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

[Kevin H]

Too often we have that spirit when we want to discuss but not do our homework. We just push around our eccleastical authority instead of discussing the evidence.

[miz3]

Your methods reminds me of the Mormons who say just read the book of mormon and let it speak to your heart, or the Jehovah's Witnesses who say to just read their texts from the New World Translatorn and let God speak to your heart, or the New Age People looking for the spirit of their get togethers. Sounds like the spirit is leading a lot of people a lot of different directions as opposed to the Bible and to truely study the Bible including the history and culture and linguistic studies etc.

Are you equating the reading of the book of mormon, etc. with reading the Bible? Keven H. what a ridiculous comparison. Your really touched if think that reading the Bible and the Bible only to get one's theology is the same as those sources.

The historical and atmosphere info you love so much is not "inspired" so how can non inspired help you understand "inspired. The Bible tells about those who try and mix the two.

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

2Corinthians 6:14-16.

There is your big gaping flaw right there from the Bible. Don't you dare lecture me about knowledge and how it is acquired. You are most ignorant on the subject. In God is all the knowledge and it is only from Him that you acquire it. You don't know these other authors and whether they are connected to God and whether they get their "knowledge" from God or not.

I get mine from the Bible. That is sitting at the feet of Jesus, Kevin H. You pompous "intellectual snob" how dare you to lecture me about where to find Truth. The reason you go outside the Bible and the Bible only is because when you are tied to the Bible you cannot make even a scintilla of a case that an "Investigative Judgment" even exists let alone all your other extraneous material.

You don't sit at the feet of Jesus you are in the wrong temple. You are clearly deluded by all your fancy shmancy intellectual snobbery. I don't care if you have a hundred Phds from a million universities. They do you no good. They can't teach a thing about the Bible.

Only God through His Holy Spirit can. 1Corinthians 2:6-16. That is my educator. I will take my knowledge to your full of hot air any day.

There is no grater Authority than the Bible, the Word of God. Yet you sit there typing jibberish about this authority and that authority as if God left something out of His Word that would be ecessary to telling the Truth. Nothing more than a pompous idiot heathen would propose such a thing.

You insult me openly and publicly and worst of all you have insulted God and His Holy Word.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Humble your pompous spirit before God and beg for forgiveness for the insults you live by to Him and to His Word.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

Which all makes it quite condescinding to me. God doesn't have to justify anything He does, but He chooses to for our sakes.

But you are free to disagree with my assessment.

OK. I'll disagree, and tell you why.

I believe God does it out of respect. He respects us enough to make us free moral creatures, and the Investigative Judgment is just one more expression of that respect. To say that He would be condescending towards us is a smear on His character by definition.

Merriam-Webster's definition of condescending:

Quote:

Definition of CONDESCENDING

: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others

I don't believe God takes that attitude towards anyone, or anything.

According to that definition I agree with you, but looking deeper into the meaning of the word, I use it in the 3rd sense below: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescending

con·de·scend   /ˌkɒndəˈsɛnd/ Show Spelled[kon-duh-send] Show IPA

–verb (used without object)

1. to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.

2. to stoop or deign to do something: He would not condescend to misrepresent the facts.

3. to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior: He condescended to their intellectual level in order to be understood.

[Gerr]

NO, Gerry, I am not the standard, and I never said I was the standard.

Then explain to me why -

1. Just because you can't the Investigative Judgment while many others could see it plainly that therefore it must not be there.

2. Just because you are willing to blindly accept what God does/has done no matter how inconsistent to His character of love & justice it may appear, others should just shut up and do the same and not ask/look for evidence

[teresaq]

I believe that some honestly do not "see", or "understand" the reasoning for the IJ as SDAs teach it.

I also believe that many of us "blindly" believe it...

[miz3]

I think teresaq(sda) is correct in this case.

[Gail]

I believe that some honestly do not "see", or "understand" the reasoning for the IJ as SDAs teach it.

