Admin note: moved to a new thread since the last one was getting long.  The old thread is here.  The author of this post is Pastor Williams.

To all my faithful opponents:
I have combined topics to a certain degree. I have not followed any sort of chronological order of response, but I think it will all make sense anyway. So with that I begin with the end! This time I start with the last comment made and then on to the jumble of responses.

Stan:
You have been a great encouragement to me as well as a worthy opponent and advocate of your convictions. For your understanding and gracious opposition I will always be thankful. As for the rest of you...no I’m just kidding. I do so much appreciate you too. Love to all and peace to all

Dear Ane:
The sort of progressive revelation you speak of is not the sort of progressive revelation I believe in. I am not saying that EGW was wrong. I am saying that there is more to the IJ than she realized. Yet, I see no conflict with what she has said and what I see in the Bible: There is a judgment of believers, there is an investigative aspect to our judgment, Jesus is going to save the saints, but Satan accuses them, Jesus enters into dispute with Satan over the saint’s future (as with Job, Joshua, and Moses), based on our works that are the evidence of our faith Jesus declares that the saints have proven that He is right about them (2Thess 1:3-5), then Jesus rebukes and silences Satan.

Sorry, Ane, I could, but I will not yet answer your challenges about EGW and whether there will be any other prophets etc. I really do not think it is profitable to spend a lot of time defending her. So, I do make a comment below about COL 155, but it is brief.
You later are amazed as you note that the “IJ is ONLY for the ‘professed people of God,’ and it states, “The judgement of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period.”
Yes, this judgment is mentioned in 1Cor 6 and Rev 20. The Lord knows who are His and that would be enough, but for the accusations of our enemy. As discussed before in this forum, we see God dealing with this Lucifer’s accusations in the case of Job, Moses, and Joshua. We see in the titles or names God applies to Lucifer, and in Rev 12:10 that Lucifer is our other accuser.
We see that believers can fall and are in danger of eternal loss in 1 Cor 10:12: “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”
Notice the context:
1 Cor 10:1-12
1 Moreover, brethren, ... our fathers ...
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters…
8 Neither let us commit fornication…
9 Neither let us tempt Christ…
10 Neither murmur ...
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written
12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

What sort of fall does Paul warn them against? Is it just a temporary laps? Or is it eternal loss. That is easy to prove. The type of sins he warns them not to lust after and become ensnared in are those mentioned in 1 Cor 6:9-10 where he clarifies for us that true nature of the fall in question:
1 Cor 6:9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (ASV)

Jesus adds,
Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Paul’s point in 1Cor 10:1-12: You could do the same thing.  Paul does not qualify this or limit this to the insincere in the church but applies this to all in the church. All the church includes the truly converted. He includes himself; for, the introduction to this passage warning true believers that they too might fall is this:

“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” 1 Cor 9:27

As for why our young people are leaving the church: You wrote: “Trust me your youth are leaving over doctrine!”
I pastor a church where there is something unusual going on with our young people. Apart from anything I have done, God has been working with in the lives of a large group of young people across North America. They are pumped up and excited about the message of Adventism. Several the local ones have gravitated to one of my churches because they find support and understanding, they find a commonality and welcome. I have let the Spirit lead them and they are taking the reigns under the direction of the Lord. They are just the opposite of what you have surmised. The were themselves leaving the church at one time and then one of their own connected up with them and began to share with them Adventist doctrine. You see they had been through our schools and had either not paid attention or as they claim, they were not told about the IJ or other SDA distinctives. Whatever happened to them they claim that it is the doctrines that revived them. If you think I am making this up, I would be glad to make it possible for some of them to talk to you about this-personally if you would like.

