What are 7th day adventists?

[Eagle55]

Great response!
Two more to tackle:

• What is the "first" this verse addresses?
• What is the disposition of that "first", and the reason for it?

The "first" would be referring to "sacrifices and burnt offerings." The exact "disposition" of this "first is not revealed in that text; except to say that Jesus "took it away," so that it could be substituted by "doing God's will."

 

[VictorC]

The "first" would be referring to "sacrifices and burnt offerings." The exact "disposition" of this "first is not revealed in that text; except to say that Jesus "took it away," so that it could be substituted by "doing God's will."

The "first" refers to the covenant from Mount Sinai, "the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" as Hebrews 8:9 describes the first covenant. That was the Ten Commandments and the book of the law, as Moses described the first part of my statement in Deuteronomy 4:13.

And you are right concerning its disposition of "taken away". The Ten Commandments was taken away in order to establish the new covenant; these two covenants are incompatible.

 

[OntheDL]

Granted, the use of argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy that at first appears without basis. However, it needs to be recognized that Adventism itself has not been able to determine Biblical evidence for the Sanctuary Doctrine, which is the necessary apologetic event that 1844 supposedly fulfilled within Adventist theology. This is from one of Adventism's editors of the SDA Bible Commentary, in his presentation The 'sanctuary doctrine' – Asset or liability, presented in November 2001:

The emphasis was added by me to make the conclusion Dr. Cottrell faced more evident. The reference to SDA Fundamental Belief #23 comes from when there were only 27 Fundamentals, and not the 28 the church codifies today (the IJ is Fundamental #24 now). The mention Ricker made that no other group in the history of Christendom has ever accepted the Sanctuary Doctrine comes from the lack of evidence for the doctrine Adventism is alone in promoting; there is no Biblical basis for 1844, and there is no event that fulfilled this non-eventful date.

Raymond Cottrell was what we call a liberal 'Adventist' who did not believe in the doctrine that made us a people. We have a lot of them. I always say the door is wide open. We don't force anyone to be with us if they don't believe in what we believe.

Funny thing about Cottrell while he didn't believe in IJ his father, grandfather and great grandfather did. So his opinion carries little weight.

Again, you have not presented anything substantial (from the scriptures) to dispute the IJ and you did not respond to my reply to your earlier post.

I posted a link previously to a 50-week study of the sanctuary. You are welcome to read it and come back to continue the discussion.

To be honest, none of the quotes and argument you posted have been a revelation to us. All of these have been but a regurgitation of the Desmond Ford who regurgitated Dudly Canright's arguments.

The fact no one else understood and taught this does not make you look good. The scripture tells us the book of Daniel was sealed and was unsealed at the end. The wise shall understand but the wicked shall do wickedly and none of the wicked shall understand.

 

[VictorC]

Raymond Cottrell was what we call a liberal 'Adventist' who did not believe in the doctrine that made us a people. We have a lot of them. I always say the door is wide open. We don't force anyone to be with us if they don't believe in what we believe.

Funny thing about Cottrell while he didn't believe in IJ his father, grandfather and great grandfather did. So his opinion carries little weight.

The weight of Dr. Cottrell comes in the body of the quote I provided from his presentation The Sanctuary Doctrine - Asset or Liability that shows his personal journey to support the Adventist doctrine revolving around the sanctuary. The evidence Dr. Cottrell conveys is that the entire SDA educational system is unable to find Biblical support for an event or a prophecy relating to 1844. That was Dr. Cottrell's motive when he was tasked to aid in editing volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary, and he sought broad support in order to harmonize SDA doctrine with the Bible - and found that it can't be done.

Again, you have not presented anything substantial (from the scriptures) to dispute the IJ and you did not respond to my reply to your earlier post.

I posted a link previously to a 50-week study of the sanctuary. You are welcome to read it and come back to continue the discussion.

I probably have 50 weeks of study under my belt already, and the opinions gleaned in someone else's work isn't the topic of this thread, which was initiated to question what Adventists believe.

