Where is Christ and what is He doing?

[Sophia7]

Chewing on all of this information as we speak...

My understanding is based on how Questions On Doctrine outlines it: That the atonement has been completed at the cross. Christ's Heavenly ministry only applies the merits of that atonement which has been secured. I agree with Clifford Goldstein and his lesson quarterly on this issue.

I can see some possible merit to that view, but it's definitely not the TSDA or the Historic view (not that I would expect you to agree with them anyway). I disagree with most of what Goldstein wrote in his book Graffiti in the Holy of Holies, though.

As for 1844, I believe that is when the pre-Advent judgment process began for the benefit of the onlooking angels and other Heavenly beings, showing that Christ's people are safe to save, are vindicated and declared innocent, branches snatched from the fire. It's to show that Satan has no case and he has no grounds on which to accuse us.

I just don't believe that Satan had any grounds to accuse us or to question God's fairness even before 1844. Any doubts would have been dispelled by Jesus' death and resurrection and ascension to the Father.

Thus, I reject an 'investigative' judgment and accept a 'pre-Advent' judgment. I categorically reject any process which determines our 'worthiness' for Heaven. We are worthy because Christ is worthy and His righteousness is imputed to us.

I agree with Sophia that God does not need any 'investigation' to determine who are His, He already knows.

On a final note, I do not believe 1844 or a pre-Advent judgment can be supported Scripturally. I accept them entirely on the basis of the fact that our pioneers seemed to see some significance for them. EGW also seems to have received special light on them. This is also the position some of our own scholars take on the matter in order to protect thier credibility as Bible exegetes.

I don't believe that 1844 has any significance although I do think that God has blessed the Adventist Church and used it to reach many people for Christ despite some false teachings.

You would be hard pressed to convince me that if one were to take an individual who was Biblically illiterate, isolate them in a room with only a Bible to read and nothing else, they would somehow miraculously come up with the date of 1844 and the pre-Advent judgment.

Doug Batchelor claims he did this very thing in his cave. He must be one special case then, able to compute and execute the theological, historical, chronological and eschatological gymnastics necessary to end up with 1844 in a single bound.

I do find it problematic that the Bible is supposed to be clear and easy enough for the most uneducated to grasp, and yet it appears to me this important information can only be attained by a specific group through special revelation from God that does not seem available to all. How is this fair on God's part? Are the Bible scholars from other denominations simply retarded that they can't come up with this stuff through thier own studies?

It is problematic to me, also, that no other group besides Adventists has ever come up with this stuff from the Bible alone.

Whether 1844 was the date Christ began the judgment phase of His Heavenly ministry or it was the date when the Advent movement began its proclamation of the three angel's message as Ford contends, doesn't really matter to me. I could be entirely wrong in thinking these two doctrines are actually valid. I have no problems admitting that. It is not a salvation issue for me. I believe it was a significant date for sure however.

I don't believe that it is a salvation issue either although I do think that the TSDA view (in its many variations throughout our history) has prevented many Adventists from having assurance of salvation, especially in years past. Fortunately, I think that is changing.

Wasn't 1844 also the date Darwin published his Origins Of The Species? I believe it was also the date when Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. But don't hold me to that.

I do know many significant things took place that year.

On the Origin of Species was actually published in 1859, but Darwin's views about natural selection had evolved over a long period of time before that. Actually, several people during that era were developing similar theories, and one book on the subject of evolution was even published anonymously in 1844, but not Darwin's. I think it's questionable that 1844 had much significance at all in regard to the rise of evolutionary thinking, especially considering the long history of it. You can read more about it here.

The Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848.

Also, I'm sure that many significant things take place every year.

I am just having a hard time accepting that Christ is just sitting stationary up there, twiddling His thumbs patiently until His return. I believe SOMETHING has to be taking place up there. When Christ said He was 'going there to prepare a place for us', does that not suggest some sort of work on our behalf, for our benefit? Hmmmm....

Carry on...