I also believe that many of us "blindly" believe it...

Yep- agreed as well. So is it worth bickering about?

[miz3]

Apparently it is worth bickering about, we just did.

I also think that many SDA who blindly follow things or believe because that is just what they have been taught need to be pushed to explain why they stand where they stand.

Doesn't the Bible say somewhere that we should be prepared to give an account for why we believe? We can't do that if we are just mere parrots of other person's thoughts and beliefs.

I think it is also vital that SDA be honest about what they actually believe and also honest about where those beliefs come from and again not just say it is based on such and such when they are only parroting what they hear from some big cheese SDA types.

We, as SDA, need to know which shepherd we are really following. We may think one thing but when it is too late we may find out that we have indeed been following the wrong shepherd.

[Gerr]

And indeed there will be people who will be shocked to find out they've been following the wrong shepherd!

ESV | Mt 7:22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

[Sonny]

And indeed there will be people who will be shocked to find out they've been following the wrong shepherd!

ESV | Mt 7:22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

They knew Jesus, but they thought they could add their works and gain an entrance. All human works are polluted with selfish, egocentric motives and pollute genuine agape love. Agape is only given to those who are fully resting in Christ's finished work. Those believers who are not resting are relying on their own works, which are works of iniquity.

[miz3]

Again, good job Sonny!

[Woody]

Again, good job Sonny!

Yep. He does a great job.

[miz3]

The problem as I see it is that far too many SDA get their views and slants about Scripture from Ellen White. Gerry for instance and others too, when they speak about what a text means, or what the Doctrine says and is about, leaves a trail of info that demonstrates he could have only gotten such a slant from Ellen White. That means only one thing, that Gerry like far too many SDA are inordinately influenced by her when it comes to Scriptural interpretation. They are not a Bible and Bible only students.

It is impossible for SDA to cover their Scriptural Ellen White bias. This especially happens in those who believe that Ellen White's total communication package was inspired. However, Ellen White although clearly called of God and inspired by God was not in all times and in all ways, and in every communication inspired. She never meant for her works to always be used to interpret the Bible. This fallacy is a real and dangerous disease among SDA and is the reason they blunder so often when referring to Scripture.

[Just for the record, I don't personally know Gerry, but from what I have seen here on this site he seems to be a good guy. I believe he is just misguided.]

As Woody, so eloquently pointed out Ellen White herself did not want people to do this. She wanted them to go to the Bible without anything from her in their minds to clutter their thinking. Because SDA are so flooded with Ellen White and her words it is almost impossible for SDA to not be biased by her words.

This is why SDA in general believe:

1. Jesus Christ has a sinful nature.

2. That Jesus Christ could have sinned and the whole plan gone up in smoke.

3. They are a church of destiny and are specifically mentioned in Scripture as the last day church.

4. They believe America is the two horned beast of Revelation chapter 13. Even though the text gives not even the slightest hint that America is the entity referred to here.

5. They believe in the Investigative Judgment.

6. That humans are free moral agents.

If people are a Bible and Bible only person they do not need Ellen White to the extreme extent that SDA currently do.

[Dr. Rich]

Hey miz3, I am glad you said something about SDAs in general. Do not count me as one of those who ARE NOW influenced by EGW. Sure, I used to be, big time, but I woke up and put that eye salve on to see the real truth as provided for in Rev. 2:18-26.

[Gerr]

The problem as I see it is that far too many SDA get their views and slants about Scripture from Ellen White. Gerry for instance...

Have you ever seen me quote EGW? I spend most of my Bible study time with my Bible. Thank you. Repeating an untruth ad infinitum will never make it true. If a cloud of Bible students came to certain conclusions about certain subjects as I have shown without EGW, then to claim that SDAs arriving at the same conclusion is slanted by EGW is simply absurd!!!

Quote:

[Just for the record, I don't personally know Gerry, but from what I have seen here on this site he seems to be a good guy. I believe he is just misguided.]

