But it is a very applicable point. Because EGW is used extensively to "prove" Houteff's interpretations, yet there is no way I can reconcile her end time sequence with Houteff's.

As to me being some kind of "authority" on his writings -- no, I do not claim that. But his conclusions deny several truths, (like the Sabbath test for Adventists) and present a different "end" scene (a temperal kingdom in Palestine) that is far to close to Babylon's end time scene for comfort.



Last night I read through one "book" of the answers to questions by Houteff, and most of the second book. The questions were for the most part very superficial making them easy to explain away, only a couple of them actually touched on the main issues that trouble me about Houteff's teachings. The answers were really nothing new as per Houteff's teachings. They really didn't answer my questions.


If you haven't read EGW's writings in their context and proper sequence, how can you honestly use her writings so extensively to prove something that she never taught?

Bearing false witness can also include extensive interweaving of someone's writings to give authority to ones own ideas which the original author never meant to teach.

It is NOT false witness to disagree with someone else's beliefs.

GL&L--I'm sorry if you think you are being “attacked” and it is not my intention to hurt your feelings. It's only that I want the truth spoken on this matter and not misstatements and falsehood.

You haven't hurt my feelings, I just found it strange that you now centered on me, and what I have or have not read, over and over again, instead of focusing on the issues, even though I told you I have read. Not everything he wrote of course, but I have read for myself quite a bit of his writings.

GL&L wrote: I have conceded on some points with you and admitted that a few of your specific points were valid, can you do the same?
... you have placed contempt upon this message, we must examine it closely and be careful to not surface study it.

I have conceded quite a bit --
I agree that the church must be cleansed, that a separation must take place, that sin needs to be put away, that the final loud cry is still future, etc.
But the main points as to how this is all to come about -- it's true I strongly disagree with Houteff's interpretations.

 
Gsll- Are you not aware that many including VTH have pointed out correctly on several occasions how it is easy to spot apparent contradictions with EGW writings (she says one thing than later says another on the same matter) So do we throw her out? of course not we “weigh it all out” the WHOLE matter then decide.


If it were only "apparent contradictions" it would be one thing, but it is a WHOLE DIFFERENT ENDTIME SEQUENCE with a kingdom in Palestine! Like I mentioned I read a lot of his answers to questions, and he makes it appear the contradictions are only "apparent" but not deep. Yet, both question and answer ignore the actual context in which EGW placed the quotes being discussed.

Let me give just one example:



Thus again Houteff says these are all NEW CONVERTS, since his interpretation does not admit the truth that Adventists will be tested with the Sunday law. But the referenced quote in Great Controversy in its entirety shows this is not a few newly converted people who won't make it to the kingdom", situation. This is a world wide condition, a condition that does not change until the last plague when God delivers His people.

Listen to EGW's appeal just prior:


She repeatedly appeals to church members to prepare, to diligently seek that sanctifying connection with Christ whereby sin is vanquished and faith is strong, so they will be able to stand the test and not lose faith in the trials. No where in those chapters is there a hint that vast numbers will be safe in a kingdom of safety and only those who "couldn't make it to Palestine" would have to hide.


GL&L writes:

Further, and I know this you don't believe, but the Elijah to come was to “restore” all things meaning restore truth first then his message is to restore the kingdom (first on earth then taken to heaven.) So VTH's words in regards to any lack of clarity by EGW is it's restoration of her subject matter.

And so anyone can come and pull together some quotes from her writings and say -- "She didn't understand what she was really saying, but I have restored".
Test the spirits!


How is it that Christianity in general all look for a literal kingdom ( a supposedly righteous kingdom once the antichrist power is out of the way) in present Palestine?
How is it that our Pioneers strongly opposed that type of kingdom and presented the "kingdom of grace" as something with no geographical borders or place, but a kingdom that grows in the heart and minds of God's people?

Houteff's message teaches a gathering together of people into one place (Palestine) under some man he calls the "antitypical David" ruling as king in a theocracy styled literal kingdom in the place of Christ.

Are you absolutely sure this antitype isn't an antichrist?


Aren't we strongly warned about placing a mere human into absolute kingly power? Yet that is what Houteff's interpretations prescribe.

But who do all those prophesies REALLY point to --
another modern day man "David"?
No -- they all point to CHRIST.

Luke 1:31-32 JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.







[GL&L]“
“Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition.” This why they hated brother Houteff,

No that is not the reason. Nor is he hated.
But I do NOT agree with his interpretations of certain prophecies.

What sword will cleanse the church?

Revelation 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which has the sharp sword with two edges;
2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Christ will do battle with the sword of His mouth, the power of His Word.

Rev. 1:13,16 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man,.... and out of his mouth went a sharp two edged sword:



Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

"the Word cuts away the fleshly lusts. It is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the mind. It divides the joints and marrow, cutting away the lusts of the flesh, making men willing to suffer for their Lord. {OFC 129.4}

" The Word of the Lord is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword. The Word is a power as we practice it. The great change that the truth makes is inward. It begins in the heart, and works outwardly."

So what does the following quote mean?
:"Many, I saw, were flattering themselves that they were good Christians, who have not a single ray of light from Jesus. They know not what it is to be renewed by the grace of God. They have no living experience for themselves in the things of God. And I saw that the Lord was whetting His sword in heaven to cut them down. Oh, that every lukewarm professor could realize the clean work that God is about to make among His professed people! Dear friends, do not deceive yourselves concerning your condition. You cannot deceive God. Says the True Witness: 'I know thy works.'" Testimonies, Vol.1 p. 190.


