Biblical Evidence for the Investigative Judgment

[Guest]

www.blogtalkradio.com/sot

The very antithesis of adventism.

[BobRyan]

In Daniel 7 the one creating the courtroom context is God - not the Devil.

In that same chapter it is God - not the devil that sits as judge and it is the heavenly watchers - the myriads and myriads that are in attendance observing, witnessing, concluding -- not the devil.

Given that God brings up the names - and God is the presiding authority and God has ownership of the books - the devil is not given much say at all in this. God does not have to satisfy the devil in any respect.

However as we see in Rev 12 and in Daniel 7, and Daniel 8, the devil does bring up accusations against both God and the saints. In many cases claiming that this or that saint is really not a follower of God at all. That game does not influence God nor change His view - but it could have some weight with the non-God "myriads and myriads" who are not "all knowing" or "all wise". Thus to the extent that any of the wild accusations or claims might appear to make sense - the questions raised must be answered.

In the I.J. you have the "answering of all necessary questions" - as in the case of Job where God is charged with bribery and Job is charged with hypocrisy by the devil. however even in the case of Job - God is the one that sets up the meeting, creates the context and agenda and also brings up the name of Job for consideration as to whether he is in fact righteous on the earth - a faithful servant of God.

In the I.J. all the words be they good or evil (Matt 12) are brought up ... and all the deeds be they good or evil are in review 2Cor 5:10 -- without any devil needed at all in those texts to bring them up.

Ellen White says that when the saints are sealed Satan can tell that they still have the protection of good angels - but he does not know that their cases have been decided. Clearly he is not a part of that decision rendering process. Nobody is asking his approval for the decision rendered nor even informing him of it -- thus there is no "satisfying satan" aspect to the I.J.

As we see in Rom 2:13-16 -- it is God -- not Satan that calls up each life into review and then passes sentence.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

www.blogtalkradio.com/sot

The very antithesis of adventism.

You did not have time to listen Richard--so you speak without knowing the content and that is a violation of the 9th commandment. How dare you do such a thing and call yourself an Adventist!

[cheddar]

Cheddar

Nic Samojluk

Dr. Rich

Samie

Seventh Day

Etc.

=

All opposed to the Sanctuary Doctrine. Yet all disagree with one another and are in disunity with one another as to why they reject the Sanctuary 1844 Doctrine/Investigative Judgment. This is what we get in an Adventist forum. Lovely isn’t it.

To these individuals, the Spirit of Prophecy means absolutely zip, nada, zilch.

So far, all of them have failed to address the clear Biblical exegesis and arguments presented in the topic of this forum given by John317.

LOL

I said that I agree with the sanctuary doctrine.

I just don't think it happened in 1844.

The trumpets of Rev. are warning judgments that affect the world after the 7th trumpet Jesus goes into the most holy to make the final atonement. When he comes out probation closes and the seven last plagues are poured out.

That's the way I see it.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: RLH

The very antithesis of adventism.

You did not have time to listen Richard--so you speak without knowing the content

Unless you've changed your "theology", I don't have to listen to know what it's about. It's not like we just met.

[Dr. Rich]

Huh? Your post makes no sense. How can the the first 6 trumpets come after the 7th trumpet? Where does Rev. 11: 1 and 2 come into play?

What about the sorting of the fish in the net? And the five wise vs. the five foolish split? What about inviting good and bad to the wedding feast and the guy is not wearing a wedding garment? What happens to him and what judgment are all of these referring to? Listen to the study on this and then tell me your take on the judgment(s).

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, that is NOT fair at all and you know it as you have NOT heard this ONE study. IT's not about theology or opinion, it's straight from the words of Jesus. You are doing just what the media did to Zimmerman, and that is wrong. Do not assume anything until you first know what the heck you are talking about. I thought you were a friend, but the way you are treating this is not Christian at all. It's not something to sneeze at as it's a very serious issue. If you find ONE thing wrong with the study, then email me and we will discuss it.

[cheddar]

Huh? Your post makes no sense. How can the the first 6 trumpets come after the 7th trumpet? Where does Rev. 11: 1 and 2 come into play?

