Variations in SDA Belief

[R. G. White]

On 5/16/2019 at 8:37 PM, Gustave said:

Morwenna, I had this same question initially but I believe I've formulated an answer that's historical.

 

Initially "the Adventists" were a collection of Christians drawn primarily out of the various Denominations within the United States.

Ultimately William Miller condemned his own date setting and urged the people to return to their Churches - leaving essentially only the anti-Trinitarians (who started to squabble over Doctrines). 

This remaining group of anti Trinitarian "Adventists" fractured into multiple groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Christadelphians and World Wide Church of God 7th day. 

Eventually the SDA's adopted use of the Trinitarian Formula (which validated their Baptisms) and Officially claim to believe in the Trinity.

 

 

A Jehovah's Witness is just as much an Adventist as a seventh day Adventist is, they are just not "seventh day Adventist".

A Christadelphian is just as much an Adventist as a seventh day Adventist is, they are just not "seventh day Adventist".

 

Prior to Miller's group falling apart every member could be called "an Adventist", thus a Baptist, Lutheran, etc. adherent of Miller's schema was "an Adventist". When Miller renounced his own teachings there wasn't anything "distinctive" left to hold the large group together and so nearly everyone left leaving essentially only those who didn't have a Church to return to. It was this anti-Trinitarian group that retained the name "Adventist" and today the SDA's are the most well known. 

 

Thus, just as in the 1st Century - Judaism was essentially a theological BIG TENT with some Jews believing the opposite of other Jews (and getting into public arguments about it). This evidently didn't stop them from still being considered Jews. I think the same thing is going on with Adventists. A Jehovah's Witness doesn't believe in the inspiration of Ellen White and an SDA will not eat a ham sandwich unlike a Jehovah's Witness who has no problem with ham sandwiches - YET they are both Adventist. 

 

 

 

 

 

This historical accounting leaves out virtually everything that led to the establishment of the SDA Church. After the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844, the "Adventists" who had expected Jesus to return at that time took a number of different approaches. Some gave up Christianity altogether. Some decided that the movement was not of God, and returned to their churches. Some decided that the date was wrong, and continued to set dates. There were a small number, however, who could or would not deny that the Holy Spirit and Bible prophecy had been behind the Advent Movement, and who could find no error in the October 22, 1844 date. These persisted in prayer for light as to what had gone wrong. They found their answer in the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary. They found that the "cleansing of the sanctuary," which was to take place beginning on that date, was not the coming of Christ to earth in the clouds of heaven, but the coming of Christ before the Ancient of Days to begin the final judgment as foretold by Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This newly discovered doctrine was found to dovetail with their discovery of the 7th-day Sabbath, into one harmonious system of belief. Of course, the unconscious state of the dead, with its emphasis on the Resurrection of the Just at the 2nd coming of Christ, also become an essential part of this doctrinal system. This is the group of Adventists that eventually formed the SDA denomination.

We need to understand what we've inherited. It's awesome! We also need to understand that it is all meaningless without the gospel of justification by faith alone.

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, R. G. White said:

the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary

I don't know if that is a requirement anymore to be an SDA.  I VERY rarely hear messages about the sanctuary doctrine preached any more.  I also know those who have disregarded EGW who have also disregarded the sanctuary doctrine.

I think this is what Gregory was saying.  What "Adventism" is varies not only from country to country, but conference to conference; and even church by church.  So I agree that it would be difficult if not impossible to quantify how much of SDA "doctrine" and "culture" one must accept to be a "real SDA".

[R. G. White]

9 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I don't know if that is a requirement to be an SDA.  I VERY rarely hear messages about the sanctuary doctrine preached any more.  I also know those who have disregarded EGW who have also disregarded the sanctuary doctrine.

I think this is what Gregory was saying.  What "Adventism" is varies not only from country to country, but conference to conference; and even church by church.  So I agree that it would be difficult if not impossible to quantify how much of SDA "doctrine" and "culture" one must accept to be a "real SDA".

