Investigative Judgement

[from scratch]

I was invited by an SDA on this site to ask this here: I wish to know how the IJ relates to salvation. I think it demostrates that the SDA does not know or fully accept the work of Jesus on the cross as being a complete redemption or atonement from sin. So are you willing to help me out? I am sure I will have some pointed questions as things progress, if they do.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Welcome, "From Scratch." Thanks for your question.

First, let me share with you who I am. I am a former SDA who was a member for 3+ decades and worked for the denomination. I am not expert on all things SDA, but I do have quite a bit of history with the denomination.

In this forum, you will also meet current SDAs of different varieties. Some are traditional SDAs who hold to the historic teachings of the denomination, including a strong reliance on the writings of Ellen G. White. You will also find more moderate SDAs who are more open to ideas that are outside of traditional SDA thinking.

For the traditional SDA, the investigative judgment is directly related to salvation. It is the process whereby Jesus determines whether a person is "safe to save."

My concerns with the investigative judgment (and themes relating to it) are as follows:

1. It includes a belief that Christ's atonement was not completed once for all on the cross and that Christ entered the second chapter of His atoning work in 1844.

2. It includes a belief that Jesus is Michael, the archangel.

3. It emphasizes the judgment of believers (and others) and de-emphasizes the teaching that believers do not come into judgment.

4. It includes a thought process that believers' characters are not changed at the second coming of Jesus Christ and that believers will bring with them to Heaven the characters they form here on earth.

5. It includes a teaching that believers must be without spot before their probation closes so they can stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator prior to Christ's second coming.

6. It places a high premium on human obedience. Further evidence of this can be found in the denomination's teaching that -- one day soon -- non-sabbatarians will receive the mark of the beast and sabbatarians will receive the seal of God.

7. It relates to SDA eschatology which assumes that Catholics are the beast and that non-SDA protestants are the daughters of the harlot.

8. It relates to SDA eschatology which assumes that there will come a day when non-sabbatarians will persecute sabbatarians after "blue laws" have been past prohibiting corporate worship on the seventh day.
​

I'm sure others may have concerns that I did not raise. Still others will have reasons why my concerns are unfounded. I hope that you receive a number of different points of view in this thread.

Thanks for joining us!

BFA

 

[from scratch]

Welcome, "From Scratch." Thanks for your question.

First, let me share with you who I am. I am a former SDA who was a member for 3+ decades and worked for the denomination. I am not expert on all things SDA, but I do have quite a bit of history with the denomination.

In this forum, you will also meet current SDAs of different varieties. Some are traditional SDAs who hold to the historic teachings of the denomination, including a strong reliance on the writings of Ellen G. White. You will also find more moderate SDAs who are more open to ideas that are outside of traditional SDA thinking.

For the traditional SDA, the investigative judgment is directly related to salvation. It is the process whereby Jesus determines whether a person is "safe to save."

My concerns with the investigative judgment (and themes relating to it) are as follows:

1. It includes a belief that Christ's atonement was not completed once for all on the cross and that Christ entered the second chapter of His atoning work in 1844.

2. It includes a belief that Jesus is Michael, the archangel.

3. It emphasizes the judgment of believers (and others) and de-emphasizes the teaching that believers do not come into judgment.

4. It includes a thought process that believers' characters are not changed at the second coming of Jesus Christ and that believers will bring with them to Heaven the characters they form here on earth.

5. It includes a teaching that believers must be without spot before their probation closes so they can stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator prior to Christ's second coming.

6. It places a high premium on human obedience. Further evidence of this can be found in the denomination's teaching that -- one day soon -- non-sabbatarians will receive the mark of the beast and sabbatarians will receive the seal of God.

7. It includes the assumption that Catholics are the beast and that non-SDA protestants are the daughters of the harlot.

8. It assumes that time of persecution relates to non-sabbatarians persecuting sabbatarians after "blue laws" have been past prohibiting corporate worship on the seventh day.
​

I'm sure others may have concerns that I did not raise. Still others will have reasons why my concerns are unfounded. I hope that you receive a number of different points of view in this thread.

