Walter Veith

[BlessedMan]

"Having a quote to back it"  up really does not mean too much. Not if it cant be found in the Bible. It is wrong to try to use EGW quotes to prove what we believe. It simply never will.

Gustave; I am not going to comment to you anymore whenever you try to use EGW quotes as I have already outlined some of why we should not do that to "prove" what Adventists really believe. Should you wish to use scripture, and any of our official fundamental beliefs, I would be happy to talk about that with you. EGW has never been the boss of our doctrine. Like any other of our pioneers, she often spoke her mind, but was never the original source for any of the 28 fundamental beliefs.

I am aware that The Roman Catholic Church is free to read the Bible, but when it comes to forming a specific belief or doctrine for same, that can only be approved by The Pope. That much is very clear.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by BlessedMan

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

"Having a quote to back it"  up really does not mean too much. Not if it cant be found in the Bible. It is wrong to try to use EGW quotes to prove what we believe. It simply never will.

Gustave; I am not going to comment to you anymore whenever you try to use EGW quotes as I have already outlined some of why we should not do that to "prove" what Adventists really believe. Should you wish to use scripture, and any of our official fundamental beliefs, I would be happy to talk about that with you. EGW has never been the boss of our doctrine. Like any other of our pioneers, she often spoke her mind, but was never the original source for any of the 28 fundamental beliefs.

I am aware that The Roman Catholic Church is free to read the Bible, but when it comes to forming a specific belief or doctrine for same, that can only be approved by The Pope. That much is very clear.

 

 

 

Here is one to start.

The peccability of Christ is alien to Scripture, which teaches the direct opposite. Ellen White taught the peccability of Christ with great velocity & her 'Great Controversy theme' was built on the peccability of Christ. The peccability of Christ was specifically condemned at the Council of Nicaea. 

The last time I checked the only Churches who reject the Council of Nicaea are non-Trinitarian Churches. 

I recently watched a lengthy youtube video of an evangelical guy who took a tour of an SDA Church and then sat down with three SDA's and asked them questions. Basically what the guy from the General Conference and the Pastor said was that THEY AGREED WITH THE NICEAN CREED (provided some of the terms were re-defined). That's not agreeing with the Creed by a long shot.  

 

 

[Gustave]

That was odd! It double posted. A mod can delete this post as it was a carbon copy of the prior one. I just edited it to say what I'm saying here. 

[pierrepaul]

8 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

One of the real problems you will have to deal with in this argument is that we are exhorted over and over again in the Bible to "be perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect."

Yes, that's in the Bible (only once in my Bible, not "over and over again"). Also in the Bible are the texts identifying the true followers of Jesus as those who can handle poisonous snakes without getting hurt. Also in the Bible are the texts identifying the followers of Jesus as those who can speak in tongues.

Of course, none of this matters. Claiming a man can be perfect is as relevant as claiming a man can move literal mountains or claiming a man can be bit by poisonous snakes and not be harmed. It's never been done.

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

 

I am aware that The Roman Catholic Church is free to read the Bible, but when it comes to forming a specific belief or doctrine for same, that can only be approved by The Pope. That much is very clear.

 

 

 

I'm free to form any belief provided it doesn't deny or contradict something that's been "defined". If I'm not mistaken isn't this true of the SDA Church as well? 

[Gregory Matthews]

The Nicean Creed was first formulated in 325 AD.   It was later revised in 381 AD, which is the version commonly referenced today.

Some will suggest that there have been revisions of this creed as late as 1995.  This is not of major interest to me as language changes over time, even as short as 100 years and may need revision in order to properly understand it.

NOTE:  To those who prefer the KJV of the Bible:  The English KJV of today is considerably different from the KJV  of 1611.  Probably few of us today would understand it as it read in 1611.

 

 

[pierrepaul]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

I'm free to form any belief provided it doesn't deny or contradict something that's been "defined". If I'm not mistaken isn't this true of the SDA Church as well? 

