They mystery of reclaiming a prophet

Adventist Today recently offered this program 

Eric Anderson, “What Would Adventism Be Without a Prophet?”
Here is a 60-second snipped clip:

Well, I keep thinking about how we're defining prophet and I found that the definition that I offered in reclaiming the prophet was for some people a a tremendous watering down uh an evasion. 

Maybe I should quote that. Um, and I'm a little mystified. I still don't understand this. Why this is a bad way to define the term prophet. I wrote the authors of reclaiming the prophet will often employ the term  prophet to describe Ellen White. The point is not to mystify readers nor to hide ordinary thoughts or central historical context. Using non-technical layman's language is a prophet is a person who in God's name persuades a leader who changes people's behavior. And I went on to talk about her achievements and the ways in which uh we need to take those into account. That bothered some people and they thought that was um explaining away a prophet. That was a a bad definition of a prophet. I still don't quite get that a leader is a person who in God's name persuades. That sounds like a prophet to me. Quite quite an interesting approach 1:15:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLxn2k3WcoM 

I am unsure why he is mystified because, in fact, his definition is simply a slightly obscured meaning of prophet, but certainly covers what prophet means. A prophet in the Bible is someone chosen by God to speak for God, acting as a messenger to convey the message God wants to the people. So why do I say his definition uses an obscuring meaning? Because in his definition, the most important part seems to be glossed over. "prophet is a person who in God's name". 

So before anyone listens to "the persuades a leader to change other people," they would have to accept that the prophet is speaking in God's name, which parts are really the parts God wants to convey. That is the entire problem with Ellen White, someone with numerous false prophecies and a known serial plagiarist speaking in God's name at all. There is also the second problem with the redefinition in that it is addressed to leaders; it is up to the leaders to change people's behavior. If you had a prophet, should the information be limited to leaders? Why would that be?

The more I hear from these writers of Reclaiming the Prophet the more I think that what they really want is to be the academic leaders who explain Ellen White to the Adventist Church. They want to have the historical context to interpret Ellen White. So that the people in higher education, the Ellen White Scholars and the Adventist historians can tell the rest of us what Ellen White meant and did not mean. So they can tell us when Ellen White contradicts herself which principle will rule. Some will even say to take her only in a pastoral role. That may sound good, but if your pastor was plagiarizing others' sermons and using false history and numerous pieces of Biblical fiction, that is things that are not in the Bible but pretended to be part of the Bible. Would you really even take that person in a pastoral role? At best, you might see them as having some sort of devotional material that, if you can avoid all the problems, might be encouraging in some way. This seems to be the great hope of Progressive Adventists, but I don't see it as much to be hoped for, I think it is an attempt at church control, which I have for quite some time said is what Progressive Adventists have really wanted. But I don't think that a change in bureaucracy is really a cure for Adventists problems.

The internet's death blow on Adventism

 Today I watched the video of Ian Reyes interview the recently removed Adventist Pastor Chris Mindanao, who got in trouble with the denominations leadership of say the radical idea found in the Bible that the seal of God is the Holy Spirit. In this part 2 of the interview maybe a month after Minanao's resignation he presents a much deeper examination of the problems in the Adventist Church. 

This should be watched by every Adventist, whether traditional or progressive. Something I had never considered before was why the Millerites and those who became SDAs accepted Hiram Edson's cornfield vision. The following quotes are from the Encylcopedia of Seventh-Day Adventists:

Although no information exists regarding Edson’s schooling, his mastery of grammar and style, evident in his later articles (see below), reveals that he had at least an elementary education. Likewise, while the date and place of his conversion are unknown, from birth he had been reared in a Christian family. Around 1839, he became a steward in the Port Gibson Methodist Episcopal Church, responsible for the use of funds and literature donated by the congregation. He was widely respected as an earnest, soul-winning layman.¹¹

When the Methodists rejected the Millerite teaching of Christ’s imminent second advent and expelled members who accepted it, Hiram and Esther began holding meetings in their home, and many attendees experienced conversion.¹⁵ Also during 1843-44, Edson began having “presentments,” which he defined as supernatural experiences that brought him new understandings, often through visual images of events that soon came to pass.¹⁶ These presentments told him about a revival service yet to occur;¹⁷ instructed him to lay hands on a sick friend and heal him;¹⁸ and told him to plead with a neighbor until he converted.¹⁹ Edson also witnessed incidents of faith healings following prayer and laying on of hands.²⁰ While believers accepted Edson’s presentments as indications of God’s guidance, others, who opposed any manifestations of supernatural phenomena, whether Mormon or Millerite, sometimes reacted violently. Forty hostile men broke up one of his cottage meetings and some neighbors issued death threats. For their safety, the Edson family moved to a rented farm near Centerport.²¹

