Biblical Evidence for the Investigative Judgment

[Kevin H]

The Bible was written in the context of the culture who wrote and first read the Bible. We have lost sight of the context. Someone learning about the historical context and literary context and literary structures that was part of the everyday life of Daniel and his original audience would see it.

Unless you are saying that God should have had the Bible divorced from it's context, that people like Daniel and those early readers should have been completely lost since the Bible should have been written in a 21 centuary western context. Then why did God even use the original writers. God could have easilly had Daniel fall into a trance and write his book in good 21th century English so that we would not need to have people have to study for how to translate the words and to look into the culture.

Miz3 you have to have it that the author of Daniel was written in the language and culture of the time and that we need to study into the language and culture of the time to interpet the text, or else that they had to be completely confused seeing markings on paper that made no sense to them as it was written in our culture.

It is not complication nor eliteism, it's just the willingness to study some to bridge the culture gap. To know what the simple and uneducated in Daniel's day would have understood.

[BobRyan]

Yet it is OK that Ellen White is in clear contradiction to the Bible and no one is able to dispute this FACT in regard to Ellen White's statement in Early Writings page 276.

Second we have also established that the year/day principle is not in the Bible and thus the IJ is not either.

Apparently the IJ is only in Ellen White

You are repeating accusations as if the mere existence of the accusation is enough to prove that the argument you make has merit.

That kind of argument is not compelling for those who do not already agree with the accusations that you make.

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Yet it is OK that Ellen White is in clear contradiction to the Bible and no one is able to dispute this FACT in regard to Ellen White's statement in Early Writings page 276.

Second we have also established that the year/day principle is not in the Bible and thus the IJ is not either.

Apparently the IJ is only in Ellen White

You are repeating accusations as if the mere existence of the accusation is enough to prove that the argument you make has merit.

That kind of argument is not compelling for those who do not already agree with the accusations that you make.

in Christ,

Bob

[skyblue888]

miz, The vision from Mrs. White does not say that those who dont believe in the IJ are lost but that those who had received the light on the IJ and had believed it for a time and then rejected it later had fallen off the path and that it was impossible for them to get back on the path. I made no personal judgment on anyone. I have no way of knowing if you or others like Dr Rich are of those. I don't know your past. You alone can answer that.

When I used the pronoun "you" in my posts relating to this issue I did not mean you personally or anyone else for that matter. I used it in a general sense based on what Mrs. White saw in the vision.

sky

[Nic Samojluk]

Dr. Rich wrote:

“Nic, The prophecy is Ezekiel 37 is conditional my friend, and that condition did not happen so the prophecy will not happen either.”

Is the promise of a Second Coming also conditional? How far should we stretch the conditionality of prophetic predictions? You think that God has no more special interest in his chosen nation. I disagree. Israel is a classic example of how the Lord deals with both individuals and nations.

Jesus prayed “Lord, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing.” I believe that Jesus’ prayer was answered when, following the Holocaust, God provided for the resurrection of the nation of Israel. There is no need for esoteric and convoluted explanations for the 2300 days prophecy.

We should give the explanation of the angel priority over all human comments. There is no need to take the prediction out of context. The starting point for the 2300 prophetic period is right in chapter 8 of the book of Daniel: the battle between Alexander the Great which took place at Granicus in 334 AD. The terminus of said prediction took place in 1967 with the signal victory of Israel over the Arabs.

“Also, Paul's words about 'all Israel will be saved' and his fictional story about the original branch being grafted back in is NOT what Jesus said or taught as Jesus clearly said that the branch that does not bear fruit will be cut off and thrown in the fire-NOT grafted back in.”

Amazing! You dismiss the entire chapter found in Ezekiel 37, and Paul’s prediction about the future of the Jews simply because of what Jesus said about the unproductive vine branches.

The facts of history mean nothing to you. No other ethnic group has ever suffered as much as the Jews. When Hitler was killing the Jews en mass, they agonized in prayer, but you say that this meant nothing, and that the providential restoration of the nation of Israel has no significance for us.

I believe that the resurrection of the nation of Israel was providential. We are so self centered that we can’t see the providential activity of God on behalf of others.

We share with the Jews the truth about the Sabbath, but we believe that the Lord is concerned only about out own testimony on behalf of the Sabbath. For me, what happened to Israel is a demonstration of God’s mercy even towards those who crucified the Lord.

[Nic Samojluk]

Dr. Rich wrote:

“We probably all agree that there will be a judments or judgmets--it's the time of the judgments that is in question.”

Yes! When Jesus did not come back in 1844, we played it safe by arguing that the date was right but only the event was wrong. We explained that the predicted events took place in heaven instead of the earth. Well, who could prove such theory wrong?

We also stated that Jesus on said date was finally allowed to move from the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary to the immediate presence of God and thus able to offer his blood before his Father. Is this what the Bible teaches? This was proved to be erroneous. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus sat on the right hand of God immediately upon his ascension to heaven.

Why can’t we admit that our experience in 1844 was rather the fulfillment of another prediction found in the book of Revelation where it is described the experience of those who swallow the book of Daniel.

The taste was sweet in the mouth but it turned bitter upon digestion. Notice: bitter—not bitter sweet as we painted it. We said: we were right on the date, but wrong on the event. We need to admit that we were wrong both on the date and the event.

[doug yowell]

Daniel knew nothing of the Sanctuary in heaven.

[doug yowell]

What polluted the sanctuary was the presence of Israel’s enemies in the Holy Land—not the sins of the Saints in heaven. Biblical history shows the evidence that the presence of Israel’s enemies is what had polluted that Holly Temple every time. What needed cleaning was in the Holy Land—not in heaven!

[doug yowell]

The very concept of an 'INVESTIGATIVE' judgment of GOD or by GOD, is self-destructive.

[Dr. Rich]

Kevin, I am a full time 'student' and I have seldom wanted anyone to answer a question as to what EGW, or for that matter, ANYONE other than what Jesus said or taught. It makes no difference to me who wrote what IF it did not come from Jesus. why? because they are just opinions and those are a dime a dozen.

I have studied full time Kevin, ever since 1989 and that is much longer than anyone with a doctor's degree in theology. You are treating people as the Jewish leaders treated Jesus--who asked Him by what authority He had to teach.

[Dr. Rich]

Good that someone was able to turn to a place to quote, however how about some discussion looking at the evidence from the Bible as presented in books such as "Sanctuary and the Atonement" and "Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation" and other books from this time period by the Biblical Research Committee.

Now I will admit that I am not impressed with ALL the chapters in these books. Some do appear to me to have the conclusion first then trying to create the evidence to fit their conclusions. However other articles do appear to go for an honest reading of the text and continued study and let the facts fall as they will. Of course my 3 favorite chapters are from "Sanctuary and the Atonement" tited "The Mighty Opposits: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 and 2, and "We Must All Appear: The Investigative Judgment in the writings of Ellen G. White" But critics do not show any evidence that they have read these chapters. Granted these 3 chapters are study in the thought of Mrs. White, but other texts such as in "Selected Studies" and another book looking at Daniel at the time look at literary structure of the text.

These books are written by people who have been able to study it full time, and despite some of them having what I understand to be weak arguments, some have quite strong arguments, but the critics want to listen to us part time students of the topic rather than show that they read these studies and give critiques that show their weaknesses.

Kevin, I am a full time 'student' and I have seldom wanted anyone to answer a question as to what EGW, or for that matter, ANYONE other than what Jesus said or taught. It makes no difference to me who wrote what IF it did not come from Jesus. why? because they are just opinions and those are a dime a dozen.

I have studied full time Kevin, ever since 1989 and that is much longer than anyone with a doctor's degree in theology. You are treating people as the Jewish leaders treated Jesus--who asked Him by what authority He had to teach

[Dr. Rich]

Nic, you are free to believe what you want as do millions (many) today. But I prefer to follow only the testimony (words) of Jesus because I know that I will not be led astray by Him. So Nic, since we are on the issue of Daniel's prophecy, please tell me what you believe is the 'stone cut out w/o hands' as found in Dan. 2 and 7 and 8? And tell me why Jesus said what He did in Matt. 21:43? In my opinion, either Jesus told the truth as it verified Dan. 2's prophecy and Dan. 9:24, Matthew 25:1-13 and Rev. 3 and Dan. 8:14, or Paul and you are correct as the defunct prophesies in Ez..

Paul, like EGW either have to be 100% true or false. Miz3 and others have shown EGW's words to contradict the bible and I have shown Paul's words to contradict the words of Jesus and the prophesies in Daniel. And God will not allow anyone to go to heaven believing in a single lie, which blows the lid of what John317 believes. (Rev. 21:8 and 22:15)

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Seventh Day

The very concept of an 'INVESTIGATIVE' judgment of GOD or by GOD, is self-destructive.

Why? Isn't the "that's for me to know but you to find out" approach self-contradictory to God's nature? Is that the way love judges?

A God - the true God - knows the end from the beginning. In fact God - the only real God - DETERMINED the end from the beginning. He knew every creature of his BEFORE its own first sight of light or first breath of air or conception in the womb. And Just so, God knew and determined BEFORE TIME every last breath of every of his creatures; like every sparrow's, so every homo sapiens'. But hasn't He given all judgment into the hands of the Son of Man? If that is the case then how can Jesus know all those eternal details? And how can any human determine whether their case has been fully explored? The Biblical picture of the IJ doesn't indicate that this judgment process goes on behind closed the doors of the Eternal's mind.

Quote:

GOD, rules out any beginning or end of any 'investigative judgment'. It goes against the very grain of God's BEING.

Every trial that has Divine instruction demands an investigation whereby all the involved parties are in harmony with the process. Jesus Himself submitted to an investigative judgment and the failure of the Jewish authorities to adhere to the God given rules He duly noted.The OT system forbid any execution of sentence without a lengthy and open investigation of the facts. Why should our eternal destiny be subject to less open scrutiny if we are to end up being co-rulers with Christ in the eternity to come?

Not Biblical just human speculation.

[Dr. Rich]

Didn't Jesus say that no one gives his life or raises it back other than Himself? And please tell me where the Ark of the Covenant is right now if not in the Heavenly Sanctuary? (see Rev. 11:19)

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Why? Isn't the "that's for me to know but you to find out" approach self-contradictory to God's nature? Is that the way love judges?

A God - the true God - knows the end from the beginning. In fact God - the only real God - DETERMINED the end from the beginning. He knew every creature of his BEFORE its own first sight of light or first breath of air or conception in the womb. And Just so, God knew and determined BEFORE TIME every last breath of every of his creatures; like every sparrow's, so every homo sapiens'. But hasn't He given all judgment into the hands of the Son of Man? If that is the case then how can Jesus know all those eternal details? And how can any human determine whether their case has been fully explored? The Biblical picture of the IJ doesn't indicate that this judgment process goes on behind closed the doors of the Eternal's mind.

Quote:

GOD, rules out any beginning or end of any 'investigative judgment'. It goes against the very grain of God's BEING.

Every trial that has Divine instruction demands an investigation whereby all the involved parties are in harmony with the process. Jesus Himself submitted to an investigative judgment and the failure of the Jewish authorities to adhere to the God given rules He duly noted.The OT system forbid any execution of sentence without a lengthy and open investigation of the facts. Why should our eternal destiny be subject to less open scrutiny if we are to end up being co-rulers with Christ in the eternity to come?

Not Biblical just human speculation.[/quote']Prove it.Are the facts of Jewish law and/or Jesus trial disputable? Is the need for 2 or 3 witnesses to verify any fact only applicable to human courts of law? Were Jesus words in defense of His identity in John 5:31-37 unnecessary?

[miz3]

My friend Doug Y. the burden of proof is on you to show that your position is Biblical.

That you have not done.

[miz3]

There is no more Holy Place than the very presence of God the Father.

Jesus Christ when He went back to Heaven after the Resurrection was in that instance and has always been since the ascension in the Presence of the Father. Thus, Christ has always been in the Most Holy Place all the time.

So when Christ said to Mary that He had not yet "ascended to His Father" was saying that when He had "ascended" that He, Jesus Christ, was going into the Most Holy Place.

The SDA Church .org position is that Jesus Christ was bared from the Father's Presence for more than Eighteen Hundred years and then, and only then, was Jesus Christ allowed to enter into the Presence of the Father. How absurd. How nonBiblical.

[phkrause]

So when Christ said to Mary that He had not yet "ascended to His Father" was saying that when He had "ascended" that He, Jesus Christ, was going into the Most Holy Place.

I'm still looking where it says that in that passage? Aren't you always telling others that it has to say that other wise its not Biblical?

[BobRyan]

Jesus Christ when He went back to Heaven after the Resurrection was in that instance and has always been since the ascension in the Presence of the Father.

