1844-1888

[Joe Knapp]

My old friend Pastor Royce Snyman has a sermon on the details of the 1888 GC.  Retired Mich Conf, leader. 

 

[Hanseng]

Froom's "Movement of Destiny" is a very interesting history of 1888 in its historical context.  He considers the message and the personalities involved in the milieu of those times, e.g., disagreements over not only the ten horns but more importantly, the divinity of Christ. Some people do not care for Froom, mainly because his historical account does not fit their agenda. For example, he has been denounced as a Jesuit, an amazing accusation. His parents were both SDA, his father a charter member of the Battle Creek church. Froom's life history was well known to his contemporaries.  EGW's endorsement of Waggoner's teachings probably had more to do with his emphasis on Christ rather than his teachings on justification, which tended toward popery. If the 1888 participants had simply walked to a Lutheran church, they could have learned more about justification by faith than Waggoner or Jones taught. 

[Hanseng]

Note that EGW endorsed Luther's teaching on justification by faith. Luther was an antinomian, he believed that the law, all laws, were abrogated. He rejected the division of the law into parts done away with and parts preserved. as was taught by Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics. The separation of the civil, ceremonial and moral laws was the position held by the papacy, not Luther, yet that's the position SDA have held. Luther's teaching on justification can be found in his Galatians commentary. Famous statements of his such as we are righteous and sinful at the same time and we are justified by faith alone are found in that book. Chapter 3 comments are  especially enlightening.

Many of us have become so distracted by trumpets, beasts, symbolism,  the 144,000 that we have failed to look deeply into the science of salvation itself. Many years ago, David Freedman, the editor of the Anchor Bible Commentary, spoke in Berrien Springs. He was talking about the recent discovery of the Ebla tablets. Someone in the audience asked him about the value of these archaeological discoveries from a redemptive viewpoint. No value, he responded. "It's a humanistic study." Many of these doctrines that fascinate us fall into the same category. Believing that Jesus is coming again, or that the soul sleeps, or that Jesus entered the MHP in 1844 may all be true; nevertheless, they don't cleanse us from the guilt of sin, which is the purpose of the atonement. Only connection to Christ by faith and the Holy Spirit do that. Lying in a bed with a heart attack, cancer diagnosis, or dealing with the death of a loved one, who the ten horns are or when the trumpets sound is going to be totally irrelevant. One thing will matter--Jesus.

[Challenger]

For one to place their life in the hands of Christ, indeed requires trust/faith. That trust/faith comes by knowing Him and His plan of salvation. Closing events are very much a part of that plan.  Thus, the more we understand Christ the more likely our trust/faith in Him will grow stronger. If within the next week you were to witness, world wide peals of thunder, flashes of lightning, and  earthquake, followed by a meteoric shower of burning hail, that burns up a third of the earth, how would you react? 

On the other hand those understanding Rev. 8:2-5, the service at the altar of incense, will quickly realize that   it has ended since they just witnessed  the world wide peals of thunder, flashes of lighting and earthquake. They will anticipate more of the Fathers wrath too shortly follow by means of His first trumpet judgment, a meteoric shower of burning hail, burning up a third of the earth. They like you will be terrified, however, unlike you their faith in Christ will growing stronger because they will realize that they have just witnessed a fulfillment of prophecy. Whereas, you will be clueless to God’s plans for the trumpets judgements and their timing.  

[Challenger, in the above paragraph you use the terms, "unlike you"  and "you will be clueless."   Suich violates our requirement for civil discussion.  Please refrain from such personal attacks.  If you are not able to refrain from such, action will have to be taken--Gregory Matthews.]

My point, since God has revealed Himself in all of the Bible it is to ones advantage to learn as much as possible about God and His plans to save man, because that knowledge can strengthen us in times of great distress.   

[Hanseng]

Challenger, You remind me of the JWs who used to come to my door preaching the "kingdom of God." To them, the kingdom of God was all about hell fire, the beasts, Hebrew terms which neither they nor 99.9% of the people they talked to understood, and so on. 

Good luck with that in your time of need.

3  If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
4  But [there is] forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

Psalm 130, one of the 7 penitential Psalms.

 

[Joe Knapp]

On 2/15/2026 at 7:01 AM, Challenger said:

My point, since God has revealed Himself in all of the Bible it is to ones advantage to learn as much as possible about God and His plans to save man, because that knowledge can strengthen us in times of great distress. 

