Where in the Bible is the term "Investigative Judgment"?

[John317]

pk, do you have Testimonies To Ministers and Gospel Workers? If so, how does your copy read on page 409?

Does it read the same as the following:

Quote:

Let the son of deceit and false witness be entertained by a church that has had great light, great evidence, and that church will discard the message the Lord has sent, and receive the most unreasonable assertions and false suppositions and false theories. Satan laughs at their folly, for he knows what truth is. {TM 409.2}

The allgegation is being made that the church has changed some of Ellen White's writings, and one of the pieces of evidence being used is that at least some copies of TM 409 read "sin of deceipt" instead of "son of deceipt."

I haven't found any copies of TM that reads "sin of deceipt." If any do read "sin," it seems clear to me that it is an error in the printing instead of being a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone. Tomorrow I'll contact the Ellen White Estate and find out if they're aware of any editions or copies that contained the word "sin" in the place of "son."

[phkrause]

pk, do you have Testimonies To Ministers and Gospel Workers? If so, how does your copy read on page 409?

Does it read the same as the following:

Quote:

Let the son of deceit and false witness be entertained by a church that has had great light, great evidence, and that church will discard the message the Lord has sent, and receive the most unreasonable assertions and false suppositions and false theories. Satan laughs at their folly, for he knows what truth is. {TM 409.2}

The allgegation is being made that the church has changed some of Ellen White's writings, and one of the pieces of evidence being used is that at least some copies of TM 409 read "sin of deceipt" instead of "son of deceipt."

I haven't found any copies of TM that reads "sin of deceipt." If any do read "sin," it seems clear to me that it is an error in the printing instead of being a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone. Tomorrow I'll contact the Ellen White Estate and find out if they're aware of any editions or copies that contained the word "sin" in the place of "son."

No John I don't, but will check with my Mom and see if she has a copy. I'll let you know either way. I hope you didn't think I was refering to you with my comment to miz3. You are definitely not one that uses or quotes EGW only when she agrees with your position.

[John317]

No John I don't, but will check with my Mom and see if she has a copy. I'll let you know either way.

Hey thanks, pk. Will look for that information. There are some printing mistakes in almost all books, no matter how careful editors might be.

It is easy to see how someone might misake "sin" for "son." Now if it had been spelled "sun," it would make us wonder; but "sin of deceipt" also at least makes sense.

[miz3]

John317,

My copy of the TM & GW has:

"sin of deceit"

Copyright 1962.

My copy agrees with the website I gave you.

You are angry with me for giving this website when all along I was not the first to post this website. Yet you blame me for disseminating heresy and Satanic propaganda and threaten to strike my words. In doing this you have prejudiced my presence on this website and prejudiced people to avoid listening to what you have branded as my Satanic views. I never stated as to whether or not I endorsed this website. Everyone can decide for themselves whether the website is credible or not. Your slippery excuses however in my opinion destroy your credibility to be a "fair" arbiter of the facts. Of course you are entitled to be bias if that is what you want. It is my opinion that you are so slanted toward the Spirit of Prophecy in which for you every word, concept, context and thought is "Inspired" that it is impossible for you think otherwise at all. I also am of the opinion that you are so grateful to the SDA Church and that you so believe that, that everything the SDA Church states is a central and crucial belief you accept it as having no faults and being perfectly consistent. I am glad that God led you to SDA from the life you lived before. However, such positive experiences do NOT make the SDA Church and its Orthodox Doctrines INFALLIBLE!

You have poisoned the well John317 and this is not the act of a Christian. Yet you and others have so branded me as a heretic that I may as well have leprosy. Yet your Christian sensibilities are not even the least bit touched. You appear to be proud of your actions and words. You also like the idea that Sky and Gail pointed out that I have revealed my "true colors". It appears that the word has gone out to stay from miz3.

Am I notch on your gun which is to shoot down anyone who appears to be a smart and articulate threat to the SDA Church?

Do I use sarcasm? Do I ridicule what I believe are untenable positions? Am I sharp and pointed? Am I provocative?

The answer to all of the above is: YES! However, I am honest and I want to find the Truth from God. I believe that the more stress we put on the Truth the stronger the Truth gets. It appears to me that you think different.

