Desmond Ford 's Talk on Forensic Atonement At Loma Linda

[John317]

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"....

Yes, she did say that, but the statement is often misunderstood to mean that what she wrote about a doctrine is irrelevant.

When Ellen White writes that we should only use the Bible to establish doctrine, she meant that the doctrine itself should be founded on the evidence of Scripture.

Therefore, when we study the Bible with non-Adventists, we should establish every point of doctrine from the Bible.

Also, of course, as individual students of Scripture we need to know the doctrines on the basis of the Bible and the Bible alone.

In the case of the Investigative Judgment, the Bible evidence has been shown over and over again.

This link is to just one example of its having been done:

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

The author of the above book did not use anything from the Spirit of prophecy.

The Daniel and Revelation Committee Series is another example of the IJ being established on the basis of the Bible evidence:

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/bookshop.htm

If Ellen White meant that Seventh-day Adventists should not use anything by her in our study and discussions of the Investigative Judgment, why did she write so much about it?

Having individually and as a church established the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, we should then be able to go on and discuss the doctrine in the light of the Spirit of prophecy. There should be a forum for discussing what both the Biblical and the Spirit of prophecy say on this topic.

To ignore or fail to consider what Ellen White wrote on the Investigative Judgment is to reject the gift of prophecy which God placed in our church. This becomes plain when we consider our own doctrine:

Quote:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

[Woody]

Quote:

Quote:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

Please note that she is "a" source of truth etc....

And I would not suggest that ALL she ever said in publication is directly from the throne of God. Take what you consider from God and throw out the rest. Those were HER instructions. WE are to compare her words to scripture and toss out that which does not measure up.

I believe she was a prophet. I also believe we can let her be human.

That's my two cents on the issue.

[BobRyan]

When talking about the doctrine of Atonement - we should use the Bible and argue sola-scriptura -- when debating among SDAs. I have NEVER been willing to reduce my position on a given Doctrine to "I believe this because Ellen White said..." and the reason is that the Bible does not favor that and OUR OWN doctrine on Prophecy argues that the Prophet must PASS the test of a prophet -- which means they themselves must compare favorably with a sola-scriptura test!

This board is open to both SDAs and non-SDAs which is all the more reason to hold a high standard in defending a give doctrinal POV.

It is no accident that ALL of our doctrines come from the bible and are always established sola-scriptura in Bible studies with ALL!

Having said that - I do believe Ellen White was inspired just as the other non-canonical prophets of both the OT and NT. Deborah for example was both prophet and judge in Israel -- and yet we have no Bible "book of Deborah".

The role of those prophets is never to create new doctrine or a new source of authority for doctrine. It is always to bring people BACK to the Bible and the Bible alone as the authority as the "sole authority and judge of all faith and practice" when it comes to doctrine etc.

The problem is that it is way too tempting to use something Ellen White said as a short-cut to correct or cut-off a fellow SDA on some doctrinal point instead of carefully making the point sola-scriptura.

Ellen White objected to that use of her writings and so should we.

Now I will admit that many many Christians today love going "beyond scripture" to debate points not necessarily addressed therein -- and when you are out there -- I fully agree that Ellen White's inspired position beats "people guessing all up and down the street" any day!

Having said that - I agree that Ford produced an lot of error in his day and that many who were less inclined to independant Bible study (and were probably more inclined to Ellen White and historical accounts) were easily duped. He was very charismatic, very well researched and very scholarly in his positions -- no question about that.

But Adventists in general were almost completely ignorant about the division between Calvinism and Arminianism -- and the Biblical reasons for our denomination being Arminian. Ford took advantage of that blind spot.

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

>>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.<<

Judgements, yes; however, IJ as advanced by this .Org? No. Example:

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

2 Corinthians 5:10 reads as we – not a record or account entry attributable to us – must appear before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ. There is no argument in the above that would establish an IJ concept of a judgement 1844-onward based solely on people’s records of deeds good or bad.

