Phen B - 13 May 2008 10:21 AM

From The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment, SDA study guide 2006.” The basic rendering of the text is “70 weeks are cut off.” Cut off from what? What else other than from the other time prophecy? What other time prophecy? Obviously, the mareh, the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, the longer of the two prophecies.” p.57

Cut off from where? Who decided it had to be the beginning? It could just as well be the middle or the end.

You bet, BrianL,
Who decided it was to be ‘cut off’ from the beginning?

Since the quote was from the study book whose ‘principal contributor and editor’ was Clifford R.Goldstein, maybe was can ask him.
I guess, it won’t fit the SDA prophetic interpretation to have it ‘cut off’ anywhere else but the beginning. Have a look at the elaborate chart touted by the SDA church as “simple.” Do the math and remember, there is no zero year, and it is “inseperably tied to Jesus.”
Also remember,

“one can’t tamper with those dates in any substantial way without tampering with the dates of Jesus. Jesus Himself is the surety of this prophecy. Obviously, then, the Lord deemed the 2300 day prophecy important enough to, in a very real sense, base it on Jesus, on the greatest and most precise prophecy concerning His earthly mission, the 70 - week prophecy of Daniel 9.” p.69 Thursday Aug. 17, 2006.

Now when you are an SDA and read that kind of pronouncement, are you then at liberty to question the man who serves in the G.C and went to college to study this kind of thing?

This is almost like asking those people in the LDS group to question their leader who whether he is in prison or not, still has the power to control all those people under his influence.

Diana,

I hope you don’t mind me responding…

I am not questioning that you were taught this, but this is definitely not a teaching of the church.  I personally have never been taught that I am saved by works but have been taught that works are a response to already being saved.  I agree with you that the doctrine of the church has not changed.  The church has never taught that we are saved by works!  If you study on the 1888 general conference in Minneapolis the issue was not that we are saved by faith in Jesus, but that this was a ‘new’ teaching.  In other words, the older preachers were offended that it was being presented as ‘new’.  What took place was a change in emphasis from the ‘law’ to ‘grace’ and that change was unfortunately not accepted easily.  However, it was always accepted that we are saved by faith in Jesus.

In regards to keeping the Sabbath, I like something I heard by Doug Batchelor:  “The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and our approach to this commandment should be the same as any other commandment.  The question is are we keeping any commandment to be saved?  Or, are we keeping the commandments because we are saved.  Once we know the truth the Bible says, “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (Heb 10:26).  “Anyone that contends that you can willingly break God’s commandments, and still be exempt, is not Biblical”.

Profile

Sorry, it has taken me so long to respond.
I have said before and will say this again, that individual pastors, teachers, lay people in the SDA church have changed, but the 28 fundamentals have not.  The 27, now 28 fundamentals are still there with the continuation of the “Authoritative source “of inspiration in the form of EGW.  When I was in SDA school, EGW was given as much authority as the Bible.  I am probably older than you, but what I said previously is the way I was raised in the SDA church.  The church doctrines have not changed.  The preachers and teachers who are teaching/preaching have changed.  The 27, now 28 fundamentals are still the same and are still there.
Diana

I think that who ever is posting this sorry for the language B.S propoganda should review every source because lat time i check seventh day adventist not only believe in christ but they also believe that christ is the only begottten son of GOd meaning seventh day adventist believe in the holy trinity.The vast difference which sets seventh day adventist apart from other christians is the fact that most other denominations wants to forget that their are 10 commandments not 9 so someone please tell me why is wrong to steal or lie but the sabath i guess we could ignore it...im challenging every one who wants to challenge the sabath to find me where in the bible did God change the sabath from the seventh day saturday to the first day sunday when u find that answere then we could have a real discussion...this website is full of propoganda made to minimize a denomination which is tottallly unfair...wen u find ur answer call me at 813-841-6639 or email me at

Flyinglady - 31 May 2008 08:41 PM

Diana,

Sorry, it has taken me so long to respond.
I have said before and will say this again, that individual pastors, teachers, lay people in the SDA church have changed, but the 28 fundamentals have not.  The 27, now 28 fundamentals are still there with the continuation of the “Authoritative source “of inspiration in the form of EGW.  When I was in SDA school, EGW was given as much authority as the Bible.  I am probably older than you, but what I said previously is the way I was raised in the SDA church.  The church doctrines have not changed.  The preachers and teachers who are teaching/preaching have changed.  The 27, now 28 fundamentals are still the same and are still there.
Diana

As are ALL the ‘inspired’ statements of EGW. All of EGW’s writings are considered valid in the eyes of the SDA Denomination in that not a single one has ever been officially repudiated.

