Will Islam dominate the world?

Protest signs at a ‘funeral’ in England for Osama bin Laden claim “Islam will dominate the world” (See http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/245148/ of Friday, May 6, 2011).

A careful study of Bible prophecy would surely indicate otherwise, at least in the “long run.” There is some good evidence that Islam will not be in existence at all by the time Ezekiel 38 and 39 come to pass, since the Islamic nations that surround Israel mentioned in Psalm 83 seem to be left out of the list of nations mentioned in the confederation of nations lined up against Israel mentioned in those chapters. This may be because they have been defeated prior to Ezekiel 38 and 39 events. It is not absolutely certain that Psalm 83 is prophecy, but my study so far indicates it is, because nations and events are mentioned which are not a part of the historic events that form the basis for the Psalm. See the cross references given in Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible at Psalm 83:8, and consult the cross references at the passages listed there for Assur. Careful study of the cross references will produce unexpected enlightenment on this prophetic theme.

The taunt or threat recorded or predicted in Psalm 83:4 sounds strikingly familiar:

Psa 83:4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.

World or national leaders who make threats like that surely have little or no knowledge of the Bible.

According to one of the provisions in the Abrahamic Covenant, such threats are exceedingly dangerous to the one or ones making the threat:

Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The proper attitude to have is found stated in this passage of Scripture:

Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

Considering the remarkable accuracy of Biblical prophecy, it is a very poor choice to stand on the wrong side of what God declares He will do.

I’m still studying these topics, and my conclusions are not final. But so far, this is the way I see the Biblical evidence pointing, as far as I have studied it.

It is almost certain that the Antichrist does not come from Europe. The Antichrist is certainly not the Pope. Antichrist appears to arise in the Middle East from the Biblical region named Assyria, according to Micah 5:5.

In two weeks we will find out if Harold Camping is correct in his understanding of Bible prophecy. I am absolutely certain he is mistaken, for his understanding of Bible prophecy is flawed by his dependence upon mistaken notions pertaining to Bible chronology and the meaning of numbers in the Bible.

Furthermore, what he proposes could not be learned from a study of a plain text Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s deserted island. From what I heard of Mr. Camping’s claims in an interview aired yesterday with Bob Dutko on WRDT Detroit 560 AM of the Crawford Broadcasting Network, Mr. Camping’s understanding of Bible prophecy may be tainted from his prior attachment to Reformed and Calvinistic theology. Those who adhere to the Reformed position on Bible prophecy, like the respected Bible teacher Dr. R. C. Sproul, are absolutely wrong on the subject.

I am not equating Dr. Sproul with Mr. Camping. Dr. Sproul is a reliable teacher, except for his commitment to the mistaken theology of Calvin. Calvin is mistaken because he leaned too heavily upon the writings of Augustine, a Roman Catholic church father. Whenever we derive our theology and understanding of the Bible from an extra-biblical source, especially from an “ism,” such as Calvinism, or any other “ism,” such as Seventh Day Adventism (extremely mistaken on Bible prophecy and the Sabbath Commandment), or Arianism (an ancient heresy now promoted by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in their denial of the Deity of Jesus Christ), we will be utterly mistaken about what the Bible really teaches.

That is why it is most important to engage in Real Bible Study as discussed and taught here!

This entry was posted in Bible Prophecy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Will Islam dominate the world?

  1. Excellent post Jerry!

  2. Jerry says:

    Thanks for visiting, Pastor Cheatham! You may be the first person in the world to have seen my post! Maybe the only one!

  3. ken sagely says:

    jerry really enjoyed your post on the question of islam. i ki 8/56″ there hath not failed one word of all his good promise which he promised”

  4. A. Way says:

    Whenever we derive our theology and understanding of the Bible from an extra-biblical source, especially from an “ism,” such as Calvinism, or any other “ism,” such as Seventh Day Adventism (extremely mistaken on Bible prophecy and the Sabbath Commandment), or Arianism (an ancient heresy now promoted by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in their denial of the Deity of Jesus Christ), we will be utterly mistaken about what the Bible really teaches.

    Don’t forget, Futurism

  5. Jerry says:

    Don’t forget Historicism, and what’s much worse, Preterism, too!

    Only the Bible, of all the world’s great religious texts, stakes its claim to Divine Inspiration upon the fact that it contains predictions about the future (Isaiah 41:21-23. 42:9. John 13:19. 16:13, 14). Those predictions which have already been fulfilled have been fulfilled literally. This indicates that as we read Bible prophecy that is as yet not fulfilled, we are to understand that its fulfillment will likewise be literal (Rule 1 of the 21 Rules of Interpretation I posted in October of 2010).

    The prophecies of the Messiah regarding His First Advent were literally fulfilled. The prophecies concerning His Second Advent must be fulfilled literally likewise.

    The prophecies pertaining to Israel must be fulfilled just as literally as the prophecies pertaining to its Messiah.

    Paul was clearly a Futurist in his understanding of Bible prophecy. So was Peter. So was James. So was the Apostle John.

    I recently proved Paul was a Futurist in a comment posted on this site under the article about the Antichrist, who will be a literal person who arises in the future, but who is surely not the Pope.

    Peter is clearly a Futurist when he asserts:

    2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

    and when Peter also asserts:

    1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
    1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

    The Apostle John was a Futurist, as was and is our Lord Jesus Christ who told him what to write:

    Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

    Futurism is not derived from an extra-biblical source (such as the writings of a preferred prophetess like Mrs. Ellen G. White, or the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible) but is a necessary and proper deduction from the study of a plain text Bible when we read it and believe it literally for exactly what it says while studying it in depth on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, apart from any denominational resources that may sway our understanding in the wrong direction.

    And just what is “a necessary and proper deduction”?

    It is the result of doing Real Bible Study, following the Rules of Interpretation posted here in the Archives for October 2010.

  6. A. Way says:

    The prophecies pertaining to Israel must be fulfilled just as literally as the prophecies pertaining to its Messiah.

    Paul was clearly a Futurist in his understanding of Bible prophecy. So was Peter. So was James. So was the Apostle John.

    Seventh-day Adventists do not deny future fulfillment of prophesy. Their name, “Adventist” shows they are looking forward to the soon return of Christ. Where futurists error is in failing to see where prophesy has been fulfilled. The little horn power is here now, the man of sin is here now, and will be revealed. Revelation is relevant now. Revelation 14 is a call to come out of Babylon, now! Not in the future – now. Daniel 7:25, the changing of times and laws has happened, is happening now! This is not in the future. There are events yet to happen in the future. Unlike what Mr. Camping tried to do, we don’t know when, but we do know, it is soon.

  7. A. Way says:

    (extremely mistaken on Bible prophecy and the Sabbath Commandment)

    What is truth? Pilate asked that question. The Bible has an answer.
    John 14:6 KJV Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    John 17:17 KJV Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

    Psalms 119:151 KJV Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth.

    Psalms 119:142 KJV Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.

    Now, if the commandments are truth, then why do away with them? Why do away with only one of 10?

    What is iniquity?
    G458
    ἀνομία
    anomia
    an-om-ee’-ah
    From G459; illegality, that is, violation of law or (generally) wickedness: – iniquity, X transgress (-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.

    We are saved by Grace because the law is not done away with, but because it remains forever. If the law has been done away with, then we don’t need grace! Christ did not come to do away with the law. He came to explain it.

    Romans 3:31 AKJV Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yes, we establish the law.

    Romans 6:1-2 AKJV What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (v2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

    What is sin? 1 John 3:4 AKJV Whoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

    Romans 6:15 AKJV What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

    God’s law is being eroded world wide, and not just the Sabbath law, ALL the law. I saw the following video for the first time just this morning. I found it, and started watching and could not quit. It explains how all 10 of the commandments are been eroded, changes, done away with, world wide. The man of sin is at work, now, today. It is found here: <a href="http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/17/Rekindling%20the%20Reformation&quot; 35-They Have Made Void Thy Law Part II

    http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/600/935-med-they-have-made-void-thy-law-part-2/

  8. A. Way says:

    I’ll try the reference again since this site does not have editing capabilities enabled:
    935-They Have Made Void Thy Law Part II
    935-They Have Made Void Thy Law Part II

    I hope that worked…

  9. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Let me try to post the hyper-link: I have trouble with these here too, and am still learning how to do it, so I may not be any more successful than you were:

    http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/600/935-med-they-have-made-void-thy-law-part-2/

    I think I have it copied correctly from what you sent me. I was able to go to the linked site just fine. Let us see if it will post here.

    It did!

  10. Jerry says:

    By the way, that is a most interesting site.

    Friends of mine have loaned me material produced by them. It is a series of about 24 hour-long (or more) video presentations that are very well done. I have been watching the videos and taking careful notes. The material, of course, supports your point of view.

    As I have been carefully studying those materials, I have been reminded of a very pointed passage in Proverbs 18:17 (I am citing the newer edition of the New Living Translation):

    The first to speak in court sounds right–
    until the cross-examination begins.

    Some of the materials in the video presentation my friends loaned to me are absolutely outstanding, particularly on the subject of the Divine Inspiration of the Bible.

