Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 Read Luke 1:1-3. Never did Luke say he talked directly to the eyewitnesses. Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, [2] just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, [3] it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, [4] that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. NOTE: Luke says that he got his information from "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." He says that those "eyewitnesses" are the ones who "have delivered to us" "the things that have been accomplished among us." What reason do you have for saying that Luke didn't talk to eyewitnesses such as Peter or that Luke got his information "third-hand"? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Dr. Rich Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Misunderstanding? Hmmm? I could say the same thing about you, but who cares? Jesus made it clear that NO ONE would understand except for those who practice righteousness as found in Jn. 18:37 and Matthew. 13:10-13. Sin? No, being unclean or defiled is/was not the same as not obeying the ten commandments. and NO, I didn't say it was a sin to touch an unclean animal. Jesus clearly did and didn't sin so what I wrote proved that being unclean or defiled is NOT the same as sinning. And therefore eating pig's meat is not a sin either. (Didn't Jesus say that?)
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 ...Jesus made it clear that NO ONE would understand except for those who practice righteousness as found in Jn. 18:37 and Matthew. 13:10-13. Are you practicing righteousness as Jesus spoke of it in those verses? How do you understand those verses to apply to the topic we're discussing? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 ... And therefore eating pig's meat is not a sin either. (Didn't Jesus say that?) No, as a matter of fact He didn't. Do you eat pig? How about vulture or rats? Snake? I have a friend who likes slugs and snails and octopus, etc. Notice most of the unclean animals are scavengers. God had a good reason to tell His people not to eat them. He doesn't want His people to eat garbage. Many people have died from eating pig, although they ususally don't know it was the cause of death until they perform an autopsy and find evidence of trichinosis. http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=slv8-w3i&va=pork+trichinosis John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Dr. Rich Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 John my friend, it's not about what anyone eats or not what they eat that makes any differenct because this is what Jesus was attempting to get people to understand when He said what He did. And no, please don't go around tooting your horn that this was ONLY because the did not wash their hands! If you want to believe that--it's your choice. God would have NEVER had Noah eat anything that was sinful--yet God told Noah that everything was ok to eat--but the blood. God saved Noah because he was the ONLY ONE righteous! Think about it! Look, it's not about what is healthy or not or what any doctor says about it, it's about spiritually being clean--NOT SINNING! Make up excuses all you want, but it has NOTHING to do with being spiritually righteous! What I eat or drink or not is NOT your business! Nor is it any Adventist's business! What EGW taught about healthy living is also nuts (like the pun) as she was sick all of her life!
Dr. Rich Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich ...Jesus made it clear that NO ONE would understand except for those who practice righteousness as found in Jn. 18:37 and Matthew. 13:10-13. Are you practicing righteousness as Jesus spoke of it in those verses? How do you understand those verses to apply to the topic we're discussing? Again John, whether or not I practice righteousness is not your business--it's entirely up to God. The leaders of the Jews surely thought Jesus was not practicing righteousness and I am sure many stupid (stupid means they intentionally don't want to know the truth and remain ignorant) people who believe they are in need of nothing (Rev. 3:17) will and are making fun of people who keep all of the ten commandments and fold fast to the words (testimony) of Jesus as found in Rev. 12:17. As for the topic--is there or isn't there enough evidence to show that what EGW said and taught about the IJ is true? I say NO! Jesus said NO. Yes, there are judgments, but nothing about them being called 'investigative' and the judgment did NOT start on or about Oct. 22, 1844!