I mentioned that I have a reply for your latest post ready, and it still exists in Notepad format on the pen drive in my pocket. I also mentioned that I was holding off posting it until you offer something in response to Hebrews 10:9, other than complete denial of this text that summarizes the change of the covenants in the epistle to the Hebrews. The reason I haven't responded is because you have departed from this discussion for over a week.

To be honest, none of the quotes and argument you posted have been a revelation to us. All of these have been but a regurgitation of the Desmond Ford who regurgitated Dudly Canright's arguments.

The fact no one else understood and taught this does not make you look good. The scripture tells us the book of Daniel was sealed and was unsealed at the end. The wise shall understand but the wicked shall do wickedly and none of the wicked shall understand.

The reason that no one teaches the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine isn't from a lack of understanding of it. Several Adventist administrators and clergy have examined it, as well as members of various denominations who have no vested interest in Adventism - such as myself. The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is probably the most cited reason these administrators and clergy leave the SDA church.

The concept that there is a work of atonement past the end of the first covenant law that codifies the entire rite of atonement is an affront to the Biblical Gospel, which portrays that Christ's atonement is complete and sufficient for our salvation. This includes the aspect of His sacrifice at Calvary, and His offering in the heavenly sanctuary, both of which are written as actions in the past tense that there is no addition to be made to. This is the cause of non-Adventist's violent response to Adventism once they discover the impact the SDA message revolving around 1844 has. Applying a text in Daniel 8 that was fulfilled in the celebration of Hanukkah to a date when there were no oblations to restore is simply incompetent, and this is what Ellen White claimed to be the "foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith" to be. Applying another text from Daniel that ignores its context is equally incompetent, as Jesus gave us instructions from Daniel that were understood by those contemporary to his time and written about by early church fathers such as Hippolytus.

The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is unique to Adventism for the reason that it was invented as an apology for 1844, to furnish an event that a misunderstood prophecy based on a mistranslation in the King James Version of the Bible didn't foretell. That is all it is. As no one else has a need to apologize for a non-event in 1844, it will remain forever unique to Adventism. The doctrine describes a judgment in absentia of the accused that will determine the salvation of the "professed people of God", and that judgment isn't found in Scripture anywhere. It remains the burden of Adventist apologists to support this abhorrent departure from the Gospel they rely on, for a vacuum is the void they need to fill. That vacuum was addressed by the entire Adventist educational system, and has no support.

 

[OntheDL]

The weight of Dr. Cottrell comes in the body of the quote I provided from his presentation The Sanctuary Doctrine - Asset or Liability that shows his personal journey to support the Adventist doctrine revolving around the sanctuary. The evidence Dr. Cottrell conveys is that the entire SDA educational system is unable to find Biblical support for an event or a prophecy relating to 1844. That was Dr. Cottrell's motive when he was tasked to aid in editing volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary, and he sought broad support in order to harmonize SDA doctrine with the Bible - and found that it can't be done.

Again we don't need to use someone's opinion to make a point. I found plenty in the bible to support IJ.

I probably have 50 weeks of study under my belt already, and the opinions gleaned in someone else's work isn't the topic of this thread, which was initiated to question what Adventists believe.

50 weeks of what study? The total of Canright and Ford's arguments/writings don't amount to 50 weeks. You got anything new? I haven't seen it.

I mentioned that I have a reply for your latest post ready, and it still exists in Notepad format on the pen drive in my pocket. I also mentioned that I was holding off posting it until you offer something in response to Hebrews 10:9, other than complete denial of this text that summarizes the change of the covenants in the epistle to the Hebrews. The reason I haven't responded is because you have departed from this discussion for over a week.

I responded to Heb 10:9 a couple of times. You just have to go back and read what was written and respond to it.

The reason that no one teaches the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine isn't from a lack of understanding of it. Several Adventist administrators and clergy have examined it, as well as members of various denominations who have no vested interest in Adventism - such as myself. The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is probably the most cited reason these administrators and clergy leave the SDA church.