    Other materials presented, however, don’t match the teaching of the Bible itself when the Bible is studied carefully, using the 21 Rules of Interpretation, on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island.

    Nevertheless, I am giving it all as fair a hearing as I know how.

  11. A. Way says:

    Well – this site has only recently come on to my radar, but the few videos I’ve actually watches, were very informative. As for the court room, I heard you first! 🙂

  12. Jerry says:

    We are enjoying a good “cross-examination” here.

    I hope there are some others in the world viewing these comments who are gaining a greater understanding of Scripture as a result.

    You well know, and have agreed, that the Law does not save. No one but our Lord Jesus Christ has kept the Law perfectly. Recall that James told us that whosoever keeps the Law, yet offends in one point, is guilty of all (James 2:10, the central member of the chiastic structure of the book of James, hence, its main point).

    I have fully explained here, again and again, that the Christian life does not focus on keeping the commandments of the Law. Paul clearly told us in Galatians, “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Rather, as Paul emphasized, our new life in Christ by means of a supernatural regenerative change (2 Corinthians 5:17) is lived under the direction and power of the Holy Spirit, who works in us to produce the fruit of the Spirit, without relying upon in any manner the works of the Law.

    I highly recommend that you read carefully Galatians chapter 3.

    Study Galatians chapter 5 most carefully as well.

    Notice in particular Galatians 5:18, “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.”

    Those who are led of the Spirit have the fruit of the Spirit, against such there is no law.

    Sabbath keeping is not listed among the fruit of the Spirit in my Bible.

    Failure to observe the Jewish Sabbath is not listed among the works of the flesh.

    Keeping the Sabbath is not included among the Commands of Christ, neither is it included in any of the Apostolic commandments in any of the New Testament epistles.

    If the Fourth Commandment is as significant and all-important as Seventh-day Adventists teach, even above the other Commandments of the Law, these are strange omissions from the text of the New Testament, indeed.

    No reader of the Bible alone on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island could or would come up with such a mistaken and unbalanced emphasis in terms of Bible doctrine so as to over-emphasize the Fourth Commandment. Such an overemphasis is a direct violation of Rule 21 of the 21 Rules of Interpretation posted in October, 2010 here:

    21. A correct system of doctrine or a correct interpretation of the Bible must share the doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible. Many fall into the error of over-emphasizing a particular doctrine or theme or even verse and neglect the emphasis and balance of the Bible.

    It is a FACT of Scripture that the Fourth Commandment alone of the Ten Commandments is particularly singled out in the New Testament as a Type that has been fulfilled completely by our Lord Jesus Christ, as it was “a shadow of things to come” (Colossians 2:17), and specifically a Type of the Rest we enjoy in Christ (Matthew 11:28, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”), a type also of eternal rest which we now possess by faith in Christ:

    Heb 4:8 For if Jesus [more accurately, Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
    Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
    Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
    Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

    In the Greek text, the “if” in verse 8 means “impossible, or contrary to fact,” thus emphasizing as strongly as language can, that the Rest that Joshua led the Israelites to inherit in the Promised Land, though a type of the eternal rest we receive in Christ, yet was not in itself that Rest, for, as the author of Hebrews argues, if it were or had been, there would not have been the need to speak of yet “another day.”

    We need to exercise great care that we enter into the Rest of Christ, lest we fall after the same example of unbelief.

    Misplaced emphasis upon the Fourth Commandment (a clear violation of Rule 21) places one in grave danger of falling “after the same example of unbelief” due to a failure, among other things, to place full faith alone in the Completed Rest freely offered by Christ to those who place their faith in Him who has fulfilled the Sabbath completely.

    It is as flawed an emphasis to focus on the Seventh Day Sabbath as having some particular value over and above any other day (Romans 14:5, 6. Colossians 2:16) as it would be to attempt to re-institute any other part of the Law, such as Circumcision or even the sacrifices, all of which are an affront to Christ as diminishing the Completeness of His work on the Cross.

    Romanism diminishes the work of Christ by continuing the sacrifice repeatedly in the Mass, contradicting the clear affirmation of Scripture that Christ accomplished His work by one sacrifice, never to be repeated (Hebrews 1:3. 9:28). Adventism devalues the completed work of Christ by insisting on a continued keeping, in particular at that, of the one Law of the Ten which is a Type, a Type completely fulfilled by Christ.

    Seventh-day Adventism, in its founding, was founded initially upon two errors promulgated at the time by lay persons who were not well taught in the Scripture. Miller, the Adventist side of the founding, was as mistaken then as Harold Camping is in our own day, believing he could determine from Scripture the precise timing of the return of Christ. Miller admitted his error. Adventists cling to his system and dodge the false prophecy by asserting a fulfillment in heaven in 1844 by an event which is not taught in Scripture (the cleansing of the sanctuary–as if any sanctuary in heaven could possibly need any cleansing, and commencement of the so-called investigative judgment, another fallacy not taught in Scripture at all, as if Christ who is omniscient–John 2:24, 25. 2 Timothy 2:19–would have any need to conduct any kind of investigation to determine who is truly saved!). Another influential pattern of belief affecting the founding of Seventh-day Adventism was the belief that Christians in this day ought to return to observing the Seventh Day Sabbath. This was again an idea promoted by sincere but poorly taught in the Word individuals who at the time spread this mistaken message by means of influential tracts and writings to promote this error. Two founding errors resulted in a Church that by some good scholars is regarded as a false cult. It is a false cult because it asserts belief in the gift of prophecy present in one of its founders, Ellen G. White. The gift of prophecy, if understood as revelatory prophecy of Divine authority and source, is in this day heresy and apostasy. It is also a false cult because it believes in theological materialism, a heresy never held to be true by any part of the true Bible believing church past or present.

    I fully agree with your application, though not interpretation, of Revelation 18:4,

    Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

    We are indeed commanded to separate from those who promote false doctrine, if such person or persons are unwilling to amend their view in the light of more accurate teaching from Scripture.

    But as a teenager, first studying the Bible by means of cross references that I devised myself in my own reading of the Bible alone, before I ever heard of The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, I discovered the following passage which asserts the same truth without involving the correct interpretation in a maze of other issues:

    Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

    A careful, thorough study of those cross references from The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible and the references to which those are linked (especially those at Psalm 119:63) would furnish much light on this Bible theme as it is represented in accordance with the “doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible,” required by Rule 21 of the 21 Rules of Interpretation.

  13. A. Way says:

    Jerry – you have clearly shown your ignorance of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, and the law of God. You said:

    and commencement of the so-called investigative judgment, another fallacy not taught in Scripture at all, as if Christ who is omniscient–John 2:24, 25. 2 Timothy 2:19–would have any need to conduct any kind of investigation to determine who is truly saved!)

    Here in is the total ignorance, sorry to be so blunt. Are there one or two resurrections, yes or no? Two, Revelation 20:5 AKJV “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” The righteous are clearly judged to be righteous, before the second coming of Christ. So there is a “pre-advent” judgment, which Adventist call the Investigative Judgment. This work, is it for the benefit of God, or the benefit of the unfallen angels? Would you let a rapist, a child abuser, a murderer into your home with your family permanently, unless you were completely sure that it would be safe to let them in? God is as much in the hot seat as are those being judged. God knows who is safe to allow in. He must convince the unfallen world they are safe. Thus the investigative judgment, the pre-advent judgment. You can not deny there is a pre-advent judgment. It must occur before the second advent.

    You quoted Paul – but why not quote this verse too? Romans 2:13 AKJV (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    It is the doers of the law! James says, Faith without Works, is dead. James 2:18-26. Pagan, false worship, occultism, turn truth 180 backwards. One does not keep the law to be saved, that is what false worship say you need to do. (Ephesians 2:9; Titus 3:5; Galatians 2:16). One keeps the law because they are saved. Romans 6:15 AKJV What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. What is sin? Transgression of the Law! 1 John 3:4. Romans 7:7 AKJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet.

    We know sin because of the Law!!

    You and I have gone over Colossians 2 before. The type and shadows of the coming of Christ – was the temple services which included 7 Sabbaths in the year. This was in addition to the 7th-day Sabbath. Colossians 2:16 AKJV “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:” Question – is there anything in the ten commandments about drink, meat, new moons? No. This is not talking about the ten commandments.

    Sunday worship – you have said in the past, that there is not basis for Sunday worship in the Bible. Do you still say that? What is Sunday worship? Is it worship directed to God. NO. Is it part of SUN worship. It is pagan. And it fits with all false religion turning things 180 degrees around.
    God’s week: Day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Sabbath
    Satan’s week: False Sabbath, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

    Sunday worship is the “MARK” of the Catholic Church’s power. They clearly say so.
    The Catholic Record of London, Ontario, Canada, September 1, 1923: “Sunday is our MARK of authority…the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” Or this one: “Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of One or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.” The Catholic Mirror, (September 23, 1893).

    You quoted this:

    Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

    Jerry – what is sin? Sin is transgression of the law.

  14. A. Way says:

    One last point about William Miller, and the Great Disappointment of 1844. The Seventh-day Adventist church was not formed until 1863. Nearly 20 years later.

