{"id":1222,"date":"2021-06-09T22:50:50","date_gmt":"2021-06-09T22:50:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/?p=1222"},"modified":"2021-06-10T00:54:12","modified_gmt":"2021-06-10T00:54:12","slug":"the-riverside-confrontation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/the-riverside-confrontation\/","title":{"rendered":"#3 The Riverside Confrontation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seventh-day Adventists have been challenged to defend the doctrine of an investigative judgment.  This challenge made by Dr. Desmond Ford has been echoed by many. It was restated in a letter of Dr. Ford\u2019s published in the March 19, 1990,  Christianity Today<\/em>. The letter (excerpted below) begins by congratulating CT<\/em> on their February 5, article entitled \u201cThe Recent Truth About Seventh-day Adventism\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCongratulations for publishing Kenneth Samples\u2019 article. It is perceptive, accurate, and sympathetic. For a century and a half, SDAs have challenged the rest of Christendom in two areas: (1) Give one New Testament text that proves God has sanctified Sunday as the Christian Sabbath; (2) Give one Bible verse that proves soul or spirit can function without a body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI endorse these challenges from Adventism. Let me now challenge the challengers: Give me, from the Bible and the Bible alone, proof about the doctrine of 1844 and the Investigative Judgment. I invite the SDA church to appoint a representative to discuss this topic with me over public media (at no cost to SDAs). I challenge the church leaders to deal with their presupposition that the Bible predicted Adventism\u2019s rise in 1844 and that the Last Judgment then began\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the days of Glacier View (1980) the challenge to biblically defend the doctrine of the investigative judgment in public confrontation has apparently met with little response. One exception is that of Adventist layman, Z. Bertan (Bob) Schubert. On February 10 and 11, 1989,  at the Trinity Christian Center in Riverside, California, he took on Dr. Ford in a public debate. Bob advertised the event as \u201cGlacier View II\u201d and didn\u2019t hide his view that a few small stones flung from the sling of truth would quickly fell the Goliath he was to face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the subject of the debate dealt directly with the material presented in our last issue of  Thinking Aloud<\/em>, we felt it would be appropriate to give a brief review of the pertinent arguments presented. The Riverside confrontation revealed the real issues involved<\/strong> in challenging the doctrine of the investigative judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It will be quickly noted that the contenders presented papers not directly opposed to one another. The debate was divided into three sessions\u2013Hebrews, Daniel, and Revelation. At the end of each session a 10-minute rebuttal from each side was followed by a public question and answer period. Our report of this confrontation follows in outline form and does not pretend to be exhaustive: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE RIVERSIDE CONFRONTATION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

FRI  PM \u2013  THE BOOK OF HEBREWS<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Ford:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. No one believes what the SDA pioneers believed about the investigative judgment \u2013 that it began in 1844 and would be brief.<\/li>
  2. The doctrine of an investigative judgment threatens the assurance of salvation and the joy of Christian experience.<\/li>
  3. The idea that the forgiveness of sins is distinct from the blotting out of sins is blasphemy.<\/li>
  4. In the last judgment believers are not tried by their works.<\/li>
  5. Rather than making comparisons between type and antitype, the book of Hebrews continually makes contrasts.<\/li>
  6. The book of Hebrews says nothing about a two-phase heavenly ministry of Christ.<\/li>
  7. The old covenant was represented by the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary and the new covenant was represented by the second apartment (Heb. 9:8,9).<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Mr. Schubert:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Despite its use of contrasts the book of Hebrews also makes comparisons between the type and the antitype.<\/li>
    2. To argue against the investigative judgment solely from the idea that God is omniscient or all knowing is to violate the facts (see Gen 22:12).<\/li>
    3. The first biblical reference to judgment (Gen 3:9-13) gives the parameters of all of God\u2019s judgments \u2013 God questions: Are you naked? Have you eaten? What have you done? The first question demands the righteousness of Christ; the second, obedience; and the third, good works. These are the elements of the final judgment also.<\/li>
    4. Justification and judgment not only deal with one\u2019s deeds but also with one\u2019s person.<\/li>
    5. The judgment doesn\u2019t declare you righteous because you have become righteous but neither will it declare righteous those who only say<\/strong> they believe (Matt. 7:21-23).<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
      1. In both the parable of the ten virgins and that of the talents, those being judged are apparently all Christians (virgins, servants \u2013 Matt. 25).<\/li>
      2. Hebrews 12 depicts the final judgment.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        SAT  AM \u2013 THE BOOK OF DANIEL<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Mr. Schubert:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1. History should not be used to define the interpretation of prophecy.<\/li>
        2. The Aramaic portion of Daniel (Dan. 2-7) portrays a different view of prophecy from the Hebraic portion (Dan. 8-12). The former gives four great kingdoms followed by a Roman little horn; the latter has two great kingdoms followed by a Grecian little horn.<\/li>
        3. God\u2019s Plan \u201cA\u201d (Dan. 8-12) was to usher in \u201cthe end\u201d at the completion of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9; but the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 shows God moving to Plan \u201cB\u201d (Dan. 2-7) with its \u201cend\u201d after the time of the Roman Empire.<\/li>
        4. In Plan \u201cB\u201d the judgment was to take place in heaven at the end of the Roman little horn, around 1800 AD.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          Dr. Ford:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          1. I agree wholeheartedly with Bob\u2019s stress on the conditionality of prophecy \u2013 the world could have ended at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.<\/li>
          2. The only thing from the Old Testament Jesus told his disciples they must understand is Daniel\u2019s statement concerning \u201cthe abomination of desolation\u201d which term refers to \u201cthe little horn.\u201d<\/li>
