Desmond Ford 's Talk on Forensic Atonement At Loma Linda

[jasd]

QR frame:

I don’t often visit Townhall, as it is simply not my cup of tea. I prefer my tea hot and bracing - but would rather have coffee; however, having had a bit of exposure to Brinsmead – I thought I’d peruse the Desmond Ford thread. A couple of things piqued my interest, they being:

>>Desmond Ford wants an apology. Good one. I want an apology from Desmond Ford for perverting the gospel of Christ and for leading people into the darkness of New Theology. Because of him and his protégé, Jack Sequeira, my brethren have been seduced and now they go about like Krishna Hindus who think they have found enlightenment. They think they have found a shortcut to understand things and to being ahead of the game. They think they see things more clearly than everyone else, and now they have a sense of purpose to "enlighten" the whole SDA church, when really they are being led by seducing spirits.<<

More than ‘interesting’ – I found the above to be a bit turgid – fascinating; and compliment its author. I find most fascinating the assertion of the last sentence – seemingly, left-handedly composed to lend to and enshrine a certain sense of the ‘infallible’ to a .Org’s dogmas and doctrines.

Infallible, eh? The Protestor’s Bull?

>>They could be building on the foundation already set, but instead, they entice people to their own new foundation. They could be focusing their time and attention on getting the message that we have, to the world, but instead they are trying to concoct a new message and they are forever focused on Adventists, not the world. They dwell in darkness, and instead of coming to the light, just keep coming up with more and more absurd new interpretations that only mangle and mutilate every doctrine of Christianity.<<

Ba’al, the god of veggie-tation. Shut door. Unitarianism. [...] I think it rather doctrinaire... Actually, the .Org has as much a history of organic evolution re dogmas and doctrines, as any other Protesting .org – or, for that matter – the RCC. Anyway,

Matt 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe [which is] instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure [things] new and old.

Folks, THAT’S “new”! – and “old”.

>>If the Lord starts casting out devils in the church now, we would discover them to be demoniacs who are seduced by New Theology.<<

I mean, “demoniacs”!? Colorful, at the least.

>>He confused a lot of people about the Investigative Judgment and caused many to lose faith in Ellen White and to drop out of the church. For me, it doesn't seem like good fruit.<<

Actually, many of my friends and family are SDA. I find myself comfortable in associating with them. I’ve mentioned that my mother was SDA.

For me, the primary stumbling block to a commitment on my part to SDA’ism is their dependency upon EGW – to its distraction from Holy Writ – y’know, fruits and such.

>>Dr. Ford ...

His reasoning for rejecting it is basically four-fold:

1) Ford says Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven as soon as He ascended to heaven in 31 AD.

2) Ford says that God has nothing to learn from the Investigative Judgment and therefore it is unnecessary.

3) Ford says that Christians do not come under judgment.

4) In Ford's view, Ellen White was simply wrong in what she wrote about the Investigative Judgment, a central doctrine of the church and of her writings. Yet Ford continues to champion Ellen White as a true prophet of God.<<

Fact of the matter is – the IJ is both dogmatic and a construction. It seems, by the immediately above, that Dr Ford deconstructs the issue quite handily, no more.

To tell the truth, whereas the .Org's construction of an IJ dogma depends upon a multitude of texts, passages, and inferences. Dr Ford’s deconstruction sums it up with just the simple points proffered above and actually, rings truer than the thud proffered by the constructionists.

[melvin mccarty]

Dr Ford was not treated fairly at Glacier View IMO. The "bretheren" came not to listen or discuss the issues but to defend the tradition at all costs. The church does not stand or fall on the traditional understanding of the IJ and sanctuary. They are not not the everlasting gospel. It is possibly more a face saving problem.

mel

[John317]

I wouldn't deny that some things were done at Glacier View that shouldn't have happened.

Do you know of anything in particular that happened which showed unfair treatment beyond the one you mention here?

It may be true that the majority of the brethren didn't come to listen or discuss but to defend the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. I'm sure the delegates went there with strong convictions about the subject.

It sounds like you believe it is not all that important to us as a church. Could you explain briefly how you see it and its relationship to the church's message?

[melvin mccarty]

We could look at the origin of the doctrine. You and I both know that there was no judgement scene in the COI's yearly day of atonement. There were not books opened etc. The people did not come before a judge. The judgement scene that Daniel saw is not dated is it? To tie a judgement scene to the COI;s yearly "day of atonement" is a 'construct' as jasd says. I remember as a young person how terrified I was that my name might pop up in judgement without me knowing and I'd have some forgotten "sin" on the books. That, along with the hellfire preachers, (the adventist version of course) really soured me on the whole thing until I finally heard the real gospel. I was past 20 years old by that time. I know those good folk back there in 1844 were desperate to make some sense out of their predicament but I think it possible they added one more mistake instead.

mel

[John317]

You make some valid points and bring up important questions.