    You said:

    (the cleansing of the sanctuary–as if any sanctuary in heaven could possibly need any cleansing,

    What is the sanctuary? 1 Corinthians 6:19 AKJV What? know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own? Malachi 3:3 NIV He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, 1 Peter 2:5 AKJV You also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

    But since you deny that Christians are part of end time Israel, this is meaningless to you.

  15. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Are you a Seventh-day Adventist?

    If you are, it may possibly be the case that you are not properly informed of the history of the founding of your denomination.

    I did not say that William Miller was a Seventh-day Adventist, or that he had any part personally in founding that denomination.

    But the early leaders of the movements that coalesced to form the Seventh-day Adventist denomination were believers in what William Miller taught, and some were a part of the Great Disappointment.

    The other mistaken basis which underpinned the founding of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination was the belief about the priority of the Fourth Commandment and the necessity to return (supposedly) to the original practice of worship on the Seventh Day, the Jewish Sabbath, what we commonly call Saturday. I think the author of the literature associated with this strand of false belief in Seventh-day Adventism was Joseph Bates, but I would have to go back to verify that to be sure. I just now checked my sources, and I am correct. Mr. Bates had read an article by Thomas M. Preble on the Sabbath published in the Portland, Maine Hope of Israel of February 28, 1845. This article convinced Mr. Bates that the seventh day was the proper Sabbath for Christians to observe. Some other Adventists were persuaded by some Seventh-day Baptists to believe this too.

    These are facts about the history of Seventh-day Adventism which you cannot with honesty and a straight face deny.

    Seventh-day Adventists also adopted the error of theological materialism, which is in terms of all church history the mark of a false movement untrue to the teaching of the Bible.

    And yes, I most certainly do deny that Christians of this dispensation, commonly called the “age of grace” or the “church age” are a part of end-time Israel, except as we share rulership in the eternal Kingdom of Christ which Christ will establish at His coming with us, when Christ will rule the whole earth from Jerusalem on the Throne of David here on this earth forever, as the Scriptures plainly teach (Isaiah 24:23. Daniel 7:14. Zechariah 14:9. Luke 1:31, 32. Revelation 11:15). One key to understanding Bible prophecy on this issue is to understand that natural Israel will be the subjects of this Kingdom ruled by Christ in Israel; those who are believers in Christ during the church age will be inheritors of this Kingdom with Christ.

    There is no such thing as a 1000 year period during which we as believers are taken off of planet earth, leaving this planet unoccupied with no human inhabitant. Such a view is a direct denial of the Abrahamic Covenant and its provisions. Even Paul directly alludes to this fact in Romans 4:13,

    Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

    You are in some of your statements guilty of the logical fallacy of “equivocation.” “Equivocation” in this instance means you have used one or more theological terms in a manner that hides or ignores the fact that you are using one word for two entirely different things. The word you are using in a double sense is “sanctuary.” Another word you are misusing is “Israel” in a manner that may actually be almost a reversal of the former error. “Israel” has distinct promises which have never yet been fulfilled, as Stephen carefully preached (Acts 7:5), but these promises will be literally fulfilled to the parties to whom the Covenants and Promises were originally given, not someone else. I gave full Scripture proof to absolutely establish that the physical nation of Israel has not been permanently cast off by God, but that the Bible promises they will repent with great mourning and receive their hitherto rejected Messiah, at and after which point all the promises to David and Abraham will be literally fulfilled, as the New Testament affirms is the Apostolic teaching regarding the “sure mercies of David” (citing Isaiah 55:3 in Acts 13:34) and the restoration of the “tabernacle of David which is fallen” (citing Amos 9:11 in Acts 15:16).

    If you are a Seventh-day Adventist, you certainly are most aware (or ought to be) that “the cleansing of the sanctuary” has nothing to do with we as Christians being the Temple of the Holy Spirit (the teaching of 1 Corinthians 6:19, the passage you cited in this connection).

    Furthermore, you very well know as a Seventh-day Adventist that the year 1844 figures prominently in Seventh-day Adventist theology. On October 22, 1844, Christ began the process of blotting out sin, when He entered the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary to do so. Until then, Christ provided the work of atonement; after 1844 He applied this sacrifice. Christ entered the judgment phase of His ministry whereby He blots out sin.

    This judgment phase of His ministry involves the conducting of the “Investigative Judgment” from 1844 until now by Christ in heaven. But this assumes that our Lord Jesus Christ does not already know the outcome of this judgment for each individual, but must investigate to establish the outcome, individual by individual. This doctrine, therefore, is a denial of the omniscience of our Lord Jesus Christ, an incommunicable Divine attribute Christ as God the Son possesses and always has possessed as the Second Person of the Godhead, the Second Person of the Trinity, for which I cited specific Scripture (John 2:24, 25 and 2 Timothy 2:19).

    You have presented an interesting example of the twisted logic behind the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment:

    So there is a “pre-advent” judgment, which Adventist call the Investigative Judgment. This work, is it for the benefit of God, or the benefit of the unfallen angels? Would you let a rapist, a child abuser, a murderer into your home with your family permanently, unless you were completely sure that it would be safe to let them in? God is as much in the hot seat as are those being judged. God knows who is safe to allow in. He must convince the unfallen world they are safe. Thus the investigative judgment, the pre-advent judgment. You can not deny there is a pre-advent judgment. It must occur before the second advent.

    Now THAT is something no one on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island could possibly come up with by reading and studying even the “three good Bibles” in plain text format that Robinson had at hand, with uninterrupted time to study them uninfluenced by denominational literature.

    There is absolutely no need nor Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment because my plain text Bible explicitly teaches the opposite:

    Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    And the same truth is taught directly by our Lord Jesus Christ when He said:

    Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

    Thus, no need at all for the invented but utterly fictitious “Investigative Judgment.”

    That doctrine you may be sure is not in the Bible.

  16. A. Way says:

    There is absolutely no need nor Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment because my plain text Bible explicitly teaches the opposite:

    Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    And the same truth is taught directly by our Lord Jesus Christ when He said:

    Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

    Thus, no need at all for the invented but utterly fictitious “Investigative Judgment.”

    Jerry – hearing, yet you do not hear. The pre-advent judgment is not for God. You claim there is no basis for a pre-advent judgment. Do you deny there are 2 different resurrections? (Revelation 20:5-6). The first resurrection has the righteous. God knows who they are. The pre-advent judgment is not for God!!! It is for all the unfallen angels.

    1 Corinthians 4:9 GSNT For it seems to me, God has exhibited us apostles at the very end of the procession, like the men condemned to die in the arena. For we have become a spectacle to the whole universe, angels as well as men.

    Christ’ death on the cross – was it for man only? NO. It was also for the unfallen world.

    Colossians 1:19-20 GSNT (v19) For all the divine fulness chose to dwell in him, (v20) and through him to reconcile to God all things on earth or in heaven, making this peace through his blood shed on the cross.

    His death reconciled ALL THINGS – in heaven and earth. And this verse:

    John 12:32 KJV And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

    “Men” is added to this text. The original says, “well draw all unto me”. This mean all, including the unfallen world. God is also on trial. The pre-advent judgment is not for God to make a determination if one is righteous or not. We are a spectacle, the Greek word is “theatron” from which we get theater. The plan of redemption is both the save men, and to save God reputation. It shows how God can be both just, and the justifier. The plan of redemption answers the questions about the false accusations about God. One that you Jerry have swallowed, hook, line and sinker. The first accusation against God is in Genesis 3:3 Ye shall not surely die: You buy into the lie that we all are immortal, even when the scriptures say that only God is immortal, 1 Timothy 6:16. Christ showed that the wages of sin is truly death. If we are immortal, then it is God that is keeping us alive to be tortured for eternity in hell, making God a sadistic monster. Yes, God is on trial. The pre-advent judgment is more about God that us. God knows His own.

    Romans 3:4 GSNT By no means! God must prove true, though every man be false; as the Scripture says, “That you may be shown to be upright in what you say, And win your case when you go into court.”

  17. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Your post is most interesting. I appreciate your further explanation. I am not yet convinced, because the position you are taking is not what the ordinary reader on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island would gather from reading those three good plain text Bibles that Robinson had access to. Such a reader would also not come to such conclusions if he had access to the other unbiased reference sources I have previously suggested.

    I hope to return soon to further explore the topics you have brought up in your most recent comment.

    In the meantime, I have a very good verse for you to consider. I just came upon it afresh as I was completing my work on Jeremiah chapter 10 minutes ago.

    Psa 94:14 For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.