And how will we know who has been misguided? By fiat verdict? Would you believe through an Investigative Judgment? miz3, there is nothing to fear about the IJ. Or is your relationship with God not as it should be that you are afraid to have it checked out? Daniel clearly points out the judgment/verdict is given in FAVOR of the saints! There will be no lingering questions about His justice to allow sin to arise ever again.

Quote:

This is why SDA in general believe:

1. Jesus Christ has a sinful nature.

False. Read SDAs Believe p. 49 1988 ed.

Quote:

2. That Jesus Christ could have sinned and the whole plan gone up in smoke.

To deny that He could have been tempted to sin is to deny His humanity, which is one of the beliefs of antichrist per the apostle John.

Quote:

3. They are a church of destiny and are specifically mentioned in Scripture as the last day church.

Hey, have you ever seen anyone advertising that they are the false church? Show me a church whose doctrines could be sustained by the Bible and I will join it stat.

Quote:

4. They believe America is the two horned beast of Revelation chapter 13. Even though the text gives not even the slightest hint that America is the entity referred to here.

Why would that offend you? The evangelicals have their own interpretation. We'll just have to wait to see who is right, won't we?

Quote:

5. They believe in the Investigative Judgment.

You have not disproved it. That God will judge the world including believers is a Christian doctrine that spans millenia. I can't imagine God rendering a life & death decision without showing the whys and wherefores, not for His benefit but for the benefit of His creatures.

Quote:

6. That humans are free moral agents.

This is self-evident. I think even most children will tell you they have a choice. If we have no choice - what are we? Beasts? And why/how would/could a God of justice judge beings who have no moral choices? Absurdity of absurdities!

Quote:

If people are a Bible and Bible only person they do not need Ellen White to the extreme extent that SDA currently do.

If you take away EGW, many Bible students will still arrive and the same conclusions in the same manner as those that came centuries before her by using the Bible alone.

[miz3]

Gerry,

Whether you ever quoted Ellen White or not is not what I said. Ellen White is written all over your positions and remarks. It's just a fact.

As to the "Christ's sinful nature" issue, look at the thread that talks about that very thing and it is all over the place.

I think gustave has taken care of your views of Christ's temptation.

Unlike other churches SDA point to the Bible as specifically designating them as a church of the last day. I don't see other churches doing the same thing.

We SDA get our view of Revelation 13 from Ellen White plain and simple.

I don't have to prove that the Investigative Judgment is NOT in the Bible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is in the Bible. SDA and you are asserting that it exists so you have the burden of proof. Clearly, Gerry, you have not even come close to doing that from a Bible and Bible only stand point.

I don't want to take Ellen White away. NO, NO! She has too much good for such a radical move. Besides the problem is NOT WITH ELLEN WHITE!

The problem is with people such as yourself, and ClubV12, who base your interpretations of Scripture on her opinions of those Scriptures.

[Kevin H]

Are you equating the reading of the book of mormon, etc. with reading the Bible? Keven H. what a ridiculous comparison. Your really touched if think that reading the Bible and the Bible only to get one's theology is the same as those sources.

Of course I am not saying that and it is only twisting what I was saying into another one of your excuses that you are able to make me appear to say that.

Since you tend to misread those of us here, I wonder how trustworthy any of your reading can be.

The issue is not what you are reading, but the issue of whether we should allow our feelings to interpret scripture, or if we should read the text, use tools such as Strong's concordance to see how the word is used in different parts of scripture, see how it is used in contemporary literature at the time. What is the poetic structures and what does that tell us, and what is the historical context. Why should the Bible waste it's time giving us geographical locations and historical references if it is a sin to look them up, and that I should only gaze at the words of scripture like a mentalist looking into a crystal ball.

