A certain wise man remarked that one secret of being a successful politician is to be able to accurately predict what would happen in a year's time, and then be able to explain why, when the time came, his prediction did not happen.

What is the most important thing to know in the last days? Each little event in detail, which may are may not be correct? Or know WHO it is that is causing the various events? What do we need to know? John 17:3

And I stand by it.

God led His people to "cry wolf" in 1843 and twice 1844 and the world concluded that Adventists "quote an abundance of Scripture, and teach much that is true; but truth is so mixed with error as to lead to wrong conclusions."

And when God tried to put Adventisim back on track in 1888, the Adventists in authority refused the message stating that Jones and Wagoneer "quote an abundance of Scripture, and teach much that is true; but truth is so mixed with error as to lead to wrong conclusions" in spite of EGW confirming their message.

Should it be any different in 2014 when Daniel and Revelation are explaining themselves by their fulfillment? People rise up against the message who have not taken the time to study it-- they speak ill of what they know not.

Should I be wrong about Barack Obama's role in Bible prophecy, surely God will lay the fault at the feet of those who brushed my study off but refused to study the particulars. For I diligently searched for light and begged God's people to study the word of God with me. They responded as you do now.

It is like the papists in Luther's day. They disagreed with Luther, but stood their ground without looking at the Scriptures upon which Luther was basing his protest.

But alas EGW warned of that as well.

When bible prophecy speaks of horns it is always talking about a power unless it expressly takes the image further in description.

The Little Horn is seen rising up in the midst of the Ten horns in Daniel. Those ten horns are ten nations not ten presidents. But the Horns have been given descriptors so they can be identified as nations that arose out of the beast. They were the powers that guided them to form their own respective nations.

But the little horn is given the descriptors of having a mouth that speaks blasphemy against the most high and it comes up among the other horns or nations. This easily identifies the power of the Papal powered beast.

The ten horns on the beast of Rev 17 that lend their strength to the beast for one hour are the other churches that give their religious strength to the beast for 15 literal days during the death decree phase of the mark of the beast. They have ten very influential leaders at their heads and the number ten is not literal it is symbolic for the complete number of fallen churches that have disregarded God's law (thus the number 10).

A horn is strength. Power. There are always descriptors to identify what the horn is to represent. From horns you get what kind of power in the descriptors.

Henry you're quite correct here in your assessment of Adventism.
But more pointedly, this was a denominational rejection of Christ,
for which the Church has never confessed nor repented.
Sin always requires confession, repentance, turning to the light.

The Church rejected Christ in 1888 and has been living in denial ever since.
It is not possible Biblically, for any church to be considered pure and trustworthy
while rejecting Christ.

Yet for generations Adventist professors have built up this organization
(leveraging the literary treasure of EGW) educating many thousands in SDA seminaries.

What is the fruit of these works?
Can 125 years of rebellion & denial, since 1888,
ever sharpen minds on the finest details of Scripture & prophecy?
Does apostasy lead to greater light from God?

Fortunately, no. God is just and consistent.
Jerusalem was not saved as a nation, but individuals by faith
heeded the prophecy - not one perished in 70 A.D.

The fruit of rebellion is seen in our worldly standards.
Eat, dress, educate, work, marry, procreate, invest, retire as we want.
No gratitude toward God, no allegiance to His Law, no thought of his Son's second coming.

The rejection of Christ in 1888 still stands.
Christ does not force repentance.
___________________________________

A big difference between 1844 and 2014, is that in 1844, the revival was not in one individual but over a wide area simultaneously. Read about it in the book, The Great Controversy

Henry,

David Gates illustrates the Adventist dilemma in under 3 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM8EFNImcb0

__________________________________

David Gates' illustration was to show that Jesuits can see Ellen White's writings revealing the truth of their own plans. God revealed this to Ellen White years ago and the Jesuits can't help but see it as truth.

It has nothing to do with Adventists needing to accept the speculative ideas such as the four beasts of Daniel 7 being four presidents (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) of the United States, and a fifth is Obama. EGW most certainly did not teach that.

Ellen White was given the information on last day events.
I think we should stick to that, not try to re-interpret and manufacture new interpretations that have to be changed with every new president and pope.

Though the video clip does explain something interesting. If what Gates says is actual fact, then the Jesuits are very familiar with EGW's writings. They would be using those writings in a systematic way to further their own advantage, not to promote the truth those writings actually reveal, but to destroy their true message.

Yes, there are forces working very hard not only to cause people to disregard EGW's writings, but also to so misapply them that people are confused as to what she actually says.


By misapplying EGW's sentences and paragraphs to make it SEEM like she is supporting their theories, even though she does NOT, and make it SEEM like she urges people to accept every wind of interpretation that blows, takes the focus off the real issues which she points out in considerable detail. These misapplications cause Adventists to waste their time squabbling over such unrevealed things as to who the last president will be, or other such details, instead of actually studying the message that is plainly given.

Right now, since Obama is president, some are dogmatic that he is the last, leading people into studying Obama, instead of studying Christ and how to be "safely hid in Him" as well as to what is revealed about the end time.
A person who studies the actual message in EGW's writings will be watchful to the unfolding of events, they won't be ignorant of the mounting evidence that we are on the edge, and this regardless of the roller coaster ride of those continually refocused on some specific person sitting in the seat of the powers that will play the end time game.
The end game will play out, whether Obama is president or someone else has the chair.
The end game will play out, even if Benedict dies, even if the Catholics were to depose Francis, even if a new pope takes the chair -- it will still play out as predicted,
because the prophecies are not dependant on any one individual -- they describe the powers that will fight against Lamb of God and His people.

Our desire and study is to be on the side of Christ.

Sadly the Jesuits have read all her works and acclaim them as truly inspired,
even owning complete libraries - while many SDA, employee & laity alike, are unread,
unaware and even dismissive of her counsel.

As Henry notes, Christ was rejected by the denomination.
This fact is very well documented, but today is covered.
Those who cling to the denomination quibble over prophecy,
while bypassing repentance & confession.

Many churches are in a similar condition, but none have had such light.
________________________

This was documented by the late Jim Arrabito almost thirty years ago,
as well as other SDAs before and since.
______________________________

"Those who cling to the denomination quibble over prophecy,
while bypassing repentance & confession.

Many churches are in a similar condition, but none have had such light."

Yes, gordonb1, I couldn't agree with you more. As the ol saying goes --"first things first". Our walk is a stair step and we must clearly walk up each step and not try and "jump" up 3 or 4 steps. If we talk the talk we must walk the walk.