| Author |
Message |
    
Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen)
Old Hand,
Username: Billsorensen
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 7:00 pm: |       |
In fact, her later, (post 1888) position on the Gospel is 180 degrees different from her earlier position, but the Takoma Park leaders failed to share this critically important fact with the church.
Tom, you are so wrong on everything you write...... Notice the date on this EGW comment.
-BC- WM
-TI- Welfare Ministry
-CN- 42
-CT- The Present and Eternal Rewards
-PR- 04
-PG- 315
-TEXT-
<SB The Two Oars--Faith and Works. <EB--If we are
faithful in doing our part, in cooperating with Him,
316
God will work through us [to do] the good pleasure of
His will. But He cannot work through us if we make
no effort. If we gain eternal life, we must work, and
work earnestly. . . . Let us not be deceived by the
oft-repeated assertion, "All you have to do is to believe."
Faith and works are two oars which we must use
equally if we [would] press our way up the stream
against the current of unbelief. "Faith, if it hath not
works, is dead, being alone." The Christian is a man
of thought and practice. His faith fixes its roots firmly
in Christ. By faith and good works he keeps his
spirituality strong and healthy, and his spiritual
strength increases as he strives to work the works of
God.--<SI Review and Herald, <EI June 11, 1901.
EGW never changed her theology.
Sorensen |
Tom Norris (Tnorris)
Old Hand,
Username: Tnorris
Post Number: 979
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 8:19 am: | |
Bill, the TSDA, Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:00 pm: "Tom, you are so wrong on everything you write. Notice the date on this EGW comment."
Bill, my friend, if I am wrong about the original version of the Three Angels Messages, your quote from Ellen White about rowboats will hardly prove your case?
If you have any thoughts about defending your Glacier View position, I suggest that you pay closer attention to this discussion. Your response does not come close to dealing with the points raised. You are way off topic. Why have you failed to stick to the point?
First, the topic right now is NOT about the definition of the Gospel, but rather about the definition of the original version of the Three Angels Messages as it relates to the doctrine of the Judgment.
I suggest that you try and deal with the fact that there are TWO very different versions of the Adventist Apocalyptic, and most all SDA's have bought into the false version of Takoma Park and Glacier View.
Second, your comment that "EGW never changed her theology" is very true if we are discussing the Three Angels messages and the 2nd and 5th Pillars of the Three Angels messages. That is exactly MY POINT. She NEVER changed her eschatology to reflect this absurd idea that the IJ is located in the 1st Angels message. Not one Pioneer ever supported this version of Glacier View eschatology.
This is the point that you need to refute. We are not discussing Ellen White's opinion of rowboats, or the relationship between the law and the Gospel right now. So your response makes no sense whatsoever, unless, of course, you are trying to avoid the topic of the IJ and hide the fact that no TSDA can defend Glacier View eschatology?
I suggest that you re-read the latest flurry of posts on this thread about the IJ and try to be responsive to this data instead of speaking to phantom issues that have no bearing on this discussion. Is this possible? Can the TSDA's become honest searchers for truth for once instead of responding as bellicose and blind apologists for their IJ based fraud and confusion?
The TSDA's, as well as the leaders, like Goldstein and Johnsson, need to stop avoiding the real issues and start dealing with the facts. This game of pretending that they are unable to comprehend this discussion is getting tiresome. Those who support Glacier View theology need to stand up and defend their cause or recant. This game of pretending not to understand the issues is getting old. Real old.
Tom Norris, who dares Goldstein and the TSDA's to deal honestly with the facts
|
Ron Corson (Roca88)
Old Hand,
Username: Roca88
Post Number: 1694
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
}There was no IJ at this time. Why? Because the early SDA's did not know about the IJ when the 5th Pillar was set up. In fact, the IJ would not be developed as a concept until the mid to late 1850's, and then, not codified until the mid to late 1870's by Uriah Smith.
Ok I agree with this and am glad you finally said it. clearly this is not Glacier View and as you said codified a mere 10 years after the offical church began.
However, this corrective Pillar of truth that Christ was located in the Heavenly Sanctuary was not the IJ. Rather, the Pioneers only meant that Christ had to deal with some political and priestly duties prior to leaving the Heavenly Sanctuary and coming to earth.