>>I fully agree that Ellen White's inspired position...<<

Lest one advances the EGW and the Lutheran ‘sola scriptura’ together – let’s not forget that it wasn’t until the end of the 19th century that EGW began to voice a drift in her ‘writings’ towards the Trinity doctrine; moreover, she did so with the writing and arguments of another – supposedly ‘uninspired author’.

[John317]

>>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.<<

Judgements, yes; however, IJ as advanced by this .Org? No.

Lots of Bible here--

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

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/bookshop.htm

[jasd]

>>Lots of Bible here--<<

That may be, however, I found a whole lot more book-selling. I was not inclined

to do a complete search of the ‘links’ within ‘links’ - pursuing a validation of an IJ doctrine as may be found within these 'links'. So, simply put,

why don’t you post the most salient text attesting to an IJ beginning in 1844?

[John317]

Well, these books present the evidence in a way that you can follow along with your Bible and study the evidence for yourself that way. One of those links is to a small book, about 130 pages, which presents the Bible evidence for the Investigative Judgment, and the link also takes you to sites where there were really good exchanges between the author and readers or others interested in the topic.

Some time we should devote a whole thread to the subject.

Before I present the most important points of the book, could you tell me what you know about the Investigative Judgment-- for instance, why is the subject of importance to the Seventh-day Adventist church (from the viewpoint of the church)? What do Seventh-day Adventist say about it, in terms of why it is essential? What difference does it make?

[jasd]

>>...the link also takes you to sites where there were really good exchanges between the author and readers or others interested in the topic.<<

Perhaps, you could post the URL for that site.

>>...why is the subject of importance to the Seventh-day Adventist church (from the viewpoint of the church)?<<

I proffer that it has taken on greater importance than it may otherwise have - because of the non-event aspect of the ‘Great Disappointment’ and the ensuing embarrassment to have been so caught out.

>>What do Seventh-day Adventist say about it, in terms of why it is essential?<<

It, in concept, was given its imprimatur by EGW (note: if I am not mistaken, Uriah Smith was the driving force in constructing the dogmas and doctrines of SDAism – with EGW giving her ‘inspired’ sanctions)

Disabuse me.

>>What difference does it make?<<

Not much salvifically; however, it makes a huge difference in sustaining a ‘peculiar Remnant’ milieu.

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- ...why is the subject of importance to the Seventh-day Adventist church (from the viewpoint of the church)?<<

Quote:

JASD-- I proffer that it has taken on greater importance than it may otherwise have - because of the non-event aspect of the ‘Great Disappointment’ and the ensuing embarrassment to have been so caught out.

OK, but of course you have given me the viewpoint of those who do not believe it. I was trying to find out if you understand the doctrine from the viewpoint of the church.

For instance, how can I call into into question the Jehovah's Witness viewpoint of something if I don't know how they understand it?

In the same way, how can I tear down a doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventists that I don't have a good grasp of?

(I'm not saying you don't understand it-- but it appears from your answer that you may not.)

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- >>What do Seventh-day Adventist say about it, in terms of why it is essential?<<

Quote:

JASD-- It, in concept, was given its imprimatur by EGW (note: if I am not mistaken, Uriah Smith was the driving force in constructing the dogmas and doctrines of SDAism – with EGW giving her ‘inspired’ sanctions)

Disabuse me.

Actually, Uriah Smith was a fairly late-comer. He came on the scene (1853) after most of the major doctrines had been developed. He was important for the church's views on Daniel and Revelation, and he wrote extensively on the non-immortality of the soul. He wrote a book on the cleansing of the sanctuary, but none of the beliefs he wrote about had their origins with him. (He did lead the church, however, down the wrong path prophetically regarding Armageddon. In this he contradicted Ellen White's views.)

Most of the major doctrines were clarified during 22 Sabbath Bible Conferences held between 1848 and 1850.