Thanks for joining us!

BFA

Thank you for your detail.

I do have some questions.

Since atonement is not completed according to SDA teaching, how do they have salvation?

What does the Archangel Michael have to do with the subject. I don't understand at all. Maybe this is why the SDA folks defended the concept in GT.

On point 3, I think I agree with the SDA according to: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

Number 4 is interesting and I think I share this concern with you.

Have any of them become perfect in the flesh yet? Standing before God with out a mediator is a scary thought.

Hmmm! I take it that the beast is the antichrist. Why do they gloat that the RCC endorsed their Sabbatarian champion Dr.Sam Bacchiocchi. Is their position so weak that they need what they call satan/antichrist to endorse their ideas? That makes no sense to me.

On the last point I guess that they have not heard of dhimmitude. And like many have no idea who our current president is.

 

[Laodicean]

My concerns with the investigative judgment (and themes relating to it) are as follows:

1. It includes a belief that Christ's atonement was not completed once for all on the cross and that Christ entered the second chapter of His atoning work in 1844. BFA​

​

BFA, that is not the belief of the church. It may be your perspective of the belief of the church, but that is not what the church believes. The church believes that the atonement was completed once and for all, perfect, on the cross. And since that time, the benefits of this perfect atonement have been administered in an atoning ministry, of which the final chapter is occurring in these last days.

And welcome, "From Scratch."

 

[from scratch]

[/indent]BFA, that is not the belief of the church. It may be your perspective of the belief of the church, but that is not what the church believes. The church believes that the atonement was completed once and for all, perfect, on the cross. And since that time, the benefits of this perfect atonement have been administered in an atoning ministry, of which the final chapter is occurring in these last days.

And welcome, "From Scratch."

Thank you for the welcome.

i am puzzled with your response to my question though. If atonement was completed, why is there an atoning ministry? Seems like a doubblle negative or a doubble minded statement. Can you clear this up for me?

thanks

 

[Laodicean]

Thank you for the welcome.

i am puzzled with your response to my question though. If atonement was completed, why is there an atoning ministry? Seems like a doubblle negative or a doubble minded statement. Can you clear this up for me?

thanks

"atonement" means "reconciliation. Jesus reconciled the world to God through His death on the cross. Every human being has the potential to be saved if he/she chooses to accept this gift. That is the perfection of the completed atonement. There is nothing more to be done to make this atonement a finished "product." No one need be lost.

But just because the perfect atonement was achieved on the cross does not mean that everybody will automatically be saved.

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name." John 1:12

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31

"And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee. Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew 25: 32-46.

"But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not." Matthew 25:12

So apparently, the world has been given time in which humans, in their brief lifetimes, can make their decisions as to whether to accept salvation or not. And that is what the atoning ministry is about -- administering the benefits of the perfect atonement.

What are the benefits of the perfectly finished atonement? It provides forgiveness of sin and power imparted to overcome.

 

[from scratch]

"atonement" means "reconciliation. Jesus reconciled the world to God through His death on the cross. Every human being has the potential to be saved if he/she chooses to accept this gift. That is the perfection of the completed atonement. There is nothing more to be done to make this atonement a finished "product." No one need be lost.

But just because the perfect atonement was achieved on the cross does not mean that everybody will automatically be saved.

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name." John 1:12

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31

"And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee. Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew 25: 32-46.

"But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not." Matthew 25:12

So apparently, the world has been given time in which humans, in their brief lifetimes, can make their decisions as to whether to accept salvation or not. And that is what the atoning ministry is about -- administering the benefits of the perfect atonement.

What are the benefits of the perfectly finished atonement? It provides forgiveness of sin and power imparted to overcome.

I am sorry but I do not unsderstand. I think that the work on the cross completed atonement. The time when a person accepts that atonement has nothing to do with the fact that it has already been accomplished -paid for in full and delivered some 2,000 years ago. Why does God now need to see who qualifies? I thought every sinner qualified. All they have to do is pick up the free gift - a finished product if you will.