This shows that the pioneers were willing to redefine their interpretations. Which was the beginning of the process that created the IJ. It is only your assumption that the first angel's message is set in Granite and cannot be revised. They did revise it and it was done long ago and EGW taught it.}
|
Ron Corson (Roca88)
Old Hand,
Username: Roca88
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
However, before we are too critical on their efforts to manufacture doctrine, we should remember that the SDA's were operating in uncharted theological waters. They had just participated in the development of a new eschatological paradigm of the Three Angels messages, and the paradigm was not fully complete.
So they naturally felt the need to further develop, refine, and integrate their unique Sabbatarian theology. Which is why their early books were sketchy on doctrine, while the later ones were large tomes, full of details about the IJ and all else.
So you do realize that they were busy interpreting the 3 angel's messages. Why you think that they would not or should not do anything with them I really don't understand. You might say that it was because EGW said not to change them but when you read what she was saying she was accepting all the extra IJ interpretations, so it looks like the problem is that they did not behave as you think they should have in regards to EGW's instructions. That would be debateable at best and then only of any importance to people that hold EGW as a prophet.}
|
Tom Norris (Tnorris)
Old Hand,
Username: Tnorris
Post Number: 980
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
Ron Corson posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - "Ok I agree with this and am glad you finally said it. Clearly this is not Glacier View and as you said codified a mere 10 years after the official church began."
Ron, I have been saying this for years, where have you been? Glacier View represents an absurd and impossible version of eschatology that not one SDA Pioneer could ever support.
Also, make a note: the IJ was NOT codified until the 1870's! It was only "conceptually" developed in the mid-to late 1850's. Which is why Smith's book about the IJ was not published until 1877.
Go back and read those posts again.
Ron said: "This shows that the pioneers were willing to redefine their interpretations. Which was the beginning of the process that created the IJ. It is only your assumption that the first angel's message is set in Granite and cannot be revised. They did revise it and it was done long ago and EGW taught it."
The Pioneers did not, not, not, "redefine" the 1st Angels message. This point is critical for you to understand. The 5th Pillar is not the same as Miller's famous Message about the Judgment (the #2 pillar) that was located in the 1st Angels Message. So you are still in a fog about this. You still don't understand Historic Adventism correctly.
Moreover, if you comprehend what Ellen White says about the "firm platform" and the Three Angels messages, you will come to understand that there can be no revision to these fundamental messages. This is the point of what she is saying.
How in the world you can read these many strong statements, from the early days, until the end of her life, and still think that she or the Pioneers would support any revisions to Miller's famous and foundational message is rather strange. You are not reading her words objectively or clearly. She is not saying what you have been taught.
In addition, if you understood the eschatological minds of the Pioneers, you would see that there was no possibility, or desire, for them to change Miller's great message, which was the foundation for the entire paradigm. They were proud of the 1st and 2nd Angels Messages, and they viewed them as FULFILLED PROPHECY.
Thus, it made no sense for them to ever try and change fulfilled prophecy. This is why they left both the 1st and 2nd Angels Message intact, and warned that all who would become SDA's (the 3rd Angel's Message) must first accept this Millerite history and Prophecy as true and valid.
The Pioneers did NOT "revise" the 1st Angels message whatsoever. And Ellen White does not, not, not, support such a theory. I suggest that you go back and re-read all those quotes from her where she says that these Messages cannot be changed in the slightest. She means exactly what she is saying. There can be no change to the original and historic "platform" of the Three Angels Messages. And this includes, the 1st Angels Message that was dated from 1818 until the spring of 1844.
Ron said: "So you do realize that they were busy interpreting the 3 angel's messages."
No. You are wrong. They were NOT "reinterpreting" the Three Angels messages whatsoever. While the Pioneers did indeed add some additional teachings about the IJ to the 5th Pillar, this is not the same as changing Miller's #2 Pillar about the Judgment that was located in the 1st Angels message.
In fact, they didn't even change Miller's 2300-day chronology, much less the fundamental doctrines of the first two messages. Even though the Millerites, after the disappointment, backed away from the first two messages as fulfilled prophecy, the SDA leaders did not take such a position. That is why they claimed that they alone were the true extension of Historic Adventism. And so they were.
I am amazed that you think this way because there are no published sources that support your theory. This is because it never happened. Unless you count reading the Great Controversy backwards as the TSDA's were taught to do. But that is not the recommended way to search for truth.