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- What difference does it make?

Quote:

JASD-- Not much salvifically; however, it makes a huge difference in sustaining a ‘peculiar Remnant’ milieu.

OK, again you are giving the answer of someone who doesn't believe it. But that doesn't help me know what you understand of it from the church's standpoint.

If this is all you know about it, I am not surprised you think it's unimportant.

Perhaps you know much more than this, but I have no way of knowing.

I asked the questions in order to determine what you already know in order to know what you've covered before.

This tells me that it's probable you've never studied a book that presents the Investigative Judgment in a positive light. Let me know if my assumption is wrong.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

It, in concept, was given its imprimatur by EGW (note: if I am not mistaken, Uriah Smith was the driving force in constructing the dogmas and doctrines of SDAism – with EGW giving her ‘inspired’ sanctions)

Disabuse me.

Quote:John317

Actually, Uriah Smith was a fairly late-comer. He came on the scene (1853) after most of the major doctrines had been developed. He was important for the church's views on Daniel and Revelation, and he wrote extensively on the non-immortality of the soul. He wrote a book on the cleansing of the sanctuary, but none of the beliefs he wrote about had their origins with him. (He did lead the church, however, down the wrong path prophetically regarding Armageddon. In this he contradicted Ellen White's views.)

Most of the major doctrines were clarified during 22 Sabbath Bible Conferences held between 1848 and 1850.

I take your assessment at face value and stand “disabused” – in part.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

What difference does it make?

Quote:jasd

Not much salvifically; however, it makes a huge difference in sustaining a ‘peculiar Remnant’ milieu.

>>OK, again you are giving the answer of someone who doesn't believe it. But that doesn't help me know what you understand of it from the church's standpoint.

If this is all you know about it, I am not surprised you think it's unimportant.

Perhaps you know much more than this, but I have no way of knowing.

I asked the questions in order to determine what you already know in order to know what you've covered before.

This tells me that it's probable you've never studied a book that presents the Investigative Judgment in a positive light. Let me know if my assumption is wrong.<<

Umm, John317, ...don’t know where you’re going with this, per the above.

I made no proffer of either essay or treatise re IJ, nor did I suggest a 'need-to-know' upon the matter. I simply inquired after a/the

salient text substantiating the dogma and a URL.

Per my familiarity with the internals of the 'doctrine', what must one know of it after being apprised that its establishment begins with an incorrectly exposited text, that is,

Daniel 8:14? or a highly peculiarized recitation re the Levitical Atonement?

So, what of that salient text or the URL?

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Bob said

>>More Bible please.

(Individuals judged (even saints) in the future based on DEEDS)

2Cor 5:10 we have the IJ.

(BOTH the failing AND the succeeding cases addressed in future judgment -- based on DEEDS and the outcome is heaven or hell as we see here)

Romans 2:4-16 we have the IJ

(Saints are subjects investigated in the distinctly pre-Advent judgment, based on things written in books. Corporate objective event -- the court sits the books are opened -- Only AFTER the judgment is "passed in favor of the saints" do we finally get the 2nd coming)

Daniel 7 we have the IJ

(Principle of a future judment regarding the issue of whether we DID the will of the Father -- rather than just saying "Lord Lord)

In Matt 7 we see a clear allusion to the IJ[/b

Take your pick.<<

Judgements, yes; however, IJ as advanced by this .Org? No. Example:

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

[BobRyan]

>>I fully agree that Ellen White's inspired position...<<

Lest one advances the EGW and the Lutheran ‘sola scriptura’ together – let’s not forget that it wasn’t until the end of the 19th century that EGW began to voice a drift in her ‘writings’ towards the Trinity doctrine; moreover, she did so with the writing and arguments of another – supposedly ‘uninspired author’.

Far be it from me to argue any option BUT "sola scriptura" -- but I would make one point of correction on that statement above.

Ellen White was a United Methodist -- trinitarian long before she was SDA.

