The Investigative Judgment cannot stand against Scripture

[Keachian]

So following some study I have been doing on the Torah and the posts from Tall73, I feel like this information would be cool to share here;

At the end of the book of Numbers (28:3-29:38) we have a list of all the sacrifices that must be performed each year totalling 113 bulls, 32 rams, 1086 lambs and 26 goats. The way this relates to Christ's sacrifice in my mind is somewhat multifaceted, in his eschaton we have Ezekiel stating that the prince will provide these offerings(46:4) ithe prince offers something greater than what the Law puts in place, then we look at Hebrews again, we ascertain that Christ's blood is greater than that of the animal offerings (9:13ff) and then come to 10:11 where Christ's offering is compared with that of the priests who stand daily to perform their offering. His offering as stated in 10:12 is for all time, our prince has made the greater sacrifice and perfected those who are being sanctified through his single offering made in his own blood and flesh. I would hazard that the writer of Hebrews has both Numbers and Ezekiel in mind when he describes Christ's offering being greater than the daily offerings in 10:11-14

 

[Stryder06]

The people are the issue all the way through, even when cleansing the sanctuary.

The sin offering is for the people.

It is the uncleanness of the people, all their sins, that causes the uncleanness of the sanctuary to begin with, because it is in the misdt of their uncleanness.

nm

 

[tall73]

So following some study I have been doing on the Torah and the posts from Tall73, I feel like this information would be cool to share here;

At the end of the book of Numbers (28:3-29:38) we have a list of all the sacrifices that must be performed each year totalling 113 bulls, 32 rams, 1086 lambs and 26 goats. The way this relates to Christ's sacrifice in my mind is somewhat multifaceted, in his eschaton we have Ezekiel stating that the prince will provide these offerings(46:4) ithe prince offers something greater than what the Law puts in place, then we look at Hebrews again, we ascertain that Christ's blood is greater than that of the animal offerings (9:13ff) and then come to 10:11 where Christ's offering is compared with that of the priests who stand daily to perform their offering. His offering as stated in 10:12 is for all time, our prince has made the greater sacrifice and perfected those who are being sanctified through his single offering made in his own blood and flesh. I would hazard that the writer of Hebrews has both Numbers and Ezekiel in mind when he describes Christ's offering being greater than the daily offerings in 10:11-14

Yeah, I would think the daily offerings offered throughout the year, including sin offerings, fellowship offerings, etc.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by tall73

The people are the issue all the way through, even when cleansing the sanctuary.

The sin offering is for the people.

It is the uncleanness of the people, all their sins, that causes the uncleanness of the sanctuary to begin with, because it is in the misdt of their uncleanness.
​

nm

The Red Heifer is an interesting study on "uncleanness"

Kindgdom Bible Studies Ashes of a Red Heifer Part 1

THE ASHES OF A RED HEIFER​

Numbers 19 is a most unusual chapter in the Old Testament. All the offerings in the Bible are bullocks and rams, but here there is an exception - a heifer, a female cow who has never given birth. All the offerings in the Old Testament are slaughtered and offered to God, but this offering of the red heifer, though killed and burned, is very different from the rest.

While all others are offered to God to meet current claims - that is, the sin-offering, the burnt offering, or the peace offering according to the need of the day - the red heifer alone was not for the present need. It was offered to meet future needs. The ordinance of the red heifer stands alone. While other sacrifices are often brought before us, this one is recorded in no other part of Israel's history.

The cleansing for which these red cow ashes were prescribed, were of a peculiar kind, namely, specially for those who became CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN by coming into contact with DEATH. It is called a "sin-offering" only in the sense that a ceremonially unclean person came under the jurisdiction of the law, with penalty if he were not properly cleansed according to law.

The ashes of the heifer were not designed to remove MORAL SIN, it was only a ceremonial cleansing, called by the writer of Hebrews that which "sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13). Bullocks were offered by people who had committed sin in its usual sense - moral sin. But the offering of the red heifer was different. In relation to its purifying work no man had been wronged, nor had God been disobeyed!

.............

 

[from scratch]

The Investigative Judgment, is the distinctive doctrine of Seventh Day Adventism codified to cover themselves after their belief that Christ would return in 1844 failed to come true, instead it was postulated by some of the early Adventists that it was actually at this point that Christ entered the Most Holy Place, this belief was later supported by the "prophet" of the group Ellen G White and found its way into most of her writings, part of the original doctrine included the shut door belief that no-one who wasn't a Christian (or in some cases an Adventist) at the time in which Christ entered the most Holy Place could not come under Grace, however as the group grew both through converts and births this part of the doctrine was dropped.

Now I have found no Scriptural evidence for this doctrine and I worry about the consequences of this belief as from my study, the SDA legalism flows from this doctrine.

In fact the book of Hebrews where the drumbeat of ἐφάπαξ "once-for-all" in relation to Christ's work on the Cross destroys the doctrine.

