Evangelical Adventist

[icedragon101]

I am an Evanglical Adventist is there any one else out there an Evanglical Adventist

[RC_NewProtestants]

Define Evangelical:
The meaning has changed in the last several years and is often used synomously with Fundamentalist.

As the American Heritage Dictionary defines Evangelical:
adj.
Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament.
Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.
Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.
Evangelical
Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland.
Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany.
Of or relating to the group in the Church of England that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith.
Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

[Sophia7]

Define Evangelical:
The meaning has changed in the last several years and is often used synomously with Fundamentalist.

Yes, I agree; the term can have different connotations. Take a look at this post (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28803040&postcount=15) in the main Adventist forum (and the subsequent posts if you get a chance). He explained what he meant by Evangelical there.

[icedragon101]

Define Evangelical:
The meaning has changed in the last several years and is often used synomously with Fundamentalist.

As the American Heritage Dictionary defines Evangelical:
I will it will take some time that is long.

[Adventtruth]

I am an Evanglical Adventist is there any one else out there an Evanglical Adventist

I am an Evangelical Adventist Christian.

Here is a link to what I believe.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XLIX/49-1.htm


Adventtruth

[icedragon101]

I am an Evangelical Adventist Christian.

Here is a link to what I believe.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XLIX/49-1.htm


Adventtruth
i am not sure you would quallify as an Evanglical Adventist.. It seem you are a main line traditional adventist, at least by the post you quote. do you except the wrightings of EGW? and do you belive in the investigative judgement? how many contempoary non-sda spiritual books have you read? i've been told you don't believe in adventism and then you quote very traditioanls views. could you expline what you postion is?

[icedragon101]

let me switch grears'

Historially The "Evanglical Adventist chruch" was a first day chruch that lasted from 1844 split until some time in the early 20th centuary. does anyone have any information on this denomination.

[HeisNear]

I am an Evanglical Adventist is there any one else out there an Evanglical Adventist

Greetings,

Desmond Ford considers himself an evangelical Christian. His followers within Adventism, there are many, believe the following. Remember, this can be very subjective and this is only a general view within the understanding of righteousness by faith. After all, that's the message to be given to the world.

(a) Righteousness by faith and justification by faith are synonymous. It's a legal decaration of God in which He proclaims the believing sinner perfectly righteous based on the doing and dying of Christ.

(b) The gospel is only justification. The moment one "believes" in Christ, His righteousness is imputed. Nothing must be added to this.

(c) Under no circumstances can be permited any subjective experience as part of justification by faith. It is soley a legal (or forensic) declaration. Any attempt to include the new birth (regeneration) is strongly opposed.

(d) Unlike justification, sanctification is never by faith alone, but also involves the believer's own efforts and works. Also, Christ's human nature had to be sinless or His performance would have been marred and He would have been a sinner in need of a Saviour.
------------------------------------

Unfortunately the evangelical fails to distinguish between the legal justification established for all men in the doing and dying of Christ (Rom. 3:23, 24; 5:18, the "good news" of the gospel), and justification by faith, which includes the believers "heartfelt" response created in the hearer by the preaching of Christ crucified.

Because the legal acquital accomplished for all men in Christ is not distinguished from justifcation by faith, the evangelical gospel also fails to present a correct relationship between justification by faith and the new birth. That which was prepared for "all men" in Christ becomes valid to the believing sinner only when he experiences the new birth. It is never that we are justified "because" of our faith. Never does the scripture say so. Faith is only an instrument through which Christ's life is received.

While it is true that sanctification in no way contributes to the righteousness which saves the believer, it must be remembered that sanctification is making real in the believer's life what has already been prepared for him in justification--that is, total obedience to the law.

One of the most puzzling beliefs of evangelicals is that Christ had a sinless nature, a mere cousin of the teaching of the immaculate conception. Christ actually did assume our sinful nature, yet without sinning. This belief is essential in understanding that Christ not only condemned the acts of sin but the sin problem itself which is the principle in our members (the law of sin and death). Romans 7 through 8:4. Christ had to condemn sin in the same flesh we have, otherwise He could not be our Saviour from sin.

I am not a "traditionalist" either. The problem I have observed, because of the tremendous legalism within the church, many have taken an extreme swing to the other side, not balancing justification and sanctification in the light of the gospel.

This is by no means condemnation but simply some concepts to consider for discussion. (Gal. 6:3).

blessings,
John

[icedragon101]

Greetings,

Desmond Ford considers himself an evangelical Christian. His followers within Adventism, there are many, believe the following. Remember, this can be very subjective and this is only a general view within the understanding of righteousness by faith. After all, that's the message to be given to the world.

(a) Righteousness by faith and justification by faith are synonymous. It's a legal decaration of God in which He proclaims the believing sinner perfectly righteous based on the doing and dying of Christ.

(b) The gospel is only justification. The moment one "believes" in Christ, His righteousness is imputed. Nothing must be added to this.

(c) Under no circumstances can be permited any subjective experience as part of justification by faith. It is soley a legal (or forensic) declaration. Any attempt to include the new birth (regeneration) is strongly opposed.

(d) Unlike justification, sanctification is never by faith alone, but also involves the believer's own efforts and works. Also, Christ's human nature had to be sinless or His performance would have been marred and He would have been a sinner in need of a Saviour.
------------------------------------

Unfortunately the evangelical fails to distinguish between the legal justification established for all men in the doing and dying of Christ (Rom. 3:23, 24; 5:18, the "good news" of the gospel), and justification by faith, which includes the believers "heartfelt" response created in the hearer by the preaching of Christ crucified.

Because the legal acquital accomplished for all men in Christ is not distinguished from justifcation by faith, the evangelical gospel also fails to present a correct relationship between justification by faith and the new birth. That which was prepared for "all men" in Christ becomes valid to the believing sinner only when he experiences the new birth. It is never that we are justified "because" of our faith. Never does the scripture say so. Faith is only an instrument through which Christ's life is received.

While it is true that sanctification in no way contributes to the righteousness which saves the believer, it must be remembered that sanctification is making real in the believer's life what has already been prepared for him in justification--that is, total obedience to the law.

One of the most puzzling beliefs of evangelicals is that Christ had a sinless nature, a mere cousin of the teaching of the immaculate conception. Christ actually did assume our sinful nature, yet without sinning. This belief is essential in understanding that Christ not only condemned the acts of sin but the sin problem itself which is the principle in our members (the law of sin and death). Romans 7 through 8:4. Christ had to condemn sin in the same flesh we have, otherwise He could not be our Saviour from sin.

I am not a "traditionalist" either. The problem I have observed, because of the tremendous legalism within the church, many have taken an extreme swing to the other side, not balancing justification and sanctification in the light of the gospel.

This is by no means condemnation but simply some concepts to coider for discussion. (Gal. 6:3).

blessings,
John

thanks for your reply, not exactly whta I was looking for

[HeisNear]

thanks for your reply, not exactly whta I was looking for

Dear Brother,
Just for christian courtesy sake you can share with me what you're looking for. Oh, how often I've been looking for something and God brought me something else that I wasn't looking for.
blessings in Christ,
John S.