In practice yes. On baptism a SDA is expected to affirm one of two sets of baptismal vows. The longer set of vows consists of 13 points which highlight or allude to some of the fundamental beliefs, but allows for some "wiggle room" (e.g. vow #8 requires one to affirm that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church, but one needed equate the gift of prophecy with Ellen White). The shorter set of only 3 vows requires one to "accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" which implies complete adherence to the stated official teachings.

But then what happens when either a member modifies his personal beliefs to depart from either the vows or the stated official teachings; and what happens when the church modifies the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs in a way in which the member does not agree.

The Church manual provides for "discipline" in cases of denial of faith in the fundamental beliefs of the church, but nothing requires a member to submit his resignation once he questions the validity of a particular stated teaching. In practice there are no trials for "heresy" and in a typical congregation one will hear a wide variety of opinions.

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Exactly where does EGW contradict Scripture?

The most obvious place I see this happening, as an example, is her allegation that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in 1844.  The Hebrews 9 and 10 explicitly states (IMHO) that He entered to MHP after His ascension. 

 ^"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

Heb.9:11-12)

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

In practice yes. On baptism a SDA is expected to affirm one of two sets of baptismal vows. The longer set of vows consists of 13 points which highlight or allude to some of the fundamental beliefs, but allows for some "wiggle room" (e.g. vow #8 requires one to affirm that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church, but one needed equate the gift of prophecy with Ellen White). The shorter set of only 3 vows requires one to "accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" which implies complete adherence to the stated official teachings.

But then what happens when either a member modifies his personal beliefs to depart from either the vows or the stated official teachings; and what happens when the church modifies the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs in a way in which the member does not agree.

The Church manual provides for "discipline" in cases of denial of faith in the fundamental beliefs of the church, but nothing requires a member to submit his resignation once he questions the validity of a particular stated teaching. In practice there are no trials for "heresy" and in a typical congregation one will hear a wide variety of opinions.

What happens to an SDA member who formally states that Ellen White's teaching on the peccability of Christ is both heresy and incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity? For arguments sake lets say that this hypothetical member has bought in 100% to the Sabbath teaching as well as the Investigative Judgement. What happens to that type of person? 

[Gustave:  In your specific example, I have a hard time thinking that anything is going to happen to that person, as long as that person does not disturb public services.    If that person worships with us in peace, discipline is not likely to take place--GM.]  

 

 

[phkrause]

53 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

The most obvious place I see this happening, as an example, is her allegation that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in 1844.  The Hebrews 9 and 10 explicitly states (IMHO) that He entered to MHP after His ascension. 

 ^"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

Heb.9:11-12)

Here are a few other versions and how they translated that verse:

KJ21     neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

ASV     nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.

AMP     He went once for all into the Holy Place [the Holy of Holies of heaven, into the presence of God], and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, having obtained and secured eternal redemption [that is, the salvation of all who personally believe in Him as Savior].

BRG     Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

DRA     Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption.

ESV     he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

JUB     neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the sanctuary designed for eternal redemption.

KJV     Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

MSG     But when the Messiah arrived, high priest of the superior things of this new covenant, he bypassed the old tent and its trappings in this created world and went straight into heaven’s “tent”—the true Holy Place—once and for all. He also bypassed the sacrifices consisting of goat and calf blood, instead using his own blood as the price to set us free once and for all. If that animal blood and the other rituals of purification were effective in cleaning up certain matters of our religion and behavior, think how much more the blood of Christ cleans up our whole lives, inside and out. Through the Spirit, Christ offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice, freeing us from all those dead-end efforts to make ourselves respectable, so that we can live all out for God.

There are many more, some saying "most holy," and some saying "holy!" Lets not forget that when EGW lived she used the KJV, I believe, and not some of the more modern translations? All I can say is, she either was a messenger of God or not!! Can't have it both ways! We can't say some of her writings were from God and the others she made up!! Because if that is the case than she is either a liar and than can't be believed at all, because we have no idea when she's telling the truth or telling us falsehoods??