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 God would have NEVER had Noah eat anything that was sinful--yet God told Noah that everything was ok to eat--but the blood. Genesis 9:3-4 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [4] But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Noah already knew the difference between clean and unclean animals. It was a given that Noah knew not to eat the unclean animals. Do you believe that God meant for humans to eat every moving thing that lives-- snakes, lizards, monkeys, owls, worms, snails, etc.? Since Noah knew that God made a difference between clean and unclean animals, he knew that God was giving "everything" among the clean animals to be food for them. God wouldn't intend for them to use the unclean animals for food. Simply because it is not stated in every verse doesn't mean the distinction did not exist. Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich God saved Noah because he was the ONLY ONE righteous! Think about it! Yet that didn't mean Noah was always right in what he did. He got drunk, for instance. We have absolutely no evidence that Noah ate unclean animals. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 As for the topic--is there or isn't there enough evidence to show that what EGW said and taught about the IJ is true? I say NO! Jesus said NO. Yes, there are judgments, but nothing about them being called 'investigative' and the judgment did NOT start on or about Oct. 22, 1844! We've wandered off the topic a bit and now is a good time to get back on it. But to answer your question: We have only just begun to look at the Bible evidence for the Investigative Judgment. So it is premature to conclude that the evidence shows EGW was wrong or that the Bible does not support the IJ. For starters, please read the first three posts of this discussion and study the information at the following links: The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical? Part 1: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-sdcb1.php Part 2: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-sdcb2.php Part 3: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-sdcb3.php What, if anything, do you find wrong with those sources on the IJ? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Members phkrause Posted January 30, 2012 Members Posted January 30, 2012 It had nothing to do with the Gentiles being either sinful or forgiven. Even before the death of Christ, the Gentiles weren't any more unclean than the Jews. The point is that Peter was wrong about the Gentiles being considered "unclean" by God. God didn't consider Gentiles unclean any more than He considered the Jews unclean. Peter didn't understand this until God gave him the vision. Absolutely correct John. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Samie Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 It is biblical FACT that sin is what makes ALL unclean. Peter considered unclean those who had not yet been baptized nor had repented. Because of the vision, Peter acknowledged God showed him NOT to call any man - Jew or Gentile - unclean. As the animals in the vision were all unclean to him, so those who had not yet repented nor baptized he calls unclean: but God told him otherwise. As the animals in that knitted sheet God said He had already cleansed, so those whom Peter considered unclean, God hath likewise cleansed. If God had cleansed ALL, why the insistence He had not forgiven ALL? Because if we accept this biblical truth we fear the doctrine on Investigative Judgment will be adversely affected?
Samie Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 It is not wandering off topic when my posts in this thread centers on the biblical TRUTH that God through Christ has forgiven ALL. This TRUTH disproves the need for an IJ claimed to have started in 1844. In this period of Revival & Reformation, we need biblical TRUTH to accomplish that objective.
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 John my friend, it's not about what anyone eats or not what they eat that makes any differenct because this is what Jesus was attempting to get people to understand when He said what He did. ...Look, it's not about what is healthy or not or what any doctor says about it, it's about spiritually being clean--NOT SINNING! Make up excuses all you want, but it has NOTHING to do with being spiritually righteous! It has to do with obedience to God's commandments. These are some of the verses that deal with what we do with our bodies: 1 Cor. 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Romans 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 1 Cor. 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, [20] for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1 Cor. 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? [17] If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. NOTE: Our bodies are the temple of God. God wants us to keep our body-temples clean and healthy for Him. This concept is directly related to the Investigative Judgment, as will be seen clearly as we proceed with this discussion. 3 John 1:2 Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 It is not wandering off topic when my posts in this thread centers on the biblical TRUTH that God through Christ has forgiven ALL. This TRUTH disproves the need for an IJ claimed to have started in 1844. In this period of Revival & Reformation, we need biblical TRUTH to accomplish that objective. I was talking to Dr. Rich when I spoke of "wandering off the topic." Your posts dealing with the question of God's forgiveness of ALL sins, I do NOT consider wandering off the topic. They are very much on-topic. If ALL sins have already been forgiven, why are many people going to be lost? Why isn't everyone saved, if everyone's sins have already been forgiven? Who decides whether people are lost or saved? And isn't such a decision itself an "investigative judgment"? You said only "overcomers" will be saved. I agree with you. But if ALL sins have been forgiven, why are the sins of those who fail to overcome counted against them? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 Peter considered unclean those who had not yet been baptized nor had repented. Isn't it true that Peter didn't consider whether they had been baptized or had repented or not? Before his experience with the vision and with Cornelius, Peter didn't think God accepted the Gentiles or that the gospel was intended for them. It took a while for this idea to become fully settled in Peter's thinking and behavior. See Gal. 2: 9-16. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Samie Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Originally Posted By: Samie It is not wandering off topic when my posts in this thread centers on the biblical TRUTH that God through Christ has forgiven ALL. This TRUTH disproves the need for an IJ claimed to have started in 1844. In this period of Revival & Reformation, we need biblical TRUTH to accomplish that objective. I was talking to Dr. Rich when I spoke of "wandering off the topic." Your posts dealing with the question of God's forgiveness of ALL sins, I do NOT consider wandering off the topic. They are very much on-topic.
