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.
I also see that you didn't address the inauguration. You believe Jesus inaugurated don't you?
Andreason did not accept the full scope of teaching on the sinless nature of Christ - so I am not entirely bought into the idea that "anything Adreason thought must be without flaw". That's me being a "Moderate SDA" - fully accepting the Fundamental Beliefs but not far-right or far-left.
Prescott never used the term "good answers" that I know of in relation to Ballanger. Prescott was looking for a scholarly paper not simply "good Bible answers to Ballenger"
He was after all very open to correction of that sort
Yes I do but I don't think that was specific to either phase of the sanctuary -- just the start of the entire process.
Same as Andross. But then you just admitted the question of entry within the veil.
But Prescott noted no adequate answer was given
Depends on whether you think Heb 6 is a focus on "starting the Sanctuary" function as God defined it - (which had to have completed decades before Heb 6 was written) or if you think it is about the fact that the High Priestly work of Christ is presently going on their now as Heb 6 points out.
The inauguration event (as Moses points out) - transfers no sin , forgives no sin. involves no confession, judges no one , is not specific to any individual, and saves no one - it merely starts the process.
So while it is wonderful that it sets apart the entire sanctuary for that intended use - it does not actually deal with any one individual's case/salvation/sin/forgiveness.
Which leads us to conclude that Heb 6 is talking about MORE than just getting something ready to start - rather it is talking about work of Christ in the sanctuary as "The one mediator between God and man" in which case at the time of the writing of Heb 6 - that has to be the first phase of that sanctuary where Christ was serving as High Priest -- "seated at the right hand of the Father" in that Sanctuary. The priest "Seated on His throne"
That is a lot of qualifiers. But it did involve the whole sanctuary, so you agree He went within the veil.
Do you have his "no adequate answer" quote? in context?
Everyone agrees He went "Within the veil" - the question is which one.
1. Hebrews 6 does not appear to be talking mainly about Inauguration - it looks like the daily ministry of Christ in the holy place. I think Heb 9 is the closet you get to inauguration.
2. And it does your argument no good if Heb 6 is not talking about the Day of Atonement ministry -- which is a problem for your case so far.
Wow, fascinating!Some selections from Ellen White to discuss:
I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered. Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgment of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth. After you had taken your own time, and after the work had been much hindered by your delay, you came to Battle Creek in answer to the repeated and urgent calls of the General Conference. You firmly maintained that you had done right in following your own convictions of duty. You considered it a virtue in you to persistently maintain your position of independence. You did not seem to have a true sense of the power that God has given to His church in the voice of the General Conference. You thought that in responding to the call made to you by the General Conference you were submitting to the judgment and mind of one man. You accordingly manifested an independence, a set, willful spirit, which was all wrong. Testimonies for the Church Volume 3, chapter 44
I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body. {9T 260.1}Testimonies for the Church Volume 9, Section 8
You are constantly inclined to individual independence. You do not realize that independence is a poor thing when it leads you to have too much confidence in yourself and to trust to your own judgment rather than to respect the counsel and highly estimate the judgment of your brethren, especially of those in the offices which God has appointed for the saving of His people. God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for in so doing he despises the voice of God. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3
Just a question, but would you know how many of the first seven ecumenical councils the SDA recognizes as authoritative?Some selections from Ellen White to discuss:
I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered. Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgment of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth. After you had taken your own time, and after the work had been much hindered by your delay, you came to Battle Creek in answer to the repeated and urgent calls of the General Conference. You firmly maintained that you had done right in following your own convictions of duty. You considered it a virtue in you to persistently maintain your position of independence. You did not seem to have a true sense of the power that God has given to His church in the voice of the General Conference. You thought that in responding to the call made to you by the General Conference you were submitting to the judgment and mind of one man. You accordingly manifested an independence, a set, willful spirit, which was all wrong. Testimonies for the Church Volume 3, chapter 44
I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body. {9T 260.1}Testimonies for the Church Volume 9, Section 8
You are constantly inclined to individual independence. You do not realize that independence is a poor thing when it leads you to have too much confidence in yourself and to trust to your own judgment rather than to respect the counsel and highly estimate the judgment of your brethren, especially of those in the offices which God has appointed for the saving of His people. God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for in so doing he despises the voice of God. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3
Just a question, but would you know how many of the first seven ecumenical councils the SDA recognizes as authoritative?
Wow, fascinating!
So it sounds like individual or private judgment is to be surrendered if it conflicts with the decisions of the General Conference
(which I'm learning now must be what people mean when they say GC).
Do SDAs generally view the council in Acts 15 as a kind of General Conference?
Or a similar kind of question:
historically, did General Conferences first appear in the 19th century or thereabouts? Or were there some in the early church? If so, when did they stop?
Everyone agrees He went "Within the veil" - the question is which one and why.
