Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist

[The Liturgist]

I would have to say yes. God wanted to save not just the individual but also the society, because that's where we, as individuals, have to live. If God is concerned with social conditions, and angry at social injustice, and I know He is, then He is as interested in the collective as He is in the individual.

So I would agree with you that the Bible seems to focus on the collective more than with the individual. But I don't think this is out of disregard for the importance of the individual. Rather, individual relationship with God has been a given from the beginning, and it is everywhere implicit in every individual mentioned in the Bible.

But the collective, the nation, or nations--plural, need to be addressed because that is where human relations and social evils become a problem on earth that God wants to remedy. He wants us restored in a relationship to Himself, but some of this is so that we can relate properly to our neighbor, to one another.

So God set up and institutionalized a legal form of worship in the OT era such that an entire nation can practice the same religion and all collectively relate to God and to one another in a peaceful, spiritual way. But it is always understood that not all individuals will cooperate. And even those who observe the common religious rituals could do so deceptively, hiding their corrupt ways beneath a religious veneer.

Hopefully, I got your point?

Yes, largely. Although the system God set up in the Old Testament continues in the New - the Church, however you define it ecclesiologically, for example:

- Invisible Church Ecclesiology which is very popular among Evangelicals in which the Church is an invisible union of all Christians (I am sympathetic to this model, but I dislike its lack of a focus on Eucharistic unity, on communion, which characterizes the other popular models)

- the Roman Catholic ecclesiology where the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope is the Church (I am not a huge fan of this model since it makes the Pope the only bishop to have the same authority that most bishops in other churches with episcopal polity such as the Orthodox, Anglican, Old Catholic, Assyrian, Methodist, Moravian and many Lutheran churches typically have, since usually all bishops, or at least all diocesan or equivalent bishops have).

- the Local Church ecclesiology of Baptists, Congregationalists and the Stone/Campbell movement, among others, which is focused on the Local Church where the Gospel is proclaimed, assembled as a Congregation around the Lord’s supper (I rather like this given my Congregationalist background and those aspects of the Stone/Campbell movement, that is, the Churches of Christ and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ that I also like, such as its focus on Christian unity and the weekly celebration of Holy Communion).

- A similiar ecclesiology taught by Martin Luther and adhered to by a majority of Lutherans, albeit one with more of a focus on correct doctrine, and one which is permissive of episcopal and presbyterian forms of church polity, regarding church polity as a matter of adiaphora, whereas those who adhere to Local Church ecclesiology really want a congregational polity where each local church is self-governing (I really also like Luther’s approach to ecclesiology).

- The ecclesiology of apostolic succession as defined by St. Cyprian of Carthage, which is followed by most Eastern Orthodox and a majority of the Oriental Orthodox, which is based on apostolic succession from Orthodox bishops in communion with each other since the Apostles (obviously I am very committed to this theology).

- “Branch ecclesiology” which relies more on apostolic succession as defined by St. Augustine of Hippo, and which is preferred by most Anglicans and other Protestants with Apostolic succession, such as Moravians, some Lutherans, some Methodists, most bishops of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, some of the Oriental Orthodox including if I recall most members of the Armenian Apostolic Church, and also Old Catholics, both the conservative jurisdictions such as those in the Union of Scranton, and the liberal jurisdictions such as those of the Union of Utrecht (I also greatly like this ecclesiology).

- A permutation or combination of the above, as well as other, less common approaches to ecclesiology, some of which I greatly like and some of which I particularly dislike.

Basically, regardless of which one of those models of the Church, whose existence we confess in the Nicene Creed, you subscribe to, that Church is now what unites us as the Body of Christ, according to St. Paul, and is the entity in which we Christians serve together as a Royal Priesthood, with Christ as the High Priest (where Priest means Hierus or Sacerdos or Kohen and not Presbyter (Presbuteros, meaning Elder in Greek) which it was originally an Anglicization of, now more commonly Anglicized as Presbyter; we are all Priests but we are not all Presbyters). According to St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians and other epistles, in Baptism we are grafted onto the Body of Christ - the Church. And this is in effect the New Israel, or rather a reformation of Israel, since Second Temple Judaism had developed serious faults, and it was time, with the coming of Christ, to move away from the practice of animal sacrifices in the Temple and only a limited number of Kohanim who would serve as intermediaries between us and God; we are now all a priest, and our prayers in a sense allow us to intercede for non-Christians, since we can and should pray for peace, and for the welfare of all, and for our enemies and those who persecute us, since as non-believers, they are not members of this priesthood.

