The Investigative Judgment Has Three Main Problems


#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!


#137

Now that deserves an AMEN!
All this tripe about days/years/cleansed/sanctuary when it is so clear He went to be with the Father at His ascension. End of debate. How was it ever allowed to start?


(George Tichy) #138

They used the “Trumpian Maneuver” which is,
repeating an absurdity times enough until people believe it.

But why did they do that? Certainly because they needed a “distinctive mark” to make sure they were different from other Christians. This is why the distinctive mark became untouchable. And still is!


#139

Yes, and this “mark” makes me skittish. It’s anti-gospel. It’s a different gospel than the New Testament gospel. Open your eyes, my fellow Adventists! Pray for wisdom and knowledge. Stop following tradition! We poke fun at the Evangelicals for their Sunday tradition when we are doing just as wrong with the IJ which is built on shifting sand, none of it biblical. None of it.


(jeremy) #140

virginia, i get the feeling that you’re a bit unfamiliar with this subject…it is true that the cross represents victory for christ over the temptations that satan was allowed to assail him with during his incarnation on earth…and it is true that it also represents potential victory for each one of us in our battle with evil if we take up our own cross of self-denial…but as you know, even the OT says that jesus is at his father’s right hand - a metaphor for favour and co-regency - while his father is in the process of making jesus’ enemies his footstool, Ps 110:1…in other words, a victory over satan, and everyone satan controls, is still unfolding for christ after he has been exalted to the father’s right hand…that victory wasn’t achieved at the cross, which occurred before jesus was exalted to his father’s right hand…

as you also know, Daniel 7 talks of jesus receiving his everlasting kingdom after a judgement that strips the fourth beast of its kingdom has taken place…why don’t you think this important chapter mentions jesus’ death on the cross as the prerequisite to his receiving his kingdom…isn’t it interesting that 1844/IJ fulfills this clear prerequisite to a tee, while the cross, which occurred centuries before, does not…

in addition, and again, as think you must know, there were sacrifices associated with the OT sanctuary besides the sacrifices on the day of atonement…do you think it’s fair to say, as john the baptist implied, that jesus came to fulfill all of these sacrifices, Jn 1:29…your confusion is centered around thinking that the only sacrifice the cross can represent is the day of atonement sacrifice…but did you know that the day of atonement had more than one sacrifice, namely a bullock, a ram, and a kid, while christ is portrayed as the slain lamb of god in Rev 5…do you think this incongruity of animal sacrifices suggests that jesus is the antitype of the sacrifices that took place during the days, weeks and months leading up to the day of atonement, in addition to the sacrifices that took place on the day of atonement…do you think christ was the bread of life, and the light of the world, as he himself proclaimed, which were symbolized by the shewbread and menorah in the holy place of the OT sanctuary…in other words, do you think christ fulfilled aspects of the OT testament sanctuary in addition to the day of atonement and its most holy place context…jesus seemed to think so…why do you think he never talked about the day of atonement…

i suggest you pick up a copy of egw’s Great Controversy and read it from cover to cover, and fast (the other books in the Conflict of the Ages series would also help)…it would also be useful to read the books of moses, the books of the OT prophets and the psalms, which were the backdrop over which paul was writing in Hebrews…finally, i would stay away from the NIV version of Hebrews…it is a total amalgamation of confusion between text and context in the case of this particular and important book, even though it is useful in other biblical settings…


(George Tichy) #141

Jeremy, I have the impression that Virginia @VirginiaUSA is actually a lot familiar with the issue. This is why that person (s/he?*) wrote that post so vehemently and so correctly. Of course, if one prefers to do like you and base everything on EGW, then of course the stories and facts will not match with the Biblical views. It all boils down to either being a Biblical Adventist or a Whiteist Adventist.

*Sorry @VirginiaUSA, I am not sure if this is your first name or if you are referring to Virginia State where you may be from. Please clarify.


(jeremy) #142

lol…george, that’s only because she/he agrees with you…Ps 110 and Dan 7 have nothing to do with egw…she doesn’t even cite Ps 110 in this context that i’m aware of…

ps…i think you’re right that virginiaUSA refers to the state…in any case it’s definitely a pseudonym…this could be a case of yet another church employee who doesn’t want his or her name out there…


#143

Kevin Paulson is over on F7 stating that Christ could’ve sat at the right hand of God in the 1st or 2nd apartment before or after 1844 and the veil of separation must still be there in the heavenly version of the temple cuz Ellen saw it in a vision. Did you get the memo?


(George Tichy) #144

We just need to know if we call the person HE or SHE, just to be appropriate.
@VirginiaUSA