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.
The "first" would be referring to "sacrifices and burnt offerings." The exact "disposition" of this "first is not revealed in that text; except to say that Jesus "took it away," so that it could be substituted by "doing God's will."Great response!
Two more to tackle:
- What is the "first" this verse addresses?
- What is the disposition of that "first", and the reason for it?
The "first" refers to the covenant from Mount Sinai, "the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" as Hebrews 8:9 describes the first covenant. That was the Ten Commandments and the book of the law, as Moses described the first part of my statement in Deuteronomy 4:13.The "first" would be referring to "sacrifices and burnt offerings." The exact "disposition" of this "first is not revealed in that text; except to say that Jesus "took it away," so that it could be substituted by "doing God's will."
Granted, the use of argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy that at first appears without basis. However, it needs to be recognized that Adventism itself has not been able to determine Biblical evidence for the Sanctuary Doctrine, which is the necessary apologetic event that 1844 supposedly fulfilled within Adventist theology. This is from one of Adventism's editors of the SDA Bible Commentary, in his presentation The 'sanctuary doctrine' – Asset or liability, presented in November 2001:
The emphasis was added by me to make the conclusion Dr. Cottrell faced more evident. The reference to SDA Fundamental Belief #23 comes from when there were only 27 Fundamentals, and not the 28 the church codifies today (the IJ is Fundamental #24 now). The mention Ricker made that no other group in the history of Christendom has ever accepted the Sanctuary Doctrine comes from the lack of evidence for the doctrine Adventism is alone in promoting; there is no Biblical basis for 1844, and there is no event that fulfilled this non-eventful date.
The weight of Dr. Cottrell comes in the body of the quote I provided from his presentation The Sanctuary Doctrine - Asset or Liability that shows his personal journey to support the Adventist doctrine revolving around the sanctuary. The evidence Dr. Cottrell conveys is that the entire SDA educational system is unable to find Biblical support for an event or a prophecy relating to 1844. That was Dr. Cottrell's motive when he was tasked to aid in editing volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary, and he sought broad support in order to harmonize SDA doctrine with the Bible - and found that it can't be done.Raymond Cottrell was what we call a liberal 'Adventist' who did not believe in the doctrine that made us a people. We have a lot of them. I always say the door is wide open. We don't force anyone to be with us if they don't believe in what we believe.
Funny thing about Cottrell while he didn't believe in IJ his father, grandfather and great grandfather did. So his opinion carries little weight.
I probably have 50 weeks of study under my belt already, and the opinions gleaned in someone else's work isn't the topic of this thread, which was initiated to question what Adventists believe.Again, you have not presented anything substantial (from the scriptures) to dispute the IJ and you did not respond to my reply to your earlier post.
I posted a link previously to a 50-week study of the sanctuary. You are welcome to read it and come back to continue the discussion.
The reason that no one teaches the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine isn't from a lack of understanding of it. Several Adventist administrators and clergy have examined it, as well as members of various denominations who have no vested interest in Adventism - such as myself. The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is probably the most cited reason these administrators and clergy leave the SDA church.To be honest, none of the quotes and argument you posted have been a revelation to us. All of these have been but a regurgitation of the Desmond Ford who regurgitated Dudly Canright's arguments.
The fact no one else understood and taught this does not make you look good. The scripture tells us the book of Daniel was sealed and was unsealed at the end. The wise shall understand but the wicked shall do wickedly and none of the wicked shall understand.
Again we don't need to use someone's opinion to make a point. I found plenty in the bible to support IJ.The weight of Dr. Cottrell comes in the body of the quote I provided from his presentation The Sanctuary Doctrine - Asset or Liability that shows his personal journey to support the Adventist doctrine revolving around the sanctuary. The evidence Dr. Cottrell conveys is that the entire SDA educational system is unable to find Biblical support for an event or a prophecy relating to 1844. That was Dr. Cottrell's motive when he was tasked to aid in editing volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary, and he sought broad support in order to harmonize SDA doctrine with the Bible - and found that it can't be done.
