I see we have a bonifide, genu-wine SDA minister amoung us. Welcome Pastor Williams and thanks for the “blessed Sabbath” greeting. Have not heard that personal, at the church door greeting for some time. Thank you, indeed Jesus is blessed forever.

You said “While I respect Raymond Cottrell...too many people accept his authority over personal spirit-led investigation of the word of God. We should respect their opinion but keep it just that- a respect of opinion.” Then you quote what one woman did and you asked, “do you see what is wrong with that? No personal search for the truth...I believe it is wrong to ignore what others have to say (to deny people a fair hearing) but it is a sin to let others do our Bible study for us.”

I agree with you that we should do our own bible study, but we all have come from a background where we for the most part had a one sided view of scripture all our lives. Many of us were even afraid to listen to the opinions of anyone who was not SDA. We never gave any other religion a “fair hearing” because we had a one sided notion that we had the “truth” so we did not need to hear from anyone else. Is this now the way it works in Adventism? Or do you still mean in your sentence above that we should give a fair hearing to other Adventist scholars who oppose Cottrell’s view?

There are some who have personally searched for the truth.Some who have studied our bibles and cannot reconcile much of what we learned in Adventism proper, never mind the I.J, with what the bible teaches.

Raymond Cottrell was highly respected in Adventism, and would have remained so even after he died, had he not written this little tid bit about the non-biblical I.J. The General Conference is notorious for putting their feet on the necks of those who deny anything that Ellen White endorsed. It is unfortunate that as former SDAs come to accept Cottrell’s conclusions,along with gaining a biblical understanding as well, he is graciously brushed aside as just “another opinion.”

I do appreciate your thoughts, and look forward to reading more of what you have to say.

Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

Yes, Phen B:

My reply to (and etc.) then I must go on and get gone:
“Many of us were even afraid to listen to the opinions of anyone who was not SDA. We never gave any other religion a “fair hearing” because we had a one sided notion that we had the “truth” so we did not need to hear from anyone else. Is this now the way it works in Adventism?

I believe that it is a mistake to have such an attitude. Could it be that children tend to think of things this way as the grow up in the church and unless they are taught to be more open minded and gracious? But then I guess I have found this attitude among adults. I do not understand why people think this way. God has his people in every church, every denomination. By the way, I am sure that every church and every denomination have those who are just as closed minded. It is doubtless a function of psychology more than theology that leads people to see things this way.

I certainly do “mean . . . . that we should give a fair hearing to other Adventist scholars who oppose Cottrell’s view.”
“There are some who have personally searched for the truth.Some who have studied our bibles and cannot reconcile much of what we learned in Adventism proper, never mind the I.J, with what the bible teaches.”

I have found the opposite to be true. And let me add that when I became a Christian in 1971 I determined to believe only what I found for myself in the Word. When I got to PUC I began to learn SDA doctrine. I found that certain passages that were used to support various doctrines seemed to be taken out of context. I could not use them and did not use them. However, there was plenty of evidence to support the idea of each doctrine. So, I simply use those that were clearly within the idea being presented.
Raymond Cottrell was highly respected in Adventism, and would have remained so even after he died, had he not written this little tid bit about the non-biblical I.J. The General Conference is notorious for putting their feet on the necks of those who deny anything that Ellen White endorsed. It is unfortunate that as former SDAs come to accept Cottrell’s conclusions, along with gaining a biblical understanding as well, he is graciously brushed aside as just “another opinion.”

Well, I do not consider him just another opinion. Here is what I say on my web site about him:
The late Raymond Cottrell’s thoughts on Daniel have not been widely circulated in the Adventist church. However, his concerns and doubts about the Adventist position on the prophecies of Daniel, in particular Daniel 8:14, have circulate widely enough to have a significant effect on our discussion of the investigative judgment.

It is no doubt that Elder Cottrell should be respected for his accomplishments in mastering the Hebrew language. It is a fact that his understanding of the Hebrew text of Daniel led him to conclusions that did not support the doctrine of the investigative judgment.
How shall we address his concerns?
1. While we do not want to simply dismiss brother’s Cottrell’s expertise, it must be admitted that It is beyond the ability of most lay members to properly judge his conclusions. Simply put, few read and understand Hebrew. We are on dangerous ground if we leave it to one person to tell us what the Bible means. “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” 2 Pet 1:20. Those who make Dr. Cottrell the final word on
Daniel and the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment are making him the final word--their private irrefutable interpreter. I honestly doubt that he would have wanted people to elevate him to the level of infallible interpreter of Scripture. Therefore, our first answer to Dr. Cottrell’s concerns is that 99% of those who read his writings or listen to recordings of his presentations cannot know for certain that he is right.
2. The second response to Dr. Cottrell is this: In The Silencing of Satan: The Gospel of the Investigative Judgment there is sufficient evidence to show that the doctrine of the investigative judgment is biblically sound [I mean by this Phen B, sound in at its most fundamental level--which I think is the most important and the most neglected issue]. There is also in this book powerful evidence that shows that the pioneers were correct in their understanding that there was a connection between the prophecy of Daniel 8 and the day of atonement rituals of Leviticus 16.

Pastor Williams,

I don’t believe anybody is (or should and Dr. Cottrell wouldn’t have had it any other way I’m sure) making Dr. Cottrell’s opinion dogma on the matter.

However, like Des Ford, they both have brought up important aspects that poke some serious holes in the traditional IJ.

I for one do not adhere to either Ford or Cottrell’s position on the interpretations of Daniel 8. Yet, their sound exegesis has caused me to reverse my previous take on the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14. (Personally, I believe as Lee F. Greer does that Daniel 8 and 9 both have a Christological fulfillment).

It is sad that some of our best scholars are revered in our denomination...until they go against the grain. Then all their scholarly ability is suspect and they go from being a ‘scholarly authority’ to ‘merely another suspect opinion’.

Consider the two sources mentioned above:

1) Both were highly regarded in the church
2) Sat on important committees that determined doctrinal direction on prophecy in the 20th century and wrote extensive books on the subject matter
3) None of them had an axe to grind with the church
4) Both would have remained loyal sola-scriptura Seventh Day Adventists had the church not caused them grief

Both Ford and Cottrell were friends of the church, not bitter, disgruntled formers who attacked it at every opportunity. I think it would be unwise for us to casually dismiss and discredit their findings to our own opinion or to wholeheartedly embrace the works of M.L Andreason and William Shae simply because the latter two’s scholarly research agrees with the church’s stance.

Good Afternoon,

I find this to be quite an interesting thread.

Phen, thank-you for your comments.Several points are well taken.

Guibox, like you I find it incredible, that some of Adventism’s most highly trained and esteemed theologians, can just be discredited and made to be persona non gratias within the denomination merely by disagreeing with the previously held dogma. I have to ask, where is academic freedom? Where is the ability to admit mistakes, and move forward with a more theologically sound doctrine? This certainly sent the message loud and clear to all the other Adventist theologians, pastors, and teachers that to state your conscience if it differs from the accepted dogma, would in effect be career suicide.

I think you nailed it on the head, when you said the Ford and Cottrell were friends of the Adventist church. They were the most well trained theologians we had in their areas of expertise(Daniel, and Hebrew language), and yet were villified for not towing the party line. Ford was made an example of what would happen to anybody who challenged the status quo, and Cottrell kept his mouth shut publically until his last years. Adventism unfortunately has a history of eating its own.

Pastor Williams, even though we do not agree on the IJ doctrine, I still enjoy your comments and appreciate you as a brother in Christ. I hope your weekend away goes well.

On a more personal note, I would like to take this opportunity to brag a little.

My two oldest children, both graduated from the University of British Columbia this week. I am very proud of them, as they have both turned out to be wonderful people.

They get there brains from their mother!

Peace all,

Randy

Congratulations Randy!

Stan

[quote author="RandyGerber"]
On a more personal note, I would like to take this opportunity to brag a little.

My two oldest children, both graduated from the University of British Columbia this week. I am very proud of them, as they have both turned out to be wonderful people.

They get there brains from their mother!

And one of those children was a big help to my choir last night! She does a bang up job with the little kids too! And he has another graduating this year from highschool! When it rains it pours!

As for the last line...I concur.

Unless my ears deceived me, I heard through the grapevine that someone ooooooold here is celebrating a birthday? Good night! Can you imagine the candles?? You won’t be able to blow them out for the heat would drive you back!

Happy Birthday Randy. May you ripen with age...like an old cheese.

Stan,

Thank-you for your kind words.

Guibox,

Thank-you for your kind words(I think?)

Yes, about those candles! I am reminded by those in my family, that consider sarcasm and ridicule a spiritual gift, that today I am half way to ninety-six. Thank goodness I am a trumpet player, and have maintained an adequate lung capacity to extinguish the said number of candles.