 

[The Liturgist]

Some think that having a "relationship with God" is extraordinary, "mystical," and controversial. But those who think this way are either skeptical that God can be touched at all, or they are believers who limit their experience of God to Sunday rituals.

This is technically incorrect, although I don’t fault you for not knowing about this, since Eastern Christianity is obscure, and its obscurity is largely our fault; only now are we beginning to get widespread attention, and even now Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East remain obscure. But to sum it up, what Orthodox Christians believe that a relationship with God is extraordinary and mystical, but we also believe that we can directly participate in the energies of God, and that since God became Man in the person of Jesus Christ, we can touch Him, in the World to Come, and also in the Eucharist, since the Bread and Wine become his actual Body and Blood. And we do not limit this experience to Sunday, we believe in prayer without ceasing, and some of us, for example, monks and laity devoted to Hesychasm, pursue continuous prayer, and many see the Light of Tabor. And we also do not limit our church attendance to Sunday; Vespers or All Night Vigils on Saturday is a major part of Orthodox worship, and also the Divine Liturgy itself is served very frequently, and can be, and in some churches and almost all monasteries (that have a priest; some convents do not, and so attend the Eucharist at nearby parishes and serve the divine office in their monasteries, but others are served by a priest most days or every day of the week), is, served every day of the year except for Great and Holy Friday (Good Friday).

t any rate, prayer to God should extend far beyond the church walls, and express concern not just for our fellow congregationalist, but also for everybody in the world. And we should embrace any particular set of spiritual gifts God wants us to have. If we've made Him Lord, then we should accept His gifts and be responsible with them. And we shouldn't be afraid of criticism from others who have no such experiences.

I agree entirely! What you have just expressed is a classically Orthodox Christian sentiment; it was that belief that drew me to Orthodoxy.

Although I do not believe that Speaking in Tongues as practiced by Pentecostals is actually what that charism is; I believe some have that charism and it is much more subtle and consists of an ability to communicate with those that one does not share a common language with. I do believe that among some very pious and elderly Christians, such as some Orthodox monastics, one will encounter prophets, and others with various charisms, so I am not a cessationist, but I disagree with Pentecostal and Charismatic interpretations of the charisms.

 

[RandyPNW]

This is technically incorrect, although I don’t fault you for not knowing about this, since Eastern Christianity is obscure, and its obscurity is largely our fault; only now are we beginning to get widespread attention, and even now Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East remain obscure. But to sum it up, what Orthodox Christians believe that a relationship with God is extraordinary and mystical, but we also believe that we can directly participate in the energies of God, and that since God became Man in the person of Jesus Christ, we can touch Him, in the World to Come, and also in the Eucharist, since the Bread and Wine become his actual Body and Blood. And we do not limit this experience to Sunday, we believe in prayer without ceasing, and some of us, for example, monks and laity devoted to Hesychasm, pursue continuous prayer, and many see the Light of Tabor. And we also do not limit our church attendance to Sunday; Vespers or All Night Vigils on Saturday is a major part of Orthodox worship, and also the Divine Liturgy itself is served very frequently, and can be, and in some churches and almost all monasteries (that have a priest; some convents do not, and so attend the Eucharist at nearby parishes and serve the divine office in their monasteries, but others are served by a priest most days or every day of the week), is, served every day of the year except for Great and Holy Friday (Good Friday).

You seem to need religious ritual, infrastructure, and authority to direct your worship through? Or are these disciplines/exercises simply superstructure to support what otherwise operates as worship outside of them?

For example, I can experience Christ everyday and anywhere, without the Eucharist. Do you need the Eucharist or some monk's belief about spirituality to justify your own worship of God?

I have no problem with putting to use various liturgies, confessions, prayer practices, or abstinences of various kinds, to supplement my worship. But for me, worship is purely a relationship with God, much as I communicate with you right now. You are invisible, but I know you're there.

Quite frankly, some of us have been turned off by any sense of a *required* formality, as if fellowship with the Lord must be channeled through someone else's idea of love or worship. At the same time, we all need some kind of structure to keep ourselves disciplined and focused.

1 Cor 14.7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

We do need some order to our lives. Routines are valuable. Repetition helps the memory.

I agree entirely! What you have just expressed is a classically Orthodox Christian sentiment; it was that belief that drew me to Orthodoxy.