    Updated cross references for Psalm 94:14,

    14. For. Ps 36:10. 37:28. 1 S *12:22. Is 49:14, 15. Je 32:39, 40. Lk %12:46. Jn **10:27-31. Ro *8:30, 38, 39. +**11:1, >2. He +*13:5. not cast off. Ps 43:2. *89:28, 33, 37. +**132:11. Le **26:44. 1 S +*12:22. 2 S +**7:15. Is +**41:9. +**55:3. Je +*4:27. **31:37. +**33:24-26. La *3:31. Ro +**11:1. his people. Dt +**32:43. forsake. ver. 5. Ps 33:12. 37:25. Dt 32:9. 1 S +*12:22. Jb 8:20. Is 41:17. *42:16. +*60:10. Je +*4:27. 10:16. *51:5. Zc **10:6. Ml +*3:6. Ep 1:18. He +*13:5. his inheritance. Ps 2:8. 28:9. Ex 15:17. 34:9. Le 25:23. Dt 4:20. 9:26, 29. +*32:9, 43. 1 S 10:1. 26:19. 2 S 20:19. 21:3. 1 K 8:51, 53. 2 K 21:14. Is **19:25. 63:17. 65:9. Da +*7:14. Zc 2:12. Lk +**1:32, 33. Ro *8:17. Col +*3:24. He 1:2. Re +*11:15.

    God has not at all given up on His People, the descendants of Abraham, the Jewish people. The Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant have not been cancelled.

    The absolute evidence for that? God Himself states that the evidence that He has not cancelled His sworn Covenant to Abraham and David is that day still follows night. Until they don’t do so, His Covenants are still in force.

  18. A. Way says:

    The other mistaken basis which underpinned the founding of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination was the belief about the priority of the Fourth Commandment and the necessity to return (supposedly) to the original practice of worship on the Seventh Day, the Jewish Sabbath, what we commonly call Saturday.

    Misinformation, maligning the Adventists. They do not hold the fourth commandment higher than the rest. What they are saying is that they uphold all 10 commandments. In Exodus 20, is says “Remember the Sabbath”, which is the 7th-day. Everyone has forgotten the Sabbath day.

    James 2:10-11 KJV For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

    What law is James talking about? The 10 Commandments. So, shall we keep nine, and forget one? Everyone has forgotten the fourth. The Sabbath command comes from creation, and is not a shadow talked about in Colossians 2:17. Everyone wants to make it null and void. Everyone wants to make it just a Jewish day. But it pre-existed the Jews. And it clearly pre-existed the giving of the Law at Sinai, Exodus 16:23-29, and Exodus 5:5.

    You continue to accuse Adventists of holding one commandment above the rest. And that is a false statement. The Adventist church is pathetic, no question. But so is every sinner. Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6

  19. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Somewhere in Jeremiah I lately came across the general sentiment expressed that God was concerned that the pen of the Prophets He had sent had labored in vain, for the people and leaders of Israel totally disregarded what had been written (Jeremiah 8:8, 9).

    Your comments about the Ten Commandments make me wonder if you have read with understanding–at all–what I have explained concerning what the Bible itself teaches about them, especially their status now in the Church age.

    Such matters as (randomly written just now):

    (1) The Law came by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17)

    (2) The Law represents or is the ministry of death, with specific reference to the Ten Commandments engraved in stone (2 Corinthians 3:7 and context, which I expounded in depth in previous comments–more thoroughly than you would likely find in any published commentary, the direct result of my own Real Bible Study on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island following the 21 Rules of Interpretation).

    (3) Your emphasis upon the Fourth Commandment is out of all proportion to the emphasis provided in Scripture itself, and is therefore a violation of Rule 21 of my list of 21 Rules of Interpretation.

    But I am enjoying your mistaken emphasis, for it is driving me to deeper study of the Bible about these subjects, and that has been a blessing. I have learned much in the process.

    (4) I learned, regarding the Sabbath issue, that the Sabbath absolutely is not a pre-Mosaic Institution. Until you convinced me otherwise, that is what I had long believed, and so expressed my views here on that subject. Further study required me to change my position because I learned something new.

    (5) I learned that the Sabbath never once is mentioned in the book of Genesis. Sometimes a “thing” can be present even if it is not directly named. But in this case, there is no element of the Sabbath Law evident in the book of Genesis itself. Yes, there are periods of seven days, and there is a mention of the “week,” but no mention or practice of the Sabbath. There is not one mention of any recurring regular day of total rest in the book of Genesis. In the Patriarchal age it is clear that Abraham and others had a considerable body of Divine Revelation, but not one iota of evidence that they knew of the Seventh Day Sabbath of Rest.

    (6) It is clear from the historical record given to us by Divine Inspiration in the book of Exodus that the Sabbath was first instituted at the giving of the manna after the exodus from Egypt. Now since we have a most clear revelation given in Exodus of when the Sabbath was instituted, it is unnecessary and unscriptural to look for some other explanation of when it began.

    (7) It is equally clear from Scripture that the Seventh Day Sabbath was given exclusively to the Jewish nation. It remains an obligation to any Jews who remain under the Law of Moses. In the Millennium it will be reinstituted for the nations, as will also the New Moon or monthly feasts, if I understand Isaiah 66:23 correctly.

    (8) Paul makes reference to three categories of feasts: annual, monthly, weekly. These ALL are stated to be among the ordinances that were against us, and have been “blotted out,” having been nailed to the cross on which Jesus died (Colossians 2:14). Thus they have been done away in Christ. Elsewhere Paul remarks that the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under that schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24, 25). Again in Colossians 2:17 Paul tells us that the whole cycle of feasts–annual, monthly, and weekly–which he mentioned in Colossians 2:16 were a “shadow of things to come.” Christ has come. We no longer live under the shadow of these things, for Christ has completely fulfilled them. In Scripture language, “shadow” has reference to what we call “type.” The Sabbath was a Type. Christ fulfilled the Type. Sabbath observance has been done away for believers in Christ, though they are allowed as by permission granted to accommodate the conscience of those who are weaker in the faith (Romans 14:1, 5, 6), to observe the Seventh Day. Keeping the Seventh Day is not an obligation; it is also not a preference; it is not to be a matter of concern, and no one is to urge its practice upon anyone else.

    (9) Seventh-day Adventists DO hold one commandment above the rest. It is evident by the name they chose for themselves. It is evident by the major emphasis they place upon it, an emphasis totally foreign to the Scriptures of the New Testament. It is evident from the story they tell, as best I recall, of their chief Prophetess, who in vision saw the Ten Commandments, and the Fourth Commandment shown most brightly, having as it were a halo about it.

    (10) A nineteenth century leader among the Adventists observed long ago:

    I was long impressed with the fact that we Adventists preached very differently from the apostles. For instance, we were always preaching and writing about the Sabbath, while Paul in all his fourteen epistles mentions it but once, Col. 2:16, and then only to condemn it!

    Sounds to me like that person spent some time studying the Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, where all of us have to go if we are ever to learn the truth God placed in the Bible for us. That person must have been intuitively aware of the important principle I have expressed as Rule 21 of my 21 Rules of Interpretation posted here last October 2010, available for printout in the Archives for October 2010 for your careful study.

    21. A correct system of doctrine or a correct interpretation of the Bible must share the doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible.

    Any time you violate any of the 21 rules you will come up with a mistaken interpretation and understanding of the Bible.

  20. A. Way says:

    Jerry – (10) you twist the truth and quote facts that only support your position and then without attribution, such as the Canright quote in your item 10 above. That is like taking your position on theology of Christ from Judas. You need to understand the character of the writer, and Canright was more like Judas. It would be like quoting an atheist to make a point on how wrong a Christian was. Does not work.

    (9)Again – a lie. The fact that Adventist use the Sabbath in their name is to emphasis that they keep the whole law, not 9/10th of it. Sure, you can twist it all you’d like. It is easy to accuse, must harder to defend. God has been accused, and it has taken a long time to defend.

    (8)Colossians 2:14 – the “handwriting”. The ordinances (2:16) were hand written by Moses. The 10 commandments were written by God Himself in stone. Big difference.

    (7)”It remains an obligation to any Jews ” – please read the commandment. It was for everyone, even the stranger. The 7th day was blessed and sanctified at Creation. Genesis 2:2-4. Sanctify = To make Holy, to set apart for holy use. If that is not the Sabbath, then I will never convince you. The argument that the word Sabbath is not in Genesis, does not your point prove. The 7th day was set apart in Genesis. There is a week in Genesis. Commentators, even the TSK, give hints that there was awareness of the Sabbath. There are many other Bible books that do not mention the Sabbath. Where in the Book of Judges is the Sabbath mentioned for example? Yet, do you believe that they did not keep the Sabbath in the time of the Judges? How about the book of Joshua? It is not mentioned there either. Did they not keep the Sabbath??? Who wrote Genesis? Moses. What was the purpose of the book of Genesis? Genesis and Exodus were written probably at the same time. Exodus 5 points to Moses trying to reinstitute the Sabbath. He failed to get Pharaoh to agree. So ultimately, Moses with God’s help took the Children of Israel out of Egypt, and immediately RE-instituted the Sabbath, Exodus 16. Exodus 20, the 4th commandment states to REMEMBER to keep the Sabbath. The people had forgotten. Just as people today have forgotten. Not just forgotten, but actively fought against it. Today is worse.

    (6) Clear? It is clear if you don’t want to believe what the Bible has been saying. Exodus 5, is “clear” to me that Moses is trying to reinstitute the Sabbath. Pharaoh was having nothing of it, and increase the demands on the people.

    (5)I answered this.

    (4) I did not convince you. You hardened your heart.

