Who is right?tradtional adventists or Desmond Ford?

[Guest truthseeker007]

Desmond Ford doesn t believe the day year principle of Daniel is valid, he also doesn t believe the 2300 evening mornings can be red as 2300 days. In fact he doesn t believe 1844 is a prophetic date. He also doesn t believe that the second beast coming out of the earth is the United States. He also does not believe in an investigative judgement.

As i am studying these things i can see two things clearly. One, the church leadership has caused a lot of troubles by not being open and by elevating Ellen White to a prophetic position way beyond the Corinthians description of a prophet. Furthermore they have denied any scriptural evidence contradicting the traditional views of Seventh Day adventists. I am only a newbie but as far as i have studied this, this seems to be the case.

Now i am particularly worried and confused about the question whether Jesus entered the holiest of holiest in 1844 or right after his ascendance to heaven.

Reasons why Jesus went to the holy place after his ascendance:

- if not, it would violate the antitypical order of the earthly sanctuary. Jesus life represented the first part of the sanctuary. The second part represents his work in the holy place (correct me if i am wrong but i though this was a job for the 'normal'priest only, not the high priest). The third part as we all know, is the holiest of holiest.

- The translation of holy place in Hebrews 9 is hagia according to Walter Veith, this means holy place. However the new King James bible states it as the most holy place (hagia hagion). According to Dr. Johnson from the adventist review the translation should be ta hagio (plural). Now which one is it?

reasons against entering the most holy place in 1844:

- Dr Desmond Ford Says it.

Who can help me out?

The following is an interview with Dr. Ford:

AToday: QUESTION #21. In the open and frank discussion on the AToday Forum, it has become apparent to many after reading your interview and searching the scriptures that the New Testament does NOT support the traditional SDA view of the Investigative Judgment. However, some have taken the position that regardless of this obvious lack of New Testament support, the Investigative Judgment doctrine can still be supported from the Old Testament ALONE. They state that this unique doctrine need not have any New Testament support for it to still be valid. They argue that this "special truth" has recently been revealed (unsealed) in the last days to God's church. So, they say, this would explain why the Apostles were never informed of the 1844 date and why there is no clear reference to this doctrine in the New Testament. For the sake of argument, assuming that one could make a case for 1844 from the Old Testament, would this logic have any theological validity? How important is the New Testament in determining prophecy and doctrine for us today?

Dr. Ford: IF THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT COULD BE SUPPORTED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT ALONE, IT WOULD BE MIRACULOUS, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT! We are not literal Jews but spiritual Israel, and the New Testament always has the casting vote on doctrine. Hebrews 1:1 contrasts the revelation through Jesus with the inferior previous revelations through the prophets. Jude 3 talks of "the faith once for all entrusted to the saints," which is a reference to the New Testament gospel, which came from Christ and the apostles. When Jesus repeatedly affirmed, "But I say unto you," He was not contradicting the Old Testament, but transcending the way His contemporaries interpreted it. The Bible admonishes us seven times that, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." No solitary text in either Testament is sufficient to make a valid doctrine, and the Old Testament without the New, is not the Christian's guide. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah vanished and the apostles "saw no man but Jesus only." The word is for us. Moses and Elijah—the law and the prophets—only make sense interpreted through the Christ and the testimony He has delivered through the apostles.

If 1844 cannot be supported from the New Testament, then it cannot be considered a valid Christian doctrine. It cannot, so it is not!

AToday: QUESTION #22. Dr. Ford, why do you say that the year-day principle is not valid? What about the 70 weeks prophecy—didn’t it correctly foretell the coming of the Messiah? Isn’t the year-day principle an important part of Biblical prophecy?

Dr. Ford: Among all exegetes, except the Jehovah's Witnesses and SDAs, the year-day theory died over a century ago (see Kai Arasola's book, The End of Historicism). The texts in Numbers and Ezekiel have nothing to do with apocalyptic symbols. One points backwards to literal days and predicts forty literal years ahead corresponding to the days of wandering in unbelief. The other text has the prophet doing certain things in the future in literal days corresponding to literal years of the past. There are no parallels here to the symbolic numbers of apocalyptic. Furthermore, none of the dates used are historically correct. The Ostrogoths were not plucked up by 538 AD, neither did the persecution of the Middle Ages last until 1798. The "deadly" wound mentioned in Revelation 13:3 in the Greek means, "a wound to death." This does not fit the temporary imprisonment of the Pope, but it does fit the description of the preceding chapter where the devil legally received his mortal wound at the cross.

The revised edition of the SDA Commentary says, in Daniel 9:24-27, that there is no year-day principle involved—the text is speaking about a week of seventy years, i.e., 490 years. There is no day for a year here—the word translated "weeks" means "sevens" and the context is in terms of the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity. The SDA book, Doctrinal Discussions, if I remember correctly, says this also. All the numbers of apocalyptic are symbols—e.g., three and a half is a broken seven and points to unrest and trouble, and the 42 months is an allusion to Matthew 1 and the 42 generations reaching to the coming of Christ.

AToday: QUESTION #23. In Part I of your interview, you made the following point that although Daniel 8:14 speaks of 2,300 days, the Hebrew word for "days" is really the ambiguous "evening and morning," which most apply to the sacrificial burnt offerings. Thus, instead of 2,300 days, many exegetes are claiming that only 1,150 days are in view. Please explain this reasoning—isn't a day (or a sacrificial day) composed of both an evening and morning sacrifice? If so, what difference does it make to say "2,300 days" or "2,300 evening-mornings"? If the expression "evening-morning" is to be applied to include both the evening and morning burnt offerings, then that still is the equivalent of a day. Doesn’t this language fit the Genesis account as well? Therefore, there is no difference between saying "2,300 days" or "2,300 evening-mornings" since they both consist of a day. Can you explain this?

Dr. Ford: I am sympathetic with questioners regarding the rendering of 2,300 days. I tried to defend that myself for some years but ultimately surrendered to the weight of evidence.

The Hebrew phrase is unique and is not the same as the verses regarding evening and morning in Genesis 1. Verse 26 of Daniel 8 is crucial. It has the article before both evening and morning meaning they are to be viewed as discrete and not lumped together as one. This suits the context, which is talking about the removal of the evening and morning offerings. Please note that the context is clear in its reference to an evil power (the little horn Antichrist) defiling the temple for this period. Such will not, of course, fit the traditional Adventist view. Neither Rome pagan or papal can be linked with 457 BC. The reference is primarily (though not solely) to the work of Antiochus Epiphanes as both 1st and 2nd Maccabees declare. See also John 10:22, which as some Bible margins point out, refers to the celebration of Hanukkah—the cleansing by the Maccabees of the defilements in the temple caused by the Old Testament Antichrist.

Siegfried Horn pointed this out long ago to the General Conference leaders when the printing of my first book, Daniel, by Southern Publishing Association was being held up. Horn said we would make ourselves ridiculous if we failed to see that the little horn of Daniel 8 pointed initially to Antiochus. The vast majority of scholars (including SDA scholars) now take this view and the Good News Bible translates Daniel 8:14 as follows: "It will continue for 1,150 days during which evening and morning sacrifices will not be offered. Then the Temple will be restored."

It should also be said that "evening" and "morning" in the Hebrew refers to points of time, not periods like night and day.

AToday: QUESTION #24. Seventh-day Adventism is well known for its detailed description of how the final events will take place. As you know, there are charts and books that claim to lay out every detail of the final events in both heaven and earth, including the 1844 date as the beginning of the "pre-advent judgment," also referred to as the Investigative Judgment. With that in mind, some of the AToday members have raised this excellent question: if the Investigative Judgment doctrine is no longer valid, what is the correct version of the "judgment process"? We know that there must be some type of "pre-advent judgment" (you even pointed out in scripture when the pre-Advent judgment ends), but when does it start if not in 1844? And how long does it take?

In addition, scripture says we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Is this a reference to the "pre-advent judgment" or the Second Coming? What about the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22? Is that a reference to the Investigative Judgment as some claim? We also know that there are many places in scripture that speak of a future judgment, but then again, scripture also says that if a person believes in the gospel, he does not come into judgment. Yet in another place (Peter 4:17), it says that the "judgment must begin with us." What about the portions of scripture which talk about the "books being opened" and the judgment? Could you please explain the New Testament teaching on this subject so that we can clearly and Biblically update those old Nineteenth Century Adventist charts?