I have been encouraging people to read the bible from cover to cover for years. I don't know many who have done that.

[phkrause]

10 hours ago, Joe Knapp said:

I have been encouraging people to read the bible from cover to cover for years. I don't know many who have done that.

Well I do know someone that encourages people to read the Bible! That would be Shawn Boonstra!!

[Hanseng]

Challenger, I'm not going to be terrified or clueless. I know that my redeemer liveth.  My faith is centered on Jesus, who proved his love for me by dying on the cross for my sins. His resurrection opened the way for me to conquer death as well. He serves in heaven, continuing his watch care over every detail of my life.

When John saw the calamities befalling the earth, he cried out, "Who shall be able to stand?" Paul answered that in 1 Corinthians 15  "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;" That gospel consists of the news that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again the third day. He doesn't say anything about the mark of the beast, the trumpets, the two witnesses, the whore of Babylon, etc. The news about Jesus, what he did for us, that's what enables us to stand.

My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness!

[Challenger]

On 2/19/2026 at 6:22 PM, Hanseng said:

Challenger, I'm not going to be terrified or clueless. I know that my redeemer liveth.  My faith is centered on Jesus, who proved his love for me by dying on the cross for my sins. His resurrection opened the way for me to conquer death as well. He serves in heaven, continuing his watch care over every detail of my life.

When John saw the calamities befalling the earth, he cried out, "Who shall be able to stand?" Paul answered that in 1 Corinthians 15  "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;" That gospel consists of the news that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again the third day. He doesn't say anything about the mark of the beast, the trumpets, the two witnesses, the whore of Babylon, etc. The news about Jesus, what he did for us, that's what enables us to stand.

My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness!

Hanseng, Paul did not respond to John, as you know Johns vision came after the death of Paul. Your example is how the scriptures can be twisted to support various beliefs. 

Yes faith in Jesus blood and righteousness is what saves us.  But with that degree of understanding should one close their mind to further revelations of God and His plans to save mankind revealed in the books of Dan., and Revelation, of which Paul had no knowledge? 

There are Christians believing that  faith in Jesus blood and His righteousness and the secrete rapture, thus having no interest in understanding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. However, should they find themselves living during the trumpets and mark of the beast, with no understanding of them, the faith of some will not be  strong enough for them to stand through earth’s darkest hour.

The Trumpet judgements, the mark, are the very closing events of probation. Should one die before that time, the lack of understanding will not matter. On the other hand those who will experience them having knowledge of them, their faith will grow stronger as each trumpet judgement and the mark of the beast is fulfilled before them. This is why God has revealed these events beforehand. But since we do not know if we will or will not experience them, which position should one take, remain ignorant, or take the time and effort to be informed? 

 

 

[Hanseng]

8 hours ago, Challenger said:

Hanseng, Paul did not respond to John, as you know Johns vision came after the death of Paul. Your example is how the scriptures can be twisted to support various beliefs. 

Challenger, Are you suggesting  the Truth that Christ's death and resurrection enables us to stand in troublous times is a twisting of the Scripture? Standing before God is a Biblical  motif which has its origins, not in John's Revelation but in the OT.

Ezra said that because of the sin of Israel, they would not be able to stand before God (9:15). This statement is included in a call to repentance followed by confession of sin. In that case, of particular concern was the comingling of the Israelites with the surrounding nations and taking foreign wives. Of great concern to Ezra was the inability of Israel to STAND before God because of this.

David asked the same question Who shall stand in God's holy place (Ps. 24:3).

Who shall stand before God when he is angry?

 Thou, [even] thou, [art] to be feared: and who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry? (Ps. 76.7)

If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? ( Ps. 130.2) 

John answers his own question in the verses that follow in chapter 7, describing the great multitude who stood before the throne. The 14400, who washed their robes in the blood of the lamb, stand upon the sea of glass. It was very clearly stated in Psalms who is able to stand before God. It's the same ones who are able to stand before God in the day of his wrath-- those who have experienced his forgiveness. Paul's statement that the gospel is what enables us to stand, as well as John's reiteration are answers to questions posed in the OT.

 

[Gustave]

Martin Luther was not antinomian. Luther was well known to repudiate antinomians. Luther rejected antinomianism in total. Where did you get this idea??? Have you heard the term "Law & Gospel"???

[Hanseng]

Luther refers to the abrogation  of the law, including the Decalogue, ~40 times in his Galatians commentary on chapters 1-4. Read his comments on Galatians 3, if you haven't. Then we can discuss it. If you have read his Galatians commentary and still hold that he was not antinomian, please explain why.