But let me also agree with you on the spirit within Adventism. When I became a Christian it was not due to the influence of any Adventist. They who led me to Christ were Sunday keeping and etc., but Christians of the first order. They were as impressive in their love for God, for each other, and for souls as any I have ever seen. I have known many Christians that put SDA’s to shame in this area—in my opinion. Anyway, after being baptized by one of them in 1971 I decided to attend an SDA church. I got there for Sabbath School. I do not exaggerate when I say that I was the only one there that showed any real interest in the study (even though I walked in without knowing what the study would be about and knew next to nothing about the Bible—really). I was full of love for Jesus and the Bible. Anyway. To shorten the story I’ll just say that I stayed for church. But, as I walked down the stairs outside the church tears streamed down my cheeks as I said to myself, “These people are not Christians. I will never come back to an Adventist church again.” Before I became a Christian I had been stopped by a CHP officer while driving on a suspended license. As a result, soon after the aforementioned event I had to see a judge. He had me sentenced me to be confined to the Oroville County jail for five days. While there I met an old SDA fellow prisoner who only confirmed my ideas about SDAs. He was a real legalist. My last night in jail something miraculous happened (I will not go into that now, but to say), God spoke to me very clearly in and through the Bible making it very clear that He wanted me to go back to Adventism. I ended up at PUC within a month or so of this and there I came to see that He led me back to learn the truth—His truth about the Gospel of the Kingdom and its King. You will probably doubt all this, but I cannot. Such is the nature of that sort of personal experience. It is not something provable to anyone else. Anyway, I am not an SDA because SDAs have been nice to me (at times it has been far from it!). I am not an SDA because of EGW. I am not an SDA because they have that upbeat joyous spirit like other Christians. I am not an SDA because they are the most dedicated. I am an SDA because I know for certain this is where God wants me to be and because by His Spirit He opened to me the truths of His Word which confirm every SDA “pillar.” Back in those days I made a commitment that by God’s grace I would never believe anything that I could not see for myself in God’s Word. I have a few hundred books in my library of the neglected uninspired (I hardly ever read them). Then I have another library of 66 books. That is the one I concentrate on. I respect but do not put much into Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, etc. God can speak to me and to us all better I think if we would lay aside the words of men in favor of the words that the Spirit inspired to be written. I do not share this with many people, in fact this may be the first time I have told anyone this: One thing that God emphasized to me in that jail cell is found in 1Jn. It was as if the Lord said this is for you,

I Jn 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

This verse is why I decided to put all my trust in His Word and not surrender my mind to the teachings of men.

About Greg’s comments on my interpretation of EGW and etc. Greg I accept your rebuke humbly concerning bringing up your background—of which I admittedly know nothing at all. Point taken. Sorry.

Greg and all: After reading Greg’s comments I have all the more reason now to say this, I can accept that you read EGW differently from me. I truly disagree with your reading of her. And just as I show below in response to Ane, I disagree with her. Going at this matter of the IJ and bringing in EGW is reasonable since that is where it seems you all learned the doctrine, but it also seems reasonable to just stay with the Bible now. I have NEVER sought to or set out to defend EGW on the matter of the IJ, so can you agree with me to limit your appeals and arguments and appeals to the Bible?

To all:
Funny how we all agree that works are just the evidence of faith, they glorify God’s power—but they cannot be brought up by God in our defense? Funny how we are both secure in the merits of Christ and I still don’t have a problem just accepting the fact that the Bible says we will be judged.

dwayne:
Ok maybe I misunderstood you. Go ahead and have a joyous weekend and as long as you are at it, let it extend into eternity. And, as long as you are not thinking I am lost, you can get as worked up as you want to about my understanding of doctrines.

Now back to what I believe:)
You wrote, “What Jesus did not do was emphasize man’s works as being the determinating factor for salvation.”

I see a judgment according to works in Jesus’ teaching concerning the parable of the sheep and goats, in His parable of the 10 virgins, in His admonitions that believers must forgive or loose their salvation.

In His answer to the rich young ruler He did not teach a legalistic method of salvation, he showing him what real faith does--it bears fruit. Notice the two things He taught this young man: 
1. Matt 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments .... 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:
2.  (Verse 17 continued:) ...and come and follow me.

In the order given in the story, but not in the order of importance:
1. The young man asked what he should do. Jesus told him what to do. He told him to keep the law of love for God and man to the point of giving up all for God and man. This is an evidence of true faith and love for God that overcomes the accusation of Satan that God is wrong to give him salvation’s fruit (the fruit Christ’s justifying merits ): eternal life. It is not biblical to limit our understanding of “salvation” to something that happened on the cross, or to what happened when we accepted Jesus as our savior. Salvation includes something we do not have yet, deliverance from this world of pain and persecution and temptation, as well as salvation from “the first” death, i.e., new bodies that live endlessly. You are not saved completely until you are saved from everything that opposes Christ and you.
2. Then He offered him Himself the one and only way to forgiveness, the one and only source of faultless righteousness.

I see Jesus teaching the judgment of works in Luke 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, 24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

I see Paul teaching the judgment of works in Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life .... 10 ... glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law .... 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

I only believe what they taught. That we are saved from the condemnation of the law by the cross, and we are saved from the enemy of souls by having faith, real faith shown in faithfulness. WHAT HAVE I GOT TO WORRY ABOUT AS LONG AS I AM NOT IN REBELLION TO GOD? NOTHING. SO I AM AS SECURE AS ANYONE ELSE IN THE FORUM! Pretty neat I can read the above texts and take them simply as they read and have no fear of the judgment.