There is an historical definition that I believe cannot be ignored, and I'm not talking about the errors, rantings, and blasphemies of so-called "historic" Seventh-day Adventism. Some may try to new-model the cause, but 1844 still matters. Jesus is still ministering in the Holy of Holies, carrying out the anti-typical Day of Atonement, and it is still essential that we follow Him there by faith. I may not fully understand the importance and significance of this, myself, but I do know that it matters to God.

[JoeMo]

7 minutes ago, R. G. White said:

but 1844 still matters

Why? What makes 1844 "special" - especially to those who don't accept the universal application of the "day for a year" concept? Or for those who are futurists rather than historicists?  Or who believe Jesus entered the Most Holy Place when He ascended into heaven as is stated so clearly in Hebrews 9?

[R. G. White]

8 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Why? What makes 1844 "special" - especially to those who don't accept the universal application of the "day for a year" concept? Or for those who are futurists rather than historicists?  Or who believe Jesus entered the Most Holy Place when He ascended into heaven as is stated so clearly in Hebrews 9?

The 1844 movement was true. Earnest and genuine Christians who were involved in it prior to 1844 could not deny the leading and power of the Holy Spirit in the movement. They had delivered the 1st angel's message, almost accidentally. The application of the day-for-a-year principle to the books of Daniel and Revelation is sound, and the October 22, 1844 date is correct. Historicism is the right principle of interpretation, the only one that makes any common sense.

Why does it matter? Every error has its consequence, no matter how good or sincere are those who fall for it. That's why I try to speak up for the truth, even when I myself do not fully understand its importance.

I've read Hebrews 9 in the original Greek, and you are mistaken.

Our mission, as a people, is to proclaim the 3rd angel's message, so it is essential that we see ourselves in historical context with our early pioneers.

[JoeMo]

3 minutes ago, R. G. White said:

The application of the day-for-a-year principle to the books of Daniel and Revelation is sound

Then - applying that principle to the "5 months" described in the 5th Trumpet (Rev. 9:5) , that is really 150 years?  And the Millennium is actually 360,000 years long?  Or am I missing where the scripture implies "day for year doesn't apply here"?

[R. G. White]

4 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Then - applying that principle to the "5 months" described in the 5th Trumpet (Rev. 9:5) , that is really 150 years?  And the Millennium is actually 360,000 years long?  Or am I missing where the scripture implies "day for year doesn't apply here"?

I am not familiar enough with the details of interpreting the prophecies of the 7 trumpets to see why those 5 months wouldn't be 150 years. I understand that Josiah Litch was using day-for-a-year when the 7 trumpets led him to predict the fall of the Ottoman Empire on August 11, 1840. So I see no need to question that.

As for the Millennium, I think that Revelation 10:6 could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the end of the 2,300 days (i.e. October 22, 1844) marked the end of that prophetic time to which the day-for-a-year principle would apply. I believe that Ellen White understood it that way.

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, R. G. White said:

October 22, 1844) marked the end of that prophetic time to which the day-for-a-year principle would apply.

I'm not too sure about that.  Check out the prophecy described in the article below concerning the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 and the expansion of Israel in 1967:

http://www.theprophecies.com/the-return-of-israel-and-jerusalem/

IMHO, this prophetic view makes proper use of the day-for-year principle.

[R. G. White]

49 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I'm not too sure about that.  Check out the prophecy described in the article below concerning the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 and the expansion of Israel in 1967:

http://www.theprophecies.com/the-return-of-israel-and-jerusalem/

IMHO, this prophetic view makes proper use of the day-for-year principle.

At first glance, this idea seems credible to me. Even though the New Testament teaches that Christians are now the "Israel of God," I do not consider it beyond the realm of possibility that God is still dealing with the nation of Israel in accordance with something prophesied long ago. It will be interesting to see how their place in the divine plan eventually plays out.

As for applying the day/year principle to the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14, I believe it all makes perfect sense. Daniel 9 is explicitly an explanation of the Daniel 8 prophecy, and in verse 25 of chapter 9 we have a 69-week time period from the command to restore Jerusalem to the coming of the Messiah. Ezra 7 gives us a copy of the decree, and a date of the 7th year of King Artaxerxes, which our best pioneer scholars pegged as coming in the fall of 457 BC. Luke 3 gives us the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar for the anointing of Jesus as the Messiah at His baptism, and the same scholars pegged this as the fall of AD 27, exactly 463 years later. Very shortly after that, Mark 1:14-15 has Jesus preaching, "The time is fulfilled." All of this is what convinces me that the day/year principle is sound in its application to Daniel 9, and by extension, to Daniel 8.

The remaining 1817 "days" take us to the fall of 1844, when (coincidentally?) William Miller and many others around the world had already been preaching the need to be prepared for an imminent judgment. Apparently without even understanding the implications of a fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, Samuel Snow correctly concluded that this judgment should begin on the 10th day of the 7th month of the Jewish calendar (Yom Kippur), which that year fell on October 22 of the Gregorian calendar. When, after the Great Disappointment, our pioneers realised that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" was not the 2nd Coming, but the judgment scene depicted in Daniel 7, the date actually made more sense than ever!

I must emphasize the fact that the persistence of those same pioneers in prayerfully finding a satisfactory explanation for their Great Disappointment was driven by their conviction that the Spirit of God had been manifestly behind the very movement that had led them up to that experience. So it was not only the Bible evidence for their position, but their own prior Christian experience that supported their eventual conclusions. Truth does not lose its lustre over time, if we really understand what happened, and how we are supposed to fit into the picture.

[JoeMo]

I appreciate your devotion to the SDA message.  Were your parents SDA? IOW, were you raised in the SDA faith?  I wasn't; I have been exposed to many different denominations.  I "choose" Adventism because of the deep scholarship and study of scripture; and because it best fits my view of the Bible message.  But i find "holes" in some parts of SDA and EGW's view of things.  EGW lived in a time where there was prevalent discrimination against Roman Catholics (justifiable at the time); but times have changed.  Another religion has taken the their place as the most existential threat to Christianity.  Also, with the majority of Bible-believing Christians, I take a futuristic view of eschatology.  I believe the 70th week of Daniel is still in the future; and will begin with the revealing of the beast/antichrist as depicted by the first horseman of the apocalypse. Hint - the rider of that horse cannot be Jesus. He doesn't show up on His white horse until Revelation 19.  The last half of that 7-year period is the 1,260 days (3-1/2 years) of that seven year period. 

I am not attempting to discredit SDA theology, I am simply presenting an alternative view. 

[JoeMo]

5 hours ago, R. G. White said:

I've read Hebrews 9 in the original Greek, and you are mistaken.

I've heard otherwise from those who also know the original Greek  I also see several legitimate translations of the Bible that read "Most Holy Place"..  I ain't no language scholar, so I can't. But taking Hebrews 9 in context with Hebrews 10:

" Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,  by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, (Heb. 10:19-20)

Sooo .. If Jesus is the curtain to the Most Holy Place, we also have access to it.  When the curtain in the Temple was torn in two, it was a sign that all who believed now had access to the throne room of God.  Hebrews confirms this:

"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:16).  Assuming the throne of grace is God's throne, it must be in the Most Holy Place.

[R. G. White]

20 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I appreciate your devotion to the SDA message.  Were your parents SDA? IOW, were you raised in the SDA faith?

Yes and no. No one is born a Christian. It is true that, at my initial conversion at 28 years of age, I had some basic background knowledge that may have been a far greater benefit than I realised. However, I am as dependent as anyone else on the Holy Spirit to teach me knowledge, and on the church community to be a check on my independence and a sounding board for my ideas.

My understanding is that the historicist approach was always the Protestant one, and that preterism and futurism (neither of which makes any sense to me, as they tend to cut one loose from any objective means of testing ideas) were invented by the counter-reformation. I'm afraid that your perceptions of which religion is currently the biggest threat are just that -- perceptions. Isn't the Bible supposed to be our safeguard against deception? But how can it serve that function unless we stay with correct methods of interpretation? Separating the 70th week from the first 69 strikes me as entirely impossible and illegitimate. If your motive is to think better about our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, I suppose that's laudable. However, I believe that a sincere Muslim might also be equally accepted by God.