Although I do not believe that Speaking in Tongues as practiced by Pentecostals is actually what that charism is; I believe some have that charism and it is much more subtle and consists of an ability to communicate with those that one does not share a common language with. I do believe that among some very pious and elderly Christians, such as some Orthodox monastics, one will encounter prophets, and others with various charisms, so I am not a cessationist, but I disagree with Pentecostal and Charismatic interpretations of the charisms.

I've been in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles for over 50 years, but I was raised a Lutheran. This has resulted in my picking and choosing what I prefer to believe based on my understanding of Scriptures, and only taking into consideration what others may think.

So I don't agree entirely with anybody, and nobody agrees entirely with me. I believe in tongues, but I don't believe in them the way Pentecostals do. I don't believe Christians are able to exercise all of the gifts of the Spirit because Paul noted that God gives gifts as He wills--not as we will. "Do all speak in tongues," Paul asked rhetorically? The answer, obviously, is no.

All of the so-called "prayer language" and much of the supposed "healings" are farces, in my view. However, I prefer to not make much controversy of it, since I value people being Christians more than I value them conforming to my beliefs.

Thanks for your comments!

 

[The Liturgist]

You seem to need religious ritual, infrastructure, and authority to direct your worship through? Or are these disciplines/exercises simply superstructure to support what otherwise operates as worship outside of them?

Neither. The celebration of the Eucharist is the joyous communion of members of the Orthodox faith, but only a minority of us go to church more than once a week, and some of us due to health problems, lately including myself, aren’t able to attend weekly.

For example, I can experience Christ everyday and anywhere, without the Eucharist.

So can we, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Indeed this is the raison d’etre for Hesychasm, the goal to pray without ceasing.

Do you need the Eucharist or some monk's belief about spirituality to justify your own worship of God?

No, however, partaking of the Eucharist is extremely beneficial, which is why Christ ordained it for us, in 1 Corinthians 11, and in the equivalent narratives in the last supper, as a perpetual anamnesis of Him, until he returns. Our Church unites in Holy Communion.

This view of the Church as united Eucharistically, in Holy Communion, is not exclusive to the Orthodox; it is shared with the Lutherans, the majority of Anglicans, the Roman Catholics and even the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, who are as low church as you can get but who celebrate the Lord’s Supper every week without fail, which I admire them for. indeed those churches, which originated in the Stone/Campbell movement, are the only Restorationist churches I really like.

 

[The Liturgist]

So I don't agree entirely with anybody, and nobody agrees entirely with me.

What you expressed in that paragraph I agreed with in its entirety. So while obviously I do not agree with everything you say, I did agree with everything you wrote in it, assuming I read it correctly.

I would note by the way that being intentionally disagreeable on issues of doctrine does not seem compatible with Christ’s expressed desire for our Unity, that we may all be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:21-23). So if you are refusing to agree with people because you fear to agree entirely with someone, just for that reason, as opposed to a legitimate doctrinal consideration I would regard that as spiritually unhealthy.

 

[RandyPNW]

Neither. The celebration of the Eucharist is the joyous communion of members of the Orthodox faith, but only a minority of us go to church more than once a week, and some of us due to health problems, lately including myself, aren’t able to attend weekly.

Good answer. I wish you God's best with your health.

So can we, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Indeed this is the raison d’etre for Hesychasm, the goal to pray without ceasing.

Good answer. I pray without ceasing without any particular formality. It's called "walking with God." See Enoch. I don't have to keep silent or nothin'.

No, however, partaking of the Eucharist is extremely beneficial, which is why Christ ordained it for us, in 1 Corinthians 11, and in the equivalent narratives in the last supper, as a perpetual anamnesis of Him, until he returns. Our Church unites in Holy Communion.

I don't personally call the Eucharist ritual "extremely beneficial." Beneficial is good enough, because it's a regular reminder with emphasis. So I suppose really, we agree.

This view of the Church as united Eucharistically, in Holy Communion, is not exclusive to the Orthodox; it is shared with the Lutherans, the majority of Anglicans, the Roman Catholics and even the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, who are as low church as you can get but who celebrate the Lord’s Supper every week without fail, which I admire them for. indeed those churches, which originated in the Stone/Campbell movement, are the only Restorationist churches I really like.

I like any kind of Reformation or Awakening, assuming it is an attempt to reform *spiritually,* based on the Bible. I'm not against creeds or against intellectual unity, which seemed to be the Stone/Campbell approach. Actually, preachers like Wesley and Finney had tremendous effectiveness, even though they were "Free Will" advocates, ie Arminians. I am, however, more Calvinist, and believe that Calvinists have remained truer, traditionally, with biblical orthodoxy.

