What are 7th day adventists?

[laconicstudent]

So you no longer believe in the sabbath either?

I should hope she doesn't.

I could have said more than this, but to keep you from forgetting what I have said, I shall bring my homily to an end here with the words of Moses: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you". If any of you, whether you are here present or not, shall go to the spectacle of the Trumpets, or rush off to the synagogue, or go up to the shrine of Matrona, or take part in fasting, or share in the Sabbath, or observe any other Jewish ritual great or small, I call heaven and earth as my witnesses that I am guiltless of the blood of all of you.

--St. John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos

 

[VictorC]

IJ was not an apology for 1844 since the remnant of 1844 movement had been ridiculed to death by everyone. There was beyond a need for apology. Most of them didn't harvest their crops. They were going hungry and had to dig up the potatoes from the field. You think an apology was on their mind???

Absolutely!
You may not be aware that an apology is an explanation (as in apologetics), and the Adventist pioneers desperately needed an event to explain 1844 as a date that had meaning. That is what the IJ is today, used to replace the Shut Door and the second advent of Christ.

Didn't the disciples experienced a great disappointment of the Messiah of whom they thought would have redeemed Israel? Weren't the eyes of the remnant opened when Jesus again enlightened them from the scriptures?

Equating this with Adventism's rejection of that enlightenment doesn't help your cause.

Actually there were probably much less than 1/3. Following Oct 22, 1844, there were probably only about two dozen who still believed in the 1844 message. But again when is there safety in statistics?

There were probably a dozen splinter groups, including the Christadelphians and the Jehovah's Witnesses that survive to this day. Your number is a little fantastic, to say the least.

2300 ereb-boqer is the definition of the day in Genesis 1:5. A prophetic day is a literal year. Don't the Futurists also use that?

Haven't you ever noticed that there are two ereb-boqer necessary to make one day with an evening and a morning? Haven't you ever noticed that Daniel 8:14 answers the question in the previous verse, that links the 2300 ereb-boqer with the daily oblations that occur in the evening and morning? The answer comes as a period of time containing 2300 oblations, and there is no such thing as a "prophetic" year that restores oblations in 1844, which never happened.

Where else did everyone got 7 year tribulation from???

Visit the eschatology forum with this premise, and you will not survive the experience.

Now you got this totally wrong.

The 1844 date as the second advent of Christ was a Millerite belief. The SDAs did not exist at that time. You got the 'shut door' totally wrong. Shut door was referring to the door of mercy closed for those who refused to believe the Advent of Christ was imminent.

You actually agreed with me, as the second advent was Miller's target for 1844. He would not lend his support to groups including yours that wanted to assign his model of cleaning the sanctuary to a place where there was no cleaning to do and could not be verified. The Adventist pioneers rejected Miller's model but retained the date based on it. And, Ellen White retained the imminent advent of Christ long after the date had failed:

My accompanying angel bade me 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. {RH, August 1, 1849 par. 13}​

No, IJ and shutdoor are two totally different messages.

No or yes, which did you mean? You agreed with me once again.

Complex, yes. Because the sanctuary message actually spans the whole bible. Years, no. It took a few months of 'exhaustive bible studies' and 'earnest prayers'. IJ has never been changed, added to, or polished (your word) since then.

The sanctuary message spans Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 9, and not the "whole Bible" as you suggest. It is familiarity with the sanctuary that leads one to reject the model Adventism replaced it with, which was formulated and still modified after its introduction in about 1857, years after the Shut Door was found to be a failure that hindered anyone from entering the SDA church. This is because the Shut Door claimed that the time of salvation was past, and only those prior to 1844 could have been saved.

January 24, 1846 Letter from Sister Harmon.
Portland, Me., Dec. 20, 1845.

While praying at the family altar the Holy Ghost fell on me and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the Advent people in the world, but could not find them, when a voice said to me, Look again, and look a little higher. At this, I raised my eyes and see a strait and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were traveling to the City, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the first end of the path, which an angel told me was the Midnight Cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light for their feet so they might not stumble. And if they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the City, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and said the City was a great way off, and they expected to have entered it before. Then Jesus would encourage them by raising his glorious right arm, and from his arm came a glorious light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted, Hallelujah! Others rashly denied the light behind them, and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out which left their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the mark and lost sight of Jesus, and fell off the path down in the dark and wicked world below. It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again & go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They fell all the way along the path one after another, until we heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus' coming. The living saints, 144,000, in number, know and understand the voice, while the wicked thought it was thunder & an earthquake.

{DS, January 24, 1846 par. 1}​

• The 144,000 are presented in the present-tense; none could be added to that number.
• All the world is shown to be rejected at this point in time, and anyone born after this "vision" didn't have a chance of salvation that had already come to a close.