I believe the following statement made by a SDA pastor on CARM accurately reflects just how the Denomination deals with Ellen’s many strange ‘I was shown’ statements:

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=2186993&highlight=fair#post218699 3

Post #151

“It is possible that she may have spoken something from her best judgment that was not correct. She herself gives us examples of this kind of thing--matters of judgment that God later revealed as being incorrect.

My first assumption is not that she is wrong, but that I have overlooked something myself. I don’t assume she is wrong every time I find an apparent contradiction. I have had enough evidence to see the genuineness of her relationship with Jesus and the reliability of her statements. The apparent contradictions can be harmonized in a similar way to the apparent contradictions found in Scripture.

I think you are saying, is there a principle of interpretation that allows her to be wrong on a major doctrine but still believable. Is that correct?

If there isn’t such a principle, and I deem something she teaches unbiblical, does that not disqualify her?

Judging her as false on the basis of my own particular view of a passage or on the basis of the most negative view of her own words is not being fair to her. I must recognize the possibility that my view is lacking particulars that she was privileged to see.”

This rationalization would be equally applicable to anyone claiming to be a Prophet (or Prophetess)

JONVIL

She never claimed to be a prophet. So, in with the good and out with the bad. Treat her as you would any other author. If the author presents what is Biblical ... accept it. If it is “extra-Biblical” reject it.  Some may call her a prophet. That is up to the individual. But even if you consider her a prophet ... you still have to accept the good and reject the bad.  Ellen herself said that she was fallible. So, if you expect infallibility .... you will have to reject her. But if you want good commentary and spiritual encouragement that is “fallible” ... then you might appreciate her.

Administrator - 02 December 2006 08:05 AM

The teachings of the historic Adventist church as found in the writings of Ellen White have fundamentally obscured the biblical gospel. At its most basic level, the historic Adventist doctrine of justification is ironically in agreement with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Ellen White said “When it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man’s best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit” (My Life Today, pg. 250). This idea of justification implies that man’s “best service” must be combined with Christ’s divine merit to “make up for the deficiency” in the character of the believer, as if the believer can contribute anything to his own salvation. This is no different than the false teaching that prompted the Protestant Reformation. At the Council of Trent, the version of justification promoted by Ellen White was vigorously defended by the Roman Catholic church, pronouncing condemnation upon anyone who disagreed with it. “If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification...let such a one be accursed!” (Council of Trent, Canon IV)


If you are an Adventist, we do not bring these things to your attention to ridicule or condemn you. We are truly concerned for your salvation if you adhere to the historic teachings of Adventism or if your understanding of the gospel has been clouded by the teachings of the Adventist church. You may be surprised to learn that the historic teachings of Adventism on justification and the gospel are more in line with Roman Catholicism than with Protestant Christianity. This difference is critical to understand because it is the heart of the gospel and it puts true faith in Jesus into sharp focus. Without acknowledging what God has done for humanity by reconciling us to Himself freely through Jesus apart from our “best efforts,” we cannot have genuine faith. If we believe that our effort in any way adds to salvation apart from what Jesus has already obtained on our behalf, we have fundamentally distorted the gospel. If righteousness could be obtained through our own effort, Jesus died for no purpose (Gal. 2:21).

<span style="float: right; padding: 0 0 0 1.5em"><img src="http://www.forthegospel.org/gfx/cross.gif" alt="bible"></img></span>If you have not done so already, we most sincerely pray that you will place your faith in Jesus Christ outside of your own efforts, acknowledging your sinful condition and your utter incapacity to save yourself. “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). Turn from your sin (including the sin of believing you can earn God’s favor) and put your faith in the Savior, who will cleanse you of all unrighteousness—past, present and future. Recognize that God made him to be sin who knew no sin (Jesus), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21).

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:5-6). We pray that the Adventist church will turn from a gospel of works intertwined with grace and awaken to the biblical gospel of righteousness by faith alone, in Christ alone, by His grace alone, and for His glory alone. The salvation of souls depends on it.

