And Then There Is The Davidian View Of The IJ

At the Sabbath School Class I attended this Sabbath we were introduced to the comments of a Davidian, apparently a remnant of the Shepherd’s Rod movement. This presents an interesting take upon the whole quarter’s lesson. We can be pretty sure that at the end of this quarter Clifford Goldstein will have tried to explain the importance of 1844 and the Investigative Judgment. In general it will be that we the SDA church God’s remnant church represent the restoration of the sanctuary by our doctrines which reveal the true character or activities of Christ. Of course many study teachers have already indicated that it is our doctrines that are revealed in the 3 angel’s message of Revelation 14

The quarterly concludes the series of lessons with this:

Further Study:

Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, "God's Law Immutable," pp. 433-450.

Another important point about 1844 relates to the Adventist Church itself. As Adventists, our foundation was erected on the understanding that, while our spiritual forefathers, the Millerites, got the event wrong, they got the date, 1844, right. Thus, not just our heritage but the biblical foundation upon which our early pioneers worked stemmed from the 1844 foundation. Hence, it's important for us, as a people, to understand the biblical reasoning that leads to 1844. That we have grown since the early days in our understanding of this message is unmistakable; that we have a better grasp of what it means is unmistakable, as well. At the same time, however, by being firmly rooted in the biblical basis of 1844, we have the assurance that the prophetic foundation upon which our church was founded is, indeed, a foundation rooted in the Word of God itself. In short, it's important for us to be grounded in the 1844 teaching because it affirms the biblical basis upon which we, as a church, with our distinctive message, exist.

The last lesson study in the teachers edition lists its summary as:

Summary: The pre-Advent judgment, with the date 1844 and its teachings, is important for us because it affirms the biblical basis upon which we as a church, with our distinctive message, exist.

The lesson offers us the unique view of the Adventist church on Daniel and the several time prophecies of the Bible. The Adventist church is the only ones who see this meaning because it is the Adventist church that has been chosen and brought into existence to declare the teachings which are unique to the Adventist church. When you look at it that way it is no wonder no other Christians through history stumbled upon the Investigative Judgment.

The Davidian in Sabbath School today has taken this concept of Traditional SDA’s and their unique views and embraced it with meaning derived from other Old Testament books. After all if we can be so bold as to identify ourselves in the visions of Daniel and Revelation why not also of Ezekiel and Zechariah etc. The Davidian visitor told us of the importance that they see through Ellen White and the Bible within this framework of the Investigative Judgment. He pointed me to a website which expounds upon some of the comments he made in class. So rather then try to recount what he said I will mention some of his points by aid of the Davidiansda.com website messages.

The first thing is that there are two phases to the IJ. First is the judging of the dead out of the books in heaven. The second is extremely important as it has to do with the real Christians living at this time.

The Judgment as you know is in two separate and distinct sections, one following the other -- the Judgment for the dead first, and the Judgment for the living last. This we know is so and we must not let subversive influences, even if they be in Seventh-day Adventist's garb, cause us to lose sight of this truth. Our part of the Judgment message since 1844 has been, as you know, to proclaim the Judgment for the dead, not for the living as yet. What is the Judgment for the dead?—

We have been taught by Inspiration that it is to separate the good from the bad, not bodily, but in books, because before the resurrection, the dead have no being, or "portion" "in anything that is done under the sun." -- Eccl. 9:5, 6. This judgment work is to enable the angels to know who is to come up in the first resurrection, in the resurrection of the holy ones (Rev. 20:4, 5, 11-14), and who is to come up in the second resurrection, in the resurrection of the unholy ones. To this end declares Daniel "the Judgment was set, and the books were opened." (Dan. 7:10.)

Thus it is that Inspiration calls the judgment work, "the cleansing or the sanctuary" (Dan. 8:14); that is, each professor of religion that ever died since the beginning of sin, is now judged and the case of each decided either to bring him up in the first resurrection or in the second; either to blot out from the records the name of each impenitent sinner, or to blot out for ever from the Book the sins of each penitent sinner. This has been Heaven's work since the year 1844, and every informed Seventh-day Adventist knows it.

Now, since the message of the Judgment for the Living is of far greater importance than the message of the Judgment for the Dead, it is but expected that the Bible will have more to say about the latter than the former. This is so because the Judgment for the Living has to do with the living themselves, with the message bearers, rather than with the dead. In importance, therefore, there is no comparison between the two. How will we get the message of the Judgment for the Living?--

The answer is clear to all: We will get it in the same way we got the one in 1844. Since it then came through Inspiration and through God's own chosen instrumentality, it is certain that the additional message ("Early Writings," p. 277), too, is to come in the same way; that is, by inspiration through God's own chosen agency. Indeed Truth is never revealed in any other way but by Inspiration. See 2 Peter 1:20.

The writer goes on to say that one can have received the message of judgment of the dead and still miss the judgment of the living. As the writer is not too concise I will just use some of his phrases to bring in what the judgment of the living is about and then his concluding paragraphs on the subject. I will say first that this seems to me to be very similar to the Traditional Adventist views of yesteryear.

What is the Judgment for the Living? In His parables Christ illustrates that the righteous, as good fish, are put into vessels; as wheat, they are put into the barn; and as sheep, they go into life eternal -- they are placed in absolute security. sealed for eternity. Here we see that the judgment work for the living is illustrated in several ways, and is variously called: "Judgment; "Cleansing of the Sanctuary" "Purify His Temple" "Harvest" “Mighty sifting," "purification of the church," As shown before, in the Judgment for the Dead the sinners are separated from the righteous in books only, but in the Judgment for the Living the sinners and the righteous are bodily separated one from the other as Inspiration through the prophet Ezekiel explains: Eze. 9:3-6.

And through the prophet Malachi we are told that the Lord will beforehand send a messenger, and that after he prepares the way, the Lord will suddenly come to His temple (the church) for no reason other than to purify it, especially to purify the sons of Levi, the ministry. See Malachi 3:1-3. Then, says the Spirit of Prophecy, "Only those who have withstood temptation in the strength of the Mighty One will be permitted to act a part in proclaiming it [Third Angel's Message] when it shall have swelled into the Loud Cry." -- "The Review and Herald," Nov. 19, 1908. And to this "startling revelation" ("Testimonies to Ministers," p. 445) the prophet Isaiah adds:

After quoting Isa. 66:15-20. the writer says:

Since the slaughter predicted by the prophet Isaiah takes place among those who profess to be sanctified and purified (falsely believe to have need of nothing more), and since those who escape from among them are sent to the Gentiles to preach the gospel, five distinct and supremely important points stand out plainly: (1) since the victims of the slaughter are those who against their God-given knowledge indulge in swine's flesh and other abominations, and since those who escape are versed in the gospel work enough to be sent to preach it to the Gentiles, the slaughter, therefore, is seen to take place in the church; (2) those who escape, according to Ezekiel, are those who sigh and cry against the abominations, and thus receive the mark of deliverance, (3) since they are sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles after they escape the slaughter, they are "the remnant," those that are left, the future servants of God; (4) since they are to gather from the Gentiles all their brethren, all that can possibly be saved, they are the ones who finish the gospel work in all the world, (5) since there are two separations -- one from the church (Israelites), and one from the Gentiles, -- those who escape and those who are gathered in -- then the former are the first fruits and the later the second fruits -- those of Revelation 7:4, 7-9, one from the tribes of Israel, and one from the Gentile nations.