As I said before, this debate over the merits of the Reformed doctrine of perseverance has been fought for a long time. Great minds have rejected it. These same persons have had security in Christ. By the way the quote Ane cited from EGW:
“Those who accept the Savior, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved. –Christ’s Object lessons, p. 155.
This is taken way way out of context by legalists and by those who seek to defame EGW (who end up accepting the interpretation of the legalists!). She is talking about people who have false faith. They put their faith in themselves and think they are above temptation. The sentences before and after the one cited make this very very very very clear. What is wrong with telling people not to say they are saved from temptation? Yes, that is the bottom line of what she is telling us. That is not telling them not to have faith in God’s love and power to save them. That is telling them not to have faith in their power to save them! Hummmm, sounds like righteousness through faith in Christ to me:)

Stan:
I have been praying...how are things going?

Well you cite 2 Cor 5. Let me add the verse before the one you cite,
2 Cor 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

There you have another example of acceptance based on labour or works. What do we do with that? Dismiss it, reinterpret it? Or accept it? To me it is no problem. A distinction between the judgment and the cross makes this easy to understand and no threat to my assurance of eternal life. In fact if you were to look carefully at what I say about assurance, you will see that the IJ enhances assurance. And this point is essentially brought out here. Paul also makes this point in this passage from Hebrews (PLEASE NOTICE THE FORMULA FOR “FULL ASSURANCE” it is the same in both passages— it is “accepted of him” in 2Cor):

Heb 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. 11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: 12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Praise God! I have assurance and so do you. I think we all have it the same way, but not all of us realize how it really comes to us. Just look at the study above on 1Jn and at these passages and you will see the inspired wisdom on how we have true assurance. This lesson of assurance is as old as Cain and is still true as both John and Paul affirm. God told Cain,

Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (RSV, also, KJV, NIV)

As other translations bring out, if Cain had obeyed he would have been the first person to show that obedience leads the believer to experience the joy of their salvation, to the joyous assurance of God’s acceptance in the Savior.

John Douglas:
I agree with you, if any SDA thinks of God and the basis of salvation as you describe it, it is indeed pathetic.

Bobj, JessD and to all:
You write: “In the IJ, the SINNER is examined to see if HE is perfect and able to stand before God without sinning and without Christ.”

It is unfortunate that people think this way about the IJ. That is not the Biblical picture. Most everyone on this forum represents the IJ doctrine this way or something similar. But think about it, seriously think about this: The doctrine of judgment being debated here is EGW’s concepts (as you understand them) versus the Reformed doctrine of perseverance. What I am asked to defend is not really Adventism, but EGW. I am sure EGW would want us to develop our doctrine from the Bible. We all agree that this is the way to truth. Yet it seems that EGW is the only authority allowed to speak to this issue of the IJ. Even JessD who starts off with the Bible ends up referring to EGW. It seems quite clear to me that your understanding of the Bible is still guided by EGW, albeit in a negative, argumentative way. You read the Bible to oppose her. It is like anger that continues to control the life of the offended. There comes a time to move on. So why not have a clear eyed study of the Bible on the question of the IJ, instead of this hammering based on your understanding of her?

Speaking of reading the bible guided by outside influences: Obviously the Reformed doctrine of perseverance has a profound influence in this forum. I am reading your Biblical support for it as it comes up. I understand your positions and see that you have some reason to believe the Reformed doctrine is true. However, its interpretations of scripture flies in the face of a whole mass of biblical evidence to the contrary. I have given you and continue to give you passages that tell us believers can fall and be lost. I note that very few of those passages have been explained as to how they fit with the Reformed doctrine. And no one has taken up the challenge to explain why Adam and Eve would be treated differently. No one has taken up the challenge to explain how this doctrine affects their understanding of the Incarnation, no one has explained the way this affects the angels. Was Christ one of us or not? How could any of these fall if the perseverance of the saints was consistent? Or, why would these be treated or made differently? Is anyone going to take this on?

Greg:

On J. I. Packer:
I see your point. Packer disagrees with my understanding of Rom 8. Well, if I stand alone, am I thereby proven wrong? It is not a happy prospect, but it is not unheard of, and it is not a proof of being incorrect. What proof does Packer offer but his own opinion? I give you passage after passage that insist that we can fall and be lost. What proof does Packer here add to your contention that this is not possible?

On that part of Packer’s contention that “It is best, with the RSV, to read the reference to Christ in Romans 8:34 as a question. ‘Who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus...’All that Paul says serves to show that the idea of Christ condemning us is absurd. “

Packer’s quotation of the RSV seems to give some authority to his contention that Paul tells us that Christ will not ever condemn. But the RSV is not a help here. But I am getting ahead of myself.

