Review of Debate on Sola Scriptura & Comments on SDA Doctrine Investigative Judgement

This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. And now with today's topic, here is James White. And, uh, well, I'm hoping that we're, uh... I'm hoping we're on the, uh, the air now. I don't know.

Hard to say. I'm just gonna go ahead and assume this is the beginning of the program and it just started eight minutes late. How does that sound? We'll go with it from that perspective. Welcome to the program.

Sola Scriptura Debate With Mitchell Pacwa

This afternoon, what I'd like to do is give you a brief rundown on what took place this past Monday evening in the debate with Mitchell Pacwa. And then I have some interesting discussions, I hope, in regards to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists and modern eschatological wackiness.

Yes, I did use the term eschatological. I actually may address just just briefly and and without much of a commitment one way or the other some issues of eschatology. And, uh, some of you who know me are fainting right now.

I am. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to give that shock to your system, but it has come up in some of the reading that I've been doing, so maybe we'll go ahead and address some of that. I don't know. If you are new to the program, then maybe you're not aware of the fact that I never discuss eschatology.

But there are certain books that are really popular today that I would like to maybe talk about a little bit. Anyhow, Monday night was a wonderful experience at New Life Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Diego.

We there had a debate with Mitchell Pacwa on the subject of Sola Scriptura, and I was looking forward to it because of the fact that up until this point in time, I have not had the opportunity of debating Sola Scriptura against a meaningful Roman Catholic opponent who did not engage in what I call cheap debating tricks.

In fact, the very first debate I ever did was on Sola Scriptura. It was against Jerry Matatix in August of 1990. In the first 14 minutes of his 20-minute opening statement, he never even mentioned Sola Scriptura.

He engaged in some pretty strange behavior in that debate. He lied about books, the book that I had written at that time, The Fatal Flaw. And so each time, Mr. Matatix and I have debated three times on Sola Scriptura.

The last time we debated was about the closest I've come to having a debate with someone on the subject of Sola Scriptura, and it actually went well. It was pretty much just the subject. It wasn't he and I.

It wasn't trying to hide the issues. In other words, it actually focused on the topic. That's the closest we've come. I've debated others. Many of you have heard the debate that we had with Tim Staples on the subject of Sola Scriptura, and there have been others that we've debated on this issue.

Patrick Madrid in San Diego as well. I've actually done a number of debates now, four debates in San Diego. So I was looking forward to this because I knew that Mitch Paco would not engage in what we would call cheap debating tricks, that he would stick with the subject, that he would stick with the issue.

And that's exactly what did happen. We designed a little bit of an interesting format for the debate itself. We did not do as we've done, well, as every other Sola Scriptura debate that I've done, where you start off and you have a 20, 25, 30, sometimes getting even longer.

I think one debate I did in 1999 had 40 minute opening statements, which just is, I mean, that's like listening to a sermon from both sides before you even get started, before you even have the opportunity of having any interaction.

It's just not easy on an audience at all. So instead of doing that, we sort of followed a similar format to the format that I used with Robert St. Genes on papal infallibility back in early October. And yes, I know there are some of you going, boy, we sure would like to hear that debate.

Well, believe me, so would I. But we haven't gotten the tapes yet. And we keep contacting folks and saying we need the tapes, we need the tapes, and hopefully they'll be sent out this week and so we can make them available to folks and get that debate online.

Interestingly enough, the debate with Mitchell Pack was already ready because we did the taping. We did the videotaping of it, a three-camera shoot, and that means we have the audio available. All that is already on the website as far as being able to order the videotape and the audiotape right now if you want to be able to get hold of that.

So anyways, we designed a format where we each had four-minute opening statements. And you say, how can you say anything in four minutes? Well, it was just to introduce why we believe this subject is so important.

Then each one of us had a 12-minute presentation period followed by a five-minute rebuttal and then eight minutes where for eight minutes Mitch Pack will ask me questions. For eight minutes I ask him questions.

So 16 minutes of cross-examination followed by a break and then we did a second round where we had 10-minute opening statements, rebuttals, more cross-examination, another period of rebuttal, and then 10-minute closing statements.

And so it didn't add up to quite as long as some of the other debates that we've done. It was only about two and a half hours instead of three, 315 as we've gotten used to. But there was much more interaction.

And we had much more opportunity to dialogue with one another in cross-examination. But since there was rebuttals and then another rebuttal and then another rebuttal, there was more give and take. You weren't just listening to one person droning on and on and on about a particular subject.