In fact, so-called Islamophobia seems to be presently doing more evil to humanity than Islam itself (here we go with perceptions again -- this time mine), even though the 7 trumpets prophecy is not at all kind to that false religion.

I see no evidence of genuine repentance on the part of the papacy as such, so what makes you think it has really changed?

[R. G. White]

15 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I've heard otherwise from those who also know the original Greek.

No one is asking you to take my word for it. It doesn't take a language scholar (which I am decidedly not) to look into an interlinear translation and a lexicon, and to make some of the more obvious observations. There is also Young's Literal Translation, that might prove very helpful here.

Hebrews 9:3 makes an unmistakable reference to the Most Holy Place, and it uses language that translates literally as the "holy of holies." That same term does not appear again, in any of those other places (such as Hebrews 10:19) where some (most?) translators use "the Most Holy Place." Rather, the Greek behind those other places is a term that translates literally as "the holies," which to my mind obviously must be referring to the Sanctuary as a whole.

With this correction, the whole passage starts to make a lot more sense, and we can see that SDA doctrine is biblical after all. I strongly suggest that you check out Young's Literal Translation for this.

[JoeMo]

R.G.;

Firstly, I want to commend you on the "agreeable" manner in which you "disagree" with me.  I have yet to feel offended over anything you have posted.  I pray that I am showing you the same level of respect.

Why do I separate the 70th week?  Because it appears (to me at least) that the Daniel separates it.

“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.  After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.  He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

Although I agree that the unbolded part may or may not be talking about Jesus,  The bolded part definitely does NOT sound like Jesus; it sounds more like the antichrist.  I believe that the antichrist will forge a 7-year treaty among Jews, Muslims, and Christians; and allow a temple to be built (or the Dome of the Rock to be opened) for all three faiths.  Halfway through the 7 years, the antichrist will sieze the Temple and close it to all but Islam; and initiate the 1,260 day (3-1/2 year) Great tribulation.

It may also be important to know that the capitalization of "Anointed One" was added by translators. In the original Hebrew, it is not capitalized; and therefore could mean a human prince. 

I understand that my views on this and other areas of SDA theology  run contrary to  mainstream SDA views; but I am okay with that.  I am motivated to search things out to see if they are true.  I am answerable to the God of heaven for what I believe, not the SDA Church. That being said, there are several SDA's in my church who believe like I do; so I am not alone.

I hope you understand that my posts are my opinion; and I do not wish to force my viewpoint on anyone.  I just post what I think; and wait for the feedback.  Although I don't agree with everything you post, I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful feedback; and do not fault you in your beliefs and opinions. I hope we can continue to dialogue.

[Gustave]

On 5/25/2019 at 10:49 AM, R. G. White said:

This historical accounting leaves out virtually everything that led to the establishment of the SDA Church. After the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844, the "Adventists" who had expected Jesus to return at that time took a number of different approaches. Some gave up Christianity altogether. Some decided that the movement was not of God, and returned to their churches. Some decided that the date was wrong, and continued to set dates. There were a small number, however, who could or would not deny that the Holy Spirit and Bible prophecy had been behind the Advent Movement, and who could find no error in the October 22, 1844 date. These persisted in prayer for light as to what had gone wrong. They found their answer in the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary. They found that the "cleansing of the sanctuary," which was to take place beginning on that date, was not the coming of Christ to earth in the clouds of heaven, but the coming of Christ before the Ancient of Days to begin the final judgment as foretold by Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This newly discovered doctrine was found to dovetail with their discovery of the 7th-day Sabbath, into one harmonious system of belief. Of course, the unconscious state of the dead, with its emphasis on the Resurrection of the Just at the 2nd coming of Christ, also become an essential part of this doctrinal system. This is the group of Adventists that eventually formed the SDA denomination.

We need to understand what we've inherited. It's awesome! We also need to understand that it is all meaningless without the gospel of justification by faith alone.