Following the “Great Disappointment” of October 22, 1844, Edson was devastated. “Our fondest hopes and expectations were blasted,” he wrote, “and such a spirit of weeping came over us as I never experienced before. It seemed that the loss of all earthly friends could have been no comparison. We wept, and wept, till the day dawn.”²² On October 23, after praying with friends in his granary for understanding, Edson and Owen Crosier, a Millerite friend, cut through a cornfield to comfort their disappointed friends. Midway across the field, Edson related, “I was stopped…Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest coming out of the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to this earth on [October 22, 1844]…He, for the first time, entered on that day into the second apartment of that sanctuary.”²³ Edson’s words, “I saw distinctly and clearly,” have led to various interpretations as to whether he had a vision, saw a flash of light, or received an impression.²⁴

After five months of Bible study, Edson, Crosier, and Franklin Hahn shared their discoveries in the March 1845 issue of the Day Dawn, a private paper edited by Hahn and Edson in Canandaigua, New York,²⁵ and in the February 7, 1846, issue of the Millerite paper the Day-Star Extra.²⁶ These articles (written by Crosier) stated that a literal sanctuary existed in heaven; that the earthly tabernacle services were modeled on the heavenly; that the heavenly sanctuary contained two chambers, a Holy Place and a Most Holy Place, representing two phases of priestly ministry; that Jesus, the High Priest, had entered into the latter on October 22, 1844, to cleanse it by the blotting out of sins by His blood; and that Christ would return to earth after this second phase of His ministry was completed.²⁷

In May 1845, Edson sent a letter to the Jubilee Standard, a Millerite paper published in NYC, in which he argued that while the 2300-day prophecy (Daniel 8:14) ended on October 22, 1844, the 1335-day prophecy (Daniel 12:12) would end in August 1845 with God’s final judgment and Christ’s second coming.²⁸

He later joined the Sabbatarian movement and then the SDA movement. Edson and Crosier wrote the article that established the belief in a two apartment ministry in a heavenly sanctuary. A PDF of the articles is found here.

This article and subsequent reiteration by Ellen White is the basis for the Investigative Judgement of Adventism. It is developed by a convoluted belief that Crosier had about the Old Testament sanctuary service which he assumed was what Jesus was doing in heaven. Most all other Christians believe in the atonement being completed by the death and resurrection and assertion of Christ back to heaven. As Hebrews says:

 11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Hebrews 9:11-14 ESV

To arrive at this supposed two-apartment ministry Crosier says this.

Hebrews 6:19,20, is supposed to prove that Christ entered the Holy of Holies at his ascension, because Paul said he had entered within the veil. But the veil which divides between the Holy and the Holy of Holies is "the second veil," Hebrews 9:3; hence there are two veils, and that in Hebrews 6, being the first of which he speaks, must be the first veil, which hung before the Holy, and in Exodus was called a curtain. When he entered within the veil, he entered his tabernacle, of course the Holy, as that was the first apartment; and our hope, as an anchor of the soul, enters within the veil, i.e. the atonement of both apartments, including both the forgiveness and the blotting out of sins.

19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 6:19-20 ESV

We see how certain Crosier is about his understanding of the Old Testament sanctuary service as he writes: 

Those who hold that Christ entered the Holy of Holies [2nd apartment] at, and has been ministering therein ever since his ascension, also believe, as of course they must, that the atonement of the Gospel Dispensation is the antitype of the atonement made on the tenth day of the seventh month under the law. If this is so, the events of the legal tenth day, have had their antitypes during the Gospel Dispensation. The first event in the atonement service of that day, was the cleansing of the Sanctuary, as we have seen from Leviticus 16. Then, upon their theory, the Sanctuary of the new covenant was cleansed in the early part of the Gospel Dispensation.  

In reality, I know of no Christians who believe Christ is ministering in the 2nd apartment. 

³ He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Hebrews 1:3 ESV

¹¹ And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. ¹² But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, ¹³ waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. ¹⁴ For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Hebrews 10:11-14 ESV

²¹ Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. 1 Peter 3:21-22 ESV

 Crosier says there is no evidence of any earthly new covenant sanctuary being cleansed after the 2300 days. Of course, there is equally no evidence of a heavenly sanctuary being cleansed either but all of this is based on his specious thinking that he understands the Old Testament sanctuary system as it relates to Jesus Christ and the new covenant.

He then incorrectly asserts there are now only two options. 

