Archive through April 14, 2002 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Adventist of Tomorrow » Doctrinal Discussions » Adventist Doctrines/Practices » 1844: Cottrell's challenge and An Answer » Archive through April 14, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges)
Posted on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 10:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The following is a full text segment of Cottrell's paper:

THE "SANCTUARY DOCTRINE" –– ASSET OR LIABILITY?
Raymond F. Cottrell, D. Div.
Delivered first to the second JIF symposium in 02-04 November 2001
and publicly again on 09 February 2002 at the Assoc. of Adventist Forums meeting in San Diego, CA

The traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 with its sanctuary and investigative judgment, which gave birth to Seventh-day Adventism and accounts for its existence as a distinct entity within Christendom, has been the object of more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined. The same is true with respect to church discipline on doctrinal grounds, defections from the church, and the diversion of time, attention, and resources from Adventism's perceived mission to the world.

It has been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that an ordained minister may believe that Christ was a created being (and not God in the full sense of the word), or that a person can earn salvation by faithfully observing the Ten Commandments, or that Genesis 1 is not a literal account of creation a mere six thousand years ago –– without being disciplined and forfeiting his ministerial credentials. But it has also been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that an ordained minister may not conscientiously question the authenticity of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, even in his thoughts, without his ministerial credentials being revoked. As noted below, in several instances as much as half a century of faithful service to the church has not been sufficient to mitigate this result.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to review the origin, history, and methodology of the sanctuary doctrine, to examine it on the basis of the sola Scriptura principle and recognized principles of exegesis, and to explore procedures by means of which to avoid repeating the traumatic experiences of the church with it in the past –– to learn from experience.

Insofar as possible this paper avoids technical hermeneutical terminology, including the transliteration of Hebrew words used by Bible scholars. The transliteration used is designed to enable persons not familiar with biblical Hebrew to approximate the Hebrew vocalization. Except as otherwise noted, Bible quotations cited are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

The paper proceeds as follows:

ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE
(Page numbers on the printed document available from the San Diego Forum).
1. Formation of the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
2. Ellen G. White and the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Six Church Leaders Question the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . 5
4. Continuing Casualties of the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . 7
5. Non-Adventist Reaction to the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . 11
6. My Personal Encounter With the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . 11

A SOLA SCRIPTURA EXAMINATION of the DOCTRINE
7. "Rightly Explaining the Word of Truth," 2 Tim.2:15. . . . 13
8. "Rightly Explaining" Daniel 8:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
9. Flaws in the Traditional Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. The Sanctuary Doctrine and Sola Scriptura . . . . . . . . . . 28

DOCTRINAL OBSCURANTISM AND ITS REMEDY
11. Obscurantism and the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. The Daniel and Revelation Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13. A Permanent Remedy for Obscurantism . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
14. The Authenticity of Adventism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges)
Posted on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 11:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I had to split the full text segment, here is the second part:

1. Formation of the Sanctuary Doctrine

1-1 Pioneer Seventh-day Adventists inherited their identification of the year 1844 as the terminus of the 2300 "days" foretold in the KJV of Daniel 8:14 from William Miller. Formerly an avowed skeptic, he was converted in 1816 and eventually became a Baptist lay preacher. He devoted his first two years as a born-again Christian to a diligent study of the Bible, which eventually came to a focus on Daniel 8:14 and the conclusion that it foretold the second coming of Christ "about the year 1843."

1-2 According to the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia Miller "repeatedly declared that his prophetic views were not new," but insisted that he came to his conclusions exclusively through his own study of the Bible and reference to a concordance. In volume 4 of his Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers Le Roy Edwin Froom notes that Miller was by no means the "originator" of the idea that the 2300 "days" were prophetic years ending about 1843, and that it is "a simple historical fact that the origin of the view of the 2,300 years as ending at that time, and its wide circulation, was wholly prior to and independent of William Miller."1

