Investigative Judgment

[jonno]

Its morning here in cape Town.

Good Evening to you all.
I cant help noticing the current dispute regarding the icon thing.
Please help me out here.
I am a baptised member of the Elsies River S.d.a. church in cape Town South Africa.
I have been there since the age of 12. pathfinders.Youth. Personal Ministries leader.Advent Youth leader.
Currently I am not attending due to doctrinal issues which they cannot answer.
I am currently worshipping with a non-denominational bible teaching group.
I love the Lord very much and believe I am saved by His grace.
Do I qualify to discuss or raise issues here, get an icon and if so how do I get one.

 

[woobadooba]

Its morning here in cape Town.

Good Evening to you all.
I cant help noticing the current dispute regarding the icon thing.
Please help me out here.
I am a baptised member of the Elsies River S.d.a. church in cape Town South Africa.
I have been there since the age of 12. pathfinders.Youth. Personal Ministries leader.Advent Youth leader.
Currently I am not attending due to doctrinal issues which they cannot answer.
I am currently worshipping with a non-denominational bible teaching group.
I love the Lord very much and believe I am saved by His grace.
Do I qualify to discuss or raise issues here, get an icon and if so how do I get one.

The icon thing only matters when you ask a question that they can't answer, or disagree with them on something.

Personally, I won't get the icon because I won't buy into the exclusiveism of their Christianity!

I am an SDA too, not an icon! Better yet, I am a person, not an icon!

 

[jonno]

The icon thing only matters when you ask a question that they can't answer, or disagree with them on something.

Personally, I won't get the icon because I won't buy into the exclusiveism of their Christianity!

I am an SDA too, not an icon! Better yet, I am a person, not an icon!

I understand your sentiments, but just maybe participating in this forum "legally" is a good thing and might just help clear up some controversial points in our minds and the minds of others.

 

[honorthesabbath]

The icon thing only matters when you ask a question that they can't answer, or disagree with them on something.

Personally, I won't get the icon because I won't buy into the exclusiveism of their Christianity!

I am an SDA too, not an icon! Better yet, I am a person, not an icon!

WOO--it's a matter of obeying FORUM rules. We SDA's didn't make those rules. The rules were put in place for a reason. So you have two choices if you want to debate our beliefs. One--get the icon or two--leave. It's really that simple.

 

[Cliff2]

WOO--it's a matter of obeying FORUM rules. We SDA's didn't make those rules. The rules were put in place for a reason. So you have two choices if you want to debate our beliefs. One--get the icon or two--leave. It's really that simple.

God has rules, this Forum has rules. They are there for a reason.

It is a matter of putting the icon on or leaving.

 

[StormyOne]

God has rules, this Forum has rules. They are there for a reason.

It is a matter of putting the icon on or leaving.

Cliff... "only a Sith deals in absolutes...."

What is humorous to me is the fact that it makes sense that adventists who tend to lean toward the law and order side would embrace as many rules as possible regardless of bigger issues.... Additionally rather than assess if there can be a rule change, the option is obey the rules or leave....

Truth is truth regardless, and if one has "the truth" they need not hide behind "the rules..."

God's rules.... well He has two that we seem to trample daily... Love Him and Love others....

 

[woobadooba]

Cliff... "only a Sith deals in absolutes...."

What is humorous to me is the fact that it makes sense that adventists who tend to lean toward the law and order side would embrace as many rules as possible regardless of bigger issues.... Additionally rather than assess if there can be a rule change, the option is obey the rules or leave....

Truth is truth regardless, and if one has "the truth" they need not hide behind "the rules..."

God's rules.... well He has two that we seem to trample daily... Love Him and Love others....

It never ceases to amaze me how some people equate man-made rules with God-made rules!

In fact, most people are unaware of God's rules because they spend too much time, as you, in other words said, hiding behind man-made rules, such as, You shall not engage in any discussions with SDA's in this forum unless you get their icon!

I think the icon rule is just a scape-goat, to provide them with a way out from addressing hard and valid questions that they just don't know how to answer.

I've noticed that when people come here to ask simple questions, they don't mind that they don't have the icon; but when you start to stretch their minds with a hard question, all of a sudden they tell you about the icon rule, and tell you if you don't like it you can leave.

Yes, and many have left because of such an exclusivistic attitude. And many more will continue to leave the SDA church because of this same spirit of 'our way or the highway'.

 

[HoneyDew]

What is humorous to me is the fact that it makes sense that adventists who tend to lean toward the law and order side would embrace as many rules as possible regardless of bigger issues.... Additionally rather than assess if there can be a rule change, the option is obey the rules or leave....