From this the writer moves to their abused status by the leadership of the SDA church:

This is what the phrase "religious liberty" means, my friend. Is this not the proper, honest, and honorable way to deal with the situation? Are you to follow men's sayings, or are you to follow Christ and His Truth? Tell those hostile Elders that their fight is not against "The Shepherd's Rod" but against God and against their own souls…

We come to you with the pure Word of God and all we request of you is to give us an unbiased and unprejudiced hearing when we call on You in your home. Since you see that this letter contains the plain untarnished Truth, then if you hear any one talking against it you can help him by asking him to give you something better on these scriptures if he has it, and if not, to let you alone.

A fitting place for me to end, in that it asserts that if you don’t have something better to explain the confusing Old Testament Prophecies don’t give them a hard time. The Davidian’s have a very much Old Testament way to view God, something that the Christian church has moved away from in the last couple hundred years. But something you still find among the more Fundamentalist Christians who assert that God will judge America or that hurricanes and Earthquakes are judgments of God. See Abundant Rest Blog on Church Judgment

Perhaps we should remember that not all the ideas that the SDA church has produced lead to well balanced Christian beliefs.

Dan 8 & 9 and the words used for "vison"

One of the comments on the Adventist today.com deals with the two words for “vision” used in Daniel. They are used to create a connection between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 however they are only connected artificially.
Dr. Milton Hook writes in his comment entitled It is not rocket science :

The argument begins with the fallacy that the "2300 days" is the only part of Daniel 8 left unexplained (Close examination of the entire chapter will, however, reveal other elements not fully explained to Daniel, as is the case in Daniel 2 and 7 also). The argument continues with the assertion that HAZON means "the whole of the vision" and MAREH means "only a small part of the vision." This assertion is then applied to Daniel 8 and 9 in order to link chapter 9:24-27 to chapter 8:14, alledging (sic) that 9:24-27 is an explanation of 8:14. That is, because the word "vision" in 9:23 is MAREH it must refer back to the small part of Daniel 8 left unexplained, namely 8:14.
This argument sounds very scholarly and will dupe many Sabbath School members.

He makes a good argument but it lacks the actual evidence which is necessary to support his case. Of course he does not have room to provide the texts in his letter to Atoday so I will supply the quotations for the aid of those who may want to point this out to others in their Sabbath School classes.

Update: The same point is made by Desmond Ford on the Spectrum Website where he says:

On page 74 of the Adult Teachers Guide, much space is given to the supposedly great distinction between the words Chazon and Mareh—words translated as "vision." This is enough to make any Hebraist not paid by the denomination weep. The words are used interchangeably, as anyone who knows English can find out by using a Strong’s Concordance. Chazon refers to the ecstatic experience of prophetic vision, and Mareh to its contents. The latter comes from a root meaning "to see." Mareh is found several times in the later chapters of Daniel and is NOT limited to the detail overheard concerning the twenty-three hundred evening-mornings. O that the brethren might play fair!

Example of Mareh meaning vision:
Dan 10:16
16 Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I am helpless. (NIV)

Strongs definition: 4758 mar'eh (mar-eh'); from 7200; a view (the act of seeing); also an appearance (the thing seen), whether (real) a shape (especially if handsome, comeliness; often plural the looks), or (mental) a vision:
KJV-- X apparently, appearance (-reth), X as soon as beautiful (-ly), countenance, fair, favoured, form, goodly, to look (up) on (to), look [-eth], pattern, to see, seem, sight, visage, vision.
-----

Example of Chazown used for vision:
Dan 10:14
14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come." (NIV)

Strongs definition: 2377 chazown (khaw-zone'); from 2372; a sight (mentally), i.e. a dream, revelation, or oracle: KJV-- vision.


The following verses in Daniel use chazown 2377 (KJV)

Dan 1:17
17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
Dan 8:1
1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
Dan 8:2
2 And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
Dan 8:13
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
Dan 8:15
15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.
Dan 8:26
26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.
Dan 9:21
21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
Dan 9:23
23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

---

The following verses in Daniel use mar'eh 4758 (KJV)

Dan 1:4
4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
Dan 1:13
13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.
Dan 1:15
15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.
Dan 8:15
15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.
Dan 8:16
16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
Dan 8:17
17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.
Dan 8:26
26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.
Dan 8:27
27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.
Dan 10:1
1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.
Dan 10:6
6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.
Dan 10:16
16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.
Dan 10:18
18 Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me,

Martin Luther - Reason is a whore

One of the things that I really don't like to see is people taking a quote out of its context. Fortunately with the internet it is now possible to often quickly find the context to verify if the use of the quote is accurate to the way the quote is used.

Marco at HeavenlySanctuary.com writes;
Satanic statement of the day:
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently then not - struggles against The Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
Who said this?

The hint is in the title, but for the record, sometimes I think that instead of moving the church from The Dark Ages, The Reformation covertly gave The Dark Ages a nicer looking face.

The more I study it, the more I'm leary of being associated with "Reformation Theology."
Comments?
 Marco here assumes that Martin Luther is attacking the concept of reason. However Luther is defending his position on the correctness of the Roman Catholic belief in infant Baptism. 
LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK OF BAPTISM CCCLIII.
The anabaptists pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.  
I would not have wanted to get involved with Luther and his arguments. He was in fact quite brutal particularly those who were more conservative then he. However wrong he is on infant baptism and his predestination views it is not appropriate to call such a quote satanic. His material about the Jews, and his denouncement of other Christians such as Zwingli, those things are more substantially evil. However all of us say evil things.

Another quote attributed to Martin Luther is the following:

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has."

I never really found the source of that quote many places quote it with out reference. The only one that gave a reference gave the quote as:
"Reason is a whore of the devil." But it only gave abbreviations of the source and I could not find the title of the abbreviation used.(WE 51, 126, 7 ff.; comp. 10 I, 1, 326, 16; 18, 164 , 24. 182, 11)

I actually like those alleged quotes however. As one person said of this quote:

"There's a method to his madness here, as always: reason is only as good as its premises or assumptions, and, like rhetoric, reason will sell its service to any set of premises."

As I planned to post this a couple days ago the folks at HS.com have been discussing the quote and as yet none have figured out the context but some are questioning the context. Maybe they will stumble upon the meaning before they lose interest. In any case the idea of questioning the Reformation is wise because though it did many good things it also failed in many things. I should not be looked at as the standard for Christian theology. It was a re-awakening and the reformation to really serve it's purpose must continually re-awaken.

Response to the politics of division

What bothers me most is that little response can be found for religious topics which is the main focus of this blog. I certainly don’t think I can persuade anyone from their political beliefs because they are based upon ones emotions and philosophy they certainly can change but it is often a slow process. This is also very true of religion however it seems that it is harder to get Adventists involved in discussing their religion then their politics.

But now to the politics. Ryan Bell writes:

My job as a Christian, and even more so as a pastor, is not to say which party is closer to being right, but to declare the gospel of the kingdom, which eschews violence.