First let me say that Packer seems to be a good Calvinist as he renders Romans 8:33, but his views are not universally accepted. I can honestly say that I am at least not alone in disagreeing with this point of his comments; for, consider this other commentary on Rom 8:34:

[Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died.] A number of expositors (after Ambrose and Augustine) read this as a question: “God that justifieth?” (Will He bring a charge against His own elect?) “Who is he that condemneth? Christ that died?” (Will He condemn them?) So Erasmus, Locke, DeWette, Olshausen, Alford, Jowett, Webster and Wilkinson, Green; and so Lachmann prints his text. But besides that this `creates (as Tholuck remarks) an unnatural accumulation of questions, it is (to use the not too strong language of Fritzsche) intolerable; for God is thus represented as the judge; but it is the part of a judge not to accuse, but either to acquit or condemn the accused? ‘ We may add (with Meyer) that such an idea is against all Scripture analogy, and could never come into the apostle’s mind-- that after he had spoken of God’s being so for us that none can be against us, and His giving such a Gift as secures every other, and giving such a Gift as secures every other, and having on the ground of this challenged any to criminate God’s elect-- he should turn round and ask, if “God that justified” would at the same time criminate them, or “Christ that died” for them would at the same time “condemn” them. Plainly, it is to creatures only that he throws down the challenge, asking which of them would dare to bring a charge against those whom God has justified-- would condemn those for whom Christ died. (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)

Now I emphasize the part of this quote that challenges Packer:
“...it is the part of a judge not to accuse, but either to acquit or condemn the accused? ‘ We may add (with Meyer) that such an idea is against all Scripture analogy, and could never come into the apostle’s mind...”

Also on this point, it is helpful to note that the RSV adds the words “is it” to the text [“is it Christ...?”]. The case is pretty weak for turning this passage into a question as to whether Jesus would condemn, and thus it is pretty weak support for the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.

Packer maintains that justification in Christ and thus His judgment to give us justification will not be overturned by anyone else. If Jesus says a person is justified who can effectively oppose that? No one. No disagreement here.

But does Packer prove that the justified cannot repent of their covenant of salvation with Christ? Does he prove that Satan cannot accuse us before God? He says so, but what explicit evidence does he offer to support this? Nothing really. What do you gain in citing Packer? I cannot see it. Is it there?

It is futile for Satan to accuse us. Indeed. Yet, it has been futile for him to oppose God from the start, it has been futile to oppose our salvation from the start, the picture of his attempt to overthrow God in Rev 20 is truly a amazingly futile scene. It is all insane. Madness. Yet he opposes us nonetheless to the very end.

One more thought in passing: I will not go into this in depth here, but I lay before you this challenge: It is because some readers of this passage do not understand the Hebrew OT justice system that informed the thinking of the writer of Romans 8 that they cannot see the accuser in the mental picture drawn by Paul. Anyway, there were real accusers of the saints when Paul wrote Romans and there still are. Packer and other’s interpretations seem to me to be adaptations of the text to the Reformed doctrine more than clear eyed considerations of the linguistic, historical, and literary facts and eschatological implications of Romans 8.

New Mexico:
You wrote:
“ I understand ministers can not work for the church unless they accept Mrs. White as the inspired Bible commentator whose teachings are always the final word. Am I right that the for the SDA minister, it is OK to use the Bible so long as you use it to prove EGW doctrines?”

The practical truth is that not all SDA ministers believe in EGW the same way. Some hold her in higher esteem than others. I am afraid that your understanding is informed by someone’s hobby horse brief against the church and EGW. There is no universal policy such as you picture here nor as your second sentence states.

New Mexico, your understanding of the IJ is not correct. I don’t know of anyone who would put it the way you have. I sure don’t believe as you have stated it. You might have a few slivers of it, but as combined as they are with gross errors I reject it. Put together the way you have it, it is a monster that I would immediately kill if given the opportunity. It is as the toenails of Christ glued to the feet of a devil. How can I say anything good about such a freak?! New Mexico, I have my doubts that you learned that from an SDA. Isn’t this really your negative interpretation-explanation of it? If you did learn this from some one else, I suggest that you get away from them.

Just a note that Pastor Williams’ reply was moved to a new thread–see above.

Pastor Williams, I am delighted that you categorically reject the interpretation of the scapegoat which I presented.  In a discusssion with the local SDA pastor, it was my impression that he didn’t seem to see anything particularly wrong with that interpretation. 

In my previous post, I didn’t offer the evidence from which I drew my conclusions about what Mrs. White teaches conerning the sanctuary and the scapegoat.  Here are a few quotes which to me appear to state exactly what I stated previously.  I also hope pastor Williams understands I’m serious about these questions and not just trying to attack the SDA church.

1. The first statement explicitly states that, in the daily service, the death of the victim didn’t cancel the sin. This statement unambiguously states that the sinner was “not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law.”

Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinners stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law.
The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan; Great Controversy. 1888; 2002.
Pacific Press Publishing Association

2.  This second quote not only states that the righteous will be living without an intercessor but also unambiguously states that the sins which had been confessed will be placed on Satan “who must suffer their punishment.”

