| Author |
Message |
    
christopher charles william mack (Chrismack)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 10:50 am: |       |
Hi Gang, As I have been pondering this thread, one particular aspect really jumps out at me. Where are the Bible passages that are relevant to this discussion? We need to reason together from the Word of God in terms of what light it might shed on the subject at hand. What clear texts, in context, would one present from the New Testament on this subject? Why do I say, from the New Testament? Aren't the Old Testament texts good enough? As a matter of fact, no they are not.
First, let me say this, I love the Old Testament, and continue to spend serious time in the Old Testament. I am part of a study group that has now been doing intensive study in Genesis for a year and a half and we have only just reached chapter 26. But what each of us has to come to grips with the fact that first; Daniel isn't the only book in the Old Testament, and second; what the Ultimate Prophet Christ Jesus said about Daniel holds much more weight than what we can gain from an exegetical study of Daniel. Do you see my point? The Olivet Discourse is a midrash/pesher of the Book of Daniel. The Olivet Discourse is Christ's Divinely inspired interpretation and explanation of Daniel's prophecy. What this means is that Daniel must be interpreted Christologically. The person, the mission, the teachings of Christ, and especially the cross event, must be our guide in any interpretation of Daniel's apocalyptic prophecy.
The Western mind is fasinated with numbers. We are educated to be linear thinkers. The Hebrew minds saw numbers, especially in apocalyptic literature, as being symbolic and qualitative. I would challenge all of you, including and especially Cliff, to reread and restudy, and to reconsider Rev. chapters 10 thru 15. Pay special attention to the use of the numbers. And for the purpose of the discussion at hand, read Rev.12 very carefully. In Rev.12v5, The Son who is to rule was caught up to God and to His throne. IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE, the woman (the church) fled into the WILDERNESS. Do we see a 538 year gap here? By no means! In verses 9, we read of how Satan was thrown down to the earth. In verse 10, we read; "NOW the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of God and the authority of His Christ HAVE COME, for the accuser has been thrown down .... Verse 11 speaks about the basis for Satan's demise. It is the blood of the Lamb. (I.E. the cross) Now pay close attention to verse 13. "And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman ... Did Satan wait 538 years to persecute the woman? NO! He began persecuting the church IMMEDIATELY! In verse 14, we see a repetition of verse 6. In verse 14, the persecuted woman flys into the WILDERNESS to be nourished for a time and times and half a time. This is the same time period as the 1260 days of v6. What we have here is a clear starting point for the 1260 / time, times, 1/2 time. It is not 538 but the cross! Try and argue your way around that one. I sat across the table from Dr. Bill Shea 5 years ago in Washington D.C. and he had no argument for it.
What we need to do is to deal with what the New Testament prophets deal with in regards to what is taken from Daniel, and be SILENT on what they do not deal with. We also need, as Christians, to recognize how these reminisences from the Old Testament are Christologically applied. Rev.12v9-11 is the chiastic centre of the Book of Revelation. In Rev. 11, we have Christ's 2 witnesses. In Rev. 13, we see Satan's 2 witnesses. A carefully study of Rev. 11 demonstraes the principle that what Christ experienced in microcosm, the church will experience in macrocosm. What we also need to see is that in Rev. 13, we see not only a parody of the Trinity, but a parody of the church.
Here's the point. The 1260 days, the 42 months, and the time, times, and 1/2 time are all the same time period. They all begin at the cross. They all end at the second coming. They are all symbolic of the church age. As Christ ministered for the first half of Dan.9v27's broken 7, the church, in following in the footsteps of the Master (Matt.10) replicates the ministry of Christ in the last half of the broken 7. It was not enough for Christ to live and die and rise as our substitute; the message, that is the gospel of His achievement must first be proclaimed to the whole world. Only then can the end come. Christ ministered for 3 1/2 literal years. The church will minister and be persecuted for 3 1/2 symbolic years. The Christ, and not the Old Testament has now become the basis and baseline for any correct prophetic understooding of the future.