No doubt about it, the Investigative Judgment has not been taught very well, especially to young people. I think the people who explained it to you when you were 20 or so, no doubt tried to do the best they could, but they obviously didn't have a good grasp of it or of the gospel.

The point here is that just because someone does not explain something well, or even if they are wrong about something, doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. Maybe they were right about the existence of the Investigative Judgment but they were wrong in the details of their explanation.

If you get a chance to read it, it would be worth your while to read a book by the name of, The Silencing of Satan, by Bradley R. Williams. It is subtitled, The Gospel Of the Investigative Judgment. That book gives the Bible evidence for the Investigative, or Pre-Advent Judgment, if you are interested. It's a short book of only 150 pages and is well worth the cost of $12.00. It can be purchased online or at the ABC. (Do they call them that, in Australia?)

I would just encourage you to keep studying and asking questions until you get Biblically sound answers.

I'll be back later tonight to write more on this, especially regarding the first part of your post having to do with the judgment scene in Daniel and the COI day of atonement.

[Woody]

Quote:

The church does not stand or fall on the traditional understanding of the IJ and sanctuary. They are not not the everlasting gospel.

This is very true and vital to understand. There are groups of people out there that will tell you otherwise. They do this to try to preserve their personal biased views of the doctrine.

The TRUTH .... our church stands and has it foundation ... upon the GOSPEL. This is what our church is ALL about. If the Gospel falls ... so will our church. But don't believe those that tell you the IJ is what does that.

[John317]

At this point, however, the issue or question is not whether the church would fall without the Investigative Judgment. The question is whether the Bible supports the concept of the Pre-Advent Judgment.

It is not a question of whether the church would fall without it, because we could say the same thing about most of the doctrines of the church.

Out of our 28 official doctrines, how many would cause the fall of the church if they didn't exist tomorrow?

So that is not really what we are trying to find out here. We're simply talking about it with an object of understanding it better.

[Woody]

Quote:

the issue or question is not

Quote:

It is not a question of

This is a nice way to dictate what the issue is or what the question is or is not. But you should add the words ... " Personally I FEEL ... the issue is not.

I think we should let the discussion go where people think the issue is and not just where one or two THINK the issue may be or not be.

[melvin mccarty]

Persons who wish to discuss issues should practice reading carefully so as not to misrepresent what the other person is saying. There are those who continually undermine other's viewpoints by misrepresenting their posts. How do you view that type of activity?

mel

[Woody]

Some will even misrepresent their own words after they say them ... just to maintain face. lol But, yeah. I know what you're talkin about.

[John317]

Some will even misrepresent their own words after they say them ... just to maintain face. lol But, yeah. I know what you're talkin about.

Who are you talking about and what words do you have in mind?

[John317]

Persons who wish to discuss issues should practice reading carefully so as not to misrepresent what the other person is saying. There are those who continually undermine other's viewpoints by misrepresenting their posts. How do you view that type of activity?

mel

Could you explain? I'm not aware of having done this, but if you feel I have, let me know what you are referring to.

[melvin mccarty]

Is the ice getting thin perhaps? :-)

mel

[melvin mccarty]

We read about the new covenant in Hebrews 10. The Lord says "I will set my laws in their hearts and write them on their understanding.......and their sins and wicked deeds I will remember no more at all. Another place states that the names of people who accept Christ do not come up in judgement. You know that.

mel

[John317]

There's a good book that deals with that very question. You can get it at the ABC or order it online. It presents the Bible evidence for the Pre-Advent Judgment, and is entitled, The Silencing of Satan, the Gospel In the Investigative Judgement.

http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/default.htm

http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page3.html

http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page1.html

There have been very good and interesting Online discussions about this topic and this book.

Later I'll come back and add to this post.

[Robert]

Yes, there's an IJ...but

The question we need to ask is why?

Is it to see who is good enough?

No, because no one is good enough. Like the Bible says: "There's none righteous"..."All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"..."If we say we have no sin..." etc

So if the IJ is about who is measuring up, well, you can forget heaven.

Then what is the IJ about?

Well, there's an accuser who accurately points your sins out to God and he tells Him, "You have no right to let ______ in because your own law requires, 'The person who sins must die'"!