As Jesus moved out of the most holy place, I heard the tinkling of the bells upon His garment; and as He left, a cloud of darkness covered the inhabitants of the earth. There was then no mediator between guilty man and an offended God.... In that fearful time, after the close of Jesus’ mediation, the saints were living in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. Every case was decided, every jewel numbered. Jesus tarried a moment in the outer apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and the sins which had been confessed while He was in the [BEGIN P.281] most holy place were placed upon Satan, the originator of sin, who must suffer their punishment. {EW 280.2}

3. This passage not only tells us that people burn for varying times depending on the severity of their sins, but again explicitly states that the sins of the righteous have been transferred to Satan “who must bear their penalty.” It also tells us Satan will suffer much longer than anyone else.

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. They “shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall bum them up, saith the Lord of hosts.” Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished according to their deeds. The sins of the righteous have been transferred to Satan, the originator of evil, who must bear their penalty. Thus he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit. His punishment is to be far [BEGIN P.489] greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch,-- Satan the root, his followers the branches. The justice of God is satisfied, and the saints and all the angelic host say with a loud voice, Amen. {4SP 488.1 } The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 4. 1870; 2002. Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association

As I see things, Because Mrs. White wrote so much, it is possible to find EGW quotes which seem to fit every occasion depending partly upon who she copied at the time.  Over the years, I have observed battles over EGW quotes in which each side would have their stack of cards with EGW quotes, leaving the impression that her writings have no center.  However, so far as I can tell, these quotes above, do represent her center since they are the natural product of the Adventist sanctuary teaching which is absolutely fundamental to EGW theology. 

I read that when Walter Martin talked to the church leaders, they appeared to be shocked when he read passages from the church’s own publications which taught what the leaders considered heresy.  Let me quote from a book which I understand was so highly regarded by the church leaders shortly after Glacier View that it was sent gratic to every pastor in North America.  Last time I checked, this book is still available in the Book and Bible houses.  The author is very well known in Adventist circles.

Thus Adventism has emphasized a qualification of the term “complete atonement” Adventism recognizes that Christ was fully God, that He lived a sinless life, that He died a vicarious death and fully paid the penalty for man’s sins.
But Adventism teaches that in its fullest sense the “complete atonement” does not end with the cross, any more than in the Mosaic type did the atonement end with the slaying of the Lord’s goat. The blood of the goat had to be carried by the high priest into the sanctuary and there applied against the sins of the people that had accumulated there, symbolically, throughout the year. If there was anyone in the camp who did not participate in the coverage, that person was “cut off” from the people.
Similarly in antitype, as the book of Hebrews explains, Christ as our High Priest carried the efficacy of His sacrifice into the heavenly sanctuary. There, as we request the application of His sacrifice to us personally, the work He did at Calvary is made effective to us today.
And that is not all. The Hebraic Day of Atonement did not end until the scapegoat was taken into the wilderness. So in its fullest sense, Christ’s work of atonement is complete when the last vestige of sin is destroyed.
Hiding just beneath the surface of Adventism’s sanctuary discovery was a point of law that gives the deepest insights into the nature of sin. In the investigative judgment Christ was determining who would receive final judgments for eternal life. For those who did, He would remove from the books of heaven every trace of the records of their sins. But sin, as so clearly illustrated in the Hebrew services, does not disappear. Sin is a hitchhiker from the realm of death, yearning to go home but unable to get there unless it is attached to some living being. Sin, we are told, is the transgression of the law, and the law can only be transgressed through the act of an intelligent mind. Thus, sin will not walk on its own power down into the lake of fire; it will be carried there by someone. That, in the end, is what the story of the scapegoat is all about.
And that explained why sin, even though forgiven, remained on the books of heaven. It had to remain there, for one day sin would be carried to destruction, and Christ had provided mankind with two alternatives as to how that might be done. One could accept salvation, or one could reject it, and thus himself carry the responsibility for his sins into the lake of fire. Lewis Walton, Decision at the Jordan, pp. 70-72, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington DC, 1982.

I hope I’m wrong and have misunderstood Lewis Walton, but to me it seems he agrees with the scenario I presented earlier. He stops short of saying explicitly who carries responsibility for the sins of those who accept salvation into the lake of fire but to me it seems clear what he means.

Anyway, pastor Williams, as I said before, I’m delighted you reject that scenario.  I’m quite isolated from Adventists so am not always sure what the church teaches any more.

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

[quote author="Williams"] Dear Ane:
The sort of progressive revelation you speak of is not the sort of progressive revelation I believe in. I am not saying that EGW was wrong. I am saying that there is more to the IJ than she realized. Yet, I see no conflict with what she has said and what I see in the Bible: There is a judgment of believers, there is an investigative aspect to our judgment, Jesus is going to save the saints, but Satan accuses them, Jesus enters into dispute with Satan over the saint’s future (as with Job, Joshua, and Moses), based on our works that are the evidence of our faith Jesus declares that the saints have proven that He is right about them (2Thess 1:3-5), then Jesus rebukes and silences Satan.

