Adventists for Tomorrow

Our mission is to provide a free and open medium that will assist individuals in forming accurate, balanced, and thoughtful opinions regarding issues within and without the church.

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Due to a large increase in spam, I have frozen forum registration. If you are new to the site and want to register, e-mail me personally at vandolson@gmail.com. Thank you.

#51 03-03-12 4:15 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Bob, this is the wrong thread to be discussing the Reformed Sabbath or NCT.  This thread is about the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message. 

The modern SDA’s teach that Rev 14: 7 represents the IJ, but the Pioneers NEVER took that view.  For them, the only Judgment “pillar” in the entire Three Angels Messages is exclusively about the 2nd Coming as the Day of Judgment.

This is a critical point for everyone to understand, including those that have left Adventism and all the critics. 

Unless this great error about the IJ is confessed and repented of, and the Advent Community returns to the original “pillars” that define and empower the Advent Movement, they will continue to self-destruct in confusion, irrelevance, and false doctrine.  All SDA’s must repent of the IJ before they can understand and embrace the Gospel.

So let’s try to keep the discussion in the proper threads after this exchange?

Bob said:  Tom, never does He (Jesus) give a command, but shows how the original Sabbath Law was corrupted by men (Jews). That is not a Reformed Sabbath, but a showing of how far the leaders had gotten from the intent of the law.

Tom said: In the OC, it was a capital crime to work on the Sabbath.  This was the Law of Moses and God.  Jesus ignored this law for all to see, and changed the OC Sabbath into the NC Sabbath by his Gospel authority.  Thus he encouraged people to work on the Sabbath, for which he was sent to the cross.

Bob said:  The leadership were the authors that added on to the original Sabbath.

Tom said:  The Sabbath Law of the 4th Commandment prohibits work on the 7th day, unless one was a Levite. Jesus was not a Levite.   So he was breaking the law and encouraging others to do so as well.  The penalty for Sabbath breaking was death.  This was God’s law, not mans.

Bob said:  Jesus pointed out He was lord of the Sabbath not the Jewish leadership.

Tom said:  Jesus is Lord of everything, including Lord and King of the Jewish people as well as the Lord of the Sabbath doctrine.

Matt. 27:11  Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.”

Acts 10:36 “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all) —

Rom. 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;

1Cor. 2:8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;

2Th. 3:16  Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance. The Lord be with you all!

1Tim. 6:15 which He will bring about at the proper time — He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

Rev. 11:4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.

Rev. 17:14 “These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

Rev. 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Bob said:  The four Gospels were telling about the end of the 1st Covenant.

Tom said:  Wrong.  The Gospels represent the start of the New Covenant.  They represent the clash between the Two Covenants, even the end of the OC, because the NC had arrived with the Gospel teaching of Christ.

Mark 1:1   The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Mark 1:14  Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Bob said: Christ did not add anything to the 10 Commandments but showed how it should be kept by living the OC law perfectly.

Tom said:  Wrong.  Christ did add deeper meaning to the law, even as he commanded all to LOVE.  Thus he taught that sin starts in the mind, with a thought, not by an action, plus a “new Commandment” called love.

Moreover, he did not obey the OC perfectly.  He broke the Sabbath over and over.  So you need to stop trying to change the Gospel Story to fit with the delusion of NCT.

Matt. 5:19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 5:20  “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 5:21  “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’

Matt. 5:22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;

John 13:34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Bob said: That does not mean we are to keep all Festivals and sacrifices that Jesus and His family did.

Tom said:  We must follow whatever Jesus teaches for the church.  He invented a NC Passover ceremony, called the Eucharist, even as he invented a NC view of the Sabbath.

Bob said:  The NC never started until Christ died. He told of things to come once His kingdom is established, the New Covenant.

Tom said:  The NC starts with the Gospel preaching of Christ.  At the cross the NC was ratified with blood, but Christ explained the Gospel before the cross.

Bob said:  All I can do is quote verses that you ignore: Col 2:16,17.  For all those that can't see the change, are likely to wander aimlessly through the Bible obtaining strange doctrine.

Tom said:  This text is not the source for the Gospel Sabbath.  Nor does it in anyway say that the Sabbath doctrine no longer exists in the NC.  You are not being honest with the NT.

Bob asked:  Sources please!!!

Tom said:  All four Gospels contain Jesus NC Sabbath teaching.  Why do you pretend otherwise?  Because this is the delusion that NCT is based upon.  They purposefully ignore what Christ teaches about the Sabbath, and you are a good disciple in this regard.

Bob said:  What I see that He teaches is Matt 23: 23:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

That's not Reformed teaching that is telling the Leaders how corrupt they had become teaching the OC, with new rules, corrupt, not of God.

Tom said:  This passage does not negate the Gospel teaching of Christ, which includes his Gospel Sabbath.  In fact, the GS had already been explained earlier in the same book.  If you were being honest with the Word you would not have ignored the proper passages that prove you wrong.

Bob said:  Jesus spoke of His kingdom being near, and not far away, but He kept the OC as long as it was in effect or we do not have a savior that can save.

Tom said: Jesus came to preach the NC Gospel and end the OC.  This was his mission.  To deny that he preached the Gospel until after the cross is absurd and laughable.  NCT does not follow a real savior, but a fraud.

Bob also quoted some Sabbath remarks from the critics:

Are we obligated to keep the Sabbath today?

If you are saved “by grace” through faith in Jesus Christ without keeping the Sabbath do you need to keep the Sabbath to be saved? No.

Tom said:  The answer is no, regardless if one is speaking of the OC or NC Sabbath.  There is no salvation in any form or type of Sabbath.

Question:  Do you need to keep the Sabbath to be Spiritual or spiritually grow? No.

Tom answered:  No doubt the author is speaking of the OC Sabbath.  If so, the answer is no.  The Gospel is not enhanced with the OC Sabbath.  It is misunderstood with such a doctrine, as can be seen from the dysfunctional and legalistic SDA’s.

However, there has always been a NC Sabbath for the church.  This is what Jesus taught.  This is what Hebrews 4: 9 teaches. 

Heb 4: 9  Therefore, a time of rest and worship exists for God's people.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

http://gwt.scripturetext.com/hebrews/4.htm

The church will not grow in grace so long as they are following a false view of the Gospel Sabbath.  The "priestly," active, NC Sabbath of Christ, is defined by an EXEMPTION from the 4th Commandment rules against work.  THIS is the correct Sabbath for the church.  A weekly day when the New Israel, the Church, comes together in Gospel love and praise, and where good deeds are featured, not rest or legalism.

Heb. 10:21 ...since we have a great priest over the house of God,

Heb. 10:22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Heb. 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;

Heb. 10:24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,

Heb. 10:25 not forsaking our own aassembling together, as is the habit of some, but bencouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

Question:  Jesus kept the Sabbath?  True, but for what reason? He was born under the law and kept all the law, if he violated even the smallest point he would have been disqualified to be the Messiah.

Tom replied:  False.  Jesus did NOT “keep the Sabbath.”  Jesus was a Sabbath Rebel, breaking the OC Sabbath every week for all to see.  Those who think otherwise are misunderstanding the Gospel Story.  Jesus refused to obey the 4th Command, and urged others to do the same.

Question:  Paul kept the Sabbath. True, but for what reason? He and the other apostles did not attend the synagogue to worship on the Sabbath by obligation under the law. The reason - this was the best way to reach their Jewish brethren.

Tom replied:  False.  Paul did NOT keep the OC Sabbath any more than Christ did.  However, Paul did embrace the NC Sabbath.

See:  Are we obligated to keep the Sabbath today?
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp128.htm

Question:  Was there ever a law God gave that reversed ANY of the Sabbath day restrictions? NO!

Tom answered:  Yes, yes, yes.  Jesus NC Sabbath teaching allowed all who followed him to be treated as Priests of God, and thus they were EXEMPTED from the 4th Commandment, which prohibited work on the 7th day. 

The "law of Christ" trumps the Law of Moses.  Working is the reverse of not working.  All today must choose to either follow Moses or Christ.

Question:  Were the punishments ever negated or are they still enforced.

Tom answered:  Negated.  The NC Sabbath allows all manner of work, from moving furniture to healing, to eating while traveling, etc.

Question:  One has to be consistent; they can’t say we are under grace for the penalty and not under grace in the keeping of the day. Either the Sabbath is no longer to be practiced by obligation or one needs to practice it correctly.

Tom answered:  Sinners are under Gospel grace.  To re-enforce this point every week, they are exempted from the law against work on the Sabbath because this is what Jesus teaches.  Only the NC Sabbath is to be practiced by the church.  Not the OC Sabbath, and not any Sunday Sabbath.

Bob quoted:  Those who worship on Saturday are not actually keeping God's command for the Sabbath, because they break the letter of the law. Especially when they try to lay guilt upon others for not keeping the Sabbath.

Tom said:  Any today that think it sinful to work on the Sabbath (or Sunday), has the wrong doctrine.  The SDA’s are breaking the NC Sabbath in their futile attempts to obey the OC Sabbath.  They are proving that they do not follow Christ or his Gospel Sabbath.

Bob said:  Many say we are observing it by the Spirit of the law and then reinterpret it the way they want to.

Tom said:  NCT is guilty of this double-talk, even as every church in Laodicea has a false view of the Sabbath because they don’t know the Gospel correctly.  The SDA’s are the worst, because they go around telling all others they have Gospel truth, when they also have it wrong.

Matt. 23:15  “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Bob said:  Either they practice by the letter which it is written in or they should admit to not upholding it correctly.

Tom said:  All Christians today must repent of their confused and half-baked views of the Sabbath.  They must follow the law of Christ, not the Law of Moses.  When they do this, they will understand the NC Sabbath.  No church today has it correct, and neither does NCT. 

Which is why all must repent of their false Gospel views.  No one can really refute, discredit, or debunk the Reformed, 7th day Sabbath of Christ.  It is rock solid.

Bob said:  When someone forces their practice upon others without upholding it themselves it then becomes legalism, and is hypocritical to say the least.

Tom said:  Correct.  But the NCS does not force itself on anyone; much less have any rules against work to enforce.  Those who follow Christ will understand what he teaches about the NC Sabbath.  While those that refuse to follow the genuine Christ will run from the Gospel Sabbath.  You are in the latter category.

John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

John 12:26 “If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.

John 10:5 “A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”

NCT is a false doctrine, invented by strangers and embraced by the foolish, blind, and trite.  You have not yet grasped the great difference between the OCS and the NCS.  Sad.

Bob said:  Jesus dealt with the Pharisees, of whom he said, "they tie up heavy loads and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.' (Matt. 23:4) Those who seek to lay guilt on others for not keeping the Sabbath are practicing modern-day Pharsaism.

Tom said:  Jesus offered the Gospel Sabbath to the Pharisees many times, but they refused to consider such a strange and impossible doctrine, regardless how many signs he showed them.  Thus they choose the Law over the Gospel, putting Christ to death for his radical view of the Sabbath.

So Bob, you cannot quote this passage as if it removes the teachings of Christ about the Sabbath.  It does no such thing. 

If you want to understand the Sabbath of Christ, you have to find his words in the NT, and embrace them, not ignore them.

This is the great blasphemy of NCT; they pick and choose whatever texts they want, ignoring whatever refutes their views and placing undue assumptions on what they quote.  It is a very dishonest and unprofessional use of the Word.  One that will never lead to Eternal Life.

No wonder so many former SDA’s have embraced NCT.  This false hermeneutic is what they were taught.  The modern SDA’s became experts at dishonest Proof Texting, which allowed for any doctrine to be created by the dishonest manipulation of the source.  To this very day, this is how the Adventists defend the IJ and Tithe and this utter fiction about wine being grape juice.  They just pick and choose whatever texts they like, ignoring any that prove them wrong.  This is what every cult does.

So the former SDA’s find it easy to use this same false hermeneutic to reach their desired outcome, which is now to vent their anger against the OC Sabbath. 

While NCT is correct to reject the OC Sabbath, (which is why so many former SDA’s like it), their great error is their blindness about the 7th day, NC Sabbath.  THIS is the Sabbath for the church, but most all are clueless that such a Gospel doctrine exists, including and especially the SDA’s.

Without Adventist Reform, almost no one would even know about this amazing doctrine today.  Who knew there would be a new Sabbath doctrine for the church at the end of time?  The SDA’s thought they had found it, but they were wrong.  And thus Sabbath Reform must go forward so that the Gospel Sabbath can be correctly embraced and promoted.

Regardless, of its’ late arrival, this Gospel Doctrine is here for all to see, forcing the honest to repent and embrace the Gospel Sabbath of Christ.

In conclusion, let’s move this discussion back to proper thread shall we?  This thread is about the Pre Advent Judgment, which is NOT Dan 8:14, but Rev 3: 14.  The PAJ has already taken place and the last church failed.  This is why Christ calls all in Laodicea to repent of their false views of the Gospel, including the doctrine of the Sabbath.

How sad that the SDA’s would rather pretend that there is a Celestial Judgment about Sanctification, then to admit they are wrong and repent, as directed in the genuine PAJ.

All Adventists must repent for their false views of the Gospel and the Judgment, as well as the Sabbath, tithe, the Lord’s Supper, church history and organization, as well as eschatology and hermeneutics. 

This is what the real PAJ teaches.  What a pity that the SDA’s are so corrupt and unteachable, just like the Jews.

John 9:39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”

Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,

Rev. 3:18 I advise you to abuy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

Rev. 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#52 03-04-12 1:55 am

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Of what significance is an investigative judgement of every soul and a PAJ. God/Jesus have to determine if covered by Jesus Grace or not. That doesn't take God/Jesus very long. It is a bogus argue like how many angels can dance on the head of a needle, IMO.

Offline

#53 03-05-12 1:40 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

As the early Adventists were searching for a way to explain the delay of the 2nd Coming, they reasoned that Christ had to first “receive his kingdom” in some official and ceremonial manner before coming to earth.

Listen to Hiram Edson speak about this point, which was first mentioned on October 23, 1844:

"He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that he had a work to perform in the most holy place before coming to this earth. That he came to the marriage at that time, in other words, to the Ancient of days to receive a kingdom, dominion, and glory; and we must wait for his return from the wedding."

(Edson MS. p.9, quoted in Foundations of the SDA Message and Mission, by Damsteegt, 1977, p117)

Edson concluded that Christ had entered the most holy place on Oct 22, 1844 to perform a special, undefined work, which was the "reception of the kingdom, dominion, and glory." (Ibid. p 122.)

This very early correction to the Great Disappointment was based upon the theory that the wedding ceremony in the parable of Matt 25 had started on October 22, 1844- in heaven, (this is where they also came up with the "shut door theory" combined with Dan 7: 13, 14).

Dan. 7:13  “I kept looking in the night visions,
    And behold, with the clouds of heaven
    One like a Son of Man was coming,
    And He came up to the Ancient of Days
    And was presented before Him.

Dan. 7:14 “And to Him was given dominion,
    Glory and a kingdom,
    That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
    Might serve Him.
    His dominion is an everlasting dominion
    Which will not pass away;
    And His kingdom is one
    Which will not be destroyed.

Matt. 25:10 "And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut.

The return from this MARRIAGE ceremony in heaven would be the Second Coming, which they thought would still take place very shortly.

Luke 12:35 "Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit.

Luke 12:36 "Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks.

This “explanation” about the delay became known as the Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary, the 5th pillar in the Adventist Apocalyptic.  It had zero to do with the IJ, which would later be added to this view, which became known as the Pre-Advent Judgment.

Not only did this temporary delay of the 2nd Coming make some sense, so too did the idea of a PAJ.  After all, how could God know who to resurrect and save at the 2nd Coming? 

As the delay continued, it became more necessary to explain it in detail, and the IJ seemed to fit this eschatological need.  Thus the IJ was developed as the PAJ.  But at no time did the Pioneers ever pretend that this was the Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message.  Only the 2nd Coming was meant by Rev 14: 7, never the IJ.

But as we all know, the IJ of Dan 8:14 has turned out to be false and impossible, unsupported by the NT. 

In addition, the modern SDA view that the IJ represents the Judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7 is complete myth.  This point was never true at any time.  Such historic revisionism by the White Estate and the Review is the root cause for all the debate and confusion that has overtaken the SDA’s. 

The leaders were very wrong about the PAJ, as well as the Gospel and even the definition of the Three Angels Messages.  And they refuse to admit the obvious and repent.

Regardless, the concept of a PAJ does make sense.  But if Dan 8;14 is not the PAJ, then what is?  Where is the PAJ of the church in the NT?  This is the question.

See: http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … #POST92335

Today, we realize that there is a PAJ of the last church.  It is not Dan 8:14, but the LM of Rev 3: 14. 

The church did not do well.  In fact, all denominations have failed the PAJ, including the SDA’s, which is why they need to repent of their many false doctrines and embrace the genuine Gospel and the real Christ.

So the IJ is false doctrine, but not the PAJ of the NT, which is the LM.  Let all pay close attention to the genuine PAJ.  Those who refuse to follow Christ and repent will not be admitted into the Kingdom of God.

I hope this helps,

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#54 11-14-12 8:24 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Questions about the Investigative Judgment:

Rogier said:  I was hoping Herb Kersten was reforming the church from within by putting the true gospel on the forefront.

Tom said:  This group is very dishonest, legalistic, and wrong.  They are destroying the SDA church from the inside, misleading people away from the Gospel and from the Protestant fundamentals of the Advent Movement.   They are not being honest about Dr. Ford’s views.   I have no kind words for such wolves.

Today, the world is full of worthless religious propaganda, and this SDA crowd belongs in this category.  For them to pretend that they are objectively examining Dr. Ford’s views is an insult to anyone that knows the facts.  They are just trying to divert, misinform, and brainwash innocent people into believing false doctrine and manipulated church history.  Beware false prophets.

Matt. 7:15  “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Rogier said:  I mean, if the church adopts a view of the IJ, which is not contrary to the New Testament gospel, that is huge progress right? For the worst aspect of the IJ is that it replaces the true gospel by a false gospel.

Tom said:  First off, the IJ is nowhere taught in the OT or the NT.  There is NO such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible.  It is false.  Period.  So any view of the IJ is wrong.

Second, there is a doctrine called the Pre Advent Judgment of the last church.  This is a true eschatological concept, one that the SDA’s were correct to try and understand.  However, their mistake was to equate the IJ with the PAJ.  This is great error; the IJ is not the genuine PAJ.

So if the IJ of Dan 8:14 is NOT the PAJ, what is?  And where is it?

Answer: the genuine PAJ of the last church is found in Rev 3: 14, --not in Dan 8:14.  Let all Adventists repent and embrace the genuine PAJ, repudiating the imposter.

Third:  The OT does not judge the Church or anyone in it.  The book of Daniel is an Old Covenant work; it cannot determine doctrine in the NC.  Only the NT can be used for church doctrine.

Fourth:  This idea that Dan 8:14 and 1844 is a pillar in the Three Angels Messages, is false.  Doctrinal pillars, by definition stand unmoved, but this passage has been changed, revised, and re-interpreted 6 times, and it still wrong.   So how can it be called a “pillar”?

Adventist Reform is promoting the 7th and final interpretation of Dan 8:14, which is to say that the PAJ is something else, somewhere else.  This last understanding is present truth for the Advent Movement today.

Let all understand the ever changing interpretations of Dan 8:14.  See below:

The Changing Sanctuary Doctrine & Dan 8:14

While many SDA's think the Sanctuary doctrine is an important, unchanging fundamental pillar that must be preserved at all costs, the facts are very different.  No teaching associated with Dan 8:14 has ever been "solid" or fully correct, - at any time in Adventist history. From the very beginning of the Adventist Movement, there has ALWAYS been serious error with the understanding of the Sanctuary. Which is why this doctrine has been changed and revised so many times. And why it is still so full of problems and even more revisions today.

First Two Views Wrong

From the very first attempt to understand Dan 8:14, Miller had the doctrine wrong when he declared that the Sanctuary was the earth that would be "cleansed by fire" at the Second Coming, --when the 2300 days terminated. When this event failed to take place within Miller's time frame, other Adventists, against his advice, revised the date for this "Sanctuary Cleansing" by proclaiming that it would take place on October 22, 1844. This was the first revision of Dan 8:14. And it soon proved to be wrong.

The 3rd Interpretation; Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary

Following the Great Disappointment, the two previous Sanctuary positions were declared to be erroneous and Dan 8:14 was dramatically re-interpreted by the SDA’s to mean that the Heavenly Sanctuary was the object to be "cleansed" of sin prior to the Second Advent. This was the third interpretation; it was called "The Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary."

So by 1845, there had been three different visions of Dan 8:14, and there were at least three more to come because this process of reinterpretation and change would continue well into the 20th and even the 21st century.

Why?

Because there was never a time within the history of the Adventist Movement when Dan 8:14 and the Sanctuary doctrine was without error. Even today, the teaching is still controversial and erroneous, and few realize how many times this dubious doctrine has been adjusted, revised, and changed over the years.

The 4th Interpretation; the IJ

As the Adventist Movement went forward after the great 1844 disappointment, the Battle Creek SDA's in the late 1850's made further revisions to Dan 8:14.  Here is when they added the concept of a Celestial Judgment of the saints to the previous correction, (referred to as the "Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary.") This is when the SDA's added the teaching that the individual characters of the saints would be judged to see if the professed believers were good enough to be saved. This would also become known as the Pre-Advent Judgment of the last church.

Thus the fourth revision to Dan 8: 14 is the Investigative Judgment. It slowly developed within Battle Creek and became famous, thanks primarily to Uriah Smith, the long time Review Editor. He is the one that articulated this doctrine in the late 1870's, even writing a large book that detailed this evolving and unique SDA doctrine, turning it into an extremely legalistic teaching that was very different from the earlier doctrine of "the Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary."

The 5th Revision & the Myth About Historic Adventism

Following the great Battle Creek schism and the relocation of the denomination to Takoma Park, the Sanctuary Doctrine would not remain static. It would soon undergo its fifth revision; a revision, which would never have been approved by Uriah Smith, Ellen White, or any of the Pioneers.

Unfortunately, the Takoma Park apologists began to incorrectly teach that the IJ was located and anchored in the 1st Angels Message and thus, this view of the PAJ was proclaimed to be a fundamental part of Historic Adventism, a doctrine that could never be challenged or changed.

Although this was never true, the White Estate and the Review promoted so much propaganda on this point, supposedly from Ellen White, that this position became normative for all 20th century SDA’s. The IJ and the date of 1844 became associated with “Historic Adventism,” and was taught for generations as the PAJ by the church. However, this historically incorrect and legalistic position would have dire consequences because it elevated the IJ into the status of a "Pillar" that was unknown to the Battle Creek Pioneers.

Moreover, those, like Dr. Ford, who would not accept this fifth revision would eventually be ostracized from the Adventist Movement and considered a traitor to the Cause.  Thus Dr. Ford was exiled for refuting myths and clear error, and the SDA church has been self-destructing ever since.