[freeindeed2]

i am not sure you would quallify as an Evanglical Adventist.. It seem you are a main line traditional adventist, at least by the post you quote. do you except the wrightings of EGW? and do you belive in the investigative judgement? how many contempoary non-sda spiritual books have you read? i've been told you don't believe in adventism and then you quote very traditioanls views. could you expline what you postion is?
I believe his position has changed significantly since he posted that in November of last year. "AT" also posts over on CARM on the SDA forums.

[HeisNear]

i am not sure you would quallify as an Evanglical Adventist.. It seem you are a main line traditional adventist, at least by the post you quote. do you except the wrightings of EGW? and do you belive in the investigative judgement? how many contempoary non-sda spiritual books have you read? i've been told you don't believe in adventism and then you quote very traditioanls views. could you expline what you postion is?

Greetings,
I believe when it comes to an understanding of "traditional Adventism" it would be a matter of your own definition through your own peer group and community consensus. I do not consider myself evangelical or a traditional Adventist. I do believe that God has always sent messengers to his church that are highly recognized, but are highly criticized, nothing new under the sun. We don't like reproof, it goes to the heart of our massive ego. I love Jesus, but .... A thought that strikes my own heart indeed!

I suppose we are all entitled to come up with our own definition of what a "traditionalist" is unless you can find evidence in the BIBLE that you have some true annointed definition that God ascribes to.

Since you have given your "opinion" let me give you mine. So I suppose neither one of us have a leg to stand on since our words mean nothing and God's words mean everything. Gal. 6:3. We think our opinions are worth so much that once we have concluded something it must stand forever as the final authority. How smug WE are. May we get on our knees and beg for mercy. We are rich and increased with goods, O Lord, save us from our self-justification and fall on our faces.

My worthless opinion is that traditional righteousness by faith is the preaching of the law, the law, and the law, without grace and mercy, pre-1888, if you will.

It's interesting to note that the evangelical gospel is bad news for the suffering sinner. It demands that you take the initiative for your own salvation. By the way, that is also the traditional view. It's called arminianism.

The better good news is that Christ actually acomplished something for every single human being on this planet. He actually had to TAKE our sinful nature (Romans 8:1-4) in order to redeem us. The evangelical world cannot accept this premise and hang on to a cousin of the immaculate conception.

I did not grow up in the Adventist church so I'm not subjected to the peer pressure and community consensus of cultural Adventism as so many are. May we free ourselves from our own opinionated traditions and come in line with God's word. Yes, I believe in a judgment, don't you? Yes, I believe that EGW was used by God, don't you?

I don't believe the majority of evangelicals when they say that Christ really didn't die on the cross, but went to heaven to collect his reward. To them, it was only a physical death of 33 years. They have no clue that it was an eternal death. The equivelant of the second death, that's the wages of sin He had to endure. The mortality of the soul has a deeper meaning than the cold doctrine that we go to sleep when we die. It has to do with the very cross of Christ and gospel we preach. Why would I want to read nonsda authors that will charm you, make good and clever sayings to become enchanted with and then turn around a give you a evil grin telling you how decieved I am. Let's grow up, shall we?

I was in a coma for over 30 days not long ago and had all these great controversy dreams. That's right, don't let anyone ever tell you that someone in a coma has nothing going on inside the brain. I was homeless in my early years for four years and stumbled upon a book called The Great Controversy and two weeks later I met my first Adventist by "accident." What I'm so tired of is all the smug intellectuals that think they know everything. It usually means they were born into the church and have never ever had a "born again" experience. A heart melting manifestaion of the love of God. May we be willing to learn something new from someone else. I've had to change my positions constantly as I have gotten on my knees and pleaded for truth as He lead me into the church I believe Jesus will lead me all the way to heaven. Let's go together, shall we? Perhaps God is speaking straight talk to you today.

In Christ,
John

[icedragon101]

Dear Brother,
Just for christian courtesy sake you can share with me what you're looking for. Oh, how often I've been looking for something and God brought me something else that I wasn't looking for.
blessings in Christ,
John S.

Take traditional Adventism

- Ellen white. + jesus as only source of authority
- the investigative judgement, but keep 2300 day prophecy + new interpation
- SDA chruch as the remnant,+ special purpose of SDA chruch in stead of exclusive remnant.
+ emphisize the need to be born again and personal relationship with God
+ discipleship emphisis on christian living and way of life.
+ concern for recreating the kingdom of God on this earth, i.e. ministry to the poor the suffering

that will give you Evanglical Adventism

[DrStupid_Ben]

I think that you might not be speaking for everyone who calls themself evangelical. Designations of belief are quite fluid these days.

[icedragon101]

I think that you might not be speaking for everyone who calls themself evangelical. Designations of belief are quite fluid these days. I never clamed to speak for every one, but what would you add or change or substract?

There are other postions

progressives
Liberals

[DrStupid_Ben]

I understand.

I think that instead of the defining factors of an evangelical being the variations of doctrinal beliefs (which are secondary issues), it is really a case of the general approach to religion.
For example, there is something quite universal about fundamentalists, that reaches further than the particular doctrines. For example, there are doctrinal dissagreements between fund. Baptists and fund. Adventist (most notably the Sabbath), however, they are both fundamentalist groups.

In relation to Adventism (which is the context to which you are refering, I think) there is still difference in the surface beliefs of evangelical adventists, but they all have the characteristics of an evangelical. One example could be my lecturers at college. I would say that most of them are evangelical and they all exhibit the same approach to religion, however there are some subtle differences in their surface beliefs.

An evangelical adventist could very well hold a belief in the investigative judgement (as in the 28 fundamentals).

By the way, I think your last three points are spot on:thumbsup:
+ emphisize the need to be born again and personal relationship with God
+ discipleship emphisis on christian living and way of life.
+ concern for recreating the kingdom of God on this earth, i.e. ministry to the poor the suffering
ideally, these should be characteristics of any Christian

[icedragon101]

I understand.

I think that instead of the defining factors of an evangelical being the variations of doctrinal beliefs (which are secondary issues), it is really a case of the general approach to religion.
For example, there is something quite universal about fundamentalists, that reaches further than the particular doctrines. For example, there are doctrinal dissagreements between fund. Baptists and fund. Adventist (most notably the Sabbath), however, they are both fundamentalist groups.

In relation to Adventism (which is the context to which you are refering, I think) there is still difference in the surface beliefs of evangelical adventists, but they all have the characteristics of an evangelical. One example could be my lecturers at college. I would say that most of them are evangelical and they all exhibit the same approach to religion, however there are some subtle differences in their surface beliefs.

An evangelical adventist could very well hold a belief in the investigative judgement (as in the 28 fundamentals).

By the way, I think your last three points are spot on:thumbsup:

ideally, these should be characteristics of any Christian
ding ding ding we have a winner. You have absloutely nailed it on the head. it is an approch to things. it includes doctrinal differences but usually those differences are rooded in the apporoach. nicely said.

