| Author |
Message |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 2:04 pm: |     |
Hello
My adventist friend keep telling me that I am biased because I have only read the "negative" documents which demonstrates the falseness of SDA.
How do I combat such a charge?
I've told her that if she can find any I would gladely test it against the bible. |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1390
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 6:38 pm: | |
I started off reading only the "good" things about adventism, but when I found flaws in what I was reading there, he told me I wasn't studying hard enough or I didn't understand what scripture really meant. When I found LAM and FAF, he forgot all about the initial studying I had done that he said wasn't good enough and just started saying I was only listening to people with axes to grind. There is no win as long as you don't reach their conclusions. The way everything seems judged is dependent upon you reaching their conclusion. It is inconceivable anything is wrong with their teaching and therefore that their understanding is in error.
Maybe your friend will listen to reason, but I suspect more than not that she has been taught that if you don't reach their conclusions you are deceived by Satan. And even if you have a point she can't disagree with, she'll know you're wrong any way just because it contradicts what she was taught. B has taken a good many things to his pastor because he couldn't understand it, but unless and until his pastor tells him that information is correct and the SDA church is in error (as in the case of Cottrell's paper), he stands by the SDA church. Not even more time with his son was an enticement to at least park in a pew with us apostates on Sunday. I will never understand it, I guess. On one hand, he tries to say the SDA church is a part of the body of Christ, on the other hand, he can't worship with them. Try to reconcile that.
I just shake my head. But my experiences are pretty much limited to one family. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 530
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 7:49 pm: | |
I would encourage you to look at the critic's claims and the defenses side-by-side, item-by-item. In several of the cases SDAs make a reasonable sounding defense. But some of the others just don't have any degree of credibility. Like the ones about wigs and about corsets. What you have to ask is that even if only half of what the critics claimed couldn't be defended reasonable by SDAs apologists, isn't that still enough to throw her out? |
Insearchof
Registered user
Username: Insearchof
Post Number: 63
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:33 am: | |
Mwh,
I am not nearly as well versed on many issues related to Adventism as most on this forum are, but for me, the questioning started when I sat down and read the book of Hebrews. Everyone here has some similar experience with a comment or text or question that drove them to question what they had been taught in Adventism.
The hard thing to accept is that once that first doctrine goes, others will fall. There is no way to avoid it. Your friend wants to look at the positives. Ask her what those are. She will surely point to the Sabbath. She may bring up diet. I doubt that she would bring up 1844 or the Investigative Judgement.
I am not an SDA-basher. I still attend an SDA church every week (but I will admit that it is only a matter of time until my wife and I leave for good).
Melissa brings up a good point when she mentions that "On one hand, he tries to say the SDA church is a part of the body of Christ, on the other hand, he can't worship with them. Try to reconcile that."
That is hard to get around. We say they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, yet with the next breath we call them apostates. Or we pity their simple understanding of the Gospel or the fact that they have been duped into worshipping on a false Sabbath or criticize them for believing in 'cheap grace'.
Anyway, I have yet to receive a response to the following (I sent it months ago). During our last conversation my friend mentioned that he had not forgotten about it, he just had not had time to work up a response yet. As far as I can tell, there is no real response that can be made.
---------------------------------------------
"Regarding our discussion today on my current understanding of WHEN Christ entered the Most Holy Place.....
To be honest, the math for how we arrived at the 1844 date sounds good, but did we arrive at that date using sound principles of Biblical interpretation? That would be the real question.
As an SDA for the past 30 years, I have not given a lot of thought as to how we arrived at dates, times, or any of our unique eschatology. It has bothered me for several years that we use numerology to tie the Papacy to the number 666 in Rev 13:18. That is a huge leap since Christians in the time of Nero Ceaser used the same method to identify HIM as the antichrist. Using these same methods, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Hitler could be idenified as antichrist since their names all equate to 666 in one way or another.
Anyway, to the subject at hand.....
