SDA position on the Daily

[Lysimachus]

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!

I think you're missing my point Club. I hope you're not trying to pick a fight with me, are you? I'm trying to be in harmony here. My point is that just because Uriah Smith's view of the daily was that it was paganism doesn't mean it was correct, and that just like Uriah Smith was wrong on some views reveals that it could be well the same with his view of the daily. That's the point! Furthermore, to take Ellen White's endorsement of Uriah Smith's book as evidence that Uriah Smith's view of the daily must have been correct would also mean to accept that Uriah Smith was correct on his view of Turkey and the literal Euphrates river in the Middle East.

Nobody is saying that his wrong views on Turkey and such means he was mistaken on all doctrinal or specific issue points. That is completely besides the point, and misses the entire purpose of the arguments I have presented. It doesn't even make sense in light of the issues we're dealing with.

[Lysimachus]

Desmond Ford was the last chance the Church had to come full circle with the Gospel.

Anyone who still holds to the untenable readings of the OT and NT by the SDA church hasn't looked at the evidence.

The church is ripe for a new FORD movement. It's time to return to the Bible and the Bible only to prove our doctrines.

When we stop using EGW to prop up incorrect exegesis, some of our teachings won't stand the test.

1844 is just the start...

First off, welcome to this board justified70X7. With all due respect, however, I will gently state that Desmond Ford is the worst thing that has ever happened to the SDA Church. The SDA Church pussyfooted too long with him and he should have been kicked out of the Church a long time ago. Instead, they let him crucify us with his deadly, poisonous teachings, for way too long.

I've MORE than looked at the evidence justified70X7. I'm talking about intense 15 years evaluating the teachings of Ford and the official positions of the SDA Church. The more I read, and the more I study, the more convinced I am that Ford is FAR strayed from the Bible and the Bible only, and that the pillars of our faith are far more Biblical than Ford could ever be. To stop using EGW, is to STOP being Biblical, because Ellen White is 100% in harmony with the Bible. I have to pray that I do not lose it when I read statements like this, because I am fully persuaded, and more than passionate, that the mentality you express above is extremely devastating and detrimental to the pillars that the Lord has established.

It's going to take everything we have to Biblically blast the false teachings of Ford out of this Church. We're not playing games on this.

[ClubV12]

Not in the least trying to stir up trouble or pick a fight Lysimachus, in fact I'm doing my very best to keep the discussion on a level keel. Recognizing we could slip into the same mistakes that were made in 1919!

People make mistakes, that point is undisputed. Making one or more mistakes on any given point, in my opinion, shouldn't be used to suggest or imply that a person could be mistaken on another point. Any man, any point, any time, that is always possible. By the same token, support of Sister White for any man, on any point, at any time, doesn't mean she supported that man on all points through out his life of work.

I see Sister Whites support of ANYBODY, or non-support, as immaterial to the question of the daily. She simply does not make clear her personal position on it, nor does she make it clear what position she does or doesn't support. Thats my opinion of course. The history and qualifications of those with an opinion on the matter carries some weight. But not a lot, again in my opinion. The credentials for all involved are pretty significant, even for our modern authors and yet, the church remains to some degree in limbo on this.

I will not accept this or that man's opinion based solely on his "qualifications", but it IS a factor! Nor will I necessarily accept the majority opinion because "tradition" says so, but it is a frightful thing to dismiss the opinion of the brethren. Something that should not be taken lightly.

To sum it up, here we are over a hundred years later and the issue remains unresolved as it concerns a united position from the church on the matter. That seems very strange to me.... Are we willing and able to set aside our long held and even cherished ideas to consider this with a humble spirit? Or, have we staked out an immovable position on it? It's OK to be adamant about your position, whatever it may be, in fact, it's necessary. Truth can withstand close scrutiny!

Let us stay focused on the topic, the daily, it's real easy to get sidetracked.

[ClubV12]

Daniel 12, verse 1 and 2, that sure sounds like it's talking to this generation!

