1844 is Obsolete 19th Century Historicism

Protestant · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:25 am Post subject:

Eugene
I have been reading this thread with interest. I do not accept the Preterist position of Rancano. I would like to study Preterism to see the heresy that i think we will be up against. Preterism is a theory that the Atheist media and sceptics would believe as it means that there is no such thing as prophecy. What books on the subject can you recomend? I have heard that "Last day madness" by Gary DeMar is ok.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:19 pm Post subject:

Dear Protestant,

I can't recommend any Preterist book. The sophistry is more compelling than you realize. I don't want to be responsible for assisting Satan in seducing souls to their eternal destruction.

Preterism is a massive, hypnotic edifice based on a single verse, Matthew 24:34.

It's better to first understand what the Bible teaches on prophecy before considering what the loyal opposition is teaching.

How firmly grounded are you in Bible prophecy? Please tell me your general understanding of The Time Passages of the New Testament.

Protestant · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:52 am Post subject:

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:00 am Post subject:

I don’t know what Bacchiocchi teaches about the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 but I imagine he is totally wrong and unrealistic. When Jesus used the expression, “this generation,” He always meant the generation of His contemporaries. Click here.

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Brethren,
I have been interested in following the discussions thus far, but it begins with the assertion that 1844 is null and void. Interestingly, that fact alone wipes out all the rest.
The reason for that is because the S.O.P. speaks directly that, one of the notable features of the Omega apostasy will be an attack on that doctrine.
Jesus did not give that warning for a joke.
A young man, held in an institution, as a result of criminal activities, was led to Jesus and asked for baptism.
Because of his status he had to ask for permission, and the ward Charge notified the Chaplains.
The senior one, an Anglican, offered to baptise him but he declined on the grounds that he wanted to be baptised by a Seventh-day Adventist minister because they were the only people who really believed the Word of God.
He was next seen by the Presbyterian Chaplain who was rebuffed on similar grounds. The signal feature about that was although both sought by all means to destroy that young man's faith, the one thing that they agreed with was:-
"I agree that, everything the Adventists teach, fits." "They are exactly right."
The Anglican Chaplain said, "Those people are so correct, that they are never wanting for an answer. But I believe that there is something wrong with the man who is always right."
The Presbyterian Chaplain ultimately declared, "I studied Seventh-day Adventism, and I know it is entirely correct, but I just don't think it is of God, that's all."
The baptismal Candidate then suggested that both of them study further and go forward together." To which he got the answer, "I can't." "You see, this is just a job to me."
Both of those men hated Seventh-day Adventism, but claimed that it was entirely correct. Why then would anyone bother to correct the foundational doctrine which even our enemies testify is correct?
Men fail to realise that, as sinners, they are walking the plank. The question they desperately need to address is:- What will happen when I walk off the end?
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Dzien Dobry · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 62

Ross,

Antidotal evidence is no substitute for a valid Biblical argument.

There are Adventists who question Adventist doctrine and all seemingly knowledgeable naysayers should be answered from the Bible.

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Dzien,
I accept your note concerning answers being preferable from the Bible. The problem is that, this topic can only be answered from the Bible and from the Jewish historical record since one must be capable of tracking the actual date and time vis. Oct. 22nd. 1844, both of which I can easily do. I strongly suspect however, that I am not the only person in the world with that ability, and that the Adventists who, for whatever reason, deny the validity of that doctrine also have access to it as well.

It is my understanding that, they not only have the information from those two sources, but a further source from the S.O.P. Now, there are very few people in the world today who are able to amass such powerful evidence for their beliefs. Therefore, to appeal to that which they evidently deny would only result in a circular argument, something I tend to avoid because it is so unbelievably silly. Moreover, I am very well aware that people who - in spite of the plainest evidence to the contrary, nevertheless insist on trying to swim against the current, can usually be found to have a psychophrenic component in their method of thinking. To obviate the enormous difficulties to be encountered when dealing with this, it sometimes pays to slide around it another way.

What is really being said is that, if it is good enough for our enemies to bless when they are really trying to curse us, it is good enough for us to take stock and notice what we are doing to ourselves.
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:17 am Post subject: Temporary comeback

I've returned to this forum occasionally since my farewell, which I intended to be definitive as far as posting was concerned. I find it surprising that this thread has been granted the dubious honour of being the first in "The Dragon, Beast and False Prophet Convention Center". I do not think for a moment that this is because of the important truths presented in the first post in this thread, but rather because of the dangers that some of you perceive in it.