Miller had already identified the meaning of the term Judgment way back in 1818. And his Judgment theology, the #2 pillar, was a large part of the 1st Angels Message. By contrast, the 5th pillar was erected in the fall of 1844, AFTER both the 1st and 2nd Angels messages had EXPIRED. Thus the IJ could not have anything to do with Miller's historic message that the Pioneers considered closed up.
It was the 5th Pillar that was revised in the 1850's and codified in the 1870's--NOT Miller's 2nd pillar. This revision to the original pillar about the Heavenly Sanctuary (the 5th) was always viewed within the context of the THIRD Angels Message, never from the 1st as Glacier View claimed.
Miller's famous Pillar was NEVER revised, relocated, amended, or removed by the Pioneers. It was fulfilled prophecy that could not be changed in the slightest. And when they made this mistake in Takoma Park and at Glacier View, it was illegitimate; because the leaders had no right whatsoever to take this outrageously false position, much less pretend that the Pioneers supported it. Glacier View was a total and complete fraud. It will not stand if Historic Adventism is to survive. They are mutually exclusive.
Under no circumstances did the Pioneers think that this revised sanctuary doctrine (associated the 5th Pillar and the 3rd Angels message) was now to be located in the 1st Angels message, replacing Miller's famous eschatology about the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment (the #2 Pillar). It never happened. NEVER.
This theory is nothing more than Glacier View myth and deception. Run from it. It is poison. Our incompetent, dishonest, and stupid leaders have misled the entire church on this critical point. In their hatred for the Gospel, they overlooked the facts, suppressed documents, and played loose with the fundamentals. And now look at this mess?
Just when the final events seem to be coming into better focus, the SDA's have repudiated their prophetic mandate. They have abandoned their unique Apocalyptic. Why would the leaders do this? So they won't have to confess their Glacier View corruption and repent. That's why. To "chart a new course" is the same as running from the crime scene. This "new course" is designed to take this church away from the Glacier View and away from any discussion about the fundamentals or the Pioneers. But it won't work this time. Every SDA will come to know what the Review and the White Estate have done. There is nowhere to hide.
The fact of the matter is that we have all been so thoroughly and repeatedly indoctrinated into these false IJ based traditions that the truth seems strange and impossible to our ears. The simplest facts about Adventist eschatology are unknown to Goldstein and the present generation of SDA's. Few have any idea what Ellen White and the Pioneers are really saying. This is the result of Glacier View. This is the result of treachery by the Review and the White Estate.
The Adventist people have been horribly misled and deceived about the fundamentals and the Pioneers who established them. This is what Adventist Reform will correct. Glacier View theology will be systematically exposed as a total fraud in front of the entire church. I suggest that the leaders, like Johnsson and Goldstein start thinking about what they are going to say to the Adventist people about all this? They will not be able to run and hide forever. At some point they must deal with the sins of Glacier View and answer to the people for their false doctrine and apostasy.
Ron, I have faith that you, and many others, will eventually understand Historic Adventism. At some point, the record will overpower the many myths and diversions that the leaders have been teaching us all these years. So don't give up, keep trying.
The truth about the Three Angels Messages will set the Adventist Community free from their many cultic and hierarchical myths. The Truth about Ellen White and the IJ will allow this church to return to the pursuit of serious, credible, 21st century, eschatology. It is time. It is just in time.
Tom Norris, for the original version of the Three Angels Messages
|
Ron Corson (Roca88)
Old Hand,
Username: Roca88
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
Ron Corson posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - "Ok I agree with this and am glad you finally said it. Clearly this is not Glacier View and as you said codified a mere 10 years after the official church began."
Ron, I have been saying this for years, where have you been? Glacier View represents an absurd and impossible version of eschatology that not one SDA Pioneer could ever support.
You misunderstood. If it was produced in the 1850's and codified in the 1870's it cannot be attributed to what was done at Glacier view. And that has been my point all along. You keep pretending that the IJ was not part of the SDA Pioneers theology.
You also assert that addition to one of the messages is not the same as reinterpretation. That is such a fine line it is actually meaningless. If you add to an interpretation then it is really reinterpreted.