[miz3]

Daniel 12, verse 1 and 2, that sure sounds like it's talking to this generation!

Why?

[John317]

...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.

The concept of Armageddon as a political and military battle and a gathering of nations in Palestine was believed by many SDAs until fairly late in the 20th century. There were a few SDA scholars and Bible students who began to question Smith's interpretation on this and write about it in the 1920s and 30s. One such early SDA who wrote on this topic was an evangelist named William L. Sims whose pamphlets are in the Loma Linda branch of the Ellen G. White Estate.

[ClubV12]

OK, so Smith and others believed one thing, Daniels another, modern scholars have their take on it.

What's the GC's current take on it, the "official" position, or is there an official position?

If not, I submit that "we" as a church continue to wait for "new light" on the subject. IF that comes, will we be in a position to even recognize it?

I think to much of the discussion concerns itself with the credentials of those who have taken a position, rather than an investigation of WHY they have taken that position. Of course, the matter is very complex, so there are no quick and easy answers.

[John317]

...To sum it up, here we are over a hundred years later and the issue remains unresolved as it concerns a united position from the church on the matter. That seems very strange to me....

In a sense it is not unresolved, because nearly everyone who expresses their view of the topic believes that the daily refers to Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. I don't think it's necessary for the church to have an official view of the daily that has been voted on by the world church in GC session.

But the reason that the church doesn't have an officially united position is Ellen White's counsel in 1 SM 164-168.

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Are we willing and able to set aside our long held and even cherished ideas to consider this with a humble spirit? Or, have we staked out an immovable position on it? It's OK to be adamant about your position, whatever it may be, in fact, it's necessary. Truth can withstand close scrutiny!

I certainly agree with your last statement here, Club, and I hope we're able to do what you suggest in your first question.

[ClubV12]

Well thats reasonable John, I'll keep an open mind on it for two reasons.

I THINK, due to my study of the history of the church, I've become what I undestand may be an "historic Adventist". I'm not sure exactly what that means and if it's good or bad yet though.

Of course I also recognize that Sister White and all of them continued to grow and accept change and new light as it was presented. I'm also considering the possiblility that the majority opinion may not always be correct. The danger there is that taken to far you could find yourself with some very odd views and "think" yourself right into some delusionary doctrines!

Like I have a clue to dispute the majority position! But I have enough of a clue to ask the questions of them. To seek a reason for their, for your, for my, faith.

[John317]

I will gently state that Desmond Ford is the worst thing that has ever happened to the SDA Church.

There's one positive thing that has resulted from Desmond Ford's false teachings, and that is, they have made a lot of SDAs study the subject of the Investigative Judgment like they never have before. The result of false teachings is that they shake people out of the church but they also shake people in and cause them to do deeper study which they otherwise probably wouldn't do.

That is exactly what one SDA writer on the IJ, Bradley Williams, told Dr. Ford in person.

I think God allows false teachings to come for the very purpose that they challenge us to study what we believe and why. In fact, most doctrines of the Christian church were developed because the introduction of false doctrines caused Christians to think through what the Bible teaches. In a sense this is what's happening now in our church.

[John317]

Written in 1903, Letter 161, EGW

"Let us read and study the twelfth chapter of Daniel. It is a warning we shall all need to understand before the end of time."

Note this counsel was in 1903, well after 1844 and the end of the 2,300 year prophecy, which was already well understood and universally accepted. Was the letter a call to understand even more deeply the significance of the 2,300 year prophecy or a call to understand yet another aspect of Daniel 12? I will look for additional context on what this letter of 1903 may refer to.

Here's the statement in context:

Quote:

I am deeply moved by the unprepared condition of our churches. One thing we must do. We must keep our feet in the straight and narrow path that leads to eternal life. We must make no missteps now. The first and second chapters of Colossians have been presented to me as an expression of what our churches in every part of the world should be. The great apostle had many visions. The Lord showed him many things that it is not lawful for a man to utter. Why could he not tell the believers what he had seen? Because they would have made a misapplication of the great truths presented. They would not have been able to comprehend these truths. And yet all that was shown to Paul molded the messages that God gave him to bear to the churches.