In 1980, in spite of Dr. Ford’s scholarly work disproving the IJ, Glacier View turned this fifth version of Dan 8:14 into official and sacred Adventist doctrine, creating great confusion and controversy that has effectively derailed the Adventist Movement.

With such a backlash unfolding, it didn't take long for the leaders to realize they had made a serious mistake. Therefore they went to work to make more adjustments to the ever-changing Sanctuary doctrine of Dan 8:14.

The 6th Revision

The post Glacier View leaders were naturally anxious to stop the debilitating Glacier View schism and promote church growth.  They were weary of all the angry debate over the IJ. So they had to act.  Although the Conservatives loudly protested any change to their victory at Glacier View, it was to no avail because it was obvious that Dr. Ford's Gospel was far superior to Uriah Smith's legalistic theology, and therefore, the sixth revision to Dan 8:14 was about to take place.

Within a decade after Glacier View, the Review back tracked about the Sanctuary Doctrine and started to promote most of Dr. Ford's Gospel views, (without ever admitting this), even as they took steps to silence the legalistic Conservatives.

At the same time they also introduced a new policy called "pluralism," which allowed both sides of the IJ debate to embrace either the fifth or the more recent and Gospel friendly, sixth version. Such a compromise was designed to allow the church to move forward without having to admit that they had been wrong about Glacier View.

Notwithstanding all this post Glacier View politicking and propaganda, the hierarchal leaders now declared that this celestial "investigation" was not about who was "good enough" to be saved--but rather--who had “saving faith in Christ.”

In addition, instead of the saints being placed on trial, as Uriah Smith taught, the new version placed God on trial, claiming that he needed to prove that he was just and fair.

Here was a very different teaching about the PAJ that represents the sixth revision to Dan 8:14. It promoted points that were never contained in Uriah Smith's legalistic version, even as it used semantics to hide the real issues.  But regardless, this new spin about the Sanctuary was officially promoted by the Denomination as if the IJ were a Gospel friendly doctrine.  Such a plan could only work if everyone ignored the facts and forgot about Dr. Ford and Glacier View.

Today, after SIX revisions of Dan 8:14, no one should be under any illusion that the sanctuary doctrine is correct or unchangeable. As if it has not undergone numerous and repeated revisions over time.

The fact of the matter is that Dan 8:14 is the most problematic, revised, and controversial doctrine in the SDA church. Consequently few today correctly understand its complex and checkered history that has destroyed the mission and the message of the Adventist Movement.

The failure to correctly understand the Pre-Advent Judgment has left the SDA church mired in theological chaos and endless schism that will never be resolved until the Seventh and final interpretation of Dan 8:14 takes place.

The 7th View of Dan 8:14 & the PAJ

Today, it is time for the Adventist Community to understand the true meaning of Dan 8:14 as well as the Pre-Advent Judgment.

It is time to resolve this embarrassing and counterproductive situation that is preventing the Adventist Community from moving forward in Gospel unity and apocalyptical purpose.  Now is the time for Adventism to unite on the final and correct interpretation about Dan 8:14 and the PAJ.  Now is the time for Adventist Reform.

See also:

http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1154462379

Rogier said:  You stated that the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 is Antiochius Ephiphanus. I’ve studied this issue for myself, and in all honesty i cannot believe that.

Tom said:  First off, the Gospel is not in any way dependant in AE or the definition of the “little horn,” nor is it necessary for anyone to understand such ancient history.  This anti-Semitic warrior is not important for our salvation.  The very fact that some SDA’s make such a big deal out of this issue only proves that they don’t understand the Gospel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes

Second:  Did Jesus ever preach about the little horn? No.  Did he ever teach about the IJ and 1844?  No.  Did he embrace Hanukkah, which is the story about Dan 8:14 and AE being defeated by the Jews?  Yes.

So what is the debate?  The history of the Jews, as well as most all scholars and historians view AE as the little horn.  Those SDA’s today who say otherwise are only doing so in a futile attempt to defend the IJ.  But they are wasting their time.  The IJ is false regardless of the definition of the little horn.

Third:  Most all scholars agree that the little horn is AE.  Moreover, no credible scholars believe in the IJ.  NONE!
Listen to Dr. Ford; a world class Protestant expert on the book of Daniel discuss the little horn:

Comments on Lesson Five:
Daniel 8;
By Dr. Desmond Ford

The chief issue in the exegesis of Daniel 8 is the identity of the little horn. Does it represent Rome or primarily Antiochus Epiphanes? [Abbreviated here as “AE”)] Even those evangelical scholars emphatic that Rome is the fourth kingdom in chapters two and seven usually find AE in chapter 8. Leupold’s famous commentary, for example, says of the little horn: “… almost all commentators regard it as a reference to that one of the Seleucidae, a king of Syria, who in history has the name Antiochus Epiphanes…” (p. 345).

The very recent commentary by Ernest C. Lucas, another evangelical speaks similarly. We quote: “There is near unanimity among commentators that in chapter 8 the horn is a symbol for Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The similarities with the small horn in chapter 7 suggest that the referent is the same there. The differences are not contradictions, but are complementary views resulting from differences in focus in the two visions.” (pp. 214, 215).

Edward J. Young, most conservative of all evangelicals says: “There seems to be general agreement among expositors that the one horn which grew from smallness is Antiochus Epiphanes.” p. 170. John Calvin, in his commentary wrote on this symbol: “Antiochus, indeed, … is here alluded to.” (Geneva Series of Commentaries, Daniel, p. 95)

Even George McCready Price saw in AE a likely early fulfillment (see his The Greatest of the Prophets, pp. 30, 31) and those who have read the transcript of the 1919 Bible Conference find AE recognized by scholars back then. Siegfried Horn held this position and expressed it in the fracas that preceded the publishing of my SPA Daniel. He told F. D. Nichol so, and consequently the SDABC added a note saying that AE was probably somewhere in the prophecies of Daniel. 4:868

Turning now to Scripture itself, we read that the little horn would spring up when the divisions of Alexander’s empire were in their latter days, and from one of these divisions. Thus we are to look for a power originating from the Greek world sometime after 300 BC. It is a power to the north of Palestine for it waxes great towards the south and the east. Israel was never menaced from the west.

Neither Rome nor Italy ever belonged to the Alexandrian empire from which this horn was to arise. This antichrist figure comes from the goat—from Greece—and has its origin as a new-born horn after the divisions of Greece have matured and are waxing old. This also will not fit Rome, which had existed for centuries prior to the birth of Christ.
To say, as some have said, that the horn comes from one of the four winds of heaven, rather than out of one of the four horns, destroys the visual unity of the symbol. Horns come out of heads, not out of winds. Note that this special horn is still linked to the body of the goat—i.e. the Alexandrian empire.

Rome cannot fit such specifications of place or time. The little horn naturally begins as much smaller than the horn from which it emerges. This could never fit Rome, which was much more potent than Macedonia at the time of its conquest of that territory.

This new horn first attacks the south, then the east, and en route to the latter, attacks the pleasant land of Israel where it casts down some of the host. But Rome became great particularly to the northwest, the east, Israel and the south. AE came from the north against Egypt, then invaded Armenia and Persia after oppressing Palestine.
This sequence exactly fits the prophecy but Rome does not. Antiochus had his sphere of operations only in the three areas mentioned. This was not true of the widespread operations of Rome.

When the little horn is described as “exceedingly great” it is not with comparison to the preceding powers, but has reference to its strength in the three regions mentioned.

See how l Maccabees in its first chapter uses some of the very words of Daniel’s prophecy in describing the history of AE. Also read 2 Maccabees 6:1-7; 10:1-8. All this is commemorated in John 10:22, a fact that not one in a million Adventists is aware of.

The great deliverance from AE was the last in Israel’s history before the coming of Jesus, and was thought of as typical of a final deliverance yet to take place.  Within a few months of John 10:22, that deliverance transpired at Calvary.

Daniel 8:13,14 had its first fulfillment in the depredations of AE and the victorious rededication of the sanctuary by the heroic Maccabees. Its final fulfillment will be when the final antichrist of Revelation 13 is defeated, and the whole universe becomes a sacred temple to God.

The Quarterly on p. 46 says that, “The Protestant Reformers almost unanimously saw it (the little horn) as papal Rome.” Actually Calvin saw it as the Caesars, and Luther changed his mind occasionally, and on Oct. 28, 1529 he said the Turk was symbolized by the little horn of chapter 7, but he saw AE as the horn of chapter 8. See Froom’s The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 268, 269, 270.

http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1166992498

It is time for Adventists to admit the obvious and stop trying to defend error and false doctrine.  Dan 8:14 does not teach the IJ, nor the PAJ.  Period.

Rogier said:  Because Daniel 7 clearly says the little horn comes after Rome. However, do you think it might be possible that if the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 is Ephiphanus, that this is an antitype of the great whore in Revelation?

Tom said:  The primary association of the “great whore” in Rev is with Babylon, not Greece or AE.  The book of Daniel features Babylon and it’s fall, and so too does Revelation.

Rogier said: I mean there are so many similarities, it is undeniable there has to be some kind of connection. My question is actually, how do you know so certain the prophecies of Daniel concern only the past?

Tom said:  There is no real debate about AE, except with SDA’s.  Both the Jews as well as most all other scholars understand OT history correctly on this point.

The Advent Movement needs to stop obsessing about OT prophecy and spend more time understanding NT eschatology.  All should study what Jesus teaches about the end of the world.  And then the apostles.  The NT is a far superior source for prophecy than Daniel, which is an OT book.

Moreover, Daniel does contain more than just the past.  It does have prophetic meaning for the future.  Dr. Ford never said otherwise.

Rogier said:  Do you interpret Jesus setting up his kingdom in Daniel as Jesus establishing his church on earth? And why did Jesus refer to Daniel as a book to be studied in the endtime if Daniel is all about the past?

Tom said:  The RCC has traditionally viewed this passage to mean the church.  However, the Adventists had a different view.  They viewed the stone as crushing the visible church and civilization as the 2nd Coming.

Dan. 2:32 “The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze,

Dan. 2:33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

Dan. 2:34 “You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.

Dan. 2:44 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.

While Daniel is not all about the past, one must first understand the original intent of the author.  Which is to say that Dan 8;14 must first be understood the way the Jews understood.  Thus the original historical view of this passage is defined by the Hanukkah story.  This can never change.  It is the base line meaning of the passage.  If there are future meanings, they can only be understood if the original meaning is not misunderstood.

In addition, the book of Daniel features the story of Babylon.  THIS is important because the end of the world is equated with the fall of Babylon in Revelation.  To understand how the world will end, one needs to know this story.  So the book does have eschatological meaning for us today.

Dan. 7:1  In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a dream and visions in his mind as he lay on his bed; then he wrote the dream down and related the following summary of it.

Rev. 14:8  And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality.”

Rev. 18:10 standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’

Rev. 18:21  Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.

Furthermore, it is true that Jesus referenced the book of Daniel often.  Did he ever teach the IJ from Dan 8:14?  No.  He embraced the Hanukkah view.  So this is what we must also do.  No one who claims to follow Christ can embrace the myth and error of the IJ.

Here is some unfilled prophecy in Dan about a final war in the Middle East:  This is requires study to understand:

Dan. 11:40  “At the end time the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them and pass through.
Dan. 11:41 “He will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab and the foremost of the sons of Ammon.
Dan. 11:42 “Then he will stretch out his hand against other countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape.
Dan. 11:43 “But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels.
Dan. 11:44 “But rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him, and he will go forth with great wrath to destroy and annihilate many.
Dan. 11:45 “He will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.
Dan. 12:1  “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
Dan. 12:2 “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
Dan. 12:3 “Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
Dan. 12:4 “But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”

Today, knowledge about history and the Gospel have greatly increased.  Now is the time for all to go forward and better understand eschatology.  It is no time to cling to outdated and erroneous, 19th century views.

Rogier said:  In all honesty, i have mixed feelings. On the one hand i am a huge fan of the gospel of grace as preached by Desmond Ford and i fiercely oppose a false gospel, which cannot be supported from scripture as is taught with the IJ.

Tom said:  The IJ is incompatible with the Gospel and OT history.  It is false doctrine that has NEVER been imagined or promoted by anyone in the entire history of the church until the late 1850’s - by the SDA’s.  After more than 100 years of promoting this error, NO church, or credible historians or scholars, have embraced this view.  None!

Moreover, by 1980, the best and brightest of the SDA’s, like Dr. Ford and Cottrell, also came to repudiate the IJ as total error.  Neither the OT nor the NT teaches such a doctrine.  Period!  Thus all SDA’s must repent of the IJ.

Rogier said:  On the other hand i have the feeling that because the church makes this huge terrible error, there is a spirit of hostility whereby all the other doctrines of the church are being attacked. It is so sad because Jesus wants us to be one fold, one herd, under one shepherd; Jesus himself.

Tom said:  Just because the IJ is wrong, it does not mean there is no truth in Adventism.  There is some truth in most all denominations, even the RCC, though they are all full of error and false doctrine today, like all others.

The Adventists were the first modern Christians to correctly understand the doctrine of the 2nd Coming.  When all others were dead wrong, they stood up and corrected the popular errors of their day, even as they went on to make other necessary corrections, such as the State of the dead, which many today, incorrectly think, is just another false, SDA doctrine.  But it is a correct doctrine, supported by Luther.

The SDA’s were also correct to understand that Sunday was wrong, and that only the 7th day could be the correct day for the weekly Lord’s day.

Only when the SDA’s admit and confess their great error about the IJ, will anyone take the time to pay attention to some of their other views, some of which are brilliant.  But so long as they try and hold onto what is so false and wrong, no one should pay any attention to them.  They are acting like the 1st century Jews that rejected the Gospel.

Rogier said:  Now if 1844 is a prophetic date there are multiple possibilities:

Tom said:  1844 is not a prophetic date.  No judgment started in heaven on that date, nor is there any such judgment as the IJ in the Bible.

Moreover, this date stands for error and disappointment, not flawless doctrine.  The Three Angels Messages are not based on the date 1844, and neither is the Gospel, by which we are saved.

Rogier said:  - Either there IS an investigative judgment which we do not understand as of yet.

Tom said:  There is a PAJ.  But it is not the IJ.  It is the Laodicean Message.

Rogier said:  How do you interpret the verses in Daniel where it says that the books were opened and there was a judgment?

Tom said:  The doctrine of a Judgment is well established in Judaism and the ancient world.  In Dan, the heavenly court is not examining Christians or their behavior to see if they are good enough to be saved, rather, they are judging those that attack the people of God and “speak out against the Most High.”

Dan. 7:26 ‘But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever.

So the IJ, which is a supposedly Celestial examination of the believer’s sanctification, does not even fit with the passage or the context.  Daniel does not contain the IJ.

Rogier said:  - The restoring of the sanctuary could refer to the restoring of truth in 1844 amongst God his people. In this interpretation the sanctuary of God are his people. - The restoring of the sanctuary could refer to the fact that people started realizing there was a heavenly sanctuary and so that the earthly Roman Catholic one was a false one.

Tom said:  The original definition of Dan 8: 14 is Hanukkah.  Once this is understood, there may be secondary meanings, but none will be credible if the original interpretation is lost.

Rogier said:  If 1844 was not a prophetic date, then of course your interpretation makes more sense. But in any case, let's be honest; that no matter how we interpret bible prophecy, each interpretation has its strong and weak points.

Tom said:  The IJ has only weak points.  It was never a “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages.  Nor does it have any strong points, which is why NO ONE has ever embraced it outside the SDA Community.  And even then, their most educated scholars have repudiated it as error.

All SDA’s are going to have to understand that while the IJ is history, it is not correct theology.  The IJ is not part of the Gospel, nor is it the PAJ.

Rogier said:  Personally i think historicism makes much more sense than preterism or futurism.

Tom said:  These views are not to be embraced exclusively.  You need to read Dr. Ford’s Interview where he discusses these three schools of thought, as well as all these issues.

Listen to Dr. Ford:

In terms of prophetic interpretation, the preterist sees the fulfillment of prophecy as past, in the first century of this era. The futurist sees prophecy as yet future, for the last days, while the historicist views prophecy as a continually unfolding application with special reference to secular events affecting the church at specific dates.

I do not belong to any of these categories because while each has a measure of truth, they also have a corresponding measure of error.

Bible prophecy DID have meaning for those who first received it (preterist). It does have a continual unfolding application, but no dates beyond Passion Week (see Acts 1:7), and it will have a flowering significance for those living in the last days. This is known as the apotelesmatic principal whereby prophecy in some cases is intended for more than the original recipients.

George Macready Price used this term in his commentary on Daniel and it is well known to scholars. E.G. White used this principle over and over again as I have documented in my Glacier View manuscript and so, too, does the SDA Commentary (see particularly the notes of the latter on the prophecy of 2 Thess. 2). The principle was only denied when I used it at Glacier View to show that Daniel 8:14 had already been fulfilled in a primary and historical sense, which by no means would prevent future fulfillments. The Glacier View denial of the "apotelesmatic principle" was not taken seriously by the scholars present.

http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org/librar … /intro.cfm

Rogier said:  Another thing that pops up in my mind is this; if Daniel should be interpreted in a preterist way why was the book sealed unto the time of the end?

Tom said:  Good point.  However, this is the place to start.  Past fulfillment must precede any future fulfillment.  If this is misunderstood, how can anyone go on to understand a secondary fulfillment?

Rogier asked:  What value was there in unlocking the prophecies of Daniel in the times of the end if the times of the end in Daniel refer to the ending of the Jewish people as the chosen people?

Tom said:  Good point.  That is why a preterist only viewpoint is absurd.

Rogier said:  Now i think about it, if people at the end of the Jewish era before Christ studied these prophecies about Antiochius, then they would know that afterwards would come the Messiah who would set up his kingdom. Is this a likely possibility?

Tom said:  The Hanukkah Story, which is about Dan 8:14, gave the Jews hope that God would save them from their enemies.  Many thought Jesus would lead them in a Macabean type revolt against the Romans.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic … -maccabeus

Not only did Jesus not act like the hero Judas Macabees, he acted like AE, who also claimed to be a god.
Jesus says, “I and My Father are one!” (10:30). That statement had heavy religious overtones for the (Dan 8;14) festival which they were presently celebrating.

Those gathered on the Temple Mount recalled the events nearly 200 years before on the very mount where Antiochus IV, a mere man, proclaimed himself to be god. Jesus, God manifest in human flesh, made the same claim—but His claim was true.

The Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy because, in their thinking, He was a man who made Himself out to be God (10:31–33). Jesus declared that He was the fulfillment of Hanukkah by saying the Father “sanctified” the Son of God and sent Him into the world (10:34–36). The Father was in Him and He in the Father (10:38).
If the Greek word “sanctified” were translated into Hebrew, it would be “dedication” or Hanukkah!

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 … px#Article

Rogier said:  These are a lot of questions and i really appreciate your efforts and time you spent in guiding people to the light.  God bless you and can t wait for your response!

Tom replied:

Matt. 7:7   Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

Matt. 7:8 “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Happy to help,

Tom Norris for All Experts.com & Adventist Reform

Offline

#55 01-17-13 11:31 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

To Tom Norris

Subject:  Your Comments About the IJ
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ment-2.htm

Hello Tom, we've never met or exchanged views yet your response to a questioner about my work on Daniel 8:14 quite missed the mark. 

It also carried what I thought was an unkind spirit. 

I don't wish to slice and dice every single aspect of the IJ with you but it am keen for you to focus on the marvellous gospel meaning of 'nisdaq' in Daniel 8:14.  The evidence is quite  overwhelming that it means 'justified' in the Pauline sense.

Daniel 8:14 portrays a pre-advent judgment of the righteous that sits on the platform of justification by faith #not Hanukah#. 

This is why your questioner referred to my work harmonising gospel with IJ. 

Your lengthy response failed to answer the questioner's key point but launched into a diatribe against the supposed dishonesty and power-hungry mania of SDA leaders etc. 

Relevant papers supporting my conclusion can be posted on this site if you approve.

In our dialogue, let us both demonstrate the effect of the gospel we both love.

Herb Kersten
Victoria, Australia
http://www.hkea.org.au/index_files/daniel.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See:

Herb Kersten Rebuked
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ebuked.htm

Tom Norris vs Herb Kersten
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … s-herb.htm

IJ Discussion: Tom Norris & Herb Kersten
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=1173

Offline

#56 03-09-13 2:36 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Patricia, I am writing to set the record straight.  You were asked on 3/5/13 about my position concerning Ellen White and the IJ.  You failed to answer correctly.  Here is the question:

Dear Patricia:

I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment. I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment. What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?

Mary

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … dgment.htm

Unfortunately, the questioner failed to frame the question accurately, making a number of false assumptions, which you failed to detect.   So let’s correct the record and answer the question truthfully and with the facts.

First, I have never taken the position that Ellen White did not believe in the IJ.   No one has ever “heard” me take such a position, nor have I heard anyone else take such a view.   

So the question is based on a mythical and false premise, which you should have figured out instead of supporting silly rumors and continuing historical error.

Second, the issue is not whether Ellen White “supported” or believed in the IJ, like all SDA’s of her time period, but rather, has the White Estate correctly explained the details of her position.  Do you understand this distinction?

The fact of the matter is this:  the White Estate has not been honest about how Ellen White viewed the IJ.  Although they taught everyone that she viewed this Celestial Judgment as a fundamental doctrine from Historic Adventism; a defining “pillar” that could never be questioned or revised, this was never true. 

No 19th century SDA viewed the IJ the way it was later taught in the 20th century by the White Estate and others, like Froom.   No one should fail to understand this fact, which changes everything for the modern SDA.

The Takoma Park apologists were the ones that incorrectly claimed the IJ to be the Judgment Pillar from Rev 14: 7.   They were the ones that made up this point, which you quoted from Froom, that without the IJ, the SDA’s “would have no justifiable place in the religious world, no distinctive denominational mission and message, no excuse for functioning as a separate church entity today."  (Movement of Destiny, p. 542.) 

Ellen White NEVER took such a position, nor would she ever get close to such a view, which she repudiates.

I repeat: Ellen White never embraced such a view, nor did she ever claim that the IJ was a “pillar,” beyond investigation or correction.  Stop quoting Froom, as if he were a SDA Pioneer that knew Ellen White.  The 20th century SDA’s were not being careful or honest with Ellen White’s writings and views and this point about the IJ underscores this problem.

Ellen White & the IJ

While Ellen White “supported” the IJ, she did so in a very different way from what the 20th century SDA’s claimed for her.  She would never have supported Traditional Adventism, or the outcome of Glacier view, which claimed that the IJ is the Judgment Pillar in the 1st Angels Message.   Ellen White never, never, never, supported this view.  Case closed! 

For those who want to understand the facts, I suggest that they read the material written by Tom Norris about this topic. 

See:  The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=227

Most SDA’s, and none of their critics, have any idea that the White Estate has been very dishonest about Ellen white’s views about the IJ.  But the facts cannot be refuted.  Ellen White NEVER believed in the IJ to the extent the White Estate claimed and it is time for the Adventist Community to stop being so dull and uneducated about such important points.

