Bible PROPHECY for the ENDtime

[jsm]

I have been asked to post this to generate helpful discussion on Bible prophecies for our times.

Thanks,

Stan McCluskey

Endtimesurprise.blogspot.com is a website for you to prayerfully study and share thoughts on Bible prophecy for our times. A common sense histricist method is used in Revelation 4-11 to show a reasonable end-time application.

In 4:1 John said "after these things" which he saw and heard in previous chapters, he looked at other scenes. And then Jesus said, in that same verse, He will show John “WHAT MUST TAKE PLACE” “AFTER these things” presented in those previous chapters.

This clearly means what is then presented will take place at the end of the Laodicean church period of chapter 3:14-22. This is supported by EGW and will be what she called the future "grand review of the judgment.”

[Dr. Rich]

Stan, do you have any rules for your interpretation of prophecy? If not, then what good would it do to discuss prophecy if anyone can come here with any rule that they choose? My thought would be to develop some solid rules found from the bible itself, so that we all could play the same game without jousting each other. (unintentional of course)

[Guest]

Quote:

If not, then what good would it do to discuss prophecy if anyone can come here with any rule that they choose?

Rich the rules you use. Were they not made up and chosen, by none other than you three guys? Give me a break. What you're suggesting is that we discard the rules William Miller used, and use the set that you made up. LOL

[jsm]

All interpretations must be Bible based as the only safe source of truth, while asking for the Holy Spirit to guide us into a correct understanding of truth. Isaiah 8:20; Psalms 119:160; John 16:13.

We must accept the writings of Ellen G White as inspired by God and Bible-based.

Since “all the books of the Bible meet and end” in the Revelation; Bible-based comparisons must be made. AA 585.

The Bible must be searched “precept upon precept...here a little, there a little.” Isaiah 28:10. But we can become “broken in judgment” by willingly following human precepts and interpretations. Hosea 5:11.

Even in the Bible, final event prophecies (eschatology) have been applied as well to earlier events. Malachi 4:5 with Mark 9:11-13; Joel 2:28-32 with Acts 2:16-21.

Bishop Victorinus of Pettau wrote in the third century that messages to the seven churches in Asia applied only to those early churches. Based on this, it is easy to understand why he (and many others) applied both the seals and trumpets to events throughout the Christian era. This has served a useful purpose throughout the centuries, but should not prevent a search for an end-time application, when "the time (truely) is near." Revelation 1:3.

Those churches are also symbolic of the church throughout the Christian era. AA 585. Based on this, we must conclude that Jesus is saying in Revelation 4:1 that following events will take place at the end of the Laodicean period. It is important to understand this now.

Jesus told John, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place AFTER THESE (Laodicea) THINGS [meta tauta]"

Again, I encourage you to read the blog on this at entimesurprise.blogspot.com and make comments here.

Thanks,

Stan McCluskey

[Dr. Rich]

No Richard, they were NOT. FACT is, four of them were found and given in Colorado at the meetings in the 80's about Desmond Ford. The other three were found from the Bible.

[Dr. Rich]

Stan, it then appears that your foundation for your 'investigation' is faulty from the beginning since the Catholic Church was faulty from the beginning too--right? The seven messages are NOT for any people living way back in history my friend. Take the 5th message. If they don't wake up (Spiritually) Jesus will come when they are sleeping--so this can't possibly be for any group in past history. The 6th message is to a group of people who God finds nothing wrong with so these can only be the 144,000 who are sealed just prior to the tribulation.

The truth of the 7 messages is this--that all of them are for those in the Kingdom of Heaven living in the last generation. They are characteristics of this group so those who are wise can and will be able to know just who they are and can acknowledge their problems and repent.

Therefore, the poor bishop was seriously mistaken, just as all of the others who are now dead. Speaking of this, Daniel 12:10 points out the problem with EGW's words. Since she has long been dead and God's word is clear that only those who are 'wise' AND living in the last generation will understand correctly, we are in danger to use anything she has written or said about last day events.--Right? (Or you must not believe what God told Daniel was true.)