The people of God need to study what characters they must form in order to pass through the test and proving of the last days. Many are living in spiritual weakness and backsliding. They know not what they believe. Let us read and study the twelfth chapter of Daniel. It is a warning that we shall all need to understand before the time of the end. There are ministers claiming to believe the truth who are not sanctified through the truth. Unless a change comes in their lives, they will say, "My Lord delayeth His coming."

Read the 21st chapter of Luke. In it Christ gives the warning, "Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things, and to stand before the Son of man" (Luke 21:34-36). {15MR 228, 229}

[John317]

... My point is that just because Uriah Smith's view of the daily was that it was paganism doesn't mean it was correct, and that just like Uriah Smith was wrong on some views reveals that it could be well the same with his view of the daily.... Furthermore, to take Ellen White's endorsement of Uriah Smith's book as evidence that Uriah Smith's view of the daily must have been correct would also mean to accept that Uriah Smith was correct on his view of Turkey and the literal Euphrates river in the Middle East.

Nobody is saying that his wrong views on Turkey and such means he was mistaken on all doctrinal or specific issue points.

All good points, Lysimachus, except that Uriah Smith didn't believe that Rev. 16: 12 refers to the literal Euphrates. In his book on D &R, page 691, Smith says that it is referring to the nation occupying the territory through which the river flows. He was wrong on that point, too, but at least he didn't believe it was the literal river. He apparently understood that it refers to the people, but he limited the people to those who lived in the area of the literal Euphrates River.

[ClubV12]

Lets move away from the daily a moment John and refocus on this call to read and understand Daniel 12 in a broader sense.

It would be easy to consider it a "closed chapter". After all, we "get it", the 2,300 years start, the middle, the end, whats not to understand? It seems simple enough on it's face. It's history, ened in 1844, the Most Holy Place, the IJ, we get it! That was then, this is now, an important message, but for the world. Not us, "we" get it (and have need of nothing in that regard). So WHAT am I missing here that is obviously so important, as it concerns Daniel 12, that we need to study and understand it TODAY?

No need to express how important Daniel 12 is to our foundation or our call to tell it to the world, I think we understand it's value and relation to the church and doctrine.

So what more do WE need to understand about it that we don't? A sincere humble question.

[John317]

I believe that the answer to your question lies in a deeper understanding of the relationship between Daniel 8: 14 and Daniel 12: 10--

12:10 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.

Notice that the context of this verse is the time just before Christ's second coming. We are living in that very time.

Being purified and made white and tried is talking about the blotting out of sins during the very time in which we are living. It shows that there will be a special time of purification just before the end. But notice too that it says the wicked will not understand. No doubt they will ridicule the concept of being purified and made white. They believe that this is referring to simply accepting Christ. But of course it is not.

Many even in the SDA church believe that they are already ready for Christ to return and that there is no special preparation that is necessary. It is a popular teaching in the fallen churches and is sweeping into the SDA church as well.

When was the last time we've heard a sermon in an SDA church on the blotting out of sins and the fact that we are living today in the Antitypical Day of Atonement? It's extremely rare, and this should tell us something.

Instead, we have preaching (for the most part) of sermons that we could just as well hear in any of the churches which reject God's law, true righteousness by faith, and the Three Angels Messages. In fact, there are many-- even among our leaders-- who love it so. It seems obvious to me that this is why many do not like what our current GC president is doing. He is attempting to bring about reformation in the very things we're referring to here, and he is meeting quite a bit of resistence from those who would like to see our church be more like the other churches.