I think you have tried hard but I am unconvinced and I doubt anyone else is convinced. But since it is so important to you and I freely admit the whole IJ concept is wrong I will leave you to your rants against it, even when I think you are really working from an error ridden perspective.
Good luck on the new web site.}
|
Bill Sorenson (Billsorensen)
Old Hand,
Username: Billsorensen
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 8:52 pm: | |
I think you have tried hard but I am unconvinced and I doubt anyone else is convinced. But since it is so important to you and I freely admit the whole IJ concept is wrong I will leave you to your rants against it, even when I think you are really working from an error ridden perspective.
No doubt, Ron, that Tom is totally deluded about EGW and Adventism. His whole argument is based on a "false dilemma".
He rightly states that William Miller did not preach the IJ in his presentation of the first angel's message. And then proceeds to conclude that even EGW did not include the IJ in this scenerio. Of course she did not in 1844. No one did.
Then Tom tells us the IJ is not part of the historic SDA message. But he either ignores or fails to recognize there is no such thing as an SDA in 1844.
The SDA interpretation is the result of Miller's failure to understand the disappointment. Tom simply ignores this fact and proceeds to build a "false dilemma" that has no rational meaning to anyone. Not even people like yourself who reject the IJ.
Maybe if he repeats his error in logic and reasoning long enough, he may delude himself and a few who abandon all rational concepts. But he will deceive no one who can reason from simple logic. And what may be the most astounding thing is he thinks he is supporting EGW in all this mess.
I think it is useless to respond to his posts.
Sorensen |
Tom Norris (Tnorris)
Old Hand,
Username: Tnorris
Post Number: 981
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Ron Corson posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - "You misunderstood. If it the (IJ) was produced in the 1850's and codified in the 1870's it cannot be attributed to what was done at Glacier view. And that has been my point all along."
You misunderstand. Glacier View was based upon the premise that the TSDA's were defending fundamental Adventist doctrines. In other words, they were not claiming to be promoting anything new. Rather, they accused Dr. Ford of introducing new, strange, and dangerous ideas into Adventist theology. The TSDA's were supposed to be defending and promoting the original and authentic version of Historic Adventism. They claimed that they were protecting the fundamentals from attack.
But their assessment of the situation was not true. This is my point.
The TSDA's failed to correctly understand the chronological development, as well as the location, of the IJ. And because they were so confused about these points, as well as the Gospel, they incorrectly placed the IJ in the 1st Angels message, along with Smith's false Gospel.
Then they dishonestly told everyone that Ellen White and the Pioneers supported these two fundamental positions about the 1st Angels message. Here was "true" Seventh-day Adventism they proclaimed.
Moreover, anyone who opposed their version of truth, like Dr. Ford, must be thrown out the door. And so it went.
But their version of Historic Adventism was not true. None of it was true. And guess what, Dr. Ford's version was correct. This is the stunning point that must be comprehended by SDA's. Dr. Ford stood up for Ellen White and the Pioneers, while the leaders were the ones who repudiated Historic Adventism. How ironic is this?
The Takoma Park leaders made a huge blunder. They overstepped their authority and scrambled the Three Angels messages into false and impossible prophecy. This is what Glacier View was all about: This is where Historical manipulation of the record and years of theological fraud was officially pronounced as truth. This was the low point for the 20th century SDA church, and the repudiation of everything that Ellen White and the Pioneers represented.
The TSDA's are guilty of misinterpreting the eschatological importance, credibility, and position of the IJ. Consequently, they scrambled the Three Angels Messages into useless and legalistic nonsense. And of course, all the while they were also guilty of suppressing Ellen White's writings and dishonestly manipulating them to support their false and impossible doctrines. So we have error upon error and fraud upon fraud.
So your point is wrong. The version of the Three Angels messages that was made official at Glacier View was a fabrication and a fraud. It was a convoluted disaster that no Pioneer could ever support. This is my point. Your point will not stand.
Ron said: "You keep pretending that the IJ was not part of the SDA Pioneers theology."
The IJ was a minor and late developing part of SDA eschatology. It was neither a pillar, nor a message. It was not the "foundation" of anything but trouble. And it was never located in the 1st Angels messages as Glacier View claimed.
In fact, this little doctrine has turned out to be a grave mistake that has almost ruined the Adventist Movement. It must be removed and repudiated, along with Uriah Smith's false Gospel, so that the original version of the 1st Angels messages can be returned to this church, along with the rest of this Protestant paradigm.