[jsm]

Rich,

You are entitled to your opinions, but I cannot see that they are Bible based. Also, you reject EGW writings as inspired and do not understand what I say. So we will never agree, and I respectfully request that you not add to this thread. Start your own.

Thanks,

Stan Mc

[Dr. Rich]

EGW's writings may have been inspired, but by who is the question. But I will not add anything to YOUR private little discussion. Good luck with that!

[Musicman1228]

In formal debate there is stated a proposition, then there is assigned a "PRO" side and a "CON" side. (This assignment is usually made base on opposites; if your current belief is 'pro' you will most likely be assigned the 'con', and visa versa.) Each side takes the proposition and argues the merits based solely on logic and reason. The most logical defense wins the debate.

Proposition: That the Holy Spirit will lead those who honestly search into ALL truth.

(This applies to prophecy as well as general spiritual truth.)

Pro: That the above statement is true. The ONLY honest (empirical) test of this is to set aside preconceived understandings and allow the Holy Spirit a 'blank slat' upon which to work. Establish working guidelines or rules of prophetic interpretation that will be consistent from one prophecy to another. Study a prophecy (or indeed anything) without any 'expert' or 'authorized' assistance and see what you get. Then compare that to which the Holy Spirit has led you to the understanding of anyone and see where your understanding either converges or diverges. IF the Holy Spirit has been leading BOTH of you there should be a convergence of truth. IF not then you must at that point determine which of you was not actually being lead by the true Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: The Holy Spirit will never lead anyone to anything but the Truth. Therefore, if the 'blank slate' and the 'expert testimony' are not one and the same then you must decide who has been lead astray based only on empirical evidence.

Con: That the above statement is false. The Holy Spirit will lead only certain people chosen specifically by God for a specific purpose into all the truth. Individuals are not lead into Truth but must seek this truth from sources outside of themselves. This would mean that in order to find Truth one would of needs make a decision from among the many that claim Holy Spirit leadership as to who has been actually lead into Truth. Truth is therefore not empirical but subjective, and is base solely on who one believes to have truth, not who actually has truth.

Conclusion: This complicates matters immeasurably because now one must make a purely subjective decision as to who is of God and who is not, only on the strength of their own word, and not from any other outside source.

For those who believe in EGW as a true prophet of God the only way to KNOW that what she said is true is to put her to the test. Study prophecy without her input and see what you get. If you truly believe that the Holy Spirit is capable of leading you as an individual into Truth then you must not limit the Holy Spirit's access to your mind and heart by the prejudice of already established beliefs. If the Holy Spirit is leading both you and EGW then what you receive will match whatever she wrote. If it does not match then you must decide which one or the other of you was not lead by the Holy Spirit. If you say that EGW was lead by the Holy Spirit into the conclusions the states then that means that the Holy Spirit was NOT working with you to achieve the Truth. What does this say about you. If you believe the Holy Spirit was working with you and has lead you to truth and this Truth disagrees with EGW then what does that say about who was leading EGW. This is a conundrum.

If you don't do this then you are not giving the Holy Spirit an honest basis for leading you into truth. All you are doing is studying what has already been stated and assuming that it is true. Just learning what EGW said about prophecy is not studying prophecy. The above proposition is not that the Holy Spirit will lead you into EGW's truth, it is that the Holy Spirit will lead you into ALL Truth. The two just may be different.

[jsm]

Musicman, you are working with Rich in the "Spirit of Truth Ministry" that is oriented against SDA teachings. Please do not add your posts here. Thanks.

[Dr. Rich]

MM-It is totally useless to continue to try to teach these pigs to sing. Even Jesus brushed the dirt off His feet. They totally fit the picture and prophecy found in Rev. 2:18 and on.

[Dr. Rich]

BTW--I did NOT mean that anyone here indeed were pigs. I was just using MM's own words he posted on another thread about it being a waist of time to teach a pig to sing because it also annoys the pig. Sorry if you didn't catch that.