Some of you may think that this is the final heresy that the remnant church will be up against. Some of you, like Ross, can reason that Mrs. E.G. White's prediction that in the future there would be opposition against the distinctive SDA understanding of Daniel 8:14 shows the validity of her visionary credentials. Be that as it may, the truth or error in anybody's position regarding the Bible cannot be determined by wit or anecdotes, but by a clear conformity with the Bible itself. That's the old Berean principle, and preachers constantly uphold that principle which should be followed to its ultimate consequences. I think Dzien Dobry would agree with this.

For what it's worth, let me just say a few things about Ross' arguments. The reason for this reply of mine is the sincere hope that it may help someone, perhaps even Ross himself.

Ross, the argument that the people on my side the field (by the way, I'm a church member) choose to ignore all the wonderful evidence in favour of the so-called "Spirit of Prophecy" tenets because of some "psychophrenic" tendency is unfair. We can equally apply exactly the same argument "against" those who choose to ignore the biblical evidence that we present. The reason why we think that Mrs. White's Great Controversy scenario is faulty is it cannot be upheld with any biblical evidence. Period.

For example, you are quite confident in your ability to "track" October 22, 1844 from the Bible and "from the Jewish historical record". That's just great. Bear with me for a moment. I'll consider continuing this post when and if you show me, from the Bible and from "the Jewish historical record" (?) that:

1. Although Daniel 8:14 in its context predicts that an enemy power, called the Little Horn, was to desecrate the sanctuary, the sanctuary is actually desecrated by the confessed sins of God's people.
2. Although Daniel 8:14 in its context predicts that the desecration effected by the Little Horn was to proceed for the equivalent of 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices, it began centuries before Rome, the power purportedly behind the Little Horn, came into contact with Israel or the church. Actually, you must be able to prove, from the Bible and "the Jewish historical record", that the desecration began precisely when Jerusalem and the temple were restored, supposedly at the time of Artaxerxes I. That will be quite a feat that no-one has accomplished yet.
3. Although Daniel 8:14 in its context shows that there would be a judgment against the desecrating power itself, orthodox Seventh-day Adventism is somehow right that the "investigative judgment", begun at the close of the 2,300 years since the days of Artaxerxes I, applies not to the Little Horn at all, but rather to God's professed people.
4. Although Daniel 8:14 and its context make no reference whatsoever to the Day of Atonement, the purification of the desecration involves just that Levitical ritual, not cleansing using a wheel-barrow, which is what Israelites did when the temple was neglected.
5. Despite overwhelming astronomical evidence that the Jews (including Karaites) celebrated Yom Kippur on 23 September 1844, the pioneers were somehow right that it fell on 22 October, even though the Karaites themselves never knew that.

More things could be said, but I'll content myself with the powerful biblical evidence that no doubt you'll be able to provide. When and if you provide it, I might become "orthodox" again.

All the best.

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Eduado,
First let me apologise for being so late in replying. I have become overwhelmed with personal matters on the one hand and problems with my computer on the other. However, I am temporarily back on line.

Secondarily, thank you for your response - which I have never seen before, but greatly appreciate. Please rest assured that my head full, of useless knowledge did not get there by ignoring other peoples ideas. Sometimes they come in very handy indeed. I just need a slot to put them in.

I have printed out your response, and will need to reflect upon it for a while so that I can get to where you are shooting from, and more completely understand where we are all at.
Thankyou very much again,
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:49 am Post subject: Preliminary response to Ross

Dear Ross,

There's no need to apologize. Besides, I'm convinced that your head is NOT full of useless knowledge. Perhaps it does contain some knowledge that is useless, but so does mine, and the same happens to all humans, so do not despair.

I'll keep waiting for your (or anybody else's) considered arguments on my position regarding Daniel 8:14.