One of these two conclusions is inevitable on the hypotheses that the Gospel Dispensation and the atonement made in it, is the antitype of the legal tenth day, and the atonement made in it. Upon which of these horns will they hang? If on the former, the declaration, "I came not to destroy the law," pierces them; but if they choose the latter, it then becomes them to prove that the law, which had a shadow of good things to come, was fulfilled within itself, that the shadow and substance filled the same place and time; also they will need to prove that the entire atonement for the forgiveness of sins was made before the Lamb was slain with whose blood the atonement was to be made.  

My new realization today was how did anyone in of the Adventist pioneers ever came to accept these ideas? It makes little sense and it depends upon very questionable concepts that are brought from the Old Testament types and symbols to the reality of Jesus Christ who clearly offered forgiveness even before His death, because God can forgive he never needed the blood of animals to grant forgiveness. But Crosier's second problem posed was that the law was fulfilled. Though he does not stop with fulfilled he adds that the law was fulfilled within itself. Again no one thinks that but him! 

¹⁷ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18 ESV

⁴ For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Romans 10:4 ESV

⁸ By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing ⁹ (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, ¹⁰ but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:8-11

¹³ For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, ¹⁴ how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Hebrews 9:13-14 ESV

¹⁵ Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. Hebrews 9:15

The only reason I can think of that would lead to accepting the whole Crosier and Edson explanation is to try and save face after the second great disappointment of Oct 22 1844, though Edson as well as other early Adventists had multiple great disappointments along with periods when they thought the door to salvation had been shut. That the Adventist church has not outgrown this is kind of amazing. I do think that with the internet age either have to change or they will simply lose all theologians and the seminaries will be attended only by people who only want to follow Adventist traditions and frankly give up on studying the Bible and Hermeneutics. 

Conrad Vine and Adventist Today

 Once again Adventist Today gets it wrong. With the recent controversy involving Conrad Vine most of those criticizing him purposely misrepresent what he said. The Sept 3 article on Adventist Today says: 

...A recent example is Conrad Vine’s presentation at a Maine camp meeting, where he called for the resignation of any leader involved in the COVID-19 mandate. Vine suggested that traditional Adventists should form parallel congregations and divert their tithes to traditional conferences if the General Conference issued any further mandates. This would contradict Ted Wilson’s stance against congregationalism, and in favor of an enforced church unity. 

Did Vine suggest that Adventists should form parallel congregations and divert their tithes? No not at all. At 57 minutes Conrad puts up this slide

At 1:02 Vine says: 

I recognize this is when you touch the question of tithe this is the sacred nerve in the Adventist Church but Elder Wilson did say in his first sermon hold your leaders to account so we're going to hold our leaders to account and if more mandates are imposed that override your conscience and the church throws us under the bus once again I believe that someone somewhere will take the first steps to establish a parachurch movement and we'll say with modern Banking and modern legal systems we don't need the conference Union division GC hierarchy we can collect the tithes ourselves and allocate them to the conferences that are faithful to scripture it's a revolutionary idea it's kind of Crossing the Rubicon from many administrators perspective but it's what we can do as members because we were encouraged to hold our leaders to account by our current GC president when he was elected. 

This is about the only way we can do it so this may well happen if the GC supports future mandates over the consciences of members and the fourth thing we're not there yet is migrates to an underground house Church movement led by bivocational elders and pastors that's where we're going to be when the mark of the beast is imposed. the mark of the beast is imposed the conferences cannot bank because they won't receive the mark of the beast if they're if they're faithful to scripture that means the conferences cannot employ pastors they cannot employ teachers they cannot receive tithes and offerings therefore the conferences when the mark of the beast is imposed are basically history. so when the mark of the beast is imposed we will be in underground house Church movements led by bivocational house Church movement led by bivocational elders and pastors 

16:01 a religious liberty objection a religious liberty objection by definition is where the Holy Spirit convicts you not to do something when the church says that the holy spir that you cannot say that the holy spirit is convicting you not to do something this small group of men here are assuming the rights to override the holy spirit this is wrong doesn't matter what the issue is doesn't matter whether it's vaccinations or pork or beer or anything else in this passage here our church leaders assumed the right to override the convictions of the Holy Spirit upon each of your consciences and if they assume the right yesterday they've established a precedent that can be used tomorrow once again to hurt the members that is why we're talking about this.