You seem to be pointing to "Just read and feel" and you are condemning archaeologists and historians and Bible Commentaries and linguists as tools of Satan. All I'm saying that this is the same argument that the Mormons and others bring up. It is the METHOD I am questioning, not the MATERIAL (i.e. the Bible as opposed to the Book of Mormon or the others.) Ok, let's take it another step; David Korish was not using the Book of Mormon, he was using the Bible, but it was still the same rejection of tools for Bible Study, just reading the words of scripture and letting the Holy Spirit make you feel that these texts about pointing to David Korish. I am no more insulting the Bible than I am insulting the Bible when being critical of the methods used on the Bible by David Korish.

Are you saying that all the linguists and historians are from Satan? Then Jerome, and Tyndale are of the Devil. So do you read the Bible in English as translated by these horrible men and women, then since we are not to be yoked with unbelievers then why read their translations? Why not just get a Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and a Greek New Testament and look at the markings without studying the languages and let the Holy Spirit teach you? Did God leave anything out of his word so that you need to either learn a language or trust those who have learned the language? Shouldn't we just look at the original languages and have God teach us from them without studying the languages or trusting in the Ph.Ds who have learned the language and trust their translation? I might be wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion that despite your ravings that you are not this extreme. Ok, so where do you draw the line? It is only the scholars who you happened to agree with that we should trust and reject all others? I mean unless you are just sitting down with the original languages and no linguistic studies then you and I have some common ground on this point, so where do you draw the line about studying the languages, history and culture before you cross the line from what you find acceptable and where I am being unacceptable?

Also about insulting, I do not mean to insult you. I have not searched out your website to try to convince you of my views. You have searched us out and are trying to convince us who share here that we are wrong. I am asking no more or no less than you not lie and make up myths about us, but for you to understand what our view is, present it to us in a way that we feel that you understand what we believe and from a position of listening love you might be able to point out our errors. However your insistence to come and bark up the wrong tree, to push your version of what you say we are suppose to believe down our throat, set up your own straw men to knock down, instead of knocking down our real men, the authors of the chapters in Sanctuary and the Atonement and the books that John 3 recommended, is not respectful, and is an insult to the beliefs that appear to be important to you. Tell me Miz3, can you honestly picture Jesus coming on to a website of people with one belief, no matter how horrible that belief may be, but have him come showing little knowledge of that belief, showing a lot of misunderstanding of the belief and then expect to change that belief? Or would Jesus let the people know that he cared about them and understood where they were coming from first? Can you picture Paul doing this. When Paul went to the Synagogues, did he speak as someone who understood Judaism and that the people whether they liked him or not understood that he understood their views, or did he come in clueless and condemn?

We even see evidence of Paul growing. When in Corinth there were people in the synagogue who opposed him he left with some very sharp words. But several people, including the Rabbi of the Synagogue came to him wanting to learn more from him. Thus we see when the same thing happened in Ephesus instead of leaving with sharp words, he just decided not to cause trouble and moved to a new place where if anyone wanted to come and learn more of him they were welcome. Also it is interesting to note that when those who were making a profit from items for the temple to Diana rioted against Paul, who had been in Ephesus for, if I recall correctly, about 3 years, it was pointed out in Acts 19:37 that over those years Paul never once spoke against Diana. Are we who believe in the Investigative Judgment so much worst than those who worshiped an idol? Paul never spoke against Diana, yet you come into our website, show ignorance of our beliefs and speak against us, and when we simply say "Hey, you can do a better job if you read these passages so that you can have a less fuzzy picture of our beliefs" and asking you to at least have a little clearer understanding of where we are, yet you become upset with the suggestion and are insulted that we should suggest that you can understand us better and that if you knew us better you could better target your criticisms.

There was once a meeting of clergy of different faiths, Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists among others. Some of the leaders of these other groups spoke about their religious traditions and experiences. At the end one Christian minister stood up and said "I use to believe that everyone who was not Christians were going to hell but you changed my mind, I will no longer try to convert people to Christianity." At this the Rabbi returned to the pulpit and said "Brother, don't say that. You can't do that. Your master told you to go into all the world preaching the gospel, you have to obey him and we need the gospel. Our message today was not to stop preaching the gospel and stop trying to convert us, our message is simply be careful how you do it."

