- Sep 23, 2005
- 32,689
- 6,107
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
He used it as an evidence of the judgment, but that does not follow if a judgment is not required for him to know.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jesus doesn't need a judgment to know who's saved and who's lost. Yet there will still be a judgment. I think ECR's point is that judgment for the righteous will be complete at the second coming.
That notwithstanding, the word judgment is used to mean many a thing. For the most part, we see judgment in the bible as an act of punishment from God. That's not what we're talking about here though. I do believe Peter was alluding to the words of the prophet Ezekiel. I believe though that in Ezekiel's vision, the call for the servants of God to be sealed, was a revelation of what was to happen at the end of time.
You haven't referenced what prophecies you think establish the specifics of the IJ.I'm convinced by the explanations regarding prophecies. As I told Tall already, I'm not going to argue that point. He used to believe that point. Now he doesn't. If you disagree with the prophetic explanations, and can't see the correlation between the earthly and heavenly sanctuary, then there's nothing more I can really say, that hasn't been said already.
How many of whoever see's what we see is irrelevant. The bible teaches it, and I see it plainly now. It's the only explanation that makes any sense. I for the life of me can't even understand why this is a problem for most people (I mean I can as the adversary will do all he can to distract people from seeing Christ in the heavenly sanctuary). Not everything in scripture is spelled out. Some messages are given cryptically, so that only those who truly are seeking them, may find them.
Either you've started a new tradition of speaking in 1st person, or your account has been HaX0r3D
Stryder said:Like I was saying to Tall. I was using that text to simply say that judgment for the righteous begins before the 2nd coming.
Your text did not establish an Adventist IJ.
You haven't referenced what prophecies you think establish the specifics of the IJ.
You keep saying you won't debate it ,but yet you keep responding. And in your response you don't provide the scriptures that actually have what is needed.
So if you do not plan on debating, and you don't plan on giving the necessary texts, what is your reason for continued posting that you will not engage in the conversation?
Stryder, that is non-sense.
I don't think it is
First, I don't think it's "very few". And second, I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's a testament to the very words of that woman who was a messenger of God. Third, I've never been one to think that numbers indicate truth. Were that the case I'd be Catholic.You indicate it doesn't matter that very few people, all from the same church, with the same extra biblical source, are the ones who see it.
You really think that is a coincidence, that the only ones who see it are those who also hold to a prophet who says it is there?
Because you wouldn't receive anything we'd show you. I don't understand why you even bother responding. It's not like we'd have something different to show you, and I don't think we'd need to. You used to believe/teach this yourself.Then you indicate that it is not "spelled out". Well I would agree with that. We haven't seen a text in this thread yet that gives the criteria Ellen White assigns.
Then you indicate that it is a secret that only you and those who are really seeking it can find
I agree with that. Only those who REALLY WANT to see the IJ (which they already have a concept of) in the Bible will find it there.
It's there. The name may not be, but the process is. Judgment of the righteous occurring before the 2nd coming? Check. An established timeline for said judgment? Check. A judgment for the wicked? Check. Final judgment against Satan? Check. We simply connect the dots.Most people who go only by the Bible would not KNOW to seek for it at all. They don't read the Bible in order to seek for something they already hope to find. They pick up the Bible to find what is there.
No. What I really mean is what I said.So perhaps what you mean is that those who have been told it is there and are REALLY seeking for it are going to find it one way or another.
Why are you even asking? Again, it really boggles my mind why you bother coming here. Unless, like Crib, you consider this to be some call from God to show us the error of our ways.In any case, now that you found it, by all means show us how you got there. Or if you can't be bothered, then just let someone else do it.
By your response your purpose for stringing this text with others was to present the judgment of the righteous.Yes Peter is saying be wise, but he is also saying that the time for judgment of the house of God is to begin. Like I was saying to Tall. I was using that text to simply say that judgment for the righteous begins before the 2nd coming.
Tall, what do you see as the fulfillment of the day of atonement if not the IJ? Why would the 2300 day prophesy be closed with the cleansing of the sanctuary if it didn't have to do with the cleasing of the sanctuary which was the day of atonement?
If you think the 2300 day prophesy has another time fulfillment other than 1844, please enlighten us with it.
I'm pretty sure that I said I was only showing Peter's text because I thought you were saying that the only judgment that was going to happen, was going to happen at the second coming. I also believe that Peter wasn't stating that the judgment was happening right then, but rather, that it was about to begin.
I don't think it is possible to rule out a judgment before Jesus coming. On the other hand I don't see the specific IJ of Adventist doctrine spelled out in Scripture. The following elements are part of that IJ:
a. Beginning in 1844
b. only on the professed people of God
c. in fulfillment of the Day of Atonement cleansing.
I have found no scripture that has all those elements.
I keep responding because I want toYou keep asking me questions and I'm trying to make sure you understand the purpose of my initial response. I can respond with out debating. Or maybe I just don't want to let you have the last word. Who knows
First, I don't think it's "very few". And second, I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's a testament to the very words of that woman who was a messenger of God. Third, I've never been one to think that numbers indicate truth. Were that the case I'd be Catholic.
Because you wouldn't receive anything we'd show you. I don't understand why you even bother responding. It's not like we'd have something different to show you, and I don't think we'd need to. You used to believe/teach this yourself.
Funny. I see it the other way. Only those who REALLY DON'T WANT to see the IJ (which they don't want to have a concept of) won't find it in the bible.
It's there. The name may not be, but the process is. Judgment of the righteous occurring before the 2nd coming? Check. An established timeline for said judgment? Check. A judgment for the wicked? Check. Final judgment against Satan? Check. We simply connect the dots.
A. Since I never said the only judgment was at the second coming you were arguing against a straw man.
I simply believe it's applicable to our time. That's all.As for Peter's text, the entire context is about what they were going through then. If you want to say he meant something else, spell out why, not just say that you believe it.
Glad that's ok with youSo you intend to add nothing to the conversation but keep telling us your opinion.
Ok.
I thought you meant Adventism, not Christianity as a whole. To that you are correct.Stryder, the number of people within Christianity who hold the the IJ is amazingly few.
Tall, you're the one with a problem with Sr White. Not me. I have no problem stating that I believe she did a great job in helping to explain this doctrine.And you just admitted those who do believe it do so because of Ellen White. Congratulations.
I didn't say I only see it because of Ellen White. I believe she was of great use explaining it, but she is not the source. I made the connection, after getting older, simply by looking at the earthly sanctuary, which is a pattern of the heavenly one. You'd be surprised at just how little of Ellen I've actually read. But I guess that's neither here, nor there. I can't help that you don't see it in the scripture, but I do.Now as to numbers, if no other folks are seeing your interpretation of a Scripture, you admit it is not spelled out, and you then admit that the only way to see it is to get it from Ellen White then look REALLY HARD, what are you saying?
Right right. Blind...brainwashed....etc, etc. I get it.You only see it if Ellen White tells you to.
Right. False prophet...no scriptural support...we're wrong...etc, etc...So much for Adventist doctrine all coming from the Bible.
Tall, I've said I'm not going through this with you because WE'VE DONE THAT ALREADY... I've had this conversation with you in the GT area. You've analyzed every scripture that I've shown you previously and explained where I was in error. I'm not a big fan of being redundant.So far you have not even shown a text that YOU admit "spells it out" and you admit it is not spelled out.
The whole reason I stopped teaching it is I realized I didn't have texts that said it.
A play on words in response to your remark.That is the exact opposite of what you said before.
And Stryder, people are not born with a concept of the IJ. If it is not spelled out, and you can only get it from Ellen and then try to see it in the Bible, then you are admitting it is not in the Bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?