This denies you the opportunity to be saved, as you were born too late, and this is affirmed in Ellen's Camden "vision" dated June 29, 1851 as well. This is the reason that the Shut Door was scrapped and replaced with the Investigative Judgment - your church wouldn't exist today were it not for this move.

The antitypical initial ascension into the MHP and the entrance into the MHP in 1844 were both typified in the Levitical ceremonies. Perfect example of the antitype meeting the type.

Your mention of the initial entrance into the MHP is the antitype that was the fulfillment of Leviticus 16, but there is no entrance in 1844. That's Adventism's addition found in Fundamental Belief #24: "In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry". While Hebrews 9 presents the atonement as a completed event that there is no addition to, Adventism nullifies their own claim of a "perfect atonement" contained in Fundamental Belief #9 with this addition. Atonement isn't sufficient nor complete in Adventism.

First of all, it's a biblical concept that every generation could and should expect to see Christ's return. Finite humans know not that date.

Second of all, that prophecy was conditional much like other conditional prophecies in the bible.

First of all, your point isn't germane.
Second of all, your claim is wrong. There was no conditional premise given in Ellen's fictitious "vision".

Perfect atonement at the cross, yes. But there are three phases of atonement: sacrificial, mediatorial and judicial. If the cross is all there is to it, then why after a person repents and accepts Christ as the Lord and savior, he/she is not taken to heaven already? Why is there a need for the christian walk?

No, there aren't three phases to atonement, and Hebrews 9:15 shows an error in your thinking:

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.​

The previous chapter of Hebrews concludes the first covenant obsolete, and the next chapter concludes it taken away by the Hand of Jesus Christ. Atonement exists only as a rite authorized under the first covenant, and atonement doesn't exist once that covenant component was taken away. Our transgressions have been redeemed, and Hebrews 10:14 concludes "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified". Your model was broken before it was even assembled.

Daniel 12 tells us the book of Daniel shalt be opened in the time of the end and the wise shall understand.

Red herring, and you aren't wise when you reject Scripture.

Exactly. Hebrews 9-10 shows Christ's entrance into the MHP in past tense because by the time the book of Hebrews was written just before 70AD, Christ has already entered into the MHP after ascension in 31AD to dedicate/inaugurate the sanctuary. It does not contradict but confirms our IJ message.

It doesn't confirm the IJ; as I mentioned Hebrews 9 and 10 show a completed event that has redeemed our transgressions under the first covenant and perfected the redeemed of God with "one sacrifice for sins forever" and "by one offering" never to be repeated nor added to. Adventism rejects this one atonement the Bible describes as sufficient for all mankind past, present, and future in order to prop up a date nothing happened on.

Ok. So you make the statement on the prophetic timeline base on that one verse? The SDA interpretation of the date of 1844 is based on 7 prophecies from Daniel and Revelation.

Your "interpretation" doesn't annul the conclusion you responded to, and your claim is fictitious anyway:

The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith was the declaration, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." [DAN. 8:14.] {GC88 409.2}​

Miller introduced this date based on one verse, Adventism retained this same verse, and the model based on this one verse was shown to contradict the passage it came from and was also based on a mistranslation found in the King James Bible. There isn't more that can be added that is able to repair a broken foundation - it is the obfuscation that come from the complexity the Adventist pioneers added to the IJ doctrine in a vain attempt to make it look Biblical. It isn't.

You really don't have an in-depth understanding of Adventist theology, how it came to existence and the role of Ellen White on the Adventist theology.

After showing that Adventist theology is reliant on Ellen White and contradicts Scripture, a greater understanding of error isn't able to produce acceptance of that error. You're forced into interpretation handed to you from another source, and that interpretation is based solely on Ellen White.

"The Bible is an infallible guide but it needs to be infallibly interpreted, to avoid confusion and division. When will the people of God cease trusting in their own wisdom? When will they come to the place where they will cease to measure, construe, and interpret by their own reason what God says to them through His appointed channel? When we come to the place where we place no trust in man or in the wisdom of man, but unquestionably accept and act upon what God says through this gift, then will the spirit of prophecy as set before us in the Bible and confirmed among us and become in fact a counselor, guide and final court of appeal among God's people." (Adventist Review, June 3. 1971, page 6, The Source of Final Appeal, By Roderick S. Owen)​

Your guide is Ellen White, the "appointed channel".
Not the Holy Ghost.

 

[OntheDL]

Absolutely!
You may not be aware that an apology is an explanation (as in apologetics), and the Adventist pioneers desperately needed an event to explain 1844 as a date that had meaning. That is what the IJ is today, used to replace the Shut Door and the second advent of Christ.