She never spoke out against James White's anti-trinitarian (he was church of the Brethren prior to being SDA) views until he died in the 1880's.

Her statements on the Holy Spirit and on Christ matched with what we find in the King James -- but she did not elaborate on the texts that point to the divinity of both of them until James died.

And now - we return -- to "sola scriptura".

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

So, what of that salient text or the URL?

On the Investigative Judgment in the Bible, here is some of the evidence that the concept is taught in the Gospels and Revelation--

The reception of His Kingdom takes place in heaven while the saints are still on earth, as Daniel was shown: “I saw in the night vision, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” Dan.7:13.14.

Bringing into prophetic focus this same event Jesus declared parabolically: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for Himself a kingdom, and to return.” Luke 19:12. Note that He receives the Kingdom (acquires ownership of it ) while He is away, not when He returns. (See The Great Controversy, p.426,427).

So, the marriage is the coronation of Christ, which takes place in the heavenly temple when all His subjects on earth are made ready, while the work is drawing to completion, and probation to a close. Obviously, then, the marriage takes place before He comes to “receive” the saints unto Himself (John 14:3), and before they meet Him “in the air.” 1 Thess.4:16,17. Afterwards is served the “supper.”

Consequently, though the wedding takes place in heaven, the saints while on the earth are the prospective guest for the marriage supper. Then, after the marriage is solemnized in the Holy of Holies, Jesus descends from heaven and takes the guest unto Himself, so that where He is, they may be also (John 14:1-3). There they eat of the “marriage supper of the Lamb.”—The Great Controversy p.427: Rev. 19:9. In this instance, while the saints are said to be the guest, the Holy City is said to be the “the bride.” Rev.21:9,10.

Again; just before the marriage, when the saints are still on earth, their righteousness is said to be the bride’s (city’s) “fine linen.” Rev. 19:8.

The coming of the bridegroom, here brought to view, takes place before the marriage. The marriage represents the reception by Christ of His kingdom. (The bride is not the church but the Holy City. And the Sanctuary was not the earth but the one in Heaven.)The Holy City, the New Jerusalem, which is the capital and representative of the kingdom, is called "the bride, the Lamb's wife."Said the angel to John: "Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." "He carried me away in the spirit," says the prophet, "and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God." Revelation 21:9, 10. Clearly, then, the bride represents the Holy City, and the virgins that go out to meet the bridegroom are a symbol of the church. In the Revelation the people of God are said to be the guests at the marriage supper. Revelation 19:9. If guests, they cannot be represented also as the bride. Christ, as stated by the prophet Daniel, will receive from the Ancient of Days in heaven, "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom; ;" He will receive the New Jerusalem, the capital of His kingdom, "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." Daniel 7:

The proclamation, "Behold, the Bridegroom cometh," in the summer of 1844, led thousands to expect the immediate advent of the Lord. At the appointed time the Bridegroom came, not to the earth, as the people expected, but to the Ancient of Days in heaven, to the marriage, the reception of His kingdom. "They that were ready went in with Him to the marriage: and the door was shut." They were not to be present in person at the marriage; for it takes place in heaven, while they are upon the earth. The followers of Christ are to "wait for their Lord, when He will return from the wedding." Luke 12:36. But they are to understand His work, and to follow Him by faith as He goes in before God. It is in this sense that they are said to go in to the marriage.

In the parable it was those that had oil in their vessels with their lamps that went in to the marriage. Those who, with a knowledge of the truth from the Scriptures, had also the Spirit and grace of God, and who, in the night of their bitter trial, had patiently waited, searching the Bible for clearer light--these saw the truth concerning the sanctuary in heaven and the Saviour's change in ministration, and by faith they followed Him in His work in the sanctuary above. And all who through the testimony of the Scriptures accept the same truths, following Christ by faith as He enters in before God to perform the last work of mediation, and at its close to receive His kingdom--all these are represented as going in to the marriage.