    (3)Your negation of the 4th out of proportion to ALL the law, is most remarkable. 9/10th remain. Why not do away with the whole lot of the 10 commandments? Why only reject the 4th? The 4th is the only command that give the reason why the 10 were given in the first place. Interesting…

    (1) Are you saying that the law given via Moses was defective? Psalms 19:7 – the Law of the Lord is PERFECT.
    Psalms 119:1 AKJV Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
    Psalms 119:18 AKJV Open you my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.
    Psalms 119:34 AKJV Give me understanding, and I shall keep your law; yes, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
    Interesting – if an Adventist keeps the whole law, you call them false. Wake up Jerry. Come out of Babylon.
    Psalms 119:44 AKJV So shall I keep your law continually for ever and ever.
    Psalms 119:53 AKJV Horror has taken hold on me because of the wicked that forsake your law.
    Psalms 119:55 AKJV I have remembered your name, O LORD, in the night, and have kept your law.
    Psalms 119:142 AKJV Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your law is the truth.
    “YOUR LAW IS THE TRUTH”. JESUS IS THE TRUTH. Jesus did not do away with the law, he established the law. Jesus also kept the Sabbath – always.
    Psalms 119:163 AKJV I hate and abhor lying: but your law do I love.
    Psalms 119:174 AKJV I have longed for your salvation, O LORD; and your law is my delight.

    Psalms 119:105 AKJV Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path.

    (2) 2 Corinthians 3:7 – where to begin? Arrrgh. I know, I’ll quote a commentary. It is inferior to what you wrote I know, you told me so above.

    Ministration of death. That is, the Jewish religious system, which had become so perverted that it was lifeless and could not impart life to those who practiced it. In 2 Corinthians 3:9 Paul calls it “the ministration of condemnation.” 2 Corinthians 3 is based on the experience of Moses recorded in Exodus 34:29-35. Paul sets forth the superior glory of the ministration of the “spirit,” his purpose being to confute his opponents at Corinth, the Judaizers ( 2 Corinthians 11:22), whose ministry was of the “letter” and not of the “spirit.”

    Written and engraven. Literally, “engraved in writing,” with emphasis on the idea that the writing was intended to remain and thus have permanent force. This is an obvious reference to the two tables of stone on which the Ten Commandments were written (Exodus 31:18). Compare the words of Christ in Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10, “It is written,” meaning, “It stands written.” Paul here refers to the second inscription of the law on tables of stone (Exodus 34:1-7; Exodus 34:28-35).
    Face of Moses. see Exodus 34:29-35.

    Glory. see Romans 3:23. In 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 the glory that remains is contrasted with the glory that fades away, the more glorious with the less glorious, the new with the old. In both, the “glory” is the glory of the presence of Christ. In the new there is a full revelation of God’s glory in the actual person and presence of Christ, who came to this world to be seen of men (John 1:14), which glory abides forever (see Hebrews 7:1-28). In the Mosaic ministration Christ was seen only in types provided for by the ceremonial law, but the glory was nevertheless the reflected glory of Christ. The Redeemer was hidden behind a veil of types, symbols, rites, and ceremonies, but this veil was done away at the coming of the great Antitype (see Hebrews 10:19-20).

    Done away. Some superficial readers have concluded from this statement that the law of God “was to be done away.” The verse clearly states, however, that it was the passing “glory” reflected in the face of Moses that “was to be done away.” That “glory” faded in a few hours, or days, at most, but the law of God, “written and engraven in stones,” remained in effect. It was the ministry of Moses and the Jewish system that was to pass away, not the law of God ( Matthew 5:17-18). The glory was not upon the tables of stone, and did not fade from them.

    The fleeting glory on the face of Moses was the result of his fellowship with God on Sinai. It testified to those who saw it that Moses had been in the divine presence, and bore silent witness to his commission as God’s representative, and the obligation of the people to abide by its precepts. That glory was given to attest the divine source and thus the binding force of the law.

    As Moses’ face reflected the glory of God, so the ceremonial law and the services of the earthly sanctuary reflected the presence of Christ. God intended that men in OT times should apprehend and experience the saving presence of Christ in the reflected glory of the typical system. But with the coming of Christ men were privileged to behold the glory of the Antitype ( John 1:14), and no longer needed the lesser, reflected glory that attended the type. In OT times sinners found salvation by faith in Christ, the One who was to come, as surely as they have in Christian times.

    It is for this reason that Paul speaks of the administration of these rites and ceremonies as a “ministration of death.” Jews who failed to see Christ in the sacrificial system would die in their sins. In and of itself that system never saved anyone from reaping the wages of sin-death. And since most Jews of Paul’s time, including the Judaizers now troubling the church at Corinth, considered those sacrifices essential to salvation, Paul appropriately characterized the entire system as a “ministration of death.” It was lifeless. Jew and Gentile alike must find life in Christ, for in Him alone is there salvation (Acts 4:12). Christ was the Saviour of Israel throughout OT times as truly as He is our Saviour today.

    The failure of the Jewish nation to see and believe in Christ as typified by the ceremonial system marks the entire course of Hebrew history, from Sinai to Christ. Thus, the expression “ministration of death” appropriately characterizes the whole period of the Jewish economy, though there were, of course, many notable exceptions. Israel’s blindness finally led them to reject Jesus as the Messiah and to crucify their Redeemer. Paul declares that with the coming of the greater glory revealed in Christ and the consequent fading of the reflected glory of the typical system, there can be no further excuse for remaining under such a system. The coming of Christ and the fullness of the Holy Spirit amply provided a ministration that could impart life.

  21. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Your latest post is very astute, and most revealing. Especially when you state:

    Jerry – (10) you twist the truth and quote facts that only support your position and then without attribution, such as the Canright quote in your item 10 above. That is like taking your position on theology of Christ from Judas. You need to understand the character of the writer, and Canright was more like Judas. It would be like quoting an atheist to make a point on how wrong a Christian was. Does not work.

    I say your comment is very astute, because you immediately identified the source of my unattributed quotation correctly as being the words of Mr. D. M. Canright.

    Your comment is also very revealing, perhaps in two ways. First, either you “googled” the quotation to learn its source, or you are mighty familiar with Seventh-day Adventist history. You’ll have to let me know which of these options, or perhaps some other, is the case.

    Second, you remark that you find the character of Mr. Canright to be questionable, therefore you would not accept his comment as being from a creditable and reliable source. You’ll have to fill me in a bit about that aspect of the question.

    This discussion gets more interesting by the day! Thank you for your faithful and challenging participation.

    I just finished Jeremiah 11 in my giant project of collecting more cross references for Real Bible Study and encountered much interesting material in that chapter.

  22. A. Way says:

    A poem for you Jerry. It was written I think around 1850 by R. F. Cottrell, so this was before the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Cottrell wrote in interesting letter as a counterpoint to one just like you on the argument about keeping the 4th commandment. Not that it is higher than the rest, but that it is the one that is rejected by the most. I’d post it here, but the exchange it large. I think I still have your email address, I’ll send it to you that way. BTW – the Sabbath is not the Jew’s Sabbath, it is the Lord’s Sabbath. In the meantime, enjoy the poem…

    When we present God’s holy law,
    And arguments from scripture draw,
    Objectors say, to pick a flaw,
    ‘It’s Jewish.’

    Though at the first the Most High blessed
    And sanctified His day of rest,
    The same belief is still expressed,
    ‘It’s Jewish.’

    Though with the world this rest began,
    And thence through all Scriptures ran,
    And Jesus said “’twas made for man”–
    ‘It’s Jewish.’

    Though not with Jewish rites, which passed,
    But with the moral law ’twas classed,
    Which must exist while time shall last,
    ‘It’s Jewish.’

    If from the Bible we present
    The Sabbath’s meaning and intent,
    This answers every argument–
    ‘It’s Jewish.’

    Though the disciples, Luke and Paul,
    Continue still this rest to call
    The ‘Sabbath day’, this answers all:
    ‘It’s Jewish.’

    The good news teacher’s plain expression,
    That ” Sin is of the law’s transgression,”
    Seems not to make the least impression–
    ‘It’s Jewish.’

    They love the day of man’s invention,
    But if the LORD’s day we mention,
    This puts an end to all contention:
    ‘It’s Jewish.’

    O ye who thus GOD’s day abuse,
    Simply because ’twas kept by Jews,
    The Saviour, too, you must refuse,
    He’s Jewish.

    The Scriptures, then, we may expect
    For the same reason you’ll reject;
    For if you will but recollect,
    They’re Jewish.

    Thus the apostles, too, must fall;
    For Andrew, Peter, James, and Paul,
    Thomas, Matthew, John, and all
    Were Jewish.

    So to your helpless state resign
    Yourself in wretchedness to pine;
    Salvation, surely you’ll decline,
    It’s Jewish.