Dr. Ford: Adventist charts on the final events leave much to be desired. For example, to interpret the two-horned beast of Revelation 13 as simply the United States will not stand the exegetical test. As I pointed out in Crisis! twenty years ago, the overwhelming weight of exegetical evidence says that in contrast to the first beast of Revelation 13 (which represents totalitarian government at the end of time—and in one sense in all ages including the first century), the second beast points to apostate religion shoring up bad government for its own purposes as in Revelation 17 where the scarlet whore rides the beast. John is alluding to his Lord's warnings against those who would come as wolves in sheep's clothing, i.e., false prophets. Three times in Revelation this second beast is called "the false prophet." I was glad to notice that about a year ago the Review published an article by Jon Paulien saying this. So, we need to update Adventist eschatology in a number of areas.

The Adventist charts also have failed to recognize that the final test over the gospel involves more than Sabbath-keeping, though I am sure the latter is included. All the outward signs of the Christian faith will one day be forbidden—baptism, the Lord's Supper, Sabbath-keeping. Revelation is saying that in the last days there will be a false Trinity (the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet). This false trinity is comprised of a false Christ (the beast first described in Revelation 13), a false Holy Spirit who brings down false Pentecostal fire (the second beast), a false gospel and a false law (thus, the allusions to the hand and forehead which reflect the three Old Testament passages where the Israelites were told to write the law on their hands and foreheads). The mark of the beast has as its essential nature the reflection of the character of Satan while the seal of God points to the opposite—the reflection of the character of Christ. This is made clear in Revelation 14:1 and other passages where "name" as always in Scripture stands for character. Compare Exodus 34:6,7. Those who reject the last gospel message will become murderers and liars like their spiritual father the devil (see John 8:44). The saints will bear the mark of the cross in their lives like Jesus their Lord (see Ezekiel 9 where the Hebrew word for mark is tau and means a cross. (Ellen White also makes this point when she says in one place that "the intelligent mind of the recording angel has seen the mark of the cross in the foreheads of the Lord's adopted sons and daughters"—I quote approximately from memory.) Both the mark of the beast and the seal of God will have their outward forms indicating disobedience or obedience to the law of God.

Of course, the least supportable teaching in the time charts is 1844. The Bible gave no prophetic date for the rise of the Reformation or Wesley’s grand revival, yet they were clearly of heavenly origin. Similarly, Adventism, though raised up by God, has no prophetic date assigned. Prophetic dates after the end of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 do not exist and Christ forbade us to look for them (Acts 1:7)—the reason being that the end could have come at any time the church took the gospel to the whole world (Matthew 24:14, 2 Peter 3:12 RSV). This is not to say that God is biting His nails wondering with anxiety as to when the church will fulfill His task. Known unto God are all His works from the foundation of the world. We must not lose sight of either truth—the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. God is displaying to the universe the utter powerlessness of the best of human beings unless fully possessed by the gospel of grace. The 1844 date is not prophetic.

Most passages of scripture describing the judgment are parabolic. Wherever time and eternity meet, as at the beginning and end of Scripture, parable or symbolism must be used. The reality transcends our senses and understandings. So the judgment can be pictured as a marriage scene, as reckoning with servants, as a gathering of sheep and goats, as a separation of fish captured by the gospel net, as the burning up of tares, as a vintage, as a court scene, as watching from the Holy City a panorama of destruction, etc. The last parable of Matthew 25 gives a telescopic picture merging the realities of the judgment at the Second Coming and that of the third. This has been recognized for a long time by scholars (see Buswell's Systematic Theology for example).

As for the parable of Matthew 22, it is one of the several parables on the judgment and it is a great mistake to take any detail in any parable and build a doctrine on it. We would not do that with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, nor have SDAs advocated rings for men as a result of reading the parable of the prodigal son receiving one from his father. Matthew 22 points us to the same feast as Revelation 19—the wedding supper of the Lamb. It is asking all that intend to be there if they are trusting in their own rags of righteousness or the king's provided (imputed) garment. Seeing that it has this detail in a judgment setting, I suspect that while Matthew 22 warns against the filthy rags of our own righteousness, it may also be a reminder that imputed righteousness always brings forth the fruit of the imparted Holy Spirit. The one thing it is not saying is anything about 1844! The New Testament knows nothing about 1844—nor does the Old Testament.

As for l Peter 4:17, this is part of Peter's encouragement to believers to bear up under persecution. From the beginning to the end of this letter, the Apostle’s eye is on the fiery trials beginning to overtake the church. This particular verse is reminding His readers that when God permits calamities to overtake nations, He usually commences with His own (see Isaiah 10:12; Jeremiah 25:29, Ezekiel 9:6, and especially Luke 23:31). This is one of seven specific encouragements found in verses 12-19. But certainly nothing in this verse or its context has anything whatever to do with the traditional Adventist view of the Investigative Judgment.

Regarding the judgment of Revelation 14:7, this is not a reference to 1844 or to the saints being judged in heaven, but to the Second Coming as William Miller and the Advent movement correctly realized. Observe that the same terms occur in Revelation 18:10, "In one hour has thy judgment come," but the reference is clearly to Babylon. The judgment of Revelation 14:7, of course, is the same judgment. The following verse makes it evident that wicked people (Babylon) are its target. In apocalyptic literature, judgment is regularly promised for the persecutors of the true people of God and that is why such judgment is referred to as "good news."

The pre-advent judgment can be found in Revelation 22:11,12. This is a necessity because at the return of Christ, the righteous dead must be raised. The Bible does not say that at the Second Advent, all people will be raised from death to face the judgment—instead it affirms clearly that resurrection from the dead is the fruit of antecedent judgment. If there are to be two resurrections—one of the holy and one of the unholy—the decision as to who is in each category must be made before either. Scripture says the Lord knoweth them that are His. The Good Shepherd knows His sheep but as He doffs His priestly garments to assume His kingly array, our great Intercessor will finally bestow eschatological justification on all living or who have ever lived who are trusting solely in His merits and whose lives, though far from perfect, reflect that trust and the holiness of life which inevitably results.

So the last Judgment, as it relates to the believers, begins with the punctiliar announcement of Revelation 22:11,12 and is consummated by the resurrection of the righteous dead to join the translated saints. Thus, every Biblical description of the last judgment links it with the end of the world. (I should add that the amillennial view of Revelation 20 is now outdated among most exegetes and the reality of two physical resurrections from the dead separated by an interval of time is almost universally acknowledged. At a time when I contemplated writing on the issue, the late Professor, Dr. F.F. Bruce, assured me that such would be an unnecessary task as the battle had already been fought and won.)

Thus, the destiny of the saints is announced in the heavenly courts by our great High Priest, as He is about to begin His descent to earth. It takes only a moment, not a hundred and fifty years, yet the judgment is necessary for the Scriptures do not teach, "once saved always saved," but rather, "he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." Truth and error lie very close. The Bible does not teach yo-yo religion, constantly in and out of salvation. On the contrary, looking to Jesus, even if regularly from our knees in the mud of failure, means we are accepted of Him. We are "complete in Him," "accepted in the beloved." Justification is by faith alone at every moment, not just at the beginning of the Christian pilgrimage. So, we are justified by faith alone even in the last moment of the searching scrutiny of the Omniscient One. Yet that holy status is accompanied by the evidence of a transformed, though still imperfect, human character. Jesus remains our substitute in the last great day and not merely on the cross or when we commence the Christian walk. Such an ascription or imputation of merit is a priestly act and thus is performed at the very close of Christ's priestly ministry. To the faithful Christian, the judgment is now a party (see Matthew 22:8-12).

As the fate of believers is decided before their rewards at His coming, so is the fate of the wicked. Revelation 20:10-15 is declarative and executive but is based on the prior decision of Revelation 22:11,12, which left them in their graves at the Second Coming to await their final rebellion and punishment. The reason even the wicked dead must rise is that Christ by His atoning death and meritorious life bought immortality for all. The second resurrection is evidence that because of the cross, all the wicked have a right to life that was bought for them by the Savior. But their rejection of the gift is shown by their murderous attack on the saints in the Holy City.

Any complete discussion of the Judgment should point out that as coming events cast their shadows before, so with the last Judgment. According to John 12:31, Calvary, too, was a Judgment Day when Christ was made a curse for us and bore the penalty of the sin of the race. The events of those tragic hours mirror in many ways the realities of the final judgment. Thus, we see Christ high and lifted up, dividing the saved from the lost as mirrored by the two thieves and the multitudes before him. (Jerusalem was filled with about three million people at the time of the Passover and it is an error to picture the Cross as surrounded by a few pitying believers—in fact, there would have been thousands present to behold the unique and terrible spectacle.) Matthew 27:52, with its record of resurrection and the entrance of the resurrected ones into the Holy City, also prefigures the end of time. There is a sense in which the New Testament places the time of the end and the resurrection of the dead from the cross itself (see Hebrews 9:26 etc.).