What does Christ do with believing sinners? I'll even use Ellen to answer my question:

The tempter stands by to accuse them, as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their filthy garments, their defective characters. He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitude, their unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer. He endeavors to affright [scare] them with the thought that their case is hopeless, that the stain of their defilement will never be washed away. He hopes so to destroy their faith that they will yield to his temptations, and turn from their allegiance to God.

Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins that he has tempted God's people to commit, and he urges his accusations against them, declaring, that by their sins they have forfeited divine protection, and claiming that he has the right to destroy them. He pronounces them just as deserving as himself of exclusion from the favor of God. "Are these," he says, "the people who are to take my place in heaven, and the place of the angels who united with me? They profess to obey the law of God; but have they kept its precepts? Have they not been lovers of self more than lovers of God? Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world? Look at the sins that have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred of one another. Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them."

But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves up to be controlled by the satanic agencies [i.e., they haven’t given themselves totally over to the flesh, to live according to it]. They have repented of their sins and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf. He who has been most abused by their ingratitude, who knows their sin and also their penitence, declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan. I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands [that’s the “in Christ” motif]. They may have imperfections of character; they may have failed in their endeavors; but they have repented, and I have forgiven and accepted them."

[John317]

You've quoted Ellen White as an authority regarding the Investigative Judgment. I believe it's important to support the doctrine from the Bible, but I do agree with you that what Ellen White wrote about it is also important.

Here's a very important quote from GC on the subject:

The subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, showing that God's hand had directed the great advent movement and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people. As the disciples of Jesus after the terrible night of their anguish and disappointment were "glad when they saw the Lord," so did those now rejoice who had looked in faith for His second coming. They had expected Him to appear in glory to give reward to His servants. As their hopes were disappointed, they had lost sight of Jesus, and with Mary at the sepulcher they cried: "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." Now in the holy of holies they again beheld Him, their compassionate High Priest, soon to appear as their king and deliverer. Light from the sanctuary illumined the past, the present, and the future. They knew that God had led them by His unerring providence. Though, like the first disciples, they themselves had failed to understand the message which they bore, yet it had been in every respect correct. In proclaiming it they had fulfilled the purpose of God, and their labor had not been in vain in the Lord. Begotten "again unto a lively hope," they rejoiced "with joy unspeakable and full of glory."

424

Both the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," and the first angel's message, "Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come," pointed to Christ's ministration in the most holy place, to the investigative judgment, and not to the coming of Christ for the redemption of His people and the destruction of the wicked. The mistake had not been in the reckoning of the prophetic periods, but in the event to take place at the end of the 2300 days. Through this error the believers had suffered disappointment, yet all that was foretold by the prophecy, and all that they had any Scripture warrant to expect, had been accomplished. At the very time when they were lamenting the failure of their hopes, the event had taken place which was foretold by the message, and which must be fulfilled before the Lord could appear to give reward to His servants.

Christ had come, not to the earth, as they expected, but, as foreshadowed in the type, to the most holy place of the temple of God in heaven. He is represented by the prophet Daniel as coming at this time to the Ancient of Days: "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came"--not to the earth, but--"to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him." Daniel 7:13.

This coming is foretold also by the prophet Malachi: "The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 3:1. The coming of the Lord to His temple was sudden, unexpected, to His people. They were not looking for Him there. They expected Him to come to earth, "in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel." 2 Thessalonians 1:8.

But the people were not yet ready to meet their Lord. There was still a work of preparation to be accomplished for

425

them. Light was to be given, directing their minds to the temple of God in heaven; and as they should by faith follow their High Priest in His ministration there, new duties would be revealed. Another message of warning and instruction was to be given to the church.

Says the prophet: "Who may abide the day of His coming? and who shall stand when He appeareth? for He is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." Malachi 3:2, 3. Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God's people upon earth. This work is more clearly presented in the messages of Revelation 14.

When this work shall have been accomplished, the followers of Christ will be ready for His appearing. "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years." Malachi 3:4. Then the church which our Lord at His coming is to receive to Himself will be a "glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Ephesians 5:27. Then she will look "forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." Song of Solomon 6:10. GC 423-425

[Gerr]

The IJ will also reveal the wise who built on the Rock and had plenty of oil, and the foolish who built on sand and did not have enough oil; and the genuine faith that works from the faith that is dead.

Gerry

[BobRyan]

Dr. Ford responded that the Catholic Church has made many apologies, but the Adventist Church does not apologize."