Now I feel a little different in our discussion here in that I don't feel that we need the attacks on the Investigative Judgment. I love the investigative judgment. It is a joyful little doctrine that enriches my spiritual experience with Jesus and with others. I love the investigative judgment. I am willing to share my joy, and if you can find anything in it that you can enjoy and enrich your relationship with Jesus you are welcome to it. If it doesn't then leave it alone and grow at your level of growth, but I am not going to try to force it down your throat and convert you to believing it. If you wish to live in ignorance of this topic that is your right, but then you should shut up on this topic, at least not hunt us down and attack us with your contempt for the topic. However if you feel a special need on your heart to come and hunt us down with your contempt for the topic, then you will not be successful if you remain in the great amount of ignorance of the topic that you seem to want to keep. You need to learn how we think to show us the error of our ways, and that would mean reading those 3 chapters in the Sanctuary and the Atonement and at least one of the books that John3 recommended.

[miz3]

yet you come into our website, show ignorance of our beliefs and speak against us, and when we simply say "Hey, you can do a better job if you read these passages so that you can have a less fuzzy picture of our beliefs" and asking you to at least have a little clearer understanding of where we are, yet you become upset with the suggestion and are insulted that we should suggest that you can understand us better and that if you knew us better you could better target your criticisms.

If you would take the time to read the initial post and the title question you would have a better understanding of the discussion.

You see Kevin H. you are the one who believes in the Investigative Judgment, therefore the burden of proof is on you, not on me. I merely asked you for proof from the Bible and the Bible only. You can't do it! So you throw a whole bunch of other stuff at me and say if I would only read this or read that I would see the IJ is in the Bible. No Kevin, you and I can both read the clear language of the Bible for ourselves and there is nothing there that even remotely or in the least scintilla infers, implies, etc. let alone directly states that an IJ exists. If this is such a critical Doctrine you would think that God would have spelled it out ad nauseaum. Since your position does not exist in the Bible you need these outside sources to make something up that sounds intellectual and academically cool.

Again, Kevin H. the burden of proof is on your shoulders! You are the one who cannot cut it. You don't even quote your precious outside sources.

Your stated position is that outside sources help you understand the Bible better. Well the Bible says something different. I tried to help you with that by citing 1Corinthians 2:6-16.

It apparently does not dawn on your clouded mind that the Holy Spirit is the only interpreter of the Bible. You are intent on trying to drag me down to your level by using human interpreters to understand what the Bible says.

The Bible speaks about such humans:

"Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Matthew 15:14

"He also told them this parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?"

Luke 6:39.

Using your precious outside sources is indeed the blind leading the blind. No thank you Kevin H. I refuse to follow you into the pit. There is more that the Bible has to say concerning Kevin H.

"Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

John 9:39.

That means Kevin H. that you think you see but really you are spiritually blind because you rely on all those outside sources to tell that an Investigative Judgment exists.

In addition the Bible has more for you Kevin H. on how Biblical Knowledge is acquired:

"Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit."

Mark 13:11.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Luke 11:13.

"for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say."

Luke 12:12.

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

John14:26.

"If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6 But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does."

James 1:5-8.

You see Kevin H. that is how you acquire Biblical Knowledge!