If we follow the writer's argument throughout the book we find that he culminates in the comparison of Christ's work and that of the High Priest in 9:7-10 for the High Priest and 9:11-14 for Christ:

In verses 7-10 we see the Atonement ritual being described, being performed by the High Priest

verse 11 Christ has appeared, a High Priest, herald of the good! and so he enters in to the place (v12a) and we have this strange reference in 12b it's not with the blood that the Old High Priests used to use (cf. Lev 16:15ff), but his own blood, by his own blood he is doing this and as opposed to what the OHP managed to get done (cf. v9) Christ has secured eternal redemption (12c) we are then reminded of the inefficiency of the atoning work done by the OHP in comparison to Christ (13-14b), he has accomplished a purification! Our consciences are no longer weighed down by the dead works! We serve the living and reigning God! (14c)

What have I just described? Atonement, in it's fullness done in the first century, not started in the 19th. If it were the other way around we'd have a jump of 1800 years between v13 and v14, what Justification is there of that?

The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment relies on reading into this passage another ritual that is not being discussed immediately beforehand in v7-10, nor immediately afterwards in 9:15-10:4 which continue to parallel Christ's sacrifice with that of the atonement and other High Priestly functions, namely that of a mediator, rather to justify this importation of ideas we jump down to 10:11, and ignore 10:14 and the following discussion of the forgiveness wrought through Christ's atonement work.

I have been redeemed and I have been judged through the Cross of Christ, I need not rely on my own righteousness, it is but rags, however God made him who knew no sin, become my sin, so that in him, I might be counted as his righteousness.

One verse found in the Gospel of John does it for me.

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

 

[from scratch]

Hate to break it to you, but you haven't actually described the atonement process. You should go back to the service as described in Leviticus so you can see the atonement process and how it was conducted.

Are remotely trying to say that Jesus hasn't made a complete atonement?

 

[from scratch]

OK what did he explain or describe?

bugkiller

Say that is a good debate linked in your siggy.

 

[tall73]

The Red Heifer is an interesting study on "uncleanness"

Kindgdom Bible Studies Ashes of a Red Heifer Part 1

THE ASHES OF A RED HEIFER​

Numbers 19 is a most unusual chapter in the Old Testament. All the offerings in the Bible are bullocks and rams, but here there is an exception - a heifer, a female cow who has never given birth. All the offerings in the Old Testament are slaughtered and offered to God, but this offering of the red heifer, though killed and burned, is very different from the rest.

While all others are offered to God to meet current claims - that is, the sin-offering, the burnt offering, or the peace offering according to the need of the day - the red heifer alone was not for the present need. It was offered to meet future needs. The ordinance of the red heifer stands alone. While other sacrifices are often brought before us, this one is recorded in no other part of Israel's history.

The cleansing for which these red cow ashes were prescribed, were of a peculiar kind, namely, specially for those who became CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN by coming into contact with DEATH. It is called a "sin-offering" only in the sense that a ceremonially unclean person came under the jurisdiction of the law, with penalty if he were not properly cleansed according to law.

The ashes of the heifer were not designed to remove MORAL SIN, it was only a ceremonial cleansing, called by the writer of Hebrews that which "sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13). Bullocks were offered by people who had committed sin in its usual sense - moral sin. But the offering of the red heifer was different. In relation to its purifying work no man had been wronged, nor had God been disobeyed!

.............

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

The Red Heifer is an interesting study on "uncleanness"
​

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

.

 

[Stryder06]

Are remotely trying to say that Jesus hasn't made a complete atonement?

You can't understand atonement without understanding the sanctuary. You need to study that first, and then you'll see the answer to your question.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by from scratch

Are remotely trying to say that Jesus hasn't made a complete atonement?
​

You can't understand atonement without understanding the sanctuary.
You need to study that first, and then you'll see the answer to your question.

And you and the SDA sect understand it?



.

 

[from scratch]

And you and the SDA sect understand it?

He's just sneaking out the back door rather than answer the question.

 

[from scratch]

You can't understand atonement without understanding the sanctuary. You need to study that first, and then you'll see the answer to your question.

I've studied the sanctuary and the IJ thanks. I still don't agree with you.

 

[Keachian]

You can't understand atonement without understanding the sanctuary. You need to study that first, and then you'll see the answer to your question.

Your doctrine of the Sanctuary is in a view dictated by your view of atonement. It is not just the Book of Hebrews that says that the Elect are at-one with God. Because your view has been dictated to you that Christ didn't even start the work of atonement until 1844, your view of atonement and sanctuary need to be molded around this idea rather than have Scripture mold your theology for you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Isn't the investigative judgement a technique adopted by some disappointed Millerites to explain why their Apocalypse didn't happen and why they are still the folk with the inside information on the future? It's part of the knowledge that the initiates gain by joining the inner-circle of apocalyptic princes in a church that will triumph over all foes, especially religious foes. That is, after all, why all the Millerite spin-offs see their own movement as a movement of destiny.

 

[from scratch]

Isn't the investigative judgement a technique adopted by some disappointed Millerites to explain why their Apocalypse didn't happen and why they are still the folk with the inside information on the future? It's part of the knowledge that the initiates gain by joining the inner-circle of apocalyptic princes in a church that will triumph over all foes, especially religious foes. That is, after all, why all the Millerite spin-offs see their own movement as a movement of destiny.

I think you're right on the money.