This brings up an important issue ... Does the Adventist Church issue apologizes for errors they make?

It begs the question "Does the Catholic church actually apoligize for any specific action" -- while it appears to "assume" that the answer must be "yes".

In fact Dr Carroll former owner of the church history section of EWTN's Q&A board has argued conclusively that the RCC never actually apologized for any specific action during the dark ages. Anyone who understands RC doctrine immediately recognizes why they would have to take that position.

As for Glacier View -- it is hardly a "new thing" for a denomination to insist that it's OWN doctrine be taught at it's OWN institutions. I don't see how that obvious point would ever make the news.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

You've quoted Ellen White as an authority regarding the Investigative Judgment. I believe it's important to support the doctrine from the Bible, but I do agree with you that what Ellen White wrote about it is also important.

This is another great point. Ellen White was very firm on her insistence that doctrinal argument be derived sola scriptura -- "the Bible and the Bible only".

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Yes, there's an IJ...but

The question we need to ask is why?

Is it to see who is good enough?

No, because no one is good enough. Like the Bible says: "There's none righteous"..."All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"..."If we say we have no sin..." etc

So if the IJ is about who is measuring up, well, you can forget heaven.

Then what is the IJ about?

Well, there's an accuser who accurately points your sins out to God and he tells Him, "You have no right to let ______ in because your own law requires, 'The person who sins must die'"!

More Bible please.

in 2Cor 5:10 we have the IJ.

In Romans 2:4-16 we have the IJ

In Daniel 7 we have the IJ

In Matt 7 we see a clear allusion to the IJ

Take your pick.

in Christ,

Bob

[Morning Glory]

Robert,

I have read thru this whole thread with great interest as the Investigative Judgement has always, at some level, struck terror in my heart. From the quotes you shared here, it sounds to me that the IJ is more of a situation where, again, it is between God and Satan, not between God and us. It is Jesus arguing on behalf of those who have loved and served Him and have rejected Satan over the course of their lives.

I appreciate all the comments given here as this has always been somewhat of a question for me. I remember being taught as a child that it was Jesus legally arguing the case of His followers w/ Satan. However, it has always been concerning for me, because like someone else stated: I won't know when my name comes up, and have I forgotten to confess some sin that may affect the outcome of this proceeding?

I also agree that since God is all knowing, He doesn't need the IJ to make His decision. However, this is a fight between God and Satan, unfortunately, we are drug into it without our consent. So, even tho God doesn't need to "investigate" anything, this is a Legal battle fought by Satan, and must be handled in a Legal manner.

Thank God for His unending Love for us, and for His supreme wisdom and sacrifice to secure out salvation for all time!!

Morning Glory

[BobRyan]

The IJ is alternate characterized as a huge non-event or as a huge event depending on the agenda and POV of the one describing it -- let the reader be informed.

in Christ,

Bob

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: John317

You've quoted Ellen White as an authority regarding the Investigative Judgment. I believe it's important to support the doctrine from the Bible, but I do agree with you that what Ellen White wrote about it is also important.

This is another great point. Ellen White was very firm on her insistence that doctrinal argument be derived sola scriptura -- "the Bible and the Bible only".

in Christ,

Bob

What I find curious is that those who say it should be supported from the Bible .... then go and quote Ellen White. Curious.

[Woody]

Robert,

I have read thru this whole thread with great interest as the Investigative Judgement has always, at some level, struck terror in my heart. From the quotes you shared here, it sounds to me that the IJ is more of a situation where, again, it is between God and Satan, not between God and us. It is Jesus arguing on behalf of those who have loved and served Him and have rejected Satan over the course of their lives.

I appreciate all the comments given here as this has always been somewhat of a question for me. I remember being taught as a child that it was Jesus legally arguing the case of His followers w/ Satan. However, it has always been concerning for me, because like someone else stated: I won't know when my name comes up, and have I forgotten to confess some sin that may affect the outcome of this proceeding?

I also agree that since God is all knowing, He doesn't need the IJ to make His decision. However, this is a fight between God and Satan, unfortunately, we are drug into it without our consent. So, even tho God doesn't need to "investigate" anything, this is a Legal battle fought by Satan, and must be handled in a Legal manner.

Thank God for His unending Love for us, and for His supreme wisdom and sacrifice to secure out salvation for all time!!

Morning Glory

Good Post.

I've just concluded that I don't have to worry. My salvation is secured in Christ. He is just. Nothing I can do will take away what HE did ... as long as I accept Him. I believe those who are His have assurance. I know 'I' do.