As for the reflective heatwave potentiality from the backdraft. I must admit that after reading your posts on a regular basis for the last two years, I have become accustomed and acclimatized to sudden rushes of hot air.

[quote author="RandyGerber"]As for the reflective heatwave potentiality from the backdraft. I must admit that after reading your posts on a regular basis for the last two years, I have become accustomed and acclimatized to sudden rushes of hot air.

Touché

[quote author="Pastor Williams"]I am truly grateful for the challenging nature of this discussion. I am only sorry that I became aware of it so long after it began. I find myself wondering why I did not hear of this before now???

Anyway, Aaron, I am wondering how the RCC statement is like my own understanding. By the way, your argument here takes me back 28 years to Des Ford and the discussions going on then over the distinction between justification and sanctification. Some confuse justification and sanctification into one confusing mess—that is the RCC position. But I see a distinction. Justification is solely ours by faith in the promise of mercy and forgiveness through Christ. His life and death and resurrection give us the opportunity to have justification. A righteousness apart from the law comes to us through the blood of Christ that is perfect, it is faultless. No human merit can be added to justification or it is a spoiled, it is ruined, it is faulty, it is lost. However, a positive outcome in the judgment is based upon a life that demonstrates that the faith that accepts Christ’s righteousness is a faith that is genuine. How can this be demonstrated? It is demonstrated by faithfulness. Yes, faith is proven by faithfulness. And faithfulness is proven by demonstration (not by assent or agreement)—that is, a demonstration of human works, words, thoughts, motives, etc. Noah believed God and that is what saved him in the most fundamental sense. However, that faith of Noah would have been nullified if it was not demonstrated in the building of the ark. Read the 11th chapter of Hebrews. The faith of those mentioned was demonstrated by works. Faith has substance. It is not something in the head. It is something that is in the head and in the heart and in the feet and in the hands, and in the mouth. Faith in the Savior God gave the worthies of Hebrews 11 favor with God, but without works they would have been lost. They were justified by faith, not justified by their works, but their faith justified their claim to have saving faith. That is what James is talking about in his second chapter. There is a justification before the law (Christ’s work alone), and there is a justification of faith (our works washed and made acceptable in the blood of Christ).

Hi Pastor Williams, and thanks for joining this discussion. I especially want to zero in on one passage from the quote above where you said this:

“Some confuse justification and sanctification into one confusing mess—that is the RCC position. But I see a distinction. Justification is solely ours by faith in the promise of mercy and forgiveness through Christ. His life and death and resurrection give us the opportunity to have justification. A righteousness apart from the law comes to us through the blood of Christ that is perfect, it is faultless. No human merit can be added to justification or it is a spoiled, it is ruined, it is faulty, it is lost. However, A POSITIVE OUTCOME IN THE JUDGMENT is BASED upon a life that demonstrates that the faith that accepts Christ’s righteousness is a faith that is genuine.”
--------------------------------------------------------

This statement still seems to confuse the issue. The gospel says that a positive outcome in the judgment is based solely on the merits of Christ and His finished work.

What then becomes an objective standard as to how much righteousness is demonstrated in the Investigative Judgment, that would prove that we are a child of God? In other words, are you suggesting that there is a certain standard or level of faithfulness that must be demonstrated?

If our salvation or outcome in the judgment is based on the character that even the Holy Spirit works within us, then that would still be a works basis for passing the judgment.

I agree with you however, that a person that is truly born again will indeed strive to keep the commandments of God, and try to please God in every way. A person who says “I believe, I believe and lives a life of willful sin has not seen the cross, and demonstrates that his conversion is fake.

Martin Luther said that Justification by faith alone is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. He said that the faith that saves always manifests itself in good works as the FRUIT, and not the BASIS of passing the judgment.

I think the problem is that many people don’t understand the doctrine of what it means to be born again. We are born again by God’s grace alone, and the Holy Spirit creates a new heart, and changes our wills so that as a newly created soul in Christ, we are sealed for the day of redemption. As a result of being adopted into His Kingdom, we begin to live lives that are fitting for a child of God. Those who are truly miraculously born of God (John 1:13) will prove they are His by the lives of obedience they live. But this life of obedience is the result of justification. This obedient life does not prove that we are safe to save in the judgment, but is the result of being truly justified by His grace.

