Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Cunningly Devised Fables Wieland

Cunningly Devised Fables Wieland

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1 |Likes:
Published by Kriss Nikolee

More info:

Published by: Kriss Nikolee on Aug 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 Have We Followed Cunningly Devised Fables? 
Robert J. Wieland
“For want o a nail the shoe was lost;or want o a shoe, the horse was lost;or want o a horse, the rider was lost;or want o the rider, the battle was lost.”
Benjamin Franklin
, 1758Could anything that the prophet Daniel wrote repeatedly be as insig-nicant as a lost horseshoe nail? Jesus asks us to “read” and to “understand” Daniel. Close to the nervecenter o the great doctrine o the sanctuary that has created the Seventh-day Adventist Church, lies the tiny prophetic detail o “the daily.” Danielattaches great importance to it, speaking o it ve times in chapters 8,11,and 12—each in a dierent context. Te pioneers o the Seventh-day Adventist Church had a clear andcogent understanding o “the dailywhich gured in our theological birthas a people. Teir view has been all but abandoned today. For want o thatpioneer understanding (which Ellen White endorsed), this tract suggeststhat conusion has settled in many Seventh-day Adventist minds aboutthe vital teaching o the sanctuary. Te loss can be immeasurable.
2 3
“Te correct understanding o the heavenly sanctuary isthe oundation o our aith.“Tis [sanctuary] subject … is the central pillar that sustainsthe structure o our position at this present time.”(Ellen G. White,
221; Letter 126, 1897). We have all heard the story o a ship’s captain who careully pilotedhis precious vessel through dangerous waters by steering it exactly by thecompass. But in spite o his best eorts, the vessel hit the rocks and sank.In the inquest, the ships compass was examined.It was ound that someone cleaning the wooden case had carelessly let a ragment o a knie lodged in a crack. Tis had deected the com-pass enough to lead the vessel onto the rocks.I any undamental doctrine o the Seventh-day Adventist churchcan be likened to the ships compass, it is the sanctuary truth. Tis outlinesuggests that one o our illustrious leaders o a past generation deectedour compass by a alse interpretation which has been accepted uncritically and thoughtlessly by generations o our scholars. Undetected by us, it hasmagnetized Brinsmead-Ford-Cottrell scholars into a repudiation o Biblesupport or the 1844 cleansing o the heavenly sanctuary. Tey inherited aaulty compass. So this thesis suggests.Daniel 8 and 9 provided direction or this church as a compass directsa ship. Our pioneers were virtually unanimous in their understanding o it. A key element was Daniel’s gure o “the daily” taken away by the littlehorn. What they saw locked 1844 into Daniel 8:14, making the sanctuary in heaven the only one that could be cleansed, or justied. History showsthat the pioneer’s view was held practically unanimously by our peopleuntil about 1900, and enjoyed Ellen White’s endorsement (EW 74, 75). Ten came a change. Was it a disastrous one? Tis outline suggests that Louis R. Conradi deected our compassby introducing his new view about 1900. One o the rst to accept this view, E.J. Waggoner, orthwith repudiated Ellen White, or he saw clearly that she upheld the pioneer’s view. Tis was the beginning o his apostasy.Next, W.W. Prescott embraced Conradi’s view, ollowed by A.G. Daniells,the General Conerence president. Tese two gave the new view widepublicity, against Ellen White’s counsel. In time, Conradi apostatizedcompletely, and Prescott, in the end, virtually abandoned the sanctuary doctrine. Others were Ballinger, Fletcher, Grieve, - a questionable track-record or new light.Many have not pursued Conradi’s view to it’s logical end. But someo our astute scholars have, and it has proved a short circuit that makes Antiochus Epiphanes o 168 B.C. to be the necessary “primary” ulll-ment o the Daniel 8 prophecy. In their scheme, there is no room or an1844 application except by a contrived “secondary” or “apotelesmatic”ulllment. Tis is seen as a “ace-saving” accommodation openly ridi-culed by non-Adventist theologians and now by some o our own, builton Ellen White. We must concede that the Seventh-day Adventist church has not as yet made the world conscious o the stupendous implications o an 1844change in Christ’s High Priestly ministry. And our own zeal in proclaim-ing the message is now considerably dissipated by these in-house misgiv-ings. How can we expect to convince the world o a doctrine we are notourselves sure o? Tis outline is oered tentatively, soliciting criticism, comment orreutation rom readers. Although I see evidence that Ellen White sup-ported the pioneer view consistently, I appeal to a close study o the origi-nal Hebrew or its validation. I suggest the possibility that the pioneers were right, and Conradi was wrong. And had it not been or the latter, we would not be mired in our present conusion and controversy about thesanctuary.