I have no problem with the historic/high churches with the one exception that anything old tends to grow stale after awhile. They will always need restoration. No need to keep traditions that are no longer relevant. To speak to today's generation we need to use modern language without compromising spiritual truth. All communions are welcome.

I've had friends who are quite bright, who are somewhat eccentric in reaching into rare pockets of interest in history to maintain more depth in their outlook. Nothing at all wrong with that.

 

[RandyPNW]

What you expressed in that paragraph I agreed with in its entirety. So while obviously I do not agree with everything you say, I did agree with everything you wrote in it, assuming I read it correctly.

I would note by the way that being intentionally disagreeable on issues of doctrine does not seem compatible with Christ’s expressed desire for our Unity, that we may all be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:21-23). So if you are refusing to agree with people because you fear to agree entirely with someone, just for that reason, as opposed to a legitimate doctrinal consideration I would regard that as spiritually unhealthy.

Yes, I follow something my father used to hang on our basement wall: "If you can keep a level head in all of this confusion, you just don't understand the situation."

Unity in Christ with liberty. One spiritual experience, the essential doctrines, and freedom to make mistakes, mature, and change one's opinions.

 

[BobRyan]

Having read your entire thread I can say, in the words of that Greatest Of All Time Joe Biden, "Man, that's malarkey".

you would not be he first person to dismiss a lot of scripture.

I like the logic, reason and lack of attention to scripture detail in your response though because a well-reasoned objection would be more of a problem to deal with as I am sure you and I can both understand.

You can call me a low information reader all you want

ok.. fine.

.But there is no investigative judgment in Scripture

since you are not even responding to the OP or any text on the thread - I again appreciate the fact that your position needs to ignore that much of the Bible.

I take that as somewhat of an affirmation.

 

[BobRyan]

Dan 7 starts with the four empire sequence of vs 1-6.

Then after the rise and splitting of the fourth empire - at some point the judgment event in vs 7 happens.. In haven obviously.

Dan 7
9“I watched till thrones were put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was seated,
And the books were opened.


That event triggers the "judgment seat of Christ"
John 5:22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,

So then no wonder we see the "Son of Man" going to the "Ancient of Days" to the court room that is setup and ready to Go - ready to declare conclusions based on the books that are opened ., A corporate event in full view of the court that is seated.

And then when judgment finishes - the 2nd coming according to the end of the chapter.

Dan 7

23 “Thus he said:

‘The fourth beast shall be
A fourth kingdom on earth,
Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
And shall devour the whole earth,
Trample it and break it in pieces.
24 The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.
25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time. (1260 days = 1260 literal years see Dan 9 70 weeks for the same rule in apocalyptic timelines)

26 ‘But the court shall be seated,
And they shall take away his dominion,
To consume and destroy it forever.
27 Then the kingdom and dominion,
And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.’

As we can see the saints are persecuted until the court concludes its work and then Christ's kingdom/dominion on Earth begins.

vs 22 reminds us that at the conclusion of the judgment "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" NASB

That is what stops the persecution of the saints and brings in the kingdom of Christ taking full ownership of events on Earth.

The idea that those scriptures "don't exist" and that the details "can be ignored" if one "wishes them away" is of course not the sound level of Bible informed response this thread is looking for.

Rom 2 describes the process that is used in that judgment

Paul describes that same future judgment this way...

4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and restraint and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will repay each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life; 8 but to those who are self-serving and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of mankind who does evil, for the Jew first and also for the Greek, 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.​

​

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified.​

Very similar to Christ's teaching in Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

That is the chapter where He teaches that "good fruit comes from good trees" and "you shall know them by their fruit"

Rom 2:

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.​

The idea that the Romans 2 details 'don't exist' so there is "no basis for what it says" is again - not the level of informed response this thread is looking for.

Sorry, but this is eisegesis.

calling the mere quote of texts you do not agree with "eisegesis" shows a certain lack of attention to detail as to what the term means.

I suspect you and I both know it.

your lack of attention to detail in that remarks is itself - remarkable.

If you accept that Jesus Christ is God, and accept that God is all-knowing, then the idea of an “Investigative Judgement” makes zero sense.