1-3 By what process did Miller, this formidable array of Bible students, and pioneer Adventists arrive at 1843/44 as the terminus of the 2300 "days" of Daniel 8:14? Relying on the 1611 King James translation of the Bible (the only one then available), they (1) identified its "sanctuary" as the church on earth, (2) accepted the KJV interpretation of erev boquer (literally, "evening morning") as "days," (3) adopted the "day-for-a-year" principle in Bible prophecy and thus construed the 2300 "days" as prophetic years, (4) took the seventy "weeks" of Daniel 9:24-27 as the first segment of these 2300 years, (5) identified the cessation of sacrifice and offering for the last half of the seventieth of the seventy "weeks" (verse 27) as referring to Jesus' crucifixion,2 (6) figuring back from the crucifixion, they identified the decree of the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus in his seventh year (Ezra 7) as that alluded to in Daniel 9:25, thus locating the commencement of the 2300 years in 457 B.C., (7) with 457 B.C. as their starting point, terminated them "about the year 1843," (8) adopted the KJV interpretation of nitsdaq (literally, "set right" or "restored") as "cleansed," and (9) concluded that the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 meant the cleansing of the church on earth (and thus the earth itself) by fire at the second coming of Christ.

1-4 When the great disappointment of October 22, 1844 proved conclusively that Miller's identification of the "sanctuary" in Daniel 8:14 as the church on earth and the nature of its cleansing as by fire at the second coming of Christ,3 were in error, pioneer Adventists re-identified the "sanctuary" of verse 14 as that of the Book of Hebrews in heaven,4 and its cleansing as the heavenly counterpart of the cleansing of the ancient sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.5

1-5 Retaining, however, the presumed validity of October 22, 1844 as the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 and the concept that it implied the soon return of their Lord, the disappointed Adventist pioneers assumed that human probation had indeed closed on that fateful day, and that only those who at that time awaited His return were eligible for eternal life. They referred to this concept as "the shut door" in the parable of the Ten Virgins.6 They soon mated the "shut door" theory to the idea that the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 was the sanctuary in heaven, of the book of Hebrews, that the "shut door" was the "door" between its holy and most holy apartments, that on October 22 Christ had closed His ministry in the holy place and entered upon His high priestly ministry in its most holy place, and referred to His ministry there as an "investigative judgment."

1-6 For several years the "little flock" of pioneer Seventh-day Adventists "scattered abroad" believed that the investigative judgment phase of Christ's ministry would be very brief (not more than five years or so at the most),7 following which He would immediately return to earth. The eventual accession of new, non-1844, members to the "little flock" proved to be convincing evidence that the door of mercy remained open, and by the early 1850's they abandoned the "shut door" aspect of the sanctuary-in-heaven interpretation of Daniel 8:14.

1-7 This completed the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment, which was thereafter commonly referred to as "the sanctuary doctrine" set forth in every statement of beliefs, most recently as article 23 of the 27 Fundamental Beliefs adopted at the 1980 session of the General Conference in New Orleans.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges)
Posted on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 11:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The Sanctuary, the Atonement, 1844, and the Judgment:
A critique by Hubert F. Sturges
of – THE "SANCTUARY DOCTRINE" –– ASSET OR LIABILITY? by Raymond F. Cottrell, D. Div.
Full text article by Cottrell: http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/AssetOrLiability.html

The Sanctuary Doctrine (TSD) is a paper describing the view of Raymond Cottrell (Cottrell) which diverges significantly from the view of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA). I (HFS) am a Seventh-day Adventist layman and am offering this critique as a token of what a layman can understand. I do not pretend to be a scholar. However, I do believe that the Bible was meant to be used and understood by the people, and I am a “people”.

Am I biased in making this presentation? I probably am. In this paper, Cottrell indicates a bias in that he discusses not only the doctrine per se, but also shows “damage” in the lives of certain individuals. I can only ask, if a person chooses not to believe a central doctrine of the SDA church, and for that reason separates or is separated from the church; is any damage somehow the fault of the church? I also suspect that in presenting some of the names, he is defending “red Nellie’s honor”, but I’ll leave that for you to decide!