Equating this with Adventism's rejection of that enlightenment doesn't help your cause.

There were probably a dozen splinter groups, including the Christadelphians and the Jehovah's Witnesses that survive to this day. Your number is a little fantastic, to say the least.

Haven't you ever noticed that there are two ereb-boqer necessary to make one day with an evening and a morning? Haven't you ever noticed that Daniel 8:14 answers the question in the previous verse, that links the 2300 ereb-boqer with the daily oblations that occur in the evening and morning? The answer comes as a period of time containing 2300 oblations, and there is no such thing as a "prophetic" year that restores oblations in 1844, which never happened.

Visit the eschatology forum with this premise, and you will not survive the experience.

Are you saying 'don't fight with pigs, you will get dirty and they will love it'?

Do you see me posting around often?

I don't think the rest of your statements need a response.

You actually agreed with me, as the second advent was Miller's target for 1844. He would not lend his support to groups including yours that wanted to assign his model of cleaning the sanctuary to a place where there was no cleaning to do and could not be verified. The Adventist pioneers rejected Miller's model but retained the date based on it. And, Ellen White retained the imminent advent of Christ long after the date had failed:

My accompanying angel bade me 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. {RH, August 1, 1849 par. 13}​

No or yes, which did you mean? You agreed with me once again.

The sanctuary message spans Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 9, and not the "whole Bible" as you suggest. It is familiarity with the sanctuary that leads one to reject the model Adventism replaced it with, which was formulated and still modified after its introduction in about 1857, years after the Shut Door was found to be a failure that hindered anyone from entering the SDA church. This is because the Shut Door claimed that the time of salvation was past, and only those prior to 1844 could have been saved.

January 24, 1846 Letter from Sister Harmon.
Portland, Me., Dec. 20, 1845.

While praying at the family altar the Holy Ghost fell on me and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the Advent people in the world, but could not find them, when a voice said to me, Look again, and look a little higher. At this, I raised my eyes and see a strait and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were traveling to the City, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the first end of the path, which an angel told me was the Midnight Cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light for their feet so they might not stumble. And if they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the City, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and said the City was a great way off, and they expected to have entered it before. Then Jesus would encourage them by raising his glorious right arm, and from his arm came a glorious light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted, Hallelujah! Others rashly denied the light behind them, and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out which left their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the mark and lost sight of Jesus, and fell off the path down in the dark and wicked world below. It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again & go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They fell all the way along the path one after another, until we heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus' coming. The living saints, 144,000, in number, know and understand the voice, while the wicked thought it was thunder & an earthquake.

{DS, January 24, 1846 par. 1}​

• The 144,000 are presented in the present-tense; none could be added to that number.
• All the world is shown to be rejected at this point in time, and anyone born after this "vision" didn't have a chance of salvation that had already come to a close.

This denies you the opportunity to be saved, as you were born too late, and this is affirmed in Ellen's Camden "vision" dated June 29, 1851 as well. This is the reason that the Shut Door was scrapped and replaced with the Investigative Judgment - your church wouldn't exist today were it not for this move.

Your mention of the initial entrance into the MHP is the antitype that was the fulfillment of Leviticus 16, but there is no entrance in 1844. That's Adventism's addition found in Fundamental Belief #24: "In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry". While Hebrews 9 presents the atonement as a completed event that there is no addition to, Adventism nullifies their own claim of a "perfect atonement" contained in Fundamental Belief #9 with this addition. Atonement isn't sufficient nor complete in Adventism.

First of all, your point isn't germane.
Second of all, your claim is wrong. There was no conditional premise given in Ellen's fictitious "vision".

No, there aren't three phases to atonement, and Hebrews 9:15 shows an error in your thinking:

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.​

The previous chapter of Hebrews concludes the first covenant obsolete, and the next chapter concludes it taken away by the Hand of Jesus Christ. Atonement exists only as a rite authorized under the first covenant, and atonement doesn't exist once that covenant component was taken away. Our transgressions have been redeemed, and Hebrews 10:14 concludes "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified". Your model was broken before it was even assembled.

Red herring, and you aren't wise when you reject Scripture.

It doesn't confirm the IJ; as I mentioned Hebrews 9 and 10 show a completed event that has redeemed our transgressions under the first covenant and perfected the redeemed of God with "one sacrifice for sins forever" and "by one offering" never to be repeated nor added to. Adventism rejects this one atonement the Bible describes as sufficient for all mankind past, present, and future in order to prop up a date nothing happened on.

