1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 07:07 PM PDT

Adventist Today is having a series of articles on 1844, The Gospel, and the Judgment, which will parallel the SDA quarterly. The following article was written by Brad Cole of HeavenlySanctuary.com, who is contributing to this series. To also view the thoughts of Raymond Cottrell, Jack Sequeira and Desmond Ford, go to AToday.com.

"I appreciate that this quarterly, which hopes to address the issues that relate to 1844 and the investigative judgment, opens with a description of the war that began in heaven. The Heavenly Sanctuary initially became defiled before the creation of this earth and in God’s very presence. For this reason, the concept of a cleansing of the sanctuary can only be understood when we know what defiled it in the first place.

There are 2 closely related issues which lie at the foundation of this war and which resulted in the defiling of the sanctuary:

1. Distortion and misrepresentation of God’s supremely gracious, kind, and forgiving character.

2. Distortion and misrepresentation of God’s principle upon which the entire universe is designed to operate: selfless, other-centered love.

On both accounts, Satan has successfully intruded his character and his principle in place of the character and principle of the true God.

“From the beginning it has been Satan’s studied plan to cause men to forget God, that he might secure them to himself. Hence he has sought to misrepresent the character of God, to lead men to cherish a false conception of Him. The Creator has been presented to their minds as clothed with the attributes of the prince of evil himself,–as arbitrary, severe, and unforgiving,–that He might be feared, shunned, and even hated by men. Satan hoped to so confuse the minds of those whom he had deceived that they would put God out of their knowledge.” (E.G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 738)

The correct understanding and application of God’s character and the principle of his kingdom should be at the heart of every doctrine, because it is the successful resolution of these two issues that will win the war, cleanse the sanctuary, and bring this conflict to a close. I will give two illustrations of how this applies to some of our most fundamental beliefs.

The Sabbath – A monument to the truth about God’s character

In the midst of this war over the character of God, the decision was made to create planet earth, a place that is a “spectacle for the whole world of angels…” (1 Corinthians 4:9 – GN). Amidst Satan’s charges that God is a restrictive tyrant, God majestically created the earth and the human race – a people with absolute freedom, the ability to create, and who were to represent and reflect the very character of God. “Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature’…God created human beings; he created them godlike, reflecting God’s nature.” (Genesis 1:26,27 – The Message). And then God turned to the on-looking universe and said, so to speak, “I rest my case! Do you still believe Satan’s lies about me?” And we are encouraged to spend every 7th day in review of the evidence of God’s character and to enter into intimacy with our Creator.

And, when Jesus died on the Cross just after forgiving those who tortured him to death, he rested on the Sabbath, as if to once again say to us and the entire universe, “I rest my case! Any more questions? Are you now settled into the truth about the kind of Person I am?” When seen in this light, the Sabbath becomes a day of great meaning as we longingly reflect on the character of our God.

The life and death of Jesus – the ultimate proof of God’s character and principle

Jesus came as “the revealer of the character of God” (E.G. White, DA 108.1). “Christ came to represent the Father. We behold in him the image of the invisible God. He clothed his divinity with humanity, and came to the world that the erroneous ideas Satan had been the means of creating in the minds of men, in regard to the character of God, might be removed….” (E.G. White, Signs of the Times, January 20, 1890 par. 5)

But beyond his mission to represent the character of God, Jesus also came to convincingly reveal the great single principle upon which he governs the entire universe - unselfishness:

“Unselfishness, the principle of God’s kingdom, is the principle that Satan hates; its very existence he denies. From the beginning of the great controversy he has endeavored to prove God’s principles of action to be selfish, and he deals in the same way with all who serve God. To disprove Satan’s claim is the work of Christ and of all who bear His name. It was to give in His own life an illustration of unselfishness that Jesus came in the form of humanity. And all who accept this principle are to be workers together with Him in demonstrating it in practical life.” (E. G. White, Education 154)

As we witness the God of the universe selflessly laying down his life, one cannot help but to contrast this with the selfishness and pride of Satan who would even stoop so low as to kill God in the flesh. The result? The revelation of God’s true character convinces us of the rightness of his principle of selfless love and we naturally enter into a trusting and healing relationship with God.

1844

So how does all of this relate to the movement that began in 1844 and what would it mean to cleanse the sanctuary? What is the Gospel and what does it have to do with judgment? The answers to these questions bring us right back to the central issues: the vindication of God’s character and the principle of his kingdom. When these issues are seen clearly, and when the character of God and his guiding principle is lived out in the lives of his friends on earth, the temple will have been cleansed and the end will be at hand."

Story Options

113 comments

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 06:20 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

I still don't undersand why so many are still trying to find some way to justify an unbiblical date and somehow sanitize a doctrine that should really be discarded. I agree with Raymond Cottrell in his article "Sanctuary Doctrine:Asset or Liability" that there is absolutely no Biblical basis for 1844 and the Investigative Judgment.

I grew up in the strictest branch of Adventism. I used to have nightmares about the description of the Investigative Judgment as written by Ellen White in "Great Controversy". That is an evil doctrine that so clearly denies the gospel and destroys a believer's assurance of salvation. Any idea of a believer facing a judgment flies right in the face of Jesus' clear words in John 5:24:

24Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

The believer HAS ETERNAL LIFE NOW! How could eternal life possibly be lost while a careful examination of the books of record are being conducted. This is the doctrine as taught by Ellen White, and I keep seeing evangelical attempts to instead turn this doctrine into a "vindication of God's character". God is totally sovereign. He doesn't need to be proved "just" before the universe. Notice what Romans 9:19-25 says:

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? "

Who is man to question God? Why does He need vindication?

Also, Ellen's vision of Jesus going from the Holy Place into the Most Holy Place in 1844 can be proven to be a false vision just with a simple reading of Hebrews 9. If that event did not happen, then Ellen's vision was false, and any idea that she was a prophet of God is gone. Hebrews 9:11ff:

11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,[e] then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies[f] for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our[g] conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

So as Raymond Cottrell and Des Ford have said, it is time to admit that this doctrine is in error and move on.

I see all these attempts to justify and sanitize this doctrine as further destroying the credibility of the SDA church.

Stan Ermshar

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Greg on Saturday, July 01 2006 @ 10:08 PM PDT

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Tom on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 10:50 AM PDT

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Tom on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 10:33 PM PDT

Authored by: Tim on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 05:31 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Stan,

I am sorry that you have been traumatized by what some have taught about the investigative judgment. I too had a very difficult time with many of the traditional theories about it, at least the way they were presented in Academy and College. But, I don't find that Ford has brought any light to the subject and in fact has added layers of darkness to confuse and obscure ones ability to see God more clearly.

What if you were to reconsider your definition of the Sanctuary discussed in Daniel 8:14 from simply a physical location in heaven to instead the other Sanctuary the Bible talks about (which our pioneers also overlooked when they claimed the Bible teaches only one sanctuary in existence in 1844 and that being in heaven), namely the Sanctuary of the human soul. "Know ye not that you are a Temple of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit lives within you?"

Do you recognize a need for the cleansing of the Soul Temple in preparation for meeting Jesus when He comes in the clouds?

What I find interesting is that people like Ford, are so willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of stepping back and saying okay, are there aspects of this doctrine that have not been explained adequately? Are there aspects that are reliable? And keep what is accuarate and reliable and update what is now better understood. Instead, when they find areas which they have difficulty with and throw out the entire thing as false. I don't believe that can be supprted from scripture especially in light of Daniel 7 and 8.

However, I do agree that there needs to be some reexplanation of the meaning of Daneil 7 & 8 as many of the traditional explanations do harm to the truth about God and may actually be a barrier to coming to know God and experiencing eternal life.

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 07:04 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Let's not forget that the doctrine of the investigative judgment as originally endorsed by Ellen White has been re-cast by this website and other modern Adventists who found the original doctrine distasteful or unbiblical. As an example, here is what Ellen White said about the IJ in "The Great Controversy":

“As the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. Beginning with those who first lived upon the earth, our Advocate presents the cases of each successive generation, and closes with the living. Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected. When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life, and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God’s remembrance” (pg. 549, 1940 edition).

Later she clarifies what transpires during the investigative judgment, “Day after day, passing into eternity, bears its burden of records for the books of heaven. Words once spoken, deeds once done, can never be recalled. Angels have registered both the good and the evil. The mightiest conqueror upon the earth can not call back the record of even a single day. Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe. Though they may be forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to justify or to condemn” (pg. 552, 1940 edition).

Elsewhere Ellen White called the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment the foundational planks upon which the church was built. If this foundation is now reinterpreted in a fundamentally different way than the pioneers had intended, the implied message is that Ellen White was wrong about this doctrine. But instead of calling her prophetic status into question, many are motivated to preserve her and quietly sweep her unbiblical teaching under the carpet while retaining the doctrine in name only. This is like finding a crack in the foundatioin of a house and covering it over with paint so nobody knows it's there. Either way, the house is still in jeopardy. Better to undo the damage that currently exists than to make it worse by formulating an explanation that implies nothing is wrong.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." -John 3:16 ESV

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." -Romans 6:23 ESV

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." -Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV

If God gives salvation as a free gift today to those who will receive it by faith, why does he need to hold a trial of professed Christ-followers to "investigate" those given the gift so he can reveal to the "heavenly intelligences" those who really deserve it? This is akin to giving a child a Christmas present only to take it back from him until a list of all the year's actions can be reviewed to decide whether he really deserves it. In other words, if God gives the gift, the implication is He wants us to receive it! Any doctrine that obscures or reverses this gift is not of God.

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." -John 3:18 ESV

Greg

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Tim on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 09:00 AM PDT

Authored by: Tim on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 09:02 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

As is always the case with all inspired writings, we must ask two questions - "What was said (or written)" AND "What does it mean" and what does it mean in the context of the times it was written. Consider the history of the protestant reformation – EGW endorses Martin Luther as an instrument of God in working to bring people back to the truth. (Most Protestants agree with this). But she goes on to say that coming out of so much darkness it wasn’t possible, nor expected that he would comprehend and undo all the errors that had crept in over 1000 years, thus other reformers followed. She recognized truth as unfolding. By using the reasoning you suggest one could argue that because Martin Luther failed to uncover the truth about Sabbath and baptism etc. that he was a false reformer and wasn’t led by God’s Spirit and we should return to the church of Rome.

But because we recognize truth unfolds over time we build on what has been revealed and rather than throw out the reforms Martin Luther brought we keep what he got right and add to it as the Holy Spirit reveals more truth. This process did not end with Martin Luther but continued and EGW is included. She herself wrote about it:

“There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. {CW 35.2}
“We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ.” {CW 35.3}

I do not see the time frame of Daniel 8:14 being wrong, nor do I see a problem with the cleansing of the sanctuary, nor the idea of a cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, nor the idea that individual records are being cleansed. All of this is reasonable and supported by the Scriptures. The problem Ford and others like him have in understanding this doctrine is they try to understand it in the context of a forensic atonement and with misconceptions about God and the GC. When this doctrine is understood in the context of the GC over God, His methods and character and His plan to actually heal and transform us (His Temple) then this cleansing, prior to our meeting Him, is quite coherent and one realizes the records in heaven are mere reflections of what is actually happening in us. Like medical records record the condition of the patient and as the patient is healed so the records reveal it. The heavenly records are cleansed by cleansing us from lies about God and the fear and selfishness that ensues from those lies. Forensic atonement always comes up short because it fails to provide a real remedy.

There is no crack in the foundation when one recognizes the foundation is the truth about God laid by Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone and it is that foundation, the foundation of His character which is to be reproduced in His Temple – thus cleansing the temple prior to coming to get us.

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 10:20 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Are you saying that Ellen White was wrong in her presentation of the
investigative judgment doctrine as recorded in "The Great Controversy?" Recall
that she said this doctrine was endorsed by God through divine revalation.

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 10:35 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

I'm sorry it didn't come across more clearly. No I do not believe EGW was wrong in what was revealed to her by God, but just like Daniel and John and Ezekiel and other prophets she did not fully comprehend what was revealed to her.

Now are you saying that if a prophet doesn't fully comprehend what has been revealed to him or her then what was revealed is not from God? Or such a person is a false prophet?

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 07:38 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Are saying that Ellen White wasn't wrong at the time she received her visions endorsing the investigative judgment, but in looking back with 150+ years of history and biblical scholarship, she's now wrong?

When she said the planks of Adventism were the doctrines of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment, was she wrong? When she said that every thought, word, unconfessed sin, unimproved opportunity may disqualify professed Christ-followers from heaven, she was wrong? Or partially right? This is just the kind of confusing double-speak that keeps people enslaved to those who presume to speak for God. In this case, many presume to speak for the prophet who presumed to speak for God, but the point is the same. Ellen White's work is apparently completely malleable to whatever situation or doctrine those handling her words want to support.

If Ellen was so glaringly wrong about the investigative judgment so as to subvert the true gospel message, what else was she wrong about?

In admitting that Ellen White "didn't understand" everything she was shown, we are left with two possible conclusions. Either the visions she claimed to receive were not from God, or God is a poor communicator.

The biblical prophets are a completely different case because they acknolwedged when they did not understand something, where Ellen was definite and forceful. She never equivocated on the investigative judgment doctrine. Generations of Adventists have grown up with the historical version of the investigative judgment that you and others here are trying to re-cast into something completely different. Yet those who have stayed true to the doctrine as Ellen White taught it have either left the church or are busy teaching their kids, by your own admission, the same error.

Greg

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 09:11 PM PDT

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Sunday, July 02 2006 @ 11:51 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

And to add to Greg's point, if anyone thinks that Ellen White didn't understand what this issue was about, just consider what happened to Albion Ballenger, when he found from his study of the scriptures, that Christ went into the most holy place at his ascension instead of 1844. Here is an excerpt from Ballenger's book "Cast out for the Cross of Christ":

The trial began on May 21, 1905, during the General Conference session. Ballenger was permitted to present his views on the Sanctuary to the leading brethren of the SDA Church. Ballenger arrived at the trial ready to make a defense from the Bible for his teachings. In his own words he describes what happened next:

"Immediately I had begun reading scriptures in proof of my position that the term 'within the veil' of Heb. 6:19 referred to the holy of holies of the true sanctuary, the committee began to bombard me with quotations from the writings of E.G. White.
"I begged them to show me my error from the Word alone, as I could not offer the writings of Mrs. White to the general public as authority in support of any position. It was finally agreed to use the scriptures only in dealing with the matter. But notwithstanding this solemn agreement, the first man to reply, Eld. S.N. Haskell, commenced, and continued unrebuked, to quote the writings of Mrs. White against me."8

One day before the trial was to end, Mrs. White sent a letter to those in attendance at the trial. In this letter, instead of asking the brethren to carefully evaluate Ballenger's theories against the Bible, she instead appeals to their fears:

"In clear, plain language I am to say to those in attendance at this conference that Brother Ballenger has been allowing his mind to receive and believe specious error. He has been misinterpreting and misapplying the Scriptures upon which he has fastened his mind. He is building up theories that are not founded in truth. A warning is now to come to him and to the people, for God has not indited the message that he is bearing. This message, if accepted, would undermine the pillars of our faith."9
Mrs. White is clearly alarmed that this message could undermine the foundation of the entire movement. She adds:
"Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men."10
These warnings must have raised alarm among the brethren present. If this doctrine were to be accepted, it could undermine and destroy the very denomination that was paying their salaries. Mrs. White further warns that "many" would leave the church if these doctrines were accepted:
"If the theories that Brother Ballenger presents were received, they would lead many to depart from the faith. They would counterwork the truths upon which the people of God have stood for the past fifty years. I am bidden to say in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is following a false light. The Lord has not given him the message that he is bearing regarding the sanctuary service."11
If "many" were to leave the church, then the leaders' jobs, their influence, and their position would all be in jeopardy. Finally, Mrs. White claims the "Instructor" had spoken to Ballenger about the situation:
"Our Instructor spoke words to Brother Ballenger: 'You are bringing in confusion and perplexity by your interpretation of the Scriptures. You think that you have been given new light, but your light will become darkness to those who receive it.'"12
Faced with these dire predictions, what could the brethren do other than rule against Ballenger? Even if Ballenger's arguments held some merit, how could they allow him to continue when it might lead to the destruction of their denomination? If Mrs. White was correct, Ballenger's teachings threatened to destroy everything they had spent their whole lives building up. Ballenger had to be stopped! SDA minister M.L. Andreasen, an eyewitness to the hearing, acknowledges Ellen White's leading role in the defrocking. He wrote that the decision to defrock Ballenger was based on...
"the Spirit of Prophecy and their [the ministers meeting with Ballenger] own convictions."13
In the end, it was Mrs. White's testimony that turned the tide against Ballenger and ensured his dismissal. What was the final reason given for his dismissal? M.L. Andreasen shares the following:
"He was dismissed from the church because of theological differences...[for] teaching that the atonement was made on the cross!"14

So Ellen White CLEARLY understood what this battle was about. She knew that the integrity of her prophetic office was at stake, as well as the foundation of the SDA church.

Stan

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 04:31 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg & Stan,

As I see it, the difficulty you might be struggling with is that you are more concerned with EGW that you are with the truth about God. Neither of you have answered the question I have posed. In these posts I haven't seen any interest in actually growing in understanding about God's plan to heal and restore. Rather I have seen angry and hurt individuals who are bent on diverting the focus away from the truth about God to attack a woman who was used by God to promote the gospel.

You claim that Christ entered the MH place when he ascended, you claim that EGW was different than the other Bible prophets because she spoke emphatically. Well lets talk about Paul, he spoke emphatically in Hebrews that Christ entered the MH place on ascension and he also spoke emphatically that they were living in the time of the end. Was Paul wrong when he said they were living in the time of the end? Was he misleading the people? Or did he not fully comprehend what he had been shown and thinking that they were living in the time of the end he understood that Christ would have to be in the MH place prior to His return so he ASSUMED, based on his belief that AD 70 was the time of the end, that Christ was in the MH place? What if Paul simply made that assumption based on his erroneous belief that they were living in the time of the end? That he was shown Christ's work at the end of time, but he failed to recognize it would be almost 2000 years later? Oh, let us not consider that possiblity because then the theories of Ford and others would suddenly collapse. Better to have confidence in Ford, who has shown no evidence of God's special gift of prophecy and reject EGW who God abundantly revealed to be inspired by Him.

So are you two interested in growth in truth and the knowledge of God or is it all about casting stones and dispersions on EGW? I can assure you for every problem you think you have with EGW I can show you more with the prophets of the Bible. Do you want to play that game? Go ahead, show me another problem with EGW and I will show you the same thing with a Bible prophet.

So why don't we get off the stone throwing and instead ask the questions that are relevent in helping us take the truth about God to the world?

Tim

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 04:44 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Stan,

Regarding Ballenger, I can see why you and Ford and others must work to discredit EGW, for if you hold the views Ballenger does and EGW is not discredited then you also would be blind and leading people to destruction. So I can see why the focus must be attacking EGW. I feel sorry for those who are in this positoin, how sad.

I happen to agree with EGW and believe she was inspired by God and as I have with the Bible, when I think I have some "light" which is opposed to the Bible or when I think I find some "contradiction" within the Bible, I go and reexamine my position and find that it was my understanding that was in error, not God's inspired Word. Are you willing to reexamine your position to see where understanding can be grown so confidence in the messages provided by EGW can be restored?

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 06:31 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

You have sidestepped the issue that Ellen White claimed to receive direct revelation from God who confirmed to her on multiple occasions that in 1844, Jesus Christ entered the Most Holy Place to carry out a work of investigative judgment, not to vindicate His character, but to examine under the microscope the lives of professed Christ-followers. You say she was used by God to promote the gospel, yet this doctrine has kept generations of Adventists in theological darkness, creating the foundation for a works-righteousness system that is still practiced in the historic branch of the church. You seem content to use Ellen White in whatever way you can to promote your version of Adventism while ignoring the large body of the church who actually believes what she wrote the way she originally authored it. You don't address the problems that Ellen White has caused for these people who live in constant fear of the judgment.

Even worse, you now want to make this a battle between Ellen White and the inspired biblical writers. I find it incredible that you are willing to speculate about the apostle Paul's "end times" focus to the point of casting doubt on the veracity of Hebrews 9. How is it more reasonable to promote a sanitized version of what you imply is Ellen White's error on the investigative judgment while simultaneously casting aside the inspired words of Scripture to support your theories?

Tim, you say you are interested in knowing the truth about God, yet you are busy obscuring the very truth He has revealed about Himself in the Bible.