Well, I don't think Jesus is just sitting around twiddling His thumbs in heaven. I think He has plenty of stuff to do:

HEB 7:23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

HEB 7:26 Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

HEB 8:1 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
​

The atonement is done, but Jesus still intercedes for those whom He draws to Him, on the merits of His once-for-all atonement. A question has been asked in other threads about why we are still here if there is no IJ. Here are some answers:

2PE 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
_______________________________________________

1 TI 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time.
_______________________________________________

MT 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
​

 

[NightEternal]

What do you find so important about the pre-advent judgment. Unless you are being sarcastic, it does not seem terribly important to any human on earth if God proves to supposedly questioning angels that people are safe to save. From the Bible you get the idea that the holy angels are perfectly faithful to God and not about questioning God's honesty and trustworthiness by saving people. Of course if they question who God saves or not they are just as likely to question God's record keeping, which frankly would be easy to doctor. The intelligent beings with questions about God are right here on this very planet and the pre-advent judgment does nothing for them.

Origin of the species was published in 1859 the manifesto was 1848.
The problem with trying to find something that happened in 1844 is that what ever happened or ended happening had to begin 2300 years earlier, which is why the whole system has fallen apart.

No, I was being serious.

God is transparent and open with all of His dealings. He is not some dictator who has placed Himself above investigation or questioning. If that were so, He would not allow the 1000 year millenium which will be for precisely that purpose.

Hey, I'm not trying to mount an airtight argument for any of this by any stretch of the imagination. I admitted that I may be wrong in believing these doctrines are valid. It may turn out that 1844 is no more significant than 2004. By the same token, it could also turn out to be a very important date. Who knows.

I think I meant to say that Darwin was formulating and writing his book at the time of 1844, not publishing it.

 

[Sophia7]

Origin of the species was published in 1859 the manifesto was 1848.

Oops, I didn't see this before I posted. I guess I was writing mine while you posted yours.

 

[Sophia7]

I think I meant to say that Darwin was formulating and writing his book at the time of 1844, not publishing it.

But he was forumulating his ideas long before 1844. 1844 was really no more significant than any other year in the process, unless a person is specifically looking for some reason to consider it so. I guess we're going somewhat off topic here, though.

 

[Jon0388g]

You have said that the sinner was forgiven but that the sin was not really done away with until the Day of Atonement, only transferred to the sanctuary. I don't see that as real forgiveness because the sin isn't gone; it's still there hanging over people's heads,

No it is not "hanging over people's heads" - if they overcome to the end, the blood of Christ covers their whole record.

"...Though your sinsare as scarlet, they will be made as white as snow...." Isaiah 1:18

WILL be made as white as snow. Not, your sins are forgotten as soon as you repent. The Lord says He WILL remember them no longer.

You have not dealt with the fact that we are judged by all we have ever done and said. You haven't dealt with the fact that your line of thought taken to its logical conclusion, involves partial-covering of one's records if a person falls away from Christ, the very thing which made Tall retract some of his opinion.

and, even worse, God has to put up with its pollution in His holy presence.

Sophia, the very fact that the earth is still in existence is pollution in God's holy presence. Do you reject the sins being transferred to the heavenly sanctuary because of that weak argument?

My point, in contrast, is that the atonement was completed at the time of the sacrifice. The person was forgiven, and the sin was atoned for and gone. It wasn't waiting around defiling the sanctuary for the whole rest of the year until Yom Kippur.

Here are a couple of quotes from you:


http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34600283&postcount=49


http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34601407&postcount=52


The Bible says that the blood that was brought into the HP in the daily ministration (which did not include the blood of the individuals' sacrifices) was taken there to make atonement:

LEV 6:30 But any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place must not be eaten; it must be burned.​

​

You have to read into the Bible much more than it says in order to get it to support the idea that confessed sins were transferred to the sanctuary by blood and that the defilement of sin from the sanctuary was removed only on the Day of Atonement. These texts show that the sanctuary was defiled by sin at the time of its commission and also that atonement for the defilement of these particular sins was made immediately by the punishment of the sinner (not to be confused with being forgiven for his sin because his own death couldn't procure that for him), not postponed until the Day of Atonement:

LEV 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: `Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name.​

___________________________________________​

NU 19:11 "Whoever touches the dead body of anyone will be unclean for seven days. 12 He must purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third and seventh days, he will not be clean. 13 Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles the LORD's tabernacle. That person must be cut off from Israel. Because the water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on him, he is unclean; his uncleanness remains on him.​

___________________________________________​

NU 35:31 " `Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.​

NU 35:32 " `Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a city of refuge and so allow him to go back and live on his own land before the death of the high priest.​

NU 35:33 " `Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.​

NU 35:34 Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites.'"​

​

I guess we've already discussed many of these things in the DST thread, and we're no closer to agreeing on them.