The vast majority of Pastors do not preach politics from the pulpit. Which is why the NY Times article is being used by the Religious Left. Their assumption which they treat as simple truth is that Evangelicals are preaching Republican politics and bringing in Republican political candidates to speak to their congregation. The NY Times article said:

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

If you pay attention to the political world you will rarely see a Republican politician make a speech in any Evangelical church. While during the Election campaigns you will regularly see Democrat candidates for President appear before some Black Church. Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, they have all done it. Personally I don’t like to see a church where the Pastor decides what can and can not be announced to the congregation. A table in the lobby is not really an issue of the church mission. I know of several churches which have coffee stands in their lobbies, [update, I got curious and yes Woodland Hills church also has a coffee stand, it's ministry team is called Sunday Coffee Team ] so is it really an affront to let someone have a table to lobby against abortion or for someone to give out voter guides. No the reason these are mentioned is because they represent societal actions of members of the church and they are in harmony with the Republican and or conservative view. And that to the Liberal media is the problem. And make no mistake the NY Times is very much a Liberal organization. Daniel Okrent, the Times Public Editor, said that his was a liberal newspaper in a July 25, 2004 article.
Or read the comments of the publisher of the NY Times Publisher Copies Michael Moore

[Update: Bill O'Reilly's latest column points out the Liberal media Bias I will quote the article in the comments of this post since the link will change when he posts his next article]

The gospel of the kingdom is not the gospel of the countries. Society needs rules to deal with people that attack others either physically or by methods of theft or carelessness etc. If a person eschews violence do they also eschew the police? The words of Christ say to turn the other cheek, should our society abandon our system of authorities, no need for police or judges or jails? The military is another form of police, it however acts upon larger forces then individuals and law breakers. It sounds very nice to say that one eschews violence, most of us really don’t like it, either to use it or to be the victims of it, however much most people don’t like it, it is a part of life in this world. There is a reality to life and we must recognize and deal with it.

Alexander said...

We are of the same faith and I share a desire for greater peace and justice.

Re-read the language of your post. And compare it to the four Adventist posts on the Times piece. Where is the divisive language?

I did not say the other Adventist posts were divisive, I merely said some were excited by the NY Times article. The article itself was not really divisive but it is being used by the Liberal media for its own purposes.

Using novelist Crichton again to dismiss danger misses the point. When experts talk and consensus builds, we need to act. See Katrina, 9/11, welfare reform.

It does not because Crichton is not dealing only with the issue of global warming but with the whole concept of speculation and media’s use of projected crisis. It does not take that much time to read those speeches I would be interested in hearing back from anybody who reads them and still has a disagreement with his positions.

What disturbs me is not the mix of politics and religion - they did it and it is reality. Rather, the sin is the manipulation of religion for political ends, especially by the religious right on the war in Iraq, gay marriage and abortion.

Certainly the war on Iraq had nothing to do with Evangelicals. If we look at history we see that it was approved by both parties. In fact it is my contention that any President in similar situation with the type of Intelligence we and other nations had would have done the same thing. Gay marriage was not an issue raised by the religious right either it was raised by Gay activists and the religious right and society in general responded against the redefinition of marriage. And of course abortion has always been a issue, raised to a new level when the Supreme Court found it to be a right of privacy.

To toe the status quo is itself political and to call those who work for progressive change "divisive" fails to follow the long arch of justice and Christ's mission to the least of these.

There is a divide between the left and right that is the divide I mentioned I have no idea what you have read that leads to you statement. In the political world there really is not a status quo. Which is why we have laws upon laws and every few years someone claims they can make the country or world better.

Sherman Haywood Cox II said...

I agree with alexander...Your piece is much more "partisian" using language like "liberal media" and attacking some sort of liberal establishment...than the post on Spectrum's blog or the commenters to that entry...

Again that is the point, to show that there is a liberal manipulation going on with the article in the NY Times. That is why my quotes were taken from the Washington Post article dealing with the activities of the religious left. If you find you agree with Alexander it may be you need to re-read the article as a couple of his points were without merit.

JS in DC said...

'Over the top generalization' was invented by talk radio hosts -- most of whom are wildly conservative. To suggest that this kind of rhetoric is only visible in the 'liberal media and blogosphere' is itself and over the top generalization.

No, actually over the top generalizations were invented long before radio was invented or before there where talk show hosts. Nowhere did I suggest that such generalizations are exclusive to anyone in particular I noted that it was commonly found in certain liberal outlets, comments like the one quoted in the Post article.

Religious Left and Religious Right the divide widens

There are a couple Adventists blogs who are excited about a typical liberal media production done by the New York Times. It is introduced by the Intersections and the Spectrum Blog.

The Washington Post last week told of the new offensive of the Religious Left Gears Up to Face Right Counterpart by Thomas Ferraro

With a faith-based agenda of their own, liberal and progressive clergy from various denominations are lobbying lawmakers, holding rallies and publicizing their positions. They want to end the Iraq war, ease global warming, combat poverty, raise the minimum wage, revamp immigration laws, and prevent "immoral" cuts in federal social programs.

Unfortunately this is not Religion it is simply politics. The Liberals lost the last two elections and they blame the conservatives. Evangelicals are mainly conservative politically as well as in their religion. Since they are mostly conservative and agree with the Republicans more then the Democrats they became the force which the Liberal media and Liberal democrats choose to attack. As if they are being trained by their religion to be conservatives so their religion is bad. So you hear lots of rhetoric from the liberal side such as this from the Washington Post article:

The religious right intends for you and I to live in a country where church and state are united -- where only their interpretations of biblical law dictates the law of our land," said the Rev. Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister in Washington who heads The Interfaith Alliance which seeks to maintain the constitutional separation of church and state.

This type of over the top generalization is very common from the liberal media and blogosphere. Those involved have accepted the concept of speculation and impending crisis as their method of argument. In any case as the Washington Post article continues this is just creating a greater divide.

But it's unclear how big an impact the religious left will have.

Laura Olson, a Clemson University expert on religion and politics, said the religious left is energized, but "a lot of times it shoots itself in the foot. It often pushes an overly broad agenda that results in conflicting priorities."

And analysts warn that greater activism can worsen the political divide.

"Religion has never been as politicized in recent times as it is right now," said Allen Hertzke, who teaches religion and politics at the University of Oklahoma.

"Politics is about combat -- 'us versus them.' Religion shouldn't be about that," Hertzke said.

Despite increased energy on the left, the religious right -- featuring big-name preachers, popular talk shows and legions of followers -- remains a far bigger influence than the loosely knit left.

In the past Christians in the United States have embraced both political parties. But today the politics are used to create greater division within the Christian community. And too often our own personal political views are used to define our fellow Christians. It is very possible for good Christians to want Justice, peace and social order and still disagree on how to arrive at such things. But the politics of division are not the way to arrive at anything constructive.

Methodists join the Roman Catholic and Lutheran statement on Justification

Methodists Join Roman Catholics, Lutherans in Ecumenical Leap

BY STACY MEICHTRY © 2006 Religion News Service

Methodist churches took a key step toward mending relations with the Vatican, adding their approval to an interfaith accord that aims to repair divisions dating back to the 16th century Protestant Reformation.

On Sunday (July 23), the World Council of Methodists, a body representing more than 65 million faithful, met in Seoul, South Korea, and signed the "Joint Declaration on Justification." That document, signed by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, aimed to settle disagreements over "justification" -- the issue of whether salvation is God-given or earned through good works.

Read The World Methodist Council and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

While many Adventist will look at this as Protestants joining hands with Roman Catholics in a very real sense it is only a concession on the part of the Roman Catholics. The ending statements in these agreements are very consistent with the Protestant understanding of Justification by Faith. The document quotes:

15. In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.

16. All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we
justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God’s gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers and who, at the same time, leads believers into that renewal of life which God will bring to completion in eternal life.

17. We also share the conviction that the message of justification directs us in a
special way towards the heart of the New Testament witness to God’s saving action in Christ: it tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way.

While the Roman Catholic church is on the right track with reform, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches are still in need of reform on the doctrine of Justification by Faith since both are still focused upon the idea of Justification being a matter of substitution, where God sees Christ's righteousness which we hide behind.

For more see the article Justification by Faith...No Hiding from God

Adventists Attack Evangelicals...Again

One of the main functions of this blog is to deal with SDA media. Though I am disappointed with how few really do respond to SDA media hope springs eternal that the membership of the SDA church will engage their leadership and representatives to take positions of responsibility rather then merely rhetoric.

The Pacific Union Recorder has an article entitled "Time for the Second Angel’s Message"

By Alan J. Reinach, Esq. :

I’m often asked by Adventist audiences about the imminence of Sunday laws. One of my typical responses is that when I graduated from law school, they gave me a law license, not a crystal ball. Although I understand the desire of Adventists to know when or how prophecy will be fulfilled, to me, there is a much more important question: what are we supposed to be doing NOW, in light of our prophetic insight. What is the message we should be giving now?

Unfortunately to the reader of this article little is said about what our message should be, a warning not to be part of Babylon is about all and the rest of the article is frankly used to dismiss other Christians.

Today, American churches have shifted their emphasis from evangelism and preaching to politics. The gospel message has been watered down. Where once the emphasis was on repentance and holiness, today it is on believing. Where once believers were taught that those who are justified will live by faith, today the message is that they are saved by an act of faith. The gospel has been denuded of its power. See Romans 1:16-17 for more.

Amazingly enough this really does not say much at all. It is word play and generalizations. Churches have not begun to preach politics, in America Churches have always weighted in on politics as it is the very nature of being citizens in a democratic Republic, for in our democracy the citizens choose the government and representatives. So the churches have been involved from issues of slavery, temperance, civil rights and yes even things like abortion and issues which redefine institutions such as marriage. Still those are not any of the primary areas of the Churches as they have not stopped talking about Jesus and righteousness etc.

So is the gospel message watered down by talking of belief rather then "repentance and holiness"? How many of you repented and became holy before you believed in God? You have to believe in something before you give up your old ways. So let's toss that one out as being a nonsensical thought.

What about this statement: "Where once believers were taught that those who are justified will live by faith, today the message is that they are saved by an act of faith. The gospel has been denuded of its power." Hopefully if you were ever taught that the "justified will live by faith" someone will have corrected your misunderstanding of the Bible. (Heb 10:38 KJV) Now the just shall live by faith: (Rom 1:17 NIV) For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." The above author has sort of confused the concept of the just shall live by faith and the phrase for it is by faith that you have been justified (Romans 5:1) I point this out because the author is playing word games and if you are going to play word games you had better make sure you are not using your words wrong.

In his quote above what is the action word that causes one phrase to be acceptable to the author while the other is not. "Justified will live by faith" versus "saved by an act of faith." Justified and saved are pretty much the same idea each denoting a position of being made right with God. Faith is identical in both phrases, so that leaves us with "will live by" versus "by an act". If the act in the second phrase is living then they are pretty much equivalent terms. The exception would be if the "will live by" is not an "act" but rather the mere existence through respiration. Again I say toss out this paragraph as nonsensical also.

The article continues on the attack of other Christians by saying:

The prophetic message is that a spiritually powerless church seeks a substitute for the power of God in the power of the state. Politics replaces the Holy Spirit as the engine of moral and spiritual revival. So it is today in America. Moreover, this is the fruit of generations of antinomianism. Beginning in the 19th century, Protestant America rejected the Law of God as the standard of character in the judgment, effectively rejecting the sanctifying influence of God’s Spirit. It is no wonder that a false doctrine of the Holy Spirit has swept the globe. Emotional enthusiasm has replaced humble obedience.

The churches since the 19th century have rejected God and all laws of God which are required to pass the "judgment". In traditional Adventistism this is referred to as Apostate Protestantism also known as Babylon. So the author has nearly taken us full circle, not by telling us what message we should be giving except get out of Babylon. Christianity is Babylon except of course us Adventists because we believe in passing the Judgment by our standard of character. Well I don't but apparently it is the Traditional Adventist view.

Adventists make the mistake of imagining that other churches have an equally robust gospel. This is simply false. While people of many churches have a wonderful love relationship with Christ, sound teaching is in short supply.

If we are going to make gratuitous statements I would like to make one also. I don't think many Christians have even a halfway adequate concept of the gospel and that certainly includes Adventists. So until sound teaching makes a comeback I thank God that so many Christians can have the love relationship with God because that is what the gospel is about. However I do not see God declaring people in a loving relationship with Him, however defective their understanding of God is, to be Babylon. When the Kettle calls the Pot black it should take a good look at itself, something Adventists such as the above author should consider. However humble and obedient we may think we are I don't think that attacking our fellow believers is the answer. The reason that many people attack others is to make themselves look or feel better, an argument based upon meaningless rhetoric rather then on a substantive basis.

Jud Lake Responds...Round 3

Jud Lake has responded to my second and more in depth critique of his Ellen G. White Summit presentation. I will place some responses on this blog and also post them on the original response document posted on my web site. As we are getting into the area of responses to responses to responses it is becoming too difficult to continue that process. A good example is the subject I will respond to below. In it Jud responds to an argument I made in my second response and ignores the original argument I used, which was a quote by Canright in which he talks about how Ellen White during her post menopausal period no longer received visions. The import of that is that Canright cannot believe in verbal dictation since Ellen White is no longer receiving visions whereby information could be dictated. Without that method about the only other method of real verbal dictation would have to be a form of automatic writing. However, he in no way indicated such a belief.

In his latest response Jud Lake appears to operate from the presupposition that most things Canright says are out of Canright’s miss-apprehension that EGW was verbally inspired. As we see when Jud writes:

Jud writes:

One other point regarding Canright. In SDAR, page 141, he refers to the 1885 republishing of her “testimonies” in four volumes, reflecting numerous word changes, but fails to mention the 1883 General Conference vote to embrace thought inspiration instead of verbal inspiration. Surely, he was not ignorant of this significant vote, which resulted in the 1885 republishing of the Testimonies? He remained in the SDA church until 1887. Is this not concealing evidence? What about the significant 1886 statement representing Ellen White's doctrinal understanding of inspiration? He may not have known about this document, but nonetheless could have accessed it though honest research. Both of these documents were certainly contrary evidence to his interpretation. This is one example, among others, of concealed evidence in Canright.