Again the bible tells us the wise shall understand and none of the wicked shall understand.

The concept that there is a work of atonement past the end of the first covenant law that codifies the entire rite of atonement is an affront to the Biblical Gospel, which portrays that Christ's atonement is complete and sufficient for our salvation. This includes the aspect of His sacrifice at Calvary, and His offering in the heavenly sanctuary, both of which are written as actions in the past tense that there is no addition to be made to.

Obviously that's where the difference is. The scriptures(NT) state many times, those who overcomes and endures to the end shall be saved. Your concept of salvation is an event. But we understand it to be a life-long experience, a life-long journey. You don't believe in the process of sanctification to be a life-long experience that's because the bible tells us the Lord sanctifies only those who keep the sabbath holy.

This is the cause of non-Adventist's violent response to Adventism once they discover the impact the SDA message revolving around 1844 has. Applying a text in Daniel 8 that was fulfilled in the celebration of Hanukkah to a date when there were no oblations to restore is simply incompetent, and this is what Ellen White claimed to be the "foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith" to be. Applying another text from Daniel that ignores its context is equally incompetent, as Jesus gave us instructions from Daniel that were understood by those contemporary to his time and written about by early church fathers such as Hippolytus.

The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is unique to Adventism for the reason that it was invented as an apology for 1844, to furnish an event that a misunderstood prophecy based on a mistranslation in the King James Version of the Bible didn't foretell. That is all it is. As no one else has a need to apologize for a non-event in 1844, it will remain forever unique to Adventism. The doctrine describes a judgment in absentia of the accused that will determine the salvation of the "professed people of God", and that judgment isn't found in Scripture anywhere. It remains the burden of Adventist apologists to support this abhorrent departure from the Gospel they rely on, for a vacuum is the void they need to fill. That vacuum was addressed by the entire Adventist educational system, and has no support.

All you wrote above and in this thread is pure personal opinion none of which is substantiated by the scriptures. You don't think anything happened in 1844. That's ok. I'm quite fine with it. After all, the bible does say only the wise shall understand, not the wicked. You can demonize it. You can ridicule it. But the truth shall endure to the end.

Try to provide something concrete with scriptural backing. Otherwise I think I'm done responding to your thoughts and opinions.

 

[Eagle55]

The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is unique to Adventism for the reason that it was invented as an apology for 1844, to furnish an event that a misunderstood prophecy based on a mistranslation in the King James Version of the Bible didn't foretell.

It remains the burden of Adventist apologists to support this abhorrent departure from the Gospel they rely on, for a vacuum is the void they need to fill. That vacuum was addressed by the entire Adventist educational system, and has no support.

To me; this is one doctrine I have never had trouble with! It was this doctrine re the Investigative/PreAdvent Judgment that convinced me how that Jesus was real; and that Jesus was the center-point of His gospel.

I actually corresponded with Raymond Cottrell years ago for a bit because I wanted to ask him a question about an article he had written in a Signs Magazine at the time. He seemed quite irritated at my question; but he did send me a written answer; and I recognized in his, as in others, how objections to this doctrine all seem to originate from just one, maybe two men. This is not an opinion; but something that could be proven. Therefore, I would question why it is so wrong to respond to "opinions and thoughts," instead of "scripture proof." Its a lot of opinons and thoughts without scripture coming from all those who copy the original ideas opposed to this doctrine. It's really just a simple matter of showing what the scriptures say about same; that's what a discussion forum is for. To exchange notes - sometimes with Bible verses, sometimes with thoughts that point to certain verses, etc. But who do you know that posts absolutely nothing but scripture here, ot in any other forum topic?

"Christ and Him crucified" is the mainstay of the PreAdvent Judgment, so I don't understand all this talk about how it is so grotesque and such a heinous departure from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. I just don't understand why people would speak so disparagingly about this wonderful, Christ-centered doctrine.