[Gustave]

RSVCE:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)  he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.  For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh,  how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God

If at the point Hebrews was written Christ had already secured eternal redemption and the text states specifically that Christ was "the High Priest" we can conclude safely that just like the Scripture says, Christ went "through the greater and more perfect tent". If you go through town you go through town, if you cut through a steak you cut through a steak. If Jesus went through the tent in heaven He obviously went "through it" - Scripture says Christ acted [past tense] in the capacity of a high priest that wouldn't have to do this again - that means its done. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Are you telling us that there is an actual tent in heaven?

 

NOTE:  I have inserted a reply to your previous question at the end of that post.

 

 

 

[Gustave]

47 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Are you telling us that there is an actual tent in heaven?

 

NOTE:  I have inserted a reply to your previous question at the end of that post.

 

 

 

Not a literal tent but the concept of what the High Priest did in a lessor degree being contrasted with Christ having done what He did. I take this to mean the Authors intent in Hebrews was to say, look, under the Old Covenant the High Priest only went before the throne once a year and took in blood not his own AND would have to do the same action over and over again. Christ was a ONE & DONE and He took His own blood into the area the High Priest went. 

This is the way I understand it and it seems to line up with Scripture. 

[Gustave]

54 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Are you telling us that there is an actual tent in heaven?

 

NOTE:  I have inserted a reply to your previous question at the end of that post.

 

 

 

Ok, that sounds reasonable. What if the individual started to spread his views outside of Church Services? 

[stinsonmarri]

On 4/21/2021 at 12:37 AM, Gustave said:

Where in the Bible does it say that the Sabbath was given during creation? You should invest in a Strong's. When Hebrews 1, 2 says "WORLDS" its NOT IN A GENE RODDENBERRY context LOL! 

Where in the Bible does it say that the Children of Israel had "forgotten the Sabbath" & needed to be reminded of it? Ezekiel 20, 9 -13 says otherwise Stinsonmarrie. 

If you truly read Ez 20:9;13 you will see and understand that it was talking about people who did not obey YAHWEH like Abraham, Issach, Jacob, Joseph and his brothers. Joseph forgave his brothers from lying, which in the Commandments!

And on the seventh day ELOHIYM ended his work which HE had made; and HE rested on the seventh day from all HIS work which he had made.  And ELOHIYM blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it HE had rested from all HIS work which ELOHIYM created and made. Gen 2:2,  3

H7673
shâbath
shaw-bath'
A primitive root; to repose, that is, desist from exertion; used in many implied relations (causatively, figuratively or specifically): - (cause to, let, make to) cease, celebrate, cause (make) to fail, keep (sabbath), suffer to be lacking, leave, put away (down), (make to) rest, rid, still, take away. Strong Hebrew Dictionary

Shabath is a verb, Sabbath is a noun. The word is desist and  man implied that it means relaxations and it does not. It means to stop. ELOHIYM did not used exertion, HE spoke, HE made us with HIS POWER and we cannot even concede that!

 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of YAHWEH thy ELOHIYM: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days YAHWEH made Heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore YAHWEH blessed the Sabbath day, and Hallowed it. Ex 20:8-11

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; Gen 15:13

 And ELOHIYM Spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, "Here am I."   And HE Said, I am ELOHIYM, THE EL of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation:   I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again: and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes. Gen 46:2-4

And ELOHIYM Said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YAHWEH ELOHIYM of your fathers, THE ELOHIYM of Abraham, THE ELOHIYM of Isaac, and THE ELOHIYM of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: THIS IS MY NAME, and THIS IS MY MEMORIAL unto all generations. Ex 3:15  

The Bible states clearly that Abraham kept YAHWEH'S Charge, Laws, Judgments, Statues and Commandments. None of these were ceremonial laws, they came because the Children of Israel did not keep the above. They were given to show them that YAHSHUA would come and die. In the Book of Hebrew, Paul made it very clear. He stated that no animals that was killed could never take away sin. Only an ELOHYM equal TO HIS FATHER could. John 1, 2 