From Canright’s book SDA renounced he sets out why he questions the divine inspiration of Ellen White. Notice that again here he is not referring to verbal dictation, just the general inspiration, of course words are the method of communication. Here is the section from Canright’s book:

She says in "Spiritual Gifts," Vol. II, page 293: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having a vision." Here she claims that the very words in which her visions are recorded are of divine inspiration. But I know that the words in her written "testimonies" are not inspired; for -

1. When writing them out she will often change what she has written, and write it very differently. I have seen her scratch out a whole page, or a line, or a sentence, and write it over differently. If God gave her the words, why did she scratch them out and alter them?

2. I have repeatedly seen her sit with pen in hand and read her manuscript to her husband for hours, while he suggested many changes, which she made. She would scratch out her own words and put in his, sometimes whole sentences. Was he inspired, too?

3. As she is ignorant of grammar, of late years she has employed an accomplished writer to take her manuscript and correct it, improve its wording, polish it up, and put it in popular style, so her books will sell better. Thousands of words, not her own, are thus put in by these other persons, some of whom are not even Christian. Are their words inspired, too?

4. She often copies her subject matter without credit or sign of quotation, from other authors. Indeed her last book, "Great Controversy," which they laud so highly as her greatest work, is largely a compilation from Andrew's History of the Sabbath, History of the Waldenses by Wylie, Life of Miller by White, Thoughts on Revelation by Smith, and other books.

This she pretends was all revealed to her directly from heaven. It is not something she has heard or read or studied out, but it is what God has revealed to her by the Holy Ghost. Stubborn facts show that her claim is utterly false and her book a deception the same as the Book of Mormon, which Smith stole from Spaulding.

The Pastor's Union of Healdsburg, Cal., investigated the matter and published many examples out of hundreds where she had copied her matter directly from other authors without anything to show it was copied. They went through several works and scores of pages finding the same thing all through her book. This proves her guilty of stealing her ideas and matter from other authors and putting them off on her followers as a revelation from God!

5. Passages Suppressed. Several important passages in the first edition of her visions have been suppressed in all later ones as they contradict what Adventists now believe. For thirty years they have chafed under this charge of suppression. They have denied it, made light of it; and finally the pressure was so hard that in 1882, they republished her first visions, claiming to give them all and word for word. They say: "No changes from the original work have been made." Preface to Early Writings, page 4. They also say the work was printed "under the authors own eye and with her full approval." Page 4. They denounce it as a wicked slander to say that anything has been suppressed.

But I have before me the original work entitled, "A Word to the Little Flock," published by Jas. White, 1847; also "The Present Truth," August, 1849, containing her original visions. Comparing the present edition with the original, I find seven different places where from FIVE to THIRTY lines in a place have been cut right out with no sign of omission! The suppressed passages are very damaging to her inspiration. I will give one short one as an illustration. It teaches what they now deny, viz., that no one could be converted after 1844. The suppressed lines are in brackets.

“As Originally Published

"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth [but from bad to worse, for those who professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people, but if their hearts could be seen they would appear as black as ever]. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Present Truth, page 22, published August, 1849.

As Now Published

"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth. My accompanying angel bade me to look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past." Page 37, edition of 1882.

Now if they mean to be honest and dare publish these suppressed passages, why don't they? They know very well what they are; Mrs. White knows what they are; yet the book is republished "under her own eye" and all these passages left out when it is states that "no changes from the original work have been made." I have both books before me now and know the statement to be untrue and so do they; yet they keep right on sending it out.

6. In 1885 all her "testimonies" were republished in four volumes, under the eye of her own son and a critical editor. Opening hap-hazard to four different pages in Vol. I., I read and compared them with the original publication which I have. I found an average TWENTY-FOUR CHANGES OF THE WORDS ON EACH PAGE! Her words were thrown out and other words put in and other changes made, in some cases so many that it was difficult to read the two together. At the same rate in the four volumes, there would be 63,720 changes.

Taking, then, the words which were put in by her husband, by her copyist, by her son, by her editors, and those copied from other authors, probably they comprise from one-tenth to one quarter of all her books. Fine inspiration that is! The common reader knows nothing about these damaging facts, but I could not avoid knowing them, for I have been where I saw it myself.

I could fill a volume with proof of her mistakes, for all of her books are full of them. I will select but a few.

When we read this in context Canright is explaining why Ellen White is literally not dependent upon the Holy Spirit for her writing. She uses other authors, her husband, and her assistants. She equated her dependence on the Holy Spirit for her writing just as much as for her visions. Which may raise the issue of whether her visions were equally dependent upon the help of other authors, her husband, or her literary assistants. Regarding points 5 and 6 above we see Canright’s contention that if Holy Spirit inspired her writing why are certain statements removed and why are other statements radically changed? Which version of her writing was she meaning were inspired with the very words as inspired as the visions? If there were not so many deletions and if the language were merely changed it might be acceptable to assume that Canright was really only concerned with the exact words and some sort of verbal dictation. But he is clearly indicating there is suppression of sections of her writing in the new publications.

So why does Canright not address the General Conference permission given to republish and modify Ellen White's works? Probably because the General Conference is not part of the equation given by EGW. “She says in "Spiritual Gifts," Vol. II, page 293: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having a vision." Whether the publisher agrees or disagrees is not the main subject in this portion of Canright’s book, here he is talking about Ellen Whites inspiration or lack of inspiration. He does however question the publisher's honesty because of the deletions and suppression of previous elements in her writing while they claim that no changes have been made to content. To insinuate that he is concealing evidence is hardly a responsible or accurate position.


Here is the 1883 General Conference Resolution:

Selected Messages Vol. 3 p.96
Editing the Published Testimonies in 1884.-- Dear Brother Smith: I have today mailed you a letter, but information has been received from Battle Creek that the work upon Testimonies is not accepted. [REFERENCE IS TO THE WORK BEING DONE IN RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL CONFERENCE SESSION ACTION OF NOVEMBER 16, WHICH READS:
"32. WHEREAS, SOME OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF THE TESTIMONIES TO THE CHURCH, ARE OUT OF PRINT, SO THAT FULL SETS CANNOT BE OBTAINED AT THE OFFICE; AND,
"WHEREAS, THERE IS A CONSTANT AND URGENT CALL FOR THE REPRINTING OF THESE VOLUMES; THEREFORE,
"RESOLVED, THAT WE RECOMMEND THEIR REPUBLICATION IN SUCH A FORM AS TO MAKE FOUR VOLUMES OF SEVEN OR EIGHT HUNDRED PAGES EACH.
"33. WHEREAS, MANY OF THESE TESTIMONIES WERE WRITTEN UNDER THE MOST UNFAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WRITER BEING TOO HEAVILY PRESSED WITH ANXIETY AND LABOR TO DEVOTE CRITICAL THOUGHT TO THE GRAMMATICAL PERFECTION OF THE WRITINGS, AND THEY WERE PRINTED IN SUCH HASTE AS TO ALLOW THESE IMPERFECTIONS TO PASS UNCORRECTED; AND,
"WHEREAS, WE BELIEVE THE LIGHT GIVEN BY GOD TO HIS SERVANTS IS BY THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE MIND, THUS IMPARTING THE THOUGHTS, AND NOT (EXCEPT IN RARE CASES) THE VERY WORDS IN WHICH THE IDEAS SHOULD BE EXPRESSED; THEREFORE,
"RESOLVED, THAT IN THE REPUBLICATION OF THESE VOLUMES, SUCH VERBAL CHANGES BE MADE AS TO REMOVE THE ABOVE-NAMED IMPERFECTIONS, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, WITHOUT IN ANY MEASURE CHANGING THE THOUGHT; AND FURTHER,
"34. RESOLVED, THAT THIS BODY APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF FIVE TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE REPUBLICATION OF THESE VOLUMES ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE PREAMBLES AND RESOLUTIONS."--REVIEW AND HERALD, NOV. 27, 1883.

