| Author | Message | ||
     Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 2438 Registered: 5-2006 |
1844 Made Simple  This thread is for a chapter by chapter synopsis of Cliff G's book. The main purpose is to clearly relate what the book asserts. Discussion of those assertions presumably will be included. Cliff G, Since you do grace us with your presence occasionally, your comments are especially invited on this thread.  | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 2439 Registered: 5-2006 |
Chapter One - Personal Reasons for the Book Page 7 Hopefully, Cliff G. is being playful when he relates, "All I ever talked about my first six months as an Adventist was the Mark of the Beast...". He describes those wonderful innocent days when he first became an Adventist and thrilled with its message. He did not see the foundational relevance to the 1844 messages. Page 8 8:1 The Questions listed 8:2 Nobody knew how to answer the questions. "I felt like the doctor in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers..." 8:3 "I became one of them. I no longer believed in the 1844 Investigative Judgment." Page 9 Once he gave up on 1844, he began to question Ellen White, the "remnant church" concept, the law and the Sabbath, the mark of the beast, even his experience with God. As a new Adventist he seriously contemplated leaving the church if all of this was wrong. "If 1844 was not Biblical, then Adventism was a cult." He went back to study the Bible. After an intensive Bible investigation, "I was more convinced of Adventism than I had been when I first came to the Adventist community..." Page 10 Once he "understood" 1844, everything else about Adventism made sense to him. "I knew that this church was everything it claimed to be, and all the doubts about the law, the Sabbath, everything--were obliterated." "I had been forced to learn the message, or leave it." Yet, he soon learned that "every Adventist" he met could not "get 1844 out of the Bible." Page 11 "The mass of American Adventism couldn't give an intelligent study on that doctrine if their eternal destiny depended on it." "...if 1844 is not Biblical, our message is false--we are a false church teaching a false message and leading people down a false path. Either 1844 is true and we have truth, or it's false and we have inherited and peddled lies." "We must be able to give answers for the hope this is within us..." If you are not grounded in this message, how will you be able to stand during the Time of Trouble? Page 12 Most Adventists aren't sure what to do with 1844. "Yet, once it goes, Adventism goes, too." The devil knows this. "He's just waiting for the right moment to take out as many Adventists as he can." He speaks from personal experience. "I know what will happen to those who are not grounded in this message because it happened to me..." But now he has gained "confidence, strength, and surety" from an understanding "Of this truth". Page 13 1844 Made Simple is based on a series of studies he did for American Cassette Ministries. These studies are a simplification of Volumes 1-3 of the Daniel and Revelation Committee series. It is "crucial for our people to be prepared to meet the coming crisis." He did not use Ellen White to develop his 1844 studies. | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1290 Registered: 9-2004 |
Don, is this a joke? Are you going to pretend that Goldstein's work about 1844 has not been discussed to death here on this site? http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/1780/295.html?1013659183 And are we also going to pretend that Goldstein has answered the questions put to him by Tom Norris about his position being impossible and against the fundamentals of Historic Adventism? Or is this new thread meant to actually respond to the unanswered questions that have already been asked about 1844 and the IJ? If it is the latter I am all for it. However, if this is just another exercise in pretending, by those that support Glacier View theology, it will not turn out very well because the more the real issues are avoided the worse this position appears. So which is it? Is this a genuine attempt to deal openly and honestly with the issues or is this just another useless exercise in double-talk, propaganda and diversion from the confused and controlled employees of the church? No doubt we will all find out shortly as your intentions become more clear. However, pardon my doubts because I have yet to find any church employee willing deal with the real questions that expose Glacier View theology as foolish and impossible eschatology that has no support from the Adventist Pioneers as millions of SDA's have been dishonestly led to believe. But there is always a first time for everything, so maybe there is hope? So let's find out if you are serious about honestly dealing with the issues or if you are just here to defend the status quo and make points for yourself within the hierarchy? I think it is the latter, but I am willing to be surprised? So go ahead, wade into the issues and make sure that the real questions are addressed and put to Mr. Goldstein for an answer. I will be interested in seeing his attempts to deal with the issues that so far he has carefully avoided. Tom Norris for honest Adventist Reform | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1646 Registered: 8-2004 |