No statement I have made says "God does not know something" and no statement I have posted says the details in the thread (that you are still ignoring) are saying that God is trying to understand or figure something out.

look at "the details " for Dan 7 and Rom 2 instead of ignoring them. As 2 Cor 5:10 points out each work of each person is brought in review and as Dan 7:9-10 states it is "books opened" and an entire court of NON-God beings that are seeing the evidence and reaching conclusions. It is not the all-knowing God who is trying to figure something out . Rather He is presiding over the court.

Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

The idea looks like it was a pious belief of EGW

EGW is not mentioned at all in this thread

Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

I believe that EGW sincerely believed in the Investigative Judgement.

Not an actual detail in the thread... (again)
Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

But it is not theologically sound

Not a response to any actual Bible detail in the thread ---Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

At any rate, since Calvinists and Methodists and Orthodox can agree that God already knows

This thread is not about God discovering something... Try the method of paying attention to details in the thread please.

 

[BobRyan]

There's a basic disconnect about the nature of the End. Most of the talk about judgements comes from a Christianity that is about individual salvation. But in both Jesus' and Paul's rare descriptions of the End, it's the final defeat of God's enemies and establishment of Christ's rule. (Like Calvin, don't expect exegesis of the Revelation from me.) Both do speak of individual accountability and salvation, but the End is not primarily everyone being brought before God for individual judgement. I don't think how individual judgement occurs is described very clearly. I think there are hints that it's at death.

The complication here is Paul's statements that at the End everyone will be resurrected. This is part of the establishment of the Kingdom, since for the NT the final Kingdom is in a restored world. Not everyone will end up in that Kingdom, but that's just a part of the main theme which is establishment of the new world.

Interesting ideas - but have you considered responding to the two primary texts in this thread on page 1 -- Romans 2:4-16 and Dan 7?
Rom 2 and 2 Cor 5:10 do in fact show individual judgment and Dan 7 has saints being persecuted the entire time the judgment is in progress as the OP and several posts on page 1 - point out.

Have you considered the details actually in the texts in the thread?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
It's judgment of the saints themselves "We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ".
It is the very thing you see in Romans 2 as noted above and also in Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them"
IT is as Dan 7 says - a careful review of what is written in books -- where there are myriads of observes to follow the conclusion in each case.

Again, I agree that a review of what people choose for God is part of the process. I'm just saying that this has been happening perennially, from time immemorial. God is always judging the choices people make, whether for Him or against Him. It will be no different at the end of the age, when societies have come to collective agreement, with the exception of those who reject that collective agreement.

It is as much a choice to reject the ripening of collective world choices as a decision to save those who have been marginalized by their saintly choices. There is no need to overly "institutionalize" this process into what you call Investigative Judgment. However, I won't deny the Scriptural aspect of this, which involves the vindication of the saints against the collapse of the world into Antichristianity.

Just as Christ says in Mark 1:15 "The time is fulfilled" pointing to the Dan 9 statement about 69 weeks (483 literal years) and then the ministry of the Messiah begins (as Christ declares in Mark 1) -- so then when Rev 14:7 says "The hour of His judgment has come" and then we see a corporate (court room) judgment event in Dan convened after the rise and fall of the 4th empire (pagan Rome) and before the second coming of Christ as the Dan 7 chapter points out, it is a very specific judgment event in real time being specified.

Jesus came and was baptized in real time. The very specific judgment event is also in real time and as Rom 2:16 says it was future to Paul's day. Future to 2 Cor 5:10 -- at a time pointed to by Dan 7,8,9.

A time that is fully reached at the point of Rev 14:7 the first angel's message "the hour of his judgment HAS come".
A Time fully reached at the end of Rev 11 "the time came for the dead to be judged"

 

[BobRyan]

It is one thing to pay close attention to the details in the texts on page one and conclude "I see those texts but I don't agree with your conclusions".

It is an entirely DIFFERENT thing to say "I see no texts, I see no case made where you claim your position is based on scripture, rather you claim your basis is tradition or simply making stuff up".

I don't see how this point is even a little bit confusing

 

[chevyontheriver]

you would not be he first person to dismiss a lot of scripture.

Commendable attempt at an insult. However I only dismiss your interpretation of Scripture. I do not dismiss Scripture at all. What I think you are doing is identifying your interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself, as if you were some sort of infallible interpreter of Scripture. You are not actually infallible are you? Was Ellen Gould White infallible in interpreting Scripture? I'm not buying it in her case or in yours. Or for the record, in my case.

I like the logic, reason and lack of attention to scripture detail in your response though because a well-reasoned objection would be more of a problem to deal with as I am sure you and I can both understand.

