From the Book of Job, to the temptations of Jesus, to the Book of Revelation, we learn that there is a controversy of cosmic proportions. The Devil has leveled charges against God. God answers those charges through the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Man has been no innocent a by-stander.  Now man is called in judgment as a witness for or against Christ. God has been vindicated through-out the entire universe except among Satan and his minnons. The last contested ground is the heart and mind of man. When called into judgment man can declare himself for or against the finished work of Jesus Christ. The call to judgment is “How say Ye?” Is Jesus Christ: Lord of Lords and King of Kings and the Savior and Keeper of your soul?
There is no need to open the “books” both God and each witness knows the truth. If you confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ before God--now is the time to confess Him before men. To validate your confession--live in like manner as your Savior--gracious, generous, and chaste.Our morality is not to gain heaven but to gain listeners. The Deacon

[quote author="The Deacon"]
What began is a face saving venture has become a demon of the first magnitude haunting sincere hearts and minds around the globe.

I could not agree more.  Adventists should not be ridiculed for holding to the face-saving doctrine, rather, they deserve our empathy.  But those apologists who are bound and determined to preserve the erroneous sanctuary/IJ doctrines in order to maintain the status quo in Adventism (and their own paychecks) must answer for what they have done to those entrusted to their care.  Ellen White bears some responsibility in this because she gave her prophetic imprimatur to Edson’s cornfield vision.  Time and again she refused to back away from the IJ.

[quote author="glennspring"]
In sum, how should we understand the many Biblical references to judgment, particularly when the context in many of them would indicate that it is believers, not just unbelievers, who face it?

Glenn, there is a difference between the judgment of believers and unbelievers.  Ellen White said the investigative judgment was for professed Christ-followers and that every thought and action would be on the table and even one unconfessed sin would disqualify the believer from heaven.  John 5:24, Romans 8:1 and a host of other texts show that professed Christ-followers have absolute security in Christ and will not face a judgment to determine their fitness for heaven.  The difference is that Christians will be judged for rewards and will be given responsibilities in heaven based on what they have done with the talents God has entrusted them with on earth.  I found a reasonably good review of this by Greg Laurie (of Calvary Chapel) here.  To summarize, nonbelievers will face the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15 while Christians will undergo a “judgment” for rewards per 2 Corinthians 5:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.

Brian Schwertley, a Prebyterian minister, says this about Christian rewards and judgment:

[quote author="Brian Schwertley"]
When the apostle Paul discusses the judgment of believers and the receiving of rewards, he makes it very clear that: (1) good works do not contribute at all to one’s salvation; (2) the reward for good works can only come to those who are already justified in Christ. The most detailed passage in the New Testament regarding the future judgment of believers and rewards is 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Paul says that “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (v. 11). Paul says that good works are built on this foundation (v. 12). The foundation of Christian ethics is the person and work of Jesus Christ. One must already be saved before one can do works which please God which in turn will receive a reward. This point is supported throughout Scripture. The Bible says: “that which is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Since the Bible says that all our works are tainted with sin and imperfect, the only works that could possibly receive a heavenly reward are works founded upon Christ, that is, works in which the guilt of sin has been removed. “How could God consider anyone worthy of reward ‘unless his infinite goodness had abolished all their demerit of punishment?’ Good works have a part in obtaining a reward only through ‘their acceptance by the divine mercy.’ He who concerns himself with the relation between works and reward must keep a steady bearing on God’s mercy. Otherwise he will lose himself in a maze of legalism and works-righteousness.” (G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Faith and Justification pg. 128.) Rewards can only be understood in relation to the foundation, Jesus Christ.

Reference here.

[quote author="guibox"]
Of course all of this will be subject to interpretation and most likely you will not agree with me but I feel that taking Romans 14 to speak against the Sabbath and eating unclean foods in a gross misapplication of what Paul was dealing with. A modern day application would not be whether to worship on Sabbath or not, but a message to those ultra-vegans who are judging people’s spirituality on whether they can give up meat and dairy instead of eating tofu and soy milk.

I believe that claiming that 2 Corinthians 5:8 is speaking of my soul going to heaven contradicts the myriad of scriptures that show that eternal life doesn’t occur in the form of a disembodied soul and that eternal life in any form is only realized at the resurrection.

I believe that interpreting Paul’s views on the law to mean that ‘the 10 commandments are done away’ contradicts Paul’s words ‘the law is holy just and good’ and many places where Paul upholds the law as a guide to righteousness and a standard of obedience out of love.