Ron said: "You also assert that the addition to one of the messages is not the same as reinterpretation. That is such a fine line it is actually meaningless. If you add to an interpretation then it is really reinterpreted."
I agree. There is no question that the Pioneers added additional interpretations to the original Pillar, the 5th, about the Heavenly Sanctuary. I have never denied this historical development. In fact, I just outlined it for you in an earlier post.
This was, as you correctly say, the same things as making a revision. I agree. This is what they did. But IT WAS WRONG. It was a mistake to do this. A big mistake that needs to be repudiated.
This little "revision" to the 5th pillar in Battle Creek has turned out to be the doom of Adventism. It played a big part in this church falling into legalism in the 19th century and it has all but ruined the church in the 20th century. But this is the result of breaking the rules.
It was a big mistake to revise, relocate, or remove any of the original Adventist Pillars. This is the point. When the Pioneers innocently did it to the 5th pillar, it eventually turned out to be a disaster for them, and 1888 was the result, which of course led to the destruction of the Battle Creek Empire.
When the Takoma Park SDA's made additional and even more outrageous revisions to this same 5th pillar, that revision also turned out to be a debacle. It was called Glacier View.
So there is a price to pay for not respecting the original and authentic version of the Three Angels Messages. This is what Ellen White has been screaming all along. But no one seemed to be paying attention. Now that Adventism is once again a dying church, it might be a good idea for it to listen to the Pioneers without reference to 20th century apologetics.
This is why the only safe course for this church is a wholesale return to the authentic version of the Three Angels Messages. The one with the Gospel of Paul and Luther as the #1 Pillar. And the one with the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment in the 1st Angels message.
This is the # 2 Pillar from the First Angels Message. This is the version where the doctrine of the Heavenly Sanctuary is the 5th Pillar, which is about faith in our High Priest, not a fearful investigation of our works.
There is only one true version of the Three Angels Messages. Glacier View represents another competing Apocalyptic that neither Ellen White nor the Pioneers could ever support. It was a counterfeit that has led to the destruction of the Adventist Movement. The sooner this fact is acknowledged, the better.
Ron said: "I think you have tried hard but I am unconvinced and I doubt anyone else is convinced."
I have not broken a sweat about all this. So don't worry about me. You, however, have not sweated near enough. You have much to learn about Historic Adventism.
You are not convinced because you do not have the necessary theological background to understand Historic Adventism. You are still operating under the illusion that Glacier View theology has historical merit and must therefore represent the theology of the Pioneers. Many people don't know much better, because this is what they were taught all their lives. But Takoma Park propaganda is not the same as Historical Adventism. Stunning but true.
Glacier View does not represent anything but fraud. I suggest that you try and read the Pioneers with a new comprehension that allows their eschatology to exist without being dependant upon the typical Takoma Park myths. Do not read the Great Controversy backwards, and do not pretend that the IJ was around at any time within the period of Historical Adventism. That is pure myth and Glacier View deception. When you do this, you might come to view the Pioneers in new and improved light.
The Pioneers have much to teach the present generation of SDA's. And they must start with the First Angels Message. It seems that almost no SDA today, or even their critics, have a clear or correct understanding of the Three Angels Messages, that alone defines and guides this prophetic Movement.
The church leaders, like Johnsson and Goldstein, seem to know the least, which is why they voted it obsolete and sent it away. But this was a huge mistake and a most serious problem. But it is one of the church's own making. This is the result of Glacier View.
Only when the original version of the Three Angels messages are brought back to this church, and the Pioneers are allowed to speak freely, will this Movement have a chance to survive. Without this special eschatology, and the wisdom of the Pioneers, there is no hope for this church.
Continued
|
Tom Norris (Tnorris)
Old Hand,
Username: Tnorris
Post Number: 982
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 12:45 pm: | |
Ron said: "But since it is so important to you and I freely admit the whole IJ concept is wrong I will leave you to your rants against it, even when I think you are really working from an error ridden perspective."
For the SDA Community, there is nothing more important than the Three Angels Messages. This is an axiomatic point. I know that you do not share this view, but I can assure you that Ellen White and the Pioneers would fully agree with this position.
