Biblical Evidence for the Investigative Judgment

[John317]

...The Scriptures explains all, so well, where it is written of Christ, in whom are hid ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Now hear, that which Seventh-day Adventists claim IS GREAT ATONEMENT DAY, when the books of the record of our sins will be opened and investigated, in this very Letter of Paul's to the Colossians is declared, that which God, who raised Christ from the dead,blotted out and took out of the way NAILING IT TO THE CROSS! Directly upon which Paul again declares, Let no man THEREFORE, JUDGE you ever again!

Are you saying that Colossians 2: 14 teaches that all our sins were blotted out at the cross of Christ? And are you saying that believers will never be investigated and judged?

If so, that is a clear contradition of the following verses:

1) Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when [or "so that"] the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.{Acts 3: 19}

NOTE: If our sins were already blotted out at the cross, Peter would not have referred to a future blotting out of our sins.

Do you see a difference between Christ's blood covering our sins and our sins being forever blotted out?

2) .... And all the churches will know that I am he who searches [literally, "investigates"] mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.{Rev. 2: 23}

3) .... we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.{Romans 14: 10}

4) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.{2 Cor. 5: 10}

NOTE: Isn't there a huge difference between fellow humans judging you and God's judging you? Is Paul saying in Colossians that God will never judge us? What about Paul's statements in Romans 2 and elsewhere, where he clearly teaches that God will indeed judge us?

[John317]

For Christ by his own blood ENTERED IN ONCE into the holy place [Christ entering Christ in resurrection from the dead] having OBTAINED, ETERNAL & NOT HALF-WAY REDEMPTION.

This, say you the Adventists, applies to the Great Day of Atonement.

This, the writer to the Hebrews applies to CHRIST,

entering ONCE when He through the Eternal Spirit,

OFFERED Himself without spot to God,

You're confused about SDA beliefs and teachings. We don't believe that Christ obtained "half-way redemption". Nor do we teach that Hebrews 9: 12 refers to 1844.

Hebrews 9:12

he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

To understand what SDA believe about this verse, study the SDA Bible Commentary on Heb. 9: 12. We believe that the eternal redemption Jesus secured was secured by His work on the cross.

[John317]

...And since when have we gained access to the throne of God's grace?

Not 1830 years later, but

to the intent that _NOW_ in heavenly places might be KNOWN by the Church according to the Eternal Purpose which God purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord in whom we [NOW] have boldness and ACCESS with confidence by the faith of Him.

Not after 1830 years in 1844, but_NOW!

SDAs have never taught that we gained access to God's throne of grace in 1830 or 1844.

You complained of others not reading carefully what you wrote, but you are doing the same thing. It's obvious that you don't understand what the SDA church teaches regarding the IJ and 1844. Please study carefully the first two posts of this discussion before you post any more, because your objections and comments up to this point show that you are rejecting something you don't even understand.

[John317]

Will this post stay displayed on clubadventists forum?

Yes, sure.

[Dr. Rich]

While John317's post may be true, not all Adventists will agree with the cookie cutter SDA Bible Commentary as the words found there are just someone's opinon and nothing else. Jesus clearly said that the real reason for His being born of this world was to testify to the truth, God the Father's words are what is real truth. (John 18:37)

And no, Jesus' death was NOT the Atonement as that occured in the fall and a bull was offered as a sacrafice for the High Priest. Therefore, Jesus only represented the Passover Lamb and it was NEVER sacrificed for anyone's sin or to take away anyones sin, but only made it possible for the FIRST FRUITS (see Rev. 5:9-10) to overcome sin and become sanctified. (See John 17)

Jesus told His disciples that He was going to His Father, therefore Jesus did just as what He said He was going to do and that was that He went to His Father, who I am sure was about as holy as one can get. We know that Jesus was with His Father PRIOR to 1844 because of what Jesus gave John to write in Rev. 1:1.

All of this evidence that refutes EGW's claim and mistaken 'answer' to the great dissappointment is overwhelming, but to get those who the prophecy is targeting in Rev. 2:18-26 to repent and give up those false teachings is down right all but impossible.

[John317]

The SDA Bible Commentary is a pretty good representation of what the SDA Church believes. Not all SDAs agree with every line of it, but that isn't necessary for it to represent the beliefs of the SDA Church.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

The first premise that you and the SDA Church .org make is the "year/day principle". No such "principle" exists in Scripture. There are only two instances in which a "day for a year" or a "year for a day" exists. These are found in Numbers chapter fourteen and Ezekiel chapter four. In both these case it is clearly stated that this "year/day" thing is to be used only for these specific instances.