Will my presentation be convincing? Probably not. Most people who spend any time investigating this subject tend to have a strong conviction (bias) one way or the other. However, I DO hope to show that the SDA belief in the Sanctuary doctrine is a reasonable belief and has Bible evidence for support. Whether this belief is the “best” interpretation, is for the reader to decide for himself.

This presentation will be given in a series of posts, following the numbers and sections in Cottrell’s paper:
1. Formation of the Sanctuary Doctrine
2. Ellen G. White and the Sanctuary Doctrine
3. Six Church Leaders Who Questioned the Sanctuary Doctrine
4. Continuing Casualties of the Sanctuary Doctrine
5. Non-Adventist Reaction to the Sanctuary Doctrine
6. My Personal Encounter With the Sanctuary Doctrine
7. "Rightly Explaining the Word of Truth"
Three Methods of Bible Study

8. "Rightly Explaining" Daniel 8:14
Daniel's Perspective of Salvation History
Four KJV Translation Errors That Led Pioneer Adventists Astray
The Immediate Context of Daniel 8:14
Daniel 9 as Proximate, Continuing Context for 8:14

9. Flaws in the Sanctuary Doctrine
10. The Sanctuary Doctrine and Sola Scriptura
11. Obscurantism and the Sanctuary Doctrine
A Window of Hope and Opportunity at Mid-Century
Architects of Obscurantism
Aftermath of the Decade of Obscurantism
The Nature and Raison d'Etre of Doctrinal Obscurantism

12. The Daniel and Revelation Committee
13. A Permanent Remedy for Doctrinal Obscurantism.
14. The Authenticity of Adventism


After each post is given, time (several days) will be allowed for responses, yours and mine. Bible based evidence, for or against certain points will be most highly regarded. Then the next post will be given, till the subject is finished.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cottrell’s Introduction: Parts of his paper do not directly relate to a discussion of the Sanctuary doctrine, and will not be commented on.

1. Formation of the Sanctuary Doctrine;

Cottrell and others point out that Miller was not the first, nor was he alone in his interpretation. The following is quoted verbatim from TSD:

1-3. .“”By what process did Miller, this formidable array of Bible students, and pioneer Adventists arrive at 1843/44 as the terminus of the 2300 "days" of Daniel 8:14? Relying on the 1611 King James translation of the Bible (the only one then available), they (1) identified its "sanctuary" as the church on earth, (2) accepted the KJV interpretation of erev boquer (literally, "evening morning") as "days," (3) adopted the "day-for-a-year" principle in Bible prophecy and thus construed the 2300 "days" as prophetic years, (4) took the seventy "weeks" of Daniel 9:24-27 as the first segment of these 2300 years, (5) identified the cessation of sacrifice and offering for the last half of the seventieth of the seventy "weeks" (verse 27) as referring to Jesus' crucifixion,2 (6) figuring back from the crucifixion, they identified the decree of the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus in his seventh year (Ezra 7) as that alluded to in Daniel 9:25, thus locating the commencement of the 2300 years in 457 B.C., (7) with 457 B.C. as their starting point, terminated them "about the year 1843," (8) adopted the KJV interpretation of nitsdaq (literally, "set right" or "restored") as "cleansed," and (9) concluded that the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 meant the cleansing of the church on earth (and thus the earth itself) by fire at the second coming of Christ.

1-4. .“”When the great disappointment of October 22, 1844 proved conclusively that Miller's identification of the "sanctuary" in Daniel 8:14 as the church on earth and the nature of its cleansing as by fire at the second coming of Christ,3 were in error, pioneer Adventists re-identified the "sanctuary" of verse 14 as that of the Book of Hebrews in heaven,4 and its cleansing as the heavenly counterpart of the cleansing of the ancient sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.5 “”


Cottrell then describes the early belief in the “shut door” doctrine, and states that it was this that led to the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. He ignores the vision of Hiram Edson, and the intense Bible study of the pioneers that followed. Also there were some who recognized the need for a pre-advent judgment, even before 1844.

