Absalom, Judas & The Pope

[Kevin H]

It was a Seventh-day Adventist who said this, and it means to study the Bible and come to deeper knowlege of the scripture, I do not believe that you can study the Bible and come to those conclusions.

[SivartM]

I find the investigative judgment pretty straight forward. The Scripture doesn't seem to obscure on it. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

In other words, 99% of those who believe in the Bible can't understand something straight-forward. Including everyone before Hiram Edson.

[Kevin H]

Your'e welcome; It was an excellent question, I just felt frustrated that I failed you in not answering it clearly

[SivartM]

It was a Seventh-day Adventist who said this, and it means to study the Bible and come to deeper knowlege of the scripture, I do not believe that you can study the Bible and come to those conclusions.

But lots of people have studied the Bible and come to those conclusions. And if you just dismiss it and say that they didn't study enough or something, then you're declaring yourself to be the arbiter of Bible doctrine.

[John317]

It was a Seventh-day Adventist who said this, and it means to study the Bible and come to deeper knowlege of the scripture, I do not believe that you can study the Bible and come to those conclusions.

But, Kevin, some have come to those conclusions (they believe) on the basis of their Bible study. I often talk to former and even current SDAs who don't believe any longer in either the Sabbath or the SOP. And every last one of them defends their view from the Bible. Then there's the former SDA leader who gave up the Sabbath and joined the Roman Catholic Church, and he also defends his decision by the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

Are those people right? Absolutely not! (Or should I say, "Possibly not!"?)

[Dr. Shane]

In other words, 99% of those who believe in the Bible can't understand something straight-forward. Including everyone before Hiram Edson.

Do you find the investigative judgment hard to understand? I will agree that arriving at the 1844 date isn't plain and clear. However the investigative judgment is part of the sanctuary doctrine. That seems to be really clear and basic as presented in the book of Hebrews. This a Biblical doctrine that a fourth grader could see from reading Hebrews. I don't see it as too complex or difficult to see in the Biblical text.

[John317]

It was a Seventh-day Adventist who said this, and it means to study the Bible and come to deeper knowlege of the scripture, I do not believe that you can study the Bible and come to those conclusions.

Originally Posted By: SivartM

But lots of people have studied the Bible and come to those conclusions. And if you just dismiss it and say that they didn't study enough or something, then you're declaring yourself to be the arbiter of Bible doctrine.

See what I mean, Kevin?

I mentioned the same fact, Sivart, that some people have studied the Bible and come to far different conclusions than SDAs come to, even regarding the most fundamental beliefs that we hold as a church.

Does that mean it's possible that they are right?

When you preach the Three Angels Messages under the power of the Latter Rain, are you going to say, "Maybe the Sabbath is the seal of God"? Or are you going to present the "possibility" that the mark of the Beast is Sunday-keeping?

Are you absolutely positive that the Sabbath is true and that Christ is coming in a visible, literal way, and that the dead will be raised at that time?

Let's say you go out to a park or a street corner, and there you hear a man who is saying that he knows the Sabbath is true and that the papal system is antichrist and the little-horn power. Would you join with those who call him "arrogant," full of hate, and "mean-spirited"? Or would you join him in his proclamation of the Three Angels Messages?

[SivartM]

Has every other Christian who has ever lived been less intelligent than a fourth-grader?

[SivartM]

Are you absolutely positive that the Sabbath is true and that Christ is coming in a visible, literal way, and that the dead will be raised at that time?

It depends on what you mean by "absolutely positive". People used to be positive of things that sound ridiculous to us now, and we are positive of things that will sound ridiculous to people in the future. Do I believe those things? Yes. Am I unwilling to consider that they are untrue? No. That would not be very honest.

[Dr. Shane]

Has every other Christian who has ever lived been less intelligent than a fourth-grader?

I think the premise of the question is wrong and avoids the issue.

First, just because someone doesn't see a clear doctrine doesn't mean they are not intelligent. The Sabbath doctrine is clear. Isn't it? The doctrine is introduced in Genesis 2:1. Anyone reading the Bible can't get far without being introduced to the Sabbath doctrine. The Sabbath doctrine is again stated in the Commandments prefaced with the word "remember". It is one of the clearest doctrines in the Bible. Yet most of the Christian world doesn't see it. Does that mean they are not intelligent? A second grader can see and grasp the Sabbath doctrine. Does that mean most of the Christian world isn't as intelligent as a second grader? Of course not.

The sanctuary doctrine may not be as clear as the Sabbath doctrine is but it is by no means a hidden or obscure doctrine. Those that don't see it are simply blinded by tradition.

[Kevin H]

Of course not. But I think part of this is comes to realize new aspects of the Bible, but don't know how to mix this with with what they already know, so they end up throwing away everything.

Too often we are like the 6 blind men and the elephant. And too often some of us are like one blind man and the elephant who touches a new part and thinks they were wrong on their old part and claim the whole elephant is that new part they found. Especially when we read the Bible with a fundamentalist mindset

Also, I like what Jim Fleming and some of these new scholars, many of then Jewish, are starting to re-examine Paul. Too many of those who give up the sabbath do it because they have assumptions of Paul and the law, which Fleming and these other scholars are questioning. But when people start to read Paul through their filters of about 1800 years of traditon, instead of in a 1st century context, they come tho the wrong conclusion.

[John317]

Are you absolutely positive that the Sabbath is true and that Christ is coming in a visible, literal way, and that the dead will be raised at that time?

Originally Posted By: SivartM

It depends on what you mean by "absolutely positive". People used to be positive of things that sound ridiculous to us now, and we are positive of things that will sound ridiculous to people in the future. Do I believe those things? Yes. Am I unwilling to consider that they are untrue? No. That would not be very honest.

Is a Muslim who straps a bomb on and blows himself to tiny little bits and pieces on the street "absolutely certain" of his beliefs? I think everyone would agree that he is. He has no doubt.

But is that the same as saying he is right? Obviously not. The example of Communists and atheists dying for their beliefs is no assurance that they were right.

So I am talking about the degree of confidence in one's beliefs, not in whether that belief is objectively true. In philosphical or logical terms, is there a possibility you could be wrong? Of course. That theoretical possibility exists for every belief on earth simply because we are errant human beings.

What it really comes down to is whether you or I would be willing to die for what we claim so fervantly to believe. If someone (and I don't mean a mad man) came up to you and told you they were going to shoot you in the head unless you disavowed Christ and the Sabbath, what would you do? Our response under those circumstances would, in some very real sense, be a test of our confidence.