So for those SDA's who want to be in step with the Pioneers, they had better make some major adjustments and repudiate Glacier View. And for those that want to criticize Ellen White and the Pioneers, they will also need to make some serious adjustments because the entire church has been mislead and confused about the founders and their theology.
The sad fact of the matter is that the entire Adventist church has been taught a horrible and false version of the Three Angels Messages. And now people are shocked to hear that Glacier View was nothing more than fraud and apostasy. They thought that Glacier View was the place where Historic Adventism made a noble stand for truth. A meeting that defended Ellen White and protected the fundamentals?
But this not at all what happened. Glacier View was great apostasy. It has been a curse to this church.
Shame on the Review for creating all this unnecessary pain and confusion. Shame on the White Estate for their deceit and false testimony about Ellen White and the fundamentals. It is time to re-evaluate Glacier View and the corrupt hierarchy that supports this outrageous fraud. They both need to be repudiated and removed.
Ron said: "Good luck on the new web site."
Thank you. Even though we may not agree on all points at this time, I think we do agree that:
#1. The IJ is a false and dangerous doctrine and,
#2. The SDA church needs major Gospel Reform.
I am pleased that we are in agreement on at least these two important points. I suspect we will agree on much more before this is all over.
Bill Sorenson Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004: "No doubt, Ron, that Tom is totally deluded about EGW and Adventism. His whole argument is based on a 'false dilemma'."
Ha! My "whole argument" rests upon the original version of the Three Angels Messages. If that paradigm is a "delusion" and a "false dilemma" then I am a fool who has lost this debate. But the Three Angels Messages are rock solid. The Pioneers wrote so much about these messages that it is amazing that the SDA's no longer comprehend what they were and how important they are today.
Therefore, if my version of the Three A's is not valid, then I will recant and shut down Adventist Reform.
However, if the Glacier View version of the Three A's is proven to be a fraud, what will you do? Will you recant Glacier View? Do we have an agreement? I hope so.
I will pit my historical version from the Pioneers up against the one from Glacier View any time you want. My version will win every time. Why? Because it is the original one that the Pioneers endorsed while the Glacier View version would be condemned, scorned, and ridiculed as fraud.
If you doubt this outcome, just look around. Where are the champions of Glacier View? Where is Goldstein? They have all run away. Goldstein's position has been destroyed. No one can defend Glacier View theology. It is impossible.
Bill the TSDA said: "He rightly states that William Miller did not preach the IJ in his presentation of the first angel's message. And then proceeds to conclude that even EGW did not include the IJ in this scenario. Of course she did not in 1844. No one did."
Then what is your complaint? If I was "correct" about Miller, the IJ, and the 1st Angels message, and correct again that Ellen White agreed with this, then what is the problem? Is it a problem to be too historically accurate?
I think you need to stop right here and understand what you have just admitted and what it means. You admit that the IJ was not in the 1st Angels message, so if Glacier View is correct, how did it get there? When did it get there? And who authorized this major change to Historic Adventism?
Moreover, we all know that Ellen White is on record repeatedly, screaming that none of these Three Messages could ever be changed or removed. So this must mean that Miller's message, the 1st Angels message cannot ever be changed to hold the IJ. Do you understand this point?
In other words, Glacier View theology is WRONG. It does the very thing that Ellen White said could never be done. It changes the three Angels Messages to reflect Uriah Smith's legalism. It changes the 5th pillar and then moves it back into the # 2 position where Miller's original Judgment pillar stood. There is no justification for this outrageous revision. Ellen White would never support it.
So here is the true dilemma of the TSDA's: Should they follow Ellen White or Glacier View theology? They thought they were one and the same, but now, to their everlasting shame, they know different. Now what will they do? What an interesting dilemma?
Of course they claim to follow Ellen White, yet they have been caught taking fundamental positions that are the direct OPPOSITE of what she supports. But now that they know this, they are stuck in a conundrum. If they listen to Ellen White and the Pioneers, they have to admit that the IJ cannot exist in the 1st Angels Message, and this means they have to repudiate Glacier View.
If they stubbornly cling to their false version of the Adventist Apocalyptic, and still insist that the IJ resides in the 1st Angels message as the foundation of the Three Angels messages, then they are fighting directly and openly against Ellen White and her authority.