And I think that's the best way to handle these things in the future as well. Now Mitch Pack was, everybody knows, a really nice guy. And we had some humorous interaction during the course of the debate, some humorous interaction about the fact that I can wear very pretty ties and he as a Jesuit priest cannot.

We also had a little bit of fun when he wanted to act like he was going to show a picture of himself sitting in Moses' seat, and I made a comment about how I shouldn't mention anything about showing pictures of the grandkids.

It probably wouldn't fit in this situation, he being a priest, of course. And there were some good laughs. And one thing I have noticed, and that is as I think about the venues and the debates we've done where there has been the most rancor, the most stuff with the audience getting involved, the two debates at Fullerton, which were put on by Roman Catholics and a majority Catholic audience, by far take the cake on that.

Here we were in a Protestant setting, and even though, and people weren't quite sure. We didn't ask people to put up their hands or anything, but we would estimate that at least half the audience was Roman Catholic.

And this is only, what, a two-hour drive from Fullerton, so it's not like it was in a different part of the country or something. We'd say about half the audience was Roman Catholic, maybe a little bit more.

Actually, I think even though we were in a Protestant church, I actually think that more than half of the audience was Roman Catholic. And yet, despite that, since it was the Protestants who put on in a Protestant venue, there was no yelling from the audience, there was no rancor, there was none of that.

And all those situations where there have been the worst forms of rancor were in situations where the Roman Catholics had put it on, the Roman Catholics were in the majority, and it was in their backcourt, in essence, and the result has always been the same.

I found that to be very, very interesting indeed. But then, as it may, what about the subject? Well, it was a difficult debate on one level, and that is, I am accustomed to dealing with the people who believe, like Carl Keating, and individuals like Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid, and the refreshing thing, and in fact, I think the thing that's probably going to provide, make this so useful in the future, is that Mitchell Pacwa was unwilling to use the very arguments, the very arguments that Roman Catholic apologists have used for, well, decades now, at least in the modern era, people like Carl Keating, because he recognized they're invalid.

And in fact, I'm going to suggest to Rich Pierce that we make an offering where we put the Staples debate on Sola Scriptura together with the Pacwa debate on Sola Scriptura. Just like I think we should put the Syngenis debate on papal infallibility together with the Staples debate on papal infallibility.

The reason is, the contrast between the good debates, where the Roman Catholic apologist is calm, and prepared, and focused, is just heightened when you listen to Tim Staples making these outrageous claims.

And then the amazing thing is, you pick up the St. Joseph's communications catalog, and you'll find Scott Hahn, and Tim Staples, and even Mitch Pacwa's stuff all being offered by the same people. And what was even more interesting is that Mitch Pacwa recognized that there are bad arguments being used by people today.

I failed to bring my palm pile with me. I would have been able to read you some of the quotes that I had, but one of the things that I did is I started off with a quotation that I've used in almost every single one of my Sola Scriptura debates, and it's from a very popular Roman Catholic book by John O 'Brien, and in it he specifically says that reason and experience tell us that the Bible is neither a safe nor competent guide as to what we are to believe.

And so I start off asking, what's your viewpoint of this, Father Pacwa? Do you agree with John O 'Brien on this? And later, when he came up, evidently he didn't recognize the name, and he said, no, I don't agree with that.

We should never say that kind of thing. We should never say the Bible's an incompetent guide as to what we're to believe. And yet every single one of my other opponents agreed with that statement or kept silent about it, wouldn't say anything about it at all, because in reality they did agree with it, but they didn't want to state it in those words, which I found most interesting.

I have been reminded that maybe some of you would like to ask questions about the debate on Monday night or other issues related to that, and you may be out of the Phoenix dialing area, and if you are, you can call toll-free.

I want to repeat that, toll-free. That means when you get your phone bill at the end of the month, there will not be a humongaloid charge that says Alpha Omega Ministries on it, and the number is 866.

Yes, that's a toll-free extension. You probably are aware of the fact they had to come up with not only 800, but 888, and now 866. 866 -550 -1315. 866, that's wrong. I caught him. He can't type worth anything.

It's 866 -550 -3915. 866 -550 -3915 is the number to call to be on the air, or if you're in the Phoenix dialing area, 602 -973 -4602. 602 -973 -4602 are the numbers for you to get on the air if you'd like to talk about the issues that we'll be raising today on the dividing line.

866 -550 -3915, or 602 -973 -4602. So, as I was saying at one point during the debate also, I was talking about what sola scriptura is not, what it is commonly misrepresented as being in Roman Catholic materials.