Yup, you're right.


Jon

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

[/size][/font]


You have not dealt with the fact that we are judged by all we have ever done and said. You haven't dealt with the fact that your line of thought taken to its logical conclusion, involves partial-covering of one's records if a person falls away from Christ, the very thing which made Tall retract some of his opinion.

Are not we saved by faith and not works so how can the judgment be based upon everything we have done or said. rather we are judged on our faith in God that He can and will save us, Our faith is evidenced in our lives, who do we point to and who do we respect. How would it possibly matter if you have partial covering of sins yet still did not have faith in God? The result is the same whether you have faith or no faith, faith in God leads to life, no faith in God leads to death. It would be no different if you had faith for half your life and lost it for the last half ( not saying this is possible or not but just as an example). This works based salvation idea is why so many Christians have rejected the IJ doctrine, because it reflects on more then what happens in 1844 onward. It very much is a distortion of the gospel of salvation.

 

[djconklin]

On the Origin of Species was actually published in 1859, but Darwin's views about natural selection had evolved over a long period of time before that. Actually, several people during that era were developing similar theories, and one book on the subject of evolution was even published anonymously in 1844, but not Darwin's.

Side-bar on Darwin's book: he had written an intro to it listing his intellectual indebtedness but for some reason he forgot to put it in the book when it was published. Then, I believe it was in 1863, one of his sources chewed him out about it. After that Darwin put the intro in and over the years kept expnding the list! And yet he still managed to leave out one of the most important one of all! If I recall right the guy's name was Lydell.

 

[Sophia7]

Side-bar on Darwin's book: he had written an intro to it listing his intellectual indebtedness but for some reason he forgot to put it in the book when it was published. Then, I believe it was in 1863, one of his sources chewed him out about it. After that Darwin put the intro in and over the years kept expnding the list! And yet he still managed to leave out one of the most important one of all! If I recall right the guy's name was Lydell.

It was Charles Lyell. You can read about it in this article at Walter Veith's site. Yes, Darwin was indebted to many people, including his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, and maybe even a few Greek philosophers.

 

[NightEternal]

I still have this question BTW. Looking for more input.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

maybe this has already been covered, but when I was reading Acts and the Stoning of Stephen the text was very puzzling for me

Here is what it says,

Act 7:55

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God
Act 7:56
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

notice it says Jesus is at the right hand of God, now this does not square with the investigative judgment. Jesus at the father side in the in the 30's and 40's AD. How is this to be explained?

 

[woobadooba]

maybe this has already been covered, but when I was reading Acts and the Stoning of Stephen the text was very puzzling for me

Here is what it says,

Act 7:55

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God
Act 7:56
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Nothing puzzling at all. It is a very good point, which makes it very clear that Christ is with the Father, and has been ever since the ascension.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Nothing puzzling at all. It is a very good point, which makes it very clear that Christ is with the Father, and has been ever since the ascension.

woob either you miss the point or you are avoiding the question. I will give you the benifit of the doubt and point out the reason why this is a problem.

If Jesus is a the right had of the father then where is that in the sanctuary? God's throne was in the Most Holy Place. If that is the case then we have a problem. SDA's teach that Jesus entered the most holy place in 1844. Acts 7 teaches he was there in the 1st centary.

So where is is God the Father?

 

[woobadooba]

woob either you miss the point or you are avoiding the question. I will give you the benifit of the doubt and point out the reason why this is a problem.

If Jesus is a the right had of the father then where is that in the sanctuary? God's throne was in the Most Holy Place. If that is the case then we have a problem. SDA's teach that Jesus entered the most holy place in 1844. Acts 7 teaches he was there in the 1st centary.

So where is is God the Father?

