Does the Thief on the Cross bypass the Invesigative Judgement..

[Stryder06]

That's why the early Church made it clear that man could not know what it is that God is....
....Everthing else in the universe was made of the elements and since God created the world from nothing.
....God's substance would be different than anything.
....Therefore, it's simply substance beyond our ability to understand.

Like I said, not vibbing with the word "substance". That's all I'm going to say.

Bingo - after all these years I've been here - finally, I have the answer...
...So in your view God is one in character, purpose and mind.
....I.E. that Father, Son and Holy Spirit totally agree in what they think and do.
....And as you said Christ does not share in whatever the Substance is that the Father is.
....And same goes for the Holy Spirit?

You're stuck on the word "substance". I'm not. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Anything else regarding their "substance" isn't for you, or your church to try to determine.

Is it your understanding that Christ, prior to the Incarnation, wasn't totally subjected....
....To doing the will of the Father?

I wouldn't say that at all. I don't believe the Father "lorded" over Christ as a master would his subject.

You do agree then that the Bible says in many places that Christ would be the victor....
....And establish His rule in the end & that this is stated most clearly?

We've established that already. And I'm sure if you dig through your collection of studies, you'll see Ellen White affirmed that as well.

Do you believe that Christ "eternally" has and will do the will of the Father?

I believe Christ has always worked with the Father and the Spirit, and vice versa for each. I believe they are equal but that Christ deferred to the Father.

Perhaps it's just me but I think God knew exactly what He was getting himself into by coming to save us....
....He knew what was coming.

Doesn't make the decision any easier. A lot of people know what's coming when should they go to the doctor or the dentist, and as such, they shy away from their appointment. If people get scared off from something like that, how much more so do you believe God had to struggle with the idea of allowing HIS creation to MURDER Christ?

I was just wondering about how Ellen set things up in that quote...
...About how Christ pleaded with His Father to let Him come to earth and try to save humanity.
...And the Father worried about it because of the possibility of forever loosing His only Son.

Forest for the trees...

The Trinity is a Mystery and it is to be kept a Mystery so that's not my question at all...
...The only other question I have would be if all SDA's share your view.
...That Christ does not equally possess the IDENTICAL Substance of the Father.

Lest there be any confusion, it is not my view that Christ is not 100% God. As I stated earlier, I don't like the word "substance". Christ is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. I'm not going to attribute a word like that to them, because again it takes one's mind to the "what is He made out of" road.

 

[OntheDL]

And here we reach the crucial point.

The cleansing of the sanctuary is not from the sins of the saints, but the defiling activities of the little horn.

The whole context as you have noted is on the defiling of the little horn. This dealt with specific actions ,from a specific time.

However, the Day of Atonement deals with sins from all of history, and is simply not referenced here.

The context is the defiling work of the little horn, and the question as you spell out quite well is how long will the little horn continue its defiling activities.

The cleansing and the judgment theme is repeated in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 2 paints the end of the divided kingdom would be at the end of time and with the coming of Christ' kingdom.

Daniel 7 tells us the end of the little horn power will be the judgment.

The judgment of the saints is the vindication of Christ and His followers, thus condemning Satan and his followers in this controversy of Christ and his people vs Satan and his people:

a. The wicked did not confess their sins. The blood of the Lamb that was shed in the sacrifice did not cover their sins. So they bear their own sins.

b. Satan is ultimately responsible for the confessed sins since he's the originator and the partaker.

A few points here.

a. the little horn you would identify did NOT in fact cease its activities in 1844. Yet in the text that is the question.. until when.

b. Moreover, the whole context is something other than ritualistic cleansing of sins through blood application. Rather it is purifying from outside defilement by the little horn power.

1844 begins a period of examining the evidence and vindicating the saints.

And in the context of Daniel 8 in terms of the practices of the little horn, began in 1844, the Three Angels message was preached: 1. to announce the beginning of the judgment, 2. to expose Babylon and call out, 3. to warn of the mark of the beast.

So when the sins of Babylon were exposed, its mystery and deception uncovered and the people coming out of her, the little horn is being judged. Judgment is the process of examining the evidence and measuring against the true standard.

I haven't had the time to look at the rest of your posts. I'll try to find some time later today.

 

[Pythons]

Stryder, I understand that SDA's say that The Father is God, The Son is God & The Holy Spirit is God...
...In what way do SDA's believe the Three Person's are 'One'?