  23. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I received from you by separate email (“Sabbath–1/10 of God’s Law”) an extensive article which contained the following especially crucial remarks:

    After stating your two “facts” you speak of the different ways by which men might “secure the favor of God” in different dispensations. To live in favor with God, and to secure his favor are two things. Why is not man in favor with God? Because he is a sinner. What has made him such? Transgression of God’s law; for “sin is the transgression of the law.” Man is a sinner. He has lost the favor of God, and is justly exposed to the penalty of the law, which is death. There is no salvation for him unless God should abolish his law, or make another law by which he may be forgiven, and thus restored to favor. This second law is the same, in one sense, in both dispensations. That is, it consists of faith, repentance and obedience to certain rites, which are outward acts expressive of faith and repentance. In another sense it differs much in the two dispensations. In the former dispensation the faith was in a promised Messiah, and was accompanied by obedience to typical rites; in the latter, the faith is in a Messiah already come and sacrificed for sin, (transgression of the first named law,) and shown forth by corresponding obedience to commemorative rites or institutions. For example: In the Jewish dispensation the sinner must offer an animal, the blood of which must be shed; in the Christian age, he must be buried by baptism. The language of the former was, God will provide a sacrifice for sin; the latter declares that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again for our justification. Repentance is the same in both dispensation. It consists not merely in sorrow, but in breaking off from sin (transgression of the first law) by righteousness. (Obedience to that law.) Sorrow is not repentance; but godly sorrow worketh repentance, or reformation not to be repented of. {1853 RFC, BOS 8.1}

    At the core, this writer does not have an understanding of the Gospel of Christ as it is elaborated upon and presented in the New Testament. I boldfaced for ease of reference for the reader that portion which is particularly in error.

    The error is magnified and reinforced by the following remark from this citation:

    Repentance is the same in both dispensation. It consists not merely in sorrow, but in breaking off from sin (transgression of the first law) by righteousness. (Obedience to that law.)

    This latter comment marks the height of legalism, and is the opposite of the Gospel. Righteousness does not come from obedience to the law, by “breaking off from sin” by “righteousness” in obedience to that law.

    Gal_2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

    This author and his preferred denomination apparently have no understanding of nor appreciation for this fundamental statement placed early in the Gospel of John,

    Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

    In theology or Bible doctrine some beliefs can be classified as essential to believe; other matters are not essential. If you are mistaken on essentials, you likely are unsaved. If you are mistaken on non-essentials, you still can be saved.

    Matters pertaining to belief and practice regarding Sabbath observance are among the non-essentials. Good people, solid Bible-believing Christians, may honestly differ. But on this point my classification has direct Biblical support, as you very well know and agree:

    Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
    Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
    Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

    Your article contains reference to another unessential:

    in the Christian age, he must be buried by baptism

    My necessary inference from this quoted statement is that the author is asserting the belief that ritual water baptism must be by the mode of immersion.

    This is blatantly false doctrine because of that word “must.” The Greek of the New Testament does not support “must.” The word(s) for baptism in Greek are non-modal words. Therefore, the Greek words can express any of several possible modes, but do not define the mode. Context defines the mode. There is not one context in either the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament that employs any word for “baptism” in a manner that indicates “immersion.” There are no examples in the Bible of persons being immersed in water for any religious purpose whatsoever, not one.

    The argument of the writer of the article you forwarded me is seriously flawed in terms of both logic and the rules of debate and evidence because the author:

    (1) flagrantly denies the evidence of the opposition by denying the possibility of establishing truth from Scripture by means of proper and necessary inference.

    (2) demands the kind of evidence that the author safely knows is not there, a procedure regularly employed in the apologetics of many false cults.

    It is not possible to deny the use of necessary inference to prove major doctrines from Scripture because our Lord Jesus Christ employed this method of argument from the Scripture itself to prove the doctrine of the resurrection and, incidentally, the doctrine of continuing consciousness after death, when he clearly won the argument against the Saduccees, who our Lord Jesus sternly faulted for “not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God” (See Mark 12:18-27). He charged them with “great error.”

    Consider the doctrine of the Trinity. That is a doctrine the Bible declares is necessary to believe for salvation. Yet, neither the word nor the doctrine is spelled out in a manner the author of the article requires for those who reject the application of the Sabbath commandment to Christians in this dispensation or age of grace to produce. The doctrine of the Trinity is derived by the process of necessary inference drawn from comparing Scripture with Scripture from both the Old and the New Testament.

    You cannot win your case in “cross-examination” by unwarrantably diminishing rather than answering the evidence of your opponent.

    Now, I am eagerly awaiting with great anticipation your response to my latest query regarding your identifying my unattributed quotation correctly with Mr. Canright (how you made that identification), and the basis of your judgment that the character of Mr. Canright and therefore the value of his testimony in this matter are defective. Please respond to this matter!

  24. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    The article you sent contains the following statements, among others, regarding inferences and their doctrine of the Fourth Commandment Sabbath:

    And how awfully presumptuous for men to go on in violation of the fourth commandment, and risk their eternal salvation upon mere inferences!! May God help the reader to feel the force of the truth we are here stating. {1853 RFC, BOS 4.1}

    To trample underfoot the fourth commandment because it is not given a second time in the New Testament and to teach its abolition, with nothing but unwarrantable inferences from a few texts that do not mention the Sabbath of the Lord, is the height of presumption. {1853 RFC, BOS 5.2}

    To deny to your opponent the use of doctrinal proof based upon inference otherwise used by oneself is the height of absurdity and unfairness. It renders both the plea unjust and the argument invalid.

  25. A. Way says:

    The error is magnified and reinforced by the following remark from this citation:

    Repentance is the same in both dispensation. It consists not merely in sorrow, but in breaking off from sin (transgression of the first law) by righteousness. (Obedience to that law.)

    This latter comment marks the height of legalism, and is the opposite of the Gospel. Righteousness does not come from obedience to the law, by “breaking off from sin” by “righteousness” in obedience to that law.

    Legalism. It is the answer to anyone that says you need to keep the law. Can you now murder any one you’d like to? By not murdering, is this now just legalism? How about adultery? If you choose not commit adultery, are you a legalist? Paul answers you legalistic charge quite nicely:

    Romans 6:15 NASB What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

    What is sin? Transgression of the law. If I keep the law, you call me a legalist. I know that just by keeping the law, I will not be saved. But does that mean then I can just disregard the law with abandon? GOD FORBID. I don’t keep the law in order to be saved. I keep the law because the one that saves me, died to pay the penalty of a law that could not be revoked. If the law could have been revoked, then Jesus did not have to die. I am saved by the Grace of Jesus Christ. And I am going to keep the law as best I can because of that fact. Are you hearing me? Law keeping is not the basis of salvation. Salvation is only in Jesus Christ. Who by the way, kept all 10 of the commandments, not 9 of the 10.

    Canright – I did not know the quote, nor did I google it. How is that for a non-answer? My father was not an Adventist. My mother had/has Adventist relatives. So I’ve been exposed them them. Much of the Adventist pioneer’s writings can be purchased for $20. I have that product.

    I know several Adventist theologians. One is very prominent in one of their universities. I will say that I find his view of God, not one I would subscribe to. A punitive God. A harsh God. If that is the view of the Adventist church, then I am not part of that. However, I know a few Adventist that have a different view of God. And it is here where I find your view of prophesy unacceptable. You say, the 70 prophesy has an “unannounced break” in the time line. Hog wash. God is transparent, and open. This is God:

    John 18:19-20 AKJV The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. (v20) Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

    So and “unannounced” gap – will not happen.

    Amos 3:7 KJV Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

    Isaiah 48:16 AKJV Come you near to me, hear you this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, has sent me.

    God is open and accountable. He is not coercive, vengeful, or arbitrary, as my Adventist theologian “friend” seems to portray Him. God has been accused of being a liar. Judgment is very much about God as it is about us.

    Revelation 14:7 AKJV Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

    The hour of His judgment. The hour the universe judges God. Think about it. Do we worship God because if we don’t, He will destroy us in hell? Or do we worship God because of his kindness? (Romans 2:4!!) We all are judging God, and some choose to worship Him because of His character of love. Some go to church because they think that is what they need to do to escape hell.

    If you think that keeping the Sabbath is legalism, then you do not understand any of the commandments. Unlike my Adventist friends, one of the Adventist founders puts commandment keeping into perspective. E. White writes:

    The man who attempts to keep the commandments of God from a sense of obligation merely–because he is required to do so–will never enter into the joy of obedience. He does not obey. When the requirements of God are accounted a burden because they cut across human inclination, we may know that the life is not a Christian life. True obedience is the outworking of a principle within. It springs from the love of righteousness, the love of the law of God. The essence of all righteousness is loyalty to our Redeemer. This will lead us to do right because it is right–because right doing is pleasing to God.

    Do you hear this? If you keep the commandments because you think you have a obligation to do so, you do NOT obey!!! Is this legalism? Quite the opposite.

    Am I an Adventist? I find the Adventist writing to be compelling. I find Adventists themselves to be pathetic, just like every other sinner, of which I’m one. We all need Christ. But don’t think that just because one keeps all 10 commandments, that they are legalistic. That is a very narrow, self-satisfying view.

  26. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Whether you are willing to own up to it or not, I find your very prompt identification of my citation of Mr. Canright very remarkable. If you did not google it, you are either very well read on the subject, or otherwise happened to have come across Canright’s comment in the past.