We have left the most important point in this discussion until last. The Bible also clearly affirms that as the gospel is proclaimed, its hearers are judged at that point by their response (see John 3:17,18,36). To believe the record of John 3:16 bestows justification—the anticipated verdict of the last judgment. This justification is ours the moment we believe. At that point of faith, which is God’s gift to all who do not resist the gospel, eternal life is bestowed (see John 5:24). This verse has often been misunderstood as teaching that there is no judgment for the believer. Such an interpretation is contrary to 2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 14:10, and many other passages. The Greek term, found in John 5:24, means judgment in the sense of condemnation. The believer WILL BE JUDGED to see if he or she has remained in the faith, but the trusting soul can NEVER BE CONDEMNED in the last great day or at any previous time since choosing Christ. We need never be anxious about what God thinks of us, but only what He thinks of Christ our substitute. At every moment of faith, the believer is reckoned one hundred percent righteous for Christ's sake. If one considers the inmost reality of the cross, this truth becomes apparent. Why is Christ, the perfect and Holy One, being treated on Calvary as though unholy? In order that I who AM unholy might be treated as Holy. Why is Christ the innocent treated as guilty? In order that I the guilty might be treated as innocent. Romans 4:8 pronounces a blessing on all believers for against them sin is NEVER reckoned despite failures and imperfections. Good news indeed! That is the gospel which one day will shake the world and prepare it for the Last Judgment.

One other point should be made. It is not enough that the great Judge be just, it must be apparent to all His creatures that He is so. Thus, the repeated declarations of Scripture in the last chapters of Scripture that ultimately all will acknowledge that God's ways are true and righteous altogether. The reference to books in the judgment is a symbolic way of expressing the truth that the reasons for God's decisions will be made plain to all throughout the universe—angels, principalities and powers, and humans.

AToday: QUESTION #24. Seventh-day Adventism is well known for its detailed description of how the final events will take place. As you know, there are charts and books that claim to lay out every detail of the final events in both heaven and earth, including the 1844 date as the beginning of the "pre-advent judgment," also referred to as the Investigative Judgment. With that in mind, some of the AToday members have raised this excellent question: if the Investigative Judgment doctrine is no longer valid, what is the correct version of the "judgment process"? We know that there must be some type of "pre-advent judgment" (you even pointed out in scripture when the pre-Advent judgment ends), but when does it start if not in 1844? And how long does it take?

In addition, scripture says we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Is this a reference to the "pre-advent judgment" or the Second Coming? What about the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22? Is that a reference to the Investigative Judgment as some claim? We also know that there are many places in scripture that speak of a future judgment, but then again, scripture also says that if a person believes in the gospel, he does not come into judgment. Yet in another place (Peter 4:17), it says that the "judgment must begin with us." What about the portions of scripture which talk about the "books being opened" and the judgment? Could you please explain the New Testament teaching on this subject so that we can clearly and Biblically update those old Nineteenth Century Adventist charts?

Dr. Ford: Adventist charts on the final events leave much to be desired. For example, to interpret the two-horned beast of Revelation 13 as simply the United States will not stand the exegetical test. As I pointed out in Crisis! twenty years ago, the overwhelming weight of exegetical evidence says that in contrast to the first beast of Revelation 13 (which represents totalitarian government at the end of time—and in one sense in all ages including the first century), the second beast points to apostate religion shoring up bad government for its own purposes as in Revelation 17 where the scarlet whore rides the beast. John is alluding to his Lord's warnings against those who would come as wolves in sheep's clothing, i.e., false prophets. Three times in Revelation this second beast is called "the false prophet." I was glad to notice that about a year ago the Review published an article by Jon Paulien saying this. So, we need to update Adventist eschatology in a number of areas.

The Adventist charts also have failed to recognize that the final test over the gospel involves more than Sabbath-keeping, though I am sure the latter is included. All the outward signs of the Christian faith will one day be forbidden—baptism, the Lord's Supper, Sabbath-keeping. Revelation is saying that in the last days there will be a false Trinity (the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet). This false trinity is comprised of a false Christ (the beast first described in Revelation 13), a false Holy Spirit who brings down false Pentecostal fire (the second beast), a false gospel and a false law (thus, the allusions to the hand and forehead which reflect the three Old Testament passages where the Israelites were told to write the law on their hands and foreheads). The mark of the beast has as its essential nature the reflection of the character of Satan while the seal of God points to the opposite—the reflection of the character of Christ. This is made clear in Revelation 14:1 and other passages where "name" as always in Scripture stands for character. Compare Exodus 34:6,7. Those who reject the last gospel message will become murderers and liars like their spiritual father the devil (see John 8:44). The saints will bear the mark of the cross in their lives like Jesus their Lord (see Ezekiel 9 where the Hebrew word for mark is tau and means a cross. (Ellen White also makes this point when she says in one place that "the intelligent mind of the recording angel has seen the mark of the cross in the foreheads of the Lord's adopted sons and daughters"—I quote approximately from memory.) Both the mark of the beast and the seal of God will have their outward forms indicating disobedience or obedience to the law of God.

Of course, the least supportable teaching in the time charts is 1844. The Bible gave no prophetic date for the rise of the Reformation or Wesley’s grand revival, yet they were clearly of heavenly origin. Similarly, Adventism, though raised up by God, has no prophetic date assigned. Prophetic dates after the end of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 do not exist and Christ forbade us to look for them (Acts 1:7)—the reason being that the end could have come at any time the church took the gospel to the whole world (Matthew 24:14, 2 Peter 3:12 RSV). This is not to say that God is biting His nails wondering with anxiety as to when the church will fulfill His task. Known unto God are all His works from the foundation of the world. We must not lose sight of either truth—the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. God is displaying to the universe the utter powerlessness of the best of human beings unless fully possessed by the gospel of grace. The 1844 date is not prophetic.

Most passages of scripture describing the judgment are parabolic. Wherever time and eternity meet, as at the beginning and end of Scripture, parable or symbolism must be used. The reality transcends our senses and understandings. So the judgment can be pictured as a marriage scene, as reckoning with servants, as a gathering of sheep and goats, as a separation of fish captured by the gospel net, as the burning up of tares, as a vintage, as a court scene, as watching from the Holy City a panorama of destruction, etc. The last parable of Matthew 25 gives a telescopic picture merging the realities of the judgment at the Second Coming and that of the third. This has been recognized for a long time by scholars (see Buswell's Systematic Theology for example).

As for the parable of Matthew 22, it is one of the several parables on the judgment and it is a great mistake to take any detail in any parable and build a doctrine on it. We would not do that with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, nor have SDAs advocated rings for men as a result of reading the parable of the prodigal son receiving one from his father. Matthew 22 points us to the same feast as Revelation 19—the wedding supper of the Lamb. It is asking all that intend to be there if they are trusting in their own rags of righteousness or the king's provided (imputed) garment. Seeing that it has this detail in a judgment setting, I suspect that while Matthew 22 warns against the filthy rags of our own righteousness, it may also be a reminder that imputed righteousness always brings forth the fruit of the imparted Holy Spirit. The one thing it is not saying is anything about 1844! The New Testament knows nothing about 1844—nor does the Old Testament.

As for l Peter 4:17, this is part of Peter's encouragement to believers to bear up under persecution. From the beginning to the end of this letter, the Apostle’s eye is on the fiery trials beginning to overtake the church. This particular verse is reminding His readers that when God permits calamities to overtake nations, He usually commences with His own (see Isaiah 10:12; Jeremiah 25:29, Ezekiel 9:6, and especially Luke 23:31). This is one of seven specific encouragements found in verses 12-19. But certainly nothing in this verse or its context has anything whatever to do with the traditional Adventist view of the Investigative Judgment.

Regarding the judgment of Revelation 14:7, this is not a reference to 1844 or to the saints being judged in heaven, but to the Second Coming as William Miller and the Advent movement correctly realized. Observe that the same terms occur in Revelation 18:10, "In one hour has thy judgment come," but the reference is clearly to Babylon. The judgment of Revelation 14:7, of course, is the same judgment. The following verse makes it evident that wicked people (Babylon) are its target. In apocalyptic literature, judgment is regularly promised for the persecutors of the true people of God and that is why such judgment is referred to as "good news."