Your "interpretation" doesn't annul the conclusion you responded to, and your claim is fictitious anyway:

The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith was the declaration, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." [DAN. 8:14.] {GC88 409.2}​

Miller introduced this date based on one verse, Adventism retained this same verse, and the model based on this one verse was shown to contradict the passage it came from and was also based on a mistranslation found in the King James Bible. There isn't more that can be added that is able to repair a broken foundation - it is the obfuscation that come from the complexity the Adventist pioneers added to the IJ doctrine in a vain attempt to make it look Biblical. It isn't.

After showing that Adventist theology is reliant on Ellen White and contradicts Scripture, a greater understanding of error isn't able to produce acceptance of that error. You're forced into interpretation handed to you from another source, and that interpretation is based solely on Ellen White.

"The Bible is an infallible guide but it needs to be infallibly interpreted, to avoid confusion and division. When will the people of God cease trusting in their own wisdom? When will they come to the place where they will cease to measure, construe, and interpret by their own reason what God says to them through His appointed channel? When we come to the place where we place no trust in man or in the wisdom of man, but unquestionably accept and act upon what God says through this gift, then will the spirit of prophecy as set before us in the Bible and confirmed among us and become in fact a counselor, guide and final court of appeal among God's people." (Adventist Review, June 3. 1971, page 6, The Source of Final Appeal, By Roderick S. Owen)​

Your guide is Ellen White, the "appointed channel".
Not the Holy Ghost.

 

[DarylFawcett]

The devil roams around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour through deception from the IJ and down even to and especially the Sabbath, which is the sign and memorial of God's creation of this earth and man, the animals and everything else that was at that time very good.

 

[VictorC]

Are you saying 'don't fight with pigs, you will get dirty and they will love it'?

Your previous post contained this claim:

Where else did everyone got 7 year tribulation from???

Very few accept a premise of a 7-year tribulation, and I'm included in that. The manner in which you claimed everyone other than you shares this belief is incorrect, and posting your opinion on the eschatology forum would enlighten you to the magnitude of your assumption very quickly.

I don't think the rest of your statements need a response.

Since we're into sharing opinions, I would like to share something that Donald Barnhouse wrote, who was involved with discussions with the SDA General Council representitives with Walter Martin, in Eternity, 7:67, September 1956, pp. 6-7, 43-45:

The [SDA] sanctuary doctrine is, to me, the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history. ... We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable. ... [It is] unimportant and almost naïve.​

A face-saving phenomenon is another means to describe an apology for 1844, which was the language I used. That in its bottom essence is the only reason the Investigative Judgment exists today as a doctrine of the seventh-day Adventist church, and it is totally exclusive to them. No one else accepts it nor can anyone else find evidence for the doctrine in Scripture.

 

[VictorC]

The devil roams around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour through deception from the IJ and down even to and especially the Sabbath, which is the sign and memorial of God's creation of this earth and man, the animals and everything else that was at that time very good.

That doesn't resemble 1 Peter 5:8 in the slightest, and you aren't going to find such a claim for the IJ nor a component of the old covenant in New Testament Scripture.

 

[OntheDL]

Your previous post contained this claim:

Very few accept a premise of a 7-year tribulation, and I'm included in that. The manner in which you claimed everyone other than you shares this belief is incorrect, and posting your opinion on the eschatology forum would enlighten you to the magnitude of your assumption very quickly.

I attended Pentecostal, non-denominational and Baptist churches before becoming an Adventists. You are saying the left behind, rapture, 7-yr trib are not believed by the mainstream Christians?

Since we're into sharing opinions, I would like to share something that Donald Barnhouse wrote, who was involved with discussions with the SDA General Council representitives with Walter Martin, in Eternity, 7:67, September 1956, pp. 6-7, 43-45:

The [SDA] sanctuary doctrine is, to me, the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history. ... We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable. ... [It is] unimportant and almost naïve.​

A face-saving phenomenon is another means to describe an apology for 1844, which was the language I used. That in its bottom essence is the only reason the Investigative Judgment exists today as a doctrine of the seventh-day Adventist church, and it is totally exclusive to them. No one else accepts it nor can anyone else find evidence for the doctrine in Scripture.

You can choose to listen and quote what the critics say. There has never been a shortage of critics. They are just that, critics.

But the truth needs no apologies and will never change. I don't intend to find out why you didn't get it. I'm just thankful I got it and for every few of you I get to meet one who gladly receives it.

Daniel 12
9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

 

[VictorC]

I attended Pentecostal, non-denominational and Baptist churches before becoming an Adventists. You are saying the left behind, rapture, 7-yr trib are not believed by the mainstream Christians?