Luther advocated a spirit filled life guided by the HS, not law.  Ever heard the maxim "By faith alone?"

It's not by faith plus law observance. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

20 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Luther refers to the abrogation  of the law, including the Decalogue, ~40 times in his Galatians commentary on chapters 1-4. Read his comments on Galatians 3, if you haven't. Then we can discuss it. If you have read his Galatians commentary and still hold that he was not antinomian, please explain why.

Luther advocated a spirit filled life guided by the HS, not law.  Ever heard the maxim "By faith alone?"

It's not by faith plus law observance. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You need to read Luther again, you are misunderstanding him in a most colossal way....

"Zwingli, who was a moralist and a Humanist rather than a truly evangelical reformer, taught: “In itself the Law is nothing else than a Gospel; that is, a good, certain message from God by means of which He instructs us concerning His will.”(Frank 2, 312.) While Zwingli thus practically identified Law and Gospel, Luther, throughout his life, held that the difference between both is as great as that between life and death or the merits of Christ and our own sinful works; and that no one can be a true minister of the Christian Church who is unable properly to distinguish and apply them. For, according to Luther, a commingling of the Law and the Gospel necessarily leads to a corruption of the doctrine of justification, the very heart of Christianity. And as both must be carefully distinguished, so both must also be upheld and preached in the Church; for the Gospel presupposes the Law and is rendered meaningless without it. Wherever the Law is despised, disparaged, and corrupted, the Gospel, too, cannot be kept intact. Whenever the Law is assailed, even if this be done in the name of the Gospel, the latter is, in reality, hit harder than the former. The cocoon of antinomianism always bursts into antigospelism". 

The Antinomistic Controversy | Book of Concord

Probably 2/3rds of my Family is Lutheran (all conservative synods) and I can assure you that you have horrifically misread Luther. I forget his name but there is a member here who is extremely well read about Luther - hopefully he will come along and tell you I'm not misrepresenting Luther when I tell you he was the opposite of what you say. 

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Probably 2/3rds of my Family is Lutheran (all conservative synods) and I can assure you that you have horrifically misread Luther. I forget his name but there is a member here who is extremely well read about Luther - hopefully he will come along and tell you I'm not misrepresenting Luther when I tell you he was the opposite of what you say. 

Gustave, Much of my experience as an SDA involved argument. Arguments with different factions in the denomination as well as different groups in other denominations. So arrives another argument. Nothing new here. I suggested you read the Galatians commentary You asked me where I got the idea that Luther was antinomian. I told you, from his Galatians commentary. Yet you come back with a secondary or tertiary source, written after his death.  As Alister McGrath said, the Lutherans don't rightly represent Luther nor do the Calvinists rightly represent Calvin. I know what Luther wrote in his Galatians commentary. As I said, ~ 40 times in his comments on the first 4 chapters, he said the law, any and all laws were abrogated. Referring to Thomas and the academics, he denied that the law was divided with one part cancelled and one part still binding. That's what the papacy and modern SDA teach. 

The Book of Concord is a post Luther denominational production. It's not Luther; consequently, your assurances that I'm wrong miss the mark entirely。 I'm not saying the Lutheran denomination was antinomian or that it is. I'm saying, and I reaffirm my position, Luther  was antinomian. He said  more than  40 times in his Galatians commentary, laws of all kinds are abrogated  for the Christian. To argue about what Luther said by not quoting Luther is, unfortunately, not a novel approach. You are, however, in good company among Adventists, most of whom hate Luther. His antinomianism, in favor of a Spirit filled life does not fit the Adventist law-based paradigm.

 

[Hanseng]

Thomas [Aquinas]1 and other school-doctors, speaking of the abolishment of the law, say that the judicial and the ceremonial laws are pernicious and deadly since the coming of Christ, and therefore they are abolished; but not so the moral law. These[blind doctors] knew not what they said. But if thou wilt speak of the abolishment of the law, talk of the law as it is in its own proper use and office, and as it is spiritually taken; and comprehend withal the whole law, making no distinction at all between the judicial, ceremonial, and moral law. For when Paul saith that we are delivered from the curse of the law by Christ, he speaketh of the whole law, and principally of the moral law, which only accuseth, curseth and condemneth the conscience, which the other two do not. Wherefore we say that the moral law, or the law of the Ten Commandments, hath no power to accuse and terrify the conscience in which Christ reigneth by his grace: for he hath abolished the power thereof.

Luther, M. (1997). Commentary on Galatians (p. 426). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

 

[Hanseng]

 

 

Here is what Luther had to say about the law and gospel:

From this it is sufficiently evident what the distinction is between the Law and the Gospel. The Law never brings the Holy Spirit; therefore it does not justify, because it only teaches what we ought to do. But the Gospel does bring the Holy Spirit, because it teaches what we ought to receive. Therefore the Law and the Gospel are two altogether contrary doctrines. Accordingly, to put righteousness into the Law is simply to conflict with the Gospel. For the Law is a taskmaster; it demands that we work and that we give. In short, it wants to have something from us. The Gospel, on the contrary, does not demand; it grants freely; it commands us to hold out our hands and to receive what is being offered. Now demanding and granting, receiving and offering, are exact opposites and cannot exist together. For that which is granted, I receive; but that which I grant,   I do not receive but offer to someone else. Therefore if the Gospel is a gift and offers a gift, it does not demand anything. On the other hand, the Law does not grant anything; it makes demands on us, and impossible ones

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 26, pp. 208–209). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

[Gustave]

I have read it, I've got several of Luther's commentaries. I'm telling you that you are misrepresenting Luther's position in total. You should ask a Lutheran Pastor or reach out to a Lutheran seminary - they will set you straight. 

I refer you to Luther's 6 series thesis against the Antinomians (1537-1540) in particular thesis 41 which says;

"The Law is not to be done away with, but rather to be kept with the greatest diligence, for it is the eternal will of God". 

Understand the above and a host of other quotes came after the Galatians commentary. I'm sorry, you are very wrong here. You don't understand Luther. It's possible you got this understanding from another Seventh-day Adventist who was simply ignorant as to what Luther taught. 

[Hanseng]

I was president of the library club in my elementary school. I know how to read.

 

Here is what Luther had to say about the law and gospel:

From this it is sufficiently evident what the distinction is between the Law and the Gospel. The Law never brings the Holy Spirit; therefore it does not justify, because it only teaches what we ought to do. But the Gospel does bring the Holy Spirit, because it teaches what we ought to receive. Therefore the Law and the Gospel are two altogether contrary doctrines. Accordingly, to put righteousness into the Law is simply to conflict with the Gospel. For the Law is a taskmaster; it demands that we work and that we give. In short, it wants to have something from us. The Gospel, on the contrary, does not demand; it grants freely; it commands us to hold out our hands and to receive what is being offered. Now demanding and granting, receiving and offering, are exact opposites and cannot exist together. For that which is granted, I receive; but that which I grant,   I do not receive but offer to someone else. Therefore if the Gospel is a gift and offers a gift, it does not demand anything. On the other hand, the Law does not grant anything; it makes demands on us, and impossible ones

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 26, pp. 208–209). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

[Hanseng]

5 hours ago, Hanseng said:

I was president of the library club in my elementary school. I know how to read.

 

Here is what Luther had to say about the law and gospel:

From this it is sufficiently evident what the distinction is between the Law and the Gospel. The Law never brings the Holy Spirit; therefore it does not justify, because it only teaches what we ought to do. But the Gospel does bring the Holy Spirit, because it teaches what we ought to receive. Therefore the Law and the Gospel are two altogether contrary doctrines. Accordingly, to put righteousness into the Law is simply to conflict with the Gospel. For the Law is a taskmaster; it demands that we work and that we give. In short, it wants to have something from us. The Gospel, on the contrary, does not demand; it grants freely; it commands us to hold out our hands and to receive what is being offered. Now demanding and granting, receiving and offering, are exact opposites and cannot exist together. For that which is granted, I receive; but that which I grant,   I do not receive but offer to someone else. Therefore if the Gospel is a gift and offers a gift, it does not demand anything. On the other hand, the Law does not grant anything; it makes demands on us, and impossible ones

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 26, pp. 208–209). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

 

[Hanseng]

•  

"I have read it, I've got several of Luther's commentaries. I'm telling you that you are misrepresenting Luther's position in total. You should ask a Lutheran Pastor or reach out to a Lutheran seminary - they will set you straight." 

 

So your position is that I shouldn't believe the 40 references in Luther's Galatians commentary but should, instead, talk to a pastor or Lutheran academic. In other words, don't believe Luther himself but seek secondary or tertiary sources. I'll keep that in mind.

 

 

[Gustave]

I'm saying you're misunderstanding what Luther is saying there. 

You are claiming distinct and contrary equates to useless and abolished - that's NOT what Luther is saying at all. Luther is defining the functions of those two things (Law & Gospel) in the context of his understanding of Justification. Luther understood "the law" to have a specific purpose just like he understood "Gospel" to have a specific purpose. These two things worked together in the life of a Christian. You really need to bone up on Martin Luther. 

Your statement about tertiary sources would be like me telling you the White Estate didn't know what they were talking about with Ellen White. LOL! 

[Hanseng]

Two different topics here, Gustave, partly my fault.  The abrogation of the law, referred to at least  40 times in the Galatians commentary, was what provoked your original response. You cite Against the Antinomians, a brief polemical work, to refute Agricola's misunderstanding of what Luther repeated  numerous times in his Galatians commentary, i.e., the Christian is no longer under a system of law in order to become righteous. We are led by the spirit. The legal system only has power to condemn, not to save.   According to LW vol. 47, Agricola's position was that people should be brought to Christ through gospel preaching, not the law. Luther, in Against the Antinomians said the law is still necessary to drive people to repentance. That was the difference between Luther and Agricola. The purpose of "Against the Antinomians" was   to refute Agricola, not what Luther said again and again in his work on Galatians.

If you have studied the commentary on Galatians and can't see Luther's meaning, or simply disagree with me, no point in arguing about it. It is what it is.

 

[Gustave]

I’m not asking you to trust tertiary sources (even Lutheran ones); I’m asking you to trust the rest of Luther. If you only read the 1535 Galatians commentary, you’re seeing Luther fighting what he believed to be the 'Legalists' of Rome. But if you want to see what Luther thought of people who used his Galatians logic to get rid of the Law, you have to read his 1539 treatise 'Against the Antinomians.'

In that work, Luther specifically addresses the fact that people were twisting his words (like the ones you quoted) to claim the Law is dead. Luther REALLY wrote:

'I have also at times spoken in such a way [against the Law]... but these words of mine have been understood to mean that the Law should be altogether removed from the church. This I never intended.' (Against the Antinomians, 1539)

He literally apologized for being so blunt in his earlier writings because he didn't realize 'fanatics' would use them to stop preaching repentance.

If you seriously believe Martin Luther's words than please explain the following in light of your conclusions: 

 

1. On the Law's Permanence: "The Law is not to be done away with, but rather to be kept with the greatest diligence, for it is the eternal will of God." (Antinomian Theses, 41)

2. On Preaching the Law in Church: "To remove the Law from the church is to hide the sun with a dark cloud... for without the Law, the Gospel is not understood." (Antinomian Theses, 3 & 15)

3. On the Purpose of Galatians: Luther himself said in his later years that his Galatians commentary was written to comfort "terrified consciences," not to provide a "rule for the impudent" who want to ignore God's commands.

4. Table Talk, No. 3911: "I have preached the Gospel for the sake of the anxious and the troubled in spirit. But now the world turns it into a carnal freedom... They say: 'If the Law is dead, we can do as we please.' I did not write for such hogs."

[Hanseng]

I agree that he wrote with different emphases to suit different circumstances. He stated as much in Against the Antinomians. A lengthy quote in translation from WA describes his views on different messages at different times  (See LW v. 47, 104). While emphases may vary, the truth of Luther's views in the Galatians commentary are just as valid as they were then. The law brings wrath. It does not save people. SDA have had legalism shoved down our throats for decades, even centuries; consequently, Luther's Galatians emphases is extremely relevant. The emphasis on law in Adventism   has led to perfectionism, which is nothing more than legalism on methamphetamine. Legalism, however, is what keeps the tithe rolling in, necessary for the SDA organization  to thrive.

Luther specifically took issue with Papal positions commonly taught by SDA even today, i.e. the division of the Mosaic system into parts, one of which binds Christians and one  which does not. The modern  Reformed position is apparently just as ridiculous, that we are bound to observe the Decalogue, minus one. Luther was consistent in this regard. We are not bound by any law.

Bickering over what Luther said robs his gospel  of its spiritual dimension as well as its redemptive value. At this point, I'm interested in what is going to save me. That would be Jesus, not the Mosaic system, in any way, shape, or form. That's what Luther emphasized in his Galatians commentary. I'm good with that.

 

[Gustave]

I'm hardly a fan of Luther but that would be a topic for another thread.