So Patricia, the question was wrong and so too was your answer, but yet, you left the opposite impression that Tom Norris is promoting error and “nonsense,” when that is not the case.   Shame on you.

The questioner said:  "Thank you Patricia. You have cleared up the nonsense that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment. You gave some very clear quotes. It's strange that those who deny the truth never see those quotes or pay any attention to them."

While your incorrect answer was appreciated by the questioner, you must now confess your error to all.  You have not "cleared up" anything, but only made matters more confusing.  Your quotes did not address the issues or answer the question, nor is Tom Norris the one who is "denying the truth" and playing fast and loose with the evidence.  It is Patricia who has overlooked many quotes, refusing to pay attention to the facts which prove her wrong.  Very "strange."

This is somewhat troubling, because “experts” should take the time to find the facts and give correct answers.  You have not done this. 

Experts should not be here to spout their personal opinions or lead people down a false path.  Nor are they here to promote myths and rumors, but to stop such nonsense through the use of credible facts and sources. 

Asked & Answered

There is no excuse for you to not answer this question correctly.  This exact same question was asked on 7/17/12 and posted on All Experts and on ATomorrow.  So why did you fail to find it?  Here it is, followed by my reply:

Tom,

I have been reading about your views re the first angels message. Are u saying Egw did not believe the IJ doctrine?  She did teach this doctrine, and it was a false doctrine.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ment-1.htm

Tom Norris replied:

Ellen White did embrace the doctrine of the IJ, which was invented by others in the late 1850’s and codified in the 1870’s by Uriah Smith.  I have never said otherwise. 

All the SDA's embraced this unique doctrine, which was built upon the earlier correction to Miller's sanctuary error of Dan 8: 14. 

However, NONE of them thought this doctrine was the Judgment “pillar” in the 1st Angels Messages.  They all knew that Rev 14: 6, 7 was only a reference to the Second Coming.  This is what William Miller taught and it is also what all the SDA Pioneers embraced, without exception and without change during the entire 19th century.

This historical fact has been lost on the modern SDA’s; they teach that the IJ is located in the 1st Angels Message, and that the IJ resides in Rev 14: 6.7.  Therefore it cannot be debated, revised, or removed.  It is incorrectly viewed by many SDA’s as fundamental history that defines historic Adventism…
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom said to Patricia:  Those who claim to be experts about Adventism must first know the facts before they can help others.  Being a critic of Adventism does not qualify anyone as an expert.  It more often than not means that prejudice and bias will be brought into the discussion, leaving the search for truth in a ditch.

IJ Not a Pillar

The problem is this:  the IJ was never a "pillar" in the Three Angels Message.  And Ellen White never said otherwise.  Nor is there any such “Celestial Judgment” in the entire Bible. The IJ has turned out to be a mistake.  It is not the “Pre- Advent Judgment of the Church” as the SDA’s teach, nor is it a “pillar” in any sense of this word.   For this error they must repent…

Ellen White’s view of the IJ was dramatically DIFFERENT from what the White Estate and Traditional Takoma Park Adventism teaches.  Although it was still wrong, it was not as wrong as what was later taught about the IJ in the 20th century.  This is the correct point that was being made.

I repeat, Ellen White’s 19th century view of the IJ does NOT agree with Traditional Adventism of the 20th century, - as the church has claimed for so many years.  She has a very DIFFERENT view of the IJ, as well as the law and the Gospel when compared to Traditional Takoma Park Adventism.  Shame on the White Estate for not telling the truth about such important details.

See:

Tom Norris’ View of the IJ
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ment-1.htm

Ellen White and the IJ
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtop … 372#p11372

Conclusion:

While those who submit questions at All Experts.Com are asked to understand the previous answers, some will not take the time to do any such research, and it shows.  But you are an expert and should know better.   Experts should find the facts and answer the questions correctly.  You have not done this.

In the future, both the experts and those who ask questions need to be more careful.  The Adventist Community does not need any more confusion and double-talk.  Rather, everyone needs to better understand the facts of church history and doctrine in an atmosphere where the search for truth takes top priority. 

The Advent Movement was all about the search for doctrinal truth and this proper Gospel attitude should never be marginalized or lost.

I thank you in advance for correcting your error about my position concerning Ellen White and the IJ.

Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform

Offline

#57 03-13-13 3:22 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Tom,

Thank you for your comments and I, too, am writing to set the record straight.

"To begin, I would like to repeat your opening statement and the question that we are addressing.

You wrote:

"Patricia, I am writing to set the record straight.  You were asked on 3/5/13 about my position concerning Ellen White and the IJ.  You failed to answer correctly.  Here is the question:

Dear Patricia:

I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment. I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment. What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

My response:

Tom, you said that I was asked about your position concerning EGW and the IJ. That is a false statement. Please carefully note that she did not ask me anything regarding your position on the IJ. Her specific question was, "What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?" The first two sentences were simply commentary or opening remarks. In those two sentences, she clearly stated that you among other unnamed sources didn't believe that EGW supported the IJ. She did not ask me anything about you so your communique to me begins on a false premise. I am sure that you are aware that there is a difference between making a statement and asking a question. Again, she asked me nothing about you or your position and I didn't even mention your name.

Furthermore, I am not in the habit of answering what "I think" the questioner is asking. If I don't understand the question, I have no problem asking for clarification. She was quite pointed in her question and I answered accordingly. If you disapprove, I can't help that. Also note that I did not ever say, "Tom Norris is wrong", I just provided proof that Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment, which is what was being asked. I had no knowledge of what she had read or what you had said. I simply answered the question.

The quotes that I provided were written by Ellen White and speak for themselves. I have not given false information as you have declared and if I did or were to, I'm not too proud to say I was wrong. I am not infallible. However, you did falsely accuse me of providing incorrect information about you as I have previously pointed out.

You replied to a questioner by saying that, you agreed that Ellen White believed in the Investigative Judgment, so you and I are on the same page, yet you are attempting to call me out on it and suggesting that I apologize. Apologize for what?

Am I to apologize because you read more into the question than was asked? Am I to apologize because the GC brethren and those in authority have (according to you) misinterpreted Ellen White's views about the IJ? Am I to apologize because I did not read more into the question from the questioner? She asked a pointed question and I gave a pointed answer. Am I to apologize because I did not query through your many answers to questions to see your position? Again, you were not the subject. Am I to apologize because you made up a question that wasn't even asked and then accused me of answering it incorrectly?

You said:
"Unfortunately, the questioner failed to frame the question accurately, making a number of false assumptions, which you failed to detect."

My response:

Why would you say that she framed her question incorrectly? Her question was very brief, very much to the point and exactly what she wanted to ask. It appears that she could have been mistaken by your position on the subject but what other false assumptions did she make and how does misinterpreting your position affect her question?

If she had asked if I knew your position regarding Ellen White and the IJ and if she had asked if Ellen White and the 20th Century Adventists have the same view of the Investigative Judgment, THEN I would have had to do due diligence in research BUT those were not the questions. She only asked one question and it wasn't about you or the different IJ views.

You said:

"Second, the issue is not whether Ellen White “supported” or believed in the IJ, like all SDA’s of her time period, but rather, has the White Estate correctly explained the details of her position.  Do you understand this distinction?"

My response:

Of course I understand the distinction but do you understand that she did not ask for that distinction? Please note that you are changing her question into what you think her question should be. So do you understand that you want me to answer her question according to what you think she should have asked?

The following quotes about EGW and the SDA church regarding the IJ is taken from an article posted on thewhiteestate.org and written by Robert Olson in 1981 titled: 101 Questions on Ellen White and the Sanctuary

4. ELLEN WHITE ON THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT

"Does Ellen White support the Adventist interpretation of the Bible with regard to the investigative
judgment doctrine? Yes. She states:

“The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the
people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest.
Otherwise, it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time, or to occupy
the position which God designs them to fill.” - The Great Controversy, Page 488. See the entire chapter,
pages 479-491.

“For the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us, to becloud our
minds regarding the teaching of the Word--especially concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly
sanctuary, and the message of heaven for these last days as given by the angels of the fourteenth chapter of Revelation. Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the
place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study and testified to by the
miracle-working power of the Lord.

“But the way marks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be
preserved, as God has signified through His Word and through the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us
to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable
authority. “--Manuscript 44, 1905. See al so Selected Messages, book 1, pages 124, 125

My Response:

Now whether the above is true or false, I can't say, but it is taken from the source (EGW). I  and others can only provide what EGW and the SDA church post and write. The Sanctuary and the IJ (which are often used simultaneously) are listed among their fundamental beliefs even back in 1863 when the church was organized. The Sanctuary doctrine was its foundation and this is where the work of Investigation supposedly takes place. So it was/is a pillar which you deny.

As a child matriculating through the SDA church school system, this is exactly what I was taught to believe. I had no reason to doubt what was being taught and never questioned it until 50 years later.

I accept your disapproval of my answer, but I sincerely believe that this communique from you is based on questions that weren't even asked. Therefore, I do not believe that an apology is necessary. However, I am sorry that you changed her comment into a question that wasn't asked because this 'setting the record straight' could have been avoided.

I am simply not in the habit of reading more into what a person asks. If I answer a question and more clarification is needed, they have no problem with sending me a follow-up question. Furthermore, from one expert to another, I would never degrade or deliberately misrepresent you in any way even if we disagreed. If she had asked me about you, I would have tried to seek your position. True story!

I apologize for the delay in responding to you. For whatever reason, your question did not appear in my inbox. I logged in today to answer another question and there it was.

Blessings,
Most sincerely,
Patricia

"God cannot kiss His bride until the veil is lifted." (Patricia A. Allen)

Offline

#58 03-17-13 11:47 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Patricia said:  Tom, Thank you for your comments and I, too, am writing to set the record straight.

Patricia then said:  Tom, you said that I was asked about your position concerning EGW and the IJ. That is a false statement.

Tom replied:  It was a correct statement.  I stand by it.

Patricia said:  Please carefully note that she did not ask me anything regarding your position on the IJ. Her specific question was, "What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

Tom said:  The Questioner started out by referencing Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White’s position on the IJ.  How can you pretend otherwise?  How can you say: “She did not ask me anything regarding your position of the IJ…” 

Of course she did.  That was the point of her question. This is exactly what was asked.  Here is the question:

Dear Patricia:

I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment. I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment. What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … dgment.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The context of the question is about Tom’s Norris view of Ellen White’s IJ position.  Why deny what is so obvious?  She wanted to know if what she “heard” about Tom Norris’ view was correct.  Why deny it?

Patricia said:  The first two sentences were simply commentary or opening remarks. In those two sentences, she clearly stated that you among other unnamed sources didn't believe that EGW supported the IJ. She did not ask me anything about you so your communique to me begins on a false premise.

Tom said:  I disagree with your double-talk.  You were asked point blank if Tom Norris’ (alleged) position about Ellen White and the IJ were correct.  Why deny such a clear question? 

I can tell you were a long time SDA, because they can’t think or talk straight.  They prefer word games to support their dubious views, even after they leave the church.   Sad.

Regardless, the facts are self-evident.  The questioner asked you if my views abut Ellen White, were correct.  Stop trying to deny reality. 

Patricia said:  I am sure that you are aware that there is a difference between making a statement and asking a question. Again, she asked me nothing about you or your position and I didn't even mention your name.

Tom said:  First off, her statement was false.  She never heard me, or anyone, say that Ellen White did not believe in the IJ.  So you should have figured this out and corrected her.  This is the job of an expert.

But no.  You assumed these myths were correct, even as you try to pretend you have made no errors in this matter.  You should have taken the time to look up what I had written about this topic.  Otherwise, how could you answer the question, much less understand the genuine Pre-Advent Judgment of the church?

Second, you were asked if you agree with what Tom Norris has (allegedly) said about Ellen White and the IJ.   You were asked about Ellen White’s view of the IJ in the context of what Tom Norris had been writing.  Was Tom Norris correct or not? 

So the question is about “your thoughts” relative to Tom Norris’s view of Ellen White and the IJ. 

Third, this is not the first time you have been asked such a question about Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White and the IJ.  You were asked this question on 8/3/2012.  See below.

Dear Patricia:

SDA expert Tom Norris tries to distance Ellen White from the SDA false doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. What is your take on that? Did Ellen White actually support the doctrine or not? I thought that she supported it as a very important if not foundational doctrine of SDAism?

Thanks for your thoughts!

Karen

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ite-ij.htm

Tom said:  Patricia, you need to stop pretending that you don’t understand the questions.  It is clear that you have been asked this same question before, and you failed to get it right then as now.

Of course you agreed with her, just like you have done with the last person who asked you the same question, (which you pretend not to understand).  As far as you are concerned, Tom Norris is wrong, even though you have no clue what he is talking about or what Ellen White is saying.  Strange. 

Here is your response to this similar question. 

Patricia answered:

Hello Karen,

Thank you for your comments and question.

I am in total agreement with your thoughts. Ellen G. White cannot be separated from this foundational doctrine….

Tom said:  Then you go on to incorrectly answer this question, which once again proves that you don’t know what you are talking about.  You are no expert on 19th century Adventist doctrine, and it shows.

Ellen White and the IJ
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ite-ij.htm

Patricia said: Furthermore, I am not in the habit of answering what "I think" the questioner is asking. If I don't understand the question, I have no problem asking for clarification.

Tom said:  I don’t know how anyone could misunderstand these questions as you pretend.  But regardless, now that you understand, you still don’t know the correct answer.  You are not an expert about the IJ or Ellen White and thus you should not pretend to be something you are not. 

You are not qualified to answer questions because you don’t know what you are talking about.  Being a confused and wrong SDA for many years is not enough to make anyone an “expert.”  The discovery of error is not the same as finding Gospel truth.  You have run from one set of errors, only to embrace a different set of errors.  Is this progress?  Does this make anyone an expert?  Hardly.

So why are you here?  What do you have to offer, but more error and confusion?  You have embraced one false doctrine after another after you left the errors of Adventism, so what have you accomplished?   For example, you don’t understand the Sabbath or eschatology correctly, much less anything else that I can tell.  So what is the point?  You can’t help anyone until you better understand things yourself.

Just look at how hard it is for you to understand a simple question?  You are still confused about what is being asked.  What are the odds you can get the answers correct if you can’t understand the questions? 

How difficult can this be?  The questioner, like others before, wanted to know if the rumors about what Tom Norris was saying about Ellen White and the IJ are true.  But this was too much for you to comprehend.

Understand that the rumors are not true.  Tom Norris has NEVER said that Ellen White did not believe in the IJ.  Nor is there any evidence that anyone has taken such a view.  Why could you not give make such a correct answer?

Here are the facts:  What Tom Norris (and Dr. Ford) said is that Ellen White never believed in the IJ in the same way as the Takoma Park apologists claimed for Ellen White.  Here is a major point that you fail to comprehend and acknowledge?  Why it that?

If you were a true expert about SDA history and theology you would have given the right answer.  But you are just an angry ex-SDA who only knows what she was taught during a certain time period.  You do not understand the historical development of SDA doctrine correctly, nor are you an expert about Ellen White, the IJ, or church history. 

Being an angry critic does not make anyone an expert.  Such a bad attitude often prevents people from understanding things correctly, which is what is taking place here.   You need to learn before you can teach.

Patricia said:  She was quite pointed in her question and I answered accordingly. If you disapprove, I can't help that.

Tom said:  The question was clear enough, even though it was full of bias and false assumptions that you failed to detect. 

However, your answers were convoluted, misleading, and wrong.  You need to admit this and move forward with a better understanding of Ellen White and SDA theology.  Like many former, confused SDA’s, you are fighting things you don’t understand.  Sad.

Here is the real problem:  You don’t want to know what Tom Norris or Dr. Ford are saying about the IJ and Ellen White, nor do you want to know Ellen White’s true view of this controversial teaching.  Nor do you seem to care to do any research and educate yourself.

You may very well know what you were personally taught about SDA doctrine, but this is not near enough information to hold yourself out to the public as being an “expert’ in Adventism.  Not even close.

Patricia said:  Also note that I did not ever say, "Tom Norris is wrong", I just provided proof that Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment, which is what was being asked. I had no knowledge of what she had read or what you had said. I simply answered the question.

Tom said:  First off, the questioner thinks you said Tom Norris is wrong.  And so too does the last one who asked you the same question. Because this is the bottom line of your answer.  So you said it, even if not explicitly. 

Which is why I am protesting.  You are the one who is wrong.  You don’t know Ellen White’s genuine view of the IJ, nor do you know what I am saying or what Dr. Ford has said.  So you could not have botched this answer any more, if you tried.

Second, your proof is a joke.  You do not know how to define the IJ or even deal with this critical point under discussion. Which again underscores the point that you are moving beyond your knowledge base.   Unless you know the background of Glacier View and how to define the IJ correctly, how can you even comment on any of this?  Throwing out random quotes from Ellen White proves very little when you don’t know what it is you should be trying to prove.

Third, it was a great error to quote Froom’s 20th century views about the IJ and attribute them to Ellen White.  Such a glaring error underscores that you don’t know what you are doing.  Ellen White does not support what Froom says about the IJ and the fact you think otherwise disqualifies you from further discussion.   

It is clear from your answer that you had “no knowledge” of what Tom Norris was saying about Ellen White’s view of the IJ.  So why did you try to answer a question about my views without taking the time to find out what they were?  Strange.  You own words condemn you.

Let’s face facts: You failed to understand the question, which was full of wrong assumptions.  You also failed make a correct response.  Period.  Own up to it and learn from your mistakes.  This is the best course.  Can you do that? 

Patricia said:  The quotes that I provided were written by Ellen White and speak for themselves.

Tom said:  Wrong.  First off, you did not give the right quotes, much less get close to understanding the issues under discussion.

Second, you also quoted Froom, and tried to make it seem like his views about the IJ were the same as Ellen White’s, when that is not true.  Why did you do this?  And then why did you deny you quoted Froom?

You really don’t know what you are doing, or what you are saying.  This material is beyond you and thus you should not think you are a serious expert, nor should anyone else.  You are an amateur, like so many other Adventist critics that shoot off their mouths without having the facts.

Patricia said:  I have not given false information as you have declared and if I did or were to, I'm not too proud to say I was wrong. I am not infallible. However, you did falsely accuse me of providing incorrect information about you as I have previously pointed out.

Tom said:  You seem very proud and defensive.  Sorry, but this topic is well beyond your comprehension.  You are not an expert on Ellen White or the IJ, nor do you even understand the questions from those trying to get the facts.  You are over your head, which explains why you have given out false and misleading information, for which you should repent and educate yourself on the facts.

Patricia said:  You replied to a questioner by saying that, you agreed that Ellen White believed in the Investigative Judgment, so you and I are on the same page, yet you are attempting to call me out on it and suggesting that I apologize. Apologize for what?

Tom said:  First off, why did you not look up that information and make it part of your answer?  You should have corrected the questioner and said that Tom Norris does not deny that Ellen White embraced the IJ.

So it seems you can do some research if you want.  But it is also clear that you failed to fully quote the material, ignoring what you don’t want to see.  Why can’t you be honest with the issues and the material? 

Second, I agree that we are on the same page, meaning the IJ is wrong.  So I am not trying to make it seem better or sugar coat the fact that there is no such doctrine in the Bible.  Nor I am trying to protect Ellen White by pretending she never embraced false doctrine.  The IJ is wrong and Ellen White is not infallible.  We agree.

However, here is the point that has escaped you:  The IJ of the 19th century is very DIFFERENT from what was taught by the Takoma Park apologists.  This fact is very important and cannot be overlooked.  What the White Estate taught about Ellen White and the IJ was not fully true or correct, and it is this point that must be understood by the modern SDA’s, because it allows them to return to the original fundamentals that are true, correct, and prophetic.

The IJ was NEVER the Judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7.  Although this is what all 20th century SDA’s were taught, and what most all think Ellen White believed, - it was never true.  NEVER!  Neither Ellen White nor Uriah Smith, or any of the Pioneers embraced such a view.  Which means that all modern SDA’s have been badly misled by the White Estate for generations.  Here is a stunning point that must not be overlooked.

It also means that Glacier View was a sham, and so too Traditional Adventism in general, which is based on the IJ being a fundamental doctrine from the 1st Angels Message.

I suggest that you do some much-needed research on this topic and find out why this is such a paradigm-shifting situation.  The Pre Advent Judgment is a true concept, but it is not found in Dan 8: 14 as the SDA’s incorrectly teach.  It is found in Rev 3:14.  Let all go to the proper place in scripture to find this correct doctrine.

When the Adventist Community locates the true PAJ, they will understand their error about the IJ.  Then all should apologize to Dr. Ford and condemn the White Estate for what they have done.   The sooner this takes place the better.

Patricia said:  Am I to apologize because you read more into the question than was asked?

Tom said:  You need to apologize because:

1) You failed to correct the errors embedded in the question.  Tom Norris has never said that Ellen White did not embrace the IJ.  You were wrong not to point this fact out.

2.) You failed to articulate Ellen White’s true view of the IJ, leaving the impression stand that what is traditionally taught by the SDA’s about Ellen White and the IJ is historically true when it is not.

3.) You omitted many necessary quotes from Ellen White about the IJ, even as you quoted Froom’s 20th century views, as if Ellen White shared them when she did not.  This is a very dishonest and unprofessional use of sources. 

4. You also left the false impression that Tom Norris is promoting “nonsense” about Ellen White and the IJ.  But you never even knew my views, or those of Ellen White for that matter.  So how could you give out such a false answer, for which you need to apologize.

5.  Then you tried to cover up your incorrect answers with one excuse after another, pretending that you didn’t understand the question, when you had received this same question before.  This is typical SDA double-talk, for which you have been well schooled.

So here are at least 5 reasons why you need to apologize.  Do you need more? 

Like I said, experts are not here to promote their own opinions and errors; they have a duty to honestly deal with the evidence and stay true to the facts.  You have not done this.

Patricia said: Am I to apologize because the GC brethren and those in authority have (according to you) misinterpreted Ellen White's views about the IJ?

Tom said:  The topic of the publishing fraud in the White Estate has been in the public domain, unrefuted, for more than a decade.   Anyone that claims to be an expert on SDA history and theology had better understand what documents were hidden in the White Estate and why.  They must fully understand the real Ellen White of history, not the phony one that was invented by the White Estate and pushed forward at Glacier View to condemn the Gospel.

Ellen White
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=225

So here is another point where you need to apologize.  You should have understood that Ellen White’s writings have been suppressed and manipulated by the White Estate.  Then you would have also discovered that this manipulation also encompasses the IJ, whereby the leaders claimed far too much for the IJ in the name of the Ellen White. 

See the following:

Hidden Documents 3-30-06
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … uments.htm

Ellen White- 3/15/2007
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … hite-5.htm

Investigative Judgement according to Ellen White 7/31/2012
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … -ellen.htm

Pillars of Faith in EGW Writings 2/24/2009
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ed-EGW.htm

Patricia said:  Am I to apologize because I did not read more into the question from the questioner?