[icedragon101]

hum

[icedragon101]

the approach to things that fundamentalist, conservative liberals and progressives all have in common is a mind set. the beliefs define them. with Evanglicals the belief are a means to an experience/ encounter. the beliefs help us with the encounter. if the beliefs get in the way of the encounter Get rid of the belief. Beliefs about God are not the end only the road map to the ene. if we have the wrong directions turn around and go the right direction. no biggie. I am not locked into my beliefs, I am locked into my encounter. Incomplete or wrong beliefs take away from the experience, distort it, pollute it and destroy it so dumping them is a good thing not a bad thing.

[icedragon101]

Upon reflection thee are 2 way we are using the term Evanglical Adventist

1. as mentiontined earlier a general approach to faith. The evanglical seekes to encounter God. The need to be born again is a prerequiset.

2. The second way is to define a teaching difference.


Historics(fundimentalist)
traditional Adventisim
+human nature of christ
+cermonial Law in Galataion
+Remenant chruch
+6000 year creation of earth
+ Sabbath Seal of God
+2300 in 1844 jesus enter heavenly sancturay begin review records
+ visble 2nd coming

Conservatives (traditional Adventist)

Take traditional Adventisim
+divine nature of christ
+ law in Galatains 10 commandment
+Remenant chruch
+6000 year creation of earth
+ Sabbath Seal of God
+2300 in 1844 jesus enter heavenly sancturay begin review records
+ plus visible 2nd coming

Evanglical Adventism
take traditional Adventisim
+human nature of christ
+cermonial Law in Galataion
-Remnant chruch + special purpose
+6000 year creation of earth
+ Sabbath confirmation of eden,sancitatifation and promise of future rest at 2nd coming
+2300 in 1844 , something important but IJ lacks support
+ visible second coming

Progressives
take traditional Adventisim
? nature of christ?
+ Law in Galataion 10 commandment
-Remenant chruch
?6000 year creation of earth(unknown)?
+ Sabbath I am uncertian about their view on sabbath
+2300 in 1844 jesus enter heavenly sancturay begin review records
+ 6th centuary date for daniel, but antiocus little horn of daniel 8

Liberal
take traditional Adventisim
+human nature of christ
+cermonial Law in Galataion ? unknown
-Remenant chruch
-6000 year creation of earth
-Sabbath Seal of God
-2300 in 1844 jesus enter heavenly sancturay begin review recoc
+2nd second centrary dating of book of daniel and anticous little horn
- life style

[Sophia7]

I don't think these categories can be defined so rigidly by these beliefs. Also, when you mention the human or divine nature of Christ, are you speaking of the prelapsarian/postlapsarian controversy? I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.

[icedragon101]

[QUOTE]I d on't think these categories can be defined so rigidly by these beliefs. I know your belifes are flux right now as are mine, but there are catagories. Before you were a traditionalist and those were defined, now you are a progressive as I, but I do think these are only geneal catagories .

Also, when you mention the human or divine nature of Christ, are you speaking of the prelapsarian/postlapsarian controversy? I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine. historics are post lapsaren, or post fall nature and most traditionalist and Evanglicals are pre lapse or pre fall nature.

[icedragon101]

I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.[/quote] care to explain how that works

[HeisNear]

I don't think these categories can be defined so rigidly by these beliefs. Also, when you mention the human or divine nature of Christ, are you speaking of the prelapsarian/postlapsarian controversy? I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.

To all who read this,
Please forgive me, I was over the top in my earlier post. It was unruly behavior on my part.

Both Jones and Waggoner taught that the idea that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall is a legacy of Roman Catholicism, for them a fulfillment of the warning the apostle John writes in 1 John 4:1-3 about Antichrist. The onlly flesh there is in this world that Christ could "take" is the same fallen, sinful flesh that all of us posess by nature. He could not be "exempt" as the RH holds up in their publications.

Christ Jesus lived by faith in our sinful flesh. That makes Him the Author and Finisher of our faith. Hence, a people can be prepared for the second coming of
Christ, because it will be the "faith OF Jesus."

Christ was born of a virgin mother, through the process of human generation. Paul does not say that He was re-created from the ground as a replica of sinless Adam, but was "made ... according to the flesh." Questions on Doctrine claims that Christ had a "sinless nature."

He "took not on Him the nature of angels: but He took on Him the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16). The text does not say that He had to be made like unto His sinless brother Adam.

Many say to this issue, "Who cares, as long as we love Jesus." Tell that to the drug addict, the emotionally and physically abused, the alcoholic.

Waggoner makes the following statement which has been most encouraging to me:

"His being made in all things like unto His brethren, is the same as His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, “made in the likeness of men.” One of the most encouraging things in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on Him the nature of men; to know that His ancestors according to the flesh were sinners. When we read the record of the lives of the ancestors of Christ, and see that they had all the weaknesses and passions that we have, we find that no man has any right to excuse his sinful acts on the ground of heredity. If Christ had not been made in all things like unto His brethren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us. We might look at it with admiration, but it would be the admiration that would cause hopeless despair.
And now as another parallel to Gal. 4:4, and a further source of encouragement to us, I will quote,
2 Cor. 5:21: “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”
Now when was Jesus made sin for us? It must have been when He was made flesh, and began to suffer the temptations and infirmities that are incident to sinful flesh. He passed through every phase of human experience, being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isa. 53:4); and this scripture is said by Matthew to have been fulfilled long before the crucifixion. So I say that His being born under the law was {62} a necessary consequence of His being born in the likeness of sinful flesh, of taking upon Himself the nature of Abraham. He was made like man, in order that He might undergo the suffering of death. From the earliest childhood the cross was ever before Him.
4. You say, “That He did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but He was not born under its condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say that He was born under the condemnation of the law.”
It may be a perversion of theology, but it is exactly in harmony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you not see that your objection lies as much against your position as it does against mine? You are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What! had He then committed sin? Not by any means. Well, then, if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one time in His life, and be sinless, I see no reason why He could not be under the condemnation of the law at another time, and still be sinless. And Paul declares that God did make Him to be sin for us.
I simply give Scripture facts; I don’t attempt to explain them. “Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.” I cannot understand how God could be manifest in the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh. I do not know how the pure and holy Saviour could endure all the infirmities of humanity, which are the result of sin, and be reckoned as a sinner, and suffer the death of a sinner. I simply accept the Scripture statement, that only so could He be the Saviour of men; and I rejoice in that knowledge, because since He was made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in Him" (Waggoner, The Gospel in the Book of Galatians).

blessings,
John

[HeisNear]

I don't think these categories can be defined so rigidly by these beliefs. Also, when you mention the human or divine nature of Christ, are you speaking of the prelapsarian/postlapsarian controversy? I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.

Greetings,

Sorry for the length of the post, but I believe you'll find it of great interest.

A Letter written by S.N. Haskell to Ellen White September 25, 1900 regarding the false teachings of the "holy flesh movement" in Indiana.

"It is the greatest mixture of fanaticism in the truth that I have ever seen. I would not claim that we managed it the best way in everything. ... But when we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, not withstanding the fact we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us. ... Their point of theology in this particular respect seems to be this: They believe that Christ took Adam's nature before He fell; so He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden; and thus humanity was holy, and this was the humanity which Christ had ..."

One week later, on Oct 2, Haskell wrote an editorial in the Review and Herald entitled "Christ in Holy Flesh, or A Holy Christ in sinful Flesh.