For those who are new to this line of thinking, carefully read Matt. 10 and then carefully read Rev.11. Ask yourself this question. Does the church indeed, according to these 2 passages, follow in the footsteps of Christ? Does the body do what the Head does? If you want to be so bold as to take a look at the passage that the SDA church has thought that it has owned, do a comparative study between Rev. 14v6 & 7 and John 12v23-34. Have a real close look at the words that are being used. As for Rev.14; consider that it is not a linear continuation of Rev.13; but is actually the other side of the same coin. In Rev.13, all looks dark for the saints, but Rev.14 reveals that even during the persection of the church age, the saints are standing with the Lamb on Mt. Zion.They are preaching the everlasting gospel. Do you think for a moment, that the gospel only began to really be preached after 1844? |
Ron Corson (Roca88)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 11:49 am: | |
Tom
Why can you not just define your meaning of "historic Adventist"
I have read the historic thread already, that is where I first asked the question. This should not be too difficult unless there is no definition. |
Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 12:32 pm: | |
That gospel message assumes the facts of divine creation in the past, judgment in the future, life and righteousness for now and eternity only in Christ, and the abiding relevance of the law of God."
The bible "assumes" nothing but very carefully instructs fallen man as to his true condition and how to escape condemnation.
Dr. Ford does a lot of "assuming" that is outside the biblical norm. And thus his conclusions are not biblical.
Sorensen |
Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 12:44 pm: | |
Thank you Chris!
I'm going to venture an answer to my own question - The doctrine of the IJ adds nothing to the gospel message as delivered in the person of Jesus and preached by Paul.
Even if you believe that there is "present truth" to be declared, the basis for SALVATION is unchangeable! Paul and the apostles spread the Gospel all over the place and this is how he, Paul, characterizes his own message:
ICor.1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.
ICor.2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
If an IJ is important to salvation now, it would have been so, back then. NOT ONE WORD about an IJ from Paul, even though christians in his time expected Christ to return in their lifetime; and, He could have. Where does that leave the SDA time line of the 2300 day prophesy, culminating in 1844?
God is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow. How awful it would be if we couldn't rely on Gods' word being the same but ever changing its basic tenets, like the IRS's tax code. If the standard for salvation is changeable where is our assurance?
The 1844 IJ adds nothing to the gospel but confusion.
SDA theology relies on the 1844 IJ to keep its members in-line, to prod them on to "being good" (in case the Holy Spirit isn't doing its job). If there is to be an investigation then salvation will depend on our good works and law keeping. Even some of our doctrine makers are embarrassed about that, given the clear Bible word:
Acts 10:43 - "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins
Rom.3:20-21 Therefore by the deeds of the saw no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the lasw is the knowledge of sin. But n ow the righteousness okf God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.
Rom.3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
This "righteousness by faith theme caught on even among SDAs because it is the gospel and the gospel is "good news". There had to be some acknowledgment of this in the 27 FD. So, now the IJ is also "vindicating God" before the universe. This was NEVER part of the original story.
SDA Believe... p.325 "...All come to understand and agree that God is right; That He has no responsibility for the sin problem. His character will emerge unassailable and His government of love will be reaffirmed."
This immediately brings up questions: Has the universe been in doubt all this time? Isn't doubt sin? Rom.14:23 ...whatever is not from faith is sin.
By what standard outside of God is He to be judged? Fairness and justice is cultural. In God's "heaven", culture is determined by God. Whatever He declares just, is just. Who dares judge Him about justice?
The church is being split apart because it has to keep justifying itself to its members. Is it worth it? Tithes are down; respect is gone; nobody trusts anything coming out of the GC. All the churches outside the college towns and cities are turning gray but the defense goes on and the gospel keeps getting burried ever deeper under self-justifying mantras. |
U.Unruh (Ulrike)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 2:57 pm: | |
Tom wrote: So you are on your own as Ulrike has also run off.)
Actually Ulrike was "kicked out of this thread" and most all her posts moved to some "side kick, Ulrike's place"--
Which by the way is typical ---
Over at A-Today they used to pleep all the "evidence" from the pioneers that I would present--
Dialogue with Tom
Yes, Tom's definition of "historic Adventism" is quite different from ours.
His interpretation is "pre-1844" while ours is "post-1844".
Now, I wonder if JR will let THIS post remain on this thread? |
U.Unruh (Ulrike)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 2:59 pm: | |
Noticed a reference to "Bible Adventism" by James White
Most of the book is online at
Pioneer Writings |
Jodi Thiessen (Jodi)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 3:50 pm: | |
Ulrike, looks like you got one to stick! |
Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 3:58 pm: | |
I've said several times the only way out this mess and to make all Adventists happy is to split the church between those who are traditional Adventists and those who claimed to the evangelical or gospel Adventists.