The elephant in the room on this was that "the cleansing of the sanctuary" WASN'T what the message was. The message was:

1) Repent

Because,

2) Jesus was going to come at a specific time.

That was IT - there was NO OTHER MESSAGE.

No Christian worth their salt would be opposed to the Millerite promulgation of #1, the majority of the Christians exposed to Miller's message had a serious beef with #2. Ellen White rebuked the Christians who rejected #2 claiming their citing of Matthew 24, 36 was ascribed to not loving Jesus. 

If you are presented with a "message" pertaining to the Christian Religion the common Protestant procedure would be to test the message heard against the Scriptures. Miller's message FAILED that test because his message violated the Scriptures. You are right about different mechanisms being tried to justify or explain the disappointment of Jesus not coming - with the group that ultimately became the SDA's eventually settling on the Sanctuary in heaven being cleansed. 

A person can't judge a teaching "by the Scriptures" that hasn't been presented. 

 

[R. G. White]

8 minutes ago, Gustave said:

The elephant in the room on this was that "the cleansing of the sanctuary" WASN'T what the message was. The message was:

1) Repent

Because,

2) Jesus was going to come at a specific time.

That was IT - there was NO OTHER MESSAGE.

No Christian worth their salt would be opposed to the Millerite promulgation of #1, the majority of the Christians exposed to Miller's message had a serious beef with #2. Ellen White rebuked the Christians who rejected #2 claiming their citing of Matthew 24, 36 was ascribed to not loving Jesus. 

If you are presented with a "message" pertaining to the Christian Religion the common Protestant procedure would be to test the message heard against the Scriptures. Miller's message FAILED that test because his message violated the Scriptures. You are right about different mechanisms being tried to justify or explain the disappointment of Jesus not coming - with the group that ultimately became the SDA's eventually settling on the Sanctuary in heaven being cleansed. 

A person can't judge a teaching "by the Scriptures" that hasn't been presented. 

 

There are several tests that I can bring to your assertions. One thing you must know is that I know a whole lot more about Ellen White than I know about you, and I trust her. I trust not only her impeccable integrity and deep Christian experience, but I also trust her claim of supernatural insight. So...

When she says that the main thrust of their message was "fear God and give glory to Him for the hour of His judgment is come," I believe her. So I reject your claim that there was no other message.

If Ellen White rebuked those who rejected the preaching of the 2nd coming at a definite time because they didn't love Jesus, that would have been because they didn't love Jesus. Apparently no one was any better able than Miller himself to find any actual Scriptural fault with the message, even though an error later became apparent. Thus, even though a part of the message did fail for being unscriptural, THAT'S NOT WHY SOME PEOPLE REJECTED IT.

I find your insinuation that the sanctuary message was a mere mechanism for trying to justify the disappointment offensive. You are really accusing the likes of Joseph Bates, James White, and Ellen White of being dishonest, but I'll take their obvious love, earnestness, and integrity over your allegations any day.

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, R. G. White said:

There are several tests that I can bring to your assertions. One thing you must know is that I know a whole lot more about Ellen White than I know about you, and I trust her. I trust not only her impeccable integrity and deep Christian experience, but I also trust her claim of supernatural insight. So...

When she says that the main thrust of their message was "fear God and give glory to Him for the hour of His judgment is come," I believe her. So I reject your claim that there was no other message.

If Ellen White rebuked those who rejected the preaching of the 2nd coming at a definite time because they didn't love Jesus, that would have been because they didn't love Jesus. Apparently no one was any better able than Miller himself to find any actual Scriptural fault with the message, even though an error later became apparent. Thus, even though a part of the message did fail for being unscriptural, THAT'S NOT WHY SOME PEOPLE REJECTED IT.

I find your insinuation that the sanctuary message was a mere mechanism for trying to justify the disappointment offensive. You are really accusing the likes of Joseph Bates, James White, and Ellen White of being dishonest, but I'll take their obvious love, earnestness, and integrity over your allegations any day.

If you were alive at the time the Millerite message was being promulgated you would either judge what you were hearing by Scripture or Scripture would be subservient to your emotional experience. You've left no doubt as to where you'd stand and I appreciate your direct answer. 