And one of the things I said was, you know, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive compendium of every bit of religious knowledge that could ever be had. The illustration I've used over and over again is that you do not need to know the eye color of each of the apostles.

You do not need to know what the dinner menu was at every apostolic meal. And that is an illustration of the fact that Roman Catholics are in error when they cite from John 21, and the statement of the Gospel of John, that if everything that Jesus said and did had been written down, that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, so on and so forth.

Carl Keating, in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, quotes from John 21, and he applies that and says, see, this denies sola scriptura. This denies sola scriptura, because it specifically says that we don't have everything Jesus said.

And I may have mentioned, this is an improper application, this is not a proper verse to cite a sola scriptura, and Mitch Packer got up right after I said that and started his presentation by saying, well, I'm glad I didn't quote John 21 in my presentation.

And he never did, because he knows that that is not a valid argument against sola scriptura. He recognizes what sola scriptura actually is and attempts to respond to that very differently than Patrick Madrid or Tim Staples or Carl Keating or these many others.

And so that's very valuable along those lines. He also admitted a number of things in the debate. He said, the Church does not create the canon. The Church does not create the canon. That has been the main argument of Roman Catholic apologists for all the debates we've gone through, is they want to throw out the canon issue, throw out the canon issue, and yes, he certainly believes that the canon issue is relevant to sola scriptura, but not in the way that Roman Catholic apologists in the other debates have attempted to say.

Because he says, hey, wait a minute. The scriptures are God-breathed, the scriptures are infallible, inerrant. I mean, I just about wanted to faint, and I didn't get a chance to bring it up in the cross-examination, but I wanted him to say that he is in the vast minority of Jesuit priests in our nation today that believe the Bible is inerrant, to actually use that term.

That is a vast minority position, and that just blew me away. But he admitted all those things, said that the Church receives the canon from the Holy Spirit, as Augustine said, and is not the one who determines it, but proclaims it, which is a different viewpoint than many of those that we take on in debates.

Then I asked him during the cross-examination, has the Roman Catholic Church defined any statement of the Lord Jesus, or any statement of the Apostles, infallibly? That is, has Rome infallibly made a statement that says, Jesus said X, or the Apostle Paul said Y, and these statements are not found in Scripture?

And he honestly thought for a moment and said, no, no, I can't think of anywhere where the Church has defined infallibly a statement from Jesus or the Apostles, the actual words, that are not found in Scripture.

And so I said, so you would agree that the only certain place that we know of where the inspired words of Jesus or the inspired words of the Apostles are found is in Scripture? And he agreed. Now later on, he said, now we may not have the words of the Apostles in the tradition, but we have the sense of the Apostles in the tradition.

And I think there were a number of Roman Catholic apologists, people with Catholic answers, even though people like Carl Keating, James Aiken, to my knowledge, were not there, Scott Butler did show up.

But I know that there were people sitting in that audience absolutely gritting their teeth in light of the things that he was saying. And I know of at least one Catholic apologist who specifically has attempted to get Father Pacwa to not debate.

Why? Because he's too honest. He's too honest. He says the three words that no other Catholic apologist will say. I don't know. I don't know. I haven't read that. I don't know. I'm not going to try to give you an answer on something that I don't know.

And I have so appreciated that. He said that in 1991. He did not answer a question, he said, I don't know. And oh, how some of those Catholic apologists just go nuts when someone says something like that.

In this situation, I asked him, I asked him, well, you know, in light of your position about the Apocrypha and the canon of Scripture, so on and so forth, what do you do with Pope Gregory the Great, who rejected the apocryphal books as being canon of Scripture?

He said, you know what? My knowledge of church history pretty much goes up to about 200 A .D., because I'm pretty much an Old Testament scholar guy, and I didn't know that Gregory held that view. I've not ever heard that before, so I don't know.

Now if you listen to the tapes, at that point, I have a choice. And if Mitch Pacwa acted like Tim Staples, I'd be very honest. I would have pressed that, and pressed that, and pressed that. But he doesn't.

And so when someone says, I don't know, I said, okay, I appreciate your honesty about that, let's go on to another subject and we'll go on to another issue. Didn't press it, didn't try to drive it home.

I had presented in my material, in my presentation, what Gregory had said. And there's another thing, and Rich Pierce pointed it out to me. One of the camera angles that we have on the videotape, and I think you might enjoy watching this more as a videotape than just listening to it on audio.