miz3 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 One of the purposes of the Investigative Judgment is to distinguish between those who are Christ's true followers and those who merely made a claim to be His followers but who "made the choice to sin and keep on sinning." Are you saying that God does not know this and has not always known this? This is direct contradiction to the Bible.
miz3 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I disagree with, and reject, your categories of "God Centric" and "human centric". As I said, you have set up a "straw man" argument which doesn't represent the views I'm taking. The Investigative Judgment is not "human centric". The Investigative Judgment is actually the foundation of the "marvelous texts" you refer to. Those statements in the book of Revelation are the result of the Investigative Judgment. We're actually in agreement that the verses you've quoted are not human centric. I quoted those verses in order to show that the Investigative Judgment is fundamentally about God. It leads the whole universe to the conclusion that God is just and worthy to be worshipped. Of course you disagree. This is what "human centric" Bible students always say. You accuse of a "straw man" because you have no argument against what I have said because what I have said is the Truth about your position. The Investigative Judgment is one of most "human centric" doctrines ever devised by humans. Besides the doctrine/concept is not even in the Bible. This doctrine is the result of human fantasy. The "marvelous texts" cited say nothing about the Investigative Judgment nor do those same texts make even the slightest reference to such an event. This kind of talk is just made up human fantasy. Those texts say nothing about being the "result" of the Investigative Judgment. Again, you dabbling in human fantasy. You are trying to make the Bible say things it does not say and it is clear to all that the texts cited do not say anything but nothing about the Investigative Judgment.
miz3 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 John my friend, it's not about what anyone eats or not what they eat that makes any differenct because this is what Jesus was attempting to get people to understand when He said what He did. And no, please don't go around tooting your horn that this was ONLY because the did not wash their hands! If you want to believe that--it's your choice. God would have NEVER had Noah eat anything that was sinful--yet God told Noah that everything was ok to eat--but the blood. God saved Noah because he was the ONLY ONE righteous! Think about it! Look, it's not about what is healthy or not or what any doctor says about it, it's about spiritually being clean--NOT SINNING! Make up excuses all you want, but it has NOTHING to do with being spiritually righteous! What I eat or drink or not is NOT your business! Nor is it any Adventist's business! What EGW taught about healthy living is also nuts (like the pun) as she was sick all of her life! For once I agree with this statement of yours Dr. Rich. Spiritual cleanness is all that God cares about.
miz3 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich God would have NEVER had Noah eat anything that was sinful--yet God told Noah that everything was ok to eat--but the blood. Genesis 9:3-4 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [4] But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Noah already knew the difference between clean and unclean animals. It was a given that Noah knew not to eat the unclean animals. Do you believe that God meant for humans to eat every moving thing that lives-- snakes, lizards, monkeys, owls, worms, snails, etc.? Since Noah knew that God made a difference between clean and unclean animals, he knew that God was giving "everything" among the clean animals to be food for them. God wouldn't intend for them to use the unclean animals for food. Simply because it is not stated in every verse doesn't mean the distinction did not exist. Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich God saved Noah because he was the ONLY ONE righteous! Think about it! Yet that didn't mean Noah was always right in what he did. He got drunk, for instance. We have absolutely no evidence that Noah ate unclean animals. Typical "human centric" twisting of the Bible to fit what you want it to say even though it is clear the Bible does not say what you said. 1. The text clearly states that every "moving thing" without qualifiers of any kind. You have no right to add to the Word of God. God knew full well what He was saying to Noah. God does not need "your correction". 2. You are correct we have no evidence that Noah ate unclean animals but we also have no evidence that Noah abstained from eating them. 3. As to Noah getting drunk. God no where in the Bible and the Bible only prohibits the use of "alcoholic" beverages. God does make it a sin to get drunk. Thus, Noah sinned when he got drunk. And your point here is? In spite of this God said Noah was Righteous. God also said that David was Righteous in all that David did. See 1Kings 14:8. This in spite of all that we know David did. Did God lie in your "human centric" view?
