Yes, and was Jesus coming in 1843? Or around it?

Jesus is coming soon, that is a biblical message. Jesus is coming____________ is not biblical message. Jesus said that the Son Of Man will come at hour you do not expect.

Miller's message was a time-setting message, and those who rejected it were right to do so.




Churches yes. Remnants, no. And their new message was that Jesus went into the MHP. They needed a feast of trumpets for their day of atonement. They needed some sign that their message was true.

Miller's false time-setting message was all they had.




I am not a psychologist. I just have her statements.

She upheld Miller's failed time-setting as a fulfillment of prophecy, as God's will, and as a test--though it was those who rejected it who really followed their Bible.






And that would likely be another thread yet.





Because the sacrifice of Christ was the perfect provision for every sin that ever will be committed and was rooted in historical events that already took place.

Incidentally, the last part of the service, when sin left the camp, actually occurred after the high priest came out of the sanctuary, not while he was still in it. And that would be yet future.

But the cleaning, the sacrifice, the blood--Jesus already did those in His historical acts.

Now you ask how the sanctuary could be cleansed...but don't you hold that it was?

Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

I heard Miller like most everyone else in his time started out with a deist view and that Millers contribution to todays Christianity was helping the churches come back from deism to a faith that includes an active God. Though it is possible that at least parts of the church today has lost that again, if not in theory so in practise.

1. Your argument, regarding Miller, looks to be:
a)Date setting is wrong.
b)Therefore Miller's message could not have been from God.
c)Those who rejected it were right to do so, because of the date-setting.

Regarding b), truth is progressive. One could reject virtually *any* message of previous centuries, going back to the time of Christ, given the logic you are presenting.

Regarding c), it is would be important to know why one was rejecting the message to know if one was right in so doing. If God was indeed leading the message, would one still be right in rejecting it?

Consider, for example, Luther. Luther had mistakes in his teachings. But was God leading him? Would one have been right to reject his teachings, because of errors? Wouldn't one have to consider *why* Luther's teachings were being rejected?




Sure, it was a provision for any sin that could be committed, but the sins hadn't yet actually been committed. So how could the sanctuary be cleansed of sins which didn't exist?

The cleansing of the sanctuary corresponds to a contemporaneous cleansing that occurs in the hearts and minds of believers as they follow by faith the work of their Most High Priest.

There is an intimate tie between the sanctuary and believers that are being ministered to by Christ's work there.

This ties back to Rosangela's point, which is that the sins that need to be cleansed didn't exist yet, because they people who would commit them didn't exist. So how could there be a cleansing of them?

So I want to get your view straight. You think that God was in favor of date-setting, though Jesus said that He would come when no one knew?

And you are saying that this message--which included an un-biblical element, HAD to be accepted to retain God's favor?

In other words, the only way for someone to love Jesus, once they had heard Miller, was to buy into the date-setting error?

No.



No.



No.

I'm not understanding how you came to these conclusions based on what I wrote.

Again, consider Luther as an example. Were there any errors in his teaching? Was God leading him? Would one be justified in rejecting Luther's teachings because of errors that Luther had?

The same could be said in the 1844 view aswell. How could the sanctuary be cleansed in 1844 of sins commited in 2008? If your reply relies on an ongoing cleansing during this entire period, why would this period start 1844 rather than being ongoing during the entire christian age?This again suggest a cleansing which has been in effect in all times. Unless you wish to argue either that Moses and David for instance, (and maybe John, Peter and Paul aswell since they lived before 1844) were not subject to such a cleansing or that the grounds for salvation has changed from some previous standard to one for these days which includes a contemporaneous cleansing of all believers. A tie which earlier generations of christians somehow had to get by without?Your sins did not exist 150 years ago, how are they cleansed?

I know. The first question ties in with your suggestion: It is no large leap between this rethorical question of yours and wondering wether you really believe that accepting Millers date-setting was mandatory for the salvation of M's contemporaries.

You wrote:
One could easily wonder here wether you are suggesting that truth sometimes progresses in a way which leaves it the oposite to what Christ taught, i.e. Jesus said that only God knows the time and the hour but when Miller came along with 1800 years of truth progression, not only God knew but some humans aswell. ?

There are mistakes and then there are Mistakes. Luther erred in things outside of his main contribution, righteousness by faith. Miller on the other hand did err regarding key concepts of his teaching. With this application of reviewing teachers, we might find ourselves having to start accomodating the antisemitism of Marcion or extreme pentecostalism á Montanus or gnosticism á Valentinus to name a few.