Every blessing.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:57 pm Post subject:

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:59 am Post subject: On gillespie9669's comments

Some diatribe! I'm not used to these ad hominem attacks. If it is to be said that my ego is "inflated" because I have an MA in Ancient History, my opponent should also be aware that I also have an MA in NT Theology. Not that this is particularly important. In my case, it only shows that I took Bible studies seriously enough to undertake a professional in-depth study of the discipline, but I'm convinced that anyone can understand what the Bible actually teaches by merely reading it with due attention. Usually, such a study, even when accompanied by prayer, will encounter surprises that do not always fit preconceived ideas as to how inspiration works. Some theological treatises and popular books on religion and devotion are full of pious thoughts, but the Scripture they portray is isolated in a vacuum quite devoid of reality. This subject is broad enough to cover several books, so it is pointless to try and give scores of details that show that the real Word of God is not like the enshrined totem that some people, some of whom have not even cared to study it, fancy.

Let me give a single example, one that is easy to understand for SDAs (I don't know if gillespie9669's condition as a "pseudo" SDA will allow him to understand my reasoning). When Jesus told the story of the rich man and Lazarus he used certain words which, as we know perfectly, are liable to be interpreted as sanctioning the belief in some kind of immortal soul. That is the way most Christians interpret it. SDA's and some other Christians, however, feel free to go beyond the plainest sense of the words in the gospel of Luke and state that Jesus was merely making use of the presuppositions of some of his countrymen. You know what? I agree that such a thing can happen sometimes, if relevant Bible evidence can be presented successfully that shows that as a distinct possibility, and this might be one example of such a principle. Now, it must be patent to all that if this is possible sometimes, then we can no longer view inspiration as an iron-cast mould in which all possible thinking has already been done (by someone else, of course). Such a way of thinking is very proper for naive non-reading Catholics, but should be entirely alien to anyone who has ever studied the Bible.

Yes, gillespie9669, there's no doubt I need to humble myself before the throne of grace, because I'm only a man, and a sinner at that, and my knowledge is very limited. God, on the other hand, knows everything. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons why he invites me, and everybody else, to study his word diligently, and so I do. The problem is that, from time to time, I encounter people who claim that my understanding of the Bible is defective. Well, as I don't claim infallibility, that is a real possibility: It could very well be defective. If so, I will forever thank anyone who can show me my mistakes so that I can correct them. What will never do is a sweeping attack that I don't believe in Jesus or the Bible. Anyone who says that, after reading me, has either misunderstood entirely or is bearing false witness.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:53 am Post subject:

I have been categorized as a "pseudo SDA", and most of my postings moved, and or "jailed" by the managers of this site who have striven to set them selves up as character judges, separating sheep from goats. If that does it for them, then so be it. Jesus Himself was called "Beelzebub" and a "winebibber" by the very ones whom his ministry made most uncomfortable. I am not bothered in the least by such ambush tactics, though I do admit to long posts at times;quite similar to yours that have not been moved (if I might add). But I ask you to not sidestep the issue I raised ("diatribe" or not) in response to your own words I quoted about a "Christless" book of Daniel, and limited messiah material in the Old Testament itself. Read my first response again very carefully. Distractions about Jesus' parables and soul immortality won't do. I won't be fooled by your intellectualism which is clearly being a substitute for being led by the SPIRIT. My aim is to expose you for what you are, a subtle enemy of truth as it is in Adventism, and a false teacher of the word, who denies even the very words of Christ about his Messiahship being proven all over the Old Testament, and not just "intertestamental literature". Can your MA and NT handle that? If it can then I might just be able to see beyond your intellectualism in prophetic matters, and probably listen to you. In the mean time the I rest my case.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:08 am Post subject: For Gillespie

Dear Sir,

You don't know me and I haven't offended you, so you can't possibly have any reasonable cause to launch such an attack on my person. Further, I deny nothing of the kind you say. And yes, my MA can handle the passages you mention very well indeed, thank you. As to prophetic matters, I can't avoid studying them intellectually. You see, although I know that not everybody does it, I must use my brain to judge these matters, not my feet or other parts of my anatomy.

It might have been interesting if you had shown a single instance of a biblical misquote on my part, or if you had centred on a specific passage for sober discussion, instead of trying to verbally assail me without giving me room to answer. Now we'll never know what I might have said, shall we? Answering to my very pertinent observations on Daniel 8:14 might also have shown us all the depth of your non-intellectual approach at prophetic literature.

As for the Holy Spirit, it is hard to measure, don't you think? I cannot judge how close to God anyone else is. Only God and the person involved know that, don't they? But rest assured that everybody can see that you are led by some spirit.

This will be my last post to you.