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." -Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV

What you would have us believe is that what God revealed about Himself through Jesus Christ required more explanation than what the inspired biblical writers were able to provide. Instead of studying and submitting yourself to these words, you advocate interpreting them through the light of what a nineteenth-century woman said she received directly from God in vision. Worse, you say she herself didn't understand these visions, so you are now ready to clear everything up by showing us where both she and the Bible are in error.

Ellen White would have openly rebuked you for taking such a position, as she did Ballenger.

Furthermore, if both the Bible and Ellen White are in error, you have effectively set yourself up as the final arbiter of truth. Under this paradigm, it is impossible to arrive at any conclusion because the Bible cannot be used to test Ellen White's writings or any other wind of doctrine that comes along. If the Bible is so full of error, how do you even know which parts of it to trust?

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 07:50 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

I will try again to address your issues, but I would like to know, are you willing to listen?

I do believe EGW received revelation from God. I do not believe her ministry has cause people to be “in theological darkness” any theological darkness has been the misuse of her writings, which occurs everyday with the Bible as well. Or don’t you think millions are in theological darkness while using only the Bible to support their darkness?

There is no battle between the Bible writers and EGW they are in complete harmony – the battle is in people who have rejected what she wrote because such people are in darkness so they must work to discredit her because they cannot accept the darkness they are in.

I also take offense at your allegation that I am interpreting the Bible writers through EGW, not at all. I interpret the writings of EGW through the Bible. I understand why you think that, but that is only because you do not allow an interpretation of Scripture that differs from your own. If you would allow the interpretation of Scripture which I offered, and which is completely reasonable given the evidence, then you could see harmony between the two. But if you reject alternate views then you relegate yourself into a corner in which only you can be right. I also find it interesting that you know what I think and that you know what EGW would say if she were here, quite a bold statement.

Also, making inflammatory allegations that I claim the Bible and EGW are in error does not help bring light and clarity but only causes greater tension and confusion. Since you have made the allegation I will state clearly I do not believe the Bible or EGW are in error. In fact, I have been trying to demonstrate all along the reliability of Scripture and the writings of EGW, when properly understood. I have found that some have difficulty along these lines because they struggle with the ability to think in abstract ways and people locked into concrete operations and black and white thinking often fail to gain the insights needed to bring unity on these issues.

So back to the real issue, why are you so angry at EGW and the SDA church and this picture of God?

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 09:21 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

In re-reading my post, I agree the tone was pretty harsh and for that I apologize.

You have said that you believe the Bible and Ellen White are in complete harmony but to come to this conclusion you have had to bring down the apostle Paul by casting doubt on the book of Hebrews. This is what is simply unbelievable. If the Bible is full of error, it can be in harmony with any book! A Mormon could make this statement and by your logic, appear credible.

Am I to understand you correctly that anyone who believes what Ellen White claimed to receive from God about the investigative judgment is misinterpreting her? That someone who sits down with The Great Controversy and becomes convicted that they need to recall every unconfessed sin or they won't be in heaven is actually misusing her work? I don't presume to speak for Ellen White, but it's not a far stretch at all to assume she would rebuke anyone who so fundamentally changed the words she claimed to receive from God.

You say the Bible and Ellen White are in complete harmony, but how can you harmonize the investigative judgment doctrine as Ellen White taught it with John 5:24? Ellen White said that faith in Jesus was just the beginning, qualifying the believer for a comprehensive investigation of every word, action, thought, unimproved opportunity, etc. Yet Jesus says this: "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."

To say that Ellen White and the Bible agree on this point is quite a stretch, wouldn't you say? How would you approach a historic Adventist who is teaching their children the investigative judgment doctrine as given by Ellen White? What would you do with John 5:24?

You say the real issue is my anger, but this is really an attempt to deflect any valid criticisms I have made back on me. You have not really addressed these criticisms other than to say the biblical writers are just as imperfect as Ellen White was, which leaves us in a worse position than when we started because now we can't trust the words of Scripture.

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 11:37 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Thanks for the change in tone and a willingness to dialogue further. For those who have as their agenda to grow in grace and truth, your questions are quite fair and reasonable, but for those who have as their agenda to “prove” EGW unreliable then your questions are not questions to gain enlightenment but questions to stir up doubt and controversy.

I will make the assumption that your questions are from a sincere heart of someone who is searching and has legitimate areas that don’t make sense and is seeking resolution to these seemingly conflicting issues.

First, you and I may differ in our understanding of inspiration. The way you reacted to my interpretation of Paul’s position in Hebrews indicates that you believe if my position was correct then somehow the credibility of Scripture is undermined. Maybe it would be helpful to clarify how we see inspiration. I believe God inspires people with ideas, concepts, visions, perspectives, values, beliefs, truths but leaves them free to write it down in their own words. And thus the written word is not a dictation from God but a document written by humans with human brains and with the limitations of human understanding and human memory. Thus the truths necessary for salvation are therein contained, yet there are places where Bible writers disagree on matters that are not relevant. I’m sure you know many of these. Likewise, prophets may have a vision, but not really understand it all or at all. Paul, understood that prior to the second coming there was a special work that Christ would do. Paul also, unequivocally, emphatically stated that they were living in the “last days” and the second coming was emanate. Now what does this mean. We have several choices. Paul was wrong about the last days therefore Paul was not inspired and we should discount everything he ever wrote – scripture cannot be trusted. A rather illogical and unreasonable response. We could also respond by realizing that God did NOT reveal to Paul when the second coming would occur and Paul, thinking the gospel was about to go to the entire (known) world, assumed (with his own human brain without divine revelation) that they were in the end of time. And therefore, realizing Christ’s special work to occur before the second coming put Christ immediately in the MH place in His heavenly ministry.

Regarding EGW, the real key to understanding EGW’s ministry is to read widely in her writings. This is the same key to understanding the Bible. People who read a little here and a little there can come up with all sorts of beliefs, the challenge is to take everything written and bring it all together. If you want to understand the investigative judgment correctly you must read EGW much more widely. She speaks of Christ in his heavenly ministry as directing all the agencies in heaven for our good. As doing His grand work of instruction. The passages in GC are only one small part of her beliefs about this and can only be rightly understood by comparing it with Scripture and the rest of her writings. The theology you reject is a distortion of the truth promoted by those who read her narrowly. So I don’t disagree that she wrote those words and some have taken those words very narrowly and concretely and built theologies around them that actually deny the overall truth that EGW wrote about, but just because some have misused EGW in this way does not mean she is unreliable.

Now again, what difference does it make any way, the final message of mercy to the world is not about EGW it is about God and His character of love as revealed by Jesus. To the degree that people use the Bible or EGW to misrepresent this truth then we all should use whatever means God gives us to reveal the truth about God and reject distorted views.

Tim

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 11:47 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

11" And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ[b] had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. " (Hebrews 10:11-14 (ESV)

Tim,
I don't know what could be any clearer than that text above. That is clear that the atonement was finished once for all, and Christ "sat down" and all he is waiting for is for the final consummation of all things.

If a prophetess comes along 1800 years later and directly contradicts what is so clear, then, on what basis are you saying that Ellen White is also inspired?

The late Raymond Cottrell, who was as good an SDA scholar as there was, he edited the SDA Bible commentary, was convinced that there was no Biblical evidence to support the sanctuary doctrine, and towards the end of his life wrote this:

"It has been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that an ordained minister may believe that Christ was a created being (and not God in the full sense of the word), or that a person can earn salvation by faithfully observing the Ten Commandments, or that Genesis 1 is not a literal account of creation a mere six thousand years ago – without being disciplined and forfeiting his ministerial credentials. But it has also been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that an ordained minister may not conscientiously question the authenticity of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, even in his thoughts, without his ministerial credentials being revoked. As noted below, in several instances as much as half a century of faithful service to the church has not been sufficient to mitigate this result."

This doctrine is an albatross around the neck of the SDA church, and any amount of revisionist history will not change that fact.

Stan

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 12:17 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Stan,

First I hope you saw my post immediately before yours as some of your concerns were addressed there.

You stated, speaking of Hebrews, “That is clear that the atonement was finished once and for all…”

Here is the real crux of the issue – what is the Atonement? If you see that the atonement was Christ shedding his blood to appease the wrath of the Father then it was finished, if you see the atonement was Christ shedding his blood to pay some penalty for sin so sinners could be legally pardoned or forgiven then it was finished. But if you realize atonement is actually At-One-ment, being reconciled back into unity with God, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 being changed from enemies into friends with God (Good News Translation), then you realize Christ’s death provided what was absolutely necessary to bring this restored unity about, but at the cross all were not then restored to unity with God. So Christ continues to minister in the sanctuary – (the sanctuary of the human soul) by directing all the agencies of heaven (including the Holy Spirit – remember Christ’s own words that the HS would only teach what He was given from Christ to speak) from the sanctuary in heaven to bring all things back into unity and oneness.

Please recall Eph 1:9, 10 “And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.”

Notice, this unity, this oneness this At-one-ment did not happen when Christ died on the cross, according to Paul, but will happen “when times reach their fulfillment.” So he make it clear, an additional work was to be done to minister what Christ accomplished at the cross. A useful metaphor, is that at the Cross Christ defeated the infection of sin and procured a remedy, now He is directing all the agencies of heaven in distributing the remedy and all who take it are reconciled or at-one-ed with Christ. EGW was right on target and in complete harmony with Scripture. Those who teach all was done at the cross are the ones who reject Scripture and the reality of their own life experience and are exactly as EGW stated, living in Darkness. If such a message were to go forward, that no true remedy exists, no real unity with God in heart and mind is to be experienced here and now, because it was completely accomplished at the cross, then certainly darkness would be the result.

So I will ask you what I asked early, what has made you so angry and why do you have such a need to attack EGW?

Tim

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: lynric on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 11:01 PM PDT

Authored by: Greg on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 02:40 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Can I ask you a question? If I repent from my sins and put my faith in Jesus Christ today, can I know with certainty that I am saved?

Greg

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 03:54 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Why do you perceive that I am angry? It seems like whenever facts and actual Bible verses are presented, then you perceive that to be anger. The sad facts of history of all the honest, sincere Christians who have been thrown out of the SDA church because they disagree does paint a disgusting picture. I came to Christ, and was born again while I was listening to Desmond Ford present the true gospel. Forensic justification is taught in the Bible, and has been the predominant view of most of the geat saints of the faith.

I would like to quote again from the late great Raymond Cottrell from his last article published before he died:

"The historicist principle by which Adventists have consistently understood and interpreted Bible prophecy has, ever since the beginning, imposed our uninspired modern perspective of salvation history on it, and thereby been in unwitting violation of the sola Scriptura principle. In contrast, the historical principle honors the Bible's own perspective of salvation history, within which its prophetic messages were given and to which they were intended to apply. It thereby consistently honors the sola Scriptura principle. Let us not soon forget that the historicist interpretation of Bible prophecy has ever been and continues to be responsible for the loss of many otherwise dedicated leaders and the defection of uncounted hundreds of otherwise faithful Seventh-day Adventists. It has, in addition, diverted considerable time, attention, and substantial resources of the church from its mission to the world.

Surely it is high time for responsible church leaders to awake to the situation and do something about it. The obscurantist 1600-page, 5-volume Daniel and Revelation Committee report on Daniel accepts and consistently applies the historicist principle to Bible prophecy---officially for the church. Do we want the twenty-first century to witness the fulfillment of Christ's promise to return, or do we prefer to repeat our pathetic historicist past complacently and indefinitely into the future, and thereby alienate the respect and confidence of biblically literate Adventists and non-Adventists? "

See, this is the issue. It is credibility. Any doctrine has to be built on solid Biblical exegesis, and not pre-conceived ideas, or an anxiety for the church to somehow revise its actual history, and try to make the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment anything other than what it is--a doctrine that is antithetical to the gospel as this doctrine is described in "Great Controversy." All assurance of salvation and joy in living the Christian life is lost, when you have to try to remember all your unconfessed sins, and fear being lost. This creates guilt and a stunted Christian growth.

I praise God that the sin question has been settled once for all. Jesus paid it all on Calvary, and now to him I owe my life.

Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be the glory),

Stan

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 05:08 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Stan,

It is obvious that you are not happy with EGW or the SDA church, your anger comes across in your attacks against her and her organization. Denial doesn't change that reality. So, given your clear statements of disagreement with EGW and your belief the SDA church is wrong for its teaching about salvation, why are you here on this site? What is your agenda? I have not seen a desire to grow and learn. For instance, I quoted clear scripture passages about the atonement describing from the Bible a reality that diverges from your preconcieved ideas and you chose not to discuss it. I respect your freedom to do so but why stay on this site unless it is merely to throw out slanderous allegations and inflammatory accusations against EGW and the SDA church. I don't find this helpful.

So, if you find comfort in the fact the Jesus paid a price and "it is all" taken care of, then rejoice in your already recieved perfection and unity with God and pity those of us who are still longing for the full healing and restoration that we believe Christ is actively working to accomplish. As Paul has said let every person be fully pursuaded in their own mind and I percieve you are so settled into your position that no amount of evidence, truth or reasoning will dislodge you from it. So blessings to you and may you find the all the joy and happiness God longs to bestow. But I would ask that you cease and desist comments designed to attack and malign and instead share the truth about God as revealed in Jesus and what He means to you.

Tim

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 05:13 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Jesus said, "This is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:3 If you know God, intimately connected with Him then you can have assurance.

But Jesus also said that false Christs will go out into the world and Paul said false gospels are preached so when you say if you repent and put your faith in Jesus can you have assurance - only if it is the true Jesus. There are many who will be lost thinking all along they have repented and put their faith in Jesus.

Jesus said, "They will come to me in that day and say, 'Lord, Lord, we have prophecied in YOUR name, cast out demons in YOUR name, and performed miracles in YOUR name. But I will say get away you workers of iniquity, I never KNEW you."

So I can't answer your question because I don't know whether you know God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 06:21 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Assume I am in the camp who knows the true gospel and the true Jesus. If I repent of my sins and put my faith in the true Jesus today, can I know with certainty that I am saved?

Greg

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Monday, July 03 2006 @ 08:37 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

I appreciate your comments and your participation in this dialogue. I am sorry if you have perceived me as being angry. It is possible that I didn't make the quotation marks clear when I was quoting Raymond Cottrell, the former editor of the SDA Bible commentary. He was also a former missionary of the SDA church. (My grandfather Leo B. Halliwell was also an SDA missionary for 27 years on the Amazon River.) But when a scholar of Raymond Cottrell's stature, makes some pointed comments about the exegetical problems that exist with 1844 and the sanctuary, then I think we need to pay attention.

Now, remember that Cottrell died as a loyal member of the SDA church. Is it disloyal or inflammatory to even question the basis of the sanctuary doctrine?

The comments you made above, Tim, reflects a spirit that is troubling. I guess I thought this was a fairly liberal SDA website. But it looks like the spirit of liberalism stops when challenges are made to Ellen White's authority, and the foundational doctrine of the SDA church.

Stan

Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 05:28 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Stan,

Thank you for reaffirming my point. If you reread your last comment you will notice that you did not attempt in any fashion to deal with the perspectives of the investigative judgment which I presented using Bible texts above, but instead chose to redirect your attacks against this website and make new allegations against us. If you want to engage in honest dialogue about these issues you are welcome, and welcome to discuss a divergent position, but if your agenda is merely to malign and attack then I must say, for me personally, such an attitude is not welcome.

But, I am going to make the assumption that my conclusions about you have been simple misunderstandings and that you are a genuine seeker of truth who wants to engage in honest dialogue. With that assumptions the following is a comprehensive explanation of the sanctuary doctrine supported with Biblcal and EGW quotes. Now I challenge you to discuss this substantively and show me my earlier concerns about your need to attack were unfounded.

In the book Evangelism Ellen White said, “In every school established the most simple theory of theology should be taught.” (p.223). When you think of the sanctuary message, the sanctuary doctrine, the theology of the sanctuary, does a simple theory come to mind? Or is it complex? Mysterious? Or even confusing? Our goal with this article is to make this often complex topic, simple, reasonable and easily understandable. We will break this discussion into three sections: Sections I will be an historic overview of this doctrine, Section II we will build on our history and in Section III we will put all pieces together for a cohesive integrated whole.

Section I Historic Overview:

The foundation of the SDA sanctuary doctrine arises out of the disappointment of 1844 when the Millerites wrongly considered the earth was the sanctuary to be cleansed in Daniel 8:14. In the aftermath of this disappointment a small group of dedicated Bible students prayerfully reexamined the Biblical evidence and discovered that the earth is not the sanctuary. They discovered the Bible teaches about a sanctuary not made by human hands, a sanctuary in which Christ ministers as High Priest, a “heavenly sanctuary” in which Christ is ministering. This led to the development of the doctrine of the “Investigative Judgment” in which the sins of the people that had been recorded there are brought into review, cases are examined and names are kept or names are removed. All cases of professed followers of God are reviewed and God’s handling of the situation reveals His justice and justifies Him in how He solves the sin problem. When all the cases are adequately reviewed and decided this time period culminates with the second coming of Christ.

As you review this historic perspective do any questions come to your mind? As I was studying this topic several questions came to my mind: Why does the Heavenly Sanctuary need cleansing, and from what? By what means is it cleansed, and who cleanses it? Is this cleansing related to judgment? If so, who is being judged? Why does it take so long? Who needs the investigation? Who is being investigated? And what relevance does any of this have for me here on earth?

Section II Building on History:

Why do we need to build on history? Why can’t we just accept what the founders of the church have laid down and stick with that? Well, one of the founders, Ellen G. White said in 1900, long after the foundational understanding was laid:

“The significance of the Jewish economy is not yet fully comprehended. Truths vast and profound are shadowed forth in its rites and symbols. The gospel is the key that unlocks its mysteries. Through a knowledge of the plan of redemption, its truths are opened to the understanding. Far more than we do, it is our privilege to understand these wonderful themes.” COL 133.

I’d like to take her at her word and far more than we do understand these wonderful themes.

As a physician one of the first principles we are taught is to diagnose because if the diagnosis is wrong, most of the time, the treatment will be wrong. So we need to start with some diagnostic questions: 1. What sanctuary needed cleansing? 2. What is the problem with the sanctuary that it needs cleansing? And then after answering these two questions we can answer 3. How is the sanctuary cleansed?

What sanctuary needs cleansing? Our founders have established that the sanctuary in heaven needs cleansing, but, is that the only sanctuary the Bible teaches that needs cleansing? Paul tells us of another sanctuary that needs cleansing, “Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.” (1 Corinthians 3:16,17). Do you and I need cleansing? Is this part of the sanctuary message? If so how?

“In the building of the sanctuary as a dwelling place for God, Moses was directed to make all things according to the pattern of things in the heavens. God called him into the mount, and revealed to him the heavenly things, and in their similitude the tabernacle, with all that pertained to it, was fashioned.
“So to Israel, whom He desired to make His dwelling place, He revealed His glorious ideal of character. The pattern was shown them in the mount when the law was given from Sinai and when God passed by before Moses and proclaimed, "The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." Exodus 34:6. ..
“Through Christ was to be fulfilled the purpose of which the tabernacle was a symbol--that glorious building, its walls of glistening gold reflecting in rainbow hues the curtains inwrought with cherubim, the fragrance of ever-burning incense pervading all, the priests robed in spotless white, and in the deep mystery of the inner place, above the mercy seat, between the figures of the bowed, worshiping angels, the glory of the Holiest. In all, God desired His people to read His purpose for the human soul. It was the same purpose long afterward set forth by the apostle Paul, speaking by the Holy Spirit:
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17. (Education 34-36).

“In the cleansing of the temple, Jesus was announcing His mission as the Messiah, and entering upon His work. That temple, erected for the abode of the divine Presence, was designed to be an object lesson for Israel and for the world. From eternal ages it was God's purpose that every created being, from the bright and holy seraph to man, should be a temple for the indwelling of the Creator. Because of sin, humanity ceased to be a temple for God. Darkened and defiled by evil, the heart of man no longer revealed the glory of the Divine One. But by the incarnation of the Son of God, the purpose of Heaven is fulfilled. God dwells in humanity, and through saving grace the heart of man becomes again His temple. God designed that the temple at Jerusalem should be a continual witness to the high destiny open to every soul. But the Jews had not understood the significance of the building they regarded with so much pride. They did not yield themselves as holy temples for the Divine Spirit. The courts of the temple at Jerusalem, filled with the tumult of unholy traffic, represented all too truly the temple of the heart, defiled by the presence of sensual passion and unholy thoughts. In cleansing the temple from the world's buyers and sellers, Jesus announced His mission to cleanse the heart from the defilement of sin,--from the earthly desires, the selfish lusts, the evil habits, that corrupt the soul. "The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of His coming? and who shall stand when He appeareth? for He is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver." Mal. 3:1-3. (DA 161).