I realize you trust Ellen's alleged "supernatural insight" - you are required to. Ellen below describes the quandary the disappointed found themselves in after 1844 & how the problem was mitigated. 

Ellen White
After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly... When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon ME. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given ME, with instruction as to how WE were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to ME, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given ME." (Review and Herald, May 25, 1905)

This is the antithesis of 'Sola-Scriptura' in that they frantically devoured everything they could from the Bible and after coming up empty handed admitted "WE CAN DO NOTHING MORE" - it just so happened that the Spirit of the Lord would come into Ellen White and she would get "a vision" where the real meaning (that couldn't be determined from reading the texts) would be clearly explained to HER. 

You trust her impeccability (which she denied Christ possessed) - welcome to cognitive dissonance 

 

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, R. G. White said:

You are right about different mechanisms being tried to justify or explain the disappointment of Jesus not coming - with the group that ultimately became the SDA's eventually settling on the Sanctuary in heaven being cleansed. 

(Actually, Gustave said that)

Although I don't completely agree with the details of the sanctuary message, I think the message was reached with much prayer and Bible Study.  It was not a mechanism to justify the 1844 Disappointment, it was a genuine effort to see where they went wrong.  EGW may have been an amazingly inspired woman, but she was not infallible; by her own admission.

Is the SDA sanctuary message really so important  as to be salvational?  I think not. I'm happy to know that:

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." ( Heb. 4:14-15)

... regardless of when He entered the Most Holy Place.

"

[R. G. White]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Although I don't completely agree with the details of the sanctuary message, I think the message was reached with much prayer and Bible Study.  It was not a mechanism to justify the 1844 Disappointment, it was a genuine effort to see where they went wrong.  EGW may have been an amazingly inspired woman, but she was not infallible; by her own admission.

Is the SDA sanctuary message really so important  as to be salvational?  I think not. I'm happy to know that:

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." ( Heb. 4:14-15)

... regardless of when He entered the Most Holy Place.

"

Thank you for speaking out against the low insinuations. I am now being slandered for doing so, but I'm not even going to bother reading the whole comment. It is enough for a servant to be (slandered) like his Master. Indeed it is an honour.

Of course Ellen White was not infallible as a person. None of the prophets was perfect. They did speak for God, but neither you nor I should accept a doctrine just because Sister White taught it. That was not the purpose of her writings. I accept the SDA explanation of the disappointment because it rings true. Their error was the assumption that the earth is the sanctuary -- an assumption also shared by their opponents, a fact which suggests that no one had a good reason to reject the message. Biblically, the earth is not the sanctuary. There is a sanctuary in heaven, to the activities of which God apparently wishes to call our attention.

You ask:

"Is the SDA sanctuary message really so important as to be salvational?"

Honestly, I don't think we have any business trying to answer such a question concerning any true Bible doctrine. If it's true, we should accept it. Then maybe once we've shown our honesty, the importance of the matter will eventually dawn on us. Why would God raise up an entire movement (you do favour the SDA Church, I understand) in order to preach something that doesn't matter? Indeed, what could matter more to us, right now, than what Jesus is doing for us in heaven?

Edited May 26, 2019 by R. G. White
add last sentence

[B/W Photodude]

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Is the SDA sanctuary message really so important  as to be salvational?  I think not. I'm happy to know that:

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." ( Heb. 4:14-15)

That Bible verse is part of the Sanctuary message! I tend to believe that the Sanctuary message is a very detailed parable of the plan of Salvation. Unfortunately, Jesus said "he that hath ears, let him hear." There is a real symbolic meaning behind the entire Sanctuary message. I believe this because I do not believe that God wastes His time on useless symbols that would only serve to confuse.

I have been studying the Sanctuary message for sometime now and find it incredibly fascinating, and I have not even started studying what EGW wrote on the topic. Purposefully, I put her last.

I also have come to the conclusion that the Sanctuary message, Revelation, and Last Generation Theology are all deeply interconnected. Good times studying all of this material!