Not because of what I look like, because that might actually be a mark against it, but the interaction between myself and Pacwa is very interesting to watch. And one of the things that was interesting was one of the camera angles, as I'm speaking at the podium, you can see Mitch behind me very, very clearly.

And I only once or twice or turned just a little bit that he was to my right. So I turned a little bit to my right and sort of saw him a little bit back there as I would be scanning the audience or whatever.

I didn't just turn around and stare at the guy. But I noticed during the debate, and then it was clear in looking at the videos once we got back here to Phoenix. He listened intently to everything I was saying.

And you might say, well, what's so big about that? I can't tell you how many debates I've been in where my opponent was either clearly not listening to anything I was saying at all, or even worse, left the platform while I was speaking.

Didn't even stay there. Scott Butler left the platform. Robert Sugenis left the platform in our debate at Boston College. Didn't even stick around. They said they had to go use the little boys' room. Well, okay, I guess.

Somehow Rob Zins and I managed to survive to the break. Art Sippo went and got a Coke while I was making my presentation on justification by faith. It was very obvious why it was. He didn't believe I had anything meaningful to say anyway.

So it was really neat to debate someone who actually listened to what I was saying, and it was very clear he was trying to understand why I believe what I believe. And he was trying to ask questions of me during the cross-examination that was relevant to my position.

And when he didn't understand it, he asked. That's how debates are supposed to be done. Those are the debates that are actually meaningful. And so I think you will find that the debate, the debate as it is available now on the website, if you go to www .aomin .org, look at the, I'm not sure, I could probably bring it up here, but I'd be using dial-up to bring it up.

Anyways, I think it's on the main page. Is it on the main page, Rich? The tapes, the tapes of the debate? Is it on the main page? Or do you have to go to the Roman Catholic section? Yeah. Oh, it's on the main page.

Thank you very much, sir. So go there, get these. You might want to order some other tapes for contrast. But people sometimes ask me, you know, I want to give a debate to a friend of mine, but you know, they're really sensitive.

They're really, I don't want to give them anything that breathes fire. Well, this doesn't breathe fire. This would be, in fact, all of the PACWA debates. In fact, I think, Rich, we should put together the PACWA debate series.

Right? The PACWA package. There you go. Hey, perfect. The PACWA package. Say that three times real fast, and you'll be much more erudite than I am. The PACWA package, and right now they're before, and by the way, and I'm not sure if even Rich knew about this, but I got the feeling during one of the discussions, because I kept bringing up the bodily assumption, and as the most recent definition, oh, by the way, I was taken aback, and in fact, I need to correct something that I have said in the past.

I'm not sure if it's said on the radio or not. I assumed, I thought for sure, that I had seen an article by Mitch PACWA supporting the definition of Mary as co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and advocate for the people of God.

I could, my memory must be going, and Rich keeps saying that it is, and it's become very selective, and it's only focused on theological things now, and not A .M. Amen. There, that's, okay, watch it, watch it very much there, I, okay, now I've got to bring up my wav files now, anyways, I thought for certain that I had heard, read an article, and in fact, I even, and this is what makes it a little bit strange, is that I seem to recall the very context in which I remembered reading that, but during the debate itself, I asked him about that very issue, and he said no, that's not the case at all, I am very much opposed to it, and I am opposed to it because it would, in some way, shape or form, damage ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, and he obviously has a real big place in his heart for the Eastern churches, and you know, he goes over to Israel all the time, and yadda yadda yadda, so he was very much opposed to that.

I thought for sure that he was in favor of it, so we went to the bodily assumption of Mary as the most recent dogma defined on Mary, and after the debate, when we were talking, we, I said to him, so I said, so I get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, there's a Mary debate in the future between you and I, and he sorta got this grin because I just got the feeling that that was something that he would want to maybe address in the future, and so I'm looking to possibly talk to some different venues, we've already done a Mary debate on Long Island, with Jerry Matatix, but I would very much like to do a debate on the dogmas of Mary with Mitch Pacwa, maybe limited only to the Immaculate Conception bodily assumption, because these are two dogmas that have been defined only over the past two centuries, I'm not sure how we'd work it out, I felt the debate we did with Matatix just went way too fast, four topics in one debate is just not the way to do it, I think it was a worthwhile debate, but it's just too difficult to follow, so I would love to get Mitch to do a debate on Mary, because then we'd have the big issues, justification, the mass, the papacy, sola scriptura, and the Mary and dogmas, that would be five debates with him on those subjects, I think that would be a really neat thing to try to figure out and make available, so anyways, that is available on the website, and if you want to give some debates to people that are not fire breathers, they're not like the Tim Staples debate on papal infallibility, maybe you're actually looking at giving some stuff for the holidays, yes, for the holidays, we do have folks who, believe it or not, are crazy enough to give debates and books and tapes and videos as gifts to their Roman Catholic relatives, yes, that's a certain way to make sure you're never invited back to Christmas dinner again.