The pre-advent judgment can be found in Revelation 22:11,12. This is a necessity because at the return of Christ, the righteous dead must be raised. The Bible does not say that at the Second Advent, all people will be raised from death to face the judgment—instead it affirms clearly that resurrection from the dead is the fruit of antecedent judgment. If there are to be two resurrections—one of the holy and one of the unholy—the decision as to who is in each category must be made before either. Scripture says the Lord knoweth them that are His. The Good Shepherd knows His sheep but as He doffs His priestly garments to assume His kingly array, our great Intercessor will finally bestow eschatological justification on all living or who have ever lived who are trusting solely in His merits and whose lives, though far from perfect, reflect that trust and the holiness of life which inevitably results.

So the last Judgment, as it relates to the believers, begins with the punctiliar announcement of Revelation 22:11,12 and is consummated by the resurrection of the righteous dead to join the translated saints. Thus, every Biblical description of the last judgment links it with the end of the world. (I should add that the amillennial view of Revelation 20 is now outdated among most exegetes and the reality of two physical resurrections from the dead separated by an interval of time is almost universally acknowledged. At a time when I contemplated writing on the issue, the late Professor, Dr. F.F. Bruce, assured me that such would be an unnecessary task as the battle had already been fought and won.)

Thus, the destiny of the saints is announced in the heavenly courts by our great High Priest, as He is about to begin His descent to earth. It takes only a moment, not a hundred and fifty years, yet the judgment is necessary for the Scriptures do not teach, "once saved always saved," but rather, "he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." Truth and error lie very close. The Bible does not teach yo-yo religion, constantly in and out of salvation. On the contrary, looking to Jesus, even if regularly from our knees in the mud of failure, means we are accepted of Him. We are "complete in Him," "accepted in the beloved." Justification is by faith alone at every moment, not just at the beginning of the Christian pilgrimage. So, we are justified by faith alone even in the last moment of the searching scrutiny of the Omniscient One. Yet that holy status is accompanied by the evidence of a transformed, though still imperfect, human character. Jesus remains our substitute in the last great day and not merely on the cross or when we commence the Christian walk. Such an ascription or imputation of merit is a priestly act and thus is performed at the very close of Christ's priestly ministry. To the faithful Christian, the judgment is now a party (see Matthew 22:8-12).

As the fate of believers is decided before their rewards at His coming, so is the fate of the wicked. Revelation 20:10-15 is declarative and executive but is based on the prior decision of Revelation 22:11,12, which left them in their graves at the Second Coming to await their final rebellion and punishment. The reason even the wicked dead must rise is that Christ by His atoning death and meritorious life bought immortality for all. The second resurrection is evidence that because of the cross, all the wicked have a right to life that was bought for them by the Savior. But their rejection of the gift is shown by their murderous attack on the saints in the Holy City.

Any complete discussion of the Judgment should point out that as coming events cast their shadows before, so with the last Judgment. According to John 12:31, Calvary, too, was a Judgment Day when Christ was made a curse for us and bore the penalty of the sin of the race. The events of those tragic hours mirror in many ways the realities of the final judgment. Thus, we see Christ high and lifted up, dividing the saved from the lost as mirrored by the two thieves and the multitudes before him. (Jerusalem was filled with about three million people at the time of the Passover and it is an error to picture the Cross as surrounded by a few pitying believers—in fact, there would have been thousands present to behold the unique and terrible spectacle.) Matthew 27:52, with its record of resurrection and the entrance of the resurrected ones into the Holy City, also prefigures the end of time. There is a sense in which the New Testament places the time of the end and the resurrection of the dead from the cross itself (see Hebrews 9:26 etc.).

We have left the most important point in this discussion until last. The Bible also clearly affirms that as the gospel is proclaimed, its hearers are judged at that point by their response (see John 3:17,18,36). To believe the record of John 3:16 bestows justification—the anticipated verdict of the last judgment. This justification is ours the moment we believe. At that point of faith, which is God’s gift to all who do not resist the gospel, eternal life is bestowed (see John 5:24). This verse has often been misunderstood as teaching that there is no judgment for the believer. Such an interpretation is contrary to 2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 14:10, and many other passages. The Greek term, found in John 5:24, means judgment in the sense of condemnation. The believer WILL BE JUDGED to see if he or she has remained in the faith, but the trusting soul can NEVER BE CONDEMNED in the last great day or at any previous time since choosing Christ. We need never be anxious about what God thinks of us, but only what He thinks of Christ our substitute. At every moment of faith, the believer is reckoned one hundred percent righteous for Christ's sake. If one considers the inmost reality of the cross, this truth becomes apparent. Why is Christ, the perfect and Holy One, being treated on Calvary as though unholy? In order that I who AM unholy might be treated as Holy. Why is Christ the innocent treated as guilty? In order that I the guilty might be treated as innocent. Romans 4:8 pronounces a blessing on all believers for against them sin is NEVER reckoned despite failures and imperfections. Good news indeed! That is the gospel which one day will shake the world and prepare it for the Last Judgment.

One other point should be made. It is not enough that the great Judge be just, it must be apparent to all His creatures that He is so. Thus, the repeated declarations of Scripture in the last chapters of Scripture that ultimately all will acknowledge that God's ways are true and righteous altogether. The reference to books in the judgment is a symbolic way of expressing the truth that the reasons for God's decisions will be made plain to all throughout the universe—angels, principalities and powers, and humans.

[Kevin H]

Both have portions of the truth mixed with tons of traditions, and information that they have not studied.

Desmond Ford is a good New Testament scholar and a fantastic scholar of reformation thought. However his Old Testament scholarship is very weak. This Biblical interpetations are blurred by him reading the Bible through the lenzes of the events of the reformation (instead of the historical context of the text) and the modern evangelical movement.

The traditional Adventist view is based on centuries of study and methods the Lord has used through the centuries to help us in the times we live in. However through out history this method has been subject to scruteny and modified as facts or more knowlege of the Bible developed, until it reached Adventism where we have changed the fluidness of this into concreat and have built traditions on these.

Also both have become victims of a belief that while was probably subconscious in people's mind for a couple of centuries came out to the forefront in the late 1800s, pushed heavely in the early 1900s and finally became a major part of conservative Christianity in 1919, the consept of Fundamentalism, and while the strict principles of fundamentalism are proving to fail, most stick to some version of fundamentalism, either conservative or liberal views of it. Fundamentalism has too much of a greek-western thoughtprocess of if it's this then it can't be that. If it's here it can't be there. If we have the interpetation then it is THE interpetation. The ancient eastern world of the Bible did not have these thought processes. But sadly Desmond Ford as well as most of our leaders have all their education in church history and the modern world, but do not have the knowlege or study of the ancient world and ancient thought processes.

[For futher study may I recommend "Before Philosophy" 1946 (or thereabouts) University of Chicago press, Henri Frankfort and others. "The Myth of the eternal return" and "Hebrew thought compaired to Greek" by Bowman.]

Both our church and Dr. Ford are afraid of being wrong. Our church holding on the pressent truth of the past and making them the final interpetation of the passage, and Ford holding on the the modern evangelical movement and wanting to be a part of this big group. We also find among Ford's followers a lot of Adventists who give their history of using Mrs. White as a club to attack and condem Non-Adventists, and they "changed" to using Paul [read through the glasses of the 1500s instead of Paul's historical context] as a club to attack and condem Adventists. (I do not see that big a change in these people)

A simple illustration of the problem of both groups is the star of Bethlehem.

The historical context of "There shall come a star out of Jacob and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel" Stars were ancient gods and sceptre of course is used by kings. The prophecy was that one day there would be a king in Israel who was God. It was talking about Jesus, not something in the sky.

But the Magi read this and were looking for a litteral star. If it was a star they wanted it was a star they got and this star lead them to the true fullfillment of the prophecy.

Applying this to traditional Adventist thinking and Desmond Ford's thinking, we could have Adventist arguing that the star the magi saw in the sky is the actual and total fulfillment of prophecy and that the purpose of that prophecy was to talk about that very star in the sky, and nothing else except for that star in the sky. Ford's thinking would be "No the prophecy did not need a litteral star in the sky to fullfull it, therefore the magi were wrong to think that the star had any importance. It was probably just a natural event that they misinterpeted so let's forget about the star all together. The star is nonsence and nothing."

I have other issues with Desmond Ford, but I'll close this post here for now and try to come back later to discuss some of the other things. But I hope this illustration of the star of Bethlehem does it's jobs in showing the two perspectives and streants and weakpoints of each.

[John317]

I love studying and discussing these things.