That much of your post is true. The rest is not. The wild notion that God is not in His Holy Temple - but is only in the Most Holy Place - is not a Bible teaching - it is man-made-fiction.

So also the idea that God cannot move from one place to another within His Holy temple.

In fact in Dan 7 we see the Father - moving into the Most Holy Place and the Son of God coming to Him at that point to begin the judgment.

Both were in the Holy Place until it was time for the judgment - then both went into the Most Holy Place.

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

So when Christ said to Mary that He had not yet "ascended to His Father" was saying that when He had "ascended" that He, Jesus Christ, was going into the Most Holy Place.

I'm still looking where it says that in that passage? Aren't you always telling others that it has to say that other wise its not Biblical?

Look closer you will see it.

[phkrause]

Look closer you will see it.

That's what I thought.

[Lysimachus]

This is one of my favorite statements:

Chapter 239 - Study the Subject of the Sanctuary

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:14. {Mar 247.1}

We should be earnest students of prophecy; we should not rest until we become intelligent in regard to the subject of the sanctuary, which is brought out in the visions of Daniel and John. This subject sheds great light on our present position and work, and gives us unmistakable proof that God has led us in our past experience. It explains our disappointment in 1844, showing us that the sanctuary to be cleansed was not the earth, as we had supposed, but that Christ then entered into the most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and is there performing the closing work of His priestly office, in fulfillment of the words of the angel to the prophet Daniel. {Mar 247.2}

The 2300 days had been found to begin when the commandment of Artaxerxes for the restoration and building of Jerusalem, went into effect, in the autumn of 457 B.C. Taking this as the starting point, there was perfect harmony in the application of all the events foretold in the explanation of that period in Daniel 9:25-27. . . . The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were to pertain especially to the Jews. At the expiration of this period, the nation sealed its rejection of Christ by the persecution of His disciples, and the apostles turned to the Gentiles, A.D. 34. The first 490 years of the 2300 having then ended, 1810 years would remain. From A.D. 34, 1810 years extend to 1844. "Then," said the angel, "shall the sanctuary be cleansed." {Mar 247.3}

Our faith in reference to the messages of the first, second, and third angels was correct. The great waymarks we have passed are immovable. Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his host. We can learn much, and should be constantly searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so. {Mar 247.4}

Maranatha - Chapter 239 - page 247

Just WOWW!!

This is such reassurance, that no matter HOW HARD the critics try to attack our Sanctuary Doctrine, the Investigative Judgment, and 1844 as the terminus of the 2300 days, THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED!

Their attempts are based on DELUSIONAL interpretations of scripture. Not a plain thus-saith the Lord.

They THINK they know what those verses are talking about, but they do not.

And to think that it is the HOSTS of HELL and Satan that are on the side of those trying to attack this Sanctuary Doctrine? Just wow.

They will "triumph in the thought" that they have succeeded, but they have NOT succeeded. They are deceived. But they "think" they know what they are talking about. But they choose to remain in their prideful ignorance.

[Lysimachus]

SD:

Why would you expect to find it in 1844? Because it works like a maths proposition?

But - as I said - if it WERE so important like were it a moral principle with 'salvific' consequences, I would have expected the alleged 'day for year principle' in the Ten Commandments maybe as part of the First Commandment like another object of worship; maybe as part of the Tenth Commandment like an object of wishful thinking.

I think it's silly for you to find it in the Ten Commandments.

That's like saying, "Where is the sanctuary in the 10 Commandments?" lol.

The fact is, the 10 Commandments are in the Sanctuary, where the judgment presides. lol.

[Dr. Rich]

Marcos, what do you do with what God said in Dan, 12:10? How could EGW correctly understand end time events when she is not here living in the last generation?

[Lysimachus]

And to add to that, here's the CJBs translation of Daniel 8:14 The first said to me, "Two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings, after which the sanctuary will be restored to its rightful state."

and here's the same verse from the online Tankh, that all Jews go by: 14. And he said to me, "Until evening and morning, two thousand and three hundred, and the holy ones shall be exonerated."

Very interesting!

My apologies folks for not participating in this forum like I have wanted to. It was just murphy's law with bad timing. =/

I've been so swamped with business and activities, it has been rather difficult. I will try my best to participate more though, especially more this weekend.

There is so much to catchup on. At any rate, some of you here are doing a commendable job at defending the Investigative Judgment!