Two months later A. T. Jones wrote a series of articles in the Review entitled, "The faith of Jesus." They began Dec. 11, 1900 and continued until Jan. 29, 1901. His articles, and editorials about Christ's human nature, became the basis for his book about Christ in Hebrews: The Consecrated Way, which I highly recommend.

Donnell, president of the Indiana Conference, countered Jones by writing his own article entitled The Faith of Jesus in the Indiana Reporter. Donnell presented Christ with Adam's unfallen nature.

"He (Jesus) must possess that which He offers us, ... He must come standing where Adam, the first owner, stood before he fell" (Indiana Reporter, Article One, p. 4.)

Ellen White responed to S. N. Haskell regarding Indiana's holy flesh movement.

"The things you have described as taking place in Indiana, the Lord has shown me would take place just before the close of probation. ...the Lord showed me that erroneous theories and methods would be brought into our camp meetings, and the history of the past would be repeated. I felt greatly distressed. The third angel's message is to be given in straight lines. It is to be kept free from every thread of the cheap, miserable inventions of man's theories, prepared by the father of lies, and disguised as was the brilliant serpent used by Satan as a medium of deceiving our first parents" (EGW, 21 MR).

It is of special interest to note Ellen White's strongest statements on the nature of Christ came during the time of the holy flesh movement. She wrote that He took "the offending nature of man," a a nature "degraded and defiled by sin," "the nature of Adam, the transgressor."
"In Christ were united the divine and the human--the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus, ... Coming as He did , as a man, to meet and be subjected with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, working in every conceivable manner to destroy His faith" (EGW, Letter K-303, 1903, emphasis added).

The end will not come until a complete restoration of the Gospel will be proclaimed (Matt. 24:14).

"He [Jesus Christ] did not take the likeness of man just as Adam was before he fell, but He came down to the very plane to which man had fallen .. and took upon Himself the flesh of sin, and came to this earth 'that He might bring us to God.'" Prescott, RH, 01-1896

"...for it is sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden; and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is , that the flesh which He assumed had all the weakneses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is show by the statement that He 'was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.' David had all the passions of human nature." (Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness).

For the most part, the Adventist Church has always believed that Christ was divine and human, so does the Catholic church.

"We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not ... Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary? ... It is so strange that it takes us so long to come to the A B C's of the gospel" (Waggoner)

"We are too apt to view truths as a whole, and see only the surface, when, if we would ponder them, pray over them, and put to the stretch every mental power, we understand; for God would give us wisdom, as he did to Daniel. Our spiritual senses would be quickened to understand the deep things of God" (EGW, 02-11-1897).

"His human nature was created; ... It was human, identical with our own. He was passing over the ground where Adam fell. ... He would redeem Adam's desgraceful failure and fall, in our own humanity" (EGW, 6 MR 111, 1893).

It is my firm belief that Christ "took" our fallen nature, the nature of Adam after the fall. The other view is simply a regurgitation of the holy flesh movement and in the same family of the Immaculate Conception. May we "believe" in the better good news of the gospel of Jesus.

blessing in Christ,
John

[icedragon101]

To all who read this,
Please forgive me, I was over the top in my earlier post. It was unruly behavior on my part.

Both Jones and Waggoner taught that the idea that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall is a legacy of Roman Catholicism, for them a fulfillment of the warning the apostle John writes in 1 John 4:1-3 about Antichrist. The onlly flesh there is in this world that Christ could "take" is the same fallen, sinful flesh that all of us posess by nature. He could not be "exempt" as the RH holds up in their publications.

Christ Jesus lived by faith in our sinful flesh. That makes Him the Author and Finisher of our faith. Hence, a people can be prepared for the second coming of
Christ, because it will be the "faith OF Jesus."

Christ was born of a virgin mother, through the process of human generation. Paul does not say that He was re-created from the ground as a replica of sinless Adam, but was "made ... according to the flesh." Questions on Doctrine claims that Christ had a "sinless nature."

He "took not on Him the nature of angels: but He took on Him the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16). The text does not say that He had to be made like unto His sinless brother Adam.

Many say to this issue, "Who cares, as long as we love Jesus." Tell that to the drug addict, the emotionally and physically abused, the alcoholic.

Waggoner makes the following statement which has been most encouraging to me:

"His being made in all things like unto His brethren, is the same as His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, “made in the likeness of men.” One of the most encouraging things in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on Him the nature of men; to know that His ancestors according to the flesh were sinners. When we read the record of the lives of the ancestors of Christ, and see that they had all the weaknesses and passions that we have, we find that no man has any right to excuse his sinful acts on the ground of heredity. If Christ had not been made in all things like unto His brethren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us. We might look at it with admiration, but it would be the admiration that would cause hopeless despair.
And now as another parallel to Gal. 4:4, and a further source of encouragement to us, I will quote,
2 Cor. 5:21: “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”
Now when was Jesus made sin for us? It must have been when He was made flesh, and began to suffer the temptations and infirmities that are incident to sinful flesh. He passed through every phase of human experience, being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isa. 53:4); and this scripture is said by Matthew to have been fulfilled long before the crucifixion. So I say that His being born under the law was {62} a necessary consequence of His being born in the likeness of sinful flesh, of taking upon Himself the nature of Abraham. He was made like man, in order that He might undergo the suffering of death. From the earliest childhood the cross was ever before Him.
4. You say, “That He did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but He was not born under its condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say that He was born under the condemnation of the law.”
It may be a perversion of theology, but it is exactly in harmony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you not see that your objection lies as much against your position as it does against mine? You are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What! had He then committed sin? Not by any means. Well, then, if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one time in His life, and be sinless, I see no reason why He could not be under the condemnation of the law at another time, and still be sinless. And Paul declares that God did make Him to be sin for us.
I simply give Scripture facts; I don’t attempt to explain them. “Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.” I cannot understand how God could be manifest in the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh. I do not know how the pure and holy Saviour could endure all the infirmities of humanity, which are the result of sin, and be reckoned as a sinner, and suffer the death of a sinner. I simply accept the Scripture statement, that only so could He be the Saviour of men; and I rejoice in that knowledge, because since He was made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in Him" (Waggoner, The Gospel in the Book of Galatians).

blessings,
John post 24 and 25 why are they posted here?

[HeisNear]

post 24 and 25 why are they posted here?

Good question. It has everything do with the difference between an evangelical position and a conservative one. It goes deeper than just opinions and man made statements. It goes to the very heart of the misunderstanding concerning the worldwide Christendom belief system of the Evangelicals.

Thanks for your conern,
John

[icedragon101]

Good question. It has everything do with the difference between an evangelical position and a conservative one. It goes deeper than just opinions and man made statements. It goes to the very heart of the misunderstanding concerning the worldwide Christendom belief system of the Evangelicals.

Thanks for your conern,
John

yes we know there is difference between the 2 groups, but this post is not about theology. At least in the manner in which you wish to speak of it. If you are wanting to start a thread on that subject then feel free to do so, but please stay on topic here. I think it would be a good discussion to have

[HeisNear]

yes we know there is difference between the 2 groups, but this post is not about theology. At least in the manner in which you wish to speak of it. If you are wanting to start a thread on that subject then feel free to do so, but please stay on topic here. I think it would be a good discussion to have

Thanks, I relent.