This is the third time in a row you have shown an inability to read a statement as it appears. You have the means to verify your assumption, and it is up to you to avail yourself of it. TIm LaHaye wrote his reason for the Left Behind series of books was his own perception that Christians are leaving the pre-trib rapture model of eschatology in droves. I don't have numbers outside my sphere of influence, but my experience is consistent with his stated motive for the books.

You can choose to listen and quote what the critics say. There has never been a shortage of critics. They are just that, critics.

But the truth needs no apologies and will never change. I don't intend to find out why you didn't get it. I'm just thankful I got it and for every few of you I get to meet one who gladly receives it.

The truth is supported in Scripture, and "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history" is antithetical to the truth. The Investigative Judgment is the most divisive doctrine of the SDA church, and is usually the impetus for exiting the SDA church and adding to the growing numbers of former Adventists. Pronouncing a disinterest in why Christians and former Adventists alike "didn't get it" is very like the only reason you will never know.

 

[OntheDL]

This is the third time in a row you have shown an inability to read a statement as it appears. You have the means to verify your assumption, and it is up to you to avail yourself of it. TIm LaHaye wrote his reason for the Left Behind series of books was his own perception that Christians are leaving the pre-trib rapture model of eschatology in droves. I don't have numbers outside my sphere of influence, but my experience is consistent with his stated motive for the books.

The truth is supported in Scripture, and "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history" is antithetical to the truth. The Investigative Judgment is the most divisive doctrine of the SDA church, and is usually the impetus for exiting the SDA church and adding to the growing numbers of former Adventists. Pronouncing a disinterest in why Christians and former Adventists alike "didn't get it" is very like the only reason you will never know.

There are 14-15 million Adventists world wide with thousands joining daily. God does not hold their feet to the fire for those want to leave because of doctrine.

Make some arguments with substantial scriptural support against IJ instead of quoting the critics, it might get a response from me.

 

[VictorC]

There are 14-15 million Adventists world wide with thousands joining daily. God does not hold their feet to the fire for those want to leave because of doctrine.

Quite the contrary, Galatians 1:8-9 states that if anyone "preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed". This same epistle summarizes the Gospel as our redemption from the covenant from Mount Sinai, and even commands us to cast it off for the reason that those retained in its jurisdiction have no claim to eternal life (Galatians 4:21-31). That covenant from Mount Sinai is the premise Adventist soteriology is based on.

Make some arguments with substantial scriptural support against IJ instead of quoting the critics, it might get a response from me.

This thread is filled with descriptions of the IJ's departure from Scripture.

 

[OntheDL]

Quite the contrary, Galatians 1:8-9 states that if anyone "preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed". This same epistle summarizes the Gospel as our redemption from the covenant from Mount Sinai, and even commands us to cast it off for the reason that those retained in its jurisdiction have no claim to eternal life (Galatians 4:21-31). That covenant from Mount Sinai is the premise Adventist soteriology is based on.

Far from the truth. We (SDAs) believe in righteousness by faith through grace. We just don't believe in your so called cheap grace: licensed sinning under grace or however you choose to call it.

I think our denomination is far from cursed being grown to 15 millions from a few dozens in the mid 1800s.

This thread is filled with descriptions of the IJ's departure from Scripture.

Really? I haven't seen one that hasn't addressed. Feel free to have some intelligent discussion by quoting arguments with scriptural support.

 

[VictorC]

Far from the truth. We (SDAs) believe in righteousness by faith through grace. We just don't believe in your so called cheap grace: licensed sinning under grace or however you choose to call it.

You really don't have an in-depth understanding of Adventist theology, how it came to existence and the role of Ellen White on the Adventist theology.

Sabbath, March 24th, 1849, we had a sweet, and very interesting meeting with the Brethren at Topsham, Me. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the City of the living God. There I was shown that the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out, with all their importance, and for God's people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the Ark is, containing the ten commandments. This door was not opened, until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the Holy Place of the Sanctuary in 1844. Then, Jesus rose up, and shut the door in the Holy Place, and opened the door in the Most Holy, and passed within the second vail, where he now stands by the Ark; and where the faith of Israel now reaches. {RH, August 1, 1849 par. 2}​

The sabbath truth is that the sabbath is a component of the covenant from Mount Sinai, which Moses affixed the proper noun "Ten Commandments" to in Deuteronomy 4:13 and elsewhere. That is what your church is bound to, and Ellen White drew a relation between it and a variant of the Shut Door doctrine.

I think our denomination is far from cursed being grown to 15 millions from a few dozens in the mid 1800s.

But again when is there safety in statistics?