This is just the introduction, and there may not be much to discuss at this point. –ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey)
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 10:49 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well is the vision of Hiram Edson the one that occurred in the cornfield? I think that was the vision that began to show a way out of the great disappointment.

But many conservative Christians are very skeptical of modern visions. Visions after the canon of Scpriture has been closed are suspect to many conservative Christians.

And many people and groups have embarked on intense Bible study through out the Christian era. None outside of Adventism have been able to find the Investigative Judgement.

Now Dr. Ford believes in a pre-advent judgement and Dr. Cottrell may too. But Ford rejects the investigative judgement that started in 1844 which is now over 150 years.

Ford likes to point out that Mrs. White taught an investigative judgement and that it would be short and then the Lord would return. Ford says even those who still support Mrs. White's positon now have to surrender part of it. It certainly can't be claimed to be short here at the beginning of the 21 century.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ron Corson (Roca88)
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 5:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hubert wrote:
After each post is given, time (several days) will be allowed for responses, yours and mine. Bible based evidence,for or against certain points will be most highly regarded. Then the next post will be given, till the subject is finished.

"Till the subject is finished"!!

You are certainly one of the biggest optimists on this list Hubert.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges)
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 5:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert,
Hiram Edson's vision in the corn field was just the start. The Seventh day Sabbath had not even been discovered or accepted as yet. This vision was to a rather small group of the Millerites that accepted these doctrines and began to form the SDA church. Most of the Millerites formed their own churches, which have largely faded away, or remained static at best.

After Hiram Edson's vision, there was intense Bible study, and it was several years before the doctrine was fully understood.

I don't think we know everything that was believed in the past. Maybe others believed this doctrine, maybe not. If 1844 was the critical time, it would be easy to see that the principle importance of the doctrine would be at that time.

You said:. ."But many conservative Christians are very skeptical of modern visions."

And for good reason. Visions and direct messages from God are a fertile field for fanaticism. Any "prophet" and his/her message must be rigorously tested. Hiram Edson was a man with "one vision". From that point on, he and others had to study it out for themselves. I'm sure, if one were to collect the stories, one would find that God still communicates directly with His people when needed. However, "one vision" does not a prophet make.

((Maybe an aside, why are many so ready to accept the "visions" of Mary here and there, yet come down so hard on EGW? If we knew the private lives of those who have had those visions (of Mary) we would find that they were not perfect either.))
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges)
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 5:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ron,
My goals are limited. First to discuss Cottrell's paper, and second to attempt to show that the Sanctuary doctrine is a reasonable doctrine.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

U.Unruh (Ulrike)
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 6:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You have undertaken a "brave" task, Hubert.
I too, believe the 2300 days, 1844 and the IJ are totally and thoroughly Biblical. Whether or not anyone will be convinced of the same, no matter how logically or Biblically based it is presented, can be highly discouraging. But then, we had an excellent sermon today-- that our responsibility IS NOT to convince anyone, that is the work of the holy Spirit, our work is simply to share what we believe.

For what it's worth, here are my comments on this section under discussion.


1. Formation of the Sanctuary Doctrine;

Cottrell and others point out that Miller was not the first, nor was he alone in his interpretation. The following is quoted verbatim from TSD:

1-3. .“”By what process did Miller, this formidable array of Bible students, and pioneer Adventists arrive at 1843/44 as the terminus of the 2300 "days" of Daniel 8:14? Relying on the 1611 King James translation of the Bible (the only one then available),


The first points I would question is

1) The thought (even though denied) that this was limited to English speaking people.
2) the "only Bible" available was the KJ.

Now Miller I believe did use only the concordance and the King James version. BUT what about that "formidable array of Bible students" who came up with similar results in different parts of the world, quite independant of one another?