    You have not supplied any information about just what is your basis for your negative evaluation of Mr. Canright’s character.

    Perhaps you can fill me in on that.

    I surely would not wish to share a comment from someone who is allegedly as off-base as your comments indicate you think it is, if your judgment is based upon better knowledge of the case than mine.

    But until I learn otherwise from you about a firm basis for your judgment of Mr. Canright’s character, I shall take Mr. Canright’s personal testimony as being truth, not error.

    Recall what Mr. Canright said (as I cited him in a post above):

    (10) A nineteenth century leader among the Adventists observed long ago:

    I was long impressed with the fact that we Adventists preached very differently from the apostles. For instance, we were always preaching and writing about the Sabbath, while Paul in all his fourteen epistles mentions it but once, Col. 2:16, and then only to condemn it!

    I find Mr. Canright’s statement to be very compelling. It is compelling because the principle enunciated is exactly the way we must arrive at truth. Mr. Canright noted that the preaching of the Adventists did not correspond, as to balance, with the teaching emphasis and balance of the Bible itself as reflected in the New Testament letters of Paul.

    This exactly reflects the kind of insight needed to follow Rule 21 of my 21 Rules of Interpretation:

    21. A correct system of doctrine or a correct interpretation of the Bible must share the doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible.

    Any time you violate any of the 21 rules you will come up with a mistaken interpretation and understanding of the Bible.

    Concerning Canright, you yourself stated:

    You need to understand the character of the writer, and Canright was more like Judas. It would be like quoting an atheist to make a point on how wrong a Christian was. Does not work.

    Since you have made the claim, you will have to support that claim with some specifics so that I will be able to “understand the character of the writer.”

  27. A. Way says:

    You quoted Canright, where did you get the quote? Are you a Canright scholar? Do you know all his works and his history? Anti-Adventist websites love to quote Canright. It is easy to make accusations, hard to defend. You plucked out a quotation and believe it to be truth. Perhaps, I should ask you why you think Canright is true and Adventists are wrong.

    Canright was a good debater, particularly with he was an Adventist. But he had a problem with pride. He wanted to be number one. E. R. Potter quoted Canright as saying “If I am not elected president of the Conference at this meeting I am not going to preach for them any more.” D. W. Reavis quoted Canright as saying, “I believe I could become a great man were it not for our unpopular message.”

    W. H Branson wrote a book, “On Defense of the Faith” which was written in 1933 to answer the charges of Canright. Branson included a list of fundamental beliefs that Adventist hold and Canright attached. I’ll quote #6 to 8:

    6. That the will of God as it relates to moral conduct is comprehended in His law of Ten Commandments; that these are great moral, unchangeable precepts, binding upon all men in every age. Exodus 20:1-17.
    7. That the fourth commandment of this unchangeable law requires the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.
    This holy institution is at the same time a memorial of creation and a sign of sanctification, a sign of the believer’s rest from his own works of sin, ‘and his entrance into the rest of soul which Jesus promises to those who come to Him. Genesis 2:1J; Exodus 20:841; 31:12-17; Hebrews 4:1-10.
    8. That the law of Ten Commandments points out sin, the penalty of which is death. The law cannot save the transgressor from his sin, nor impart power to keep him from sinning. In infinite love and mercy, God provides a way whereby this may be done. He furnishes a substitute, even Christ the Righteous One, to die in man’s stead, making ‘Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.’ 2 Corinthians 5:21. That one is justified, not by obedience to the law, but by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. By accepting Christ, man is reconciled to God, justified by His blood for the sins of the past, and saved from the power of sin by His indwelling life. Thus the gospel becomes ‘the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes.’ This experience is wrought by the divine agency of the Holy Spirit, who convinces of sin and leads to the Sin-bearer, inducting the believer into the new covenant relationship, where the law of God is written on his heart, and through the enabling power of the indwelling Christ, his life is brought into conformity to the divine precepts. The honor and merit of this wonderful transformation belong wholly to Christ. 1 John 3:4; Romans 7:7; 3:20; Ephesians 2:8-10; 1 John 2:1, 2; Romans 5:8-10; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:17; Hebrews 8:8-12.

    Canright left the Adventist and went to the Baptist. Branson writes:

    The point on which Mr. Canright centers his most powerful attacks, and which appears to have been his chief stumbling block, is the one mentioned under Nos. 6-8, the immutability and unchanging nature of the law of God as contained in the Ten Commandments. In his renunciation of Seventh-day Adventism he claims to have discovered that “the law was given only to the Jews” (Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 320), that it was nailed to the cross, and that it is, therefore, not binding on Christians. We would, however, call the attention of the reader to the fact that in declaring that Christians are no longer under obligation to observe the Ten Commandments, it was not only Seventh-day Adventism, that Mr. Canright renounced but practically all Protestantism. Seventh day Adventists do not stand alone in teaching that Christians are under obligation to obey God and keep His law as contained in the Ten Commandments. In fact, all the great denominations have for centuries believed in the binding claims of the moral law. This doctrine is clearly and emphatically set forth in the Baptist Church Manual, the manual of the church to which Mr. Canright fled when he escaped the so-called delusions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

    This Baptist document declares:
    “We believe that the law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government.”-Baptist Church Manual, art. 12

    Go goes on to list a number of documents from other protestant denominations that agree.

    Canright himself wrote the following in the Adventist Review and Herald, February 10, 1885:

    “Look at the grand truths which our people hold, –the new earth, the beautiful city, the resurrection, the real life hereafter, the literal coming of Christ, the sleep of the dead, the destruction of sin and sinners, the law of God, all those grand lines of prophecy unmistakably pointing to the end near. ..Can you once more have confidence in intangible spirits, eternal hell, sprinkling for baptism, Sunday Sabbath, or the millennium? Pshaw! Strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel?

    “The real trouble lies close at home, in a proud, unconverted heart, a lack of real humility, an unwillingness to submit to God’s way of finding the truth.”

    He later turned against this message and tried to destroy it. He had a proud heart and wanted to be great. And another writer wrote this about Canright:

    Canright left the SDA church and joined the Baptist Church for thirty two years. He worked as a pastor for 15 months in one church and two and half years in another, yet the Baptists never did trust him with any real responsibilities.

    From this time on — he no longer worked in a strong ministering capacity, his recognition and applause came only when he tore down the church which had nurtured him.

    Canright’s life from this point, reveals the life of a tormented soul. — a dual personality — a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde — the avid opponent of Adventism, maintaining a strong front of opposition before the public on one hand, but on the other hand there was the haunted soul of a man who called the Adventists “our people” and revealed great agony of soul over the course he had taken.

    Strangely the chief mourner at Ellen White’s funeral was Dudley Canright himself.

  28. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    You are a “gentleman and a scholar.” Thank you for answering my request for more information about Mr. Canright.

    You ask:

    You quoted Canright, where did you get the quote? Are you a Canright scholar? Do you know all his works and his history? Anti-Adventist websites love to quote Canright. It is easy to make accusations, hard to defend. You plucked out a quotation and believe it to be truth. Perhaps, I should ask you why you think Canright is true and Adventists are wrong.

    (1) Where did I get the quote: Answer, from a book I purchased about 1965 to answer the Jehovah’s Witnesses who had come to the homes of two of my most faithful Sunday school high school Sunday school class members. These two young ladies asked me to assist them in answering the mistaken doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Finally, Colleen invited me to her home at a time appointed for the next visit of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I then was privileged to have the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my apartment for the next four years, every Monday night at 7:00 pm, to share their faith with me. That was a good experience for me, for I learned much Bible doctrine I had not had the occasion to focus upon before in my personal study of the Bible.

    That book, among others purchased at the time from John’s Bible and Bookstore in Detroit, was The Four Major Cults, by Anthony A. Hoekema, Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, published in 1965 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. The quotation is from page 127 of that book, which in turn is a citation from page 86 of the book by D. M. Canright, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced.

    (2) Strange that you should ask, “Are you a Canright scholar?” The truthful answer must be “No. I’m just a retired English teacher who believes all study of the Bible should begin with a plain text Bible.” But to be more truthful still, though I am not a “Canright scholar” my good friend, the late Pastor Norman F. Douty, who lived in East Lansing, Michigan, most certainly was. I met Pastor Douty probably in 1965 through a mutual friend, Mr. G. E. Hoyer, who lived in Chicago. Both men had a deep interest in the mission and ministry of the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony, I believe it was called, publishers of pamphlets and books by S. P. Tregeles and others who denied the two-stage position regarding the return of Christ. Pastor Douty had a very select personal library of Christian books. When I first visited him I asked him what books or authors did he think were most essential for me as a fairly young man to read. He had a list of such books, from which I must have made a handwritten copy back then. I recall among authors he recommended were Bettex on Genesis and creation, Adolph Saphir on Scripture, Philip Schaff on the character of Christ (a very remarkable volume), and an interesting work on apologetics, Richard Whately on Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte, this latter volume I only obtained in the last two years. Like the other works Mr. Douty recommended, it was most worthwhile.