Tom said:  You should apologize because of the 6 points above and now the 7th.  Which is this: 

You don’t understand the Gospel.  Those who seek to teach the Bible to others must first know the material.  You are not qualified to teach anyone the Gospel Story or Adventist history.  You have much to learn before you are fit to teach others.  So repent and learn the Gospel.  You are years behind.

Patricia said:  She asked a pointed question and I gave a pointed answer.

Tom said:  She asked a question with a false premise, which you failed to detect or correct.  She also asked if what Tom Norris was (allegedly) saying about Ellen White and the IJ was correct.  Just like other previous questions you were asked.  So let’s not pretend this was a new question for you.  It was not.

Regardless, your answer was wrong on all counts.  You were wrong about Ellen White’s view and you are wrong about my view of the IJ.  So wrong is wrong.   Congratulations, you are expert at making errors and ignoring the facts, for which you should apologize.

Patricia said:  Am I to apologize because I did not query through your many answers to questions to see your position?

Tom replied:  You claim to be an expert about Adventism.  But yet you don’t know near enough to know what you are talking about.  To make matters worse, you seem too lazy to look up what you don’t know. 

So what kind of expert are you?  So yes, you need to apologize to a lot of people because this material is way over your head and you are in no position to explain what you don’t understand.  You need to learn, not teach.

How hard is it to Google “Tom Norris, the IJ, and Ellen White?  How hard is it to look up my previous answers on All Experts?  The search for knowledge and truth is never ending.  Those who rest satisfied, thinking they have all the information they need, will never understand anything but their past errors.  Truth is only for those who keep looking.

Patricia said:  Again, you were not the subject. Am I to apologize because you made up a question that wasn't even asked and then accused me of answering it incorrectly?

Tom replied: The question put to you, - was about Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White and the IJ.  Denial will not change the facts.

Patricia quoted Tom Norris who said: "Unfortunately, the questioner failed to frame the question accurately, making a number of false assumptions, which you failed to detect."

Patricia then asked:  Why would you say that she framed her question incorrectly?

Tom said:  Because it was based on the false assumption that Tom Norris, and others, had claimed Ellen White did not believe in the IJ.  So this question was wrong from the start.  And you should have corrected this error as part of your answer.  This is what real “experts” do.  This is why you are here.

Patricia said:  Her question was very brief, very much to the point and exactly what she wanted to ask.

Tom replied:  The question embraced myth and rumor as if they were true.  You also embraced these errors and went on to add more error and confusion to the issue.  So you both need to be corrected.  Here is a good example of the blind leading the blind.

Patricia said:  It appears that she could have been mistaken by your position on the subject but what other false assumptions did she make and how does misinterpreting your position affect her question?

Tom said:  There is no “appears” about it.  She was wrong to make such claims about what I believe.  My record is clear on this point. 

She also assumed what the SDA’s teach about the IJ and Ellen White is true.  But it is not.  What most all think about Ellen White and the IJ is FALSE.  And you should have known this fact, except you too are clueless about your former faith to understand.

Patricia said:  If she had asked if I knew your position regarding Ellen White and the IJ and if she had asked if Ellen White and the 20th Century Adventists have the same view of the Investigative Judgment, THEN I would have had to do due diligence in research BUT those were not the questions. She only asked one question and it wasn't about you or the different IJ views.

Tom said:  Wrong.  The entire question was about Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White and the IJ.  Just read the question and see for yourself.  It reads like a Syllogism, which is an argument that makes a major and then minor point, followed by a conclusion.

There were only three sentences, and the first one makes clear what is on the questioner’s mind.  Thus the Major premise = Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White and the IJ?

The second sentence introduces additional reasoning, which questions Tom Norris assumed viewpoint about this topic.

The third sentence is the conclusion; is Tom Norris correct or not?

Here is the question broken down for you:

1).  “I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment.”

2) “I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment.”

3) “What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

From start to finish, the question is about Tom Norris view of Ellen White and the IJ.  You can deny it all you want, but the facts are self-evident for all to see.

Patricia quoted Tom Norris who said:

"Second, the issue is not whether Ellen White “supported” or believed in the IJ, like all SDA’s of her time period, but rather, has the White Estate correctly explained the details of her position.  Do you understand this distinction?"

Patricia then responded:

Of course I understand the distinction but do you understand that she did not ask for that distinction?

Tom said:  I don’t think you understand any such distinction.  If you did you would not have failed to answer the question correctly.  But you have no idea how to explain this distinction, nor are you aware of it.  You don’t know the doctrinal development of the IJ and you should admit this fact and stop pretending.

Patricia said:  Please note that you are changing her question into what you think her question should be. So do you understand that you want me to answer her question according to what you think she should have asked?

Tom said:  Please note that the question, from start to finish, was about Tom Norris view of Ellen White and the IJ.  And so too were other questions you have received and incorrectly answered.

Why deny what is so obvious and plain?  But this is the way of many SDA’s, they love to argue over minor points, so there is no time to deal with the real issues that they don’t understand.  This seems to be how you also operate. Typical SDA blindness and double-talk.

Patricia said:  The following quotes about EGW and the SDA church regarding the IJ is taken from an article posted on the whiteestate.org and written by Robert Olson in 1981 titled: 101 Questions on Ellen White and the Sanctuary.

Tom said:  Why are you posting this?  Did anyone ask you what Robert Olsen believed about Ellen White and the IJ?  I know Bob Olsen; he was in charge of the White Estate when I was researching 1888.  He was there when I found thousands of hidden documents in the White Estate and Archives. 

So I can explain his IJ views, and place them in the proper context, but you have no idea what you are saying or quoting, just like most all SDA’s, who are so confident and arrogant.  But yet, when you pin them down, they don’t know what they are talking about or quoting.  Just like now.

Patricia quoted: 

4. ELLEN WHITE ON THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT

"Does Ellen White support the Adventist interpretation of the Bible with regard to the investigative judgment doctrine? Yes. She states:

“The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest.
Otherwise, it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time, or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill.” - The Great Controversy, Page 488. See the entire chapter,
pages 479-491.

“For the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us, to becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word--especially concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly
sanctuary, and the message of heaven for these last days as given by the angels of the fourteenth chapter of Revelation. Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the
place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord.

“But the way marks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and through the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us
to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority. “—

Manuscript 44, 1905. See al so Selected Messages, book 1, pages 124, 125

Tom said:  That post made no sense.  These are random quotes, lacking both historical and theological context.  They don’t help your case whatsoever.  Nor do you know what these statements even mean.  You are shooting blanks.  You do not understand the issues or problems, much less the solutions.  You need to be asking questions, not trying to answer the questions of others, who are as confused as yourself.

Patricia said:  Now whether the above is true or false, I can't say, but it is taken from the source (EGW).

Tom said:  Pulling random quotes from the White Estate website hardly settles anything. 

When it comes to the Judgment and the IJ, what are the “waymarks”?  This is the real question.  Do you know?  And who says the White Estate is to be trusted about any of this?  They are part of the problem and not to be trusted.  So your quotes have no meaning or relevance.

While all modern SDA’s have been taught that the IJ is the great Judgment Pillar from Rev 14: 7—and thus foundational for all SDA theology, this was never true. 

Although the White Estate claims this is what Ellen White believed, it is not true.  No 19th century SDA ever took such a view of the IJ.  NOT ONE OF THEM.   Proving that the White Estate has been misleading and deceiving people about Ellen White for generations.  What all think is normative SDA doctrine, is not.  The White Estate has deceived millions, and yet, they refuse to admit what they have done, much less correct the record.

Although Ellen White says that the waymarks are to be preserved, she does not mean that they were to be changed into error and posthumously supported by the White Estate in her name.  Ellen White gave no one permission to change her views about the IJ, the Gospel, or the Prophetic Fundamentals that define and empower the Advent Movement.  But this is what has happened and this is why the SDA’s are self-destructing in confusion and double-talk. 

Dr. Ford is correct; only the doctrine of the 2nd Coming is the Judgment Pillar in Rev 14: 7.  This is also what Ellen White embraced.  This is one of the great SDA landmarks that has been marginalized and changed into myth and error by the leaders.  Even those who leave the church, do so not understanding what has taken place.  The SDA’s have embraced error for so long that today they have no clue about the fundamentals that once defined them.

Dr. Ford tried to help the SDA’s understand the facts about the IJ, but the leaders did not want to hear truth.  They were more comfortable with tradition, myth, and legalism.  You also were not paying attention, because if you were, you would know how to answer the questions correctly.

So I say again, Ellen White does not embrace the IJ as the church taught you and me.  She never thought or said it was a fundamental pillar, even though you are conditioned to think otherwise.  You need to repent for this error as well.

Patricia said:  I, and others, can only provide what EGW and the SDA church post and write.

Tom said: No one today needs to depend on the White Estate for much of anything.  Those days are long past.  The White Estate is very dishonest, a great source of myth and double-talk.  They are the primary reason for so much confusion and why little makes sense within Adventism.

Today, there is all manner of information online about Adventism, including how Ellen White really viewed the IJ, and what Tom Norris and Dr. Ford say about such a points.  There is no excuse for anyone, much less an expert, to remain ignorant about the issues relating to Adventist history or theology.  They are all accessible online.

Patricia said:  The Sanctuary and the IJ (which are often used simultaneously) are listed among their fundamental beliefs even back in 1863 when the church was organized.

Tom said:  SDA theologians often view The Pre-Advent Judgment and the IJ as the same term.  However, the Sanctuary can mean many different things depending on which version of Dan 8:14 is being discussed.  So once again, you don’t know what you are talking about.  You need to stop pretending you are an expert, you are not even close.

Did you know that there are 6 different views of Dan 8: 14 (the basis for the IJ), and now the 7th view is being promoted as part of Adventist Reform?  How can an expert not know these things?  How can an expert get things so wrong?

Pay attention:  There was never a time in 19th century Adventism when the IJ was viewed as the judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7.  While this may seem impossible, it is a fact.  One, which Dr. Ford pointed out in his Glacier View document, which apparently you have not read.

The Pioneers ONLY viewed the 2nd Coming as the Judgment pillar in the Three Angels Messages.  Not the IJ.  Never the IJ.

Only in the 20th century, did this dishonest and false change take place.  Why?  Because the Takoma Park leaders were legalists that misunderstood the law and the Gospel, as well as Historic Adventism.  So they hid thousands of documents and manipulated Ellen White’s writings, even changing her view of the fundamentals.  As a result, nothing makes sense and Ellen White looks like a fool.

But Ellen White is no fool.  She never embraced this false view about the IJ being a pillar in the 1st Angels Message.  She never thought the IJ was the reason for the existence of the Advent Movement or that it was even part of the 1st Angels Message.  The fact that everyone thinks otherwise is a tribute to the White Estate’s ability to brainwash generations of trusting people.

This point about the IJ not being a pillar is critical for all SDA’s to understand.  It changes everything for the Advent Movement, even as it places Ellen White in direct opposition to the White Estate on a major point of doctrine.  It also proves that Glacier View was a farce and the SDA leadership corrupt and incompetent to the core, which is still the case today.

Patricia said:  The Sanctuary doctrine was its foundation and this is where the work of Investigation supposedly takes place. So it was/is a pillar which you deny.

Tom said:  Wrong.  You speak like an uninformed Traditional SDA.  Is this what you were for so many years? 

While the conservatives claimed the IJ to be the “foundational” doctrine in the 1st Angels Message, they were wrong.  Such a view is not only impossible, Ellen White never supported it.  She had another judgment pillar that she pointed to and it was the 2nd Coming.  So no.  The IJ was NEVER a “pillar.” 

This point never changed for Ellen White or the Pioneers, nor should it have changed for the Denomination at any time.  But it did, which is why the Advent Movement is self-destructing, - at the very time when the end of the world is closer then ever.  This great error must be corrected and the fundamentals re-established so the necessary work of the Advent Movement can go forward.

There is no such doctrine as “the sanctuary.”  Rather, there are numerous versions of Dan 8: 14 about the sanctuary, starting with Miller’s original view that the sanctuary was the earth, which would be cleansed with fire at the 2nd Coming.

After 1844, the heavenly sanctuary replaced the earth as the sanctuary in Daniel 8: 14.  But this was not the IJ, which would not be invented until 1857.  Rather, it was a doctrine called “The Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary,” which had zero to do with the IJ or a judgment of any kind.  (A real expert should know the different phases of the IJ).

So I say again; The IJ was NEVER a “pillar” in the 1st Angels Message as you were taught.  And Ellen White never said otherwise.  Which means you are wrong on numerous levels. 

It is time for all to understand the true history and theology of the Advent Movement, including what Ellen White really teaches.  What all have been taught by the church and the White Estate is manipulated, misleading, and very wrong. 

Shame on the White Estate and any that trust them, like Clifford Goldstein, Herb Kersten, or Doug Batchelor.  They promote great error and double-talk about the IJ.  But they are easily refuted and sent running away for all to see.

IJ Discussion: Tom Norris & Herb Kersten
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=1173

Patricia said:  As a child matriculating through the SDA church school system, this is exactly what I was taught to believe. I had no reason to doubt what was being taught and never questioned it until 50 years later.

Tom said:  I too was taught all manner of false doctrines at my SDA schools and College.  So what?  That is no excuse not to study the Bible and look up the facts of history and resolve the issues.  I knew something was wrong and that’s why I went to find answers, which I did.  I caught the White Estate hiding thousands of documents about Ellen White and the 1888 Gospel debates.  And they have yet to confess their great fraud, much less correct the record, even though the hidden collection is now online for all to see.

Anyone who wants to be an expert about the SDA’s had better understand what has been going on in the White Estate since the church purchased that collection in the 1930’s.   The place was, and still is, a propaganda factory.  They are the reason why there is so much confusion and error within Adventism. 

If you want to be mad at the SDA’s; fine, but be angry for the right reason.  Be angry because they have deceived everyone about Ellen White’s view of the law and the Gospel as well as the IJ and the very fundamentals that define the Advent Movement.  That should make everyone upset.

Patricia said:  I accept your disapproval of my answer, but I sincerely believe that this communique from you is based on a questions that weren't even asked. Therefore, I do not believe that an apology is necessary. However, I am sorry that you changed a comment into a question that wasn't asked because perhaps all of this could have been avoided.

Tom said:  You are wrong on numerous levels.  You need to first apologize to everyone for giving out wrong answers and for thinking you are an expert.  Anyone so clueless about Ellen White and the IJ cannot be considered an SDA expert.  To misunderstand Ellen White and the IJ is to misunderstand Adventism.

Patricia said:  I am simply not in the habit of reading more into what a person asks. If I answer a question and more clarification is needed, they have no problem with sending me a follow-up question.

Tom said:  The question was clear.  Your answer was wrong.

Patricia said:  Furthermore, from one expert to another, I would never degrade or deliberately misrepresent you in any way even if we disagreed. If she had asked me about you, I would have tried to seek your position. True story!

Tom said:  She DID ask about my views.  The question was asked BECAUSE of my views about Ellen White and the IJ.  The questioner wanted to know if I was correct or not.  Here is the question again:

1).  “I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment.”

2) “I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment.”

3) “What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

From start to finish, the question is about Tom Norris view of Ellen White and the IJ.  You can deny it all you want, but the facts are self-evident for all to see.

Conclusion:

Today, the Advent Community is very confused and disoriented.  So too their many critics, most of which are former SDA’s.  Enough of this needless, mindless chaos that prevents correction and forward progress. 

Adventism is important because represents a Protestant view of how the world will end.  But much of this important eschatology, like the Judgment of the 2nd Coming, has been marginalized and manipulated into nonsense and error, like the IJ.  Which means there is no credible understanding of last day events.

The Christian Faith does not function without serious eschatology, and at this point there is none in all of Laodicea.  This must be corrected.  It is time for straight talk about where the Adventists were correct and where they are in error.

It is time to correct the confused, false record in the White Estate and stop wasting time with myths, errors, and half-truths.   

It is time for genuine Gospel Reform, including Sabbath Reform and the search for a fully correct, NC view of the Sabbath, which has eluded the SDA’s who claimed to be the experts about the law and the Sabbath.  They should be, but they are not expert about anything except double-talk and error.

While the SDA’s were correct to understand the need for a Pre-Advent Judgment for the church, Dan 8:14 is not it, and neither are Sunday laws going to start the great Tribulation.  So a more credible view of eschatology must emerge to prepare the church for what is coming.  This is the point of the Adventist Movement and so it still must be, the sooner the better.

The Adventists correctly teach there will come a time when the Gospel and Prophecy are better understood; a time when the church repents for its many false doctrines, thus facilitating the last great Reformation of the church, which is located in Rev 18.  It is time.

I hope this helps,

Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform

Offline

#59 03-18-13 1:14 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Tom,

It is obvious to me that you are a very angry man and if you need me to be your scapegoat to vent, I can handle it. Just because you say something about me doesn't make it a fact . Just because you believe something about me, doesn't make it true . In my opinion, you come across as a self-righteous, know-it-all, arrogant bully and I refuse to stoop to your level.

This correspondence from you is a waste of my time and amounts to total nonsense. Obviously you do not understand the difference between a statement and a question. She did NOT ask about your views. Let me break down the question for you in hopes that the veil will be lifted and you can finally SEE the question:

1. STATEMENT:  “I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment.”

2. STATEMENT: “I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment.”

3. QUESTION: “What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

Now let's see if you understand. From the above three choices, which one has a question mark following it -- #1, #2, or #3? Congratulations! #3 is the correct answer. I knew you could do it!

You said:

"She DID ask about my views.  The question was asked BECAUSE of my views about Ellen White and the IJ.  The questioner wanted to know if I was correct or not."

My response:

I do understand what you are saying. It is quite possible that she was asking the question because of what she said you said, but the fact remains that she did not ask me about your views. While it cannot be denied that she mentioned you by name, it can be denied that Tom Norris is the subject. Take note that she stated that she heard you state that EGW did not support the IJ. If she "heard" you state it, why would she need me to tell her your position? Illogical don't you think? Seems to me, your argument is with her, not me. Her conclusion about your position was made before she asked for my thoughts. In other words, she felt she already knew what you believed and wanted to know what I believed -- plain and simple. To read anything else into it is reaching!

Sadly, what you have read into Mary's question is how most SDAs read and interpret the Bible. Scripture can be ever so plain but all they see is what Scripture DOES NOT say and write endless commentary regarding their adding to Scripture insight. A good example would be the Sabbath. The Bible plainly says it was given to Israel and Israel ONLY but SDAs somehow manage to read something entirely different into it by saying that it is applicable and commanded of all Christians. This is what I am experiencing with you and it is most frustrating.

Kindly redirect your need to be right and your anger to the responsible source -- Tom Norris, aka YOU! You will not be receiving an apology from me. And, yes, I am keenly aware that my refusal to do so is for the public to see, which is the platform of your choice . You had the option of sending me a private email and we could have taken it from there but you chose this platform.

Tom, I am not you. I don't think like you. I don't act like you. I don't believe like you and the way you treat people, I would never want to be you. Even though we are different on many levels, it is no excuse to be unkind, at least not for me. Stop trying to brow beat me into submission to your way of thinking and doing by trying to discredit me and my experiences. It ain't gonna happen Mr.(supposedly) 19th Century SDA doctrine expert!

If the truth were to be known, You owe me an apology. You have been quite loose with your remarks and accusations but I am a big girl and I can handle it. I suppose it comes with the territory although I am a tad bit surprised it comes from a fellow expert wanting to thrash it out in public. It's not my fault that you don't know the difference between a statement and a question.

You've taken up enough of my precious time by trying to "set the record straight", by trying to publicly put me in my place, and by trying to berate me for the world to see. In my eyes, your mission was unsuccessful. I am still standing! Your accusations are completely unwarranted and the manner you chose to handle them is questionable, even disappointing. I am not embarrassed but you should be. Your behavior makes you look very very small.

For the record, whether you approve of me or like my contribution or not, my calling and ministry on this site are just as important as yours and you will never have the power to make me feel belittled or discouraged. Who are you to question why I am here? Everything I mentioned in my answer regarding the IJ was quoted by the source, EGW. Yet, for some unknown and quizzical reason you accuse me of misquoting their history and that I don't know what I am talking about. I have never claimed to be a 19th century SDA doctrine expert (you gave me that distinction) but since I quoted Ellen White , does that mean that she doesn't know what she is talking about Mr.(supposedly) 19th Century SDA Doctrine Expert? It seems that you think you are the only one with "right" answers.

I could flip the question and ask you why are you on this site. Why are you here misrepresenting the Bible (aforementioned Sabbath example)?

Tom, I have come to the conclusion that I have no choice but to put you on notice: I do not care to, I do not want to, nor will I tolerate hearing from you in any capacity about anything.   If I hear from you in any manner, I will report you to the site administrators because I will consider it as harassment. I will also request them to view the published correspondence between us and let the chips fall where they may. As far as I am concerned, the subject is exhausted, closed and buried! I thank you in advance for honoring my simple request.

BTW, I have no disdain for SDAs. Some of my closest friends are SDAs. No need to try to make it personal. ;-( Again, shame on you!

Now breathe  s l o w l y  and try really hard not to contact me again because there will be consequences.

Offline

#60 03-19-13 2:54 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Patricia, I was afraid this would end badly.  Discussions with former SDAs are often not profitable because they are so badly informed, arrogant, and angry.  Many are forever damaged by their long time association with the SDA’s, making it difficult for them to think clearly or understand the Bible. 

To make matters worse; those who try and correct them on any point quickly become their enemy.  Thus they can be very rude and unteachable, and this is the case here.

Some think because they left Adventism they are entitled to be viewed as experts, when what they really seek is revenge for how they were raised.  Thus the Internet is full of former SDA’s bashing what they once supported and failed to understand properly.  It has become a cottage industry, one that the dishonest SDA’s are trying to counter with their own online public relations campaign. 

So there is an online battle taking place about the fate of Adventism.

Patricia, you were an SDA for 50 years, but you only recently discovered they had error in 2005.   Where have you been all these years? Then you retired in 2008 after almost 4 decades of church service, and then in 2010 you became a great SDA critic.  Why did it take you so long to figure out there was great error in SDA theology?  What were you doing all during that time?  Not thinking at all?  Not paying attention to the debate and reforms all around you?

I find it very hypocritical of you to wait until you retired (2008) before you went public about the many errors of Adventism.  I have met many such dishonest SDA’s that also happily embrace error for the sake of their careers. But when the money stops, they see great error, many becoming critics and disciples of D. M. Canrigth, the greatest of all SDA critics. 

http://www.allexperts.com/ep/2318-12303 … -Allen.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53883103/Out- … of-Bondage

Did you even know there was a Gospel Movement within the Denomination in the late 20th century to correct errors, repudiate the IJ, and tell the truth about Ellen White and church history?  Why did you not stand up with Dr. Ford and support his correct Gospel reforms back in 1980 and since?  Too busy getting paid by the church to support the IJ?  I bet you thought Dr. Ford was a heretic?

So you have a very strange resume for someone pretending to be an expert about SDA’s.  One that features the fact you were “deluded and deliberately deceived by the church I loved”  for most of your life. 

