-
If
this thesis is correct, it would vindicate the Adventist pioneers as
especially led of the Holy Spirit.
-
The
foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist church (the sanctuary
doctrine) rests on a solid linguistic, contextual, and historical
basis.
-
Adventist
pioneers were the first group ever to properly reconstruct the true
import of the Daniel 8 prophecy (as the Holy Spirit intended).
-
The
Jewish interpretation of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn is
the product of early apostasy and unbelief, even from the time of
the Maccabees.
-
The
preterist interpretation continues as the product of papal unbelief.
-
Our
"new view" is logically an apotelesmatic appendage of the
Antiochus Epiphanes view.
-
The
Syrian king is a type, the papacy an antitype, of the little horn.
-
This
view involves serious linguistic, contextual problems.
-
It's
inconsistencies virtually render Daniel a taboo topic. Our people,
especially the youth, are widely ignorant of the Book of Daniel. Few
sermons are preached on the prophecies of Daniel. Into this vacuum
rushes the Cottrell-Ford assertion of Adventist prophetic
illegitimacy which is widely accepted by scholars whose doubts are
too often uncritically accepted by the laity.
-
The
result: serious distrust of 1844 and our unique sanctuary truth.
-
1844
and 1888 are complimentary dates. If one stands, the other does; if one
falls, inevitably, the other does also. If one loses significance,
inevitably the other does also.
-
Present
anti-1844 propaganda within Adventism is always accompanied by a
parallel antipathy for the 1888 message.
-
As
with Conradi, failure to discern the uniqueness of the 1888 view of
justification by faith prepares for failure to appreciate the
prophetic foundation of 1844.
-
The
1888 Message of righteousness by faith is integrally united with the
doctrine of the cleansing of the sanctuary. It is parallel to and
essentially consistent with it.
-
The
1888 message imparted spiritual appeal to the sanctuary doctrine,
freeing it from narrow egocentric legalism.
-
Failure
to appreciate the 1888 message perpetuated the old egocentric
concept of the sanctuary doctrine, preparing the way for widespread
internal and external criticism of the doctrine of the sanctuary and
the investigative judgment. The 1888 view of the 1844 truths is
refreshingly Christocentric, not the "stale, profitless"
egocentric view decried by external and internal opponents.
-
If
this thesis is correct, the pioneers' view of "the daily":
-
In
no way restricts the spiritual significance of the sanctuary
doctrine.
-
Establishes
1844 and the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary as the only
possible linguistic understanding of Daniel 8:14.
-
It
securely locks them in as exclusively referring to the terminus of
the 2,300 day/years in the Christian era—that is 1844 A.D.
-
It
eliminates the possibility of a logical reversion to Antiochus
Epiphanes or any other preterist view.
-
Eliminates
all futuristic conjectures in applying the 1260, 1290, 1335, and
2300 days literally.
-
Is
supported exegetically, linguistically, and contextually, by the
Hebrew text.
-
Is
the obvious response of history to prophecy.
-
Is
a lost truth whose hour has come, necessitated by the present
anti-1844, anti-sanctuary propaganda.
-
Is
simple to understand. Common people all over the world can readily
"see" the principle of apostate Christianity supplanting
or absorbing paganism as a historical reality and as an on-going
principle observable even today.
-
The
pioneers' view was clear and cogent, tying together Daniel 8 and 2
Thessalonians 2, focusing the 2300 days as years. There is no mental
stumbling block.
-
It
is true that no Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant commentaries support our
view of ha tamid; but should this keep us from accepting it?
-
Inconsistencies
of the popular view involve all these commentaries in a
quagmire of confusion and conjecture.
-
Some
commentators attempt to reconstruct or rewrite the text in order to
make it fit their preconceived, popular theories. This we cannot do.
-
We
are unworthy to exist if we are unwilling to confess truth which is
obviously supported by the Bible, regardless of an inability of
popular churches (or Jews) to see it.
-
Straightforward
linguistic, contextual, historical exposition of these prophecies
will command respect from thoughtful people "in Babylon."
We have no need to fear in presenting truth.
-
No
non-Adventist Christian commentaries support us on the Sabbath
truth; shall we abandon that truth for fear of opposition?
-
Although
the ha tamid truth is simple to understand, opposition and the
discussions of it through the decades have appeared to be confusing and
distracting. Shall we refuse to restudy it for fear of controversy?
Truth never causes disunity; only error does.
-
Nearly
universal acceptance of Conradi's view has now led us to a serious
crisis over the sanctuary, 1844, and the Spirit of Prophecy
positions. Our general concept of Daniel's prophecies are out of
focus.
-
There
is no lack of intelligence in the Seventh-day Adventist church; many
minds need the challenge of deeper study as an alternative to the
pervasive preoccupation with amusement and mental and spiritual
stagnation in respect to Bible study.
-
The
cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary truth is of incomparable
importance to the world and to the universe. No effort, time, or
expense involved in establishing it can be thought wasted.
-
Desmond
Ford's Glacier View manuscript links Conradi's "daily" as the
vital factor in shaping the anti-1844 views of Ballinger, Fletcher,
Snide, Grieve, Brinsmead, Hilgert, Sibley, and himself:
-
Conradi
was the first to introduce this view to us. 25
-
Ballinger
acknowledged Ellen White opposed it. 26
-
Fletcher
recognized the new view as the essential link in his rejection of
the sanctuary doctrine. 27
-
G.B.
Star opposed Fletcher by upholding the old view of the
"daily." 28
-
Ford
links the new view with downgrading the investigative judgement;
considers it the essential step. 29
-
Of
itself, in our original context as a people, "the daily" was
not a prominent or vital leading doctrine, as Ellen White says (but it
is nonetheless truth). But the abandonment of that apparently
unimportant truth creates the confusion that triggers a tragic disavowal
of our sanctuary doctrine.
|