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, R. G. White said:

Indeed, what could matter more to us, right now, than what Jesus is doing for us in heaven?

Also, are we ready for Jesus to come, whatever the actual scenario turns out to be?  Are we faithful to believe that God is in control even if we are not?  If we truly love and believe in/depend on our Lord Jesus, His Spirit will guide us into all truth.  Currently, I could be mistaken, you could be mistaken, or we both could be mistaken.  We may not be "uniform" in our personal beliefs, but we are "united in our search for the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

[JoeMo]

B/W,

I agree that the sanctuary message as presented in the OT is a very detailed model of the plan of salvation; but only using my 20/20 hindsight do I see the symbolism.  I would imagine that the average Israelite had no clue that the annual cycle of feasts was a model of the plan of salvation; especially after the split between Israel and Judah; and the worship of foreign gods (even by the priests) became prevalent.

What I'm not so sure of is the "trimmings" added by Adventism (e.g., the Investigative Judgement, the Closed Door, the End of Probation, and absolute sinless perfection of God's Church prior to translation).  I haven't heard a message preached on these subjects for years.  I don't fault people who do believe this; I just don't believe it myself; nor do many of the SDA's I know.

[B/W Photodude]

40 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I would imagine that the average Israelite had no clue that the annual cycle of feasts was a model of the plan of salvation;

What I'm not so sure of is the "trimmings" added by Adventism (e.g., the Investigative Judgement, the Closed Door, the End of Probation, and absolute sinless perfection of God's Church prior to translation). 

I think the average Israelite knew much more about what the temple services were all about than we think. They had Moses to teach them and he was one who spent a lot of time with God face to face learning all about what the Sanctuary was all about. While the Bible is very descriptive of the temple and its furniture, I see no reason why Moses would not have had very detailed instructions in the meanings of the temple services.

The Closed Door is not really one of our beliefs today. However, End of Probation and Investigative Judgement are very much a part of the Scriptures. And the "absolute sinless perfection of God's Church" I also believe is very much a part of Scripture. If they are not part of Scripture, it does not matter who is promoting it, it would be a spurious teaching that should not be a part of our belief system. You just have to look for it. I do not believe the early pioneers of our church were wrong in those beliefs.

[B/W Photodude]

On 5/25/2019 at 5:28 PM, JoeMo said:

I don't know if that is a requirement anymore to be an SDA.  I VERY rarely hear messages about the sanctuary doctrine preached any more.  I also know those who have disregarded EGW who have also disregarded the sanctuary doctrine.

The way things are going, there doesn't seem to be any requirements to be an SDA anymore. And it is very true that most people cannot remember hearing a sermon about the sanctuary doctrine or any number of other things that were important to the early pioneers. However, that should concern nearly everyone very much. In EGWs time, she would make statements like "not one in twenty" were ready for any number of important endtime/end of life events. It is a rather optimistic number if you think one in twenty is ready for that day today.

Along the way, I have come to the conclusion that "1 in 20" is a symbolic number for very few! I was listening to a bunch of Baptist preacher talking about how less than 5% of Baptists are really saved. Wait a minute! 5% is about "1 in 20"!

[Lone Ranger]

10 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I think the average Israelite knew much more about what the temple services were all about than we think. They had Moses to teach them and he was one who spent a lot of time with God face to face learning all about what the Sanctuary was all about. While the Bible is very descriptive of the temple and its furniture, I see no reason why Moses would not have had very detailed instructions in the meanings of the temple services.

I agree with JoeMo in that the average Israelite did not interpret the sanctuary in terms of symbolism pointing to Christ. If Moses indeed "had very detailed instructions in the meanings of the temple services." he did not pass these on to the Israelites in any of the Bible books he wrote.

IMO, the OT does not connect the "Messiah" theme with the "Sanctuary" theme. The sanctuary was how sins were forgiven, and, separate and unrelated, "Messiah" would someday come to restore Israel.

Jesus was revolutionary in that he combined these two themes into one, and then claimed to be BOTH Messiah/Restorer of Israel AND Sacrificial Lamb of God, something that no OT writer had done.