Like I said my copy of Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers was copyright 1962. It states:

"Let the sin of deceit".

[John317]

John317,

My copy of the TM & GW has:

"sin of deceit"

Copyright 1962.

My copy agrees with the website I gave you.

OK, but you need to realize that just because you have a book that reads "sin of deceit" does not mean that someone attempted to change Ellen White's writings. Not when most copies read "son of deceipt."

Almost all copies of TM (copyright 1962)-- as well as the CD-ROM that goes to all the world-- read "son of deceipt."

When you get a copy of a book that doesn't read as most others do and as the original did, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that it is a mistake, not that the church is trying to deceieve everyone. That's an irrational conclusion to draw. There are some printing errors in almost all books, as anyone knows who has been involved in either publishing or editing.

If this is an example of your evidence that people have changed Ellen White's writings, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It actually weakens your argument because people wonder why you would mention it if you have much stronger evidence.

[John317]

You posted this same post on post#437991 in the discussion about Free Moral Agents.

[John317]

You are angry with me for giving this website when all along I was not the first to post this website. Yet you blame me for disseminating heresy and Satanic propaganda and threaten to strike my words.

You would be better off to ask someone if they're angry rather than telling them that they're angry with you. I wasn't angry with you, and am not now angry with you, but I am concerned about your continual posting of the kind of things you've written above and in the rest of the post from which your quote is taken.

I have never branded your views as "Satantic." I wish you would quote my exact words and give the post number of where you believe I made any such statement. I think you must have me confused with what someone else said. At least I do hope so.

As for "threatening to strike" your words, it is my job as the moderator to delete unfounded accusations against people, and that includes people who are now dead and can't defend themselves. It also includes slander against the Seventh-day Adventist Church. You can say almost anything you like, but you need to be able to show that what you are saying is true when it comes to making charges against people. I don't think that's unreasonable. The administrators don't want the Adventist Forum to become a place where people come in order to spread their rumors and gossip, and without being requird to answer for what they say.

Originally Posted By: miz3

In doing this you have prejudiced my presence on this

website and prejudiced people to avoid listening to what you have branded as my Satanic views.

I think if anybody has prejudiced anyone about you, it is you yourself. People are often their own worst enemy.

I have attempted to keep our exchanges focussed on the issues and away from personal matters, accusations and charges.

[John317]

Am I notch on your gun which is to shoot down anyone who appears to be a smart and articulate threat to the SDA Church?

I don't need to worry about who is or isn't a threat to the SDA church. I know I can leave that up to God. He was watching out for His people before I was born and He will keep doing it after I'm dead.

If you want my honest opinion, though, you aren't doing any damage to anyone bur yourself and your own views. I would like very much to see you stay on here but you will need to stop posting your personal attacks and accusations against people and groups of people.

Please read the Forum rules which deal with that aspect of posting.

Meet the people here and make friends. Don't let disagreements with people keep you from being friendly with them and showing that you care about them. If we let that happen, it would be better not to have the discussions, don't you agree? :-)

[miz3]

John317,

I apologize!

You are correct and I have been wrong in my social behavior and words. If I could take it back I would. God has shown me that I have not behaved as He would have me behave.

Again, I apologize to you John317 and to everyone else!

[John317]

Thank you, miz3. I do appreciate what you say, and I know the others do also. And forgive me for any misunderstandings or hurt feelings that I may have caused.

I just hope you receive a blessing from being here and I know we can all learn from each other-- I mean all of us, each member on the Forum. :-)

[Kevin H]

Miz3, that appology has been good. I've been busy and have not had time to poste, but I have to admit up to this appology you have been reminding me of July 4th 1976...

On that day a man who worships in the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall came to visit. He said to me "What does today mean to you?" I replied "200 years of religious freedom" The visitor gave a bit of a body jerk and had some hmmms and haas and went on to say "Yes, we've had some things such as you mentioned religious freedom, but you have to admit that there is a lot of problems, pollution, the economy, political coruption, danger of necular attack, these things can make a lot of people worry and put people in dispar" I replied "God is in control and we are approaching when Jesus comes so all will turn out alright in the end." He went on to have more hmmmms and haaaas then went "Well I have come to give hope to your dispearing soul"

You could tell that he was new at this and that he had worked on a prepared speech that did not fit the facts.

Miz3, you seem to have a caned speech that does not fit the facts and you keep trying to herd everyone into the corral of your ideas.

Now I don't know your background. We do from time to time get visitors from former Adventist Groups who like to come make a couple of hit and run posts then run. I have come to feel sorry for this group of people. They seem to have been Adventist who were strictly fundamentalist who felt that only the conservative Adventists were going to heaven they had a long list of do's and don'ts to get into heaven and those who don't do those are lost, and they like to use Ellen White as a club to beat other people with her words.

Now they have converted and had major changes. They are strictly Fundamentalist Calvinistic Evangelicals who feel that only the conservative Calvinistic Evangelicals are going to heaven and have a short list of do's and don'ts (saying the magic words about Jesus and yes this is a shorter list of do's and don'ts but it is still a list of do's and don'ts) to get into heaven and those who don't do these are lost, and they like to use Paul as a club to beat other people with his words.

I hear their stories about their major conversion and think "Woop de doo! I don't see much of a difference between their basic framework as to their life as an Adventists and as a 'Former Adventist'" Not all Adventists have their framework, but they forced their framework on the rest of us. They have not been very accurate in their criticizism, they like to set up their own straw men to knock down instead of looking at the facts. They are becomeing an inbred group often pooling their dishonesty and ignorance.

For example: Their ravings and rampings about the "Adventist Bible" "The Clear Word" There is no way that "The Clear Word" is an Adventist Bible. It is simply one man's very long sermon on the Bible set down in writing. But it is what most ministers do in all churches every Sabbath or Sunday whenever they meet. Some day I'd like to write my own version of "The Clear Word" (I'd love to see you try to convince John that my version of the clear word is the official Adventist Bible and that it is a reflection of what he believes). They also say that the Adventists are pushing Ellen White's ideas into their Bible so that we read them in the Bible. Dr. Blanco does the same thing that I do when I post here, share things that I have found useful for incase others find it useful. Yes, he finds Mrs. White useful, but his points that he brings in to the pages of the clear word are not only Mrs. White. He uses ideas he has read from different commentaries and scholarly journals, quotes from different professors he has studied under, quotes from lectures he has attended and even quotes from his own students in class that he found impressive and helpful. He does not distinquish between his sources. He does not have the words of Ellen in red. Now there was the unfortunet fact that the first printing came out as "the Clear Word Bible" from what I understand (according to Graham Maxwell and other discussions) that Dr. Blanco had a fit when he read that and contacted the publishing house to get the word "Bible" out of the title.

The Bible is authorative. I have to follow the Bible. Yes I can discuss the words that the translators used. I can look to Archaeology to understand what the text may have meant, but I have to follow the Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses have to follow the one translation of the Bible that they use, and the insinuation of the "Former Advnetists" is that is what Adventists are doing with the "Clear Word" but that is a lie. I have a copy of the clear word someplace. I read it from time to time, but it is not authoratiative to me. I can read passages and have my spirit depart from my body in terror over the ideas I'm reading, and Dr. Blanco has no problem with that. Graham Maxwell would freely dissagree with the Clear Word. Our General Conference leaders find places where they dissagree with the Clear Word and there is not a problem with that. The "Clear Word" is simply a book about the Bible where one man gave his paraphrase and expanded to ideas that he found useful for himself and wanted to share what he found useful so that the rest of us can read it share ideas and if we find it useful (and there are other places where I really like his ideas and glad that he shared, my soul does not depart from my body at every passage) we can use it. If we don't find it useful we can leave it.

Another point is the "Former Adventists" are so stuck in Christian Traditions, especially Augustine and and Reformation theologians. We, all of us, do not realize how much tradition colors how we read the Bible. We are trying to study the Bible for itself and trying to free ourselves from Tradition. To try to read the words of Paul with the ideas that Paul had in mind. But too often we read Paul with the ideas of the Church / Synogogue split in 135 AD, St. Augustine, Luther and Calvin. The Former Adventists group are not trying to avoid these traditions but are fully emerced in Augustin, Luther and Calvin's interpetation of Paul. They fear scholarship. I was corrisponding with a leader of one of the "Former Adventist Websites" who told me that my mistake is that I should not look at what the linguists and Archaeologists say about the Bible, but that I should just read the words of Galatians with the Holy Spirit only. I'm sorry but that sounds too much like what the Mormons tell us to do with the book of Mormon. These "Former Adventist" have their own version of the "Clear Word" it is not in a book like Dr. Blanco's but the ideas are all through their websites. They have an abridged Bible and the texts they use are highly colored by Augustine, Luther, Calvin. They don't want to learn about the world outside of the Augustine world.

As I said they have become sadly inbred, in their Augustinian world, and having perspectives of Adventist beliefs that is not necessarly accurate, but they don't want their inaccuracies corrected or challenged. They fear Modern Scholarship. I like it that Seventh-day Adeventists tend to evaluate our beliefs by the studies of Archaeological Societies and the Society of Biblical literature. Granted we may not have the majority view, but we have credible views. While others do not have an investigative judgment as developed as we have (and granted we still need to develope ours better) other denominations and scholars have basically the same idea in what they call the pre-advent judgment, so it is not as uniquely an Adventist doctrine as it use to be. And also we find all the elements of our Investigative Judgment spread around respectable scholarship of different denominations. If it was not true then why are other churches developing similar views and why do we find the elements of it spread around respectable scholars of different backgrouds.

I have a tape series "Foundations of Adventism: A survey of Seventh-day Adventists Foundations" by Pastor J. Mark Martin (who I understand is an associate of Dale Ratslaf) Pastor Martin has picked up several strange ideas that I have heard floating around Adventists but which have been more individual and sub-group ideas, but not what I have been taught in any of our schools or official teaching agencies of the church, and I have not found one adventist-sub-group that believes all of these ideas. I've found some that hold some here and some there, but Mark Martin makes it sound like we as a church holds ALL of these. That is not true. But someone listening to these tapes could well end up at a church someplace and come across someone holding one or two of these ideas and think "Yes, these are the ideas that Pastor Martin pointed out, all Adventists believe these" and as he gave his understandings of what the truth was, what Paul taught; a month after hearing Pastor Martin's tapes I got from Jim Fleming, a Methodist Archaeologist, his series "Acts: New Discoveries of the Early Church" and his points ended up tearing Martin's arguments to shreads. Fleming was not targeting Martin, probably does not know Martin. Is not interested in our Adventist issues, yet he sounded like he listened to Martin and was debating him.

Miz3, I don't know if you are involved in any of these "Former Adventist" websites or groups or not. I don't know if you have been confused or hurt by Adventists. We are not perfect, but we are growing. Sadly the "Former Adventists" just seem to be a group of fundamentalists who are upset that Mrs. White does not fit their Fundamentalist presupositions and hope that Paul does. They are hurt and like to sulk in their pain. They enjoyed bashing people with the words of Mrs. White and now enjoy bashing people with the words of Paul. Now I am not telling you to become a Seventh-day Adventists. We are far from perfect. I am just saying place yourself with believers who are willing to question what they believe and open to learning and growing, and to just get the facts and be fair to the facts.

Study the Investigative Judgment from the perspective of say the 3 chapters in the original "Sanctuary and the Atonement" "The Mighty Opposites: The Atonement in the Writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 and 2, and "We must all appear: The Investigative Judgment in the writings of Ellen G. White" and also the books John has recommended and other more modern studies in it, rather than simply assuming that the imbred pooling of ignorance that some of these "Former Adventist" sites propose are the final word on the topic.

[miz3]

Thank you Kevin H.

[Sonny]

To all,

Just keep in mind one thing: Ellen White is not the final word. If you make her the final word, instead of the Bible, you'll be correctly labeled as belonging to a cult, period!

[Kevin H]

To all,

Just keep in mind one thing: Ellen White is not the final word. If you make her the final word, instead of the Bible, you'll be correctly labeled as belonging to a cult, period!