What about the sorting of the fish in the net? And the five wise vs. the five foolish split? What about inviting good and bad to the wedding feast and the guy is not wearing a wedding garment? What happens to him and what judgment are all of these referring to? Listen to the study on this and then tell me your take on the judgment(s).

Huh?

Read slower next time. You have trumpets and plagues confused.

Of course trumpets one thru six come before seven.

I might have failed calculus but not basic math.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Cheddar

Nic Samojluk

Dr. Rich

Samie

Seventh Day

Etc.

=

All opposed to the Sanctuary Doctrine. Yet all disagree with one another and are in disunity with one another as to why they reject the Sanctuary 1844 Doctrine/Investigative Judgment. This is what we get in an Adventist forum. Lovely isn’t it.

To these individuals, the Spirit of Prophecy means absolutely zip, nada, zilch.

So far, all of them have failed to address the clear Biblical exegesis and arguments presented in the topic of this forum given by John317.

LOL

I said that I agree with the sanctuary doctrine.

I just don't think it happened in 1844.

The trumpets of Rev. are warning judgments that affect the world after the 7th trumpet Jesus goes into the most holy to make the final atonement. When he comes out probation closes and the seven last plagues are poured out.

That's the way I see it.

In my book, to believe that nothing happened in 1844 is a clear denial of the unseen Divine hand moving in the minds of people globally in that year, that had a profound spiritual impact and ramifications.

No other time period in the history of this world experienced a greater revival and reformation and transformation in the lives of believers as it did in the year 1844 since Apostolic Times.

The message of 1844 has brought many tears to many hearts. You can reject it all you want, but you will never take this message out of my heart. You will never take out of the heart of those who truly understand it either.

After reading the full book, "The Second Great Advent Movement", and reading many parts of LeRoy Froom's tracing of the Second Great Advent Movement in his volume set, "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers", to reject that there was prophetic significance in the time periods between 1833 and 1844 is to close your minds to the leadings of God throughout these time periods.

Just too many profound events took place in this time frame that brought a shaking within the Church. Numerous expositors around the globe had predicted that in the 1840s, at the terminus of the 2300 years, a great revival and reformation and return to apostolic times would ensue. Many did not even teach that Jesus was Coming in that year, but that the terminus of the 2300 signaled great revival and reformation.

So much has been documented, yet so few men as yourself even care to dig into these records. You pretend as though they don't exist.

I pray that one day you look at yourself in the mirror Cheddar, and you see that you just didn't open your eyes to the beauty of this doctrine. You refused to see God's leadings in it.

Oh how I wish you would all unite with us. How I wish you could all see yourselves!

Oh how God needs you!

[John317]

...I said that I agree with the sanctuary doctrine.

I just don't think it happened in 1844.

What "sanctuary doctrine" do you agree with? Do you mean the "investigative judgment"? When do you believe it happened?

[John317]

.... IT's not about theology or opinion, it's straight from the words of Jesus. .... Do not assume anything until you first know what the heck you are talking about..... It's not something to sneeze at as it's a very serious issue. If you find ONE thing wrong with the study, then email me and we will discuss it.

Do you still believe in what's written in the book, The Spirit of the Church? If so, why should any of us pay any attention to what you believe? We know what you believe, and it isn't biblical in any shape or form. You believe that 2/3 of the NT teaches false doctrine and you believe that Paul and Ellen White were false prophets, to say nothing of Mark and Luke, James, and the writer of the book of Hebrews, Jude, and First and Second Peter. OK, so what else is new? Given these things, I don't think the evidence shows you recognize false doctrine when you're shown proof of it. You've been shown proof, for instance, that Acts 2: 3 correctly reads "tongues," yet you continue to maintain that it should read "a tongue" and that it refers to Satan instead of to the Holy Spirit. What can anyone say to you after you persist?

[Nic Samojluk]

Gibs wrote:

“I think we can prove that 1844 is correct because of the fact the 70 weeks determined, (taken off) the 2300 yrs that if we didnt start it at exactly the right yr. the prophecy of the Messiah being cut off in the middle of that 70'th week of yrs would not have happened. Well it did, precisely.”