In the parable of Matthew 22 the same figure of the marriage is introduced, and the investigative judgment is clearly represented as taking place before the marriage. Previous to the wedding the king comes in to see the guests, to see if all are attired in the wedding garment, the spotless robe of character washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb. Matthew 22:11; Revelation 7:14. There is an examination, an investigation to see who are wearing the wedding garments. This work of examination of character, of determining who are prepared for the kingdom of God, is that of the investigative judgment, the closing of work in the sanctuary above.

“They that were ready went in with Him to the marriage: and the door was shut,” we are carried down through the Saviour's final ministration. Rev 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.”

SEE NEXT POST

[John317]

Continued from previous post---

The Investigative Judgment

In the New Testament

Sometimes our critics challenge us with the following argument: "The Investigative Judgment is nowhere to be found in the New Testament!"

Some of our critics would be surprised to learn that the Investigative Judgment really is taught in the New Testament. Not only that, it is taught by the Master himself! Most find it difficult to believe in the Investigative Judgment, so we thought if this doctrine came directly from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ himself it would be even more convincing. Follow us to the book of Matthew, where Jesus was once again confronted by the Pharisees, but to their own shame:

Matthew 22:1-14

(1) And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,

(2) The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

(3) And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

(4) Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

(5) But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

(6) And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

(7) But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

(8) Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

(9) Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

(10) So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

(11) And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

(12) And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

(13) Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

(14) For many are called, but few are chosen.

There are 5 points we want you to notice here:

Point # 1) Once the wedding was furnished with guests, the king comes in to “see” those present. While seeing, he finds a man unprepared for the wedding (verse 11). With all the people that were present the king found one unprepared individual there. The king’s “seeing” and finding this certain individual must have therefore been an investigation he performed upon those who were there.

Point # 2) This is not a scene of heaven, but of earth, because both “good and bad” are present. This means that when the king “investigates” those present, he is investigating those upon the earth.

Point # 3) The king can be none other then God himself. If God, then he has to be in heaven, looking (investigating) down upon the earth, for God on earth would result in the destruction of the earth by reason of his glory. Therefore God, from heaven, is investigating both the good and bad people on earth.

Point # 4) After the king performs the “investigation” of the people at this wedding, he finds a man unprepared and as a result pronounces a “judgment” upon him (verse 13). This is therefore an “Investigative Judgment” because along with the investigation there was a Judgment.

Point # 5) This scene of the “Investigative Judgment” takes place before the Second Coming. Notice what Jesus says in Luke 12:

Luke 12:36-37 (36) And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.

(37) Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

Notice in verse 36 how it specifically says that Jesus will come “from” the wedding. If therefore the wedding and the marriage were the same event, how is it that he comes “from” the wedding to pick up his children? The marriage, says John the Revelator, is the Second Coming:

Revelation 19:7 (7) Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

If the above verse were read in context, you will find two very important points:

A) Just before verse 7, all those in heaven proclaim, “True and righteous are his Judgments…” (verse 2) God has performed a Judgment in heaven upon the wicked on earth before Jesus’ Second Coming. The greek word translated “Judgments” here is “krisis” which can be subjectively (for) or objectively (against). In other words, God just finished performing either subjective or objective Judgments upon people before the coming. This is why we read of both “good and bad” in the Investigative Judgment (the wedding) of Matthew 22. An objective Judgment was pronounced upon that “great whore” –verse 3.

Right after this verse, a scene of the Second coming of Jesus Christ is seen:

Revelation 19:11- 21 "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God… And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

That the Investigative Judgment is taught by Jesus Christ himself should be good enough for our critics... we hope. If the Old Testament is not enough, hopefully the New Testament will finally show that the Investigative Judgment is truly biblical... for the Lord Jesus Christ taught it himself. And we do not want to argue theology with The Lord Jesus do we? No, not me never! I will trust in the Word of God and especially in the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself on the subject!