Take for instance where you wrote that God told Noah to build the ark AND to preach to others what was going to happen. Of course we as Adventists have been fed this by the writings of EGW, but no where in the bible can this be confirmed.

The Gospel that Jesus said would be preached all over the world and then the end shall come is not Paul's gospel, but it is the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat.24) There is a BIG difference! No where did Jesus say that He came to this world to die for anyone's sin and take on their sin.

... Clearly Jesus' own words (many times) state that He came here to testify to the truth and present the words of His Father to His disciples so they could write them down (John 14:26 and 17:20) so that we could have evidence that was not hearsay.

... No where did Jesus say that He came to this world to die for anyone's sin and take on their sin.

If your foundation is not correct, then just about everything you wrote will be incorrect.

The Gospel that Jesus said would be preached all over the world and then the end shall come is not Paul's gospel, but it is the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat.24) There is a BIG difference!

Rasell, I just read the first 3 chapters of your book and find it very interesting. You state that you have degrees and are suppose to be a learned leader and teacher for SDAs.

I found your introduction was right on point, but then found that the chapters I read did not follow what you proposed in the introduction. If I were to take your book to court as evidence, I would have to remove much of it for hearsay. Take for instance where you wrote that God told Noah to build the ark AND to preach to others what was going to happen. Of course we as Adventists have been fed this by the writings of EGW, but no where in the bible can this be confirmed. Just the opposite is the truth, Noah was told that NO ONE other that his family, would be saved. It does not take a 'theology student' to understand that even IF Noah had preached, the ark was not going to change in size--so why preach? Matthew 24 shows us that NO ONE new what was going to happen-and if Jesus said this, then why not believe what He said over what others mistakenly believe?

This is only ONE point of contention as I have found many more. Perhaps the most damaging is the mission of why Jesus came to this earth and a close second on what caused the death of Jesus.

Clearly Jesus' own words (many times) state that He came here to testify to the truth and present the words of His Father to His disciples so they could write them down (John 14:26 and 17:20) so that we could have evidence that was not hearsay.

If your foundation is not correct, then just about everything you wrote will be incorrect. The Gospel that Jesus said would be preached all over the world and then the end shall come is not Paul's gospel, but it is the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat.24) There is a BIG difference! No where did Jesus say that He came to this world to die for anyone's sin and take on their sin.

Dr. Rich (SDA)

Mark, your work I find is truly focused upon the Investigative Judgment and should be taken as such. Perhaps I was too hasty to cast arrows on issues that did not have much to do with the IJ.

Here is what I have observed in regards to the IJ:

Jesus said (and I do believe he didn't lie) that He was the Passover Lamb. Scripture and data from computer will concur that Jesus' death was on the day of Passover, the 15th day (just before evening) of the 1st month after the spring equinox.

Looking at scripture in the Old Testament one can find that the first Passover lamb(s) were killed so that the blood could be used to place around the door openings--but for one purpose-IF they obeyed the words of God it would SAVE the lives of the first born male of the families. It had nothing to do with the women and those that were not of the first born. The Lamb was not sacrificed for anyone's sin. It was sacrificed to get people to OBEY what God commanded. Therefore, no one's sin was placed upon this lamb.

It truly appears that Paul and other writers mixed this sacrifice up with the Atonement sacrifice. Yes, John the "B" was mixed up too, for he was preaching that Jesus would be their king as in what I call "plan A" which was IF Israel had actually done what was prophesied in Daniel 9:24--but they didn't, so "plan B" took over. Evidence for this is found in Matthew 21:43

Yes, Jesus did give Himself in the place of Adam. Adam was to have been killed by God on the same day he disobeyed God. Therefore God killed His only begotten son (as Abraham was going to do) in the place of Adam, so that all of us (Adam's offspring) could have a chance to be saved--as what the Passover portrayed. But this death only makes it possible to be saved IF one OBEYS God's word as found in Revelation 12:17.

As for the Atonement, I will present my take on that later. But as for the Investigative Judgment, please read Revelation 11:1-2 and you will find that there is two judgments. The first is for those who worship in the temple, the second is for a later time. Neither is an 'investigative judgment' as in the sense EGW presents. What this shows, is there are basically two groups that are being judged at a different time.

In Revelation 7 you will find these two groups. The first are the bondservants of God who have been sealed prior to the time of trouble. It is they who testify to the truth during the time of trouble and after that we see another group who are judged and found righteous who come out of the time of trouble because of the ACTIONS OF THE SAINTS.

All of this follows what the Atonement portrayed. First to have their sins forgiven was the High Priest. Jesus (as the High Priest) said that He became sanctified so that we can also become sanctified (John 17).

Next was the Priest tribe. This group represents those found in the first judgment on Revelation 11:1-2--those from the Kingdom of Heaven, being the 144k. Next was the Nation of Israel, which represents the 5 wise virgins.

I hope you get the picture here. No, it is not what is presented in ANY Christian denomination, much less the SDA church, but it comes straight from the bible without anyone's hearsay evidence to taint it. Enjoy!

Levitivus 23:5 'In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the LORD'S Passover.

Exodus 12:5 'Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old ; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 'You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight.

Deuteronomy 16:2 NAS
"You shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God from the flock and the herd, in the place where the LORD chooses to establish His name.

John 18:28 NAS
[Jesus before Pilate] Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early ; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.

John 19:14 NAS
Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover ; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, "Behold, your King !"

The Passover lamb was unique among the sacrificed animals. The Passover lamb was to be eaten by the members of the household. It was never offered as a sin offering. The Passover was the first holy convocation of the year for Israel and signified a new beginning in righteousness for the kingdom. The kingdom of God had been purchased with the blood of the Passover lamb and were expected to remain righteous. The purchase with blood is unique to the Passover lamb, because it's blood was uncontaminated with the sin of the kingdom, thus a new beginning.

Matthew 16:21 NAS
From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.

The importance of the third day arising, was that was the day of firstfruits during the seven days of the feast of unleavened bread.

The firstfruits were waved before God and belonged to Him. This makes the following statement by Jesus meaningful. Jesus is saying to Mary I must present Myself before My Father.

John 20:17 NAS
Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father ; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.' "

I've authored a book entitled "Exploring the Heavenly Sanctuary".

It answers questions like, is the heavenly temple real, what its purpose is, what is the sabbatismos, and much more. Its all biblically based with academic references in the end notes.

It can also be read online at Adventist Enterprises

I studied at Newbold College, got a BA/MA in Theology/Religion, worked as a licensed minister for five years, and now am doing literature evangelism.

God Bless

Marc

This is taken from my book:
In the sacrificial rites we have a picture of Jesus, the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). The paradox[xxii] is that the One who was totally innocent was counted as guilty so that the guilty would be counted as innocent. A strange transfer took place in the sacrificial service, the guilty escaped death by the death of the innocent lamb. Jesus voluntarily offered to take our place and suffer because of His great love for us (Hebrews 10:5-7; John 10:15-17). Nevertheless, His death was a great injustice. On the cross, Jesus endured supernatural sufferings as the wrath of His Father fell on Him. He now stood in the place of condemned sinners and felt the awful desolation of the lost. Jeremiah said, “The harvest is past, the summer is ended and we are not saved” (Jeremiah 8:20). Jesus in His agony exclaimed, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Matthew 27:46) in fulfilment of Psalm 22:1. Surrounded by a legion of evil angels[xxiii], betrayed, rejected by His own people and cut off from God, Jesus perished because of God’s love for mankind. A mysterious interchange happened at the sacrificial offering, the sinner came away innocent and the innocent one bore the guilt of the sinner.

rasell: Hello, I wanted to explain what my book has added to the sanctuary questions.
The biggest challenges to the sanctuary doctrine is the "within the veil" statement in Hebrews, which opponents say means Jesus entered the Most Holy Place at his ascension to the right hand of the Father.
They also say this shows that the day of atonement was fulfilled at the cross and 1844 is a non starter.

rasell: The answer to this is simply as follows:
1. traditionally we have argues that "within the veil" is either the outer veil, or the inner one, but both of these have problems, a more foundational question needs to be asked, is Hebrews referring to a veil in heaven, it seems that he is using the veil of the earthly tabernacle as a symbol of Christ's entrance into the Presence of God just as the High Priest entered the Presence once a year on the Day of Atonement. Hebrews is simply using the Day of Atonement rite as a symbol of Christ's entrance to God's Presence in heaven. It is not making a statement about where Christ is in heaven, that is going beyond the context of the book of Hebrews, they were not concered where Christ was in the temple, only that the earthly temple was now obsolete and access to God is provided by Christ in the heavenly temple. The exact location of Christ in heaven is never addressed in Hebrews which speaks of the "ta hagia" holy places in heaven, a reference to the whole sanctuary

Let's suppose that Jesus did enter the Most Holy Place at his ascension. It was where His Father was, so Jesus went in there to be with His Father. What difference does that make to the SDA view of the IJ? If He did go in there, did He go in there to begin the Pre-Advent Judgment? If not, why does it matter whether He stepped foot in the Most Holy Place before Oct. 22, 1844? Personally, I don't believe the writer of the book of Hebrews was concerned with that issue at all. He was talking about an entirely different subject. He was saying that through the Messiah, we now have totally unimpeaded access to the Father, and no longer need to offer animal sacrifices because Christ our sacrifice has been offered once for all time. The writer is not concerned with whether Christ went into a particular part of the sanctuary or not. I doubt he'd have understood what that is all about.

Here's where I'm at in this topic: I'm completely convinced of the reality of the Investigative Judgment and of the biblical evidence that it is going on now. I believe it is real and that it will soon come to an end. But the really important question for the church and the world now, is, So what? Why does the IJ matter? In what way does it matter? How does it relate to all of our other doctrines? Et Cetera.

My own opinion is that we need to start relating it directly to the difference between the covering of sins as opposed to the blotting out of sins. Jesus is in the business of covering AND blotting out our sins, not just covering them up. Most of the Christian church is only concerned with the forgiveness of sins and knows nothing of the blotting out of sins. It makes a big difference, because the time will soon come when there will be no more forgiveness and no more High Priest. Tragically, many in the SDA church are on the point of forgetting (or have long since already forgotten) this aspect of our message and many are adopting the theology of Christians who believe Christ is still in the Holy Place and don't realize He's gone into the Most Holy.

Your thoughts?

I'd like to hear your explanation of what practical difference it makes to an individual in his daily life whether he accepts the view you take of the Investigative Judgment or not.

For instance:

1) Does understanding the IJ make the believer a better and more loving Christian?

2) Does understanding and believing the IJ make one better prepared for Christ's coming? If so, how?

3) In the Great Controversy, it speaks of "new duties" that are required of us and it says we become aware of these duties as we follow Jesus' work in the heavenly sanctuary. What are these new duties?

4) What are the benefits that we will experience if we follow Jesus in His High Priestly work in heaven-- benefits that will be lost on those who do not follow His mediation there?

5) Why is it important for the Seventh-day Adventist church to keep the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment? What do you see as the consequences for the church if it gave it up?