Investigative judgment

The Investigative Judgment is a unique Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, which asserts that a divine judgment of professed Christians has been in progress since 1844. It is intimately related to the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and was described by the church's prophet and pioneer Ellen G. White as one of the pillars of Adventist belief. It is a major component of the broader Adventist understanding of the "heavenly sanctuary", and the two are sometimes spoken of interchangeably.

It has also been a source of considerable controversy within the denomination. The investigative judgment teaching was the subject of a denominational crisis in 1980, when Adventist theologian Desmond Ford was dismissed by the church after openly criticizing the doctrine. While the church has reaffirmed its basic position on the doctrine since 1980, many of those within the church's progressive wing continue to be critical of the teaching.

According to a 2002 worldwide survey, approximately 86% of Adventists accept the doctrine, although 35% believe there may be more than one interpretation of the sanctuary belief.

History

See also: History of the Seventh-day Adventist church

The belief has transformed over time. In particular, today it is more grace-focused than in the early church. Earlier Adventism tended to view the judgment in stern tones, but later it is understood as God on the side of people. "Judgment" is understood as being in favour of the people, or that it is God's character which is being judged, and not people so much.

Smuts van Rooyen describes a "string of changing interpretations we have given this prophecy from Second Coming, to Shut Door, to Investigative Judgment, to cleansing the Living Temple, to Vindication of God’s Character, to simple Pre-advent Judgment..."

Origins

William Miller and his followers, the Millerite Adventist movement, expected Jesus Christ to return to earth on October 22, 1844. They had arrived at this date from an interpretation of the Bible verse Daniel 8:14. They understood the 2300 days to represent 2300 years (according to the day-year principle of prophetic interpretation), a time period stretching from the biblical era to the nineteenth century. However Miller had not been the first to arrive at this interpretation, as he himself emphasized. Others had earlier concluded that a prophetic period of 2300 years was to end "around the year 1843" (Miller's earlier estimate).

When Jesus did not return as expected, an event Adventists call the "Great Disappointment", several alternative interpretations of the prophecy were put forward. Some individuals including O. R. L. Crosier and Hiram Edson concluded the event predicted by Daniel 8:14 was not the second coming, but rather Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. This new conviction formed the foundation of the Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary, and the people who held it became the nucleus of what would emerge as the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The new interpretation was greatly encouraging for the Adventists. As Ellen White wrote later, "The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith, was the declaration, 'Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.'" (quoting Daniel 8:14) She also predicted that criticism of the belief would come.

The Adventists initially held that the "close of probation" occurred on that day October 22—that is, it was too late to be saved if one had not been through the Millerite experience. They expected that Jesus would still return to Earth very shortly, within their lifetimes. They came to believe that the cleansing of the sanctuary was not the Second Advent while at the same time they continued to hold to the shut door/close of probation belief. Only after they had arrived as a new insight on the cleansing of the sanctuary could they rid themselves of their faulty concept of the shut door. This "shut-door" belief was linked to the sanctuary doctrine, or as another author puts it, the sanctuary doctrine arose out of it. The shut-door aspect was abandoned by the early 1850s.

Robert W. Olson wrote in a formative 1982 document whilst White Estate director:

"While the term 'shut door' at first was used to indicate probation's close in 1844, it soon came to mean the close of Christ's ministry in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. It stood for a change of Christ's ministry in heaven on October 22, 1844."

Over time, Adventists came to believe that the "cleansing" of the heavenly sanctuary involves a work of judgment. In the 1850s, J. N. Loughborough and Uriah Smith began to teach that a judgment had begun in 1844 when Christ entered the Most Holy Place. Subsequently, in 1857, James White (husband of Ellen G. White) wrote in the Review and Herald (now the Adventist Review) that an "investigative judgment" was taking place in heaven, in which the lives of professed believers would pass in review before God. This is the first time that the phrase "investigative judgment" was used.

The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment was given its most thorough exposition in chapter 28—Facing Life's Record of The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White.

Perfectionist interpretation

For early Adventists, the Investigative Judgment was closely aligned to their understanding of how one is saved with its strong emphasis on character perfection. They believed that the end of the investigative judgment (the “close of probation”) will mark a point in time after which even Christians can no longer find forgiveness for their sins, as Jesus will have ended his mediatorial work and left the heavenly sanctuary. Therefore, Christians still living at this time will have to cease sinning completely in order to remain saved.

Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil.

— The Great Controversy, chapter 24

Accordingly, the “cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary” during the investigative judgment was thought to involve a parallel “cleansing” of the lives of believers on earth.

While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God's people upon earth.

— The Great Controversy, chapter 24

This understanding was developed more fully by M. L. Andreasen in the first half of the 20th century, who expounded a theology of “last generation” perfection. It fell into disfavour among church leaders after the 1950s, however, with the publication of Questions on Doctrine especially. Although many “historic Adventists” continue to view the Investigative Judgment in this way, the traditional formulation is rarely found in modern church literature.

Critics emerge

Raymond Cottrell writes, the investigative judgment has received "more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined."

In 1887, Dudley M. Canright questioned the doctrine, internally to church workers. He chose to leave the church, and subsequently became its strongest critic. Since Canright, roughly every 15 or 20 years a prominent church leader has questioned the belief, and ended up out of the church.

Albion F. Ballenger was disfellowshipped around 1905, and later published his views. According to one author, the doctrine was changed as a reaction against Ballenger. After pressure over regarding some parts of the traditional view to be incorrect, William W. Fletcher resigned in 1930, and also later published his views. Louis R. Conradi had his ministerial credentials removed, and chose to leave the church in 1931.

William W. Prescott believed there were flaws, and shared this privately with a few church leaders, who became critics. He stated, "I have waited all these years for someone to make an adequate answer to Ballenger, Fletcher and others on their positions re. the sanctuary but I have not seen or heard it." He did stay in the church, unlike the others above. Harold E. Snide of what is now Southern Adventist University withdrew from the church around 1945. Robert A. Greive was an Australian leader who did not criticise the sanctuary, but instead promoted other beliefs which were hence viewed as incompatible with an investigative judgment. His credentials were removed in 1956, and he left the church.

Some critics such as Canright and Ballenger "embarked on vendettas against the church", whereas others – most notably Ford (see below) – remained supporters of the church.

The church at large affirmed the belief throughout this and its broader history also.

Evangelicals, Adventist Bible Commentary, silence

See also: Questions on Doctrine

In the 1950s, evangelical/fundamentalist Christians Donald Barnhouse and especially Walter Martin dialogued with Adventist leaders. (Key Adventist representatives produced the book Questions on Doctrine which gave answers to their questions about the church. Based on this theology, Martin and Barnhouse asserted that Adventists were indeed legitimate Christians. The book was not accepted by all Adventists themselves, and Martin and Barnhouse's conclusion was also controversial within their community; however the dialogues gradually led to Adventists been seen as much more mainstream or evangelical.) They believed Adventists were largely in harmony with the gospel, except for the sanctuary and Ellen White's authority. Barnhouse criticized,

"The [sanctuary] doctrine is, to me, the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history. [...] We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable. [...] [It is] unimportant and almost naïve."

In 1955, the editors of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary found it "hopelessly impossible" to combine both solid Bible scholarship with what Adventists believed and taught about Daniel 8 and 9, according to assistant editor Raymond Cottrell. In 1958 when revising Bible Readings for republication, he sought the opinion of 27 North American Adventist theologians who knew Hebrew, and also heads of religion departments, concerning the interpretation of Daniel 8:14. Without exception, the scholars responded by acknowledging "that there is no valid linguistic or contextual basis for the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14." After being notified, the General Conference appointed a secret "Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel", which met from 1961 to 1966 but was unable to reach a consensus. (In 2001 Cottrell would publicly criticized the doctrine, yet remained an Adventist. He also wrote papers and a lengthy book on the subject – Eschatology of Daniel. It remained unpublished, and Cottrell stated, "the manuscript awaits a climate of openness and objectivity in the church, which is essential to a fair examination of the facts.")

According to Ford, the belief had not been taught for several decades at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, but was revived in the 1960s by Robert Brinsmead, who linked it with perfectionism. In the 1970s, he attempted to convince leading Adventist theologians Desmond Ford and Edward Heppenstall to write a refutation of it. Brinsmead said he hesitated "blasting this theology because I thought someone from within Adventism should do it." After Ford and Heppenstall declined, Brinsmead authored the critical work 1844 Re-Examined. He later "swung from one extreme to the other and had moved over to Ford's position on righteousness by faith."