A person who is truly born again, does not have to fear a judgment that might take away his salvation, should that person become careless at times in his spiritual walk, and may somehow forget to confess a sin. We are not given a spirit of fear, but a spirit of sonship, whereby we cry Abba Father. When I read the Great Controversy section on the IJ, I do get a spirit of fear, because the standard of perfection which is conveyed is impossible for any of us still living in the “body of death” which Paul talks about in Romans 7.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

Guidbox:

You wrote: “However, like Des Ford, they both have brought up important aspects that poke some serious holes in the traditional IJ.”

If you mean that they have pointed out some problems with the “traditional presentation of the IJ” I agree. In other words, I agree that they have asked some good questions. However, the IJ doctrine is not losing altitude, or sinking. Some have given up too soon and not studied this matter out asking the Lord to give them His viewpoint. Instead they have relied on “the experts.” That is true on both sides.

How does Geer’s Christological fulfillment differ from Ford? He sees the prophecy of Dan 8,9 fulfilled in Christ two thousand years ago. That is at least a variation of a Christological fulfillment.

I have no disagreement with you concerning our church’s handling of the sanctuary question. Ford showed us that this was not something that started with him. I was shocked and scared and upset when (in 1980) I realized that I had spent decade at PUC , Andrews, and as an employee of the church and no one had told me that the church had not found satisfactory answers to the questions raise about Dan 8, AD1844 during the previous 80 years—that they had virtually swept the questions under the carpet and fired those who dared to question. I was grieved when (in certain Conferences) my fellow ministers were required to take a stand on this question, in spite of the fact that the church had not worked things out itself. They were not able to solve the problems, but they expected my friends to take a stand. Ford had spent 20 years prior to 1980 thinking and studying and my friends 9in some cases) had to decide whether he was right in a matter of months. They too were doubtless scared and upset that we had not been made aware of certain difficulties and now if Ford is axed for sticking his head up, what will become of us if we say the wrong thing? It caused me to wonder about the leaders at the very top. It was scary and sad and the time to be mad.

I think we would have been far ahead if we had resisted the witch hunt mentality of some and begun a prayerful, humble, study of these matters. As long as Ford agreed not to be divisive let him return home in peace. Let the witch hunters leave if they would not be patient while the rest of us sought the truth. Some of us who respect Ellen White still want to be able to defend all doctrine on the basis of the Bible alone.

Anyway, it is too late now. The damage has been done.

Let me reaffirm what I have tried to say before. I do not casually dismiss Ford or Cottrell. As for Cottrell, only the Hebrew expert can claim a legitimate right to render an opinion of his analysis. Yet even that person’s opinion should not be taken as the last word. In my humble opinion interpreting the Hebrew of the OT is not an exact science. It is better to not to put too much into every tittle and dot lest one lose the bigger picture(s), the indisputable major points/truths.

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

A Christian exchange of thought that does not center on God and His work on behalf of sinful man serves little purpose.

To discuss man’s pitiful works to please, prove or demonstrate anything to a Holy God is just that, pitiful.

It appears that priorities have become skewed.

The bible is not centered on man but on God. It’s not about man coming to God but God coming to man. It is not about the works of man but the work of God. It’s not about the faithfulness of man but the Faithfulness of God. It’s not about what man can do to save himself but what God has already done to save man. It’s not about man trying to follow God but God leading man.

Instead of the over emphasis of looking for ‘demonstrations’ that prove our faith our time would be better spent examining the demonstration of God’s faithfulness, that He died that we might live — a ‘demonstration of God’s love. That through faith alone in Christ alone we have forgiveness of sins — a ‘demonstration’ of God’s grace. That Christ’s resurrection is a promise of resurrection for those in Christ — a ‘demonstration’ of God’s power.

Pastor Williams said:

‘However, a positive outcome in the judgment is based upon a life that demonstrates that the faith that accepts Christ’s righteousness is a faith that is genuine. How can this be demonstrated? It is demonstrated by faithfulness. Yes, faith is proven by faithfulness. And faithfulness is proven by demonstration (not by assent or agreement)—that is, a demonstration of human works, words, thoughts, motives, etc. Noah believed God and that is what saved him in the most.

When I examine my ‘demonstrations’ I must echo the Apostle Paul when he said ‘all my righteousness is as filthy rags’. My salvation rests solely in God’s love, grace, mercy and power and His faithfulness to His promises.

Yours in Christ,

John Douglas

Thank-you John for your strong statement regarding salvation by faith alone.