Would you say the following statement aptly describes how Christ and the Father is 'One'?
...In SDA teaching and experience.

Ellen White -Counsels for the Church page 77
The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but NOT in person. IT IS THUS that God and Christ are one.

I'm aware of how the other Adventists groups understand that God is one...
...I'm interesting in understanding how S.D. Adventists understand that God is 'One'.
...As you said previously that God does not share a substance with Christ I'm attempting to understand.

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder, I understand that SDA's say that The Father is God, The Son is God & The Holy Spirit is God...
...In what way do SDA's believe the Three Person's are 'One'?

Would you say the following statement aptly describes how Christ and the Father is 'One'?
...In SDA teaching and experience.

Ellen White -Counsels for the Church page 77
The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but NOT in person. IT IS THUS that God and Christ are one.

I'm aware of how the other Adventists groups understand that God is one...
...I'm interesting in understanding how S.D. Adventists understand that God is 'One'.
...As you said previously that God does not share a substance with Christ I'm attempting to understand.

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one...

And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

That's how I understand it.

 

[tall73]

The cleansing and the judgment theme is repeated in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 2 paints the end of the divided kingdom would be at the end of time and with the coming of Christ' kingdom.

Daniel 7 tells us the end of the little horn power will be the judgment.

The judgment of the saints is the vindication of Christ and His followers, thus condemning Satan and his followers in this controversy of Christ and his people vs Satan and his people:

Daniel 2 pictures destruction of the nations and the bringing in of Jesus' kingdom. That is not an IJ.

Daniel 7 is a pre-advent judgment, in the sense that it, like many judgments, comes before the second coming. But it is not the Adventist IJ. It includes the powers of Media Persia, Babylon etc. And these are not the professed people of God.

 

[tall73]

The judgment of the saints is the vindication of Christ and His followers, thus condemning Satan and his followers in this controversy of Christ and his people vs Satan and his people:

a. The wicked did not confess their sins. The blood of the Lamb that was shed in the sacrifice did not cover their sins. So they bear their own sins.

No problem with your statement in general. But you haven't demonstrated how this relates to 7 or 8, or the IJ which is only on the professed believers.

If the wicked are being judged, that is not the IJ. If people are being killed, that is not the IJ.

b. Satan is ultimately responsible for the confessed sins since he's the originator and the partaker.

This is not indicated in Daniel 7 or 8.

 

[tall73]

a. the little horn you would identify did NOT in fact cease its activities in 1844. Yet in the text that is the question.. until when.

b. Moreover, the whole context is something other than ritualistic cleansing of sins through blood application. Rather it is purifying from outside defilement by the little horn power.

1844 begins a period of examining the evidence and vindicating the saints.

It says until when will the little horn continue its activities. 1844 did not mark the end.

And in the context of Daniel 8 in terms of the practices of the little horn, began in 1844, the Three Angels message was preached: 1. to announce the beginning of the judgment, 2. to expose Babylon and call out, 3. to warn of the mark of the beast.

What? You just pulled a text not written yet at the time and said it was in the context of Daniel 8.

Daniel 8 does not mention the mark of the beast.

Nor does it mention the Day of Atonement. It does mention cleansing from the activities of the little horn.

This is part of the whole disconnect. Adventists are reading into Daniel 8 what it does not say.


Now as to Rev. 14 you have simply not proven that Rev. 14 refers to 1844 at all, or that it refers to an investigative judgment on professed people of God etc. The text doesn't say that either.

For those who have an Adventist construct in their head what you are saying may make sense because it relates to how they have historically taken these verses. But for those simply looking at the text, none of what you are saying is there.

 

[tall73]

I haven't had the time to look at the rest of your posts. I'll try to find some time later today.

Before you move on, please go back and re-cover what you did before. I want to see FROM THE TEXT the things you are speaking of.

 

[OntheDL]

Stryder, I understand that SDA's say that The Father is God, The Son is God & The Holy Spirit is God...
...In what way do SDA's believe the Three Person's are 'One'?

Would you say the following statement aptly describes how Christ and the Father is 'One'?
...In SDA teaching and experience.

Ellen White -Counsels for the Church page 77
The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but NOT in person. IT IS THUS that God and Christ are one.

I'm aware of how the other Adventists groups understand that God is one...
...I'm interesting in understanding how S.D. Adventists understand that God is 'One'.
...As you said previously that God does not share a substance with Christ I'm attempting to understand.

The Adventist pioneers rejected the trinity doctrine. Ellen White never endorsed it. Some might say she did. But she endorsed the concept of the Godhead, but not the 3-in-1, 1-in-3 trinitarian concept.

 

[OntheDL]

No problem with your statement in general. But you haven't demonstrated how this relates to 7 or 8, or the IJ which is only on the professed believers.

If the wicked are being judged, that is not the IJ. If people are being killed, that is not the IJ.

I didn't say the wicked are judged in the IJ. The unrepentant are judged by default by not accepting the atoning sacrifice.

This is not indicated in Daniel 7 or 8.

That is based on the interpretation of the typical service involving the scapegoat in Lev 16.

 

[Pythons]

The Adventist pioneers rejected the trinity doctrine. Ellen White never endorsed it. Some might say she did. But she endorsed the concept of the Godhead, but not the 3-in-1, 1-in-3 trinitarian concept.

I appreciate your frank and honest anwer OntheDL...
...It appears THAT is the reason why it's been difficult for me to get a direct answer.
...As to "how" the three are understood to be one ( apart from how Christ and the Apostles were one ).
...Which Ellen White explicitly described.

 

[OntheDL]

It says until when will the little horn continue its activities. 1844 did not mark the end.


What? You just pulled a text not written yet at the time and said it was in the context of Daniel 8.

Daniel 8 does not mention the mark of the beast.

Nor does it mention the Day of Atonement. It does mention cleansing from the activities of the little horn.

This is part of the whole disconnect. Adventists are reading into Daniel 8 what it does not say.


Now as to Rev. 14 you have simply not proven that Rev. 14 refers to 1844 at all, or that it refers to an investigative judgment on professed people of God etc. The text doesn't say that either.

Daniel 8 does not say the cleansing from the activity of the little horn. It says the cleansing of the sanctuary.

The only cleansing of the sanctuary to the Hebrew is the day other than assigning it to an arbitrary application. The 'day' is known to the jews as the most important day in their calendar. Their religious calendar and their continual activities resolving around the sanctuary serves the sole purpose of demonstrating the plan of salvation and the history of salvation. As the vision given to Daniel, starting in chp 7, it looks down through history to the end of time. This is where all the questions/controversy are settled in the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.

1844 begins a period where the questions are being settled, the little horn is being judged with its power/kingdom over God's people being taken away.

The Rev 14's Three angel message announced the judgment hour beginning in 1844 and exposed the Babylon and its distinguishing mark. These are the context of the little horn's activities in Daniel 8 as to stop its activities and bring it into judgment.

For those who have an Adventist construct in their head what you are saying may make sense because it relates to how they have historically taken these verses. But for those simply looking at the text, none of what you are saying is there.

Hey, it made sense to me and I did not have the Adventist construct in my head. I was an atheist, then a pentecostal, non-denominational and Baptist. I studied the prophecies and sanctuary myself, no one taught me. The SDA interpretation makes a lot more sense than the mainstream interpretation I learned prior to coming to the SDA church. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you. But it did for me. What can I tell you?

 

[Stryder06]

I appreciate your frank and honest anwer OntheDL...
...It appears THAT is the reason why it's been difficult for me to get a direct answer.
...As to "how" the three are understood to be one ( apart from how Christ and the Apostles were one ).
...Which Ellen White explicitly described.

I thought that was rather frank. You didn't like the scripture I provided?

 

[tall73]

I didn't say the wicked are judged in the IJ. The unrepentant are judged by default by not accepting the atoning sacrifice.

My point was that in Daniel 7 the judgment includes nations such as the Medes, Babylonians etc., which were never professed people of God. Therefore, this cannot be the Adventist IJ.

 

[tall73]

I didn't say the wicked are judged in the IJ. The unrepentant are judged by default by not accepting the atoning sacrifice.


That is based on the interpretation of the typical service involving the scapegoat in Lev 16.

But that is just the point. Daniel 8 does not describe the Day of Atonement. The whole context is of the actions of the little horn. And the restoration of the sanctuary is from the activities of the little horn.

The question was how long will it go on. 8:14 was the answer.

So to bring in an "interpretation" on a different verse not being referenced is not correctly understanding Daniel 8.

 

[tall73]

Daniel 8 does not say the cleansing from the activity of the little horn. It says the cleansing of the sanctuary.

Actually it says restoration of the sanctuary, and the whole context shows from what--the activity of the little horn. Yes, it is the sanctuary being cleansed from the impact of the actions of the little horn.

