- Jan 1, 2006
- 7,880
- 67
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
ok im sorta confused what is the SDA beleif of 1844 isnt that judgement began 
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
ttreg said:ok im sorta confused what is the SDA beleif of 1844 isnt that judgement began![]()
Yes, I don't deny we teach the sins are transferred into the sanctuary by blood. But hear what I am saying: this symbolizes the recording of sins.
If I want to see a show of hands who had been taught that blood of christ defiles the sanctuary, I don't expect to see any. If a SDA had taught you this, he was surely mistaken.
Ellen White never wrote such statement. If you are acusing her and the SDAs of false doctrine, you should understand fully what we are teaching.
And lastly, the original question was asking what SDAs teach about 1844. The person didn't ask for the opinion of what you think about it. You could have stated your opinion on another thread. Anyways, I think what you have is a straw man.
Dear yeshuma no offense but this for people asking questions to other adventists to answer or debate. You may ask questions but NOT debate for us. TY . If i came to messianic and started giving my SDA views it would not bode well. TY and GOD blessYeshuamySalvation said:Hey, it's like someone trying to force a part of a puzzle somewere it doesn't belong, but by hammering it they think they made it fit even though they didn't succeed...
Later
Blessings...![]()
Quote:
Originally Posted by OntheDL
Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner's stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the day of atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself, and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people. {GC88 420.1}
And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But, before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin, and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation,--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem his people; for when he comes, his reward is with him to give to every man according to his works. [REV. 22:12.] {GC88 421.3}
As you can see in the 1888 edition of GC what Ellen White wrote about the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In her own words, she wrote (and I highlighted for your convenience) the sins had polluted the sanctuary.
Hey, it's like someone trying to force a part of a puzzle somewere it doesn't belong, but by hammering it they think they made it fit even though they didn't succeed...
And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But, before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin, and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation,--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem his people; for when he comes, his reward is with him to give to every man according to his works. [REV. 22:12.] {GC88 421.3}
As you can see in the 1888 edition of GC what Ellen White wrote about the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In her own words, she wrote (and I highlighted for your convenience) the sins had polluted the sanctuary.
OntheDL said:SDAs do not teach the confessed sins defile the sanctuary. On the contrary, we teach anything defiles can not enter into the Holy Place. And it is necessary for the blood to be sprinkled onto veils of the sanctuary for the purpose of recording the sins. The cleansing of the sanctuary is not to cleanse the sins, but rather to erase the record of sin after the record has been examed on the Day of Atonement.
Maybe she wrote those words, I don't know...
B. L. House: My real difficulty is just here: Sister White did not write
either the old edition or the revised, as I understand it.
A. G. Daniells: What do you mean by saying that she did not write either
edition?
B. L. House: As I understand it, Elder J. N. Anderson prepared those
historical quotations for the old edition, and Brother Robinson and
Brother Crisler, Professor Prescott and others furnished the quotations
for the new edition. Did she write the historical quotations in there?
A. G. Daniells: No.
Well, she did say where she thought sin went and where she thought Jesus went until 1844, which contradicts the Bible. The book of Hebrews shows that Jesus did enter the MHP (which in the heavenly reality is the throne room of God) at His ascension. Today, many TSDA scholars (like Davidson) acknowledge that, but they justify departing from the historical views of the pioneers by saying that His entrance into the MHP was only to inaugurate it, and then He went back to the HP until 1844. The problem is that EGW said that the door to the MHP wasn't opened until 1844, so this interpretation contradicts what she wrote (unless of course she didn't really write that either).What I find her trying to bring out in her books is not where the blood or sin went to but that there was an investigative judgment that started in 1844 which I believe the Bible supports.
You skipped the first part of this paragraph, which was included in the 1888 GC. Here is the whole paragraph:
She doesn't say that only a record is transferred to the heavenly sanctuary. She says that the sins are transferred there in fact. You disagree with her when you say this:As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin-offering, and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ, and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But, before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin, and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation,--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem his people; for when he comes, his reward is with him to give to every man according to his works. [REV. 22:12.] {GC88 421.3}
Quote:
Originally Posted by OntheDL
SDAs do not teach the confessed sins defile the sanctuary. On the contrary, we teach anything defiles can not enter into the Holy Place. And it is necessary for the blood to be sprinkled onto veils of the sanctuary for the purpose of recording the sins. The cleansing of the sanctuary is not to cleanse the sins, but rather to erase the record of sin after the record has been examed on the Day of Atonement.
Well, she did say where she thought sin went and where she thought Jesus went until 1844, which contradicts the Bible.
The book of Hebrews shows that Jesus did enter the MHP
which in the heavenly reality is the throne room of God
I don't believe that the Bible supports the IJ doctrine or the 1844 date as having any prophetic significance.
djconklin said:There is a little sloppiness in the English here. The confusion lies in assuming that the word "sanctuary" and "Holy Place" is the Most Holy. Sin never enters there. Sin is transferred to the Temple through the sacrificial offerings. The blood of some of the offerings is brought into the Temple and sprinkled on the veil between the Holy and the Most Holy.
Please see the discussion in the Denomination-specific Theology thread. Even Adventist scholars like Salom have admitted that a knowledge of Greek doesn't settle the interpretation question in regard to ta hagia. The context is the determining factor.There is NO verse in Hebrews that says such a thing. And please don't cite some flawed translation. Use the Greek.
What more holy place could there be in heaven than the throne of God, where God sits encircled by the cherubim, just as in the OT Most Holy Place the mercy seat (above which the Bible says God met with them) was covered by cherubim? The parallels are clear. Do you subscribe to the "table of shewbread as the symbol of God's throne" theory?There is no verse in the Bible that says that.
EGW has been accussed of contradicting Scripture over 50 times. In each and every single case it has been shown that it was the critics who were wrong and not EGW; see http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/contradictions.html
Most of the alleged contradictions are the result of the critics simplistic, wooden and literalistic reading of both texts.
Read my tag line.