Ellen White’s statement of Holy Spirit dependence:

Spiritual Gifts Vol. 2 p 293
At times I am carried far ahead into the future and shown what is to take place. Then again I am shown things as they have occurred in the past. After I come out of vision I do not at once remember all that I have seen, and the matter is not so clear before me until I write, then the scene rises before me as was presented in vision, and I can write with freedom. Sometimes the things which I have seen are hid from me after I come out of vision, and I cannot call them to mind until I am brought [293] before a company where that vision applies, then the things which I have seen come to my mind with force. I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision. It is impossible for me to call up things which have been shown me unless the Lord brings them before me at the time that he is pleased to have me relate or write them. {2SG 292.2}

Abundant Rest Blog on Church Judgment

Abundant Rest Blog writes

When Disaster Strikes … Should We Repent?

I read an interesting article recently about a church fire in Baltimore. It was a Seventh-Day Adventist church. The church’s sanctuary was destroyed by the lightning-induced fire, and yet some are calling the undamaged cross a miracle. If God was able to protect the cross as a sign of His power, why did He not protect the whole building? In the past, Ellen White pronounced such events as judgement from God for the church’s sins. Today, we are too scared to say such things that are not politically correct.

Abundant Rest concludes:

It is never a good thing when disaster strikes a church congregation. But perhaps it should serve as a wake-up call for repentance and a return to the standards that God himself set for His church.

If the destruction of the church was really a judgment of God and God is good would not the disaster also be good?

It is perhaps not the best picture of God to tell us that God destroys a church as a method of judgment against the sins of that church. It is the similar concept that God destroyed New Orleans or hundreds of thousands of people with a Tsunami in Indonesia. Or perhaps that old saying that God really hates trailer parks is true, and it is just His judgment upon the people living in the flimsy constructed homes that tornadoes and hurricanes and just plain wind storms do so much damage to.

Is it a miracle that the cross of the church survived, no probably not, but it is typical of people of hope. They deal with bad events by also looking at what might be good in the event. That cross will probably be taken down and placed on the new church as a reminder of the adversity that the people of that church have survived. We live in a world of trouble, however the hope revealed in Jesus Christ as the God of love gives us enough courage to press on despite the troubles and even in spite of the declarations of others of our sinfulness. The sad truth is we are always right when we declare someone sinful. It is a comment that fits every human being. I believe the New Testament presents a picture of God who has better things to do then to bring disasters upon His followers even though His followers are imperfect.

Response to the Magnificent Disappointment Part 1

The first chapter of the Magnificent Disappointment is about William Miller, the “best man for the job”. So it is not of too much concern to the subject matter of the Investigative Judgment. Miller rejected the Investigative Judgment so we will move on to chapter 2.

In the introduction Maxwell declared how important he thinks the concept of 1844 and the IJ (investigative judgment) is. These reasons are given on page 5:

…But only Seventh-day Adventists understand in addition the work of the contemporary Christ who has been ministering grace, sanctification, and judgment in the most holy place since 1844. Thus 1844 is, first of all, a special message about Jesus.
It is also…
The basic reason the Seventh-day Adventist movement exists
The unique reason the Seventh-day Adventists are “Adventists”
The motivating reason why we keep the seventh day
The principal reason behind our vast mission program
The spiritual reason for our classic lifestyle
The most impelling sign that Jesus is coming soon
The most forcible argument for Christian education
A most persuasive reason for seeking to be like Jesus.

About the only thing that is really accurate to most Adventists is that we historically came out of the Millerite movement with it’s emphasis on the Second Coming. There were several groups of Adventists some Sunday keepers and some seventh day Sabbath keepers. The Sabbath keepers did not arrive at that position due to 1844. Certainly a prophetic event which fails to occur and then is reinterpreted to an event that occurs exclusively in heaven beyond human observations is hardly an impelling sign that Jesus is coming soon.

It is from this perspective of Maxwell’s list that we find underlying his arguments in the book. Clearly the book is written to those who already accept the IJ view. As Maxwell begins chapter 2 he writes:

If Miller was God’s “best man available,” how could he have been so conspicuously
wrong?
The question is important. If we are expected to have sufficient confidence in 1844 to base our lifestyles on it, we need to know where Miller went wrong so we can evaluate his mistake for ourselves.
I find encouragement, personally, in knowing that the mistake Miller made was the kind of mistake that only an expert Bible student would have made.

Instead of explaining why 1844 is important, he relies on his introduction to establish its importance, so important that it defines our lifestyle. That Miller was an expert Bible student is certainly debatable. Since it is modified by “student” I suppose it is acceptable but the idea that Miller was an expert in the Bible is far from accurate. However good some of his ideas were he was not a Bible expert. On page 26 Maxwell explains why Miller misunderstood Daniel 8:14:

Failing at an early point in his study to see the significance of Hebrews 9:22, 23 Miller went on believing what everyone else believed, namely that the heavenly sanctuary could never be defiled or need cleansing. He didn’t even see the connection when he read Hebrews later in his life, for his mind had been made up.

This is an important aspect because it is again part of the peculiar beliefs of Adventism. The idea that there is a literal sanctuary in heaven and the idea that such a sanctuary in the very presence of God needs purified.

(Heb 9:22 NIV) In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

(Heb 9:23 NIV) It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

(Heb 9:24 NIV) For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.

The subject is not the so called Heavenly sanctuary but the actual reality which the earthly sanctuary symbolized. The ancient Jewish religion taught that most things could be cleaned in the sanctuary by the application of blood in some way. The sacrificial system required so much bloodshed that it seemed there was not forgiveness with out the shedding of blood. Of course when you read the sacrificial system we see there were indeed non blood related sacrifices, oil, flour etc. The idea then is that symbols in the earthly sanctuary were symbolically purified by symbolic materials. But symbols are merely symbols, something in reality has to purify and that is what God does through the manifestation of Jesus Christ. It is God who cleanses our consciences

(Heb 9:9 NIV) This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.

(Heb 9:14 NIV) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

(Heb 10:22 NIV) let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

There is nothing in these verses about cleansing a heavenly sanctuary. There is no reason for a sanctuary in heaven. The sanctuary on earth was to represent God dwelling among his people. Where God actually is has no reason for a sanctuary. The furniture mention in Revelation is most certainly symbolic and not meant to indicate a literal temple in heaven. What we see in these verses is the reconciliation between God and man. That reconciliation has to take into account all aspects of reality. The Blood which is a symbol for both life and death indicates the sacrifice of Jesus Christ which is not to cleanse something in heaven but is to affect the conscience of man, it is the very life and love of God that purifies us. There is a reconciliation between God, His holy angels, and man as well as the defeat of the purposes of those fallen angels who oppose God. As the Expositors Bible Dictionary says:

On the whole, it seems best to recall that in the NT there are references to "the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12); the "rulers of this age" (1Cor 2:8); the "powers" like "height" and "depth" (Rom 8:38-39), as well as "angels" and "demons." Such references seem to indicate wickedness beyond this earth. And when Christ performed his atoning work, he "disarmed the powers and authorities, ... triumphing over them by the cross" (Col 2:15). It was God's will "through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Col 1:20). This strand of teaching is not prominent in Hebrews. Nevertheless, the language used here seems to accord with it better than with other views. The author is fond of the word "better" (see comments on 1:4), but it is unexpected for him to use the plural "sacrifices," since he is insistent that there was but one sacrifice and that Christ suffered "once for all" (v. 26). Probably we should take "sacrifices" as the generic plural that lays down the principle fulfilled in the one sacrifice.

As for Miller and Adventists there is nothing in these verses which would indicate anything about 1844. There is also little present here that connects to Daniel 8:14. The only way they could be connected is if you acknowledge that Christ upon his ascension purified heaven in which case the ascension of Jesus would mark the conclusion of the 2300 evening and mornings and the setting right of the sanctuary. Too assume that Christ returned to heaven but did not commence His activity as God until some far later date is to ignore the message of the book of Hebrews.

Daniel 7; What does Pre-Advent Mean Anyway

The Lesson Study Guide for this week begins with the following assertion:

“In short, in Daniel 7 we are shown the pre-Advent judgment.”

“Pre” means before something. “Advent” means:

1. the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
2. the second coming of Jesus Christ.

--Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Clearly the term pre-Advent judgment covers a lot of territory. There are numerous judgment made in the Old Testament for instance. The Judgment of Egypt described in Exodus 7:4 “he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.” (NIV) The judgment on Edom; Isaiah 34:5 “My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; see, it descends in judgment on Edom, the people I have totally destroyed.” (NIV) Numerous judgments could be listed and most of the judgments fit into that wide time frame of before the incarnation and before the second coming.

We can safely assume that the term pre-advent judgment has a different meaning for the author of the lesson study, though no definition of the term has been given so far, in the lesson study guide it is treated as a fait accompli that Daniel 7 shows us the pre-advent judgment. As with much of this study guide the conclusions have been made and the guide is not meant to study the Biblical messages but to support the traditional conclusions.

The lesson for Sunday states of the four beasts in Daniel 7:

“Scholars have long recognized them as the following: Babylon (lion) Media-Persia (bear) Greece (leopard) Rome (fourth beast).”

There is very widespread agreement on the first three of these beasts among Christians. The reason is not so much scholarly discernment as it is based upon the interpretations given in the book of Daniel itself. In Daniel 8:19-22 we read the interpretations; “He said: ‘I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king.”’ Since each of the visions have similarities it is easily assumed that they are each dealing with the same kingdoms with simply each vision adding more detail. Daniel 2 had already related that the first kingdom was Babylon (Daniel 2:38-39). It appears the vision in Daniel 2 was a general outline: the vision of Daniel 7 gets more detailed. Though the time frame without further specifics can refer to different things, likely why there are many different theories about the various prophecies of Daniel.

Tuesday’s lesson is about the little horn power. It is assumed that the reformation held the little horn to be the antichrist, that the little horn is the Roman Catholic Church defined by the papacy. Historically speaking the 10 horns of Daniel 7 do not work out well to indicate the rise of the Roman Catholic Church or as Adventists like to call it Papal Rome. See The Ten Horns Of Daniel 7 An Historical Perspective

John Wesley saw the fourth beast as Rome and the little horn of Daniel 7 as “Probably either the Turk or the Romish antichrist” but the horn of Daniel 8 was “This little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes.” See Wesley’s commentary; Calvin’s Commentary on Daniel 7 says: “For as to the Pope having erected his own throne there, this empire is unworthy of the name of monarchy; but whatever be our view of this point, for about 1500 years the Romans have been in bondage as slaves to foreign princes. For, after the death of Nero:, Trajan was his successor, and from that time scarcely a single Roman obtained the empire; and God branded it with the, most disgraceful marks of ignominy, when a swine-herd was created emperor, and that too by the lust of the soldiery! The senate retained its name till then; But. if it pleased the soldiers to create any one a Caesar, the senate was immediately compelled to submit to their dictation. Thus, the Prophet with great propriety says, The beast was slain shortly after the promulgation of the gospel. Then the presumptuous speaking of the little horn was at an end, and the fourth beast was extinct about the same time. For then no Roman became an Emperor who claimed for himself any share of power; but Rome itself fell into disgraceful slavery, and not only foreigners reigned there most shamefully, but even barbarians, swine-herds, and cow-herds! All this occurred in fulfillment of what God had shown to his Prophet, namely, after the coming of Christ and the opening of the books, that is — after the knowledge which shone upon the world through the preaching of the gospel — the destruction of that fourth beast and of the Roman empire was close at hand.”

The Lesson Study guide concludes Tuesday’s lesson on the little horn with the comment:

“All these attributes have been powerfully and graphically recorded in history. There's no question here regarding the identity of this little-horn power.”

Historically among Christians there is no consensus about the little horn power and the idea that Adventists are just carrying on the Reformation tradition is not really true though often presented that way. There were numerous views during the Reformation about the little horn and Daniel. The assumption that it is only referring to the Papacy is an over simplification.

The lesson on Wednesday is unusually nonspecific when dealing with the 1,260 (time times and half a time). Normally Adventists give a date of 538-1798 but perhaps people are finally learning that 538 is rather non important as an historical date. It was accepted for so long because of the lack of understanding of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Rome, the continuation of the Roman Empire) and the political maneuvering between different factions. The historical accuracy of dates has always been a problem for the Year-day principle as we will no doubt see when the lesson moves to that subject. Even in the SDA church there are different explanations for why the year 538 is used. The two most popular are that it was that year that the Emperor wrote some document that gave the papacy power and the other view is that the date was the fall of the Ostrogoths. Whatever reason is given it is very likely that the method for arriving at that date was developed using the common Millerite interpretation which saw 1798 as the fall of the Papacy when the Pope was taken captive. Working backworks 1260 years rendered 538 from that point all that is needed was to manufacture an event. In any case the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538 nor was there a significant document that empowered the Papacy. The 1798 date is used to substantiate the event of 1844 using the idea that the capture of the Pope is the destruction of the little horn power.

Charlatans and Hucksters promote Al Gore's Movie

A recent report in the local paper on the 1980's phenomenon of J.Z. Knight and her channeled friend Ramtha:

Behind the gates at Ramtha's school By Lisa Pemberton The Olympia

YELM - Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, after nearly 20 years of existence, has begun to give the public a glimpse of what goes on behind the high fences and massive gates of what some have called "the mystery school."

Striving For Enlightenment:

JZ Knight, the school's founder, recently revamped the school's "beginning retreats," which cost about $750 and are open to the public. The sessions have been condensed to three and a half days, down from eight, and most will be offered on weekends so that more working students can attend, school officials say.

Debbie Christie, 45, one of the school's teachers, begins the day with a demonstration of card reading. She said she can focus her mind on the back of a playing card so much that a shadow of the card's number and suit appear to her.

This morning, she calls about 40 of the 52 cards correctly. She practices the discipline about two hours a day.

Christie, who is the music technician at Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, recently began using her skills with the state Lotto game.