It's fine to study Ford's writings but don't forget to study both sides of the issues. A good source for the other side-- that is the SDA viewpoint-- is in the Daniel & Revelation Committee Series, which consists of about 8 volumes altogether.

There's an excellent book titled The Silencing of Satan The Gospel of the Investigative Judgment by Bradley R. Williams. It explores the Biblical evidence for the Investigative Judgment. It is one of the best books of its kind, and is only about 150 pages. http://investigativejudgmentgospel.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page1.html

You would do well to study books by John T. Anderson (Investigating the Judgment); Roy Gane (Who's Afraid of the Judgment?); Clifford Goldstein (1844 Made Simple; Graffiti in the Holy of Holies); Gerhard Pfandl (Daniel the Seer of Babylon); and C. Mervyn Maxwell (God Cares, Vol. 1 and 2).

[Kevin H]

Getting back to Dr. Ford again: this would be a good time to discuss some about views of hell fire in the church, however I will not go into detail. Basically there is the idea that there are two very different places, heaven and hell and that the question of salvation is how do you get God to let you into heaven instead of sending you to hell. (some have an eternal hell, while others have a shortened version of it.)

The other view is that hell fire is the brightness and power of the glory of God. It is the brightness that reflected off of the angel so that the guards fell like dead men, it is the brightness that reflected off of Moses so that he had to wear a veil, it was the brighness that a quick flash through Jesus caused the money changers to flee from the temple, yet attract the poor and children to run to him. That when the prophets saw God in vision they felt like they were being burned alive, but as they developed their relationship with this consuming fire they could not only survive but thrive, and finding that this God is our deepest desire.

In this view of hell, God does not do two different things, one to the saved the other to the lost, but God is just present physically, visabaly in unveild glory, and some of us thrive in being with God and find it heave to be with God. Others find that God/Jesus is their deepest desire, but they developed a habit of fighting the pleadings of the Holy Spirit and they continue that habbit. They end up wanting to come but refusing to yeald to this desire. Jesus is their deepest desier, but they see Jesus' puriety in contrast to their sinfulness and since they have a tendency not to be forgiving people, they cannot comprehend forgiveness. They believe that God is going to get them for their sins and are terrified of Jesus. They see loved ones they want to be with, but they also know how they have used loved ones for their own selfish purposes, or things they did to minipulate them and that part of them would still revert to these habits and they know that the all seeing eye of this great fire can see the deepest parts of their souls and knows all about their using and minipulating others and they long to flee from Jesus pressence like the money changers fleeling from the temple, but first, there is no place to run, and second, Jesus is still their deepest desire and they are too overwhelmingly attrancted to him to flee, so they are stuck between wanting to flee and wanting to be with the one altogether lovely.

Desmond Ford's understanding of hell would fit the first catagory, of heaven and hell being two places and salvation is "How do I get God to let me into heaven instead of him sending me to hell." and building on the views of Luther and the reformers, the cross becomes the legal payment so that if you say the right words about Jesus, no matter how much God might hate you and want to send you to hell he has to let you into heaven. (granted Ford would not say it as crudely, but it is this idea and some associated with Ford, have put it this crudely)This tends to downplay the law as the law might be nice but it's minor, the important thing is Justification, and saying the magic words about Jesus, and if you have done this you will be saved, and you have the assurance of salvation.

However, if you have not said these words, then you are lost as the only way to heaven is to say these words. And sadly this does not have room for the work of the Holy Spirit working on all.

In the second view of hell, God does not send us to two different places and treat us two different ways, but treats us all the same and it is how we respond that makes it either heaven and eternal life or hell and eternal death. The Holy Spirit works with everyone, and God does not ask if you are Christian, Jewish, Athiest, but says simply "I love you welcome" and depending on the relationship we have built within our understandings, whether we have developed characters of selfishness or characters of loving the world as Jesus has loved it, we either find joy in God's welcome, or end up in that quadmire of wanting to come but refusing. The advantage of being a Christian is not that we are any more saved than our Hindu neighbor who is responding to the pleadings of the Holy Spirit on the heart to be kind and loving, but that we know who Jesus is, The more knowlege we have about God the easier it is to be able to love God and to love the world God made.

Desmond Ford's views give the assurance of salvation to those who say the magic words, the other view does not offer the assurance of salvation but offers the assurance of a savior. Whether I'm saved or lost is not the issue, the issue is whether I'm saved or lost, Jesus is still beautiful.

[Kevin H]

Let's take a moment with Antiochus:

Some of the interepatations of Daniel are:

1. Daniel was written by Daniel in Babylon and that he was conserned about our last days, conserned about the Pope or conserned about Antiocus. That Daniel had nothing better do by the waters of Babylon but to think about the Pope, or Antiochus or events thousands of years away.

2. Daniel was not written by Daniel but by someone living durring Antiocus using the book as propaganda against Antiochus.

3. Daniel was compiled by his disciples shortly after his death, and that Daniel's conserns were either how the exile could be the last days, or if they were not to be the last days, what the Hebrews should do as they return to the land.

I'd like to talk about this third view some. Deuteronomy predicts two possible futures for the Hebrews. First either being in the land, trusing God and God will bless them. Others would want to see why these people were blessed, be told about their God, some would join others reject and those who reject come and attack, initally conquer but then be distroyed (later this was to be clearer about a specific leader who was to die, killed by his friends, and raise and that in the final battle instead of the enemy being killed by swords etc. that they see this majestic being and are terrified to death by him.)

But if the Hebrews were not faithful, God would send curses to encourage them to change and if nothing worked they would go into exile. Deuteronomy 4:30 discribes the exile as "THE LAST DAYS" and the theam develops in the Bible was that the exil was to end in a glorious new exodus lead by the messiah.

King Hezikiah started a revival in the land. Hezikiah got sick, was to die, but praied and was healed. Visitors came from Babylon due to hearing about his illness and recovery.

We interpet this story as "Hezikiah should have just shut up and obeyed and died." and that our lesson is

"Shut up and do what your'e told."

But when you study it in the light of Deuteronomy God wanted Hezikiah to pray for the healing. God wanted to heal him, but God wanted Hezikiah to tell the visitors Babylon about his God. God wanted them to bring the gospel back to Babylon. God was ready for the gospel to spread to the whole world. [An interesting side note: According to the book "Lies my teacher told me" Israel's neighbors, the Phonicians, had traveled the seas even to the area now called the Americas. Their ships were too small for major trade, but they could have brought over some missionaries.] But instead of focusing on his God, Hezikiah focused on the temperal blessings, and instead of the visitors bringing home the gospel, they brought home messages of the wealth with Babylon thinking "We'll be back" Instead of Hezikiah's reform transforming the world and becoming the father of good king Joshua, Hezikiah became the father of wicked king Manasseh, and instead of the Messiah's kingdom, we entered a period of kingdoms ruling in place of the messiah, or as it would be translated into Greek "Ani" (in place of) "Christ" (Messiah).

But Deuteronomy predicted the exile to be the last days. Nebuchadnezzar has a dream. 4 metals. Daniel tells him that it is 4 kings and that he is the head of gold. Daniel 2 predicts 4 major kings and the book of Daniel names 4 kings: Nebuchadnezzar; Belshazzar; Darius and Cyrus (and by the way Daniel 1:21 says that Daniel continued until the first year of king Cyrus: or that Daniel died in the first year of king Cyrus. It would be hard for Daniel to write his own obituary.)

Daniel 2-6, and somewhat 7 and even less so 8 follows the prediction of Deuteronomy that the exile was to be the last days. But in Daniel 7 and 8 the individual kings of Daniel 2 start to develop into kingdoms. Daniel 7 more so events that could have happened over the 70 years, Daniel 8 becomes a bit harder to fit in the 70 years, but still possible. Greece was strong at that time and did not need to wait for Alexander. Daniel 9-12 has time continuing on past Babylon. The Hebrews are to return home but not in a glorious exodus lead by the messiah and the theam was on what to do to set up the temple and the house of David on the return, and how to prepare for the Messiah to come, and a prediction as to what COULD have happened had Jesus been accepted.

The supporters of Antiocus point out similaities between Daniel's predictions and Antiocus. It does not work out too closely but yes there are similarities. But this is not the only similarity. In our evangelistic meetings we learn about the similarities between the Pope and Daniel's vision. But there is still more. There were 10 emperors of the same family in Rome, there were three that were plucked up by a new family and this new emperor and his two sons, one son Titus destroyed the Jerusalem temple and his brother exiled John to Patmos and brought the Nero persecution back to life.