But if they agree that the IJ is not located within Historic Adventism, then they must repudiate Glacier View and apologize to everyone for causing so much trouble and nearly destroying this eschatological Movement. How interesting. They are trapped.
Let's hope that they can do the right thing and REPENT and listen to Ellen White and the Pioneers. This is what the Laodicean Message demands. This is what the Pioneers would want to see happen. This is what Ellen White wants them to do. My, my, what an interesting dilemma for all SDA's to ponder?
Continued
|
Tom Norris (Tnorris)
Old Hand,
Username: Tnorris
Post Number: 983
Registered: 2-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Bill said: "Then Tom tells us the IJ is not part of the historic SDA message. But he either ignores or fails to recognize there is no such thing as an SDA in 1844."
So again, what is your point? Of course there were no SDA's during the active messages of the Millerite Movement. Who said there was? The point here is to understand that the first two messages of the Three Angels Messages were 100% Millerite.
This is a fact beyond dispute. Only the 3rd Angels message was SDA. Which is why they had no right to change the first two messages. Nor did they even try to do such a thing. The SDA's annexed Miller's first two messages, they did not change them.
So again, what is the problem? The facts are the facts. Only the THIRD Angels Message was SDA. And guess what? These facts doom Glacier View. Deal with it.
There is zero possibility that the IJ is a pillar from the 1st Angels Message. And this stunning FACT shows that the Review and the White Estate duped the TSDA's. The whole church was misled and deceived about the fundamentals.
Bill, I think that even you will have to admit that the TSDA's are in a tight spot. Especially when you agree that I am correct about the historical facts. But I must confess, I don't understand your logic that assumes I am wrong because I am so right. But thanks for those admissions. It is not easy to get a TSDA to agree with any of the facts. This is a big step in the right direction for you.
Bill said: "The SDA interpretation (of the IJ) is the result of Miller's failure to understand the disappointment. "
Sorry, but now you are playing a sneaky little game with us. You are not telling the story accurately or truthfully. This is the way of the TSDA's. They cannot deal honestly and straightforward with the facts. They have to revise and convolute things in order to defend Glacier View. But it won't work.
Here is what you should have said: "The SDA interpretation (of the Heavenly Sanctuary--NOT the IJ) is the result of Miller's failure to correctly understand Dan 8:14 as it related to the meaning of the cleansing of the sanctuary."
Remember, there was NO IJ at this point in time. Stop pretending that there was. You have already admitted otherwise, so don't try and go back and pretend that the IJ existed in 1844. It did not. Glacier View is not correct. Thus, the IJ is forever precluded from being placed in Miller's great and historical 1st Angels message.
Which is why no SDA Pioneer ever placed it there. That error took place in Takoma Park and became the basis for Glacier View. This is one of many points that Goldstein and all the TSDA's will have to face before this is over. There is no sense running and hiding from the facts. Glacier View was horribly wrong. This is the point that all need to comprehend.
So stop playing games. There was no IJ in 1844 or even 1854. Stop pretending that it existed when it did not and that it is located where is cannot be located. Your Glacier View spin is against the facts. You are not fooling anyone with this lame defense that fails to deal with the real points under discussion.
Bill said: "Tom simply ignores this fact and proceeds to build a "false dilemma" that has no rational meaning to anyone. Not even people like yourself who reject the IJ."
The only "false dilemma" is Glacier View. It is certainly false and it is going to become the greatest of all SDA dilemmas. I find it pathetic that the TSDA's cannot even follow this discussion, much less win it. They are an irrational and dishonest bunch. They seem unable to deal with the issues or counter the many points that doom their position. They cannot win this debate.
Bill said: "Maybe if he repeats his error in logic and reasoning long enough, he may delude himself and a few who abandon all rational concepts. But he will deceive no one who can reason from simple logic. And what may be the most astounding thing is he thinks he is supporting EGW in all this mess. I think it is useless to respond to his posts."
It is pointless for the TSDA's to try and defend Glacier View. They do not have the facts, or the necessary cerebral assets to make their case. They talk trash as if they are experts about Historic Adventism, but they are making fools of themselves. They don't know what they are saying half the time, and they don't understand what the Pioneers are saying the other half. It is obvious that they cannot deal with these issues in a responsible, honest, and coherent manner. So be it.
Tom Norris, for the original and authentic version of Adventist eschatology
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page