 

[from scratch]

Raymond Cottrell was what we call a liberal 'Adventist' who did not believe in the doctrine that made us a people. We have a lot of them. I always say the door is wide open. We don't force anyone to be with us if they don't believe in what we believe.

Funny thing about Cottrell while he didn't believe in IJ his father, grandfather and great grandfather did. So his opinion carries little weight.

I find this dismissal increditable. You are basing your dismissal on what someone else believed and not on anthing the individual said. I say simpley increditable, it passes amazing.

Again, you have not presented anything substantial (from the scriptures) to dispute the IJ and you did not respond to my reply to your earlier post.

I posted a link previously to a 50-week study of the sanctuary. You are welcome to read it and come back to continue the discussion.

if the 50 week study is so valuable to this discussion why don't you post its points?

To be honest, none of the quotes and argument you posted have been a revelation to us. All of these have been but a regurgitation of the Desmond Ford who regurgitated Dudly Canright's arguments.

The fact no one else understood and taught this does not make you look good. The scripture tells us the book of Daniel was sealed and was unsealed at the end. The wise shall understand but the wicked shall do wickedly and none of the wicked shall understand.

 

[VictorC]

The weight of Dr. Cottrell comes in the body of the quote I provided from his presentation The Sanctuary Doctrine - Asset or Liability that shows his personal journey to support the Adventist doctrine revolving around the sanctuary. The evidence Dr. Cottrell conveys is that the entire SDA educational system is unable to find Biblical support for an event or a prophecy relating to 1844. That was Dr. Cottrell's motive when he was tasked to aid in editing volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary, and he sought broad support in order to harmonize SDA doctrine with the Bible - and found that it can't be done.

Again we don't need to use someone's opinion to make a point. I found plenty in the bible to support IJ.

Your approach is to dismiss the entire educational arm of the SDA church that has the responsibility to teach the doctrine you claim has support in the Bible. No linguistic support from Daniel 8 exists that directs attention to a date in 1844, and without this premise the entire IJ doctrine falls completely.

I probably have 50 weeks of study under my belt already, and the opinions gleaned in someone else's work isn't the topic of this thread, which was initiated to question what Adventists believe.

50 weeks of what study? The total of Canright and Ford's arguments/writings don't amount to 50 weeks. You got anything new? I haven't seen it.

By "study" you appear to reference the work of someone else, and rely on the opinions that they posit. Have you ever studied the Biblical texts themselves to locate support for the IJ?

• Have you ever determined how many yowm are represented by the use of 2300 ereb-boqer?
• Have you ever reconciled the Greek political lineage of the little horn depicted in Daniel 8 with Adventist theory that posits a Roman origin?
• Have you ever determined which sanctuary is referred to, that is charged with the oblations that ceased for 2300 ereb-boqer? Or reconciled Adventist theory that can't document any oblations after 70AD?
• Have you ever reconciled the Greek plural use of ta hagia to determine Christ's once-for-all entrance into the MHP as it appears in Hebrews 9:25 with the Adventist theory that this was only an inauguration that mandated another entrance?

And so forth. The study you should engage in is of the Scriptures, and not something that has Canright or Ford's name attached to it.

 

[VictorC]

I mentioned that I have a reply for your latest post ready, and it still exists in Notepad format on the pen drive in my pocket. I also mentioned that I was holding off posting it until you offer something in response to Hebrews 10:9, other than complete denial of this text that summarizes the change of the covenants in the epistle to the Hebrews. The reason I haven't responded is because you have departed from this discussion for over a week.

I responded to Heb 10:9 a couple of times. You just have to go back and read what was written and respond to it.

You once claimed to have a response, but you instead dismissed Hebrews 10:9 and opined material completely unrelated to it. That isn't a response. You haven't offered anything that acknowledges the change away from the first covenant this passage describes.

Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second.​

God's disposition of the first covenant is plainly evident, and your response has been to ignore the Gospel's message of redemption and refer to Adventism's message of obedience to the first covenant. It is as if this passage causes your brain to lock up and stop working. You have no answer.