[RC_NewProtestants]

historics are post lapsaren, or post fall nature and most traditionalist and Evanglicals are pre lapse or pre fall nature.

Why does this even matter, if Jesus never sinned what does it matter if he had a nature of Adam whatever that was or the nature of everyone else. Even if one believed in Adam as a literal man who had a prefall nature it did not stop him from sinning and there is no indication that his nature changed after sinning any way.

If God became incarnate and lived as a human would he not still be God? If He is God then would He not also have the nature of God?

There is only one reason I can see for this argument in the Adventist church and that is because there are last generation perfection people who want to say we can be just as perfect as Jesus Christ. Which is kind of silly because even if we could get to such perfection we will have still sinned before our perfection and thus we would not be like Jesus.

[icedragon101]

Why does this even matter, if Jesus never sinned what does it matter if he had a nature of Adam whatever that was or the nature of everyone else. Even if one believed in Adam as a literal man who had a prefall nature it did not stop him from sinning and there is no indication that his nature changed after sinning any way.

If God became incarnate and lived as a human would he not still be God? If He is God then would He not also have the nature of God?

There is only one reason I can see for this argument in the Adventist church and that is because there are last generation perfection people who want to say we can be just as perfect as Jesus Christ. Which is kind of silly because even if we could get to such perfection we will have still sinned before our perfection and thus we would not be like Jesus. you seem to have a decent undersatnd of the situation. Last generation theology is part of the problem. It leads to legalism. If christ did it so can I. there is no need to be born again. There is the obvious problem of Christ being exactly like us, if that is the case then how can he be our saviour?? HOw is he God? there has to be something in him that is divine and they don't deal with that. He has to be like us enough to understand us and enough different to save us.

[Sophia7]

I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.care to explain how that works

The issue isn't whether Jesus was human or divine, as your list (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33065263&postcount=20) implied when you specified whether those groups believe in the "human nature of Christ" or the "divine nature of Christ." The issue of pre-lapsarian vs. post-lapsarian has to do with what kind of human nature Jesus had. That's why I said that most Adventists would agree that He was both divine and human; what the different groups disagree on is whether He had a pre-fall or post-fall human nature. I just wanted to clarify your wording on that so that no one would misunderstand.

[Sophia7]

Those who take the post-fall view definitely seem to do so in order to emphasize Jesus as our example in overcoming sin (it fits nicely with the tenets of Last Generation Theology), to the criticism of those on the opposite side, who think that this view minimizes His role as our Savior.

[icedragon101]

ok sophia you got me

[icedragon101]

with all these differen groups, Should we start a New Denomination? or should we stay with the SDA chruch.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I think that there can be unity in diversity. One thing to say about all the different groups is that they are all identifiable as SDA's. There is a common thread running through us all. Let's not give up on the things we all share.

[icedragon101]

I think that there can be unity in diversity. One thing to say about all the different groups is that they are all identifiable as SDA's. There is a common thread running through us all. Let's not give up on the things we all share.
yes i agree. how ever I think the denomination needs to reckogiznie more fully the diversity. i have been toying with the idea of starting my own fourm. for Evanglical Adventists. , ot progressive or liberals, not historics, or conservatives., but Evanglical Adventist. I want to give a more formal voice.

[DrStupid_Ben]

It would be great if we had a church that truly recognises and validates that sort of diversity, and gives a voice to all people. That is how I think we should achieve unity in diversity.

[icedragon101]

what do you think about theweb site

[RC_NewProtestants]

Sound like a good idea, if you have visited Adventist blogs (you can find a good list on my blog ) http://cafesda.blogspot.com/
you will see that the majority are actually progressive Adventists so there is a good representation there. But another discussion forum would be useful.

I don't like the term Evangelical anymore as it is often equivalent to Fundamentalist in today's world and it also carries a connotation that only the penal/substitutionary atonement is the only possible view.

I would guess that the reason the Progressive SDA forum here gets less use is because most progressive are more troubled by the restrictive views of the Traditional so they get the most attention in the topics. For instance the progressives SDA's are not going to get all excited about did Jesus have a prefall or post fall nature. It is a non issue. The sabbath is more important for the restoration of people then for what day someone finds their rest. So it is not a big issue in the main, certainly not compared to the attention the sabbath gets whenever mentioned on the Traditional forums. The emphasis between the progressive and the traditional is really quite different.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I like the idea of the website, and I would join.

I have a question for you guys. Where would you say that Adventism as a whole stands in regards to these categories?

I would like to see Adventists (and Evangelicals) as being a middle of the road thing. We didn't quite fit in with the rest of the fundamentalists in the 20's, and we certainly didn't fit in with the liberals as well. I think that Adventists have struggled finding that middle ground at times, because you get attacked from both sides.

[icedragon101]

Sound like a good idea, if you have visited Adventist blogs (you can find a good list on my blog ) http://cafesda.blogspot.com/
you will see that the majority are actually progressive Adventists so there is a good representation there. But another discussion forum would be useful.

I don't like the term Evangelical anymore as it is often equivalent to Fundamentalist in today's world and it also carries a connotation that only the penal/substitutionary atonement is the only possible view.

I would guess that the reason the Progressive SDA forum here gets less use is because most progressive are more troubled by the restrictive views of the Traditional so they get the most attention in the topics. For instance the progressives SDA's are not going to get all excited about did Jesus have a prefall or post fall nature. It is a non issue. The sabbath is more important for the restoration of people then for what day someone finds their rest. So it is not a big issue in the main, certainly not compared to the attention the sabbath gets whenever mentioned on the Traditional forums. The emphasis between the progressive and the traditional is really quite different.
thanks for the input. I am not partial to the term progressive to much baggage. it mean anythinge from those who mildly disagree, tho those who are full blown humanist. to vague and nebulas. i favor Evanglica, but I have to disagree eith th fundementalist association. When I think of evanglical I think of those seeking a perosnal relationship with God and the need to be born again. I thin it is a good way to still emphaisize the protastant Mllerite connection.

[Sophia7]

Sound like a good idea, if you have visited Adventist blogs (you can find a good list on my blog ) http://cafesda.blogspot.com/
you will see that the majority are actually progressive Adventists so there is a good representation there. But another discussion forum would be useful.

I don't like the term Evangelical anymore as it is often equivalent to Fundamentalist in today's world and it also carries a connotation that only the penal/substitutionary atonement is the only possible view.

I would guess that the reason the Progressive SDA forum here gets less use is because most progressive are more troubled by the restrictive views of the Traditional so they get the most attention in the topics. For instance the progressives SDA's are not going to get all excited about did Jesus have a prefall or post fall nature. It is a non issue. The sabbath is more important for the restoration of people then for what day someone finds their rest. So it is not a big issue in the main, certainly not compared to the attention the sabbath gets whenever mentioned on the Traditional forums. The emphasis between the progressive and the traditional is really quite different.

We used to have a lot more progressives here, but most of them left. A lot of it had to do with tension between the traditional Adventists and others.