miz3 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 It is biblical FACT that sin is what makes ALL unclean. Peter considered unclean those who had not yet been baptized nor had repented. Because of the vision, Peter acknowledged God showed him NOT to call any man - Jew or Gentile - unclean. As the animals in the vision were all unclean to him, so those who had not yet repented nor baptized he calls unclean: but God told him otherwise. As the animals in that knitted sheet God said He had already cleansed, so those whom Peter considered unclean, God hath likewise cleansed. If God had cleansed ALL, why the insistence He had not forgiven ALL? Because if we accept this biblical truth we fear the doctrine on Investigative Judgment will be adversely affected?
miz3 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 It has to do with obedience to God's commandments. These are some of the verses that deal with what we do with our bodies: 1 Cor. 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Romans 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 1 Cor. 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, [20] for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1 Cor. 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? [17] If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. NOTE: Our bodies are the temple of God. God wants us to keep our body-temples clean and healthy for Him. This concept is directly related to the Investigative Judgment, as will be seen clearly as we proceed with this discussion. 3 John 1:2 Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul. Those who follow the "human centric" view of the Bible are always worried about the keeping of the Law. Human centric believers believe that they need to help God uphold His Law or the people might get into Heaven who do not belong there (in their human centric view). Thus, like the Investigative Judgment doctrine it all centers around upholding the Law. Like the Pharisees of old, human centric interpreters cannot keep the Law as they themselves define it. They are also into everybody's business as to what they eat, do they pay tithe, etc. etc. etc. Thus, they concoct this Investigative Judgment and make themselves the "gatekeepers" of who really belongs in Heaven. This is also why they are a "special people" called directly by God to do this work. Thus, SDA and SDA Church .org makes themselves special via the erroneous Sanctuary/Investigative Judgment/1844 message. The "circle" is complete for them.
Dr. Rich Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: John317 One of the purposes of the Investigative Judgment is to distinguish between those who are Christ's true followers and those who merely made a claim to be His followers but who "made the choice to sin and keep on sinning." Are you saying that God does not know this and has not always known this? This is direct contradiction to the Bible. I agree with you miz3
BobRyan Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 So we see the heart and soul of this topic It seems to me that the most succinct Judgment "passed in favor of the saints" Dan 7:22 is a judgment involving saints. And as Dan 7 points out - this all happens before the 2nd coming and after the fall of the Roman empire. Another text - 2Cor 5:10 shows us that the future judgment that includes the saints - is a judgment based on deeds "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to given an account for the deeds done in the body whether good or evil". Then of course we have Rom 2:13-16 where it is not the "hearers of the law of God that are just before God but the doers of the Law will be justified... on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge". Hence the "everlasting gospel" Rev 14:6 message at the heart of the Seventh-day Adventist mission - "fear God and give glory to Him for the hour of His judgment HAS come".Rev 14:7 John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
Dr. Rich Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Good grief Bob, the rail split and has now come back together again--where have you been? Here is the thing Bob--like it or not, the foundation for an issue might lead one away from the issue, but it still is first and foremost the guts of the issue itself. "The case for the IJ". If you testified like you did before a court, could and would not the foundation for your testimony be challenged? The ONLY case for the IJ that I heard was from the words of EGW. Therefore, are you saying that those words can't be challenged? If so, what type of a 'case' do you have? Hmmmm? No wonder people here are so confused!
Recommended Posts