If I understand correctly this was filmed and televised in 1985. Has anything similar been done since then? It would be interesting to see a similar debate of a more recent date. Thanks for posting the entire debate.

I have several good friends in the SDA church and I'm friends with a former SDA minister.However I some major problems with some of the church's teachings on everything from the investigative judgment to sabbath keeping as a means to salvation to the SDA church claiming to be the remnant church.I am offended at the teaching that those who worship on the Lords Day are said to have the mark of the beast.I however don't believe that the SDA church is a cult but do believe they are misled on the issue of biblical inierency.There should be no person or persons (except Jesus)who should be the final authority for belief and Ellen White thought that she was.As for the debate I thought that Dr Martian was very gracious in his arguments and Mr Johnsson could not give straight forward answers.All he gave was the 27 statements of beliefs.It seemed Mr Johnsson could not answer if Ellen White was a false prophet because he was worried that he too might be fired if he were to speak against the teachings of Ellen White.My main concern about the SDA church is that they don't except the outside church's because we don't keep the seventh day sabbath and they believe we are a apostate church.This I believe is hurting the fellowship of Christian believers and more importantly the cause of Christ.My personal Belief is to worship the Lord on whatever day (Saturday or Sunday)and hopefully the other five days of the week. I just want us to be brothers and sisters in the Lord so we can win the lost to Christ and not fight with each other on issues that make all of us a poor wittiness to those who are lost.Please lets unite as Christians to win the lost to Jesus.God Bless

People should understand that the real reason behind the attacks against EGW is the Sabbath. Every denomination agrees about the 9 other commandments, even those saying that we are not under the law (after all, who could be able to say that it is okay to kill just because we are not under the law?). The only point of contention is then the sabbath day. Most Christians say that they don't have to observed the 7th day but the 1st day of the week instead. They even call Sunday the Lord's Day. But if we read the Bible, we can see that the only day Christ called himself Master of is the 7th day Sabbath. Now, since there is no undisputable evidence showing that we have to worship on Sunday, some people are trying to show that the 7th day Sabbath is not relevant any longer. And since the SDA church is one of the few churches observing and promoting the 7th Sabbath, then they tried to silence them by discrediting EGW. Because, if they can show that she's wrong on one point then all her teaching is wrong (or at least become suspicious) including to what she said about the Sabbath. And if she wrong then who cares about what she said.

Concerning Mr. Johnsson, it is sure that he did a poor job during this debate (I am not casting stones here because it has to be said that this debate didn't take place in the best setting as it is obvious that many people around him (even some adventists, it seems) were very hostile to EGW from the start and so the atmosphere was tense a lilte bit. It was more a setup than a debate according to me (if you consider that even the host himself was clearly challenging Mr. Johnsson about EGW), in these conditions, I am not sure that I would have done a better job) but it is understandable if you consider that he was placed on the other party's ground. The other party was there just to have him recognize that EGW was a false prophet so they kept bringing this and bringing that, often out of context. It is not easy to answer under these conditions because you have to see the citations and explain them in their contexts themselves.

The problem with Mr. Johnsson and many Adventists may be that they care too much about what other people are saying.
They want to be considered a "normal" Christian church like the main Christian denominations and at the same time they don't know what to do of EGW when she is criticized by these other denominations. But either SDA believe in their message and they go all the way with it. Or they denounce it and do something else. Jesus didn't try to please the crowd. He was after the truth. And the price was to be alone and misunderstood, even by His disciples. Many Adventists refuse to walk on the path of discipleship alone. They want the approval of other denominations. But how can this happen if the SDA mission is to bring a message that the other Christians have not yet understood?

SO, EGW a prophet? Why not, above all if you consider that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:1 :"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy". This shows that the gift of prophecy is not dead (because if it is, then the other ones are too since the gift of prophecy is one gift among many). As for knowing if she was a true prophet, the same criticisms against her could be brought against many biblical writers. Plagiarism? Well Paul and Peter used several texts from the Old Testament without mentioning the authors. Prophecies not being fulfilled? Well, it was the case for Jonah (the only difference here is that it is explained in the text why the prophecy against Nineveh was not fulfilled) and for other prophets in the Bible. Visions being the result of the stone that struck her when she was a child? Well, we see that same kind of accusations (that is, strange behavior caused by being impaired) in the book of Acts when the disciples were accused of being drunk whereas they were simply speaking in tongues.

We could multiply the examples. So it is possible EGW was not a prophet. But to this day, those criticizing her have not shown to be faithful biblical followers themselves, doing things that are not in the Bible to follow their own traditions. So, if they don't want to listen to EGW, why should people listen to them anyway?

