The Seventh-day Adventist Church has the right to any set of beliefs it chooses. It even has the right of freedom of speech and worship according to those beliefs. In all candor, the Church should and has published those beliefs and practices. It even has the right within the Constitution of the United States to promote those beliefs and practices. However, it seems passingly strange that within the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a doctrine of ultimate and final accountability in a divine act of judgment now labeled as the pre-advent judgment--accordingly individuals and institutions will be judged upon every “word”. A rather sobering thought to any discerning and sensitive biblical scholar. It is true that no institutional church has a lock on all truth. The fault lies in the claim of infallibility and in the pronouncement of damnation on any and all who might reject some dogma of man’s mind. Each of us must remind ourselves that we are called to be witnesses, not judges or prophets. The Gospel is an invitation not a judgment. 

Greg, Guibox, and Deacon, I have enjoyed reading your contributions today.

Guibox, like you noted, I think many Adventist’s no longer subscribe to the Church’s continuing official position on the Investigative Judgment.

However as Greg noted, those in the church hierarchy still hold to the doctrine as presented, and still preach it in their evangelism as it is still a fundamental belief.

Deacon, I appreciate you noting that the SDA church has the freedom to set its own beliefs. It is also fortunate that we have the freedom to accept or reject them, as membership is by choice, and is not mandated, and is not a salvation issue.

Anonymous(not verified)-----Stan, is that you playing with your cell phone again? 

Randy

Thanks!

I shudder to think that some evangelists make it a salvation issue! I recall my father urging his brother-in-law to attend a series of evangelistic services in Holland, Michigan. My Aunt and Uncle attended faithfully in respect for my father. At the next to last evening, the evangelist asked to visit my Aunt and Uncle in their home.  They graciously agreed. The evangelist briefly reviewed the salient points of the series.  He then said: “ You have now heard the entire Truth. You can except and go to heaven or reject and be bound for hell.” My Uncle said: “I suppose you plan to be in Heaven.” The evangelist replied: “Certainly”. My Uncle said: “then Sir, I prefer to go to hell!” “Goodnight and goodbye.” When I hear the story, I was very sad for my father, and very proud of my Uncle. Of course, my father tried to apologize and to explain that that evangelist didn’t speak for either Christ or the Church.  My Uncle simply said: “Until I hear better, I will stay with the Dutch Reform Church, John, but you are still my brother-in-law and family.” Let us speak no more about it!”

[quote author="RandyGerber"]Greg, Guibox, and Deacon, I have enjoyed reading your contributions today.

Guibox, like you noted, I think many Adventist’s no longer subscribe to the Church’s continuing official position on the Investigative Judgment.

However as Greg noted, those in the church hierarchy still hold to the doctrine as presented, and still preach it in their evangelism as it is still a fundamental belief.

Deacon, I appreciate you noting that the SDA church has the freedom to set its own beliefs. It is also fortunate that we have the freedom to accept or reject them, as membership is by choice, and is not mandated, and is not a salvation issue.

Anonymous(not verified)-----Stan, is that you playing with your cell phone again?

So Randy, you think that I was the author of that anonymous post? (smiley)

No, with all the things going on right now, I don’t think I would have the energy to write that, but I do appreciate our anonymous posters who come on with the passion expressed. Many have been hurt spiritually by the teachings of the SDA church, and especially the IJ.

After reading the “new version” of the IJ, I agree with Ron Corson, that this is another pathetic attempt to try to justify a doctrine that has no basis in Biblical fact. As Deacon said, this was a doctrine that came about out of the product of a vision of a very disappointed soul, Hiram Edson, in a cornfield. Then Ellen White continued to justify this false vision and even vilify and put out of the church anyone who would point out the scriptural errors of this doctrine. Desmond Ford was a victim as recently as 1980. This is the ONLY UNIQUE doctrine of Adventism, and to admit that it was wrong would be to admit that the SDA church has no reason to exist, and the veracity of Ellen White’s prophetic gift rides on this doctrine.

Believe me it was taught very strongly when I was growing up. We always lived in a state of fear. I had nightmares about the lake of fire, and I would go there if I didn’t remember to confess all my sins.

I would like to contrast the above statement by repeating the words of the hymn Deacon and Greg talked about on the prayer thread, “It is well with my soul”

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

Refrain

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

Refrain

For me, be it Christ, be it Christ hence to live:
If Jordan above me shall roll,
No pang shall be mine, for in death as in life
Thou wilt whisper Thy peace to my soul.
---------------------------------------------------------

In my SDA background, we did sing this song, but it had no real meaning. Now reading the words of this song brings tears of joy and great emotion, especially last night when I really needed to read the words of this song.

Just contemplate these words again:

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul
-------------------------------------------------------

The traditional doctrine of the IJ makes a mockery of the above stanza. Because, if the sin problem was not taken care of at the cross, then we have to answer for it again in the IJ--Please!

Praise God that the Bible teaches the version in the hymn above, but the traditional IJ teaching is clearly another gospel, which brings no joy or peace while living the Christian life.

In awe of His Grace,

Stan

[quote author="Guibox"]I can believe in the ‘pre-advent judgment’ and still believe my atonment was done at the cross. I can believe in a ‘pre-advent judgment’ but deny the tenets of the ‘investigative judgment’.

