This topic's on Ellen White and Futurism. Futurism is the opposite of Historicism and most conservative Adventists are Historicists; that is, they place most apocalyptic prophecies in the past. This thread examines whether that's a valid approach according to scripture and to Ellen White.

-------------

God deals with us in ways that we can understand. While Adventist students of prophecy can see that 1798 marked the end of an era and the beginning of the time of the end, to the average person, especially to the average evangelical Christian, the phrase, ‘time of the end’ means a short time before the close of history and the return of Christ. Few today, besides Adventists, know of the falling of the stars or the darkening of the sun two centuries ago. But Christ has said these are signs of his soon return. And He also says that the darkening of the sun etc would occur ‘immediately after’ the great tribulation, an event that was fulfilled during the 1260 years ending in 1798. But isn’t it possible that the tribulation Christ refers to not just the 1260 years of papal domination, but that it also refers to the time of trouble at the end and that the fall of the stars and darkening of the sun may happen again. I suggest it is not only possible but that its probable.

Ellen White also makes a number of statements that reapply prophecies that a strictly historical application wouldn’t allow. Conservative Adventist leaders have largely ignored these and when they have given them attention, they have explained them away in an attempt to preserve a purely historical approach to prophetic studies. This unfortunate approach has been an important factor in limiting the work of the Holy Spirit in His effort to give us clearer insight into the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. (There are other factors, especially our failure to accept and apply the message to the Laodicean Church. If we aren’t living up to the light we already have, God in mercy knows it would not be good for us to be given more and to be responsible for it as well.) But, Ellen White makes a number of statements saying that when Daniel and Revelation are properly understood and practically applied the end-time, global revival will come. Here are two of them:

Eugene Prewitt, a self-confessed staunch historicist, and, in my view one of the most effective speakers and lecturers today in Adventism, (I highly recommend most of his sermons at www.audioverse.org) says he looks forward to the possibility that his children might be among those children who Ellen White predicts will “proclaim the mysteries that have been hidden from the minds of men”. I’d like nothing more than for that hope of Brother Eugene’s to come true. But notice where these new, powerful, irrepressible truths are centered – according to Ellen White they are centered in new and revived insights into Daniel and Revelation. Given the statements from Ellen White above (and there are several others like them) on the wealth of new light that will stream from these prophecies in the future, I suggest it’s not a good idea to be staunchly historicist. Instead we must be good, open-minded Bible students when it comes to Bible prophecy.

To be fair, before quoting some of the many future application statements from Ellen White I should say that the motives of conservative Adventist leaders are good. They want to avoid sensationalism and time-setting. They assume that any reapplications of Daniel and Revelation to the future will result in this. But that’s not the case. Ellen White repeatedly makes future applications without falling into that trap. We can and should do the same. And unless we do follow her example, I suggest that we’ll miss out on the kinds of insights from the prophecies that she speaks of that will “start into action forces that cannot be repressed.” In writing that do I mean that future applications of Revelation’s prophecies are the key to revival? Not at all. The key to revival has always been prompt and thorough repentance and obedience to the Holy Spirit. It has always been heeding the counsel of the True Witness. But I suggest that one of the results of a careful study of Revelation will be a clearer view of future aspects of the Great Controversy that are revealed there.

So, let’s get started. Below I’ve compiled some of Ellen White’s future applications. I’ve inserted some comments following her quotes. Here’s an interesting one:

Comment: In the italicized part quoted above Ellen White says much of the history of that prophecy in Daniel 11 will be repeated. Steven Bohr, another Adventist historicist, and an excellent evangelist, points out that Ellen White doesn’t say the prophecy itself will be repeated, but only the history of it will be repeated. In other words Elder Bohr says there is no reapplication.

But Ellen White, in saying that much of the history of it will be repeated, does apply it to the end, giving it a future application. Bible students therefore need to ask, is this a future application or not? Is the distinction valid between the prophecy itself being repeated or the history of the prophecy being repeated? If Ellen White goes to the trouble of quoting a large section of the prophecy, in this case Daniel 11:31-36, and applying it to the future, isn’t she suggesting that we study it carefully to understand its future application? When she says ‘much of’ its history will be repeated, she’s making it clear that we can expect similar events to take place again, but not events that are exactly the same in all respects; hence the need to study and restudy it.