Still,(It would be nice to know a real name...mine is Pat)

I am still a sabbatarian and worship at a SDA church. I do not believe that EGW was correct on every position but was correct on many.

Since you will likely ask, Which one...the fact that Christ went into the Most Holy at His ascension and "sat down" on the throne at the right hand of the Father...not in 1844. The throne IS the Most Holy! Heb.1:3; 8:1;Heb.10:12,13.;Ps.110.;Col.3:1; Acts 2:34.

From the throne as a true and faithful king Christ administers mercy and justice and intercession.

Keep EGW in the proper "boundries" and there are things she can offer. Her writings are not equal to scripture neither can they be used as the final authority to exegete the meaning of a passage of scripture.

Regards,

Pat

Amen, Pat!

The worst problem for SDA in my view is not what others say about EGW, it is the uncritical use of her writings within SDA...using her as the last word on the bible, citing catenas of quotations out of context to do theology or methodology, using her as a lifestyle club, for many years not openly acknowledging her literary dependance, treating her writings according to an inerrant model of inspiration, not openly acknowleding how her experiential and doctrinal development influenced her corpus, etc.

This can partly explain why we have seen the extreme reactions from other Christians who have had contact with many SDA's and with Adventism as a whole. In a way, you can't blame them. Seems to me, they have been partially reacting to a distortion of a gift...maybe their own distorted view as well as ours as to how the prophetic gift should function.

It can also explain the type of reactions from so many within Adventism. Many have been wounded and felt misled through the years by the things described above. It's easy to see why they would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is an issue I have and still struggle with myself. God needs to bring healing to a whole lot of people over this.

Thanks...

Frank

PS The 'location' of Christ at his ascension and what that means is a whole 'nuther subject...but definitely related

I'm wondering if we saw the same debate. Ankerberg and Martin were playing a sophisticated game of 3-card monte. They insisted on conflating separate issues, and when a point was answered, they switched ground.

One example of their intentional misunderstanding. Johnsson talked about the 27 fundamental beliefs being the basis of judgment. That statement of beliefs has a statement about the Sabbath, for example. Ellen White held a similar position. If someone was disciplined for rejecting that fundamental belief, Martin and Ankerberg said, "But I thought you couldn't be disciplined for disagreeing with Ellen White!"

More than anything, I was disappointed in Walter Martin, who took a couple of really cheap shots at Bill Johnsson, as in "you're not the one who might lose your pension." which Martin used to contest whether Johnsson was or was not present at Glacier View, and whether he knew what the decision concerning Ford was based on. It was simply an ad hominem attack.

Bad form in debate. Worse form for a Christian.

There are some real problems in the Adventist church. Bill Johnsson is quite aware of them. Martin and Ankerberg weren't really interested in finding solutions, just scoring points.

Duane,
SDA’s like you are interested in the unity of Christians and winning the lost to Jesus. The problem lies in how can this be accomplished without offending anyone’s conscience. Can two people walk together accept they be agreed? No one, as far as we know, has ever solved the problem even though it has been discussed for centuries. The only reasonable solution is religious liberty. When people cannot agree about what is true about God, we must go our separate ways and let God be the judge in the end.

Seldom do debates arrive at the Truth. Usually, they are
verbal contests between strong willed, self confident people.

Trying to defend any denominational body is a lost cause--human as they are.

The best that can be done is to explain Salvation through Jesus Christ and how and why we celebrate that Good News.

The basic premise should be we are all in need of Salvation, We all agree our only hope is in Jesus Christ.

With that clear, let us compare our life styles in the light of the Gospel. We are all winners, in Christ. Therefore, who has the best horse in the race is mere ego.

There is absolutely nothing new in E.G.White except the IJ and what that has to do with Christian Living has yet to be determined. The Sabbath, Tithing, Foot Washing, diet and foods, and arguing--not a winner in the pack when it comes to human destiny. So we live 5% longer. What are we doing with that time? I dedicated my life to the Lord in 1939. He still has my heart. But He has also given me children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. My 5% is for them in Christ. Believe me that is a full time job for the last 5%. Tom

Pat,

The problem is that sometimes we don't have a clear understanding of the Bible. Granted, we may know the biblical texts but we miss the big picture at time. This is because we don't know how we think ourselves. For example, I was reading 1 Timothy 4:12 this morning in the KJV and there Paul used the word "conversation". If I read this text with my 21st century mind I would take that word with today's meaning, that is, when people speak to each other. But this was not the primary meaning of this word when it was used in the King James version and this is why newer versions use the expressions "in your conduct" or "in your life" to avoid any confusion. Here, the possible confusion lies in the fact that it is possible to read words from someone and take one meaning whereas the writer meant another one. And if we don't know that there are several meanings of a word or that its meanings have evolved with time, we are even not aware that we are missing the point. Applying today's concepts to texts of the past is one of the honest mistakes we make when reading the Bible (or EGW for that matter).

Now, what does it mean when the Bible said that Jesus sat on the throne? Does it means that Jesus went directly to the Most Holy Place? Not at all. First of all, the throne of God can move and can go from one place to another (see Ezechiel 1). Second, in Hebrews 8:2 the adjective used with the word "place" is "αγιων" (agion) and it means "Holy". This is the same adjective used when speaking of the holy angels or the holy city for example. And this is the same word used in Hebrews 9:2 that speaks of the Holy Place. So the text in Hebrews 8:2 is saying that Jesus is serving as our High Priest in the Holy Place, not the Most Holy Place as some translations say (the King)(the expresion for the Most Holy Place is "αγια αγιων" (agia agion) meaning "Holy of Holies" and this is this expression used in Hebrews 9:2). There is another way to see that Jesus was in the Holy Place and it is by reading the text of Revelation. Revelation 1:12 and 13 speak of Jesus walking among lampstands and where do we find lampstands in the sanctuary? In the Holy Place. Revelation 5:8 speaks of the elders having bowls with incense and Revelation 9:3,4 speak of an angel with incense. And where do we find incense in the sanctuary? In the Holy Place.
A lot of people, included many Adventists, don't grasp the importance of the earthly sanctuary to understand what is going on in the Plan of Salvation. There are 3 periods in it, each corresponding to each subdivision of the sanctuary. The first one is the Sacrifice of Jesus corresponding to the sacrifices in the courtyard (Because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin). The second one is the intercession of Jesus, our High Priest, who moved from the courtyard to the Holy Place, this corresponding to the service of the Jewish High Priest in the Holy Place. This was the time of the Message of Grace in which the Christian church had to proclaim the extension of the grace of God to all nations ("Be reconciled with God" as Paul said). The third period is the period of the Message of the Judgement of God ("Babylon is fallen, fallen") that Christians in general, and Adventists in particular, should be preaching. In this period, Jesus moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place.

As EGW indicated, the people of God should always be following Jesus wherever He goes. The problem is that they didn't. The Jews rejected Jesus and to this day are waiting for the Messiah. Some even want to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem to resume the sacrificial system. And because of that, the Jewish nation didn't "follow" Jesus when He moved to the Holy Place. You could say that they are stuck in the courtyard. Concerning the Christian churches, most of them are still preaching what I called the Message of Grace. All you need is love, you don't need the law (which has been abolished, according to them. "We are under Grace not under the Law"). These Christians don't want to speak of judgement for those among the people of God who don't follow His commandments (for the judgement of God starts with His house). So they turned down what the Adventists call the 3 Angels message. They are stuck in the Holy Place, preaching the Grace message only.
As for the Adventists, the problem is that many don't know/understand the earthly sanctuary service and then don't understand the importance of their message. They feel uncomfortable in preaching the message of the Judgement of God (which is the message corresponding to Jesus being in the Most Holy Place, message of both forgiveness and judgement showing God as the Merciful One but also as the Law Giver because of Him being the Creator) because it put them at odd with the other Christian denominations and they crave so much after being accepted and respected by the other churches and people of the world. They want to go back to the more comfortable message of forgiveness only. In essence, they want to leave the Most Holy Place to go back to the Holy Place. But by doing this, they will have to leave Jesus who is in the Most Holy Place. It is not surprising that they don't feel comfortable, being between two opposite pole of attraction.

Finally, concerning EGW, either she is a prophet or she is not. We have to be clear with this, we have to stop dancing around this issue. I am not sure we know what a prophet is, even in the SDA church. We forget that EGW was a christian like everybody else, that is, she had to grow in the knowledge of God and fight spiritual battles like everybody else. Did she have some weaknesses and made some mistakes as a human being? Of course she did. Now, does it mean that those criticizing her are automatically right? Not at all, since many of her critics are not faithful followers of the Bible. So, it would be understandable that they would not understand many messages from EGW (and this may be true even for many Adventists).

It is troubling to see how easily Adventists can be unsettled by those, sincere or not, who ask difficult (but interesting) questions. It doesn't mean that EGW was always right by definition, but before we start dismissing her, let's try to have a deep understanding of the matter.

Still

What place could be more holy than the place where God is?

The Most Holy Place was/is/will remain the Throne Room.
It is the Mercy Seat! We come to the Throne of Grace.

If you study Egyptian history you will find that the Sanctuary in the desert was modeled after Pharaoh's quarters while he was leading his army in the field. The inner room was the Throne Room.

God was trying to teach slaves something from familiar objects. Jesus came to make it plain that He was, is, and always will be the Temple. Try reading Phil 2: 5-11 Tom

Still,

You are "correct" in one sense about a movable throne. Where is God not in Authority and "on His throne." Where God is...is His throne.

Yet,He chooses to use language of "location" at times.
The Shekinah Glory dwelt between the Cherubims in the Most Holy Place, Above the ark in the tent...a "symbol" of God's throne and presence in the wilderness. His throne was in Jerusalem later...and David was promised that one of his descendents would sit on his throne forever. Thus Christ sit's on the "Throne of David" in the heavenly Jerusalem at His ascension at the right hand of the Father... who David previously represented as sitting on the throne of "earthly Jerusalem."

We are to go to the "throne of Grace" for mercy in time of need. Heb.4:16. These are motifs of the Most Holy where Christ has entered once for all at His ascension to sit at the right hand of the throne God. There mercy and justice combined are executed by the King.

I have absolutely no problem with God's judgment as presented in scripture as many who disagree with me on this site could attest. It just didn't begin in 1844.Satan was judged as guilty at the cross and their will be a momentary "pre-advent" jugment just prior to Christ's appearing if we are correct in our pre-mill. stance and I feel we are...with the final judment after the millenium at the "great white throne" judgment...with those trusting in Christ "reckoned" not guilty...praise the Lord!

I suggest that it is not as "obscure" as you feel to obtain equivalents in translation from the "biblical languages" to todays meaning.

Take the languages and see the tremendous amount of information in the Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.

Regards,

Pat

Still,

I hear what you are saying...however I think you have a little to neat of a division worked out concerning the stages of gospel proclamation throughout history.

The Gospel proclamation from the first century on forward, has always carried the message of judgement and grace at the same time...just read the preaching of Paul in Acts, read Romans, etc. The true preaching of the cross has always carried both immanent judgement and grace, before and after 1844. To say that the message before 1844 was one of forgiveness only, sounds like an Adventist caricature of what has been preached throughout Christian history.

To say that imbalanced distortions of the gospel have predominated at different times in history, before and after 1844, is something with which I can agree. To say that Adventism was called into exsistense as a corrective to such distortions is something with which I can also agree. To say that the preaching of judgement within Christianity is something that didn't happen until the late 18th-early 19th century does not seem to square with the NT for me.

To also not acknowledge the opposite distortion in Adventist history, of preaching a judgement divorced from grace, thus creating legalistic paranoia and self-righteousness, is also a narrowing of the full picture.

Frank

Still,

Very good answer and explanation. Thanks for taking the time to write it out.

The founders of the SDA Church did excellent work laying the foundation of our doctrines, especially when it is realized not one of them had a PhD in anything. The SDA church is built on the Rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

We are the descendants of those first beleivers in the third angels message. Like them we are in training for the final closing message of warning to the world. We have our faults but in the end our message is going to be proven to be true for as they say in long distance running,"Anybody can run 20 miles it is the last 6 miles that will tell the story."

JB

"No Scripture is of any private interpretation." Maybe the Three Angels' Messages needs another look! The Everlasting Gospel didn't begin in 1844 nor did Babylon fall in 1844. Nor was Satan judged in 1844. Could it be that the Angels are declaring the Triumph of Christ in AD 33? When we hear what Christ did at Calvary after living a perfect life don't we have to decide for or against? Judgment comes to our house when we accept or reject Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. Tom

Tom,

I had understood that the sanctuary layout had come from Canaanite temple models. What you are saying seems to make more sense. Could you give me a specific reference?

Thanks...

Frank

BTW, totally off subject...

Has anyone heard from Elaine or Bob Rigsby? I haven't seen their contributions in a while, and was wondering if they're ok.

Hope this isn't inappropriate.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank

It may take some time because we packed up a lot of old stuff getting ready for a move that didn't materialize. I will get back to you on it--could be a week. Tom

However, the layout of courtyard, and two quarters could have been a common format. The mobile feature, I think was the important common element to my point.

P.S.

My point was that God was trying to tell the Isrealites that He was their Pharaoh--a theocracy in which king and priest were combined Moses and Aaron were the proxies.

Christ now has become both King and Priest--The Book of Hebrews model--Melchisedec. From that analogy one might assume there was a Canaanite influence also. Tom

Tom,

I believe in the statement, “no scripture is of any private interpretation”. What does it mean? It means no one has the legitimate freedom to give the Bible whatever meaning that pleases them. I am well aware that people do this all the time but this text is a warning against doing it.