Rant removed by Admin

[Kevin H]

I agree, the burden of proof is on me. And I am sorry I am unclear I do not see you as attacking this website. The issue is re-inventing the wheel and how much time on this website. Even in very basic Christianity there are things that are useful, such as the trac "The 4 Spiritual Laws" (althought due to my understanding of hell I am not overly comfortable with that trac and I see an outline in Psalm 19 that I like better, but that trac is pretty good) and C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, an outstanding book. When I am in Thailand, I've seen frequently in bookstores a copy of the "Diary of Ann Frank" in Thai and I pick up that book to give to the Buddhists as a starting point to introducing them to the God of the Bible. William Miller was a skeptic and would have discussions and debates on ministers about the Bible, one of these being his wife's brother, a Baptist minister. He and his brother-in-law got to an impase to where his brother-in-law suggested that read the Bible before they continue their discussions.

We also have the problem of every time we try to say something, you either ignore it or grab on to one part; you seem to have presupositions as to what we might be (based on how some may have misinterpeted the investigative judgment over the years, both inside the church and outside the church) and you seem determined to hold on to your misinterpetations and want to correct us, instead of wanting to listen to us and see where we are coming from. Since you have lately seemed to be more interested in wanting to correct us, but insist on approaching the topic from the direction of your misdirections. The suggestion of these books are not as much of the books themselves but they are good Bible Studies that can help you understand where we are coming from and to help to clear up your presupositions.

I am not saying that you HAVE to read these books. I'm not saying that you HAVE to accept the Investigative Judgment. I am saying that you are welcome to discuss the investigative judgment; but instead of wanting to correct us from a position of your presupositions, to at least look at evidence from scripture that we have found convincing from the people who point this out in studies. Remember, much of even what you believe was first discussed heavealy and people like Augustine and Luther had to write books and people had to recommend others to read Luther's books. By now these ideas have become a part of our culture that you don't realize that you are taking for granted Biblical Truths that were just as controversal as the Investigative Judgment is today. If we were living in the 1500s you could say that if Protestantism was so clear that it would be spelled out ad nauseaum and that you would not need to have Luther write books.

Or even with my understanding of Hell Fire. Over history many Christians believed that hell fire is people spending eternity being roasted and toasted by God, suffering in molten lava. Today there are re-examinings of the texts-- granted some too liberal-- but I am just as willing to encourage people to look at these new studies of hell fire. Or even new studies in understanding Paul's theology.

Jesus talked about people who was not able to take in new ideas by discussing old and new wineskins; On this webside we have 3 choices-- either give you a short outline, go into detailed studies of the Bible, or point you to these detailed studies. Since you insist of wanting to fit our short outlines into your old wineskins of misinformation and premisconseptions; and since you are trying to correct us from the attitude of your misinformation and premisconsepetions and you are trying to cram your misinformation and premisconseptions down our throat, we can't see you as credible. Thus we would find it easier to say "Instead of re-inventing the wheel, take a look at the wheel, and see if these writers who are pointing to the scriptures are correct in the facts of the Bible they are pointing out and if indeed the Investigative Judgment is Biblical or not."

[Kevin H]

As for some of the ideas: First I am not a fundamentalist so I do not approach this from a fundamentalist mindset.

The ancient world lived in a culture believing in the topic of the "Great Controversy" This was in the pagan societies and the Bible corrected the understanding of this. Mrs. White's job was to point out this cultural aspect that we have lost. Some of these books point out Mrs. White's basic outlines and framework and shows how the Bible makes frequent references to the Great Controversy, but living in our modern western culture we tend not to notice these implications in the words. So what is the issues of the Great Controversy?

Ancient court systems had sections of trials called by archaeologists, investagative phases of the judgments using specific language forms. We find these linquistic forms in passages of scripture. In my first post here I pointed out many examples of these investagative judgments in the Bible, and I even think one from the Canaanite myths. Anyway time after time in the Bible God has an investigative judgment before doing something major. The Bible says that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, the burden of proof now lies on you to prove that God is not the same yesterday, today and forever and that while over and over again in the Bible God has Investigative Judgments before doing something major, why should God not be the same as yesterday, when did he change so that the major event of the second coming not following the Biblical pattern of having an investigative judgmement first.