Thus instead of a Daniel who was worried about Antioch or the Pope or our last days. We have a Daniel and his disciples who were conserned about events in their day, with a God who sees the end from the begining and knows what to focus on which will help his people with patterns that would happen in history, and from which we will be able to draw an analogy that will get us through the last last days.

[John317]

Desmond Ford doesn t believe the day year principle of Daniel is valid, he also doesn t believe the 2300 evening mornings can be red as 2300 days. In fact he doesn t believe 1844 is a prophetic date. He also doesn t believe that the second beast coming out of the earth is the United States. He also does not believe in an investigative judgement.

I'll look at Ford's ideas, reasoning, and evidence, but I don't think we should put more trust in Ford than in other people. I'll put more trust in what I read and get out of the Bible and Ellen White myself than in what Ford says that he gets out of the same sources.

Quote:

- The translation of holy place in Hebrews 9 is hagia according to Walter Veith, this means holy place. However the new King James bible states it as the most holy place (hagia hagion). According to Dr. Johnson from the adventist review the translation should be ta hagio (plural). Now which one is it?

The New International Version also translates Hebrews 9: 12 as "The Holy of Holies," but in 9: 3, the Greek for "Holy of Holies" is hagia hagiwn in the best and vast majority of ancient manuscripts. Hebrews 9: 12, therefore, if consistently translated, should read as it does in the NASB and NRSV (and in many others), "The Holy Place," or, as the New Jerusalem Bible and New English Bible read, "the sanctuary."

It seems to me that the emphasis of Heb. 9: 12 is that Jesus went directly into the very presence of God the Father. So I don't see it as related to the Investigative Judgment. Therefore, in my view, to say that Jesus immediately went into the Holy of Holies upon going to heaven, is not necessarily a denial of the Investigative, or Pre-Advent, Judgement. I don't believe that Heb. 9: 12 is referring to the antitypical day of Atonement. The writer of Hebrews has in mind the efficacy of the sacrifice, not the issue of time.

The important thing to remember is that Hebrews does refer to the cleansing of the sanctuary (vs. 9:23), followed by reference to a future judgment (vs. 9:27) and the second coming of Christ (vs. 28).

[Kevin H]

An argument for "Daniel was focused on Antiocus" view is that Daniel 8:14 should mean 1150 days, not 2300. neither the 1150 nor 2300 fits Antiochus that well, but when 1150 day theory was devised, people thought that Belshazzar was not a real person. They had no idea when the 3rd year of Belshazzar was. Now we have discovered that he was indeed real, and about 2300 literal days from his 3rd year we come to either Persia breathing down his neck, the fall of babylon, and the early days of Persia's victory.

Daniel 9 reapplys the start of the 2300 days to the decree to rebuild and restore Jerusalem.

[John317]

Getting back to Dr. Ford again: this would be a good time to discuss some about views of hell fire in the church, however I will not go into detail. Basically there is the idea that there are two very different places, heaven and hell and that the question of salvation is how do you get God to let you into heaven instead of sending you to hell. (some have an eternal hell, while others have a shortened version of it.)

The other view is that hell fire is the brightness and power of the glory of God. It is the brightness that reflected off of the angel so that the guards fell like dead men, it is the brightness that reflected off of Moses so that he had to wear a veil, it was the brighness that a quick flash through Jesus caused the money changers to flee from the temple, yet attract the poor and children to run to him. That when the prophets saw God in vision they felt like they were being burned alive, but as they developed their relationship with this consuming fire they could not only survive but thrive, and finding that this God is our deepest desire.

In this view of hell, God does not do two different things, one to the saved the other to the lost, but God is just present physically, visabaly in unveild glory, and some of us thrive in being with God and find it heave to be with God. Others find that God/Jesus is their deepest desire, but they developed a habit of fighting the pleadings of the Holy Spirit and they continue that habbit. They end up wanting to come but refusing to yeald to this desire. Jesus is their deepest desier, but they see Jesus' puriety in contrast to their sinfulness and since they have a tendency not to be forgiving people, they cannot comprehend forgiveness. They believe that God is going to get them for their sins and are terrified of Jesus. .... In the second view of hell, God does not send us to two different places and treat us two different ways, but treats us all the same and it is how we respond that makes it either heaven and eternal life or hell and eternal death.

I see a lot of good and truth here in what you wrote above. I've thought the same thing myself.

I think that it is sin itself that cannot exist in the presence of God, and therefore, if we refuse to give up our sins, we will also be destroyed in God's presence when God comes to judge sin. God has no choice but to destroy all who refuse to give up their sins, because God honors our freedom and therefore He will not take our sins from us without our choice.

I think of the destruction of the wicked as God throwing open the gates to the City and inviting all humanity to enter in, but the wicked cannot survive in His glorious, life-giving presence. It is not an arbitrary choice on God's part, but, rather, as you've suggested, it is due to what people have made themselves into by their own choices. The lost have made themselves into people who would not be happy in God's kingdom and who would be opposed to God's rule. To let them into heaven and on the new earth would only perpetuate sin, rebellion, and death.

Everyone who truly wants to be saved in God's kingdom will be saved, but no one will be saved who loves sin and wants to keep hold of it.

[Kevin H]

Ford sees the idea of a Jugement as something scary, and sees our salvation as secured at the cross.

Now we can find two similar but very different definations for the word "Atonement." depending if you are reading the Bible or the Reformers. Both definitions are valid, but we must not confuse them. This confusing of them is what Ford and his followers do when it comes the the Investigative Judgment.

When ever you read the word "Atonement" by the reformers, they mean how God chooses to let us into heaven, or what Jesus did for us on the cross. And thus to Ford "Atonement" is the cross only event. The idea of an investigative atonement would mean that God would have something else to save us besides the cross and this rightly does not make sence.

However the Hebrew has the word "Kipper" which can be defined as "Anything God does that deepens our knowlege of him, and is thus a blessing to those who accept or a curse for those who reject." Therefore a Kipper cannot be limited to one event, and if kippers were to stop, it would mean that God would have to stop functioning, that God could not reveal anymore to us. That either we know it all, or that God becomes completely and totally passive and never does anything special ever again.

Examples of a Kipper would be the birth of Jesus. Was the birth of Jesus good news or bad news? Well it's good news to the Magi, the Shephards and those who have come to love Jesus. But what about to Herod?

Now manybe the birth of Jesus is bad news to us? I mean if Atonement is to be cross only, here we have an event where God is doing something 30 or 40 some years before the cross.

Another Kipper is of course the cross, but 3 days later the resurection. Is the resurection good or bad news? What was it to Caiaphas and Pilate?

Did God ever do anything special before or after the cross? Anything special is a Kipper.

The first Kipper occured the moment the first created being opened his eyes to see his creator. Any knowlege before the fall was a kipper. The last Kipper will occure when either we know all there is to ever know about the infinite God, or when God decided to stop teaching us more about him. That day, my friend will NEVER come. Billions of milinum in heaven and we will still have more to learn and we will still have a God who would want to deepen his relationship with us.

Now let's look at the investigative judgment: The Fordites say it is scary and against us. First of all, if it is true, it is brought to us by the same author and production company that gave us the birth of Jesus and the Resurection. How many of you have a favorite author? If you hear about this author writing another book do you get in dispear that his writing did not stop with his one great book? Then why do we fear God doing something new for us?

We find other movements besides the Millerite movement. For example there was Joseph Wolf and the children preachers in Sweden. There were movements in European Judaism, the Danite Jews in the Middle East, pockets among the Muslims, and South East Asia (it is not clear if it was the Christians living in South East Asia, or if it was among the Buddists there.) This movement went through Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and maybe Buddism.

Was anything else going on at that time?

In the 1830s Robinson explored Egypt and Palestine trying to prove or disprove different ideas his father and other religious people believed. He came to discover where many of the ancient sites of the Bible were, which lead to archaeologists to dig up the places he found and the findings of ancient libaries and the rediscovery of the ancient world.

At the same time linguists, who have been studying ancient writings for years were suddenly making amazing discoveries

The result of this is that starting in the mid 1800s we have come into a period of history where we can investigate the pages of scripture as never before. The past century and a half the Bible has come alive such as never before. Luther would have loved to live today and study the Bible in all this light we now have about the ancient world and ancient languages. Living in a world where we can study the Bible like never before.

As we study the Bible like never before, we learn more about the God of the Bible. The more we learn about the God of the Bible, by beholding we become changed.