Actually, I am agreeing with you.

The thing that I think most of us are wrong about is that we often take the 'types' to the extreme by assuming them to have to take place exactly as illustrated, when in fact they were merely meant to illustrate a lesson, to enhance our understanding about the character of God, and the role that He plays in our lives to bring about our salvation.

To assume Jesus' to have been confined to a room for a period of time that extended to 1844, thus being separated from the Father for the duration of that time, while knowing that the Bible makes it very clear that He was and is with the Father, is to deny the truth as it is disclosed in the Bible, and to superimpose meaning on the scriptures that does not concur with the purpose of the 'types'.

Regarding the holy place, it has been said that the two loaves represent two thrones--one for the Father and the other for the Son. So even in the holy place God is portrayed as being at work to bring about our salvation. Thus both the Father and the Son are active at all times in carrying out this work, as is also the Holy Spirit.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Actually, I am agreeing with you.

The thing that I think most of us are wrong about is that we often take the 'types' to the extreme by assuming them to have to take place exactly as illustrated, when in fact they were merely meant to illustrate a lesson, to enhance our understanding about the character of God, and the role that He plays in our lives to bring about our salvation.

To assume Jesus' to have been confined to a room for a period of time that extended to 1844, thus being separated from the Father for the duration of that time, while knowing that the Bible makes it very clear that He was and is with the Father, is to deny the truth as it is disclosed in the Bible, and to superimpose meaning on the scriptures that does not concur with the purpose of the 'types'.

Regarding the holy place, it has been said that the two loaves represent two thrones--one for the Father and the other for the Son

This sounds like guess work. Do you have a text that says this

 

[woobadooba]

This sounds like guess work. Do you have a text that says this

Do you have to have a text to prove everything?

Truth is, you won't find a text for everything. In fact, a lot of what has been said about the symbols of the sanctuary can't be proved with a text. Yet, much of what has been said makes perfect sense, even though there is no text to substantiate it.

As to the idea that the loaves represent the thrones of the Father and the Son, I don't have a text to prove this. The best that I have is that Jesus referred to Himself as "the Bread of Life" (Jn. 6:48). Of course, that doesn't mean we can automatically conclude that the idea that one of the loaves represents His throne is valid. This is why I had said, "it has been said". In other words, I am not saying it is fact, or assuming it to be fiction. However, it does makes sense to me.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Do you have to have a text to prove everything?

yes, if you don't then what do you base the teaching on??

Truth is, you won't find a text for everything. In fact, a lot of what has been said about the symbols of the sanctuary can't be proved with a text. Yet, much of what has been said makes perfect sense, even though there is no text to substantiate it.

As to the idea that the loaves represent the thrones of the Father and the Son, I don't have a text to prove this. The best that I have is that Jesus referred to Himself as "the Bread of Life" (Jn. 6:48). Of course, that doesn't mean we can automatically conclude that the idea that one of the loaves represents His throne is valid. This is why I had said, "it has been said". In other words, I am not saying it is fact, or assuming it to be fiction. However, it does makes sense to me.

A simple no would have done just fine.

 

[woobadooba]

Ice,

What do you think the 2 loaves represent? I would like to know what you interpret these things to mean.

 

[OntheDL]

maybe this has already been covered, but when I was reading Acts and the Stoning of Stephen the text was very puzzling for me

Here is what it says,

Act 7:55

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God
Act 7:56
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

notice it says Jesus is at the right hand of God, now this does not square with the investigative judgment. Jesus at the father side in the in the 30's and 40's AD. How is this to be explained?

Are you saying these two verses suggesting the Father was the Most Holy Place prior to 1844?

Guess where the Father is before 1844? In the holy place. The High Priest went into the Holy Place daily before the presence of the Lord.

Exodus 28
29 And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the LORD continually.
30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

 

[OntheDL]

Ice,

What do you think the 2 loaves represent? I would like to know what you interpret these things to mean.

There aren't 2 loaves, but 12 loaves. The 12 loaves represent 12 tribes of Israel and the Word of God.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Ice,

What do you think the 2 loaves represent? I would like to know what you interpret these things to mean.

I would not know since there is not text to supply an answer.