The Investigative Judgment Has Three Main Problems


(George Tichy) #117

You see? Baby steps in the process of introducing a “certain materials.” A reading, a video, a private email,…


(AZ) #118

A sanctuary destroyed and rebuilt at each waymark. 457, 34, 1844. what is the meaning of a sanctuary destroyed and rebuilt (not an altar, mind you, but an entire sanctuary of furniture) and you have the mission of the SDA church.


#119

Interesting thought!


#120

BUMP Anyone? How do these two quotes comport?



The Adventist Bioethics Consortium (Day 2)
(Greg Cox) #121

ok, sorry for the late reply - yes I believe you are understanding this. Is there something more I can dialogue with you about this?


#122

No problem, Greg.

My understanding is this:

  1. Ellen White says blood of individuals’ sacrifices went into Sanctuary.
  2. Bible says it didn’t.
  3. You likewise say it didn’t.
  4. Appendix of Patriarchs and Prophets says it didn’t.

Yes. Where did the blood of individuals’ sacrifices go?

This is confusing.

Thanks.


Evil: Ancient and Modern
(Greg Cox) #123

Hi GraveVessel,
I will do my best to answer your pondering as they do warrant earnest discussion as we press into the Kingdom together;
YOU WROTE: “I still don’t see where the “framework of the SDA explanation of the IJ” permeates any trust and faith regarding where Jesus currently is – which is Heaven.”

RESPONSE: I’m only a 3.5 year bible student (I’m counting the year mark as the date when I returned to Christ in repentance and started studying scripture with prayer and Holy Spirit guidance). I would say that the IJ, from my perspective, is all about Christ offering Grace as he mediates the New Covenant in the Most Holy in heaven. We are presented as flawed sinners, yet Christ’s own atonement and propitiation for our due penalty was paid. In that IJ process we are found sin-free, guilt-free, and loved so much that he died to offer His own blood for us.

YOU: "i want to go there to meet Him shouldn’t that be the motivational imperative that I should commit to and uphold? and better yet encourage others to experience God in a unique and vibrant way?"
ANSWER: YES! Scripture teaches that because of Christ’s High Priest position we can now enter the Throne of Grace (temple in heaven) for bold confidence!

YOU:" "How does the NT bible teach that (not EGW).?"
RESPONSE: as I stated above

YOU: "Jesus is waiting to fellowship with each of us now, individually?"
RESPONSE: Yes, Absolutely

YOU: "how does the IJ teach that?"
RESPONSE: Yes! Absolutely!

YOU: " I see alot of grace at the throne to help me in my need… how can I experience cleansing without assurance?"
RESPONSE: If you believe that Christ arose from the dead and will return then THAT is your reassurance of Salvation. As for “cleansing without assurance” - I’m not sure what you mean on that point.


(George Tichy) #124

Cassie at her best behavior… :wink: :innocent:


#125

Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly.

‘Cept I’m a nice spider. I just want to have a bracing cup of red clover tea with my lil friend. :slight_smile:


(George Tichy) #126

LOL
As I said, the best of you in action!!!
Enjoy the spider’s dance… and drink that blood!!! :wink:


#127

Mercy me, as all Ellen White peeps know, red clover tea cleanses the blood.

My motives are pure as the driven snow, doncha know? :slight_smile:

I’m a Social Justice Warrior Spider Woman: leave no creature tangled in cognitive webs, if I can help it!

Catch and Release!!!

Web Design is my specialty.

image


#128

I will try to state in more of “actionable verbage”. The IJ (given the premise that you include the premise that - perfection is something that you achieve… (not receive))… this draws the conclusion that the “perfect achievement” where the LGT (in all of its “wordsmithed versions” presets that God is waiting on us to “achieve a state of perfection” which initiates Last Day Events.

Further, and this is my conviction regarding the “state of our salvation” which seems to be at issue in this discussion, if by choice at the “judgement bar” my name gets “blotted out”, this means that it WAS THERE before it was blotted out. Frame of view wise, in SDA parlance, all must be “grafted in” and the inset point by default – equates to an “obedience quotient”.

Not only is SDA (its multiple versions of the rainbow spectrum of inside out/outside in, non-EGW or EGW equivalent proof fexting) based on the acceptance or validation of another’s view---- this is (for the most part) non-valueable. George T, say this regularly in his response - it’s odd that another opinion is not valueable especially if you dont agree with it.

I find value in some of the LGT responses because of the biblical reference in the response, just as I see value in other responses. However, I’ll end with this ponder… since God rewards those who diligently seek Him, dont you think that the law is “written into” our hearts via the “process of our diligently seeking”… or is is something we achieve. Personal contact time with God, is an individual manner, and since God values us (as we realize more of that by contact time with Him, then others we view as valueable.

Thus… I find SDA culture and church worship, not about seeking God, but about focusing solely on obedience and it’s inherit value regarding to the law (and not to grace). Hebrews tells us to go BOLDLY to the throne…
and grace is there. That should give us solace, peace, and assurance.

with kind regards,

Gracevessel


#129

Cassie, as I understand your posts regarding this, and please review what I am saying here,(for clarification) but per my multiple readings of the "meaning of Jesus as our priest (in all of it’s functions) is detailed in Hebrews chapters 7-10, is that He (Jesus) sat down. One of the “pre-mats” (assumptive conclusions that all of current thought and perspectives out there…understand the monotheistic view point)… which most of us in today’s polytheistic mindset DO NOT understand… It doesn’t necessarily clear up the double view point from what is quoted here from EGW. However, and this is from a covenant perspective.

The actual preset of the discussion of Hebrews 7-10 (Sanctuary related/covenant related scriptures). is predicated on the understanding of the NT “sabbath rest” concept. (Hebrews chap 3/4). Therefore there remains a “sabbath rest”. Jesus fulfills the contradiction above by sourcing the NT directive, regarding

  1. the state of the Most High priest,
  2. His “once for all” which is informative, directional, and specific.
  3. We are pointed to a throne of grace.
  4. And this just occurred to me while thinking about your commentary regarding the quote confusion. “Let us therefore”. is imperative in the present tense, – Jesus having settled forever, “after the order of Melchizedek”… the permanent state of His Most High priestly office (having sat down). This means that to clear up this verse we rely on the NT directive as the final conclusion - not the EGW quote, which should give precedent to the Hebrews “declaratives”…

Hebrews 12: (someone with greek I would like to “tense” this verse… ) per my reading it’s not a future thing to be accomplished but is present tense/imperative?

_**28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our “God is a consuming fire"


(Greg Cox) #130

I’ve never advocated that perfection is something you achieve.


#131

To be honest Greg, i am not sure in what context you are replying with “I’ve never advocated that perfection is something you achieve”. Please elaborate.

On another note. The Investigative Judgment process, when looking at it “since my last name starts with Z” kind of thinking… I (as a younger believer) had issue thinking that thru… which leads me to a very important issue and point… (junction point).

If we have a walk/relationship with Jesus (and view this as factual), then every day, (as we behold with reference and awe God’s handiwork in our lives)… we understand in real terms, practical terms, His judgment in our lives. This begs of “whatever truth” that should be present with the (IJ), should be in the “now”… and informative, and reassuring.

Also, in an odd sort of way, given the historicist (viewpoint), the IJ (as usually presented within SDA parlance) is both futurist/preterist… in that it’s not present but focus on a preset date.

To bring this into focus. Jesus, as our MHP, “having sat down”, provides us with all the grace needed to “experience” the gospel, … not just accept it intellectually…

God gives us a “tool box” or skillset, and works incessantly thru His will to give us opportunities to “exercise” faith. Since He is in heaven, and IS MHP. This gives me assurance, that He loves me, is interceding, “present tense”, LGT thinking, in my view, has not – “explained” relational faith – only “obedience” justification… when they have a “relative” and applicable (grace format) to present the NT gospel – then I welcome a solid biblical understanding of it

with kind regards,


(George Tichy) #132

This is a major problem in Adventism. Focusing on obedience as the main point in one’s spiritual life is a very defeating, frustrating experience. Imagine a turtle’s frustration trying to catch a rabbit!

If we preach that one didn’t reach God’s favor because of lack of total obedience, sooner or later the person will just throw the towel because of “unreachability.” Sometimes atheists are made this way!

Now, if one relies on God’s grace, deposes his/her own desires to “obey,” follows the rules the best possible, behaves as Jesus taught…, well, then there is always hope ahead and no need to just quit the spiritual marathon.

Just my current opinion, after “having been there, having done that”…


(Johnny Carson) #133

And you never came back…


(Johnny Carson) #134

Not anymore. Seems the author is getting greedy. Always follow the money. :joy:


(Johnny Carson) #135

The urge to complicate the Gospel to the point that it requires the amount of time and energy being put into it in argument of one’s position is in itself an abdication of Gospel principles, not to mention a form of idolatry. Whether the mechanisms being described are true or false they are at best only informative to the inquiring mind. Certainly they are not necessary to understanding or receiving salvation, as demonstrated by the countless thousands who have received salvation without the slightest hint of the intricacies being argued. I rest my case.


#136

A dozen times the NT says that Christ sat down at the right hand of the father when he ascended to heaven. But nobody claims that Christ has sat down at the right hand of the Father for 2000 years and hasn’t moved from his seat. Stephen saw him “standing at the right hand of the father” just before he was stoned to death. Sitting or standing at the right hand of a king represents that a battle is over and victory is won. It’s symbolic. The battle was won at the cross. Not in 1844. The typical Day of Atonement was not about the “day.” It was about the shed blood. On the anti-typical Day of Atonement, it wasn’t about the “day.” The timing was not the central theme. It was the blood shed by our Savior at Calvary that is the central theme. The atonement for our sins (atonement requires sacrificial blood) was on Calvary. What blood was shed in 1844 for our sins? This IJ doctrine is as anti-gospel as was the Catholic teaching during the Dark Ages. The Apostle Paul said around 50 AD. “We NOW (NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW) have the atonement…” long before 1844.

This IJ doctrine dilutes the true gospel in my opinion. “If any man preach any other gospel…”

Scary… if you ask me!