Nowhere in these two Biblical Texts is it stated that such an application is to be used for all "prophetic" interpretations.

Since you thus have no "year/day" then all your interpretations thereafter are not true.

Your conclusion that there is no year-day principle contained in the Bible is false. There is actually very good evidence to show that it exists in Scripture. We will examine the evidence. Let's begin the examination by first looking closely at one particular verse: Daniel 7: 25.

Daniel 7:25-- ".... and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

What is "a time and times and the dividing of time"?

Daniel 7:25 is not talking about the year/day principle. You have to "assume" something that is not in the text by adding your personal interpretations of that time period and/or get such notions from some extra Biblical source, like Ellen White.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

There is no Biblical evidence anywhere in any form whatsoever for and Investigative Judgement. .... Since Biblical evidence for the Investigative Judgement does not exist you are thus not able to cite any evidence for its existence.

Instead of prematurely jumping to your conclusion before you even deal directly with the evidence, you need to try and show that the evidence presented in the first two posts is false. If the Bible evidence for the IJ does not exist at all, it should be easy to show this to be the case.

I did show you by demonstrating that the year/day principle is not a wide/all inclusive use principle. Without the year/day everything else is false. The year/day is the foundation on which all your other assertions rest. Since the year/day does not exist as a "wide/all inclusive use" principle then you have nothing.

[miz3]

John317 since you have staked the "credibility of Ellen White" on so much of your doctrine/belief concerning the Scriptures it would be incumbent on you to defend Ellen White's credibility.

I showed you an example of Ellen White not be credible because she was in direct contradiction to the Holy Scriptures. Yet you have ignored that example.

Why did you ignore that example?

I will repeat it again below so that you might have another opportunity to confront this issue of Ellen White and her credibility.

ELLEN WHITE’S CONTRADICTION OF THE BIBLE

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.

Well John317 here is a blatant instance where Ellen White contradicted the Bible.

"God cannot take to heaven the slave who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and holding a lower position than the brutes.... He does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He permits him to be as if he had not been,...." (Early Writings, p.276)

This statement is in direct contradiction to the Words of the Bible and the Bible only.

John chapter one which says that Jesus Christ is the "light that lights" every human and by itself makes Ellen White's words above wrong and in contradiction.

The Bible in addition says that "nothing is impossible" with God. And those texts in context were talking about Salvation and who could and could not be saved.

So the Bible and Ellen White are in contradiction to each other in this case.

Even the degradation of slavery cannot keep God from saving such poor sinners and some will be in the Kingdom of Heaven according to the Bible Principles that God can and does do the impossible.

So God can save babies, even babies, who die in the womb. Nothing is impossible with God.

[skyblue888]

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: 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.

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Let us not forget that she merely borrowed such an explanation from another source. Copying what others have written has its shortcomings and dangers, especially when the borrowing is not acknowledgd and even denied. The end should not justify the means!

Ellen White NEVER MERELY BORROWED anything. A comparison of her writings with the writings of people that she "copied" shows that she sometimes used other people's writings in order to express what God had shown her. She was very selective in the use of other people's writings. She wouldn't use the parts that conflicted with the message that God wanted her to convey. Also, Ellen White changed the significance of the original writing so that it conformed to her own intentions.

What you say does not take into account the fact that some of the writers she "borrowed" from also borrowed from other writings.

Your objections on this point have been answered very well many times before. In order to fully answer them again here, it would take us completely off topic. Let's stay on topic and deal with the Bible evidence presented in the first two posts of the thread.

[miz3]

Quote:

This to me sounds more like what the Jesuits would argue to undermine Adventism just as they argued to counter the Reformation.

miz, if you cannot see the day/year principle, we will never see eye to eye, to be sure. Upon this principle rests the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, the foundation and central pillar of the Advent Movement. By attacking it we would be attacking the Advent Movement which was of God.

So is that what you are doing miz?

sky

I am attacking falsehood.

If attacking falsehood makes me a Jesuit then so be it. Calling me names will not embarrass me to change my position.

If name calling is all you have then that is shows that you have nothing to offer in regard to Truth.

Falsehood is falsehood whether committed by a huge corporate structure such as the RCC, the SDA Church .org, etc. or by a single human being.

[Dr. Rich]

Ok, now how do we, as a group of truth seekers, settle this whole issue? Does it matter if one believes in the IJ or not? (Rev. 21:8 and 22:15)

Miz3 and others have some real issues with EGW as do many well known Adventists, so why depend upon her writings anymore? Do we really need them to survive as Adventists?

