SDA position on the Daily

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I regret to say that every time I see the topic subject, "SDA position on the Daily," I keep wondering where Lois Lane and Jimmy are...How would Clark Kent handle this topic?

**ponders**

Well, he *does* have a big "S" on the chest of his suit; I suppose it could be an abbreviation for "SDA"...

[ClubV12]

1919 is when the big argument came to a head at the meeting, but yes, it had been brewing for awhile.

I see the point about Miller not understanding the 1844 issues clearly enough, but Smith certainly did. He STILL argued Miller's view in the 1900's.

In my opinion Crozier did NOT actually identify the "daily", he wrote all around it and his views on the sanctuary are endorsed by Sister White. Using her support of Crozier to establish her position on the daily is the very kind of thing she counseled against doing!

Consider the logic:

IF Crozier ID's daily, AND, EGW endorses his view, THEN no debate in 1919. The matter would have been settled by "inspired testimony".

rudy, took me a minute, but then I got it, :)

[Twilight II]

Just reading my bible alone I came to the conclusion that the "daily" was the sacrificial system or "daily sacrifices".

From the context of Daniel alone.

I have never been quite sure what all the fuss is about?

[ClubV12]

The word sacrafice was not in the original text, it was added by men under the assumption that it was referring to sacrafice. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

While the two primary views (there are many other views) of Adventist's seem to be miles apart, is it possible that they are BOTH correct? In terms of "time" it could be said the daily was in fact "thrown down" in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed.

[miz3]

Christ desires to teach us individually & if we submit to Him in all His ways we shall not lean upon man's wisdom.

Go straight to the Source. This was the call of 1888.

I thought God worked through the "brethren" rather than just individual persons?

[Twilight II]

The word sacrafice was not in the original text, it was added by men under the assumption that it was referring to sacrafice. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

While the two primary views (there are many other views) of Adventist's seem to be miles apart, is it possible that they are BOTH correct? In terms of "time" it could be said the daily was in fact "thrown down" in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed.

Look at it from Daniels perspective.

He is discussing the sanctuary service.

There is only one "daily" associeated with the sanctuary service and that is the daily sacrifice.

That would come to an end on earth when Christ was crucified.

It has been a long time since I looked at this, but I remember thinking that I could not understand what all the fuss was about...

If we just read the context.

[Lysimachus]

Keep in mind Club that when Ellen White endorsed Uriah Smith's book "The Daniel and the Revelation", she had endorsed it only after the "Revelation" portion had been published. Not the Daniel portion. In 1910, Ellen White called a meeting together and told Haskell and others that they needed to give A.G. Daniels a candid hearing on his views (which were concerning the daily), and that if they could not refute him, they needed to accept what he was telling them. It's all thoroughly documented. Ellen White, near the end of her life, was in good relations with A.G. Daniels.

[Twilight II]

Dan 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land].

Little horn appears (Rome).

Dan 8:10 And it waxed great, [even] to the host of heaven; and it cast down [some] of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

Persecutes Gods people, the stars.

Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

Rome than asserts authority over the prince (crucifying Christ).

Then "by Him" (Rome), the daily sacrifices are taken away and the temple is destroyed (AD70).

Dan 8:12 And an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

Then a host (Gods people) was given to Rome (which became the Papacy) and it was succesful for a long time.

-----------------

I think sometimes we just need to read things in their simplest forms.

I do not see any issue with these texts at all, when read from Daniels perspective (the sanctuary and its ministrations including the daily sacrifice were of the highest importance to him) and with the advantage of hindsight (re the cross and fall of Jerusalem AD70).

So it baffles me why there is a "big split" in the church over this one... :-)

[Lysimachus]

I thought God worked through the "brethren" rather than just individual persons?

That is why Ellen White counseled against those who were completely disqualifying the positions of the brethren, but that does not mean the brethren are always correct. God does work through the brethren, and to ignore their counsels is deadly to the soul. The meetings on this issue were not able to settle the issue because there was division between all the brethren on this matter. You, on the other hand miz3, reject and ignore EVERY single established position of the SDA church.

[ClubV12]

It was the "arguing" over a relatively minor point causing division among the brethren that Sister White wanted to stop. Mole hole into a mountain as she called it. Not that it was an entirely unimportant point, but that the need for unity overuled it.

And not the first time this principle was applied. When a position divides, it's time to put it away for awhile. These men were well studied biblical students and were adamant about their opinions, that includes James White. Whom Sister White counseled on at least one occasion he should not express his views in a meeting. What they discussed at home or in "special meetings" were one thing, a more public meeting was not the time and place to bring in controversy.

If the issue with Sister White supporting A.G. Daniels on his view of the daily is so well documented there wouldn't have been a discussion on the matter. Again I see this as an attempt to illicate Sister Whites opinion on support of one side of the "daily" discussion. She was clear, to Daniels and to everybody else, she did not have any direct light on it. Like Crozier, Daniels had much that was worthy of discussion on the Sanctuary in general. HIS position is well known, but I wouldn't suggest that Sister White agreed with him in every detail. Especially concerning the meaning of the daily.