50 weeks of what study? The total of Canright and Ford's arguments/writings don't amount to 50 weeks. You got anything new? I haven't seen it.I probably have 50 weeks of study under my belt already, and the opinions gleaned in someone else's work isn't the topic of this thread, which was initiated to question what Adventists believe.
I responded to Heb 10:9 a couple of times. You just have to go back and read what was written and respond to it.I mentioned that I have a reply for your latest post ready, and it still exists in Notepad format on the pen drive in my pocket. I also mentioned that I was holding off posting it until you offer something in response to Hebrews 10:9, other than complete denial of this text that summarizes the change of the covenants in the epistle to the Hebrews. The reason I haven't responded is because you have departed from this discussion for over a week.
Again the bible tells us the wise shall understand and none of the wicked shall understand.The reason that no one teaches the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine isn't from a lack of understanding of it. Several Adventist administrators and clergy have examined it, as well as members of various denominations who have no vested interest in Adventism - such as myself. The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is probably the most cited reason these administrators and clergy leave the SDA church.
Obviously that's where the difference is. The scriptures(NT) state many times, those who overcomes and endures to the end shall be saved. Your concept of salvation is an event. But we understand it to be a life-long experience, a life-long journey. You don't believe in the process of sanctification to be a life-long experience that's because the bible tells us the Lord sanctifies only those who keep the sabbath holy.The concept that there is a work of atonement past the end of the first covenant law that codifies the entire rite of atonement is an affront to the Biblical Gospel, which portrays that Christ's atonement is complete and sufficient for our salvation. This includes the aspect of His sacrifice at Calvary, and His offering in the heavenly sanctuary, both of which are written as actions in the past tense that there is no addition to be made to.
All you wrote above and in this thread is pure personal opinion none of which is substantiated by the scriptures. You don't think anything happened in 1844. That's ok. I'm quite fine with it. After all, the bible does say only the wise shall understand, not the wicked. You can demonize it. You can ridicule it. But the truth shall endure to the end.This is the cause of non-Adventist's violent response to Adventism once they discover the impact the SDA message revolving around 1844 has. Applying a text in Daniel 8 that was fulfilled in the celebration of Hanukkah to a date when there were no oblations to restore is simply incompetent, and this is what Ellen White claimed to be the "foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith" to be. Applying another text from Daniel that ignores its context is equally incompetent, as Jesus gave us instructions from Daniel that were understood by those contemporary to his time and written about by early church fathers such as Hippolytus.
The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is unique to Adventism for the reason that it was invented as an apology for 1844, to furnish an event that a misunderstood prophecy based on a mistranslation in the King James Version of the Bible didn't foretell. That is all it is. As no one else has a need to apologize for a non-event in 1844, it will remain forever unique to Adventism. The doctrine describes a judgment in absentia of the accused that will determine the salvation of the "professed people of God", and that judgment isn't found in Scripture anywhere. It remains the burden of Adventist apologists to support this abhorrent departure from the Gospel they rely on, for a vacuum is the void they need to fill. That vacuum was addressed by the entire Adventist educational system, and has no support.
To me; this is one doctrine I have never had trouble with! It was this doctrine re the Investigative/PreAdvent Judgment that convinced me how that Jesus was real; and that Jesus was the center-point of His gospel.The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is unique to Adventism for the reason that it was invented as an apology for 1844, to furnish an event that a misunderstood prophecy based on a mistranslation in the King James Version of the Bible didn't foretell.
It remains the burden of Adventist apologists to support this abhorrent departure from the Gospel they rely on, for a vacuum is the void they need to fill. That vacuum was addressed by the entire Adventist educational system, and has no support.
I find this dismissal increditable. You are basing your dismissal on what someone else believed and not on anthing the individual said. I say simpley increditable, it passes amazing.Raymond Cottrell was what we call a liberal 'Adventist' who did not believe in the doctrine that made us a people. We have a lot of them. I always say the door is wide open. We don't force anyone to be with us if they don't believe in what we believe.
Funny thing about Cottrell while he didn't believe in IJ his father, grandfather and great grandfather did. So his opinion carries little weight.
if the 50 week study is so valuable to this discussion why don't you post its points?Again, you have not presented anything substantial (from the scriptures) to dispute the IJ and you did not respond to my reply to your earlier post.
