The IJ

woobadooba · Jun 27, 2007

mjona3 said:
The problem with IJ is that it isn't neccesary, when one is internally consistant.

JM

But what if one isn't internally consistent? Is it then necessary?

You do agree that not everyone that says Lord, Lord, will enter into heaven, right?

Matt. 7:21-23 makes it quite clear that not everyone that claims to believe in Jesus Christ is 'internally consistent'.

JonMiller · Jun 27, 2007

I Agree, but what does that have to do with IJ at all? That is my point, IJ isn't needed.

JM

JonMiller · Jun 27, 2007

Everyone says IJ means this, IJ means that... while this and that is already written in the Bible.

A few say that IJ is for other worlds, fine, why should we bother with it then.

A few (but not very many people openly admit to it) say that IJ is that we must become perfect. This is a blatant heresy.

It seems to me that IJ isn't worth it (the Bible doesn't need support, and other aspects don't matter or support heresy).

JM

woobadooba · Jun 27, 2007

mjona3 said:
I Agree, but what does that have to do with IJ at all? That is my point, IJ isn't needed.

JM

Perhaps you haven't read my other posts on this. If you have, I really don't know what more I can say to you to help you to see why it is necessary.

JonMiller · Jun 27, 2007

I have. And they seem to be referencing stuff that is already clearly stated in the Bible.

Have you read your posts?

Have you considered what you are saying, logically, in cosnideration of Christians pre 4th century AD?

Jon Miller

woobadooba · Jun 27, 2007

mjona3 said:
I have. And they seem to be referencing stuff that is already clearly stated in the Bible.

Have you read your posts?

Have you considered what you are saying, logically, in cosnideration of Christians pre 4th century AD?

Jon Miller

The point is that those passages to which you are referring do not speak against the doctrine of an IJ; rather, they compliment it.

Moreover, your reasoning here doesn't really make sense, because if one were to take your thought to its final conclusion, such reason inevitably discloses that much of what is written in the NT is likewise unnecessary, since it reiterates what we can find in the OT.

Should we then conclude that ideas that are expressed in the Bible ought to only be expressed in one way? Can we not express the same idea in different ways, and thereby add clarity to the frame of thought from which the idea dawns?

Should we take away the psalms and proverbs too, since they reiterate ideas that are disclosed in other genres throughout the Bible? And what about Jesus' parables? What do we do with them?

And why use apocalyptic rhetoric, which is highly cryptic, when such underlying themes which give rise to such thoughts are clearly disclosed in other portions of the Bible in a way that is more intelligible to the reader?

Truth is, if you find the doctrine of the IJ to be unnecessary, then just don't talk about it. There is no sense in trying to convince us that it isn't necessary, since we have good reason to accept it. Rather than doing this, it would be better for you to try to prove that it is untrue, instead of approaching the matter from a point of 'taste' (what constitutes good discussion as opposed to what is futile or unnecessary to discuss and think about).

reddogs · Jun 27, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
Again the final judgment would show the same thing and without all the need for assumptions which fill the IJ concept.

For Woob:

One thing we always have to keep in mind is that the New Testament writers would often connect a concept they were talking about with a quote from the Old Testament, many times it was out of context with the original quote. They were not trying to be tricky doing this it was a long established method found in other Mishnah writings. They would take a text and apply it to their current condition regardless of how the text was originally used. I can't think of the word for that now, I will have to check out my blog because I am sure I mentioned it earlier this year.

Yes, but if you got arrested for a capital crime which a Judge could give you the death penalty or pardon you, wouldnt you want everything done properly as outlined (on the earthly tabernacle) and be interested in every little detail.....

JonMiller · Jun 27, 2007

No, they don't speak against the doctrine of IJ. Nothing I have pointed out speaks against the doctrine of IJ. What they do is show that it is unecessary, which is what I have been maintaining all along. There is nothing that it does to add to our Christian experience.

I am fine with people beleiving IJ, I don't think that it is important.

IJ is a huge source of problems for the SDA church, and causes issues for many people. Yet we (as in the SDA church) make it out to be a big deal, when (as you and I agree? that is what it seems like from your last post) it isn't.

So why should we (the SDA church) make a big deal about it?

It is especially questionable because it promotes certain heresies which we have issues with in the SDA church anyways.

JM

Jimlarmore · Jun 27, 2007

To me one of the most striking supportive aspects that make the IJ plausible is the pattern or habit of God in the Bible. He always investigates before He does anything big. This started in the garden of eden and went thru nearly the entire Bible. God always makes sure that everyone knows why He is about to do what He does.

Aside from that the actual IJ as we accept it is fairly weak in Biblical support compared to doctrines like the state of the dead, the 2nd advent, or hell-fire etc. I've spent a lot of time researching it and I am still scratching my head on a few issues.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

reddogs · Jun 27, 2007

Jimlarmore said:
To me one of the most striking supportive aspects that make the IJ plausible is the pattern or habit of God in the Bible. He always investigates before He does anything big. This started in the garden of eden and went thru nearly the entire Bible. God always makes sure that everyone knows why He is about to do what He does.

Aside from that the actual IJ as we accept it is fairly weak in Biblical support compared to doctrines like the state of the dead, the 2nd advent, or hell-fire etc. I've spent a lot of time researching it and I am still scratching my head on a few issues.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Amen, this one is one that you had to be with the Levites at tabernacle during the ceremony to figure out....

Nice to see you Jim, looks like everybody took a break and gradually are filtering back...

Red

(Oh when you get a chance could you go to BLACKSDA.COM to look at a few parallel issues we are going over...)