Really? I haven't seen one that hasn't addressed. Feel free to have some intelligent discussion by quoting arguments with scriptural support.

I didn't know you dismissed Hebrews 9 and 10, and Ephesians 4 as something other than Scripture. But, I do now.

 

[OntheDL]

You really don't have an in-depth understanding of Adventist theology, how it came to existence and the role of Ellen White on the Adventist theology.

Sabbath, March 24th, 1849, we had a sweet, and very interesting meeting with the Brethren at Topsham, Me. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the City of the living God. There I was shown that the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out, with all their importance, and for God's people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the Ark is, containing the ten commandments. This door was not opened, until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the Holy Place of the Sanctuary in 1844. Then, Jesus rose up, and shut the door in the Holy Place, and opened the door in the Most Holy, and passed within the second vail, where he now stands by the Ark; and where the faith of Israel now reaches. {RH, August 1, 1849 par. 2}​

The sabbath truth is that the sabbath is a component of the covenant from Mount Sinai, which Moses affixed the proper noun "Ten Commandments" to in Deuteronomy 4:13 and elsewhere. That is what your church is bound to, and Ellen White drew a relation between it and a variant of the Shut Door doctrine.

The covenant of Sinai was never said to be faulty. The faulty part according to Hebrew 8 & 10 was the promise of man to obey the law. Heb 8 & 10 go on to tell us the new covenant is better because He will write the laws in our hearts and our minds.

Nothing wrong with the law. They are the just contractual terms. It's the means to achieve obedience. The old: by man's own power. The new: by grace.

Of course you can find it out if you really read Ellen White's writings rather than quote from anti-adventist sites' mis-quoting.

But again when is there safety in statistics?

Right. You got me there. Ellen White said it herself not 1 in 100 (SDAs) understands the plan of salvation. So the real number is much less.

I didn't know you dismissed Hebrews 9 and 10, and Ephesians 4 as something other than Scripture. But, I do now.

Feel free to elaborate on Heb 9, 10 and Eph 4 on how they contradict IJ.

 

[VictorC]

The covenant of Sinai was never said to be faulty. The faulty part according to Hebrew 8 & 10 was the promise of man to obey the law. Heb 8 & 10 go on to tell us the new covenant is better because He will write the laws in our hearts and our minds.

Hebrews 8:13 states "In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away". Your comment about the faulty nature of the first covenant directly contradicts Hebrews 8:7, and no qualification on the perceived performance thereof exists in Scripture.

And, both Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-12 both show that God's "My law" written into the recipients is not according to Sinai. You don't recognize Whom He has placed into us, the only Authority God refers to with a possessive pronoun, Who causes the personal knowledge of God -not the law ordained at Sinai- as Hebrews 8:11 shows as the result. Jesus stated the law was made for those who were not the King's children in Matthew 17:24-26, and you aren't aware of God's adoption that makes us His children and redeemed us from the law that held the recipients in the past tense according to Galatians 4:4-5: Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free".

But this is a tangent anyway, as you left Galatians 4:21-31 that was the basis of my previous post.

Nothing wrong with the law. They are the just contractual terms. It's the means to achieve obedience. The old: by man's own power. The new: by grace.

Your opinion defies Paul's description of the covenant from Mount Sinai as "the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones" in 2 Corinthians 3:7.

Of course you can find it out if you really read Ellen White's writings rather than quote from anti-adventist sites' mis-quoting.

Every quote I provided from Ellen White is from the White Estate. They are not misquotes, but whole paragraphs in most cases from your own accepted authority.

Feel free to elaborate on Heb 9, 10 and Eph 4 on how they contradict IJ.

Show me an authority to permit a rite of atonement, including a "second and final phase" related to 1844 that exists after our transgressions under the first covenant have already been redeemed. Show me a judgment scene in absentia of the accused pertinent to the "professed people of God" in spite of Jesus stating this in John 5:24:

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life​

Find me the material on which judgment takes place in spite of God's promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more". And a final consideration, since you won't comment on Galatians 4 - take a look at Hebrews 10:9 where it states "He takes away the first that He may establish the second", and answer these questions:

• Who is "He" referring to?
• What is the "first" referring to?

You can also note the context's reference to burnt offerings which are offered according to the law, their mandate to keep the sabbath holy in Numbers 28, and their relation to God's displeasure of the sabbath according to Isaiah 1.

 

[OntheDL]

Hebrews 8:13 states "

In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away". Your comment about the faulty nature of the first covenant directly contradicts Hebrews 8:7, and no qualification on the perceived performance thereof exists in Scripture.

The Old Covenant failed because of performance.

