I'm sorry Melvin, but you either did not read what I said, or else you forgot to read carfully. You made some comments indicating that you are upset, but you only let off steam, you did not pinpoint what upset you, nor did you try to show evidence that what upset you is incorrect.

You are showing some knowlege of Luther's understanding of Atonement, and you wish to force that understanding on the scripture, then you want subsiquent definations of atonement to fit your understanding of Luther's view. You are not open to the idea that different words can be used in different ways under different circumstances.

For example, there is a little fuzzy creature called a mouse. There is also a little divice on computers called a mouse. You are arguing "You say that you are using a mouse to help you navagate through the computer sites. But a mouse is a little fuzzy animal and how can that animal help you navagate the computer site, you are wrong to think that you are using a mouse to navagate through the technicalogical electronic world of cyber space.

Same word but two different definations, but you are insisting that the one defination must fit all (and not give any facts to support your theory, only your unsubstanciated opinion). My argument is that you find two different definations that we need to know when we are talking about two different things.

Atonement: Reformation defination: How we are saved (and it is only through the cross)

Atonment: Biblical defination: From the word Kipper: Anything that God does that reveals more of himself to us, that will be a blessing if we accept it.

Both very valid definations, but we need to see what fits the topic at hand. Otherwise you'd think I'm crazy for trying to use a furry critter to work my computer and I'd wonder why you are trying to trap your plactic piece of electronic equipment.

This is certainly true. Every human being has direct access to God apart from any priest or animal sacrifice. But that does not argue against the Investigative Judgment as Seventh-day Adventists have been teaching it. The Investigative Judgment is not opposed to access to God but rather gives us confidence that God is FOR us. A major part of the Pre-Advent Judgment is what it teaches that God is doing FOR US NOW. Remember the Investigative Judgment is IN FAVOR OF THE SAINTS, not against them (Daniel 7: 27). It clears both God and His people, and it condemns Satan and sin. It shows that God is right and Satan and all his followers wrong. I am convinced of this already, and I trust you are, too, but as you can see, much of the world has yet to make up their minds.

Oh I should have indicated that I was not replying to you. Sorry about that Kevin.

mel

Thank you Mel. However there is more confusion about the Investigative Judgment than there is known about it, but the critics keep making the same incorrect assumptions and refuse to look at the facts. Two of the major incorrect assumptions are trying to have it fit the reformer's defination of Atonement rather than the defination of a Kipper, and that somehow it is a scary event. Your post did remind us of the danger that happens when we end up limiting our understanding to the Reformers defination.

The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment does NOT fit if we try to squeeze it into the Reformer's defination. But it does fit nicely if we remember the defination of a Biblical kipper.

One consern I have with Ford's theology is that it is so blatenly westernized culturally Christian that it ends up a bit narrow minded, and a bit too much "Say the magic words and be saved." and while offering us who grew up in western Christianity the assurance of salvation, it tends to have others sort of stuck out there.

Ford has a danger of just making us another generic western cultural Evangelical sticky sweet jesusiee church. Fine and dandy for us but Jesus is a lot bigger than Christianity, and as we look at western cultural Christianity there is a lot who add to it the belief that you need to become a strong republican and some of the other views of modern conservativism. Where Ronald Regan is preached from the pulpit with the congragation bowing their heads and saying "Amen"

Traditional Adventism (and I think that Ford himself is still enough of a traditional Adventist to fall in this group, but this is a slippery slop theory I have for Fordism) has a lot of views and we know enough not to quote Ronald Regan in the pulpit as it would spring a lot of spirited debate.

God often works through tensions: In the Old Testament we have the priest hood of Aaron with their ritual and strong General Conference and the priest hood of Moses that was more congragational and spirited. In the New Testament there is the orthodoxy of James, and the approches and tensions between Peter and Paul.

If we were to get all milktoast generic western cultural Christianity, it would be harder for us to move on. But hardy debate, serious Bible study by people willing to debate and grow, both Historists and Dispensationalists, those with a bit more moderate to liberal leanings and those with more conservative leanings, can bring about thought provocing discussion and study.

The Investigative Judgment reminds us that we are all in this together, that our focus is NOT on me and my personal salvation but the beauty of Jesus, the beauty of God and wanting to know more about the one alltogether lovely. It reminds us that we are all in the process of growth and the goal of evangelism is not necesarly making everyone like us, but to encourage growth and study about God and to help people where they are. It has room for Capatal C Christians (those who are consciously a part of a group of believers known as Christianity) and also small c christians: those who would not consider them selves part of "Christianity" but who are loving God and accpting the light they have. And it encourages us to all want to learn more about God/Jesus.

There is a reason why the mid-1800's movement was not limited to Christians but included Jews, Muslims (and maybe Budists) and it was at the time where the explosion in Biblical knowlege was begining.

Now a consern I have of traditional Adventism is that God's law is self sacrificing love, no more and no less. From this law we get the two great principles of loving God supreamly and our neighbor as our selves.

From this we get applications to help guide us towards the Law of God. These include the 10 commandaments, where our Exodus 20 version is in three thirds, one third on how to love God supreamly, the last third on how to love our neighbor as our selves and the middle third ties the two ideas together saying the only way we can love God supreamly and our neighbor as our selves is by resting in a relationship with God. Jesus has told us that no greater love is there than to lay down our lives for others.

We are in danger of replacing God's law with these applications that are to help us towards God's law. The issue of Sunday is how it is usually enforced by the state, in contrast to the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our conscious and our understanding of the Bible. But instead of inviting people to enjoy the Sabbath for it's reminders of creation and redemtion weekend and sacremental benifits, we force it on people with the highest governmental authority and the threat of not imprisionment but hell. We are in danger of turning the Sabbath into our own enforced law.

To tie the "investigative judgement" to the day of atonement IS an assumption!

mel

Hi Mel: Why? John the Baptist tied the day of Atonement to the begining of Jesus' teaching ministry, not to the cross. So we are in line with John the Baptist.

Do you believe that there is any Biblical evidence for the belief that there is a judgment prior to Christ's return?

Chapter 7 of Bradley William's book, The Silencing of Satan, presents some of the Biblical evidence supporting the connection between the Day of Atonement and Daniel 8: 14. If you have the book, see especially pp. 67-83.

John said "Behold the Lamb of god that taketh away the sins of the world" Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world. But it happened at the cross my friend The atonement happened at the cross.

mel

Yes, the Son of God was sacrificed and shed his blood at the cross. That was a once for all sacrifice, never to be repeated.

Yet was that all there is to the atonement? Is Jesus and God doing nothing now to bring about the full at-one-ment between God and mankind?

Take the example of the sinner who brought his lamb to the priest as a sacrifice for his sin. Was it the end of the matter for the sinner to kill the animal and shed its blood?