[quote author="Greg"]
If we are being honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that there are just some things we don’t understand, such as how God can choose some for eternal life while passing over others

Though I don’t agree with this, if you do in fact believe that ‘God can choose some while passing over others’ then eternal torment becomes even MORE of a serious issue of the character of God! Comparing this to both death and eternal torment, that is the equivalent of saying, ‘I will choose who I am going to save from falling over the cliff’ to ‘I will choose who I am going to throw over the cliff’

[quote author="Greg"]
O Lord, should mark iniquities,
O Lord, who could stand?
But with you there is forgiveness,
that you may be feared.” (Psalm 130:3-4 ESV)

Can we at least agree on this? 

Greg

Yes. we can. 

Guibox...it’s great to find a common point of agreement.  I’m going to move the first part of your comment to a different thread so we can stay on topic here.

Having affirmed that nobody is able to stand before God if he were to keep a record of our sins, do you agree that the investigative judgment doctrine as laid down by the founders of the Adventist church fundamentally alters the gospel?

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
Having affirmed that nobody is able to stand before God if he were to keep a record of our sins, do you agree that the investigative judgment doctrine as laid down by the founders of the Adventist church fundamentally alters the gospel?

That depends. Theoretically, the sins of the people are forgiven and ‘removed as far as east is from west’. They cannot be held against them anymore. However the sins are ‘polluting’ the heavenly sanctuary as did the Hebrews. Hence, the need for a cleansing where the lives are confirmed by ‘investigation’ and the sins removed from the sanctuary.

If my sins are indeed forgiven then having them in the heavenly sanctuary means that they are of none effect so then it wouldn’t alter the gospel.

Guibox, from what Bible texts are you basing your belief that our sins are “polluting” the heavenly sanctuary?

I guess I have a difficult time reconciling your assertion that our sins are “theoretically” forgiven when looking at the biblical evidence, particularly the Psalms posted above as well as Micah 7:18-19, Isaiah 43:25, Isaiah 44:22, Colossians 1:13-14, Colossians 1:21-23, Colossians 2:13-14, Hebrews 10:15-17, John 5:24, etc.

Following his exhaustive analysis of the investigative judgment, Desmond Ford came to very different conclusions than you have articulated here.  I know you admire Dr. Ford so I am curious how you see his position compared with your own.

Since you believe there remains a work of investigative judgment to remove pollution in the heavenly sanctuary, would you say that Jesus’ work of redemption was unfinished at the cross?

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
Guibox, from what Bible texts are you basing your belief that our sins are “polluting” the heavenly sanctuary?

I guess I have a difficult time reconciling your assertion that our sins are “theoretically” forgiven when looking at the biblical evidence, particularly the Psalms posted above as well as Micah 7:18-19, Isaiah 43:25, Isaiah 44:22, Colossians 1:13-14, Colossians 1:21-23, Colossians 2:13-14, Hebrews 10:15-17, John 5:24, etc.

I didn’t say I wholeheartedly believed it, Greg. The point I was making is that I can still believe that my sins are forgiven and won’t believe that they will be held against me and still believe in sins polluting the heavenly sanctuary. A cleansing of the sanctuary doesn’t mean that the gospel of forgiveness is being denied. Whether your wanted to argue the validity of the details is another subject.

[quote author="Greg"]
Since you believe there remains a work of investigative judgment to remove pollution in the heavenly sanctuary, would you say that Jesus’ work of redemption was unfinished at the cross?

I believe that atonement was made at the cross. To me I see the IJ and cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary as merely a “formality” in following the Hebrew sanctuary service through the realization of Christ as both our High Priest and our sacrifice. I believe that this process is really a dealing with the sin problem more than our individual atonement and that it will not fully culminate until ‘death is the last enemy that shall be destroyed’ and ‘He puts all enemies under His feet’ and His kingdom in the New Earth is inaugurated.

My biggest problem with a ‘pre-advent judgement’ is trying to glean it from a reading of Daniel 8:14 and the 2300 day prophecy. Contextually it just isn’t there.

I appreciate that you are trying to reconcile the investigative judgment doctrine from the standpoint of honoring what your church teaches, but isn’t it difficult to hold on to a doctrine that by your own admission does not have biblical support?

The investigative judgment does do damage to the gospel because it says the sin problem was not fully dealt with at the cross.  We cannot have confidence in the biblical gospel if we cannot take Jesus at his word when he said “It is finished.”

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
I appreciate that you are trying to reconcile the investigative judgment doctrine from the standpoint of honoring what your church teaches, but isn’t it difficult to hold on to a doctrine that by your own admission does not have biblical support?

The investigative judgment does do damage to the gospel because it says the sin problem was not fully dealt with at the cross.  We cannot have confidence in the biblical gospel if we cannot take Jesus at his word when he said “It is finished.”

Greg

But it isn’t completely ‘finished’. Sin still reigns. Sin still destroys. Sin still covers the earth like a blood stain that will never be completely washed out until the cleansing fire. That doesn’t change the fact that man has been reconciled back to God by Christ’s sacrifice and that the plan of salvation has conquered sin. That is what Christ meant by ‘it is finished’.

[quote author="guibox"]
But it isn’t completely ‘finished’. Sin still reigns. Sin still destroys. Sin still covers the earth like a blood stain that will never be completely washed out until the cleansing fire. That doesn’t change the fact that man has been reconciled back to God by Christ’s sacrifice and that the plan of salvation has conquered sin. That is what Christ meant by ‘it is finished’.

It is contradictory to say that “sin still reigns” while also acknowledging that “the plan of salvation has conquered sin.” There is no question that the effects of sin are still present in this world, but sin has been conquered by righteousness, death has been conquered by life, the ruler of this world has been defeated by the Ruler of the universe.  Predicting his own death, Jesus said, “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 10:31-32 ESV) Notice he did not say “In the future is the judgment of this world and in the future, the ruler of this world will be cast out.” No, he said “now,” and indeed, it was finished on the cross and the ruler of the world was defeated.

Furthermore, the sacrifice for sin on the cross made a final and complete atonement for sin.  “For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:24-26 ESV) There is no requirement for ongoing application of Christ’s blood such as was required in the Levitical sanctuary service.  There is no ongoing work of “cleansing” in the heavenly sanctuary (an idea that has no biblical support and no Christian body outside of Adventism adheres to).  Jesus died “once for all” to “put away sin.” If we truly believe these words, instead of believing in theoretical forgiveness and a work of Christ that is incompletely finished, we can rejoice that Jesus has saved us from our sins today and for all eternity!

Greg

[quote author="guibox"]
My biggest problem with a ‘pre-advent judgement’ is trying to glean it from a reading of Daniel 8:14 and the 2300 day prophecy. Contextually it just isn’t there.

If the “pre-advent judgement” doesn’t come from those sources then where is it found in Scripture and when did it begin?  How about the “cleansing” of the heavenly sancturary, where is this found and when did it begin?

[quote author="Aaron"]
If the “pre-advent judgement” doesn’t come from those sources then where is it found in Scripture and when did it begin?  How about the “cleansing” of the heavenly sancturary, where is this found and when did it begin?

As Bacchiocchi says:

Some feel that this doctrine rests primarily on the problematic text of Daniel 8:14 which speaks of the cleansing of sanctuary after 2300 “evenings and mornings.” If this claim were true, then we would have to admit that our Adventist church has built its unique doctrine of the Pre-Advent judgment on a weak biblical basis. But this claim is not true, because, as we shall see, there is a broad biblical basic for this doctrine.. Endtime newsletter #104

The judgement has alredy been pronounced. Christ doesn’t come at His second coming to establish a Grand Court to detemine who is saved or not. ‘Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me to give every man according as his works shall be’ Revelation 22:12

The entire Beatitudes is about ‘cause effect’ of rewards.

The notion of a Pre-Advent judgment is also implied in Christ’s statements about human accountability. Jesus said that the extent of our accountability includes not only acts but also “every careless word” (Matt 12:36). Paul expresses the same thought when he writes that God will judge “the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (Rom 2:16). Such a thorough investigation of the conduct of the billions of persons who have lived on this planet presupposes a Pre-Advent judicial process because, as noted earlier, the Advent judgment is primarily the moment of final adjudication or separation and not the institution of a judicial investigative process.
- ibid

Look at John 5:28,29. In this text Christ indicates that people will be resurrected not to be judged but already judged. Some are raised ‘to live’ and others are raised ‘to be condemned’. This same thought is expressed in Christ’s speaking with the Pharisees in Luke 20 when He said that only “those who are accounted worthy” will “attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead” (Luke 20:35).

The concept of separation ‘goat/sheep’, ‘wheat/tares’ also reinforces that such a ‘separation’ needs to occur before the final judgment.

The sudden separation between the saved and the unsaved presupposes a previous determination of their respective destinies.
- ibid

I think this is shown clearly by the king examining the wedding garments in Matthew 22.

Also Paul’s reference to standing in front of the judgment seat of Christ. How could this refer to the second coming when we are already experiencing the fruits of the judgment?

Paul, like Christ, emphasizes the certainty and inevitability of the final judgment, rather than its modality. He writes that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; . . . So each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom 14:10-12; cf. 2 Cor 5:10; Acts 17:31).

No explicit explanation is given by Paul regarding the time of this universal accountability before the judgment seat of God. Did Paul associate this universal accountability with the Coming of Christ? If he did, he failed to indicate it, especially in his references to the Second Advent, which he describes as the joyful reunion of believers with their Lord and not as the inauguration of a judicial process that will examine each person who ever lived. - ibid

Look at 1 Timothy 4:1-2

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom

If the dead are judged while still dead, such judgment must precede the Advent judgment when the resurrection to eternal life or eternal death takes place. We noted earlier that people will be resurrected already judged. By the status of each person at the moment of the resurrection “God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom 2:5) - ibid

I think the big issue is the ‘investigative judgment’ as viewed to mean ‘I don’t know If I’m saved or not until my name comes up’. This is why I prefer the ‘preadvent judgment’ and not the ‘investigative judgement as is commonly perceived.

Christ’s preadvent judging has nothing to do with determining my salvation but merely showing the universe that His judgments are true.

A more specific allusion to a Pre-Advent judgment can be seen in the vision of the Lamb holding the scroll of human destiny, sealed with seven seals (ch. 5). This scroll, which contains the complete destiny of mankind ("written within and on the back” - 5:1), rests safely in the “right hand” of God (5:1), as the seven stars rest firmly in the hands of Christ (1:16).

There are at least three reasons why the sealed scroll seems to represent the divine decision-judgment regarding the destiny of every human being. First, the fact that only the Lamb that was slain is worthy to open it (5:9) implies that its content has to do with the decision regarding the salvation or perdition of human beings. Second, Revelation refers several times to “the book of life of the Lamb that was slain” which is said to contain “the names” of the redeemed (13:8; 17:8; 21:27).

Third, the only book that is ever opened in Revelation is “the book of life” during the judgment before the Great White Throne (20:11-12). It is said that “if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (20:15). The removal of the seals by the Lamb, which results in the manifestation of preliminary divine judgments upon mankind, seems designed to build up to the climactic moment when the suspense is broken by the opening of the book, which discloses who is to be punished with “the second death” (20:14). - ibid

One of the mistakes I find in SDA theology regarding the end time judgment is that the church combines the Biblical teaching about judgment with the sanctuary service and the Day of Atonement.  I’m not exactly clear where the idea that sins were transferred into the sanctuary came from.  I could be missing something, but so far as I know, there is no mention of books in the earthluy sanctuary service and no definite statement that the people’s sins were transferred there.

If I understand him correctly, I agree with Guibox that the theological problems in other churches are often as severe or worse than those in the SDA church.  An example is the “Jesus Seminar” which is pure infidelity in religious garb.  At least SDAs still have some respect for the Bible which is more than one can say for some of the more liberal denominations.  As I have mentioned before and everyone is probably tired of hearing it, my family is leaving the SDA church because of the absence of religious freedom, not just because other people in the church or even a majority have doctrinal errors.  I’m sure some of you will conclude I’m a heritic before long, but that freedom to disagree is what makes a church viable, not forced agreement to a long creedal statement.  I looked up the definition of creed recently and to me it certainly appears that to claim the Fundamental Beliefs is not a creed is an oxymoron.

New Mexico said:

“...I’m not exactly clear where the idea that sins were transferred into the sanctuary came from. I could be missing something, but so far as I know, there is no mention of books in the earthluy sanctuary service and no definite statement that the people’s sins were transferred there.”

The idea that individual sins were “transferred” in type, via the blood from the individual’s sacrificial offering, to the Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary, came from Ellen White.

Here is a passage from The Great Controversy, chapter 23, page 419:http://www.greatcontroversy.org/books/gc/gc23.html

“The blood, representing the forfeited life of the sinner, whose guilt the victim bore, was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying: “God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.” Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary.”

As it pertains to the individual offering, the first two sentences here are erroneous. Leviticus 4 discusses the sacrificial offerings for individuals, leaders, the High Priest and the congregation.  For individuals, the blood from the sacrifice was sprinkled on the horns of the alter and the rest dumped on the ground. None of the blood from the individual’s offering entered the Holy Place of the sanctuary at any time. The only time blood was taken into the Holy Place of the Sanctuary was in the case of when the High Priest sinned and when the congregation as a whole sinned. 

The third sentence is an addition to the text meant to account for the error, but it too fails to truly represent the actual process as described in scripture. It attempts to muddy the waters by suggesting that “in some cases” the blood didn’t enter the sanctuary. But for the IJ to be accurate and fully anti-typical as historical SDA’s claim, it is extremely vital that the blood from the individual’s sacrifice entered the Holy Place, thus providing a “record” of the individual’s sin and the need to cleanse the HP on the Day of Atonement. This is no small matter. Finally, the idea that a record of the person’s sin was enabled by the eating of the meat of the sacrifice by the priest doesn’t hold up either, at least in the strict terms demanded by the historical IJ teaching. When something is eaten, it is consumed. It’s probably why the lesson quarterly on the sanctuary didn’t go near any of this and avoided the discussion of blood transferance and the book of Hebrews’ “within the veil” reference completely.

The concept of judgment books and the Day of Atonement cleansing springs from Daniel 7:10 and Daniel 12:1.  But you’re correct in not seeing in the typical sacrificial services any references to books. There is no indication in Leviticus or anywhere else in the bible that a record of an individual’s sin was formally kept anywhere. Naturally, God would know who sinned and what an individual’s sins were. But the linkage of the books of Daniel to the typical Day of Atonement discussed in Levitics 16 is unwarranted.