So what sanctuary needs cleansing? The sanctuary in heaven and the sanctuary of the human soul! Both need cleansing! Then what do they need cleansing from?

Let’s start with the heavenly sanctuary, what defiles the heavenly sanctuary? “From the opening of the great controversy it has been Satan's purpose to misrepresent God's character and to excite rebellion against His law, and this work appears to be crowned with success.” (PP 338). Satan, the angel formerly known as Lucifer, occupied the position of covering cherub. Where did the covering cherub stand? Where was his place in heaven? In the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary in heaven. Before man ever sinned, before man even existed, Lucifer sinned in the sanctuary in heaven misrepresenting God’s character. The first defilement of the sanctuary in heaven was not your sin and my sin it was Lucifer’s sin, his lies about God, his misrepresentations about the character of God, which started right in the heavenly throne room.

“Satan had accused God of requiring self-denial of the angels, when he knew nothing of what it meant himself, and when he would not himself make any self-sacrifice for others. This was the accusation that Satan made against God in heaven; and after the evil one was expelled from heaven, he continually charged the Lord with exacting service which he would not render himself. Christ came to the world to meet these false accusations, and to reveal the Father.” (RH, February 18, 1890).

“God was represented as severe, exacting, revengeful, and arbitrary. He was pictured as one who could take pleasure in the sufferings of his creatures. The very attributes that belonged to the character of Satan, the evil one represented as belonging to the character of God.” (Signs of the Times January 20, 1890).

So, from what does the sanctuary need cleansing? The heavenly sanctuary, first, needs to be cleansed from Satan’s lies about God, that God is selfish, unwilling to serve, that He is severe, exacting, revengeful and arbitrary. And secondly, as our founders have established, the heavenly sanctuary needs to be cleansed from the recorded sins of the people.

But what about the sanctuary of the human soul, from what does it need cleansing? “Eve believed the words of Satan, and the belief of that falsehood in regard to God's character, changed the condition and character of both herself and husband. They were changed from good and obedient children into transgressors...” (RH, January 5, 1886 par. 8). What was the first thing that defiled the sanctuary of the human soul? Lies about God! It was not what we call sin, the passions, lusts, earthliness – Oh, no! The first thing to contaminate the Spirit Temple was lies about God. The exact same thing that contaminated the Heavenly Sanctuary! It was only after the Spirit Temple was contaminated with lies about God that it was further defiled with passions, the selfish lusts, earthly desires and evil habits, but only after the mind was already contaminated with lies about God.

So from what does the sanctuary need cleansing? The heavenly sanctuary needs cleansing from the lies that Satan told about God and the recorded sins of the people. And the Spirit Temple, the sanctuary of the human soul, needs cleansing from the lies that Satan told about God and defilement of sin, the earthly desires, the selfish lusts, the evil habits. Both sanctuaries need cleansing from the exact same things!

Now how is the prophecy of Daniel 8 related to the cleansing of these two sanctuaries? In this chapter there is a little horn power described as defiling the sanctuary, but the little horn power is not the ultimate enemy of God. He is just one of the many faces God’s true enemy uses. Let’s look at the power behind the little horn?

Daniel states the little horn grew great, but “not by its own power.” So where does the little horn get his power? Revelation 13:2 tells us the power comes from the dragon. The little horn threw the starry host down and trampled them, yet Revelation tells us the dragon’s tail swept 1/3 of the stars out of heaven (Revelation 12:3). The little horn power sets itself up against the prince and the dragon fought against Michael the Prince (Revelation 12:7). The little horn power takes away the daily sacrifice, (the daily sacrifice is just a metaphorical way of saying God’s entire plan to heal and restore from sin). God’s plan of salvation was taken away. The dragon creates a false system, a system that supplants God’s plan (Mark 4:15, 2Cor 11:14, 2Thes 2:9). The dragon’s false plan does not result in healing and restoration but is a plan that degrades the human being. The little horn power brought the place of his sanctuary low. Instead of having a plan that heals and restores the mind, the false system defiles and damages the soul sanctuary and brings it low. The dragon establishes the synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9, 3:9) a false sanctuary, a spirit temple filled by the Satanic spirit. The little horn power throws truth to the ground and causes deceit and the dragon is the father of lies (John 8:44). The little horn power persecutes the saints and the dragon persecutes the saints (Rev 12:13-17). Every defining feature of the little horn power is true of the dragon. And who is the dragon, the true enemy of God? That ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan (Rev 12:9). The true enemy of God is Satan and the little horn power is merely one of his agents and Satan uses many agents.

Where does the little horn get his power? From the dragon! But now the question is: what is the dragon’s power? “Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Christ] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil” Hebrews 2:14. Did you know that the devil holds the power of death? What is the power of death? And how can the devil hold it? Christ gives us the insight we need in John 17:3 “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

What is eternal life? Knowing God! If eternal life is knowing God, then what would eternal death be? Not knowing God! Then what would Satan’s power be? The lies that he tells about God, that we believe, that keep us from knowing God! What was the first thing that contaminated the heavenly sanctuary? Lies about God! What was the first thing that contaminated the sanctuary of the human soul? Lies about God!

So what defiles the soul temple? The lies about God that Adam and Eve believed that broke their trust and confidence and relationship with God; the continued lies that we believe that prevent us from trusting God and being reconciled to Him. If those persistent lies about God are not removed by the truth about God that Jesus Christ has brought, then Satan’s principles of selfishness continue to grow – the earthly desires, the selfish lusts, the evil habits. These destructive elements strengthen within and instead of Christlike character developing we develop the character of the rebel, the Satanic character; and the soul, the individual created with dignity, nobility of character, in God’s image to represent Him to an onlooking universe, the being designed to be the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit instead of revealing Godlike character becomes a synagogue of Satan and the habitation of devils and reveals the Satanic character, ultimately ending in desolation and destruction. The abomination that causes desolation is the abominations of lies about God, told by Satan in heaven and religious systems on earth, that results in the desolation of the image of God in man, the destruction of character and ultimately the desolation of the sanctuary – the sanctuary of the human soul.

We have identified the two sanctuaries, the sanctuary in heaven and the sanctuary of the human soul. Both were defiled by lies about God. Both defiled by the sins of the people, either the actual sin in the Spirit Temple or the recorded sin in the Heavenly Temple. We have identified what has been contaminated and what it is that contaminates, now we must explore what it is that cleanses.

What cleanses the sanctuary? What cleanses the sanctuary in heaven and the sanctuary of the human soul? And of course we all know this answer, we have been taught this since cradle-roll – “The blood of Jesus” cleanses. But what does that mean? How does the blood of Jesus cleanse? Jesus said, “"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” (John 6:53-55). We know that Jesus was not promoting cannibalism, so His words must mean something else, what does it mean to drink His blood and eat His flesh?

“In the study of the Bible the converted soul eats the flesh and drinks the blood of the Son of God, which He himself interprets as the receiving and doing of His words, that are spirit and life.” (Fundamentals of Christian Education 378). Could the flesh and blood of Christ have something to do with truth? Could truth have something to do with cleansing the sanctuary? “The leaven of truth works a change in the whole man, making the coarse refined, the rough gentle, the selfish generous. By it [the truth] the impure are cleansed, washed in the blood of the Lamb.” (Christ’s Object Lessons 102). Could it really be that the truth and the blood of the Lamb are the same, that the blood of the Lamb is simply a metaphorical way of saying the truth? Is it the truth that cleanses? The truth about what? The truth about God Himself as revealed in the life of Christ. As Christ Himself said, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32

Section III Putting it all Together

In the book The Great Controversy Ellen White states, “The coming of Christ as our high priest to the most holy place, for the cleansing of the sanctuary, brought to view in Daniel 8:14; the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of Days, as presented in Daniel 7:13; and the coming of the Lord to His temple, foretold by Malachi[3:1-3], are descriptions of the same event; and this is also represented by the coming of the bridegroom to the marriage, described by Christ in the parable of the ten virgins, of Matthew 25.” (p. 426). Notice we have four texts that describe the same event. Let’s look at the first three.

Daniel 8:14 “Unto 2300 days and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” If you look in your SDA Bible commentary you will discover that the Hebrew word translated cleansed is more accurately translated justified. Unto 2300 days and then shall the sanctuary be justified.

But what does justified mean? To set right, to put in order, to put what is out of line back in line. For those of you who have a word processor on your computer there is a command at the top which allows you to justify your margins. If you justify the margins what happens? Everything that is out of line is put in line, everything that is out of order is put in order, everything that is out of harmony is put in harmony, everything that is wrong is set right. Now the question is: what needs justifying? What is wrong that needs to be set right? What is out of line that needs to be put in line? What is out of order that needs reordering? What is out of harmony that needs to be brought back into harmony? The mind, heart and character of mankind! Let’s see if the evidence supports this.

Remember in the quote above four texts are all referring to the same event. We have just examined Daniel 8:14, but look at the Malachi 3:1-3 which is describing the same event, “…The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple…behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver.” What does a refiner’s fire and launderer’s soap do? They cleanse! Remember Daniel 8:14 unto 2300 days and then the sanctuary will be cleansed or justified or set right. And what does Malachi say He cleanses when He comes to His temple? The Levites! Wait a minute now, Malachi must have made a mistake. He couldn’t actually be talking about cleansing the people, not that. Surely, Malachi must have meant a building or record books in heaven, but not people, right? No, I think Malachi got it right. “He will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver.”

Well who are the Levites? “You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1Pet 2:4) What is another name for a “spiritual house”? A sanctuary! “You also, like living stones, are being built into a sanctuary…” And just a few verses down Peter repeats this reality for emphasis, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood…” (1Pet 2:9).

2300 days then shall the sanctuary be justified or set right, 2300 days and He shall come to His temple and He shall purify or cleanse the Levites – the priesthood of believers, the sanctuary of the human soul. How does the cleansing of the Spirit Temple, the sanctuary of the human soul affect the sanctuary in heaven? How are the two sanctuaries related in this cleansing? Well there was another text referring to the same event, the Daniel 7 text. “The Ancient of Days took his seat…The court was seated, and the books were opened.” (Daniel 7:9,10).

Whose books were opened? In the investigative judgment, when the books are opened and the investigation is going on, whose books are opened? I am an alumnus from Southern Adventist University. At the University they still have records of my transcripts, the classes I attended, the payments I made, the loans and grants I received and how those funds were allocated. If SAU opens its books for examination who is being examined, me, or SAU? I am a member of Collegedale SDA church and regularly give donations of various kinds. The church keeps meticulous records of the funds received and how they are allocated. If Collegedale church opens its books for outside examination, who is being examined the contributors or the church? Enron had tens of thousands of customers and accounts. They received millions of dollars and when their books were opened for examination who was being examined, Enron or the customers, the customers or Enron?

In heaven, when God opens the books, who is being examined, God or us? Whose books are these? Have we kept these books or has God kept these books? These books are God’s books. Why would God need to open His books and why would God need to open His books about us?

Imagine I present myself to your community and claim I have a cure for cancer and have cured 50 people of cancer. I tell you they are all cancer free. I even present 50 people and ask your medical experts to examine them to see if they can find any cancer and sure enough, not one has cancer. Would you now believe I have a cure for cancer if all were cancer free? How would you know if they ever had cancer to start with? Conversely, if instead I bring out some medical records that document the presence of cancer, and then, as you review the records you see where a treatment was given and the record indicates the cancer is cured. But, I won’t let you examine any patients, would you believe I have a cure for cancer?

Why is this analogy relevant? Because after Satan’s original lies about God, which led others into sin, he had some new lies that needed to be dealt with as well.

“Many [angels] were disposed to heed this counsel, to repent of their disaffection, and seek to be again received into favor with the Father and His Son. But Lucifer had another deception ready. The mighty revolter now declared that the angels who had united with him had gone too far to return; that he was acquainted with the divine law, and knew that God would not forgive… PP 41
“So far as Satan himself was concerned, it was true that he had now gone too far to return. But not so with those who had been blinded by his deceptions. To them the counsel and entreaties of the loyal angels opened a door of hope; and had they heeded the warning, they might have broken away from the snare of Satan.” PP 41

So, not only was there the original lies about God, but when some of the angels who sided with Satan were warned and were considering returning to loyalty to God, Satan hit them with a new set of lies. Satan says, “Oh, no! God won’t forgive. You can’t return once you’ve chosen to rebel against God.” Satan wouldn’t try to hit humans with this same lie would he? He wouldn’t lie about God’s ability to heal, about God’s ability to restore would he?

“In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner. (DA 761).

Have you ever heard some well meaning Christian teachers or preachers telling you that every sin must be punished? That if God were to remit the punishment that He would not be just? That justice requires God to punish sin? These are Satan’s arguments! These are Satan’s lies! How can God cleanse the Spirit Temple if we don’t get rid of the lies about Him that are in our minds? If we still have these ideas operating in our mind then we still have work to do to cleanse the Spirit Temple from the lies of Satan.

What were the new lies? Once a sinner always a sinner; God would not forgive; It is impossible to be healed and restored; Sin must be punished; God is unjust if He forgives and heals; Humans are no better in character than Satan and deserve the same fate. These are the new lies of Satan that came along after we fell into sin. So, how does God handle these lies? Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ is the answer to all of these lies, the initial lies were answered by His life and death and resurrection and the second set of lies are answered by His work in the sanctuary. And to help us understand the work of Christ, God gave a little mini-theater, a little drama set, in which this was all acted out for us to see and understand. It is called the sanctuary service. And in Zechariah we are privileged to have the Day of Atonement highlighted to help us understand how God handles Satan’s lies.

“Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him.” The angel of the Lord represents Christ and Satan is there to accuse. Who is the accuser? Satan! Who do we get defended from? Do we get defended from God? Is Christ up in heaven pleading to His Father to be merciful? No! He protects us from Satan! He protects us from Satan’s lies. Satan says, “Joshua is a sinner. You’re not fair to take Joshua back. He sinned like me. He is not better than I am. If you forgive and take Joshua back you are not just. He deserves to be punished. You can’t be just if you don’t punish him for his sin!” And how does the Lord respond?

“The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?’“ Notice the Lord doesn’t say, “Is not this man a stick near the fire about to be burned.” No, he’s a burning stick. He is a stick in the fire on fire. Sin is already infecting him. He is already being damaged, consumed and destroyed by sin. He is on fire with sin. The fire of sin is destroying our character. We are on fire with it. And the Lord by His grace reaches down into this fire. He came into the fire Himself. He was burned by this fire in order to pull you and me out and put the fire of sin out in our hearts and minds! But when He puts the fire of sin out, we are still scarred, still damaged, still scorched, still soot ridden. We’re still contaminated by what the fire of sin did to us. And now we need cleansing and restoring. And so the Lord says:

“Now Joshua was dressed in filthy [soot ridden contaminated] clothes [the fire of sin had damaged him] as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, ‘Take off his filthy clothes.’ Then he said to Joshua, ‘See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.’” What do the filthy clothes represent? Sinful character! Damaged, bent, twisted, scarred character! In this time, this special period of history, this Day of Atonement time, when Satan is standing and accusing, God is saying, “I want to take away your defective and damaged character and restore in you my character!” Right now, today, God wants to heal you and me! In this post 1844 period it is a time for cleansing from sin, for the restoration of the image of God within, to have new garments of Christlike character.

“Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come:” Symbolic of God’s plan to cleanse His sanctuary, God’s plan to heal and restore you and me!

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord.” After what time? Could it be the longest time prophecy in the Bible, the longest time prophecy in the Bible that has to do with the cleansing of the sanctuary? “I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.” The law is a transcript of God’s character. I will put my character in their hearts and minds. I will clothe them with rich clothing. It all means the same thing, the recreation of Christlike character within. The Spirit Temple being cleansed! “I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” (Hebrews 8:10,11). “This is life eternal that they might know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (John 17:3). The lies of Satan have been blown away. They are no longer operating in the mind. We are back in unity with God. We are back in unity with Christ. We are back in oneness – at-one-ment! The day of at-one-ment, the day of recreation of Christlike character within!

Imagine you have a child who has metastatic cancer, cancer all over their body. The doctors have told you the case is terminal; there is nothing that can be done. But you have heard of a doctor out west that no matter what disease the person has that goes to him, they always leave with a clean bill of health. So you pack up your child. You gather all the medical records, the bone scans, biopsy reports, CT Scans, MRI’s, everything that documents the extent of the disease and you go to this doctor. Finally, you get your day with the doctor. You hand him the medical records documenting in great detail the extent of the cancer which is ravaging your child’s body. Then the doctor takes the records and begins to remove all the pages documenting any record of disease and inserts clean blank sheets of paper. And when he has replaced the entire record with blank paper he hands it back and says, “There, no more record of disease. You go on home.” Are you satisfied? If you have a doctrine that teaches Christ is in heaven cleansing record books without doing something in you, you are in trouble!

But what if you go to this doctor and he looks at the records documenting the cancer in your child, and then he goes and examines and begins to intervene in your child, what do you want to happen? You want the cancer to go into remission! “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). When cancer goes into remission the cancerous cells remit to their original, normal, healthy non-cancerous state. The cancer is gone. Without the shedding of blood we could not be remitted to our original sin-free state, to our original Christlikeness of character! Without the shedding of blood, without the truth being internalized, we cannot be restored, we cannot be healed!

And so, the doctor treats your child and the medical records shows the disease, shows the damage caused by the disease, but also shows the treatment applied and the record now shows your child is cancer free! God has records in heaven showing our sickness of heart and mind and the damage sin has caused in us. And hopefully, His records are also showing that we are partaking of His remedy, His treatment, and the records are showing that the sickness of sin is being removed, the rich garments are being put on, the cancer of sin is going into remission, the character of Christ is being reproduced within, the law of God is being written on the heart!

“The cases of all are pending in the heavenly sanctuary. Day by day angels of God are watching the development of character… All defects must be remedied. The character must be assimilated to the character of Christ... At an infinite cost a fountain has been prepared for our cleansing. In the blood of the Son of God we may wash our garments of character, and make them white.” (ST, April 17, 1901).

"Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come.” (Rev. 14:7). What is God’s glory? His character, and how do we give Him glory? By allowing Him to heal us so we reveal His character at the time of His judgment! “Through trial and persecution the glory--the character--of God is revealed in His chosen ones.” (AA 576).

In summary, what cleanses the two sanctuaries? The two sanctuaries need to be cleansed from Satan’s lies about God. What cleanses us from the lies about God? The “blood of Christ” “the life of Christ” the significance of truth about God revealed by Jesus. Every one of the specific lies that Satan made about God was answered in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

But after the sanctuaries are cleansed from the lies about God they also need to be cleansed from the sins of the people, the Spirit Temple from the damage that sin has caused and the Heavenly Temple from the record of sin. What cleanses us from this? God actually, literally, genuinely heals the damage, recreates us in character, rewrites His laws on the heart and mind, restores His image within! When the lies of God have been removes so that we again trust God and open the heart to Him, then the Holy Spirit is poured out and actually dwells in us, dwells in the Spirit Temple healing, transforming, recreating us into Godlikeness! And thus we are cleansed and the records in heaven document this healing and transformation!

And what about the final new lies of Satan, that God is unjust if He should forgive and heal and restore sinners? That it’s not fair for God to save sinners? That God’s not allowed to forgive and pardon us? That sin requires God to exact punishment? How do these false allegations get resolved? How are the sanctuaries cleansed from these lies? God opens His books and allows Himself to be investigated! God allows his conduct in handling the sin problem to be investigated! And He is glorified in His methods and principles as they are demonstrated to bring life, to bring health, to bring healing, to bring restoration, to bring unity – at-one-ment. And He is glorified in the life of the saints who bear witness that even though we were branches burning in the fire, branches damaged and marred by the fire, that He can put out the fire of sin in us and actually cleanse and restore and recreated us to be just like Jesus!

Christ is coming soon! He wants a people prepared to meet Him. He wants to cleanse His sanctuary. Will you cooperate with Him in helping Him accomplish this mission?

Tim

Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 05:30 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

You will have to define what you mean by saved. There are several definitions floating around, just like several versions of Jesus and God being preached. So clarify what you mean by saved.

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 09:17 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, I think you know the question I was asking, but I will clarify further.

The "saved" I am referring to is the same salvation the apostle Paul refers to in Ephesians chapters 1 and 2:

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." -Ephesians 2:4-7 NIV

This salvation consists of two actions by God:

1) salvation from death that is a result of trespasses, being children of wrath - Ephesians 2:3

2) being seated (present tense) in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus

Put another way, by the apostle John:

"And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life." -1 John 5:11-13 ESV

And finally, by Jesus:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." John 5:24 ESV

So to repeat my question a third time: If I repent of my sins and put my faith in the true Jesus today, can I know with certainty that I am saved?

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 10:24 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Thank you that was helpful, I agree exactly with what Paul wrote and what John wrote. That if you "know" God that you have eternal life now. That you have crossed over from death to life. no question about it.

But I would add, once we have crossed over from death to life, in our new trust relationship with God there is a healing, regeneration, recreation process that God does within us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is what is taught in the Sanctuary doctrine.

Let me give a brief analogy. If you had bilateral pneumonia (in both lungs) and had fever of 105-106 degrees, nausea, vomiting, shakes - if you do nothing you are on the path of death. But if a physcian comes and brings a remedy and you take the remedy, the moment the remedy is taken you have crossed over from the path of death and are now on the path of life. But is the entire infection gone that day? Is all the damage caused by the infection healed that day? Or, even though you are on the path of life and the outcome is garunteed for all those who continue to meet with their doctor and take his remedy, what happens to the patient who stops meeting with the doctor and stops taking the remedy? Will the doctor kill his patient? Of course not, but the patient will get worse and die. But for those who take the remedy the remedy does something inside them they cannot do for themselves. They are sick, they cannot cure themselves and the burden of their healing is not on them but on the one who provides the remedy. Yet they have the choice to take it or not.

This is why Paul talked about dying daily, taking the daily remedy, daily surrendering the heart to God, daily internalizing the remedy, the truth, daily opening the heart to the working of God's Spirit. Such a person has eternal life and has passed from death to life. But I do not believe God ever takes away our power of choice and I believe that it is always possible, (not necessarily probable but possible) for someone to choose to walk away from God and stop taking His remedy and stop His healing plan. I know there are theories that teach otherwise, I just don't find them credible when one incorporates all the texts of scripture.

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 11:24 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

Assuming we agree that the believer can have full assurance of salvation the very minute he repents of his sin and puts his trust in Jesus, I have one more question for you, if you don't mind.

Do you believe salvation results from the work of man, a gift of God or both?

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 12:35 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

I think my previous answer answered that question as well

Authored by: Greg on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 01:30 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, please humor me. I'm not sure I understand your thinking based on your prior response, that's why I'm asking this question.

Again, do you believe salvation results from the work of man, a gift of God or both?

Greg

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 04:04 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Thanks for posting that summary of your position. This does sound similar to what I heard at LLU as a medical student when sitting in Provonsha's Bible classes. I didn't understand his theology then when I was unsaved at the time, and now after being born again, I am still not sure I totally understand the complexities of this theology.

I will have other questions as we go along, but thanks again for fully explaining your position.

Stan

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Tuesday, July 04 2006 @ 06:03 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

20 "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Cor. 1:20-25

1 "And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." 1 Cor.2:1-5

1Now I would remind you, brothers,[a] of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.." (1 Cor. 15:1-5)

18 "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling[c] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. " 2 Cor. 5:18-21

Tim,

My point in posting those Bible verses above, is some how I am trying to reconcile in my mind how your description of the gospel according to the sanctuary meshes with Paul's obvious emphasis on Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

In your presentation above, I counted no direct references to the cross, except for two phrases relating to the life, death, and resurection. It seems to me now, as well as when I heard this in Provonsha's classes, that this theological emphasis on the sanctuary subtracts from the plain teaching of the cross, whose message has proven to save sinners through the centuries.

But when Dr. Provonsha came to PUC in the early 70's to give a week of prayer, there was no evidence of revival and spiritual renewal during that week. But in contrast, when someone came on campus preaching the basic message of salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ, there was a different response.

In Galatians 1: 6-9 Paul says this:

6 " I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

I guess I am troubled by at least what I perceive as a somewhat different gospel than what Paul preached, and his emphasis totally on Christ and Him crucified, whereas what I see posted above seems foreign to what Paul preached.

It will still take me a lot more time to go over everything you posted, Tim. Thanks again,

Stan

Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 04:30 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Stan,

The work described in cleansing of the sanctuary could not have happened without the work whcih Christ accomplished on the Cross. The reason I didn't describe in more detail what Christ accomplished on the Cross is becaue this paper assumes one is already familiar with what Christ accomplished on the Cross. But if someone never heard about Christ I would not begin to teach them about God and what Christ and God have done for us by presenting the Sanctuary message, or the Sabbath, or the State of the Dead, or Health principles etc etc. I would start by describing the truth about God as revealed in Jesus and contrast it with Satan's principles infecting and destroying us and then what Christ accomplished on the Cross to restore trust and procure a remedy.

If you send Brad a mailing address I will have him send you a copy of the Good News Tour once the ediiting is done. I did two programs one on understanding the meaning of the Old Testaement Sanctuary symbols and the other called the Mind Restored in which I descsribe God's ideal for the mind, what happened when sin entered that destroys the mind and exactly how it is and why it was necesary for Christ to come an die in order to eradicate sin and heal the sinner. With these two programs in conjuntion with what was written I think you will see a perspective that you never saw before in Adventism which puts Christ clearly at the center and will fill your heart with joy.

Tim

Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 04:34 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

I truly do not believe I can answer your questions better than I already did in the earlier post. I am sorry it ddn't make sense to you.

Tim

Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 05:30 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

In my devoition this morning I read the following. I hope this answers your question as I agree with what is said.

Tim

Jesus pointed out the power of false teaching to destroy the appreciation and desire for truth. "No man," He said, "having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." All the truth that has been given to the world through patriarchs and prophets shone out in new beauty in the words of Christ. But the scribes and Pharisees had no desire for the precious new wine. Until emptied of the old traditions, customs, and practices, they had no place in mind or heart for the teachings of Christ. They clung to the dead forms, and turned away from the living truth and the power of God. {DA 279.3}

It was this that proved the ruin of the Jews, and it will prove the ruin of many souls in our own day. Thousands are making the same mistake as did the Pharisees whom Christ reproved at Matthew's feast. Rather than give up some cherished idea, or discard some idol of opinion, many refuse the truth which comes down from the Father of light. They trust in self, and depend upon their own wisdom, and do not realize their spiritual poverty. They insist on being saved in some way by which they may perform some important work. When they see that there is no way of weaving self into the work, they reject the salvation provided. {DA 280.1}

A legal religion can never lead souls to Christ; for it is a loveless, Christless religion. Fasting or prayer that is actuated by a self-justifying spirit is an abomination in the sight of God. The solemn assembly for worship, the round of religious ceremonies, the external humiliation, the imposing sacrifice, proclaim that the doer of these things regards himself as righteous, and as entitled to heaven; but it is all a deception. Our own works can never purchase salvation. {DA 280.2}

As it was in the days of Christ, so it is now; the Pharisees do not know their spiritual destitution. To them comes the message, "Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear." Rev. 3:17, 18. Faith and love are the gold tried in the fire. But with many the gold has become dim, and the rich treasure has been lost. The righteousness of Christ is to them as a robe unworn, a fountain untouched. To them it is said, "I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." Rev. 2:4, 5. {DA 280.3}

"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." Ps. 51:17. Man must be emptied of self before he can be, in the fullest sense, a believer in Jesus. When self is renounced, then the Lord can make man a new creature. New bottles can contain the new wine. The love of Christ will animate the believer with new life. In him who looks unto the Author and Finisher of our faith the character of Christ will be manifest. {DA 280.4}

Authored by: Greg on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 05:31 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, if I look at what you presented above, I might come away thinking that you believe salvation results from a combination of God's gift and man's work.

You used the analogy of salvation being like an antibiotic that a doctor prescribes for a patient with pneumonia. By taking the medication, the patient is put on the path to life, but if he stops taking the medication, he will die. To my thinking, this sounds very close to saying that man's effort is integral to salvation.

I can see this going in a different direction as well, that you believe salvation is a gift of God, but that the believer is free to reject that gift. Under this way of thinking, man's works do not impact salvation unless he actively rejects it. If he accepts it freely as a gift from God, he can not take credit for it, but he still has the choice to reject it.

This is why I asked you the question above, and I'll ask it again:

Do you believe salvation results from the work of man, a gift of God or both?

Greg

Authored by: Greg on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 05:34 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

I see you posted at the same time I did. I'm still not sure which way you would answer my question above, so if you have time, I'd appreciate hearing it.

Thanks,

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 06:04 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Thanks for clarifying your confusion, that helps me answer your question. I thought when I said, "But for those who take the remedy the remedy does something inside them they cannot do for themselves. They are sick, they cannot cure themselves and the burden of their healing is not on them but on the one who provides the remedy. Yet they have the choice to take it or not." that is was quite clear that I believe a sinner cannot heal himself. That the burden for the healing is on our Great Physician, however, God leaves us free to accept or reject His healing. And I believe that our loyalty and commitment and devotion to God is always freely given and thus we will always be free to stop being loyal to Him if we wanted (not that we would, but that we would be free). Thus I do not ascribe to theories that say, once the remedy has been accepted then you can no longer reject it, or you can no longer walk away from the Great Physician or you cannot reinfect yourself with a rebellious heart.

So I believe the gift of salvation - the remedy to heal and restore the sinner is 100% provided by God through Jesus, but we as individuals have a choice whether to accept or reject that remedy. As a race, however, humanity is redeemed in Christ, in that, Christ having taken humanity upon Himself and won the victory at the Cross has reclaimed this creation and humanity, and, as a race, humanity is restored to God. The only question that remains is, how many individual specimens of this race will accept the remedy and be healed as well.

Tim

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 06:35 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Thanks for your reply and explanation. I think we see eye to eye on salvation being a gift of God and that the believer can have absolute assurance of salvation the minute he repents of his sin and puts his trust in the savior. We still have some differences, but after reading your responses I think we agree on these two points.

This thread is about 1844 and the investigative judgment. Many people have believed and taught this doctrine as Ellen White taught it and it's still being promoted today. The investigative judgment doctrine I've seen presented on this forum is fundamentally different than what Ellen White said she was shown in her visions. Therefore, I think it is useful to go back and actually read what Ellen White said on the matter. Let's not forget that she claimed to receive this doctrine by direct revelation from God. She was always clear and forceful in her presentation of the investigative judgment, giving no hint whatsoever that she misunderstood a word of what she claimed God revealed to her. Furthermore, the accounts of her visions are still printed and sold today, so if there was a problem with them, it has not been widely acknowledged.

Tim, you believe salvation is a gift of God and not a result of man's work, but Ellen White says this:

“Every man’s work passes in review before God, and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered, with terrible exactness, every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for good or for evil, with its far-reaching results, all are chronicled by the recording angel.” (GC 548)

“All who have ever taken upon themselves the name of Christ must pass its searching scrutiny. Both the living and the dead are to be judged ‘out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.’ Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned, and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner in the day of God ... Day after day, passing into eternity, bears its burden of records for the books of heaven. Words once spoken, deeds once done, can never be recalled. Angels have registered both the good and the evil. The mightiest conqueror upon the earth can not call back the record of even a single day. Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe. Though they may be forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to justify or to condemn.” (GC 552)

Tim, you have also said that the believer can have assurance of salvation when he comes to Christ in repentance and faith, but Ellen White says this:

"Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Every one should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation." (COL 155)

Generations of Adventists have gone to their graves believing they could never know they were saved, and thus died in fear of losing heaven. If even one unconfessed or unremembered sin could result in their name being blotted out from the book of life, how could they have any confidence in life or death? How could they live a life of joy and gratitude for what Christ has done on their behalf? How can we willfully ignore this fundamental problem in the doctrine of the investigative judgment and re-cast it as something other than what Ellen White claimed to have received in vision? If we pretend these problems don't exist, we continue to propagate the gospel-denying belief that we cannot have assurance of salvation in Christ Jesus.

If salvation is God's gift and the believer can know he is saved the moment he repents of his sin and puts his faith in Jesus, the investigative judgment is not only redundant (God's gift needs no investigation by God since He gave the gift), but it is antithetical to the good news of the gospel. The gospel of the investigative judgment, at least as Ellen White taught it, is not good news.

This doctrine not only fails the logic test, it fails the biblical test. While many verses could be quoted, I'll only post two:

“He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” -Colossians 1:13-14 ESV

“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” -Colossians 2:13-14 ESV

The time has come to be perfectly honest about this doctrine before anyone else is robbed of the gospel's good news.

Greg

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Sunny Day on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 07:57 PM PDT

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Greg on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 08:06 PM PDT

Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 08:49 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Thank you for demonstrating, as I have said earlier, that those, who like Ford, hold a forensic view of the sin problem and the plan of salvation fail to comprehend adequately the issues involved and therefore fail to understand God’s complete plan for the salvation of man and unity throughout the universe.

First I want to say I agree with everything you quoted from EGW. I just don’t think you actually comprehend the meaning of what she wrote because people who hold a forensic view of the sin problem, believe all that was needed is for Christ to die to pay the penalty to procure legal pardon and thus salvation. And when one claims the blood of Jesus as their payment they can have “assurance” of their saved status before God. (If I am wrong on how I am reading your position please clarify, it would be much easier to be sure if we were in person).

The problem with the “legal payment” idea is that is does not heal the damage to the heart and mind. We didn’t need something done to achieve legal pardon, we needed an actual remedy to literally cure the infection of sin and selfishness within the human mind and heart. Christ came to reveal the truth which restores trust and to procure the remedy which actually heals and transforms. The sanctuary doctrine teaches these two elements. The forensic doctrine, which is commonly taught in the world gives a false hope of false security in a doctrine in which legal pardon is claimed for ones assurance with no actual healing or transformation within. Thus millions of Christians go on in sin, believing it has all been “paid” while they are daily solidifying themselves more and more into the mold of Satan’s character. It is not possible to be “saved” without being “healed” because they are synonymous. And most of Christianity has lost sight of this reality. Thus the big lie on Christians is that at the Cross everything was complete for them, but this version of Christianity leaves Christians sick and dying in their sins. The good news that Jesus brought is that He has a real remedy that is to be applied to the soul temple now, which is to cleanse the soul temple now, which is to transform the heart and mind back into unity, oneness, at-one-ment with God. This is all taught in the sanctuary doctrine.

Now, there are multiple serious flaws in your last post, first you have fallen into the trap of taking EGW narrowly and not including all her statements on the topic and bringing harmony to them all. Please read what I wrote above to Stan for a comprehensive view which includes quotes from her that you haven’t included in your thesis.

Secondly, you argue that because EGW wrote about our works and how they pass into judgment etc etc that somehow she is against the clear teaching of Scripture on this topic. But, you forget Jesus’ own words “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." Matt 12:36,37. If we take Jesus the way you are trying to make everyone take EGW then one would have to say it is our words which acquit us and not what Jesus accomplished for us. But you and I both know Jesus didn’t mean this and neither did EGW.

What did they mean? Jesus understood, and revealed to EGW so she understood, that sin more than a legal problem. It is an actual infection of the very character, mind and heart of mankind. And because we are infected with a disease, the disease of selfishness, there are symptoms of that disease which manifest in the life of the person. So a person’s own conduct and action will reveal whether they have been “healed” which is “saved” or not. This is why Jesus said, “from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” We reveal whether Christ is living within, whether Christ’s character of love, truth and freedom has been recreated within by the indwelling of the HS or whether the Satanic character is formed within by clinging to lies and the preference for Satan’s methods. The healing, as I described above is done by God, not by man. But man must cooperate in that healing process, because the type of healing we are speaking of is the healing of a LOVING Christlike character and this can only happen in an atmosphere of freedom. Love requires freedom. Thus God cannot heal the character without the free consent and cooperation of the patient/sinner. Positions like the one you have fallen into fail to realize this as well.

One final mistake people make who take the view you are suggesting. They mistakenly take texts, which accurately describe Christ’s complete victory over sin in His life, and because He took upon Himself humanity there is one human being who has never sinned – Jesus. Thus because of Jesus the species known as Human has been saved. There will always be a human being in existence because Jesus will be there, but the question remains, how many other specimens of humanity will choose to join Him. People who prefer the view you suggest, take the texts which accurately describe how Christ saved the “race” or the “species” i.e. humanity and apply it to their personal salvation. A tragic and dangerous error which again leads to false security.

So, I have security in Christ, what He accomplished at the cross knowing the truth He revealed about the Father has displaced the lies Satan has told and restored me back to trust in God. In trust I open my mind and heart to Him and the Holy Spirit is poured out and is literally transforming me AS I COOPERATE with Him. I am always free to reject the Holy Spirit and choose a course which will result in my own self destruction. My “sins” are merely symptoms of the sickness of sin and reveal areas left for healing and transformation. And as long as I cooperate with the Heavenly Physicain the outcome is guaranteed. My "sins" do not change my status as one who is within a healing relationship with the Heavenly Physician.

The time has come for the false doctrine of legal pardon without a remedy which actually transforms and heals the sinner to be abandoned. And I invite you to join us in proclaiming this beautiful truth about God as revealed in Jesus.

Tim

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: lynric on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 10:08 PM PDT

Authored by: Greg on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 09:51 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

First of all, thank you for your reply.

Unfortunately, if we adopt your worldview, the thief on the cross would not be saved, because he would not have had the time to "cooperate" and "be healed" before his last breath.

You have created a false dichotomy between your "healing" model and the so-called penal atonement. You contend that everyone who believes that Christ died for their sins and by His blood are declared righteous have somehow used this as a license to sin. You have completely misrepresented my position in an attempt to discredit it. In so doing, you have denied the power of the Holy Spirit to keep those who belong to Jesus, perfecting them in the faith.

"he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" -Philippians 1:6b ESV

No, salvation is not about you cooperating with God, it is about God saving you and completing the work in you that you are powerless to accomplish.

You deny the great promises in Scripture for those who are born again from above, dismissing these as corporate promises for the human race. What is the gospel if it is not about the salvation of individual souls? To characterize this as looking for a license to sin with security is offensive to the gospel.

Perhaps an analogy is in order. If a destitute orphan is adopted into a wealthy family who provides all the love, care and support he could ever hope for, would that orphan respond by spitting in the face of his adopted parents? If I, as a sinner am saved by the blood of Jesus Christ--declared righteous by His righteousness and not my own--would I then choose to desecrate the gift He has given me by looking for opportunities to sin? Of course not! But in order to preserve your "healing" model, you have ascribed things to my position that just aren't true.

I had to ask you six times to answer two simple questions about salvation, but now that you see the implications of your answers, how quickly you turn from them.

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” -2 Corinthians 5:17-21 ESV

Tim, I live by that promise and I invite you to join me.

Greg

Authored by: lynric on Wednesday, July 05 2006 @ 10:15 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, a forensic view of salvation absolutely includes the means of healing the
heart and mind. A new, living way was opened to the Father through the body
of Jesus (Hebrews 10:20), and now we can "draw near to God with a sincere
heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a
guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water" (Heb. 10:22).

When a person accepts Jesus' sacrifice as atonement for his sin, he is not just
objectively, legally cleansed—he is completely changed. At this point the Holy
Spirit indwells him (Ephesians 1:13-14), and he is born of the Spirit—he
experiences the new birth Jesus said a person had to have in order to see the
kingdom of God (John 3:5-6).

The Holy Spirit gives us new power, new potential, and a new position—in Christ
instead of in Adam—and we are literally adopted as God's children. In fact, His
Spirit confirms this new status with our spirits (Romans 8:12-16).

Paul prayed for the Epehsians this prayer for God's promised blessings: "I pray
that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his
Spirit in your inner being, that Christ may dwell in your heart through faith. And
I pray that you, being rooted and establlished in love, will have the power to
grasp, together with all the saints, how wide and long and high and deep is the
love of Christ, and to know this love which surpasses knowledge—that you may
be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God" (Ephesians 3:14-19).

To the Galatians Paul wrote what they could expect from this miraculous
indwelling of the Spirit: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Gal 5:22-23).

And to the Corinthians he wrote, "Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil
covers their hearts. Buit whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken
away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
freedom" (2 Cor 3:15-17).

I could go on—but instead I'll summarize: the "governmental view" of
atonement which you are explaining—that God is intrinsically forgiving and
would have forgiven us even without Jesus' shed blood—is first of all unbiblical
("In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleasned with blood, and
without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness").

Second, to conceive of God as primarily forgiving without also being just and
properly dealing with sin makes Him weak. If He can actually sweep sin away
with no just dealing with the cause(s) of evil, He is not someone we can trust to
manage eternity safely. Further, if God simply forgave us without accountability
or consequences, our "lack of guilt" would be artificial. In fact, we ARE guilty.
Simply sweeping away our offenses without any justice will not heal our hearts.
It simply dulls us to our own evil. There would be no means of becoming
changed.

On the other hand, Jesus' sacrifice not only pays the price of human sin. It also
cleanses my conscience because justice has actually been done. I am not being
given cheap forgiveness. When I humble myself enough to accept this gift for
which I cannot repay God, I receive yet another gift: the Holy Spirit. This is the
new heart promised in Jeremiah. My heart truly becomes healed and made new.

Further, the Holy Spirit in me gives me a new identity: child of God. He gives
me joy, peace, patience, lognsuffering, goodness, kindness, faithfulness,
genteleness, and self-control. He gives me the knowledge of love that surpasses
knowledge—an oxymoron to be sure, but it's what Paul prayed! Those are
evidences of a healed heart.

This gift of the Holy Spirit is only possible by accepting the new, living way to
the Father opened by Jesus' blood. Without His blood, we are not reunited with
God. We are left simply "figuring out" how to feel accepted. When we submit to
Jesus' sacrifice and accept His blood as our undeserved rescue, He tangibly and
miraculously heals our hearts, gives us peace with Him and with others, and
changes our motivations and desires.

Without the blood of Jesus, all our self-esteem and good feelings of guiltlessness
are simply mental constructs. Only in Jesus do we find that promised healing.

He is enough!

Lynric

Authored by: Tim on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 05:06 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Unfortunately, your conclusion that my worldview would leave the thief on the cross unsaved again demonstrates failure to understand my worldview. Through this entire conversation, over and over again I have not experienced that you really undestand the positon I am putting forth, “seeing though they do not see, hearing though they do not hear.” The thief of course has crossed over from death to life, as I described earlier.

I have said repeatedly and will say again that it is God who does the healing so “he who began a good work will finish it” of course. We do not add to the salvation provided by Christ. As I have said repeatedly. But we must cooperate. Only those who believe we have no freedom to choose believe in salvation without cooperation because they believe that God predetermines who will be saved and who will be lost. Thus they teach a loveless god and a loveless universe because love cannot exist without freedom.

What good is declaring someone righteous if they are not in fact, in truth recreated to be righteous? Is God in the deceit business? Does God declare something to be true that is, in reality, false? God only “declares” righteous those who are righteous, meaning those who have been healed.

Regarding a so called false dichotomy I have set up, all I can say is I don’t know what world you live in but it is certainly not what I see in the world. Every day in my office I see people who are there because of ongoing sinful living, abusing children, drug addictions, beating spouse, stealing, selling drugs etc. And when I ask if they believe in God they say, “Oh, yes. I was saved when I was 19. I accepted the blood of Jesus for my sins and was baptized.” And with this false assurance they go on and commit these sins/crimes without a conviction of guilt because they believe it doesn’t matter as they are already saved. A grand deception. A doctrine as you present it encourages people like this to continue in a course that will result in their eternal ruin.

Regarding my position, I never said God requires people to understand what I have explained, just that they experience what I have explained. So there will be people, who believe your worldview, who without realizing it actually experience the healing and transformation that is part of God’s plan of salvation, all the while believing all that was needed was for a price to be paid. Many such people will be saved. I just prefer to understand as much as God is willing to reveal rather than settle with a less enlightened understanding. And I know there is more and more to understanding and I am praying and studying everyday to learn more and more about God and His plan of salvation.

Lynric,

The portion of you post which explained the indwelling HS and the transforming power of God is exactly what I am trying to include in the plan of salvation and am stating a plan that leaves this out is an incomplete plan. I appreciate you helping reinforce this aspect of God’s plan to heal and restore us into His image.

However, you also said, “I could go on—but instead I'll summarize: the "governmental view" of
atonement which you are explaining—that God is intrinsically forgiving and
would have forgiven us even without Jesus' shed blood—is first of all unbiblical
("In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleasned with blood, and
without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness").”

In this statement I believe you have implied something you may want to reconsider. If I understand what you are saying you are saying that God, in His person, was either unable or unwilling to forgive from His heart, unwilling to extend forgiveness without Christ shedding His blood. Think about the implications of this suggestion. Such a god is an unforgiving god and needs something done to him to get him to be forgiving. So when man sinned god was changed and now needed Christ to die to change god? I don’t think so.

George MacDonald, a non-SDA theologian of the 19th century, who didn’t understand or believe the sanctuary doctrine of the SDA church wrote:

The Lord never came to deliver men from the consequences of their sins while those sins yet remained… Yet, feeling nothing of the dread hatefulness of their sin, men have constantly taken this word that the Lord came to deliver us from our sins to mean that he came to save them from the punishment of their sins.
This idea has terribly corrupted the preaching of the Gospel. The message of the Good News has not been truly communicated. Unable to believe in the forgiveness of the Father in heaven, imagining him not at liberty to forgive, or incapable of forgiving forthright; not really believing him God who is fully our Savior, but a God bound—either in his own nature or by a law above him and compulsory upon him—to exact some recompense or satisfaction for sin, a multitude of religious teachers have taught their fellow men that Jesus came to bear our punishment and save us from hell. But in that they have misrepresented his true mission.”

He very accurately revealed a major flaw in traditional Christian thought that stems out of paganism, which of course was part of the Roman church.

The text in Hebrews which you quoted “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” has two possible meanings. You chose the one which comports with the preconceived idea about forgiveness needing a payment. But remission can also mean, to be restored to one’s original condition. When someone who has cancer gets treatment, what do they want? The cancer to go into remission. Now which is more likely, that God was unwilling, in His heart, to extend forgiveness freely without the shedding of Christ’s blood? Or that we humans could not be restored to our original condition without the shedding of Christ’s blood? Think about it? And then think about the other texts you quoted, like our consciences are being cleansed by the blood, in other words we are remitting back into our presinful state as God created mankind in Adam to be, by the application of the “blood.”

I don’t currently have time to discuss your concerns about justice thoroughly, but let me use an analogy:

Imagine yourself atop the Empire State Building. God has said, “In the day that thou jumpeth off the Empire State Building, thou shalt surely die.”
Soon Satan, in the form of an eagle (instead of a serpent), comes soaring by and calls God’s trustworthiness into question. “Did God really say in the day you jump you will die? Oh, no, you won’t. Look at me. I can fly because I jumped. God is only trying to keep you from flying.” So you jump. What a thrill. The air is rushing by, the speed is building, you must certainly be flying. But then you notice that you’re going only one way, straight down. Overcome by fear, you realize that if something isn’t done, you will surely die.
As fear is overwhelming you, God suddenly reaches out and suspends you in midair. God suspends the consequences. God graciously gives you an opportunity to step through a window and live. He even sent His Son to be thrown off the building to demonstrate what happens. But this time God restrained Himself and did not suspend the consequences for His Son. And as we hear Christ say, “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me,” we see that instead of reaching an exalted state of existence, the violation of the law of gravity results in death, as a natural consequence not an imposed penalty.
But if you persistently tell God to get out of your life, if you repeatedly refuse His entreaties to step through the window and insist on going your own way, God will respect your freedom and let you go. And when He lets go, you will fall to your death, the natural result of the violation of God’s universal law.

If this were to happen would God be unjust?

Finally, I agree with you that only in Jesus do we find real peace, real joy, real happiness and real healing.

Tim

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 03:02 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

I think I agree with a lot of what you wrote above. For example this quote from you:

"Regarding a so called false dichotomy I have set up, all I can say is I don’t know what world you live in but it is certainly not what I see in the world. Every day in my office I see people who are there because of ongoing sinful living, abusing children, drug addictions, beating spouse, stealing, selling drugs etc. And when I ask if they believe in God they say, “Oh, yes. I was saved when I was 19. I accepted the blood of Jesus for my sins and was baptized.” And with this false assurance they go on and commit these sins/crimes without a conviction of guilt because they believe it doesn’t matter as they are already saved. A grand deception. A doctrine as you present it encourages people like this to continue in a course that will result in their eternal ruin."

It may be that both sides of the argument here is being slightly misunderstood. I agree that much of pop christianity misrepresents what salvation means. In the book "The Gospel According to Jesus" by John MacArthur, who is Reformed and Dispensational, he talks about how the "easy believism" faction of Christianity is really false.

So often folks are told that if they raise their hands at an evangelistic meeting, or go forward at a Billy Graham crusade, or pray the "sinner's prayer", or believe the four spiritual laws, then you are saved eternally, even if you go on living the same life as before! That is not Biblical Christianity. I think Tim, that if you have read authors such as Charles Spurgeon , you will find that these authors would be horrified by what is going on in modern evangelicalism. Certainly, current authors like John MacArthur, and John Piper also do not agree with this view.

True Biblical salvation is a miracle of regeneration where our hearts of stone are turned into hearts of flesh, by a miracle of God's sovereign grace which the Holy Spirit works on the heart. As a result of being born of God, then our lives are transformed, and it is our desire to obey God.

I wish I had more time to develop this theme, but maybe later.

Stan

Authored by: Tim on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 05:17 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Stan,

I think you stated this beautifully, "True Biblical salvation is a miracle of regeneration where our hearts of stone are turned into hearts of flesh, by a miracle of God's sovereign grace which the Holy Spirit works on the heart. As a result of being born of God, then our lives are transformed, and it is our desire to obey God."

I couldn't agree more and have been trying to articulate this reality. I find that throughout Christianity there is this false security based on misunderstanding of God, the sin problem, and God's solution for it.

When Adam and Eve chose disloyalty to God what happened? Their very nature, being, mind, heart, motives, methods, principles of action etc. were changed from love, trust, truth and freedom to selfishness, distrust, deceit and enslavement to fear. God simply, from His heart forgiving, which I believe He did do, would not resolve this problem, mankind was still infected and dying. What was needed was a remedy. Chrst came to accomplish several tasks simultaneously one of which was procure the remedy. He came to:

1. He revealed the truth about God necessary to remove the lies so that trust could be restored. Without trust in God He cannot heal us because we won't let Him into our minds and God won't force His way in. i.e. without trust we won't take the remedy Christ has procured.

2. He revealed the truth about Satan and the nature of sin so that all confusion about Satan would be removed throughout the universe thus reconciling all things in heaven and earth to God through Christ's death on the cross. And God will be seen as just when Satan dies in the end.

3. But He also was born of a woman, under the law of sin and death, taking upon Himself a humanity infected with the defects brought by Adam's fall. But His Father was the Holy Spirit so He came into the world with His heart and mind in full unity with God in every way. And in His humanity Christ defeated Satan and Satan's law of sin and death and restored God's law of love into mankind (in the literal person of Jesus - in this human Godman the law of God again resided). Now He offers to do the same in us if we trust Him.

4. After procuring the remedy, which He had to actually come and work out in His humanity. He distributes this remedy through the working of the HS to all who will accept it. This is what is being taught in the Sanctuary service. I give a better explanation and work out the details more fully in my programs at the Good News Tour, which will be available soon.

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 06:26 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

I fully agree with you that there are false converts (tares) in the Church who God has allowed to grow up alongside the true converts (wheat), but you cannot refute the doctrine of justification by faith alone and the substitutionary atonement based on the examples of false converts. You are still perpetuating the false dichotomy by refusing to acknowledge that believers can live a sanctified life while simultaneously being secure in their salvation.

You also stated: “I have said repeatedly and will say again that it is God who does the healing so ‘he who began a good work will finish it’ of course. We do not add to the salvation provided by Christ. As I have said repeatedly. But we must cooperate.”

Tim, this sounds very close to what the Catholic Church promoted at the Council of Trent: “If any one shall say that the sinner is justified by faith alone, in the sense that nothing else is required which may cooperate towards the attainment of the grace of justification, and that the sinner does not need to be prepared and disposed (for the reception of the grace of justification), by the motion of his own will: let him be accursed.” (canon IV)

Contrast this to what Martin Luther says in his small catechism: “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers. On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ. This is most certainly true.” (The Creed, third article)

If when you say “we must cooperate,” you mean “we must have faith,” you and I might find agreement.

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 08:11 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Romans 8:13 "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,"

COL 3:5 "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips."

Is Paul describing a "cooperative process" here? Or do you think that when Paul says YOU he really means God? And of course, it is through, as Paul says, the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. So, no cooperation with God or cooperation with God?

Tim

Authored by: lynric on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 10:02 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, your metaphor of the eagle (Satan) flying and persuading us to jump so
we, too, can fly—even when God said not to jump—has some problems from a
Biblical perspective. The biggest problem is God sending His Son to jump—and
then NOT catching Him as He caught us, allowing Him to fall dead on the
ground in order to demonstrate to us the true consequences of sin.

Actually, nowhere does the Bible suggest that Jesus' death was for the purpose
of demonstrating the awfulness of sin. First, Romans 1 through 3 clarify that
the truth about God has always been known through what has been created,
and that humanity has suppressed their knowledge of God through their
wickedness. In fact, Romans 1:18-32 explain that the wrath of God (yes, it does
say "wrath") is being revealed "against all the godlessness and wickedness of
men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…" His wrath is being revealed
by His giving them over to their sinful desires (v 24), their shameful lusts and
perversion (v. 26) and their depraved minds (v. 28).

All men were condemned because of the sin of one man—but the obedience of
one Man brought righteousness to "the many" (Romans 5:18-19).

Jesus' death was not an illustration. God sent Him "to be a sin
offering" (Romans 8:3), "to be sin for us" (2 Cor 5:21), to become "a curse for
us, for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree' " (Gal 3:13), to
bring us who were far away near "through the blood of Christ" (Eph 2:13), to
make peace between Jews and Gentiles by reconciling "both of them to God
through the cross" (Eph 2:16), to reconcile everything to Him "by making peace
through his blood, shed on the cross" (Col 1:20), to forgive our sins and cancel
the written code which stood against us, "nailing it to the cross" (Col 2:14), to
open "a new and living way" to "the Most Holy Place through the blood of Jesus"
(Hebrews 10:20), etc.

God is sovereign over all creation. He is sovereign over both good and evil. He
made the rules—the moral, physical, spiritual laws that govern all creation, seen
and unseen. The law that sin separates life from God is a physical law, if you
will, that is not totally understood in our limited three-dimensional existence.
But it is true because that is the way God created the universe.

The beauty of the apparently "arbitrary" fact, though, is that while God Himself
established the law that He cannot be intimate with evil nor excuse it (after all,
physics itself states that for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction), He also took complete responsibility for resolving this cosmic schism.
He, the one who established the law of evil being unable to exist in the presence
of Himself, chose to take into Himself the curse and the sin that separated Him
from His creations.

In effect, God experienced separation from Himself during Jesus' suffering on
the cross. The Son was out of communion with the Father. God is One—and
even though the Son was incarnate, He was still God. God Himself suffered the
consequences of sin. Never did He make man suffer for his own sin—unless
man rejected this physical and spiritual sacrifice God made in Himself.

God—the eternal, omniscient, source of love and life took the curse of sin into
Himself and suffered both punishment and separation so we don't have to. That
is a love that far exceeds mere excuse of sin. God didn't just wipe away sin—He
couldn't, because the law of sin and death is crucial to life itself. But God took
ultimate responsibility for every part of this problem, and He resolved it for us so
we don't have to suffer.

The Bible just doesn't explain Jesus' death as an example or illustration. It was
the place our Sovereign God rescued us from the domain of darkness and
transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son. (Col 1:13).

Lynric

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 01:36 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

I agree with lynric completely. Paul in Romans said 'the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord'.

The Lord Jesus was the Lamb of God, slain before the foundation of the world. The Father and the Son planned in eternity past that Christ would suffer and die for your sins and my sins.

This does not give the true Christian who is truly born again the license to sin. But it means that we can walk safely and secure in His grace, free to obey, and eternally secure. Since Christ paid the penalty specifically for you and me, there is no need to face an "investigative Judgment".

Thanks Tim for engaging in this conversation.

Stan

Authored by: Tim on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 05:07 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Lynric and Stan,

Do you guys actually read everything I post? I wonder, for if you did you could not come back and make the argument you just did. The analogy I made of the Empire State Building was designed to reveal one aspect of what Christ did. And as all parables, even Christ’s, it has its limitations. It is interesting you chose to exploit the limitation of the parable rather than embrace the truth it taught. If you would have read my other posts you would have noticed I said:

1. He revealed the truth about God necessary to remove the lies so that trust could be restored. Without trust in God He cannot heal us because we won't let Him into our minds and God won't force His way in. i.e. without trust we won't take the remedy Christ has procured.

2. He revealed the truth about Satan and the nature of sin so that all confusion about Satan would be removed throughout the universe thus reconciling all things in heaven and earth to God through Christ's death on the cross. And God will be seen as just when Satan dies in the end.

3. But He also was born of a woman, under the law of sin and death, taking upon Himself a humanity infected with the defects brought by Adam's fall. But His Father was the Holy Spirit so He came into the world with His heart and mind in full unity with God in every way. And in His humanity Christ defeated Satan and Satan's law of sin and death and restored God's law of love into mankind (in the literal person of Jesus - in this human Godman the law of God again resided). Now He offers to do the same in us if we trust Him.

4. After procuring the remedy, which He had to actually come and work out in His humanity. He distributes this remedy through the working of the HS to all who will accept it. This is what is being taught in the Sanctuary service. I give a better explanation and work out the details more fully in my programs at the Good News Tour, which will be available soon.

The above showing that I believe Christ’s death was MORE than a demonstration. That, using words you are more comfortable with number 3 means, He became sin though He knew no sin. That He took our sinful condition upon Himself and actually cured it or if you will defeated sin. And it cost Him, it cost Him greatly, you could even say He paid a lot to win this war. All of that has been in my posts.

Yet you protest the demonstration aspect, I think you protest the idea that Christ did not receive punishment from His Father but rather was abandoned by His Father, which my analogy exposes perfectly. What you quoted in Romans 1 supports my point. God’s wrath in Romans one is defined three times in verses 24,26,28 to be God “giving them up” or “letting them go” and in Chapter 4 verse 25 the exact same Greek is used by Paul to describe what God did to Jesus, He gave Him up or let Him go. And on the Cross Jesus own words support this, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Why have you given me up? Why have you let me go? So rather than disproving my point you have actually reinforced my point.

Additionally, God’s law is the Law of Love. This law is not a law that He “established” “wrote” “enacted” “legislated” or in some other way “created.” This law emanates from His being, from His personhood, from His character. God is Love and everything He creates is created in harmony with this Law. This is the Law of life for the universe. Breaking this law breaks the very principle of life, just like jumping off the empire state building. God does not have to impose a penalty of death, death is the automatic consequence to breaking this law unless God intervenes to prevent death from ensuing, which is exactly what He did and which is what my analogy demonstrates.

I agree with you completely that God took the “curse” of sin upon Himself, but that curse was inherent in sin and did not come from God. As you have said, sin separates from God, who is the source of life, and since Christ didn’t exercise His own divine prerogatives on the Cross to stop the separation which sin brought His human life died. No problem here at all, unless you are saying that God used His power to execute His Son on the cross?

So I want to say I agree with you that the Bible doesn’t just explain the death of Christ as a mere illustration, but more was involved, absolutely. But don’t discount that revealing the truth about God, the nature and character of sin, the character of Satan were also included and necessary parts of what Christ accomplished. And as you are stating, and which I have previously stated, His death also is the remedy for sin as He actually defeated it, overcame it or if you prefer this language, paid the costly sum necessary to gain the victory over sin.

Tim

p.s. while that victory was a complete victory over sin and Satan is eternally defeated and because Jesus is a human free of sin the species known as humans will always exist thus the race has been redeemed from sin, Christ still must minister His victory into the hearts and minds of human sinners in order for His victory to have any benefit for individuals here on this planet. This ministry of His victory into the hearts and minds of humans is the message of the Sanctuary doctrine.

Authored by: Greg on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 09:01 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

In response to my last post, you said this regarding Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5: “Is Paul describing a 'cooperative process' here? Or do you think that when Paul says YOU he really means God? And of course, it is through, as Paul says, the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. So, no cooperation with God or cooperation with God?”

The problem with this line of thinking is that you have confused the “indicative” and “imperative” moods in the writings of Paul. The indicatives are descriptions of what God has done, whereas the imperatives are Paul’s arguments about what our response to God’s work should be. Just as I earlier reasoned that God has saved me (indicative) and therefore I will not desire to continue in sin (imperative), Paul also uses the same logical construct.

Lifting Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5 from their contexts, one would be tempted to believe that justification is a cooperative process between God and man as both you and the Roman Catholic Council of Trent have testified. But placing those verses back into their contexts, you see the indicative (God has justified you—you are “saved”) followed by the imperative (walk in a manner worthy of the gift God has given you).