Before the children of IsraEL turn to the deities of Egypt that cause them to suffer under the Egyptians. They were servants and not slaves because they ate well and still stayed in the best land called Goshen. Just like you did not understand that YAHSHUA made the world, I pray that you read about IsraEl and how they constantly  forsake YAHWEH for the deities of Egypt, and Canaan, they worship the calf or the ox and if you understood Eze. you will know that Satan's main face is called a cherub. That word mean ox and it is Satan and his feet have the feet of Ox. They pursued many false deities against YAHWEH! Both THE FATHER and THE SON HAD THAT NAME AND THEY WERE INDIVIDUAL BEING. THEY WERE SPIRITUAL BEINGS and we are flesh and blood. We are not spirits!

Happy Sabbath and Blessings!

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:

We tolerate a much wider range of belief and practice that many people realize.

*  'While it is true that the majority of SDAs begin and end the Sabbath at sundown, There are three (3) different times that SDA members actually begin and end the Sabbath.

*  While it is true that the official SDA teaching on the Trinity is orthodox, it is also true that the early founders of the SDA denomination had a mixture of beliefs that often included some Arian concepts of the Trinity.

*  There are elements of those Arian beliefs that have remained with the SDA denomination to this day.  This forum used to have a vocal proponent of such as a regular poster.  She no longer posts here.  But, it was her choice to stop posting here.  I wish that she had continued to participate in this forum.

*  There has been an element in Adventism that differs with the majority belief as to what happens to a person at death.

*  There is clearly a range of belief as to the role and function of Ellen White in the SDA denomination.

All of these are accepted in Adventism as long as the person does not cause a public disturbance in our worship services.  They can proclaim their view outside of the worship services generally without a problem as long as they do it in a positive manner.  If they publicly attack the SDA Chruch, that might eventually result in disciplinary action.

  

 

 

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:

We tolerate a much wider range of belief and practice that many people realize.

*  'While it is true that the majority of SDAs begin and end the Sabbath at sundown, There are three (3) different times that SDA members actually begin and end the Sabbath.

*  While it is true that the official SDA teaching on the Trinity is orthodox, it is also true that the early founders of the SDA denomination had a mixture of beliefs that often included some Arian concepts of the Trinity.

*  There are elements of those Arian beliefs that have remained with the SDA denomination to this day.  This forum used to have a vocal proponent of such as a regular poster.  She no longer posts here.  But, it was her choice to stop posting here.  I wish that she had continued to participate in this forum.

*  There has been an element in Adventism that differs with the majority belief as to what happens to a person at death.

*  There is clearly a range of belief as to the role and function of Ellen White in the SDA denomination.

All of these are accepted in Adventism as long as the person does not cause a public disturbance in our worship services.  They can proclaim their view outside of the worship services generally without a problem as long as they do it in a positive manner.  If they publicly attack the SDA Chruch, that might eventually result in disciplinary action.

  

 

 

 

 

I think I get it now! An individual is free to believe and advocate what they think is right as long as they don't disturb the official Church worship on the Sabbath or on another day that the Church meets officially for something. An individual who disagrees with the Trinity doctrine can do so after and outside of Church but that same individual can't show up Saturday with 30 quotes from Ellen White that are irreconcilable with the Trinity Doctrine and attempt to get traction for his view inside the Church or at an official Church gathering . 

This is very much like Judaism at the time of Christ. 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

21 hours ago, JoeMo said:

The most obvious place I see this happening, as an example, is her allegation that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in 1844.  The Hebrews 9 and 10 explicitly states (IMHO) that He entered to MHP after His ascension. 

The term "most holy place" does not occur in the KJV New Testament. It does say in Hebrews that Jesus entered the holy place.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

[B/W Photodude]

On 4/23/2021 at 10:17 AM, pierrepaul said:

Yes, that's in the Bible (only once in my Bible, not "over and over again"). Also in the Bible are the texts identifying the true followers of Jesus as those who can handle poisonous snakes without getting hurt. Also in the Bible are the texts identifying the followers of Jesus as those who can speak in tongues.

Of course, none of this matters. Claiming a man can be perfect is as relevant as claiming a man can move literal mountains or claiming a man can be bit by poisonous snakes and not be harmed. It's never been done.

So the term "be perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect" may have been written only once in the New Testament, but references to be perfect occur frequently. So, score one "gotcha" point for you!

Not sure what poisonous snake and moving mountains has to do with this discussion, but Paul actually did have an encounter with a poisonous snake. People in the New Testament also spoke in tongues. People today speak in tongues just as the apostles did. I have heard quite a number of stories of missionaries preaching to an audience and those who did not know the language of the speaker understood him perfectly.

Moving mountains is quite the illustration. If one under the direction of God were to order a mountain to be moved as Jesus described, it would be done. Because it has never been known to happen does not invalidate it. Again God (Jesus) does not waste words. I tend to think that a point to be made from this illustration is that one who has the mind of Christ will only ask for things that Christ would want and then anything will be done if asked.

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

The term "most holy place" does not occur in the KJV New Testament. It does say in Hebrews that Jesus entered the holy place.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Yes, it was ONE holy place. 

Hebrews 4, 14 

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The Sanctuary was constructed to be a habitation for the Ark of the Covenant [where God actually would come] AND the principal spot in that Tabernacle was the Mercy Seat (aka the Throne of Grace). God would meet with man ON the Mercy Seat thus when Scripture says explicitly that since Christ's Sacrifice He is THERE, at the Throne of grace and because Christ is our High Priest and He's there we can be bold and approach that throne (aka Mercy seat) which was in the holy of holies. 

 

[stinsonmarri]

On 4/24/2021 at 7:58 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:

We tolerate a much wider range of belief and practice that many people realize.

*  'While it is true that the majority of SDAs begin and end the Sabbath at sundown, There are three (3) different times that SDA members actually begin and end the Sabbath.

*  While it is true that the official SDA teaching on the Trinity is orthodox, it is also true that the early founders of the SDA denomination had a mixture of beliefs that often included some Arian concepts of the Trinity.

*  There are elements of those Arian beliefs that have remained with the SDA denomination to this day.  This forum used to have a vocal proponent of such as a regular poster.  She no longer posts here.  But, it was her choice to stop posting here.  I wish that she had continued to participate in this forum.

*  There has been an element in Adventism that differs with the majority belief as to what happens to a person at death.

*  There is clearly a range of belief as to the role and function of Ellen White in the SDA denomination.

All of these are accepted in Adventism as long as the person does not cause a public disturbance in our worship services.  They can proclaim their view outside of the worship services generally without a problem as long as they do it in a positive manner.  If they publicly attack the SDA Chruch, that might eventually result in disciplinary action.

  

 

 

 

Pastor the same problem with IsraEL, is the exact problems with SDA. We should not be mixed all going different ways.

[B/W Photodude]

15 hours ago, Gustave said:

Yes, it was ONE holy place.

I would disagree with you on this one.

However, I have decided to no longer comment on this topic of the sanctuary in this forum. There are a couple of other topics that I choose not to be part of the discussion because they just get too inflammatory for the sacredness of the topic.

I have for some time been doing my own independent study of the sanctuary and have read thru quite a number of books on the topic with more to go. Leslie Hardinge's "With Jesus in His Sanctuary" is next on my list. I am purposefully not reading EGW on this topic until the very last. The early pioneers worked beliefs out thru careful Bible study and when they had, EGW would often have a confirmatory vision regarding their conclusions. EGW was not the source of Adventist beliefs.

You can duplicate this experiment over and over again within Adventist circles. Ask a group of Adventists when they last heard a sermon on the sanctuary and no one will be able to remember when that might have been. Why this concerns me is that I have a growing appreciation of the sanctuary in the desert as one highly symbolic physical parable of the entire plan of salvation. Now do you see why it is seldom preached?!