Our Current Problem
Opponents rom without, revisionists within, use “1844” to deny Bib-1.lical basis or existence o Seventh-day Adventist church:Harold Lindsell: I 1844 is not Biblical, there is “no adequatea.basis or existence o Seventh-day Adventists.” (he would wipe uso the ace o the earth).Donald Barnhouse: “You were ounded on a lie … Seventh-day b. Adventism will have to go back into the same position as Mor-monism.” W.H. Olson: “Whole 1844 structure alls … apart.”c.Raymond Cottrell: “No Biblical support or 1844” (only Ellend. White’s). In February 2002, is even more severely critical o oursanctuary doctrine.Norman Jarnes: “Te undamental pillar o the Seventh-day e. Adventist church is … built on October 22, 1844 event and when
4 5
that goes, traditional Adventism goes.”Ellen White agrees that SDA church was ounded on under-.standing o Daniel 8:11-14. Te sanctuary doctrine (with 1844) is“the oundation o our aith,” “the central pillar that sustains thestructure o our position,” “the very message that has made us aseparate people, … given character and power to our work.” (Let-ter 126, 1897;
p. 221-225).
Te Signifcance o “HE DAILY” (Ha amid)
Since the Maccabees, the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant view is:1.continual priestly ministry in the Lord’s sanctuary. Tis view is crucial to identiying Antiochus Epiphanes as thea.little horn.I early Adventists had so understood it, they would have beenb.orced to recognize Antiochus as the primary ulllment; no1844 “Midnight Cry” movement could then have developed.Miller’s wholly resh approach to “the daily” established andc.locked in the 2,300 days as years, and led to establishing the 1844terminus.Miller and 1844 participants were virtually unanimous in seeing “the2.daily” as paganism supplanted by the papacy; it was an unusual view  which captured attention.Ellen White endorsed it (EW 75); is a clear statement. (See Ap-a.pendix A) Ater the Great Disappointment this view was pivotal in holdingb.early Adventists rom renouncing their aith in the 1844 move-ment.19th century Adventists were virtually unanimous in this view.c.But since the early 1900’s, Conradi’s “new view” has captured nearly 3.all Seventh-day Adventists. It holds;“Te Daily” is the ministry o the antitypical High Priest thata. was “taken away” by the papacy. Tis view is identical to the An-tiochus Epiphanes view in principle: so that it sees an antitypi-cal ulllment in the papacy, whereas Antiochus constitutes thetypical ulllment. Tus, it is impossible to exclude Antiochus consistently; he has tob.be considered the “primary” ulllment the Holy Spirit intended.Reason and logic make it easy to see him as the exclusive applica-tion. Tis is John F. Walvoord’s strong contention.
 Te Conradi view becomes captive to the Seventh-day Adventistc.type/anti-type principle.Seen in this light, present anti-Sanctuary agitation becomes thed.natural outgrowth o the “new view” adopted 75 years ago. It justies, in principle, anti-Adventism rom Miller’s 1844 era. I the papacy truly “took away” Christ’s High Priestly ministry, An-tiochus must be the rst or primary application o the prophecy.(Tis was Desmond Ford’s position clearly, even boldly, stated inhis master’s thesis at Andrews University beore the beginning o his meteoric Seventh-day Adventist career.)
Te Historical ension Between the wo Views
Miller arrived at his view contextually and historically:1.He saw 2 Tessalonians 2:3-7 as commentary on Daniel 8:11-13.a.Froom’s thesis that his view o “the daily” was tied to his mistakenb.666 idea is not valid; there is no logical dependance. J.N. Andrews saw “the daily” as an evil, desolating power; all early c.pioneers were unanimous in that view. James White supported the pioneer view: see hisd.
Sermons on the Coming and Kingdom of our Lord 
[1870], pp. 108-125). All survivors o the pioneer days united in opposing Conradi’se. view: Haskell, Loughborough, Smith, even Ellen White. Te vigor o their opposition probably indicated conviction that it would result in the eventual scuttling o 1844 and the sanctuary doctrine as Cottrell has now done.
Conradi’s “new view” grew out o his opposition to the 1888 message2.and identication o Luther as herald o “the third angel’s message in verity.” It displaces Jones’ and Waggoner’s concept o righteousness by aith.
Conradi was one o the oremost despisers o the 1888 messagea.at Minneapolis.
He acknowledged his longstanding opposition to Ellen White.b.His later apostasy was an outgrowth o his “new view;” he couldc.not escape its logic.E.J. Waggoner abandoned his condence in Ellen White upond.his acceptance o Conradi’s view: “
 Early Writings 
most clearly anddecidedly declares or the old view,” he said. “O.A. Johnson showsmost clearly that the
uphold the view taught by Smith.”
Tis was the beginning o Waggoner’s serious downall.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->