I find it interesting that although William Miller came up with the date 1844, once it passed and Christ did not come, he never accepted the view that 'the time was right, we got the event wrong' that James White, Hiram Edson, and Ellen Harmon came up with. I never looked seriously at the events surrounding the Great Disappointment until the past few months. I know all about it since I spent so many years in Adventist education. I have attended countless prophecy seminars, evangelistic series, and bible studies, and have always accepted the understanding of 'right date, wrong event'. But, in looking more closely at things, I cannot honestly say 'right date, wrong event'. I think it might be more accurate to say 'wrong date, wrong event'.
Here is why (this is by no means exhaustive, nor do I believe it is the last word):
1. Looking at Dan 8:14, the preceding texts all reference world powers that affected the Jewish nation. While these powers (Babylon, Persia, Greece) affected other peoples as well, it seems that primarily, the references are to how the Jewish people are affected (ie. Dan 8:9 references the 'Glorious Land', Palestine). Anyway, Dan 8:8 refers to the male goat that grew very great, but when he became strong the large horn was broken (an obvious reference to Alexander the Great) and 4 horns came up in its place, but not with its power. This is obviously a reference to the 4 generals that divided the kingdom: Cassander (Macedonia), Lysimachus (Thrace and Asia Minor), Seleucus (Syria), Ptolemy (Egypt). All commentators agree on this. From here, however, Adventist theology takes a hard left and goes off the reservation pushing the remainder of the prophecy (2300 days) way out into the future. Most other commentators take Dan 8:9 (And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great.....) and interpret it this way:
Sometime in 171 BC, Antiochus IV (also called Antiochus Epiphanes) began persecuting
Jews. He did not allow them to sacrifice in the temple (removed the 'daily' {sacrifices}), burned
the holy scriptures, Sabbath observance was prohibited, circumcision was outlawed, tried to
destroy their culture, forced them to be Hellenized (accept and live by Greek culture). The
worst thing he did as far the Jews were concerned was to set up an alter to Zeus in
the Jewish temple and sacrifice pigs to it. He became ruler in 175 BC and ruled until he was
overthrown in 164 BC. Interestingly enough, in 164 BC, the Maccabean Revolt broke out and
the Jews reoccupied Jerusalem and rededicated the Temple (they remember this event during
Hannukah).
If you count a literal 2300 days, it comes out to about 6 1/2 years on a Jewish calendar, about the length of time that Antiochus IV ruled Palestine.
One of the problems I find with using 2300 days as 'years' is that there is no reason from the context to do it. The 'day-year principle' that we use is not really a Biblical 'principle' that can be applied to all prophecy. It is based on one text in scripture and that text specifically refers to a curse on Isreal (40 days and each day shall be unto you a year....when they were kept out of Canaan due to unbelief). It seems to me to be a big stretch to say that that is a valid 'principle' of Biblical interpretation.
2. William Miller tried to determine the date for the 2nd coming and came up with 1844. When Christ did not come as hoped, he admitted he made a mistake (he still believed in the soon return, but he did not try to set time). Others who looked for the 2nd coming in 1844 refused to believe that they could be wrong about the time, so they looked for another event.
3. Hiram Edson had a vision a day or two after the Disappointment that showed him the event that actually took place, Christ entering the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary to begin His work of Atonement. The sacrifice had been offered 1800 years before, but the blood had not been offered for any sinner until 1844. Ellen White has a confirming vision and there is happiness and joy.....but:
The Bible is very plain about the sequence of events after Jesus death. Jesus ascended into Heaven. What did he do?
He had to find out if His sacrifice was acceptable to the Father. It was. Now what?
Hebrews 1:3 ...who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His
person, when He (Christ) had by Himself purged our sin, SAT DOWN at the right hand
of the Majesty on high.
Sitting down indicated a completed work. The priests in the earthly
sanctuary STAND (see Heb 10:11, 12). This indicates that
Christ's work is perfect and complete.
Hebrews 6:19, 20...Therefore, we have an anchor for the soul, sure and steadfast, and
which enters the Presence BEHIND THE VEIL, where the Forerunner HAS ENTERED
for us, EVEN JESUS, having become High Priest forever....
Don't miss .... behind the veil....obviously the veil into the 2nd
apartment, the Most Holy Place. All references to 'behind
the veil' refer to the Most Holy Place in the OT, not the Holy Place.
That veil is similar in construction and purpose, but is
most often refered to as the 'door' of the tabernacle' in the OT.
Don't miss the significance of where Jesus is in this text!
Hebrews 8:1,2...The main thing we are saying; we have such an High Priest who is
seated at the right hand of the throne of hte Majesty in the heavens - a Minister of the
Sanctuary and true tabernacle which the Lord erected and not man.
Again, we have Christ SITTING, indicating a completed work.
Seated at the right hand of the throne. Where is God's throne? In the
Most Holy Place
Hebrews 9:11, 12...But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come with the
greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of the creation.
Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with HIS OWN BLOOD HE ENTERED THE
MOST HOLY PLACE ONCE FOR ALL having obtained eternal redemption.
Can it get any plainer than that? He (Christ) ENTERED (past tense
- He already did it) the Most Holy Place at His ascension, NOT in
1844.
Hebrews 9:24...For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are
copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.
Notice the implication here....Christ did not enter holy places
made with hands, implying He entered the ones in
heaven. Again, where is the presence (throne) of God? In the Most
Holy Place in Heaven.
Hebrews 9:25, 26...Not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the
Most Holy Place every year with the blood of another, He would have had to suffer
often since the foundation of the world; but now, ONCE at the end of the ages, He has
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
What is evident here? The earthly priests had to appear OFTEN in
the Most Holy Place (year after year). Christ has
APPEARED ONCE - past tense. It has been done. Not just the
sacrifice, the writer is contrasting the inferiority of the
earthly service (many times) with the superiority of Christ's service.
Hebrews 10:11-13...And every priest STANDS ministering DAILY and offering
REPEATEDLY the same sacrifices which can never take away sin. But the Man, after
He had offered one sacrifice for sin SAT DOWN at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD, from
that time WAITING till His enemies are made His footstool.
The author points out that the earthly priests STAND indicating
their work is not done. Christ SITS, indicating that His
work is finished. Also, He is again said to be at the right hand of
God. Where is God? In the Most Holy Place. Don't
miss this...Christ WAITS UNTIL His enemies are made His
footstool. This seems to indicate that He has no other event to
'get up' for until the 2nd coming (ie. doesn't get up in 1844 to enter
the Most Holy Place, He is already there, seated at
God's right hand).
Hebrews 10:19, 20...Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the HOLIEST by the
BLOOD OF JESUS, by a new and living way He consecrated for us THROUGH THE
VEIL, that is, HIS FLESH.....
How can we enter the Holiest unless Christ has gone there before
us? This indicates that He has already ENTERED (see v. 20
Through the veil) and now we have access to be where He is.
Again you see 'THE VEIL' referencing entrance into the
Most Holy Place.
These texts so obviously place Christ in the Most Holy Place at His ascension, not in 1844. What now?
Well, a couple of things. We have to deal with Ellen White. She claims several things that directly affect our understanding of 1844, what it means, etc.
She claims that God confirmed the correctness of the timeline that William Miller set out. It does not seem reasonable to me that God would confirm something that was an obvious error. Trying to claim that the dates were correct but the event was wrong seems to me to be a desperate grasp to make something true from something in error. Would God confirm the correctness of something that was obviously not correct? You need to consider the implications of that before you decide for sure.
Ellen White claims to have had a vision confirming Hiram Edson's vision of Christ's ministry beginning in 1844. This is problematic on several levels. Is it possible that God sent her a vision confirming a ministry of Christ beginning in 1844 when the book of Hebrews clearly says that ministry started at Christ's ascension? I have only listed 8 or 9 texts, but the New Testament is full of references to Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father. You can't get over it, under it, around it, or through it. We are absolutely wrong on this point and have been for over 150 years.
I find it of interest as well that in the past 150 years laypeople, ministers, and theologians have studied and accepted the Sabbath, soul-sleep, non-eternal hell. But not one, not one!, has accepted the SDA understanding of Daniel's 2300 day prophecy or our understanding of events of 1844.