8:14 is the answer to the question of 8:13.



The activities of the horn:

Dan 8:9 Out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land.
Dan 8:10 It grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them.
Dan 8:11 It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown.
Dan 8:12 And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper.


The question that asks "until when" will the little horn be allowed to continue.

Dan 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?"

The answer


Dan 8:14 And he said to me, "For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored."

Restored from what was happening to it in the rest of the chapter.

Remember again the findings of the Adventist scholars at Glacierview who were forced to concede one of Ford's points:

According to many older versions of
the Bible, at the end of the 2300 days the
sanctuary is to be "cleansed." The Hebrew
word here is nisdaq, which has a
broad range of possible meanings. Its
basic idea is "make right," "justify,"
"vindicate," or "restore"; but "purify"
and "cleanse" may be included within
its conceptual range. In Daniel 8:14 it is
evident that the word denotes the reversal
of the evil caused by the power symbolized
by the "little horn," and hence
probably should be translated "restore."


They acknowledge that the restoration is the reversal of the evil caused by the little horn.

They also go on to concede that there is not a strong
verbal link between this verse and the
Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16.

In other words, this is talking about the restoration from the actions of the little horn, not the ritual cleansing in the Day of Atonement.

That is why I referenced the cleansing and restoration in the days of Hezekiah as a better example. It was defiled by external contamination and activities of wicked people, and then was restored.

 

[tall73]

The only cleansing of the sanctuary to the Hebrew is the day other than assigning it to an arbitrary application. The 'day' is known to the jews as the most important day in their calendar. Their religious calendar and their continual activities resolving around the sanctuary serves the sole purpose of demonstrating the plan of salvation and the history of salvation.

A. The Adventist scholars didn't agree with you.

In Daniel 8:14 it is
evident that the word denotes the reversal
of the evil caused by the power symbolized
by the "little horn," and hence
probably should be translated "restore."

And
While editing Bible Readings, and in counsel with Elder Nichol as chief editor of the revision, I wrote to 27 leading Adventist Bible scholars for their response to a series of six carefully formulated questions designed to bring the best contemporary Adventist biblical scholarship to bear on the question. All 27 responded, many at considerable length.A careful analysis and synthesis of their replies provided no additional help with respect to the problems arising from our interpretation of Daniel 8:14, and made evident that we had no satisfactory answer to the criticisms being directed against our interpretation of this key Adventist passage. Thirteen replied that they knew of no other valid basis for making such an application; seven based it on analogy; five, on the authority of Ellen White; two, on what they referred to as a “fortunate accident” in translation. Not one of the 27 believed that there was a linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the heavenly sanctuary, an antitypical day of atonement, or 1844.

The context is about the restoration due to the activities of the little horn, not about the Day of Atonement. Even in your own treatment of Daniel 8 you focused on the little horn until this verse when you ignored the context altogether.

Adventists inherited Miller's focus on 8:14, but an analysis of the context came later, and the context doesn't fit the Adventist view.

B. it is not the only cleansing or restoration of the temple.

I already cited one during the time of Hezekiah that is a closer parallel.

We also have the cleansing after Antiochus which was also important to the Jews. We see them still celebrating it in Jesus' day:

Joh 10:22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter,
Joh 10:23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon.

 

[tall73]

As the vision given to Daniel, starting in chp 7, it looks down through history to the end of time. This is where all the questions/controversy are settled in the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.

Daniel 7 cannot be the IJ as it includes non professed believers, ie, the Medes, Persians, Babylonians, etc.

 

[tall73]

1844 begins a period where the questions are being settled, the little horn is being judged with its power/kingdom over God's people being taken away.

We certainly agree that God taking action against the little horn is pictured in both Daniel 7 and Daniel 8.

However, your reading into chapter 7 and 8 the Adventist IJ only on professed believers is where we have the issue.

Chapter 7 includes non-professed believers. It is a judgment on nations, not individuals. The saints are seen as a group and their identity is never in question. Their deliverance is from oppressive powers who are judged.

This is not the Adventist IJ.

Chapter 8 deals with nations and then the activities of the little horn. The end of the chapter deals with a question about how long it will go on. The answer actually answers that question.

It does not reference the Day of Atonement.

It is not the Adventist IJ either.

 

[omanid]

as since the Thief was given the promise that he would be in paradise by Christ himself.....give your answer and I will be back later...

It doesn't matter if the thief did or not, the fact is:

Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Luke 23:43