J.N. Loughbourgh-- who lived in 1844 writes

Quote:

Some people unacquainted with the facts, have looked upon the second advent movement as limited to a certain locality, supposing it a work connected with Willima Miller and a few hundred ministers associated with him in the northern portion of the U.S. To such it may be a surprise to learn that the movement in America, in which Miller and Himes were prominent leaders, was but a small part of a great movement that went "to the ends of the earth." (The Great Second Advent Movement page 98)




Pastor L.R. Conradi of Germany writes in the RH, Dec. 13, 1892


Quote:

Bengel, in Germany, kindled the love for the appearing of our Lord in many a heart, which led thousands to study the prophetic word as never before...The light shone in Germany, and publications showing the application of the 2300 days were circulated there. A religious awakening followed, especially in Wurtemburg, and as persecution arose, hundreds of families went to Southern Russia and there spread it....

After 1836 or when Bengel's Computation had expired, ...a notice concerning a book from L. Henry Kelber, concerning the great and glad events which were to take place in the years 1843 and 1844. We procured the said book, and read it with a number of interested persons, with locked doors, in the year 1839-40. The book showed from Daniel, and the Revelation and Matthew 24, that the end was at hand, and had also a table of computation, showing how the above date was reached.




There were others--

Hentzepeter in Holland investigated the Scriptures on the subject and in the year 1830 published a pamphlet, he wrote another int 1841. It wasn't until 1842 that even heard of William Miller.

In the "Irish Magazine 1821" there is the story of an Irish Missionary going to Tartary (Turkestan) and a priest there asked him when Christ would return. The missionary didn't know, and the priest said he thought "everyone might know that had a Bible. Christ would come about 1844.

Now, I doubt very much that all these people were using the King James Version.
In fact, even the English speaking people were using "other Bibles" J.N Andrews could read the Bible in seven languages. We see the pioneers quoting from the Douey Bible, the Vulgate, they were into books on Biblical languages etc. as well.



they (1) identified its "sanctuary" as the church on earth,

Well, actually there was considerable "ambiguty" here. Miller came up with a "seven fold" meaning-- and then narrowed it down to two "The earth and the Church". The earth would be cleansed by fire and the saints would be cleansed and translated.

This is the CLEAR MISTAKE of the Millerites.

1. The earth is NOT cleansed at Christ's second coming, it is left desolate, as an abyss, the bottomless pit, in which the father of all evil and his angels are bound for a thousand years. The wicked will yet, after the 1000 years, tramp from all over the earth like the sands of the sea against God's Holy city. The earth will not be cleansed by fire till after the thousand years are over.

2. The saints are NOT cleansed at Christ's second coming. The saints MUST be washed and cleansed in the blood of the Lamb, and wearing the clean linen, pure and white BEFORE He comes. They will then be changed from mortality to immortality, exchanging corruptable bodies for incorruptable. But they are not then CLEANSED-- For before HE comes the decree goes forth-- "let him who is righteous be righteous still and he that is filthy be filthy still, and behold I am coming quickly and My reward is with Me...." Rev. 22:11,12
Those who are NOT cleansed BEFORE the second coming will NOT enter the kingdom of God!

This is why the SANCTUARY message, which came after the disappointment and pointed the believers to the heavenly sanctuary is so important.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey)
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 7:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hubb. The visions of Mary are completely rejected and believed to be false or from the devil by conservative protestants of several denominations down here in the southern United States.

They call it the Bible belt down here and some even say it's the buckle on the Bible belt:-)

And remember we have Bob Jones University down here in South Carloina too. And they are on record as stating the Catholic church is false and a satantic cult.

While we still have many conservative protestant Christians down here with churches everywhere, we also have a growing secular and liberal population. Some come from other parts of the country and others are the decendents of the conservative Christians who give up the faith after they are educated in the universities about modern views of Darwinism, evolution, biology etc.

As recently as 20 to 30 years ago, we had no liquor by the drink, topless and adult nightclubs, porno stores etc. and Sunday blue laws were in several states and many areas were dry. No booze sold at all anywhere in that county including beer and wine. And as these things, liquor and adult nightclubs etc, began to move in and changes took place, the conservative churches fought and demonstrated to keep it out, but finally gave up as those who wanted liquor by the drink, adult nightclubs and the right to do secular business including running nightclubs and selling booze on Sunday kept winning in court.