[Musicman1228]

jsm,

What have I ever done against you that you should speak so. And how DARE you tell me what I can and cannot do with respect to this forum or anything else. You have not been granted that authority by me or anyone on this forum. FYI: our ministry IS NOT oriented against any teaching of the SDA church or any other church. We are only oriented to searching for the truth. If you have something specific that you would like to discuss with me then have at it. I will be happy to meet any challenge you can come up with. Just keep it civil. If this is something you cannot do then I will have no further interaction with you. Be aware that I am a Bondservant of Jesus Christ and Him alone; I accept no other authority except Him, through His words and His Spirit.

[jsm]

Ellen White strongly endorsed the Protestant principle of "the Bible and the Bible only, as the rule of faith and duty." GC 204.

And she also applied this to prophecy:

"Angels are now restraining the winds of strife, that they may not blow until the world shall be warned of its coming doom; but a storm is gathering, ready to burst upon the earth; and when God shall bid His angels loose the winds, there will be such a scene of strife as no pen can picture.

"The Bible, and the Bible only, gives a correct view of these things." ED 179-80.

It is vitally important for us to compare her writings with the Bible. But having done that, it is reasonable to make use of both in an effort to make Bible prophecy easier to understand.

Notice again her heated emphasis on the importance of placing the Bible first in our study:

Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what "Sister White said"-- "Sister White said this," and "Sister White said that," and "Sister White said the other thing." But say, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel," and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says.

Spalding & Megan Colection, 167.

[Musicman1228]

The Bible as the wholly inspired, inerrant 'word of God' from cover to cover is a fallacy; a man made, constructed idea that has no basis in Truth, designed to stop people from thinking for themselves in favor of relying on an immutable source so they don't have to. No one here on this forum or anywhere else has as yet been able to prove that this proposition is a direct, unalterable and independent TRUTH directly from the mouth of God Himself. It is and idea that is only based upon conjecture, hear-say, and unsubstantiated 'authority'.

This idea is a fairly recent addition to the dogma of the 'Protestant' church (founded in the Reformation), the sole purpose of which is to STOP people from searching for and finding Truth for themselves, thereby ceding control of doctrine and theology to those granted either or both academic or spiritual authority. The Reformers, having wrested this authority away from the RCC, felt the need to maintain control of the thought and actions of the masses, just as had the RCC. Just as the RCC had controlled the dissemination of 'truth' through the priests, so to the Reformers understood the value of keeping the lay people from thinking for themselves, which over time generated the idea of Sola Scriptura (The Bible Only) with themselves (the preachers) as the sole arbiters of Biblical 'truth'. If the people figured out the Truth for themselves then these preachers would be out of a job, and they could not allow that to happen. This is why there are so many Protestant denominations stemming from that single source, 'The Holy Bible'.

If Sola Scriptura actually operates as advertised then why is there not right now in the world only ONE protestant denomination instead of 100's? Because inherent in the idea of Sola Scriptura are hundreds of differing interpretations of the same texts, all of which are correct because we are all different and have different spiritual needs. This is a lie. There is only ONE truth, and that can only be found in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, NOT anyone else.

Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit comes he (she?) will lead us into ALL truth. He said the is was HIS words that are Truth and Life. The Bible does contain the truth we need to be ready for the coming of the King because it does contain the words of Jesus Christ. But it also contains the words of others who may or may not have been wholly given over to the Spirit of Truth.

[jsm]

The following is first among "Fundamental Beliefs" of the Seventh-day Adventist church and its members:

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

As MM states above, he and his ministry do not agree with this and are, therefore, oriented against the basic teachings of the SDA church. So I choose not to dialog anymore with MM or Rich and others in their ministry.

[Musicman1228]

Prove it, don't just say it prove it. Just quoting a passage from the 28 Fundamentals does not make automatically make them correct. Not ONE of the verses that you cite has ANYTHING to do with anything that is in the New Testament. All of those texts refer to the Old Testament Scripture.

jsm said, "As MM states above, he and his ministry do not agree with this and are, therefore, oriented against the basic teachings of the SDA church. So I choose not to dialog anymore with MM or Rich and others in their ministry."

Could it be that instead of the way that you have stated it is exactly the opposite? Maybe some of the basic teachings of the SDA church are in opposition to the truth? It is possible, you know. THINK don't just react. Use the brain God gave you to search for Truth, don't just accept whatever anyone in authority 'says' is true.