Romans 8:1-12 is purely indicative—“There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus,” “the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death,” “God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do,”you … are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,” etc. Paul is making the imperative declaration that the sinner is justified in the sight of God because he is clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The result of this declaration of righteousness (justification) is a life of gratitude which flows from the sinner who has received forgiveness for all his sins—past, present and future. Coming from such a perspective, the desire of the believer will be to rid himself of the ugliness of his sin by the power of the Holy Spirit, because he will see his sin in its true God-offending light. Yet it is only through God’s saving grace that the realization of the magnitude of sin even enters the consciousness of the believer, so arguably this new thought pattern in his mind is the result of God’s sovereign gift of salvation.

The same case can be made for the verses leading up to Colossians 3:5. The indicative is contained in Colossians 3:1, followed immediately in the same sentence by an imperative: “If then you have been raised with Christ, (indicative) seek the things that are above, (imperative) where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” Incidentally, this verse also refutes the idea that Christ did not enter the Most Holy Place until 1844, because the statement places Jesus in the presence of the Father 17 centuries earlier!

Tim, I’m still a bit unclear on when you believe the sinner is justified. Is he justified at the point of faith and repentance, or do you believe his justification occurs gradually over the course of his walk with God?

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Saturday, July 08 2006 @ 05:55 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Thank you for you response. I thought you did an excellent job of describing the “indicative” versus the “imperative” aspects of justification. It was well referenced and I understand your position. Yet, I see areas in your logic that seem to have gaps or flaws, at least in my way of thinking. This is because, you seem to be suggesting that the indicative aspects are without our cooperation and the imperative are with our cooperation only as a response the being “saved” or “justified” which Christ already did for us without our cooperation “indicative.”

You stated “Romans 8:1-12 is purely indicative—‘There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus,’” Let me ask you something, How does someone get to be “in Christ Jesus”? Can this happen without the individual’s cooperation? Does the individual have to come to the point of trusting Jesus in order to be “in Christ Jesus?” And can God get us to trust Him without our participation and cooperation? Do we have to “taste and see that the Lord is good”? Do we have to “Hear Oh Israel the Lord is One God”? Do we have to “choose you this day whom you will serve”? Do we have to “Open the door” to the knock of Christ in order for Him to come in? Are you really saying that a sinner can be saved without the cooperation of the sinner? If sinners could be saved without their cooperation then how can there be a sinner? How can anyone be lost? Doesn’t God want all men to come to salvation 1 Timothy 2:4? So if we don’t need to cooperate, then the choice is on God who is “saved” and who is not. And this would make a god who is a sadistic monster or evil puppet master and all this is just for his amusement.

Now let’s consider the word justification. Ask a pastor what it means and you’ll likely receive an explanation something like this:

When man sinned, he fell under the condemnation of God’s law. The penalty for breaking God’s law is death. But God loved us so much that He didn’t want us to die, so He sent His Son to pay the price by the shedding of His blood. If you accept the payment of Christ’s blood shed in your behalf, then you are justified, or accepted by God. You are washed in the blood, and your sins are pardoned. Not on your works, but on the merits of Christ’s payment.

Is this what justification means? Under the format menu on my word processing software is a command “justify,” which is used to justify the margins. When I hit that command, guess what happens? The left and right margins come into line. Everything that was out of harmony is put in harmony, everything out of order is put in order, everything out of line is put in line, everything that is wrong is put right. In this world of sin, what is out of order that needs to be put back in order? What is wrong that needs to be set right?

When Adam sinned, did God experience a change is some fashion so that He now needed to be fixed? Of course not. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Then do we need Christ to die to appease God, to change God’s attitude toward us, to get God to pardon and forgive? No! “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son.” John 3:16. NIV. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” 2 Corinthians 5:19. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” Romans 8:31. Christ said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9. Christ is an “exact representation” of the Father. Hebrews 1:3. There was never a problem with God. He has always been on our side.

But when Adam sinned, did Adam experience a changed? Yes! His mind no longer operated in healthy ways. He no longer trusted God or valued God’s methods and principles of governing. He had become selfish.

What needed to be put right, set right, was man’s heart and mind. To justify simply means to restore our hearts and minds into harmony with God’s, to be won back to love and trust.

In order for this to happen, Christ came to do several things, one He came to reveal the truth about God, the nature of sin and Satan and the cause of death, so that the lies Satan told about God could be removed and trust could be restored. This was step 1. But He did more than illustrate or demonstrate, much more. Christ took upon Himself humanity contaminated with the infection of sin, born of a woman under the law of sin and death, and by combining it with His divinity He lived out a perfect life and actually defeated sin, IN HIS HUMANITY. Thus, Christ justified, set right, harmonized, put right the human race, in that because of the individual Jesus there will always be a human being sin free and who lives eternal. The species, known as human was “set right” with God because of Jesus’ victory over sin. This was done completely by Jesus there was no human element involved and it was a total, absolute, complete victory over sin and Satan. No matter what happens to every other individual human being Satan was now defeated and the human race/species was redeemed. This is the objective justification which Christ accomplished. And in doing this He procured the remedy which will also “justify” you and me as individuals, which will set your and my hearts/minds right with God again, which will actually cleanse you and me literally from all unrighteousness, which restores us to oneness with God. But this aspect, the aspect of individual healing requires we cooperate with God and open the heart and mind and let in the HS who transforms and heals us. It requires we trust Him, it requires we follow Him, if we say no to Him, if we refuse to open the heart to Him then God cannot heal us.

So I stand by my position completely, that Christ achieved justification for the race with no cooperation from humans. What He did was done by Him alone and was a complete, total victory over sin and Satan. But the application of that victory into the hearts of the individual believer requires the cooperation of the believer. And that cooperation is an eternal cooperation as we never lose our freedom to walk away from God if we wanted. Thus we are changed from God’s enemies into His friends (2Cor 5).

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Saturday, July 08 2006 @ 10:34 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

In replying to my statement about the “indicative” of Romans 8:1, you said: “Let me ask you something, How does someone get to be ‘in Christ Jesus’? Can this happen without the individual’s cooperation? Does the individual have to come to the point of trusting Jesus in order to be ‘in Christ Jesus?’”

What it sounds like you are saying is that getting to the point of being “in Christ Jesus” is a form of work (or cooperation) we must perform to properly “apply” the justification Christ as already obtained for us.

The apostle Paul makes clear that before conversion, we are all “dead in our trespasses” (Ephesians 2:1), “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), “alienated and hostile in mind” (Colossians 1:21) and that “no one seeks after God” (Romans 3:11).

In Romans chapter 9, Paul also asserts that we are only saved because of the sovereign will of God, not by any work that we do or any cooperation we are capable of. “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:14-16 ESV).

God is truly sovereign and nobody can come to Him unless God draws him. In fact, the random Bible text on the front page of this web site illustrates the point well, from Jesus’ own words: “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19 ESV). Jesus chose his disciples out of the world and continues to draw people to Him. “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice” (John 10:14-16 ESV). Jesus confirms it is only those who the Father gives that will come to Him: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37 ESV).

Earlier in the thread you agreed wholeheartedly with this quote by Stan: "True Biblical salvation is a miracle of regeneration where our hearts of stone are turned into hearts of flesh, by a miracle of God's sovereign grace which the Holy Spirit works on the heart. As a result of being born of God, then our lives are transformed, and it is our desire to obey God." This is no different than what I said in my last several posts and it is what you are now disagreeing with.

Tim, by your thinking, God's sovereign nature is softened by making salvation something we must work (or cooperate) to keep, as if God’s sovereignty ends when we put our faith in Jesus. This is exactly the Roman Catholic position as outlined at the Council of Trent that I quoted above. It was against this theological background that the Reformation occurred; yet I see you coming down on the side of Catholicism in saying that we must cooperate with God for our salvation. Unfortunately this position is directly at odds with the words of Paul and Jesus I quoted above and is antithetical to many other promises of Scripture such as this one:

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13-14 NIV)

Thank God for His sovereign grace that awakened me to His gospel and sealed me for the day of redemption by giving me the Holy Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing my inheritance!

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Sunday, July 09 2006 @ 11:04 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

So in reading your answer I come away with the following, please clarify where I have misunderstood:

God is sovereign and as sovereign He chooses who will be saved and who will be lost.

Salvation is a work of God’s grace, regardless of man’s will. If God decides to save someone they will be saved even if they do not choose it or desire it or surrender to it or trust Him. For such a choice would be a “cooperative work” and no “cooperative work” can be part of our salvation.

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Sunday, July 09 2006 @ 01:12 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, you said: “God is sovereign and as sovereign He chooses who will be saved and who will be lost.”

I agree with this, based on the Scriptures. As I wrote in my last post, it is not in man’s nature to seek after God, it is God who draws men to himself. Jesus and the apostles taught this idea extensively:

“Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:13-14 ESV).

“He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:11-13 ESV).

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48 ESV).

“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Romans 8:28-30 ESV).

“…though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call…” (Romans 9:11 ESV).

“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:16 ESV)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:3-6 ESV).

“May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:11-14 ESV).

“Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Colossians 3:12-13 ESV).

“For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5a ESV).

“But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13 ESV).

“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do” (2 Timothy 1:8-12a ESV).

“Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (James 1:18 ESV).

“To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood…” (1 Peter 1:1b-2a ESV)

Tim, you said: “Salvation is a work of God’s grace, regardless of man’s will.”

Nothing in the Bible indicates that man can will himself to be saved, quite the opposite. “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:4-5 ESV).

We even have a biblical example to ask God for the strengthening of faith, which is the work of God: “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24)

Tim, you said: “If God decides to save someone they will be saved even if they do not choose it or desire it or surrender to it or trust Him. For such a choice would be a ‘cooperative work’ and no ‘cooperative work’ can be part of our salvation.”

Tim, I'll answer your question with a question. If you were given eternity with Christ, would you refuse it?

“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:4-5 ESV).

“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened…” (Romans 11:5-7 ESV).

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Sunday, July 09 2006 @ 01:55 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

I need to clarify, when I said “God is sovereign and as sovereign He chooses who will be saved and who will be lost.” And “Salvation is a work of God’s grace, regardless of man’s will.” And “If God decides to save someone they will be saved even if they do not choose it or desire it or surrender to it or trust Him. For such a choice would be a ‘cooperative work’ and no ‘cooperative work’ can be part of our salvation.” I was stating my understanding of your position, which you acknowledged as an accurate understanding. I was not stating my own position. With that clarification, thank you for your clear answer and making your position so understandable. But it seems to me, that we do not worship the same God.

The god I have heard you describe is an arbitrary god who abuses his authority to choose at his pleasure some for salvation and some for damnation, some for joy and happiness and some for torment and suffer. Such a god is a sadistic monster and deserves no righteous worship and in fact should be rejected as Satan’s great fraud of the true and noble God.

The god I have heard you describe has a universe where freedom does not exist, rather only his will, his power and his choices – everything else is a grand illusion and deception and beings in such a universe are either deluded morons, fearful slaves or programmed robots.

The god I have heard you describe has a universe where love does not exist because love requires freedom and the god I have heard you describe gives no freedom.

The god I have heard you describe cannot be trusted for such a god is a selfish, abusive, exploitive, egotistical being interested only in fulfilling his own desires.

The god I have heard you describe is a lesson to the abuse of Scripture and how people can take God’s Word, God’s revelation of Himself, and so twist its meaning that rather than revealing God as Jesus revealed Him to be, instead cast an arbitrary, capricious, severe, abusive, unrighteous god.

Greg, you stated, “Tim, I'll answer your question with a question. If you were given eternity with Christ, would you refuse it?” My answer: I absolutely, wholeheartedly would refuse to live with the god I have heard to describe!!!”

Greg, my heart goes out to you. I will pray that you may one day experience the joy and freedom that comes from knowing God as Jesus has revealed Him to be: A God of love, truth and freedom who values nothing higher than the freedom of his intelligent creatures so that their love to Him may be freely given.

Tim

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Loren on Sunday, July 09 2006 @ 06:43 PM PDT

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Sunday, July 09 2006 @ 09:41 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Again thanks for engaging in this dialogue. I think it has been very helpful in showing the different and wide-ranging views within Christendom.

But at the same time Tim, I am troubled by the spirit shown in your reply to Greg above. I did not see you answer one of those texts Greg posted. It appears you are lashing out at the God of the Bible. The entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation speaks of God's election, and controlling all of the events of this world.

I would challenge anyone to do a word study of the word chosen, choose, or chose in the New Testament, and in every case it describes God choosing us rather than us choosing Him.

Romans 9 is very clear:

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Especially verse 20 "who are you, O Man, to answer back to God...?

This is where it is at. It is far easier to take the scripture exactly as it says, and be grateful God has redeemed us, and trust Him that his word is true, and he will be just.

With that reply to Greg, you disparaged a huge portion of Christianity. Martin Luther wrote a major treatise on man's free-will (or lack thereof) in his monumental work "Bondage of the Will". Luther argued against the humanist Roman Catholic scholar that man is utterly incapable of saving himself except for a miracle of new birth performed solely by the Holy Spirit, and this is called "monergistic regeneration", as opposed to synergisic regeneration. Please see the explanation and find further classic Reformation works at http://www.monergism.com

So from Luther and Calvin to the Puritans including John Bunyan, and to the prince of preachers Charles Haddon Spurgeon http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

and to great preachers of today including john MacArthur and John Piper http://www.desiringgod.org

All of these giants of the faith teach or have taught the doctrines outlined in those Biblical texts Greg posted. These men are not teaching evil doctrines as you suggest, Tim.

Please at least read the Spurgeon link above where Spurgeon delivers his famous sermon defending the Reformed faith of John Calvin and Martin Luther. Even Ellen White spoke highly of these reformers. I don't know if she knew that Martin Luther taught pre-destination even more than John Calvin.

We may not like the fact that the Bible teaches these doctrines, but we must be very careful before we make the disparaging remarks you made above on that last post to Greg.

But, Tim, I understand your reaction to these doctrines, because, I reacted just like you did at one time, and resisted these teachings of sovereign grace for eight years, before, on careful Bible study I realized, that I had absolutely nothing to do with my salvation eight years prior. But my response of accepting Christ came only after I was regenerated by the sole power of the Holy Spirit. I invite you Tim, to study those links above with a prayerful spirit and an open mind.

The great theme of the Reformation was this:

Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be the glory),

Stan

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 10 2006 @ 05:56 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Stan,

I also have enjoyed this interaction and dialogue and agree that it has been instructive in helping expose the two views. And as I said in my post to Greg, I will reaffirm here to you, as I understand what you both are putting forth, and which you have endorsed as an accurate understanding, we do not worship the same God.

I reject a god as you describe. I believe the god you describe can be supported from Scripture only by abusing Scripture and twisting its meaning. I believe it is achieved by turning off God’s design for the human being, our ability to reason and think. God has invited us to “come and reason together” with Him. You have suggested it is better to just take it as it reads and not reason and think.

In this war between Christ and Satan, Satan has no truth that supports his position, all truth leads to God. Thus Satan works to get people to disengage those faculties God has given us which would comprehend and respond to truth. Within Christianity several of Satan’s tactics are taught as virtues – 1. “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” This tactic is designed to turn off thinking, never go beyond the question of did God say it to the question of “what does it mean?” thus millions are duped into believing distorted and grotesque views of God. 2. If we have faith we don’t need evidence or to ask questions, again a lie of Satan designed to turn off the faculties God wants us to turn on the most.

But, the bottom line for me is we have a choice between two Gods, the true God as revealed in Jesus Christ who has a character of selfless love, values truth, freely forgives without appeasement, promotes freedom, will never use His power to compromise the freedom of His intelligent creatures and will never torture His creatures by using His power to inflict torment. Or the god of Satan’s creation who is powerful, self-promoting, requires appeasement, will use his power to torment and destroy, is unforgiving without appeasement, violates the free will of his children and is ultimately selfish.

I gladly reject the god I have heard you and Greg describe, and more than that, just like God described in Revelation 3, the description I have heard you two describe sickens me and makes me want to vomit such an idea out, it is truly disgusting.

Stan, I am genuinely saddened that so many people have been so duped into such a twisted and sadistic view of our gracious and loving God. And I am working, (and many others with me), with all diligence using the abilities God has given me to destroy the view of God that you and Greg have presented so that hearts and minds can be set free from the slavery to sin and Christ can come and take His people home with Him.

Tim

p.s. below is Romans 9, starting in verse three as I understand it. This is in answer to the texts you and Greg quoted.

3 I long so much that my brothers, those of my race – the genetic descendents of Abraham – would accept this healing truth, that I would gladly sacrifice myself if it would do any good. 4 But they have had such privilege. They were adopted by God as children to help him reveal the truth about himself, his character, methods and principles; they have been blessed with the written rules, the diagnostic tool of the 10 Commandments, the sanctuary service with its symbolic lessons, the feast days, the prophets and illumination of scripture and all the promises of God. 5 Their forefathers are the patriarchs, and from them is derived the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

9:6 But don’t be confused, it is not as if God’s word has failed just because not all genetic descendents of Abraham will be saved. For not all who are genetic descendents of Israel are part of God’s Israel. 7 Nor are those who are genetic descendents of Abraham considered Abraham’s children. Oh no! Only those who are like Abraham in character are considered his children. This is obviously demonstrated by the fact that the scripture says, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be recognized.” 8 In other words, it is not the genetic offspring who are God’s children, but those who are his by the miracle birth – the renewal of mind and heart, the rebirth. 9 For this is exactly how Isaac came to be; God promised that Sarah would have a son and his birth was brought about by God – a miracle birth.

9:10 Not only this, but Rebekah’s children were both sons of Isaac. 11 But, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that it might be clearly seen that God’s plan was at work and 12 not man’s natural right of inheritance – she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob accepted my love, but Esau did not.”

9:14 How shall we interpret this? Is God unfair? Is God arbitrary or unjust? Absolutely not! In no way! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I choose to be merciful to all mankind,
and I will have compassion on the entire human race.”

9:16 Our healing doesn’t depend on some effort, desire or work on our part, but on the fact that God is merciful and offers the remedy freely to everyone. 17 For the Scripture says of Pharaoh: “I raised you up so that I might pour out my truth upon you and that my character might be known throughout the entire world. And even though you resisted me and fought against me I was patient and merciful with you.” 18 Therefore, God is merciful to whom he chooses, and stern to those he chooses.

9:19 One of you might protest and say, “Then why does God still blame us, he does whatever he wants?” 20 But, this complaint only shows how little you know about God and his methods and purposes. You confuse God’s desire to heal and restore everyone to his original ideal with his wise plan to assign different duties and responsibilities to different individuals. You also fail to realize different conditions require different applications of the remedy. 21 Doesn’t the potter have the right to use some clay to make pottery for noble uses and from the same clay make pottery for ordinary purposes?

9:22 What if God, choosing to reveal what he does to those who refuse his healing remedy, patiently continued to offer them treatment yet they refused to take his free cure – and thus God revealed such people prepare themselves for death and destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the richness of his character known to those who would accept the cure, and thus prepare them, by the revelation of the truth about himself, to be fully transformed into Christlike glory? 24 This is what he has done! He has called all men, Jews and Gentiles to complete free healing and restoration and Christlikeness of character and then into partnership with him to spread the cure. 25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my representatives’ who were not my representatives;
and I will call her ‘the conduit of my love’ who had previously rejected my love.”

9:26 and,
“It will happen that even though they were told,
‘You do not represent me,’
they will be changed in character and called ‘sons of the living God.’”

9:27 Isaiah declares concerning Israel:
“Though the genetic descendants of Abraham are as numerous as the sand by the sea, only a small remnant will accept the remedy and be healed.

9:28 For the Lord will carry out his diagnosis on the earth with accuracy and certainty.”

9:29 It is sadly as Isaiah has said:
“If the Lord Almighty hadn’t worked so hard, so patiently, do diligently to preserve us, we would have no descendents. We would have ended up like Sodom, we would have ended up like Gomorrah.”

9:30 How then do we understand this? It is very simple – the Gentiles who had no idea they were infected with selfishness and were therefore dying, and certainly didn’t have a clue that a remedy to heal them was available, therefore, didn’t pursue God’s healing cure. But when they became aware of their condition and that a cure existed obtained it but trust in him who heals and restores; 31 but Israel, who knew their condition and knew a cure was available, who had been given the teaching tools designed to lead them back to trust did not attain it. 32 Why not? Instead of trusting God and accepting his free remedy, they attempted to cure themselves by their own efforts. Thus they stumbled over the “stumbling stone” refusing to trust in him. 33 As it is written:

“See, I have placed in Zion a stone of truth that reveals the stumbling and shortcoming of men, and a rock of righteousness that exposes how far short they fall,but the one who trusts in him will be completely healed and never stumble or fall again.”