But you took their money didn’t you?  Now that the money train is over, you have come out against the SDA’s that supported you all these years.  Such a coincidence happens all the time in Adventism.  After Retirement, many church workers become very critical of what they supported so publicly.  Why is that?

Since when does embracing error for money and being lost in a cultic sea of confusion make anyone an expert about Gospel truth?  You were clueless and wrong when you were an SDA for 50 years, and now that you are not, nothing seems changed, except you are less legalistic perhaps.  You are still full of false doctrine and theological incompetence, and you seem fine with that.

Were you this stubborn, unteachable, and mean as an SDA?

Just as the SDA’s refuse correction, so too many former SDA’s, even as they think it their new mission to warn people away from their former errors.  But yet, they have few credible doctrines to call truth, embracing more error as a result.   The state of this crowd is hardly improved, if at all.  They are still full of error, anger, and much double-talk.  Just like you, and the Sabbath is a great example of their lack of doctrinal progress and Gospel maturity. 

While I agree that this discussion has been a “waste of time” for Patricia, not so for those who can learn by her mistakes.   Perhaps one day she will repent and become humble and teachable, able to understand church history and the Gospel Story correctly.  But until then, she can be an example of how not to think and act.

Rom. 12:3  For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Patricia said: It is obvious to me that you are a very angry man and if you need me to be your scapegoat to vent, I can handle it. Just because you say something about me doesn't make it a fact. Just because you believe something about me, doesn't make it true. In my opinion, you come across as a self-righteous, know-it-all, arrogant bully and I refuse to stoop to your level.

Tom said:  I am not upset in the least, nor am I looking for a “scapegoat.”  For what?  Do not confuse blunt talk with anger or even frustration.  Your confused views are easily refuted, even as you struggle to answer the most simple of questions.  I feel sorry for you, not angry.  The Gospel has eluded you all your life, and unless you can repent and become teachable, you will never understand or be saved.

Moreover, this is not about anyone’s opinion.  I know how to answer the question put to you (twice) and you don’t.  In fact, you were giving out wrong answers.  This is why I stepped forward to correct the record.  You should have been grateful, not hostile and defensive.  Your welcome.

The record has been corrected, and then some.  Mission accomplished for Adventist Reform.  The fact you refuse to apologize or admit your errors is something you will have to deal with, and so too the fact you also refuse to learn.  But the details about the PAJ has been preserved, even as these tired old myths about the IJ are being exposed as nonsense.  So your errors have brought attention to this important point.

You need to take a deep breath and perhaps get some medication.  Not only were you admittedly wrong most of your life about Gospel doctrine, you are even more so now.  All you have done is exchange one set of false, SDA doctrines, which you never understood correctly, for another confused set of teachings, which makes you feel better about yourself.  But you have not found the Gospel as yet, only a good target for shooting practice, the SDA’s.

Then, when confronted with your former and present errors, you throw a temper tantrum.  Were you an only child?  Or do you always lash out at those trying to help you?

Those who stand in public to teach, have taken on a serious responsibility.  They don’t get to say whatever they want or pretend they know what they are talking about when they don’t.  Do you understand this?  Those who claim to be experts are held to a higher standard and thus they “incur stricter judgment.”

James 3:1  Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

Moreover, Jesus teaches that unless one understands true doctrine, one had better not try to correct others.  Do you understand this?  Do you understand that you are not qualified to teach what you don’t know, much less to instruct anyone about the Gospel or church history.  You are not qualified, nor has God given you any such mission to promote error and confusion.  Sorry.

Luke 6:41 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Luke 6:42 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.
--------------------------------------------------

At this point, you have no business pretending that you can teach the Gospel or explain Adventist theology or history to anyone.  I don’t know why you think being deluded (your words) most of your life about religion qualifies anyone as an expert on truth.  Error maybe, but not truth.  Your resume does not fit your ambitions.

Those who follow the genuine Christ, must point to truth, not to error.  Error is everywhere, but not so truth, which is hard to find.  You should not presume to think you have found it as yet.  Nor should you think you understand the errors of Ellen White and the SDA’s.  You do not.  So you are wrong about most everything, just like most all SDA’s and former SDA’s.

Patricia said:  I do understand what you are saying. It is quite possible that she was asking the question because of what she said you said, but the fact remains that she did not ask me about your views. While it cannot be denied that she mentioned you by name, it can be denied that Tom Norris is the subject.

Tom said:  You understand little.  If you are having this much trouble understanding questions, you need to find another hobby. 

I have never seen such a childish discussion in all my life.  Not only are you unable to answer questions correctly, you can’t even understand the questions when they are explained to you.  At this point, I don’t think I can help you.  You are determined to be wrong, no matter what, and that is your right.  But such typical SDA arrogance and hubris is worthless, and so too your temper tantrum and threats.

Patricia said:  Take note that she stated that she heard you state that EGW did not support the IJ. If she "heard" you state it, why would she need me to tell her your position? Illogical don't you think? Seems to me, your argument is with her, not me. Her conclusion about your position was made before she asked for my thoughts. In other words, she felt she already knew what you believed and wanted to know what I believed -- plain and simple. To read anything else into it is reaching!

Tom said:  The question was very logical;  it was asked BECAUSE of what Tom Norris (and others) had supposedly said about Ellen White and the IJ.  She wanted your view about what she heard.  I don’t know why this is so confusing for you.  Especially because you had been asked this same question before by others.  Why are you pretending?  This is not the first time you have incorrectly answered this question.

She wanted your opinion because she thought you were an expert about SDA history and theology.  But you can’t even understand a simple question about the IJ and Ellen White, much less get it correct.  Now everyone knows that you don’t know what you are talking about and you have a bad attitude as well.  Not good.

Patricia said:  Kindly redirect your need to be right and your anger to the responsible source -- Tom Norris, aka YOU! You will not be receiving an apology from me. And, yes, I am keenly aware that my refusal to do so is for the public to see, which is the platform of your choice. You had the option of sending me a private email and we could have taken it from there but you chose this platform.

Tom said:  Your bad attitude will not change the fact that you are no expert, nor is it evidence that you have any mission from God to correct others about things you don’t know.

Why not start a blog or form a study group, but don’t pretend you are an expert about anything Adventist.  You have much to unlearn and relearn before you are ready to teach others anything about the Gospel or church history.  Complaining about error does not make anyone an expert about truth, especially those who supported those errors for most of their lives and were paid to do so.  It just makes them hypocrites and complainers, having the wrong Spirit and Gospel.  You need to find truth, not focus on error, which has engulfed you your entire life.

It is clear that we have very different views about church history and theology.  It is also clear that you don’t have enough knowledge to have a profitable discussion.  But regardless, others may learn from your errors, even as some may catch on to understand this critical issue about the PAJ not being in Daniel.

Patricia said:  Tom, I am not you. I don't think like you. I don't act like you. I don't believe like you and the way you treat people, I would never want to be you. Even though we are different on many levels, it is no excuse to be unkind, at least not for me. Stop trying to brow beat me into submission to your way of thinking and doing by trying to discredit me and my experiences. It ain't gonna happen Mr.(supposedly) 19th Century SDA doctrine expert!

Tom said:  Your temper tantrums notwithstanding, you still do not know how to understand, much less answer, the most simple questions about Ellen White and the IJ.  This is the problem.

So you can pretend you have been treated badly if you want, but the real problem is that you are wrong, and you don’t like to be corrected.  I get that.  No one likes to be wrong or lose, etc.  But this is not about winning or losing; it is about the search for Gospel truth.  One day you might understand this point.

It would have been better for you to admit that you are not trained to answer such serious questions about doctrine or church history.  And to apologize for not taking the time to research the answer.  That would have been the honest thing to do.

You should have just admitted you did know much of anything about this topic, except what you were brainwashed to believe.  That would have been better instead of taking offense and refusing to be educated on the facts. 

Are you sure you want to dig in your heels and fight the facts?  Do you really think making threats and acting like a child will help your credibility?   

Furthermore, since when is it unkind to tell the truth?  The fact that it upsets you is beside the point.  Neither doctrine nor history is subject to our feelings or opinions.  So facts can be painful, I agree, but they are still facts, even as myths must always be opposed.  You being an expert is a great myth.  Don’t believe it.

As for me discrediting you, why would I need to do that?  You have already admitted to being lost in a cultic fog of Adventism for most of your life.  You worked for the SDA’s for most of your life.  That speaks volumes as to your lack of religious perception.  Your whole life has been wrong by your own admission.  So you have discredited yourself.

You said that in 2005:  “I discovered that I was deluded and deliberately deceived by the church I loved and served. In 2010, I requested that my name be withdrawn from the membership roster of the church. Since then, it has been my passion to tell those in the SDA church and those considering joining Adventism, the truth and freedom that I have discovered and enjoy daily.

How did you go from a lifetime of error and delusion to instructing people about the Gospel and the dangers of Adventism?  How did you make such a remarkable transition in such a short time from Deluded to Expert?

Answer:  You have made no such transition.  Nor do you understand the Gospel or church history clearly or correctly.  You can’t even explain how Ellen White views the IJ, and you were an SDA for 50 years!

Patricia said:  If the truth were to be known, You owe me an apology.

Tom said:  The truth of this matter is known.  You were wrong and you should apologize to everyone.  You have made no case that I owe you an apology.

However, I am sorry you have taken this correction so badly.  But it proves you have the same deluded spirit as you have had all your life.  You are the stubborn one here, even as you are the bully, going so far as making threats and giving rude notices and ultimatums.  Sad.

Patricia said:  You have been quite loose with your remarks and accusations but I am a big girl and I can handle it.

Tom said:  Wrong.  You have failed to address numerous points, like the fact you have been asked this same question before.  And you got it wrong then as well.  Why have you never addressed this point, which proves you did understand the question all along?

Moreover, quoting Froom, and then trying to say that this is what Ellen White believed about the IJ is so reckless and dishonest that is proves you are not to be trusted.  Experts can’t act like this.

Furthermore, it is obvious that you “cannot handle it.”  You are not a mature, experienced Christian, but one who has admittedly lived most of her life in a deluded, cultic, state of mind, which no doubt explains your bad, arrogant attitude. 

Your life is what you have made it so far, and I see nothing that would make anyone think you are now being called to lead or instruct anyone as you think.  Maybe you are?  But if so, you must first repent and become educated on the Gospel issues.  This you have not done, nor does it seem to be in your future plans.

Patricia said:  I suppose it comes with the territory although I am a tad bit surprised it comes from a fellow expert wanting to thrash it out in public. It's not my fault that you don't know the difference between a statement and a question.

Tom said:  Those who go public as experts and religious guides have nowhere to hide when they get the answers wrong and look foolish.  There is a long running public discussion about Adventism taking place, and you made the mistake of pretending that you are an expert about such matters.   This is not true.  You are clueless to the issues, as well as arrogant.  And now your bad attitude is only making things worse for you.

Patricia scolded:  You've taken up enough of my precious time by trying to "set the record straight", by trying to publicly put me in my place, and by trying to berate me for the world to see. In my eyes, your mission was unsuccessful. I am still standing! Your accusations are completely unwarranted and the manner you chose to handle them is questionable, even disappointing. I am not embarrassed but you should be. Your behavior makes you look very very small.

Tom said:  First, if you want to be an expert, you have to invest more time with the material.  This is what makes an expert; being familiar with the history, sources, and issues.  Being clueless is a big problem.

Second, you are taking this too personally.  I was trying to correct your wrong answer and draw attention to the stubborn myth whereby many people think Ellen White supported the IJ as a pillar from Historic Adventism, when that was never true. 

This really has very little to do with you.  As it stands, you have no place in this discussion because you don’t know what you are talking about.  You are part of the problem, when you should be part of the solution.  Sad.

While you may think you are scoring points, you have only made yourself look foolish, which is your right.  As for me, mission accomplished.  The record has been corrected for all to see. 

However, please stop misrepresenting my views, as well as that of Ellen White.  It will only call for further correction and further embarrassment for you.

Patricia said:  For the record, whether you approve of me or like my contribution or not, my calling and ministry on this site are just as important as yours and you will never have the power to make me feel belittled or discouraged. Who are you to question why I am here?

Tom said:  I think you are here under false pretenses.  You are only an expert in error and myth.  In fact, you have admitted to being deluded about religion for most of your life, so how does that qualify you for some great ministry?  It doesn’t.  It might help you with your guilt for having an empty religion for most of your life, but it doesn’t give you the education you need to understand Gospel topics and lead people to truth.

You need to learn the Gospel, not try and teach others what you don’t know.

You are nowhere close to being an “expert” about the Christian Faith or Adventism.  You don’t know Adventist history or their doctrinal development, and you seem to have no knowledge of Dr. Ford’s Gospel ministry and reforms.  You are just here to complain about things you don’t understand.  This is not the place for such people.  Adventism deserves better, and so too those who seek truth.  Adventism is still important, regardless of its many errors.  It needs to be better understood and reformed, and you are not helping in either area.

Patricia said:  Everything I mentioned in my answer regarding the IJ was quoted by the source, EGW. Yet, for some unknown and quizzical reason you accuse me of misquoting their history and that I don't know what I am talking about.

Tom said:  Wrong.  First off, you also quoted Froom, thinking that Ellen White agrees with his view of the IJ.  But this is wrong.  She does not.  And you were very wrong to pretend you only quoted Ellen White, you didn’t.  So stop being so dishonest.

Second, your quotes about Ellen White make no sense, nor do they come close to dealing with the issues.  Why are you wasting your time trying to defend what you don’t understand?  You don’t know the historical development of the IJ so what is the point of even having a discussion with you?  You are a clueless expert, which is no expert at all.  Which is why you are giving out wrong answers to simple questions.

Patricia said:  I have never claimed to be a 19th century SDA doctrine expert (you gave me that distinction) but since I quoted Ellen White, does that mean that she doesn't know what she is talking about Mr.(supposedly) 19th Century SDA Doctrine Expert? It seems that you think you are the only one with "right" answers.

Tom said:  Ellen White knows what she is talking about, but you don’t! Nor do you know what Dr. Ford, or Tom Norris is talking about.  This is the problem.  You don’t know what you don’t know.  It’s a lot.

While I have spent decades trying to find the answers and resolve the issues, you allowed yourself to be deluded and deceived for most of your life.  This is what you have admitted.  Those who live such a life of delusion and myth are hardly fit to lead others into truth.  But yet, here you are.  The blind trying to lead the blind.

Patricia said:  I could flip the question and ask you why are you on this site. Why are you here misrepresenting the Bible (aforementioned Sabbath example)?

Tom replied:  I am here to clear up the legions of myths and half-truths that have overtaken the Adventist Community, correcting the PAJ as well as the Sabbath doctrine.  I am here to help transition Old Covenant Adventism into a New Covenant paradigm that features correct Gospel Eschatology and the completion of Sabbath Reform. 

You should want to join that Gospel endeavor.  Then you could make sense of your life and actually help those stuck in OC Adventism.

Patricia said:  Tom, I have come to the conclusion that I have no choice but to put you on notice: I do not care to, I do not want to, nor will I tolerate hearing from you in any capacity about anything.

Tom said:  This is funny.  Who are you to put anyone on any notice?  Do you think you are the Post Office?  You have signed up to discuss Adventism in the public domain under false pretenses.  You are not an expert at anything but having a bad attitude.  If you don’t like the discussion, feel free to leave.  Notice rejected. 

Patricia screamed:  If I hear from you in any manner, I will report you to the site administrators because I will consider it as harassment.

Tom said:  Wow!  I see you have lost all control.  Do you really think that making threats will change the fact that you need to apologize and correct your answers?  Scream all you want, it changes nothing.  You are no expert.  Most people will easily understand this fact by now.

Patricia threatened:  I will also request them to view the published correspondence between us and let the chips fall where they may.

Tom replied:  So you think I am on trial?  For what?  Daring to point out your errors?  This is sad, --and comical. 

Patricia said:  As far as I am concerned, the subject is exhausted, closed and buried! I thank you in advance for honoring my simple request.

Tom said:  The subject of Ellen White and the IJ is hardly closed or concluded.  While the White Estate has tried to bury it, and pretend there is no such anomaly, this is not going to happen.  It is a critical point to understand.  So your request is denied. 

This topic is wide open; alive and well as a fundamental part of Adventist Reform.  You, on the other hand, are free to look away and deny what you don’t understand, just like you have doing for most of your life.  But for those searching for truth, this point  about the IJ, as well as it’s repudiation, will lead to the correct version of the fundamentals for the modern Adventist Community. 

Patricia said:  BTW, I have no disdain for SDAs. Some of my closest friends are SDAs. No need to try to make it personal. ;-( Again, shame on you!

Tom said:  Your whole life was SDA.  I would hope you still have some friends left.  Too bad you don’t know enough to help your former SDA friends.  Too bad you don’t want to learn the Gospel and church history correctly so you can help others.

Patricia said:  Now breathe  s l o w l y  and try really hard not to contact me again because there will be consequences.

Tom said:  Stop making threats.  I am sure that is not allowed by the administrators, even as it may be a crime.  When you speak this way I don’t know if should call a doctor or report you to the police.  Such absurd talk underscores your rude and arrogant behavior, further proving that you are not an expert about Adventism, but only a confused troublemaker.

Rom. 16:17  Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching, which you learned, and turn away from them.

Patricia, you have much to learn before you can teach others.  I suggest you post less and study more.

2Tim. 2:23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.

2Tim. 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,

2Tim. 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

2Tim. 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

I hope this helps.

Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform

Offline

#61 03-20-13 10:01 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Tom,

I’ve been reading your answers for several years now and although I don’t always agree with you, I fully respect your right to voice your beliefs and opinions in the spirit of free expression and the constant search for truth.  Unfortunately Patricia Allen doesn’t seem to agree with those rights, instead threatening to report you for harassment if you continue to pursue further dialogue with her.   This is indeed unfortunate. 

But I can’t say I’m at all surprised by her response.  In the short time she has been an ‘expert’ on this site I’ve had a only a couple of discussions with her.  Each time I came away with the feeling that regardless of how I shared my disagreement with her views, she regarded herself as being totally faultless in her position and cut off any further dialogue... 

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … llow-1.htm

Others have also experienced similar issues with her…

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … swer-1.htm

With this attitude she comes across as being simply a disgruntled former SDA with a ‘bone to pick’… completely uninterested in carrying on any equitable discussion…   An “angry critic” as you pointed out.  She seems to be using this site as a vehicle to voice her opinions, dismiss any opposing views, and eagerly silence anyone who disagrees with her. 

Thank you for challenging Ms. Allen and helping to expose her partiality.  Individuals who have chips on their shoulders and are here only to convince themselves that they are impeccable and beyond reproach should not be volunteering as unbiased experts.

Maranatha!!

John

Offline

#62 03-20-13 1:26 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Thanks for enlightening the AllExperts readers by uncovering Ms. Allen’s misconceptions about being an SDA expert, and for doing so in such a nonthreatening way. 

You made it evidently clear that the discussion you are having with her is NOT about personal feelings, but is instead about exposing the myriad of errors we all encounter in the constant search for truth. 

I’m afraid that she still has a long journey ahead of her but hopefully she’ll be able to find some value as well as encouragement in the challenges you have presented.  Jesus will most assuredly lead, but we have to be willing to allow Him to do so! 

Maranatha!! 

John

Offline

#63 06-01-13 4:05 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

The SDA Cyber War on U Tube:

Here is a site very critical of SDA doctrine.  They have recently had to block the replies from SDA’s because they refuse to answer the moderator’s questions or explain their views about doctrine from the Bible.   They are rude and angry, unable and unwilling to face up to the issues and stay on point.

It seems the SDA’s are getting a good reputation for double-talk, diversion, and dishonesty.   They even quote Tom Norris to show that this is typical SDA behavior from the confused and self-destructing Adventists.

As the cyber wars heat up, Doug Batchelor tries to defend against his many critics, which he claims have fallen into a “once saved always saved mindset.  While he admits the IJ is unique to SDA's, he defends the concept because a holy life is necessary to be saved, and thus it seems logical that our lives will be reviewed at the IJ.   But yet, he fails to show Jesus teaching any such “Celestial Judgment,” nor does he even try to make such a futile point from the Gospels. 

His rambling and incoherent response actually makes things worse as he promotes sanctification and legalism, confusing the Day of Judgment (2nd Coming) with the fiction of the IJ.  No one is going to buy what the SDA's are selling today and it is becoming a waste of time for the Adventists to keep trying to convince the world that the IJ is Gospel doctrine.  It is not.  It is false, legalistic doctrine.  It represents the wrong judgment and the wrong Gospel.

The IJ is such a strange and false doctrine, that no one is buying the endless SDA spin on 1844.  The SDA’s have painted themselves into a doctrinal corner, of which there is no way out except to repent and embrace Gospel Reform.

SDA You-Tube Critics

http://www.youtube.com/user/Bingolly1?feature=watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdBwxTBUV8g

Seventh-day Adventist! Just So You Will Know Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDqMGnJhHMs

Here is an anti-IJ article, followed by a pathetic response by Doug Batchelor.

The Seventh-Day Adventists Christian or cultic?
Lampligher-Aug 2006- 
http://lamblion.com/xfiles/publications … 06_SDA.pdf

http://lamblion.com/magazines/magazines_2006.php

Doug Batchelor Defends IJ:

1844 - 2300 day prophecy - Investigative Judgment - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu … _Ftnfp3qis

The IJ is a dead doctrine.  And for good reason.  It is time for any and all that embraced such error to repent and understand the Gospel, which features the 2nd Coming as the great day of Judgment.  There is no such doctrine in the Bible as the IJ.

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#64 06-19-13 3:09 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Hi Tom,

Could you explain what Jesus was teaching in the parable found in Matthew 22:1-13? I know the wedding takes place in heaven and Christ's followers attend by faith.

vs. 8 - they were not ready for the wedding (which was ready)

vs. 9 - says they were to go and gather as many guests as they could find.

vs. 10 - mentions they found both good and bad to attend the wedding(??).

What does this mean - both good and BAD at the wedding?
How do bad people attend the wedding?

vs. 11, 12 has the king examining the guests and one does not have on the proper garment - what does this mean?
How did he get into the wedding with no garment?

What is Jesus teaching here? What does this all mean?

vs. 13 has the man being thrown out of the wedding.

Can you please explain what Jesus is trying to teach in this parable and what everything means?

Thanks, David R.

Offline

#65 06-19-13 3:37 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

David, those SDA’s that support the error of the IJ, use the parable of Matt 22 to help support their false doctrine.  They claim to see the IJ in this parable because this is what they want to see, not because it is in the text.  But Jesus never taught anything about the IJ or 1844, much less in this parable. 

Let everyone clearly understand that there is no such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible, even though the stubborn SDA’s, alone, claim otherwise.  No other group in the long history of the church has ever endorsed this late and strange (1857) doctrine, which has been strongly repudiated by the leading SDA theologians many decades ago, such as Dr. Ford and Raymond Cottrell.  In addition, millions of once loyal SDA’s have rejected this doctrine and flocked out of the church as a result of Glacier View.  Such facts can’t be denied, even as more SDA’s leave all the time.