Truth is truth regardless, and if one has "the truth" they need not hide behind "the rules..."

God's rules.... well He has two that we seem to trample daily... Love Him and Love others....

Amazingly, they never tell their sympathizers to leave. I was here to witness some horrid behavior -- flaming galore, name calling, the works, and no one was pulling in the reins on the posters who were breaking all sorts of rules.
But like you keep saying Storm, Love will erase a mountain of hurt and keep us mindful of how we treat each other.

 

[woobadooba]

Amazingly, they never tell their sympathizers to leave. I was here to witness some horrid behavior -- flaming galore, name calling, the works, and no one was pulling in the reins on the posters who were breaking all sorts of rules.
But like you keep saying Storm, Love will erase a mountain of hurt and keep us mindful of how we treat each other.

This is a very good point you raise, and I can verify it because some of them called me an apostate because I was telling them to be kind to stormy!

Amazing!

 

[jonno]

Beware , beware everybody. The viewership on this thread has now reached 666
you mentioning being called an "apostate".....coincidence?.....
just kidding!!

 

[woobadooba]

Ok Cliff,

According to CF rules because I am a member of the SDA church, and have noted that in my profile, I am allowed to debate in here.

Now,

According to you, the IJ began in 1844. How then, do you explain the blatant contradiction found in 1Pt. 4:17, which indicates that the IJ began during the time of Peter?

Also, you said that it begins with the dead. If this is so, then why, in the same passage, did Peter state that it begins with the household of God, thus implying that this included him too, since his language is inclusive? Was Peter dead or alive when he said this?

Now, you said that if I follow the rules of the forum that you would address this issue with me.

I am following the rules since it is an either or situation. I could have either the SDA icon or have SDA church in my profile, to debate here.

Now, will you be a man of your word, and address this issue with me? That remains to be seen!

 

[Cliff2]

Ok Cliff,

According to CF rules because I am a member of the SDA church, and have noted that in my profile, I am allowed to debate in here.

Now,

According to you, the IJ began in 1844. How then, do you explain the blatant contradiction found in 1Pt. 4:17, which indicates that the IJ began during the time of Peter?

Also, you said that it begins with the dead. If this is so, then why, in the same passage, did Peter state that it begins with the household of God, thus implying that this included him too, since his language is inclusive? Was Peter dead or alive when he said this?

Now, you said that if I follow the rules of the forum that you would address this issue with me.

I am following the rules since it is an either or situation. I could have either the SDA icon or have SDA church in my profile, to debate here.

Now, will you be a man of your word, and address this issue with me? That remains to be seen!

I will ask the Mods and see if your interpretation of the rules is correct before I reply to your post.

 

[StormyOne]

I will ask the Mods and see if your interpretation of the rules is correct before I reply to your post.

Dave who is a Mod said this in the thread on forum participation:

Mod Hat On^

The rules regarding Congregational forums are 2.2 and 2.2b.
The issue regarding defining people to participate and debate within their own congregation are that they either must have the congregation's icon or they must have one of the congregation's churches in their profile under "Church". There are some instances (rare) where we will get a good faith PM from the person stating that they are X congregation and staff knows that person can post in that congregational forum and ONLY that congregational forum.

Mod Hat Off^

I hope this helps.

 

[StormyOne]

Amazingly, they never tell their sympathizers to leave. I was here to witness some horrid behavior -- flaming galore, name calling, the works, and no one was pulling in the reins on the posters who were breaking all sorts of rules.
But like you keep saying Storm, Love will erase a mountain of hurt and keep us mindful of how we treat each other.

Interesting.... and yes HD.... love covers a multitude of faults.... (it also keeps us sane...)

 

[woobadooba]

Cliff,

I just got the thumbs up by Dave that it is ok for me to debate in this forum since I am an SDA, and attend an SDA church.

Now, let's get this ball rolling, shall we?

By the way, I am not interested in getting a lesson on the 2300 day prophecy.

The only thing I want to discuss with you right now is how you rectify the blatant contradiction that the IJ began in 1844 when Peter made it very clear that he began during his time in 1Pt. 4:17

And I also want to address the contradiction that it supposedly began with the dead, when Peter states that it begins with the household of God, including himself, and that he was living, not dead when he said it.

I don't want pages of information. Get straight to the point. No beating around the bush please.

 

[Cliff2]

Cliff,

I just got the thumbs up by Dave that it is ok for me to debate in this forum since I am an SDA, and attend an SDA church.

Now, let's get this ball rolling, shall we?

By the way, I am not interested in getting a lesson on the 2300 day prophecy.