Basically it means the church is in a bad spiritual slump. Members were dead in their sins (though still alive physically_

Gods' sword is likened more to a surgeons knife.
The church members need their sinful parts to be removed from their lives.


Is God literally getting out a sword to kill in order to make a "clean work" ?
Or will He use the sword that inspiration says He will wield? A sword in His MOUTH, not in His hand.
The sword of His Word.



What is the "straight testimony"?
It is the message to the seventh church in Revelation 3.

" The Lord calls for a renewal of the straight testimony borne in years past. He calls for a renewal of spiritual life. The spiritual energies of His people have long been torpid, but there is to be a resurrection from apparent death. By prayer and confession of sin we must clear the King's highway.--8T 297

The meaning is clear, indeed the Bible is its own interpreter; the sword is the sword of the Spirit, even the word of God, it is that word which is sharper than any two-edged sword, and which lays bare the thoughts and intents of the soul (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12. Compare Isaiah 49:2). This is the weapon with which Christ will subdue His enemies; no carnal weapon is needed (2Corinthians 10:4). Those that take any other sword in hand than this to advance His kingdom will perish with the weapon to which they have appealed (Revelation 13:10; Matthew 26:52), but those who arm themselves with this will find it mighty through God. With this weapon of His word He Himself fights against His adversaries (Revelation 2:12; Revelation 2:16; Revelation 19:15; Revelation 19:21); with this He lays bare the hidden hypocrisies of men, cuts off the diseased members, and wounds that He may heal.

"We need not say: The perils of the last days are soon to come upon us. Already they have come. We need now the sword of the Lord to cut to the very soul and marrow of fleshly lusts, appetites, and passions". {FLB 336.5}

And thus too in the end,
the WORD of God is the destroying sword:
As the enemies of God's law rush upon God's faithful to slay them, God will speak.

Ded--“Last night I read through one "book" of the answers to questions by Houteff, and most of the second book. The questions were for the most part very superficial making them easy to explain away, only a couple of them actually touched on the main issues that trouble me about Houteff's teachings. The answers were really nothing new as per Houteff's teachings. They really didn't answer my questions.”

Gsll- Ok let's see some “superficial” questions--

IS THERE NEED FOR “EXTRA OIL" ?
Question No. 8:
I am told that somewhere in her writings, Sister White has said: “We have all the light which we need till Jesus comes.” Can you give the reference?
Gsll-Very good and applicable question for us as “Laodiceans”, we who think we “have need of nothing” Are we rich and satisfied with what we know as truth? Or is there need for “extra oil” in our lamps?


IS THE FORMER RAIN THE
PENTECOSTAL POWER?
Question No. 11:
“The Shepherd’s Rod” says that the former rain is the Spirit of Prophecy, and that the latter rain is the closely related pre-Pentecostal message, or “teacher of righteousness,” which the church is now receiving, and that the Pentecostal “power” is still another thing. But “The Desire of Ages” says that the “former rain” was the “outpouring of the Spirit in apostolic days,” and the “latter rain,” the Pentecostal outpouring itself, is to occur in the last days. What is one to believe?
Gsll- A question which shows apparent discrepancies on the “power” of two distinct time periods. The answer addresses the difference.



THE LATTER RAIN-WHEN?
Question No. 9:
“Early Writings,” p. 15, speaks about God’s announcing the day and the hour of Jesus’ coming, and pouring upon the saints the Holy Ghost. Does not all this take place at the time of the seven last plagues, just before the second Advent? If so, then does it not show that the “latter rain” is to be poured out upon God’s people after the close of probation.

Gsll-EGW does says what the questioner points out, and is an important issue to straightens out.

WHEN DID THE SEALS BEGIN?
Question No. 20:
What Biblical proof is there to show that the events of the Seven Seals (Rev. 4-8) span the entire world’s history, which is contrary to the Denomination’s teaching that they cover only the Christian church period? Don’t you know that the book with the seals is symbolical of the books of Daniel and The Revelation?

Gsll-- An timely and important question, as we as SDA have taught that the seals cover the Christian era. Brother Houteff soundly shows that this cannot be so.

WHAT IS THE SEAL?
Question No. 21:
What is the seal of God upon the foreheads of the 144,000 (Rev. 7:3)? Is it the Sabbath seal or something else?

Gsll-- Here VTH shows that there is an important difference between the Sabbath seal and the seal of the 144,000.

WHEN WILL HE SEPARATE THE TARES FROM THE WHEAT?
Question No. 24:
“Christ’s Object Lessons,” p. 123, says: “When the work of the gospel is completed, there immediately follows the separation between the good and the evil.” Does not the separation here mentioned take place at the second advent?

Gsll- Good question concerning the separation of the wheat and tares, hardly a superficial question.

WHY THREE TITLES TO THE ONCE-DIVIDED KINGDOM?
Question No. 41:
Will you please explain the difference in the terms, Judah, Ephriam, and Israel?

Gsll- This distinct clarification is made and solidly backed up Scripture.

WILL THE KINGDOM BE SET UP BEFORE THE MILLENNIUM?
Question No. 42:
“The Great Controversy,” pp. 322, 323, teaches that “not until the personal advent of Christ can His people receive the kingdom....But when Jesus comes, He confers immortality upon His people; and then He calls them to inherit the kingdom of which they have hitherto been only heirs.” Will you please help harmonize the Bible and “The Shepherd’s Rod” with these and other passages in Sister White’s writings in regard to the setting up of the Kingdom?

GSLL-- Now this one Q and A is probably the deepest and pertinent of the questions in volume 1 and 2. I will post this one later for us to see, as it addresses what “Scripture” has said about this matter. You, especially, should seriously study this one.