He compares the GC session vote to the ADCOM statement

19:16 statement here if you put this statement this vote of the General Conference in full session next to the October reaffirmation statement you put them side by side the statement on the left is what we voted in full session and according to our constitution what is the highest Authority in our church is it the Adcom or is it the GC in a full session okay so therefore every decisions of the adcoms which are lower committee than the GC in full session must be consistent with the GC votes in full session and cannot overturn or undermine the votes of the GC in full session does that make sense absolutely so our GC vote in full session of February 1893 says we are and of right or to be free and independent of all connection Direction dictation interference or control of the government of the United States in matters of religional or religious observances or religious institutions of any kind or degree that would include offering your body as a living sacrifice for holy God that statement there overrides the October reaffirmation statement of 21 which says claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates that statement by our ADCOM goes directly against what our full session voted in 1893 therefore it's null and void because the Adcom cannot override a vote of the full Church in full session 

This is all pretty straight forward and easy to understand by why did the writer at Adventist Today get the story so wrong? Why did the others who wish to restrict Vine get it so wrong as well? The answer is in part 2 which deals with the underlying problem of this authoritarianism and the disregard to the truth. Look for Cultural Marxism and Conrad Vine in the next blog post.

 

Tim Gillespie and the confusion of Present Truth

 I just discovered this podcast called "Seeking What They Sought" on Youtube. I watched a few of them and it is interesting. I am going to comment on the one I watched today which was: What is an Adventist, talking with Tim Gillespie. I always find it interesting when a Progressive SDA uses the term "Present Truth" I think they don't really know what it means historically. First, let's look at the transcript: 

Jesse: 19:37 this a little bit I I'm curious about if you were to to look at adventism and 19:43 Define it or like make maybe say more so what makes an Adventist what would you 19:49 say what is it what does it mean to be an Adventist

Tim Gillespie: um so I think an Adventist is someone who doesn't 19:55 believe in settled truth um we believe in present truth we're 20:02 non-creedal so we're a group of people we should be as I understand it a group of people who are constantly seeking a better expression and a better understanding of truth. 

[A little later he says]: said as Adventist I don't know that we believe in settled truth I've never heard that before my understanding is that we believe in present truth the way 20:57 that God is continuing to unfold truth um and so I think I think Seventh-day… 

He continues on a couple of other points, second coming, Sabbath, and prophetically speaking to people. So what he apparently believes is that Present Truth is a potentially constantly changing truth. But of course, if the truth changes the previous version was not the truth, so logically one should not call something truth if it may change. Truth is reality it is not a belief about something. One could say "Present belief", that would make sense but not present truth (see article Present truth propaganda for more on how to correctly use Present truth as a specific application of a truth to a specific circumstance.

 Unfortunately, historically Present Truth was more a term of advertising to other Christians that our beliefs were the true beliefs. So it was what the church believed was present truth. The term did not originate with Adventists. People who use the term Present Truth should take a look at my article on the subject.

 https://cafesda.blogspot.com/2012/12/present-truth-propaganda.html

At one point he points out the fallacy of present truth:

should be careful about quoting him but I believe what he said to me was present truth that's why that's why I'm an 23:49 Adventist to which I replied and I don't know that he appreciated this um but I 23:54 replied oh awesome what are you gonna let go of  I mean there are things that are 24:01 mutually exclusive correct we can't just if truth is if 24:07 we believe in present truth and we are led to another truth it may preclude a previous truth that we had it 24:14 may be something that our you know there may be truths that are mutually exclusive for instance for instance it... [he moves off on a poor example]

Ultimately what he is saying is that there really is no such thing as Present Truth but there are present beliefs but one of the first things that makes up an Adventist is holding to Present Truth which can always change and thus never was truth. So one of the key characteristics for of an Adventist is they believe in the lie known as Present Truth. Confusing right? The reason I think he does this is to form a connection to Adventist tradition and Ellen G. White. This is why I constantly point out this misuse of the term Present Truth. But there is one more thing that the next AI summaries present and that is that Adventism is not the only church to hold to the term present truth it was used a good deal in the 1800's by various groups though not something one hears much from them anymore, again a reflection of how the connection to Ellen White dominates Adventist understandings.

Update: 5-19-24: Using Edge AI Copilot:

Question: Tell me a summary of what Ellen G. Whites means by the term "present truth"

Certainly! Ellen G. White used the term “present truth” to refer to the timely and relevant messages that God revealed to her during her ministry. Let me provide a summary based on her writings:

In August 1849, Ellen G. White wrote about the concept of “present truth.” She emphasized that it was her duty to share with others what God had revealed to her regarding the current state of affairs, trials, and temptations faced by believers. Here are the key points:

The Context: Ellen G. White believed that they were living in a significant time, with the coming judgments of God imminent. She felt compelled to convey the messages she received to help guide God’s people.