So what is your point or connection to this thread? Besides there are a lot of people out there who take John Darby, Martin Luther, Calvin and Augustine as the final world and we don't call them a cult. In fact they tend to be the ones who like to call those who question their last word as being THE last world cults.

[Lysimachus]

Quote:

While others do not have an investigative judgment as developed as we have (and granted we still need to develope ours better) other denominations and scholars have basically the same idea in what they call the pre-advent judgment, so it is not as uniquely an Adventist doctrine as it use to be. And also we find all the elements of our Investigative Judgment spread around respectable scholarship of different denominations. If it was not true then why are other churches developing similar views and why do we find the elements of it spread around respectable scholars of different backgrouds.

This is an interesting comment you made. Could you please give me an example of such denominations? I have been searching for many years see if there are perhaps any denominations out there that teach anything remotely similar to a pre-Advent Judgment doctrine of Adventism, and have found none.

[Gail]

Kevin, I always appreciate your insight.

I have seen plenty of such arguments against Seventh-Day Adventism but interestingly enough what has prevented me from investigating them further is the spirit in which they are given. For one who is trying to focus on how Jesus lived and how He fits into my life (I think I could study just on that for years by itself) I have a hard time fitting negativity into my schedule.

And I know that many Adventists themselves have such agendas, of warning people of this or that. They come and go, they are likewise negatively-minded, and after about 5 minutes I can't take any more. I have to go on.

To me it is a diversion to the important points of living in harmony with Jesus. I am fascinated with the gospel (what Jesus said in Luke 4:18). The Gospel message expands the more I look at it, the power of God and His plan for us written in the life and death of God who became Emmanuel and lived among us.

I've just begun a study also on the Sanctuary, the whole thing and am seeing Jesus depicted there. It just expands the joy that is felt with seeking Him and choosing to walk with Him.

I think that THAT is an experience that will attract interested hearers. I would love to find one of these negative message bearers and see joy and peace coming out in what they say.

[Daryl]

I did a "sin of deceit" word search in the CD I have of EGW's writings and came up with nothing, whereas the "son of deception" word search came up with three hits.

I also looked to see what edition I had of TM & GW and discovered that I had the 1962 edition, therefore, I looked it up and discovered that it did indeed say "sin of deceit" on page 409 of that book, which did surprise me, however, I agree with you that it was obviously a mis-print. I am wondering though why some of the same edition shows "son of deceit" and others of the same edition shows "son of deceit"? Did they have two different printings of the same edition?

Almost all copies of TM (copyright 1962)-- as well as the CD-ROM that goes to all the world-- read "son of deceipt."

When you get a copy of a book that doesn't read as most others do and as the original did, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that it is a mistake, not that the church is trying to deceieve everyone. That's an irrational conclusion to draw. There are some printing errors in almost all books, as anyone knows who has been involved in either publishing or editing.

If this is an example of your evidence that people have changed Ellen White's writings, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It actually weakens your argument because people wonder why you would mention it if you have much stronger evidence.

[Sonny]

So what is your point or connection to this thread?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

So what is your point or connection to this thread?

A lot of E. White quotes and defense..

On an SDA Forum, readers will need to get used to EGW quotes. You quote her yourself when you feel it is beneficial to you in making a point with people who believe in her. The Seventh-day Adventist Church accepts her as a genuine prophet of God. We make no apology for it and neither does Jack Sequeira.

[John317]

I agree with you that it was obviously a mis-print. I am wondering though why some of the same edition shows "son of deceit" and others of the same edition shows "son of deceit"? Did they have two different printings of the same edition?

Hey, Daryl, thanks so much for that. I believe the answer to your question is yes, they did do more than one printing of the same edition. The new editions of TM are in blue binding, yet they still read "1962".

Monday I will go to the Loma Linda Branch of the White Estate and verify the answer, and then will post what I find out.

[John317]

Their ravings and rampings about the "Adventist Bible" "The Clear Word" There is no way that "The Clear Word" is an Adventist Bible. ....Now there was the unfortunet fact that the first printing came out as "the Clear Word Bible" from what I understand (according to Graham Maxwell and other discussions) that Dr. Blanco had a fit when he read that and contacted the publishing house to get the word "Bible" out of the title.