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 10 2006 @ 07:28 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Stan,

I wanted to add, it is as a direct consequence or rejecting the truth about God Himself that people like Ford have been unable to see the truth in the Sanctaury message. It all goes back to the truth about God. If we misunderstand Him, and buy into Satan's lies about Him, then God's genuine plan makes no sense, but is foolishness, and therefore, those with their false view of God, replace God's plan with a distorted plan of their own devising. Thus they fail to comprehend the beauty of the sanctuary message that has been previously described.

Tim

Authored by: lynric on Monday, July 10 2006 @ 06:23 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, I would suggest that the real issue of division that I perceive is not merely
what we think certain Bible passages mean. The bigger, underlying issues are
hermeneutics and the reliability of the Bible.

If the Bible means what we think it means (such as your paraphrase of Romans
9:13 from "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" to "Jacob accepted my
love, but Esau rejected my love"), then each one of us can paraphrase the Bible
any way we wish and "make" it say whatever agrees with our philosophy. We
need some baseline of consistent authority on which to base our interpretation.

If we cannot assume the Bible is authoritative as it stands, then our theology is
based not upon an eternal, divine source but upon our own rationalization. Of
course, you also have Ellen White as an authority—so actually, your view of
Biblical authority is necessarily less than absolute—it must, of necessity, bow to
Ellen.

No Biblical interpretation can stand that is significantly different in intent than
the original message—and if we cannot trust the Bible to state the original
message God intended, we cannot even use the Bible as a source of moral or
spiritual authority.

Bottom line—if the Bible cannot be trusted to reveal God's will—without the help
of an extra-Biblical prophet and without our own help in re-interpreting the
words, then we are adrift, creating our own religions as we please.

Lynric

Authored by: Tim on Monday, July 10 2006 @ 07:10 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Lynric,

I agree with you completely that it is about how we interpret the Bible and its authority. But as I said earlier, understanding the Bible is more than taking what it says, we have to ask what it means. I know this is harder, and I see many people who are genuinely afraid to think, afraid to ask questions as they find security in believing everything is just as it reads. I think God is gracious and meets those people where they are, but He wants so much more for us. That is why He has called us into understanding friendship with Him. He wants us to ask questions, to reason, to evaluate and to question Him. For He knows the more we do the more we will see how incredible He truly is.

Now a couple of points – I find the most reliable filter to understand all texts of the Bible (is not EGW as you suggested) but is the life of Jesus. Every text of the Bible must be understood by seeing it lived out in the life of Jesus – after all He Himself said that the Scripture are there to testify about Him. So a couple of questions regarding my interpretation: Do you worship a god who actually hates individuals? Do you believe Jesus hated people, including Judas? Did Esau, sin more than Judas, before Esau was even born? Is God like Jesus? Did Jesus tell the truth when He said “if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father, the Father and I are one”? So do you really think that a God like Jesus hates any of His intelligent creatures? No! The words say what they say, but we have to ask what do they mean. And I know for certainty, because Jesus has shown me God, that God does not hate any of His intelligent creatures.

So we find ourselves at the exact same point – the point where the war in heaven started and the point where the war will be concluded: The Truth about God Himself! Can God be trusted? God’s character has been misrepresented by Satan in heaven, by Satan in Eden and is misrepresented by religious leaders and religious people today. I will state plainly that any Biblical interpretation that supports Satan’s mischaracterization of God is wrong, any Biblical interpretation that makes the Father out to be different in character that Jesus revealed in His life and death is wrong. And the theology that Greg and Stan (and I am concerned you might be supporting as well) reveals a clear difference between Jesus and the Father as I have detailed above. Thus, with certainty I can say their conclusions are flawed.

Finally, I noticed you chose not to comment on which God you would prefer to live with for eternity, of the two descriptions I gave in the earlier posts, which do you find more in consistent with what Jesus revealed? And which do you find more trustworthy?

Tim

Authored by: Aaron on Monday, July 10 2006 @ 09:15 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

I've been following this thread with interest for a while and haven't felt compelled to post anything until now.

The post this morning (5:56 am P.D.T.) was disturbing. You claimed that Greg and Stan were worshipping a different "god" and twisting scripture:

"I reject a god as you describe. I believe the god you describe can be supported from Scripture only by abusing Scripture and twisting its meaning."

Greg's post prior to yours was probably somewhere around 90% verbatim quotes directly from non-paraphrased Scripture. No twisting going on there. And then Stan's post extensively referenced Romans 9.

What made this post particularly troubling to me is what followed. After accusing Greg and Stan of twisting Scripture, you proceeded to do exactly what you accuse them of, in the same post even, by offering us an a priori paraphrase that flatly contradicts and does violence to the underlying text. If the "true" meaning of Romans 9 can only be obtained by departing so sharply from the clear words of Paul, then this doesn't say much for God's ability to effectively communicate truth.

Lynric said it well:

"No Biblical interpretation can stand that is significantly different in intent than
the original message—and if we cannot trust the Bible to state the original
message God intended, we cannot even use the Bible as a source of moral or
spiritual authority."

I do agree that scripture testifies of Jesus. But we can't ignore Jesus either when He taught about hell or when He drove the moneychangers out of the temple with a scourge just because it doesn't match up with our view of of Him.

I'll look forward to catching up on this thread after I get back from vacation in 2 weeks.

Anyhow, just my $0.02.

Aaron

Authored by: lynric on Monday, July 10 2006 @ 10:39 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, interpretation can only accurately happen after observation of the text.
Unless we observe the text in context, comparing words or phrases with other
places they occur in the same chapter, book, then Testament, then the other
Testament—only then can one make an informed interpretation.

Just BTW: from The New Bible Dictionary pub. Intervarsity Press (1997): Hate:
III. Contrasted with love: " 'Hate' as opposed to 'love' in Gn. 29:31, 33 (cf. 30,
'loved…more'); Dt. 21:15-17; Mt. 6:24=Lk. 16:13, implies the choice or
preference of another rather than active hatred of what is not chosen or
preferred. Cf. Mal. 1:2f - Rom. 9:13 of God's election of Israel; Lk 14:26 (cf. Mt.
10:37, 'loves…more'); Jon. 12:25 of the overriding claims of discipleship."

With just a little delving into the meaning of the underlying Greek and Hebrew
words, we see that God didn't "hate" Esau with an emotion. He merely chose
one twin over the other—and very deliberately chose the SECOND born instead
of the expected firstborn—just as God chose Isaac over Ishmael.

Jesus is not the Interpreter of God—He was the very Image of God. Jesus is the
one who not only offered healing and restoration to the culturally unclean,
breaking Jewish law by touching lepers and dead people, consorting with
prostitutes and tax collectors, healing servants and children of hated Roman
centurians and Samaritan women, but he publicly uncovered the evil duplicity of
the Pharisees, he cleansed the temple (as Aaron mentioned above), he warned
against false prophets and teachers, and he taught that the unrighteous would
go to eternal torment in hell. Matthew 7 clarifies what "qualifies" a person for
hell: the "goats" are those who do charitable deeds, even healing the sick and
casting out demons in the name of Christ—but they will not be saved.

Why? It's not because of wrongdoing; they will not be saved because, Jesus
said, "I never KNEW you." They will be lost because they were never intimate
with Jesus; they were not repentant, accepting of Jesus' blood to cover their
unrighteousness, and born from above by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Jesus clearly taught that all power on heaven and earth was given to him, and
judgment is his. Yet he also taught that those who believe in Him will never die
and have passed from death to life. Jesus clearly taught Nicodemus that a
person must be born of water and blood—born again—in order to see the
Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus is the REVEALER of His Father. He taught God's justice and mercy, His
wrath and His grace. Jesus never negated judgment or eternal punishment, and
He never suggested that there is any way to be saved outside His own sacrifice.
He Himself is the Way, the truth, and the life; He is the resurrection and the
life; He came to give the sign of Jonah and to reconcile the world to Himself.

Jesus is, indeed, the center of the Bible—but He is not "God lite" or "Culturally
relevant God". He is the eternal God—one with the Father and the Spirit—and
He taught more about eternal punishment than anyone else. At the same time,
He demonstrated divine, eternal love in His sacrifice, shedding His blood to
cleanse you and me from our innate sin.

Only a God who is just can be trusted to be merciful. Only if He is just does His
grace have meaning. He is faithful;He is the One True God—and He is worth my
all.

Lynric

Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 04:12 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Aaron,

thanks for your comments. I guess I didn't clarify enough that I was posting what I thought the meaning was, I was not posting a "Bible translation" The rest may quote the words, but they quote they cut out of context in order to support the meaning they have derived. Everyone does it, many just won't admit it.

By the way, which version of God do you prefer?

Lynric,

Thanks for your comments. Bottom line remains, there are two versions of God as I have outlined above, you still haven't answered which you prefer. So which do you prefer?

Tim

Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 04:20 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Lynric,

as a p.s. to my last comment, I was aware of the meaning of the "hate" usage in the NT, also where Jesus said unless we hate our family members etc. So this was not a new concept and I am open to substituting that idea and beleive it fits very nicely with the rest of what I wrote - I may even change it, I just personally liked the way I wrote it better and it was simply my thoughts about it and a I couldn't include them all in one phrase. But thank you for reminding me that maybe I should choose to state it that way.

Tim

Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 05:50 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Lynric,

Let’s go back to your concerns about God’s sovereignty and Jacob and Esau. Are you suggesting that this occurred because God made the choice and not because Jacob chose to respond to God and Esau refused to respond to God? Are you saying this is not talking about the fact that God knew Jacob would respond to His love and He knew Esau would not, thus He called Jacob and not Esau? Are you saying that God caused one to follow Him and the other not to?

Let’s apply this reasoning in the life of Jesus, God in human flesh, the clearest revelation of God. Jesus did not choose Judas to be one of His disciples, but He allowed him to be one when Judas chose to be. Are you suggesting that if Jesus would have, in His heart and mind, made the choice to “choose” Judas then Judas would have actually been loyal and faithful and would not have betrayed Jesus? That Judas did what he did because Jesus failed to choose Judas? Judas really didn’t have the same opportunity for salvation that the rest did because Jesus arbitrarily and hard-heartedly closed Judas off from salvation by not “choosing” him?

You see the theories that have been suggested, by the misapplication of the Pauline writings, create a grossly distorted god who is not worthy of our worship and cannot be trusted. This is Satan’s goal, not to get people to reject a belief in God, but to get them to believe in a version of God that is so distorted they actually become God’s enemies while claiming to be His closest followers. This is exactly what Satan achieved among the Jews of Christ’s day. Those people claimed to be God’s special and closest followers and yet Satan was so successful in distorting their concepts of God Himself that when God came and stood among them they hated Him and killed Him. I see Satan using the same strategy today and with great success.

So which of the two Gods presented do you prefer?

TIm

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Steven C Schrode on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 01:09 PM PDT

Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 03:37 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Steven,

An excellent post. I am really intrigued with your thoughts regarding the "throne" on the north side of the tabernacle. I must admit I have never considered that possibility before and will give it some thought. At first blush, I find no problems with what you have written and find it very well thought out and totally consistent with the picture I have been trying to present.

Thanks,

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 05:49 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Steven,

You said, "I now understand where my Christ is and what He is doing in Heaven and I await His return without fear even though I am a judgment bound SDA Christian."

You have presented a lot of arguments about heavenly geography that could only arise from an a priori belief that a two-apartment ministry of Jesus Christ must exist. In other words, you have gone to the Bible to try to find what you believe must exist based on your preconceived ideas. Don't you find it strange that no Christian scholar outside of Adventism has ever "discovered" the two-apartment sanctuary doctrine through Bible study alone?

Furthermore, how do you reconcile your belief that you will be judged with these words of Jesus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24 ESV). Maybe my fatal logical flaw is actually believing these plain words of Jesus without looking for the hidden, deeper meaning of which I'm sure Tim will produce for me in his forthcoming paraphrase.

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 06:48 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Steven,

In medicine one of the first things they teach us is to diagnose because if the diagnosis is wrong then the solution is wrong. Well, Greg has come to a different diagnosis as to what is wrong in the universe, i.e. what the problem with sin is. Thus his solution is a different solution. To him the solution looks rational and reasonable because it fits with the diagnosis he has come to, but I believe his diagnosis is wrong and therefore his entire treatment plan is wrong. The problem we have in this dialogue is that we are disputing two different treatment plans and we will never see the treatment the same unless we see the problem as the same. And Greg seems reluctant to engage the discussion on that level, which is the truth about God Himself. As you have read previously I have articulated the differences in how we see God and he has refused to discuss this issue further and in fact doesn’t seem to realize that the real disease, the real root of the sin problem is distortions about God, which he has embraced and promotes as truth. Thus, those who hold distorted views of God always fail to see the truth of God’s healing plan and instead create their own plan consistent with the distorted god they serve.

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 07:06 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

From the very first time you replied to me on this forum until your last post now, you have betrayed a sense of arrogant hostility to me and my position. Now you presume to know that I don't serve the God who has revealed Himself in Scripture, stopping short but implying that I am not a Christian. From where does the wellspring of this hatred find its source?

Greg

Authored by: lynric on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 07:41 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, regarding Romans 9:13—the answer to your question to me is in verses
11 & 12: "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in
order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who
calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger.'"

Actually, this isn't my analysis. These are the words of Scripture. Now, we can
explain them away, or we can decide that we can't dismiss any part of Scripture
without doing damage to the text. If we were in a literature class, we couldn't
draw conclusions beyond what the text actually supports.

The fact is Scripture teaches both election and the command to "believe" and to
"choose" whom we will serve. Both are true. We really can't make a seamless
formula for these paradoxes. They are paradoxes not because they don't mesh
in eternity; they are paradoxes because we are limited and cannot see all of
reality. But if we dismiss what the Bible actually teaches about God's election,
calling, and choice, we would have to throw out significant portions of both
Testaments. Throwing out portions of the Bible is not an option.

Instead, we need to believe that God is bigger than our perception, and He can
be totally and completely sovereign—without detracting from our command to
make choices which have eternal consequences. Yet all that happens on earth is
under the unbrella of God's sovereign control. "In Him we lie and move and
have our being" (Acts 17:28). "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold
together" (Col 1:17).

Which god do I like better? Tim, there is one God—a fact you know. The God
who reveals Himself in the pages of Scritpure is the same God who came to
earth as Jesus—and the same God as the Father and the Holy Spirit. The three
are One. God is the God of eternal mercy, grace, justice, and truth. He alone
can destroy both body and soul in hell (Matthew 10:28), and He alone gives us
life and love and hope.

He is our sovereign God, and He is Lord over life and over death. He is Lord over
you and over me.

Lynric

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 08:42 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

You and I agree that this thread has been quite valuable in contrasting two world views with regard to scripture interpretation, and our views of God.

John Piper also contrasts these two world views in a recent article where he contrasts your view as well as Stephen Chalke's view with the Reformation view:

http://desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2006/061406.html Here is an excerpt:

Defending My Father’s Wrath
June 14, 2006

There are cultural forces at work inside and outside the church that make me eager to defend my Father’s wrath against me before I was adopted. He does not need my defense. But I believe he would be honored by it. And he commanded us, “Honor your father” (Exodus 20:12).

I write this from Cambridge, England, and my indignation about the assault on my Father is British-born. The calumny I have in mind is the following paragraph from a popular British writer:

The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement: "God is love". If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003], pp. 182-183).

This is breathtaking coming from a professing Christian. On behalf of my Father in heaven I would like to bear witness to the truth that before he adopted me his terrible wrath was upon me. Jesus said, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey . . . the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36). Wrath remains on us as long as there is no faith in Jesus. Paul puts it like this: We “were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2:3). My very nature made me worthy of wrath.

My destiny was to endure “flaming fire” and “vengeance on those . . . who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus . . . [and who] suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). I was not a son of God. God was not my Father. He was my judge and executioner. I was a “son of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2). I was dead in trespasses and sins. And the sentence of my Judge was clear and terrifying: “Because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 5:6).

There was only one hope for me—that the infinite wisdom of God might make a way for the love of God to satisfy the wrath of God so that I might become a son of God.

This is exactly what happened, and I will sing of it forever. After saying that I was by nature a child of wrath, Paul says, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (Ephesians 2:4-5). “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son . . . to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” God sent his Son to rescue me from his wrath and make me his child.

How did he do it? He did it in the way Steve Chalke slanderously calls “cosmic child abuse.” God’s Son bore God’s curse in my place. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—..."

John Piper

Tim,
This article does draw the lines very clearly. Piper's view, (and I agree with him) outlines the difference between those who take scripture literally, and those who interpret the Bible based on their preconceived view of what God should be like.

Stan

Authored by: Stan Ermshar on Tuesday, July 11 2006 @ 11:04 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Just as a little P.S. to the above. Since you brought up the subject of medical diagnosis above, maybe what we are seeing on the above discussions is the difference between how an Internist looks at problems vs. how a Psychiatrist looks at problems. My specialty tends to be more scientific and objective, whereas your specialty is more subjective? (Said tongue in cheek of course and with a smiley face!)

Oh well, just a lighter note on a very serious subject.

Stan

Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 08:03 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

I regret that my comments have somehow been heard as a personal attack against you, not at all, my comments have been meant to attack, and hopefully destroy, what I believe are false representations about God. Jesus said, “ MT 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” And Paul has said in 2 Cor 10:3-5, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

So I am absolutely hostile to everything that sets itself up against the knowledge of God and as I have made it abundantly clear I believe that the theology you present is against the knowledge of God. But Greg, I am not hostile to you. I am hopeful that you will see the beauty of God as revealed in the face of Jesus and also reject views of God that make Him into an evil, power mongering abuser.

Tim

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

Stan,

Piper did a great job of again showing the problem. In His world view, much like some SDA theologians I could name, the problem with sin is not sin but a god who is angry and wrathful and must execute his son in order to calm himself down enough to be forgiving, a rather revolting and disgusting view and completely in harmony with Satan’s allegations all along. I find that the Bible teaches a completely different view when one recognizes that Jesus is the lens through which all Scripture must be understood. But Piper has failed to realize this and has contributed to “two gods” one who is stern and wrathful and the other loving and selfless and the loving god sacrifices himself to assuage the anger of the wrathful god. Piper’s diagnosis of the sin problem is wrong. I also believe that the scientific approach of considering all the evidence and learning how to synthesize through it is essential to seeing the truth as revealed in Jesus. I appreciate your dialogue and am thankful for your honesty in presenting your position. I think this thread will be useful for others who are struggling to discern the two views of God.

Tim

p.s. you suggested there are some who take the Scriptures literally and some who interpret the Bible – as if you and Piper don’t interpret the Bible based on your views, your preconceived ideas? I can tell you, my preconceived ideas were what you and Piper teach. I was raised, indoctrinated into that perspective and those ideas were my preconceived ideas. It was only by prayerful study and willingness to consider all the passages of Scripture and ask “what does this mean” that I discovered my preconceived ideas were wrong and the Bible teaches a God completely different than what Piper or you are advocating. As an example of the preconceived ideas that people with your view bring: in the post preceding yours, Lynric cited Matthew 10:28 as evidence that God will kill people or torture them with fire in the end. But the Scripture doesn’t say that. It uses the word “one” to which a person must “read in” their meaning and if one has a preconceived idea that God is the one who is the source of torment and death then they automatically read in that God will torture and kill. Such examples are numerous, that is why there are so many different Christian denominations.

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

Lynric,

You quoted the passage in Romans and then said “These are the words of Scripture. Now, we can explain them away, or we can decide that we can't dismiss any part of Scripture
without doing damage to the text. If we were in a literature class, we couldn't draw conclusions beyond what the text actually supports.” If I understand you right you are suggesting we are not suppose to ask, “what does it mean” if the Scripture says it then it says it and that is the end of it. Well, let’s apply this approach to a few Scriptures. Let’s take the one that Greg is so happy to quote, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24 ESV). And then let’s take one other passage of Scripture, of course just as they read, without asking what they mean… “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.” (James 2:19). So here we have it, taking it as they read here the devils have crossed over from death to life. Are you or Greg comfortable with this approach to reading the Bible? Because that is what you both have been doing with your application of the passages throughout this dialogue. I think we both realize such an application doesn’t work. We must go beyond what the passages say and ask, “what does it mean” and this is where it becomes challenging and the best policy is to take all the passages of Scripture and find a meaning in which all are included and all are in harmony.