RC_NewProtestants · Jun 27, 2007

Jim wrote:

To me one of the most striking supportive aspects that make the IJ plausible is the pattern or habit of God in the Bible. He always investigates before He does anything big. This started in the garden of eden and went thru nearly the entire Bible. God always makes sure that everyone knows why He is about to do what He does.

As I earlier pointed out few of those instances can be said to be investigative. But aside from that in those instances people were the ones being informed of God's actions, such as the coming destruction of Sodom, the IJ is totally lacking any human involvement. In fact in Adventist conventional wisdom the 1000 years in heaven is supposed to be the time when the people actually investigate God's investigation. (Another ill informed idea but since it reflects a future activity in heaven it probably is somewhat benign, other then to show that people still won't trust God, like the idea of perfection of heaven we have no way to conceive of it so it is likely that in our condition now we can't conceive of really trusting God. But not really a salvation issue or doctrinally important.)

JonMiller · Jun 27, 2007

I can beleive that growth will still need to occur to make sure that sin is no more after we have taken on uncorrupted modies/minds/souls. As yuo know, Lucifer went sinful all by himself. Also, Adam went sinful in a similar state as we will be.

I thought that the 1000 years, in adventist theology, was growth for us who were on earth, so that we not only would be perfect, but so that sin would never again enter in the universe. Then, likely, no more people would be born/etc so that no one who wasn't there/observed what went on with sin would start it up again.

At least, I thought that was what the SDA church beleived.

JM

JonMiller · Jun 27, 2007

God won't make us like Him, knowing everything. We will just be like Adam, but with our own experiences/personality. As such, we will have a lot to learn, especially in the first little while while we become acclimatized.

JM

StormyOne · Jun 28, 2007

Jimlarmore said:
To me one of the most striking supportive aspects that make the IJ plausible is the pattern or habit of God in the Bible. He always investigates before He does anything big. This started in the garden of eden and went thru nearly the entire Bible. God always makes sure that everyone knows why He is about to do what He does.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Ummm No. Job was never given an explanation of what happened to him..... Those nations who were wiped out by the COI, were they given a reason? Even the babies? Was Daniel given an explanation why he would live out his life in exile? Was John given an explanation why he was the last of the original 12 to die? There are many examples where your premise can be called into question.

I understand your point, I would respectfully disagree that God always makes sure everyone understands.

woobadooba · Jun 28, 2007

StormyOne said:
Ummm No. Job was never given an explanation of what happened to him.....

You don't know this for sure. You only know what you can read; but what occurred outside of what is written is more detailed.

It is possible that Job could have been given an explanation at some point. In fact, the explanation is given in the very beginning of the story, which does seem indicate that it was possible that Job eventually came to know why this happened to him.

In any case, you can't speak in absolutes about what you can only
offer up a guess for.

djconklin · Jun 29, 2007

The only thing I see that IJ does is give us a unique doctrine, and support the biblically unsound principle

Is the IJ bibically "unsound" as many claim? That's the question I want to answer. Although, it may be that others have beaten me to the punch:

http://www.harvesthands.org/judgment1.htm
http://www.harvesthands.org/judgment2.htm

that we must become perfect and sinless here on earth.

The unspoken assumption here is that any and all sin is greater and more powerful than God is. If we really enter into God's rest, as symbolized by the Sabbath, then we would know that it is He who sanctifies us and not we ourselves.

Ezekiel 20:12
Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

It appears that some of our pastors need to be taken out behind the wood shed for being in such a rush to baptize people and not properly teaching them the Word of God.

djconklin · Jun 29, 2007

Even the babies?

That begs the question that one could explain it to a baby.

Did God explain it to those who died in the Flood? Or, did they already know that they were in the wrong as did the Amalekites, etc. who attacked the Jews from the rear when they should have been hospitable as per their own custom? Or, the pagans in Israel who knew of the Jews miraculous escape from Egypt and yet still chose to refuse them?

djconklin · Jun 29, 2007

But aside from that in those instances people were the ones being informed of God's actions, such as the coming destruction of Sodom, the IJ is totally lacking any human involvement. In fact in Adventist conventional wisdom the 1000 years in heaven is supposed to be the time when the people actually investigate God's investigation.

The latter is symbolized by taking the goat for Azazael out into the wilderness (and tradition has it) throwing it over a cliff.

RC_NewProtestants · Jun 29, 2007

djconklin said:
The latter is symbolized by taking the goat for Azazael out into the wilderness (and tradition has it) throwing it over a cliff.

Well only again in conventional Adventist Wisdom, it has no connection in the Bible, it was never part of the Jewish tradition or found in the New Testament writers views. Biblically it has nothing at all to connect it to the scapegoat symbolism. But then neither does the idea that the saints will spend the 1000 years checking on why their loved ones were not in heaven. Conventional wisdom is often wrong.

djconklin · Jun 29, 2007

Originally Posted by djconklin

The latter is symbolized by taking the goat for Azazael out into the wilderness (and tradition has it) throwing it over a cliff.

Click to expand...

Well only again in conventional Adventist Wisdom, it has no connection in the Bible, it was never part of the Jewish tradition or found in the New Testament writers views. Biblically it has nothing at all to connect it to the scapegoat symbolism. But then neither does the idea that the saints will spend the 1000 years checking on why their loved ones were not in heaven. Conventional wisdom is often wrong.

I heard of the traditon via Jewish tradition, not SDA. For instance, see here: http://www.mesora.org/redheifer.html -- I found over 100 hits in two minutes of work.

While it may be true that "conventional wisdom is often wrong" it is positively wrong to start with that assumption vs. actually proving it.

The IJ

Legend

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency