Ok. As I pointed out, I was just pointing something out it looked to me like you might have missed. I'll let David respond to your comment that responded to his post if he wishes.

I think some clarifications would be in order about points which were raised.

Ellen White’s parallels between the disciples and Miller in The Great Controversy are the following:

Both the disciples and Miller were preaching about the same prophecy. The disciples were preaching about the end of the 70 weeks – the first period of the prophecy.
Miller was preaching about the end of the 2300 days – the last period of the prophecy.

Jesus told the disciples He would establish the kingdom of God at the middle of the 70th week. They interpreted it to mean that He would establish it by becoming a king, but in fact He would establish it by dying on the cross.
The prophecy of Dan. 8 said that after the 2300 days the sanctuary would be cleansed. Miller interpreted this as meaning the earth would be cleansed by Christ’s coming, but in fact the prophecy referred to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.

Many rejected the message of the disciples, not because they didn’t want a Messiah-King, but because they didn’t want a Messiah-King like Jesus (see John 19:15). He didn’t fit their profile, because He associated Himself with sinners and did not agree with the rules of the dominant class.
In the case of Miller, many rejected his message, not because they saw any error in Miller’s exposition of the prophecy (notice that there is no account of anyone saying he was wrong on this point), but because the message Miller was preaching didn’t fit their profile of the coming of Christ. They didn’t want His coming to occur immediately, but expected a millennium of peace and the conversion of the world before it.

“Adventists did not discover the error, nor was it discovered by the most learned of their opponents. The latter said: ‘Your reckoning of the prophetic periods is correct. Some great event is about to take place; but it is not what Mr. Miller predicts; it is the conversion of the world, and not the second advent of Christ.’" (GC 373, 374).


What Ellen White said about the shut door:

"For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This position was taken before my first vision was given me. It was the light given me of God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position.
I am still a believer in the shut-door theory, but not in the sense in which we at first employed the term or in which it is employed by my opponents.
There was a shut door in Noah's day. ...
There was a shut door in the days of Abraham. Mercy ceased to plead with the inhabitants of Sodom. ...
There was a shut door in Christ's day. The Son of God declared to the unbelieving Jews of that generation, ‘Your house is left unto you desolate’ (Matt. 23:38).
I was shown in vision, and I still believe, that there was a shut door in 1844. ... Those who did not see the light, had not the guilt of its rejection. It was only the class who had despised the light from heaven that the Spirit of God could not reach.” {1SM 63, 64}

Forgiven, yes. Although the figure of God blotting out sins does occur in the OT, the idea certainly is not literal, or at least it does not apply to that time, for later Christ would still die "for the redemption of the transgressions under the old covenant" (Heb. 9:15).


Because the sacrifice was presented only after the sinner had repented. However, on the cross, Christ paid the penalty for the sins of the whole world, independently of the individual acceptance of this sacrifice. Thus, forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ was provisional, and that’s why it could have been done in advance. But His mediation – the application of the blood - involves the personal appropriation of this sacrifice by the sinner. It couldn’t have been done corporately and in advance. There is, indeed, an aspect in which Christ is bearing the sins of all people, preventing the wrath of God to fall upon the world. But this is different from His intercession in behalf of His people.


How can sins be blotted out in advance? After sins are blotted out, they virtually cease to exist – there can be no registry of them in the heavenly books.


Cleansing here just meant inauguration, or dedication. I don’t think there were any sins on the mosaic tabernacle before its dedication.

Regarding post #97558, these were the thoughts I had in mind. I was asking questions to try to get to the points that Rosangela detailed. In particular, she brings out the issue of what it is that people were disagreeing with in regards to Miller's preaching. As in the case of the disciple's preaching (and any messenger sent of God), this is an important point to consider.

It is actually quite simple: you said "your prophet," I noted that I do not have a prophet. It is not a question of semantics but of fact. I do not call EGW a prophet.



Two different things and you don't find truth by counting noses.



Ah, I can't read minds. Your original statement said "I have already quoted one minister who seemed quite sincere and seemed to love Jesus who referenced the definite time in 1840." which to me implies that they believed Jesus would return in 1840.



I don't make the assumption that their objection was based on Scripture.



That's not standard SDA teaching.



bolded for you



Correct. I thought the "===" was a sufficient hint.

History has shown that SDA rather than christianity as a whole is Gods organised body on earth?[/quote]

I didn't make any reference to Christianity as a whole, nor was there any reference in what was quoted to Christainity as a whole.



You didn't.

Kai Arasola notes in his dissertation The End of Historicism that "most of Miller's opponents agreed with his method" and that they recognized his "Scriptural and historical information." (page 169, footnote 2).

And that is exactly where the error is. Tom wrote in the first quoted post of our list about the heirs of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the tribes of Israel being the denominated, visible body of Christ. Then following Jesus the true descendants were those who accepted Jesus. Then he compared this, the position and inheritance of Israel with, not christianity as he ought have done but with the SDA church which he ought not have done. Thus not saying, but non the less implying that SDA is carrying the fallen mantle of Israel as Elisha carried Elijahs. This is the problem which you to all appearances support. IMO you are both wrong for this. I shared my view and you objected to it. On who is the burden of proof really?

I think this is not putting what I said in its proper context. But setting that aside, the position of the SDA church has been, I think always, that in Revelation, where it speaks of a people that "have the commandments of Jesus and the testimony of Jesus Christ" that this refers to a denominated, or visible, body that keeps the commandments of God. Christianity as a whole does not recognize the Sabbath commandment. Much of Revelation is concerned with this fact.

SDAism has taught that the SDA church has been given a special message to give to the world, which is represented by 3 angels. You can see the 3 angels in front of many churches. So I'm not saying anything unusual, in regards to SDAism, am I? Maybe your point is that SDA's have it wrong. If that's your point, I disagree. I think God has given this church a special task to give the world a message to prepare for the coming of Christ.

Now if you were to question how well the church has done in regards to this, I would agree, but as to the question of whether or not SDA's have been given a special task, I believe they have, and that the usual arguments to demonstrate this point are sound.

I wasn't raised an SDA, and had to consider carefully all these things before coming one.

Wether SDA has been given a special message for the world is not the same question as saying that SDA is God's only organised body on earth today. That SDA is not the sum of the body of Christ organised but only a part does not negate that SDA has a message to deliver. It does however negate that SDA would be the only ones with a message to deliver or even being the only ones with this particular 3 angels message.