Regarding the remnant theology, I think there are those who have a wrong idea regarding what the remnant means, but the concept is fine.



This is the work of the remnant.

The original claim was "false time-setting message." You have now changed it to "biblical grounds of definite time." Neither quote shows that those objected to the "definite time" (only the 1st says this; the second shows the real motive, which if true (I can't read minds that far back) then it is true that they didn't love Jesus) did so on biblical grounds.

Which clearly excludes any identifying of the remnant with any human organisation, including the Sda church.

Why is the SDA church clearly excluded? What do you see as the role of the SDA church?

First of all she quotes from Mark 1:15:

Mar 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,
Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

This passage shows Jesus preaching, not the disciples.

Here is what He told the 12:

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans,
Mat 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And proclaim as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.

The kingdom of HEAVEN is at hand. And if that is what they preached that is certainly a true message.



You seem confused by your own analogy. They stated their reason for objecting to Miller's message, according even to Ellen, based on the definite time, and "no man knows the day or the hour.

Ie. your analogy is meant to show that the disciples had an equally wrong message that was a test. But it does not show that. First because the message which God gave them was not wrong. Second because in Miller's case we specifically see people pointing out Scriptural flaws and therefore rejecting it, on the basis of the flaws in the message.

So let's reiterate.

A. Jesus gave a TRUE message to the disciples.

B. Ellen says God was in the false message of Miller, including the preaching of the time, in order to test.




And here we come to another difference. Many who initially rejected Jesus came to faith. Yet Ellen says that the churches who did not receive the first message could not receive the second, etc. She even admits to holding to the shut door for a time, along with all the others. And when I discussed the point with one of the White Estate folks recently he said they now believe that did not start to change until the 1850's.

In fact her visions reinforced the message. But that is for another time to discuss.


However, you have yet to point out those who rejected the disciples message based on what you perceive to be their error. While we see clearly people rejecting Miller's message.




So you quote the words there, but not what He told them to say. If they said what He told them their message was not false. They were proclaiming the message of the kingdom of heaven.



Your whole argument here seems to be toward a point I am not arguing. I didn't mention it having to be before 1858. As I pointed out she was looking for a way to legitimize their movement, and Miller was it. They had to find some way to explain this sanctuary teaching and the prophecies, and Miller had to be right for that to work. Now how does the fact that this was in 1858 change that?





Huh? So she had no excuse, but it was all their fault? They rejected it based on the set time. She and Miller were wrong about the set time.


I have heard people preach a year. I heard it around the year 2000 based on the view that the 6k years of earth's history prefigured the Sabbatical 1k years.

1843 most certainly is a time. If someone said Jesus would come in the year 2009 would you support it? Or would you tell them to preach Jesus near, but not a time? It was a time. It was a failed time. It did not happen.

Now again, they narrowed it to a date at the end. What was their excuse then? How did they avoid Jesus text then?

As to reading the hearts, the issue is that she said it was a test for all who heard it. But we know that many objected ON THE BASIS of the time. I quoted Dowling above for instance who took this position.

Are you really suggesting that every single person who heard Miller, and who rejected the belief while quoting these texts really didn't love Jesus? Even though Dowling himself appealed to Miller to save sinners?

Ellen believed in a false-time setting message, even to the point of accepting a day. And then she justified it by saying God told her to, in opposition to the Scriptures. And you believe her when she said that those rebuking her Scripturally were all, to a person, every single one of them, insincere and didn't love Jesus?

She wrote the only thing she could. She assailed their characters because she could not assail their facts. Jesus did rule out knowing the times. And Jesus did not come in 1843.

Here was my statement:

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.

Now if you will observe I am characterizing her comments not quoting. I characterized Miller's message as a false, time-setting message numerous times in my comments because

a. it was false.
b. it was time-setting.

Therefore it is quite clear what message I am referring to when I used the term in that way. I am referring to the 1843 message which Ellen said God was behind. This message was false. This message was time-setting.

Then when you asked for evidence I pointed to the quotes of Ellen's writings which establish the following:

a. Those who objected cited the texts about definite time.

b. Ellen said God was behind Miller's message and used it as a test. It included a time, 1843.

c. Jesus did not come in 1843.

Therefore Miller's message was a false, time-setting message that she said God tested people on.





You need to read back a bit in the section from EW where she specifically quotes the passage regarding "no man knows the day or the hour." I am assuming familiarity on the subject since I was not aware you would be posting and those in the conversation seemed conversant.


"No man knoweth the day nor the hour," was heard from the hypocritical minister and the bold scoffer.

Ie. she acknowledges their reason and then says it was a lie. But you have yet to prove that every single person who rejected Miller's message and quoted the Scripture did so out of false motives. That is your prophet's claim and up to you to show.

I have already quoted one minister who seemed quite sincere and seemed to love Jesus who referenced the definite time in 1840.

But in the final analysis they were right. The time set was wrong. It was not only against the Scriptures but did not come to pass. And rather than accepting that rebuke Ellen blamed God and said He was behind the time, using it as a test to judge all those who were right when she and her group were wrong.

Because if you identify the SDA church as the remnant, you are at the same time excluding everyone else as not the remnant. Thereby discriminating against brothers and sisters in the body of Christ in a most disrespectfull way. The SDA church is clearly just one church among all the other churches that exist in our world. The SDA church is usually not a leader or positive influence on christianity or on anyone else who is not part of the church or a prospect in becoming part of the church. The SDA church is much to xenophobic to influence anyone outside of the group. If there is an event organised by all churches in one city, one could bet that there is one exception to that. The local SDA church is not involved, and at most some members might atend the event. One could say that these SDA are happy to take part as long as they dont have the ability influence the contents of the event. And the other Adventists are just happily ignorant that anything is happening at all and will call the pastor in the middle of the night to complain if someone had the audacity to put a poster about the event in the church bulletin board. Remnant theology, i.e. the belief that we are the true christians and everyone else are not and are to be avoided, has the result that Adventism is not the salt of the earth, it is at most the salt in the jar. Nor is it the light of the earth, at most it is the light under the shade. So whatever the theory might be, adventism is a regular protestant church on the xenophobic side of the line. Any possible talk about being a movement tracking a path for christianity is nothing more than that. Talk.

The day of atonement type of entering was already fulfilled. It is just the forgiveness on the personal level that is ongoing.



And yet that is how the author represents it in Hebrews. And in fact we see God specifically say to David that his sin is forgiven--then--not many years later, in the account with Bathsheba.

Parables make a point, but need not be stretched beyond that point. The one who is forgiven who then turns away from forgiveness removes himself from the benefits thereof.

But God tells David that He forgave him.



The cleansing was corporate, the acceptance was personal.

Now, let's look at your questions. Do you not hold that the inauguration was a cleansing as you indicated? From what? If there were no sacrifices yet how were the sins transferred?

And as to the cleansing before the sin was committed, you have the same issue in the sacrifice. Were sacrifices offered for sins not yet committed? The sacrifice came AFTER the sin.

Yet what we have is a corporate one-time sacrifice that even covers later sins. And in the same way the sins are said in Hebrews to be purged. It was a corporate cleansing. And it extends to all the sins throughout human history, which is what the year is indicative of in the type--just as the sacrifice does.

The sacrifice and entrance are one time events, rooted in history, but they are corporate events, satisfying all the requirements, even for future sins.

The person on the other hand still accepts or rejects in their own time.




Does or does not the text say that He made purification for sins? Does that not mean just what it says? It was for all sins, even future ones.

That answers the first question, but not the second (about what you see as the SDA role).

Throughout Scripture, there has always been a denominated, or visible, body of Christ, and an invisible one. The true descendants of Abraham (true Jews, one could say) were the ones who accepted Christ, even if they were Gentiles. The purpose God had in mind for the Jewish nation, a denominated body, was to give a message to the world to prepare the way for the coming Messiah.

Similarly, the SDA church is a denominated body, with a given purpose to likewise give a message.

That is the theory. The truth? Not in the same ball court.