In general this message rings with a point of Christ’s true intent for our salvation. However there is another part of His gospel message which extends, relative to the “rightness of His Faith” stated in numerous other contexts of the New Testament, which words of the context point us back into the Old Testament. And therefore not any newness to the principles God Himself , in the person of Christ exercised in this matter of “Grace over Law.” Which it seems most denomination would accept as truth except as works might relate to numbered Sabbath which He instituted first though Adam and Eve and then through Moses, and then observed Himself: as from the beginning, It will take a Creator to Recreate Life anew “At the Last Day.”

We should become more aware that the messages of Paul and James relative to the “works” of Jesus, the Messiah of the Prophets are inclusively comprehensive. We would then come to recognize that, although our salvation is by Grace Only through the “works” of Jesus, The Messiah, and not in any way dependent on any personal effort on our individual parts. But I should be foolish to attempt to excuse myself, deny or alter those Words either The Father or the Son intended should forever be “immutable,” “Just, right, and Good.”

Remember the song of “That Old Time Religion?” Whom did we sing that it was “God for?” Whom Paul and James (in context/s) indicate it was good for after the ascension of Jesus?”
Rom. 7_ (The commandment/s relative to the concept of “works")
James _ (same “works” relative to “Faith and love"): Is Abraham, to receive the resurrection unto everlasting life for His “works” of “faith?” But would He, Moses or Daniel, and the apostles be ever assured for everlasting life, if they taught doctrine which denying the commandments of God and His prophetic Words to his prophets announcing the Creator was and has come to the world in a body of humanity, as impressed to the mind of Abraham who was willing to obey even to the sacrifice of His own son, Isaac?

It is a certainty that we shall none be preserved unto everlasting life by abstaining from the “negative” aspects of any one point of the “The Law.” on the other hand none will be preserved unto everlasting life who willingly defy any one point under the professed claim that “Grace” has freed them to have no regard for the positive aspects of that Law. Such a claim can only be a doctrinal delusion.

“Despise not prophesying. Prove all things. Hold fast that which is Good [True].” 1Thess.5:9-24.

BrianL - 13 May 2008 11:31 AM

Phen B - 13 May 2008 10:21 AM

From The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment, SDA study guide 2006.” The basic rendering of the text is “70 weeks are cut off.” Cut off from what? What else other than from the other time prophecy? What other time prophecy? Obviously, the mareh, the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, the longer of the two prophecies.” p.57

Cut off from where? Who decided it had to be the beginning? It could just as well be the middle or the end.

I once accepted this explanation that the 70 weeks of Daniel were “cut off” from the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. But I must say it made a great deal more sense to me than did the general Christian view of prophecy that applied the 2300 days to a non-significant vassel king of the era of Greece. Since, by personal comparative research of the prophecies of Daniel, my personal view has had to undergo some alteration with recognition that neither can be correct as per the paralleling order for the sequence of History outlined to follow forward from the era of Great Babylon, of Nebuchadnezzar to the close of all history.

If the chapters of Daniel 2,7,8, and 11-12 are, as they would seem to appear, paralleling prophecies, then Daniel 9 must have its own place amid that parallel, yet apart as per count of the “time, times and the dividing of time” presented from chapters 7 and 12, and the 1290 days, with the 1335 days of chapter 12 also. These “times,” apart from chapter 9, are shown by Bible inspiration to have a direct and progressive relationship with “the little horn” as the “trangression of desolation,” and “the abomination that makes desolate” of chapters 8, 11, and 12.

Therefore, by order of described sequence and intended historic parallel, count of the 70 weeks to Messiah would naturally reach fulfillment before, and long precede the point of history for the correct chronological commencement intended for the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14.

Contrary to the concept held for the fulfillment of 2300 literal days, in the era of Greece, by one King Antiochus. The only interpretation of the “days” and “times,” as cited in these paralleling prophecies to make sound sense for right understanding, and for the purpose of proper placement for those “times,” is to accept that each day is intended to be accepted as representative of one year. In other words the 2300 days are in reality representative for 2300 literal years, and the 1290, and the 1335 days should be perceived as representative for as many years and to be measured in progressive sequence “from the time the daily,” which is representative of the mediatorial work of Christ for His People, from His Heavenly “Sanctuary” should become usurped by “the little horn,” immediately following the fall of “the fourth kingdom,” the Roman Empire.