The Baptist denomination, which is much older that the Adventist denomination, has split many times into sub denominations. Seventh-Day Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Southern Baptists, Free Will Baptists, the Fellowship of Independent Baptists, Grace Baptists, Grace Bible, German Baptists (Which split into the Church of the Brethern, Grace Brethern, and Church of the Brethern/Dunkard) and there are others.
There are far more Baptist churches here in the southern United States than any other denomiational name including Catholic. But all these Baptists churches are divided into sub-denominations.
And the pentecostal movement is divided into many sub-denominations too. Church of God, Assemblies of God, Pentecostal Holiness, Seventh-Day Church of God, Apostolic Holiness and many others.
All the Baptists hold many doctrines the same, but the disagree on a few points and that is why the splits.
Same can be said with the Pentecostals. They have much agreement, but differe here and there and therefore have split into sub-denominations.
There are even some Presbyterian churches who are not with the old mainline denomination. One sub-division here in the south is Grace Presbyterian Churches. I only know of three in my area, but that subdivision is seperate from the original Presbyterian church which has about a dozen or more churches in my area.
Why? A couple of doctrinal postions heated to the point that a split had to happen so one group wouldn't have to be a member of a denominaiton that teaches obvious error to them.
The Methodist church and the Wesleyan church where one at one time.
Every sub-division within an original denomination has individual members who have differences in Bibical understanding. So harmony between believers on Bibical understanding seems to be impossible here on earth.
But that is not enough in my view, to suggest a split in a denomination.
But when an issue such as the 1844/IJ doctrine grows to the point that great division develops in a denominaiton, then it seems the only way out when many people are involved on both sides, is a split.
And the 1844/IJ doctrine is a major sticking point for many because it difines the plan of salvation, how one is saved, when one is saved, when and how one gets the atonement that Christ made at the cross, when Christ entered the Most Holy Place, how the heavenly sanctuary is laid out, when Christ made the atonement or HAS He made it, what role does the law play if any, etc.
In other words, this division is so great theologically, that the GOSPEL is acutally difined in different ways.
One side says the other side is legalists or the other side believes in a "cheap" grace gospel or the other side believes one can get saved without walking in carefull obedience to God's law and one side says that is adding to the gospel of grace and one side says righteousness by faith is justification only and we are not judged for salvaiton on our degree of sanctification and the otherside insists righteousness by faith is justification AND sanctificaiton and some of those even say sancitifcation is not by faith alone but by faith plus works and faith in Jesus is not enough.
To me, some of the positons taken by some Adventists is out of step with evangelical protestant reformation theology and indeed does sound like a kind of legalism.
The gulf is wide on this issue and many on both sides hold their positon in sincerity and really believe it is totally Biblical.
Even some of my Advenitst friends down here admit they see some of their theology more clearly in the SOP than in the Bible, but to them, Ellen White certainly wouldn't have anything in her writings that isn't Bibical because she is a prophet inspired by God and God would not and does not contradict Himself from the OT to the NT to the SOP.
Now this gulf, to many, is a different gospel message. So when you have large groups of people in the same denomination at variance with each other over what is the GOSPEL!...then it is clearly time for a split. |
Jodi Thiessen (Jodi)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 4:01 pm: | |
And Tom, you should be grateful to Ulrike. She has apparently preserved your old AToday posts.....even the stuff they BLEEPED! It's almost like having your own private VAULT at the Ulrike Estates!  |
Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 4:11 pm: | |
Ulrike and Jodi!
Maybe all of us should have our own thread.
Many of us get off thread at times and personally, it seemed clear to me, the excerpts Ulrike posted over on the thread J. R. provided for her from Tom's remarks to Cliff that were made yesterday, Tom was being too personal and that smoke you both mentioned on the other thread, did seem a little blunt and rough.
I felt sorry for Cliff in away.
I know this is a very important situation for Tom and passions can run high, but I still say we need to be careful that we are not attacking a person.
And certainly there is a very thin line between attacking someone theology and politcs and attacking them as a person.
That is why many advise not to talk about religion and politics with someone. Especially if you want to have them as a freind:-)
We all believe Jesus said "If you love Me, keep my commandments". And one, to me, is clearly for us to love one another. |
Tom Norris (Tnorris)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 4:15 pm: | |
Ron, I think we should close down this thread as Goldstein has fled the scene some time ago. The discussion needs to move on in different threads with others more brave of heart then our tongue-tied apologist.
But we will save this special thread for Clifford, like a candle in a window, so that if he ever finds the courage, we can pick up exactly where we left off. Of course the same question will be waiting for him.