Leaving the Church
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=233

Today, no one can defend the IJ; it is a foolish doctrine for foolish people who do not understand the Gospel or church history correctly. 

It is a doctrine that has also been clearly rejected by the Adventist Community.  Which explains why the SDA’s cannot grow, and why their churches are empty and dying. 

Traditional Takoma Park Adventism, which features the IJ, and many other false doctrines, like tithe and Old Covenant Sabbath keeping, has failed for all to see.  The status quo is not sustainable or true.  Thus all the errors of the 3rd Angels Message, which are many, must be purged out of the Advent Movement.  Starting with the IJ!  This is the only way Adventism can go forward to the 4th Angels Message of Rev 18.

However, before addressing any assumptions about the IJ, we must first understand its’ historical context and development, which few take time to comprehend.  Had the church leaders listened to Dr. Ford, they could have better understood how the IJ developed and changed over time, and why it cannot possibly be true Gospel doctrine for the church today, as so many SDA’s assumed in Takoma Park.   

Dr. Ford was, and still is, the leading expert on the IJ in the entire world.  There is no other scholar who has studied as much, published more facts on this topic, or who knows the material better.  He was correct in 1980 at Glacier View and he is still correct today.  The IJ is a false doctrine that must be repudiated by all that embrace the genuine Gospel and the fundamentals of the Three Angels Messages. 

The SDA’s are looking pretty foolish today, much like a typical cult that insists their strange and false doctrines are true - when everyone else who can read knows different.  The SDA’s are clearly full of error, as they endeavor to follow the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant.  This is why people keep leaving and why everyone is angry at their Judaizing ways, which they arrogantly deny.

Leaving the SDA Church
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=233

Exiling Dr. Ford did not change the facts of history or theology, nor does the passage of time since Glacier View make what happened there less of a crime.  The IJ is more false today then ever before.  It has been universally REJECTED by every denomination in the world, including the vast majority of the Advent Community.  As a result, no one is buying this strange, legalistic, and discredited doctrine any more, except those who are paid to do so.  The IJ is a dead doctrine for good reason.  Those who deny it are simply in denial, not able to honestly admit their error or understand the Gospel.  They are blind by choice, refusing to repent and see the Gospel. Just like the 1st century Jews.

No PAJ Until 1857

First, it must be said that no Millerite, or even the early SDA’s, knew anything about the concept of a Pre-Advent Judgment.  None of the pioneers ever conceived such a view until 1857.  So here is the start date of the IJ, 1857; not 1844 as so many have been led to think.  There was no IJ in 1844, and this fact alone disproves what the Denomination has been teaching about the IJ since the mid- 20th century.

The IJ was a late developing, 19th century doctrine, - one that was invented after all Three Angels Messages (1847) had already been established, including the Judgment “pillar,” in the 1st Angels Message (1844).

No one today should ever think that the IJ was part of either the 1st or 2nd Angels Messages.  Or that this is what Hiram Edson understood after the great disappointment of October 22, 1844.  It was not. 

The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=227

It is time for the SDA Community to understand the difference between historical fiction and fact.   Propaganda and double-talk from the White Estate is not to be confused with the facts of history and theology. 

Shame on the SDA’s for being so dishonest all these years, and for refusing to confess when they got caught and exposed as unbelieving Pharisees by Dr. Ford.  They will not get away with Glacier View.

The SDA’s have created their own problems as a result of their incompetence, and their many dishonest cover-ups, and now they must confess and correct the record or fade away into cultic irrelevance and obscurity.  The Advent Movement will go on without them.

Gospel Eschatology is not going to wait for the SDA’s.  The time of the 3rd Angels Message is past.  The Advent Movement must correct its many errors and move forward to develop and proclaim the 4th and final Advent message.  (Rev 18)  This is the work of the Advent Movement today.

Let all understand; the IJ was never a doctrinal “pillar” in the 1st Angels Messages as the SDA’s claimed at Glacier View.  Nor did Edson ever envision any type of Celestial Judgment, much less the IJ, on October 23, 1844.  Such facts cannot be refuted.

It is amazing that the Denomination would promote such confusion and error about these important historical and theological points.  And even more amazing that they would exile Dr. Ford for telling the truth and correcting what had been an embarrassing problem for 20th century Adventist scholars for years.  Now things are even worse.  Most everyone today views the SDA's as an Old Covenant Cult that follows many strange doctrines, including giving doctrinal authority to Ellen White, as if she were a modern day biblical prophet.

The leaders should have hailed Dr. Ford as a hero for correcting the gross legalism and historical error caused by the IJ.  They should have thanked him for correctly explaining how the Pioneers viewed the Judgment Pillar in the 1st Angels Message, and for correcting a long-standing error.  But no.  They have never stopped promoting their historical fabrications and legalsim.  And now they are paying the price.  No one today is going to buy what the confused SDA’s are selling.  At least not someone with a working brain and a computer.

Here is a typical SDA view about the IJ.  It is 100% false.  Edison never invented or even envisioned a concept about any heavenly judgment.  But yet, the SDA’s still pretend Dr. Ford was wrong when he was only following the facts and telling the truth.

“Hiram Edson(1806–1882) was a pioneer of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, known for introducing the investigative judgment doctrine to the church. Hiram Edson was the instrument whom God used to reveal to the early Sabbath-keeping Adventists the meaning of the cleansing of the sanctuary. With Bates and White, he was one of the deep-thinking students who developed the Seventh-day Adventist faith, a self-sacrificing servant of God, an ardent evangelist, and faithful all of his long life on his devotion to Christ. He was at one time a Methodist.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/sev … Q2FOT4E#c1

The history of the Advent Movement has not been told fully or truthfully by the Denomination.  This goes for 1844 as well as 1888 and even Glacier View in 1980.  The amount of error associated with the IJ is remarkable.  Myths have been treated by the modern SDA’s as if they were historical facts when they are not even close.  Why?  So that the SDA’s can pretend the IJ is a credible and true when it is no such thing.  And so they can avoid having to repent and apologize to Dr. Ford.

Glacier View has turned out to be a fatal error for the Advent Movement.  The historical views that anchor traditional Takoma Park Adventism are based on this myth about the IJ being a pillar in the 1st Angels Message.  A myth that no one in Battle Creek ever embraced. 

Dr. Ford was exiled for telling the truth.  He was charged with attacking and removing a fundamental pillar, the IJ, from the 1st Angels Message, thus becoming a traitor to Adventism. But this is impossible.  There is no such pillar as the IJ anywhere in the Three Angels Messages, much less in the 1st, and Ellen White never said otherwise.  Dr. Ford was not wrong, but the leaders, who were not scholars, did not know what they were talking about.  And they still don’t to this very day.

Uriah Smith is correct: the IJ is only associated with the 3rd Angels Message, it is not associated with the 1st as the SDA’s pretend, nor is this doctrine anywhere in the period of the 1st Angels as Traditional Adventism requires.  Dr. Ford is correct; the IJ is not the Judgment pillar of Rev 14: 7 and not one Adventist Pioneer said otherwise.

Rev. 14:7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”

It is time for the Advent people to return to the genuine fundamentals that define them.  It is the preaching of the Gospel and the preaching the doctrine of the 2nd Coming that was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the 1st Angels Message; not the discovery of the IJ, which never took place at that time.

The removal of the IJ allows for the genuine pillars of the Advent Movement to re-emerge.   

Thus the Protestant Gospel replaces the legalistic, false version of the 3rd Angel, and the 2nd Coming re-asserts itself and removes the IJ.  Both the Gospel and the 2nd Advent as the Judgment Day are timeless truths, eschatological imperatives for the last church and it is time for the Advent Movement to re-claim its’ rightful heritage from those who would hold it back.

As for Jesus teaching the IJ, it never happened at any time.  There is no such judgment in Judaism or the NT.  Those who think otherwise have been indoctrinated to believe myths and false assumptions, for which they must repent.

While the early SDA’s were innocent, uneducated, and naïve back in those primitive days, this is not the case today.  We have far more knowledge about the Bible and church history, and thus there is no excuse for anyone to believe such false and impossible theology today.

Glacier View was an opportunity for the Adventist Community to better understand church history and the Gospel and to move forward within the Adventist Apocalyptic.  But the leaders squandered this chance and set the Advent Movement back 40 years, if not longer.  They acted like the Jews.

In hindsight, it was a great mistake to repudiate Dr. Ford’s correct view of the Gospel and the development of the IJ.  His view of the fundamentals was correct, while those less educated had a different and very wrong concept of most everything.

It was a great mistake to pretend false doctrine is true, when the facts prove the opposite.  THIS is why the SDA church today is self-destructing in front of our very eyes.  Ever since Glacier View in 1980, the SDA church has lost its credibility and mission, along with millions of once loyal members.  It has no coherent message, nor is it even honest about the Gospel Story or church history.   Unless they get honest, repent, and embrace Gospel Reform, they will continue to self-destruct for cause.

Here are some more facts about the development of the IJ:

Early SDA View of the IJ;

As the early (Millerite) Adventists were searching for a way to explain the delay of the 2nd Coming, they reasoned that Christ had to first “receive his kingdom” in some official and ceremonial manner before coming to earth.

Listen to Hiram Edson speak about this point on October 23, 1844:

"He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that he had a work to perform in the most holy place before coming to this earth. That he came to the marriage at that time, in other words, to the Ancient of days to receive a kingdom, dominion, and glory; and we must wait for his return from the wedding."

(Edson MS. p.9, quoted in Foundations of the SDA Message and Mission, by Damsteegt, 1977, p117)

Edson concluded that Christ had entered the most holy place on Oct 22, 1844 to perform a special, undefined work, which was the "reception of the kingdom, dominion, and glory." (Ibid. p 122.) 

This new theory was not the IJ or any type of pre-advent Judgment.  Rather, it was a Pre-Advent Delay (PAD) caused by some type of undetermined administrative protocol in heaven.  There was no “judgment” involved whatsoever.

This very early attempt to understand the Great Disappointment was based on the theory that the wedding ceremony in the parable of Matt 25 had started on October 22, 1844- in heaven, (this is where the Adventists also came up with the "shut door theory," which was combined with Dan 7: 13, 14.)

Dan. 7:13  “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming,  And He came up to the Ancient of Days. 
And was presented before Him.

Dan. 7:14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, 
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. 
His dominion is an everlasting dominion.  Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one.  Which will not be destroyed.

Matt. 25:10 "And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut.
The return from this MARRIAGE ceremony in heaven would be the Second Coming, which they thought would still take place very shortly.

Luke 12:35 "Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit.

Luke 12:36 "Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks.

This “explanation” about the delay of the 2nd Coming became known as the “Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary,” the 5th pillar in the Adventist Apocalyptic.  It had the effect of locking the 2300 days into place, as well as validating that the 1st and 2nd Messages were the fulfillment of prophecy in Rev 14.

It also allowed for a dramatic revision to Dan 8:14 whereby the expected event of the 2nd Coming was changed to mean some undefined actions in heaven that would take place just prior to the 2nd Coming.

This new, October 23,1844 eschatology about a Celestial Delay had zero to do with the IJ, which would not be invented until 1857.  This later doctrine is what became known as the Pre-Advent Judgment, or the IJ.

Not only did this temporary delay of the 2nd Coming make some sense to these early Adventists, so too did the 1857 idea of a PAJ.  After all, how could God know who to resurrect and save at the 2nd Coming? 

So we should not be too hard on these primitive eschatological Pioneers.  They were not only uneducated, but they were navigating in uncharted territory.

As the delay of 1844 continued, it became necessary for the early SDA’s to recalibrate their eschatological views.  After all, how long does it take for heaven to complete some administrative protocols as envisioned by Edison?  There must be something else responsible for the ever-growing delay?  And the IJ seemed to fit.   There must be a PAJ of the church, and the IJ fit that new concept.

Thus the IJ was developed as the PAJ just before the American Civil War.  But at no time did the Pioneers ever pretend that this was the Judgment pillar from the 1st Angels Message in Rev 14: 7.  That would have been impossible.  Rather, this great error was invented by the Takoma Park apologists, who then claimed it was what Ellen White believed all along, when this was never true. 

For the SDA Pioneers, only the 2nd Coming was the judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7, never the IJ.  This has always been the official and correct position of Ellen White and all the Pioneers. 

The fact that the incompetent and corrupt White Estate teaches the opposite, and so too all SDA’s, only underscores the gravity of the problem.  Unless the White Estate confesses what they have done and corrects the historical record, the SDA’s are doomed to confusion, error, and irrelevance.

Today, in the 21st century, we all know the IJ has turned out to be false and impossible doctrine, unsupported by the NT and never supported as a pillar by the Pioneers.  The facts are clear and overwhelming; Dr. Ford deserves an apology.  He was correct all along.

The modern and official SDA view that the IJ represents the Judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7 is a complete and total myth.  It is a lie.  It never happened.  This is why the confused Jew, Clifford Goldstein, ran away from Tom Norris and refused to have an online discussion about 1844.  He knew he had embraced historical error.  He knew he could not respond to the facts that prove the IJ to be nothing but error.  The IJ was never a pillar and it was never in the 1st Angels Message.

When Goldstein realized that Ellen White never took such a view and in fact claimed no such view could stand, he was speechless.  He refused to discuss the matter in public.  Why?  Because such a fact upends and destroys modern Adventism and proves Glacier View was used to remove the Gospel and destroy the genuine Judgment, mission, and message, of the Advent Movement.

1844 Made Simple
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1166507859

Clifford Goldstein & The Investigative Judgment
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/1780/288.html

The SDA’s, including the White Estate and Clifford Goldstein, must stop misrepresenting the IJ, and start correcting their false views.  The Adventists need to start telling the truth, which they have no intention of doing.  Just look at their most recent attempts to promote more nonsense about the IJ.  It is the same double-talk from those like Clifford Goldstein, a confused Jew, who hated Dr. Ford’s correct view of the Gospel years ago.

Clifford Goldstein Still Dishonest About 1844
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.ph … 17&page=15

http://1844madesimple.org/

I repeat, Glacier View was a farce.  Dr. Ford is 100% correct.  There is no such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible, much less in Daniel.  Nor did Ellen White or the Pioneers ever think the IJ was a “pillar” in the Three Angels, much less the famous “judgment pillar” in the 1st Angels Message.

Such a false, SDA view, represents historical fraud and deliberate misrepresentation of what Jesus, the apostles, and even the Adventist Pioneers taught.  Shame on the SDA leaders for being so dishonest, stupid, and wrong.  They are as pitiful and blind as were the 1st century Jews that rejected the Gospel.  And double shame on the Clifford Goldstein, a Jew that hates the genuine Gospel, for trying to pretend that the IJ is truth when it is nothing but impossible theology and foolish, anti-Gospel error.

Let everyone understand that such historic revisionism by the White Estate, the Review, and by such paid apologists such as Goldstein, are the root cause for all the debate and confusion that has overtaken the modern SDA’s.  They SDA’s have long ago gone dishonest and corrupt and no one should think otherwise.

The IJ represents an engine of error, with one false doctrine after another heading in the wrong direction.  The more the church tries to defend this monument to legalism and manipulated church history, the more credibility it loses.  It does not have much left. 

To prove how impossible it is to defend the IJ, just look at how a recent professional IJ apologist from Australia fared on this site.  He was unable to score any points, much less come close to defending the IJ.  It was a route, a blowout, just like what happened to Clifford Goldstein on the Atomorrow website. 

Neither Goldstein nor Herb Kersten, nor the GC President, can answer the simplest of questions, much less defend the IJ, and neither can anyone else.  The IJ is easily exposed as impossible error for all to see.  If Goldstein thinks otherwise, he is welcome to debate Tom Norris for all to see.  But he will never agree for obvious reasons.  (I sent Goldstein an e-mail asking him to read what happened with Herb K, and to step forward and see if he can’t do better.)

IJ Discussion: Tom Norris & Herb Kersten
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=1173

Today, we must admit there is a PAJ of the last church.  However, it is not Dan 8:14, but Jesus speaking in Rev 3: 14. 

Good for the SDA’s to understand that there is a PAJ.  Too bad they got it so wrong.   Now it is time to get it right and understand the correct PAJ, as well as the correct NC Sabbath. 

But in order to do this, they must first repent of the IJ, which is the wrong version of the PAJ.  They have to come to the place where they can admit Dr. Ford is correct and they are wrong.  They must repent, like everyone who wants to get into the Kingdom of God.

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Once one knows what the real PAJ is, and where it is in the NT, it is clear that all denominations have failed, including the SDA’s, who discovered this correct concept.  They too, need to repent of their many false doctrines and embrace the genuine Gospel and the real judgment, which is only the 2nd Coming, - along with Christ and his active and reformed Sabbath.

The IJ is false doctrine; it is not the correct PAJ.  The Old Covenant prophet Daniel cannot judge the Church.  He has been given no such authority. Only Jesus can judge the church, which he has is Rev 3: 14. 

John 5:22 “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,

Does Jesus Teach the IJ?

While there was no such doctrine as the IJ anywhere in the Bible, the SDA’s invented this new view in 1857.  Here is the date for the start of the IJ, which would not become a detailed doctrine until the 1870’s when Uriah Smith published a series of articles and finally a book on the topic.

While it is impossible for us today to find Jesus teaching the IJ, much less with the date of 1844, the early SDA’s looked to see if perhaps they could find it in some of his parables.  After all, the Millerites often used Jesus’ parable about the Wedding Feast to support the new doctrine of the 2nd Coming.

Listen to what the SDA’s say today about the IJ and Matt 22:

“Another important reference in the Bible about the investigative judgment that is very informative of this important event and the wedding banquet is recorded in Matthew 22:1–14.”

“There is a need for God’s people to understand the relationship of the investigative judgment and the wedding banquet.”

They also say “verses 8-10 represent the Christian church from the first Advent to the close of probation,” claiming that the IJ is taught in verse 11, when the King comes in to “begin the investigative judgment.”

Parables of the Investigative Judgment
http://www.stepstolife.org/php/view_art … le_id=2726

See also:  http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/97c/less13.html

Ellen White taught that this parable contained the IJ, which is why so many assume it must be true.  In the book, The Great Controversy, she wrote the following:

“In the parable of Matthew 22 the same figure of the marriage is introduced, and the investigative judgment is clearly represented as taking place before the marriage. Previous to the wedding the king comes in to see the guests, to see if all are attired in the wedding garment, the spotless robe of character washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb.”

“He who is found wanting is cast out, but all who upon examination are seen to have the wedding garment on are accepted of God and accounted worthy of a share in His kingdom and a seat upon His throne. This work of examination of character, of determining who are prepared for the kingdom of God, is that of the investigative judgment, the closing of work in the sanctuary above.”

The Great Controversy, 428.

Of course the SDA’s, including Ellen White, are only reading into the NT what they assumed it contained.  But no other scholars in the world have ever found the IJ in this parable or anywhere in the rest of the Bible, - because it is not there. 

However, because Ellen White did teach the IJ, (although not in the way that the White Estate claims), many think it must be correct, beyond revision or criticism.  But this is a false assumption.  While she was firm that certain fundamentals were non-negotiable, the IJ was not one of them. 

Listen to how Ellen White views the IJ.  She does not think it is beyond criticism, study, or change:

Investigation of Doctrine:

There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.

We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ.

The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increase with goods, and have need of nothing."

How to Search the Scriptures:

How shall we search the Scriptures? Shall we drive our stakes of doctrine one after another, and then try to make all Scripture meet our established opinions? or shall we take our ideas and views to the Scriptures, and measure our theories on every side by the Scriptures of truth? Many who read and even teach the Bible, do not comprehend the precious truth they are teaching or studying.

Men entertain errors, when the truth is clearly marked out; and if they would but bring their doctrines to the word of God, and not read the word of God in the light of their doctrines, to prove their ideas right, they would not walk in darkness and blindness, or cherish error. Many give the words of Scripture a meaning that suits their own opinions, and they mislead themselves and deceive others by their misinterpretations of God's word.

As we take up the study of God's word, we should do so with humble hearts. All selfishness, all love of originality, should be laid aside.  Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. It was the unwillingness of the Jews to give up their long-established traditions that proved their ruin.

They were determined not to see any flaw in their own opinions or in their expositions of the Scriptures; but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. This was the spirit cherished among us forty years ago. . . .

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.

Ellen White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pages 33-42

Ellen White Understood the Gospel After 1888

It is important to understand that after 1888, Ellen White changed her mind about the Law and the Gospel.  Although she used to believe in character perfection and teach that the work of the IJ was to investigate the character of the saints to determine who was “safe to save,” she dramatically changed her view after 1888. 

Few SDA’s understand this fact because the White Estate hid the 1888 history from the church and the public.  The leaders did not want the people to know that Ellen White repudiated Uriah Smith’s theology of character perfection, which was the point of the IJ.  They liked Smith’s theology better than what Ellen White was saying, so they pretended she supported what she did not and this great fraud is the root cause for all the confusion and debate all these years.

Shame on the White Estate.  They were great legalists who represented Uriah Smith’s false view of salvation, all the while covering up Ellen White’s attempts at genuine and necessary Gospel Reform.  (There will be a special place in hell for those involved in this massive and ongoing publishing fraud, which has cause so much damage to the Advent Movement.)

After 1888, Ellen White better understood the Gospel and repudiated character perfection.  She understood that we are “accounted righteous” by faith, not by works or Sabbath keeping, and thus she rejected what Uriah Smith had been teaching as legalistic and wrong. 

The Takoma Park SDA’s made a great mistake to cover up and hide the Gospel debates that took place in Battle Creek.  To this very day that have not told the truth or honestly explained Ellen White’s views.

Hidden Documents in White Estate
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … uments.htm

No wonder Ellen White had to have Steps to Christ printed by a non-denomination publisher.  Uriah Smith would never have let the Review print this new doctrine from Waggoner, which he, and many other leaders, rejected and even hated. 

Listen to the post 1888 Ellen White in Steps To Christ:

"The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been,--just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents,-- perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. If eternal life were granted on any condition short of this, then the happiness of the whole universe would be imperiled. The way would be open for sin, with all its train of woe and misery, to be immortalized."

"It was possible for Adam, before the fall, to form a righteous character by obedience to God's law. But he failed to do this, and because of his sin our natures are fallen and we cannot make ourselves righteous. Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law. We have no righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God. But Christ has made a way of escape for us.”

“He lived on earth amid trials and temptations such as we have to meet. He lived a sinless life. He died for us, and now He offers to take our sins and give us His righteousness. If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ's character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned."

Steps To Christ, 1892, Page 62. (Not published by the Review) 

Let all SDA’s read this passage over and over until they understand that the post -1888 Ellen White repudiated Traditional Battle Creek theology.  While she was a great legalist before 1888, she CHANGED her position and came out on the right side. 