No test of Truth will ever fail, because if it fails it was never Truth!

[This is not a personal thing for me. Truth is singular and absolute, and there is nothing you of I can do that will change it. We will be held accountable in the judgement for rejecting the opportunity to find truth. Don't take my word for this, EGW said so.]

[Guest]

MM, jsm asked you nicely not to post your anti-adventist views on his thread. He has every right to do that. He did not start this thread so it could be used to argue over your strange beliefs.

Why do you think it is your right to highjack every single thread you post on, over to your agenda? This is not in keeping with the forum rules.

And your agenda is definately anti SDA. You have been told many times not to do this. And even after being asked nicely not to, you insist on taking over this mans thread with your usual nonsense.

I am going to report this, and hopefully they will remove this garbage. If you continue to flaunt what the moderators have told you, I think they will remove you. Then maybe jsm can get back to the reason he started this thread in the first place.

Your arrogance really knows no bounds does it MM?

[jasd]

QR frame:

Umm, guys, just utilize the ignore function..., the rest of us can handle exposition of all sides to an issue.

Acts 5:38 ...if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

Acts 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Carry on.

:-(

[Guest]

The following is first among "Fundamental Beliefs" of the Seventh-day Adventist church and its members:

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

As MM states above, he and his ministry do not agree with this and are, therefore, oriented against the basic teachings of the SDA church. So I choose not to dialog anymore with MM or Rich and others in their ministry.

Amen Stan

[Musicman1228]

JSM and Richard,

The only apology I will make is for responding to your inane insults with logic and reason. I know that what you want from this thread is to just pat each other on the back and say how wonderful each of you is, and how great it is to believe as a 'good' SDA should believe, rather than have a serious discussion of the issues. This is something that you don't want because if you actually did that you would be going outside of your comfort zone, and it is obvious that is where you want to be. I would rather know the truth than agree with you. So if I must agree with your understanding of prophecy or theology in order to be in the club then I would rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick, which would be better that trying to stomach the pablum that you are trying to feed us here on this thread.

You two are like play ground bullies who must threaten others to feel worth while. The problem with being a bully is that there is alway someone out there that is stronger, smarter, quicker and more intelligent than you, who you will meet someday and wish you hadn't. I truly am not upset with you for this, as it is unproductive to be upset with the foolish, as they just can't help it.

So for your sake I will stay off this thread and not respond in kind as you have to me. Have a wonderful time playing around the edges of the issues in your self absorbed and self-centered way, rather than focusing on the words and teaching of Jesus Christ. I will be around on other threads so if you ever want a stimulating and friendly discussion feel free to look me up.

[John317]

Quote:

jsm: It is vitally important for us to compare her writings with the Bible. But having done that, it is reasonable to make use of both in an effort to make Bible prophecy easier to understand.

Notice again her heated emphasis on the importance of placing the Bible first in our study:

Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what "Sister White said"-- "Sister White said this," and "Sister White said that," and "Sister White said the other thing." But say, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel," and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says.

Spalding & Megan Colection, 167.

Good points and very important quote there.

If you don't already have it, get the great and invaluable set of books, The Exhaustive Ellen G. White Commentary on Daniel and Revelation.

[John317]

With moderator's hat:

To all,

Everyone is welcome on this thread but I am making a strong suggestion that everyone keep on topic. If someone wants to discuss "problems" about Paul or Peter or Ellen White, please let them take it to a separate discussion devoted to those issues. We recognize that those questions are important ones for some people, but we don't want them to hijack discussions about other topics. Thank you.

[Musicman1228]

To the moderator: do your instructions mean that when I see a difference in understanding between some particular point that a forum member makes using EGW as a reference that I am now not allow to draw conclusions and point out that difference using Bible texts? In other words, are you saying that on this thread there can be no alternatives in proofs other than EGW writings?

Please give me a ruling on this.

[Dr. Rich]

"If you don't already have it, get the great and invaluable set of books, The Exhaustive Ellen G. White Commentary on Daniel and Revelation." Hmmm? Was that a commercial?