The Bible plainly teaches that the Spirit of God will witness through those who teach the gospel and the truth of Scripture. The Bible promises that the Spirit will be manifest in signs and wonders as proof that a people are followers of Christ. Have you seen the Holy Spirit in any significant way in any Adventist church that you have been a part of? I have been a member for over 30 years and I can say I have rarely if ever seen a true manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
That should tell us something.....
Have you ever considered how we always believe that the Bible is specifically talking about the SDA church? We are a fulfillment of prophecy, we are the remnant, we have the 'truth'. I am beginning to believe that Rev 14 has nothing to do with the SDA church. No special end-time message. Read it again. It seems to me that those verses that we feel are especially for us really reference the Reformation. Think about it.
Fear God and give glory to Him. This led to a re-discovery of the message of salvation thru grace alone, not through works.
Babylon is fallen. This is not Protestantism, this is more directed to the Papacy. The Reformation did more to damage the Papacy than anything else.
Come out of her. Obviously a call to leave the paganism of the Papacy. This led to the founding of every major Protestant denomination.
Contrary to what we teach, the seal of God in scripture is not the Sabbath, it is the Holy Spirit. Eph 1:13, 14; Eph 4:30.
If you haven't already, I urge you to look closely at some of our foundational doctrines. It will surprise you.
Before you start, try to keep an open mind. Don't use the SDA Commentaries, don't use Ellen White. Read the Bible for what it says, not what we have been taught it says.
Promise not to cross me off as a heretic until you look into it yourself."
------------------------------------------------
Not to make this post any longer (ha!), but I think Rick is correct when he suggests that you look at the claims against Adventism and compare those to the defenses. Some are reasonable, many are not.
What I suspect that you will find is that the pioneers of the SDA church devoloped doctrine and then used the Bible to support the doctrine rather than allowing their doctrines to be developed from the Bible.
Keep your friend in prayer. Remember that if it seems that you are making no headway in changing your friends understanding that blind people CANNOT see. It is only when the Spirit of God opens the eyes of the blind that they receive their sight.
InSearchOf |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3958
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:01 am: | |
InSearchOfóthank you for sharing this letter. It is absolutely wonderful. You've clearly outlined the problem and shown multiple, powerful texts to back up your understanding. I'm not surprised your friend hasn't come up with an answer yet.
Wow--good work!
Mwh, your friend needs lots of prayeróand I know Diana mentioned this in the past, but I'm going to say it, tooóguard your heart. If you have any questions about what it might be like to fall in love with an observant Adventist, ask Melissa on this forum! Meanwhile, we are glad you're here with us, and keep asking questions!
Colleen |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 480
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:15 am: | |
I find it incredibly ironic that spending 35+ years reading nothing but pro-SDA literature is never called "biased", but as soon as one begins reading the other side of the argument and asking questions about it, that is somehow biased!
The only bias I personally had was always TOWARDS Seventh-day Adventism. It took 2 years of soul-searching, a lavish outpouring of the grace of God, and a team of horses to drag that bias out of me so I could begin to study everything on both sides with an open mind. |
Cw
Registered user
Username: Cw
Post Number: 61
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:35 am: | |
Mwh, when I was first trying to research SDA and before I found this forum I stumbled upon a web site CYBERSPACEMINISTRIES.COM that has a 41 lesson study of SDA. They never say they are an SDA site but it teaches pure (as far as I can tell) SDA doctrine. There is a test for each lesson and upon successful completion I was able to print out a certificate for myself. I have filed the certificate away for future use so that when I am accused of only reading the negative I can pull it out and prove otherwise. Besides, the first rule of warfare is "know your enemy". CW |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 3:43 pm: | |
Insearchof,
I second what Colleen said about the work on 1844. I maintain that issue is the most important. Because, what is the one doctrine that is unique to Adventism? 1844 and the IJ.
The book of Hebrews should spell the end of the SDA church--at least its historic branch. If we approach our SDA friends and family with the cogent arguments insearchof posted above, those who are honestly open to truth will see it. Because once it is shown that 1844 and the IJ are not Biblical, then EGW is not a true prophet of God, and the emphasis on the Sabbath will disappear.
Stan
|
Insearchof
Registered user
Username: Insearchof
Post Number: 64
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:26 pm: | |
Thanks for the kind words! That letter was written at 3AM the Sunday after my friend and I had the discussion.