The only thing I want to discuss with you right now is how you rectify the blatant contradiction that the IJ began in 1844 when Peter made it very clear that he began during his time in 1Pt. 4:17

And I also want to address the contradiction that it supposedly began with the dead, when Peter states that it begins with the household of God, including himself, and that he was living, not dead when he said it.

I don't want pages of information. Get straight to the point. No beating around the bush please.

OK, I also have been given info that allows you to debate here as long as the SDA Church is shown in your profile and as it is you can go ahead.

17For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (NIV)

17For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (KJV)

17For it is time for judgment (A)to begin with (B)the household of God; and if it (C)begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those (D)who do not obey the (E)gospel of God? (NASB)

They are all saying the same thing. Judgement begins with the house of God.

How do you get that Peter is saying it began in his day. All he is saying is that it began with the house of God and that really is the Church.

It is not say whjat you claim it to say.

You cannot separate the 2300 day prophecy and the judgement as you want to. They are linked together and once you separate them then you can start the judgement anytime at all.

I have never heard even the most avid supporters of the "No IJ" group come up with this one before.

I think you are all alone on this one. Most of the "No IJ" group admit there will be a judgement but it takes place at the Second Coming and not starting in 1844. You are going back nearly another 2,000 years.

Doubt if you are going to get any support from them on this one.

 

[woobadooba]

OK, I also have been given info that allows you to debate here as long as the SDA Church is shown in your profile and as it is you can go ahead.

17For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (NIV)

17For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (KJV)

17For it is time for judgment (A)to begin with (B)the household of God; and if it (C)begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those (D)who do not obey the (E)gospel of God? (NASB)

They are all saying the same thing. Judgement begins with the house of God.

How do you get that Peter is saying it began in his day. All he is saying is that it began with the house of God and that really is the Church.

It is not say whjat you claim it to say.

You cannot separate the 2300 day prophecy and the judgement as you want to. They are linked together and once you separate them then you can start the judgement anytime at all.

I have never heard even the most avid supporters of the "No IJ" group come up with this one before.

I think you are all alone on this one. Most of the "No IJ" group admit there will be a judgement but it takes place at the Second Coming and not starting in 1844. You are going back nearly another 2,000 years.

Doubt if you are going to get any support from them on this one.

Oh, but Cliff, the text says "For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God"

Do you understand what that means? That's present tense, for the time HAS COME.

Moreover, we know that the judgment that Peter is referring to includes him, because he said, "and if it begins with us", thus using the first person plural pronoun "us" to indicate that he too was being judged!

By the way Cliff, I am not interested in who does or doesn't agree with me. I am interested in knowing the truth about when the IJ really began, and you obviously don't have it.

Try again, if you will, but you can't ignore scripture! According to Peter you are wrong!

Also, I am not trying to separate the judgment from the prophecy. I don't know how you get that out of what I've said, since I am trying to show you that it didn't begin when you say it did. What I am saying however, is that it seems to me that you have misinterpreted the prophecy.

 

[honorthesabbath]

WOO--The apostles believed and hoped that Christ would return in their life time. Through the NT that theme is evident. Look at this text--notice the phrase that I have emphacised. Notice the word "WE". Did Jesus come back and take them back then?? NO!! Peter is using the same reasoning--he thought that since they knew there was going to be a pre-advent judgment--then of course it would have to start with them. They did not know the "times".

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

 

[Cliff2]

Oh, but Cliff, the text says "For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God"

Do you understand what that means? That's present tense, for the time HAS COME.

Moreover, we know that the judgment that Peter is referring to includes him, because he said, "and if it begins with us", thus using the first person plural pronoun "us" to indicate that he too was being judged!

By the way Cliff, I am not interested in who does or doesn't agree with me. I am interested in knowing the truth about when the IJ really began, and you obviously don't have it.

Try again, if you will, but you can't ignore scripture! According to Peter you are wrong!

Also, I am not trying to separate the judgment from the prophecy. I don't know how you get that out of what I've said, since I am trying to show you that it didn't begin when you say it did. What I am saying however, is that it seems to me that you have misinterpreted the prophecy.

You are mis-understanding Scripture.

The IJ never started in the days of Peter.

No where in the Bible do you get that message.

You claim to be saying that you are not separating judgement and prophecy but that is exactly what you are doing.

You are discarding prophecy by saying the IJ started in Peter's day.

 

[woobadooba]

You are mis-understanding Scripture.

The IJ never started in the days of Peter.

No where in the Bible do you get that message.

You claim to be saying that you are not separating judgement and prophecy but that is exactly what you are doing.

You are discarding prophecy by saying the IJ started in Peter's day.

So what phase of the judgment is Peter talking about then?

You really amaze me Cliff. You have a wonderful way of avoiding legitimate questions!