Can the Investigative Judgement doctrine be explained without reference EGW?

Airdude · Dec 11, 2007

I was born and raised SDA. Educated mostly in SDA schools and always took the church teachings as truth. After college I went my own way in the world for a while and came back about 14 years ago. I have had a real up and down relationship with the church since that time. I have heard the Investigative Judgement presented many times, but never without having to rely on EGW. Dosn't the Bible alone provide all the guidence we need for salvation? Salvation is supposed to be simple eneough for a child to understand. Can I as an SDA know that I have salvation? How discouraging is it if I can't know that I have salvation and that atonement for my sin was completed at the cross!

I don't intend any disrespect. I am just trying to understand.

JonMiller · Dec 11, 2007

Airdude said:
Dosn't the Bible alone provide all the guidence we need for salvation? Salvation is supposed to be simple eneough for a child to understand.

A good reason why the IJ isn't important, even if true.

I am pretty sure that the traditional interpretation is wrong, though.

JM

Airdude · Dec 11, 2007

mjona3 said:
A good reason why the IJ isn't important, even if true.

I am pretty sure that the traditional interpretation is wrong, though.

JM

Thanks, I see that I am not alone in my thinking.

freeindeed2 · Dec 11, 2007

Airdude said:
I was born and raised SDA. Educated mostly in SDA schools and always took the church teachings as truth. After college I went my own way in the world for a while and came back about 14 years ago. I have had a real up and down relationship with the church since that time. I have heard the Investigative Judgement presented many times, but never without having to rely on EGW. Dosn't the Bible alone provide all the guidence we need for salvation? Salvation is supposed to be simple eneough for a child to understand. Can I as an SDA know that I have salvation? How discouraging is it if I can't know that I have salvation and that atonement for my sin was completed at the cross!

I don't intend any disrespect. I am just trying to understand.

Many a scholar(SDA) has tried.

Bourbaki · Dec 11, 2007

Airdude said:
Can the Investigative Judgement doctrine be explained without reference EGW?

There is a Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment and a New Testament version of the doctrine. Between the two versions, there are great similarities and major differences. You only need EGW for the Adventist understanding.

Airdude said:
Salvation is supposed to be simple enough for a child to understand. Can I as an SDA know that I have salvation?

Yes. Even Adventist children can find rest in Jesus but intelligent instruction in the gospel is required. I recommend The Gospel According to Jesus by John F. MacArthur as the best explanation of the gospel available. I think it's much better than Steps to Christ.

annie1speed · Dec 11, 2007

Can we not find this 'intelligent instruction' in the Bible? I believe this is the OP's question.

tall73 · Dec 11, 2007

I just left the Adventist ministry after 10 years because I could not reconcile this doctrine with the Bible.

You can view some of my recent discussion on the issue here:

http://christianforums.com/t6402262-the-ij-and-the-presentation-of-blood.html

StormyOne · Dec 11, 2007

Airdude said:
I was born and raised SDA. Educated mostly in SDA schools and always took the church teachings as truth. After college I went my own way in the world for a while and came back about 14 years ago. I have had a real up and down relationship with the church since that time. I have heard the Investigative Judgement presented many times, but never without having to rely on EGW. Dosn't the Bible alone provide all the guidence we need for salvation? Salvation is supposed to be simple eneough for a child to understand. Can I as an SDA know that I have salvation? How discouraging is it if I can't know that I have salvation and that atonement for my sin was completed at the cross!

I don't intend any disrespect. I am just trying to understand.

same here, and while it is attempted, if people are honest to the word (i.e. correctly interpreting the texts), the IJ cannot be supported from the bible....

mva1985 · Dec 11, 2007

Airdude said:
I was born and raised SDA. Educated mostly in SDA schools and always took the church teachings as truth. After college I went my own way in the world for a while and came back about 14 years ago. I have had a real up and down relationship with the church since that time. I have heard the Investigative Judgement presented many times, but never without having to rely on EGW. Dosn't the Bible alone provide all the guidence we need for salvation? Salvation is supposed to be simple eneough for a child to understand. Can I as an SDA know that I have salvation? How discouraging is it if I can't know that I have salvation and that atonement for my sin was completed at the cross!

I don't intend any disrespect. I am just trying to understand.

I know personally of two pastors who happen to be brothers that would be able to explain it to you.

If you are interested I will get you a link to their websites. Just PM me.

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 11, 2007

The Adventist church has so far been unable to present the IJ without the use of EGW. It is true that orignally the doctrine was presented without the use of EGW as the former Millerites tried to reinterpret their teachings because in 1844 and the subsequent dates set for the second coming did not occur. Even James White rejected the doctrine. But changed his mind about it when it became more accepted in the Adventist church and with EGW's acceptance.