Do those questions appear superficial? Hardly.

Ded- If you haven't read EGW's writings in their context and proper sequence, how can you honestly use her writings so extensively to prove something that she never taught? 

Bearing false witness can also include extensive interweaving of someone's writings to give authority to ones own ideas which the original author never meant to teach.

It is NOT false witness to disagree with someone else's beliefs.
 
Gsll- To answer your question directly, I have read a couple of EGW's material (front to back) Desire of Ages, Great Controversy. I have done extensive reading of all the Testimonie volumes (1 to 9). Much of Testimonies to Ministers, and Early Writings, Mauscript Releases,Prophets and Kings, and others.

True, it is not false witness to disagree with someone else's belief, but it IS when you say things about that one that he did not say. Which you have done already. Big difference.

Here are the exact list of “superficial questions” which are timely and appropriate for us as truth seeking SDA.

Contents (Vol. 1)
The Answerer’s Introductory Concern 
What Is Laodicea’s Trouble? 
Why The Need Of Revival And Reformation? 
What Is The Phenomenon Of Inspiration? 
Is Satan Wholesaling Or Retailing Deception? 
What Saith The Spirit Unto Laodicea? 
Does Truth Make Division? 
Christ Or His Servant?
Is There Need For Extra Oil? 
The Latter Rain-When? 
Has The Loud Cry Begun? 
Is The Former Rain The Pentecostal Power? 
When In Need Of Truth, Why Beg For Power? 
Forty Years Without Refilling? 
Does The Shepherd’s Rod Set Prophetic Dates? 

Contents (Vol.2)

A Stephen-Sermon To The Church Today 
May We Know The Hour?
Is God’s Traveling Throne A Locomotive?
Are There Palms In Hands Of Some, Or In Hands Of All?
When Begins The Time Of The End?
Why Prophecies In Place Of Love?
When Did The Seals Begin? 
What Is The Seal? 
Is The Sealing On? Who Are Sealed? Are Any Beyond Sinning? 
Is Not The Harvest The End Of The World?
When Will He Separate The Tares From The Wheat? 
Is The Slaughter Of Ezekiel Nine Literal?
Who Are The Woman And Her Remnant? 
Who Identified Planets Seen In Vision? 
Is All Of A Word To The Little Flock Authentic? 
Has There Been Amalgamation Of Man And Beast? 
Why Not Making Better Progress? 
Why Agitate Where Not Wanted? 
Work Within Or Without? 
Does The Rod Still Teach The “Same Things”?
Is Evening The Ending Or The Beginning Of Day?
Is It True? 
In Which Seal?
Who Flee To Mountains? 
When Will He Leave The Sanctuary? 
Who Has Wandered Away From The Old Landmarks? 
Former Or Latter View? 
Why Three Titles To The Once-Divided Kingdom? 
Will the Kingdom Be Set Up Before The Millennium? 
Will Old Jerusalem Be Rebuilt? 
The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb In Heaven Or On Earth? 
The Kingdom Of God In The Heart, Or In The Earth? 
When Will The Winds Be Loosed? 
What is the Anger Of The Nations? 
What Shall Your Next Step Be? 

Link to volume one and two questions and answers-- Answerer

Ded-I just found it strange that you now centered on me, and what I have or have not read, over and over again, instead of focusing on the issues, even though I told you I have read. Not everything he wrote of course, but I have read for myself quite a bit of his writings.

Gsll- that is all I wanted addressed—what you read front to back. A Tract for instance is not exceedingly large and can be read in a couple of evenings. What I find in a two way discussion is that when questions are ignored that mean important points to the questioner, then we then start to go “round and round” and it never ends. Ellen White made excellent counsel which I try to adhere to.

“ When their questions have been fairly answered, they will turn the subject and bring up another point to avoid acknowledging the truth. We should beware of indulging the spirit which controlled the Jews.” (Test. To Ministers, p.108-109)

As I mentioned I will certainly admit any revelations of truth or points you make, why? Because I love truth and do not want to be lost ( 2 Thes. 2:10)

But I have kept an eye for reciprocal behavior from you and to be very honest have not seen much of this from you. I will not go into a never ending hopscotch where the truth is not admitted. I've learned my lesson with the Sunday keepers over the Sabbath debate.

For example, one of the OT quotes I used to use with them was Psalms 111:7,8 “All His Commandments are sure, they stand fast forever and ever.” Then I would say, “Brother can't you see that it says that ALL of His Commandments are now and forever?” They would say “That is not what it means”.And then try to twist it into excluding the Sabbath! And I would feel like batting my head against the wall because the straight clear truth was not straight and clear to them.

Ded-I have conceded quite a bit -- 
I agree that the church must be cleansed, that a separation must take place, that sin needs to be put away, that the final loud cry is still future, etc.
But the main points as to how this is all to come about -- it's true I strongly disagree with Houteff's interpretations. 

Gsll- Conceded quite a bit? You mean conceded to your conclusions of what you have always believed. When I have shown you certain truth from Scripture and EGW and even VTH that you did not know, almost all of it has not been admitted and conceded. For example, the fact that the “angels” are to do the separtaion in Ezek. 9, you STILL ignore that truth even though it's so plain and cannot be controverted.

Ded- If it were only "apparent contradictions" it would be one thing, but it is a WHOLE DIFFERENT ENDTIME SEQUENCE with a kingdom in Palestine! Like I mentioned I read a lot of his answers to questions, and he makes it appear the contradictions are only "apparent" but not deep. Yet, both question and answer ignore the actual context in which EGW placed the quotes being discussed.