[icedragon101]

Sophia& do you think we should start a new chruch?

How about a website?

[Sophia7]

Sophia& do you think we should start a new chruch?

How about a website?

I don't know. I wish there were room in the Adventist Church for those who don't agree with all 28 fundamentals, but we have in effect made them into a creed; officially, they have to be affirmed before baptism (even though a lot of people are baptized without actually agreeing with all of them). I know there are Adventists who have issues with them and who choose to stay in the church, but they would be ostracized in many of our churches if they were vocal about their views. I wonder what would happen if everyone who disagreed with the IJ or EGW or whatever started discussing these things openly. I don't think the church wants to acknowledge how widespread these disagreements are within their ranks. Would they finally have to confront the real issues, or would they continue to bury their head in the sand and get rid of the dissenters? If the church is teaching truth, it will stand the test of investigation. If not, shouldn't we be willing to cast off the errors and move on?

I'm not really in favor of striking out on our own and starting a new church either. It would be easy to go off on a tangent and begin teaching questionable doctrines, removed from the authority of an established church body.

A website may be a good idea, though.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Speaking of Baptismal vows, I put a post on my blog about the 2000 edition of them. I could agree with 2 without modification, there is one there that is crazy, you could not be a cashier in a grocery store if you made that vow because you would might be selling alcoholic beverages.
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2007/03/review-of-baptismal-vow.html

[Sophia7]

I agree with you that many of the baptismal vows far overreach biblical principles, and I would have to disagree with many of them now as well (especially the all-encompassing #11). I was baptized at age 10 and was never even asked to affirm a list like that (although I would have had no objection to it then). The Adventist idea of what's required for baptism is far different from the NT practice.

[RC_NewProtestants]

It is also very much dependent upon the pastor. My daughter was baptized maybe 5 years ago and he did not ever give her the baptizmal vows. He is a very good guy. He also made the whole service about her baptism, she chose the songs etc. It was really nice for her and something I wish more pastors would consider.

[icedragon101]

what baptizimal vows would suggest and support?

[Sophia7]

It is also very much dependent upon the pastor. My daughter was baptized maybe 5 years ago and he did not ever give her the baptizmal vows. He is a very good guy. He also made the whole service about her baptism, she chose the songs etc. It was really nice for her and something I wish more pastors would consider.

My husband doesn't ask people if they accept all of the vows when he baptizes them. He especially doesn't make them answer each question publicly, as I've seen in some churches. Sometimes he will have them give a testimony about how they met Jesus, if they feel comfortable sharing it.

[Sophia7]

what baptizimal vows would suggest and support?

I would like to see them simplified and not so Adventist-specific. However, I realize that that will never happen because the church wants to baptize people into the denomination and not just into Christ.

[freeindeed2]

I would like to see them simplified and not so Adventist-specific. However, I realize that that will never happen because the church wants to baptize people into the denomination and not just into Christ.
You are absolutely right.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Icedragon, do have familarity with some of the discussion forum software. How much website space or traffic allowance the forum would need etc.

[icedragon101]

Icedragon, do have familarity with some of the discussion forum software. How much website space or traffic allowance the forum would need etc.
No i don't know about that I am aware of the term pphb., but thats it, the idea is in it's infancy.

[DrStupid_Ben]

Well, icedragon, definately let us know when the idea grows!

[icedragon101]

Well, icedragon, definately let us know when the idea grows! i don't know what to do, to start and I don't how much time it takes, i really don't want to do it alone. i think i need a team of about 5 to start Ideally I'd like 10, but 5 i think would do it.

here is what I would need to do

1. assemble team
2. hash out beliefs how are we different, how are we the same.
3. establish some Goal. what do we want to do with it.
4. devlope policies
5. develope a marketing plan and recruting stratey.
6. logo
7. set up a fourm, my space, website, tripod.
8 . talk about financing
9. anything else??

[tall73]

My husband doesn't ask people if they accept all of the vows when he baptizes them. He especially doesn't make them answer each question publicly, as I've seen in some churches. Sometimes he will have them give a testimony about how they met Jesus, if they feel comfortable sharing it.

Actually this is not true :) Makes me wonder whether you have been paying attention!

If they are willing they do a testimony. But I have read the vows publicly a number of times and have them agree.

[tall73]

Icedragon, do have familarity with some of the discussion forum software. How much website space or traffic allowance the forum would need etc.

I have offered to set up a simple forum for Icedragon.

You can get a free discussion forum, ad-driven, from invision free.

Or you could go to the free forumer phpbb board.

The only cost then would be registering a domain name, and I have checked out a few. Yahoo will do it for about 9 bucks a year.

The other option is to pony up for some web hosting and some of them include forum modules.

Then you have more control of your database, full control panel access, etc.

As to marketing it is mainly submitting to search engines etc. and you could do google ads if you really wanted to drive traffic.

[Sophia7]

Actually this is not true :) Makes me wonder whether you have been paying attention!

If they are willing they do a testimony. But I have read the vows publicly a number of times and have them agree.

I didn't say that you've never done it. ;) But you haven't been doing it lately.

[tall73]

I guess we have had more vocal folks lately :)

The last one to be baptized had a great testimony, so hard to pass that up.

[Sophia7]

I guess we have had more vocal folks lately :)

The last one to be baptized had a great testimony, so hard to pass that up.

Yes, that's true. :)

[icedragon101]

I was thinking about what an evenglical adventist was and this is what I came up with

Think of it this way.

and evanglical adventist is and that hold to the views of william miller but cannot accept that the 2300 day ended with the investigative judgement and they cannot accept egw as a prophet? other then that they are basicly the same.

[Sophia7]

I can't be an evangelical Adventist then, I guess. I don't hold many views in common with William Miller. ;)

[icedragon101]

what do you do with th 2300 days? i don't agree with the Ij, but i think the day for a year is sound.

[Sophia7]

I don't agree with applying the "day-for-a-year principle" to Daniel 8:14 (and you don't even need it to get 490 years out of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9). It doesn't fit the context of Daniel 8 to extend it to 1844 or to apply it to a judgment of God's people. Daniel 8 involves a judgment of the little horn; it has nothing to do with a cleansing of the sins of the people from the heavenly sanctuary.

Besides that, one of the purposes of prophecy is to give people confidence in God when they see what has been predicted come to pass. Other OT prophecies gave His people assurance of His sovereignty when they saw earthly governments rise and fall just as He said. They also give Christians faith in Jesus' claim to be the promised Messiah. However, nothing happened in 1844 that we can point to with any degree of credibility to most Christians. We have taken the word of some guy who had a revelation in a cornfield and have built a whole theology and an identity around it, incorporating Miller's proof-texting methods rather than sound exegesis. Our arguments have become more sophisticated over time in order to answer the objections of the critics, but the fact remains that the foundation of this doctrine is still flimsy.

The Adventist claim about what happened in heaven on October 22, 1844, is unprovable and unsupportable from the Bible alone. It depends on the writings of Ellen White and a string of assumptions and texts taken out of context. I believe that the Adventist view of the antitypical Day of Atonement actually contradicts Levitical typology and the book of Hebrews.