 

[VictorC]

I was invited by an SDA on this site to ask this here: I wish to know how the IJ relates to salvation. I think it demostrates that the SDA does not know or fully accept the work of Jesus on the cross as being a complete redemption or atonement from sin. So are you willing to help me out? I am sure I will have some pointed questions as things progress, if they do.

We have recently dealt with this subject over on the Denomination-Specific Theology sub-forum, in the thread entitled What are 7th day adventists?. The later posts written by Sophia7 and yours truely offer a primer of the Investigative Judgement and the problems it entails.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

[/indent]BFA, that is not the belief of the church. It may be your perspective of the belief of the church, but that is not what the church believes. The church believes that the atonement was completed once and for all, perfect, on the cross. And since that time, the benefits of this perfect atonement have been administered in an atoning ministry, of which the final chapter is occurring in these last days.

And welcome, "From Scratch."

No, this is truly your interpretation of your denomination's teachings. I respect that this is how you view it, but this is not the way it was taught during my years as an SDA. Mrs. White is quite explicit that Christ began His second chapter of atonement in 1844. This does not leave us with the possibility that His atonement was completed at the cross.

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

I am sorry but I do not unsderstand. I think that the work on the cross completed atonement.

Scratch, I do believe that that is what I said, that the work on the cross is a finished work, a completed atonement. Quoting from my previous post: "That is the perfection of the completed atonement. There is nothing more to be done to make this atonement a finished "product."

Maybe we are defining "atonement" differently? I don't know. Because we both seem to be using similar words, yet you do not understand mine.

The time when a person accepts that atonement has nothing to do with the fact that it has already been accomplished -paid for in full and delivered some 2,000 years ago.

again, we agree, so I don't know why you are not understanding what I say. Yes, the atonement has nothing to do with when a person accepts it. Atonement is the working out of the plan of salvation. Period. Nothing added.

But when a person accepts that salvation, well, that belongs to a different aspect of the atonement scenario. SDAs call that aspect, the atoning ministry -- see Fundamental Belief #24. This ministry consists of administering the benefits of a perfectly finished atonement.

Maybe I should ask you for your definition of "atonement." The definition I am working with is "reconciliation."

Why does God now need to see who qualifies? I thought every sinner qualified. All they have to do is pick up the free gift - a finished product if you will.

Right. That is exactly what I am saying. Every sinner qualifies because reconciliation for all has been accomplished. But not every sinner will accept the gift. If God were to end time now, there would be some who still need time to pick up the free gift. So He waits. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2Peter 3:9. And meanwhile, the benefits of salvation are administered on an ongoing basis -- forgiveness of sin and power to overcome sin.

As to your question of "Why does God now need to see who qualifies," it is all based on our free will and our decisions. God waits for us to come to Him to be saved.

 

[Laodicean]

No, this is truly your interpretation of your denomination's teachings. I respect that this is how you view it, but this is not the way it was taught during my years as an SDA. Mrs. White is quite explicit that Christ began His second chapter of atonement in 1844. This does not leave us with the possibility that His atonement was completed at the cross.

BFA

BFA, I am not interpreting. I am accepting the wording of Fundamental Belief #24, which calls it the final phase of the atoning ministry and not final phase of the atonement.

Maybe you were taught a certain way, during your years as an SDA, but there is always room for growth in understanding. If, in the past, the term "second phase of the atonement" was used by EGW or any others, it is required, as we grow in understanding of truth, to accept clarifications of past statements, not throw out past positions altogether because of semantics. I submit that progressive understanding should lead one to accept the clarifications of positions, as given in Fundamental #24, not say, no, that is not what it means because in the past it was phrased differently. To take that stance is to refuse to grow in truth and understanding.

 

[Kira Light]

BFA, I am not interpreting. I am accepting the wording of Fundamental Belief #24, which calls it the final phase of the atoning ministry and not final phase of the atonement.