Hebrews 8
9 Not according to 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; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

And, both Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-12 both show that God's "

My law" written into the recipients is not according to Sinai. You don't recognize Whom He has placed into us, the only Authority God refers to with a possessive pronoun, Who causes the personal knowledge of God -not the law ordained at Sinai- as Hebrews 8:11 shows as the result.

I think you will have a hard time to show torah in Jer 31:33 is NOT the torah codified at Mt. Sinai. Where is the scriptural support for the change of the commandments of God?

Jesus stated the law was made for those who were not the King's children in Matthew 17:24-26, and you aren't aware of God's adoption that makes us His children and redeemed us from the law that held the recipients in the past tense according to Galatians 4:4-5:

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free".

But this is a tangent anyway, as you left Galatians 4:21-31 that was the basis of my previous post.

Free from the law for performance/work based salvation. But not free from the law. Would you then worship idol, kill, lie or steal? Are you free from the law of Gravity? Try stepping off of the empire state building, you would not discover but confirm the law of which God governs His universe with.

Your opinion defies Paul's description of the covenant from Mount Sinai as "

the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones" in 2 Corinthians 3:7.

Paul's writing supports what my statement. If there is something wrong with the letter, then how can the spirit of it be glorious?

The old covenant was a provision covenant with law written on stones that relied on the man's performance. The new covenant is the eternal covenant with law written on the hearts and minds that relies on God's promise. The law is the contractual term. Where in the bible does it say the law of God has been changed? The covenant is a contract between two parties and is conditional.

Every quote I provided from Ellen White is from the White Estate. They are not misquotes, but whole paragraphs in most cases from your own accepted authority.

Ellen White wrote volumes of books. Have you actually read 'Steps to Christ' or 'Desire of Ages' in their entirety? Read and have an idea what Adventists actually believe before you quote a sentence here a paragraph there to misinterpret our beliefs.

Show me an authority to permit a rite of atonement, including a "second and final phase" related to 1844 that exists after our transgressions under the first covenant have already been redeemed. Show me a judgment scene in absentia of the accused pertinent to the "professed people of God" in spite of Jesus stating this in John 5:24:

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life​

What do these verses say?

Psa 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Acts 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

​

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

​

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,​

Enough? Do they (the verses on judgment) apply to the New Testament believers?

Find me the material on which judgment takes place in spite of God's promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more".

Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

When does God remember or forget being that He knows all things?

'sins remember no more' is a figurative speech. It means no measure of judgment to be carried out against it.

And a final consideration, since you won't comment on Galatians 4 - take a look at Hebrews 10:9 where it states "

He takes away the first that He may establish the second", and answer these questions:

• Who is "He" referring to?
• What is the "first" referring to?

I've been trying to explain to you on this.

The old covenant is a provisional covenant never intended to save but to demonstrate to sinful man their inability to save themselves and their need for the Lamb of God.

When do you think the New Covenant was in effect? Doesn't the bible say Abraham was saved because of his faith?

1 Cor 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Why would God reveal His secrete unto those who knowingly violate His law and claim His law is no longer binding while the 10 commandments are still stored in the Ark of Covenant in the tabernacle in heaven?

Love without duty are empty vain words. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments. How is that you make the law out to be such a burden and painful? If you are married what does it say about your marriage if begrudgingly do what your spouse asks?

Don't you have something better to do than always trying to tear us down both here in GT and in our own forum?

Your posts do not glorify Christ nor edify the body of Christ by tearing down and misinterpreting the law of God which is a transcript of Christ's character.

You can also note the context's reference to burnt offerings which are offered according to the law, their mandate to keep the sabbath holy in Numbers 28, and their relation to God's displeasure of the sabbath according to Isaiah 1.

Try to read the whole chapter, the context.

Isaiah 1
10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Here in vs10 the prophet Isaiah pleads with Israel to give ear unto the law of our God, not the other way around. Notice the weekly sabbath is contained in the 10 commandments and the offerings are contained in the ceremonial laws. In vs11, The Lord detested the sacrifices because the purpose. To what purpose do sinful, unbelieving man sacrifice unto God.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him:...

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

There is nothing wrong with the sacrifices, nor of the new moons, the feast days, the sabbath to offer them on. There is nothing wrong with the prayers offered to the Lord. It's the wicked who offered them, who use the name of the Lord in vain, who called themselves Israelites, who are calling themselves Christians yet who live in sin and iniquity, defying the law of God which is the foundation of the His government, thus defiling the name of the Lord.

 

[VictorC]

I've been trying to explain to you on this.

It would be helpful if you would avoid the effort to explain Hebrews 10:9 away, and answer the questions I raised that are based on it. Here are verses 8-9 again:

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.​

• Who is the "He" that this verse refers to?
• What is the "first" this verse addresses?
• What is the disposition of that "first", and the reason for it?