Gsll- read the full answer in question number 42 above. This addresses the issue fully.

Ded- She repeatedly appeals to church members to prepare, to diligently seek that sanctifying connection with Christ whereby sin is vanquished and faith is strong, so they will be able to stand the test and not lose faith in the trials. No where in those chapters is there a hint that vast numbers will be safe in a kingdom of safety and only those who "couldn't make it to Palestine" would have to hide.

Gsll- Again see question no. 42, he addresses that issue, particularly how EGW did not have all the light on end time events, and that to believe this as you do makes you just like the Jews who would had nothing to do with advancing truth (Jesus) because they were STUCK on Moses as being the declarer all of what is truth.

Ded- And so anyone can come and pull together some quotes from her writings and say -- "She didn't understand what she was really saying, but I have restored".
Test the spirits! 

Gsll- Yes! Test them and study them with a teachable spirit. Once the whole matter is studied, the positive and negative –THEN make a decision.

Ded- Aren't we strongly warned about placing a mere human into absolute kingly power? Yet that is what Houteff's interpretations prescribe.

Gsll- The Scripture is clear, Again read question no. 42 above. This answers much of your ideas and false assumptions.

Ded- “Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition.” This why they hated brother Houteff, No that is not the reason. Nor is he hated.
But I do NOT agree with his interpretations of certain prophecies.

Gsll-- Again, you have not studied history well. VTH was hated by some of the people (particularly the SDA leaders) . He was brutally beaten at least once in church and also the people who stood with him were mis-treated many times and all this is documented history. One lady was even punched in the stomach for just want ing to have communion.

Another lady was forced to stand out in the freezing cold during services. Start reading what REALLY happened. Once you do, you'll find that there is no record during VTH's time, about him or his people causing any damage or disturbance, it was always the other way around.

"There here is nothing in the popular ministry that stirs the wrath of Satan, makes the sinner tremble, or applies to the heart and conscience the fearful realities of a judgment soon to come.” (EW, p.273) – That me friend is what was at the core of this abuse of God's people back then.(even today for sure!)

The history shows that Victor was not treated in fairness or Christian decency. I noticed you commented on the Kangaroo court post (number one) yet no comment of the second one? Are you going to admit that the jury was biased? That it was underhanded and wrong to put on a facade of a hearing, only to back stab him AT THE SAME time in other high level GC meeting in another part of the country? That they were not having a hearing to arrive at truth but to placate the laity that they 'looked into VTH's teachings”?

Let's see whether you love the truth here but your admission on these points(?)

Why have you not admitted you are wrong about yourstatement here--
Ded- ..Florence took over the leadership and bolstered up their confidence by amplifying V.Houteff's statements that the 1260 prophetic days would have a literal fulfillment, so she marked off 1260 literal days that ended sometime in 1959, when certain end time events supposedly were to transpire --- of course they didn't. 

Gsll--May God forgive your soul sister, This is falsehood and twisting of the facts. Brother Houteff NEVER made any predictions of the time when the 1260 days would have an end time fulfillment. That was Florence Houteff's prediction SOLELY (who went apostate later even denying EGW). 

If you would study the history to know the truth, you'd know that Florence actually fulfilled brother Houteff predictions that some within would cause a “knock out blow” for the cause. Just as Judas was very close to Jesus and later betrayed him, so too Florence would later, after VTH's death betray Victor's cause and bring division in that day by “her” and her board of leaders to bring the Lord's Rod to the Alter to sacrifice (declaring that the her prediction would prove or disprove the message).




Ded- one can't read far in any of his tracts or book without being constantly led to his basic premises (his idea that purification means being slaughtered, and his idea that preaching the gospel to the world means a temporal LITERAL kingdom in Palestine).
 

Gsll- Did you not see where you are incorrect by claiming the church purification is VTH's “idea”? Scripture and SOP say these things that point to the LORD doing the purification directly . Please read –

“Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? This that is glorious in his apparel, traveling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Why are Your clothes red, and Your garments like one who treads a winepress? I have trodden the wine press alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in My fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon My garments, and I will stain all My raiment. For the day of vengeance is in Mine heart, and the year of My redeemed is come. (Isaiah 63:1-4)

Gsll- Edom was known as the land of Esau, that signifies the tares in the church (Jacob was the wheat). Bozrah means “sheep fold” which signifies church. Now, to take this in context read the verse before it --”And they shall call them The Holy People, the REDEEMED of the LORD; and you shall be SOUGHT OUT, a city not forsaken.” So the “year of my redeemed is come” means that after this, these people will be “sought out” and have a city “not forsaken”.

The 144,000 in other words are now empowered by the Lord to go to work and people will see that the Lord is with them and they’ll call them “Holy people”.

“Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.” (Isaiah 52:1)

Gsll- has there ever been a time where God's church has not had the unclean among them since Isaiah's day? Absolutely not! A future prophecy yet to be fulfilled. God's word cannot return void please remember.

Also note that these unconverted ones no longer “come unto thee” meaning that there will be a clean place where no more sinners can come. Can this be said of those who run to the hills and mountains in the time of trouble? Of course not, that is foolishness. The converted ones will come to the holy city, not the holy deserted mountains and hills.

"Many, I saw, were flattering themselves that they were good Christians, who have not a single ray of light from Jesus. They know not what it is to be renewed by the grace of God. They have no living experience for themselves in the things of God.

And I saw that the Lord was whetting His sword in heaven to cut them down.Oh, that every lukewarm professor could realize the clean work that God is about to make among His professed people! Dear friends, do not deceive yourselves concerning your condition. You cannot deceive God. Says the True Witness: 'I know thy works.'" Testimonies, Vol.1 p. 190.