If you're thinking about doing that, the ones that you would want to get would be any of those with Mitch Pacwan, because each one of those will be focused only on the subject, there won't be any personal animosity expressed, and there are two more debates that fall into that category, those of you who have heard the mass debate with Roberts and Jennis will probably be a little bit surprised at this, because that one is not one that would fall into the category of one lacking animosity, but the two debates that Roberts and Jennis and I have done since then, in fact both this year, come to think of it, in fact I was adding up the number of debates we did this year, and it came out to, let's see, one, two, I think it was five or six, it was an incredible number that have taken, almost one every two months, I think is what it worked out to during this particular year.

But you would want to add the other two calm, good debates that you'd want to add that list would be with Roberts and Jennis on justification by faith, that was in May of this year, and when we get them, the debates with Roberts and Jennis, the debate with Roberts and Jennis on papal infallibility that I self-moderated, the moderator said, okay guys, introduce yourselves, get started, and sat down, and so it was a self-moderated debate, and yet it worked out fine because we behaved, and we behaved well.

So the four PACWA debates, the two St. Jennis debates, specifically justification by faith and papal infallibility, those would all be debates that you could hand to a person and recognize that both men shook hands afterwards, they never insulted each other, they just stuck to the issues, in other words, the who is irrelevant, the what is what comes through.

So those are the ones that you'd want to put together to be able to do that. And I see folks in the chat room that are complaining, they are actually complaining, that I am mentioning things that you can get for Christmas, as if there's there's something wrong with that.

I think that's, that's just sad. It just, it just truly is. Well anyways, I think it's time to take a break. We've been on for about half an hour. The number again, toll free, 866 -550 -3915. 866 -550 -3915 is the number to call, or if you're here locally, 602 -973 -4602.

Let's take a break and we'll be right back. I had some nice pretty Christmas music all queued up there, and we ran it over with John Tesh. There's a pretty Christmas song just laying there in the snow.

It's been run over by a guy on a grand piano. It's a sad thing to see. Oh, 866 -550 -3915. 866 -550 -3915. Sort of wondering if, if anyone wishes to speak to me today. If you do, please feel free to give us a ring, and I'll be glad to, to talk with you about, well, whatever it might be.

And that might include some of the issues that we've raised in regards to the debate with Mitch Packwood. Maybe some of you were actually there. You'd like to discuss some of the issues that did not get talked about.

Give us a call, 866 -550 -3915. If you're in the Phoenix dialing area, 602 -973 -4602. Well, there's a report on the subject of the, play Keggy. Yeah, right. Thanks, C .D .S. There's a report on the subject of the debate.

Seventh-day Adventism and the Investigative Judgment

Now I'd like to go to a little bit of a different subject. I would like to, I'd like to read, read to you some, some statements. And in fact, I'd like to see, I'm going to be watching the chat room, and maybe somebody can call in if they'd like.

But I would like to see who can first tell me what religious group produced the following words. Okay. What religious group? I am reading from a book written by a representative of a particular religious group.

And I'd like to find out if you all can figure out who it is. I quote, someone may say, I thought that when Christ forgave my sins, he took them clear away. Yes, he did, so far as you are concerned. He promises to make us as white as snow.

But this does not mean that the sins are finally disposed of. He takes them from us, but the record is still there. We are free because we have accepted him as our substitute and sin bearer, but the record of sin is held in the sanctuary.

Someone else may say, but was not the death of Christ and the cross a complete atonement for sin? We answer the question by asking another. In the earthly sanctuary, when the goat was brought and killed in the outer court by the altar, was the atonement completed by that act?

No, the blood had to be taken into the sanctuary and brought into contact with the broken law and the sins of the people. There was a priestly work to be performed after the shedding of the blood. We have an incorrect guess by CDS panic that that's Mormonism.

No, it is not Mormonism. So I continue. So when Christ died on the cross, he had fulfilled the type of the Lord's goat being slain, but the atonement could not be completed until the blood he had shed on the cross was offered before God and his broken law in the sanctuary.