Now in the main it is to the interpretations that EGW presented that Adventists must use to come to an interpretation of the IJ (perferring to find support in the prophet however some will assume their faith in the answers the Adventist Pioneers, thus bypassing EGW). In other words in the chain of things you must believe to arrive at the IJ you have to assume the same interpretations that EGW accepts. Such things as a day for a year or that the 2300 days are begun with the beginning of the 70 weeks. Well there is a whole list of these things you have to accept. For Adventists the main part of which simply accept EGW's authority as prophet so they accept all the parts in the chain. Once you accept all the unique parts of the chain you can say you have arrived at a Biblical interpretation. Of course to do that you have to also take verses such as Dan 8:14 out of context but when you do that and accept all those questionable positions as if they are certain and true. Then you arrive at what so many Adventist will say, which is that they can support the IJ from the Bible only.

mva1985 · Dec 11, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
The Adventist church has so far been unable to present the IJ without the use of EGW. It is true that orignally the doctrine was presented without the use of EGW as the former Millerites tried to reinterpret their teachings because in 1844 and the subsequent dates set for the second coming did not occur. Even James White rejected the doctrine. But changed his mind about it when it became more accepted in the Adventist church and with EGW's acceptance.

Now in the main it is to the interpretations that EGW presented that Adventists must use to come to an interpretation of the IJ (perferring to find support in the prophet however some will assume their faith in the answers the Adventist Pioneers, thus bypassing EGW). In other words in the chain of things you must believe to arrive at the IJ you have to assume the same interpretations that EGW accepts. Such things as a day for a year or that the 2300 days are begun with the beginning of the 70 weeks. Well there is a whole list of these things you have to accept. For Adventists the main part of which simply accept EGW's authority as prophet so they accept all the parts in the chain. Once you accept all the unique parts of the chain you can say you have arrived at a Biblical interpretation. Of course to do that you have to also take verses such as Dan 8:14 out of context but when you do that and accept all those questionable positions as if they are certain and true. Then you arrive at what so many Adventist will say, which is that they can support the IJ from the Bible only.

Nice try!

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 11, 2007

What do you mean nice try? Is there something inaccurate in what I wrote above?

I was just thinking about how James White rejected the IJ but was still one of the leaders of the Adventist movement. How much the church has changed from those early days when we allowed people to disagree about doctrines. We have such an admirable history on some things until we began to see our doctrines as pillars given by God substantiated through Ellen White.

NightEternal · Dec 11, 2007

But wait. Doesn't Cliff claim to be able to prove 1844/IJ/Heavenly Sanctuary all from Scripture alone in his books?

http://www.pacificpress.com/pp/news/content/mediakits/GoldsteinCGraffitiMK.pdf

NightEternal · Dec 11, 2007

I gotta hand it to the man. He may be an apologist of sorts, but I am down with anyone who can raise the ire of the legalists over on GCO

:

The Charge of Roman Catholic Salvation Theology

Two decades ago Brinsmead, Paxton, and Ford launched the astonishing claim that an understanding of salvation such as we have just described is Roman Catholic and not Protestant. In recent years this same claim has bubbled to the surface on a repeated basis in columns appearing in theReview.

Goldstein confuses infused righteousness with imparted righteousness. Roman Catholicism teaches infused righteousness -- a righteousness that fills the believer as if he were a battery. The believer becomes the static container of a righteousness supplied by the divine but located in the sinner. Also in Roman Catholicism, you can only fill your infused righteousness gas-tank at the filling station that is located at the Roman Catholic Church; the church itself and only the church dispenses to the receiver.

Imparted righteousness is a righteousness that God gives to the receiver, but only as the receiver continues to abide in the vine. This has been compared to a trolley car experience, and with good cause, for the broken nature of fallen humanity has no gas tank that can be filled. The circuit between the believer and God must remain operational, the link cannot be severed, the current must flow, or no righteousness can be manifest in the life. This is the righteousness of which inspiration teaches.

Actually, Goldstein's claim is just a rehash of all those earlier claims -- claims that the church rejected two decades ago, yet which we discover today being pressed upon our people from our denomination's flagship publications. The "Catholic theology" charge is a misstatement of the facts. A careful study of the teaching of numerous Protestant teachers, particularly in the branch of the Reformation Adventism links most closely to, the "Radical Reformation" (here began the Anabaptists, Baptists, Mennonites, and others), reveals that regeneration, an inward work of righteousness, was understood by them to be a necessary element of the salvation process. And these were anything but Roman Catholic! Only a certain branch of the Reformation held to the formula of counted-righteousness alone as the whole of salvation.

Goldstein actually puts the Catholic theology ahead of the authentic Adventist theology here, for at least, he says, the Catholics provide some hope for their people by providing the teaching of purgatory! We "don't even offer that," he reminds us.

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-conu.php3

Go Cliff! :clap:

This is what I have been trying to get across in the year I have been here!

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37977122&postcount=5

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37986866&postcount=8

http://christianforums.com/t5959255...rating-justification-from-sanctification.html

I have been reported, censored, chastised, criticized, called every foul name in the book from 'heretic' to 'demon' as a result.

http://christianforums.com/t5422204

http://christianforums.com/t5387717

If the Trads hate you, then you are on the right track!