Gsll- Does “lukewarm professor” mean the world's professors here? Laodiceans are the only "lukewarm” people mentioned in SOP. The Lord is who will conduct this purification.

“We have been inclined to think that where there are no faithful ministers there can be no true Christians, but this is not the case. God has promised that where the shepherds are not true He will take charge of the flock Himself. God has never made the flock wholly dependent upon human instrumentalities. But the days of purification of the church are hastening on apace.

God will have a people pure and true. In the mighty sifting soon to take place we shall be better able to measure the strength of Israel. The signs reveal that the time is near when the Lord will manifest that His fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor.” (Testimonies, vol. 5, p.80)

Gsll- After the sifting takes place the church “Israel” will better be able to be measured. Babylon is not Israel, no matter how you try to slice and dice it, so we know this purification is not about Babylon.. Further, how is this “sifting” going to take place? The Lord (not the Sunday law) will “thoroughly purge His floor (church) by His “fan” in His hand. .


Lastly to conclude, however resistant you are to advancing light, let it be known that you are but one in a LONG line of previous and existing skeptics through out the history of the Elijah message. Your doubtful points are nothing new and they should be addressed by the same way they have always been addressed—with logic and truth by answers from VTH himself--

Read this for example this question that calls him to task-

Question: "Please explain E.W. 36: "I saw that Jesus would not leave the most holy place until every case was decided either for salvation or destruction," etc.

   Answer: The question which here arises is how is it possible to reconcile "The Shepherd's Rod" with the "Spirit of Prophecy," when the one seems to say that Jesus will leave the most holy place at Eze. 9, while the other says He will not leave until every case is decided?

   Without attempting to explain the event described in E.W. 36, we shall inquire only into the matter of whether it is possible in view of the E.W. statement for Jesus to "leave" the most holy place to execute the work of Eze. 9 before the general close of human probation.

   To begin with there is nothing in the word "leave" that connotes finality and permanence of condition or action. To leave once does not preclude the possibility of having left on previous occasions and then returned. Hence, on the logic of language alone, the mere fact that Sr. White "saw that Jesus would not leave the most holy until every case was decided," does not argue that He could therefore never have left the most holy place before, and that He cannot leave it to execute Eze. 9 on the church.

   However, we need not base our position entirely on logic. The Scriptures abundantly evidence the fact that Jesus is to dwell in the midst of His People at a time before every case is decided. We quote Zech. 2:10, 11 -- "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be My people."

   Verse 11 proves that in "that day" when He comes and dwells in the midst of Zion, "many nations shall be joined to the Lord," and every S.D.A. ought to know that there will be no nations joined to the Lord after probation is closed.

   Moreover, in Isa. 66:15, which reads, "Behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with His chariots like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire," (Verse 16) "For by fire and by His sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many," we see that when He comes with fire, it is to "plead" with all flesh, which proves that it is during probationary time, for after the close of probation God will plead with no flesh.

   Furthermore, Isa. 66:20 proves that it is in this time during which the Lord pleads with all flesh that "many nations" -- "all your brethren" -- are joined to the Lord. Hence, "in that day," the day of slaughter (Eze. 9; Isa. 63; Isa. 66), He "will come, and...dwell in the midst of "Zion."

   Therefore, it is clear that Jesus is to come and dwell in the midst of His people here on earth before the close of probation, as He dwelt with His people in the exodus movement, as is described in Isa. 4.

   Some have an altogether too narrow view of the Godhead. They think that in order for Jesus to carry on the investigative judgment in the heavenly sanctuary, He must confine Himself there every moment, and that even in case of necessity He cannot leave the place of the most holy apartment to do anything else until His mediatorial work is finished.

   Christ's departure from the holy place, at the consummation of the investigative judgment, is to result in His visible second advent, whereas the event of Eze. 9 and Zech. 2:9-11 is an invisible coming.

Gsll- Advancing truth is indeed what the Lord's Elijah message means to us! Let us embrace truth wherever it is found, even if it is from a message that has been contemptible by others.

I wrote: that I read the first book and part of the second, that's about 20 of his answers and only a couple of them (questions and answers) actually touched on the main issues that trouble me about Houteff's teachings. And yes, I do find his answer superficial in that they DO NOT ANSWER MY CONCERNS on issues I find contradict truth.

You then listed a whole bunch of questions most of which did not concern those issues.


Do we need more light? Of course! That's not an issue here. The issue is -- "is Houteff's interpretation genuine light, or a mixture of truth and error calculated to deceive"?

The former and latter rain --
I wasn't dealing with that either, and didn't intend to, but since you brought it up -- I realize I do take issue with his answer.

The "rain" is not a human person, as Houteff seems to connect it too. The "rain" is the HOLY SPIRIT given to each responsive person -- the "rain" is the power of the Divine member of the heavenly trio.

Houteff says the former rain was initially the message of the apostles, and in our time the "former rain" was Ellen White's writings, and the latter rain was Houteff's writings!!!

Yes, I do take issue with that!

For the former rain was the Holy Spirit descending upon the church at Penticost --that was the initial outpouring, but each person also receives a "former rain" of the Holy Spirit, at their conversion.

It is the Holy Spirit that works on their hearts and minds to grow in Christ and truth. Without the Holy Spirit, we are spiritually dead.
God gives His Holy Spirit to all who call upon Him, that is the individual "former rain".
Those who do not respond to this "former rain" will not be prepared to receive the "latter rain" at the end of time, which is the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

Question #9 is far from my belief --
No Adventist that I know teaches the latter rain isn't poured out till after probation closes. So I agree "We know of no such statement"

When did the Seals Begin?
That is a whole different study that would take many pages.
Houteff believes the seals cover all earth's history, I believe they cover the history of Christianity.