Very well put, and soundly Scriptural.

Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

Dear Stan:

I am so glad for this statement of yours: 

“The gospel says that a positive outcome in the judgment is based solely on the merits of Christ and His finished work.”

Would you mind helping me with this. Give me explicit statements of scripture that support this. Please note that I say, explicit statements. That means unambiguous statements that clearly teach that which is affirmed (to borrow a phrase from Des Ford). I insert into your sentence some questions please reply with the Bible’s clear statements:

The gospel says [WHAT GOSPEL?] that a positive outcome in the judgment is based solely on the merits of Christ [WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS?] and His finished work [WHERE DOES IT SAY, IN THE NT OR OT, THAT THE CROSS FINISHED THE SAVING WORK OF CHRIST? NEITHER John 17:4 OR John 19:30 CLEARLY SAY THAT THIS IS THE END AND SUM OF ALL THAT NEEDS BE DONE FOR MANKIND—SO, ANYWAY, WHERE IS THIS IDEA TO BE FOUND?].

Please understand: I am not wanting to be argumentative here, but I would like people to stop and ask, Is that from the Bible? I also should say that while I do not want to engage in debate, I will be pointing it out if passages used to support these contentions are being taken as—but are not necessarily—implying these ideas. Evidence that is only “implication strong” does not prove the thing believed. Clear didactic statements that affirm the thing being taught (again borrowing from Des) prove a doctrine to be Biblical, true.

You then ask, “What then becomes an objective standard as to how much righteousness is demonstrated in the Investigative Judgment, that would prove that we are a child of God? In other words, are you suggesting that there is a certain standard or level of faithfulness that must be demonstrated?”

Let me keep this simple and zero in on one aspect of this for now: I do not see any level of righteousness required. Nor do I see in the Bible a level of faithfulness that must be demonstrated. The key word is “level.” That suggests possibility that everyone must jump over the same hurdle, every person is expected to preform at the same level. The spiritual child, the spiritually disabled—as well as the physical child and the physically disabled are then excluded. They cannot keep up with the spiritual athlete and the spiritually mature. This is not fair or righteous judgment and it is not found in the Bible.

Next: “A person who says “I believe, I believe and lives a life of willful sin has not seen the cross, and demonstrates that his conversion is fake.”

Was David’s conversion fake?

Tell me where in the Bible do we find the phrase, “justification by faith alone?” And where do we find in the Bible that the church stands or falls on this doctrine?

Hi Pastor Williams,

I’m sure Stan will reply later when his time permits, but in the meantime, please allow me to interject.

When we argue the point such as you have, saying, “Show me in the Bible where it EXPLICITLY says that”, we’re introducing a red herring into the debate.  Of course, none of our statements will be found verbatim in the Bible, because we are not the authors of Scripture.  None of us speaks with the authority of Scripture nor are we the infallible interpreters of Scripture.

Furthermore, the Bible contains both explicit and implied truths.  An example of an explicit truth is that God created the earth in seven days.  An implied truth is that God is three Persons of one substance–the Trinity.  By demanding only explicit statements as the benchmark of truth, we’re denying an entire category of truth–that which is implied–so I would kindly suggest we refrain from using such arguments here.

Now for just one text that answers basically every question you raised in your last post (and this is by no means the only text), we need to look no further than Romans 4:5:

“And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness...” (Romans 4:5 ESV)

Paul’s statement is embedded within the context of explaining how Abraham–who did not have the law and was therefore not able to “keep” it so as to be found righteous–was nevertheless seen as righteous in God’s eyes.  This was not through any measured effort on Abraham’s part, but it was by faith.  Looking just a few verses back in Romans 4, we find Paul quoting from Genesis 15:6:

“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’” (Romans 4:2-3 ESV)

If there is any objective requirement for our salvation (justification) outside of Christ’s work on our behalf, Romans 4:5 should not read as it does.  This implied truth is indeed the foundation upon which the Protestant Christian church stands or falls, because if justification is not by faith alone, the Protestant Reformation was an exercise in futility and the martyrs who gave their life for its cause died for nothing.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

‘Tell me where in the Bible do we find the phrase, “justification by faith alone?” And where do we find in the Bible that the church stands or falls on this doctrine?’

Good grief!! Pastor - surely you jest

Where do you find the term ‘Trinity’ in the Bible? Does the lack of the word negate the truth it represents?

(Sorry Greg, I just HAD to get my 2 cents worth in)