We have talked at length since then, but he still cannot adequately address the issues of 1844 and the IJ (but to be honest, there is not one in 20 SDAs that can explain the IJ with any clarity. That is not a slam, just a fact).
He did mention to me that there is a new book out that claims there are 125 or so text that back up the day-for-year principle of prophetic interpretation. My obvious statement to him was that IF there really were that many texts to back up the day-year principle we would have trotted those out years ago...
By and large, I find that SDAs are sincere in what they believe, just terribly misguided. I know I have been for years. Reading the Bible now is like finding an entirely new book!
I honestly believe that once 1844 is dealt with, EGW is the next logical pillar to be examined since she makes no bones about the importance of 1844 to the Adventist movement. Once you start taking a hard look at EGW you will have questions about how we as Adventists view her and her role in the church. That is a very difficult thing for a long-time Adventist to do, beleive me. I often don't know "where the Bible ends and Ellen White begins" because we Adventists mingle them together to such a degree that we honestly belief that the Bible teaches what we actually read in 'The Great Controversy'. If you doubt it, watch the Doug Batchelor DVD released last year about last day events...
I spent a lot of time looking at what her critics had to say. I would like to think that I kept an open mind. I looked at the evidence and I feel that while some of the criticism is over-reaching, much of it is on target. Taken as a whole, I found so many questions regarding EGWs claims of inspiration that I could no longer accept her as a prophet of God.
Freeatlast has a good point "that spending 35+ years reading nothing but pro-SDA literature is never called biased". How true! The way that the SDA church has approached the writings of other Christians is this: IF THERE IS ANY ERROR IN IT THROW IT ALL OUT. How sad that we cut ourselves off from so much that is edifying and useful for Christian growth! But, of course, to read it is to open yourself up to a true understanding of the Gospel!
God bless you all!
InSearchOf |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3965
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:13 pm: | |
InSearchOf, what a great post! It's really great to read of your odyssey through studying EGW. You're so rightówe come to this crisis not knowing where the Bible ends and Ellen begins.
And FreeatlastóI also loved your point "that spending 35+ years reading nothing but pro-SDA literature is never called biased". That sums it up!
Colleen |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 20
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 7:02 am: | |
Cw: I can't find the website you mention, I think it has changed address or something. If anyone know where I can take this test I would be glad to know about it. |
Alnadean
Registered user
Username: Alnadean
Post Number: 15
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:43 am: | |
Hi all
Insearchof: Thanks for your last 2 posts. They very informative and a good read. I felt like I could read much more of it. Never hesitate to share- I'm listening
Al-Nadean |
Cw
Registered user
Username: Cw
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 9:52 am: | |
Mwh, I think I mis-spelled it. I pulled out my certificate and it's CYBERSPACEMINISTRY.COM not ministTRIES as I said earlier. Let me know if you find it. CW |
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3
Post Number: 43
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:01 am: | |
http://www.tagnet.org/cyberspace/index.htm |
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3
Post Number: 44
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:08 am: | |
About TAGnet:
A Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation.
TAGnet stands for "Three Angels Global Networking" and is an organization operated by a group of Seventh-day Adventists wanting to use computer technology to benefit humanity. TAGnet is a member of ASI.
Our purpose is not to be a publishing body but rather to enable and empower Seventh-day Adventist churches, schools, organizations, and ministries wanting to have a presence o‚n the World Wide Web. We look for an emphasis o‚n development of the whole person: physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.
TAGnet has a Board of Directors, an Operating Committee, and the organizations that publish o‚n TAGnet. These people make up the core of TAGnet. TAGnet functions as a portal for those looking to find information from the thousands of member organizations publishing o‚n TAGnet.
TAGnet endeavors to provide low cost services to all of our members. Your tax-deductible contributions help TAGnet to continue to provide cutting edge services to ministries all over the world.
Tax-deductible donations:
To make a tax-deductible donation to TAGnet send your gift to:
Three Angels Global Networking, Inc.
P.O. Box 2377
Fallbrook, CA 92088-2377
|
|