Ron, as for definitions: For our purposes, Historic Adventism represents the Millerite period, which contains both the first and second Angels Messages.
The Historic Adventists, or Millerites, were followed by another group that became known as the Seventh-Day Adventists, who discovered and promoted the Third Angels Message. We can call them historic SDA's, not to be confused with historic Adventists, which are the earlier Millerites.
What was so unique about the historic SDA's was NOT the IJ, as many people incorrectly assume, but rather the fact that they considered the Millerite Movement to be the true prophetic fulfillment of the first two messages from Rev 14.
Moreover, the SDA's connected these key doctrines and Pillars from the Millerite period with their newly discovered Sabbatarian message that was called the Third Angels Message. Hence the Three Angels Messages. The first two are exclusively Millerite and form the fundamental and foundational part of this unique eschatological paradigm.
Not only did the Historic SDA's absorb much of the Millerite doctrine, they also took ownership of the first two messages and declared that Miller's key doctrinal Pillars could never be moved or adjusted in the slightest.
This is a critical point to understand because this is the place where the TSDA's lose their grip on historical reality by ignoring the larger paradigm. Such a blunder refutes Ellen White's position as well as all the Pioneers.
"I saw a company who stood well guarded and firm, giving no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation. I was shown three steps-- the first, second, and third angels' messages. Said my accompanying angel, "Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance." (Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 258, paragraph 3, Chapter Title: Spiritual Gifts A Firm Platform.)
So our definitions are calculated to making the necessary distinction between the two major groups that form the Adventist Apocalyptic. They are necessary in order to more precisely define the eschatological paradigm known as the Three Angels Messages.
Ulrike said on Monday, April 15, 2002: "Yes, Tom's definition of "historic Adventism" is quite different from ours. His interpretation is "pre-1844" while ours is "post-1844.""
Tom's definition is the same as Ellen White's and every historian who ever wrote about the rise and progress of the Three Angels Messages! Your position refutes Ellen White and ignores every history book ever written on the subject.
Here is where the TSDA's lose their grip and spin off into a cultic trance. They refuse to accept the facts of history about the Millerite period. They refuse to acknowledge that Miller's messages, including his historic Pillars, are locked into place and can never be moved. This is what all the Pioneers understood. Ellen White could not be more clear on this point.
But Ulrike refuses to listen to Ellen White. She thinks that the first two messages do not matter and that those who lived in the Third message were free to make all kinds of dramatic adjustments to Millers first two messages. I agree with Ellen White that this could not be more wrong.
Woe to Goldstein and Ulrike for changing these messages in a futile and dishonest attempt to place the IJ in the very spot where Millers great Judgment Pillar about the Second Coming stands. This is treachery. This is madness. Woe on these confused and dishonest souls.
It is time for both the leaders and the people to seriously stop the presses and get a grip on the Three Angels Messages. This unique eschatological paradigm has been so abused and disregarded that it is almost dead. This is tragic. It is time to understand, as never before, how the Adventist Apocalyptic functions and why. Then and only then can there be any hope of uniting the various factions and resolving this debilitating crisis that is destroying the Advent Movement.
I hope this helps. |
William Turner DuBois (Billdubois)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 4:45 pm: | |
Sirje,
I will respond in the next couple of days to your question regarding the relevance of the IJ. I definitely have some thoughts and ran out of time yesterday and don't get much time during the week to get on the thread. I think your question is extremly important. |
Tom Norris (Tnorris)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 5:02 pm: | |
Jodi Thiessen said on Monday, April 15, 2002: "Tom, you should be grateful to Ulrike. She has apparently preserved your old AToday posts.....even the stuff they BLEEPED! It's almost like having your own private VAULT at the Ulrike Estates!"
I am flattered that she treasures my words. I wonder if she kept that thread called NT Tithe? It was a great discussion that I would love to post here if we could find it all together. I think that thread, more than any other, was the reason that Atoday was closed. It was a powerful and blunt indictment of the hierarchy. It exposed NT Tithe as the biggest of all the SDA frauds.
Ulrike, do you have that tithe thread? If so, let's post it up and see if anyone can refute it? |
J. R. Layman (Daneanderthal)
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 11:22 pm: | |
This THREAD IS CLOSED, at the request of Moderator Tom...... Since he doesn't think that my good friend Clifford Goldstein is going to post to it any more. Start up a new thread, under new sub-titles as you wish.
J.R. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page