I agree that the Clear Word is not the Adventist Bible. That's ridiculous.

I was fortunate enough to get a first edition.

Don't you think it's as much of a Bible as the Living Bible? They are both paraphrases.

If we say that a paraphrase is no longer the Bible or the word of God, then we must get rid of the Septuagint, beause there are pasts of the LXX that is paraphrased and not a true and accurate translation of the original Hebrew or Aramaic.

Dr. Blanco of course tells the reader in his preface that the reader should use it like a commentary and not use it as a study Bible. It should always be compared with a standard translation.

[Sonny]

The Seventh-day Adventist Church accepts her as a genuine prophet of God.

But she is the lesser light to lead SDA to the greater light - the Bible. She had limited light - the Bible contains all the light.

From my point of view you are an Ellen White apologist. It would be great if you defended the Bible as much as you do Ellen White. When you place such importance on her it looks cultic.

[Kayumba David]

The investigative Judgment is a creation of Adventist Church in trying to explain the 1844 disappointment. This teaching is better explained by Pr.Jack Sequiera and is best discussed Dr. Desmond ford. What I can say is that people are judged at the moment they accept or reject Jesus.

[John317]

The Seventh-day Adventist Church accepts her as a genuine prophet of God.

Originally Posted By: Sonny

But she is the lesser light to lead SDA to the greater light - the Bible. She had limited light - the Bible contains all the light.

Of course, but there is something wrong with people who have to keep saying it every time Ellen White is mentioned or anyone quotes her. That would be like saying the Bible has errors in it every time someone talks about or quotes the Bible. Some people do that too. They bring up questions about whether the Bible is really trustworthy or the word of God every time someone says they have faith in it. Who's behind that kind of talk? Is it God? Or God's enemy?

She did have limited light and the Bible contains all the light, yes. However, what you seem to be implying is that the light God gave to Ellen White was wrong.

Originally Posted By: Sonny

From my point of view you are an Ellen White apologist.

If by that you mean that I believe that she is a genuine prophet of God, yes I am.

You, on the other hand, seem to me to be someone who is out to try and destroy people's belief and confidence in Ellen White's writings.

Originally Posted By: Sonny

It would be great if you defended the Bible as much as you do Ellen White.

I do defend the Bible if people attack the Bible. I have written a few thousand posts that do just that.

Quote:

When you place such importance on her it looks cultic.

I don't care how it looks to people any more than I care what it looks like to people when I defend the Bible. I'm not one of those people who want to change the SDA church in order to convince others that we're Christians and not a cult. If they want to say we're a cult, so be it. The early church wasn't concerned with that. When the church became concerned about it is when it began to accept false doctrines in order to be popular with people. We need to be more concerned with what God thinks of and less about what people think of us.

[John317]

The investigative Judgment is a creation of Adventist Church in trying to explain the 1844 disappointment. This teaching is better explained by Pr.Jack Sequiera and is best discussed Dr. Desmond ford. What I can say is that people are judged at the moment they accept or reject Jesus.

But that isn't waht Jack Sequiera believes.

It is also not what the Bible says. The Bible plainly teaches that there will be a pre-Advent Judgment. Study Daniel 7 and 8 and Rev. 14.

Dr Ford is wrong in his teachings on this subject. His own commentary on Daniel destroys his current beliefs. There is no way that Antiochus Epiphanes IV is the little horn power of Daniel 7. Ford argues against the IJ by saying that God doesn't learn anything from the process. Well, of course not, and no SDA has ever suggested that the IJ is for God's benefit to learn anything. Another thing is that Ford says that God doesn't need to test or investigate teh saints. Again, that is not true, for the Bible itself says many times that God tests and even "investigatves" the righteous.

What you're saying then is that the Investigative Judgment is a lie created for the purpose of explaining away a lie. If that is true, it would mean the entire Adventist Movement and the SDA Church is a pile of lies. Ellen White would then be a false prophet, and our church would be be better off totally collapsing. If that is the case, let me join the Catholic Church where my wife's family already are. If I believed what you claim here, that is exactly what I would do. I would have done it before except that I know the prophecies regarding the papal system.

If the IJ does not exist, why does the keeping of the Sabbath matter?