So what purpose would 1844 serve? Some argue that it was not the primary fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 but that it still had some significance in that God used it to raise up the Adventist movement. Certainly, I believe that God has brought about much good in spite of some error. However, if this foundational doctrine is unbiblical, then I don't see how our incorrect interpretation of this prophecy can be any kind of fulfillment of it.

[RC_NewProtestants]

and evanglical adventist is and that hold to the views of william miller but cannot accept that the 2300 day ended with the investigative judgement and they cannot accept egw as a prophet? other then that they are basicly the same.

I am pretty good at history but if you asked me what Miller believed on a wide range of Christian doctrines I could not tell you. So I don't think the above would be a good illustration to anyone even if it was accurate which I don't think it is. By the way there are progressive Adventists who do accept EGW as a prophet. Though their definition of a prophet may not be the traditional definition. I personally don't like that method as words do have meanings and if people go redefining what they mean by a word it leads to tremendous confusion. I think we could resolve the EGW problem by using her pastorally, which allows her to be wrong.

[Sophia7]

I think that I would rather not be put into any category based on my beliefs. ;) I don't really fit very well into any one subdivision of Adventists right now.

[icedragon101]

I think that I would rather not be put into any category based on my beliefs. ;) I don't really fit very well into any one subdivision of Adventists right now. then create a new catagory? you are areent a full sda, but you are enough,

you are a sabbatarian adventist, not a seventh day adventist. that would better describe you?

[icedragon101]

I don't agree with applying the "day-for-a-year principle" to Daniel 8:14 (and you don't even need it to get 490 years out of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9). It doesn't fit the context of Daniel 8 to extend it to 1844 or to apply it to a judgment of God's people. Daniel 8 involves a judgment of the little horn; it has nothing to do with a cleansing of the sins of the people from the heavenly sanctuary.

Besides that, one of the purposes of prophecy is to give people confidence in God when they see what has been predicted come to pass. Other OT prophecies gave His people assurance of His sovereignty when they saw earthly governments rise and fall just as He said. They also give Christians faith in Jesus' claim to be the promised Messiah. However, nothing happened in 1844 that we can point to with any degree of credibility to most Christians. We have taken the word of some guy who had a revelation in a cornfield and have built a whole theology and an identity around it, incorporating Miller's proof-texting methods rather than sound exegesis. Our arguments have become more sophisticated over time in order to answer the objections of the critics, but the fact remains that the foundation of this doctrine is still flimsy.

The Adventist claim about what happened in heaven on October 22, 1844, is unprovable and unsupportable from the Bible alone. It depends on the writings of Ellen White and a string of assumptions and texts taken out of context. I believe that the Adventist view of the antitypical Day of Atonement actually contradicts Levitical typology and the book of Hebrews.

So what purpose would 1844 serve? Some argue that it was not the primary fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 but that it still had some significance in that God used it to raise up the Adventist movement. Certainly, I believe that God has brought about much good in spite of some error. However, if this foundational doctrine is unbiblical, then I don't see how our incorrect interpretation of this prophecy can be any kind of fulfillment of it. sophia we know you have issues with the 2300 days
, but you never said what to do with it. you gave your objections. to it but never stated what should be done. what is your solution? if not day for a year then what? when does it apply, where do you place it? when does it start when does it end.

[icedragon101]

I am pretty good at history but if you asked me what Miller believed on a wide range of Christian doctrines I could not tell you. So I don't think the above would be a good illustration to anyone even if it was accurate which I don't think it is. By the way there are progressive Adventists who do accept EGW as a prophet. Though their definition of a prophet may not be the traditional definition. I personally don't like that method as words do have meanings and if people go redefining what they mean by a word it leads to tremendous confusion. I think we could resolve the EGW problem by using her pastorally, which allows her to be wrong. i was refereing to the Millers basic prophetic theology. not all of his theology. 2300 day, day for a year, just not the I.J. at the end of the 2300 days.

[icedragon101]

The Adventist claim about what happened in heaven on October 22, 1844, is unprovable and unsupportable from the Bible alone. I[QUOTE]it depends on the writings of Ellen White and a string of assumptions i have to disagree with this statment. i dnot think it is dependant on egw i thing EGW is dependant on the assumptions made in the cornfield and croisers study. Dis prove that and you dis prove EGW.
the purpose was to start the Adventist chruch. don't you know that???

i guess the main objections i have with you post is your rip the 2300 days apart,but never do any thing with it your self. come up with somethig better.

[Sophia7]

sophia we know you have issues with the 2300 days
, but you never said what to do with it. you gave your objections. to it but never stated what should be done. what is your solution? if not day for a year then what? when does it apply, where do you place it? when does it start when does it end.

I haven't figured that out yet for sure.

[Sophia7]

I have to disagree with this statment. i dnot think it is dependant on egw i thing EGW is dependant on the assumptions made in the cornfield and croisers study. Dis prove that and you dis prove EGW.
the purpose was to start the Adventist chruch. don't you know that???

Of course, but the two are really inseparable. And our current understanding of the IJ is firmly rooted in the writings of EGW.

i guess the main objections i have with you post is your rip the 2300 days apart,but never do any thing with it your self. come up with somethig better.

If the Adventist view of Daniel 8:14 is wrong, it's wrong, no matter what you put in its place. The Bible doesn't support it. I'm not completely convinced about any alternative theories, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether the Adventist doctrine is biblical or not.

[icedragon101]

[quote=Sophia7;33836564]Of course, but the two are really inseparable. And our current understanding of the IJ is firmly rooted in the writings of EGW.



If the Adventist view of Daniel 8:14 is wrong, it's wrong, no matter what you put in its place. The Bible doesn't support it. I'm not completely convinced about any alternative theories, but that doesn't have any bearing on w


I think you misunderstand what I am saying. you say 2300 day anre nothing. Iam not convinced about that. i do think the IJ is bogus.

[Sophia7]

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. you say 2300 day anre nothing. Iam not vinvinced about that. i do think the IJ is bogus.

No, I don't think they are nothing. I just disagree with the Adventist interpretation of them. I think they do have a meaning, but I'm not completely sure what it is yet.

Tell me, though, if you think the IJ is bogus, what do you see as the meaning of 1844 and the event that fulfilled the 2300 days?

[RC_NewProtestants]

Probably the best explaination of the 2300 evenings and mornings is that they refer to the period of Time that Antiochus Epiphanes descecrated the temple. It is pretty well accepted by most scholars as referring to that time period and is often even used by those who say the book was written at the time of the desecration.

Prophetically speaking since the early church times people looked at Antiochus Epiphanes as a type of the antichrist still to come.
See http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2006/08/dual-application-of-daniel-antiochus.html

The Adventist interpretation of the 2300 days does not even work, not even a little.

I have asked the following on several forums and still never recieved an answer:

Since in both Dan. 2, 7 and 8 Daniel gives wide ranging prophecies which apparently run from the time of Babylon to the time of the Advent of Christ or the second coming of Christ depending on your view. It is hard to say that Daniel 9 is restricted to the 2300 evenings and mornings, that is, that it is an elaboration on the 2300 days. Clearly that was not what Daniel was concerned with at the start of the chapter or with his prayer as he specifically refers to the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah. If this was written in around the 500's B.C. time period there was no temple.

