Seventh Day adventist eschatology
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Seventh Day adventist eschatology
I have been looking at 7th day eschatology and they seem to take this historicist approach. They state that the investigative judgement as they call it began in 1844. They put the rule of one pope to some pope that Napoleon captured as being a time frame for the end and count off in that regard. How is their eschatology flawed? Their math seems good to me. (I don't know much about 7th day A. Any help would be appreciated).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
The Seventh-Day Adventists may be the only group that still takes the historicist approach to Revelation, which is the approach that was followed by all the Reformers and by many before the Reformation as well. In fact, the historicist approach, which views the Book of Revelation as a panaramic forecast of the entire age of the church, was so universally held among non-Roman Catholics that it was called "the Protestant View" until early in the 1800's.
However, not all historicists identify the same parts of Revelation with the same historic events. The Seventh-Day Adventists have some unique innovations in their interpretations. The historicist approach uses a day-for-a-year method of interpretation, meaning, for example, that 1260 days is taken to mean 1260 years. Since this is the length of time that the "beast" continues in power, historicists predicted that the papacy would last just 1260 years.
Many views have been forwarded as to when this period began, but all agree that it would end sometime in the 1700's or 1800's. However, the papacy's career and power did not come to an end in those centuries, so historicists seek significant events that were particularly damaging to Roman Catholicism in that time frame, including the French Revolution and the removal of Pope Pius VI from power in 1798. There is a lot of subjectivity and flexibility in the reckoning.
The Seventh-Day Adventists bring up some impressive arguments at their Revelation Seminars, but what you are not told is the large number of alternate dates and events that other historicist interpreters have suggested for the same passages in Revelation...all of which seem about equally valid (or invalid). Their math is fine, it is their biblical interpretation that needs to be questioned.
The reason historicism is a thing of the past is that the majority of those who used to follow this approach (including the Seventh-Day Adventists of a previous century) predicted the second coming of Christ to occur in the 1800's. When this did not occur, the view gradually fell from favor with all but the Adventists. They simply claimed that they had mistaken as the second coming another event called the "investigative judgment" (something nowhere mentioned in scripture). This actually DID begin to occur (they claim) at the very time that they had formerly anticipated the second coming...so they weren't REALLY wrong, you see?
The problem I have with all of this is that it is far too speculative, and non-falsifiable. If someone predicts that Jesus will come on a certain day, and He does not...so long as they can say He really did come, in another sense, invisibly...then we are left either to accept unverifiable claims of invisible realities upon their bare assertion, or else to assume that they didn't know what they were talking about. I lean toward the latter.
However, not all historicists identify the same parts of Revelation with the same historic events. The Seventh-Day Adventists have some unique innovations in their interpretations. The historicist approach uses a day-for-a-year method of interpretation, meaning, for example, that 1260 days is taken to mean 1260 years. Since this is the length of time that the "beast" continues in power, historicists predicted that the papacy would last just 1260 years.
Many views have been forwarded as to when this period began, but all agree that it would end sometime in the 1700's or 1800's. However, the papacy's career and power did not come to an end in those centuries, so historicists seek significant events that were particularly damaging to Roman Catholicism in that time frame, including the French Revolution and the removal of Pope Pius VI from power in 1798. There is a lot of subjectivity and flexibility in the reckoning.
The Seventh-Day Adventists bring up some impressive arguments at their Revelation Seminars, but what you are not told is the large number of alternate dates and events that other historicist interpreters have suggested for the same passages in Revelation...all of which seem about equally valid (or invalid). Their math is fine, it is their biblical interpretation that needs to be questioned.
The reason historicism is a thing of the past is that the majority of those who used to follow this approach (including the Seventh-Day Adventists of a previous century) predicted the second coming of Christ to occur in the 1800's. When this did not occur, the view gradually fell from favor with all but the Adventists. They simply claimed that they had mistaken as the second coming another event called the "investigative judgment" (something nowhere mentioned in scripture). This actually DID begin to occur (they claim) at the very time that they had formerly anticipated the second coming...so they weren't REALLY wrong, you see?
The problem I have with all of this is that it is far too speculative, and non-falsifiable. If someone predicts that Jesus will come on a certain day, and He does not...so long as they can say He really did come, in another sense, invisibly...then we are left either to accept unverifiable claims of invisible realities upon their bare assertion, or else to assume that they didn't know what they were talking about. I lean toward the latter.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
disagree with 1 statement
I believe Steve incorrectly stated "The reason historicism is a thing of the past is that the majority of those who used to follow this approach (including the Seventh-Day Adventists of a previous century) predicted the second coming of Christ to occur in the 1800's."
The reason I say this is because the Seventh Day Adventist Church of itself had nothing to do with coming up with Christ returning in 1844 because the church was not even formally formed until 1863. It was protestants of many denominations all around the world who believed this prior to 1844.
The seventh day adventist are just the only denomination that I know of that still hold to the significance of the 2300 years and the cleansing of the Sanctuary at that time. They just regard this event as occuring at a separate time then Christ's return.
The reason I say this is because the Seventh Day Adventist Church of itself had nothing to do with coming up with Christ returning in 1844 because the church was not even formally formed until 1863. It was protestants of many denominations all around the world who believed this prior to 1844.
The seventh day adventist are just the only denomination that I know of that still hold to the significance of the 2300 years and the cleansing of the Sanctuary at that time. They just regard this event as occuring at a separate time then Christ's return.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: