The books of Hebrews and Revelation prove the unchangeableness of God's Holy Law. (2)

[VictorC]

I did. The sanctuary is in the bible. That's Exodus. Once you're done there you would need to study the Daniel. Follow that up with Revelation, and you've got the IJ.

This is vague to the point it isn't an effort. Would you mind telling me why the most adamant believers of the Investigative Judgment doctrine are those who don't actually know what it is, and routinely misrepresent it?

 

[Stryder06]

So all you're doing is looking for converts. This is strictly forbidden by the rules.

Isn't it also forbidden to bare false witness. I'm not looking for converts. Wheter they agree or not is on them, but I would at least prefer for one not say we teach something we don't.

 

[Stryder06]

This is vague to the point it isn't an effort. Would you mind telling me why the most adamant believers of the Investigative Judgment doctrine are those who don't actually know what it is, and routinely misrepresent it?

It isn't vague. I'm very serious. That's where I started my study, and that's when it went beyond something I was told to something I understood.

And I couldn't tell you that. I don't know anyone that adamantly believes in the IJ that routinely misrepresent it.

 

[VictorC]

It isn't vague. I'm very serious. That's where I started my study, and that's when it went beyond something I was told to something I understood.

And I couldn't tell you that. I don't know anyone that adamantly believes in the IJ that routinely misrepresent it.

You didn't answer my question, and it is obvious that someone living in an alternate reality doesn't have the faculties to.

 

[Stryder06]

I think you are right in my case. I do have a bias against Seventh Day Adventism. It does not come from any dislike for Adventists or even for some Adventist doctrine but for the system and its foundations. I do not trust nineteenth century prophets nor the systems of dates they invented. My dislike is based on evidence but it is not based on exhaustive understanding of SDA doctrine. So I do not blame you for giving up on some discussions.

I guess it's a good thing we don't have a 19th century prophet who invented any dates

 

[Stryder06]

You didn't answer my question, and it is obvious that someone living in an alternate reality doesn't have the faculties to.

No, what I didn't do was give you ammunition to argue. Doing such is really pointless. If you really want to know about the IJ I told you where to find it in the bible. If you just want to find someone to fight with about what you have already determined is a false teaching, then you'll have to do that with someone else.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I guess it's a good thing we don't have a 19th century prophet who invented any dates

You do

 

[VictorC]

No, what I didn't do was give you ammunition to argue. Doing such is really pointless. If you really want to know about the IJ I told you where to find it in the bible. If you just want to find someone to fight with about what you have already determined is a false teaching, then you'll have to do that with someone else.

So far you've dismissed two lines of questioning. This seems a good time to add a third line: How do you reconcile a judgment convened on God's redeemed with God's promise to them "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more"?

 

[Stryder06]

You do

Really? What was that? You do know Sr White wasn't a prophet right?

 

[Stryder06]

So far you've dismissed two lines of questioning. This seems a good time to add a third line: How do you reconcile a judgment convened on God's redeemed with God's promise to them "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more"?

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

I do believe you have a linear perception of what "judgment" is. This is why I'm telling you that you have to start with the Sanctuary. Move from there to Daniel, and then end with Revelation. Or as LP stated, you can look at Israel from Egypt to Canaan. That's essentially a shadow of God's dealing with His church.

 

[VictorC]

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Your example from 1 Peter 4:17 violates the definition of the IJ:

• Convened only after 1844, 'it is...in 1844...to perform the work of investigative judgment'
• Addresses only the 'professed people of God', and is not a general judgment
• Adventist soteriology is dependent on this alleged judgment, 'their names will be blotted out of the book of life'

You're showing others that you don't know what the IJ is alleged to be, and you haven't answered my question why those believing in it do so in nearly uniform ignorance of the doctrine.

I do believe you have a linear perception of what "judgment" is. This is why I'm telling you that you have to start with the Sanctuary. Move from there to Daniel, and then end with Revelation. Or as LP stated, you can look at Israel from Egypt to Canaan. That's essentially a shadow of God's dealing with His church.

Repeating this misrepresentation of the doctrine confirms your ignorance of what you hold so dear to you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Really? What was that? You do know Sr White wasn't a prophet right?

Yes I do, and I have seen in the 28 fundamental beliefs that she is part of "the spirit of prophecy" thing. Thus a prophet of sorts in the teaching of SDAs. I'll accept your word regarding her status as long as it is consistent with the fundamentals. She is 19th century.

 

[Stryder06]

Your example from 1 Peter 4:17 violates the definition of the IJ:

• Convened only after 1844, 'it is...in 1844...to perform the work of investigative judgment'
• Addresses only the 'professed people of God', and is not a general judgment
• Adventist soteriology is dependent on this alleged judgment, 'their names will be blotted out of the book of life'

You're showing others that you don't know what the IJ is alleged to be, and you haven't answered my question why those believing in it do so in nearly uniform ignorance of the doctrine.

This was your question: How do you reconcile a judgment convened on God's redeemed with God's promise to them "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more"?

1 Peter answers that soundly. And it applies. You'll have to take my word for it that I understand the IJ better than you do.

Repeating this misrepresentation of the doctrine confirms your ignorance of what you hold so dear to you.

Like I said, you'll have to take my word for it that I have a better understanding of it than you do. But if you want to think I don't, there's really nothing I can do to change that now is there?

 

[Stryder06]

Yes I do, and I have seen in the 28 fundamental beliefs that she is part of "the spirit of prophecy" thing.

Why do you call it the "spirit of prophecy thing"?

Thus a prophet of sorts in the teaching of SDAs.

That's incorrect. Sr White never claimed to be a prophet, and in honest those of us who out of habbit have referred to her as such have done her a disservice.

I'll accept your word regarding her status as long as it is consistent with the fundamentals. She is 19th century.

She is 19th century

 

[MoreCoffee]

Brother Stryder06, if she was not a prophet - and I'll take your word on that - and she is author of many letters, books, articles through which a number of SDA distinctive beliefs are articulated in an authoritative form then is she in effect a kind of deceased guide for SDAism?

 

[VictorC]

This was your question: How do you reconcile a judgment convened on God's redeemed with God's promise to them "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more"?

1 Peter answers that soundly. And it applies.

I had expected you to be familiar with the context surrounding 1 Peter 4:17, and had realized that Peter describes judgment in the form of persecution by unbelievers. I shouldn't have made this assumption, unless you wish to contend that God is an unbeliever in God's redemption. This verse doesn't describe judgment on His own by His own memory of our sins He promised "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more". It remains your task to reconcile His promise with a judgment you can't seem to find described in Scripture.

You'll have to take my word for it that I understand the IJ better than you do.

This remains an unsubstantiated claim that can't be reconciled with what Ellen White wrote describing it.

Like I said, you'll have to take my word for it that I have a better understanding of it than you do. But if you want to think I don't, there's really nothing I can do to change that now is there?

This comes as an admission that you can't support it.
Why then do you adhere to a belief there is no Biblical support for?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'll accept your word regarding her status as long as it is consistent with the fundamentals. She is 19th century.

She is 19th century

aka a "new religion"

Duran Duran New Religion - YouTube



.

 

[Stryder06]

I had expected you to be familiar with the context surrounding 1 Peter 4:17, and had realized that Peter describes judgment in the form of persecution by unbelievers. I shouldn't have made this assumption, unless you wish to contend that God is an unbeliever in God's redemption. This verse doesn't describe judgment on His own by His own memory of our sins He promised "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more". It remains your task to reconcile His promise with a judgment you can't seem to find described in Scripture.

I'm thinking you must have made that up, because Peter says that if we barely pass the judgment, what will happen to those who don't obey the gospel. Those who don't obey the gospel would be unbelievers.

This remains an unsubstantiated claim that can't be reconciled with what Ellen White wrote describing it.

What? That I know the IJ better than you can't be reconciled with what Ellen wrote? Ok

This comes as an admission that you can't support it.
Why then do you adhere to a belief there is no Biblical support for?

I've made no such admission. I think you see what you want. It's very sad.

 

[Stryder06]

Brother Stryder06, if she was not a prophet - and I'll take your word on that - and she is author of many letters, books, articles through which a number of SDA distinctive beliefs are articulated in an authoritative form then is she in effect a kind of deceased guide for SDAism?

You could say that. I myself thought she was a prophet, but then I read a passage where she said she wasn't. Many people get angry about her saying that her work involved more than what a prophet's did, but the way I see it, if she says she wasn't a prophet, than we shouldn't say that she was.

 

[VictorC]

I'm thinking you must have made that up, because Peter says that if we barely pass the judgment, what will happen to those who don't obey the gospel. Those who don't obey the gospel would be unbelievers.

Two possibilities:

• You haven't read the context.
• You have concluded God is an unbeliever.

Neither one of these shows any ability to reconcile SDA doctrine with God's promises to us, His redeemed. Furthermore, admitting that "Those who don't obey the gospel would be unbelievers" illustrates what I pointed out earlier...

What? That I know the IJ better than you can't be reconciled with what Ellen wrote? Ok

...and here it is!

• Addresses only the 'professed people of God', and is not a general judgment

So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God. The judgment of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period.

It is obvious that you don't understand the IJ doctrine.

I've made no such admission. I think you see what you want. It's very sad.

You admitted that you can't find Biblical support for the IJ. You might as well stop where you are.