To assume that the decree to rebuild the temple marks the beginning of the time period where the Temple is desecrated makes no sense at all. Yet this is what our traditional understanding has said. -457 + 2300 = 1843 + the year zero = 1844 So for the 2300 days to stand for the time of the desecration of the temple, the temple has to be desecrated from before it’s construction. If the sanctuary is not the one which Daniel was expecting, i.e. the rebuilt sanctuary of the decree, then the Adventist view has to have the sanctuary in heaven be trampled and desecrated by the little horn from the time of the decree to rebuild the earthly temple. In which case even before Christ came, the heavenly sanctuary would have been desecrated.

So in Adventist terminology from 4 centuries before any knew of the Messiah's work of intercession His work of intercession was being desecrated. During His earthly ministry again his ministry was desecrated and when Christianity spread throughout the world it was all during the time when the sanctuary was being trampled.


As Bill O’Reilly would say, “tell me where I am wrong?”

[icedragon101]

Probably the best explaination of the 2300 evenings and mornings is that they refer to the period of Time that Antiochus Epiphanes descecrated the temple. It is pretty well accepted by most scholars as referring to that time period and is often even used by those who say the book was written at the time of the desecration.

Prophetically speaking since the early church times people looked at Antiochus Epiphanes as a type of the antichrist still to come.
See http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2006/08/dual-application-of-daniel-antiochus.html

The Adventist interpretation of the 2300 days does not even work, not even a little.

I have asked the following on several forums and still never recieved an answer:

Since in both Dan. 2, 7 and 8 Daniel gives wide ranging prophecies which apparently run from the time of Babylon to the time of the Advent of Christ or the second coming of Christ depending on your view. It is hard to say that Daniel 9 is restricted to the 2300 evenings and mornings, that is, that it is an elaboration on the 2300 days. Clearly that was not what Daniel was concerned with at the start of the chapter or with his prayer as he specifically refers to the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah. If this was written in around the 500's B.C. time period there was no temple.
[quote]
To assume that the decree to rebuild the temple marks the beginning of the time period where the Temple is desecrated makes no sense at all.
why doesn't it make sense ? 457 bc is what you are talking aobut.

[Sophia7]

I am leaning toward the view that Daniel 8 and 11 are parallel (with Daniel 11 covering the Greek period in more detail) and that Daniel 8 doesn't extend in time to the end of the world as do Daniel 2 and 7. In other words, Daniel 8 covers only a small portion of time, limited to the Medo-Persian and Greek periods--kind of like a video camera zooming in on that event after showing a broader panoramic view. This would mean that the little-horn power in chapter 7 is different from the little horn in chapter 8. It would also favor the Antiochus Epiphanes interpretation.

However, my main problem with this is that Antiochus' desecration didn't last quite 1150 days (if you halve the 2300 evenings and mornings as is required for this view). If taken as 2300 literal days corresponding to different dates in his campaign against the Jews, it still doesn't quite add up. I've seen some really convoluted answers that tried to explain these discrepancies, but they were not terribly convincing to me. The best answer that people can come up with seems to be that the numbers are not meant to be taken exactly literally (and they make a comparison to the fact that the 70-year captivity of the Jews did not last exactly 70 years either, that the focus was on their theological significance rather than on their precise dating). So I'm not sure what to think about that.

Also, I think that toward the end of Daniel 11, it jumps ahead to the end of time and switches its focus to the last-day antichrist power, which the earlier one prefigured. Scholars who take this view differ on where exactly that point is in the chapter, however.

[RC_NewProtestants]

why doesn't it make sense ? 457 bc is what you are talking aobut.

What do you mean, why doesn't it make sense the 2300 is a reference to how long the little horn power tramples the sanctuary. it is set right after 2300 evening and mornings. That means that it has to be trampled under until it is set right. So if you start at 457 BC then you have to use that as the beginning point of the 2300 and that must be brought about by the little horn at that time.

The problem is that for so long we have used these numbers that we don't even think about what the numbers meant in the book of Daniel.

Daniel8:9 Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. 12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints [a (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=daniel+8&submit=Lookup&display_option=columns&niv=yes#fen-NIV-21974a)] and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground. 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."

[Sophia7]

What do you mean, why doesn't it make sense the 2300 is a reference to how long the little horn power tramples the sanctuary. it is set right after 2300 evening and mornings. That means that it has to be trampled under until it is set right. So if you start at 457 BC then you have to use that as the beginning point of the 2300 and that must be brought about by the little horn at that time.

The problem is that for so long we have used these numbers that we don't even think about what the numbers meant in the book of Daniel.

Good point.

[icedragon101]

[QUOTE]What do you mean, why doesn't it make sense the 2300 is a reference to how long the little horn power tramples the sanctuary. it is set right after 2300 evening and mornings. That means that it has to be trampled under until it is set right. So if you start at 457 BC then you have to use that as the beginning point of the 2300 and that must be brought about by the little horn at that time.
this is new to me. I've talked to Tall73 and sophia7 about the IJ, but this point is still kinda fuzzy. so go slow. you are sayinng that the context tell us that the trampling starts at the beginning of the 2300 days hum, may be you need to post the actual text so we can look at it.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I already did a couple posts back, but you know it already it was drummed into every Adventists head "unto twenty-three hundred days then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed".

I must admit that the indoctrination is so complete that this very obvious position I laid out above did not even occur to me till last year during the IJ lesson study. Even though I knew the subject was the little horn. If the 2300 has a beginning date (which I don't think is really ever given) and we use 457 BC because that is a good choice for the beginning of the 70 7's of Daniel 9 and pretend that it is meant to be cut off from the 2300. But if we are going to do that then the little horn trampling the sanctuary whatever sanctuary you want to assume also began in 457 BC. If it was the literal temple then at that time there was no temple and if it was the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary it had to commence 4 centuries before Jesus' incarnation and earthly ministry. If it refers to the establishment of the SDA church then from 457 BC till 1844 there was no true Christian believers and that included the Apostles. And of course the actual SDA church did not begin till about 20 years after 1844 so even the 2300 in that case is not exact. It just does not work any way you look at it.

Daniel 8: 5 to end: As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven. 9 Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. 12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints [a (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=DANIEL+8&submit=Lookup&display_option=columns&niv=yes#fen-NIV-21974a)] and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."
The Interpretation of the Vision

15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision."
17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."
18 While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet.
19 He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. [b (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=DANIEL+8&submit=Lookup&display_option=columns&niv=yes#fen-NIV-21981b)] 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.
23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
26 "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future."
27 I, Daniel, was exhausted and lay ill for several days. Then I got up and went about the king's business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.

[freeindeed2]

I didn't say that you've never done it. ;) But you haven't been doing it lately.
LOL! OK, you two made me laugh. This sounds like my wife and me.

[Sophia7]

LOL! OK, you two made me laugh. This sounds like my wife and me.

I'm glad we could entertain you. ;)

[NightEternal]

One Evangelical Adventist at your service! :wave:

[icedragon101]

One Evangelical Adventist at your service! :wave:welcome