My apologies Ane for stepping in here.

Bro Williams,

Do you actually believe that you have biblical support the for the IJ of the saints with 2 Thess 1:3-5? How about reading the rest of 2 Thess 1 and then tell us just who is to receive judgment.

5 This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering–

6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you,

7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels

8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power,

12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. (ESV)

Here’s what I have observed from the plethora of apologists for sdaism, IJ, and egw. They see the word “judgment” in scripture and in their zeal to prop up their precariously perched IJ, they quote the biblical location. What they don’t seem to realize is that upon a carefull and prayer-full contextual reading a totally different picture emerges.

To God be the Glory.

Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

Just to clarify I, Pastor Williams am the anonymous of June 30, 2007 22:10

Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

Dear New Mexico:
I will have to give more careful attention to your support in EGW for your views. As I have written. It seems to me that it would be better to stay with the Bible in this discussion. However, I admit and have admitted before, that such challenges are fair. They are justified, but because of time and because I like to base my beliefs on the Bible alone, I would rather not have to explore these issues based on our reading of EGW. Anyway, give me some time and perhaps I will get back to you on this. I will close this part of my reply by simply saying that I often do not get the same thing out of EGW that other’s on this forum get.

As for Lewis Walton: I do not think you realize how biblical what he wrote really is. Perhaps the rest of his book gives the inspired support for what you quote. However, in my own study of atonement I come to basically the same conclusions he does. But I do not get out of what he says the same thing you do. Take your computer and your Bible program and do a word search (it is best to use the Hebrew version of the Englishman’s Concordance for this) on the word atonement and read all the passages. A careful study of each passage will show you that Lewis Walton is correct. In my book The Silencing of Satan I touch upon this subject in the last chapter.

Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

Dear Dwayne:
You wrote:
“Do you actually believe that you have biblical support the for the IJ of the saints with 2Thess 1:3-5?
How about reading the rest of 2Thess 1 and telling us just who is to receive judgment.”

Then after quoting 2Thess 1:5-12 you wrote: “Here’s what I have observed from the plethora of apologists for sdaism, IJ, and egw. They see the word “judgment” in scripture and in their zeal to prop up their precariously perched IJ, they quote the biblical location. What they don’t seem to realize is that upon a carefull and prayer-full contextual reading a totally different picture emerges.”

Good question! Well brother Dwayne this is not one of those times when the context has been ignored. Of course you don’t realize it, but, you have opened a new door of difficulty not for me, but for anyone who doubts the Adventist understanding of the OT support for the IJ.  As a matter of fact the first chapter of 2Thess is one of the most powerful supports for the IJ in all the NT.

I will start my answer to your question with this suggestion: Take a look at the NIV’s translation of the whole passage:

2Th 1:5 All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you. (NIV)

Look at this too:
2Th 1:6 while at the same time he is preparing judgment and punishment for those who are hurting you. (TLB)

I do not cite the TLB as proof of anything but that Taylor recognizes that there is a transition of thought from the case of the believer to the case of those who persecute the believer.

I have noticed that the passage you cite and Rev 2:23 have one very important thing in common. They both have the same thematic parts as Daniel 7 and 8. So strong is this connection that it is not too much to say that they are addressing the same thing and that thing is the investigative judgment. There is also a powerful, but little recognized thematic connection with the day of atonement, as found in Lev 16. Most of this is all in my book. But for now, since you don’t want to read it, and since I don’t want to rewrite my book here, I will just tell you that what you have here in 2Thess 1 is reflected in Dan 7 and 8. The order of themes is not exactly the same but it is there. Since you know that Dan 7 and 8 are at the heart of most expositions of the IJ I assume you will see that such a connection would make 2Thess 1 very much an IJ passage.

Also of note is this: It is the author’s background in the OT inspired system of justice that is key to bring into a truly biblical effort to understand Dan 7, 8 and 2Thess 1 and Rev 2:23.

Now, to now answer your question in a simple and straightforward way (who is being judged): 2Thess 1 addresses the judgments of the saved and the lost. It is not a either/or situation. 2Thess 1:3-5 contains a inspired insight into the evidence employed to vindicate us in the judgment of the saved. Then in verse 6 Paul transitions to the judgment of the persecutors. It is as easy as that.

Now, my wife wants me to help get rid of some things in the garage. This is my third project today. The garbage disposal was first. Restoring the DSL was second (I am glad not to have to depend on slow dial up after a few days of lost DSL) Anyway, since I know you love me and don’t want me to be out in the dog house tonight, I just know that you will understand why I must go!