Satan has been fighting this by splitting into two parts. you have unbelievers who study the Bible seriously but see it as only a historical book, and you have believers who take a more superficial approach to the scriptures and are more interested in what Romans meant to Luther than what it meant to Paul.

Now I am not saying that Daniel 8:14 will not require more study and that we may learn things that we will need from the text in the future. But until we need to know God will cover his hand. But it lead the wise men to realize that we are living in a special time since the mid 1800s, and I hope that we will take advantage of the knowlege to investigate the pages of scripture as never before.

Ford is wrong for his minimizing of what happened and for living in the 1500s, and not enjoying the knowlege of the discoveries i the years since. Traditional Adventists are in danger of 1. Trying to make the Investigative Judgment fit the Reformer's definition of Atomement instead of the Bible defination, especially if mixed with the view of heaven and hell being very different places and 2. Not being open to the idea that we may learn more about Daniel 8:14 that will lead us to another mile stone when needed (but let me warn against timesetting. It will not be any sort of timesetting nonsence. We will not have a new starting and ending date. What I mean is learning more about the context and theams of the entire book, and how 2300 days could fit in the theams, and deepen our understanding of these theams and re-applicatons of the book in the New Testament that will guide us through events we may face.)

[melvin mccarty]

There should be no question in anyone's mind that all of the animals slain as sacrifices in old testament/old covenant times pointed to the atonement Jesus made. The antitypical day of atonement can only refer to that great event which divides the type from antitype The invention of another antitypical day of atonement is not biblical in my opinion.

The dividing curtain was torn to indicate that the way into the most holy was laid open and made accessable to everyone.

[Kevin H]

I'm sorry Melvin, but you either did not read what I said, or else you forgot to read carfully. You made some comments indicating that you are upset, but you only let off steam, you did not pinpoint what upset you, nor did you try to show evidence that what upset you is incorrect.

You are showing some knowlege of Luther's understanding of Atonement, and you wish to force that understanding on the scripture, then you want subsiquent definations of atonement to fit your understanding of Luther's view. You are not open to the idea that different words can be used in different ways under different circumstances.

For example, there is a little fuzzy creature called a mouse. There is also a little divice on computers called a mouse. You are arguing "You say that you are using a mouse to help you navagate through the computer sites. But a mouse is a little fuzzy animal and how can that animal help you navagate the computer site, you are wrong to think that you are using a mouse to navagate through the technicalogical electronic world of cyber space.

Same word but two different definations, but you are insisting that the one defination must fit all (and not give any facts to support your theory, only your unsubstanciated opinion). My argument is that you find two different definations that we need to know when we are talking about two different things.

Atonement: Reformation defination: How we are saved (and it is only through the cross)

Atonment: Biblical defination: From the word Kipper: Anything that God does that reveals more of himself to us, that will be a blessing if we accept it.

Both very valid definations, but we need to see what fits the topic at hand. Otherwise you'd think I'm crazy for trying to use a furry critter to work my computer and I'd wonder why you are trying to trap your plactic piece of electronic equipment.

[John317]

The dividing curtain was torn to indicate that the way into the most holy was laid open and made accessable to everyone.

This is certainly true. Every human being has direct access to God apart from any priest or animal sacrifice. But that does not argue against the Investigative Judgment as Seventh-day Adventists have been teaching it. The Investigative Judgment is not opposed to access to God but rather gives us confidence that God is FOR us. A major part of the Pre-Advent Judgment is what it teaches that God is doing FOR US NOW. Remember the Investigative Judgment is IN FAVOR OF THE SAINTS, not against them (Daniel 7: 27). It clears both God and His people, and it condemns Satan and sin. It shows that God is right and Satan and all his followers wrong. I am convinced of this already, and I trust you are, too, but as you can see, much of the world has yet to make up their minds.

[melvin mccarty]

Oh I should have indicated that I was not replying to you. Sorry about that Kevin.

mel

[Kevin H]

Thank you Mel. However there is more confusion about the Investigative Judgment than there is known about it, but the critics keep making the same incorrect assumptions and refuse to look at the facts. Two of the major incorrect assumptions are trying to have it fit the reformer's defination of Atonement rather than the defination of a Kipper, and that somehow it is a scary event. Your post did remind us of the danger that happens when we end up limiting our understanding to the Reformers defination.

The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment does NOT fit if we try to squeeze it into the Reformer's defination. But it does fit nicely if we remember the defination of a Biblical kipper.

[Kevin H]

One consern I have with Ford's theology is that it is so blatenly westernized culturally Christian that it ends up a bit narrow minded, and a bit too much "Say the magic words and be saved." and while offering us who grew up in western Christianity the assurance of salvation, it tends to have others sort of stuck out there.

Ford has a danger of just making us another generic western cultural Evangelical sticky sweet jesusiee church. Fine and dandy for us but Jesus is a lot bigger than Christianity, and as we look at western cultural Christianity there is a lot who add to it the belief that you need to become a strong republican and some of the other views of modern conservativism. Where Ronald Regan is preached from the pulpit with the congragation bowing their heads and saying "Amen"

Traditional Adventism (and I think that Ford himself is still enough of a traditional Adventist to fall in this group, but this is a slippery slop theory I have for Fordism) has a lot of views and we know enough not to quote Ronald Regan in the pulpit as it would spring a lot of spirited debate.

God often works through tensions: In the Old Testament we have the priest hood of Aaron with their ritual and strong General Conference and the priest hood of Moses that was more congragational and spirited. In the New Testament there is the orthodoxy of James, and the approches and tensions between Peter and Paul.

If we were to get all milktoast generic western cultural Christianity, it would be harder for us to move on. But hardy debate, serious Bible study by people willing to debate and grow, both Historists and Dispensationalists, those with a bit more moderate to liberal leanings and those with more conservative leanings, can bring about thought provocing discussion and study.

The Investigative Judgment reminds us that we are all in this together, that our focus is NOT on me and my personal salvation but the beauty of Jesus, the beauty of God and wanting to know more about the one alltogether lovely. It reminds us that we are all in the process of growth and the goal of evangelism is not necesarly making everyone like us, but to encourage growth and study about God and to help people where they are. It has room for Capatal C Christians (those who are consciously a part of a group of believers known as Christianity) and also small c christians: those who would not consider them selves part of "Christianity" but who are loving God and accpting the light they have. And it encourages us to all want to learn more about God/Jesus.

There is a reason why the mid-1800's movement was not limited to Christians but included Jews, Muslims (and maybe Budists) and it was at the time where the explosion in Biblical knowlege was begining.

Now a consern I have of traditional Adventism is that God's law is self sacrificing love, no more and no less. From this law we get the two great principles of loving God supreamly and our neighbor as our selves.

From this we get applications to help guide us towards the Law of God. These include the 10 commandaments, where our Exodus 20 version is in three thirds, one third on how to love God supreamly, the last third on how to love our neighbor as our selves and the middle third ties the two ideas together saying the only way we can love God supreamly and our neighbor as our selves is by resting in a relationship with God. Jesus has told us that no greater love is there than to lay down our lives for others.

We are in danger of replacing God's law with these applications that are to help us towards God's law. The issue of Sunday is how it is usually enforced by the state, in contrast to the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our conscious and our understanding of the Bible. But instead of inviting people to enjoy the Sabbath for it's reminders of creation and redemtion weekend and sacremental benifits, we force it on people with the highest governmental authority and the threat of not imprisionment but hell. We are in danger of turning the Sabbath into our own enforced law.

[melvin mccarty]

To tie the "investigative judgement" to the day of atonement IS an assumption!

mel

[Kevin H]

Hi Mel: Why? John the Baptist tied the day of Atonement to the begining of Jesus' teaching ministry, not to the cross. So we are in line with John the Baptist.

[John317]

Do you believe that there is any Biblical evidence for the belief that there is a judgment prior to Christ's return?

Chapter 7 of Bradley William's book, The Silencing of Satan, presents some of the Biblical evidence supporting the connection between the Day of Atonement and Daniel 8: 14. If you have the book, see especially pp. 67-83.

[melvin mccarty]

John said "Behold the Lamb of god that taketh away the sins of the world" Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world. But it happened at the cross my friend The atonement happened at the cross.

mel

[John317]

Yes, the Son of God was sacrificed and shed his blood at the cross. That was a once for all sacrifice, never to be repeated.

Yet was that all there is to the atonement? Is Jesus and God doing nothing now to bring about the full at-one-ment between God and mankind?

Take the example of the sinner who brought his lamb to the priest as a sacrifice for his sin. Was it the end of the matter for the sinner to kill the animal and shed its blood?