I believe that trying to prove Acts 20:7 is an example of early apostolic Sunday observance is without contextual and exegetical support and ignores the situation as to why they were meeting and that according to Acts 2:46 they met daily and whenever they could to ‘break bread’.

Guibox, I bolded some key words in your post above to illustrate the point that biblical interpretation is more than just personal belief.  There is precision involved in bringing out the meaning of the biblical text in a process called biblical hermeneutics.  This is a very careful process whereby the text of Scripture is studied inductively and within context, letting the Bible be its own interpreter.  When we use phrases such as “I believe the Bible says this...” or “I feel the Bible says this...” or “I don’t believe that’s what Paul really meant, he meant this...”, we have stopped letting the text speak to us and have presumed to speak for it.  Granted, this is a fine line to walk and scholars have followed the rules of hermeneutics carefully while arriving at different conclusions.

Because we are fallible humans, we’ll probably never come to a perfect understanding of biblical truth–"we see through a glass darkly”.  But where the Bible is crystal clear, we shouldn’t endeavor to muddy the waters.

Taking one of your examples, in Romans 14:5-6, Paul says,

“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” (Romans 14:5-6 ESV)

Now what is the plainest meaning of this text?  You said the modern-day meaning is: “A modern day application would not be whether to worship on Sabbath or not, but a message to those ultra-vegans who are judging people’s spirituality on whether they can give up meat and dairy instead of eating tofu and soy milk.” But this is not what Paul said.  You’ve just taken his plain injunction on not judging each other over the observance of days and dietary practices and essentially said “It’s not about days of worship or meat eating, it’s about whether you are being ultra-conservative in a vegan diet or not.” This is also in direct contradiction to verses 1-3, which said,

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.” (Romans 14:1-3 ESV)

Further support of the apostle’s plain words are found elsewhere (Mark 7:14-23, Acts 10:10-15, 1 Timothy 4:1-5, 1 Corinthians 10:23-33).

Words have actual meanings that can be understood by human readers.  It sounds silly to even say it, but sometimes we need to take a step back and remind ourselves of this.  Sentences were constructed by the biblical writers so their meanings could be preserved and conveyed to readers down through the ages.  Instead of looking for something that isn’t there, why not take the Bible as it reads?  You might just find that it hangs together nicely in a way that could only be achieved through divine inspiration.  The Bible was written over several millenia by many different authors, yet it is remarkably consistent if we just allow it to speak to us rather than presuming to speak for it.

Greg

Greg, the reason why I re-applied Romans 14 in today’s context is because the context Paul wrote it in makes no sense anymore.

As I don’t believe Paul was talking about clean or unclean meats or holy days like Pentacost, Sabbath or Easter Sunday, the issues here were feast days, foods sacrificed to idols and ritual cleanliness of consumed foods.

I can’t recall anybody today telling me that that chicken offered to Buddha is not fit for my consumption.

Don’t read too much into my phrases ‘I believe’. I used ‘I believe’ because you might completely disagree with me. Who is then right? I can only show what I believe the Bible says and ‘I believe’ is statement that says ‘my interpretation may be incorrect, but this is what I’m reading’. If I say ‘The Bible says...’ but you would say ‘The Bible says...’ in the complete opposite...well, one of us is basically a liar. 

Perhaps I am avoiding sounding sanctimonious over my doctrine, something I can’t stand when other people do when I know they are completely wrong and the Bible DOESN’T say what they think! Hmmm...I guess I just did exactly what I wanted to avoid.

Guilbox

The commandment is: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.’ A disagreement on Scriptural meaning is not necessarily false witness or lying. Of course Satan in his temptations of Jesus deliberately twisted Scripture to create a lie. Much of popular eschatology does the same thing--the fear factor and the triumphalistic factor rather than an evangelical outreach. PowerPoint is an oxymoron when it comes to trying to illustrate the Book of Revelation.  As a favor to a dear well meaning friend, I endured such a presentation months ago.  I was ashamed and agast at the misuse of Scripture to sell an worn out proposition. 

Rightly understood, the sanctuary message is the Gospel in verity!  If one were to trace the words of Jesus during His ministry one would find that He appropriated every part of the sanctuary and its services to Himself and His ministry. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world!” “ I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light” I am the Living Water, “I am the Door,” “I am the Bread of Life,” “I am the Light of the World,” “He that cometh unto me I will in no way cast out”–He is our Mercy Seat.  He is both the Law Giver and the Fulfillment of all law and expectations. He tented among us. He entered into Heaven itself–through the veil.  What place can be more Holy than the place where God is?

The question is why do we insist on going back to disassemble the ancient rituals of the Israelites when we have the reality of the Christ event in detail in the Four Gospels and in the Epistles of Paul and the writer to the Hebrews?

Even Pilate said” “I find no fault in this Man!.”

I am glad we have Hebrew scholars at the Seminary but when they become more jealous of their work than the work of salvation wrought out by our Savior Jesus Christ–scholarship has driven out evangelism.

I know what the Blood of Jesus Christ has done for me. I have no need for the blood of sheep, goats, rams, turtle doves, or bullocks.  His blood cleansed me yet carried no taint.

Amen: end of story. Beginning of life everlasting.

The Judgment

According to the Cotton Patch Gospel

The scene is a Heavenly Court Room. God the Father is sitting as Judge.

Tom is seated at the defendant table. Jesus is seated beside Tom. Across the aisle sits the Devil as prosecuting attorney a malignant grin on his face. 

Jesus stands and addresses the Court: “If it please the Court” the defendant pleads guilty to all charges. Approach the bench, your Honor?” The Father says: “Approach”.  Jesus and the Devil approach. Jesus says: “Dad you and I know full well that Tom is guilty as hell!” He freely and opening admits his guilt and falls on the Mercy of the Court. I move, on the basis of my honor, that the Court grant his request for forgiving mercy.” The Devil says: “Point of Order, if you please”. “I demand Justice.” The Judge replies: “What can be more honorable and just that the life of one Creator for the lives of one creation?” “The same offer was made to you but you rejected it out of hand.” “You then took matters into your own hands and enticed Tom into sin. I call that ‘entrapment’. The Judge turns to Jesus. “Request granted, Son! Tell Tom he is free. Bring him home!”

Next case:

The same scene, accept the defendant is sitting alone at the table, the name plate reads Attila the Hun. Across the aisle the prosecuting attorney has a gleeful grin. 

Tom

[quote author="Greg"]Glenn, there is a difference between the judgment of believers and unbelievers. Ellen White said the investigative judgment was for professed Christ-followers and that every thought and action would be on the table and even one unconfessed sin would disqualify the believer from heaven. John 5:24, Romans 8:1 and a host of other texts show that professed Christ-followers have absolute security in Christ and will not face a judgment to determine their fitness for heaven. The difference is that Christians will be judged for rewards and will be given responsibilities in heaven based on what they have done with the talents God has entrusted them with on earth. I found a reasonably good review of this by Greg Laurie (of Calvary Chapel) here. To summarize, nonbelievers will face the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15 while Christians will undergo a “judgment” for rewards per 2 Corinthians 5:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.

Romans 8:1 also goes on to say that there will be no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus and who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. So I wouldn’t read that passage as totally giving professed Christians a pass. It indicates that some fruit must be manifested. It doesn’t indicate a line by line review of our lives; but it also suggests something more than just a professed belief.

I’m not sure the distinction Laurie draws quite answers all these questions. Although 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 does perhaps help flesh out the discussion in II Corinthians 5:9-10, the latter still speaks of “labouring” to please God and that our reward will be based on what we have done in the body, whether good or bad (ESV reads, good or evil).

I Corinthians 3 also begs the question of what it literally means for our works to be burned up (even while we are being saved). Thoughts anyone??

I also feel like Matthew 12:34-37 is still hanging out there. How is it that we will give account of every idle word in the judgment? Even if this pertains only to a discrimation as to our proper reward (rather than a decision for us or against us eternally).

I say all of this in the belief that our salvation status is not in a constant state of flux, one minute, safely in the book of life, the next minute, due to a course word, thought or glance, erased or deleted out of it. But these verses give me pause about assuming a forever exemption to future choices.

Also how do we understand the case of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5? If they had ever expressed a belief in Christ, shouldn’t that have been enough to save them, even through a period of deception?

Sorry I’m so late to the party on this but I haven’t had the chance to post until now.  I know I’m behind.
[quote author="Greg"]We need to be careful about saying things like “I never grew up with this view or know any SDA today that believes such a thing.” This reflects your personal experience but is dramatically different from the experience of others. I did not grow up with the IJ either, but when I moved away from the Left Coast , I found the sanctuary and IJ doctrines being taken very seriously. Clifford Goldstein and Dan Smith’s repackaging of it notwithstanding, the historic doctrine of the IJ is alive and well.