 

[VictorC]

The reason that no one teaches the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine isn't from a lack of understanding of it. Several Adventist administrators and clergy have examined it, as well as members of various denominations who have no vested interest in Adventism - such as myself. The SDA Investigative Judgment doctrine is probably the most cited reason these administrators and clergy leave the SDA church.

Again the bible tells us the wise shall understand and none of the wicked shall understand.

This response is unrelated to the material posted, and infers only that you claim to lack wisdom. I don't think this is your intention, but it should be evident to anyone that making an appeal to being unable to understand Scripture is not a proof that you somehow have something right.

 

[OntheDL]

I find this dismissal encreditable. You are basing your dismissal on what someone else believed and not on anthing the individual said. I say simpley increditable, it passes amazing.

What's amazing is that someone can use another's opinion to make a point. I was simply stating how subjective opinion can be from person to person.

If the 50 week study is so valuable to this discussion why don't you post its points?

It's really beyond the scope of the discussion.

 

[VictorC]

The concept that there is a work of atonement past the end of the first covenant law that codifies the entire rite of atonement is an affront to the Biblical Gospel, which portrays that Christ's atonement is complete and sufficient for our salvation. This includes the aspect of His sacrifice at Calvary, and His offering in the heavenly sanctuary, both of which are written as actions in the past tense that there is no addition to be made to.

Obviously that's where the difference is. The scriptures(NT) state many times, those who overcomes and endures to the end shall be saved. Your concept of salvation is an event. But we understand it to be a life-long experience, a life-long journey. You don't believe in the process of sanctification to be a life-long experience that's because the bible tells us the Lord sanctifies only those who keep the sabbath holy.

I am rapidly coming to a conclusion that you don't understand the point made that you responded to. Hebrews 9 has this to say concerning Christ's propitiation:

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.​

Eternal salvation has been obtained by God's eternal redemption. Verse 15 proclaims that Christ is the Mediator of the new covenant after having redeemed our transgressions that existed under the first covenant. Hebrews 10:9 goes on in this same narrative to show that the first covenant is taken away. The verses that follow explain how atonement is a completed rite that is not added to or repeated.

10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”
17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.​

Our sins have been remitted, and our transgressions have been redeemed, and both of these are presented in the perfect tense as completed actions by God. Moreover, after the first covenant is taken away, the rite of atonement doesn't exist anymore, because the law that authorized it doesn't exist any longer. Those being sanctified refers to God's actions in generations to come from when this was written, and the same benefit of God's redemption exists for all those who call on His Name and are purchased with His Blood atonement there is no authorization to modify. Now look at SDA Fundamental Belief #24:

24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent.​

Show this Fundamental to any seminary graduate of any mainstream denomination and they will have the same response to it as I did when I first read it. Atonement has no addition in 1844, and there is no such thing as a "second and last phase of His atoning ministry" in a dispensation where no authority exists for atonement. It is a reference to the law of the first covenant, outside of which atonement doesn't exist.

In addition, this Fundamental claims to justify only those who "keep the commandments of God" - and this isn't a reference to John's writings in Revelation 14:12 and similar passages. It is again SDA-speak for compliance to the first covenant God already redeemed our transgressions from. That aspect of Adventist theology is impossible to reconcile with Romans 11:32 concerning God's conclusion for all the recipients of the first covenant: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." Which part of "all" don't you understand? Adventist soteriology based on compliance to the first covenant God declared all disobedient to simply forces a conclusion that you appeal to an Investigative Judgment that God has already determined ahead of time no one has a chance of surviving! That is antithetical to the Gospel of redemption, and the reason you refused to address Galatians 4:21-31 earlier in this thread.

And, the law God calls His own is not from the first covenant, as Jeremiah 31:31-34 itself shows as well as Hebrews 8 when it quotes from it. His law is the Authority that is vastly superior to the temporal covenant Adventism claims to adhere to (a truncated version, actually), and it causes us a personal knowledge of the Creator, and not the created law Jesus taught Peter has no applicability to the adopted children of God in Matthew 17:24-26.