Regarding election and free will, there is no difficulty in bringing these texts to balance and understanding if we understand the truth about God as revealed in Jesus. God elected to send Christ to reveal the truth and save the race, by what Christ accomplished in Himself. God elected to extend the remedy freely to ALL individual specimens of humanity. All individuals must use their free will to elect to receive this free gift. And God also elects to choose some individuals for certain tasks or positions within His plan to heal and restore, but He does not elect some to receive the remedy and some not to receive the remedy.

Finally, you are absolutely correct that there is one God, but you seem unwilling to accept that “false Christ’s have gone out into the world” and that “another gospel” is being preached with another version of God. So, my question still remains and is the central and truly only relevant question in the controversy between Christ and Satan, which God do you prefer? The true God as revealed by Jesus or the distorted view as presented by so many religious systems and religious leaders?

Tim

Authored by: Steven C Schrode on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 01:06 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

First let me copy a post – maybe this is the post you did not read on the thread, “The Other Gospel” – since I have not seen any posts from you on that thread and only the posts you are now making are on the 1844 thread. The reason I want to place this in my post is as I hope to answer your questions; however, this post contained a very important question I needed to ask you, for you reply would/will have bearing on formulating my further responses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 28 2006 @ 02:40 PM PDT

Hello Greg,

I have been following this thread since the beginning. I hate missing the weekend day posts, as this is the object of my relaxation for my break time. If I post, which is not often, the information is printed out and read at home, composed in Microsoft Word then posted the next day(s).
QUOTE
On Tuesday, June 27, 2006, your response to Mark on his question about belief in predestination was given in the affirmative.

Now I would like to pose a question about your view(s) of soteriology, since this idea of the “Other Gospel” has a bearing on our individual belief system in the doctrine of salvation as affected by Christ. I believe it is not who is right but what is right in the view of salvation.

I do not have a Rolodex of bible quotations to fill the page about any number of given topics – although there are times it would be nice to not have to search for texts: I do not have a Rolodex file of Spirit of Prophecy (SOP) quotes to throw into the mix. There is agreement with your reasoning about taking the Bible for what it says, however, we need to allow the word of God to interpret itself by comparing scripture with scripture.

As a Seventh-day Adventist – by looking at my Bio, one could assume and be correct not the best of the SDA’s – I believe we are able to take – full hold of – all of our beliefs by using the scripture only – with many thanks to Martin Luther. I also hold the firm belief in the Spirit of Prophecy – which I believe is information God gave in revelation to the person of Ellen G. White.

This gives you a little idea of where I am coming from denominationally, anyways! Therefore, while you are in mental (not making offense to any) discussions with the host of HS.com; I would like to ask one question awaiting your answer allowing you to ask one awaiting my response; yet never making it [that] personal. Since we have already emailed if you prefer emailing this is satisfactory, nevertheless, I do not mind questions and answers on HS.com. I do not want to make this an exclusion of any other’s, however, I do believe is just answering and asking individual questions will allow me to further understand your position and in this process allow me to clarify my own.

Question: I would like to know the form of your predestinarianism. Example: Is the form of predestination full-blown (possibly not the best word) Calvinistic – everything by the Will of God – leaving mankind no choice in the process of Salvation or is it a modified form such as the Southern Baptist; that is allowing persons to make their own decision for Christ and salvation but after the decision is made there is no possibility of changing the mind and turning down Salvation? Thank you Greg and Welcome to HS.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, my request is that you answer the above question before or as you are responding to this reply. I only ask this because it will allow me to formulate (maybe) a more understandable and realistic reply to any other further questions between thee and me. Not trying to be redundant, nevertheless, this is important positional information for further discussion because we need to know somewhat the foundational area we are approaching each other.

Thank you for pointing out the product of my statements as a priori beliefs. Although, I do not believe this is the terminology you wanted to use. Since it is more then possible my age is greater then yours – having nothing to do with the formulation of qualified apologetics – only pointing out there may have been a change in difinition for the word “a priori.”

Webster’s New International Dictionary, second edition, which was given to me on December 25, 1957, which weighs about twenty-five pounds, this Dictionary I will use for the definition of the word, “a priori.”

“a priori; Designating, or pertaining to, that which can be known by reason alone, as contrasted with that which is a posteriori, which cannot be known except through experience; characterizing that kind of reasoning which deduces consequences from definitions formed, or principles assumed; deductive; deductively; as, an a priori argument.”

“Deduction; deduction, as contrasted with induction, is distinguished by the fact that the conclusion is certain and necessary if the premises are. In general, conclusions reached by induction are probable only. Deduction proceeds from general principles to other general principles or to particulars; induction seeks to establish general principles or laws by examination or particular cases.”

It is my belief – and if I am in error please note in the next post – you really meant to allude to was my being a proof-text SDA. Meaning, I will or can take any thought regarding the bible and then search for texts to prove my point. Example: Belief in life after death: King Saul and the Witch of Endor in raising Samuel from the dead. A proof-text SDA or Christian would take that story out of context from the rest of the bible and place their belief on the state of the dead by this alone. I do not feel the proof-text research for truth can be attributed to me. Since I followed the premise established by Isaiah in chapter 28:13; “But the word of the Lord was to them, “”Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little, That they might go and fall backward, and be broken and snared and caught.” (NKJV) Psalm 51:7-10,17,18; “For behold, you look for truth deep within me, and will make me understand wisdom secretly. 8) Purge me from my sin, and I shall be pure; wash me, and I shall be clean indeed. 9) Make me hear of joy and gladness that the body you have broken may rejoice. 10) Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. 17) Had you desired it, I would have offered sacrifice, but you take no delight in burnt offerings. 18) The sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” (The Book of Common Prayer)

By reason alone, if the tabernacle in the wilderness was a pattern of the tabernacle in heaven would you not expect to find two apartments contained within the sanctuary in heaven, otherwise, why would God go to the extreme of telling Moses to make all according to what God had shown him. Before you now ask the question; “Why is there not mention of the court in the heavenly sanctuary?” Revelation 11:1,2; “”Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. In addition, the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the alter, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city under foot for forty-two months.”” Reason would explain, in my opinion, the non-mention of the court is this was where the sacrifices were held and by the time John wrote the Revelation the sacrifice had already be made for all eternity. Thereby, John’s angel seems to be alluding to the earth being the court that the gentiles were to tread under for the forty-two months.

I feel vindicated by the credit given in your post about my presentation of ‘a lot of heavenly geography,’ indicating my studies have been not in vain. I would like for your response to present the opposing view by Elder Ballanger and Elder Ford in pointing out from the bible only – remember no EGW – the error(s) of my presentation of the impossibility of Christ as High Priest serving in the holy place before the cross. And if in my deduction of the two thrones in the heavenly sanctuary, nevertheless, this leaves open – maybe more then open – the reality of Christ upon his ascension sitting at the right-hand of the Father upon the throne in the holy place on the side of the north.

The question was, “Don’t you find it strange that no Christian scholar outside of Adventism has ever “”discovered’’ the two-apartment sanctuary doctrine through Bible study alone?” Sorry but to this question I have to answer, ‘NO.’ However, do you not find as strange that most Christian scholars in teaching futurism or preterism are teaching Roman Catholic Doctrine invented at the 38 year council of Tent invented by the Jesuit’s, Cardinal Ribera, Cardinal Bellermine, and (priest) Alcazar. The futurist are teaching that the 70th week arrives at the end of time, nevertheless, destroying the one prophecy – that of the 70weeks – which is the most faith confirming prophecy proving that Christ is just who he said he was by dying in the middle of the 70th week. How is it I would want to follow Christian scholars who are unable or unwilling to realize their understanding of prophecy and prophecies relationship to the end-time is Roman Catholic Doctrine, which was promoted to combat the teaching of the protestant reformation?

It is because of the movement of Christ Jesus into the second apartment of the sanctuary that the Advent Movement – which was inter-denominational – in 1844 which brought the Seventh-day Adventist Church into being. If this is not the truth, then we have no reason for coming into being and we are only adding to the confusion – the babble – of Christian Churches. I would think (poor choice of word?) in your own studies the realization would have struck home that the majority belief system does not make right. In studying, the life of Christ was there ever a time in which he was part of the Majority.

Response to question regarding John 5:24; how do you then reconcile the many forms of belief? NKJV Luke 8:11-15; “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12) Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13) But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. 14) And the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of lie, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15) But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the work with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.” NKJV John 1:1-4; “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) He was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4) In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.”

How is it that, there are or seems to be different forms of hearing and believing. If we only have to believe, we do not come into judgment. Yet, Christ points out there are different hears and believers. Is John 5:24 a blanket statement or is it a statement with qualifications? The appearance to my mind is there is a qualification not only in hearing and believing but also in the continued hearing and believing. NKJV Revelation 3:10-13; “Because you have kept my command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. 11) Behold, I come quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown. 12) He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name. 13) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Since these are the words of Christ as written by, John of the Revelation which was given by God to Christ to inform His servants, it is possible there is more then just belief. We are given the command to persevere; we are to hold fast or we may lose our crown; we are to overcome; we are to use our ears to hear not only the Spirit but also the living and written Word – Christ Jesus.

I do not believe it is a fatal logical flaw to fully take Christ at His word in John 5:24, nor, in believing the plain words of Jesus, nevertheless, in NKJV John 5:39,40; it does appear Christ is asking much more, 39) “You search [“looking for the hidden, deeper meaning”] the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40) But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”

I myself see no reason to lead and bait a forth-coming reply to one’s post-reference the remark towards Tim: These questions are between us and if Tim would like to comment it should on any part of are posts without a reference point guided by the remarks of someone else. Having read almost all 50 plus pages of this thread, Tim seems well able to make judgments on what it is he wishes to reply too. But for further posts between us, I would like to leave out the names of others and if they respond I am sure we will answer them just as personal and individually as we are doing. Since I have agreed too – I believe it is your terms; if I am wrong please inform me of this – not to use EGW because the new theology see her as the enemy the curse of the SDA church seeming to hold the doctrine of the Sanctuary, the investigative judgment, the date of 1844, the 2300 days and the 70 weeks, in my readings which I will not bring EGW to the table because with those personages the preference is to stay with the bible and the bible only. If this is acceptable to you then let us discover not WHO IS RIGHT BUT WHAT IS RIGHT ACCORDING TO SCRIPTIURE

---
In Christian Fellowship
SCS

Authored by: Greg on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 01:52 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Steve,

You have posted many questions and I don't have time to answer them all at this moment, but I will answer the first question you asked about predestination. I will get to the others later as my work and time permits.

Incidentally, one of the definitions for "a priori" according to the American Heritage dictionary is "Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study."

Your point is well taken at the end about not including personal references to anyone else on this thread. The problem is that when we can't even agree to take the words of the Bible as they read, but instead prefer our own paraphrase, there's really no foundational basis for arriving at truth or communication. In posting texts without comment, I have been accused of twisting the Bible, but in the same breath others paraphrase whole passages of the Bible to "prove" a point.

To answer your first question about predestination, I think it's probably pretty clear from reading my prior posts here that I believe in the doctrine of election and the sovereignty of God. Instead of reposting all the texts to support my view, I will simply post a paragraph that accurately summarizes my position taken from Donald Grey Barnhouse:

"[S]ome may ask what [the doctrine of election] does to the doctrine of the freedom of the human will. The Bible's answer is that the will is free for man to choose what he wishes to eat and drink, what he wishes to wear, where he wishes to go, and with whom he wishes to go. The will is free to work or to be lazy, to be charitable or to be miserly. There are ten thousand thousand things which the will is free to do, but in many fields the human will is not free. The old man cannot choose to be young; the sick man cannot choose to be well. The slow man cannot choose to be a champion runner. The moron cannot choose to be intelligent. The world may mark your report card and give you an 'A' for effort, but you will still fail in many things because you are simply not able in spite of all your choosing. In all these fields we can see the failure of the human will. Then we enter into the deep mystery of sovereign grace. God Almighty says that when the human race sinned, the will died in that fall so far as any choice about God was concerned. Man could choose to jump off the top of a cliff, but once having jumped, he could no longer choose to avoid the consequences of that great fall. In every part of the Bible, we have the divine revelation that man sinned, that in the sin he fell from God, and that in the fall there was spiritual death. The Lord Jesus Christ said, 'No man can come to me except the Father draw him' (John 6:44)."

Greg

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Steven C Schrode on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 04:04 PM PDT

Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 05:13 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

You stated to Steven, in reference to me, “The problem is that when we can't even agree to take the words of the Bible as they read, but instead prefer our own paraphrase, there's really no foundational basis for arriving at truth or communication. In posting texts without comment, I have been accused of twisting the Bible, but in the same breath others paraphrase whole passages of the Bible to "prove" a point.”

I want to give you an opportunity to rephrase this, for I am assuming you didn’t mean to accuse me of using a paraphrase to “prove” a point, as if the paraphrase was authoritative, but hopefully, you meant to say I used a paraphrase as a way of expressing my personal understanding of the meaning of that particular passage. If you somehow thought I was using the paraphrase authoritatively, please remember I prefaced it with “below is Romans 9, starting in verse three as I understand it” simple expressing my understanding of the passage. And hasn’t that been what this entire dialogue has been about, trying to come to understand the way each other understands the Scripture?

Greg, do you really stop and hear what you are saying? Do you really believe that you take the Bible just as it reads? Let’s apply your own words and your own claims and see if you really mean it:

Let’s start with the text you love to quote, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24 ESV). And then let’s take one other passage of Scripture, of course just as they read, without asking what they mean… “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.” (James 2:19). Let’s take them “just like they read” and we can now conclude that the demons believe and have passed from death to life. Do you stand by what you say? Or are you willing to modify your position? And if you modify here you must modify in regards to election and predestination as well.

Let’s look at another text, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” (1John 4:1-3). And then compare Luke 8:26-28 “They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee. When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don't torture me!" Let’s take them just like they read and we can conclude, using your method of interpretation, that the demon spirit was from God? Do you stand by what you say? Or are you willing to modify you position? And if you modify here you must modify in regards to election and predestination as well.

One more, What about Dt. 18:21,22 “You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” And then compare Jonah 3:3,4 “Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city--a visit required three days. On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." Was the city overturned in 40 days? Was there any condition to this prophecy, like repent or else it will be overturned? So let’s take these passages as they read and we must conclude Jonah is a false prophet. Do you stand by what you say? Are you starting to see the total failure of the method of interpretation you advocate? One must go way beyond “taking the Bible as it reads” and ask, “what does it mean” are you willing to acknowledge this? And if so then you must modify your position in regards to the texts on election and predestination as well.

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 06:30 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim, you said this:

“I want to give you an opportunity to rephrase this, for I am assuming you didn’t mean to accuse me of using a paraphrase to 'prove' a point, as if the paraphrase was authoritative, but hopefully, you meant to say I used a paraphrase as a way of expressing my personal understanding of the meaning of that particular passage.”

I don’t think this needs to be rephrased because you and others on this forum have used paraphrases and "thought for thought" translations extensively as a basis for your doctrinal beliefs.

You said: “If you somehow thought I was using the paraphrase authoritatively, please remember I prefaced it with ‘below is Romans 9, starting in verse three as I understand it’ simple expressing my understanding of the passage. And hasn’t that been what this entire dialogue has been about, trying to come to understand the way each other understands the Scripture?”

The problem Tim, is your paraphrase is diametrically opposed to the underlying biblical text. How do you get “Jacob accepted my love, but Esau did not” from “Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated”? By so fundamentally changing the words of Scripture, you’ve effectively placed yourself in a position of authority over it.

You said: “Greg, do you really stop and hear what you are saying? Do you really believe that you take the Bible just as it reads?”

Yes I do, and I’m saddened you don’t and that you are expending so much energy in an attempt to prove that God is a poor communicator.

You said: “Let’s start with the text you love to quote,”

Don’t you love to quote this text? I find it tremendously reassuring to know that God will not subject me to the judgment he has planned for unbelievers.

Continuing, you then quoted John 5:24 and James 2:19 and with sarcasm, stated that there’s no way to take these verses just as they read as if to say, “See, I’m right. Checkmate! You really can’t trust the Bible just as it reads!”

You then say: “Let’s take them ‘just like they read’ and we can now conclude that the demons believe and have passed from death to life. Do you stand by what you say? Or are you willing to modify your position? And if you modify here you must modify in regards to election and predestination as well.”

Oh, if it were only that easy to prove the Bible is the obscure, contradiction-riddled text you believe it to be. Please consider the following:

1.) James 2:19 refers to demons who believe that “God is one,” while John 5:24 refers to people hearing the words of Jesus and believing in God who sent him. Big difference, wouldn’t you say? The former is an endorsement of monotheism and the latter is a response to drinking the living water of Jesus Christ. Thus, you can easily believe these passages "just as they read" and rightly conclude they are speaking of different concepts.

2.) James is referring to the “shema” of Israel in this passage. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:4-5). The demons clearly believe the first sentence, but obviously don’t believe the second. In contrast, a person who hears the words of Jesus and believes in God will believe both sentences.

3.) Jesus Christ did not make blood atonement on the cross for demons, so salvation is not available to them. To conclude that the faith exercised in John 5:24 and James 2:19 have the same result ignores this basic truth.

You can post example after example of supposed biblical contradictions, but isn’t it more reasonable to submit yourself to the God-breathed Scriptures? Anything else leaves you in the intractable position of making God a poor communicator who must be clarified by paraphrase and personal belief.

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 07:31 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Thank you so much, you did an excellent job of demonstrating how someone must do more than take the Bible as it reads, they must read into it the meaning. The text didn't say anything about sherma, you understood that from other study and brought that understanding to bear on the text. Beautifully done.

Let us continue to do such a good job with other texts of Scripture.

So now rubber on the road, it is obvious you do not value the God that is being promoted on this website and you have demonstrated no interest in growing your understanding in this direction, so what is your purpose on this site? The evidences of your posts suggest you are here to prove this site and the beliefs we value wrong. Is that your purpose?

Tim

p.s. My purpose on this site is to promote the truth about the only true God that I have come to love and admire as revealed in the life of Jesus, the God for which this site exists.

Authored by: Greg on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 07:55 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

Interesting you should pick on point number two when point number one does a good job of explaining the supposed contradiction you presented through a simple reading of the text.

You said, “The evidences of your posts suggest you are here to prove this site and the beliefs we value wrong. Is that your purpose?”

If your beliefs were wrong, wouldn’t you want someone to tell you? If your beliefs are correct, won’t they stand up to scrutiny?

Greg

Authored by: Tim on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 08:05 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Greg,

Thank you again for making it clear your agenda here. I have presented the truth, in love, and now leave you free to draw your own conclusion. Choose wisely.

Good-bye and may the God of truth and love be with you,

Tim

Authored by: Greg on Wednesday, July 12 2006 @ 08:12 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Tim,

You didn't answer my questions.

You have dismissed me presumptuously but it looks more like an easy way out of a uphill battle.

Greg

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: brad on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 09:59 AM PDT

Authored by: brad on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 10:48 AM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

I should also say Greg, that I believe a good defense of this position about God, including hell-fire and many of the things that we have discussed, were made at our conference a few weeks ago. We will soon have them available for streaming on the internet, so I hope that this will be helpful in seeing where we are coming from. Best wishes, Brad

---
I accept truth, no matter how humble the instrument

Authored by: Greg on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 07:39 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

Brad,

I will listen to the conference presentations once they are available and I hope to see the God presented in the light He has revealed Himself.

I'm curious what you or anyone else thinks about John 5:24 since it seems germaine to the article you wrote above.

Greg

Authored by: Greg on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 07:44 PM PDT 1844 and the Investigative Judgment

The sentence above should read: "I will listen to the conference presentations once they are available and I hope to see the God of the Bible presented in the light He has revealed Himself."

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: brad on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:38 AM PDT

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: Greg on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 06:50 PM PDT

1844 and the Investigative Judgment - Authored by: brad on Saturday, July 15 2006 @ 07:21 PM PDT

First | Previous | 1 2 | Next | Last

My Account

FINANCIAL GIFT

Online Tool

Click Here for Video/Text Conferencing

What's New

Stories

No new stories

Comments last 2 days

No new comments

Files last 14 days

No new files
No new comments

Links last 2 weeks

No new links

Media Gallery last 30 days

No new media items

1844 and the Investigative Judgment

What's Related

Story Options

113 comments

My Account

FINANCIAL GIFT

Online Tool

What's New

Stories

Comments last 2 days

Files last 14 days

Links last 2 weeks

Media Gallery last 30 days