Therefore, the death of Christ on the cross was not the completion of the atonement. It was a part of the work of the atonement, but the priestly work was all to follow. The offering of the blood before the law and before the throne had not yet taken place.

If the atonement was completed at the cross, then why did Jesus become a priest? What priestly work was there to do? There would be none. The fact that Christ became a priest shows that there was a priestly service to be performed in the heavenly sanctuary in order to make the work of atonement effective and complete.

So far, ah, we found someone who has won the quiz. Someone here in our own valley, in fact, recognized what the true answer is, but I'm not going to tell you yet. The people in the chatroom know. And a bunch of people are saying Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic.

It is not Roman Catholic. Let's give you the final section here that would absolutely put it away, but we've already had someone who guessed the right answer here locally. Another may ask, why could not Christ have immediately blotted out the sins of the people?

Why wait until after 1844? We reply, there must come first investigation of the records. That is essential. Here is a man who has accepted Christ. His sins have gone on before him into the sanctuary, but Christ cannot blot those sins out of the record until the man's life is finished or until probation closes for him.

Why not? Because he may not continue in faith. And we are told in Ezekiel 33, 12 and 13, that if the righteous man turns away from his righteousness, all the righteousness that he has done shall not be remembered.

If he does not continue in faith, all his past sins will come back upon him again. Jesus does not plead before the throne of God in the final judgment for one who has died in sin. He cannot plead his blood in behalf of one who, though once a Christian, refuses to continue in his grace.

Thus, before the Lord can blot out the sins from the record books, a very careful examination has to be made to see whether those who accepted Christ have remained true. Be thou faithful unto death, says the scripture, and I will give thee a crown of life, Revelation 2 .10.

It is not the beginning of the race that gives assurance the crown of life. It is the successful finishing. Now, that is the section that precedes the next section of this book. It's called In Defense of the Faith by W .H. Branson.

It is a publication of the Seventh-Day Adventists. The Seventh-Day Adventists. And this is a section that immediately precedes the single most important discussion in the book, and it is the issue that demonstrates that Seventh-Day Adventism is a false religion.

That it falls into the exact same category as Roman Catholicism. Many people are confused about the status of Seventh-Day Adventism. They are confused concerning the theology of Seventh-Day Adventism, especially because there are a number of, how do we put it, there are a number of different viewpoints among Seventh-Day Adventists today.

But the original doctrine of Seventh-Day Adventists, the one believed by faithful Seventh-Day Adventists, that demonstrates that Seventh-Day Adventism is removed from biblical Christianity is the doctrine called the Investigative Judgment.

And to understand the Investigative Judgment, you have to understand something about that date that I mentioned, and that is 1844. Seventh-Day Adventism grew out of the failed Millerite movement of 1844.

And here's where the connection to the thing that I said at the beginning of the program is. This has a connection to Jehovah's Witnesses, and I would say it has a connection to very popular book serieses that are selling millions of copies today in our land.

And that is, in 1844, the Millerites believed that Christ was going to return. Well, as you would guess, he didn't. And when people have these eschatological predictions that do not come to pass, there will always be a small believing group that will survive the failure of the eschatological prediction.

And that particular group of people will then spiritualize the prediction. Seventh-Day Adventism, following the writings of Ellen G. White, for those of you in the chatroom who are wondering who that is, Seventh-Day Adventists, following the writings of Ellen G. White, take that failed Millerite movement and they hang onto the idea of something spiritually happening in 1844.

And what they do is they'll almost always end up going into the scriptures and finding some sort of an allegory, some sort of a parallel they can go after. And find some sort of a biblical basis, quote unquote, it's always a biblical basis out of the context of the Bible, but find some sort of a basis to continue to exist as a group despite the prophetic failure.

The investigative judgment looks at 1844 as the time when Christ entered into the sanctuary and there began a review of the lives of the individuals who believed in Christ. And I will read you an extensive section on the investigative judgment, but first we're going to take our first phone call and talk with Tim over in Newark, California.

How are you doing today, Tim? Alright, brother, how are you doing?

Doing alright, you hearing us today? Yeah, I'm listening. I don't know if it's my computer, but I've been getting some congestion, you know, popping in and out.

It'll get better as technology continues to advance.

It's interesting, I knew what you were talking about there because I've been doing some research on Seventh-day Adventism and it was kind of interesting. I was listening to this guy on the radio today, which I heard some time back in the youth program at 2, it would come on at 3 at one of these stations out here, and this guy was talking against Terrell.