[Kevin H]

John said "Behold the Lamb of god that taketh away the sins of the world" Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world. But it happened at the cross my friend The atonement happened at the cross.

mel

But what John said could also be translated "Behold the Lamb of God that scapegoats the sins of the world."

The cross only atonement fits the reformer's use of the word atonement. But the Hebrew word "Kipper" means ANYTHING AT ANY TIME WHERE GOD REVEALS MORE ABOUT HIMSELF IN A SPECIAL WAY. and to try to fit Kipper to the cross only would requre God to be absolutely and totally passive except for that one event. God could never have had the birth of Jesus, never have the teaching ministry of Jesus, never have penticost, never have Saul converted on the road, never have prophets in the past, never have Luther have his 91 thesis, never have any discoveries in the Bible, because all of these events are ways how God reveals more information about himself. And any information revealing is a Kipper.

Anything else required God to be totally passive.

What the reformers refered to as Atonement is indeed the cross only event and does not fit the investigative judgment. But the idea of a kipper does fit. You are insisting the the ONLY proper use of the word Atonement is what Luther meant when he used the word. You do not allow for the meaning of the Hebrew word Kipper.

You still insist that I'm using a furry creature in working with my computer, and that the word "mouse" could not mean anything else except the furry creature.

[melvin mccarty]

I am not playing with words Kevin. A careful reading of Hebrews makes plain how all the animal sacrifices pointed to Jesus' atonement for the sins of the world as the Lamb of God. As far as the so-called mediatorial work of Jesus that must have been going on since Adam's time. There were no more "Holy Place" rituals after the cross on earth or in Heaven The tearing of the curtain showed that.

I dont find Kipper in my Bible but Wikopedia says it's a Herring...a red herrring. :-)

mel

[John317]

...A careful reading of Hebrews makes plain how all the animal sacrifices pointed to Jesus' atonement for the sins of the world as the Lamb of God.

Yes, you're right, of course. They all prefigured the death of Christ.

Quote:

As far as the so-called mediatorial work of Jesus that must have been going on since Adam's time.

The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Christ could be the mediator until He shed His blood. How could He apply the blood of His sacrifice before the sacrifice was even made? Christ is first the sacrifice, then the High Priest, then the coming King. He doesn't occupy all of those roles at the same time. For instance, when He comes as King, He will no longer be High Priest. It was necessary that He be sacrificed before He could be our High Priest. While He lived on this earth as a human being, Jesus was not our High Priest, nor was He then our Judge.

Quote:

There were no more "Holy Place" rituals after the cross on earth or in Heaven The tearing of the curtain showed that...

The tearing of the curtain showed that the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary since the type had been fulfilled in the antitypical sacrifice of Jesus. But it clearly did not signify that there was no more work to be done in the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 8: 2 says that Jesus is now a "Minister of the [heavenly] sanctuary." He is mediating the better covenant and better promises. Hebrews 9: 24 speaks of the blood of Christ cleansing or purifying the heavenly things. What is it in heaven that needs cleansing? Could it be that God's reputation and the reputation of His church and His people has been desecrated and thus need "purifying" or set right?

The apostle John saw something important going on the temple of God in heaven. It was opened and John saw the ark of the covenant there. (Rev. 11: 19) As you study the book of Revelation, you will notice that all of God's salvific activity for man originates from the sanctuary. Therefore, it is plain that the activities taking place in the Holy Place in heaven are not empty rituals but are filled with great meaning for us. You will find some of these activities described in Daniel 7: 21-27; Rev. 4 and 19. It is owing to Christ's mediating work in the Heavenly sanctuary that the Lamb's wife makes herself ready so Jesus can come for her (Rev. 19: 7). When He comes at that time, He will no longer be the mediator or High Priest, for the Scriptures teach that He won't be coming to deal with sin but will be coming for those who are eagerly waiting for Him. The sin problem will then already have been dealt with (Heb. 9: 28), and the decision will also then already have been made as to who is going to be saved in God's kingdom. That is what is going on now in the heavenly sanctuary above. The lives of all who have ever accepted Christ as their Savior are being examined. Adventists call it "the Investigative Judgment," but it is simply the judgment that takes place before Christ returns in order to gather His people to Him and "give to every one according to his work" (Rev. 22: 12).

[fccool]

John, you yourself said that Hebrews is not to be taken literally, and then you turn around and say that it favors the IJ view because some of it is literal and not symbolic like other parts. How do you make that distinction.

Here's the problem I see. You can't start with a faith assumption and then fit the Bible to your faith assumption... twisting the arms. Can you provide any verses that we are being investigated TODAY by JESUS HIMSELF... and that the work of atonement was not complete on the cross?

Yes, in the OT the atonement was performed by sprinkling of the blood on the altar. All of it was pointing to the cross.

Where is the throne of God located ? It is symbolized by the mercy seat of course. IT IS IN THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY! So when Jesus entered heaven he went to the right hand of the father in the Holiest of the Holies. From hebrews writer....

And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

In Romans 5:11 is a clear picture of atonement:

1Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

That word "reconciliation" is word for atonement. To atone for means to make amends, and therefore to reconcile. Some translate atonement as "propitiation for the sins". How many times you read that THROUGH HIS DEATH WE ARE RECONCILED? Death is the scriptural atonement. So, what is Christ doing in Heaven?

Heb 9:15 "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance-now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."

1 Tim 2:5-6 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men-the testimony given in its proper time."

Romans 8:33-34 “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Some people point to Heb 2:17-18 ( In NIV too) to make their case for unfinished atonement.

17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for[a]the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

They say, "if the Christ might make atonement, then it is in the future...". Read it again in YLT version, or American Standard. The "in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God", can not be separated from "nd that he might make atonement for[a]the sins of the people." Was Jesus Merciful and faithful high priest on Earth? YES! Did he make atonement (amends) for people's sins at the cross? YES! He paid the highest price, what else is there left to pay?

As far as Jesus judging our works now... it's ludicrous! He judged our works from the very beginning! He knew who would fail and who would make it from the beginning! To say that he needs to wait and figure that part out is to minimize His omnipotence. He knows already! Investigative Judgement is nowhere to be found in scripture. Let's not twist Scripture's arm here:

30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

What is that day? Second coming of course, not 1844! Who will Judge? God through His Son will judge... Judgment is not something that God waited to do till 1844 to begin doing! HE KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING. It's not something that takes Him by surprise and he has to now figure out who will be a good or bad guy (like Santa making his list). He already knows. The language of judgment is for OUR UNDERSTANDING. That we may not take salvation lightly.

He could have made it in a snap, do you think it will take him 200 years to judge? It's very naive view of God, and it is not essential for salvation experience to make a 20 point doctrine out of it.

[John317]

John, you yourself said that Hebrews is not to be taken literally, and then you turn around and say that it favors the IJ view because some of it is literal and not symbolic like other parts. How do you make that distinction.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me if you believe that I don't think we should take the book of Hebrews literally. I've never said that it is a mistake to take the book of Hebrews literally. Could you copy and paste the statement I have written which you interpreted to mean that Hebrews per se is not to be taken literally?

Of course you have to use common sense when it comes to understanding it, just like with the books of Daniel and Revelation. For instance, we don't take Jesus to be literally a little lamb, nor do we believe that Jesus literally has a two-edged sword proceeding out of his mouth.

Do you find it confusing to realize that some parts are symbolic and other parts literal? For instance, it says that God is speaking to us through His Son, and then it says that His Son "sat down at the right hand" of the Father. Does that mean Jesus is literally God's Son; that is, that God produced His Son like we produce our sons? And, again, when it says that Jesus "sat down" at God's "right hand," does it mean that Jesus literally sat down on a chair at the right hand of God and that Jesus has been sitting there all these nearly 2000 years? No, of course not.

Do you believe that there is a literal, real sanctuary in heaven?

I do. Why? Because the Bible says there is, very plainly. Moses was literally shown a pattern of it and told to build the earthly sanctuary based on those plans or patterns. Both the book of Hebrews and the book of Revelation teach that there is a sanctuary in heaven. The apostle John tells us that he saw it. Hebrews says that Jesus is a mediator or minister there in the heavenly sanctuary.

I've haven't slept since early yesterday morning, so I have to go to bed now but will be up in the morning to continue this conversation. In the meantime tell me what you believe about the sanctuary, the IJ, and whether you have studied and know and understand what Ellen White has written about it, particularly in GC.

Let me know if you have any pictures to send me. I'd like to see some.

I have quite a few at this link if you care to look: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...id_R#Post169068