But of course those who follow the concept for the “Investigative Judgment” will tend to reject this vane of thought in defense for the supposed fulfillment of the 2300 years in 1844 as counting to early from the era of the Mede and the Persian Empire. The others will make defense of their prophetic doctrines as per their denominated preference for interpretative
leadership and scholars.

“Despise not prophesying. Prove all things. Hold fast that which is Good [True]."1Thess.5:19-24.

Phen B - 13 May 2008 12:12 PM

You bet, BrianL,
Who decided it was to be ‘cut off’ from the beginning?

Since the quote was from the study book whose ‘principal contributor and editor’ was Clifford R.Goldstein, maybe was can ask him.
I guess, it won’t fit the SDA prophetic interpretation to have it ‘cut off’ anywhere else but the beginning. Have a look at the elaborate chart touted by the SDA church as “simple.” Do the math and remember, there is no zero year, and it is “inseperably tied to Jesus.”
Also remember,

“one can’t tamper with those dates in any substantial way without tampering with the dates of Jesus. Jesus Himself is the surety of this prophecy. Obviously, then, the Lord deemed the 2300 day prophecy important enough to, in a very real sense, base it on Jesus, on the greatest and most precise prophecy concerning His earthly mission, the 70 - week prophecy of Daniel 9.” p.69 Thursday Aug. 17, 2006.

Now when you are an SDA and read that kind of pronouncement, are you then at liberty to question the man who serves in the G.C and went to college to study this kind of thing?

This is almost like asking those people in the LDS group to question their leader who whether he is in prison or not, still has the power to control all those people under his influence.

It does seem to me that, if after Daniel had passed to his rest in the earth, the proper event of history had transpired in the 7th year of Artaxerxes of Persia from which Jewry might have then begun to count the years to the anticipated coming of “Messiah” after the 69th week of years, there ought thereafter to have been some show of an attempt to understand and to count the “fullness of the time” relative to the 2300 days/years, which some have thought should have begun from that same point of reference. But where might we read some such accounting of any such contemplation/s. I am aware of none coming from all our theologians and scholars.

It should be obvious to us that Paul, writing in 2nd Thessalonians, chapter 2, was very well aware of the outline of sequence to transpire as history toward the Second Advent of Christ, established through Daniel.

Phen B - 13 May 2008 12:12 PM

You bet, BrianL,
Who decided it was to be ‘cut off’ from the beginning?

Since the quote was from the study book whose ‘principal contributor and editor’ was Clifford R.Goldstein, maybe was can ask him.
I guess, it won’t fit the SDA prophetic interpretation to have it ‘cut off’ anywhere else but the beginning. Have a look at the elaborate chart touted by the SDA church as “simple.” Do the math and remember, there is no zero year, and it is “inseperably tied to Jesus.”
Also remember,

“one can’t tamper with those dates in any substantial way without tampering with the dates of Jesus. Jesus Himself is the surety of this prophecy. Obviously, then, the Lord deemed the 2300 day prophecy important enough to, in a very real sense, base it on Jesus, on the greatest and most precise prophecy concerning His earthly mission, the 70 - week prophecy of Daniel 9.” p.69 Thursday Aug. 17, 2006.

Now when you are an SDA and read that kind of pronouncement, are you then at liberty to question the man who serves in the G.C and went to college to study this kind of thing?

This is almost like asking those people in the LDS group to question their leader who whether he is in prison or not, still has the power to control all those people under his influence.

As per accuracy relative to the fulfillment of Daniel’s 70 week prophecy There should be little to argue for sound sequence of historic fulfillment relative to the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus as the Messiah of Prophecy. Even though this view is correct relative to historic fulfillment, The great problem is that this period of prophecy has become accounted as the counted as a misappropriated has been created in the expressions which claim the 7th year of Artaxerxes as also the chronological point of reference for the commencement year also for the 2300 years of Daniel 8:14. In historic sequence for reality those “days” were intended to be representative of literal years and should not have had their commencement until immediately following the fall of the fourth kingdom, the Roman Empire.

But as per the history of the denomination and doctrine, and of William Miller, this concept
must be maintained for the support of 1844 as a prophetic year and the continuance of the non-biblical doctrine of the Pre-Advent, or “Investigative Judgment.” If we should Re-think the paralleling sequence involved in the prophetic chapters of Daniel we would find we are as those to whom we point our fingers at, out of historical sync for the proper placement for the 2300 years. Then of course what would be the worth of the warnings written the lady we propagate as “inspired?” And then What of our Remnant “pride?”