What is the seal?
His answer while true in one sense, is very simplistic, and bent to support his idea.
Yes, the seal marks the person as being under the blood of Christ and heir to eternal life. Thus indeed they escape the destruction of Ezekiel 9 -- which takes place during the seventh plague.

And that seal includes the Sabbath!
Yet YOU have told me Adventists will not be tested on that -- as all active Adventists except the 144,000 (which I assume you mean are those who accept Shepherd Rod doctrines) will be dead before Sunday laws even become an issue.

But the Sabbath IS THE TEST that will face all Adventists, and only those fully committed to following Christ will pass that test and will be calling others to fully dedicate their lives in obedience to Christ. That will bring the world to decision.

Yet there is more to that end time seal.

Revelation tells us
Rev. 3:12 I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name.

The NEW Jerusalem!!!!

IS NOT THE HARVEST THE END OF THE WORLD?

Question No. 23:

How can your teaching of the separation of tares from the wheat in the church be harmonized with the statement which says: "The tares and the wheat are to grow together until the harvest- and the harvest is the end of probationary time....When the work of the gospel is completed, there immediately follows the separation between the good and the evil, and the destiny of each class is forever fixed"?-- "Christ's Object Lessons," pp. 72, 123.

Finally a good question!!!



Notice that she says it TWICE here, the second time she says the harvest when the separation occurs is THE END OF THE WORLD.
Also the tares must first fully manifest themselves, that they have no likeness with the wheat.
Then they are gathered in bundles and burned.

-- To me it's plain,
The Sunday test will fully manifest between the professors and the genuine. There will be no question in anyone's minds which ones are fully dedicated to Christ and which ones aren't.
It is then -- at the end of the world that the unfaithful lose life while the fully committed receive eternal life at Christ's coming.


When the work of the gospel is completed --
But doesn't Houteff say that following the separation is when the loud cry of the gospel message goes out to world?


EGW says the harvest is the END OF PROBATION

Houteff counters with
"the "harvest" is the last part of probationary time

To EGW's comment that it is the end of the world,
Houteff writes:
"Thus to all practical purposes "the harvest" is indeed "the end of the world"--the end of the wicked."

What? Am I to understand that the death of unfaithful Adventists is the "end of the world", while the Sunday laws etc. and the image of the beast, and new converts having to hide in the mountains because they couldn't make it to temporal kingdom, are still future events according to what you have been sharing?




Then Houteff says that "Early Writings page 118 reveals the third angel does the harvesting"

Yet Early Writings says no such thing.

" I then saw the third angel. Said my accompanying angel, "Fearful is his work. Awful is his mission. He is the angel that is to select the wheat from the tares, and seal, or bind, the wheat for the heavenly garner." EW 118

That is not the harvest -- that is part of the sealing. The sealing must come before the harvest!

Read Revelation 14.
The harvest comes AFTER the third angel, when Christ rides forth with a sickle in hand.

Rev/ 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud [one] sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
14:15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
14:16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

The more I read the more I'm convinced Houteff is mixing a truth with error. I'm sorry if this makes you think I don't want truth. But yes, I do want truth, and one statement here or there that seems to support his conclusions just can't hold up the whole of his interpretation. I just don't see his explanations answering the questions -- they just raise MORE questions.




Firstly I did NOT in any place say there would be no "church purification". The church will be purified when it is no longer popular or politically correct to be a Sabbath keeping Christian.
Please don't misrepresent me by saying I don't believe something just because I don't believe Houteff's idea of HOW or WHEN something will be done.
You have done that a number of times already.

I have repeatedly shared that I do believe the church will be purified, and YOU IGNORED THAT, because it does not fit Houteff's idea.

And yes, it is a shepherd rod idea that Ezekiel 9 takes place before the Sunday law. EGW DOES NOT teach that.

As to Esau representing the Adventist tares? Where does that come from?
Esau was (Jacob's) Israel's brother, never part of "the children of Israel" so I don't even see how it fits with your definitions of "Israel" being the Adventist church.

First you say "Israel" represents the Adventist church in which are mainly tares that must be killed BEFORE the gospel is preached as a loud cry to the world. Now you say Israel (which is Jacob's name) are wheat, and Israel's brother are the tares.

In ancient history the Edomites were enemies of Israel. They sided with Babylon when Neb destroyed Jerusalem.


What does EGW say about the text you shared?



Isaiah 63

63:1 Who [is] this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this [that is] glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.



63:2 Wherefore [art thou] red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people [there was] none with me:



for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
63:4 For the day of vengeance [is] in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.
63:5 And I looked, and [there was] none to help; and I wondered that [there was] none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me;

To be perfectly honest sister I can't be wasting my time further with you because to date you still have not admitted that you have bore false witness in speaking of brother Houteff concerning the 1260 day prophecy. Produced no evidence for those false statements you made. This Public Commandment breaking I will have no more part of.

To state blatant false testimony and then happily skip along as if it doesn't matter is wrong before the Lord. To be a false witness against someone is being a Commandment breaker and that means unless repentance is made, a spot or stain may appear upon one's soul. (See Testimonies, vol. 5, p.214)

If you'd be willing to admit this then it shows a truth seeker instead of an agenda maker.

The Jews denied further advancing light because they were stuck on Moses, Today we as Adventists can get stuck to --on EGW. you do not expect any messenger of God even though the Lord and His messenger BOTH predicted one to come.

She said "somebody is to come" as the Elijah prophet. He would be known as an Interpreter. The Lord himself said someone is to come (man) as Elijah the prophet.

That's the big difference here . You are satisfied in Scripture and EGW as your truth. I am satisfied with Scripture , EGW AND the Elijah prophet sent to our church.


"We should beware of indulging the spirit which controlled the Jews." (Test. to Ministers, p.108)

That's fine.
You are now turning this into personal attacks against me rather than dealing with issues.
As to the 1260 days, I do not think I bore any false witness. I wrote that Florence, Victor Houteff's wife, after V.Houteff's death, enlarged on Houteff's comments on the 1260 days and set dates that didn't materialize. That was not false witness.

I also explained some days ago, where you, yourself brought up from Houteff's writings information on the 1260 day prophecy on another thread. (Which Ship...)

Here is that comment:


It's obvious from the reading of Houteff's comments on Rev. 12, that a person could easily assume that a future fulfillment of the 1260 days ends in the supposed "church cleansing" by the "earth opening up" and swallowing all the apostates (figurative of Ez. 9)

Also it appears the Shepherd Rod is not posting on the internet the issue of Symbolic Codes, Vol. 11, #1 that contains the information.

Florence Houteff's false 1260 day prophecy was based on the 1260 days pointing to the time when the SDA Church would be "purified" .

Ded- "You are now turning this into personal attacks against me rather than dealing with issues.
As to the 1260 days, I do not think I bore any false witness. I wrote that Florence, Victor Houteff's wife, after V.Houteff's death, enlarged on Houteff's comments on the 1260 days and set dates that didn't materialize. That was not false witness.

Gsll- again quite amazing. First, you are the one making "personal attacks" against an innocent man- Victor Houteff.

You state the Florence Houteff "enlarged" Houteff's comments on the 1260 days.

1) Show us the statements WRITTEN BY VICTOR HOUTEFF saying anything about the fulfillment of the 1260 days in the last days.Just where did you get that from?

2) Obviously you have made us to believe that Victor made predictions on this 1260 days and that Florence was furthering HIS predictions. Again , show us the written documentation, can you provide them?

3) Who set those dates that led to that great big fiasco in the Mt. Carmel camp--Victor or Florence?

You are attempting to place the fiasco of the 1959 failed prophetic 1260 day application on Victor Houteff in an attempt to portray him in a false light. This is FALSE witness.

Ded- " yourself brought up from Houteff's writings information on the 1260 day prophecy on another thread. "

Gsll-That has nothing to do with a specific application and time table of the 1260 days into the future. You are surmising that.

Ded-"It's obvious from the reading of Houteff's comments on Rev. 12, that a person could easily assume that a future fulfillment of the 1260 days ends in the supposed "church cleansing" by the "earth opening up" and swallowing all the apostates (figurative of Ez. 9)"

Gsll- A person could assume? Show us how that comes about in your assumption (in detail please). That would be something to see. So instead of Victor explaining it, we should just assume it? interesting.

Ded- "Also it appears the Shepherd Rod is not posting on the internet the issue of Symbolic Codes, Vol. 11, #1 that contains the information."

Gsll-- Again, your words show that you have very little knowledge of the Srod or it's history. Those "codes" were the ones apostate Florence Houteff published, and thus are not believe authenic by many Srod followers.

Ded- "Florence Houteff's false 1260 day prophecy was based on the 1260 days pointing to the time when the SDA Church would be "purified".

Gsll- So now you are distancing yourself on this issue. All of a sudden it's Florence Houteff's false 1260 prophecy(?)

You have attempted also to paint him and his teachings in a false light when you spoke about the real possibility that his followers could rise up and start slaying those in the church.

In researching Houteff's writings I found that he endorsed the standard SDA teachings of the 1260 days.


Notice below the words "The period with the Bible" . You'll see the 1260 days shown. (538 bc to 1798 ad)

By the way this is one of about 27 charts VTH drew.

False witness is nothing to wink at. please provide those writings showing VTH made that 1260 day application for end times. If not please, for you own soul's sake admit that this was false witness.

Are you so sure you are not the one doing the "false witnessing" by denying what I actually said and turning it into something different-- a BIG straw man, in order to shoot me down instead of dealing with the issues?

I said
.
I did NOT say Victor Houteff gave the amplified version.
Never once did I say Houteff predicted the 1959 date, which you now seem to say that I said, and then falsely accuse me of bearing false witness.

"Also it appears the Shepherd Rod is not posting on the internet the issue of Symbolic Codes, Vol. 11, #1 that contains the information."

GL&L Again, your words show that you have very little knowledge of the Srod or it's history. Those "codes" were the ones apostate Florence Houteff published, and thus are not believe authenic by many Srod followers."

I'm also fully aware of that, for that particular issue does give the details as to why Florence made the prediction.
Now the shepherd Rod people are hiding that.

Interestingly they do publish quite a number of HER codes after code 11#1 where she mainly publishes V.Houteff's sermons.



What I said was that Florence, showed FRUITS (that is RESULTS) of Houteff's message, by enlarging on something Houteff had said.
The FRUITS (after effects) of his messages are anything but positive.

So Houteff also agreed with 538- 1798, but was his wife right, when she wrote that he regarded those years only as a "type" and the real fulfilment is yet to come?

His explanation of Revelation 12 does seem to agree that he was looking at other explanations?

Why don't you explain how that message that YOU POSTED on the other thread (taken from Vol. 9 Symbolic Code Nos. 1-12. page 6, and Vol. 7 Symbolic Code Nos. 7-12. page 8 can fit into 538 -1798?

There he is dealing with Rev. 12 where the woman goes "into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent"

He then explains this PROPHECY of the woman in the wilderness for "time, times and half a time" as follows:

And this time I'll take it straight from V.Houteff's writings not your post.



It's clear, Houteff, changed the symbols.

1) The wilderness is not presented as mountains and forests where the church hides from the papal armies during the dark ages of 538 to 1798, but rather the wilderness is presented as the apostles going to Gentile nations to preach which began in 34 AD.

2) He then takes an incredible leap into the future saying the gospel can't really go to the Gentiles until "the great purge of Ezekiel 9" takes place.

Then he back tracks to Constantine's time (312 AD) as to when the flood came (unconverted pagans).

3) According to Houteff the flood has not yet been swallowed by the earth. And he then links it to wheat and tares in the church. And again states not until the purge of Ezekiel 9 (which he in other places defines as pretty much all active Adventists being killed) takes place, before the gospel can go in full light to the Gentiles.

This is a complete distortion of the 1260 days.

Nowhere does it fit into 538- 1798.
The woman was in the wilderness from 538 - 1798.

But if I understand Houteff's reasoning in this "code" he is saying the church was "in the wilderness" (Gentile communities) preaching to the Gentiles from AD 34 to 312 AD, then the flood of unconverted came into the church which continues to this day, only now the concern is concentrated only in the Adventist church, and not till the Adventist members are all killed, will the "few survivors" (shepherd rod believers?) finally preach to the Gentiles in full power.

So here already in Rev. 12 we see that Houteff is teaching

"the definite conviction that the time prophecy of Revelation 11:2-12 and Daniel 12:6, 7 [which is the same 1260 day/year period as in Rev. 12] could have met their fulfillment only in type from 538 A.D. to 1798 A.D. and that they have a latter-day fulfillment."-The Symbolic Code, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3 (Italicized words mine)

Ded-- " Florence took over the leadership and bolstered up their confidence by amplifying V.Houteff's statements that the 1260 prophetic days would have a literal fulfillment, so she marked off 1260 literal days that ended sometime in 1959, when certain end time events supposedly were to transpire --- of course they didn't."

Gsll- How can she be "amplifying" something that he did not say? Again this is a twisting of the truth. If he taught something about it then that could possibly be the case but he taught nothing about it.

Further, you claim that the code vol. 11,no. 1 had some info on that latter day fulfillment of the 1260 day prophecy. There are two errors here with your thinking.

1) It is well known among serious students of the SRod that F. Houteff was promoting her agenda and many (including me) strongly believe that these "new codes" were tampered with.

2) VTH NEVER authorized ANY sermon address (code reports)to be published that she published. They were not to be published and he did not want them published. VTH specifically published many addresses and oversaw them meticulously. She took over and started so much trouble in the movement.

Additionally you quote-- "the definite conviction that the time prophecy of Revelation 11:2-12 and Daniel 12:6, 7 [which is the same 1260 day/year period as in Rev. 12] could have met their fulfillment only in type from 538 A.D. to 1798 A.D. and that they have a latter-day fulfillment."-The Symbolic Code, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3 (Italicized words mine)

Let's play the devil's advocate and say VTH did make this statement. Does these words give any specific information on that 1260 year prophecy? of-course not. No specific future dates can be imposed upon that statement, only if one wishes to impose them themselves!

I suggest you read this post to learn more on this issue that you talk about yet know very little:

Symbolic codes (the historical facts)

Ded-"Never once did I say Houteff predicted the 1959 date, which you now seem to say that I said, and then falsely accuse me of bearing false witness."

Gsll- if you'll read that quote again. you clearly imply that it was the original VTH statements that Florence was expanding on and showing the people--which is false.

read this clearly--Victor Houteff DID NOT teach of ANY latter day 1260 day prophecy fulfillment --understand?

Your twisting and squirming here is not helping. why don't you just say you were wrong and should have left his name out of that quote (and extremely important historical point) and then said that it was Florence's teaching that brought the people to the Mt. Carmel camp in Waco during 1959.

She also was THE CAUSE of people like your friend's parents who "lost everything" - do you understand this as well?

Again, to show you history that you should already know, if you wish to speak authoritatively on this subject, there were a sizable amount of original members of the camp who protested Florence's teaching and made a valiant effort to warn the people not to fall for the failed predictions. They decided to leave the camp well before this fiasco happened and those who came or remained, did so with their eyes and ears 'wide open".

Your attempt to continue to paint Victor in a false light and smear job is not fair and upright especially for a "Christian" who wants to get to the bottom of the issue--truth.

Again, you are continually ignoring previous statements such as your attempt to paint VTH as a teacher of some teachings that could lead some people to start shooting up people in the church (thinking they are doing God's will) -how utterly foolish and false. Can God be happy with this providing false public smearing of a man you know little about?

See the Wikipedia article, which shows he was strongly opposed to any such teachings. It's amazing how the anti- Rod people continue to stick with the same outlandish views of the SRod teachings. DSDA-Wikipedia


"True confession is always of a specific character, and acknowledges particular sins. They may be of such a nature as only to be brought before God, they may be wrongs that should be confessed before individuals who suffered injury through them, or they may be of a general kind that should be known in the congregation of the people. But all confession should be definite and to the point, acknowledging the very sins of which you are guilty." (Test. for the church, vol. 5, p.639)

".. very few who become involved in error are willing to humble themselves by renouncing their errors and accepting the truth when it is made known." (Tract 5,p.7)