Our problem is that we have been stuck with only one meaning for the Hebrew word “chatak” when translators have used many. Read the many connotations assigned to said term in different versions of the Bible. You will find the following: decreed, determined, assigned, shortened, and apportioned.

There is no need to assume that the 70 weeks prophecy is a portion of the 2300 prophetic period found in chapter 8 of the book of Daniel. The 2300 prophetic period provides it own context: the battle between Alexander the Great and Medo-Persia. We have taken the prediction out of context and thus have made the same mistake made by William Miller.

We are self centered and have made the unwarranted assumption that the book of Daniel was written with Adventists in mind. Daniel was concerned about his Jewish people and the destiny his nation was going to play in the future.

The short term application of the 2300 days prophecy was partially fulfilled in the time of the Antiochus Epiphanes, while the long term application took place with the victory of Israel over the Arabs in 1967.

The 70 weeks prophetic period is a stand alone prediction and has nothing to do with the 2300 prophetic days.

[Nic Samojluk]

Dr. Rich wrote:

“Sorry Nick, but I see many flaws in your theory. First is an assumption that Daniel did not know anything about the heavenly sanctuary.”

You need to read Chapter 8 of the book of Daniel again. Do it carefully. What is the context? Is it the temple in heaven?

Read the explanation of the prophecy given by the angel. Is there any reference to the heavenly sanctuary?

We have been taking the 2300 days prophecy out of context too long. Don’t respond to me until you have read chapter 8 with care from beginning to end.

The context says nothing about a heavenly temple nor its cleaning. I have chosen to believe the explanation given by the angel rather than yours or anybody else.

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

.... IT's not about theology or opinion, it's straight from the words of Jesus. .... Do not assume anything until you first know what the heck you are talking about..... It's not something to sneeze at as it's a very serious issue. If you find ONE thing wrong with the study, then email me and we will discuss it.

Do you still believe in what's written in the book, The Spirit of the Church? If so, why should any of us pay any attention to what you believe? We know what you believe, and it isn't biblical in any shape or form. You believe that 2/3 of the NT teaches false doctrine and you believe that Paul and Ellen White were false prophets, to say nothing of Mark and Luke, James, and the writer of the book of Hebrews, Jude, and First and Second Peter. OK, so what else is new? Given these things, I don't think the evidence shows you recognize false doctrine when you're shown proof of it. You've been shown proof, for instance, that Acts 2: 3 correctly reads "tongues," yet you continue to maintain that it should read "a tongue" and that it refers to Satan instead of to the Holy Spirit. What can anyone say to you after you persist?

Irrevelant my friend and i did not write that book. This has nothing to do with the ONE bible study on 4/7/12 at: www.blogtalkradio.com/sot So please shape up!

[Nic Samojluk]

Lysimachus wrote:

“To these individuals, the Spirit of Prophecy means absolutely zip, nada, zilch.”

Wrong conclusion! Ellen White did tell us that there is much to be learned from our study of the Bible. She also advised us to study the Bible instead of merely relying on what she has written. She was not infallible; she told us that only God is infallible.

There is one fundamental rule concerning the study of the Bible, and has to do with paying attention to the context. Whenever we forget this basic rule, we are in danger of reaching erroneous conclusions. I beg you to read chapter 8 of the book of Daniel, paying special attention to the explanation provided by the angel. You will find nothing there about the temple in heaven. Everything you find there is connected with what happens on earth.

There is a lesson also to be learned from the book of Revelation. The prophet was told by the angel to swallow the prophetic parchment. When he did so, the taste was sweet in his mouth but bitter in his belly. This applies to our Adventist experience. Since 1844 we have been trying to make said experience bitter-sweet instead of bitter.

We came with the idea that we didn’t make a big mistake after all; that the only thing wrong in our interpretation was the focus of the events. We said: we were right on the date, but wrong on where the events were supposed to take place. I suggest that we swallow the bitter pill and admit that the angel was right after all. Our experience in 1844 was bitter instead of bitter sweet.

Can we be humble enough and admit that we made a big blunder in 1844; that we were wrong both on the date and on the focus on where the events were supposed to take place? If we do, the Christian world will respect us again regarding this issue.

Ellen White did teach that Jesus had to wait 1800 hundred years before presenting his spilt blood to his Father, and that he ministered in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary for 18 centuries, when the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus sat in the immediate presence of his Father following his ascension to heaven.

Such an erroneous interpretation of Scripture resulted from our failure to admit that we totally missed what is found in the 8th chapter of Daniel. As you can see, even our own prophet made an erroneous interpretation due to our failure to pay close attention to what the Bible teaches.

It is high time that we place the Bible above the writings of Ellen White. On one occasion, Ellen said the following: If the testimonies do not teach according to the Bible, reject them. I conclude that Ellen was wrong regarding the Investigative Judgment and her interpretation of the 2300 prophetic period.

This is why I have chosen to believe what the angel said in said chapter instead of the convoluted and out of context interpretaion we have designed out of our wishful thinking.

Are you going to condemn me for choosing the explanation of the angel instead of humanly invented theories?

[miz3]

This has been litigated many times on this forum. Every single time it has been shown that there is absolutely no Biblical evidence for the SDA Church .org's "investigated judgment".

This doctrine of the SDA Church .org is based only on the erroneous assumptions of the Protestant Reformers and ratified by Ellen White. Because Ellen White is viewed by the SDA Church as being of higher authority than the Bible the SDA Church .org clings to this erroneous Investigative Judgment Doctrine.

It is also very self-centered and most arrogant to believe that the Book of Daniel was written just for the purpose of prophesying the existence of the SDA Church .org. not to mention how laughable and silly such assertions are.

[John317]

This has been litigated many times on this forum. Every single time it has been shown that there is absolutely no Biblical evidence for the SDA Church .org's "investigated judgment".

Instead of merely telling us your conclusions and denying that there's biblical evidence for the IJ, deal forthrightly with the evidence presented. Show that it doesn't say what is being claimed it says.

Saying "there's no evidence" or "there's no IJ" is about as helpful as merely saying "there's lots of evidence" or "there is an IJ."

[cheddar]

What "sanctuary doctrine" do you agree with? Do you mean the "investigative judgment"? When do you believe it happened?

I agree with the fall feasts from the OT. The spring feasts pointed forward to the 1st coming so we should see the fall feasts fulfilled prior to the 2nd coming. If you want to say that the day of atonement was fulfilled in 1844 that’s fine, but show where the feast of trumpets happened prior and the feast of tabernacles happened after. The trumpets of Rev. occur during the lifetime of the 144K.

There are also three main obstacles to the date of 1844 itself:

1) The day for a year principle. A principle is a rule or law or something that holds true in every case. There are time periods in Dan. and Rev. which are clearly literal so this is not a valid principle. The three weeks that Daniel fasted, the twenty days that Gabriel fought with the prince of Persia and the millennium of Rev. are all literal.

2) No start date is ever given for the 2300 days. If you use the start date for the seventy weeks and say that it is ‘cut off’ from the 2300 days that’s all fine and good unless the seventy weeks are cut off at the end which would still leave no start date. If something is ‘cut off’ from something else it’s usually cut off at the end anyway.

3) At the end of the 2300 days the cleansing is completed or finished. If Jesus went into the most holy in 1844 the cleansing was just beginning and still not finished today. The book of Daniel is sealed until the ‘time of the end’. It says right in Dan. 8 that the vision of the 2300 days is for the ‘time of the end’. We haven’t come to that time yet.

[John317]

Irrevelant my friend and i did not write that book. This has nothing to do with the ONE bible study on 4/7/12....

True, you didn't write the book, but you do advertise it and distribute it and you agree with what it teaches. You write and post the same things as are in that book. The main theme of the book is that Satan has managed to get the Christian Church to accept lies from Paul and other NT writers in place of the truth of Christ's words. That includes the idea that Satan tricked the disciples and apostles at Pentecost into accepting the Devil's lies while thinking it was the Holy Spirit. It is significant that the ones responsible for the study on 4/7/12 are also responsible for the book which teaches that it was Satan who came to the disciples on the Day of Pentecost.

[John317]

... Ellen White did tell us that there is much to be learned from our study of the Bible. She also advised us to study the Bible instead of merely relying on what she has written. She was not infallible; she told us that only God is infallible.

None of that means that what Ellen White wrote is false. The same can be said about Paul and Luke and all of the prophets of God, including Moses-- none of them were infallible, either.

[John317]

.... obstacles to the date of 1844 itself:

1) The day for a year principle. A principle is a rule or law or something that holds true in every case. There are time periods in Dan. and Rev. which are clearly literal so this is not a valid principle. The three weeks that Daniel fasted, the twenty days that Gabriel fought with the prince of Persia and the millennium of Rev. are all literal.

You seem to fail to understand the principle. It is only in "prophetic time" that the day equals a year. Of course the Bible contains references to time where the time is literal and no given in symbols. There's nothing prophetic or symbolic about the times you speak of.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

... Ellen White did tell us that there is much to be learned from our study of the Bible. She also advised us to study the Bible instead of merely relying on what she has written. She was not infallible; she told us that only God is infallible.

None of that means that what Ellen White wrote is false. The same can be said about Paul and Luke and all of the prophets of God, including Moses-- none of them were infallible, either.

It is interesting John that the only time we think its OK to quote EGW is when it suits us or she seems to agree with what we're trying to put out there. She most definitely tells us to read the Bible first, but this does not negate what she is telling us what these passages mean.

[John317]

.... obstacles to the date of 1844 itself:

2) No start date is ever given for the 2300 days. If you use the start date for the seventy weeks and say that it is ‘cut off’ from the 2300 days that’s all fine and good unless the seventy weeks are cut off at the end which would still leave no start date. If something is ‘cut off’ from something else it’s usually cut off at the end anyway.

There's very good reason to believe that the 2300 days and the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9: 24-27 both begin at the same time, 457 BC. There are a number of very clear connections between Daniel 8 and 9.

Here are five links that tie Daniel 8 to Daniel 9--

1) The same angel revisits Daniel in Daniel 9.

2) In Daniel 9, Daniel recalls the former vision (Daniel 8).

3) In Daniel 8, the prophet becomes exhausted and sick, so that the explanation was suspended at an important point in the vision, and Daniel was instructed to "shut up the vision" (Daniel 8: 26). Notice that in Daniel 9: 22, the angel Gabriel tells Daniel that his express duty is to give Daniel the necessary understanding-- "I am now come forth to give you skill and understanding."

4) The primary detail that was left unexplained was the time prophecy-- the mysterious "2300 evening mornings" of verse 14. So in Daniel 9: 23, the angel tells Daniel "to understand the matter, and CONSIDER THE VISION." What vision? Obviously the vision of Daniel 8.

5) At Daniel 8: 27, Daniel is in a state frustration and perplexity, and hoping that the angel would explain the 2300 days. Daniel says, "I was astonished at the vision but none understood it." Then notice that in Daniel 9: 24, the first thing that the angel mentions is TIME. "Seventy weeks are determined [or "cut off"] for your people..."

[John317]

Excellent point, pk. I'm sure we've all seen discussions where both sides quote Ellen White, but then suddenly one side says that they only want to hear what the Bible says. We do base our beliefs on the Bible but knowing what Ellen White wrote on a subject is also very important. Knowing Scripture doesn't preclude knowing and accepting Ellen White's prophetic ministry. We need to undertand what she said on the IJ.

[John317]

....It is high time that we place the Bible above the writings of Ellen White. On one occasion, Ellen said the following: If the testimonies do not teach according to the Bible, reject them.

She didn't mean that we should only reject parts of her writings. She was saying that if we find that her writings contradict God's Word, the Bible, we should reject her writings-- i.e., her entire prophetic ministry. This is made clear in the first 45 pages of 1 Selected Messages. She has very plain things to say about those who selectively use her writings only to support their favorite themes or ideas. That is like only using some parts of the Bible while rejecting other parts. Ellen White also said that was wrong to do, but yet many continue to do it. Either Ellen White was a genuine prophet of God or she wasn't.