          3. The \u201clittle horn\u201d represents the heathen not God\u2019s people. \u201cJudgment\u201d in apocalyptic literature is always against the enemy.<\/li>
          4. Daniel 8:14 does not use the word \u201cdays\u201d; rather it refers to evening and morning sacrifices. \u00a82300\u00a8 divided by two sacrifices per day would equal 1150 days. The inference is to the approximately 1150 days that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple in Jerusalem before it was restored by the Maccabees.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            SAT  PM \u2013  THE BOOK OF REVELATION<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Dr. Ford:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            1. The sealed book mentioned in Revelation 5 is the title deed to earth which is restored by Christ.<\/li>
            2. The judgment spoken of in Revelation 14:6 is on the beast (Babylon) not on God\u2019s people (see the words \u201chour\u201d and \u201cjudgment\u201d Rev 18:10).<\/li>
            3. Judgment in the book of Revelation (as in all John\u2019s writings) is only for those who reject the Christ of Calvary, never for the church.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              Mr. Schubert:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              1. Revelation 22: 11-12 teaches that when Christ returns to earth, His rewards are with Him; therefore, judgment has already taken place.<\/li>
              2. Romans 11:10 and Matthew 12:36, 37 teach that everyone, believers included, must appear in the judgment.<\/li>
              3. No one appears before the judgment seat of Christ in a glorified <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                body because glorification is a reward. Therefore, judgment is prior to glorification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Interpretive Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                In the first session Dr. Ford dedicated a large portion of his time to what scholars say about the subject. He categorized a two-phase heavenly ministry of Christ as cultic and emphasized that such beliefs are based on inferences rather than clear biblical statements. In that same session Mr. Schubert barely touched the assigned topic of the book of Hebrews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                During the second session Mr. Schubert spent considerable time developing his unique (not traditionally SDA) view of God\u2019s two plans in the book of Daniel. He emphasized man\u2019s determinative role in bringing about the conclusion of prophecy. Dr. Ford spent the majority of his time attacking the traditional SDA interpretation of Daniel without offering much in the way of a new interpretation. Nevertheless, they were basically agreed about the book of Daniel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                In the final session Dr. Ford concentrated on the idea that God\u2019s <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                people never come into judgment. When given the podium Mr. Schubert developed a new theory about three possible ends of the world as depicted in the \u201cseals\u201d, \u201ctrumpets\u201d, and \u201cvials\u201d of Revelation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Should a panel or the audience have been asked to judge the debate, Dr. Ford would have won, hands down. The issues involved are greater, however, than this debate. Can you or I afford to leave the real issues unsettled? I think not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                The Real Issues Involved<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                The doctrine of the investigative judgment is synonymous with the concept of a two-phase ministry of Christ in heaven. This concept holds \u201cphase 1\u201d to be the continual forgiveness of sins and \u201cphase 2\u201d to be the final blotting out of sins. This was mentioned but not dwelt on at the Riverside confrontation probably because one side was unprepared to defend it and the other side was happy to side-step the issue. The easy course was taken at Riverside \u2013 the contenders slid into the discussion of subjects with which they were more comfortable. However, we dare not, leave the real issues of the investigative judgment buried beneath the dust of peripheral matters. The question must be asked: Is the forgiveness of sins distinct from the blotting out of sins or are they one and the same thing?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                1-PHASE MINISTRY<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                The blotting out of sins is distinct from the forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                2-PHASE MINISTRY<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                The blotting out of sins is the same as the forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                When in the Friday evening question and answer period Dr. Ford was asked about a judgment, he allowed for a pre-advent judgment as long as it was not investigative. Investigative means an examination of actions, words, and thoughts. Today the word accountability sums up this idea. The question is: Does the Bible teach a future accountability for God\u2019s people or no future accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                1-PHASE MINISTRY<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                No future accountability for God\u2019s people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                2-PHASE MINISTRY<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                A future accountability for God\u2019s people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Rejecting a two-phase ministry of Christ leads to the rejection of the idea of future accountability for believers. Dr. Ford\u2019s challenge is not to Adventism alone but to all Christians who believe in a future day of reckoning.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                Introduction: Seventh-day Adventists have been challenged to defend the doctrine of an investigative judgment.  This challenge made by Dr. Desmond Ford has been echoed by many. It was restated in a letter of Dr. Ford\u2019s published in the March 19, 1990,  Christianity Today. The letter (excerpted below) begins by congratulating CT on their February 5, article entitled \u201cThe […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":1236,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"1080","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-thinking-aloud"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1222"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1235,"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222\/revisions\/1235"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sanctuarycall.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}