The Connection Between Commandments and the Shut Door: She asserted that the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ (which included the concept of the “shut door”) were inseparable. The time for the commandments to shine out with importance was when the door was opened in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary (where the Ark containing the ten commandments was located). This door was opened in 1844 after the mediation of Jesus in the Holy Place was completed.

Testing on the Sabbath: Ellen G. White believed that the present test on the Sabbath could not occur until Jesus had passed within the second veil (the Most Holy Place). Christians who had fallen asleep before this event (before the door was opened in the Most Holy) were not held accountable for Sabbath observance. However, now that the door was open, the Sabbath truth was being tested.

Satan’s Tactics: She warned that Satan was actively trying to confuse God’s people. He attempted to open the door of the Holy Place (which Jesus had shut) and close the door of the Most Holy Place (which Jesus had opened in 1844). Satan aimed to keep minds wavering and prevent acceptance of the present sealing truth.

In summary, “present truth” refers to the timely messages and revelations that Ellen G. White believed were crucial for the believers of her time. These messages were closely tied to the commandments, the sanctuary, and the Sabbath truth1. It was a call to faithfulness and discernment during a critical period of history.

For more detailed reading, you can explore Ellen G. White’s writings on this topic here.2 📖

Learn more 1 egwwritings.org

2 text.egwwritings.org

3 whiteestate.org

4  egwwritings.org +2 more

Tell me a summary of what Charles Spurgen means by the term "present truth "? [interestingly I spelled Spurgeon without the "o" and it shouted at me the correct spelling:) ]

 Certainly! Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a prominent English preacher and theologian, also used the term “present truth” in his sermons. Let me provide a summary based on his writings:

1. Context and Definition:

   • Spurgeon believed that “present truth” referred to the essential and timely messages that were relevant to the current spiritual needs of believers.
   • These truths were not abstract or theoretical but had practical implications for Christian living.

2. Application:

   • Spurgeon emphasized the importance of preaching and teaching truths that directly addressed the challenges, temptations, and trials faced by believers in their daily lives.
   • He believed that the Holy Spirit guided preachers to proclaim the Word of God in a way that met the specific needs of their congregations.

3. Dynamic Nature:

   • “Present truth” was not static; it evolved as circumstances changed. Spurgeon encouraged pastors to be sensitive to the Spirit’s leading and adapt their messages accordingly.
   • The truths that were relevant in one era might not be the same in another. Therefore, preachers needed discernment to identify what God was emphasizing at any given time.

4. Faithfulness and Relevance:

   • Spurgeon urged ministers to be faithful stewards of the Gospel, ensuring that their preaching remained relevant to the present context.
   • He believed that God’s Word was timeless but needed to be applied afresh to each generation.

In summary, Charles Spurgeon’s concept of “present truth” emphasized the dynamic, relevant, and practical aspects of biblical teaching. It encouraged preachers to faithfully address the spiritual needs of their congregations in light of the ever-changing

 summarize what Mary Baker Eddy meant by the term "present truth"

Certainly! Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, used the term “present truth” in the context of her spiritual teachings. Let’s explore this concept:

1.      Definition of “Present Truth”:

o    Mary Baker Eddy believed that “present truth” referred to the spiritual insights and revelations that were relevant to the current moment.

o    These truths were not static but dynamically adapted to the needs of individuals and society.

2.      Application:

o    Eddy taught that divine truths were timeless but needed to be expressed in ways that resonated with the present circumstances.

o    She emphasized the importance of understanding God’s healing power, the unreality of material limitations, and the supremacy of spiritual reality.

3.      Christian Science Perspective:

o    In Christian Science, “present truth” involved recognizing the spiritual nature of existence and healing through prayer.

o    Eddy’s major work, “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” conveyed these truths and their practical application.

4.      Continual Revelation:

o    Eddy believed that God’s revelation was ongoing and that individuals could receive fresh insights directly from divine Mind.

o    As humanity evolved, “present truth” would continue to unfold.

In summary, Mary Baker Eddy’s concept of “present truth” emphasized the dynamic, spiritually relevant insights that could transform lives and bring healing. It encouraged seekers to stay open to divine revelation and apply these truths in their daily experience¹². 🌟

Learn more

1marybakereddylibrary.org2marybakereddylibrary.org3mary-baker-eddy.com4footstepsoftruth.com5theguardian.com+3 more

 

Shortened relevant portions from the AI search

William Booth:

1.      The Concept of “Present Truth”:

o    Booth believed that certain biblical truths were relevant to God’s people at specific times in history.

o    These truths were not static but dynamically revealed by the Holy Spirit to guide believers in interpreting and applying God’s Word in the present moment.