I posted a link previously to a 50-week study of the sanctuary. You are welcome to read it and come back to continue the discussion.
To be honest, none of the quotes and argument you posted have been a revelation to us. All of these have been but a regurgitation of the Desmond Ford who regurgitated Dudly Canright's arguments.
The fact no one else understood and taught this does not make you look good. The scripture tells us the book of Daniel was sealed and was unsealed at the end. The wise shall understand but the wicked shall do wickedly and none of the wicked shall understand.
Your approach is to dismiss the entire educational arm of the SDA church that has the responsibility to teach the doctrine you claim has support in the Bible. No linguistic support from Daniel 8 exists that directs attention to a date in 1844, and without this premise the entire IJ doctrine falls completely.Again we don't need to use someone's opinion to make a point. I found plenty in the bible to support IJ.VictorC said:The weight of Dr. Cottrell comes in the body of the quote I provided from his presentation The Sanctuary Doctrine - Asset or Liability that shows his personal journey to support the Adventist doctrine revolving around the sanctuary. The evidence Dr. Cottrell conveys is that the entire SDA educational system is unable to find Biblical support for an event or a prophecy relating to 1844. That was Dr. Cottrell's motive when he was tasked to aid in editing volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary, and he sought broad support in order to harmonize SDA doctrine with the Bible - and found that it can't be done.
By "study" you appear to reference the work of someone else, and rely on the opinions that they posit. Have you ever studied the Biblical texts themselves to locate support for the IJ?50 weeks of what study? The total of Canright and Ford's arguments/writings don't amount to 50 weeks. You got anything new? I haven't seen it.VictorC said:I probably have 50 weeks of study under my belt already, and the opinions gleaned in someone else's work isn't the topic of this thread, which was initiated to question what Adventists believe.
You once claimed to have a response, but you instead dismissed Hebrews 10:9 and opined material completely unrelated to it. That isn't a response. You haven't offered anything that acknowledges the change away from the first covenant this passage describes.I responded to Heb 10:9 a couple of times. You just have to go back and read what was written and respond to it.VictorC said:I mentioned that I have a reply for your latest post ready, and it still exists in Notepad format on the pen drive in my pocket. I also mentioned that I was holding off posting it until you offer something in response to Hebrews 10:9, other than complete denial of this text that summarizes the change of the covenants in the epistle to the Hebrews. The reason I haven't responded is because you have departed from this discussion for over a week.
This response is unrelated to the material posted, and infers only that you claim to lack wisdom. I don't think this is your intention, but it should be evident to anyone that making an appeal to being unable to understand Scripture is not a proof that you somehow have something right.Again the bible tells us the wise shall understand and none of the wicked shall understand.VictorC said:The reason that no one teaches the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine isn't from a lack of understanding of it. Several Adventist administrators and clergy have examined it, as well as members of various denominations who have no vested interest in Adventism - such as myself. The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is probably the most cited reason these administrators and clergy leave the SDA church.
What's amazing is that someone can use another's opinion to make a point. I was simply stating how subjective opinion can be from person to person.I find this dismissal encreditable. You are basing your dismissal on what someone else believed and not on anthing the individual said. I say simpley increditable, it passes amazing.
It's really beyond the scope of the discussion.If the 50 week study is so valuable to this discussion why don't you post its points?
I am rapidly coming to a conclusion that you don't understand the point made that you responded to. Hebrews 9 has this to say concerning Christ's propitiation:Obviously that's where the difference is. The scriptures(NT) state many times, those who overcomes and endures to the end shall be saved. Your concept of salvation is an event. But we understand it to be a life-long experience, a life-long journey. You don't believe in the process of sanctification to be a life-long experience that's because the bible tells us the Lord sanctifies only those who keep the sabbath holy.VictorC said:The concept that there is a work of atonement past the end of the first covenant law that codifies the entire rite of atonement is an affront to the Biblical Gospel, which portrays that Christ's atonement is complete and sufficient for our salvation. This includes the aspect of His sacrifice at Calvary, and His offering in the heavenly sanctuary, both of which are written as actions in the past tense that there is no addition to be made to.
Yet you have no answer for Scripture when it appears, and conclude that discussion concerning SDA doctrine doesn't have the truth of God's Gospel as its goal.All you wrote above and in this thread is pure personal opinion none of which is substantiated by the scriptures. You don't think anything happened in 1844. That's ok. I'm quite fine with it. After all, the bible does say only the wise shall understand, not the wicked. You can demonize it. You can ridicule it. But the truth shall endure to the end.
Our church structure is falling. It's been infiltrated and is largely corrupt. The educational/academic system has been under most attacks. Most of the 'heresies' within the Adventist circle have originated from within the 'academic' circle. So using it makes no case for you. The bible teaches that what makes up the church is the individual believers, not the system, the structures.Your approach is to dismiss the entire educational arm of the SDA church that has the responsibility to teach the doctrine you claim has support in the Bible. No linguistic support from Daniel 8 exists that directs attention to a date in 1844, and without this premise the entire IJ doctrine falls completely.
I have been here(CF) since 05. I think you missed some of the 'good' discussion on those. I don't think you really understand the questions you are asking because you obviously didn't recognize some of the answers that were provided. But anyways, I don't think right now I have the time to go over again the laundry list of questions that appear somewhat ambiguous to me. Maybe some of the resident participants on these issues can dig up the response to these type of issues from the past discussions.By "study" you appear to reference the work of someone else, and rely on the opinions that they posit. Have you ever studied the Biblical texts themselves to locate support for the IJ?
And so forth. The study you should engage in is of the Scriptures, and not something that has Canright or Ford's name attached to it.
- Have you ever determined how many yowm are represented by the use of 2300 ereb-boqer?
- Have you ever reconciled the Greek political lineage of the little horn depicted in Daniel 8 with Adventist theory that posits a Roman origin?
- Have you ever determined which sanctuary is referred to, that is charged with the oblations that ceased for 2300 ereb-boqer? Or reconciled Adventist theory that can't document any oblations after 70AD?
- Have you ever reconciled the Greek plural use of ta hagia to determine Christ's once-for-all entrance into the MHP as it appears in Hebrews 9:25 with the Adventist theory that this was only an inauguration that mandated another entrance?
Yet you have no answer for Scripture when it appears, and conclude that discussion concerning SDA doctrine doesn't have the truth of God's Gospel as its goal.
And yet searching Scripture from cover to cover offers no evidence of:To me; this is one doctrine I have never had trouble with! It was this doctrine re the Investigative/PreAdvent Judgment that convinced me how that Jesus was real; and that Jesus was the center-point of His gospel.
Have you ever read Dr. Raymond Cottrell's presentation The Sanctuary Doctrine - Asset or Liability? The Jesus Institute Forum website had it as a first-person document when Dr. Cottrell gave it to them, but that website no longer exists. However, Dr. Cottrell's presentation is insightful and detailed to the point I considered it prudent to copy into a Word document when I read it. It still exists on the web, hosted by sites unfavorable to Adventism because of the impact that presentation has, and it is worth searching for and reading. Plenty of quotes and citations from both Ellen White and Scripture are given to conclude that the Investigative Judgment codified in SDA Fundamental Belief #24 is unsupportable from Scripture. This from a man who concludes that the doctrine should be modified and retained in some form, for Dr. Cottrell was a dedicated Adventist his entire tenure in the church.I actually corresponded with Raymond Cottrell years ago for a bit because I wanted to ask him a question about an article he had written in a Signs Magazine at the time. He seemed quite irritated at my question; but he did send me a written answer; and I recognized in his, as in others, how objections to this doctrine all seem to originate from just one, maybe two men. This is not an opinion; but something that could be proven. Therefore, I would question why it is so wrong to respond to "opinions and thoughts," instead of "scripture proof." Its a lot of opinons and thoughts without scripture coming from all those who copy the original ideas opposed to this doctrine. It's really just a simple matter of showing what the scriptures say about same; that's what a discussion forum is for. To exchange notes - sometimes with Bible verses, sometimes with thoughts that point to certain verses, etc. But who do you know that posts absolutely nothing but scripture here, ot in any other forum topic?
