Horizontal Menu Bar

The “Character of God” Controversy ...

.... Controversy Exegetically Resolved

            Recently, I had engaged in an SDA forum discussion which, specifically enough, asked as its topic title: “Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?” As it turned out, that discussion soon became a full blown “Character of God Controversy” (COGC) discussion. However it was not until very late into the discussion that I concretely/cognitively realized that this was a COGC discussion, all throughout my 4-month, 90+ forum pages of discussing it, I was merely addressing the presented issues exegetically on a verse by verse basis. So I did not at all have, contrary, effectively to my main opposer, a background, “View agenda” to defend, but was merely dealing with finding out the exact meaning from each Bible verse/SOP passages brought forth for discussion (usually with them having been falsely/spuriously/shoddily posited as a Biblical support of the COGC).

The 1888 Message For Today

The “Fuller” (Eschatological) 1888 Message (1 John 3:7 | John 15:1-17 | Matt 25:37a | 1SM 99.3-4)

To get right to the point here, it is a widely held belief today, though mainly from outside mainstream SDA circles, that ‘the reason why there has been a long delay in the recognized, supposed-to-have-occurred Second Coming around the 1888 events is that SDA’s to this day still have not accepted that 1888 message.’ The truth of the matter is that this statement is essentially true, however not for the Theological reasons commonly claimed by those levelling this capital charge.

Theological World View In Collision (Isa 5:20)

How To Get The “Fuller” Mark of the Beast (Rev 13:12-18)

In, manifestly, a sermon preached at the Australian, Victorian Conference Easter 2011 Campmeeting, the President of the General Conference’s Hope Channel, Brad Thorp “singularly” made the, (frankly-said),  typical brainwashed, mindlessly, preferentially differential, U.S. propagandized, and recognizedly, glibly understandable statement in reference to the then ongoing Battle for Libya that: ‘the uprising in Libya was a populous uprising for Freedom of self-determination’ (See in Hope Channel CD (HTV-CD-161/WVIC-C-F-141 (also here [Part 1]) at [04:27-05:10 & 08:34-09:19]. {Rest of that sermon: Part 2; Part 3; Part 4}). As common with such U.S. propaganda statements, they are fancifully devoid of the actual and observational facts at hand in order to mask the actual intention of the U.S.-dominated military involvement in that country. As with the False and thus Illegal Iraq War, this military action was really only done because of the crucially needed Libyan oil wealth. (These facts will be succinctly and summarily said here for reasons of time):

The Coming of the Sealing Angel

The Advent of the Third Message's Angel (Rev 6:14-7:3ff-14:20)

            As it was first mentioned in this post, EGW relates in EW 254.1 a very pointed, and keyly detailed, account of when the Third Angel began to sound its message. She says that:

As the ministration of Jesus closed in the holy place, and He passed into the holiest, and stood before the ark containing the law of God, He sent another mighty angel with a third message to the world. A parchment was placed in the angel's hand, and as he descended to the earth in power and majesty, he proclaimed a fearful warning, with the most terrible threatening ever borne to man.

            As shown by the supplied emphasis, the key issues here for this discussion are the facts that this Third Angel was a “mighty angel” and also that Jesus had placed a “parchment” in his hand. While it may for now seem exaggerated to see these seemingly trite words as being “pointed”, it is by comparing them with other similar mentions of Jesus commissioning angels with special messages that reveal that these were not empty words. As it will also be shown in this post, there are also other similar key, “loaded”, words and expression in this SOP revelation which also contain quite significant Theological and Prophetic meanings.