He did not use Ellen White to develop his 1844 studies. Yes this was Cliff's claim for the last quarter's lesson study guide. It is B.S. There are even elements in this preview chapter that point out just how much EGW is this doctrine. Granted she did not invent it, but it is her authority that has sustained it. Once he gave up on 1844, he began to question Ellen White, the "remnant church" concept, the law and the Sabbath, the mark of the beast, even his experience with God. As a new Adventist he seriously contemplated leaving the church if all of this was wrong. "If 1844 was not Biblical, then Adventism was a cult." Why would this doctrine bring you to question EGW if it is not a reflection of her thoughts? Does his statement at the end above mean that if purgatory is not Biblical the Roman Catholic church is a cult? If speaking in tongues is not the second blessing of the Holy Spirit is pentecostalism a cult? Having wrong beliefs does not make it a cult. It merely makes it a stubborn denomination that regards it's own authority higher then searching for truth. In that it matches most every other denomination, with the exception of the Worldwide Church of God which actually did change. Want to see some more EGW influence from the above chapter: If you are not grounded in this message, how will you be able to stand during the Time of Trouble? Really where would that thought come from. Where would we get this idea that faith in God is not enough but we must be grounded in the IJ. Ellen perhaps? Most Adventists aren't sure what to do with 1844. "Yet, once it goes, Adventism goes, too." The devil knows this. "He's just waiting for the right moment to take out as many Adventists as he can." He speaks from personal experience. "I know what will happen to those who are not grounded in this message because it happened to me..." I wonder where Cliff gets the knowledge of the Devil, to tell us just how the devil's personal experience is so similar. I don't see it in my Bible, there is precious little about the devil. But thanks to the many writings of EGW SDA's think they know all about the Devil, how and why he fell and lots more. But of course it is all done without Ellen White yet amazingly it is only convincing to those who hold to Ellen White. Strange how that works isn't it? New Protestants.com | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 2442 Registered: 5-2006 |
So which is it? I think Elaine requested the summary, I could be mistaken. Tom, I am looking forward to a simple explanation of Daniel 8 and 9 from your vantage point. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 2443 Registered: 5-2006 |
My contention is that all interpretations of Daniel should be clear and simply explained. Cliff G. has done that. Brinsmead, in his first phase, did that. I am not saying that the interpretation is correct, I am looking for clear and simple teaching of one's view. Tom, I'm waiting. Ron, I'm waiting. | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1421 Registered: 9-2004 |
Don, we have been over this time and again. Simply stated, if you do not believe in the year-day principle, these is no basis for a discussion. The time element is the yr-day interpretation of prophecy. Ford gave it up and all on this board do the same. So what will you or Cliff explain? No SDA explanation is relevant unless you accept the yr.-day principle. Why they keep asking Cliff to explain his position is beyond me. Sorensen | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1647 Registered: 8-2004 |
No SDA explanation is relevant unless you accept the yr.-day principle. This is very true but remember the year day principle was very popular from the 1700's on in Christianity. There is a reason it passed however. It was found to be inaccurate every time it was used. So it was abandoned. The exception mainly being SDA's and a few more historicist's. For SDA's the claim is that it occurred it was just something that happened in heaven where no one can see it. For Jehovah's Witnesses their time prophecy occurred also and again it was invisible. Those have been the only uses of the year day principle and they work only because you can't show they are wrong being they are out of the observable world. The only one that has ever worked was the seventy sevens. But that does not even use days, so it can't be using day for a year either. It was a couple years ago we asked Cliff to explain the year day principle but he could not do it either clearly or simply. He referred us to Shea's work, which is neither clear nor simple. New Protestants.com | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 2444 Registered: 5-2006 |
The Year-Day Principle is certainly essential to the time prophecy. Once that is accepted, there are other elements to work out. I believe the Bible to be inspired, I don't consider my interpretation of the Bible to be inspired, but interpret I must. I am still waiting to see how Tom explains Daniel 8 and 9 simply and clearly. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 5345 Registered: 1-2005 |
Don, as I remember the symbols of the Temple, the Day of Atonement was equated with Christ's Death on the Cross. That blood was taken into the Most Holy Place to make atonement. Question, how do the Adventists, delay between the Death on the cross and 1844 the delivery of the Atonement Blood into the Most Holy , and say that until 1844 that a ministry in the Holy place was taking place. Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.--- Dr. Suess | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 2445 Registered: 5-2006 |
Mother Teresa and the Little Horn of Daniel 7  In our Grade 11 Religion Curriculum we study Daniel and Revelation. We examine Daniel 7, the Little Horn, and why Adventists interpret it as the papacy, or the power of the pope. We sometimes have RCC young people attend our school. I am quite sensitive to how this Adventist view settles with them. This time round, I decided that after presenting Daniel 7, I would show the film of Mother Teresa. It is a very effective portrayal of her. The students enjoyed it. After the showing of the movie, I asked them to write a response to it. "Include your thoughts about her, her ideas, her struggles, even apparent miracles that helped her work. "Also, include the "Little Horn" power of Daniel 7 somehow in your response." I wanted to see how they reconcile the Adventist view of the "Little Horn" as the papacy with this very Catholic woman who worked so intensely for the poor of Calcutta and won the support of the even the pope. http://www.oliviahussey.com/olivia_scrapbook/Pamphlet_01.htm | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1422 Registered: 9-2004 |