This is basically my view as well.

[quote author="Dr. B"]In the future, Christ “will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (9:28). The last of these is accomplished by Christ at His Second Advent when He will appear, like the High Priest at the close of the Day of Atonement, not to atone for sins but to save the believers and punish the unbelievers.

This passage suggests that Christ’s “future” work (future to the current day of Paul) is “not to deal with sin”, which would sort of negate the idea that Christ’s dealing with sin, our sin, the sins of believers in Paul’s day, is some future event.

One issue I have with the IJ is that the Day of Atonement is given very scant attention in the Bible. There’s some brief discussion in Exodus related I believe to the High Priest’s attire and actions on that day, and then of course, the longer treatment of Leviticus 16. But that’s pretty much it. To my knowledge, it doesn’t show up in any actual stories of Israel’s experience. No major OT personalities, Patriarchs, Prophets or Kings are discussed interacting with this special Day.

In line with this, we don’t have any Biblical evidence, directly related to the Day of Atonement, that suggests the sins of individuals were held over till the closing ceremonies during the Day of Atonement. The reason SDA doctrine has treated the Day of Atonement as an individual cleansing Day was the belief, as expressed in Patriarchs and Prophets by EGW, that the blood from the individual sacrifices entered the Holy Place during the year, which it did not.

It seems to me that the Day of Atonement was a collective, as opposed to an individual, day of cleansing, a day in which sins and defilement by Israel would be cleansed, not necessarily a day in which individual sins already confessed were brought to rememberance again. In other words, the Day of Atonement was a Day for cleansing community, not individual sin. The latter had presumably already been cleansed and atoned for when the sacrifice was brought during the year.

I do, however, think the Sanctuary service is a useful branch of study, because I think it was meant to reflect how God delt with sin, and was intended to illustrate, visually and practically, the salvation process. So I think there are potentially things to learn here. Of course, none of this should be construed as elevating the shadow over the substance, the figurative sacrificial system to the Real One.

Obviously there is a pre-advent judgment: Rev. 22: 11,12.
Unfortunately, that is not the SDA take. Isn’t sematics wonderful! The entire Christian Community believes in a pre-advent judgment. But not the one described in Great Controversy et al. Not the one described in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Instead of clarifying the issue, the new terminology merely obscures it, and for (good?) reason. Just as the Roman Catholic Church, I believe that Mary was the mother of God. But I don’t believe in Maryology. 

[quote author="glennspring"]
This passage suggests that Christ’s “future” work (future to the current day of Paul) is “not to deal with sin”, which would sort of negate the idea that Christ’s dealing with sin, our sin, the sins of believers in Paul’s day, is some future event.

Hmmm...That is not what I got from it. What Bacchiocchi is saying is that when Christ comes it is the fulfillment and consummation of the judicial process. There is no more investigating, no more process. The rewards are dealt out. He is no longer ‘intercessing’ for us but coming to claim us to reap the rewards and consequences.

I don’t believe Bacchiocchi is saying that ‘dealing with our sins’ in a ‘future’ event means that Christ is holding all our sins to the end to be forgiven.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your take on the matter.

There is a fragment of a hymn running through my head--"Safe in the Arms of Jesus, Safe on His gentle breast.”

That is in the SDA hymnal.  How does that match up with: “Soon, Soon, nobody knows how soon, the investigation will turn to the living.  Does God start with the A/s or the Z’s? 

There as so many inconsistency in the Judgment Hour Message one does not know if one should laugh or cry. For all those who “gave up” I mourn! For all those who found a Savior, I rejoice!

The I.J. is such an obscure doctrine to the Christian Church at large should we also move on? 

Maybe I’m over analyzing the statement a bit. I think the basic IJ perspective is that Christ’s dealing with sin is still a future event (which in some ways it still is given that sin continues to infect our world and will until the world is created anew). And Hebrews seems to suggest that, as you point out, that what Jesus does at the end is beyond the investigating of sin stage, and that His future work is not dealing with sin, as the IJ seems to suggest. I do agree that based on what I’ve read from him, Dr. B’s take on the preadvent judgment is somewhat different from the typical IJ. But I may be tangling myself up in semantics. 

Greg,

I did find the story text to the feature in Guide magazine mentioned above titled “Night of No Return”.

Here is a sample passage taken from the end of the story:

“So there’s a heavenly sanctuary in which Jesus functions very much like the Israelite high priest,” Dr. Hahn said slowly, understanding the full meaning of Jesus’ ministry. “In order to ‘cleanse’ the sanctuary as predicted in Daniel’s prophecy, He has left the holy place and is now in the Most Holy Place, not offering an unblemished animal, but presenting Himself as the perfect Lamb of God! He is showing once and for all that His sacrifice has completely taken away our sins.”

“And,” Brother Crosier added, “everybody who accepts Him as Savior will be called His child and saved when He comes to the earth again after finishing His heavenly ministry.”

“What a wonderful promise!” exclaimed Dr. Hahn. “Let’s thank God for helping us understand this important truth.”

Together the men bowed as Hiram prayed. “Thank You, Lord, for the work You are doing in heaven right now to free us from sin. We don’t know when You will come back to earth, but we trust that because of Your sacrifice we will be ready when that glorious event takes place!”

The full text can be found here.