Sins and transgressions aren't to be remembered for God's redeemed children in his adoption; that is a promise that Hebrews 10:17 reminds us of from when it quotes from Jeremiah 31. That alone erases the premise of a judgment in absentia of the accused for those God already redeemed as His children to determine their salvation, and this simple Scripture alone refutes the Investigative Judgment.

The issue of vindicating the justice of God is related to Adventism's mission to vindicate the law of God, the first covenant that God took away. it is the Great Controversy theme of overturning satan's accusation that appears nowhere in Scripture.

In the last generation God gives the final demonstration that men can keep the law of God and that they can live without sinning. God leaves nothing undone to make the demonstration complete. The only limitation He puts on Satan is that he may not kill the saints of God. He may tempt them, he may harass and threaten them; and he does his best. But he fails. He cannot make them sin. They stand the test, and God puts His seal on them. Through the last generation of saints God stands fully vindicated. (M.L. Andreasen The Sanctuary Service, Review and Herald, 1969 printing, pp. 318-19)​

You aren't going to keep the law ordained in the first covenant, and it was God who proclaimed that conclusion there is no appeal to. We were delivered from the first covenant (see Romans 7:6-7) for the express reason that no one was compliant to it, and no one will ever be compliant.

Romans 4:13-15
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​

Adventism seeks to nullify the promises of God, and posit an addition to atonement because they deny God's redemption of their transgressions under the covenant He delivered us from with His Blood.

 

[VictorC]

All you wrote above and in this thread is pure personal opinion none of which is substantiated by the scriptures. You don't think anything happened in 1844. That's ok. I'm quite fine with it. After all, the bible does say only the wise shall understand, not the wicked. You can demonize it. You can ridicule it. But the truth shall endure to the end.

Yet you have no answer for Scripture when it appears, and conclude that discussion concerning SDA doctrine doesn't have the truth of God's Gospel as its goal.

 

[OntheDL]

Your approach is to dismiss the entire educational arm of the SDA church that has the responsibility to teach the doctrine you claim has support in the Bible. No linguistic support from Daniel 8 exists that directs attention to a date in 1844, and without this premise the entire IJ doctrine falls completely.

Our church structure is falling. It's been infiltrated and is largely corrupt. The educational/academic system has been under most attacks. Most of the 'heresies' within the Adventist circle have originated from within the 'academic' circle. So using it makes no case for you. The bible teaches that what makes up the church is the individual believers, not the system, the structures.

There is definitive linguistic support of the 2300 days in Daniel 8 and Genesis 1. Our IJ doctrine does not hinge on one single point, but rather hinges on the understanding of the sanctuary which is taught from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation unlike the few chapters of it from your understanding.

By "study" you appear to reference the work of someone else, and rely on the opinions that they posit. Have you ever studied the Biblical texts themselves to locate support for the IJ?

• Have you ever determined how many yowm are represented by the use of 2300 ereb-boqer?
• Have you ever reconciled the Greek political lineage of the little horn depicted in Daniel 8 with Adventist theory that posits a Roman origin?
• Have you ever determined which sanctuary is referred to, that is charged with the oblations that ceased for 2300 ereb-boqer? Or reconciled Adventist theory that can't document any oblations after 70AD?
• Have you ever reconciled the Greek plural use of ta hagia to determine Christ's once-for-all entrance into the MHP as it appears in Hebrews 9:25 with the Adventist theory that this was only an inauguration that mandated another entrance?

And so forth. The study you should engage in is of the Scriptures, and not something that has Canright or Ford's name attached to it.

I have been here(CF) since 05. I think you missed some of the 'good' discussion on those. I don't think you really understand the questions you are asking because you obviously didn't recognize some of the answers that were provided. But anyways, I don't think right now I have the time to go over again the laundry list of questions that appear somewhat ambiguous to me. Maybe some of the resident participants on these issues can dig up the response to these type of issues from the past discussions.