Whatever.

ok.. fine.

Thank you for confirming your insult.

since you are not even responding to the OP or any text on the thread - I again appreciate the fact that your position needs to ignore that much of the Bible.

Nope. Just rejecting your interpretation of the Bible. There IS a difference. At least a lot of people outside of the SDA don't accept your interpretation. The Scripture is fine. I accept all Scripture. Your interpretation I have problem with. And I'm not alone, as you surely know.

I take that as somewhat of an affirmation.

Take it any way you want it. I had hoped that your absence from this thread for a few days was going to be the end of it. Pity.

 

[BobRyan]

Commendable attempt at an insult. However I only dismiss your interpretation of Scripture.

I point this out in the OP -- because "details matter".

Your ability to "just say 'nay' to any text or any post" is not being doubted.

Rather --

Number #1 - main point

It is one thing to pay close attention to the details in the texts on page one and conclude "I see those texts but I don't agree with your conclusions".

"And here is a logical explanation for why I differ based on looking at the details in those text") (as if that would happen)

It is an entirely DIFFERENT thing to say "I see no texts, I see no case made where you claim your position is based on scripture, rather you claim your basis is tradition or simply making stuff up".

I don't see how this point is even a little bit confusing

I do not dismiss Scripture at all.

By not addressing a single text, not a single point, all you have in substance is: "I just say nay" which of course -- I never doubt your ability to do in that regard. That is a given right from the start. In fact the OP now address the fact that some will come here and pay no attention at all to the details of scripture noted on page one. They will simply "wish away" those text details, not even noticing them.

The key is that even in your extreme "just say nay to your scripture post" -- we are still just talking about the scriptures (scriptures you neither quote nor address in any single detail) -- that IS the discussion.

IT is not a discussion where my argument is of the form "no texts to discuss - so I use tradition or make stuff up instead". And we both know it.

In fact we all can see it in living color on this thread.

That glaringly obvious detail is not even a tiny bit confusing.

You have put yourself in a corner in your prior wild claims that no such "sola scriptura" discussion where I present scriptures to make my case and you "just say nay" is even possible because you have structured your wild claims such that I should not have any scriptures!

You imagined to yourself that I would just be limited to coming up with logic/reason/case for my POV in "tradition".

INSTEAD you have this sola-scriptura thread where all you can do is just say 'nay' to the many texts provided that make the case. Yet even doing so - just shoots your own wild claim in the foot since you positioned it as if I would be saying "no scriptures to read or discuss", as if I would need some other source for the discussion.

What I think you are doing is identifying your interpretation of Scripture

As the OP notes - you are free to do that... but this shoots your own argument in the foot because it means we are discussing my view of scripture and the details in it (that to this very minute you are still ignoring) that make my case. You can just say 'nay' but it is still a discussion about scripture NOT about my claim to tradition and NOT about my claim to make stuff up.

The is the glaringly obvious part of the post. I don't see how it is even a little bit confusing.

with Scripture itself, as if you were some sort of infallible interpreter of Scripture.

You are once again having a scripture discussion - which makes my point as much as you notably ignore every detail in the scriptures quoted.

You are not actually infallible are you? Was Ellen Gould White infallible

Not the topic of this thread.

This thread is about the details in the scriptures on page 1 that you still refuse to even look at , address, comment on , provide reason that addresses the details etc..

Nope. Just rejecting your interpretation of the Bible. There IS a difference. At least a lot of people outside of the SDA don't accept your interpretation.

Interpretation of what? "scripture"! yep that is a discussion about scripture not "my interpretation of tradition" not some claim I supposedly make to tradition - which we can all see - I do not.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You are not actually infallible are you? Was Ellen Gould White infallible?

Not the topic of this thread.

Wow. A simple denial would have sufficed. But then I suspect that maybe a simple denial of your infallibility or Ellen Gould White's infallibility isn't something you could do. Which illustrates the problem I have with SDA interpretations that SDA folks cannot separate from the text itself.

And since you are so wrapped up in your interpretation as God's truth I'm thinking it's just a waste of my time even looking at this thread. So enjoy reiterating your interpretive web over and over again. I'm retiring from this thread. So make up your reply post to this, and slip in some great insults. I'm done.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

You are not actually infallible are you? Was Ellen Gould White infallible?

Not the topic of this thread.

Wow. A simple denial would have sufficed

The case as page 1 shows - is from the texts given. The details in those texts (faithfully avoided by you so far ) show it.