I can remember when one couldn't by a beer on Sunday or go to a movie. Then it was changed to after 12 noon and for the last 15 years or so, Sunday is just as wide open as any other day. The beer joints, liquor parlors, nightclubs and strip joints are rocking 7 days a week here in the conservative south now.

Now we can party till the cows come home and drink till we see two of everything with the beautiful, (at least they look beautiful to many of the guys I work with after 5 beers:-) girls up on the stage swinging around a long metal pole in their birthday suites.

I remember when a theatre showing Marlon Brando's Last Tango in Paris was locked up and the manager was jailed for showing filth in town. That movie is tame compaired to what is shown in the XXX theatres now. And the police never raid anybody today.

Still churches everywhere with most of them full, but lots of party people letting it loose and rocking full tilt down here now too.

Heck. We even have some GAY bars now!

Hollywood and New York have come to the south!! Hot Dog!!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Dale Lackey (Boblackey)
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 7:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ulrike. Good to see you. Well I can't actually see you:-)

Glad to hear you had a good Sabbath at church.

You are right. At the second coming or after our death, which ever should come first, if we are not already clothed in Christ's robe of righteousness, been washed in the blood, we are lost. For then it is too late to turn to Christ.

Today is the day of salvation. Tomorrow may be too late.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges)
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 8:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert,
WHY are the churches full, yet society is going downhill so fast? Could it be the "no law" preaching that is so common? "If God doesn't care, you can always fool the cops!"

Ulrike,
Thank you for information of the 1844 movement in Germany. I had heard of Edward Irving in Britain, Joseph Wolffe in the Mid-East, and Lacunza in South America. I hadn't heard about Germany.

The Adventist church in Russia arose from the German "Mennonites". The Russians did not care what "those Germans" believed. But when an ethnic Russian became an Adventist, that was another story. According to the SDA encyclopedia, that was Theofil Babienco, my wife's grandfather! He was exiled to Stavropol, a steel city in the Caucasus. His son, Axentie Theofil Dominivich Babienco was born there -- along with another famous citizen, Mikhail Gorbachev. They immigrated to USA via Canada.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges)
Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 3:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Full Text: Post #2

2. Ellen G. White and the Sanctuary Doctrine

2-1 The ultimate argument in defense of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 every time questions have been raised concerning it, has been Ellen White's explicit affirmation of it. As a presumably infallible interpreter of Scripture her support always settled the matter. For instance, in 1888, forty-four years after the great disappointment of October 22, 1844 she wrote: "The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith, was the declaration, 'Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.'"8 She devoted an entire chapter in The Great Controversy to a defense and explanation of the sanctuary doctrine.9 Eighteen years later, in 1906, she wrote again: "The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith."10

2-2 In order to understand these two statements in their historical context it is important to remember that she and many others then living had personally experienced the great disappointment of October 22, 1844. Her statements about it were absolutely historically accurate. The experience was still vivid in her own mind and in the minds of many others.

2-3 In both of these statements Ellen White is simply stating historical fact; she is not exegeting Scripture. In 1895 she wrote: "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible."11 "The Bible is the only rule of faith and doctrine. ... The Bible alone ... [is] the foundation of our faith. ... The Bible alone is to be our guide. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of [God's] will. ... We are to receive God's word as supreme authority."12 Numerous similar statements could be cited.13 It is important to remember that she never considered herself an exegete of the Bible. Upon numerous occasions when asked for what her questioners proposed to accept as an authoritative, infallible interpretation of a disputed Bible passage she refused, and told them to go to the Bible themselves for an answer.

2-4 It is also vital to remember that in Ellen White's 47,00014 or so citations of Scripture she makes use of the Bible in two distinct ways: (1) to quote the Bible when narrating the Bible story in its own context, and (2) to apply Bible principles in her counsel to the church today---out of its biblical context.