If she had been alive at Glacier View, she would have supported Dr. Ford and condemned the White Estate for misrepresenting her views and supporting Smith’s legalism.  Ellen White does not support what took place at Glacier View.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ements.htm


SDA’s Teach Error About Gospel Robe:

Many SDA’s think the Gospel Robe in this parable is our works and character.  They think that unless our characters have overcome both sin and bad habits, they will not be saved.  Thus they teach we are saved by character perfection and obedience to the Moral law, including the 4th commandment.  Such theology is not Protestant.

To prove this false point, the modern SDA’s come right out and quote Ellen White as if she is of the same mind, when she is not.  Listen to the SDA’s promote their false Gospel of character transformation:

“This character transformation is another way of describing, ‘what it means to be clothed with the garment of His righteousness.’5”

The SDA’s claim, “We are dealing with metaphors when we talk about “garments” and “robes.” What we are really talking about is character transformation that is surely a gift, but a gift that is imparted, not only imputed.7”

“Those who reject the gift of Christ’s righteousness are rejecting the attributes of character which would constitute them the sons and daughters of God. They are rejecting that which alone could give them a fitness for a place at the marriage feast.…”
“It is in this life that we are to put on the robe of Christ’s righteousness. This is our only opportunity to form characters for the home, which Christ has made ready for those who obey His commandments.8”
http://www.lastgenerationtheology.org/l … u-robe.php

Such false propaganda reflects Uriah Smith’s Old Covenant theology, not Ellen White’s New Covenant views after 1888.  This “safe to save” theology of character perfection was repudiated by Ellen White after 1888.  Too bad that this fact was hidden from the Takoma Park SDA’s who were told a very different and very false story by the White Estate, which story they refuse to correct.

The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=227

See also:

The Last Invitation
http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/97c/less13.html

Luther on the Wedding Feast:

Here is Sermon by Luther that more correctly depicts the meaning of the wedding Banquet.  There is no IJ in the story at all, much less character perfection.  But Luther does define the robe as containing “good works”, but he does so in a different manner from the legalistic SDA’s.

Luther teaches that the wedding garment is Christ and the good works are the fruit of faith in Christ.  There is no such thing as being saved by character perfection for a Protestant.    They correctly teach that no one is “good enough to be saved.”

Listen to Luther:

“Now the wedding garment is Christ himself, which is put on by faith, as the Apostle says in Rom. 13, 14: "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ."

“Then the garment gives forth a lustre of itself, that is, faith in Christ bears fruit of itself, namely, love which works through faith in Christ.”

“These are the good works, that also flash forth from faith, and entirely gratuitously do they go forth, they are done alone for the good of our neighbor; otherwise they are heathenish works, if they flow not out of faith; they will later come to naught and be condemned, and be cast into the outermost darkness.”

PARABLE OF THE KING WHO MADE A MARRIAGE FEAST FOR HIS SON. A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil.   First published in 1523.

http://www.lectionarycentral.com/trinit … ospel.html

Here is more Protestant commentary about this parable:

Matthew Henry  -(1700)  Calvinist biblical exegete was one of many who viewed this parable of the marriage-supper to be about “the rejection of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles (ver. 1-10), and, by the doom of the guest that had not the wedding-garment, the danger of hypocrisy in the profession of Christianity, ver. 11-14.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc5.Matt.xxiii.html

Here is some more non-SDA context about this parable.  There is no IJ:

Think back over the recent celebration of the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. It was the event of the season!
Can you imagine those invited not attending, and even making a joke of it? Even those of us not bowled over by royal pomp and splendor caught the reruns on television, to catch a glimpse of The Dress, or simply because we were charmed by the sweet affection evident between the bride and groom.

And oh, the "wedding garments" in evidence, from the elegant and cheerful yellow ensemble worn by Queen Elizabeth, to the military uniforms covered with medals, to the extravagant hats and "fascinators" (Who had even heard the word before this event?) of other women guests!

That is the type of event evoked by the beginning of the parable, depicted as directed once again to "them"--the chief priests and elders who have been the audience of the previous two parables (21:23). It is a story of etiquette and bad manners that escalate into violence, and of an arbitrary decree by the king reminiscent of the royal folly Alice encountered in Wonderland: "Off with their heads!"

This wedding party began as convention dictates. A first invitation (a sort of "Save the date!" notice that has become common again) is followed by the summons carried by the host's servants when the banquet is ready. Then things start to fall apart.

First, the invited guests simply refuse to come, and when the second call comes, they treat the invitation as a joke and go about their business. More than bad manners are at stake, for some invitees even assault and kill the servants. In his anger the king then escalates the confrontation by sending in his troops to destroy both the perpetrators and their city. Apparently the king has judged their bad behavior to be the opening salvo of a rebellion that must be quelled, even at the cost of a portion of the king's own holdings.

With the party ready, the king is determined that it will go forward, and so the servants are sent out again, this time to the very limits of the territory. (That is what the term means that lies behind the "main streets" in verse 9). They are to bring in everyone, "good and bad" (verse 10), so that the hall will be filled. When he king plans a party, the party will go on!

With minor variations, the parable to this point echoes the version in Luke 14:16-24 and a similar one in the Gospel of Thomas. All three seem to go back to a common original form of the story, which each Gospel writer adapted to his own purposes. For Matthew those purposes center on the issue of the "worthiness" of the guests (verse 8). The criterion apparently is not an ethical one (for both "good and bad" are brought in), but rather a matter of eschatological insight--the ability to recognize the urgency of the invitation and to respond.

This is where the specifics of the story evoke biblical traditions and images that would have made its point clear to Matthew's readers. For example, the parable is introduced as something to be compared to the "kingdom of heaven."

In Matthew's careful Jewish piety that minimized the use of the Greek word "God" (a carry-over of the refusal to pronounce the divine name in Hebrew), as well the use of "king" as a common metaphor for God, the story is evidently about a divine banquet. Further, a wedding can be a metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel (Isaiah 54:5-6; 62:5; Hosea 2:16-20), and a banquet a sign of the covenant between them (Isaiah 25:6-10; 55:1-3). "Worthiness" thus involves being able to recognize the king's "wedding banquet" for what it is and responding to it as one's top priority.

The final invitation that will fill the banquet hall is inclusive in the extreme. In that sense it mirrors other instances of Jesus' table community that embodied the hospitality and inclusiveness of the divine project or empire he proclaimed. Questions of social status or observance of Torah regulations, or even one's ethical behavior are set aside in favor of the urgency of the host's plan. That radical inclusiveness comes to a sudden halt, however, when the king encounters a guest who is not properly attired (verses 11-13).

The parable-within-the parable has no parallels outside of Matthew, so it must reflect his particular agenda. The language of the parable ranges from sarcasm, with the address of the man as "Friend" (see 20:13 and 26:50), to apocalyptic violence (verse 13). The details of ejection into the "outer darkness" with "weeping and gnashing of teeth" invoke earlier declarations of judgment (for example, 8:12; 13:42; and 13:50) and require that we read this parable in an eschatological key.
Clearly the issue is not the man's clothing, but rather something else about how he presents himself in this ultimate moment. We are left without a list of specific criteria that move a person from the list of the many "called," to that of the few "chosen" (verse 14), but it appears that Matthew envisions further accountability beyond one's initial response of discipleship, our "yes!" to God's invitation to the banquet.

I am drawn to understand this double parable through the lens of James 2, and the tension between his affirmation that one's faith can be seen in one's "works" (by which he means deeds, especially deeds of justice and compassion), and Paul's more famous affirmation (in Galatians and Romans) that our standing before God depends only on our acceptance of God's grace.

My suggestion about the reason for James' position is that Paul's costly and radical notion of faith as the commitment of one's entire life may have become watered down to a matter of intellectual belief or emotional trust that does not bring one's behavior into play. It seems to me that Matthew is in the same place that we find James. He affirms the boundless generosity and inclusive reach of God's grace, but he also affirms that for us to be "worthy" of God's gift requires nothing less than our whole life.

http://www.workingpreacher.org/preachin … ary_id=997

Here is some additional info about this parable.

No credible scholars or historians have ever found the IJ in this parable, including the best and the brightest of SDA scholars like Dr. Ford and Cottrell who both repudiate the IJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of … ding_Feast

http://www.gotell.org/pages/stories/Mat … 01-14.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-wedding-feast.html

http://voices.yahoo.com/explanation-par … 75997.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/carlgregg/ … upywallst/

The Parable Of The Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14)
Study By: Allen Ross, From the Series: An Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew

http://bible.org/seriespage/parable-wed … hew-221-14

Conclusion:

There is no such doctrine as the IJ in Judaism or the New Covenant.  Jesus never taught such a Celestial Judgment, nor is there any hint of the IJ in any of his parables as the SDA’s pretend.

The SDA’s have made a fatal mistake by exiling Dr. Ford, a world-class expert on the IJ.  He understood this complex and ever changing SDA doctrine and proved there is no such teaching in the Bible, much less the Gospel. 

He was also correct to point out that the IJ was never the Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message as the Denomination and White Estate teaches.  To this day, Dr. Ford’s views have not been credibly refuted by anyone, even though the dishonest SDA’s claim otherwise. 

Reflections on Adventism
http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org/librar … /intro.cfm

Dr. Ford deserves an apology for defending the genuine Gospel fundamentals of the Advent Movement.  He was no heritic.  The Advent Community has been deceived and misled by their incompetent and corrupt leaders all these years, and it is time for all to understand what has been going on and why. 

The status quo is not sustainable or true.  The Adventist Community must repent and determine to remove all error and false doctrine, not pretend their many errors are true.

It is time for the "blind" and "wretched" SDA’s to repent of the IJ and apologize for what happened at Glacier View.  The Advent Movement must return to the Protestant Gospel and the originall Judgment pillar that defined them, which is the 2nd Coming, - NOT THE IJ! 

It is time for the Adventist Community to understand that their leaders have not been honest or correct about either church history or the Gospel.  They are full of false doctrine and bad motives and no one should trust them in the slightest.  Thus they should be seen as wolves in sheep’s clothing, even as worthless, hired hands.

The Advent Movement cannot be allowed to die of neglect, corruption, and fraud.  It must still go forward to complete its noble Gospel mission to prepare the church for the end of the world, ready to survive the Judgment Day, which is the 2nd Coming, not the IJ. 

All that honestly seek for Gospel truth will find it.

Mark 4:23 “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

I hope this helps.

Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform

Offline

#66 10-17-13 11:03 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

David asked about the IJ:

Subject: 7 Points that disprove the Investigative Judgment.

IJ Discussion: Tom Norris & Herb Kersten
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=1173

Hi Tom,

Hope you are doing well. I have been reading your 7 Points that prove the Investigative Judgment doctrine false. As you already know I fully believe with all my heart that this doctrine is true and a foundational pillar of truth.

Tom replied:  Now that you have read them, do you think you can refute any point?  Everyone who has tried over the last 10 years has never been able to get past the 1st points, much less the other 6 Points. 

Do you think you can do better?

If not, you are very foolish to think the IJ is true Gospel doctrine.  If Jesus does not teach this doctrine; then it cannot be taught in the church.

Furthermore, I note that the Jews also “believed with all their heart” that the OC Law had to be defended and protected.  They thought it was greater than Jesus.  But we know they were wrong.  Regardless of their “sincerity.”

Wrong is wrong.  Sincerity has nothing to do with it.

Many people sincerely “believe” all manner of myth and religious error, the Sunday Sabbath being but one obvious example.  But just because most all embrace a 1st day Lord’s day, this does not make it true. 

Those who “believed” that the Sun went around the Earth were certain they were correct, and so too the Flat Earth crowd.  Whoops!  So much for “sincerity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons … ociety.htm

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/galileo/

All such uninformed “belief,” about the IJ, Sunday, or anything, is worthless if it goes against the facts.   No amount of “believing” will make false doctrine true, or true doctrine false. 

Facts trump sincerity.  The IJ is false no matter what you think or believe, and so too most of the doctrines associated with it.  Sorry.

You may be as sincere as possible, but it does not matter.  The IJ is false doctrine regardless what you believe, even as the Gospel is what it is, without needing anyone’s approval.

So let’s be clear; you are a die-hard “believer” in the IJ, and no doubt of many other false SDA doctrines, like tithe and food laws, and OC Sabbath keeping. 

None who “believe” in the IJ does so in a vacuum.  There are a number of other false doctrines associated with the IJ, as Point # 7 states, and thus you have embraced a chain of false doctrine for which you must repent.

Here is what I don’t understand?  How can anyone “believe” in the IJ after seeing how the latest IJ Evangelist could not even address the first Point, much less all 7.

Do you think you can do better than the slick Herb Kersten?  If so, why did you ignore these specific points?  Why don’t you try to refute them? 

Answer:  Because they are IRREFUTABLE.  You can’t do any better than the IJ expert Herb Kersten, who ran away in disgrace, because the facts are clearly and forever against the IJ.

So unless you can refute these 7 Points, why do you still “believe” in what has been proven false?  On what basis? 

The IJ is easily disproven for all to see regardless what your confused and stubborn heart tells you. 

Moreover, Gospel Doctrine is not based on our opinions or feelings, but only on the NT.  So don’t trust your heart my friend, it will not lead to truth.  Nor should anyone trust the SDA’s to teach Gospel doctrine.

So I say again; if the IJ is true, as you claim, then you should be able to easily refute all these points? 

But you failed to even try.  Why is that?  If it’s true, like you believe, then why can’t your refute the points that prove it wrong?

Answer:  The IJ is not true.

David said:  While I am not going to go through your 7 points, etc. I would like to key in on a sentence found in point #2:

"Only the NT can define Gospel doctrine for the church, not the OT."

Tom said:  Let me get this straight?  You refuse to address the 7 points, but yet, you think you have found some hermeneutical issue that can save the IJ? 

This makes no sense.  Why are you playing games?

If you can’t stand up like a man and refute the 7 Points, one at a time, starting with the first, -then you lose the discussion, just like the last person who claimed the IJ to be Gospel truth.  It’s a pretty simple concept. 

Guess what? 

You have lost! 

David stated:  This one sentence should tell everyone on this board that you are completely baseless and should not be trusted as an "expert".

Tom replied:  Ha!  This is comical, and sad. 

First, you have been unable to refute any of the 7 points, so you lose.  Your position is “baseless” and easily refuted 7 times.  Everyone on this board knows this.

So why do you act as if your side is winning this discussion?

Pay attention:  My 7 points against the IJ are much greater than your one minor point for it, which point is easily refuted.  So you lose 7 to zero.  Game over.

Score: Pro IJ = 0 

Anti-IJ = 7 

Furthermore, do you really think Moses is equal to Christ?  Do you really think the OC is the same as the NC, or even better?

Such an idea is absurd and outrageous.  Those, like the SDA’s, who love the law as if it were the Gospel, are not only confused, they are acting like the Judaizers in the early church.  They are anti-Christ, even as they claim to be on the side of God and Christ.

David said:  What does the Bible say (and it's in the New Testament):

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,"

Tom replied:  First, the Gentiles had no scripture, much less the OT.  So you need to understand that a Gentile could only become a Christian if they supported the Words of Christ by faith.  They were not to embrace the words of Moses.

Thus Jesus words became “scripture” for those interested in Eternal Life.  Not the words of Moses.

Rom. 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Second, while the Jews thought they understood the OT and thus had salvation, Jesus refuted them by claiming that they did not understand the OT correctly, or God or the Messiah.  Nor did they want to embrace the Gospel or the NC Sabbath.  They were not saved.

John 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

John 5:38 “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

John 5:39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

John 5:40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
 
Third, the OT is only “profitable” by those who are honest with the Gospel.  Many Jews refused to let go of the OC, even as some in the church tried to force OC doctrines to become part of the Gospel.  This is all wrong.

Gal. 2:14 But when I saw that they were not 1straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

The OT can only be of benefit if it leads people to the NC Gospel.  Those who claim the OC is equal to the NT have fallen from grace.  They are like the Judaizers in Galatians that refused to let go of the OC law.

Fourth, the Words of Jesus in the Gospels are the highest communication from God to man.  While the OT did not clearly articulate the Gospel, the NT did exactly that.  Thus the NT is far superior to the OT.

Heb. 1:1   God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,

Heb. 1:2  in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

While the OT contains the context for the NC, and is “profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc.” that does not mean it is equal or superior to the NT or the NC.  Such an assumption is absurd and false.

Is the word of Moses equal to the Word of Christ?  If you think so, you are a Judaizer.

David said:  Does it get any plainer then that? ALL means all.

Tom said:  It should be plain that the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels are the highest and most authoritative in the church.  The fact that you do not agree explains why you are full of OC doctrines and a worthless religion.  You and the SDA’s are Judaizers.  This is the problem.  You need to repent.

Paul is not saying that what is written in the OC is equal to whatever Jesus teaches.  If that were true, circumcision in the church would be normative, and so too many other things. 

In fact, Paul never embraced the IJ, and neither did Moses or Daniel, much less Jesus.  So why do you quote Paul, as if he supports the IJ, Tithe and the OC Sabbath?  He supports NONE of these legalistic and false doctrines in the church.

David, you have allowed the OC minded SDA’s to confuse and control you.   They have taught you to misunderstand the Bible, doubt the Words of Christ, and embrace one false doctrine after another.  Sad.

Moreover, why on earth do you think this passage proves the IJ?  This is absurd.  Those who believe in the IJ do not know how to read the Bible honestly or correctly.  Sad.

David asked:  Didn't Jesus say "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." (John 5:39)

When Jesus made such a statement only the Old Testament was written.

Tom replied:  The context of this statement is a Sabbath debate between Jesus and the Jews.  The Jews would not listen to the living Word of Christ, which was greater than the written words of Moses. 

You are like the Jews and so too the SDA’s; which is why you don’t understand the Gospel of Christ.

David said:  Des Ford's claims (and others like him), while they sound convincing to the average SDA who just doesn't hear our distinctive message from the pulpit in years and doesn't study intensely, when they hear his "arguments", they fall for it because it is presented in an eloquent way.

Tom replied:  First off, Dr. Ford’s claims did not sound convincing at first.  In fact, they sounded impossible and heretical, against the Bible and SDA eschatology.  The very idea back in the 1970’s that the IJ could be false doctrine was a stunning concept to every SDA. 

Dr. Ford stood alone at Glacier View.  Few had even read his large book on the topic and fewer still could comprehend it.  So stop with the false commentary about history. 

However, over time, those that were honest, and took the time to read the material, came around to understand the truth.   The evidence from both the Bible and history proved Dr. Ford correct.  Thus, even Dr. Cottrell, had to admit that Dr. Ford was 100% correct.  The IJ is false doctrine.  It is not the PAJ of the church.

So unless you have some concrete facts to prove Dr. Ford wrong, stop pretending he is wrong.  You, and Herb Kersten, and all the SDA’s are wrong, wrong, wrong, as the 7 simple Points prove to all.  Forget 7, the first point alone crushes the IJ into dust.

David said:  I mean, come on, Mr. Ford believes in evolution. Why would I believe anything this man says?

Tom replied:  First, there is much more evidence to support “evolution” than there is the IJ.  In fact, while there are thousands of scientists around the world that embrace some form of evolution, NONE of them think the IJ is valid or true doctrine.  Neither do any theologians.

So come on, I mean, no one in the world believes the IJ except the cultic and dishonest SDA’s.  And most of them have long since given it up and repented of this and many other false SDA doctrines.

Second, you need to understand what Dr. Ford is saying about the age of the earth and the Creation Story.  Those who think they can prove a young earth are being very foolish.  The age of the earth is not a Gospel doctrine, nor does anyone understand how the earth was created so as to make it doctrine.

The Genesis Debate
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=1134

David asked:  How can you keep defending these ideas?

Tom said:  How can you still think the IJ is a valid Gospel doctrine?  How can you think that tithe and Jewish food laws, and OC Sabbath keeping are part of the Gospel? 

Answer:  Because you have let the cultic SDA’s brainwash you.  Sad.

David said:  I hope you won't delay in answering this for weeks and weeks (like you have done in the past). Let the people see what is going on.

Tom replied:  David, I can’t keep up the many questions about Adventist Reform, so don’t think I am “delaying” answering your question in order to hide some secret truth about the IJ. 

You, and Herb Kersten have only made the IJ look more silly and false for all to see.  Neither of you have been able to defend such false and impossible doctrine, nor neither can anyone else.  It is impossible.

Moreover, your continued attacks against Dr. Ford, a great Protestant and Adventist scholar, only shows that you do not understand the Gospel or church history.  You and those like Herb Kersten, are proving that the IJ is foolish and impossible doctrine. 

Those who embrace the IJ, tithe, Jewish food laws and OC Sabbath keeping don’t know what they are talking about any more than those Galatians that embraced circumcision.

In conclusion, you need to read the 7 Points again and admit the IJ is false and impossible doctrine. 

Stop trying to defend what is indefensible and against the Gospel.  There is no point in promoting this false and useless SDA doctrine that Jesus NEVER taught.  The IJ is not part of the “Word” of Christ.  Those who think otherwise, do not know Christ.

Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Repent of the IJ, tithe, Jewish Food Laws and OC Sabbath keeping.  Embrace the NC and move away from those who are anti-Christ.

Tom Norris, for New Covenant Adventism & All Experts.com

Offline

#67 10-18-13 11:34 pm

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

What a wasted discussion!!! There will be a pre-advent judgement and it will be investigative, into whether acts were good or bad and whether the person being judged is covered by Christ's righteousness. Does anyone really believe Christ can have a pre-advent judgement without an investigation. Tom, maybe the heavenly geography is off with the SDAs, but Christ sitting at the right hand of God has been given the Judgement to perform, who believes it takes 150 years or 1000 years? That really is making God and His Son small indeed.

John 5:22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,

Last edited by bob_2 (10-18-13 11:35 pm)

Offline

#68 10-19-13 11:31 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Bob 2 said:  What a wasted discussion!!!

Tom replied:  So the discussion of eschatology is a waste of time?  Where does Christ teach this insight?

Matt. 24:42  “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.

Luke 21:36 “But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

The study of eschatology is necessary for all those seeking Eternal Life.  Thus, it is not a waste of time for those that take the words of Christ seriously.

Moreover, Glacier View was hardly worthless discussion for the church?  While it split the SDA’s and sent them into a well-deserved and self-destructive schism, it had to be done in order to move Adventism forward.

The topic of Glacier View, which was a debate over the SDA view of the Pre-Advent Judgment, was very necessary and worthwhile.  The fact is ended so badly, and pushed the SDA’s to officially embrace the error of the IJ is beside the point.

Bob 2 said: There will be a pre-advent judgement and it will be investigative, into whether acts were good or bad and whether the person being judged is covered by Christ's righteousness.

Tom replied:  Ha!  You are as confused and wrong about the IJ as you are about the Sabbath and the Two Covenants.  Sad.

Pay attention:

1) The PAJ of the church has already taken place.  It is OVER!  It is not the supposed IJ, which is based on Dan 8.14.

2) The real PAJ of the last church is Rev 3: 14

Rev. 3:14  “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:  The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

Thus, Christ has already “investigated” the last church and rendered it GUILTY. 

Christ has already declared that the last church does not understand the Gospel or the Sabbath correctly.  Thus all IN THE CHURCH are judged as blind, naked, and unsaved.