My refusal to get into other topics not in Dan 7 or Rom 2 or the texts on page 1 - is because I choose to stay on topic.

And since you are so wrapped up in your interpretation as God's truth I'm thinking it's just a waste of my time

So far - you ignore every single text, every detail in scripture , and address not one single point on page 1.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers - when they see they were told by you that such a sola-scriptura case could not exist. The case would have to be made from some other source according to your claims.

How is that working out??

I'm done.

I think we are all seeing the same thing then.

 

[Jipsah]

you would not be he first person to dismiss a lot of scripture.

It wasn't the Scripture he dismissed, Bob, it was the extraordinarily, shall we say, creative, way that it was used. The facts is that far from IJ being drawn from Scripture, it was contrived to serve as a way of passing off the failed prediction of our Lord's return in 1844 by saying, "Oh, we were right about the date, we just misunderstoff that was about to happen. What really happened was that out Lord entered the Temple in Heaven to begin the investigation int who's saved and who ain't." And in fact, that has become the standard operating procedure for failed date-setters (which is the only kind there is) when their dates come and go without anthing happenng. The Russelites used the same technique in 1914 ("Millions Now Living Will Never Die!!") when the Lord didn't return, they simply explained the failure away with some rubbish about how the Lord had done something or other in Heaven.

Even as as late as Harold Camping's Easily Predicted Disappointment, he first claimed he'd done his sums wrong, and then apologized. But after his death, his successors claimed that "May 21, 2011 was not the end of the world but merely the beginning of a spiritual judgment that would affect the entire world."

Sound familiar? They claim that "the Judgment Day mentioned in Revelation is not a single day but an extended period to conclude in 2033." I.E, 'No, Harold wasn't wrong about the date, he was just wrong about what was gonna happen. It was the beginning of judgement in Heaven!" Right.

I like the logic, reason and lack of attention to scripture detail in your response though because a well-reasoned objection would be more of a problem to deal with as I am sure you and I can both understand.

Here's something we can all understand - the creation of Investigative Judgement:

Hiram Edson was a Millerite, as was Ellen G. White. Edson was walking from his home on October 23, 1844 after the disappointment. He was met with snide comments about still being here on the earth and the obvious fact that Christ had not returned as they had predicted. In order to avoid more criticism, Edson took a shortcut through a corn field where he had supposedly become enlightened regarding the failed prophecy.
"
Hiram Edson: "Heaven seemed opened to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary,... He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that He had a work to perform in the Most Holy Place before coming to the earth."

Note that this "revelation" didn't come from Scripture, but from Mr. Edson ""saw distinctly and clearly". After that vision:
"Edson shared his new understanding with many of the local Adventists who were greatly encouraged by his account. As a result, Edson began studying the Bible with two of the other believers in the area".

First the vision, then the studying the Scripture. And to no one's surprise, they managed to find some verses, and words, that they couil;d cobble together to find a "scriptural" basis fo this convenient revelation. And from all appearances, Mr. Edson and friends weren't too any proud to grab at Scriptural straws to support their new face-saving "understanding" of their failed prophecy.

since you are not even responding to the OP or any text on the thread

I have, repeatedly, as anyone who'read any of posts here knows full well.

- I again appreciate the fact that your position needs to ignore that much of the Bible.

Gaslighting again, Bob? You and I both know that a good many of your favorite doctrines requires, shall we say, pruning, of New Testament Scriptures that don't fit your often Old Testament rooted doctrines. I don't carry any such burden, since the Bible is no threat to any or mf beliefs.

I take that as somewhat of an affirmation.

Of what? That you've managed to make a 180-year case of "prophetic" butt-covering of the sort that's SOP for failed date-setters sound like holy writ to the credulous? Are you vying for the Grifters' Hall of Fame?

 

[Jipsah]

you would not be he first person to dismiss a lot of scripture.

Or, in this case, a lot of malarkey "supported" by an infinitesimal amount of Scripture. When we start supporting doctrines with individual words extracted with tweezers from a chapter of Scripture which has little or nothing to do with the doctrine it suposedly confirms, that looks an awful lot like a shell game.

I again appreciate the fact that your position needs to ignore that much of the Bible.

You would appreciate it if it did.

I take that as somewhat of an affirmation.

I reckon you gotta take what you can get.

 

[BobRyan]

It wasn't the Scripture he dismissed, Bob

We can all read Jipsah we can all see on this thread that neither you nor he addressed a single text of scripture, a single detail, a single point raise in the text. This is not has hard for us "to read" as you seem to imagine.

, it was the extraordinarily, shall we say, creative, way that it was used.

As the OP states - it is one thing to have a sola scriptura discussion where one person presents texts in favor of a certain POV and another person points to details for why the text details do not fit the POV given, that is still sola-scriptura arguments being tested and then accepted or conclusions rejected. (The very thing you claim cannot happen since you imagine this is not a sola scriptura discussion).

IT is another thing to ignore every single detail and "wish away" the texts.

But even in that extreme case - the only thing being discussed is scripture -- which you claim is not possible for a doctrine that does not come from scripture at all.

The facts is that far from IJ being drawn from Scripture, it was contrived

The texts refute that wild speclation.
Your pattern of avoiding the texts on page 1 entirely - undermine your own claims.

It is you arguing anything-but-the-Bible post after post, as we can all read on this thread.
basically you keep making my point in that regard.

I reckon you gotta take what you can get.

well it is not like I don't appreciate your efforts to soft-ball lob these easy no-text-posts in when you can.

If you have the skill to look at the posts on the thread - read the texts and make your case ... do it. All this anything-but-scripture posting you are doing in your "wish it all away" efforts only makes my case that your claims so far are mere fluff. No substance as of yet. Read the actual Bible texts... make a point.

I don't see how this concept is so difficult "for some".

 

[Jipsah]

The idea that those scriptures "don't exist" and that the details "can be ignored" if one "wishes them away" is of course not the sound level of Bible informed response this thread is looking for.


The idea that the Romans 2 details 'don't exist' so there is "no basis for what it says" is again - not the level of informed response this thread is looking for.



calling the mere quote of texts you do not agree with "eisegesis" shows a certain lack of attention to detail as to what the term means.

I suspect you and I both know it.

your lack of attention to detail in that remarks is itself - remarkable.


No statement I have made says "God does not know something" and no statement I have posted says the details in the thread (that you are still ignoring) are saying that God is trying to understand or figure something out.

look at "the details " for Dan 7 and Rom 2 instead of ignoring them. As 2 Cor 5:10 points out each work of each person is brought in review and as Dan 7:9-10 states it is "books opened" and an entire court of NON-God beings that are seeing the evidence and reaching conclusions. It is not the all-knowing God who is trying to figure something out . Rather He is presiding over the court.

Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

EGW is not mentioned at all in this thread

Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

Not an actual detail in the thread... (again)
Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

Not a response to any actual Bible detail in the thread ---Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

This thread is not about God discovering something... Try the method of paying attention to details in the thread please.

The idea that those scriptures "don't exist" and that the details "can be ignored" if one "wishes them away" is of course not the sound level of Bible informed response this thread is looking for.


The idea that the Romans 2 details 'don't exist' so there is "no basis for what it says" is again - not the level of informed response this thread is looking for.

calling the mere quote of texts you do not agree with "eisegesis" shows a certain lack of attention to detail as to what the term means.

Nah, he nailed it.

your lack of attention to detail in that remarks is itself - remarkable.

Clumsy redirection there. Five yards and loss of down.

No statement I have made says "God does not know something"

Then what need has our Lord to investigate anything? The concept is ridiculous. God is omnipotent or He isn't. Pick one asnd run with it.

and no statement I have posted says the details in the thread (that you are still ignoring) are saying that God is trying to understand or figure something out.

Then the investigation is for...? And just out of curiousity, isn't it interesting that y'all believe that God created the universe in 6 24 hour days, but it's take Him 180 years so far to investigate stuff that He already knows?

look at "the details " for Dan 7 and Rom 2 instead of ignoring them. As 2 Cor 5:10 points out each work of each person is brought in review and as Dan 7:9-10 states it is "books opened" and an entire court of NON-God beings that are seeing the evidence and reaching conclusions.

Why do these NON-God beings have a dog in that fight?

It is not the all-knowing God who is trying to figure something out . Rather He is presiding over the court.

God has to go to court? He's reduced to the status of a lawyer pleading a case, before a jury of beings whose knowledge and understanding are infinitely inferior to His? Seriously?

Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

Has the topic changed now?

EGW is not mentioned at all in this thread

She has now, and she's both relevent and material to this discussion.

Respond to an actual detail in the thread please.

That sounds like "don't say anything I don't want to hear".

This thread is not about God discovering something...

Then again, why does He need to investigate anything?