"I've consistently seen two out of six numbers, just about every time," she said. "(Eventually) that number will move to three, then four. Then the big one will hit."

Originally from Little Rock, Ark., Christie saw a video of JZ Knight channeling Ramtha in the mid-1980s.

She should go and see the Amazing Randi as he offers a 1 million dollar prize for anyone who can prove psychic ability in stead of hoping to hit the lottery.

"We have the potential in us to be more than remarkable," she said.

To cheers, she announces that Ramtha will be teaching later in the week, after her body has had some rest.

Also during the next few days, she says those staying will be treated to a special viewing of "An Inconvenient Truth," which features former Vice President Al Gore on the subject of global warming.

"It was Ram in the early '80s that broke the truth that all is not well with what was going on above our heads," Knight said, referring to the climate. "It sort of confirms what the Ram's been saying all along."

Daniel 2, Cyrus and the problem of dating ancient writing

One of the by-products of studying Daniel 2,7 and 8 is that we have to deal with those of the scholarly community who hold to a later date for the writing of the book of Daniel then conservative Christian Scholars often choose. Many evangelist sermons have been presented throughout Adventist history using the four kingdoms as proof of the divine nature of prophecy and the foreknowledge of God; the older date for the origin of the book of Daniel has been assumed. It is attention grabbing to say the least a dramatic example of God predicting the future and revealing it to people. In the book of Daniel three of the four kingdoms are actually named. Though even with an assumed earlier date of writing, two of the kingdoms would have already occurred by the writing of the book. The kingdoms of Babylon and Medio-Persia, both according to the book of Daniel used Daniel’s services. The specific naming of the third kingdom and the lack of a name for the fourth kingdom seem problematic. If Daniel had known the name of the third kingdom why not the fourth? From a Christian perspective that simple inclusion of the fourth kingdom name would have meant that criticism of the date of the writing of the book would be irrelevant, its predictive quality would be assured.

Instead we have to deal with the question of when this book was written much as we have to deal with the question of when the statements about Cyrus were written in Isaiah. In the last half of the book in which very few personal names other then historical names such as Abraham are mentioned, Cyrus is mentioned as an agent used by God. An agent who carries out the desires of God yet is said that he will not acknowledge God.

Isaiah 45:1, 4 "This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: 4 For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me.

Josephus tells the story of how Cyrus read about himself in the book of Isaiah. In Antiquities of the Jews Book XI Chapter 1 we read:

“2. This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: "My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple." This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written;” http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm

As Josephus points out this is a remarkable prediction, however if the mention of Cyrus was made by someone writing under the name of Isaiah it would no longer be a prediction but be an exposition of current events and God’s involvement. Most people would be very impressed to be mentioned by name, with what you were going to do as a prophecy of God. Such knowledge may even lead one to accept a different God, which in the pagan world is not a huge deal, but to be told also that you won’t acknowledge that God who made the prediction, that seems strange. Why would God poison the well so to speak? The idea of too specific a prophecy is the general reason many see the tendency to vague prophecies. Confirming the ability of people involved to make their own decisions rather then have to live some pre-planned life. This would not hold to nations such a Greeks or Romans so Daniel would not endanger anyone’s free choice by stating the name of the fourth kingdom.

So books like Daniel and Isaiah are critically questioned as to authorship and time and place of the writer. Isaiah is often considered to be the work of two or three authors and/or redactors over time greater then Isaiah’s lifetime and Daniel to be written under a pseudonym at the time of Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes a Hellenistic Greek of the Seleucid Empire, a successor state of Alexander the Great. The critic’s analysis is certainly not without merit or logic. This leaves the Christian in the position of wondering if these instances are really accurate predictions or accounts of contemporary events to the writer.

The more important issue however is upon what basis we insist upon one view over another. Does Christianity stand or fall upon the four kingdoms of Daniel or whether Cyrus was predicted 140 years before he was born? To insist upon an earlier date of writing discounts the other scholarly views. If we continue to teach our traditional perspective of Daniel we are also demanding that those listening must discount the other scholarly views because it gives us a stronger case upon some peripheral issue.

All this leads to something important. Is Christianity merely a religion based upon faith or is it a religion based upon evidence which leads to faith? If it is just faith then we can assume anything we want about any book or person in the Bible or any writing from Gnostic to Science Fiction. If faith is based upon evidence then we have to recognize that some things may through reason help build faith and some reasonably may harm and some things may not be the type of evidence that we can use at all. Christianity is at a fork in the road and Christian evangelism in the future will be decided upon which road we take today.

Lesson on Daniel 2...some questions you may want to ask

And now some thoughts, which may stimulate your Sabbath School Discussion:

1. In the memory text it says in the days of these kings. Who are these kings?

Dan 2:40 (All texts NASB) "Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces. 41 "In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay. 42 "As the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle. 43 "And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery. 44 "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 "Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy." 46 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and did homage to Daniel, and gave orders to present to him an offering and fragrant incense.

2. We tend to think linearly which is fine with simple concepts but rarely works with complex issues. The 4 kingdoms are listed linearly however when the stone comes it destroys all, Thinking linearly there is only the toes because everything else has come and gone. The answer to the question 1. above will in most classes be the days of the kings of the toes. Yet the verse about the toes does not indicate that it is different kingdoms but a kingdom poorly held together because of the clay (pottery elements that are not strong like the other parts of the kingdom. The stone is representing the God of heavens kingdom and it crushes all other kingdoms. So it is not dealing with linear thinking here. The reference is to all the kingdoms (“it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold,”) in the statue.

This should tell us something when we consider the apocalyptic nature of sections, actually most of Daniel. That is, though things look bad for God’s people (which is why apocalyptic writing is used, when life is going easily people don’t write with hidden meanings) God is still in control and His kingdom will be the eternal kingdom. This is a very comforting view when you are being held under a foreign land and your entire religious system has been destroyed.

3. In Daniel 2 there is mention of the latter days as in: verse 28 "However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days”. Does the latter days of Daniel indicate the time of the end as we consider it, i.e. the short time before the second coming? Again thinking linearly the latter days of Babylon or Persia etc have little to do with the time of the end of all things on earth. Yet if Daniel is not limited to linear thinking the latter days can encompass the time from Babylon till the completion and reality of the establishment of the kingdom of God. However to do that we have to leave behind our linear thinking and see that the emphasis is not upon this or that country but upon God constant involvement with His people. That God has been establishing His kingdom for thousands of years even before the kingdom of God came with power with Jesus Christ.

4. Is the following statement true or is it a generality used to exalt God?

Dan 2:19 Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven; 20 Daniel said, "Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, For wisdom and power belong to Him. 21 "It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding.

What would be an example of God changes the times and epochs?

Was Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler established as rulers by God and taken down by God?

Is it more likely that there are exceptions and sometimes God establishes a ruler such as Cyrus? Or takes down a leader like Pharaoh?

The Book of Daniel; Early (6th century BC) vs. Latter (2nd Century BC)

This is a debate which has been going on for a long time. I doubt there is a certain answer but rather then simply assume the earler date as the Lesson Study Guide does I would like to offer the two views for comparision.

So here is a internet debate upon the subject of the date of the writing of the book of Daniel. I wish it was simpler, but as with much of life it is not a simple matter.