This would destroy the concept of 2 different phases to Christ's ministry, wouldn't it?



Who's making this leap?



What are you thinking of in relation to Miller? Please quote something from him.



How about the antisemitism of Luther?

Thomas, you're an SDA, aren't you? What's you're concept of Miller's teaching, what the SDA church teaches, and why you're an SDA?

It might, or at least the usual adventist understanding of the same. Is this important?Tall?I am relating here to the uncontested claims made in this thread regarding Miller. It is a serious flaw, but not Luthers legacy. My concept of Millers teaching, goes something like this: Farmer starts reading his bible with a concordance in his other hand, discovers a method of making sence of Daniels sealed prophecies for himself, building on his times understanding of historical events and quite likely a dose of prooftexting. He puts out the fleece and upon having a confirmaion starts to preach. Gets unexpected help from a guy who using another set of prophecies foretells the fall of the Turks and finds himself the leader of a popular but divisive movement. Sees his first expiration date for Christ return come and pass without Christ acctually coming back. Recovers from the disapointment by calculating with the zero year, but soon sees yet another expiration date come and go without any sights of Jesus on the skies. Denounces his discoveries and returns to the shadows of time.

The SDA church teaches salvation provided by the death of Christ on the cross, recieved by grace through faith and experienced in obedience to our Lords commands. When and if the teaching starts to stray into concepts inviting false feelings of spiritual supremacy such as remnant theology, I wether out the storm in the foyer (or challenge it openly if it is made in such a setting where it is possible, like SS discussion or between meetings).
I have only heard one explanation of the judgement that made any sence at all to me, an explanation saying that God runs His universe on the basis of evidence and the judgement is the opportunity when all of Gods creatures can review wether God's decisions are just or not. This does not require our having any concept or understanding of a year 1844, it deals with our understanding of who God is. Sun-moon years and such turn into excercises for understimulated theologically minded people.

Why I am an SDA? I was rased into the church and im not outgoing enough to check out the other churches in town properly. Although, what I have seen and heard so far, there is no reason to believe that Adventism is spiritually superior or any kind of VIP line to God. Wether it is theologically superior or not I do not know but neither does that matter so long as the higher degree of truth that perhaps exists stays as an internal affair to be considered and reconsidered by the faithful on sabbath morning or possibly on sabbath afternoon if your church is of the less concervative kind.
The day we are in friendly competition with the Salvation army or Pentecostals as the hands and feet of Jesus to the average non-religious John Doe , maybe then... if we still care about it by that time...

Obviously not, in the same way that when the disciples proclaimed that “the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand,” they were proclaiming that Christ was going to establish an earthly kingdom within 3 years and a half, but this was never going to happen.


The concept of the SDA church as the remnant was a concept that came later, not at the time that that handful of people started to study their Bibles. At that time, there wasn’t even a church. Obviously, if they were so eager to put themselves in evidence as a church, they wouldn’t have waited 20 years to organize that church.


As Ellen White says,

“’No man knoweth the day nor the hour’ was the argument most often brought forward by rejecters of the advent faith. ... A clear and harmonious explanation of this text was given by those who were looking for the Lord, and the wrong use made of it by their opponents was clearly shown. The words were spoken by Christ in that memorable conversation with His disciples upon Olivet after He had for the last time departed from the temple. The disciples had asked the question: ‘What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?’ Jesus gave them signs, and said: ‘When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.’ Verses 3, 33. One saying of the Saviour must not be made to destroy another. Though no man knows the day nor the hour of His coming, we are instructed and required to know when it is near.” (GC 370, 371).

It is this that Miller was preaching - that the coming of the Lord was near. He himself never set a precise date for this. Yet people had been rejecting the message for years before a date was finally set by Miller’s associates less than two months before the event.


As I have been saying, the sacrifice is associated with the provision of forgiveness (the paying of the penalty), but the presentation of blood in heaven (intercession) is associated with the appropriation of this forgiveness by the sinner, so it couldn’t have been done before the sins themselves had been committed.

Hebrews 7:25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

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


Precisely. Just after the sanctuary was cleansed, the high priest came out of it and sin left the camp. There is no gap between the cleansing and the rest of the events.


How do I hold that it was? It was not cleansed in the sense of removal of all sin from it.