Bear in mind here, I'm facing THREE distinct views on the daily.

One from my mentor, a well respected man who understands few agree with his interpretation. The Sunday law will be the daily. He makes a strong case for that, actually. Few even understand the issue with sufficient clarity to argue the point, which is why I have come here.

The second view is the "new view", widely held and largely accepted by Adventists. Not all of them, but fair to say "most".

The third view is that of the pioneers, 70 AD.

Maybe everyone is right to some degree!!!

It's easy to say simply read the bible and take it at face value. Sometimes that is precisely the way and the meaning is clear. That is not the case with the daily, or, the issue would have been settled a long time ago.

[Twilight II]

It was the "arguing" over a relatively minor point causing division among the brethren that Sister White wanted to stop. Mole hole into a mountain as she called it. Not that it was an entirely unimportant point, but that the need for unity overuled it.

[ClubV12]

I tend to agree with you on this issue Twilight as far as that goes! I think the problem is a "dual or even triple" application of the prophecy.

Reading the texts in the context of 70 AD seems clear enough. What about the context of 1844? Again, the context of our modern day?

I hesitate to use the Sister White quote referring to history will be repeated because I think it is to easily misapplied. But I can't rule it out...

Here is a classic example of what happened in 1919. Some say it's entirely clear, whats the problem? Others take the same position, it's entirely clear, but are on the other side of the argument! :)

[Twilight II]

I tend to agree with you on this issue Twilight as far as that goes! I think the problem is a "dual or even triple" application of the prophecy.

Reading the texts in the context of 70 AD seems clear enough. What about the context of 1844? Again, the context of our modern day?

I hesitate to use the Sister White quote referring to history will be repeated because I think it is to easily misapplied. But I can't rule it out...

Here is a classic example of what happened in 1919. Some say it's entirely clear, whats the problem? Others take the same position, it's entirely clear, but are on the other side of the argument!

I think if the primary application is understood, then any secondary application should follow that pattern.

I call this the "fractals of bible prophecy".

A repeating pattern can be seen that slides up and down in scale through the course of biblical history.

But the danger is when we put aside the primary application and try to make a secondary application THE primary application. :-)

I have a simple straight forward mind and like to keep it that way... :-)

[ClubV12]

OK, if the primary application, as Miller and Smith saw it, is indeed the sacrafice and desolation of the sanctuary in 70 AD how would we apply that primary understanding to His work in the Sanctuary above in 1844?

Actually, I can see that application being in harmony! Now the Sunday law aspect seems a bit further out, but again, I can see THAT application being in harmony as well.

[Twilight II]

how would we apply that primary understanding to His work in the Sanctuary above in 1844?

Why would we need to do that?

You would have to show me the repeating pattern here for me to make such an application. :-)

[Twilight II]

An example of what I mean:

Ellen White stated that the "wheat and the tares" that would be sifted are the Adventist people, or this is the context she presented it in.

Which is an application to a small group.

But Jesus' original application was to the whole of humanity.

So we have a smaller application of the larger application.

Both follow the same rigid pattern.

So with that in mind, why would we take Daniel 8 and apply it to 1844?

[miz3]

I regret to say that every time I see the topic subject, "SDA position on the Daily," I keep wondering where Lois Lane and Jimmy are...How would Clark Kent handle this topic?

**ponders**

Well, he *does* have a big "S" on the chest of his suit; I suppose it could be an abbreviation for "SDA"...

That's good rudywoofs!

[skyblue888]

I agree, Lysimachus.

The Bible evidence appears to be clearly in favor of "the daily" being the gospel, and specifically the High Priestly Ministry of Christ, which the little-horn power-- papal system--has thrown down to the ground. He did this largely by inventing the false system of the human priesthood and the Mass.

The SDA church was raised up for the express purpose of undoing the evil work of the little horn power and calling the world's attention back to the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

How can the SDA church do the work that God has called us to do if we accept the false teaching that the atonement was finished at the cross; that we are not living during the Antitypical Day of Atonement; and that there is no Investigative Judgment?

I agree with you John that the advent movement was raised for the very purpose of "rebuilding" the sanctuary doctrine which had been lost sight of for many centuries.

sky

[John317]

...In my opinion Crozier did NOT actually identify the "daily", he wrote all around it and his views on the sanctuary are endorsed by Sister White. Using her support of Crozier to establish her position on the daily is the very kind of thing she counseled against doing!

[ClubV12]

I'm not sure how we got to the atonement issue on this topic, I'll have to give that some thought!

Just when I think the daily is fairly straight forward, somebody throws a monkey wrench in there...

In this case it seems the understanding of the atonment is at risk if we don't have the correct view on the daily. Seems like a bit of a stretch to put in such a dramatic way.

[John317]

Just reading my bible alone I came to the conclusion that the "daily" was the sacrificial system or "daily sacrifices".

From the context of Daniel alone.

I have never been quite sure what all the fuss is about?

