Good Post.

I've just concluded that I don't have to worry. My salvation is secured in Christ. He is just. Nothing I can do will take away what HE did ... as long as I accept Him. I believe those who are His have assurance. I know 'I' do.

Yes, she did say that, but the statement is often misunderstood to mean that what she wrote about a doctrine is irrelevant.

When Ellen White writes that we should only use the Bible to establish doctrine, she meant that the doctrine itself should be founded on the evidence of Scripture.

Therefore, when we study the Bible with non-Adventists, we should establish every point of doctrine from the Bible.

Also, of course, as individual students of Scripture we need to know the doctrines on the basis of the Bible and the Bible alone.

In the case of the Investigative Judgment, the Bible evidence has been shown over and over again.

This link is to just one example of its having been done:

http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/default.htm

The author of the above book did not use anything from the Spirit of prophecy.

The Daniel and Revelation Committee Series is another example of the IJ being established on the basis of the Bible evidence:

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/bookshop.htm

If Ellen White meant that Seventh-day Adventists should not use anything by her in our study and discussions of the Investigative Judgment, why did she write so much about it?

Having individually and as a church established the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, we should then be able to go on and discuss the doctrine in the light of the Spirit of prophecy. There should be a forum for discussing what both the Biblical and the Spirit of prophecy say on this topic.

To ignore or fail to consider what Ellen White wrote on the Investigative Judgment is to reject the gift of prophecy which God placed in our church. This becomes plain when we consider our own doctrine:

Please note that she is "a" source of truth etc....

And I would not suggest that ALL she ever said in publication is directly from the throne of God. Take what you consider from God and throw out the rest. Those were HER instructions. WE are to compare her words to scripture and toss out that which does not measure up.

I believe she was a prophet. I also believe we can let her be human.

That's my two cents on the issue.

When talking about the doctrine of Atonement - we should use the Bible and argue sola-scriptura -- when debating among SDAs. I have NEVER been willing to reduce my position on a given Doctrine to "I believe this because Ellen White said..." and the reason is that the Bible does not favor that and OUR OWN doctrine on Prophecy argues that the Prophet must PASS the test of a prophet -- which means they themselves must compare favorably with a sola-scriptura test!

This board is open to both SDAs and non-SDAs which is all the more reason to hold a high standard in defending a give doctrinal POV.

It is no accident that ALL of our doctrines come from the bible and are always established sola-scriptura in Bible studies with ALL!

Having said that - I do believe Ellen White was inspired just as the other non-canonical prophets of both the OT and NT. Deborah for example was both prophet and judge in Israel -- and yet we have no Bible "book of Deborah".

The role of those prophets is never to create new doctrine or a new source of authority for doctrine. It is always to bring people BACK to the Bible and the Bible alone as the authority as the "sole authority and judge of all faith and practice" when it comes to doctrine etc.

The problem is that it is way too tempting to use something Ellen White said as a short-cut to correct or cut-off a fellow SDA on some doctrinal point instead of carefully making the point sola-scriptura.

Ellen White objected to that use of her writings and so should we.

Now I will admit that many many Christians today love going "beyond scripture" to debate points not necessarily addressed therein -- and when you are out there -- I fully agree that Ellen White's inspired position beats "people guessing all up and down the street" any day!

Having said that - I agree that Ford produced an lot of error in his day and that many who were less inclined to independant Bible study (and were probably more inclined to Ellen White and historical accounts) were easily duped. He was very charismatic, very well researched and very scholarly in his positions -- no question about that.

But Adventists in general were almost completely ignorant about the division between Calvinism and Arminianism -- and the Biblical reasons for our denomination being Arminian. Ford took advantage of that blind spot.

in Christ,

Bob

>>More Bible please.

in 2Cor 5:10 we have the IJ.

In Romans 2:4-16 we have the IJ

In Daniel 7 we have the IJ

In Matt 7 we see a clear allusion to the IJ

Take your pick.<<

Judgements, yes; however, IJ as advanced by this .Org? No. Example:

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

2 Corinthians 5:10 reads as we – not a record or account entry attributable to us – must appear before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ. There is no argument in the above that would establish an IJ concept of a judgement 1844-onward based solely on people’s records of deeds good or bad.

>>I fully agree that Ellen White's inspired position...<<

Lest one advances the EGW and the Lutheran ‘sola scriptura’ together – let’s not forget that it wasn’t until the end of the 19th century that EGW began to voice a drift in her ‘writings’ towards the Trinity doctrine; moreover, she did so with the writing and arguments of another – supposedly ‘uninspired author’.

Lots of Bible here--

http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/default.htm

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/bookshop.htm

>>Lots of Bible here--<<

That may be, however, I found a whole lot more book-selling. I was not inclined

to do a complete search of the ‘links’ within ‘links’ - pursuing a validation of an IJ doctrine as may be found within these 'links'. So, simply put,

why don’t you post the most salient text attesting to an IJ beginning in 1844?

Well, these books present the evidence in a way that you can follow along with your Bible and study the evidence for yourself that way. One of those links is to a small book, about 130 pages, which presents the Bible evidence for the Investigative Judgment, and the link also takes you to sites where there were really good exchanges between the author and readers or others interested in the topic.

Some time we should devote a whole thread to the subject.

Before I present the most important points of the book, could you tell me what you know about the Investigative Judgment-- for instance, why is the subject of importance to the Seventh-day Adventist church (from the viewpoint of the church)? What do Seventh-day Adventist say about it, in terms of why it is essential? What difference does it make?

>>...the link also takes you to sites where there were really good exchanges between the author and readers or others interested in the topic.<<

Perhaps, you could post the URL for that site.

>>...why is the subject of importance to the Seventh-day Adventist church (from the viewpoint of the church)?<<

I proffer that it has taken on greater importance than it may otherwise have - because of the non-event aspect of the ‘Great Disappointment’ and the ensuing embarrassment to have been so caught out.

>>What do Seventh-day Adventist say about it, in terms of why it is essential?<<

It, in concept, was given its imprimatur by EGW (note: if I am not mistaken, Uriah Smith was the driving force in constructing the dogmas and doctrines of SDAism – with EGW giving her ‘inspired’ sanctions)

Disabuse me.

>>What difference does it make?<<

Not much salvifically; however, it makes a huge difference in sustaining a ‘peculiar Remnant’ milieu.

OK, but of course you have given me the viewpoint of those who do not believe it. I was trying to find out if you understand the doctrine from the viewpoint of the church.

For instance, how can I call into into question the Jehovah's Witness viewpoint of something if I don't know how they understand it?

In the same way, how can I tear down a doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventists that I don't have a good grasp of?

(I'm not saying you don't understand it-- but it appears from your answer that you may not.)





Actually, Uriah Smith was a fairly late-comer. He came on the scene (1853) after most of the major doctrines had been developed. He was important for the church's views on Daniel and Revelation, and he wrote extensively on the non-immortality of the soul. He wrote a book on the cleansing of the sanctuary, but none of the beliefs he wrote about had their origins with him. (He did lead the church, however, down the wrong path prophetically regarding Armageddon. In this he contradicted Ellen White's views.)

Most of the major doctrines were clarified during 22 Sabbath Bible Conferences held between 1848 and 1850.





OK, again you are giving the answer of someone who doesn't believe it. But that doesn't help me know what you understand of it from the church's standpoint.

If this is all you know about it, I am not surprised you think it's unimportant.

Perhaps you know much more than this, but I have no way of knowing.

I asked the questions in order to determine what you already know in order to know what you've covered before.

This tells me that it's probable you've never studied a book that presents the Investigative Judgment in a positive light. Let me know if my assumption is wrong.