Rev. 3:15  ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.

Rev. 3:16 ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,

Bob 2 asked sarcastically:  Does anyone really believe Christ can have a pre-advent judgement without an investigation.

Tom said:  Bob, Bob, Bob, you need to do some more “investigation,” because you don’t know what you are talking about. 

The PAJ is not Dan 8,14, but the Laodicean Message. 

THIS is the real PAJ of the last church.  Christ is the investigator and the Judge.  All need to pay attention to Christ’s verdict about the Last Church and repent.  (This includes you Bob!)

Bob 2 said:  Tom, maybe the heavenly geography is off with the SDAs, but Christ sitting at the right hand of God has been given the Judgement to perform; who believes it takes 150 years or 1000 years? That really is making God and His Son small indeed.

Tom said:  The SDA’s are way off when it comes to understanding the Gospel, which includes the Judgment.  They are great legalists and Judaizers, full of false doctrine and corruption. 

The SDA view of the PAJ is very wrong, even dishonest and absurd, which is why it has been proven wrong by Dr. Ford for all to see many decades ago. 

But this doesn’t mean there is no valid doctrine of the PAJ.  There is.  It is in Revelation, not in the OC book of Daniel.  It contains a guilty verdict from Christ, the Judge of the church.

Those who refuse to correctly understand the Gospel of Christ, - will also misunderstand the NC Sabbath as well as the PAJ, and many other things.  So error leads to more error, not to truth.

Any that embrace a false view of the PAJ will not be saved.  They remain arrogant, wretched, and miserable; spiritually blind, naked, and unsaved.  They repudiate Christ, and refuse to follow him.

Let all pay close attention to the genuine Pre Advent Judgment of the last church.  Eternal Life is only for those who embrace the genuine Gospel and repent.

Rev. 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

Rev. 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

Rev. 3:20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Rev. 3:21 ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Rev. 3:22 ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

I hope this helps,

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#69 10-20-13 12:21 am

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Tom, you been smoking something, making up your own Bible. Tom said:

Rev. 3:14  “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:  The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
Thus, Christ has already “investigated” the last church and rendered it GUILTY.

My Bible says:

Rev 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

Tom the bold blue phrases are not in the past tense, but future tense. What version are you using? If what you say is true, you are a Calvinist, predestination, and unconditional election. The final judgement happens at Christ's second coming. The logistics of the judgement can be debated, but my God and His Son are big enough to get the job done instantly, and with justice if he desires.

Last edited by bob_2 (10-20-13 12:26 am)

Offline

#70 10-21-13 11:09 am

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Bob, you are not paying attention or making sense.   It doesn’t matter what Bible translation is used, there is new truth for the church about the PAJ.  So listen and learn.

First, why don’t you read the material on this thread before you jump in and make silly comments? 

Second, who said everything has come to pass?  Not me.  So why do you make such absurd points?  While the PAJ has already taken place, the 2nd Coming has not.  The former is over, but not the latter.

No PAJ in DANIEL

Point # 1:  The PAJ is not found Dan. 8:14 for a number of reasons, including the fact that the OC cannot pass judgment on the NC. 

The IJ has been proven false by at least 7 major points, none of which have been, or can be, disproved.  One of those points, # 3, identifies the genuine PAJ in the NT.

Let all understand there are a number of PAJ’s of the church.  One for each of the 7 church time periods.   However, we are only dealing with the last one for Laodicea, which is the most harsh and relevant for the Advent Movement.

I repeat, the Pre-Advent Judgment is not in Daniel, but in Revelation.  This special judgment of the church, in all 7 eras, has already taken place.  Thus the PAJ has been completed, including for the last church era, Laodicea. 

All that remains is for the last church to either repent as directed, or to ignore the verdict and pretend they are not guilty as charged. 

The SDA’s refuse to admit any error or repent.  They claim they have found the PAJ in the OT, which is impossible, even as they ignore the teachings of Christ about the Gospel and the Sabbath, and the real PAJ, tithe, and many other things.

No wonder the SDA’s have been condemned by Christ in the Laodicean Message/PAJ.  They are indeed wretched, blind, naked, and unsaved, promoting one false doctrine after another, starting with the PAJ in Daniel 8: 14, which they claim started in 1844.  Rubbish!

The SDA’s prefer the OC to the NC for obvious reasons.  They don’t realize how wrong and fatal this will be for any that so closely embrace the errors of the Jews.  Ellen White often warned the SDA’s that they were becoming like the Jews that killed Christ, and she is correct. 

The SDA’s are great enemies of Christ, when they should have been his best friends.  Like the Jews, they have chosen the OC over the NC because they are evil legalists, enemies of Christ.

The PAJ Over

Let all understand; the PAJ is over!  The 2nd Coming has not taken place, which is the Judgment Day of the world, but the PAJ HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.   

Here is the verdict:  The last church, meaning all denominations, has badly failed.  All in Laodicea have all been judged guilty BY CHRIST and this verdict was “written” down by the instruction of the risen Christ for all to read and understand in the book of Revelation.

So we can read all 7 PAJ's, starting from the first church era, Ephesus, and on down to the last.  We must pay close attention to the last PAJ because it applies directly to all of us living at the end of time.

When will the Advent Movement understand the genuine PAJ and repent? 

When will they get tired of defending false and silly doctrine, blocking the forward progress of Gospel eschatology?

While the Adventists were very correct to identify the need for an IJ prior to the 2nd Coming, they were wrong to think it was located in the OC book of Daniel, for which they stubbornly and arrogantly refuse to repent.

So be it.  Those who hold tight to error, refusing to repent, soon become blind to new truth.  Even Jesus cannot help them to see clearly, because they refuse to admit they are blind.   So they remain blind.

Matt. 20:29  As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed Him.

Matt. 20:30 And two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!”

Matt. 20:31 The crowd sternly told them to be quiet, but they cried out all the more, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!”

Matt. 20:32 And Jesus stopped and called them, and said, “What do you want Me to do for you?”

Matt. 20:33 They said to Him, “Lord, we want our eyes to be opened.”

Matt. 20:34 Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him.

The Gospel Story shows that the blind must call out to Christ and ask Jesus to help them see.  All must understand their blind condition and admit they need help. 

While these healings were dramatic and real, they also teach a deeper, spiritual meaning that relates to understanding the Gospel.

John 9:39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”

John 9:40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?”

John 9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

The SDA’s will remain blind and naked, unsaved, divided, and self-destructing for all to see until they repent.  If they don’t soon repent, they will be thrown out of the Kingdom of God.  And they have no one but themselves to blame.

I suggest that all in the Adventist Community pay close attention to this new truth about the PAJ and repent before it’s too late.  It may already be too late for many Jews, err, I mean, many SDA’s.  Some have gone too far with their rejection of the Gospel and the persecution of Dr. Ford, for which they are proud and unrepentant.

If that is the case, then others will step forward and not only embrace the genuine PAJ, but also the one and only Gospel of Christ, which includes his 7th day working Sabbath, which no church today even understands, much less teaches. 

The Jews, err, I mean the SDA’s, have the worst possible doctrine of the Sabbath, which is the same basic doctrine as the OC enemies of Christ.  Proving that the SDA’s are blind; lost in the dark for all to see. 

No wonder Christ has determined that the last church is “blind” and “wretched”?  They are.  The SDA’s are one of the worst, and so too NCT, which is even worse than what the SDA’s teach, if that were possible. 

Let’s take a quick look at how the genuine PAJ, in Revelation, reinforces the reformed and active Sabbath of Christ. 

The NC Sabbath & the PAJ

Few understand that the book of Revelation is evidence for the active NC Sabbath of Christ.  In the OC, it would have been a sin to write anything on the Sabbath, much less an original and creative book.  Such activity is FORBIDDEN in the OC.

OC Sabbath Rules
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activities … on_Shabbat

However, Jesus operates under the NC, not the OC.  So he orders John to write on the 7th day, the Lord’s Day, on purpose for all to see.   Of course there is no sin for such OC Sabbath breaking because Christ had already made this to the 4th commandment. 

Christ told John to write a book on the 7th day, once again demonstrating that the NC Sabbath is different from the OC version.  It allows, even encourages work.

I repeat; the entire book of Revelation was written on the Sabbath, including the PAJ of the 7 churches, which is in the beginning. 

While the OC Sabbath required death for those who wrote on the 7th day, the NC has a very different view of the Sabbath.  Jesus knew this of course, and so too did John.   But someone forgot to tell the SDA’s.

Rev. 1:9  I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Rev. 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet,

Rev. 1:11 saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”

How ironic that the PAJ condemns the last church for having legions of false doctrine, including about the Sabbath.  The PAJ was written down on the 7th day, proving that it cannot be the OC doctrine of the Sabbath, where work is sinful.

Revelation, which was written on the 7th day Sabbath, aka the Lord’s Day, contains the PAJ for each church era, including the last one, Laodicea.  Those who look for the PAJ in the OT have lost their bearings, and so too those who think it wrong to work on the 7th day.

Today, it is beyond rational dispute that the SDA’s are Judaizers, followers of the theology of the Circumcision Party instead of the Gospel.  Unless they repent, they are forever lost.  Just like most Jews.

Rev. 1:19 “Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

Rev. 1:20 “As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Note the pattern where the works of each church is being examined, followed by the verdict of Christ about their behavior, and the call from Christ for action, mostly to repent.   (Of course all this “judging” of the various church eras is before the 2nd Advent, hence the “Pre- Advent – Judgment!)

Rev. 2:1  “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:  The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this:

Rev. 2:2  ‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance…

Rev. 2:4 ‘But I have this against you, that you have left your first love

Rev. 2:5 ‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place — unless you repent.

This PAJ pattern applies to all 7 church periods.  This is the real PAJ of the church, written on the NC Sabbath for all to see.  There is not one PAJ, but 7!  Who knew?  Not the SDA’s.

Silly SDA’s, they are not even close to understanding Gospel eschatology.  They think there is only one PAJ, which is found in the OT.  But they are way off base.  They are blind to Gospel truth.

For the record, the last church, the Laodicean, is the worst of all the churches.  It has been judged to be like the Jews, blind and naked, wretched, and unsaved. 

Congratulations!  The Gentiles have proven themselves to be just as awful as the Jews that killed Christ.  Sad.

In conclusion, it is time for those professed Christians living in the 21st century to repudiate the legions of myth and error that have overwhelmed organized religion. 

It is time for believers in every denomination to repent and wake up to better understand the Gospel and eschatology.

The SDA’s are one of the worst groups because they have defiantly rejected the Gospel so that they can cling to their many OC doctrines like tithe, Jewish Food laws, and OC Sabbath keeping, etc.   Such behavior has made heaven sick, and it should also make us feel the same way here on earth.

The SDA doctrine about the IJ in Dan 8: 14 could not be more false and misguided.  It is so against the facts of history and Gospel theology, as well as hermeneutics, that it boggles the mind. 

But the SDA’s no longer care about truth; they have an Empire to run and billions of tithe dollars to collect and spend, all in the name of Christ and God.  They have no time for truth anymore.

How can they not go to hell?

Matt. 23:15  “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

While the Adventists were given much truth, like the Jews, they soon went corrupt, so much so that they have repudiated the Gospel and persecuted those, like Dr. Ford who preached truth to them.

Matt. 23:33 “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

All that refuse to repent of the false IJ and embrace Gospel Reform will not pass the final Judgment of the 2nd Coming. 

The genuine PAJ for the last church, which is found in Rev 3: 14, has given everyone in the church today an opportunity to be healed of his or her “blindness” and repent. 

Those in Laodicea that fail to respond to the genuine PAJ in Rev 3: 14 and repent as directed, will remain under the scathing Pre Advent Judgment of Christ.  They will not be able to stand on the Judgment Day and thus they are lost, lost, lost.

Rev. 3:22 ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

Tom Norris for New Covenant Adventism

Offline

#71 10-21-13 9:21 pm

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Tom, glad to see we are getting somewhere. You now are signing off "Tom Norris for New Covenant Adventism" instead of "Tom Norris for Adventist Reform". However, your message, WOW, who was your instructor? If I were to write to Des Ford with a copy of what you just wrote, he would endorse this?? Give me a break!!! I have read and heard Ford talk and you are deep in the weeds, my friend.

Last edited by bob_2 (10-21-13 9:24 pm)

Offline

#72 10-21-13 10:46 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Bob 2 said:  Tom, glad to see we are getting somewhere. You now are signing off "Tom Norris for New Covenant Adventism" instead of "Tom Norris for Adventist Reform".

Tom replied: Bob, New Covenant Adventism is the same as Adventist Reform.  They are synonymous terms.  Moreover, they both include the Reformed and Active 7th day Sabbath of Christ, as well as NC version of the PAJ in Revelation.

Bob 2 said:  However, your message, WOW, who was your instructor?

Tom said:  I knew the genuine PAJ would go right over your head, and so too the fact that it supports the NC active Sabbath of Christ, which you repudiate.

As for where I received this information about the Gospel Sabbath and the PAJ, - don’t you know? 

Answer:  The Gospels are full of Jesus NC teaching about the Sabbath.  Revelation also contains Jesus PAJ for each of the 7 church periods.

If you were paying attention to what Christ, the head theologian of the church teaches in the NT, you too would embrace his 7th day Gospel Sabbath as well as understand the real PAJ of the last church.

Luke 6:40 “A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher.

It is clear that you don’t follow Christ or know what he teaches.  You have embraced Zaspel and Wells, as if they were apostles of Christ, when they are only confused and worthless instructors.

Bob threatened:  If I were to write to Des Ford with a copy of what you just wrote, he would endorse this?? Give me a break!!! I have read and heard Ford talk and you are deep in the weeds, my friend.

Tom replied:  Ha!  This is comical.  I think you need to listen more carefully to Dr. Ford.  He understand the Gospel, which includes the 7th day Sabbath of Christ.

The last person that ran to Dr. Ford complaining about Tom Norris was Herb Kersten.  Which was ironic, because Kersten was running around pretending he was smarter than Dr. Ford and could prove him wrong about the IJ.

Why would Dr. Ford be upset with anyone who proved the IJ false for all to see? 

If anything, Dr. Ford would not appreciate Kersten running around Australia, pretending Dr. Ford was wrong about the IJ at Glacier View. 

As for your threat, it is also ironic and just as mindless. 

Why would Dr. Ford be upset if someone was proving that there is a 7th day Gospel Sabbath?  This has been his position forever.  He never renounced the 7th day, even as he still condemns the fiction and error of NCT, which Tom Norris also condemns.

So where is the complaint? 

That Tom Norris has articulated additional Gospel truth about the Sabbath and the PAJ?  Why is that bad?  Just because some of these points were not fully understood in the past?  Truth is progressive, not static.

Had the church embraced what Dr. Ford was teaching about the IJ at Glacier View, everyone could have gone forward to search for the real PAJ in the NT.  Which is where it has been since the 1st century.

Same with the Sabbath.  The active and reformed doctrine of the NC Sabbath has also been located in the NT from the very beginning of the church.  It is still there today for all to see.  But who can see such truth?  Not many.

In fact, only a very spiritually blind person could read the Gospels and not see the NC, 7th day Sabbath of Christ.  Which is the problem.  The last church is so blind that they can’t see any truth, regardless how hard they stare.

Give my best regards to Dr. Ford. 

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#73 10-22-13 1:42 am

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

One of the significant points, Tom, you and I disagree on is Christ having to keep the OC Law in order to be our Savior. This is key. He during His life was under the OC and ushered in the New Covenant with His death. If he didn't keep the OC law perfectly, He  was not the "spotless lamb" needed for the sacrifice so our sins could be forgiven. Paul makes the point here:

Gal 4:4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

Offline

#74 10-23-13 1:45 pm

tom_norris
Adventist Reform
From: Silver Spring, Md
Registered: 01-02-09
Posts: 877
Website

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Bob, the discussion on this thread is focused on the PAJ.  In addition to the 7 Points, which proved the IJ wrong, we were dealing with the following two points:

A) Adventist Reform is promoting a new view of the PAJ, which is found in Revelation. 

B) The NC version of the PAJ also supports the reformed and active NC Sabbath of Christ, aka the Lord’s Day.

Of course you scoffed and threw stones, threatening to report Tom Norris to Dr. Ford.  Herb Kersten did the same thing.  As if he really cares about what Dr. Ford thinks?  In fact, he refutes Dr. Ford at every opportunity, and so too do you.  So this reaction is comical.

However, such games are to no avail because neither Herb Kersten nor you can show this new PAJ doctrine wrong, even as you have never been able to disprove the reformed, 7th day, NC Sabbath, which is also part of Adventist Reform.

The obvious inability to refute the NC version of the PAJ and the Reformed Sabbath as taught by Christ, speaks volumes.  It means you and Herb K, and all SDA’s, should repent, not keep fighting against New Covenant Adventism.

No one can credibly refute these Gospel points from Dr. Ford and Tom Norris because they are rock solid.  But thanks for trying.  You are proving this point every time you post.

Bob 2 said:  One of the significant points, Tom, you and I disagree on is Christ having to keep the OC Law in order to be our Savior. This is key.

Tom said:  You have found no key to anything.  What does this point have to do with the PAJ?  There is no OC PAJ for Christ to keep or teach, even though the blind SDA’s claim otherwise.

As for your false and tiresome assumption that Jesus must keep the OC law, let’s see if that theory holds up?  While this was the view the Pharisees embraced, did Jesus teach that he had to obey the OC Law?  Let’s see.

Matt. 12:1  At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.

Matt. 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”

Matt. 12:3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions,

Matt. 12:4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?

Matt. 12:5 “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?

Matt. 12:6 “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.

Matt. 12:7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Matt. 12:8 “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Whoops!  Jesus teaches that neither he, nor his followers have to obey the 4th Commandment by not working on the Sabbath.  He even declared himself to be above the law, able to break it and reform it by his own “great” authority.

So you are wrong! 

Jesus teaches that he does not, not, not, have to obey the OC law of the 4th Commandment.  This is why the Jews became so angry with him. 

So stop saying such false things.  What is the matter with you?

Does Jesus refusal to obey the OC Sabbath make him a false “savior”?  No.  It means you do not know how to read the NT correctly.  You do not understand what Jesus teaches about the law or the Gospel, much less the Sabbath and the PAJ. 

I realize this is not your fault.  You lived under the control of the cultic SDA’s for most of your life, and they have not prepared you to understand the NT, much less the Gospel, the NC Sabbath, or the PAJ. 

The SDA’s have ruined many minds with their OC myths and legions of false doctrine.   You need to stop allowing them to control your views and assumptions. 

I suggest you stop blindly throwing stones and repent, embracing Adventist Reform with both hands.

Bob 2 said:  He during His life was under the OC and ushered in the New Covenant with His death.

Tom said:  Wrong.  While Jesus was BORN under the NC, he did not stay under the OC.  Christ personified and represented the NC.  He did not follow all the OC laws and rules, Sabbath being a major case in point. 

Moreover, Jesus preached the NC Gospel before the cross, and thus there is no escape from what he teaches in the Gospels about the Sabbath or anything.  So stop claiming Jesus is an OC figure that does not teach the NC Gospel.  What is the matter with you to say such bizarre things?

Jesus is a NC figure, not an OC one.  Those who say otherwise are anti-Christ and anti-Gospel.  They are not followers of Christ.

Bob 2 said:  If he didn't keep the OC law perfectly, He was not the "spotless lamb" needed for the sacrifice so our sins could be forgiven.

Tom replied:  We know that Jesus failed to keep the Law perfectly.  So stop saying otherwise.

The Sabbath proves this fact over and over because he refused to keep it correctly.  How can anyone miss this part of the Gospel Story?

If Jesus were a Levite, he would have an excuse, but he was not from this Priestly tribe, and thus he had no right to work on the Sabbath, much less teach others to break the Law.

You need to repent of this utter nonsense that claims Jesus had to obey the OC law or he could not be our savior.  This is exactly what the Jews said.  Jesus was a lawbreaker, thus he cannot be from God, or the Messiah.

Bob 2 said:  Paul makes the point here:

Gal 4:4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

Tom replied:  Paul does not support what you are saying.  You obviously do not understand the book of Galatians. 

While Christ was “born a Jew, under the OC Law,” he did not stay under the OC.  He moved forward to promote the NC, which is why v 7 says:  “You are no longer a slave” to the OC Law, but an “heir” to the NC kingdom of God.

The book of Galatians, which is about the Two Covenants, does not support this absurd idea that Jesus had to live under, and keep, the OC.  No Jew was ever saved by OC law keeping, much less the Messiah or any in the NC church.

Gal. 2:15  “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;

Gal. 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Bob, you need to stop quoting the Bible, both the OT and NT, until you better understand how to read scripture.  This SDA idea of proof texting, where you find certain words to support false doctrine, is a worthless method to understand the Gospel. 

What a pity that when new doctrine is set on the Adventist table, like the NC version of the PAJ or the Sabbath, that many would rather ignore such truth so that they can keep embracing false doctrine.  Jesus has something to say about this.

Matt. 7:6  “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

The Adventist Community had better pay close attention to the Gospel teachings of Christ about the Sabbath, the PAJ, and church organization, etc.  If they continue to refute the Gospel and fight against Christ, they are doomed.

Matt. 4:17  From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

I hope this helps,

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Offline

#75 10-27-13 1:27 am

bob_2
Member
Registered: 12-28-08
Posts: 3,790

Re: The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message

Tom, no one tenet or many tenets, are part of the Gospel. They may be the fruit of the Gospel, from the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. But you are so hung up on the 4th Commandment, why not the 5th or 6th. The NT speaks pretty clearly about the Old Law, 1st Law/Covenant, or the Law of Moses. You have the timing off and don't believe Christ had to keep the Sabbath perfectly and know when the New Covenant began . How can you deny verses like 1 Cor 9:21, 2 Cor 3:7, Col 2:16,17, and Heb 8:13. You have to cling to the splitting of the Mosaic Law into civil, ceremonial and moral to make your interpretation stand. I already know that your version is you as an army of 1. When you study, google or whatever, you find that the splitting of the law is not a correct hermeneutic to use. But you will ignore these issues as usual. Reader, note what a hermeneutic is:

Definition of HERMENEUTIC

1 :  the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)

2 :  a method or principle of interpretation

If you get one principle or assumption wrong, it effects other doctrines that you believe or accept. If the civil, ceremonial and moral split is allowed, you end of saving one part of the Old Covenant. There is a definite split between Old and New Covenants, made very clear in:

Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

And the new moral law is named in 1 Cor 9:21 and Gal 6:2   Christ's Law.

Also, take heed of

Galatians 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

At no place in the NT do you see a command from Christ to "keep" the Sabbath. When He calls Himself Lord of the Sabbath, that does not assure that the Sabbath will be eternal or forever, it means, Christ set it up and he can do with it what he pleases. The Pharisees must have misunderstood the true interpretation of the Sabbath of the Mosaic Law in the following passage, and what God/Jesus allowed and did not allow as "work".

John 5 16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Last edited by bob_2 (10-27-13 1:59 am)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB