[quote author="Greg"]I don’t know the condition of Brinsmead’s heart,

I wasn’t asking about the condition of Brinsmead’s heart. I wanted someone to either confirm or deny the story I’ve heard or read ages ago that Brinsmead had expressly stated words similar to “I’m now far beyond all that stuff” when referring to his departure from faith in Christ.

[quote author="Greg"]Brinsmead did not draw his conclusions in isolation. As quoted earlier, he said, “If we accept the New Testament gospel, which declares that Christ’s redemptive act is finished, that He already reigns at God’s right hand and that His victory over sin and death inaugurated the last days, we cannot accept the traditional Adventist doctrine of an investigative judgment beginning in 1844.” Other prominent Adventists including Albion Ballenger, D.M. Canright and Desmond Ford came to the same conclusions

It sounds to me that all those men are repudiating or would have repudiated the excellent Christian theology of The Gospel According to Jesus by John F. MacArthur and answers to questions 29, 30, 31 in the book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions On Doctrine.

[quote author="Greg"]This behavior reflects more on the Adventist church than it does on any of these men, including Brinsmead. Just as the Council of Trent is the “immovable object” that prohibits Catholics from accepting justification by faith alone, the investigative judgment keeps Adventists from accepting Christ’s finished work of atonement.

I accept The Gospel According to Jesus, QOD and the Investigative Judgment. I see no contradiction there at all. I consider the Investigative Judgment, as taught in Scripture, a very important doctrine. It is a part of the first angel’s message. I am happy to agree however that all Adventist explanations of the Investigative Judgment are terribly inadequate.

[quote author="Shubee"]
I accept The Gospel According to Jesus, QOD and the Investigative Judgment. I see no contradiction there at all. I consider the Investigative Judgment, as taught in Scripture, a very important doctrine. It is a part of the first angel’s message. I am happy to agree however that all Adventist explanations of the Investigative Judgment are terribly inadequate.

So you accept QOD and what you call the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judbgment, but you say that “all Adventist explanations” are “terribly inadequate”. If no Adventist can adequately explain this doctrine, then what exactly do you believe and how can you legitimately claim it to be Adventist?

Greg

Shubee

The reference to QOD’s answer regarding the atonement attracted my attention. The writers of QOD answered the question 31 ("Seventh-day Adventists have frequently been charged with teaching that the atonement was not completed on the cross. Is this charge true?") by affirming that adventists have a “wider” concept of the atonement, including the application of the atonement “provided” on the cross in the intercessory ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary.

This affirmation is not contradictory to the gospel if it is taken in the sense that believers receive the benefits of Jesus’ death through his intercessory work (1 John 2:1,2). When he has faith, a believer receives all the benefits of Jesus’s atonement provided on the cross. Since Jesus by His death obtained forgiveness for all our trespasses (Col 2:13, 14 “...God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross"), in a moment, at the beginning of the christian life, the believer is justified and receives pardon for all his sins, past and future. All, not some, of the benefits of Jesus death are “applied” through Christ’s intercessory work. When he sins, the believer is assured that he has an intercessor, present tense, he has a “righteousness before God”:

And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30

Bunyan says in “Grace Abounding for the Chief of Sinners”:

Thy righteousness is in heaven; and methought withal, I saw, with the eyes of my soul, Jesus Christ at God’s right hand; there, I say, is my righteousness; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was a-doing, God could not say of me, He wants my righteousness, for that was just before Him.  I also saw, moreover, that it was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better, nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse; for my righteousness was Jesus Christ Himself, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever Heb.  13.8.

But the problem of the Investigative Judgment is that the application of the atonement is not a once for all event at the beginning of the Christian life, in which the believer receives all the benefits of Christ’s death at once, and continues to enjoy them until he’s glorified since Christ intercedes for him continually, being righteousness for him (Hebrews 7:25). Instead, all the benefits of Jesus death are available for the believer only after he passes the scrutiny of the Investigative Judgment. After he proved himself “worthy”, after he proved himself to be faithful, Christ will bless him with a clear record for all his sins.