Maybe you were taught a certain way, during your years as an SDA, but there is always room for growth in understanding. If, in the past, the term "second phase of the atonement" was used by EGW or any others, it is required, as we grow in understanding of truth, to accept clarifications of past statements, not throw out past positions altogether because of semantics. I submit that progressive understanding should lead one to accept the clarifications of positions, as given in Fundamental #24, not say, no, that is not what it means because in the past it was phrased differently. To take that stance is to refuse to grow in truth and understanding.

I wouldn't throw out Investigative Judgment because of semantics, but instead because there is no evidence for it. SDA's may have watered it down to the point where it has no meaning, but they can't just toss it out completely because it was the basis for the foundation of the entire church.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, I am not interpreting. I am accepting the wording of Fundamental Belief #24, which calls it the final phase of the atoning ministry and not final phase of the atonement.

You interpret FB#24 to mean that there a distinction between the concept of "atoning ministry" and "atonement." The FB does not say that there is such a distinction.

A careful review of the writings of Mrs. White reveal that the SDA denomination has not endorsed such a distinction. Here are a couple of brief excerpts that illustrate the point (I've provided the citation so you can read them in their full context).

“Instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming” (The Great Controversy, p. 422).

“The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin . . . It will stand in the sanctuary until the final atonement” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357).
​

Mrs. White refers to the work that Jesus is currently doing as His "final atonement" or His "closing work of atonement." She does not make a distinction between "atonement" and "atoning ministry." I understand that this distinction is helpful for you, but it isn't supported by the writings that the SDA denomination views as continuing and authoritative.

This teaching of the SDA denomination is not only problematic for me, but is also problematic for others who aren't as eager to make microscopic distinctions in order to reconcile that which is irreconcilable. Our new friend, "Fromscratch" captured this quite well when he wrote, "If atonement was completed, why is there an atoning ministry? Seems like a doubblle negative or a doubble minded statement."

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I do have some questions.

I'm happy to share what I know.

Since atonement is not completed according to SDA teaching, how do they have salvation?

Many do not have assurance of salvation. They believe they must wait until the end to find out which of us was "safe to save."

What does the Archangel Michael have to do with the subject. I don't understand at all. Maybe this is why the SDA folks defended the concept in GT.

The investigative judgment relates both to atonement and to "end time" events. The question of whether Jesus is Michael speaks to His authority to atone for our sins.

On point 3, I think I agree with the SDA according to: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

How do you view this passage?

Have any of them become perfect in the flesh yet? Standing before God with out a mediator is a scary thought.

There are traditional SDAs who would suggest that we do not need to become perfect in the flesh in order to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. However, I haven't been able to figure out how that's possible.

There are other traditional SDAs who are not shy in proclaiming that we must become sinless prior to the close of probation. Here are a few things that Mrs. White wrote:

“Redemption in Christ means to cease the transgression of the law of God and to be free from every sin.” (Faith and Works, p. 95)

“Only by perfect obedience to the requirements of God's holy law can man be justified. Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, pp. 98-99)

"He sent His Son to this world to bear the penalty of sin, and to show man how to live a sinless life." (Signs of the Times, March 30, 1904)

"But Christ has given us no assurance that to attain perfection of character is an easy matter. A noble, all-round character is not inherited. It does not come to us by accident. A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character. It is formed by hard stern battles with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely, and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain. Let no one say, we cannot remedy our defects of character. If you come to this decision, you will certainly fail of obtaining everlasting life. The impossibility lies in your own will. If you will not, then you can not overcome” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 331).

“Your only safety is in coming to Christ, and ceasing from sin this very moment. The sweet voice of mercy is sounding in your ears today, but who can tell if it will sound tomorrow?" (Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1892).

"Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life—the same condition that was required of Adam before his Fall. The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of man in Paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden—harmony with God’s law, which is holy, just, and good." (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 391)

"God calls upon us to reach the standard of perfection and places before us the example of Christ's character. In His humanity, perfected by a life of constant resistance to evil, the Saviour showed that through cooperation with Divinity, human beings may in this life attain to perfection of character. This is God's assurance to us that we, too, may obtain complete victory." (Acts of the Apostles, p. 531)
​

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

You interpret FB#24 to mean that there a distinction between the concept of "atoning ministry" and "atonement." The FB does not say that there is such a distinction.

okay. Have it your way.

A careful review of the writings of Mrs. White reveal that the SDA denomination has not endorsed such a distinction. Here are a couple of brief excerpts that illustrate the point (I've provided the citation so you can read them in their full context).

“Instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming” (The Great Controversy, p. 422).

“The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin . . . It will stand in the sanctuary until the final atonement” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357).
​

Mrs. White refers to the work that Jesus is currently doing as His "final atonement" or His "closing work of atonement." She does not make a distinction between "atonement" and "atoning ministry." I understand that this distinction is helpful for you, but it isn't supported by the writings that the SDA denomination views as continuing and authoritative.

This teaching of the SDA denomination is not only problematic for me, but is also problematic for others who aren't as eager to make microscopic distinctions in order to reconcile that which is irreconcilable. Our new friend, "Fromscratch" captured this quite well when he wrote, "If atonement was completed, why is there an atoning ministry? Seems like a doubblle negative or a doubble minded statement."

BFA

okay.

 

[from scratch]

BFA, I am not interpreting. I am accepting the wording of Fundamental Belief #24, which calls it the final phase of the atoning ministry and not final phase of the atonement.

Maybe you were taught a certain way, during your years as an SDA, but there is always room for growth in understanding. If, in the past, the term "second phase of the atonement" was used by EGW or any others, it is required, as we grow in understanding of truth, to accept clarifications of past statements, not throw out past positions altogether because of semantics. I submit that progressive understanding should lead one to accept the clarifications of positions, as given in Fundamental #24, not say, no, that is not what it means because in the past it was phrased differently. To take that stance is to refuse to grow in truth and understanding.

So I understand you to say that the atonemment on the cross was not final as in finished or complete. How can there be an atoning ministry if atonement was final?

 

[Laodicean]

So I understand you to say that the atonemment on the cross was not final as in finished or complete. How can there be an atoning ministry if atonement was final?

The atonement on the cross was definitely final as in finished or complete. Atonement here means the act of reconciliation, the finishing of the plan to save humans. Jesus said on the cross "It is finished." So, yes, the atonement, the reconciliation between man and God, was accomplished, finished, final, perfect, never needing to be repeated. But how will humans respond to this gift? Time and history will tell. And while God waits for our decisions, the benefits of this atonement are administered in an atoning ministry. What are the benefits of the atoning ministry? Forgiveness of sin and the power to overcome.

I gave an example recently of the Social Security Act being signed into law in 1935 by Roosevelt. It was a done deal. There was no need to sign it into law a second time, or ever again. But the Social Security Administration was set up to administer the benefits of the Social Security Act. This is an example of the difference between a done deal and the administering of the benefits of the done deal.

Likewise, there's a difference between atonement and atoning ministry.

I hope it's clearer now. Of course, if you don't agree, please know that I'm not trying to force this down your throat. We can move on.

 

[from scratch]

I'm happy to share what I know.



Many do not have assurance of salvation. They believe they must wait until the end to find out which of us was "safe to save."



The investigative judgment relates both to atonement and to "end time" events. The question of whether Jesus is Michael speaks to His authority to atone for our sins.

I do not understand. Does Michael an angel have this power or authority?

How do you view this passage?