Much of your post involves responses that come from not carefully reading what I had requested, such as the verses you listed describing judgment. I am short of time right now, and I believe an honest answer to this post will help lay the ground for a fuller understanding of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 once it is provided.

Edit, Tuesday 8pm - I have a reply for your post prepared, but I decided to hold off posting it until you deal with Hebrews 10:9.

 

[Eagle55]

Another obvious example is your investigative judgement/ sanctuary doctrine, including an unverifiable movement of Jesus from the holy to most holy place in the heavenly sactuary in 1844 that no other theologians in the history of Christianity find in the Bible.

So you claim the right to do with these "theologians" what you accuse Adventists of doing with Ellen White? A lot of people do that.

 

[Eagle55]

It would be helpful if you would avoid the effort to explain Hebrews 10:9 away, and answer the questions I raised that are based on it. Here are verses 8-9 again:

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.​

• Who is the "He" that this verse refers to?
• What is the "first" this verse addresses?
• What is the disposition of that "first", and the reason for it?

Much of your post involves responses that come from not carefully reading what I had requested, such as the verses you listed describing judgment. I am short of time right now, and I believe an honest answer to this post will help lay the ground for a fuller understanding of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 once it is provided.

Edit, Tuesday 8pm - I have a reply for your post prepared, but I decided to hold off posting it until you deal with Hebrews 10:9.

The "He" refers to Jesus.

 

[VictorC]

The "He" refers to Jesus.

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?

 

[VictorC]

So you claim the right to do with these "theologians" what you accuse Adventists of doing with Ellen White? A lot of people do that.

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:

I first encountered problems with the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, professionally, in the spring of 1955 during the process of editing comment on the Book of Daniel for volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary. As a work intended to meet the most exacting scholarly standards, we intended our comment to reflect the meaning obviously intended by the Bible writers. As an Adventist commentary it must also reflect, as accurately as possible, what Adventists believe and teach. But in Daniel 8 and 9 we found it hopelessly impossible to comply with both of these requirements.

In 1958 the Review and Herald Publishing Association needed new printing plates for the classic book Bible Readings, and it was decided to revise it where necessary to agree with the Commentary. Coming again to the Book of Daniel I determined to try once more to find a way to be absolutely faithful to both Daniel and the traditional Adventist interpretation of 8:14, but again found it impossible. I then formulated six questions regarding the Hebrew text of the passage and its context, which I submitted to every college teacher versed in Hebrew and every head of the religion department in all of our North American colleges---all personal friends of mine. Without exception they replied that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14.

When the results of this questionnaire were called to the attention of the General Conference president, he and the Officers appointed the super-secret Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, of which I was a member. Meeting intermittently for five years (1961-1966), we considered 48 papers relative to Daniel 8 and 9, and in the spring of 1966 adjourned sine die, unable to reach a consensus.

The Commentary experience with Daniel already mentioned led me into an unhurried, in-depth, spare-time, comprehensive study of Daniel 7 to 12 that continued without interruption for seventeen years (1955-1972), in quest of a conclusive solution to the sanctuary problem. My objective was to be fully prepared with definitive, objective, biblical information the next time the question should arise during the course of my ministry for the church.

Among other things I memorized, in Hebrew, all relevant portions of Daniel 8 to 12 for instant recall and comparison (60 verses), conducted exhaustive word studies of more than 150 relevant Hebrew words Daniel uses, throughout the Old Testament, studied the Hebrew grammar and syntax in detail, made a minute analysis of contextual data, compared ancient Greek and Latin translations of Daniel, investigated relevant apocryphal and New Testament passages, traced Jewish and Christian interpretation of Daniel from ancient to modern times, and made an exhaustive study of the formation, development, and subsequent Adventist experience with the traditional sanctuary doctrine. Eventually I incorporated the results of this investigation into an 1100 page manuscript which I later reduced to 725 pages but decided not release for publication until an appropriate time.

The above considerations conclusively demonstrate that our traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment as set forth in Article 23 of Fundamental Beliefs does not accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture with respect to the ministry of Christ on our behalf since His return to heaven. Accordingly, it is appropriate (1) to note wherein Article 23 is thus defective, (2) to revise the article so as to reflect Bible teaching on this aspect of His ministry accurately, and (3) to suggest a process designed to protect the church from this and similar traumatic experiences in the future.

Some of the concepts associated with the investigative judgment are, indeed, biblical, but the Bible itself nowhere associates them with an investigative judgment, for which there is no sola Scriptura basis whatever.

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.