What does the word "Kippur" (as in Yom Kippur) mean in the Bible? What are it's implicatons in the pages of scripture? Is it Identical to how the Reformers interpeted the word "Atonement" in their writings. Since both ideas are translated in the English word "Atonement" is it wise to maybe relize that there may be 2 different shades of thought in that word, one beng the what the Reformers had in mind and another what the Hebrew Idea of Kippur has in mind. Is it fair to impose one shade of meaning on the other, or to just jump to a conclusion as to which shade of meaning we should impose on the word, or should we let context directe what shade of meaning we should follow?

Much of what we read when we look at the words of Paul are the interpetations of Paul by St. Augustine and Luther. Can we go back to what Paul meant in his words? Who has priority in interpeting Paul? Augustine and Luther, or current re-examining of the historical context and linguistics?

What is the relation between Scripture texts written for a local context and it's application over history?

Is the Investigative Judgment some sort of scary thing or is it a joyful thing? What is the Biblical relationship between events happening in heaven and events happening on earth?

These are some things to think about. Can't be picked out too well in prooftexts (except maybe all the different investigative judgments in the scripture)

Not all of these are brought up in these books, but these are points that have become part of Biblical Studies in receient years, not coming from Ellen White, yet plays a role in our understandings of the Investigative judgment and which has influenced me, and makes me brissel when you say that you need Ellen White for the doctrine.

Note: Part of me wants to deleate this post as it is on reflection not urgent or really needed here. But it's useful as these are thing I've come across (from both inside and outside of Adventism, but among people who love God and the Bible) which has colored my view. I'm going to post another post more approprate for our discussion now.

[Gail]

Quote:

Now I feel a little different in our discussion here in that I don't feel that we need the attacks on the Investigative Judgment. I love the investigative judgment. It is a joyful little doctrine that enriches my spiritual experience with Jesus and with others. I love the investigative judgment. I am willing to share my joy, and if you can find anything in it that you can enjoy and enrich your relationship with Jesus you are welcome to it. If it doesn't then leave it alone and grow at your level of growth, but I am not going to try to force it down your throat and convert you to believing it. If you wish to live in ignorance of this topic that is your right, but then you should shut up on this topic, at least not hunt us down and attack us with your contempt for the topic. However if you feel a special need on your heart to come and hunt us down with your contempt for the topic, then you will not be successful if you remain in the great amount of ignorance of the topic that you seem to want to keep. You need to learn how we think to show us the error of our ways, and that would mean reading those 3 chapters in the Sanctuary and the Atonement and at least one of the books that John3 recommended.

Thank you very much for this. It is true that many Adventists think differently about the subject than they did in the past. Not everyone has caught up with that yet. The doctrine of the sanctuary is a joyous one for me, too.

[miz3]

over again in the Bible God has Investigative Judgments before doing something major, why should God not be the same as yesterday, when did he change so that the major event of the second coming not following the Biblical pattern of having an investigative judgmement first.

After reading your two posts, I remain more convinced than ever of your confusion (Babylon).

1. I am not trying to "correct you" as you put it. The question was posed to give you and any others that wanted to an opportunity to demonstrate from the Bible and the Bible only that the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment exists.

No one has yet done that, including you Kevin H.

2. You cited to me in your posts about some cultural this and that which is focused on how humans view this and that.

I am not interested in human this or that, I am interested in what does God say and do. Your posts were filled with nothing but utter confusion.

3. You gave absolutely no Biblical support for any of your points. NONE!

4. Looking at the quote above, where in the Bible are all these little instances of "investigative judgments" that are supposed to illustrate the Big One?

You gave me no examples!

Oh, and don't give the one about God and Abraham before Sodom and Gomorrah. We already covered that one. God already knew they were guilty and was merely informing Abraham of His plans. As you read the Bible on this you will see there was no investigation.

Oh, ya! Don't hand me the stuff about Abraham and the number of Righteous people. That was not an investigation, that was an attempt by Abraham to save Lot and his family. Ultimately not even all of Lot's family made it alive.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not an example of God investigating and not an illustration of the "investigative judgment".

Thus, if you have so many others let's look at them Keven H.

[Kevin H]

Miz3: Probably a more approprate response then the above (which I'm leaving as it has useful information in it) is we don't spend our lives here on the computer. I work 50 hours a week; plus my job has a lot of off duty assignments. I am working on my Squadron Officer School course for promotion to Major. I need to put in time doing pushups, sit ups and running to stay in shape for in case I get sent to say Iraq or Afghanistan to serve the wounded, injured and ill troops and evacuate them out of the war zone. I have to develop a magic show with mental health principles to give to some of the Psychiatric Patients in the hospital I work in. Plus I like to spend time with my mom, brother, sister, friends, try to develop a relatioship with a young girl who may become a special part of my life.

While I believe that I can do a half way decient job in helping you understand the Investigative Judgment, maybe not convince you but make you see it as possible, there are publications out there by people who have the time to go into detailed Bible studies, who have precented papers on the Investigative Judgment to places such as the Society of Biblical Literature or more conservative evangelical theological societies that includes both Adventists and non-Adventists and have convinced many of those people that the investigative judgment is possible, and some evengelical theologians are looking at our investigative judgement to help develop a doctrine of judgment in their own denominations.

Which would be a better source to get your information from. Someone who has been working with questions from theologians and pastors from other churches and have taken the time to write down some of the facts, or me who is trying to ballance you between my career development, time working with psychiatric patients and time with family. Is it not more respectful to you to not try to do squeeze you between my patients, family, career and the pre-preperations for very real possibiliy of maybe being sent to war, responsibilities but to point you to books that have already offered serious study of the Bible that can help you understand. Especially when your posts indicate that you probably have read some things that have given you a picture of what you think our doctrine of the investigative judgement must be, but which I have to say is full of mis-understandings and premissupositions. I am offering you the opputunity to have the burden of proof be answered quite well to your satisfaction... maybe even convince you of this enjoyable truth, however you can either talk to me at the end of a 10 hour day of patient care, trying to ballance you with my mom, family, friends, career etc. Or you can get the burden of proof from places where it is spelled out and it and I have a strong enough background to answer questions, clearify, expand, short discussions, and even tell where I may dissagree with the author and offere an althernative view.

If you want me to do everything, I'm afraid you will have to just press your patient call light and I'll be in as soon as I can and serve you as I can ballance with everthing else. Is it not contemptious to my, my family, my patients and our military troops who I serve for me to take time away from them to sit down and spoon feed you what you can read on your own. However, if you are willing to do what you can on your own, I'll be glad to assist you.

[Kevin H]

I gave several examples in my first post here. So not only do I have to reinvent the wheel for you here, but I have to repeat my earlier posts as well?

[miz3]

Kevin H.

Your too busy. OK.

I was not asking for much. I only wanted you to give me the Biblical instances where this vast number of "little investigative judgments" exist. Like I thought you clearly cannot give me such a list.

Obviously, you were aware of the vast stuff you needed to present your position before you jumped in to lecture me. Yet you jumped in despite the "busy" schedule you have. I would call that rather poor judgment in the use of time. As a military person, I appreciate your sacrifices for our country. However, I hope your lack of good judgment does not cost us precious human lives.

My personal opinion is that you thought it would be an easy thing to wow me with your "breadth of knowledge"??? and that I would wilt before your stunning array of expertise. That obviously did not work.

You have no real answers for me and cannot answer from the Bible and the Bible only. You are not able to make your case because your case does not exist, except in the fantasy of you mind. You have time to read all those outside sources, but it appears you don't have time to demonstrate a few examples from the Bible. That speaks volumes, Kevin H. Thus, you are resigning from the issue using your excuses.

I wish you God speed and His protection when you are in harms way. (Physically and most importantly Spiritually)!