[Twilight II]

Daniel did not understand the vision, he simply wrote what he saw or was told. He was "dismissed" when asked the meaning of it all, seal up the book and go thy way. Of course he would have no concept of Sunday worship and/or many other aspects of the vision. Like John said, he was "sick" because he didn't understand it, not because he did! His mind must have been racing with possibilities of what it could mean, and he was unable to comprehend it.

"daily"

Original Word,

dymt

from an unused root meaning to stretch

Tamiyd

Definition

Continuity, perpetuity, to stretch continually, continuously (as adverb)

continuity (subst).

One could reason, SOMETHING, that had always been, continually, was taken away and replaced with an abomination.

I have to pin you down on this one.

Where does it state that Daniel "did not understand" what the "daily" was in the text, or where is that inferred?

My fear is that we are taking the confusion that some have engaged in and insisting Daniel was also confused on that point.

But can we prove that from the text itself?

:-)

[ClubV12]

That Daniel did not understand the vision is clear enough. I never meant to imply that he was sick because he didn't understand the daily. He was sick because he didn't understand the vision or parts of it in general.

John makes a most worthy point concerning the book of Daniel, it IS for our very time. In many respects it IS talking directly to OUR generation, right now. I don't know yet how important the daily is, if it's "that important" at all right now. But I do feel strongly the book of Daniel is very important for us to know and understand.

Our young, just out of school Pastor, has been preaching quite a bit lately. On the importance of the LAW of all things. I was moved to tears in the pew a few Sabbaths ago at how powerfully that message was delivered. With a lot of love, with righteousness by faith, but with the straight truth, we have ignored the law for to long.

My concern here is that due to the "legalisim" that was heavily prevalent in the church for sometime there are those who are afraid of the law. Some DO understand, to various degrees, righteousness by faith, and cling to that as "enough". They've been burned by a fanatical aspect of the law. Will they be able to see and accept it with new understanding, or reject it based on old prejudice?

Righteouness by faith and the law are inseparable, it's a double edged sword.

[skyblue888]

Here is my take on it.

I believe Daniel was made to understand the vision. That was Gabriel's purpose for being sent to him. Daniel probably expected the end of the world to be near, that Messiah was about to be born and that the cleansing of the sanctuary had to do with the temple in Jerusalem and that it would be cleansed by the Messiah and then the end would come but when Gabriel explained to him that it would take 483 years before Messiah could be anointed and that He would be crucified in the middle of the last prophetic week at the Jew's instigation, that the Jewish people would seal their final rejection of God's mercy by persecuting Christ's disciples, that Christ after His resurrection would ascend up on High to begin the atonement by pleading the merits of His shed blood before the Father in behalf of sinners, and that the cleansing of the sanctuary in Heaven would not begin until another 1810 years, he was overwhelmed by this explanation, by this vision, and he fainted.

sky

[ClubV12]

Well put Sky!

[skyblue888]

Our young, just out of school Pastor, has been preaching quite a bit lately. On the importance of the LAW of all things. I was moved to tears in the pew a few Sabbaths ago at how powerfully that message was delivered. With a lot of love, with righteousness by faith, but with the straight truth, we have ignored the law for to long.

My concern here is that due to the "legalisim" that was heavily prevalent in the church for sometime there are those who are afraid of the law. Some DO understand, to various degrees, righteousness by faith, and cling to that as "enough". They've been burned by a fanatical aspect of the law. Will they be able to see and accept it with new understanding, or reject it based on old prejudice?

Righteouness by faith and the law are inseparable, it's a double edged sword.

Club

_________________

How interesting that you should say this, Club. Compare the above with what the Lord had to say about the law and the Gospel of the merits and righteousness of Christ through Mrs. White in 1888:

"Oh be so full of the message that it is like fire shut up in your bones, that you cannot hold your peace. It is true, men will say, 'You are too excited; you are making too much of this matter, and you do not think enough of the law; now, you are to think more of the law; don't be all the time reaching for this righteousness of Christ, but build up the law.'"