2-5 A clear illustration of this two-fold use of the Bible is her series of comments on Galatians 3:24: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.". . (1) In 1856 she identified that law as the ceremonial law system of ancient times, and specifically not the Ten Commandments.15. . (2) In 1883 she again identified that "law" as "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."16

2-6 (3) In 1896 she wrote: "In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law."17. . (4) In 1900 she wrote: "I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. ... I answer: both the ceremonial and moral code of Ten Commandments."18. . (5) In 1911 she again identified the law in Galatians as exclusively "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."19}

2-7 In these three reversals (ceremonial law exclusively, Ten Commandments exclusively, both the ceremonial law and the Ten Commandments, ceremonial law exclusively) was she contradicting herself or did she repeatedly change her mind? Neither! A careful reading of each statement in its own context makes evident that. . (1) when she identifies the law in Galatians as the ceremonial law system of ancient times she is commenting on Galatians in its own historical context, and. . (2) when she applies the principle involved to our time she does so out of its biblical context. The principle involved in Paul's day and in ours is identical: the Galatians could not be saved by a rigorous observance of the ceremonial laws; nor can we be saved by a rigorous observance of the Ten Commandments! The two contradictory definitions of the law in Galatians are both valid and accurate! A careful examination of Ellen White's thousands of quotations from, or allusion to, the Bible makes evident that her historical statements regarding Daniel 8:14 are historically accurate with respect to the 1844 experience and not a denial of what the passage meant in Daniel's time.

2-8 We may think of the heavenly sanctuary explanation of the great disappointment as a prosthetic device, a spiritual crutch that enabled the "little flock" of Adventist pioneers "scattered abroad"' to survive the great disappointment of October 22, 1844 and not lose faith in the imminent return of Jesus, as so many others did. That explanation was the best they could do, given the prooftext method on which, of necessity, they relied. With the historical method at our disposal today, we no longer need that crutch and would do well to lay it up on the shelf of history. It is counterproductive in our witness to the everlasting gospel today, to biblically literate Adventists and non-Adventists alike.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges)
Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 3:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Answer:

2. Ellen G. White and the Sanctuary Doctrine

Cottrell said: “The ultimate argument in defense of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 every time questions have been raised concerning it, has been Ellen White's explicit affirmation of it.”

In this light, I am quoting at length from EGW:

“Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith as been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder Hiram Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, . . . . When they came to the point in their study where they said, ‘We can do nothing more,’ the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, . . . in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood.
“During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was one of the greatest sorrows of my life. . . . the brethren knew that when not in vision, I could not understand these matters, and they accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations given.
“For two or three years my mind continued to be locked to an understanding of the Scriptures. . .” Selected Messages, vol.1, p. 206, 207.

“When a doctrine is presented that does not meet our minds, we should go to the word of God, seek the Lord in prayer, and give no place for the enemy to come in with suspicion and prejudice.” Gospel Workers, p. 301



From the first quotation, it becomes plain that there was intense Bible study in formulating the doctrines of the SDA church. When problems arose, God did intervene, but it was always to lead people to the correct understanding of the BIBLE. The Bible was primary in understanding doctrine at the first, and continues to be so. The Spirit of Prophecy is a help.

It is surprising to me if and when educated SDAs take the “easy way out” and use the Spirit of Prophecy as the basis for doctrine. I firmly believe in the Spirit of Prophecy. I believe that God gave messages to His people through the ministry of Ellen G. White. But she too, states that we should go to the word of God to understand doctrine.

When someone like Cottrell makes the statement that our doctrine is based on the Spirit of Prophecy, that is simply not true, and never was. It has become a “clichee” for those who oppose certain SDA doctrines, and is usually offered with no documentation or proof. Where and when it IS true, the onus rests upon the one who so misuses the Spirit of Prophecy.

Cottrell then goes on to describe EGW’s use of the “law in Galatians” (both moral and ceremonial laws involved), which is another subject and does not directly bear on our topic. He also says that the Sanctuary doctrine was a crutch in the 1840's and is no longer needed today. It is even a hindrance to our witness today. These statements are without documentation of any kind. No one ever has left the SDA church, and leaving off these doctrines, has succeeded in raising up a new church!!

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration