I didn't follow all of your post. It sounded like you were agreeing with my points regarding Miller, but I'm not 100% positive.

I like very much what you wrote (quoted) regarding the judgment. I think that's a very solid foundation to investigate it from.

A. Did the disciples say that? Or did they say what Jesus told them to? What did Jesus specifically tell them to say?


B. Do we see anyone in the Scriptures turning away from Jesus because they thought the disciples message was not accurate in regards to the earthly reign aspect?

C. Do we see those in part B above, if indeed we do see some, judged for not accepting the disciples false notions as Ellen says about the people who were tested in Miller's time?



Doesn't add up. Notice what Ellen says in EW:


After Jesus opened the door of the most holy, the light of the Sabbath was seen, and the people of God were tested, as the children of Israel were tested anciently, to see if they would keep God's law. I saw
255
the third angel pointing upward, showing the disappointed ones the way to the holiest of the heavenly sanctuary. As they by faith enter the most holy, they find Jesus, and hope and joy spring up anew. I saw them looking back, reviewing the past, from the proclamation of the second advent of Jesus, down through their experience to the passing of the time in 1844. They see their disappointment explained, and joy and certainty again animate them. The third angel has lighted up the past, the present, and the future, and they know that God has indeed led them by His mysterious providence. {EW 254.2}

It was represented to me that the remnant followed Jesus into the most holy place and beheld the ark and the mercy seat, and were captivated with their glory.


She speaks of the remnant, etc. already and identifies it with her group who accepted the new sanctuary teaching and the Sabbath.





A. Note that you said there was a date finally set. What was Ellen's excuse then?

B. Jesus did say to know when it was near. However Miller went beyond that. He clearly said 1843, which was a time, not just "it is near."

C. Miller was wrong on that year. Miller was wrong again the next year. And Miller was wrong when at the last moment he bought into the specific day. Had he stuck to just "it is near" then there wouldn't have been a problem. But he did not.

D. Jesus made it very plain to His disciples that they did not know when He was coming in that same discourse:


Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Mat 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
Mat 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
Mat 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
Mat 24:46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.



They were to be expectant. They were to know when it was near. They did not know the time. And Miller set a false time. His message was rightfully rejected.

Notice the words of Pastor Dowling, a Baptist minister of the day who wrote regarding miller's theories in 1840:


I cannot but suppose that Mr. M. is a pious, well-meaning man. I would advise him, in conclusion, if he would escape the distress I know it would cause him in his old age to have been unintentionally instrumental in the spread of infidelity, to go home and preach Christ crucified to perishing sinners, which I have no doubt he is qualified to do, and to waste no more of a life which might be valuable if rightly spent, in vainly attempting to make known those times and seasons which God hath wisely concealed from the ken of mortals, and "put into His own power."


Had Miller done that, had he retained his burden for sinners, wanting to see them saved, and continued to work for Jesus coming, but without date setting, he would have avoided much shame for himself and the church. But at least Miller admitted his error. Ellen said it was God's doing, and that God was testing the people. She said that those who would not buy Miller's false time-setting message did not love Jesus. When in fact they loved Him enough to follow His word.

The day of atonement was a corporate event--not just an individual sinner's event. The presentation was for every sin ever--all the sins of the people.

It was the provision as much as the cross was.




Intercession from the right hand of God, having already completed all the activities associated with the sacrifice, including the entry described in 9:12 and 9:24, 25.


Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The new and living way was already provided by the blood. Now the ongoing cleansing is seen as analogous to the sprinkling of the purification water. The water was made by sacrifice but used long after the sacrifice was made:


Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.


Jesus already made provision.




Read what Hebrews describes:

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

Jesus completed His work of cleansing in the time described by the author. And now He waits.

It should also be noted that the earthly high priest did not wait thousands of years between the sacrifice and the entry--so that doesn't help either argument. The reality is not the same as the type.

But Hebrews says what happens next, and it is dealing with Christ's enemies.



Explain what you think this verse applies to:

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


Or this one:

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Purification for sins was made.

Where did she say that?

Here:

Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said that they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ's coming, but they objected to the definite time. God's all-seeing eye read their hearts. They did not love Jesus near.

And here:



I saw that if professed Christians had loved their Saviour's appearing, if they had placed their affections on Him, and had felt that there was none upon the earth to be compared with Him, they would have hailed with joy the first intimation of His coming. But the dislike which they manifested, as they heard of their Lord's coming, was a decided proof that they did not love Him. Satan and his angels triumphed, and cast it in the face of Christ and His holy angels, that His professed people had so little love for Jesus that they did not desire His second appearing. {EW 235.2}


She admits that they objected on the biblical grounds of the definite time. But then she says they did not love Jesus.

Miller's message was not just Jesus was coming soon. It was Jesus is coming around 1843. It involved date setting, though Jesus had said you don't know when He will come. Therefore they were right to reject that message.

They obviously said what they thought Jesus had told them to say about the kingdom of God. And what did they think about the kingdom of God which Jesus was going to establish?


Do you see anyone in the 1840’s turning away from Jesus because they thought Miller’s message was not accurate in regards to the earthly reign aspect? As far as I know, those who quoted the Scriptures to reject Miller’s message continued to attend their respective churches.


Well, those who rejected the disciples’ message, whatever their reason for doing so, rejected Jesus.

"And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!” (Matt. 10:14, 15).


This book was published only in 1858, but probably these concepts began to be integrated into a unified body of belief during the six Bible conferences held in 1848.


None. After all those years of preaching, at the time the date was finally set all those who wished to reject the message had already rejected it.


I’ve never seen a time-setting message announced as “around year X.” However, Ellen White’s main point here has to do not with the rejection of the message, but with the reason for doing so. Only God can read the heart. Neither you nor I can know if those people who rejected the message were sincere Christians or not. Ellen White here is speaking of something God revealed to her. Of course if you believe in her inspiration, you will believe what she said. If you don’t believe her inspiration, you won’t believe what she said. Therefore, it’s completely useless to discuss this.


The cleansing of the sanctuary or of the believer? The purification water is paralleled just to the purification of our consciences.
I don’t believe the type of the Day of Atonement is being fulfilled on an ongoing basis since Christ’s ascension because
1) in the type, a regular intercession lasted throughout the year, but an intercession coupled with a work of judgment and the cleansing of the sanctuary occurred only during the Day of Atonement
2) if the sanctuary is being cleansed, and therefore sins are being blotted out when confessed, as the evangelicals teach, then if the person later abandons Christ, that person won’t give an account of his previous sins before God (which goes against what the parable of Matt. 18 teaches).


After these sins had been committed – not before it. How can sins be blotted out before being committed? After the sanctuary had been polluted – not before it. How can a sanctuary be cleansed before being polluted? Besides, I don’t see it as a corporate event - sinners would be individually cut off from the people if they refused to repent from their sins.


Christ entered the sanctuary, inaugurated it and started His ministry of intercession for sinners, appearing now in the presence of God for us.


I see Heb. 1:3 as parallel to Heb. 10:12: “But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.”

As an aside, this reminded me of the following:



I think this is getting at the key question that needs to be considered. Did Miller have a message from God? One cannot argue that he didn't, because there was some error in it, because that's true of any message from God that was given in the almost 1800 years before Miller.

Ellen White wrote in the late 1850's that "Christ could have come before now" but that it was necessary for the warts (she actually used a word like "earthiness") to be removed, and the Great Disappointment was a part of that process.

It's not that God caused or intended the error in understanding to occur, but God saw that the best path to bringing an end to sin as quickly as possible (always God's goal) was to allow the Great Disappointment to take place.

Under this scenario, we have:
1.William Miller was used by God to bring a message that Christ's coming was near, even at the doors.
2.There was a group of people who longed for Christ's coming, and love it. They were so disappointed when Christ did not came, they wept as for a loved one lost.
3.Even so, they still had warts ("earthiness") to be removed.
4.God allowed the Great Disappointment to take place, even using this to help prepare for the coming of Christ.

Another scenario would be:
1.William Miller was not used by God to bring a message that Christ's coming was near, even at the doors.
2.Those who longer for Christ's coming, and loved it, were simply deluded. It was not God's will that they respond to Miller's message as they did.
3.Those who rejected Miller's message, were right to do so.
4.Ellen White was as deluded as Miller was, and therefore must be rejected as being a messenger of the Lord.

These are two mutually exclusive scenarios which run along different tracks. If one views that EGW was correct, that Christ could have come before the late 1850's, then the fact that Miller was used of God makes perfect sense.

Im not sure why you cannot follow all of my post. You asked me some questions and I wrote answers to these. What I wrote regarding Miller is the usual story regarding him as I know it and I did not in that post reflect on wether what he did was good or bad. I think Tall is asking good questions about Miller.
Ill also add regarding the remnant theology of adventism, that as Luther erred through his antisemitism, equally adventism is erring in its remnant theology. Both masquerade as scriptural concepts but are in reality bastions of contempt for the giants upon who's shoulders we stand. Both are founded on a foundationsless feeling of superiority compared with another group of people. Antisemitism has proven lethal, pray that we abandon remnant theology before it too goes thus far.

Considering that your previous argument was that a little error cannot be used to say that someone did not have a message from God, I think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth regarding point 4, although I admit it does appear to support your case in favour of the first set of statements on a purely surface level. Tom, you have often refered to the importance of understanding the character of God to understand such things as this. What do you see in the Gods character that would allow for either of the scenarios above? Would God use false hopes and cruel disapointment to identify His people?

I didn't follow this.



This is a good question.

Remember the story that Jesus taught regarding Lazarus and the Rich Man? Jesus told this story because His listeners believed the soul was immortal. The story was regarding a different point, which Jesus wanted to make. He didn't deal with the error regarding the immortality of the soul at that time.

We all have errors in our paradigm. God has to work with us where we are at the time. This is true both corporately and individually.

God never does anything to needlessly cause pain. However, He does allow painful things to happen to us, even though these painful things are not necessarily His will for us. When these things happen, if we are willing, God is able to work a blessing for us.

I think, given the paradigm the people had at the time, it wasn't possible for them to see things differently. That God knew of this possibility is evident in Revelation, in the vision of the scroll that was eaten which was sweet in the mouth, but not in the belly.