Now notice the very next sentence:

"Let the law take care of itself. We have been at work on the law until we get as dry as the hills of Gilboah, without dew or rain. Let us trust in the merits of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. May God help us that our eyes may be anointed with eyesalve that we may see." E.G. White, 1888 Materials, Vol.2, p.557.

So, at this time, the message from Heaven is not so much about teaching the law, dwelling upon the law, but about teaching the necessity of trusting in the merits of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in order for the law, obedience to the law, to be taken care of. Why? Because as we make it our lifebusiness to trust in the merits of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, His righteousness is brougth into the life and it is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. This is, as Mrs. White put it, the third angel's message in clear, distinct lines. See T.M.93,92.

To be full of the message so that it is like fire shup up in our bones, that we cannot hold our peace, means to dwell upon and to teach with fervent zeal the necessity of trusting in the merits of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in order that Christ's righteousness may be brought in and that it may accomplish everything.

"Christ's righteousness accomplishes everything." F.W.27. Reflecting on the 1888 message, Mrs. White wrote, "It invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God." T.M.92.

She stated that many had lost sight of Jesus. They had been educated to look to man, to expect much from man. This is what we are told in T.M.93. Then Mrs. White explained that "their eyes needed to be directed to Jesus, to His divine Person, to His merits, and to His changeless love for the human family." p.92.

They needed to look to Him and to trust in His merits alone and then they would receive the forgiveness of their sins and the infinite blessings of light and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Then the law would take care of itself for its requirements would be fulfilled.

sky

[skyblue888]

Well put Sky!

Thanks Club.

God be praised!

God bless.

sky :)

[skyblue888]

Here is my take on it.

I believe Daniel was made to understand the vision. That was Gabriel's purpose for being sent to him. Daniel probably expected the end of the world to be near, that Messiah was about to be born and that the cleansing of the sanctuary had to do with the temple in Jerusalem and that it would be cleansed by the Messiah and then the end would come but when Gabriel explained to him that it would take 483 years before Messiah could be anointed and that He would be crucified in the middle of the last prophetic week at the Jew's instigation, that the Jewish people would seal their final rejection of God's mercy by persecuting Christ's disciples, that Christ after His resurrection would ascend up on High to begin the atonement by pleading the merits of His shed blood before the Father in behalf of sinners, and that the cleansing of the sanctuary in Heaven would not begin until another 1810 years, he was overwhelmed by this explanation, by this vision, and he fainted.

sky

And it may very well be that the angel Gabriel explained to him that even after all these years the cleansing of the sanctuary would be delayed for many more years because of unbelief on the part of the advent people.

sky

[Twilight II]

I would say that when Daniel saw the removal of the sanctuary service it confused him and produced fear in him.

The very basis upon which his nation could be accepted by God was going to be destroyed.

He couldn't understand that.

To Daniel, the sanctuary service was everything, he did not look at it with the full revelation of Christ we have, so the service itself was his focus.

This also ties into why he would be upset by the destuction of the sanctuary and the removel of all its services.

To him, that would be akin to removing the mechanisms of salvation.

We have to remember that we look at Daniel after the life of Christ.

Daniel looked at it before, so his understanding would not have been as clear as ours.

[Twilight II]

We should look at this from Daniels perspective, not ours.

[skyblue888]

That is true but the angels came to explain the vision to him so that he could see down the ages and thus he did come to an understanding of the whole vision and he was overwhelmed by it.

sky

[Twilight II]

Gabriel came to him to explain it the first time, but Daniel was overwhelmed.

Then Gabriel came back later to explain it again, obviously because there were things Daniel did not understand.

There were two points where Gabriel tried to explain the vision to Daniel.

But the interesting point is this.

At no point is there any suggestion that Gabriel needed to explain what the "daily" was to Daniel.

Daniel did not understand the "vision", the entirety of it was beyong his grasp until Gabriel explained it to him (over the two periods of explanation).

My point is simple, to claim that Daniel did not undertand what the "daily" was is putting something into the verses that is just not there.