I'm not going to dispute things I don't know. I know about these things enough to honestly say that I don't know. I don't want to base my faith on things that I don't know... I'm glad that you are so certain, but once again... from Adventist history... and I'm talking about 1884 people being so certain that it was the date of Jesus return, and they were disappointed. They were so certain, yet their eschatology (study of the end times) was very much off. I choose not to trust people with that, and I pray that when the time comes God will make it absolutely clear to me about the mark. Sure, it could be Sunday... I don't deny the possibility. But possibility is the key, and keeping open mind on this issue is important enough so you are not responsible setting a false sense of security for those who think that all it takes is keeping a date. There's much more than that to seal of God... hint... Holy Spirit may have something to do with that

I would like to hear why you don't believe that the Papal system is the antichrist power referred to in the prophecies. What is your biggest problem with it?

What happened in 1884?

I would like to strongly suggest that you begin studying diligently and praying earnestly and sincerely for the Holy Spirit to guide your thinking and convict you of the truth.

We can't transfer our trust in God or our study and knowledge of the Bible to other people. These are things each person must gain and experience for himself. We can make suggestions but ultimately it is up to each person to study and come to his own conclusions and make his own decisions. Like the old proverbial saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Ellen White says that the Latter Rain will be falling all around on others and there will be people totally unaware of it.

Remember the story Jesus told of the foolish virgins in Matt. 25.



Do you know what was off? Do you know what happened? Your writing the date wrong several times makes me wonder.

Their dating of Daniel 8: 14 was not off. What was off was their understanding of what the sanctuary was. They believed the sanctuary referred to was the earth, but there is nothing in the Bible that refers to the earth as the sanctuary. At the time when it happened, there was only one sanctuary in existence. Where was that?




Well, yes, you're right, of course the Holy Spirit has something to do with that. We can't obey and do what's right without the Holy Spirit. We won't even be able to distinguish Bible truth from error apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. It's the Holy Spirit that gives us the desire and thirst for truth.

Again, you are talking from a "i'm sure of it" perspective... and you know how many times I've had this perspective? I was so sure some time ago that communism was the only way to go, and that there is no God. Then I was absolutely sure that God exists and that all you have to do to be saved is to recite a couple magic prayers.
Of course I have prayed and I am praying... what do you think, that anyone outside of what you know to be sure are not praying earnestly and not asking God for help? People on the other side of the argument are telling me the same thing... basically... you should pray more, and God will show you that you are "wrong". They don't say that, but they mean it.
There's nothing wrong with earnestly studying Revelation, and saying that there's something wrong with the explanation given. For example, a year ago we've had prophecy seminar, and the speaker gave explanation of the "two were working and one was taken away and one was left" passage. He deduced that the wicked will be taken away, and he deduced it based on wording of the " and the flood came and took them away". That kind of "reaching eschatology" that rings a red light in my head. I clearly see that roman system is Antichrist, yet at the same time... the number of the Beast is the number of his name. So what explanation was I given? Vicarius Filii dei????? I believe it to be true, only for major Adventist scholars to reject that claim. This is one of the nick names which is hardly used at all, and you have to dig it up in single instances in archives... not a name, you see! So what else is "reaching argument"? That's why I take time to re-evaluate. This is the one that personally I don't want to get wrong.
Don't you think that Satan knows and understands who the Antichrist is? Don't you think that he would make a worthy substitutes too... the substitutes, which are so "clearly" fitting that "there could not be anyone else" ?

It sounds like the Lord has led you quite a ways into truth already. Do you believe that you know more truth now than you believed in those days? Or do you have doubts whether you know any truth at all in terms of Christianity?



No, I don't think that.



And those people are right about prayer-- so keep praying, studying God's word and discussing these things. Read widely. Especially study the Bible. God will lead you if you are sincere in your search for truth. God knows your heart. Trust Him. Trust His promises.



Of course not, and I didn't intend to give the impression that there's necessarily something wrong with questioning an explanation. Everyone should have questions. The only way anyone learns the truth is by questioning. But it's essential, of course, to find the answers, and not always be questioning.

The problem is when one never ceases to have great doubts about virtually everything, including whether the Bible is God's word and whether it is the truth or not.

I am not saying you are doing this, however. I am merely explaining what I see as a problem with always questioning and never coming to conclusions. If I am still having the same questions years after I began my search for truth, there is something wrong. I should have answered those first questions and be on to other questions. I am sure this is what you are doing. It is what I am doing as well. I have questions, too, of course. Everyone is at a different stage in their spiritual growth and knowledge of truth, so it is only natural that everyone is going to have different questions.



I understand. You are probably referring to what it says in Matt. 24: 40, 41, etc. "One will be left." Are you referring to that verse in relation to what some people teach regarding the so-called "rapture"? The question, then, becomes whether the person left is left dead or alive after the Lord comes. If that is the question, what is the Bible answer?



I'm familiar with that issue, yes. You're talking about Vicarius Filii Dei making up the number 666 with reference to Rev. 13:18.

In any case, the identity of the sea beast, the antiChrist power, and the little horn are not dependent upon the number 666. If Rev. 13: 18 was the primary evidence we had to go on in identifying those powers, we would not have any idea who it is. Fortunately that is not the case.

Study Mervyn Maxwell's, Roy Allen Anderson's, Jacques B. Dukhan's, and Stephen N. Haskell's books on Daniel and Revelation. I would also recommend studying the SDA Bible Commentary on Daniel and Revelation. Recently Ranko Stefanovic has written books on Daniel and Revelation. And especially check out the books written by Steve Wohlberg, such as The AntiChrist Chronicles.

I study books written by numerous writers supporting the concept of the rapture as well, and I also ready many Roman Catholic commentaries and study Bibles. (The Catholic translation, the New American Bible, is one of the most accurate translations of the critical Greek text.)



You are right to take time to re-evaluate.



Satan in fact IS the antiChrist. He works through various earthly powers and individuals, just as he worked through Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, pagan Rome, and papal Rome.

Remember that the Bible teaches the antiChrist power comes out of the Roman Empire, is a religious institution, and continues from the time of the fall of pagan Rome until the Second Coming. There are about 10 identifying marks or characteristics. I know of only one power that fits these identifying marks.

So while it is true that Satan is able to create counterfeits, yet if a person compares them closely with all that the Bible teaches, he will see that God does not allow Satan to counterfeit every characteristic. For instance, Satan cannot raise the dead but he can make it appear that he is raising the dead. Satan can cause confusion over his counterfeit Sabbath, but if the honest, careful Bible student wants to know the truth, he will know it.

Jesus, who cannot lie, said, "If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on my own authority." I believe that has reference to doctrine in general. God will lead us in the way that He would have us go. Have faith in God. Don't give up. God is true.

John,

Thank you for you lengthy reply and encouragement. Don't get me wrong. By far these are not the issues that would cause me to drop my faith in God and veracity of His Word. You've mentioned that:

"I am not saying you are doing this, however. I am merely explaining what I see as a problem with always questioning and never coming to conclusions. If I am still having the same questions years after I began my search for truth, there is something wrong. I should have answered those first questions and be on to other questions. I am sure this is what you are doing. It is what I am doing as well. I have questions, too, of course. Everyone is at a different stage in their spiritual growth and knowledge of truth."


I don't think it's wrong to ask the same questions years after. Re-evaluation and constant re-learning is important, because we forget, or we learn more and we have to re-evaluate our previous knowledge in light of the new truth that we have learned. I don't have problem with Biblical support of a position. I do have problem with twisting things to fit a view... which is the case with Vicarius Filei Dei. Well, I guess I would not know either because Papacy could might as well try to cover up the title. If people are to teach truth, then why insert things that most likely is not? Would that undermine the credibility of the message? Nevertheless, I agree that hanging up on 666 issue is silly if we identify the beast and the horn powers. Yet, I think if we are to search for truth and to preach the truth, then we should present the facts accurately, don't you think... as in the case with Pope's tiara issue and Ostrogoth's. Telling half truth does create an impression of trickery.

But above all, you are right about this being individual issue, and this is something that I am sorting through... especially issue about all churches but SDA being fallen. What do you think about that? I always thought that Babylon refers to the group of people (some of which could be a part of SDA congregation) who reject the truth by action or belief (Mark of the beast extends beyond the Sabbath issue). I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

I may not have been clear. I am not saying we shouldn't re-evaluate and re-check things. I am talking about allowing questions to get us to the point where we are spiritually paralyzed so we are unable to take action for God because we are double-minded, as James calls it. James 1:6-8.

For instance, I shouldn't be going back and doubting God's very existence or questioning whether the Bible is God's word or whether Jesus died for me. How can I pray in faith if I am not sure in my heart if God exists or hears me? (See Hebrews 11:6.) That does not mean I never consider those issues. I read atheistic philosophers all the time, so it is not as if I do not think about those questions. But the point is that I am beyond that point. I have answered them over and over again to my complete satisfaction. I don't waste time on those any more. I have no doubt that God exists and that He hears and answers my prayers. I have witnessed dramatic, amazing answers to prayer.

These questions that you originally had when you were a baby Christian or even before ought to be looked at now from a slightly different perspective. In other words, the kinds of questions should show some growth or maturity on your part.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. One of my close childhood friends had mental problems. He was later diagnosed as having schizophrenia. This friend would ask me or other friends questions about all kinds of things, but in a week or so, he would be asking exactly the same question. He would do this every week maybe for years. When he was 30, he was asking the same questions that he did when he was 13. He never made any progress. It was as if his brain was stuck in a groove.



Completely agree here. We should only use the best evidence. Truth, if it is truth, deserves only the best evidence, and needs no phony props.

Where I would disagree with you as far as Vacarius Filei Dei goes, is that I seriously doubt that there was dishonesty on the part of writers like Uriah Smith. He was apparently merely going by the information that he had access to on that subject at the time he was working. I do not think for a moment that he was aware of passing on false information. The issue of the pope's title is not finished at any rate, but I don't want to get into that issue here. Perhaps it would be good to open a thread at some time about it in order to further explore it.



I am somewhat involved in a positive way with a group who thinks that the SDA church is part of Babylon. So I am very familiar with that idea and belief. I have read a great deal about it and given it a lot of thought. That is another subject for a whole thread some time. Do I believe that the SDA church is Babylon? No, I don't. If I believed it, I would not be a member of the SDA church. We can discuss that subject further some time.

John, please don't misinterpret what I was trying to say. I definetly don't think that SDA church is Babylon. My question is that, could the MEMBERS of the SDA be a part of the Babylon, just lust as members of other churches who are seeking truth would be a part of the true church of God. I'm not talking about denominations here, but Christian identity... goats and sheep, wheat and tares. In both analogies these are growing together side by side, but it is only when He returns he will separate these. Therefore it is individual issue instead of groupthink denominational ism wouldn't you agree? Sure, individuals come together united in beliefs and purpose, but in the end belonging to something will not get you through. So in that respect... what is Babylon?

QR frame:

I think LifeHiscost puts the matter of premises and perspectives interestingly...

>>If Jesus allows this freedom on something so important as the day He has commanded to remember,<<

But then, Christ-as-Gd also declared that He would cause Israel’s Sabbaths to cease (Books Hosea and Lamentations) – by loss of OT calendrical calculations. The question following would be – when was this cessation to have occurred?

>>...it would seem to be logical, to think for one's self in other matters is a given.<<

One supposes so, yes? inasmuch as He remonstrates, “Come, let us reason together.” I take it that that is an exhortation to kick our lazy neurons into orbit...

>>And I would also suggest, to think for one's self does not mean that our thinking turns error into Truth just because we are free to think it does.<<

Ah yes, error most always remains error; however, how often one might encounter truths-as-truths with active neurons!

Example:

Given the direction this thread has taken – that is – beasty beasts with uprooted horns and all..., well,

my nickel observation:

The interpretation(s) advanced for the seventh chapter of Daniel, that is, the four beasts that “came up from the sea” – which – “one of them that stood by” interpreted as “four kings, [which] shall arise out of the earth.”

(Babylonia had ‘arisen’ several times over and was, at the time of Daniel 7, in the very last expiration of empire – in the process of reverting to its original religion, that is, the worship of the Moon god)

What’s THAT!? Sea? Earth? ...a place called Searth, mebbe?

As most commonly exposited, those beasts represent the kingdoms Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greecia, and [ ]R_o_m_e[/sotto voce].

Gd is simply redundant upon this point...? or is Daniel 7 intended to lead in another direction, and, given the verb tense used, another time?

Does the most obvious error in past expositions upon Daniel 7, that is – verb tense (shall arise) – at least give pause? Not even, with Gd’s injunctive to “seal the book” until – such times as... ... ... (Daniel 12)?

Umm, were I one to disseminate prematurely developed doctrines from within the Book of Daniel, the question of “error” would definitely be considered. And, per the subject of questioning:

questions should precede conclusions and not conclusions precede questions. It remains for the HS to determine when sufficient questions have arisen within the questioner’s mind – not some arbitrary outside dterminant.