    I visited Pastor Douty’s home many times. He was working on what he considered his most important endeavor, a work on Union with Christ. He had also just lately written his volume, The Death of Christ: A Treatise which Answers the Question: “Did Christ die only for the elect?” I obtained each of these volumes from the author as they became available. Another title by Pastor Douty on Bible prophecy which I obtained from him is titled Has Christ’s Return Two Stages?.

    Because of that work, Pastor Douty was no longer in the good graces of many Baptists. He was a Baptist pastor himself, but found it necessary to conduct church in his home.

    It was a delight to meet his wife. She was especially interested in missionary biography, and had a large collection of volumes on this subject.

    Pastor Douty also made available to me two works he had written that until recently I had actually forgotten that I had. One is a work titled Another look at Seventh-day Adventism (1962), and The Case of D. M. Canright.

    I have only just lately read these volumes, just prior to my starting work on my project to expand the cross references available for Real Bible Study. What prompted me to read them (once I discovered I had them) was the defection to Seventh-day Adventism of a local couple I have known since 1975 when I moved to my present address. I had met them through the church organist at the church I attended in Detroit, who on behalf of the parents of this couple asked me to get in touch with them to assist in rescuing them from the error of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This couple has lately shared with me a number of books and pamphlets and an extensive series of videos produced by the Seventh-day Adventists in defense of their faith, and asked me to study them then get back with them. More than they know, I have been studying the subject ever since, most intensively. To this end, you have been most helpful, Mr. A. Way!

    The front fly-leaf of the dustcover for Mr. Douty’s book, The Case of D. M. Canright: Seventh-day Adventist Charges Examined, states:

    The present work shows that D. M. Canright, an erstwhile leader in Adventism, was an upright, godly man, and, therefore, that his testimony against the movement (with which he had been connected for twenty-eight years) deserves serious consideration.

    Since Adventism has represented Mr. Canright as an apostate and man without principle, Mr. Douty demonstrates it is guilty of violating the ninth commandment, which forbids bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. His conclusion is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not what it claims to be, “the commandment-keeping people of God.”

    The back of the book’s dustcover, with reference to the companion work, Another Look at Seventh-Day Adventism, concludes with the statement:

    The author’s manner of dealing with his subject has been commended by Adventists themselves.

    So, though I am not an expert on the subject, I trust that I am an informed English teacher who remains absolutely certain about the correctness of first gaining an understanding of the Bible itself by reading a plain-text edition on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island before becoming entangled in the confusing man-made webs of denominational error and sometimes deceit as to what the Bible actually teaches.

    That is the reason for this site, http://www.realbiblestudy.com, where these issues can be freely discussed without censorship or ostracism.

    (3) You ask, “Do I know all his [Canright’s] works and history? Frankly, no. Mr. Douty made available one work by Mr. Canright, Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced, which I have read. I wish I had a copy of Canright’s work on the Sabbath, but it is out of print, and not available for reading or download from Google Books.

    (4) You comment, “Anti-Adventist websites love to quote Canright.” As of this date I have never accessed an anti-Adventist website, to my knowledge. I rarely do research my means of the Internet. I study my own personal library of over 5000 scholarly works on the Bible, and the Bible itself. I avoid reading what my Greek professor, Dr. Stuart Custer, called “devotional fluff,” in accordance with his recommendation.

    (5) Finally, you ask: “Perhaps, I should ask you why you think Canright is true and Adventists are wrong.”

    Mr. Canright strikes me as being a person who went by “the Bible alone, and in its entirety.” As I understand, from the quotation I gave that started this conversation, Mr. Canright intuitively understood what here on this site I have called Rule 21 of my 21 Rules of Interpretation:

    21. A correct system of doctrine or a correct interpretation of the Bible must share the doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible.

    When Mr. Canright determined as the result of his own careful study of Scripture that certain major positions of the Adventist faith were mistaken, he left the denomination.

    I have no problem with that.

  29. A. Way says:

    Perhaps you need to add a few more books to your personal library. W. H. Branson’s book which I mentioned, “In Defense of the Faith”, which was a direct response to Canright. And Carrie Johnson’s book, “I was Canright’s Secretary”.

  30. A. Way says:

    Better yet, the Conflict of the Ages series, by E. White. This series of books outlines the true thrust of Adventists in the setting of the Cosmic Conflict, which to my way of thinking is the only way to reconcile the reality and the Bible, and which many Adventists seem to be not much aware of… Chapters such as Why was Sin permitted in Patriarchs and Prophets, and The Origin of Evil in The Great Controversy… This series is to this writer and excellent commentary on the Bible, with thousands of Bible references you can check and cross reference. There – I got your advertizing in…

  31. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Thank you for mentioning additional resources above at your June 5, 2011 comment at 8:28 pm,

    Perhaps you need to add a few more books to your personal library. W. H. Branson’s book which I mentioned, “In Defense of the Faith”, which was a direct response to Canright. And Carrie Johnson’s book, “I was Canright’s Secretary”.

    I do not currently have a way to access these books, that I know of.

    But I do have Mr. Norman F. Douty’s book, The Case of D. M. Canright.

    Chapter 14 of Douty’s book is devoted to the subject of “Canright’s Secretary.”

    Pastor Douty, out of courtesy to Carrie Johnson, never mentions her by name in his book, honoring the request of Carrie Johnson that he not use any material derived from her testimony regarding Mr. D. M. Canright.

    I have always found Mr. Douty, whom I knew for more than a decade, to be a most honorable man, and this is an example of his honesty and uprightness.

    Chapter 14 begins with these paragraphs:

    In the letter received on June 22, 1960, from the Adventist leader who collaborated in the writing ofQuestions on Doctrine, he said that Canright’s secretary, along with others, had taken oath that he had often said, “I’m a lost man. I’m a lost man.!” Although the name of the secretary was withheld, I later discovered her identity. When she began to correspond with Jess Canright and Clifton Dey, seeking information about D. M. Canright, they shared the letters with me. Then, on April 6, 1962, I wrote to her, asking if we could meet to exchange notes on Canright. I had no reply, but on a Saturday (the Adventist Sabbath) she and her husband called at our home and remained about seven hours.

    While my wife took notes, the secretary poured out a stream of what purported to be information about and reminiscences of Canright. She gave a sketch of his life which contained most of the charges current among Adventists, and added a few of her own. She told us of her association with him in Battle Creek, when, as an old man, broken in health and fortune, and living on the charity of the Adventists, he employed her as his secretary in writing a number of things, including the Life of Mrs. E. G. White.

    Wherein we have been able to check her statements with official records, we have found them almost entirely inaccurate. But worse than her inaccuracy was her subtle disparagement of Canright. True, she conceded that he was naturally kind and affectionate, even a lovable man; but she represented him as dominated by an evil spirit in his testimony against Mrs. White and Adventism. She was sure that he was still an Adventist at heart, and she recounted various incidents which proved (to her) that he longed to return to that fellowship, but was restrained by the demonic power that possessed him. She told us that she was [page 160] preparing material for a Life of Canright, and that if she were unable to complete it, the denominational leaders would do so.

    Within ten days of the interview, I sent Mrs. —— a copy of the notes which my wife had written up, asking her to make any corrections that were needed.. On May 19 I received a reply which sternly protested against making any public record of what she had said! (The reader will naturally contrast this attitude with that of the persons in Grand Rapids who were glad to have their testimony about Canright broadcasted). In compliance with her wishes, I now forbear to report what she told us, but I have other material on which to draw.

    The final two paragraphs from page 166 state the following:

    Here, then, are two dozen instances of misstatement on the part of Canright’s secretary. I have others on hand which I have not introduced, because there was no reason to do so. But now the reader may draw his own conclusions as to the value of this woman’s witness against Mr. Canright. She has declared him to be the very opposite of what those who knew him most intimately, and over long periods, declared him to be. At the same time, she has made claims for herself as a witness that are totally insupportable. She has even resorted to deceit in order to procure data which she hoped would assist her in disparaging him. And throughout, she has revealed her inaccuracy in a multiplicity of details on the circumference of his history.

    Yet this is the party cited by one of the authors of Questions on Doctrine, in order to discredit Canright. She told me in my home on May 5, 1962 that this author had written her repeatedly for data on him. When I wrote to him what I had discovered about her unreliability, he professed to have no need of any information she possessed! Documentation which I had sent him on the charges he had made, apart from her testimony, he ignored. Impartial men can judge the morality of such procedure.

    Among the most interesting and blatant inaccuracies Mr. Douty reports is that Mrs. Carrie Johnson reported that Mr. Canright had a “peg leg” as a result of a farm accident. Mr. Douty marshals evidence from the family that that is entirely untrue. They did remark that near the end of his life he had one leg amputated, which if Mrs. Johnson’s testimony were true, would leave him without any legs when he died. The family report that he still had his other leg.

    Basing any belief regarding the character and faith of Mr. D. M. Canright on a source as unreliable and biased as Mrs. Carry Johnson is hardly the way to arrive at the truth in the matter. She, in common with apparently some other Adventists, have engaged in the logical fallacy of “poisoning the well” in their testimony about Canright, but they are hardly engaged in telling the truth.

    Just as I thought all along, Seventh-day Adventism doesn’t have a leg to stand on!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.