1. Hebrews 6 does not appear to be talking mainly about Inauguration - it looks like the daily ministry of Christ in the holy place. I think Heb 9 is the closet you get to inauguration.
2. And it does your argument no good if Heb 6 is not talking about the Day of Atonement ministry -- which is a problem for your case so far.
If He inaugurated it was both.
Actually it is fine. If the entry extends to the MHP then you have already lost the argument,
Just a question, but would you know how many of the first seven ecumenical councils the SDA recognizes as authoritative?
Do SDAs generally view the council in Acts 15 as a kind of General Conference?
Or a similar kind of question:
historically, did General Conferences first appear in the 19th century or thereabouts? Or were there some in the early church? If so, when did they stop?
I am aware of it because the quote is referenced by Spicer in a response to him, quoted in Des Ford's manuscript and partially in Cottrell's. Ford's Manuscript was reviewed by many and they did not object the history presented.
In the letter Spicer went on to say:
After a long discussion of the sanctuary, the Trinity and other questions you ask whether I felt you should resign seeing you were out of harmony with the church. I replied that I was not competent to give advice but was sure that if you taught the things in your classes which you had talked to me the brethren would ask you to resign. You assured me you were not teaching them but talked of them confidentially only to leading men.
Further info from Des' Manuscript.
Present at the trials of Ballenger and Conradi was our veteran educator and administrator,W.W. Prescott (1844-1944). He was president of Union, Walla Walla, and Avondale, and head of the theology department of EMC. He served as field secretary of the GC, and editor of the Review (for seven years). He was the author of The Spade and the Bible, published by Revell. Hundreds of preachers and officers of the denomination received their Bible training from Prescott. The Doctrine of Christ, written by him in the twenties, summarizes his doctrinal presentations in the classroom.
In the Officer‘s Minutes of March 2,1934, we find allusion to the need to save the denomination from ―drifting into theories like Ballenger s.‖
The Officer‘s Minutes of Jan. 22, 1934, record that:W.W. Prescott, who is teaching Bible at Emmanuel Missionary College had certain questions concerning our theology. When these had been considered by a small group it had been agreed that W.W. Prescott continue at EMC for the rest of this school year, and that he not teach in the classroom any of these matters upon which he differs with the denomination. It had also been agreed that at the end of the school year he would not be continued longer at EMC. A letter had been received by W.H. Branson from K.H. Holden asking that the General Conference call W.W. Prescott back to Washington to relieve them of the necessity of asking him to discontinue work.
It was finally Voted, That I.H. Evans and W.H. Branson draw up a statement to W.W. Prescott explaining to him that on the basis of conversations which have been had with him by members of the official staff, that we understand he is not in full harmony with the denominational beliefs, and that we believe that he cannot go on teaching in a Bible Department while his views are not in harmony with the denomination, and suggest to him that he cooperate with the Officers and with the Emmanuel Missionary College Board by withdrawing at the end of the school year; that we further suggest to him in the statement that if he wishes, he may have a hearing on his religious views with the Officers of the General Conference.31
February 2,1934, W.W. Prescott wrote to Elders Branson and Evans. We quote the first two paragraphs.
Dear Brethren:
In your letter of Jan. 29, received yesterday, you advise me to withdraw voluntarily from my place as a worker in this movement on the ground that I am ―somewhat out of harmony with the established faith of the denomination on certain vital points, especially the doctrine of the sanctuary.‖ You do this without having had any conference with me over the serious question involved, and without expressing any regret that I have taken such a course as to forfeit your confidence in me as a proper representative of this work after having devoted about fifty years of my life to its advancement. Not only so, but you plainly imply that if I do not thus withdraw, the matter will be taken up with the Board of Trustees of this college with the purpose, of course, of preventing me from being invited by them to continue my work here. Now it is an axiom in any court of justice that an accused person should have the opportunity of facing his accusers in court and be given a fair chance of disproving the charges against him, but it seems as if you had already decided the case against me, and were now advising me to avoid a public condemnation by quietly accepting your decision. It is true that you offer me the opportunity of coming to Washington to confer with you, but are the accusers the proper jury to consider the case? Is it not a fair procedure that the charge which you make against me should be considered by those who have not made the charge? It seems that way to me.
So it sounds like the council in Acts 15 is regarded by SDAs as authoritative. And then the first General Conference in 1863.Yes it is an example of church leadership voting on doctrinal questions through its representatives in session.
And the SDA denomination did not exist before the 19th century so we as a distinct denomination would not have a "vote" in what happens outside of that.
Your denomination clearly agrees with the Nicene Creed of the third council, because such belief is a prerequisite for posting in these forums.None of them. All of our doctrine stands or falls "sola scriptura".
That does not mean we declare all decisions in the first 7 councils "to be in error". It simply means that we test all doctrine, tradition an practice by the authoritative standard "scripture"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?