The difference between having all your sins forgiven, covered, washed in Jesus blood now, and having these benefits after a life of faithful obedience, is the difference between a righteousness apart from works and a righteousness linked to works.

Gabriel

[quote author="Greg"][quote author="Shubee"]
I accept The Gospel According to Jesus, QOD and the Investigative Judgment. I see no contradiction there at all. I consider the Investigative Judgment, as taught in Scripture, a very important doctrine. It is a part of the first angel’s message. I am happy to agree however that all Adventist explanations of the Investigative Judgment are terribly inadequate.

So you accept QOD and what you call the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, but you say that “all Adventist explanations” are “terribly inadequate”. 

Greg,

I didn’t call the Investigative Judgment an Adventist doctrine. I said, “I consider the Investigative Judgment, as taught in Scripture, a very important doctrine.” Adventists certainly get the credit for stumbling onto this important teaching and Ellen White wrote plenty of accurate statements about it, but, to date, a satisfying exposition of Scripture that reveals the essence of the IJ, so as to answer the criticisms of competent scholars, is yet to be written.

[quote author="Greg"]If no Adventist can adequately explain this doctrine, then what exactly do you believe and how can you legitimately claim it to be Adventist?

I believe that the cross-examination judgment of Matthew 25:14-30 settles eternal destiny. It is the Investigative Judgment when understood in the context of the book of Revelation. Being a Millerite and not an Adventist, I can clearly see how Adventist the teaching of Jesus really is.

Shubee,

Do you agree with John MacArthur’s book “Gospel According to Jesus”?

You have quoted from both RC Sproul and John MacArthur since coming on.

As you will be able to easily tell, we are big fans of these authors on this web site.

But John MacArthur would not accept any part of the IJ doctrine. John believes that all believers who are truly regenerate will persevere to the end and be saved, and will not come into judgment.

The IJ as taught by Ellen White teaches that a believer can lose their salvation with one unconfessed sin on the book. The Great Controversy version of the IJ clearly teaches this doctrine which is directly opposed to the gospel.

John MacArthur does teach that true believers will be obedient to Christ because they are saved and regenerated, and therefore true believers have newly created natures. Since God does all the work in salvation, He makes sure and guarantees the results. Jesus said in John 6:37, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and they will be raised at the last day.

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]You have quoted from both RC Sproul and John MacArthur since coming on.

As you will be able to easily tell, we are big fans of these authors on this web site.

I pointed Greg to statements made by Sproul and was disappointed that Greg had no idea what Sproul was saying. 

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]But John MacArthur would not accept any part of the IJ doctrine.

That’s too bad because I defined the IJ purely through Scripture.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]John believes that all believers who are truly regenerate will persevere to the end and be saved, and will not come into judgment.

The issue in IJ doctrine is understanding Jesus on Matthew 25:14-30. Citing MacArthur or Sproul on eschatology is senseless because both men have no real understanding of it.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]The IJ as taught by Ellen White ...

The issue isn’t EGW but your failure to understand the cross-examination judgment.

Shubee,

You won’t win too many converts to your position by throwing around loose accusations and contradictory statements.

You say that you arrive at the investigative judgment doctrine purely through Scripture but you contradict yourself by asserting that no adequate exposition of the doctrine has been written. If you are the only one who has an adequate understanding of this doctrine, where is your exposition?

You cite John MacArthur for support of your views of the investigative judgment but upon further questioning, you undermine your own position by saying MacArthur has “no real understanding” of eschatology.

You overturn explicit New Testament teaching on justification and the judgment by building your beliefs on a parable and Ellen White’s writings.

You make ad hominem statements about me having “no idea” what you are talking about instead of answering my concerns in a reasonable tone of disagreement.

Shubee, I think you see yourself as the only person (perhaps on the planet) who is qualified to talk about these matters. You are free to look for listeners on your own forum, but I caution anyone reading this about giving your extrabiblical insights further attention.

Greg