 

[OntheDL]

Yet you have no answer for Scripture when it appears, and conclude that discussion concerning SDA doctrine doesn't have the truth of God's Gospel as its goal.

There are plenty of scriptural support. I just don't care to share it with you. Because obviously you are not open to discussions and are just repeating the same thing. Keep saying something does not make it so. Here is a tip for you: if you are looking for proof, stop saying there is none. Ok? Then you are just pushing an agenda. So you are welcome to read the link to the sanctuary study. It contains the answers to all the questions concerning IJ and take it what you will.

 

[VictorC]

To me; this is one doctrine I have never had trouble with! It was this doctrine re the Investigative/PreAdvent Judgment that convinced me how that Jesus was real; and that Jesus was the center-point of His gospel.

And yet searching Scripture from cover to cover offers no evidence of:

• any prophecy that calls attention to a date in 1844.
• any event that transpired in 1844.
• any judgment of God's redeemed children held in absentia of the accused to determine their salvation.

I actually corresponded with Raymond Cottrell years ago for a bit because I wanted to ask him a question about an article he had written in a Signs Magazine at the time. He seemed quite irritated at my question; but he did send me a written answer; and I recognized in his, as in others, how objections to this doctrine all seem to originate from just one, maybe two men. This is not an opinion; but something that could be proven. Therefore, I would question why it is so wrong to respond to "opinions and thoughts," instead of "scripture proof." Its a lot of opinons and thoughts without scripture coming from all those who copy the original ideas opposed to this doctrine. It's really just a simple matter of showing what the scriptures say about same; that's what a discussion forum is for. To exchange notes - sometimes with Bible verses, sometimes with thoughts that point to certain verses, etc. But who do you know that posts absolutely nothing but scripture here, ot in any other forum topic?

Have you ever read Dr. Raymond Cottrell's presentation The Sanctuary Doctrine - Asset or Liability? The Jesus Institute Forum website had it as a first-person document when Dr. Cottrell gave it to them, but that website no longer exists. However, Dr. Cottrell's presentation is insightful and detailed to the point I considered it prudent to copy into a Word document when I read it. It still exists on the web, hosted by sites unfavorable to Adventism because of the impact that presentation has, and it is worth searching for and reading. Plenty of quotes and citations from both Ellen White and Scripture are given to conclude that the Investigative Judgment codified in SDA Fundamental Belief #24 is unsupportable from Scripture. This from a man who concludes that the doctrine should be modified and retained in some form, for Dr. Cottrell was a dedicated Adventist his entire tenure in the church.

"Christ and Him crucified" is the mainstay of the PreAdvent Judgment, so I don't understand all this talk about how it is so grotesque and such a heinous departure from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The IJ doesn't recognize Christ's redemption, and His role in the present tense as our Mediator of the new covenant instead of the first covenant He took away through His propitiation.

Hebrews 9
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.​

Jesus Christ doesn't mediate the covenant from Mount Sinai; that was mediated under Moses. And yet the Adventist message assumes there is an addition to atonement that isn't authorized after the end of the first covenant, and that there is a judgment of new testament saints of their compliance to the first covenant as a determinant of their worthiness of salvation. This is a classic soteriology of works, and is naturally antitheitical to "Christ and Him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2).

This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent.

I just don't understand why people would speak so disparagingly about this wonderful, Christ-centered doctrine.[/SIZE]

It isn't Christ-centered at all.
It is man-centered that assumes mankind is going to vindicate God, or have anything that affirms His reputation using a judgment that doesn't exist. It is a fabrication of Adventism spawned on the Great Controversy theme of satan's accusation that doesn't exist anywhere in the Bible.

The Gospel: God saves man: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).
Adventist message: Mankind vindicates God, and in doing so saves God.

The chasm between these two messages has nothing to bridge the contrast that exists between them.