The “Fuller” Understanding of the Mark of the Beast (Rev 13:14-18)

The (Passed) Historical vs. (Present) Eschatological Mark of the Beast

“Historical” Mark of the Beast
            That the Historical interpretation of the Mark of the Beast is, as taught by SDA’s: ‘Civilly Legislated and Enforced Sunday Sacredness and Worship’ is indeed Biblically founded and sound in itself, and this is readily concurred in this blog. That is indeed, in this limited Historical part, not at all disputed in this blog post, or this entire “Theologial Views” blog. However the operative word here is: “Historical”. And there will be much more on this later. What is being particularly address in the first part of this post on the Mark of the Beast, is the, either believed, or seriously considered/pondered view (see e.g., in this David Asscherick Prophecy sermon (#20) [mp3] [10:45-14:48ff]) that, effectively, the Mark of the Beast will be, and actually is (secretly and/or decidedly), knowingly being set up by Catholic/Jesuit “subversives” who are increasingly infiltrating democratic governments, particularly the government of the United States of America. 

Ezekiel's Valley of Dry Bones and the "Shaking"

A “Prophesyingly” Interpretive Commentary (Ezek 37:1-14 (NASB))

Ezek 37:1 - The hand of the LORD was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones.

-Ezekiel was made to see this representation through a vision only and not in reality. As such it was God showing him what was the case/condition with Israel. As Israel, in mainly the surviving tribe of Judah then, which had actually been judged (Ezek 9) some ca. 7 years before[1] (See also in the outline chart of Ezekiel here). This vision is therefore a representation of what is, however, to the extent that it is shown (i.e, many, dry, bones strewn across a valley), which was not a depiction of actual reality with the people of Judah or Israel, it is really a representation of how God was seeing things.

Conflict of the Ages 3.0

The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan (Version 3.0)

            Here is an “overview” of my Great Controversy understanding. It started out with one that was basically quite similar to the standard SDA view. However over the course of these now 13+ years of engaging in deeper, exegetical and scholarly studies of the Bible, also using the SOP, these findings have greatly deepened this GC understanding. So all of my Theological understandings, as found throughout this blog, contribute to this GC view.

The Third, Prophetic, Shut Door

The Third, Prophetic, “Shut Door” (Rev 3:7)

            The topic of the Shut Door has been, frankly, due to prevailing misunderstandings, an “embarrassing” one in the history of Seventh-day Adventism. That mainly stems from the fact that it is the one teaching/understanding where early Adventist all had to express that they had been somewhat wrong, even in “error”, in their prior understanding on what was then such a decisive and divisive issue. (See this document by the White Estate for a developmental history of this topic amongst early Adventists/SDA’s). The fact of the matter is that these early Adventist were actually pointedly wrong in the extent to which they had believed that the (first understood) Shut Door (a.k.a. the “Midnight Cry’s” Shut Door (Matt 25:1-13)) applied, and not merely because they had believed that there had then been a “Shut Door” event (i.e., a demarcating point in time that enduringly separated the aware “just” from the equally aware/knowing “unjust”).[1] As EGW correctively said in 1883 (Ms. 4 = 1SM 63-64):

God's Whirlwind Judgement on SDA Church

God’s Whirlwind “Shaking” of the SDA Church (Ezek 13:1-16 = EW 48.2-50.3ff)
The “Sheep Which Have No Shepherds” Vision of EGW (1 Kgs 22:17)

            There has come to be an, ultimately, “chicken-or-the-egg” situation with a prophetic statement that is asserted to have been said by Ellen G. White in ca. 1908. In trying to refute this asserted EGW origin, SDA proponents, on top of trying to discredit the reliability of the claimant himself, have effectively, quasi-substantively based their position on a defence that it is: ‘a claim that does not agree with what EGW has said on such a topic.’ However on top of, understandably, examining the claimant’s reliability, and doing a thematic comparison with the rest of EGW’s writings, there are deeper issues that need to also be analysed in order to conduct a proper investigation. This “deeper look” thus also involves “Biblical Exegesis” (i.e., does the statement harmonize with the/a message of the Word of God, as well as the SOP, for SOP revelations are ultimately the continuing divulgence of God’s Word (cf. Num 12:6; Rev 19:10)).