Part of the "fuss" results from the fact that the word "sacrifices" is added by the translators. Also, the Hebrew word, tamid, can be translated as "daily" or "continual."

Commentators such as Uriah Smith understood it to mean "continually," as in Satan's long continuance of Satan's opposition to the work of Christ through the medium of paganism. He saw "the daily" as being in contrast to "the abomination that makes desolate," which he believed represents papal Rome replacing pagan Rome.

I agree with you, though, that "the daily" refers to Christ's High Priestly ministry in behalf of sinners.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Just reading my bible alone I came to the conclusion that the "daily" was the sacrificial system or "daily sacrifices".

From the context of Daniel alone.

I have never been quite sure what all the fuss is about?

Part of the "fuss" results from the fact that the word "sacrifices" is added by the translators. Also, the Hebrew word, tamid, can be translated as "daily" or "continual."

Commentators such as Uriah Smith understood it to mean "continually," as in Satan's long continuance of Satan's opposition to the work of Christ through the medium of paganism. He saw "the daily" as being in contrast to "the abomination that makes desolate," which he believed represents papal Rome replacing pagan Rome.

I agree with you, though, that "the daily" refers to Christ's High Priestly ministry in behalf of sinners.

Just using the context and Daniel as the central figures upon which to unlock the prophecy, it seems so simple to me.

I really do not see any reason for the confusion.

Daniels perspective is the one that should be adopted and the "daily" as Satans work, wouldn't have any meaning for him.

Daniel would not have had that understanding and would not have written it that way...

For Daniel, the ministration of the daily sacrifice and all it entailed was deeply culturally important to him.

That was why he was so upset with the vision.

I am not sure where Smith thought he was going with this?

[Lysimachus]

Club,

I was not in any way insinuating that we should establish our position of the Daily based on Ellen White's endorsement on Crozier's article on the sanctuary. The reason I brought this up was because many advocates of the "paganism" view allude to Ellen White's letters concerning the darkness that had come over A.G. Daniels and Prescott as "proof" that she was not in harmony with them concerning the Daily. In other words, men like Pippenger constantly use her writings against these men as evidence that she did not agree with them on the daily. And that their "false view" of the "daily" was of "satan". However, if her discontentment with these men had to do with their definition of the daily itself, then consistency would demand that she should have also shown discontentment for Crozier's article. I've read his article a number of times to know that he clearly believed the "daily" was concerning Christ's High Priestly Ministry.

Many people also forget that Uriah Smith was open to the fact that there may be some errors in his views, and he was open to the possibility of certain positions he had written in his Daniel and Revelation book being edited. Uriah Smith also held that the King of the North was Turkey. And that the river Euphrates of Revelation 16:12 was the literal Euphrates in the Middle East that would be literally dried up. Uriah Smith was writing these views when the SDA Church was JUST flapping its wings! But as time went on, these small, minor errors, were cleaned up and our views were fine-tuned.

[ClubV12]

Smiths views on Turkey and such does not mean he was mistaken on all doctrinal or specific issue points. Using that argument we could eliminate a host of "good men", perhaps all of them, as being deluded on any given point!

Daniels went to Sister White specifically to gain clairity on her views of the daily. She refused to say, she left the question open. Her position at that time was different than she declaring the men should stop arguing about it. She simply had no light on the subject, nothing to share one way or the other. BOTH sides were using various SOP arguments to at least "suggest" or "infer" she stood on one side or the other. But the fact remains, she never committed to a position. As it concerns the SOP, we simply cannot use it to come to a conclusion on the matter.

Here is really the end result of the argument(s):

"And that their "false view" of the "daily" was of "satan"."

Indeed, my mentor takes a similiar position, which exasperates me no end, that if you don't accept his position your very soul is at stake because your being led into a grand delusion by Satan!!!

Thats a terrible way to support a position, no wonder Sister White was so adamant about stopping the whole discourse. Now granted that does apply in SOME circumstances, but not to a definition of the daily. Not yet, not now, I'll leave room for it to rise to that level at some point.

I come to a different conclusion on Croziers paper, it is not clear to me what he defines the daily as.

[Twilight II]

Indeed, my mentor takes a similiar position, which exasperates me no end, that if you don't accept his position your very soul is at stake because your being led into a grand delusion by Satan!!!

Thats a terrible way to support a position, no wonder Sister White was so adamant about stopping the whole discourse. Now granted that does apply in SOME circumstances, but not to a definition of the daily. Not yet, not now, I'll leave room for it to rise to that level at some point.

I have come across this myself.

When I disagreed with various different brethren about the Nature of Christ, I was charged with the Alpha and Omega of apostasy as my very own possesion.

When people resort to this type of argument, they are really looking for their own views to be accepted by all and anything short of that results in the Spanish Inquisition...

Usually it is accompanied with a "fanatical" spirit that is incapable of listening to another and consider their arguments.

The only thing that matters is being "right".

It is of the flesh and of satan and Ellen White spoke out against this type of behaviour many times.

It is usually "neo-conservatives" that adopt this type of denunciation I have noticed.