People will go on and on how we are saved by the Cross. However, the part of the Cross in the desert sanctuary was represented by the alter of burnt offerings outside the sanctuary. You could erase the sanctuary itself and have the plan of salvation as believed by most Christians. But what was the meaning of everything inside of the sanctuary? For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Romans 5:10 The Cross only reconciled us to God and the entire human family has been reconciled by the Cross. But we are saved by the life of Jesus.

So, short "drive-by" potshots at comments do not do this topic justice.

[Gustave]

14 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

I would disagree with you on this one.

However, I have decided to no longer comment on this topic of the sanctuary in this forum. There are a couple of other topics that I choose not to be part of the discussion because they just get too inflammatory for the sacredness of the topic.

I have for some time been doing my own independent study of the sanctuary and have read thru quite a number of books on the topic with more to go. Leslie Hardinge's "With Jesus in His Sanctuary" is next on my list. I am purposefully not reading EGW on this topic until the very last. The early pioneers worked beliefs out thru careful Bible study and when they had, EGW would often have a confirmatory vision regarding their conclusions. EGW was not the source of Adventist beliefs.

You can duplicate this experiment over and over again within Adventist circles. Ask a group of Adventists when they last heard a sermon on the sanctuary and no one will be able to remember when that might have been. Why this concerns me is that I have a growing appreciation of the sanctuary in the desert as one highly symbolic physical parable of the entire plan of salvation. Now do you see why it is seldom preached?!

People will go on and on how we are saved by the Cross. However, the part of the Cross in the desert sanctuary was represented by the alter of burnt offerings outside the sanctuary. You could erase the sanctuary itself and have the plan of salvation as believed by most Christians. But what was the meaning of everything inside of the sanctuary? For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Romans 5:10 The Cross only reconciled us to God and the entire human family has been reconciled by the Cross. But we are saved by the life of Jesus.

So, short "drive-by" potshots at comments do not do this topic justice.

Fair enough. 

I've come to a different position in that it's hard for me to attribute the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine to "careful Bible study" when the fruits of their Bible study additionally produced repeated categorical repudiations of the Trinity Doctrine and justification to repudiate Scriptures admonition on date setting for the Coming of Christ. 

I've tried to distill it down to a simple summary and that summary is that: 

William Miller's Message was for everyone to repent BECAUSE Jesus was coming on X, then Y, Then Z - that was IT there was no other message. 

Therefore ANYONE hearing this message could only judge (TEST) the message that existed - & and that was repent because Jesus was coming on a certain date. Again, that was IT, there was NO other message. 

The folks that responded by saying they were on-board with repenting but disagreed about the date setting because of Jesus' teachings were identified by Ellen White as under control of Lucifer or didn't want Jesus to come back so they could wallow in their cherished sins. Ellen goes on to say many other insulting things about Christians who rejected Miller's message invoking visions with the stamp of the Spirit of Prophecy. 

 

I can understand about the pot shots - I feel the same way about talking about Mary - so I'm understanding about that. I did get Desmond Ford's huge book on this subject and went through it. I'm not sure if you've read that but believed he made an air shut case on the Sanctuary Doctrine. The book is MASSIVE - it's not a light read for sure. 

[BlessedMan]

14 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Leslie Hardinge's "With Jesus in His Sanctuary" is next on my list

This is a really good book. One of the reasons I appreciate the study of "the sanctuary," is because I once red a quote that basically says "In ever part of it was a symbol of Him," meaning, the sanctuary. Jesus is what makes that an essential topic.

[BlessedMan]

On 4/24/2021 at 5:58 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

There is clearly a range of belief as to the role and function of Ellen White in the SDA denomination.

Thats for sure. I have sometimes wondered why thats so wrong. I know thats not what you are saying, just musing the question out loud.

 

18 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

We should not be mixed all going different ways.

Well, where does the Bible actually say it like this?