I think you mean John 5:24. If one has everlasting life, how can they die. Maybe the problem is understanding death. There are two deaths- one of the flesh and one of the soul. The flesh has already recieved an unrevocable sentence of death. But the soul lives on. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Eze 18:4 and is repeated in v 20. And in Mat 10:28 Jesus says: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So does the soul die? No! is it destroyed in hell? No! again. What does the scripture say? God has the power to destroy the soul in hell. It does not say He does so. If the soul is destroyed there is no such thing as everlasting death or everlasting life. I think without checking that the same word translated eeverlasting is the same for both. I think you can get a good understanding of death (2nd death) by word study. Mk 3:29 uses the words eternal damnation commonly understood to be eternal death (effectively at least). You might go to Biblegateway and look through the translations. Very interesting.

What about the word condemnation? It means judgement. The word krisis is also translated - accusation, damnation, and judgement.

Hope that enough info to help show my understanding of John 5:24. If you need more just ask and I'll see what I can do.

There are traditional SDAs who would suggest that we do not need to become perfect in the flesh in order to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. However, I haven't been able to figure out how that's possible.

There are other traditional SDAs who are not shy in proclaiming that we must become sinless prior to the close of probation. Here are a few things that Mrs. White wrote:

“Redemption in Christ means to cease the transgression of the law of God and to be free from every sin.” (Faith and Works, p. 95)

“Only by perfect obedience to the requirements of God's holy law can man be justified. Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, pp. 98-99)

"He sent His Son to this world to bear the penalty of sin, and to show man how to live a sinless life." (Signs of the Times, March 30, 1904)

"But Christ has given us no assurance that to attain perfection of character is an easy matter. A noble, all-round character is not inherited. It does not come to us by accident. A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character. It is formed by hard stern battles with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely, and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain. Let no one say, we cannot remedy our defects of character. If you come to this decision, you will certainly fail of obtaining everlasting life. The impossibility lies in your own will. If you will not, then you can not overcome” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 331).

“Your only safety is in coming to Christ, and ceasing from sin this very moment. The sweet voice of mercy is sounding in your ears today, but who can tell if it will sound tomorrow?" (Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1892).

"Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life—the same condition that was required of Adam before his Fall. The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of man in Paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden—harmony with God’s law, which is holy, just, and good." (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 391)

"God calls upon us to reach the standard of perfection and places before us the example of Christ's character. In His humanity, perfected by a life of constant resistance to evil, the Saviour showed that through cooperation with Divinity, human beings may in this life attain to perfection of character. This is God's assurance to us that we, too, may obtain complete victory." (Acts of the Apostles, p. 531)
​

BFA

 

[from scratch]

The atonement on the cross was definitely final as in finished or complete. Atonement here means the act of reconciliation, the finishing of the plan to save humans. Jesus said on the cross "It is finished." So, yes, the atonement, the reconciliation between man and God, was accomplished, finished, final, perfect, never needing to be repeated. But how will humans respond to this gift? Time and history will tell. And while God waits for our decisions, the benefits of this atonement are administered in an atoning ministry. What are the benefits of the atoning ministry? Forgiveness of sin and the power to overcome.

I gave an example recently of the Social Security Act being signed into law in 1935 by Roosevelt. It was a done deal. There was no need to sign it into law a second time, or ever again. But the Social Security Administration was set up to administer the benefits of the Social Security Act. This is an example of the difference between a done deal and the administering of the benefits of the done deal.

Likewise, there's a difference between atonement and atoning ministry.

I hope it's clearer now. Of course, if you don't agree, please know that I'm not trying to force this down your throat. We can move on.

So is Acts 16:31 correct in response to the question of v 30? The question is the jailer saved or not? I take it as a done deal. And is not the following baptism testimony to this fact?

What about Romans 10:9, 10? Is this incomplete? If it is, would not be decieving violating the 9th commandment about false witness? I then ask if Romans is inspired by God or not? If you say II Tim 3:16 refers to the OT only I ask you to read II Pet 3:16 where Peter equates Paul's writings with scripture.

I am trying to be polite with my questions and show my understanding so that you might help me to be sure I understand exactly what you mean. I am really looking for clear and unmistakeble answers. I do not wish to be left options or to decide what the truth really is. I already had that before my OP.

 

[from scratch]

I am wondering why some of the more very active posters in this section haven't said a word?