Jan Paulsen, the current GC president, was on the record in support of it in 2002.

I think this is the quote you are referencing:

The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally.  And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct.  Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this. - Jan Paulsen

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

What a great discussion!

I have missed a ton since I posted on another thread last night.

It is somewhat difficult posting from a cell phone.

Guibox,

I always appreciate your insight. I guess I have to ask you why we cannot interpret Romans 14 with regard to unclean foods. Paul states two times in Romans 14 that ‘all things are clean’, and ‘as one who is in the Lord Jesus, NOTHING is unclean in itself. Why is this statement open to interpretation? You could only come to another interpretation if you have ‘another’ interpreter who is Ellen White or the SDA belief statement.

Stan Ermshar

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Guibox,

As one who agrees with you on eternal conscious torment, and as you know I spent an enormous amount of time on another former sda web site and lost some of my calvinist friends, some of whom will not even return emails anymore.

But there are times where you always bring up this doctrine, when we are discussing something else, as the be all and end all doctrine. At least orthodoxy teaches that no true believer will experience hell.

The IJ as taught by EGW creates fear in the heart of a true believer so that they are always in fear of losing their salvation and paralyzes the believer. Just read the chapter in GC.

Stan Ermshar

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Guibox,

One troublesome side effect in progressive SDA of the doctrine of hell is the concept as taught by Dan Smith and many others that there is really no such thing as the wrath of God. There is no literal lake of fire, and these liberals get really upset when it is even pointed out that Ellen White at least taught literal and severe suffering in the lake of fire in proprtion to a sinner’s deeds. Graham Maxwell and his disciples deny even a literal lake of fire. The gospel does teach that we need to believe the gospel to escape the wrath to come. 1 Thessalonians 1:10

Progressive SDA mostly denies the wrath of God, as a God of love would not punish by fire. However Revelation 21:8 is abundantly clear. There is a literal hell to shun as well as a heaven to gain.

Stan Ermshar

This comment has been moved here.

Glenn, you raise a number of interesting points and I don’t have time to answer them at the moment, nor do I have all the answers.  What I do know is that we can be secure in Christ and it is not our works that keep us secure.  The end of Romans 8 makes this abundantly clear.  We walk after the Spirit only by the power of God, which in His grace, He gives us.

“He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Colossians 1:13-14 ESV)

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession–to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:13-14 NIV)

Regarding Acts 5, how do we know Ananias and Sapphira were not saved?  All we know is that they disobeyed God but we know nothing of their eternal destiny.

Greg

[quote author="The Deacon"]
I know what the Blood of Jesus Christ has done for me. I have no need for the blood of sheep, goats, rams, turtle doves, or bullocks. His blood cleansed me yet carried no taint.

Amen Deacon!  We don’t need any more sacrifices, we have the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world and prophesied hundreds of years before his life on earth by the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 53).

Also, you bring up a good point about Jesus and the gospel being found in the entire sanctuary service, which is exactly what was conveyed in Hebrews 9.  It is highly significant the the Greek word for “mercy seat” in Hebrews 9:5, hilasterion, is the same word translated as “propitiation” in Romans 3:25.  In Israel, the blood of animals was sprinkled on the mercy seat of the ark once per year for the forgiveness of sins, and on Calvary, Jesus’ blood was spilled once and for all.  Jesus is literally the “mercy seat” of forgiveness for all who believe in him.  Every other religion of the world will tell you that such an idea is preposterous and even some professed Christians will deny this.  But the faith of a child is the only qualification for heaven.  Simply amazing.

Greg

I think I wrote in an earlier blog, maybe it was to Alex, I don’t recall.  Here it is again anyway.  Years ago a very zeolous man rode around Augusta, Ga in an old microbus emblased with Scriptures. One read: “Who will live with everlasting burnings”? Then he added: “pray that it be not you!” So I went to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. The text is found in Isa. 33: 14-15 and reads as follows: “Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil; He shall dwell on high:

It would seem from Isa that the hotest place in the universe is surrounding God’s throne.  The coldest place in the universe is hell.  Thus those with sin on their hands or in their heart approach God’s throne at great risk.
Sin and anything or anyone connected to sin shall be consumed. I don’t believe that God rejoices in the punishment of the wicked. To one who has sent a life time in the purification of gold. Dross is consumed in a moment in a twinkling of an eye. So also, I believe will be the end of any and all who cling to sin. The Deacon

This comment has been moved here.