So, regarding Elder Bohr's views I'd say, ruling out a reapplication of the verses Ellen White quotes [Dan. 11:30-36.] has the effect of discouraging careful study of the passage - who will seriously study a prophecy that has no real or actual future application? Doesn’t that position work contrary to the advice of Christ to study and understand the teaching of Daniel on the daily and the abomination of desolation? This particular part of the prophecy that Ellen White quotes has its parallel in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE but is repeated in the final persecution. See Matt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14. Therefore, one of our main prophetic study efforts should be on a clearer understanding of what Christ draws our attention to – the passages in Daniel regarding the abomination of desolation and comparing these with the complimentary passages in Revelation that expand on them. If we insist that all of these 'abomination' passages are in the past, we work against Christ’s advice to study them.

I'll stop there for now. Any thoughts?

This isn't really the right criterion.

There are three primary schools of thought in regards to prophetic studies, which are the Preterist view, the Historicist view, and the Futurist view. These terms have to do with where in time one places the little horn of Daniel.

The Protestants of the Reformation understood the litter horn to be a reference to the pope. This was an important development, because it gave impetus to the concept of breaking off from Rome. Until this idea came along, the thought was there was only one church, the church of Rome, and hence "Reformation," which was to reform the one church that there was.

But when it began to be seen that the papacy was anti-Christ, this opened people's eyes to the possibility that it wasn't simply a matter of reforming the church, but a deeper problem than that, which gave birth to Protestantism.

In order to counteract the impact of these prophecies, the Roman Catholic church proposed two alternatives. One was that the little horn was applying to a figure in the past (usually Antiochus Epihpanes), which is the Preterist view. This view tends to be the view of Liberals (liberals in the sense of Bible inspiration) as it allows an explanation of the prophecies of Daniel which do not involve the supernatural (no need for God's foreknowledge to explain the prophecies).

A second alternative proposed was that sometime in the future the AntiChrist would arise -- the Futurist view.

So Futurism has to do with thinking that the little horn power will come about in the future, and Historicism with putting him within history, not with how many prophecies one sees to be yet future or not.

Historicism was the predominant view of Protestism until 1844. In 1844 there was the Great Disappointment, and after this event, Historicism died off and Futurism became the predominant view. SDA's are the only Christian denomination I'm aware of that holds the Historicist view.

Historicism has a certain framework, which involves how to interpret the timing of the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel, and the 2300 days. Futurism has another framework. Within this framework, the timing of other prophecies are determined.

What are some examples of statements that reapply prophecies in a way that Conservative Adventist leaders have largely ignored?

Regarding the two quotes about how understanding Revelation will lead to revival, what I think this means is that Revelation reveals Christ in a special way, and when that revelation of Christ is understood, that will lead to revival. I think this started to happen in 1888, with the message to the church of Laodicea. Revelation and Christ, and righteousness by faith, are all bound together. It takes a right understanding of the Gospel to rightly understand Revelation.

I don't think her quotes have anything to do with the timing of events. I think the light she is talking about has to do with the light of the Gospel, and of Jesus Christ.

If we think about this logically, doesn't this make sense? What is it that's holding up Christ's coming? According to COL 69, it's a reproduction of Christ's character in His people. What leads to this reproduction? "Be beholding we become changed."

It is an understanding of the Gospel that's needed. We need to see Christ, to see God, as He really is. *This* is the light that we need from Daniel and Revelation.

It's easy to see how light involving Christ and the Gospel would impact our character. It's not so easy to see how understanding the timing of events does this.

I'm not saying it's not important to understand these things. We have the Great Controversy, which gives a good framework for the timing of things to come. I'm just saying that I think the light that she's referring to has to do with Christ and the Gospel, and one can't rightly make an argument that certain events should be interpreted as occurring in the future because of these statements of Ellen White's. I think that would be making her say something she wasn't intending.

i have always understood statements such as these to refer more specifically to these points.

I'm not sure if I should have used the term historicist. You understand my concern though - not allowing for the possibility that yes, maybe the stars will fall again etc.

Tom, Teresa, I'm postulating that one reason revival is lacking in Adventism (there have been some signs of it lately among the youth and young adults, praise God, but we need much more) is that our unwillingness to see future applications to much of Daniel and Revelation is giving us tunnel vision, limiting our view of the great controversy and therefore limiting our understanding of the character of God. God reveals Himself in history, past and future. If we don't see His future work of judgment clearly, which all the prophets have born witness to starting with Enoch, we won't take on the attributes of His character.

I'll start giving some of the many reapplications she makes.

Mark, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Daniel and Revelation has much to say about the coming Judgment. And how we understand the judgement deeply effects our view of God which will make us a candidate to be seal of the True God, or a false.

I'm looking forward to see this thread develop.