Pastor Williams,

I will not press you further concerning Ellen White if you prefer, however as you say, to ask an Adventist pastor to explain EGW is completely fair.  Until the SDA church is willing to allow it’s members and preachers the freedom to openly reject Mrs. White’s authority, the church must answer for whatever is found in her writings.

Incidentally, here is another passage in EGW which makes the same point. I believe the passage is self explanatory, so I won’t belabor the point.

Important truths concerning the atonement may be learned from the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner’s stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the day of atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this general offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself, and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people. {4SP 265.1} Such was the service performed “unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” And what was done in type in the ministration of the earthly, is done in reality in the ministration of the heavenly. After his ascension, our Saviour began his work as our high priest. Says Paul, “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” [HEB. 9:24.] In harmony with the typical service, he began his ministration in [BEGIN P.266] the holy place, and at the termination of the prophetic days in 1844, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, he entered the most holy to perform the last division of his solemn work,--to cleanse the sanctuary. {4SP 265.2}
As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. This necessitates an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigative Judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem his people; for when he comes, his reward is with him to give to every man according to his works. [REV. 22:12.] {4SP 266.1}
Thus those who followed in the advancing light of the prophetic word saw that instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, into the presence of God, to perform the closing work of atonement, preparatory to his coming. {4SP 266.2}
It was seen, also, that while the sin-offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scape-goat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly [BEGIN P.267] penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin-offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scape-goat. When Christ, by virtue of his own blood, removes the sins of his people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of his ministration, he will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. The scape-goat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished from the presence of God and his people, and he will be blotted from existence in the final destruction of sin and sinners. {4SP 266.3}

The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 4. 1870; 2002 . Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association

Pastor Williams said:

As for Lewis Walton: I do not think you realize how biblical what he wrote really is. Perhaps the rest of his book gives the inspired support for what you quote. However, in my own study of atonement I come to basically the same conclusions he does. But I do not get out of what he says the same thing you do.

I don’t want to belabor the issue about Lewis Walton too much since he is not here, however since you believe Lewis Walton’s statement is Biblical this is a good point to begin a Biblical discussion.  In the last paragraph Lewis Walton makes the following statement.

And that explained why sin, even though forgiven, remained on the books of heaven. It had to remain there, for one day sin would be carried to destruction, and Christ had provided mankind with two alternatives as to how that might be done. One could accept salvation, or one could reject it, and thus himself carry the responsibility for his sins into the lake of fire. Lewis Walton, Decision at the Jordan, pp. 70-72, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington DC, 1982.

Pastor Williams, here is my problem whith this his theology, if Jesus death actually atoned for my sins, exactly why does confessed sin “have to remain in the books of heaven” and why does Satan have to carry my sins Jesus already died for into hell?  To me, this can only mean one thing, Jesus blood enables Him to move sins around, but doesn’t actually destroy the sin.  If Jesus’ blood is capable to destroy sin, then the sins wouldn’t still exist for Satan to carry into hell. This was the point I made originally, that it appears “Jesus’ blood is just some kind of lubricant by which He can move sins around from place to place in the sanctuary, but doesn’t actually destroy sin.”

Pastor, I don’t want to push this discussion into an argument, but if you wish to discuss the Biblical support for the Adventist scapegoat theory, I’d be delighted.  From the EGW quote I just gave, it is clear that the scapegoat theory is central to the Adventist belief of an Investigative judgment. Also from my own study, I’m only aware of the passages in Leviticus 16 which discuss the scapegoat.  I have found nothing in Leviticus 16 to indicate the scapegoat is intended to represent Satan, infact the context makes that quite unlikely.  Also I have found nothing in the rest of the Bible to support the Adventist position on the scapegoat. It appears to me that from the Biblical standpoint the entire Adventist Sanctuary teaching including the Investigative Judgment stands or falls on the validity of their position on the scapegoat.  Untill the SDA church can proved their theory on the scapegoat is Biblical, the rest of the Biblical proofs are meaningless.

After Glacier View, I bought and studied the book by the Doctrinal Review Committee about the scapegoat.  Their arguments struck me as very strained and highly improbable.  To me, it appeared they had set out to prove a previously conceived position rather than attempting to discover what the original author meant since they had to completely retranslate several passages of scripture completely contrary to what the major translations have. In my experience, those who have to disagree with all major translators, to support their position are usually on very shaky ground.  Unless they actually have new evidence such as a new ancient scroll to support them or unless they can find other Biblical passages that support their new translations the odds are very great that they are wrong.

Pastor Williams, you have mentioned several times that you don’t want to rewrite your book here.  If it will help, and if you are going to be around for awhile, I will buy and read your book.  I’m very serious about trying to understand your position. 

I’m quite curious about your hesitance to discuss Mrs. White’s statements about the Investigative judgment.  Excuse me if I misunderstand, but isn’t the entire point in writing an apologetic defending the Investigative Judgment to defend a position arrived at by the Adventist pioneers including Mrs. White?  You say you prefer defending the Investigative judgment from the Bible, but since the term “Investigative Judgment” doesn’t appear in the Bible, exactly what do you propose to defend?  It makes about as much sense as if I told you I am going to defend “Mickey Mouse” from the Bible and prove that “Mickey Mouse” is Biblical.  Your first reaction would be, what is this “Mickey Mouse” which you are trying to defend?  In the same light, when you propose to defend the “Investigative Judgment” from the Bible, other people have the right to ask, “where did you get that term and what does it mean?” It is impossible to defend a position unless you first define what you are defending, and so far as I can tell since the SDA term “Investigative Judgment” comes directly from Mrs. White’s writings, you are primarily trying to defend her doctrine.  If that is the case, it is extremely difficult to avoid discussing her writings.

Like New Mexico, I think it is very fair to ask an Adventist pastor to explain the writings of Ellen White, after all, the church still teaches that she is an “authoritative source of truth”.

Pastor Williams, you said previously that Ellen White “may not have fully understood how right she was”, but you effectively deny her clear words by reinterpreting her writings.  You say “I read her differently than you do”, but her words speak for themselves and are not difficult to understand.

Now you’re asking us to ignore Ellen White and rely solely on the Bible to find the support for a doctrine that would not exist without her.  This line of reasoning gives the appearance of wanting to retain the title “investigative judgment” while dispensing with the historic teaching.

All the while we must find reasons to water down and ignore some of the most profound words of assurance offered to the beliver in Scripture.

Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 ESV)

As I said before, my only hope in this discussion is that we can rejoice together in our salvation, acknowledging that Jesus is able to keep us blameless--yes, he will surely do it.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

To all:
I will give you a very simple answer to your questions about why I hesitate to move away from the Bible in this discussion. I am busy and would like to limit our discussion to make it easier to keep up with your questions.

Next, it the matter of the source of the doctrine. You have maintained that the IJ doctrine would not exist without EGW. I am sure the this is not true. The ible shows that it has existed since Eden.

Which takes me to the next matter: Even though I admit that your questions about EGW’s views are fair, it is becoming a diversion from the Biblical evidence. It is also fair to expect that you will give attention to the Biblical evidence that I am sharing with you. But it seems to me that EGW has become a way to divert attention from what I am sharing with you. I am asking questions and getting few answers.

So, I am reluctant for this reasons.

Taking my wife and children out to eat now. Blessings to you all.

Pastor Williams, you can’t claim to defend the investigative judgment from the Bible if what you are defending is different from the historic Adventist teaching.  This is essentially the same observation made by guibox (an Adventist) in this post.

Maybe you are convinced that your insights on this subject are more biblically accurate than Ellen White’s.  If this is indeed what you believe, just say it plainly so we can address your teachings without being weighed down by hers.

Greg

Pastor Williams,

You made the following comment:

Next, it the matter of the source of the doctrine. You have maintained that the IJ doctrine would not exist without EGW. I am sure the this is not true. The ible shows that it has existed since Eden.

If you wish not to discuss Mrs. White’s contribution to the theology that is your priviledge.  However for clarity, shouldn’t we drop the term “investigative judgement” entirely since it is not Biblical terminology.  In other words, if we are going to derive our theology directly from the Bible shouldn’t we begin by using Biblical terminology which everyone understands? 

Since the Bible doesn’t begin by discussing the end of the world or about end time judgment first but rather begins with the fall of man, the promise of a Messiah, and with Israel’s call to be a nation at Sinai, for me atleast, it seems fair to try to establish a common understanding of the gospel first, before moving into a discussion of end times. Along those lines, I have two very basic questions:
1.  We know there were many sacrifices during the year.  I believe we all agree that every sacrifice pointed forward to one event, Jesus death on the cross?  If we do agree that all sacrifices point to the same event which happened only once, at one point in earth’s history, when Jesus died on the cross, is there any reason to view the sanctuary service as a time prophecy which extended over thousands of years?  Is there anything in the Bible to indicate that?
2.  Then there is the scapegoat, if we accept that all the other sacrifices, in all their variety, and at all times of the year, point to one Christ event which happened on the cross, is there any reason to make an exception for the scapegoat and to assume that the scapegoat points to Satan rather than to Jesus?  Where is the Biblical evidence to establish this exception?  If the scapegoat represented Jesus, doesn’t it, just like all the other sacrifices, point to Jesus’ one death on the cross?

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Pastor Williams

You said:

“You have maintained that the IJ doctrine would not exist without EGW. I am sure the this is not true. The ible shows that it has existed since Eden.”

Are you saying the IJ began in Eden not in 1844?

Ane