The IJ doesn't recognize Christ's redemption, and His role in the present tense as our Mediator of the new covenant instead of the first covenant He took away through His propitiation."Christ and Him crucified" is the mainstay of the PreAdvent Judgment, so I don't understand all this talk about how it is so grotesque and such a heinous departure from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It isn't Christ-centered at all.This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent.
I just don't understand why people would speak so disparagingly about this wonderful, Christ-centered doctrine.[/SIZE]
False.Our church structure is falling. It's been infiltrated and is largely corrupt. The educational/academic system has been under most attacks. Most of the 'heresies' within the Adventist circle have originated from within the 'academic' circle. So using it makes no case for you. The bible teaches that what makes up the church is the individual believers, not the system, the structures.
The linguistic support to be found in Daniel 8 needs to come from Daniel 8, and not a plethora of unrelated passages that reveal a eisegetical misuse of "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little" that Isaiah 28:13 warns to be a snare and a trap to those who employ the sound-bite theology you describe. That support doesn't exist.There is definitive linguistic support of the 2300 days in Daniel 8 and Genesis 1. Our IJ doctrine does not hinge on one single point, but rather hinges on the understanding of the sanctuary which is taught from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation unlike the few chapters of it from your understanding.
I have a history of 10,000 posts on CARM that precedes my CF experience; I came here by invitation from a member of both forums. While I have probably missed your contributions in the past, years and something over 12,000 posts has been the magnet of plenty of discussion. I still believe a personal study of Scripture is the most beneficial practice, and reliance on the opinions of other members does not aid the education process. Your response shows that requisite topics supporting or refuting the IJ aren't familiar to you, and they should be the basic foundation for this topic.I have been here(CF) since 05. I think you missed some of the 'good' discussion on those. I don't think you really understand the questions you are asking because you obviously didn't recognize some of the answers that were provided. But anyways, I don't think right now I have the time to go over again the laundry list of questions that appear somewhat ambiguous to me. Maybe some of the resident participants on these issues can dig up the response to these type of issues from the past discussions.
It becomes evident that you don't comprehend Adventist doctrine and its contrast with Scripture. If you desire to bail out of this discussion, you're certainly free to do so with my blessing. This thread was initiated by someone inquiring what Adventists believe, and that purpose for this thread was completed a very long time ago.There are plenty of scriptural support. I just don't care to share it with you. Because obviously you are not open to discussions and are just repeating the same thing. Keep saying something does not make it so. Here is a tip for you: if you are looking for proof, stop saying there is none. Ok? Then you are just pushing an agenda. So you are welcome to read the link to the sanctuary study. It contains the answers to all the questions concerning IJ and take it what you will.
False.
The Bible doesn't support the IJ doctrine, the reason Adventist scholarship is unable to locate it.
The linguistic support to be found in Daniel 8 needs to come from Daniel 8, and not a plethora of unrelated passages that reveal a eisegetical misuse of "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little" that Isaiah 28:13 warns to be a snare and a trap to those who employ the sound-bite theology you describe. That support doesn't exist.
I have a history of 10,000 posts on CARM that precedes my CF experience; I came here by invitation from a member of both forums. While I have probably missed your contributions in the past, years and something over 12,000 posts has been the magnet of plenty of discussion. I still believe a personal study of Scripture is the most beneficial practice, and reliance on the opinions of other members does not aid the education process. Your response shows that requisite topics supporting or refuting the IJ aren't familiar to you, and they should be the basic foundation for this topic.
It becomes evident that you don't comprehend Adventist doctrine and its contrast with Scripture. If you desire to bail out of this discussion, you're certainly free to do so with my blessing. This thread was initiated by someone inquiring what Adventists believe, and that purpose for this thread was completed a very long time ago.
I'm not sure what I should conclude when someone claims ignorance the guide of conversion...Exactly that purpose was accomplished long time ago. A few of the participants inquired about IJ IM'ed me that they now believe the Adventist doctrine to be biblical.
And you just keep proving my point. Thank you for your fine job.
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?