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 11, 2007

Yes and cliff said in the Atomorrow.com forum that he would show the Ij without using EGW in the quarterly when he produced the lesson study guide on the Ij the gospel and 1844. He was not even close to successful.

mva1985 · Dec 11, 2007

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/investigative-judgment.htm

digdeep · Dec 11, 2007

NightEternal said:
I gotta hand it to the man. He may be an apologist of sorts, but I am down with anyone who can raise the ire of the legalists over on GCO :

The Charge of Roman Catholic Salvation Theology

Two decades ago Brinsmead, Paxton, and Ford launched the astonishing claim that an understanding of salvation such as we have just described is Roman Catholic and not Protestant. In recent years this same claim has bubbled to the surface on a repeated basis in columns appearing in theReview.

Goldstein confuses infused righteousness with imparted righteousness. Roman Catholicism teaches infused righteousness -- a righteousness that fills the believer as if he were a battery. The believer becomes the static container of a righteousness supplied by the divine but located in the sinner. Also in Roman Catholicism, you can only fill your infused righteousness gas-tank at the filling station that is located at the Roman Catholic Church; the church itself and only the church dispenses to the receiver.

Imparted righteousness is a righteousness that God gives to the receiver, but only as the receiver continues to abide in the vine. This has been compared to a trolley car experience, and with good cause, for the broken nature of fallen humanity has no gas tank that can be filled. The circuit between the believer and God must remain operational, the link cannot be severed, the current must flow, or no righteousness can be manifest in the life. This is the righteousness of which inspiration teaches.

Actually, Goldstein's claim is just a rehash of all those earlier claims -- claims that the church rejected two decades ago, yet which we discover today being pressed upon our people from our denomination's flagship publications. The "Catholic theology" charge is a misstatement of the facts. A careful study of the teaching of numerous Protestant teachers, particularly in the branch of the Reformation Adventism links most closely to, the "Radical Reformation" (here began the Anabaptists, Baptists, Mennonites, and others), reveals that regeneration, an inward work of righteousness, was understood by them to be a necessary element of the salvation process. And these were anything but Roman Catholic! Only a certain branch of the Reformation held to the formula of counted-righteousness alone as the whole of salvation.

Goldstein actually puts the Catholic theology ahead of the authentic Adventist theology here, for at least, he says, the Catholics provide some hope for their people by providing the teaching of purgatory! We "don't even offer that," he reminds us.

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-conu.php3

Go Cliff! This is what I have been trying to get across in the year I have been here!

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37977122&postcount=5

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37986866&postcount=8

http://christianforums.com/t5959255...rating-justification-from-sanctification.html

I have been reported, censored, chastised, criticized, called every foul name in the book from 'heretic' to 'demon' as a result.

http://christianforums.com/t5422204

http://christianforums.com/t5387717

If the Trads hate you, then you are on the right track!

I have always seen Clifford Goldstein as a traditional Adventist. He defends 1844 quite well I think. His book "The Great Compromise" explores deeply the RC Gospel and the doctrine of Justification by Faith.

DD

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 11, 2007

mva1985 said:
http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/investigative-judgment.htm

Nope it fails also. It begins with the presupposition of the IJ as a fact and then simply tries to use bible texts as if they are speaking about IJ subject matter. It begins with this:

A Biblical Basis for

The Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment

by Bob Pickle

Seventh-day Adventists teach that phase one, the investigative phase, of the Judgment began in 1844 at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, and that this phase will conclude just before the seven last plagues are poured out and Christ returns. This is a judgment that only considers the cases of professed believers, and is the antitype to the ancient Day of Atonement when the sanctuary was annually cleansed. Is there a Biblical basis for these views?

As you go though his supposed textual support you quickly see that it is a doctrine that has to be presupposed. In other words it is a doctrine read into the Bible rather then a doctrine derived from the texts. Of course to do that he makes untrue claims such as:

2. Before God either hands down a sentence or executes judgment, He always investigates the facts of the case, even though He already knows everything. First He searches hearts, then He rewards.

No that is not true, for instance no investigation before the flood, no investigation before the destruction of sodom. Yes in that case the messengers from God talked to Abraham but they did not investigate anything. But as long as you agree with these kinds of frequently used Adventists presuppositions then people think that they are making a case. But it is all based upon having a desired outcome before hand.

freeindeed2 · Dec 11, 2007

NightEternal said:
I have been reported, censored, chastised, criticized, called every foul name in the book from 'heretic' to 'demon' as a result.
http://christianforums.com/t5387717
If the Trads hate you, then you are on the right track!

Ahhh...can you feel the love? It's like I can hear that song...

"They will know we are Christians
By our love, by our looooove...
Yes, they'll know we are Christians
By our love."

Airdude · Dec 11, 2007

Now a follow up to my original question.

If I have an ongoing relationship with Jesus and living the Christian life and daily confessing and asking forgiveness of sin does the Investigative Judgement really make any difference to me? I don't see it as necessary to my salvation.

Can the Investigative Judgement doctrine be explained without reference EGW?

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

In Christ We Are FREE!

Visiting Seventh-day Millerite

Senior Member

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Evangelical SDA

Evangelical SDA

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

In Christ We Are FREE!

Regular Member

Similar threads