 

[VictorC]

Our church structure is falling. It's been infiltrated and is largely corrupt. The educational/academic system has been under most attacks. Most of the 'heresies' within the Adventist circle have originated from within the 'academic' circle. So using it makes no case for you. The bible teaches that what makes up the church is the individual believers, not the system, the structures.

False.
The Bible doesn't support the IJ doctrine, the reason Adventist scholarship is unable to locate it.

There is definitive linguistic support of the 2300 days in Daniel 8 and Genesis 1. Our IJ doctrine does not hinge on one single point, but rather hinges on the understanding of the sanctuary which is taught from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation unlike the few chapters of it from your understanding.

The linguistic support to be found in Daniel 8 needs to come from Daniel 8, and not a plethora of unrelated passages that reveal a eisegetical misuse of "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little" that Isaiah 28:13 warns to be a snare and a trap to those who employ the sound-bite theology you describe. That support doesn't exist.

I have been here(CF) since 05. I think you missed some of the 'good' discussion on those. I don't think you really understand the questions you are asking because you obviously didn't recognize some of the answers that were provided. But anyways, I don't think right now I have the time to go over again the laundry list of questions that appear somewhat ambiguous to me. Maybe some of the resident participants on these issues can dig up the response to these type of issues from the past discussions.

I have a history of 10,000 posts on CARM that precedes my CF experience; I came here by invitation from a member of both forums. While I have probably missed your contributions in the past, years and something over 12,000 posts has been the magnet of plenty of discussion. I still believe a personal study of Scripture is the most beneficial practice, and reliance on the opinions of other members does not aid the education process. Your response shows that requisite topics supporting or refuting the IJ aren't familiar to you, and they should be the basic foundation for this topic.

 

[VictorC]

There are plenty of scriptural support. I just don't care to share it with you. Because obviously you are not open to discussions and are just repeating the same thing. Keep saying something does not make it so. Here is a tip for you: if you are looking for proof, stop saying there is none. Ok? Then you are just pushing an agenda. So you are welcome to read the link to the sanctuary study. It contains the answers to all the questions concerning IJ and take it what you will.

It becomes evident that you don't comprehend Adventist doctrine and its contrast with Scripture. If you desire to bail out of this discussion, you're certainly free to do so with my blessing. This thread was initiated by someone inquiring what Adventists believe, and that purpose for this thread was completed a very long time ago.

 

[OntheDL]

False.
The Bible doesn't support the IJ doctrine, the reason Adventist scholarship is unable to locate it.

The linguistic support to be found in Daniel 8 needs to come from Daniel 8, and not a plethora of unrelated passages that reveal a eisegetical misuse of "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little" that Isaiah 28:13 warns to be a snare and a trap to those who employ the sound-bite theology you describe. That support doesn't exist.

I have a history of 10,000 posts on CARM that precedes my CF experience; I came here by invitation from a member of both forums. While I have probably missed your contributions in the past, years and something over 12,000 posts has been the magnet of plenty of discussion. I still believe a personal study of Scripture is the most beneficial practice, and reliance on the opinions of other members does not aid the education process. Your response shows that requisite topics supporting or refuting the IJ aren't familiar to you, and they should be the basic foundation for this topic.

It becomes evident that you don't comprehend Adventist doctrine and its contrast with Scripture. If you desire to bail out of this discussion, you're certainly free to do so with my blessing. This thread was initiated by someone inquiring what Adventists believe, and that purpose for this thread was completed a very long time ago.

Exactly that purpose was accomplished long time ago. A few of the participants inquired about IJ IM'ed me that they now believe the Adventist doctrine to be biblical.

And you just keep proving my point. Thank you for your fine job.

 

[VictorC]

Exactly that purpose was accomplished long time ago. A few of the participants inquired about IJ IM'ed me that they now believe the Adventist doctrine to be biblical.

And you just keep proving my point. Thank you for your fine job.

I'm not sure what I should conclude when someone claims ignorance the guide of conversion...