The day/year rule is clear to me because things did not happen fast enough (days) for the decree of rebuilding the City and the ministry of Jesus too, so that had to be (commen sense) 2300 years.

[John317]

....Let's begin the examination by first looking closely at one particular verse: Daniel 7: 25.

Daniel 7:25-- ".... and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

What is "a time and times and the dividing of time"?

Originally Posted By: miz3

Daniel 7:25 is not talking about the year/day principle. You have to "assume" something that is not in the text by adding your personal interpretations of that time period and/or get such notions from some extra Biblical source, like Ellen White.

What is "a time and times and the dividing of time"? What is that in reference to? How much time is it speaking of? And is it symbolic time or literal time?

[John317]

John317 since you have staked the "credibility of Ellen White" on so much of your doctrine/belief concerning the Scriptures it would be incumbent on you to defend Ellen White's credibility.

This discussion is not about Ellen White. The IJ doctrine as SDAs believe and teach it does not depend on her writings. My entire thesis in this thread is that the IJ is found in Scripture.

Therefore, the credibility of Ellen White is not a part of this discussion. The topic is the Investigative Judgment, and specifically it deals with the evidence presented in the first two posts of this thread. If you are so certain that there is no Bible evidence, you would do well to stay on the topic by showing that the information and evidence given in those first two posts is completely invalid.

[Dr. Rich]

A 'time' is one whole year (God's year) starting at the Spring equinox and ending just before the next Equinox. A half a time starts at the Spring equinox and ends at the Fall Equinox. Times is two full years. So Times, time and half a time is three and a half years.

[John317]

.... So Times, time and half a time is three and a half years.

Not bad, Dr. Rich.

So, then, why didn't God inspire the prophet to say three and a half years? Why "a time, times, and the dividing of times"?

Is this period of time mentioned elsewhere in Scripture?

Is Daniel 9: 25 referring to literal time?

[John317]

Dr. Rich, your post #538411 is off topic. The subject is the IJ. The IJ doesn't depend on Ellen White. Please notice that she or her writings are not even referred to in the first two posts of the discussion where the evidence for the IJ is presented.

[John317]

Ok, now how do we, as a group of truth seekers, settle this whole issue? Does it matter if one believes in the IJ or not? (Rev. 21:8 and 22:15)

Great question and we will certainly deal with it in this discussion, but first we need to discuss and examine the Bible evidence for the IJ. If it doesn't exist and is a figment of someone's imagination, it should be easy enough to demonstrate. But this can't ever be done if people don't talk about the IJ but instead talk about EGW and half a dozen or more other topics.

[John317]

[John317]

...I am attacking falsehood.

If you believe you are attacking falsehood, then attack the topic by showing that the evidence presented is not valid biblically. You don't do that by trying to get the discussion off topic. Ellen White is not the topic; the IJ is. You'll notice that Ellen White was not mentioned in the posts that show the evidence.

[cheddar]

The day for a year principle is very much a part of the date 1844 so there is no reason why it can’t be discussed on this thread. Since you brought up the times, time and the dividing of time that would be a good place to start.

There are seven time periods in Dan. and Rev. that are three and a half years long according to the Jewish calendar. Have you ever read thru all seven? They’re not all talking about the same thing, yet adventists make all seven out to be the same thing.

Some are talking about the beast and little horn power, others about the ministry of the two witnesses and still others about when God’s people flee into the wilderness. Not all the same. Jesus’ entire ministry lasted three and half years so there is no reason why major events in Dan. and Rev. wont last three and a half literal years.

You’re just so used to seeing the time periods stretched out over thousands of years that you can’t conceive of anything else. And if we figure in the 2300 days which are roughly six and a half years then the end-time could be upwards of ten years long. All the events of Dan. and Rev. could happen in the span of ten years.

[John317]

The day for a year principle is very much a part of the date 1844 so there is no reason why it can't be discussed on this thread. Since you brought up the times, time and the dividing of time that would be a good place to start.

Very true.

[John317]

There are seven time periods in Dan. and Rev. that are three and a half years long according to the Jewish calendar. Have you ever read thru all seven? They're not all talking about the same thing, yet adventists make all seven out to be the same thing.

Can you please give the Bible references of all seven? Then we can examine each one of them.

Could you please also tell whether "a time, times, and the dividing of time" in Daniel 7: 25 is symbolic time or literal time?

[cheddar]

Could you please also tell whether "a time, times, and the dividing of time" in Daniel 7: 25 is symbolic time or literal time?

If I'm throwing out the day for a year principle isn't it obvious?