My position concerning the book of Revelation is the historical view point. I think of the book as God giving his people of every generation, since John, information for that generation. Over time we can look back and plot a graph showing were each truth for that generation was received. As the generations increase it gives the next generation greater certainty that they are on the right track as they gather up all the truths.

John, in Revelation 14:6-12, is shown events in the future. What does he see? He sees
William Miller’s group preaching the second coming message in 1843 and 1844. After that, he sees a third group of people, the Seventh day Adventist Church, giving warning to the world concerning the significance of the Mark of the Beast and its implications. Later on he sees a fourth group (Rev 18) join with them. All of this information is compressed into symbolic forms to conserve space. John understands that the same Spirit who was alive and inspired him to see and write down the information would be alive in the future to inspire the reader to understand it correctly. There is no other way for such a complex writing, in another language, to be translated and passed down to us 2000 years later and we be required to stake our lives on the correct meaning if we did not have the assurance of the living God’s help.

It is true the everlasting gospel did not begin in 1844. It began the day Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, for there is only one salvation for all of mankind. Salvation was first conceived as a plan. Jesus came and delivered on the plan. (As they say in management, “plan your work and work your plan”). John is only pointing out the message William Miller was teaching. William Miller taught the need for salvation by grace, to pass the test, to be saved at Christ second coming. The SDA Church has picked up these messages and added more.

It is true Satan was not judged in 1844. I am not sure of your meaning concerning AD 33, as far as I know, Jesus died on April 27, 31 AD. I agree that Christ must become a personal savior for each one of us and we will be judged accordingly. However, Revelation 14 refers to the beginning of the close of the gospel message to the world. When the window of opportunity closes, God will put a wrap on salvation. It is important that people who live at that time know this. Otherwise they will seek for salvation only to find out the window of opportunity has closed.

Frank

I couldn't find my first source. However, I did find on-line Google the following. The Military History of Ancient Israel by Richard A Gabriel 2003 no publisher. However, it does include a drawing generally similar to the Desert Sanctuary. Tom

JB

I will accept your date for the death of Jesus--I referred to an old manuscript of mine in which I had a typo and didn't check it.

Otherwise, we are miles apart. Tom

JB

Just a final thought> Did not Christ declare Himself as the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end?

Did not the message to the seven churchs have a contemporary significance?

Did not the Revelator see history of War In Heaven?

Did not the Revelator also see the conflict between Satan and the Church?

Is not contemporary Rome characterized as Babylon?

Obviously, the Book of Revelation is essentially a reasurring tale of the final Eschaton?

The fact is Jesus Christ is our Eschaton! He is our beginning and our end. The Three Angels fill that entire scope of redemptive history. Tom

Tom,

Your statements are too cryptic for me to respond. I am not familiar with your ideas. You will have to expand on them.

Life is short. I want to know, before I go, the truth about my destiny. Since we live in a world filled with a mixture of truth and falsehood, I seek for a means to separate the two. I am interested in anyone who can shed light on this process, be it by reason, revelation or a combination.

JB

Life is far too short for sure. Cryptic or not, the questions are explicitly clear in even the 1611 version of The Revelation of St. John The Divine. Therefore, I will list the primary text and let you separate wheat and chaff.

1. Rev. 1: 8 and 11
2 Rev. 1: 11 and all of Rev. 2 and 3
3. Rev. 12: 7
4. Rev. 12: 6 --17
5. Rev. 17: 3
The final two paragraphs are my conclusions.

All of which were meant to rebutt your exclusive futuristic take on the Book of Revelation. Rather it is in verity the sweep of the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan in 22 chapters. All of which were given to build confidence and assurance to a people greatly distressed by pagan Rome and now to us. All of us from the first generation of Christians to the Last live in the fullness of the completed work of Jesus Christ. Because life is short--and time is fleeting we cry--even so come Lord Jesus. If not in my time, I am willing to sleep with Paul and John. Tom

Tom and others,

http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/ot.ric_pratt.hyperpreterism.pdf

This paper may be of interest to those interested in eschatology. This might also be interesting to our "openess and process" readers on this site. Dr.Pratt, Ph.D. Harvard taught me OT.Prophets at RTS.

Hope it is enjoyable and educational to some about the "conditional" aspects of prophecy from the "reformed perspective."

Regards,

pat

Tom,

To be honest with you, I could accept your concluding paragraph as my own belief. I don't see where we differ at this point.

Pat

Impressive paper, in both form and content.

I found the notion of "intervening contingencies" very helpul as well as the concept of "Levels of Divine Determination."

Thanks for recommending it.

Dave

thanks

JB

Tom