Bob asked.... "Question, how do the Adventists, delay between the Death on the cross and 1844 the delivery of the Atonement Blood into the Most Holy , and say that until 1844 that a ministry in the Holy place was taking place." We have already explained that, Bob. Now you explain how any conclusion except all are saved or none are saved follows your understanding if Jesus made the final atonement in AD 31. Sorensen | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 5346 Registered: 1-2005 |
Certainly the blood was shed and no further sanctuary service was performed other than the day of atonement. There were those in camp that were not in the right frame of mind to be forgiven. If you have already explained that, Bill, give me the posting cite. Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.--- Dr. Suess | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1423 Registered: 9-2004 |
Certainly the blood was shed and no further sanctuary service was performed other than the day of atonement. There were those in camp that were not in the right frame of mind to be forgiven. Bob, you still did not explain how either all are lost after AD 31 or all are saved. Nothing to do with "atonement" was happening after yom kippur. If AD 31 was the antitype of yom kippur, then after that all are ipos facto saved......or all are ipso facto lost. Which is it? Sorensen | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1424 Registered: 9-2004 |
Maybe I should ask, when Jesus entered the most holy place in AD 31, who did He apply the blood for? If you say "The whole world" then faith is not relevant. Everyone is saved whether they respond or not. But if it was applied only for those who had repented up to AD 31, then all are lost from that point on. The most holy place ministry is a judgment and close of human probation ministry. If forgiveness is still offered, you have simply put Jesus back into the first apartment which is what SDA's teach. The first apartment is on going probation and the second a judgment and a close of probation. So, tell me how probation closed in AD 31. Sorensen | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 101 Registered: 7-2006 |
Hebrews 9 and 10 quite vividly uses imagery from the Day of Atonement to illustrate Christ's accomplishments on behalf of humanity. Note Heb. 9:25: "Nor did he enter heaven again and again the way that the high priest enters the MHP every year with blood that is not his own." Chapter 10 again specifically refers to the futility of the high priest's annual venture into the MHP, vs 1,2. Chapter 10 vs. 3 mentions the "annual" (NIV) reminder of sins. The argument here is that the people were never really cleansed from their sins during the year until the priest entered the MHP, which is what Christ did at his ascension, thereby perfecting forever those who are being sanctified. Whoever you think those who are being sanctified might be, Hebrews teaches that Christ entered the MHP once in the end of the world, just as the high priest entered at the end of the year. His entry into the MHP will forever cleanse the conscience of the believers, just as the yearly service gave final rest to the Jewish worshippers. Adventists make the great mistake of trying to interpret the ministry of Christ in light of the OT rather than interpreting the OT in light of the plain declarations of the NT writers. The result is confusion and misunderstanding, as is evinced by the false teachings which permeate Adventism. And due to their dependence on EGW, they craft numerous objections to the plain teaching of rightly interpreted Scripture. Shame, shame, shame. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 2447 Registered: 5-2006 |
Adventists make the great mistake of trying to interpret the ministry of Christ in light of the OT rather than interpreting the OT in light of the plain declarations of the NT writers. It seems to me that Christ explained his ministry by starting with the Hebrew Scriptures: "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." Luke 24:27 I agree that once the NT Canon stands, that it is an important explainer of Christ's mission. The notion of Judgment found in the Sanctuary Service and in Paul's writings seems to give good reason for viewing it still in the future. The connection with the Day of Atonement and the Judgment seems to extend the Day of Atonement symbolism beyond the cross. | ||
| Bob Sands (Bob_2) member Username: Bob_2 Post Number: 5347 Registered: 1-2005 |
I don't have a problem with the Day of Atonement being extended past the Cross, but Glenn points out that there were not repeated sacrifices that would be required if a Holy Place ministry took place from AD 31 to present. Hebrews is clear that there were no more sacrifices, but that we have a mediator that is ever present in the Holy of Holies ministering for us. The 1844 doctrine doesn't have him ministering or having presented His blood to God until 1844 in the Holy Place. Bill, your point is about Calvin's "L" in Tulip, Limited Atonement. No the Atonement is for all, but not all will repent. But what does that have to do with 1844. The second coming is the end, is the Judgement, until that time, he is a Mediator for our sins, through one sacrifice which was done on the "Day" of Atonement. The actions of Christ from His death through all the acts of the Day of Atonement, the loading of sins on the scapegoat, etc, take chronological place from the cross forward. The blood is not set aside, the Holy Place ministry does not take place from AD 31 to 1844, then the Day of Atonement happens, the death of the Atonement lamb happens on the Day of Atonement, and continues as a remedy until he comes, to all who accept through repentance. Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.--- Dr. Suess |
