospel, and fighting against Ellen White, so too the modern SDA’s. They are great pretenders and liars, destined for hell.
These important historical materials were not released to the Adventist Community until 7 years AFTER Glacier View, and even then they were almost impossible to read or understand. This was no accident. The leaders were perpetrating a fraud on the people and they are still doing it today. They have never told the truth about 1888 or Glacier View, nor do they have any plans to confess and repent.
When a system becomes so dishonest, when its leaders are so committed to tradition and falsehood, the truth must be told, even as the Gospel must be defended and uplifted for all to see. Regardless of the consequences.
The modern SDA leaders have made their choice for all to see, and they forced everyone to go along with their false doctrines or else in 1980. Until they confess and repent of both 1888 and Glacier View, they are enemies of the Gospel, condemned by their own dishonest actions and false doctrines.
Today, Amazing facts stands as a monument to Traditional Adventism, and thus the post that was written condemning Batchelor stands. But don’t worry, Pastor Doug has no intention of coming over here and being exposed as a cultic hack anymore than Clifford Goldstein would dare come back and try again to defend TA. No one can defend TA, one can only repent of it.
Bob2 said: Tom, personally, I wish you would use lower case "r" when talking of Adventist reform. What you are seeking is not Luther's Reformation but institutional reform. You know how I feel about your Reformed Sabbath theory.
Tom said: Gospel Reform fits better with a capital R. Why? Because the Gospel overturns everything. It upends what every church and denomination is teaching about the Gospel, including the doctrine of the Sabbath and eschatology, exposing all organized religion as worthless double-talk and error.
Bob2 said: If there was an larger SDA church in my area like a Sligo or a Loma Linda, I would have no trouble worshipping on Saturday with the brethern, as long as Col 2:16, 17 is followed, which is not your suggested REFORM, but is New Covenant Theology.
Tom said: Every SDA church is full of false, OC, doctrine. The Gospel is not understood, taught, or preached, even as a false Gospel and a false Christ is promoted. Why would anyone that understands the Gospel subject himself or herself to such a dark, faithless, environment?
Luke 11:34 “The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness.
Luke 11:35 “Then watch out that the light in you is not darkness.
2Cor. 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
2Cor. 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
Bob2 said: For you to suggest Bachelor is OC in his Theology, shows that you do not believe there is any discontinuity between Old and New Covenants. He would probably agree with most of what you tout, Tom, up to the end of the Gospel of John, and skipping to Revelation.
Tom said: Ha! If you do not understand that Doug Batchelor is a great Judaizer, who represents the Traditional Adventism of Uriah Smith, then you do not understand church history or Gospel. Amazing Facts is an OC paradigm; they do not understand nor embrace the Protestant Gospel.
Furthermore, there is very little that Tom Norris and Doug Batchelor would agree upon. He supports a false Gospel, and a false Judgment, the IJ, and tithe paying, as well as a hierarchy, and perfection, and banishing women from being pastors, and grape juice, and on and on. I repudiate all such anti-Gospel nonsense.
We do not even agree on the doctrine of the Sabbath, although we would both agree that it is on the 7th day. But so what, so too did Jesus enemies. Such minor agreements hardly matter.
Doug Batchelor represents the OC, Tom Norris the NC. There is no compromise between these two opposing paradigms.
Bob2 said; The reform that is necessary is not a Norris Reformation, but a correct reading and studying of the Bible in context.
Tom said: There is only one Gospel; and Christ has made it clear that every church at the end of time has fatally misunderstood his teachings. Thus he calls them all, including the SDA’s, to repent and embrace genuine Gospel Reform.
Those who follow his direction are found in Rev 18, proclaiming the true Gospel to the world, -just prior to the great time of trouble. This is where we all need to migrate.
Rev. 18:1 After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illumined with his glory.
The SDA’s don’t understand the true PAJ, which is the LM. Those who defend and proclaim Traditional Adventism do not believe they have any false doctrine. Thus they feel no need to repent, much less embrace any doctrine that conflicts with what they have been teaching.
So they refuse to repent and refuse to believe the Gospel, even as they waste their time promoting the IJ and Sunday laws, striving to obey the law to please God and save their souls. Sad and very pathetic, as well as fatal.
Let all understand that Amazing Facts is full of false doctrine. There is no salvation for anyone so foolish enough to think that this cultic nonsense and blasphemy is taught in the NT.
Eternal Life is not for the stupid or the lazy, or for those too busy or naive to understand the Gospel teachings of Christ, which are written down for all to read and study.
Amazing Facts is poison. Unbelieving Jews run it; wolves in sheep’s clothing. Let all the lambs beware…
Bob2 asked: Isn't the Gospel to accept the gift of the cross for sin inherited by original sin, then to allow the Holy Spirit to empower our lives to improvement at least and "perfection" as requested by Jesus:
Tom replied: No. You described a RC, (and SDA) view of the Gospel whereby our Sanctification is part of the salvation process. In this view, one needs both Justification (forgiveness) and an acceptable level of Sanctification (Righteousness) in order to be saved. But this is all wrong.
The genuine Gospel saves sinners only on the basis of their faith in Christ’s substitutionary death, as well as his imputed Sanctification and Righteousness. Such a distinction between faith and law was correctly featured in the Protestant Reformation. But sadly, the SDA’s have rejected Luther’s correct understanding, for which they must repent.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Rom. 3:27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
Rom. 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
1Cor. 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
1Cor. 1:31 so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”
We are not saved because of our Sanctification, nor are we lost because we are not good enough. Nor is anyone in heaven waiting for sinners to stop sinning and reach a state of character perfection, as the SDA’s teach.
Col. 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
Col. 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Col. 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete,
There is no such doctrine as perfection this side of the 2nd Coming, even as there are no such people. The SDA’s need to repent for their outrageous legalism, even as they chase away the many wolves, like Doug Batchelor that have infiltrated their ranks. This false Gospel has heaped needless guilt on millions, ruining many lives in the process, and misrepresenting the path to heaven.
1Cor. 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
1Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Cor. 3:12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
1Cor. 3:13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
1Cor. 3:14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
1Cor. 3:15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Those today that are following the true Christ, will repent of their false doctrines, not dig in their heels and defend what is false, pretending it is true.
Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
When will the SDA’s confess their errors and repent? Probably never. Their leaders seem too far gone, just like the 1st century Jews, the 19th century Battle Creek leaders, and all others in Laodicea. Let all beware the false Gospel of the SDA’s. It is fatal unless they repent.
Rev. 3:22 ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
In the following passage, is not Jesus saying the Christian must bear fruit. Not that the fruit is what saves but shows that the Gospel dwells within and empowers, not for bragging rights but to show a true in dwelling of the Gospel:
Mark 11:12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
Interesting the curse was put on the tree even though it was not the season to be bearing fruit. (John Gill in his commentary suggests that punctuation or lack thereof, causes this problem. See his comments on Matt 21:19 http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view. … &verse=019 )
The point being, that "by their fruit you will know them". Right???
Last edited by bob_2 (01-09-12 1:49 pm)
Offline
Tom, aren't you looking for works of the tSDAs, the change in fruit bearing, are you not just as guilty as them with your demanded changes to your version of the Gospel, which I see as dangerous as you go against, IMO.
Offline
Bob2 asked: In Mark 11:12, is not Jesus saying the Christian must bear fruit. Not that the fruit is what saves but shows that the Gospel dwells within and empowers, not for bragging rights but to show a true in dwelling of the Gospel:
Tom said: The “fruit” of the Gospel is love, not legalism. No one is saved because of his or her works, law keeping, or love. Neither does anyone retain their salvation because of their Sanctification or fruit.
Rom. 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom. 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
Rom. 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Rom. 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Rom. 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Rom. 13:9 For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
Rom. 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Love is the fruit of the Gospel, even as Love endures forever.
1Cor. 13:13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Jesus death on the cross to save sinners is the ultimate definition of love. For God to become man so he could die for sinners and pardon them is beyond normal comprehension. This is love.
John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
Then to be so badly treated by those he was trying to save, tortured and killed by those who should have welcomed the Gospel, is again, the definition of love.
Phil. 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
Phil. 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phil. 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Phil. 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Phil. 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
Phil. 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
What would motivate anyone to give up so much, and to be treated so badly, and yet continue on to save sinners? None of us would do it, and neither would any other supposed deity in history, except the Creator God of the Jews. Thus there is no story like the Gospel Story. It is unique, even as it stands alone like no other religious view.
There is no story like the Gospel Story, and at the end of time it will be told clearly and correctly, complete with the genuine Gospel Sabbath of Christ.
The SDA’s were supposed to lead this last Gospel charge, but they have fallen down for all to see. Just like the Jews, they too were supposed to teach the Gospel to the Gentiles, but they refused, becoming enemies of Christ.
Bob2 said: Tom, aren't you looking for works of the tSDAs, the change in fruit bearing, are you not just as guilty as them with your demanded changes to your version of the Gospel, which I see as dangerous as you go against, IMO.
Tom said: Christ is “demanding changes” in the church, meaning all denominations, so don’t shoot the messenger. Christ is demanding that all Christians repent and learn the Gospel, including the SDA’s.
Jesus has rejected both the works and the theology of every denomination in Laodicea. Moreover, he has clearly told the Laodiceans, -all of them, -what he is looking for. We don’t have to guess or promote our own personal opinions. Heaven wants Repentance and Gospel Reform.
Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
Rev. 3:15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
Rev. 3:16 ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
Rev. 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
Rev. 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
Every denomination in Laodicea is instructed by Christ to examine their theology and understand that it is worthless and wrong.
Every Christian today, who is serious about following Christ, will stop assuming that they have embraced nothing but truth and correct doctrine. None are correct about the Gospel, which is evidenced by the many wrong views of the Sabbath.
All Christians today must listen to Christ and study to better understand the Gospel. They must figure out why their faith, and their theology, has been rejected by Christ in the real Pre Advent Judgment of the Church.
While the SDA’s were correct to comprehend that there must be a Pre Advent Judgment of the church, they embraced the wrong OT passage, even as they misunderstood the genuine NT based PAJ, which was right in front of them all the time.
Any SDA that follows the instruction of Jesus will quickly discover why Christ judged them unsaved, blind and naked, needing to repent. They have the wrong view of the Gospel and the Judgment, as well as many other doctrines, including the Sabbath and eschatology and hermeneutics and even the Lord’s Supper. No wonder they are unsaved and considered blind by Christ.
I repeat: The SDA’s have the WRONG PAJ. This must be the first point where they MUST REPENT. The IJ of Dan8: 14 is not the PAJ. Rather, the Laodicean Message of Rev 3: 14 is the genuine PAJ of the last church. And for this great error they must repent, repudiating Glacier View and apologizing to Dr. Ford who was correct to debunk the IJ.
The SDA’s have also embraced a false, Judaizing, Gospel that Paul condemned in Galatians. To underscore their legalism, they have promoted the OC “schoolmaster” Sabbath along with tithing, all the while refusing to be corrected by those like Waggoner and Ford, as well as Ellen White, that tried to help them.
There are no more excuses left. Traditional Adventism, as taught by the Takoma Park apologists and reaffirmed by Glacier View is full of error. It is poison. It is time for the Adventist Community to face the facts and repent:
Here is what all SDA’s and their leaders must understand:
1. There is a Pre-Advent Judgment for the Church. Good for the Adventists to discover this eschatological point.
2. However, the PAJ is NOT the Investigative Judgment of Dan 8:14. Nor is the IJ located in the Judgment Pillar of the 1st Angels Message (Rev 14: 7) as the modern SDA’s incorrectly teach.
3. The PAJ is the LM of Rev 3:14; which calls for all to acknowledge that they have embraced a false Gospel and repent. This is what every individual in every Laodicean church must do if they want Eternal Life.
Let all the SDA’s repent for misunderstanding Gospel eschatology.
Let the SDA’s lead the way. After all, they discovered the concept of the PAJ. So it makes sense that they are the ones that should get it right. But they can’t understand this truth so long as they cling to tradition and refuse to be honest with the scriptures.
The SDA must zealously repent and correct the dishonest record in the White Estate, telling the truth about the IJ, 1888, and Glacier View. If they can’t do this, they are doomed and damned, and so too anyone that refuses to repent and reform their false doctrines.
The only way for anyone, from any church, to move forward to Rev 18, is to confess, repent, and embrace the genuine PAJ, as well as the rest of Gospel Reform, which includes the active and Reformed Sabbath of Christ.
Adventism is a movement of prophecy and this eschatological perspective must never be lost. Although there is a long list of false doctrines that must be repudiated, Gospel Reform for SDA’s starts with understanding the correct eschatology about the Pre-Advent Judgment.
The PAJ is the LM.
This doctrinal correction will save the dying Advent Movement, allowing it to return to the fundamental pillars that define and empower it. This is the only way for the church to move forward to the 4th Angels Message of Rev 18; a future point in time when the Gospel is correctly understood, embraced, and proclaimed.
See:
Understanding the Pre- Advent Judgment
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/8/9213.html
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1154462379
I hope this helps,
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
Tom, if love is all that has to be shown, Eve did a loving act by sharing the apple with Adam. However, the touching or plucking of the fruit is the act that she erred in doing. Love wasn't the only thing needed. Did she hate God when she plucked the fruit, I don't think so. They disobeyed with the wrong "doing". Why we have such a problem with that. God created us for good deeds.
James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
Galatians 5:19-26
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy,[a] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
Offline
Bob2 said: Tom, if love is all that has to be shown, Eve did a loving act by sharing the apple with Adam.
Tom said: No sinner will be saved by his or her love or sanctification. So this idea that “love has to be shown” is wrong. This would be the same as saying your sanctification must reach a certain level before salvation. This is a Roman Catholic view, not Protestant.
While there should be some evidence that a person is saved, such evidence is not sufficient to save anyone. Rather, we are only saved by FAITH in Christ, not by our works.
1Cor. 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
1Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one, which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Cor. 3:12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
1Cor. 3:13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
1Cor. 3:14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
1Cor. 3:15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Sinners are saved by the mercy of God, not by their love, good works, or sanctification.
Moreover, Eve was not showing any love to Adam or to mankind by committing sin and plunging the world into a living nightmare. Her wrong actions brought a curse upon all mankind, which was not a loving thing to do. She was "deceived" into breaking the law, not fulfilling it. She caused great harm and death to all mankind. This is very wrong, even the opposite of love.
Rom. 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
I repeat, Eve’s rebellious, wrong, and evil actions caused untold harm to billions. This is not love, but the greatest of sin. Anyone that cannot tell the difference between love and sin is far, far away from understanding the Gospel. In fact, they will not be able to understand the genuine Christ, even as they follow a worthless fraud. Thus, a great "deception" is still taking place in the church today, one that is modeled on the first great deception of Eve.
2Cor. 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
2Cor. 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this ebeautifully.
It is time for the last church to get serious about the Gospel. It is time for all to repent for following "another Jesus" and a "different Gospel and Spirit."
Tom Norris for Gospel Reform
Offline
Tom said:
Sinners are saved by the mercy of God, not by their love, good works, or sanctification.
What of mercy for Lucifer, did he not deserve it. I always bothers me when someone makes a simple claim of how salvation is obtained. Then you ask the question, what did Lucifer do to not make it that simple for him?
Offline
Bob asked: What of mercy for Lucifer, did he not deserve it?
Tom said: Lucifer tried to take over heaven, even as he invented sin, lying, murder, and war. There can be no mercy for such a determined, unprincipled, inventor of evil. Extermination of such an insane creature is the only option. He deserves no mercy, (and neither does the sinful, stupid, human race.)
John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
1John 3:8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
Satan is a determined enemy of God, Christ, and the Gospel. He is a psychopath, a hopeless deviant; a monster of pure evil. He will be destroyed in the end, without mercy.
Luke 13:16 “And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?”
Rom. 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
Bob said: It always bothers me when someone makes a simple claim of how salvation is obtained. Then you ask the question, what did Lucifer do to not make it that simple for him?
Tom said: Don’t waste your pity on Satan. What he has done, and what he has become, was of his own choosing. Although he knew God, he turned away from truth, even as he tried to capture and control his kingdom by brute force.
Such a dangerous rebel deserves no mercy, and he will receive none. But even so, he has supporters on earth, including all those who cannot understand the Gospel. It is surprising how many follow Satan.
1Tim. 5:15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.
If there was a way to save Satan, God did not choose it. Rather, he choose to save the human race instead, and to offer Gospel forgiveness ONLY to them instead of Satan and his followers. Thus there is no Gospel for angels, only for humans.
Heb. 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
Heb. 2:15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
Heb. 2:16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
Heb. 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
In order for Satan and company to be saved, he would need a savior to die for him. But God did not send Christ in the form of an angel to become a savior for Lucifer and his evil angels. Thus Satan had no sacrifice or righteousness and thus no hope.
Rather, God sent Christ in the form of man, to save man by the Gospel. Only mankind, not angels.
Heb. 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
1Cor. 15:21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
1Cor. 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
The Gospel is designed for sinful humans, not evil angels. Which explains why Satan hates it and the humans for which it was designed. Satan has no chance at forgiveness or salvation, and he knows this fact, which is why he will destroy the earth in one last act of demonic revenge.
Rev. 12:12 “For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”
Phil. 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
Phil. 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phil. 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Phil. 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Phil. 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
Phil. 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Could God have designed a Gospel to save Lucifer? Yes. But he choose not to do so, choosing instead to save the human race through Christ becoming a man, not an angel.
Luke 12:32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.
This explains why Satan was so enraged about the Ministry of Christ and the cross. It was a great insult to him. He knew that there was no forgiveness for him because God choose to elevate the pathetic human race above all the angels, leaving Satan with no Gospel and no hope.
Heb. 2:5 For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking.
Heb. 2:6 But one has testified somewhere, saying,
“WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM?
OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?
Heb. 2:7 “YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS;
YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR,
AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
1Pet. 5:8 Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
1Pet. 5:9 But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.
1John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
Those humans, who refuse to repent of their sins and false views, will not be saved. This goes for the NCT crowd, as well as for the SDA’s and all others.
Satan hates and despises the human race, especially because they have been given mercy and he has not. Thus he has done his best to make sure they do not understand the Gospel or follow Christ…
Mark 4:15 “These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them.
We must all admit that he has done a very good job at sabotaging the Gospel, which is why the last church is the worst church, having become totally blind to the very Gospel that can save them.
Rom. 9:15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”
Rom. 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
Heb. 4:16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
1Pet. 2:10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.
Satan is going to hell, let’s make sure we do not follow him and share his evil fate.
I hope this helps,
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
Tom said:
Those humans, who refuse to repent of their sins and false views, will not be saved. This goes for the NCT crowd, as well as for the SDA’s and all others.
... and Reformed SDAs also, eh Tom? According your discernment in your last post, it doesn't matter what you do, because "Jesus will have mercy on who He wants to have mercy, and will not have mercy on who He doesn't want to have mercy." Why you even posting your long posts if man has nothing to do with Jesus acceptance of us?
Last edited by bob_2 (03-17-12 5:34 pm)
Offline
Hub said: If you made a study of the Old Covenant, you would find that the “covenant of works” does not offer pardon for sins. The Ceremonial law was explicitly given to provide and illustrate pardon for sins. Thus it cannot be part of the Old Covenant, and of necessity must be part of the New Covenant.
Tom said: Wrong. I have made such a study. And so too many others, like Luther. Don’t pretend that you have found some wonderful new insight into the OC or the NC. That is nonsense.
Just read Luther if you want to understand how the OC works. His Galatian Commentary leaves nothing to the imagination, even as he refutes what you teach.
While the ceremonial laws represented the Gospel, they were still part of the OC. Thus the Levites and the Temple services, etc, were in fact OC in nature, even though they deal with the forgiveness of sin.
This is the downfall of the SDA’s. They refuse to be honest with Bible, always trying to manipulate it and make it say what they want. This is not how they started out, but during the 1888 debates, this is what the leaders did, and they have never stopped. Just read some of the 1888 letters of Ellen White to Uriah Smith, this is what she said about how he and the others were acting.
Your attempts to defend the errors of Uriah Smith are worthless and dangerous. Why do you play such games? To protect the false traditions of your youth?
To claim that the ceremonial laws of Israel are not part of the OC, - is absurd. That is like saying the OT is really the NT. And the NT is like the OT. What kind of medication have you been taking? This is outrageous.
The Two Covenants must be kept distinct, even though they are both Semitic. Repent of this nonsense, upon which Traditional Adventism is built.
Let all the TSDA's understand the 1888 debate and repudiate Uriah Smith's view of the Two Covenants. Let all embrace the correct position of Luther and the Protestant creeds. Let all SDA's embrace what EJ Waggoner taught in 1888, and what Ellen White also embraced. Which is the same as what Dr. Ford was teaching.
The White Estate is guilty of deceiving everyone about the Two Covenants. Their views are all wrong, and so too are you for following their version of things. Shameful.
Hub said: One must also recognize that the Ceremonial law was made up of several different parts. Sacrifices and temple services, rituals for holiness and cleansing, circumcision, and other parts.
Tom said: So what? This changes nothing.
Hub said: The Moral Law is in a different category.
Tom said: The Moral law is still part of the OC. Read the book of Galatians and understand what law being discussed, -it includes the Moral law. Just go ask Luther or any Protestant, even the post 1888 Ellen White understands the law in Galatians, but not the SDA's. They refuse to embrace the Gospel.
Gal. 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Gal. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Gal. 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
The SDA’s read this passage like this: “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the ceremonial Law. Only the Moral Law.”
But this is wrong. Paul is saying, that we are no longer under either. Not the Moral law, or the OC ceremonial laws of the Jews.
Those who think the term Law in Galatians is NOT about the Moral law, are RC’s and SDA’s. All Protestants, like Luther, correctly teach that this passage includes the Moral law. This is EXACTLY what Waggoner said, and Ellen White agreed. But not Uriah Smith, Canright, and the Battle Creek legalists. While Ellen White used to think like Smith, she changed her view during the 1888 debates, which is why she was exiled to Australia, and why the BC Empire collapsed.
Once in Takoma Park, the leaders covered up the 1888 debate and proceeded to teach that Smith and Ellen White settled their differences and that she essentially embraced his views. But this is not true. It was a great lie. Thus the TSDA’s think they are following Ellen White in their views, when they are not. Ellen White and Smith became theological enemies for life. Ellen White even pushed for Smith to be fired from the Review for promoting his false view of the law in Galatians in the Review. This took place about 15 years after 1888.
Thus the great Uriah Smith was FIRED from the Review for legalism. The very same legalism that became the foundation for the 20th century TSDA’s. The very same legalism that was endorsed by the leaders at Glacier View.
Hub, you and all the TSDA’s have the wrong view of this passage, as well as the Gospel and church history. You are taking the side of the Judaizers, and the RCC, and Uriah Smith against Ellen White. Pitiful.
Ellen White condemns all TSDA’s, and so too does Luther, Waggoner, Dr. Ford, and Tom Norris. All should condemn the SDA’s for their legalism, and for covering up the 1888 debate in the White Estate.
After the 1888 debates, Ellen White went on to change her view about the law in Galatians, siding with Luther and Waggoner and concluding that it was the moral law as well as the ceremonial law that is under discussion in this famous letter of Paul. While Smith had no problem viewing this passage as meaning the Ceremonial law, he refused to accept that is was also a reference to the Moral law.
Listen to her chide Uriah Smith about his stubbornness on this point.
These testimonies of the Spirit of God, the fruits of the Spirit of God, have no weight unless they are stamped with your ideas of the law in Galatians.
I am afraid of you and I am afraid of your interpretation of any Scripture, which has revealed itself in such an unchristlike spirit as you have manifested and has cost me so much unnecessary labor.
If you are such very cautious men and so very critical, lest you shall receive something not in accordance with the Scriptures, I want your minds to look on these things in the true light."
Let your caution be exercised in the line of fear lest you are committing the sin against the Holy Ghost.
Have your critical minds taken this view of the subject?
I say, if your views on the law in Galatians, and the fruits, are of the character I have seen in Minneapolis and ever since, up to this time, my prayer is that I may be as far from your understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures as it is possible for me to be.
I am afraid of any application of Scripture that needs such a spirit and bears such fruit as you have manifested. One thing is certain, I shall never come into harmony with such a spirit as long as God gives me my reason.
You have not commended your doctrine, in some things, to my mind and to other minds. You could not have given a better refutation of your own theories than you have done.
Ellen White (circa 1890)
(Manuscript Releases Volume Nine, page 330, paragraph 2 Chapter Title: The Law in Galatians.)
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … s-1888.htm
Hub said: Attacks on the moral law are for one reason only – to destroy the Sabbath. It is impossible to destroy the moral law or the Sabbath (Matthew 5:17,18).
Tom said: Ha! Now we are the heart of the matter; THE OC SABBATH! This is why SDA’s had such a big fight in 1888. Smith was protecting the Sabbath. He was fearful that Waggoner’s view would destroy the Sabbath. Which it would have done, except in doing so, the SDA’s would have gone on to understand the NC Sabbath, which is the completion of Sabbath Reform.
While the truth about the Gospel does destroy the OC Sabbath, it does no such thing to the NC Sabbath of Christ. There is still a 7th day Sabbath for the church, but it is very different from what the SDA’s teach.
But the SDA’s had the wrong Sabbath anyway. They embraced the OC “schoolmaster” Sabbath of Moses, not the NC 7th day Sabbath of Christ. This is what must be corrected. Let all SDA’s repent of the OC Sabbath, even as they embrace the 7th day, Gospel Sabbath of Christ.
Hub said: It is the law of God, holy, just, and good. With un-numbered angels and men, a law was necessary to keep order. It is the prescription for love, holiness, and makes freedom possible.
Tom said: While the law is a good and necessary thing, it is not the basis of following Christ for salvation. In fact, in the NC era, the law is for bad people, not for those who follow Christ.
Gal. 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
1Tim. 1:8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
1Tim. 1:9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
So while the Moral law has not been abolished in the NC, it has been subordinated to the Gospel. For those not under the law of Christ, they remain under the condemnation of the moral law. They stand condemned.
Hub said: Generally speaking, SDAs are not clear on the covenant, and actually many hold a dispensational view!
Tom said: Hub, as an SDA, you are not clear or correct about the Gospel or the Two Covenants, or tithe, or the Sabbath or the Judgment, etc. NO SDA understands doctrine correctly. They don’t even understand their own church history correctly, much less the history of the Bible.
Hub said: The 1888 debate centered on the law in Galatians. Was it the moral law, or the ceremonial law?
Tom said: Correct. Smith said it was ONLY the ceremonial law, but Waggoner, who was following Luther’s view in his Commentary to Galatians, said it was the Moral (as well as the ceremonial).
Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Gal. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
If you substitute the word Judaism for law, you can better understand the meaning of the passage.
Hub said: Recent view on this is that it is both, and that one must study the context to determine which law is being referenced in any particular verse.
Tom said: Wrong. There is no “recent view” about any of this.
Luther correctly said that this passage is about all law, both Moral and Ceremonial. Of course his RC enemies said it was ONLY the ceremonial law, and not a reference to the Moral law. The SDA’s sided with Rome. Waggoner sided with Luther. And Ellen White agreed. But not Smith. He went to his grave a lost man, just like all those TSDA’s that follow his warped theology.
Hub said: Is the Old Covenant Judaism? This is over-simplistic.
Tom said: Wrong. The OC = ancient Judaism. Very simple and 100% correct.
Hub said: Among God’s people there is always the unbelieving majority, who will always fall into Old Covenant thinking and actions, Then there are the believing remnant who look to Christ in the ceremonial law and who keep the moral law by faith and through grace.
Tom said: Wrong. Judaism includes both the Moral and Ceremonial laws. There was no division between the two. No one can say that the NC was part of the OC. This is utter nonsense. The NC was hidden until the 1st century.
Col. 1:25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,
Col. 1:26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,
Col. 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
The Gospel was hidden in the OC. It was not a clear or distinct part of the OC as you claim.
Rom. 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long ages past,
Rom. 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;
Hub said: The “Rabbinic Judaism” of today is Old Covenant. Observant Jews look to keeping the law, and living an ethical life for their salvation. Most have no concept of a substitutionary sacrifice by the Messiah.
Tom said: The apostolic church fell back into the OC, and yet they still claimed to embrace Christ as the Messiah. (See Galatians). So you don’t understand what you are saying.
Peter and James embraced the OC as well as the NC Gospel. Thus they combined the OC and the NC, elevating law to the same level as the Gospel.
Those who combine JBF with our Sanctification, are called Judaizers, aka the Circumcision Party. This is what the RCC has done, and so too the SDA’s. Such “Galatianism” is very wrong. This is what Paul condemned in Gal 1.
Today, the modern SDA’s brag about the fact that they have a “full Gospel.” But this only proves they do not understand the Gospel and that they are not Protestant.
Listen to this error from Wilson Jr. He is making the exact same mistakes as his father, and as George Butler and Uriah Smith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Argentine Adventist University, Wilson Stresses Full Message:
On dedication Sabbath, emphasizes unity of justification, sanctification (Posted May 23, 2012)
“The foundations of all revival and reformation stem from the righteousness of Jesus Christ,” the General Conference president told capacity crowds of 2,500 at each of the two morning services.
“We should be the strongest proponents of Christ and Christ alone; to realize that the two great provisions of salvation--justification and sanctification--cannot be separated. They represent the fullness of Christ and his righteousness.”
http://www.adventistreview.org/article/ … ll-message
Anyone that blends JBF with S, has fallen from grace. They have a false Gospel, just like Peter and James in the book of Galatians. Just like the RCC, and the SDA’s.
It is time for the Adventist Community to understand the difference between the law and the Gospel.
It is also time for them to understand the difference between the OC Sabbath and the NC doctrine that Christ teaches in all four Gospels.
When the church understands the Gospel correctly, they will also understand and embrace the NC Sabbath of Christ.
Listen to Ellen White:
Said my guide, ‘There is much light yet to shine forth from the law of God and the gospel of righteousness. The message, understood in its true character, and proclaimed in the Spirit, will lighten the earth with its glory. (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 2, 58)
When will the SDA church wake up?
I hope this helps,
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
Question for Tom Norris:
Subject: Seventh day Adventists Believe....27 A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrine
I am writing a research paper in seminary to determine if the Seventh Day Adventists ever were, or are now, a cult. Scholars and former Adventist Pastors differ on the subject. What is your critique briefly about the Book? Has it cleaned up and clarified true Seventh Day Adventists doctrine?
Wayne, from Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer:
Today, the SDA’s are a cult; their view of the Gospel Story is fundamentally wrong, and so to many of their doctrines, as well as how they are organized and supported.
The book you refer to is about their Creed, which was established in 1980, following the Trial of Dr. Desmond Ford. Don’t be fooled by the fact that the SDA’s publish many books with fancy graphics and smooth words. James White, the principal founder of the SDA’s, was a very successful printer, so the SDA’s have always known how to use mass communications to promote themselves.
The SDA’s have never fully understood the Gospel or the Sabbath correctly, but then again, no denomination in Laodicea is correct about such points. Which is why Christ instructs all to repent and embrace Gospel Reform at the end of time, not just the SDA’s.
In other words, - while it is easy to say that the SDA’s are full of error, so too the rest of Laodicea. All churches today can be placed into cult status and condemned for embracing a false Gospel and worthless tradition. With that being said, we can proceed.
SDA’s A Cult?
The Adventist Movement was Protestant, and so too the SDA’s when they broke away from Miller’s organization in the mid 1840’s. These Pioneers started out naïve and honest, even as they developed a new brand of Adventist eschatology, which they called the 3rd Angels Message.
The early SDA’s were very successful as they pushed forward with new insights about America, the Sabbath, and the Judgment, explaining in detail how the world would end and what signs were to be expected. They had cutting edge views of eschatology that were well branded and promoted.
They also embraced a natural lifestyle that gave the world Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, and thus we can all thank the Battle Creek SDA’s for the cereal isle in our neighborhood grocery store. They changed how the world eats breakfast.
The 19th century SDA’s were the most sophisticated, organized, and successful of all the Millerites. James White was a genius, as evidenced by the Battle Creek Empire that he built out of the ruins of the great disappointment of 1844.
So when does a Protestant group become a cult? Just because the SDA’s met on the 7th day, when everyone else thinks Sunday is the Lord’s Day, does this make them a cult? What about their strange view of soul sleep and the Investigative Judgment? Does this make them a cult?
Surprisingly, their view about death has turned out to be very Protestant and correct, even as their view of the IJ has turned out to be fatal error.
Luther & the SDA’s
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … her-vs.htm
I view the early SDA’s as uneducated, but honest and well-meaning, innocent and naive. While they held error, so too did all others, so this cannot be the definition of a cult. They were honestly trying to follow the Word, as they understood it. They were not fighting the Gospel, but trying to better understand it.
From a Protestant point of view, a cult is a group that has repudiated the Gospel and refused to follow the Word. Did the SDA’s ever do this in an official manner?
Yes.
In 1888, the SDA’s rejected the Protestant Gospel, even as they fell into a great debate about the Two Covenants in the book of Galatians. It is a stunning story that the 20th century leaders covered up and hid. To this very day, the SDA leaders still promote a false version about their own church history, even though they know better.
THIS is what cults do. They revise history and try to control it for their own self-serving benefit. They also deny free speech and a free press, all the while making sure that the members embrace their propaganda. Such activity is cultic and thus the SDA’s must be called a cult.
This 1888 Gospel debate was never resolved, and thus the SDA’s became divided, as their Battle Creek Empire imploded at the turn of the century. This is when Kellogg left the church and so too many others. This is why the SDA’s retreated to Takoma Park; where they would go on to make the same legalistic errors, followed by another great schism in 1980.
So the SDA’s are having a hard time learning from their past mistakes. They are not honest or open today, even as they have developed a male dominated hierarchy that is supported by the OC doctrine of tithe. This is very cultic and against the Gospel.
The SDA’s Become a Cult
After 1888, the SDA’s became a cult. When they moved to Takoma Park, they continued with their legalistic views, taking care to hide the 1888 debate, which had almost destroyed this once Protestant denomination.
Traditional Adventism follows the theology of Uriah Smith, the man who repudiated the Gospel in 1888 and fought against Ellen White and E. J. Waggoner, who were both exiled for standing up for the Gospel.
The Takoma Park SDA’s embraced Smith’s legalism, even as they elevated the IJ into a cultic status symbol. This is when their creed of 27 Fundamentals was developed.
SDA Cult Status
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … status.htm
The Fraud of Traditional Adventism
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=235
The 27 Fundamentals
As for the “27” Fundamentals, which have now been increased to “28, they are full of error and false doctrine. Any church that teaches OC tithe paying, is a Judaizing cult, and so too any that promote the OC Sabbath as the SDA’s do.
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
They also embrace a major hermeneutical error by claiming that Ellen White has doctrinal authority, even as they teach a false Judgment called the Investigative Judgment, which examines the believers Sanctification to see if they are good enough to be saved.
The SDA’s don’t even know how to practice the Lord’s Supper correctly because they think wine is sinful to drink. So they make up their own doctrines about many things, which is the hallmark of a cult. And they refuse to repent, which is also a fundamental point of a cult.
The SDA’s also have the same basic organizational system, as well as the same view of Gospel salvation as the Roman Catholic Church, which all Protestants view as a cult. Thus the SDA’s are a cult following a cult, all of which is against the Gospel and the fundamentals of the Protestant Faith.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … urch-2.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … schism.htm
At some point, the Adventists need to repent and get back to the genuine fundamentals of the Three Angels Messages. They need to return to their core emphasis about preparing the church for the great Tribulation and the Second Coming. Gospel Eschatology was their noble mission, to which they must return. Then they would not be a cult.
I hope this helps,
Tom Norris for All Experts.com and Adventist Reform
Offline
Here is a discussion about Adventist history and doctrine, especially as it relates to the 2300 days and the Investigative Judgment.
Pastor Don, a Traditional SDA, asks: “Is the Sanctuary, in connection with the 2300 days, a pillar for Seventh-day Adventism?”
Tom said: First off, the “Pillars” are not just for the SDA’s. 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 founded in the NT.
So if there are to be special pillars for the SDA’s, 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 CHS. It is NOT the IJ.
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 (Oct 22, 1844) prophecy by changing the expected event at the end of the 2300 days to something other than the Second Coming.
CHS taught that the Marriage of the Lamb and the short, undefined administrative act of “blotting out sins” would follow the 2300 days and then the Second Coming would take place. But neither of the two versions of the 2300 days can be pillars.
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.”
The CHS, which is the #5 pillar, had zero to do with any pre- Advent Judgment in heaven. This popular, Takoma Park teaching about a PAJ has turned out to be very wrong and disastrous. Which is why it was NEVER a pillar, and will never be a pillar any more than the various versions of the 2300 days and other points, like the Year Day Principle.
Fourth: While the original doctrine of the Heavenly Sanctuary was not about any kind of pre-advent Judgment, the SDA’s connected the 10 Commandments to the Heavenly Sanctuary. This is part of this pillar and was an important clue that helped the Pioneering SDA’s discover the next pillar, which was the 7th day Sabbath. The Moral Law is part of the CHS pillar, but not the 2300 days.
Fifth: Understand that while Ellen White says SDA’s should “dwell” on the CHS, - that was then. She would not say it later, because they were “dwelling” on other points.
Do not pretend that an 1851 quote would be applicable many years later to the SDA’s, 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 TSDA’s 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, but Jesus being our Mediator in the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the Moral Law is also located, is. He is there for all and he has been there since the first century, and the law before that. Thus, the CHS is a true pillar, along with the moral law.
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.“
Sabbath School Lesson 50, Youth's Instructor, August, 1853.
-------------------------------------------------------
Note that James White is not talking about the IJ. 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.
Thus 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 SDA’s compounded this error by claiming it was the #2 Judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7 when it was no such thing.
Note how the early SDA’s tied the 10 C’s, which are in the Heavenly Sanctuary, to the 3rd Angels Message. This is correct theology and history and again explains why this was such an important doctrine for the SDA’s. Without this 5th pillar, they could not have developed the 3rd Angels Message, which featured the 7th day Sabbath.
Don said: Some assert that James and Ellen White were wrong about the importance of 1844.
Tom said: 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 correct, much less 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 Traditional Adventism 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, a sacred pillar.
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 modern SDA’s have been taught. This is myth and incompetent double-talk.
Do Not Defend Error
Stop trying to defend TA and Glacier View. There is no point. This is a discussion about the facts of history and how badly the church leaders have fooled everyone with their manipulations and fraud.
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 Heavenly Sanctuary 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 SDA’s to make up pillars or pretend that certain errors must be defended as if they were doctrinal truth. The real pillars can each stand on their own, in their proper place. But not the phantom ones that get so much attention from the TSDA’s. They go in the trash.
Don said: But, this teaching cannot be said to be a fraud.
Tom replied: 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 fraud and Glacier View was a monument to this fraud. I repeat, there is no IJ pillar, nor an 1844 pillar, or even a 2300-day pillar. This is what Dr. Ford was saying, and he was correct.
There are 7 pillars in the Three Angels Messages and it is time that the SDA’s understand what they are, and where they are.
SDA Pillars
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … illars.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … illars.htm
Ellen White & The Pillars
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ed-EGW.htm
Don said: It is the best representation of Adventism available.
Tom asked: 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 SDA’s have been taught about the IJ is wrong on numerous levels and must be repudiated.
Let all pay attention: Traditional Adventism 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 Pioneers do not support this great error about the IJ being a pillar in the 1st Angels Message.
So if this nonsense is the best modern SDA’s 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. Tradition is not truth. The White Estate has deceived you and the entire Adventist Community. It has to stop.
The record must be corrected so that the Advent Movement can go forward.
In fact, Clifford Goldstein should be furious right now. He joined the SDA’s because of the Sabbath and the Gospel. But the TSDA’s initiated him into the cult of Takoma Park, Traditional Adventism.
He soon became their convert, embracing their obsession about the IJ. But now he knows he has been conned. Now anyone can see that his book about 1844 is 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 Traditional Adventism.
See 1844 Made Simple Discussions:
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1013659183
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1166507859
What 20th century Adventism has taught about the IJ, - and Ellen White’s view and support of it, is historically false and wrong. There is no IJ pillar, and she never said otherwise. Nor is the IJ part of the Gospel or NT eschatology. It is time for the SDA’s to confess their many errors, correct the record, and repent. This is the only way for them to go forward and complete the Adventist Apocalyptic.
Pastor 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.
Tom said: 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 or what the NT teaches. Sorry.
The Takoma Park apologists have developed a fraudulent version of the Three Angels Messages and it is 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.
Glacier View was a fraud. Dr. Ford was telling the truth about the pillars, including the Gospel and Judgment pillars, but few leaders wanted to understand. Many still do not want to understand. Don you seem to be in that 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. (Rev 14: 7; the hour of his Judgment has come). After all, this Message was a time message, 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.)
Don’t try and make these prophetic calculations valid, or part of another pillar just because this is what you have been indoctrinated to believe. These errors must be repudiated and confessed as wrong. They are scaffolding for the actual pillar.
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.
Tom asked: What is this nonsense about 1844 being the central doctrine of SDA’s? This is absurd and very wrong.
Why pretend that the failure of the Second Coming to take place “is the central doctrine of SDA’s?” This is absurd.
The primary doctrine of the Advent Movement was/is the Gospel and Second Coming. It is not the errors associated with this primary doctrine. 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 delay. Because their 2300-day time calculation was obviously in error.
So, the 2300 days was wrong from the beginning of the Millerite Movement; proving that this was not the “pillar” doctrine. The Second Coming was/is a great Advent 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.
The 2300 days makes for good religious history for the scholars to understand, but nothing more. The Apostles never taught that the 2300 days, or the YDP were doctrine for the church, and thus it can never be for us today.
So stop trying to defend TA again 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 IJ is false. Let all who embraced it repent.
The IJ is not a pillar and neither is Oct 22, 1844.
Elaine Nelson said: Which is why many have done just that: stepped away.
Tom said: The majority of the Adventist Community in NA has “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. Glacier View and Walter Rea were enough for many. Who can blame them?
Too bad the Adventist Community did not know that most all of what they had been taught by their 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 SDA’s. Which is why the leaders were hiding thousands of her writings that condemned them and their false views.
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 better yet, 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.
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 (KJV) possible to "prove" this is a poor and inaccurate one on which to build a church.
Tom said: SDA theology is built on the history and theology of the Millerites. The SDA’s 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 White's Biblical thinking. Also, how a church starts is not quite as important as how it progresses.
Tom replied: While James White was 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.
Tom said: The NT church was built on the teachings of a convicted criminal who was rejected by his people and crucified by the Romans. Here is a far more problematic way to “begin a church.”
How could you forget?
Answer: Because the arrogant and cultic SDA’s think theology revolves around them. Such an attitude leads one to quickly forget the genuine Gospel Story, which is exactly what the SDA’s have done.
The Advent Movement is based on the Protestant Gospel and the doctrine of the Second Coming. Neither of these pillars should be considered error.
First, the SDA’s are founded ON THE MILLERITES. They were all Milerites, this is their pedigree and history. Thus they represent the CONTINUATION of the Millleite 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. The SDA’s did not start from scratch, but rather they continued on with Millers eschatological paradigm and emphasis.
So the Protestant Gospel and Second Coming as the Day of Judgment is what the SDA’s are based upon. While there was obviously error about the timing of the Second Coming, this primary doctrine was nonetheless correct and thus it is now an immovable pillar within the Adventist Apocalyptic. Too bad that the SDA’s have confused and repudiated so many of these pillars.
Don said: 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.
Tom said: Good for you to understand this point. However, after a time, even the Pioneers, including James and Ellen White, morphed into TSDA’s. Because of the Sabbath they became very legalistic and thus they did turn into TSDA’s. (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. This is what the church has covered up all these years and they have still not told this important story to their members.
Unfortunately, Ellen White failed to convince Uriah Smith and the church leaders to repent for their legalism. The church self-destructed as a result. 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, pluralism, and schism.
Shame on the White Estate.
Don said: 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.)
Tom said: I like this term. But remember, the PSDA’s morphed into the TSDA’s. 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 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.
Tom said: Don’t misunderstand what the PSDA’s 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 considered 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 White's leadership.
Tom said: 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:
Tom said: 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.
Tom replied: This was not the IJ as all TSDA 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 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.
Tom said: Stop this talk about a “new movement.” This is not what the PSDA’s were doing.
The SDA’s were part of the Advent Movement, which dates (theologically) from 1818. They represented the 3rd phase of this unfolding, prophetic paradigm. They vowed to defend the first two Millerite 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 SDA’s have made big mistake to act as if the SDA’s 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 Advent Movement. They can neither change the Messages or the Pillars, much less the history of the Advent Movement.
I repeat: 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 with this eschatological paradigm.
Too bad that the modern SDA’s 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 defending the correct theological structure of the Adventist Apocalyptic. He was in full agreement with the PSDA’s, including Ellen White.
Don posted a list of points about the PSDA’s 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.)
Tom Answered: This is correct.
So where is the IJ? It is not anywhere around is it?
The TSDA’s 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 SDA’s discovered the importance of the Moral Law and then the Sabbath. But this was not the IJ.
I say again: 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. So they ran him out of the church. They didn’t want to be bothered by the truth.
Dr. Ford understood that propaganda is not truth, and the SDA’s should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their leaders to falsify history the way they have done. The Adventist Community has been greatly misinformed about SDA history.
The IJ Not Prominent
The SDA’s 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.
Don said: To acknowledge the Bible as final authority even over the spiritual gift of prophecy.
Tom said: Correct. But guess what? TA teaches a very different hermeneutic.
Dr. Ford was correct to say that Ellen White did not have doctrinal authority; the leaders disagreed. Consequently, directly after Glacier View, the SDA’s established the 27 Fundamentals and declared that Ellen White was a source of authority for the church. This is another reason why they wanted to get rid of Dr. Ford. He opposed this misuse of Ellen White.
I can assure you that the PSDA’s 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 TA. She is NOT a prophet, nor does she have any doctrinal authority. This is the correct position of all the PSDA’s.
Don said: To publish the views of the group in a periodical and to publish communications from believers therein.
Tom said: Where do you think the SDA’s 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.
Tom said: James White was the one who had the organization and building skills. Not Ellen White or even Bates. James White, with his business gifts, deserves much more credit for developing the Battle Creek Empire, and Ellen White much less.
James White had the gift of “administration” and she 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.
Tom said: 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 SDA’s today have no idea how the PSDA’s defined or marketed their Health Message. Here is another great failing of TA. They neither proclaim the Gospel correctly, 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 SDA’s have lost both. While they were the leaders in Natural Health, not so today.
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.
Tom said: The SDA’s 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.
Tom said: Why be proud of error and false doctrine?
The SDA’s 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; 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 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.
Tom said: Nothing new here. This is what all denominations did. They were just copying what others had done. Too bad that it has turned into propaganda. SDA schools censor their professors, and thus there is no freedom of speech or thought. So what good are such institutions?
Don said: To allow for new emphasis on faith in Christ within the rustic structure of second generation Adventism (1888).
Tom replied; 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 TSDA’s, 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 SDA’s.
The real issue for the TSDA’s 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 law keeping 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 TSDA’s 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 each failed to insert correct Gospel 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 SDA’s 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 SDA’s refuse to repent and reform.
So Pastor Don, let’s be honest shall we? The SDA leaders have never allowed the Protestant Gospel to be fully or correctly taught. Not in the 19th or 20th centuries. Not even today in the 21st. Pity.
SDA’S 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 A’s depends on the Gospel, and the SDA’s 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.
Although the Protestant Gospel is the #1 Pillar, it has never been fully or properly understood by the SDA’s. Until this grave error is corrected they are lost.
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.
Tom said: Here is another WOLF ALERT! ***
Today, the TSDA’s, like Pastor Don, are not able to tell the truth about Ellen White. The leaders have not respected her writings, choosing to hide them so they could manipulate whatever doctrines they wanted.
When she was alive, they would not listen to her during the 1888 debates and then they exiled her out of the Country.
So what is this propaganda that Ellen White has been treated respectfully and properly by the SDA’s? 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 her writings are like scripture, when this was never her position.
The SDA’s 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.
Today, the leaders are nothing more than con men running a business that pretends to be religious. It is all a great scam of epic proportions that has left them spiritually naked and damned to hell if they do not repent and correct the record.
So why pretend that SDA’s are innocent when they are guilty? What is the point of all this 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.
Tom said: Here is another deliberately false statement from Pastor Don. A true supporter of TA. (Wolf Alert!)
While the SDA’s tried to re-organize in 1901, 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 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. Even today, the church does not want women to be equal with men. So why pretend that they are for equality.
Today, in an attempt to cover up the past mistakes, the SDA’s 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.
Tom said: This is too funny. Without the incorrect KJV version of Dan 8:14, the SDA’s 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.
Tom said: The KJV is so out of date that no one should use it for serious Bible Study. Especially not the dishonest and cultic SDA’s.
Don Sands said: It seems we underestimate the persistence of the Millerites to reason out their stance.
Tom said: 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 SDA’s as they matured.
The 1888 debates took place because Waggoner was studying the writings of Luther and correctly concluded that the SDA’s 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.
Tom said: While the SDA’s 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 and reformers, like Waggoner, Jones, and Ellen White, much less their enemies.
In fact, it was Ellen White’s view in 1888 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 TSDA’s. This is how they are.
Today, all the SDA’s 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.
Don said: The Advent movement called for careful reading and thinking.
Tom said: This is true of the Millerites and the early SDA’s. But this open and honest attitude changed dramatically when Jones and Waggoner discovered major error in SDA theology. Then the SDA’s became very dishonest and refused to have an open and 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.
Tom said: The SDA’s ceased to honestly debate the issues in the 1880’s. Uriah Smith became infuriated 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 SDA’s 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 SDA’s 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.
Tom said: This is not your thread, so you don’t get to define the content. 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?
Tom said: Do any TSDA’s 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? No.
The fact of the matter is that the SDA sanctuary doctrine, known as the CHS was not linked to any kind of pre-advent Judgment until the late 1850’s, long after all three Messages had been formulated.
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 SDA’s have been taught about the IJ, and the Gospel, is mythical and wrong. Ellen White does not, not, not, support TA or Glacier View.
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.)
Tom said: We have answered this question.
Moreover, don’t confuse any linkage with the 1st Angels Message with the actual contents of that Message. The Battle Creek SDA’s 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.
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.
Tom replied: This is too funny. 30 years after Glacier View and Pastor Don claims to be interested in the “pillars” of Adventism. It seems a little late, as well as very insincere. Like any good employee that knows his boss is watching him.
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.
Don said: The Youth Instructor's (YI) 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.
Tom said: 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 SDA’s have been taught. The Adventist Community has been greatly deceived by its incompetent and corrupt leaders. 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.
Tom said: 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.)
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.
Tom said: 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 SDA’s 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 and fraud 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 library of fraud, pretending that was has been published represents honest history when the opposite is the case.
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.
Tom said: This is sadly correct.
Don said: I would describe the Sabbatarian Adventists as "thoughtful amateurs" on Biblical matters.
Tom said: Good description.
But the real question is what are they today? Sadly, they are professional frauds that rely on myth and propaganda for their doctrines. They have one error after another, even as they have no intention of repenting and correcting the record. The PSDA’s repudiate TA, and so too should the entire Adventist Community.
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.
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?
Tom said: 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.
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 SDA’s understood the historic eschatology of the Three Angels Messages.
Elaine said: Do any other Christian scholars, non-SDA, agree with the findings of 1844 or the IJ date with Adventists?
Tom said: The SDA’s 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.
Takoma Park 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 hails from Oct 23, 1844, called the Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary, (CHS). This correct sanctuary pillar had zero to do with any pre-advent Judgment or the IJ.
The truth of the matter is that there never was an IJ pillar in any of the Three Angels Messages, much less the 1st, as all modern SDA’s have been taught.
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 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 SDA’s, 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.
Tom said: 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.
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.
Tom said: Correct. The Millerites did not invent the 2300 days; they just pushed this well-established eschatological model to a conclusion that started the Advent Movement. They did it 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.
Tom said: This is not much to be proud of, as Dr. Ford has proven. But the SDA’s should not have cared, because the 2300 days is not a pillar. And neither is the date 1844.
Don said: Out of their "Sanctuary in Heaven" understanding came a confirmation of the importance of God's Law and the Sabbath in particular.
Tom said: What happened to the IJ and the pre-Advent Judgment? It is not there is it? Which means that TA is based on a great error.
It means that Clifford Goldstein has been misled and deceived by the SDA’s. 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.
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.
Tom said: Stop the double-talk. Admit that there is no PAJ or IJ in the doctrine of the CHS. And that the IJ, was NEVER the Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message. Can you do this?
This is what all TSDA’s must do. They must repent and tell the truth about Adventist history!
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:
Tom said: Note how the IJ does NOT exist in 1852! Nor is there any concept of a PAJ either. Such facts 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.
Tom said: First off, there can be no “private” interpretations for any prophecy.
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 SDA’s. Which means it is not really fulfilled prophecy at all. It is prophetic fraud and a great mistake that must be repudiated.
What all SDA’s 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 from the false eschatology of TA and the real pillars from the Historic 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.
Tom said: 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 SDA’s. But today, they have little idea about these things. They have wasted their time over the years 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?
Tom said: 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 doctrinal pillars, the dates are not doctrinal pillars for the church, although they have made them into great holidays. (Easter and Christmas).
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 calendar, and thus it would have been very easy for the Holy Spirit to make sure the 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.
So what gives the SDA’s 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 fraud and so too 1844. 1844 was never a pillar to the IJ as the SDA’s pretend.
The SDA’s 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 it part of the rules.
Sirge 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.
Tom said: Don is primarily interested in defending TA and trying to impress himself and his employer with his knowledge of Adventism. No doubt he has a guilty conscience, if the Spirit is not left him alone as yet, and thus he is here trying to find a way to sustain his beliefs.
Pastor Don is paid by the church, and thus he is here to support TA, regardless of the facts. No one should be fooled by what is going on here. 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.
Tom said: Notice that Pastor Don refuses to take any responsibility for the “burned out” members. 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 SDA’s 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.
Tom said: 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 doing no such thing.
Wolves are great double-talkers and trained liars. They are pros at deception and diversion. All lambs must beware the wolves, especially the ones that pretend to be friendly. They are 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.
Tom said: 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.
Don said: At some point, I will take your questions and see if any of these early Adventists addressed them.
Tom said: Ha! You have been an SDA Pastor for 30 years. 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 armature who must repent and unlearn many things before you will be able to teach others anything.
Don said: You will notice that I am not using EGW to examine these things.
Tom said: 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 excluded as a historical witness.
Don said: I am a strong supporter of EGW for her role in Adventism.
Tom said: 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 TSDA’s? If so, you do not support Ellen White.
While you pretend to support Ellen White, she does not support you, 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, I have been in the White Estate, and she does not support you or TA. You are her theological 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 true 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.
Tom said: 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 about this in Battle Creek. So your view here is common, even among most TSDA’s. Why are you pretending that you have some advanced belief?
Why don’t you address a real issue? Do you believe that Ellen White is like an OT prophet? Yes or No? The White Estate says yes.
The real answer is no.
She was not at all like what they claim, thus the SDA’s have been promoting her incorrectly all these years.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … e-true.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … hite-3.htm
You hold many false views about Ellen White, and thus you need to repent, even as you must repudiate the White Estate, which is the source for all this false information. And until you do this, you are no friend of Ellen or James White. You are not even an Adventist, regardless what the logo says on your paycheck.
Don said: 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.
Tom said: Ha! No rush for truth here. Perhaps when you retire from defending and promoting TA, you might find the time to figure out truth? That is when many scholars also realized that Dr. Ford was correct. I guess better late then never for the slow learners and cowards in the class?
Don, you are lost in a cultic fog of propaganda. And so it will always be for those that refuse to repent and say that they were wrong. TA is a fraud. And there is no need for you to retire to understand this fact. This theology does not have the support of Ellen White as claimed. It is wrong about the Gospel, the Judgment, and the IJ, as well as hermeneutics and many other things. TA must be repudiated by all SDA’s.
Sirje Walkowiak said: The Bible tells us not to 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.
Tom said: The NT teaches that we should ever be alert for the Second Coming. Miller understood that no one knew the day of this event and thus he was careful to terminate the 2300 days within a time range. Thus, he NEVER had a specific day, or even a specific month, picked out for the Second Coming to occur.
This is why the 2300 days cannot ever be viewed as a pillar; it was always wrong. Pillars can’t be errors; they have to be solid truth for the church. The date of Oct 22, 1844 was never Miller’s date for the end of the 2300 days. Rather, it was Sam Snow’s revised calculation of the 2300 days, which took place under the 2nd Angels Message.
So the Advent Movement has been poorly understood and promoted by the SDA’s. This is why the record must be corrected. The dishonest control of the Advent Movement by the General Conference and the White Estate is coming to an end.
The Advent Movement contains great and timely truth for the church, but the SDA’s have bungled their Message and ruined the paradigm for everyone. This cannot be allowed to stand. The Advent Movement is greater than the arrogant and foolish SDA’s. And if this Movement is of God, it will go forward with or with the SDA’s.
Sirje said: 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.
Tom said: Miller never sold his farm. Just as he never calculated the termination of the 2300 days to any single day or date as many assume. So don’t try and pretend that the Advent Movement was cultic error by some fanatics. This is neither true nor fair.
Moreover, do not underestimate the apocalyptic fervor of that time period. The recent rise of the United States gave new hopes for millennial peace and prosperity, even as the leaders, like George Washington, openly declared that the success of this new Nation was clearly providential and miraculous.
The history of the Advent Movement must first and foremost be understood in its historical context. Few are trained to do this, and thus myths, legends, and half-truth count as facts for the critics to denounce and the legalists to defend.
At some point in human history, the last Christians are going to face the end of the world. At some point, the end will come. Fire drills are necessary and good practice, but at some point, there really will be a fire, and the church had better be prepared.
Let’s hope the Second Coming does not take place any time soon, because it is obvious few would be spiritually or physically ready. In fact, if the Second Coming were to take place this year or next, it would be the greatest of all possible shocks to the church and the world. Who would be ready? Who would be saved?
So don’t be too hard on the primitive Adventists. Rather, be hard on the Adventists today, because they have less of a clue today how the final events will take place, than did the early SDA’s. But few seem to care.
The SDA’s are not even close to being ready, understanding neither the Gospel nor the Judgment, or anything else. Pity.
Sirje said: This placed "saving faith" not in Christ’s redeeming work, but in the interpretations of a handful of people who thought they had direct access to information not made known to God's people for almost two thousand years before; and they called it "present truth", as if truth changes with time.
Tom said: That is not fair. Truth is progressive, especially after most of it was lost under the rule of the RCC. Thus the Reformers fought for Gospel Reform and the struggle for present truth became real and meaningful.
The Millerites were Protestants that understood the Gospel far better than do the SDA’s today. The Second Coming is part of the Gospel, and Christians are taught by the NT to be alert and ready for the final events.
Sirje said: 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.
Tom said: While you correctly claim there is one Gospel, there are actually many versions, and thus the church in every age has had to struggle to understand truth. The events surrounding the Second Coming are part of the unfolding Gospel Story, and the Millerites tried to understand the doctrine of the Second Coming as best they could in a world that denied such a concept.
The news is that out of all this error, the Adventists found some profound truth. Focus on what they got right, not on their errors.
Sirje said: 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, Christ's return is as near as our last breath. We have no need to know the "day and the hour."
Tom said: The church is commanded to be ready, even as Jesus taught that few will be ready.
Luke 18:7 will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?
Luke 18:8 “I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?”
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.
Matt. 24:37 “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
Matt. 24:38 “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
Matt. 24:39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Matt. 24:42 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.
Matt. 24:43 “But 1be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known bat what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
Matt. 24:44 “For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
Sirje said: We have factored the Gospel down to rituals just like the Jews did with their worship; and have made God's 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.
Tom said: Good for you to understand that the Christian religion has gone bad. This is exactly what the LM predicts. Thus all churches at the end of time are judged by heaven to be wretched and blind. None are exempt, especially not the SDA’s. They have turned out to be the worst of all, because they should know better.
Sirje said: All in all, it leaves many of us to walk the path alone; and to make some sense of the path behind us.
Tom said: We only seem alone. But there is the hope of the Second Coming and the promise of the Gospel in the Word. By faith we have Jesus and must rest in his promise of Eternal life. Thus Gospel eschatology is the path for all that are traveling to the New Jerusalem.
Rev. 3:20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
Rev. 3:21 ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
Rev. 19:10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
What is the Testimony of Jesus? It is our salvation.
1John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
1John 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
Thus the Gospel, which features Eternal life, is the basis for all prophecy, especially that of the Second Coming. Which is why the Gospel is the foundation for the prophetic paradigm of the Three Angels Messages.
The Gospel is the Spirit that empowers all prophecy, even as the Second Coming ushers in the promise of Eternal Life for those that believe in the Testimony of Jesus.
John 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
John 5:25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
John 5:26 “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He agave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
John 5:27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
John 5:28 “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
John 5:29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
John 5:30 “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 5:31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.
John 5:32 “There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.
The promise of Eternal life is the basis and the point for all prophecy. Especially the Second Coming. Thus at the end of time, a Gospel Spirit will control all eschatology and lighten the world as never before.
Rev. 18:1 After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illumined with his glory.
At the end of time, the remnant church will embrace the Protestant Gospel and come together, under the pillars of the Three Angels Messages. This is the prophetic path for Laodicea.
Don said: 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 generally. This is why we must not measure our steps based on their experience. There is much to learn from those times.
Tom said: The SDA’s today have learned very little from their history. Which is why they have gone on to repeat so many mistakes of the past. Today, the Adventists are in a great fog, and you, Pastor Don are part of the problem, and so too is anyone that embraces TA or promotes the fraud of TA and supports the outcome of Glacier View.
However, there is hope today. Why? Because out of the chaos of failed eschatology, a new Message was soon discovered, the 3rd. Thus the confused days after the great disappointment gave way to the further development of the Three Angels Messages.
This is what must happen today.
The 3rd Angels Message has failed and chaos reigns within the Advent Movement. This is a signal for the Adventists to go forward within the Adventist Apocalyptic and find the next Message, the 4th. This should be the present goal for all Adventists today. This is their only hope.
The SDA’s must go forward and develop the next Message. But first they must understand the past 3 Messages correctly or they will not know how to develop the 4th. This is why it is so important for them to repent of TA and correct the record. Unless they do this, they will never be able to understand and move forward.
Sirje said: 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 - i.e.: the Jews; SDAs; JWs; member of every schism in history;
God never changes. And he has chosen to communicate with humans regardless of their comprehension problems and the fact that they always mess things up. The Jews are exhibit #1, and there is a long list of others that have followed their errors.
It is the nature of man to misunderstand and be wrong. Thus all should be very careful how they claim to understand the mind of God, which can only be known from the Word of God.
Bob Sands said: SDA’s like any denomination evolves, grows, learns. To use such terms on Traditional SDAs and not on say, Catholics who recently repented for the Inquisition, 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:
Tom said: The history of Jews, and the Church, proves that things get worse over time not better. This is why the Apostolic Church morphed into the RCC. And then the Protestants also went downhill not too long after the Reformation.
So I am not saying that just the SDA’s have false doctrines. The LM excludes no church. Why? Because they are all very wrong at the end of time. They all must repent and reform.
The SDA’s should have learned from their past Battle Creek mistakes. But they did not. Rather, they chose to hide that history and suppress the writings of Ellen White, against her will and her instructions, so that they could cover up the problems associated with 1888.
This wicked plan to manipulate and cover up SDA history has ruined the SDA’s. It has allowed them to be greatly deceived and misled about Ellen White, the Gospel, and the Three Angels Messages.
Today, Adventism is self-destructing. Why? Because their leaders opted for myths and lies instead of being honest with the record and telling the truth.
The SDA’s, like the Jews, are reaping what they sowed.
Bob said: 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.
Tom said: WRONG. This thread is not about the “contributions” that the SDA’s have made. (They have made many, I do not deny). Rather, it is about how they have embraced a massive fraud called Traditional Adventism. It is about how they have gone corrupt and stupid, choosing censorship instead of study and propaganda in place of open and honest discussion.
There is no defense for such sinful and wicked behavior. Which why the LM does not ask SDA’s for any excuses or defense; only confession and zealous repentance.
Bob, since when does embracing a false Gospel and false Judgment result in the SDA’s “holding their head high” in arrogant triumph?
Since when is the promotion of a long list of false doctrines something to be proud about?
Since when is a massive fraud about Ellen White and church history, brought to us by a corrupt and incompetent leadership, cause for pride and rejoicing?
The SDA’s have embraced so many errors, including how they are organized and managed, that no one should defend them. They are so very dishonest, scheming, and incompetent, that I fail to see why they should do anything other than repent and ask for forgivness from both heaven and earth?
If you are looking to hear positive propaganda about SDA’s, this is the wrong thread. I suggest that you find one that Pastor Don, your brother, has started. This is what he does best.
Rather, this thread is about how the modern SDA leaders have been lying about the Gospel and the IJ, as well as hermeneutics and eschatology. It is unfair and very dishonest to pretend that the Adventists need no repentance or reform. It is a great sin to defend them, because Jesus has already condemned their nonsense in the real PAJ, which is the LM. Who are you to repudiate the judgment of heaven or the facts on earth?
How can anyone defend this corrupt organization that has hid documents and dishonestly changed the record so that they could indoctrinate generations into believing lies about Ellen white and Historic Adventism?
How can anyone defend the double talk, corruption, and false doctrine coming from SDA’s? They have gone corrupt long ago, and it only became apparent after 1980.
Today more information about their history is giving them another chance to correct the record and comprehend the Fundamentals as the PSDA’s viewed them. This is not a time for excuses and denials. Those days are past. It is time for the Adventists to understand the facts and repudiate Traditional Adventism.
Today, the SDA’s must hang their heads in shame.
The problem with all Laodiceans is that they prance around, holding their heads high; thinking they have correct doctrines and the proper control and command structure to work out God’s will, when none of this delusion is true.
Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
Rev. 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
Rev. 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
The SDA’s can no more hold their heads high than can the Jews that killed Christ or the Papists that tortured the Reformers. In fact, they labor under the Pauline curse in Galatians against all that teach a false Gospel.
Gal. 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Gal. 1:9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
No one should defend such great errors from the SDA’s, especially when their leaders are so corrupt that they even deny any wrongdoing or error. The SDA’s are not above the law or the Gospel. Nor do they have any right to revise church history or deceive the Community about Ellen White’s views or what happened in Battle Creek. What they have done is wicked and sinful. It must be confessed and repudiated or the SDA’s are doomed.
Traditional Adventism, --starting with the IJ, must be repudiated by all, it can no longer be defended by anyone that is honest or educated. It is false doctrine on many levels.
However, removing the IJ is not a problem whatsoever for the Advent Movement.
It was never part of the 1st Angels Message as claimed, much less a pillar.
It was never a doctrine from Historic Adventism.
To remove such error is to allow the correct judgment pillar, - the 2nd Coming, to stand in its proper historical and theological place. Here is the true Judgment pillar for all Adventists—the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment. This is the only judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7 and in the entire Three Angels Messages.
Today, the Advent Movement must go forward. But to do this, it must first repent and return to the genuine pillars that define and empower it. The false pillars, like the IJ and Tithe, must be removed, and so too the incompetent hierarchy that has deceived the Adventist people.
I hope this helps.
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
Dear Tom,
I have a question concerning the 1844 Investigative Judgment (IJ).
You see, first I believed the IJ because of what the SOP tells us.
Then I found out the gospel and the IJ contradicts each other and I was totally convinced by Dr. Desmond his point of view concerning the IJ.
I already made up my mind that the IJ was an erroneous teaching.
However, I found video presentations and a website of a pastor named Herb Kersten. He tries to harmonize the gospel with the Investigative Judgment.
Since you are a truth-digger like me, would u mind visiting his website and read his articles concerning 1844 and shed your personal opinion on this matter?
Here is the link with the relevant documents:
http://www.hkea.org.au/index_files/daniel.htm .
Basically he is saying that the heavenly sanctuary has no different apartments, yet does have different phases. He also says that if you read the original Greek/Hebrew, the IJ can be substantiated by scripture.
Anyways I would very much appreciate it if you read his articles and share your opinion.
God bless!
Rogier,
Groningen, Netherlands
Offline
Excellent Question: Can the doctrine of the IJ be defended and rehabilitated today? Was Dr. Ford wrong?
Answer: Absolutely not!
No one today should be fooled by the endless double-talk and dishonest propaganda of the SDA Denomination. They no longer care about historical accuracy, doctrinal truth, or theological progress. They have degenerated into a bureaucratic, controlling cult that has no intention of seeking truth, much less repenting and correcting the record. Let all beware.
Glacier View
The late 20th century debate about the IJ culminated in the trial of Dr. Desmond Ford in 1980, at Glacier View, Colorado. At that time, Dr. Ford, a longtime SDA scholar, disproved this doctrine for all to see.
While the vast majority of SDA scholars, including Raymond Cottrell, embraced this new, Gospel view, the church's top leaders refused to admit any error or repent. Thus Dr. Ford was exiled for telling the truth about the Gospel, church history, and the historic fundamentals that define the Advent Movement.
Such outrageous and unchristian behavior by the leaders raised a great outcry from many SDA’s, setting off a firestorm of protest that has only increased over the years. Glacier View caused a great and ongoing schism in the Adventist Community. The very fact we are having a discussion about it so many years later, underscores the power of this Gospel conflict that has never been resolved by Adventists.
Glacier View explains why MILLIONS have left the SDA church, and why the SDA’s have not been able to grow in North America since 1980. They will never become credible or grow until they repent for their great sin of rejecting the Gospel and knowingly embracing false doctrine and manipulated church history.
Thanks to Glacier View, the SDA’s are no longer viewed as credible by the majority of their own members, much less by those outside the denomination, who loudly call them a cult. Anyone today can go online and view the legions of websites by former SDA’s who repudiate the IJ and have left the church. This site is no exception.
Leaving the SDA Church
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=233
Decline
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ndance.htm
Why People Leave the SDA Church
http://www.truthorfables.com/My_Testimony.htm
Why So Many Leave
http://www.nonsda.org/sda_losing_members.shtml
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … church.htm
Leaders Refuse To Repent
In spite of a mountain range of evidence proving Dr. Ford correct, and millions of members now leaving the church, the SDA leaders refused to admit that Glacier View was a horrible mistake. Even when thousands of hidden documents were discovered in the White Estate that vindicated Dr. Ford’s position, they would not confess and repent.
In fact, they continued to slander Dr. Ford pretending he was wrong, even evil, when this was never the case. In 1980, propaganda and error became official truth as the SDA’s, - for the first time in their history, produced a written Creed. And now they were going to defend the 27 Fundamentals as the new mission of the church.
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
Dr. Ford Correct
Let all understand that Dr. Ford was correct in 1980, and he is still correct today. There is no such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible. There never has been such a doctrine, and there never will be. Which is why this teaching has never been embraced, at any time, by any church or denomination, much less the by JESUS, the apostles, or the early church. The IJ is great error, for which the SDA’s alone must repent. And unless they do, they are doomed!
Moreover, Dr. Ford was also correct to state that the IJ, also known as the pre-advent judgment, was NEVER a “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages, much less in the 1st Angels Message. The denomination has been wrong for years on this point, and they are still wrong today. Facts do not change. The record of church history is clear on this point. There was no pre-advent judgment in Historic Adventism.
Dr. Ford only pointed out a fact of history, which could not be refuted. His prophetic view about the IJ was the same as Ellen White and all the Pioneers. Not one of them ever taught or said what the White Estate claimed about the IJ being a fundamental pillar from historic Adventism that could not be examined or changed. Not one of them said that the IJ was part of the 1st Angels Message. Only the 2nd Coming was the Judgment “pillar.” Not the IJ, as the incompetent and legalistic 20th century SDA's taught.
Dr. Ford was correct and his critics very uniformed and wrong about how the Pioneers viewed the IJ. The Takoma Park apologists had been teaching myths for so long that they were treated as facts. And they didn’t appreciate anyone trying to correct their well-published views about the doctrinal development of the Denomination.
But guess what? This website refused to investigate how the Pioneers viewed the IJ. Why? Because they know that to do so would prove Dr. Ford correct on a very critical point of Adventist eschatology. A point, which exposes the pro-IJ crowd as incompetent, even blind and hypocritical.
Dr. Ford is an expert in eschatology. The IJ is just one doctrine of many within the larger eschatological context of the Three Angels Messages. Anyone trying to understand, much less refute Dr. Ford’s view of the IJ, must start from an eschatological context.
SDA’s Blind
Let’s see if this supposed cross-examination of Dr. Ford’s theology has enough sense to deal with the IJ from an eschatological point of view. This would be the correct place to start any examination of this supposedly prophetic doctrine, which was invented in 1857. After all, their board is full of Pastors, Evangelists, and Health Care people. Plus, they had a dozen others read this manuscript, including Ángel M. Rodríguez, Th.D. from the Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference.
So what date will become the starting point for this so called study? 1844, 1857, 1888, or 1980?
Answer: 2004!
How can the IJ be studied from 2004 onward? That is an absurd place to study something that is supposedly dated to 1844 and that was invented in 1857. This makes no sense unless you understand what is taking place. The crafty SDA’s are experts at propaganda. They know that if they started an “examination” of the IJ based on the facts, that they would look foolish and lose the debate. So they ignore the heart of the debate and pretend the historical and theological context does not matter! What wolves these SDA’s are!
Listen to their double-talk:
"Where to start?"
“Dr Ford’s work begins with an examination of the SDA pioneer position. Because the doctrine was under development by the pioneers and in the interests of brevity my focus will be on what the SDA position is on the matter in 2004. If today’s position is incorrect then it is likely the pioneers were also in error. This approach saves time and avoids encyclopedic mass.” Introduction, Page 4.
While these great defenders of the IJ admit, “Dr Ford’s work begins with an examination of the SDA pioneer position,” they claim they don’t have enough time to go back in history and look at the facts. So in the “interests of brevity” they will focus on what the church teaches today, and assume it correct and true.
Wow!
Since when is “brevity” more important than “truth”?
One cannot examine the IJ without going back and seeing how it was understood by the Pioneers that invented it. This is fundamental to any honest and fair study. And all these educated men know this point. However, they are hell bent on trying to discredit Dr. Ford’s work, knowing full well they cannot do it honestly. So they have to manipulate the data, or in this case completely ignore it.
People who act this way are called wolves, hypocrites and Pharisees. The word liar is not too strong. The NT does not support such behavior. This SDA website, and this document to prove the IJ, and the people who support it, are not being truthful or honest.
Col. 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
Eph. 4:25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR, for we are members of one another.
While the author talks about “evidence,” they run from the very evidence that condemns their position. So they ignore what they don’t like and try to confuse people on other grounds, like the OT book of Daniel. They even pretend that this is a Gospel book, when it is not. This is an absurd claim, one that the NT does not support, much less a casual reading of this OC work.
While the author claims that his paper is “driven by Dr Ford’s propositions regarding the investigative judgment arising out of sanctuary issues,” this is not true. The paper overlooks and ignores how the IJ fits into the eschatological development of the Advent Movement, even as it presumes to have a better understanding of the book of Daniel than Dr. Ford, a world-class scholar and expert. (p2)
Moreover, this author does not understand Gospel, which is a different doctrine, not to be confused with the IJ. So when he says that he will judge Dr. Ford’s view of the IJ with his SDA view of the Gospel, he is wasting everyone’s time; it will not work because he does not understand the Gospel, or the IJ.
To be blunt, the author does not know what is talking about. His excuse that Dr. Ford overwhelmed the church with too much information in 1980, and that since that time new information has been found to refute him is utter nonsense and wishful thinking. I am stunned at such an untruthful and outrageous position. But this is how the SDA’s are today. They are corrupt to the core. Listen to this confused author:
“In 1980 Dr Ford challenged traditional Adventist teaching on the investigative judgment. They said: “It may be that the Church was caught somewhat unprepared to deal with the volume of material Dr Ford brought to bear at that time. It is not so today.”
“A similar situation in 2004 would probably yield a different outcome as many resources are now available which were unavailable then. Authoritative material is readily available in electronic form, facilitating research. Scholars worldwide from different persuasions can be readily contacted by email and the internet burgeons with vast material of varying quality. The information age of 2004 provides ready access to materials that were limited to the select few in 1980.”
So Dr. Ford would lose a debate about the IJ today? That is absurd. Facts do not change. The IJ cannot be defended on any level today, and neither can the false Gospel of the SDA’s or their legalistic view of the Sabbath, etc.
To prove this point, here is a link to some online discussions about 1844 and the IJ with Clifford Goldstein. Although he wrote a book about 1844, and became a leading apologist against Dr. Ford, he was unable to defend his book or even enter a debate about the IJ with Tom Norris. This author would fare no better.
See:
1844 Made Simple-2002
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1013659183
1844 Made Simple- 2006
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1166507859
Today, no SDA scholar, historian, or apologist, can defend the IJ against those who have the facts. The IJ is a doctrine so false and misunderstood, that anyone who tries would be instantly embarrassed for all to see, which is why Clifford Goldstein ran away, refusing to have any such debate about his book to defend the IJ. Just read the above discussion and watch Goldstein run away. All the SDA’s run away from the facts, even as they refuse to repent and correct the record.
The IJ is an eschatological doctrine and it must first and foremost be understood in this proper theological and historical context. The 20th century leaders were not being accurate or honest about Ellen Whites view of the IJ or her definition of the Three Angels Messages. The leaders also misunderstood and misrepresented her view about the law and the Gospel. And when confronted with the facts by Dr Ford, Tom Norris, and others they refuse to repent or correct the record. This is not acceptable.
Most did not realize that the church leaders were pretending that Dr. Ford was in error, taking positions against Ellen White, - when they were the one’s doing that, not Dr. Ford! And they are still playing this same game, refusing to study the facts that prove them wrong. This is why no one should trust the SDA’s about anything. They have proven themselves unable to tell the truth, unwilling to admit error and repent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_judgment
Dr. Ford Interview by Tom Norris
http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org/librar … /intro.cfm
Let all beware the SDA's.
Three Major Error’s
The road to Glacier View was paved with great error about Ellen White, church history, and the Gospel. Here are three major points that contribute to the confusion about the pre-Advent Judgment, also known as the IJ. Unless the Adventist Community can comprehend these facts, they will never be able to understand the real Pre- Advent Judgment, much less the Gospel.
1. Hermeneutics & Ellen White
The real Ellen White of Battle Creek had no doctrinal authority, nor were any of her writings allowed to be read from the pulpit or printed in the Sabbath School lessons. --But the White Estate took the opposite position, flooding the Denomination with some of her writings while hiding others. They manipulated Ellen White’s writings, even pretending that they must be followed like scripture.
The real Ellen White would have rejected such a hermeneutic, even as she would have agreed with Dr. Ford at Glacier View. She would have said that unless the Bible clearly teaches any doctrine, much less the IJ, that it must have the proper support from the scriptures, and only the scriptures. She would have never told anyone to believe in the IJ because she said so. Thus the leaders were incorrectly taking many positions in the name of Ellen White that she did not support.
Anyone today who uses Ellen White to support doctrine, are misusing Ellen White. Her writings are not to be used to define doctrine; only the Bible can do that. This is what the original SDA’s, including Ellen White taught. Thus the White Estate has been wrong all these years.
Ellen White
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtop … id=225&p=1
2. The Judgment Pillar in Rev 14:7
Regardless of the claims made by the leaders to embrace Ellen White’s supposed view of the IJ, there is a major problem: The real Ellen White never believed or taught that the IJ was a fundamental Pillar in any of the Three Angels Messages. --But the White Estate claimed it to be in the 1st Angels Message. Thus traditional, Takoma Park Adventism manufactured and promoted a myth about the IJ, one that no Battle Creek SDA embraced.
The Takoma Park apologists claimed “the hour of his Judgment has come” represented the IJ, and thus it was the “judgment pillar” from the 1st Angels Message; off limits for discussion or change. But this was never true. And Dr. Ford proved this point of history in his large Glacier View manuscript, but the leaders were blind to the facts, which condemned them.
This point alone demolishes the IJ, because it was never a “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages. And Ellen White never said otherwise. She is in total agreement with Dr. Ford’s view, which is not a matter of opinion, but, one of historical fact.
See:
The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=227
3. Law & Gospel:
While Ellen White never viewed the IJ as the judgment pillar of Rev 14, she did believe that such a celestial judgment started in 1844, as all the Battle Creek SDA’s concluded just before the start of the American Civil War. This new interpretation about the sanctuary made sense at this time because they had became very legalistic due to their emphasis on the law and the Sabbath. Sanctification and obedience to the law became part of the SDA view of the Gospel, which is no Gospel at all.
However, the IJ, which was not invented until 1857, was a minor issue in Battle Creek, not even codified until the 1870’s by Uriah Smith. This unique doctrine would only become the topic of debate in the late 20th century, where it was given official approval at Glacier View in 1980. It was used to support a legalistic and false Gospel that blended both Justification by Faith and Sanctification into a false, Roman Catholic Gospel.
While Ellen White was a legalist, as they all were in Battle Creek, she repudiated her error and embraced Luther's Gospel during the 1888 Gospel debates. She also tried to reform the Denomination to accept Luther’s view about the law Galatians, which she declared was truth from Heaven.
But Uriah Smith refused to repent, and Ellen White was exiled to Australia. Then the Battle Creek Empire subsequently collapsed into a well-deserved schism, which is why the church leaders moved to Takoma Park, vowing to cover up what had taken place in Battle Creek.
In the 20th century, Ellen White died, but the White Estate refused to tell her story. They hid the 1888 debate, as well as Ellen White’s changed positions, and promoted her pre- 1888 legalism instead. They also invented this myth about the IJ being in the 1st Angels message; the reason why the SDA church existed. When Dr. Ford confronted these myths, the church refused to repent and correct them.
Glacier View A Sham
Glacier View was a sham; with thousands of Ellen White documents hidden from the church at that time, the Adventist Community was misled and deceived by the Review and the White Estate, and to this day, the leaders refuse to confess, much less correct the record about 1844 and 1888.
So when an SDA says: “I believed the IJ because of what the SOP tells us,” they are being misled. The White Estate has not honestly or accurately explained Ellen White’s true views about the IJ or the Gospel. She never, never, never, claimed that the IJ was a “pillar,” nor did she say it was beyond investigation or correction. The White Estate was knowingly deceiving the Adventist Community. They were manipulating Ellen White for their own twisted purposes, deceiving millions in one of the largest Publishing scandals of all time.
Here is what the real Ellen White would say about the IJ:
“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…”
“We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.”
Ellen White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pages 33-42
So the real, post 1888, Ellen White is nothing like a Traditional Adventist who declares the IJ a sacred pillar that defines the church. This idea that Ellen White would have supported the exile of Dr. Ford at Glacier View is impossible and absurd. The real Ellen White would have supported him, even as she would have repudiated the so-called fundamentals of Traditional Adventism. She would also have demanded that the White Estate confess and repent for their great deception about her views.
Post Glacier View Errors
The backlash from Glacier View was devastating to the Denomination. Many were angry and upset that the church was embracing legalism and moving away from a Bible only hermeneutic. It was clear that a schism was going to take place, and this forced the leaders into action. But they once again choose the wrong path.
In an effort to placate the members and stop the mass exodus, the leaders introduced pluralism. This was a policy designed to allow the members to hold differing positions about doctrine. Perhaps this would settle things down and allow those who supported Dr. Ford’s view to remain in the church? But this just made matters worse, angering the conservatives and further exposing the fact that the church was divided about the Gospel and the IJ, and very confused about Ellen White.
Rather than apologize to Dr. Ford and correct their false views about the IJ, Ellen White, and the Three Angels Messages, as well as the Gospel, the corrupt leaders determined to launch a propaganda campaign to discredit Dr. Ford. This included setting up a committee, DARCOM, to pretend that the IJ was a true doctrine.
This website boldly embraces and supports DARCOM, pretending it to be an honest refutation of Dr. Ford’s theology, when it is only rank propaganda. Those who support error and false doctrine are running this site. Listen to their endorsement of DARCOM:
“Criticism of the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 continues to be ventilated by some folk who may be misinformed because out-dated arguments continue to be belabored which have been discredited since the release of DARCOM and other SDA works.”
But DARCOM is nothing but worthless propaganda and double talk by those too proud to admit they are wrong. Here is a link to a discussion about DARCOM:
Official Anti-Ford Publications- DARCOM
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … DARCOM.htm
In addition to the fraud of DARCOM, the leaders have spent many MILLIONS $$ on what was essentially a “counter-reformation” against Dr. Ford’s Protestant view of the Gospel. The Adventist church now exists to promote false doctrine and propaganda. This is the practical mission of the SDA hierarchy today.
A decade or so after Glacier View, as part of this Counter Reformation, the Denomination embarked on a massive online campaign to encourage, fund, and promote legions of websites that show the IJ and other SDA errors in the best light possible. Many of them are ”stealth “ sites, meaning that they do not identify themselves as SDA.
This site you asked about is part of this massive “counter-reformation” against the Gospel by the unrepentant SDA’s. They claim to be one of 324,000 such sites that embrace the IJ, proving that if you are a billion dollar church, you can pay people to make truth seem to be whatever you can afford. Sad. Let all beware the SDA’s. They have more money than brains, ethics, or truth.
“At last count the internet yielded 324,000 sites for the investigative judgment.” (page1)
See also:
Counter- Reformation
http://www.pbs.org/empires/medici/renai … unter.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top … eformation
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … th-SDA.htm
But for every new site that defends the IJ, two seem to come online to refute it, so this plan is not working. The Internet has leveled the playing field, and thus anyone can go online and see legions of angry, former SDA’s testifying to the great errors of the IJ. Even though many today have never heard of Dr. Ford or Glacier View, they still discover the facts and reach their own conclusions, and then leave the church.
The SDA’s have become a dishonest and confused cult, full of corruption and double-talk, all in the name of God. No one should support them in any way. To do so, is to sin against the truth of the Gospel and the teachings of Christ.
New SDA Views About the IJ
After Glacier View, the credibility of the SDA’s started falling, and so too their membership. Many of the church leaders were embarrassed that the IJ was so legalistic. However, rather then admit their error and apologize to Dr. Ford, the leaders tried to spin the IJ into a more Gospel friendly doctrine. Thus they began to teach that God was on trial in the IJ, and this “celestial investigation” was for the good of the universe, to make God seem more fair.
Of course the Pioneers never took such a position, but that made no difference to those who cared so little for truth. The SDA’s will do anything and say anything to try and keep their dishonest empire from total collapse.
Another post Glacier View change to the IJ was to eliminate the two different apartments, which was a very important and critical part of the original 19th century doctrine. They also replaced the term IJ with the “pre-advent judgment,” all in an attempt to try and make false doctrine credible and deceive the public.
Updated SDA Gospel Still Wrong
The real debate about the IJ is about the Gospel, the foundational pillar of the Advent Movement and the Christian church. Those SDA’s who invented and promoted IJ did not understand the Gospel. They were great legalists who taught that obedience to the Moral law was necessary for salvation.
When the 20th century debate erupted about the IJ in the 1970’s, it was really a debate about the Gospel. Those like Dr. Ford, who understood the Gospel correctly, could no longer reconcile the IJ doctrine with the Protestant Gospel, and this is what led to Glacier View.
Thus Dr. Ford had an opposing view of both the Gospel and Judgment, the first two “pillars” in the Three Angels Messages. He was correct on both points.
Dr. Ford’s promoted a powerful and correct Gospel, which he refused to recant. He educated many about the Gospel, and when he was exiled, many left the church as a matter of Gospel duty. Realizing this problem, the SDA’s have tried to adjust their semantics about the Gospel, making it sound better and more appealing. But they refused to address the core issue, which is to remove law keeping from the definition of the Gospel.
In fact, after Glacier View, many SDA apologists and evangelists started quoting Dr. Ford, even though they still refuted his correct theology. This officially endorsed evangelistic website is full of such diversion and dishonesty. The word Gospel, and righteousness by faith, is everywhere, and so too many other uncredited Gospel quotes from Dr. Ford, which are all used out of context, twisted to mean the opposite of what the Protestant Gospel teaches.
But regardless, at the end of this apologetic, it still comes down to obeying the law for the SDA’s, and anyone who embraces the IJ. This is the great error of the old Covenant minded SDA’s. Which is why it makes sense to them that God would conduct a “Celestial Judgment” in deep outer space to see how well a Christian obeyed the Moral law. Such an “Investigation” will reveal how well one did with his or her sanctification. Listen to this tired double-talk:
“What does the gospel save you from? It saves you from the penalty of sin – eternal death. It saves you from the guilt that sin brings. It saves you from the power of sin. It saves you from the presence of sin when Jesus returns.”
“We are saved by faith alone in Christ’s achievements alone, but saving faith is never alone – it is always accompanied by a willingness to obey God in everything.”
This is code for legalism and a false Gospel, which is accompanied with a false view of the Sabbath, and a many other errors, like tithing and Jewish food laws.
22 Points of Error:
In chapter 10, the author puts forth what he claims is a “summary” of Dr. Ford’s positions against the IJ. He will attempt to deal with each one and show it to be wrong. But as we shall see, he is not grasping the proper points or being honest with the issues. The author states:
“Dr Ford lists 22 points1 as representative of a prolonged series of assumptions and inferences that provide “perilous dependence” for the Adventist position on the sanctuary interpretation of 1844 and the investigative judgment.”
“For those who do not have the time to read Dr Ford’s “Dan 8:14 The Day of Atonement and The Investigative Judgment” it is fair to say that his 22 points summarise the entirety of the publication. “ (See page 124)
As usual, when it comes to the IJ, the SDA’s are full of dishonest double-talk and diversion. They refuse to come to grips with the issues, choosing instead to play games. So we must PROTEST what is taking place here. The author has NOT been fair to claim that these 22 points “summerize the entirety of” Dr. Ford’s large publication against the IJ. While they are still true points that cannot be refuted by honest scholars, they do not represent the main points that Dr. Ford has presented.
So rather then get lost in the technical and diversionary debate about the start of the 2,300 day prophecy, and the “year day principle,” or the merits of the historicists viewpoint, let’s cut to the chase and deal with the top 7 reasons why the IJ is false and impossible doctrine. While there are scores of reasons why the IJ is wrong, let’s just deal with the general points that repudiate this false doctrine. This will not only save time but honestly deal with the real issues.
7 Irrefutable points
Here are 7 irrefutable points that prove the IJ wrong. The first one alone, is sufficient to reject it, and so too any of the others. None of these points were properly addressed by this dishonest website, much less refuted.
1. Jesus does not support the SDA interpretation of Dan 8:14; He embraces another view, which all that follow Christ must also embrace.
2. The Pre-Advent Judgment of the Church cannot be in the OT or the book of Daniel. If the PAJ exists at all, which it does, it must be found in the NT. Only the NT can define Gospel doctrine for the church, not the OT.
3. The PAJ of the last church is found in Rev 3: 14. It is not found in the OT book of Daniel as the SDA’s claim. Here is the true doctrine of the Pre-Advent Judgment, which applies to every church and denomination today, including the SDA’s! See link below:
Understanding the Pre- Advent Judgment
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1154462379
4. Neither the OT nor the NT supports a “celestial Judgment” to examine the believers sanctification. There is no such Judgment in the Bible. The IJ is an error, and no amount of double-talk from the SDA’s can change the theological or historical facts.
5. No serious scholars or historians support the IJ, nor has any church or denomination ever embraced this teaching, except for the SDA’s, and most of them now repudiate this doctrine, including their best scholars, like Dr. Ford and Raymond Cottrell. The SDA’s are being very dishonest to pretend otherwise.
6. While Traditional, Takoma Park Adventism defines the IJ as a fundamental “pillar” of the Advent Movement, anchored in Rev 14: 7. This was never true. Not one Pioneer, including Ellen White or Uriah Smith made such a claim. In fact, there is no such “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages, nor is this doctrine the reason why Adventists exist, as many have been indoctrinated.
The doctrine of the 2nd Coming as the Day of Judgment is the reason why the Advent Movement came into existence. Rev 14: 7 was only interpreted as being the Judgment of the 2nd Coming. The later developing IJ, (1857) had zero to do with the doctrinal development of any the Three Angels Messages, which pillars had already been erected by 1847.
7. The doctrine of the IJ is associated with long list of additional false, legalistic doctrines from the SDA’s, such as tithing, OC Sabbath keeping, Jewish food laws, and perfectionism, just to name a few. It is not a stand-alone error, but one of many that must be repudiated.
The IJ repudiates the Gospel and marginalizes the 2nd Coming, which is the real Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message. It is a doctrine that refutes the Foundational pillars of Historic Adventism, and thus it must be repudiated by anyone who claims to embrace the Three Angels Messages.
These 7 points will stand the test of time. They are irrefutable. Which is why the SDA’s refuse to have a public discussion about the IJ or tithing, or any doctrine. They know they cannot withstand a cross examination from those who know the facts. So they prefer to mischaracterize and slander their critics, safely hiding behind their multi-billion $$ media Empire and their many dishonest websites.
It is clear that the modern SDA’s prefer propaganda to the facts and this wretched and dishonest website is just another case in point.
Jesus and Dan 8:14
Let’s focus again in the first and most devastating point that condemns the IJ. Let all understand how to understand the real meaning of Dan 8:14, which is the same view that Jesus embraced.
Listen as Dr. Raymond Cottrell tells his personal story about how he came to understand the truth about the IJ. It is such a simple truth, that anyone should be able to master the meaning of Dan 8:14 without having to do one back flip after another. Let all understand the meaning of Dan 8:14.
Listen to Dr. Cottrell, who supports Dr. Ford:
"My first great shocker about the ‘IJ, Daniel 8:14 and 1844’ was when I read a Hallmark Hanukkah Card in a store that explained the entire story about how the FIRST Hanukkah, and how it lasted for 8 days because that's how long the oil lasted that they'd found in the Temple, once they had "cleansed" the Sanctuary" and set it back up for proper worship.”
“The Jews had even carried OUT every single stone that had been used in the alter because they couldn't take a chance of having a stone in the alter of God that would have such a history of holding up a pig at one time! The Hallmark Card Company had gone to great lengths to tell this story correctly, and they did it!"
"And there I was reading the story WELL OVER 2000 years later that fit a part of the puzzle that at one time had me greatly perplexed. You don't need to go to what "the Christians" think Daniel 8:14 is talking about, but just go to the JEWS who it was written for and ask THEM what the meaning was all about and you'll see that it had nothing to do with 1844, but everything to do with 165 B.C. instead! " Dr. Raymond Cottrell
http://www.truthorfables.com/Cottrell_I … ection.htm
Dan 8:14 is primarily associated with Hanukkah and the Jewish Temple. Daniel is not talking about a "cleansing" of a heavenly sanctuary” as the SDA's incorrectly teach. Rather, he is writings about what became the Hanukkah story, which was embraced by Christ when on earth. All SDA's need to understand Hanukkah, then they can better understand the book of Daniel and stop making fools of themselves.
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn24/abomination.htm
http://www.truthorfables.com/Hanukkah.htm
http://scheinerman.net/judaism/chanukah/history.html
http://www.aish.com/chanukahguide/chanu … sp#history
http://www.chanuka.com/history.shtml
http://www.beingjewish.com/yomtov/chanukah/history.html
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/cgi-bin/ … =chanuka21
http://www.keeneshops.com/ChanukahGuide/history.asp
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/judaica/hanukkah
http://www.bereansonline.org/outlines/hanukkah.htm
Once the original, Jewish meaning of Dan 8:14 is understood, all the SDA (Gentile) arguments in the world to defend the IJ quickly become worthless straw. The NT clearly shows Jesus supporting and observing Hanukkah. He never taught the IJ at any point, much less at the Hanukkah Festival that we know he attended in the 1st century.
Not one SDA in 10,000 understand the facts about Dan 8:14. And this is by design. Their corrupt leaders have become experts at hiding truth so that they can promote false doctrine. The following passage is about Dan 8:14.
John 10:22 At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem;
John 10:23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.
John 10:24 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me.
John 10:26 “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
John 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
John 10:29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”
John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Did you get it? John 10:22 and the “Feast of the Dedication” is all about Dan 8:14, not the IJ. Jesus supports the Jewish interpretation, and so too must all that follow him. Thus Jesus would have known the Hanukkah story that is referenced in Daniel 8: 14, even as he participated in this festival about it. This is what all Jews teach, and what Christ also believed. Who are the SDA's to try and change the historic record? Shame on them! They are not following the Good Shepherd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedication
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblef … dicati.htm
http://bible.cc/john/10-22.htm
Had there been another meaning for Daniel 8:14, one that the church needed to know, Jesus would have communicated that information to the church through his Apostles. But there is no such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible, much less the NT, and thus everyone must embrace Jesus view of Dan 8:14, not Uriah Smith’s or Ellen White’s view.
The SDA's are going to have to REPENT in humiliation and tears for what they been teaching all these years about Dan 8: 14. They have been fighting against Christ and his Gospel, as well as Jesus’ specific view of Dan 8: 14. No wonder the Laodicean Message applies to the SDA's, they have more false doctrine than all others.
Dr. Ford Corrects Clifford Goldstein
While Clifford Goldstein refused to have a debate with either Dr. Ford or Tom Norris, he often defends the dysfunctional traditions of the SDA church through articles, books and the Sabbath School lessons. Here is an article by Dr. Ford that speaks about the IJ and references 1844 Made Simple. Here Goldstein was caught parroting the lame apologetics of Dr. Shea and DARCOM, but Dr. Ford meets this nonsense head on and debunks it.
Listen to Dr. Ford:
"In his book 1844 Made Simple, Adventist author Clifford Goldstein argues that compared with Persia and Greece, Antiochus was not "exceeding great," and therefore could not have been the little horn of Dan. 8:9. A careful reading of Dan. 8:9 reveals that the prophecy never says the little horn will be exceeding great in comparison to Persia and Greece. The little horn is not compared with other powers, but merely said to wax "exceeding great" in three regions: to the south, the east, and the pleasant land.”
“Antiochus was not a big horn on a big stage. He was a little horn that played a big role on a little stage. His conquering of Egypt and his attack against Judaism can certainly be described as "exceeding great" on the stage of Middle Eastern history during this time period.”
“It can be argued that of all the foes of Judaism, Antiochus Epiphanes came the closest to stamping out the religion. His attack upon Judaism can only be described as "exceeding great."
Dr. Ford Responds Further to Goldstein’s Comments on Lesson Five: Daniel 8;
Listen to Dr. Ford
“The chief issue in the exegesis of Daniel 8 is the identity of the little horn. Does it represent Rome or primarily Antiochus Epiphanes?” [Abbreviated here as “AE”)]
“Even those evangelical scholars emphatic that Rome is the fourth kingdom in chapters two and seven usually find AE in chapter 8. Leupold’s famous commentary, for example, says of the little horn: “… almost all commentators regard it as a reference to that one of the Seleucidae, a king of Syria, who in history has the name Antiochus Epiphanes…” (p. 345).
“The very recent commentary by Ernest C. Lucas, another evangelical speaks similarly. We quote: “There is near unanimity among commentators that in chapter 8 the horn is a symbol for Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The similarities with the small horn in chapter 7 suggest that the referent is the same there. The differences are not contradictions, but are complementary views resulting from differences in focus in the two visions.” (pp. 214, 215).
“Edward J. Young, most conservative of all evangelicals says: ‘There seems to be general agreement among expositors that the one horn which grew from smallness is Antiochus Epiphanes.’ p. 170. John Calvin, in his commentary wrote on this symbol: “Antiochus, indeed, … is here alluded to.” (Geneva Series of Commentaries, Daniel, p. 95)
“Even George McCready Price saw in AE a likely early fulfillment (see his The Greatest of the Prophets, pp. 30, 31) and those who have read the transcript of the 1919 Bible Conference find AE recognized by scholars back then. Siegfried Horn held this position and expressed it in the fracas that preceded the publishing of my SPA Daniel. He told F. D. Nichol so, and consequently the SDABC added a note saying that AE was probably somewhere in the prophecies of Daniel.” 4:868
“Turning now to Scripture itself, we read that the little horn would spring up when the divisions of Alexander’s empire were in their latter days, and from one of these divisions. Thus we are to look for a power originating from the Greek world sometime after 300 BC. It is a power to the north of Palestine for it waxes great towards the south and the east. Israel was never menaced from the west.”
“Neither Rome nor Italy ever belonged to the Alexandrian empire from which this horn was to arise. This antichrist figure comes from the goat—from Greece—and has its origin as a new-born horn after the divisions of Greece have matured and are waxing old.” “This also will not fit Rome, which had existed for centuries prior to the birth of Christ. To say, as some have said, that the horn comes from one of the four winds of heaven, rather than out of one of the four horns, destroys the visual unity of the symbol. Horns come out of heads, not out of winds. Note that this special horn is still linked to the body of the goat—i.e. the Alexandrian empire. Rome cannot fit such specifications of place or time. The little horn naturally begins as much smaller than the horn from which it emerges. This could never fit Rome, which was much more potent than Macedonia at the time of its conquest of that territory.”
“This new horn first attacks the south, then the east, and en route to the latter, attacks the pleasant land of Israel where it casts down some of the host. But Rome became great particularly to the northwest, the east, Israel and the south. AE came from the north against Egypt, then invaded Armenia and Persia after oppressing Palestine. This sequence exactly fits the prophecy but Rome does not. Antiochus had his sphere of operations only in the three areas mentioned. This was not true of the widespread operations of Rome.”
“When the little horn is described as “exceedingly great” it is not with comparison to the preceding powers, but has reference to its strength in the three regions mentioned.”
“See how l Maccabees in its first chapter uses some of the very words of Daniel’s prophecy in describing the history of AE. Also read 2 Maccabees 6:1-7; 10:1-8. All this is commemorated in John 10:22, a fact that not one in a million Adventists is aware of. The great deliverance from AE was the last in Israel’s history before the coming of Jesus, and was thought of as typical of a final deliverance yet to take place. Within a few months of John 10:22, that deliverance transpired at Calvary.”
“Daniel 8:13,14 had its first fulfillment in the depredations of AE and the victorious rededication of the sanctuary by the heroic Maccabees. Its final fulfillment will be when the final antichrist of Revelation 13 is defeated, and the whole universe becomes a sacred temple to God.”
“The Quarterly on p. 46 says that, “The Protestant Reformers almost unanimously saw it (the little horn) as papal Rome.” Actually Calvin saw it as the Caesars, and Luther changed his mind occasionally, and on Oct. 28, 1529 he said the Turk was symbolized by the little horn of chapter 7, but he saw AE as the horn of chapter 8.” See Froom’s The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 268, 269, 270.
“Again the Quarterly has good things to say, but also sad omissions, and egregious errors. The idea that the little horn comes from one of the winds shows an ignorance of Hebrew usage. On p. 60 of the Adult Teachers Guide the cleansing of the sanctuary is equated with the demise of the little horn. This is a far cry from the original Adventist tradition but it is nearer the truth. (All of the above has reference also to Lesson Ten of the series.)”
“Beginning with this lesson and repeated over twenty times “the cleansing of the sanctuary” is referred to by the Quarterly. But as the Glacier View Consensus statement acknowledged the verb in 8:14 does NOT mean cleansed. It means, “Justified” or “vindicated” or “restored.” This word is never used in Lev 16. The KJV borrowed it from the LXX whose translators used the Greek word for “cleansed” because they understood 8:14 as applying to the work of the Maccabees who “cleaned up” the mess left by Antiochus Epiphanes.”
Dr. Desmond Ford
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1166992498
On and on, point after point, the facts overwhelm the dishonest SDA’s. There is no possibility that the IJ is correct on any level. It is not correct eschatology, prophecy, history, or Gospel doctrine. It is false doctrine many times over. Let all run from the IJ, and from anyone so confused and wrong about the teachings of Jesus, the head theologian and savior of the church.
Conclusion
The site you mention is full of error and false doctrine. It is nothing more than worthless propaganda from start to finish.
http://www.hkea.org.au/index_files/daniel.htm
While this amateur and confused author claims to be cross-examining Dr. Ford’s views, he is doing no such thing. This dishonest paper ignores anything that proves the SDA’s wrong, even as these double-talking apologists are incapable of objectively or honest looking at the data. The SDA’s are wolves in sheep’s clothing, fully and knowingly supporting false doctrine, for which they are paid. The Jews acted the same way against the Gospel.
Today, Dr. Ford’s teaching about the Gospel and the Judgment, and church history, are solid truth. This idea that new information repudiates his views, and that of the rest of the scholarly world is absurd. The SDA’s are deliberately promoting confusion, misinformation and false doctrine. They should be ashamed of themselves for thinking propaganda and double-talk will ever pass for serious Gospel doctrine.
Shame on the blind and dishonest SDA’s. They will not be able to stand in the Day of Judgment, and they will have no one but themselves to blame. Like the Jews in Christ’s day, they too have chosen to become blind.
John 9:39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”
Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
I trust this answers your question.
Tom Norris for All Experts.com & Adventist Reform
Offline
Questions about the Investigative Judgment:
Rogier said: I was hoping Herb Kersten was reforming the church from within by putting the true gospel on the forefront.
Tom said: This group is very dishonest, legalistic, and wrong. They are destroying the SDA church from the inside, misleading people away from the Gospel and from the Protestant fundamentals of the Advent Movement. They are not being honest about Dr. Ford’s views. I have no kind words for such wolves.
Today, the world is full of worthless religious propaganda, and this SDA crowd belongs in this category. For them to pretend that they are objectively examining Dr. Ford’s views is an insult to anyone that knows the facts. They are just trying to divert, misinform, and brainwash innocent people into believing false doctrine and manipulated church history. Beware false prophets.
Matt. 7:15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Rogier said: I mean, if the church adopts a view of the IJ, which is not contrary to the New Testament gospel, that is huge progress right? For the worst aspect of the IJ is that it replaces the true gospel by a false gospel.
Tom said: First off, the IJ is nowhere taught in the OT or the NT. There is NO such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible. It is false. Period. So any view of the IJ is wrong.
Second, there is a doctrine called the Pre Advent Judgment of the last church. This is a true eschatological concept, one that the SDA’s were correct to try and understand. However, their mistake was to equate the IJ with the PAJ. This is great error; the IJ is not the genuine PAJ.
So if the IJ of Dan 8:14 is NOT the PAJ, what is? And where is it?
Answer: the genuine PAJ of the last church is found in Rev 3: 14, --not in Dan 8:14. Let all Adventists repent and embrace the genuine PAJ, repudiating the imposter.
Third: The OT does not judge the Church or anyone in it. The book of Daniel is an Old Covenant work; it cannot determine doctrine in the NC. Only the NT can be used for church doctrine.
Fourth: This idea that Dan 8:14 and 1844 is a pillar in the Three Angels Messages, is false. Doctrinal pillars, by definition stand unmoved, but this passage has been changed, revised, and re-interpreted 6 times, and it still wrong. So how can it be called a “pillar”?
Adventist Reform is promoting the 7th and final interpretation of Dan 8:14, which is to say that the PAJ is something else, somewhere else. This last understanding is present truth for the Advent Movement today.
Let all understand the ever changing interpretations of Dan 8:14. See below:
The Changing Sanctuary Doctrine & Dan 8:14
While many SDA's think the Sanctuary doctrine is an important, unchanging fundamental pillar that must be preserved at all costs, the facts are very different. No teaching associated with Dan 8:14 has ever been "solid" or fully correct, - at any time in Adventist history. From the very beginning of the Adventist Movement, there has ALWAYS been serious error with the understanding of the Sanctuary. Which is why this doctrine has been changed and revised so many times. And why it is still so full of problems and even more revisions today.
First Two Views Wrong
From the very first attempt to understand Dan 8:14, Miller had the doctrine wrong when he declared that the Sanctuary was the earth that would be "cleansed by fire" at the Second Coming, --when the 2300 days terminated. When this event failed to take place within Miller's time frame, other Adventists, against his advice, revised the date for this "Sanctuary Cleansing" by proclaiming that it would take place on October 22, 1844. This was the first revision of Dan 8:14. And it soon proved to be wrong.
The 3rd Interpretation; Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary
Following the Great Disappointment, the two previous Sanctuary positions were declared to be erroneous and Dan 8:14 was dramatically re-interpreted by the SDA’s to mean that the Heavenly Sanctuary was the object to be "cleansed" of sin prior to the Second Advent. This was the third interpretation; it was called "The Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary."
So by 1845, there had been three different visions of Dan 8:14, and there were at least three more to come because this process of reinterpretation and change would continue well into the 20th and even the 21st century. Why? Because there was never a time within the history of the Adventist Movement when Dan 8:14 and the Sanctuary doctrine was without error. Even today, the teaching is still controversial and erroneous, and few realize how many times this dubious doctrine has been adjusted, revised, and changed over the years.
The 4th Interpretation; the IJ
As the Adventist Movement went forward after the great 1844 disappointment, the Battle Creek SDA's in the late 1850's made further revisions to Dan 8:14. Here is when they added the concept of a Celestial Judgment of the saints to the previous correction, (referred to as the "Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary.") This is when the SDA's added the teaching that the individual characters of the saints would be judged to see if the professed believers were good enough to be saved. This would also become known as the Pre-Advent Judgment of the last church.
Thus the fourth revision to Dan 8: 14 is the Investigative Judgment. It slowly developed within Battle Creek and became famous, thanks primarily to Uriah Smith, the long time Review Editor. He is the one that articulated this doctrine in the late 1870's, even writing a large book that detailed this evolving and unique SDA doctrine, turning it into an extremely legalistic teaching that was very different from the earlier doctrine of "the Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary."
The 5th Revision & the Myth About Historic Adventism
Following the great Battle Creek schism and the relocation of the denomination to Takoma Park, the Sanctuary Doctrine would not remain static. It would soon undergo its fifth revision; a revision, which would never have been approved by Uriah Smith, Ellen White, or any of the Pioneers.
Unfortunately, the Takoma Park apologists began to incorrectly teach that the IJ was located and anchored in the 1st Angels Message and thus, this view of the PAJ was proclaimed to be a fundamental part of Historic Adventism, a doctrine that could never be challenged or changed.
Although this was never true, the White Estate and the Review promoted so much propaganda on this point, supposedly from Ellen White, that this position became normative for all 20th century SDA’s. The IJ and the date of 1844 became associated with “Historic Adventism,” and was taught for generations as the PAJ by the church. However, this historically incorrect and legalistic position would have dire consequences because it elevated the IJ into the status of a "Pillar" that was unknown to the Battle Creek Pioneers.
Moreover, those, like Dr. Ford, who would not accept this fifth revision would eventually be ostracized from the Adventist Movement and considered a traitor to the Cause. Thus Dr. Ford was exiled for refuting myths and clear error, and the SDA church has been self-destructing ever since.
In 1980, in spite of Dr. Ford’s scholarly work disproving the IJ, Glacier View turned this fifth version of Dan 8:14 into official and sacred Adventist doctrine, creating great confusion and controversy that has effectively derailed the Adventist Movement.
With such a backlash unfolding, it didn't take long for the leaders to realize they had made a serious mistake. Therefore they went to work to make more adjustments to the ever-changing Sanctuary doctrine of Dan 8:14.
The 6th Revision
The post Glacier View leaders were naturally anxious to stop the debilitating Glacier View schism and promote church growth. They were weary of all the angry debate over the IJ. So they had to act. Although the Conservatives loudly protested any change to their victory at Glacier View, it was to no avail because it was obvious that Dr. Ford's Gospel was far superior to Uriah Smith's legalistic theology, and therefore, the sixth revision to Dan 8:14 was about to take place.
Within a decade after Glacier View, the Review back tracked about the Sanctuary Doctrine and started to promote most of Dr. Ford's Gospel views, (without ever admitting this), even as they took steps to silence the legalistic Conservatives.
At the same time they also introduced a new policy called "pluralism," which allowed both sides of the IJ debate to embrace either the fifth or the more recent and Gospel friendly, sixth version. Such a compromise was designed to allow the church to move forward without having to admit that they had been wrong about Glacier View.
Notwithstanding all this post Glacier View politicking and propaganda, the hierarchal leaders now declared that this celestial "investigation" was not about who was "good enough" to be saved--but rather--who had “saving faith in Christ.”
In addition, instead of the saints being placed on trial, as Uriah Smith taught, the new version placed God on trial, claiming that he needed to prove that he was just and fair.
Here was a very different teaching about the PAJ that represents the sixth revision to Dan 8:14. It promoted points that were never contained in Uriah Smith's legalistic version, even as it used semantics to hide the real issues. But regardless, this new spin about the Sanctuary was officially promoted by the Denomination as if the IJ were a Gospel friendly doctrine. Such a plan could only work if everyone ignored the facts and forgot about Dr. Ford and Glacier View.
Today, after SIX revisions of Dan 8:14, no one should be under any illusion that the sanctuary doctrine is correct or unchangeable. As if it has not undergone numerous and repeated revisions over time.
The fact of the matter is that Dan 8:14 is the most problematic, revised, and controversial doctrine in the SDA church. Consequently few today correctly understand its complex and checkered history that has destroyed the mission and the message of the Adventist Movement.
The failure to correctly understand the Pre-Advent Judgment has left the SDA church mired in theological chaos and endless schism that will never be resolved until the Seventh and final interpretation of Dan 8:14 takes place.
The 7th View of Dan 8:14 & the PAJ
Today, it is time for the Adventist Community to understand the true meaning of Dan 8:14 as well as the Pre-Advent Judgment.
It is time to resolve this embarrassing and counterproductive situation that is preventing the Adventist Community from moving forward in Gospel unity and apocalyptical purpose. Now is the time for Adventism to unite on the final and correct interpretation about Dan 8:14 and the PAJ. Now is the time for Adventist Reform.
See also:
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1154462379
Rogier said: You stated that the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 is Antiochius Ephiphanus. I’ve studied this issue for myself, and in all honesty i cannot believe that.
Tom said: First off, the Gospel is not in any way dependant in AE or the definition of the “little horn,” nor is it necessary for anyone to understand such ancient history. This anti-Semitic warrior is not important for our salvation. The very fact that some SDA’s make such a big deal out of this issue only proves that they don’t understand the Gospel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes
Second: Did Jesus ever preach about the little horn? No. Did he ever teach about the IJ and 1844? No. Did he embrace Hanukkah, which is the story about Dan 8:14 and AE being defeated by the Jews? Yes.
So what is the debate? The history of the Jews, as well as most all scholars and historians view AE as the little horn. Those SDA’s today who say otherwise are only doing so in a futile attempt to defend the IJ. But they are wasting their time. The IJ is false regardless of the definition of the little horn.
Third: Most all scholars agree that the little horn is AE. Moreover, no credible scholars believe in the IJ. NONE!
Listen to Dr. Ford; a world class Protestant expert on the book of Daniel discuss the little horn:
Comments on Lesson Five:
Daniel 8;
By Dr. Desmond Ford
The chief issue in the exegesis of Daniel 8 is the identity of the little horn. Does it represent Rome or primarily Antiochus Epiphanes? [Abbreviated here as “AE”)] Even those evangelical scholars emphatic that Rome is the fourth kingdom in chapters two and seven usually find AE in chapter 8. Leupold’s famous commentary, for example, says of the little horn: “… almost all commentators regard it as a reference to that one of the Seleucidae, a king of Syria, who in history has the name Antiochus Epiphanes…” (p. 345).
The very recent commentary by Ernest C. Lucas, another evangelical speaks similarly. We quote: “There is near unanimity among commentators that in chapter 8 the horn is a symbol for Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The similarities with the small horn in chapter 7 suggest that the referent is the same there. The differences are not contradictions, but are complementary views resulting from differences in focus in the two visions.” (pp. 214, 215).
Edward J. Young, most conservative of all evangelicals says: “There seems to be general agreement among expositors that the one horn which grew from smallness is Antiochus Epiphanes.” p. 170. John Calvin, in his commentary wrote on this symbol: “Antiochus, indeed, … is here alluded to.” (Geneva Series of Commentaries, Daniel, p. 95)
Even George McCready Price saw in AE a likely early fulfillment (see his The Greatest of the Prophets, pp. 30, 31) and those who have read the transcript of the 1919 Bible Conference find AE recognized by scholars back then. Siegfried Horn held this position and expressed it in the fracas that preceded the publishing of my SPA Daniel. He told F. D. Nichol so, and consequently the SDABC added a note saying that AE was probably somewhere in the prophecies of Daniel. 4:868
Turning now to Scripture itself, we read that the little horn would spring up when the divisions of Alexander’s empire were in their latter days, and from one of these divisions. Thus we are to look for a power originating from the Greek world sometime after 300 BC. It is a power to the north of Palestine for it waxes great towards the south and the east. Israel was never menaced from the west.
Neither Rome nor Italy ever belonged to the Alexandrian empire from which this horn was to arise. This antichrist figure comes from the goat—from Greece—and has its origin as a new-born horn after the divisions of Greece have matured and are waxing old. This also will not fit Rome, which had existed for centuries prior to the birth of Christ.
To say, as some have said, that the horn comes from one of the four winds of heaven, rather than out of one of the four horns, destroys the visual unity of the symbol. Horns come out of heads, not out of winds. Note that this special horn is still linked to the body of the goat—i.e. the Alexandrian empire.
Rome cannot fit such specifications of place or time. The little horn naturally begins as much smaller than the horn from which it emerges. This could never fit Rome, which was much more potent than Macedonia at the time of its conquest of that territory.
This new horn first attacks the south, then the east, and en route to the latter, attacks the pleasant land of Israel where it casts down some of the host. But Rome became great particularly to the northwest, the east, Israel and the south. AE came from the north against Egypt, then invaded Armenia and Persia after oppressing Palestine.
This sequence exactly fits the prophecy but Rome does not. Antiochus had his sphere of operations only in the three areas mentioned. This was not true of the widespread operations of Rome.
When the little horn is described as “exceedingly great” it is not with comparison to the preceding powers, but has reference to its strength in the three regions mentioned.
See how l Maccabees in its first chapter uses some of the very words of Daniel’s prophecy in describing the history of AE. Also read 2 Maccabees 6:1-7; 10:1-8. All this is commemorated in John 10:22, a fact that not one in a million Adventists is aware of.
The great deliverance from AE was the last in Israel’s history before the coming of Jesus, and was thought of as typical of a final deliverance yet to take place. Within a few months of John 10:22, that deliverance transpired at Calvary.
Daniel 8:13,14 had its first fulfillment in the depredations of AE and the victorious rededication of the sanctuary by the heroic Maccabees. Its final fulfillment will be when the final antichrist of Revelation 13 is defeated, and the whole universe becomes a sacred temple to God.
The Quarterly on p. 46 says that, “The Protestant Reformers almost unanimously saw it (the little horn) as papal Rome.” Actually Calvin saw it as the Caesars, and Luther changed his mind occasionally, and on Oct. 28, 1529 he said the Turk was symbolized by the little horn of chapter 7, but he saw AE as the horn of chapter 8. See Froom’s The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 268, 269, 270.
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1166992498
It is time for Adventists to admit the obvious and stop trying to defend error and false doctrine. Dan 8:14 does not teach the IJ, nor the PAJ. Period.
Rogier said: Because Daniel 7 clearly says the little horn comes after Rome. However, do you think it might be possible that if the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 is Ephiphanus, that this is an antitype of the great whore in Revelation?
Tom said: The primary association of the “great whore” in Rev is with Babylon, not Greece or AE. The book of Daniel features Babylon and it’s fall, and so too does Revelation.
Rogier said: I mean there are so many similarities, it is undeniable there has to be some kind of connection. My question is actually, how do you know so certain the prophecies of Daniel concern only the past?
Tom said: There is no real debate about AE, except with SDA’s. Both the Jews as well as most all other scholars understand OT history correctly on this point.
The Advent Movement needs to stop obsessing about OT prophecy and spend more time understanding NT eschatology. All should study what Jesus teaches about the end of the world. And then the apostles. The NT is a far superior source for prophecy than Daniel, which is an OT book.
Moreover, Daniel does contain more than just the past. It does have prophetic meaning for the future. Dr. Ford never said otherwise.
Rogier said: Do you interpret Jesus setting up his kingdom in Daniel as Jesus establishing his church on earth? And why did Jesus refer to Daniel as a book to be studied in the endtime if Daniel is all about the past?
Tom said: The RCC has traditionally viewed this passage to mean the church. However, the Adventists had a different view. They viewed the stone as crushing the visible church and civilization as the 2nd Coming.
Dan. 2:32 “The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze,
Dan. 2:33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.
Dan. 2:34 “You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.
Dan. 2:44 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.
While Daniel is not all about the past, one must first understand the original intent of the author. Which is to say that Dan 8;14 must first be understood the way the Jews understood. Thus the original historical view of this passage is defined by the Hanukkah story. This can never change. It is the base line meaning of the passage. If there are future meanings, they can only be understood if the original meaning is not misunderstood.
In addition, the book of Daniel features the story of Babylon. THIS is important because the end of the world is equated with the fall of Babylon in Revelation. To understand how the world will end, one needs to know this story. So the book does have eschatological meaning for us today.
Dan. 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a dream and visions in his mind as he lay on his bed; then he wrote the dream down and related the following summary of it.
Rev. 14:8 And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality.”
Rev. 18:10 standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’
Rev. 18:21 Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.
Furthermore, it is true that Jesus referenced the book of Daniel often. Did he ever teach the IJ from Dan 8:14? No. He embraced the Hanukkah view. So this is what we must also do. No one who claims to follow Christ can embrace the myth and error of the IJ.
Here is some unfilled prophecy in Dan about a final war in the Middle East: This is requires study to understand:
Dan. 11:40 “At the end time the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them and pass through.
Dan. 11:41 “He will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab and the foremost of the sons of Ammon.
Dan. 11:42 “Then he will stretch out his hand against other countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape.
Dan. 11:43 “But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels.
Dan. 11:44 “But rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him, and he will go forth with great wrath to destroy and annihilate many.
Dan. 11:45 “He will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.
Dan. 12:1 “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
Dan. 12:2 “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
Dan. 12:3 “Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
Dan. 12:4 “But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”
Today, knowledge about history and the Gospel have greatly increased. Now is the time for all to go forward and better understand eschatology. It is no time to cling to outdated and erroneous, 19th century views.
Rogier said: In all honesty, i have mixed feelings. On the one hand i am a huge fan of the gospel of grace as preached by Desmond Ford and i fiercely oppose a false gospel, which cannot be supported from scripture as is taught with the IJ.
Tom said: The IJ is incompatible with the Gospel and OT history. It is false doctrine that has NEVER been imagined or promoted by anyone in the entire history of the church until the late 1850’s - by the SDA’s. After more than 100 years of promoting this error, NO church, or credible historians or scholars, have embraced this view. None!
Moreover, by 1980, the best and brightest of the SDA’s, like Dr. Ford and Cottrell, also came to repudiate the IJ as total error. Neither the OT nor the NT teaches such a doctrine. Period! Thus all SDA’s must repent of the IJ.
Rogier said: On the other hand i have the feeling that because the church makes this huge terrible error, there is a spirit of hostility whereby all the other doctrines of the church are being attacked. It is so sad because Jesus wants us to be one fold, one herd, under one shepherd; Jesus himself.
Tom said: Just because the IJ is wrong, it does not mean there is no truth in Adventism. There is some truth in most all denominations, even the RCC, though they are all full of error and false doctrine today, like all others.
The Adventists were the first modern Christians to correctly understand the doctrine of the 2nd Coming. When all others were dead wrong, they stood up and corrected the popular errors of their day, even as they went on to make other necessary corrections, such as the State of the dead, which many today, incorrectly think, is just another false, SDA doctrine. But it is a correct doctrine, supported by Luther.
The SDA’s were also correct to understand that Sunday was wrong, and that only the 7th day could be the correct day for the weekly Lord’s day.
Only when the SDA’s admit and confess their great error about the IJ, will anyone take the time to pay attention to some of their other views, some of which are brilliant. But so long as they try and hold onto what is so false and wrong, no one should pay any attention to them. They are acting like the 1st century Jews that rejected the Gospel.
Rogier said: Now if 1844 is a prophetic date there are multiple possibilities:
Tom said: 1844 is not a prophetic date. No judgment started in heaven on that date, nor is there any such judgment as the IJ in the Bible.
Moreover, this date stands for error and disappointment, not flawless doctrine. The Three Angels Messages are not based on the date 1844, and neither is the Gospel, by which we are saved.
Rogier said: - Either there IS an investigative judgment which we do not understand as of yet.
Tom said: There is a PAJ. But it is not the IJ. It is the Laodicean Message.
Rogier said: How do you interpret the verses in Daniel where it says that the books were opened and there was a judgment?
Tom said: The doctrine of a Judgment is well established in Judaism and the ancient world. In Dan, the heavenly court is not examining Christians or their behavior to see if they are good enough to be saved, rather, they are judging those that attack the people of God and “speak out against the Most High.”
Dan. 7:26 ‘But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever.
So the IJ, which is a supposedly Celestial examination of the believer’s sanctification, does not even fit with the passage or the context. Daniel does not contain the IJ.
Rogier said: - The restoring of the sanctuary could refer to the restoring of truth in 1844 amongst God his people. In this interpretation the sanctuary of God are his people.
- The restoring of the sanctuary could refer to the fact that people started realizing there was a heavenly sanctuary and so that the earthly Roman Catholic one was a false one.
Tom said: The original definition of Dan 8: 14 is Hanukkah. Once this is understood, there may be secondary meanings, but none will be credible if the original interpretation is lost.
Rogier said: If 1844 was not a prophetic date, then of course your interpretation makes more sense. But in any case, let's be honest; that no matter how we interpret bible prophecy, each interpretation has its strong and weak points.
Tom said: The IJ has only weak points. It was never a “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages. Nor does it have any strong points, which is why NO ONE has ever embraced it outside the SDA Community. And even then, their most educated scholars have repudiated it as error.
All SDA’s are going to have to understand that while the IJ is history, it is not correct theology. The IJ is not part of the Gospel, nor is it the PAJ.
Rogier said: Personally i think historicism makes much more sense than preterism or futurism.
Tom said: These views are not to be embraced exclusively. You need to read Dr. Ford’s Interview where he discusses these three schools of thought, as well as all these issues.
Listen to Dr. Ford:
In terms of prophetic interpretation, the preterist sees the fulfillment of prophecy as past, in the first century of this era. The futurist sees prophecy as yet future, for the last days, while the historicist views prophecy as a continually unfolding application with special reference to secular events affecting the church at specific dates. I do not belong to any of these categories because while each has a measure of truth, they also have a corresponding measure of error.
Bible prophecy DID have meaning for those who first received it (preterist). It does have a continual unfolding application, but no dates beyond Passion Week (see Acts 1:7), and it will have a flowering significance for those living in the last days. This is known as the apotelesmatic principal whereby prophecy in some cases is intended for more than the original recipients.
George Macready Price used this term in his commentary on Daniel and it is well known to scholars. E.G. White used this principle over and over again as I have documented in my Glacier View manuscript and so, too, does the SDA Commentary (see particularly the notes of the latter on the prophecy of 2 Thess. 2). The principle was only denied when I used it at Glacier View to show that Daniel 8:14 had already been fulfilled in a primary and historical sense, which by no means would prevent future fulfillments. The Glacier View denial of the "apotelesmatic principle" was not taken seriously by the scholars present.
http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org/librar … /intro.cfm
Rogier said: Another thing that pops up in my mind is this; if Daniel should be interpreted in a preterist way why was the book sealed unto the time of the end?
Tom said: Good point. However, this is the place to start. Past fulfillment must precede any future fulfillment. If this is misunderstood, how can anyone go on to understand a secondary fulfillment?
Rogier asked: What value was there in unlocking the prophecies of Daniel in the times of the end if the times of the end in Daniel refer to the ending of the Jewish people as the chosen people?
Tom said: Good point. That is why a preterist only viewpoint is absurd.
Rogier said: Now i think about it, if people at the end of the Jewish era before Christ studied these prophecies about Antiochius, then they would know that afterwards would come the Messiah who would set up his kingdom. Is this a likely possibility?
Tom said: The Hanukkah Story, which is about Dan 8:14, gave the Jews hope that God would save them from their enemies. Many thought Jesus would lead them in a Macabean type revolt against the Romans.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic … -maccabeus
But not only did Jesus not act like the hero Judas Macabees, he acted like AE, who also claimed to be a god.
Jesus says, “I and My Father are one!” (10:30). That statement had heavy religious overtones for the (Dan 8;14) festival which they were presently celebrating.
Those gathered on the Temple Mount recalled the events nearly 200 years before on the very mount where Antiochus IV, a mere man, proclaimed himself to be god. Jesus, God manifest in human flesh, made the same claim—but His claim was true.
The Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy because, in their thinking, He was a man who made Himself out to be God (10:31–33). Jesus declared that He was the fulfillment of Hanukkah by saying the Father “sanctified” the Son of God and sent Him into the world (10:34–36). The Father was in Him and He in the Father (10:38).
If the Greek word “sanctified” were translated into Hebrew, it would be “dedication” or Hanukkah!
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 … px#Article
Rogier said: These are a lot of questions and i really appreciate your efforts and time you spent in guiding people to the light. God bless you and can t wait for your response!
Tom replied:
Matt. 7:7 Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Matt. 7:8 “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Happy to help,
Tom Norris for All Experts.com & Adventist Reform
Offline
Question for Tom Norris about LeRoy Edwin Froom:
Hi Tom,
I've read all your articles relating to Adventism, but am wondering if LeRoy Froom was ever a Freemason?
He was buried at the George Washington Cemetery in Maryland, in plot 860, Masonic B section of the cemetery, on 22nd February, 1974. His wife Esther is also buried there. Could you account for why he was buried in a masonic section of the cemetery?
I look forward to your thoughts,
Regards
James Butler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer:
It is estimated that there were 50,000 Masons in the US in 1826. However, due to a scandal, and a huge backlash, that number dropped dramatically to about 5,000 by 1830’s. By the time the Advent Movement was launched in the late 1830’s, the American public had rejected the Masonic movement, - which never recovered.
Before 1826, many in America wanted to be associated with the Masons for various civic and fraternal reasons. George Washington was a Mason, and so too many people, including William Miller, who never apologized for it. Joseph Smith was also a Mason and so too many Mormons. It was a mark of civilization and progress for Americans.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3784540/Willi … -Freemason
Masons Part of American Culture
“In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Freemasonry was a common and well-accepted part of American society.”
“As Bullock points out in his book, Revolutionary Brotherhood, [Masonry] attracted large numbers of Americans eager to associate themselves with these cosmopolitan ideals.”
“Fraternal membership and ideology helped bring high standing to a broad range of Americans, breaking down the artificial boundaries of birth and wealth. To men engaged in learned and artistic occupations, rural men with cosmopolitan aspirations, and even Boston’s women and blacks, Masonry offered participation in both the great classical tradition of civilization and the task of building a new nation. Just as importantly, the fraternity also seemed to provide the leaders for these enterprises.” (p138)
https://h0bbes.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/more-masons/
Charles Finney was a Mason, however, he repudiated it as so many others also did, and became a great anti-Mason crusader. Finney preached that all Christians must renounce their oaths to Masonry if they wanted to be saved. Charles Dickens, Daniel Webster, Horace Greely, William Seward, Millard Fillmore were also anti-Masons, as were many Churches.
Often times there were false claims about people being Masons. For example, many thought Lincoln was a Mason because he had appointed so many Masons to Government positions. But this was never true. Lincoln was never a Mason.
See:
Anti-Masonic Period 1826-Civil War
http://www.scarletandthebeast.com/PB%206-23-07/PB-4.pdf
Anti-Masonic Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party
http://www.scarletandthebeast.com/william%20morgan.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top … c-Movement
William Miller; a Mason
Although William Miller was a Mason, few SDA’s have every heard this historic fact. It is another example of how church history has not been fully explained or honestly addressed by the Adventists. Here is a long known source:
"It was here [Poultney, Vermont] that Miller became a member of the Masonic fraternity, in which his perseverance, if nothing else, was manifested; for he advanced to the highest degree which the lodges in the country, or in any in that region, could confer."
Sylvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller, pages 21-22 (1853)
"At the age of 23, in 1803, he married Lucy Smith and they set up housekeeping in Poultney, Vermont. There was a large library in this town and Miller spent much time there. His ability to write verse made him popular at public occasions. He joined the Literary Society and also became a Mason."
LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 4, page 456.
SDA’s Anti-Mason
By the time the SDA’s had become organized, most Christian denominations were anti-Mason, and so too were the Adventists. Their views were normative for that period.
In 1859, the Review and Herald published an article titled, “Is Freemasonry Compatible with present Truth?” The answer was no. Listen to the author, J H Waggoner, the father of EJ Waggoner of 1888 fame, make this point:
“The boasted universality of masonry makes it necessary to exclude the name of Christ from prayers, otherwise they would be fitted only for a class, and hence be local and not general. He who joins in a prayer where the name of Christ is intentionally omitted to gratify another who denies Christ, certainly compromises his christianity, and “has denied the faith.” This should lead every Christian to avoid such a connection.
J. H. W. Review and Herald, September 15, 1859.
Ellen White also makes it clear:
"Those who stand under the blood-stained banner of Prince Immanuel cannot be united with the Free Masons or with any secret organization. The seal of the living God will not be placed upon anyone who maintains such a connection after the light of truth has shone upon his pathway." Letter 21, 1893.
Conclusion
It is very unlikely that Froom would be a Mason. However, more research needs to be done before this issue can be fully resolved . The SDA’s were clearly anti-Mason, and Froom had to have known this fact. However, considering that William Miller, the Father of the Advent Movement, was a Mason, what would it matter if Froom has some association with the Masons? Perhaps someone, who was a Mason, gave him these grave sites?
The problem with Froom is not that he was a Mason, (if he was), but that he did not understand the Gospel. While Froom was one of the most published and dogmatic of the 20th century SDA theologians, his understanding of the Gospel was very poor. Moreover, his official history of 1888, entitled “Movement of Destiny,” is a very dishonest and harmful apologetic that helped pave the way for the tragedy of Glacier View.
So Froom is part of the problem and one reason why the SDA’s are so confused about both theology and church history.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … _70484.htm
I hope this answers your question.
Tom Norris for All Experts.com & Adventist Reform
Offline
Question for Tom Norris:
Subject: Alpha & Omega apostasy:
I just read Tom's answer concerning the Living Temple and the Omega apostasy from 2008 and I found the links recommended "for further study" at the bottom of the answer to be somewhat of a facetious attempt at sarcasm, that is to say, I understood the message loud and clear.
See:
Kellogg's Living Temple & the Omega Apostasy
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … -Omega.htm
J H Kellogg, Living Temple, & the Omega
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=229
Having encountered those explanations before, as well as what is discussed in the atomorrow forums pertaining to the "published/approved" writings of EGW, and not finding satisfaction for the facts discovered, I was elated to discover Adventist reform and atomorrow.
Tom's explanations, definitions, and descriptions, are the only logical conclusions based upon the facts I have discovered.
This is more of a “thank-you” and encouragement for the work put forward.
But since it is a Q&A format, my question is pertaining to the anti-Trinitarian, Arian or semi-Arianism stance of the Pioneers, James White, Andrews, etc.
Is their any credibility to this or do you believe this too is a myth perpetuated?
Joel,
Colorado, United States
--------------------------------------------------
Answer:
Thank you for your support of Adventist Reform. This is why I went pubic a number of years ago; to honestly explain the facts of Adventist history to the SDA community that has not been told the truth. At some point, the truth had to come out, and so it has.
The Trinity Debate & SDA’s
There is no doubt that the early Pioneers had a different view of the Trinity from later generations. Even Ellen White changed her view over time, as she did with many other points of doctrine, including the Sabbath as well as the Gospel and the Law in Galatians.
So it is true that there was doctrinal diversity and development on this point, and a number of SDA scholars have recently studied this issue.
However, any division about Christology was not a major impediment to the work of Sabbath Reform, nor was it a public point of debate in 1888 as Froom claimed in 1971. In fact, this is where myths and legend enter the picture, just as you suspected.
Here are some good sources to understand this topic:
Ellen White and Arianism
http://ellenwhiteanswers.org/answers/mi … ndarianism
The Adventist Trinity Debate
Part 1: Historical Overview
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/m … inity1.htm
Part 2: The Role of Ellen G. White
The Adventist Trinity Debate
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/m … inity2.htm
Trinity Page
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/index.htm
There should be little doubt that there were differences over this point for many years. However, this officially endorsed view that Christology was the source of the 1888 debate is totally without merit, support, or foundation. It is utter fiction that has never been supported by any scholar or historian because it totally false.
Froom’s False Claim
In 1971, Dr. Froom wrote the “official” story of 1888. He claimed that the SDA’s had a great debate about Christology in 1888; and that this was a turning point for the Denomination as they became more Trinitarian and Gospel oriented.
So when you hear this talk about the SDA leaders having differences over the Trinity, the real source is Froom. He is the one that elevated this minor topic, and blew it out of proportion and out of historical context so that he could continue to protect the great cover-up that was taking place in the White Estate. Froom knew all about it; as he was part of this crime of suppression that Daniels had started.
By 1971, Froom was a leading Takoma Park apologist and church scholar. His epic 700-page tome, Movement of Destiny was written as an apologetic, but passed off by the church as a work of honest scholarship. But it was not a search for truth, but a work that perpetuated a massive cover-up in the White Estate that would be discovered in 1979 and made public by Tom Norris in the late 1990’s.
So yes, this idea that the Trinity caused the 1888 debates, is diversion and myth. It is but one of many examples of how the SDA leaders have failed to tell the truth all these years. The church has yet to confess and repent about Froom’s mythmaking, which paved the way for Glacier View and the resulting demise of Adventism.
While there was some minor debate about this issue over a long period of time, as there was in most every other denomination, it was nowhere in sight during the 1888 conflict as Froom claims. And he knew this fact all along.
Takoma Park Revisions to 1888
The official version of 1888 is contained in Leroy Edwin Froom’s Movement of Destiny. This dishonest work helped the legalists by declaring that the Nature of Christ was the point of contention. And thus great myth was injected into church history as if it were true.
Froom stated that Waggoner's 1888 presentations were taken down in shorthand by his wife, Jessie F. Moser-Waggoner, and then edited by Waggoner to appear later in book form as Christ and His Righteousness (1890); The Gospel in Creation (1894) and The Glad Tidings (1900)." (See Froom, Movement of Destiny, p.189).
"Robert J. Weiland follows Froom's thought when he wrote in the foreword to his edited version of The Glad Tidings, 1972: "I discovered that the message of this book was in reality a transcript of studies that Dr. Waggoner gave personally to a gathering of ministers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the fall of 1888 (p.6)."
But Froom's contention is a diversion and a fraud and he knew it all along. The Nature of Christ played no role in the debate, nor did Waggoner’s books contain the real Gospel issues that were never resolved in Battle Creek.
To prove this point, listen to both Dr. Yost and Bert Haloviak, who were eyewitnesses to the discovery of the 1888 materials in the Archives by Tom Norris in 1979. They also worked to help me gain access into the White Estate, which resulted in the discovery of Arthur White's massive fraud, which was supported by Froom.
They both deny Froom's 1888 account as well as that of Weiland and the 1888 Study Committee.
Dr. Donald Yost, Archivist of the General Conference in Washington stated in October 1980 that there was no evidence that the nature of Christ was part of the 1888 presentations. He had the facts and knew what he was talking about.
David P. McMahon is also convinced that the human nature of Christ was not the content of Waggoner's message. He writes:
"There is no evidence that Waggoner's teaching on the humanity of Christ was part of his message in 1888. This is one of the Waggoner myths demolished by an investigation of the original sources."
(Elliot Joseph Waggoner, p.104).
Ellen G. White makes many allusions to the message of 1888. In Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91,92 she indicates that God sent a precious message through Jones and Waggoner.
"The message was to bring before the world the uplifted Savior. It presented justification through faith in the Surety and invited people to accept the righteousness of Christ made manifest in obedience to God's commandments. They needed to see Christ's divine person, His merits and His love. Christ had all power to impart the gift of His righteousness to the human agent. This was the third angel's message to be given in a loud voice."
Furthermore, Ellen White also says that it was an unwillingness to accept Waggoner's exposition of the moral law in Galatians, which caused the opposition to Waggoner's Gospel messages.
(See Letter 96, 1896 and Manuscript 15, 1888, in A. V. Olson, Through Crisis to Victory, pp.52-55).
Today, the records of 1888 have been found, so there is no point for SDA’s to pretend any more. Why keep pretending and lying? Don't the SDA leaders know it is a great sin to lie to the church?
Col. 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you blaid aside the old self with its evil practices,
Eph. 4:25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR, for we are members of one another.
Listen to Bert Haloviak, an expert on SDA history and the director of the Denominations Archives:
"Among the significant items that have been discovered recently are the W. C. White handwritten notes from the Minneapolis meetings. These were uncovered at the White Estate in Washington, D.C. "
In the light of these notes and other discoveries, Bert Haloviak, wrote: "You can see from the handwritten W. C. White notes and also know from thousands of documents recently studied pertaining to the 1888 period that Christology was not the point of friction in 1888. "
"The theology of the law in Galatians and of the covenants and the question of the role of the Spirit of Prophecy were the basic points of contention."
Letter from Bert Haloviak to E. C. Webster, August 3, 1982
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/web … 03-IIb.htm
Today, the record is clear that the White Estate and Dr. Froom were misleading the Adventist Community about Ellen White and the 1888 debates. Thousands of documents from that period were found in 1979 and it is time for the SDA’s to tell the truth and repudiate their patiently false accounts. The church leaders need to confess and repent for perpetrating a massive fraud about Ellen White and church history on the Adventist community and the public.
Galatians & 1888
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … s-1888.htm
Here are some additional links:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … m-1888.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … living.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … Estate.htm
I trust this response answers your question and provides further resources for additional study. Thank you again for supporting Adventist Reform.
Tom Norris for All Experts.com & Adventist Reform
Offline
James wrote:
Hi Tom, Thank you for your work and response.
Excellent.
I was aware that William Miller was a Mason, I have read Movement of Destiny, and Bliss's Memoirs of Miller.
You have answered my query well, I just wish we had more access to Froom's personal letters and documents. Your summation of Movement of Destiny and Froom's understanding of the Gospel is as I have found it to be, Thanks again,
James
Tom said: James, you should know that when Dr. Froom was dying, he instructed his son Fenton Froom to burn a number of documents from his 1888 research for Movement of Destiny. His son allowed me to look a some of these materials that were not burned, and I found a rare letter from AT Jones to Uriah Smith.
Froom knew what he was doing. He was trying to cover his tracks. He never had any sources that claimed the 1888 debate was about Christology, because it was not. It was an old fashioned debate about the law and the Gospel.
I guess Froom figured no one would ever find the massive 1888 collection of documents hidden in the White Estate. But he was wrong. These documents were discovered years ago. Shame on Froom and the White Estate!
Tom Norris, who knows what the White Estate was hiding all these years...
Offline
Question: Don asked: What was the 1888 controversy about and what relevance does it have to us now?
Answer: The Battle Creek SDA’s fell into a great debate about the law and the Gospel during the late 19th century. As a result of this unresolved conflict, the church collapsed, as a great schism took place that almost ruined the Denomination. Few understand how close the SDA’s came to bankruptcy and total shutdown.
Things were so tense and inhospitable in Battle Creek, that the leaders barely escaped to Takoma Park, where they determined to re-start the collapsing 3rd Angels Message, which featured obedience to the 7th day.
However, because they were so traumatized by the near collapse of Adventism in Battle Creek, the leaders decided to cover-up what happened in 1888, and spin it into a more positive account. This debilitating history would become off limits to everyone, and thus the White Estate was developed into a fortress of vaults where Ellen White’s history of 1888 would be hidden from view.
To be fair, the leaders made plans to explain this history and make it public sometime in the future. Except that day never came, and the church has been promoting a very false history of what happened in Battle Creek ever since.
Hidden Documents
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … uments.htm
The White Estate
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … Estate.htm
In fact, when the truth about 1888 was discovered hidden in the SDA Archives and in the White Estate in 1979, the leaders still refused to inform the church about what had taken place and why. Even though they promised Tom Norris that they would make this amazing discovery public. They refused to explain that the church had been covering up and misrepresenting the 1888 debate, and they refused to correct the record or make any real changes.
Bill Johnson, the past Review Editor is a very dishonest man. He too helped suppress the discovery of these 1888 documents, even as he is the one that shut down the AToday Forum that where Tom Norris was telling the truth about 1888 and Glacier View.
Site History
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=224
This means that the SDA’s have been part of a massive publishing fraud for many decades, where they claim to be telling the truth about Ellen White and church history, when in fact that are doing the opposite. Book after book rolls off the SDA presses, but yet, they are full of myth, propaganda, and deliberate error.
The SDA’s have not told the truth about 1888, and whenever they get the opportunity to come clean, they never do. They like living a lie and pretending all is well, when the church is self-destructing much like it did in the late 19th century.
Moreover, Glacier View, in 1980, was a replay of the 1888 debate. Sadly, it ended the same way, with the leaders dismissing Dr. Ford for daring to tell the truth about the doctrinal development of the church and the IJ. Just as Waggoner and Ellen White were exiled far away from Battle Creek, so too was Dr. Ford, who was slandered and dismissed for telling the Gospel truth.
Today, the SDA’s are very confused and wrong about most everything, including how they view their own history and that of the Reformation. They have become experts at error, double-talk, and propaganda, even as they have become arrogant and corrupt, refusing to allow free speech or honest discussion.
Unless and until the Denomination confesses what they have done, and repents for hiding the 1888 debate, and correcting the record for all to see, the SDA’s are doomed. They will continue to self-destruct. No amount of Public Relations or propaganda will stop the downward spiral of the SDA’s who are perhaps the most dishonest religious organization around.
As for the meaning of the 1888 debate, here are a few points:
1. This 19th century period of SDA history explains where the SDA’s went wrong and why. It also explains why they came to Takoma Park at the turn of the 20th century. They were retreating from Battle Creek, where their legalistic theology was rejected by most of their members.
2. By covering up this Gospel debate, future Adventists could not learn from their past mistakes. Thus they went on to repeat the same tragic errors in 1980 with Dr. Ford and Glacier View, starting another great schism, which is still in progress today.
3. Ellen White claimed that the 1888 debate was a time when new doctrine would move the church forward to the 4th Angel message. However, because Uriah Smith and most all the leaders rejected these new Gospel insights, there was no forward progress. Only debate, division, and schism, as the Denomination went backwards, not forward.
4. The 1888 period was also a time when the SDA leaders rejected Ellen Whites views and refused her counsel. As a result, Ellen White threatened to start a new SDA church, even as she contemplated renting out a meeting hall in downtown Battle Creek to hold services to refute Uriah Smiths standard SDA theology. Few SDA's know that Ellen White and Uriah Smith became doctrinal enemies after 1888. They never reconciled, as a number of false accounts claim. In fact, Ellen White helped remove and againg and legalistic fire Uriah Smith from the Review.
Only when the SDA’s repent for what they have done, and truly correct the record, can they ever understand their past so as to correct their present errors.
Only when they understand where they went wrong, and why, can they make the necessary correction to their theology and doctrine of the Three Angels Messages.
Today, the SDA’s are very dishonest, disoriented, and confused. They do not understand their own doctrinal development correctly, or what Ellen White was really saying about the Law and the Gospel. But the modern leaders could care less. They want nothing to do with the 1888 history, or with Glacier View, which was a repeat of the 1888 debacle. Consequently, they have gone their own way, unable to develop a modern and coherent Gospel message for the 21st century.
Had the Battle Creek SDA’s been open to better understand the Two Covenants and the Gospel, they would have understood that their views about the Sabbath Law and the Gospel were not fully correct and neither were their law based views of eschatology.
The 1888 Gospel debates hold the key to the recovery and rehabilitation of the SDA’s. If they continue to refuse to tell the truth about this important history, they are doomed. Why? Because this is when they refused to fully embrace the Gospel of Christ. Unless they repent, correct the record, and embrace the Protestant Gospel, they are doomed, and so too any that support their many errors.
Here are some links about the 1888 Gospel Debates:
1888 General Conference
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … erence.htm
Jones and Waggoner
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ggoner.htm
Ford and 1888, Jones and Waggoner, etc
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ggoner.htm
Galatians & 1888
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … s-1888.htm
DARCOM
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … DARCOM.htm
Froom on 1888
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … m-1888.htm
1888 General Conference
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … erence.htm
The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … e-1888.htm
Ford and 1888, Jones and Waggoner, etc
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ggoner.htm
Galatians & 1888
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … s-1888.htm
law and grace
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … -grace.htm
Desmond Ford, SDA Schism
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … schism.htm
Review and Harold Publishing house fire
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … -house.htm
What is the correct gospel preached by A T Jones
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ched-T.htm
1888 Message
http://www.allexperts.com/expertx.cgi
10 horns in 1888 debate
http://www.allexperts.com/expertx.cgi
I trust this answers your questions about 1888.
Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform
Offline
Question for Tom Norris:
Hi Tom,
I am a Seventh Day Adventist, fairly new to the church, I was a former Catholic and Baptist. Did a lot of searching in my time, and finally found the truth in the SDA. But I am not affiliated with the conference and home church because of the errors within the church.
I would like to know how you would explain the Three Angels Message to non believers, I am trying to find a good way of explaining but get tongue tied when I do.
I can show scriptures and do my best to explain. But looking for your take on how to do it?
Is there a booklet or witnessing track that would be helpful?
Thanks so much
Sister Donna
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Norris Answered:
Donna,
Those that have recently joined the SDA church have much to learn and unlearn. They have no idea what a confused and dysfunctional time this is for the Adventist Movement, which has been self-destructing since Glacier View in 1980.
There is a reason why more than 10 MILLION baptized members have left the SDA church in the past two generations, and why more leave all the time. Such numbers are not sustainable, and thus we are witnessing the self-destruction of Adventism in the 21st century.
There is a reason why the Internet is full of anti-SDA web sites and angry former pastors, scholars, and members who claim Adventism to be Old Covenant, outdated, and wrong.
Leaving the SDA Church
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=233
Today, Adventism is locked in a crisis of credibility that will be fatal if not resolved. Those that have joined the church after 1980, did so with a fabricated, manipulated, and sanitized view of Adventism. They are victims of a cruel “bait and switch” scam, orchestrated by the dishonest Takoma Park apologists that were more interested in hiding what happened in Battle Creek then learning the lessons from that failed time period.
Adventist marketing is very dishonest. New members are never told the truth about the doctrinal debates surrounding 1844,1888, or 1980. Nor do they understand the underlying issues and theological problems that must be properly addressed and corrected if Adventism is going to move forward with a deeper understanding of Gospel Eschatology and Present Truth for the 21st century.
In short, the SDA denomination has been promoting a worthless, false, and dangerous view of the Three Angels Messages for generations. When confronted with the opportunity at Glacier View to make the necessary corrections in 1980, the leaders doubled-down on doctrinal error, as if they had no doctrinal errors to correct.
This was a fatal mistake, one that must be corrected if the Denomination has any intention of following the prophetic fundamentals that define Adventism.
Adventism, with its unique understanding of Protestant eschatology, is more sophisticated and complex than many imagine. The Three Angels Messages of Rev 14 is a remarkable paradigm that represents the historical and theological development of the Advent Movement. No one today can go back and change history, but yet many have done this, including the SDA leaders, resulting in great confusion and error.
Here are some fundamental points about the Three Angels Messages in Rev 14:
1) Each prophetic “message” represents a 19th century time period, as well as some correction about previous doctrinal error. And only one “message” can be featured at any time.
2) Each new “Message” also contains new doctrine. Like the Sabbath, which is a “pillar” of the 3rd Angels Message, which is added to the core doctrines already established from the previous messages.
3) A message must fail in order for the next message can become active.
4) The Three Angels Messages also encompass the future 4th Angels Message of Rev 18, which is the conclusion of this unique eschatological paradigm. In fact, the point and purpose of the Three Angels Messages is to lead the last church to the 4th and final Gospel “message,’ which is based in Rev 18.
In Adventist theology, this is called the “Loud Cry of the 3rd Angels Message.” Also known as the 4th Angels Message. This is where the Adventists today must migrate. They must leave the failed 3rd Angels Message behind, and move forward to develop and proclaim the 4th Angels Message where every doctrine will reflect the Protestant Gospel, including the Judgment and New Covenant, 7th day Sabbath, which is based on the Priesthood of every believer. (Note: This is not the same OC Sabbath doctrine as the SDA’s)
SDA Sabbath Vs. Gospel Sabbath
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=836
Failure Leads To Truth
The 1st Angels Message of Rev 14: 6, 7, features the Protestant Gospel as well as the doctrine of the 2nd Coming. William Miller discovered it in 1818. However, when the predicted time for the Second Advent failed, in the Spring of 1844, a new, corrected message came into view. This was the 2nd Angels Message, which also failed when Christ did not come to earth on Oct 22, 1844. This led to the discovery of the 3rd Angels message in 1847, which is synonymous with the SDA denomination with their core doctrine that only the 7th day could be the Sabbath for the church.
Today, the 3rd Angels Message, which is represented by the confused theology of the modern SDA church, has failed for all to see. This is exactly what happened in Battle Creek after 1888, and again in Takoma Park after Glacier View in 1980. This second meltdown is still going strong in 2014; it will most likely be fatal for the SDA’s if not soon corrected.
Consequently, Millions are turning away from 7th day Adventism because the Denomination’s views about history and theology are not honest, correct, or credible. The modern SDA’s are self-destructing because their leaders are too proud to admit their errors and sins; and they no longer care about their past eschatology, nor do they want to search for new Gospel Truth. They have long ago lost this original attitude that brought them into existence.
4th Angels Message; The Only Hope
The only hope for the Advent Community is for them to:
1) Admit the 3rd Angels Message has failed.
2) Develop the 4th and last Advent Message, during which, the end of the world will take place.
See also:
What is the 4th Angel's Message?
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtop … 079#p12079
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … illars.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … essage.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … essage.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … -FAITH.htm
Conclusion
The Advent Movement was not started by the SDA’s, nor does it appear that it will be completed by them. While they have represented the 3rd Angels Message for many years, it is time for all to admit that this law based “message” of obedience to the Sabbath has terminated in failure, schism, and embarrassment. Just like EVERY pervious Advent Message. Thus, the present demise of Adventism is a normative and necessary precursor to the next level of understanding, which is called the 4th Angels Message.
The development and promotion of the 4th Angels Message is “Present Truth” for modern Adventism. This is the only path that will rehabilitate, energize, and prepare the last church for the great time of trouble and the Judgment Day, which is the Second Coming.
Is anyone listening?
Mark 4:23 “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform and All Experts.Com
Offline
Question for Tom Norris:
Why is it that most, or almost all, sda executives are always traveling the world? I presume these expenses come from tithing from the poorest of poor people.
I believe 71% of the teaching of the SDA; almost became a member but was not prepared to be baptized with man-made rules.
Also, overall churches declare their state of income and expenditure except SDA.
My question how can you believe this domination at all?
Lawry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Norris Answers:
Today, few people trust the SDA Denomination, which has proven to be very dishonest and controlling, not even allowing free speech; much less doctrinal criticism or much needed Gospel Reform.
Modern Adventism, like their 19th century forefathers, has embraced the Old Covenant with both hands. Consequently, they are not trying to understand the New Covenant. At least not since 1980, when Dr. Ford was exiled for telling the truth about Ellen White, Adventist history, and the Protestant Gospel.
While your question assumes I “believe” in, and support, the SDA church, this is not true. I have no faith in most of what they teach, say, or do. They are professional double-talkers, full of doctrinal error, and historical manipulation.
Their theology does not reflect what the Adventist Pioneers taught about the Three Angels Messages, much less what Jesus and the apostles teach about salvation, eschatology, or much of anything.
The SDA’s are so confused that they do not even have the correct doctrine about the Lord’s Supper, much less the Judgment or the 7th day Sabbath, which is their most fundamental doctrine. They are full of error, not truth as they pretend. Shame on the SDA’s, they have become like the Pharisees in the Gospel Story.
Let all understand; Adventism is big business today. It is a BILLION dollar enterprise, a very poorly run business that masquerades as if it were following the teachings of Christ, when it does no such thing.
In contradiction of the Gospel, they operate through a brutal hierarchy that suppresses criticism, dictates false doctrine; and cares little for the fundamentals of the Protestant Faith. Truth no longer matters. And it shows.
Like the 1st century Jews, the SDA hierarchy is blind to the Gospel, stubbornly refusing correction and pretending that they have no doctrinal errors. Such an absurd position is fatal if they do not repent as directed by Christ in the real Pre-Advent Judgment, which is the Laodicean Message.
Although legions have complaints about the SDA church, I have first hand knowledge about leadership corruption and doctrinal fraud. As a researcher investigating the history of 1888, I was invited into the White Estate where I caught Arthur White hiding thousands of Ellen White’s documents. Why? So that the Denomination could teach a knowingly fabricated version of church history as well as a manipulated and false view of Ellen White’s doctrinal development.
Ellen White
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=225
In 1979, Arthur White was caught “red-handed,” and the leaders were put on notice about this stunning discovery in the White Estate and the church Archives. But they covered it all up and refused to confess that the White Estate has been committing publishing fraud ever since 1937. To this very day, the leaders continue to cover-up Arthur White’s massive fraud about Ellen White, refusing to repent and tell the truth about what happened in Battle Creek and what Ellen White really believes.
Let all understand that the SDA church has been knowingly promoting a false view of Adventist history and doctrine all during the 20th century, even up to the present day. ALL SDA’s were taught, and are still being taught, many things about church history, doctrine, and Ellen White that were never true. Important things about the law, Gospel, and the IJ.
Shame on the SDA’s. They are self-destructing as a result of their fraud and manipulation of the record.
See:
Hidden Documents
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … uments.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … Estate.htm
SDA’s Dishonest
Are the SDA’s dishonest and manipulative? Absolutely! Are the SDA’s wrong about doctrine and church history? Absolutely! Have the SDA’s repudiated the Gospel and embraced the Old Covenant? Yes.
No wonder that more than 10 MILLION once loyal SDA’s have left the church, and more leave all the time. People don’t like to discover they have been misled or tricked, and this is the conclusion that legions have already drawn.
So there is something very dishonest, and dysfunctional, taking place within modern Adventism. They have become like first century Judaism; corrupt, legalistic, and hateful towards the Gospel. They are the mirror image of the 1st century, tithe paying, Sabbath keeping Jews that rejected the Gospel in favor of Law.
Listen to Ellen White correctly accuse the SDA’s of acting like the Jews. This is a great insult that helps explains why the legalistic leaders did not like her viewpoint. But she was correct then and now. The SDA’s today are very much like the Gospel hating Jews that sent Christ to the cross. No one who follows the genuine Christ can embrace what the foolish SDA’s promote. Like the Jews, they are blind to the Gospel and their sad fate.
Ellen White Insults SDA Leaders:
"The trials of the children of Israel, and their attitude just before the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second coming of Christ—how the enemy sought every occasion to take control of the minds of the Jews, and today he is seeking to blind the minds of God’s servants, that they may not be able to discern the precious truth." 1SM 406.
"Those who live just prior to the second appearing of Christ may expect a large measure of His Holy Spirit. If God has ever spoken by me, some of our leading men are going over the same ground of refusing the message of mercy as the Jews did in the time of Christ. If they turn away from the light, they will fail to meet the high and holy claims of God for this important time. They will fail to fulfill the sacred responsibility that He has entrusted to them.
"The character and prospects of the people of God are similar to those of the Jews, who could not enter in because of unbelief. Self-sufficiency, self-importance, and spiritual pride separated them from God, and He hid His face from them. . . .
"The Jews despised the good that was proffered them in the time of Christ, and after the long forbearance of God, the things that were for their peace were hidden from their eyes—that which, if received, would have been to them their greatest blessing became their stumbling block. Thus it is today among us. . . .
"The light of truth is shining upon us as clearly as it shone upon the Jewish people, but the hearts of men are as hard and unimpressible as in the days of Christ, because they know not what they oppose. Many who claim to be standing in the light are in darkness, and know it not. They have so enshrouded themselves in unbelief that they call darkness light, and light darkness. They are ignorant of that which they condemn and oppose.”
“But their ignorance is not such as God will excuse, for He has given them light, and they reject it. They have before them the example of the past, but they will not be warned, and unbelief is enclosing them in impenetrable darkness. They refuse to accept the testimonies they ought to believe, and are ready to accept tidbits of gossip and testimonies of men, showing their credulousness and readiness to believe that which they want to believe." 11MR 286-287.
Today, there should be no doubt that the SDA’s are following in the evil footsteps of the Pharisees. According to Ellen White, this was the plan of devil all along. Mission accomplished. The SDA leaders today are blind to the Gospel teachings of Christ, even though they profess love for God and Christ, as well as the Moral Law. They are, like the Jews, sitting in the dark, unable to comprehend the Gospel.
"Satan is working that the history of the Jewish nation may be repeated in the experience of those who claim to believe present truth." 2SM 111.
"Like the Jews, many have closed their eyes lest they should see; but there is as great peril now, in closing the eyes to light, and in walking apart from Christ, feeling need of nothing, as there was when he was upon earth." RH, Aug. 26, 1890.
"Even Seventh-day Adventists are in danger of closing their eyes to truth as it is in Jesus, because it contradicts something which they have taken for granted as truth but which the Holy Spirit teaches is not truth." TM 70-71.
"I entreat you, brethren, be not like the Pharisees, who were blinded with spiritual pride, self-righteousness, and self-sufficiency, and who because of this were forsaken of God. For years I have been receiving instructions and warnings that this was the danger to our people." 1888, p. 166.
See also:
SDA’s Like Jews
http://www.everythingimportant.org/seve … bility.htm
SDA’s Global Reach
You ask why do the SDA leaders travel all over the world, wasting resources and promoting their doctrine? Why did the Jews?
Matt. 23:15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
A better question would be, why is this church organized like the Roman Catholic Church, as a male hierarchy that owns and controls every local church, even as they dictate false doctrine? Jesus teaches that such an organizational system is wrong and against the Gospel. The followers of Christ should never submit to a hierarchical religious structure. They are to manage and own their own local churches, which is exactly what took place during the apostolic period.
Mark 10:42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.
Mark 10:43 “But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;
Mark 10:44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.
Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His 1life a ransom for many.”
Mark 9:35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”
The modern Adventists have developed an Old Covenant style hierarchy where the people serve the needs of the priests, which are called pastors. The hierarchy controls everything, including doctrine. This is why the SDA’s tithe and refuse to allow women to be spiritually equal with men; thus they cannot be “ordained.” Such views repudiate the Priesthood of All Believers,” and prove that the SDA’s are not paying attention to Christ. They are no longer Protestant or Adventist.
Let all understand that modern Adventism has gone as corrupt as the 1st century Jews. Their anti-Gospel hierarchy has made war against the Gospel; high jacking the Advent Movement for the pleasure of a handful of delusional leaders who refuse to repent and reform. This is why millions of members are leaving. The status quo is not sustainable.
Today, the SDA leaders are anti-Gospel and anti-Christ. They are not even Protestant or Adventist. Rather, they are spiritually blind and fully corrupt. As a result, they act irrationally and make little sense to anyone. Their sin of developing a bureaucratic, anti-Gospel hierarchy, and sustaining it with the OC doctrine of tithing, is religious malpractice.
No one should listen to anything they teach, because they don’t know the Gospel or church history. Nor do they want to learn the facts or repent for their many sins and errors.
However, regardless how low the SDA’s have fallen, there is still much truth in Adventist theology and history. Consequently, Adventism should be reformed and updated. The last church needs updated, progressive, Gospel based, eschatology in the 21st century.
Ironically, this is what the SDA Pioneers predicted would happen at the end of time. They envisioned a future period when the Advent Movement would almost collapse, but then they would repent and go forward to better understand the Gospel, making the necessary transition to what they called the 4th Angels Message of Rev 18. This time has come.
Unless the SDA’s repent, and move forward from the failed 3rd Angels Message to the 4th, and embrace the New Covenant Gospel with both hands, they are doomed. Others will come forward and complete their work to prepare the last church for the great Tribulation and the Judgment Day to follow, which is the Second Coming and the end of the world.
The Advent Movement is important and necessary. It must go forward.
I hope this answers your question and gives you the proper framework for further study.
Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform
Offline
Hello Tom Norris,
I have run across many Shepherds Rod people within the SDA.
It looks to have been started by a Victor Houteff, a dis-fellowshipped Sabbath school teacher in 1930. The message has been around over 80 years and we can not shake it.
The bible tells us that in Acts 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
The message is still here.
Have you looked into the message to see if there is truth there?
The pastors and Elders I speak with tell me to leave it alone, but they themselves have not looked into it.
Thanks for any insight you may have.
Sister White has told us that there is more light to come and we have many many things to unlearn.
Keith, from Georgia
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ds-rod.htm
---------------------------------
Tom Norris answers:
Today, it has never been easier to investigate doctrine or church history. There is so much information available online that there is no excuse for anyone not to find the facts. Those that seek truth will find it.
As for the Shepherd’s Rod, they represent an offshoot of the early 20th century SDA’s. They were very legalistic, great believers in the doctrine of the IJ and Ellen White as a latter day prophet. They focused on the 144,000 and what would take place AFTER the IJ was completed.
In short, they tried to push flawed SDA eschatology forward, claiming they had “present truth” for the Adventist Community.
Victor Houteff, the leader, became an SDA zealot in 1919 in his thirties. By 1929, this former Maytag salesman, claimed to have visions about the last day events. He was not trying to start a new denomination, but reform the SDA church and purify it. He claimed that the Adventist church had become lukewarm and had lost their way; thus he tried to revive them.
Shepherd’s Rod History
“After relocating to Los Angeles, California in 1923, Brother Houteff became a respected church member and Sabbath School Teacher. It was during the last quarter of 1929 when the Seventh Day Adventist Church Sabbath School Quarterly was addressing the later chapters in the book of Isaiah that he began to receive inspired revelations that identified the Israel of today, the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies Vol. 9, p. 56), as the central focus of these latter day prophecies. He began to share them with his class.”
“In complete harmony with the fundamental pillars and doctrines of the church, this new development of truth shed additional light to Seventh-day Adventist eschatology and called for world-wide revival and reformation of God’s beloved last day church, Laodicea, the seventh church found in Revelation 3:14-18, represented by the Seventh Day Adventist Church (Testimonies, Vol. 3, pp. 252-56).”
http://www.shepherds-rod-speaks.org
The Shepherd’s Rod, like the SDA’s, were so Old Covenant minded, that their name is actually based on the “rod of Moses, the Shepherd of Midian.” They embraced the IJ and were not trying to change or remove it. They were also obsessed with obscure, Old Testament prophecies, like Ezekiel 9, and Hosea chapters 1-2. And also with the New Testament prophecies such as the Leopard Beast of Rev 13 and Matt. 20."
http://shepherdsroddavidian.org/about.html
The Shepherds Rod claims:
“The truth is that the Shepherd’s Rod is the name of a reformatory and prophetic message specifically for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is not a separate denomination. Its adherents are Seventh-day Adventists Christians who are striving to know and walk with Christ, and who hold on to the fundamental truths of Adventism. They are typically members of the denominational churches but who share the prophetic series of interpretations known as, ‘The Shepherd’s Rod…’”
“You will find that Rod believers are not aberrant or religious freaks, lurking about to destroy the church or to take you out of it. They are in fact, Seventh-day Adventists who, although imperfect, love Christ, the Scriptures, and the Third Angel’s message.”
http://shepherdsroddavidian.org/mission.html
Not only did Houteff claim to have visions, like the late Ellen White, he had no idea how to define or explain the Gospel, which is absent in his writings. Nor did he understand the true Fundamentals that define the Advent Movement, although he claimed otherwise. Houteff promoted legalism and perfectionism in place of the Gospel, even as the IJ played a major role in his confused theology.
Today, the teachings of the Shepherds Rod make little sense. They represent the incoherent and amateur ramblings of a sincere SDA that was trying to purify and reform the Advent church. Thus a partial list of “abominations” included the “lack of reverence” in church, following the fashions of the world, and misspending tithe money.
Houteff, a strict SDA, also railed against the church selling its’ many publications, which he said made the Denomination look like it was more interested in merchandising then saving souls. He also complained about the high cost of SDA schools and institutions, claiming they were too expensive.
Unlike many SDA critics, Houteff embraced and defended Ellen White’s writings from the growing disbelief about her views within the church. Because he was supposedly promoting new light about prophecy for the church, he was specifically enamored with Ellen White’s views that 1) the SDA’s did not have all the truth and 2) more truth was to come. He viewed himself as the vehicle for this new truth that would come to the Advent people.
Houteff Excommunicated in 1934
Though he had been forced out of the SDA Church, Houteff had no intention of leaving it. Since the Church leadership had rejected his message, he took it to the people with great success. In 1934, his evangelistic endeavors began to bear fruit. Several thousand Adventists accepted Houteff's doctrine of the Shepherd's Rod.
His Message began to have a considerable impact on the Adventist Church, which, at that time, counted less than 250,000 members worldwide.
In 1934, Houteff formed the Universal Publishing Association. While he had no intention of forming his own church, he did wish to use every medium within his power to spread his message within the SDA Church.
He viewed the Adventist Church as backsliding from the beliefs upon which it had been founded a hundred years before, and saw his message as a method of solving the many doctrinal disagreements which had arisen as the Church expanded in the 1900s after Ellen G. White's death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Houteff
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Houteff
http://shepherdsroddavidian.org
https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/m … o-are-they
http://www.sdadefend.com/WolvesinFleeces/Rods%202.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidian_S … _Adventist
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9940587/A-Tru … h-Davidian
Shepherds Rod Morphs Into Branch Dividians –David Koresh
The most infamous Branch Dividian was David Koresh. Raised SDA by his mother, he gained control of the Branch Dividians and made up his own twisted version of SDA eschatology, with himself playing a leading, prophetic role. The whole world watched as he and many of his delusional followers burned to death in a standoff with the US Government.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
http://www.texasobserver.org/the-standoff-in-waco/
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_m … esh/1.html
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/ … -profane-4
David Koresh- SDA 1981
“When he was 20, Koresh turned to the Church of Seventh Day Adventists, his mother's church. But he was expelled for being a bad influence on the young people. Sometime during the next couple of years, Koresh went to Hollywood to become a rock star but nothing came of it. Instead, in 1981 he went to Waco, Texas where he joined the Branch Davidians, a religious sect which in 1935 had settled 10 miles outside of Waco. At one time, it had more than 1,400 members…”
“By 1990 Koresh had become the leader of the Branch Davidians and legally changed his name, saying on the court document that the change was "for publicity and business purposes." He said the switch arose from his belief that he was now head of the biblical House of David. (Koresh is a Hebrew transliteration of Cyrus, the name of the Persian king who allowed the Jews held captive in Babylon to return to Israel.)”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … oresh.html
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
http://www.biography.com/people/david-k … 6#synopsis
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1734205
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/us/gr … buses.html
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/14/waco.koresh/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … cults.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b10.html
http://www.watchman.org/articles/cults- … -theology/
Summary;
The Shepherds Rod, which later morphed into David Koresh’s infamous Branch Dividians cult, is a cautionary tale for the Adventist Community. This entire episode shows the evil results of the legalistic, anti-Gospel doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, which becomes even more toxic when combined with the misuse of Ellen White.
The Gospel is not to be found in the confusion of either the Shepherds Rod or the Branch Dividians. Nor can it be found in the SDA Denomination, which refuses to repent for their many false doctrines, including the IJ and the misuse of Ellen White.
Had the Takoma Park leaders understood the Gospel and the history of the Three Angels Messages correctly, they would NOT have promoted the IJ, or viewed Ellen White’s writings as if they were like scripture. They should have known better then to promote the IJ based legalism that has driven the modern Advent Movement into theological confusion, irrelevance, and schism.
What happened in WACO Texas is a clear warning for the Advent Community. They need to repent of the IJ and correct the false record in the White Estate about Ellen White. They also need to understand the “new light” that came to the church in 1888 through EJ Waggoner and Ellen White, which theology was covered up and hidden by the White Estate.
It is time for all SDA’s to repent of the IJ and Glacier View, returning to the genuine pillars that define the Three Angels Messages. Such reform requires the removal of the many false and legalistic doctrines that has turned the Advent Movement into a worthless, dying, cult.
Although many have tried to reform the SDA’s over the years, including Ellen White, but none have succeeded. This is why the Adventists are self-destructing for all to see. They refuse to correct their many doctrinal errors and polices, starting with the IJ. Such stubborn rebellion against the Gospel is destroying the Advent Movement at the very time it should be moving forward to prepare the church for the great time of trouble and the 2nd Coming. It is time for serious Gospel Reform within Adventism.
Is anyone listening?
Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform
Offline