Shift

Edward Heppenstall, a leading theologian of the church, and others shifted the doctrine to be more grace-centered.

Desmond Ford

Main articles: Desmond Ford and Glacier View controversy

Australian Desmond Ford was a leading figure in the world church. He had quietly harbored some doubts regarding the doctrine since 1945, but was optimistic that some merit would be salvaged. In 1979 he addressed an Adventist Forums meeting at Pacific Union College critiquing the doctrine. This was viewed with concern and he was given 6 months of leave to write up his views. In August 1980 the "Sanctuary Review Committee" met at Glacier View Ranch in Colorado to discuss Ford's beliefs and future. His document (later published) is nearly 1000-pages long and titled, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgement.

Although the Glacier View meeting produced two consensus statements that were favorable to Ford's position, it also formulated a ten-point summary that highlighted major points of difference between Ford’s positions and traditional Adventist teaching. Ultimately, the church's administration chose to take action against Ford, revoking his ministerial credentials one month after Glacier View. Special issues of Ministry, Spectrum and other magazines were dedicated to covering the event. Ford formed the non-denominational ministry Good News Unlimited.

This became the largest controversy in the denomination's history. Many ministers resigned (or were sacked) in the wake of Glacier View because of their support for Ford's theology. By one count, 182 pastors in Australia and New Zealand left between 1980 and 1988, equivalent to "an astonishing 40 percent of the total ministerial workforce" in those countries. This amounts to "the most rapid and massive exit of Adventist pastors in the movement’s 150-year history" (although he cautions that the fallout may have involved more than one factor). He estimates 12,000 lay people left during the 1980s. Cottrell believes Ford has given more scholarly study to the belief and written more on it than any other person in history.

Subsequent history

Following Glacier View, the church formed an 18-member committee called the "Daniel and Revelation Study Committee" under the Biblical Research Institute, in order to defend the traditional Adventist understanding of the investigative judgment. This committee has produced the seven-volume Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, with main contributing authors William H. Shea and Frank B. Holbrook. Five cover the biblical Book of Daniel, and two the Book of Revelation.

The committee claims that the objections to the belief from critics have been answered. Cottrell, like Prescott in an earlier time, asserted his opinion they had not, and that the series is "disorganized". He also claimed the selection of members was biased, they were relatively unknown as scholars, and the committee's "conclusions" were already predetermined.

It is further speculated that a significant number of current ministers privately agree with Ford but refrain from speaking publicly on the issue for fear of losing their employment. Many in the Adventist church feel that the events of 1980 represent a major milestone in the theological development of the church, and that the effects of this controversy continue to be felt today.

Morris Venden's portrayal of the investigative judgment emphasizes the fairness of God as a judge, He emphasized the grace of God.

Recent critics include Dale Ratzlaff, who left the church following the Ford crisis, and former lecturer Jerry Gladson.

Recently, some Adventist scholars have described it simply as a "pre-advent judgment" – that is, the Last Judgment will occur prior to the Second Coming (or "Advent") of Jesus. This much is also affirmed by a minority of non-Adventist scholars.

Official belief statements

The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment is outlined in item 24, Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary, of the Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs. (Note: in the original Fundamental Beliefs of 1980 it was item 23, but when item 11 was added by the General Conference in 2005 it was changed to item 24.)

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. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.)

Previous statements

The doctrine also featured in previous statements of belief.

That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, synchronising with the time of the proclamation of the third message, is a time of investigative judgment, first with reference to the dead, and at the close of probation with reference to the living, to determine who of the myriads now sleeping in the dust of the earth are worthy of a part in the first resurrection, and who of its living multitudes are worthy of translation—points which must be determined before the Lord appears.

Proposition XVIII, Fundamental Principles taught and practiced by Seventh-day Adventists, 1872.

That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, synchronising with the period of the proclamation of the message of Revelation 14, is a time of investigative judgment, first with reference to the dead, and secondly with reference to the living. This investigative judgment determines who of the myriads sleeping in the dust of the earth are worthy of a part in the first resurrection, and who of its living multitudes are worthy of translation.

Item 16, Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, 1931.

Other statements and significant publications

The constitution of the Adventist Theological Society affirms the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.

"e. The Society affirms a real sanctuary in heaven and the pre-advent judgment of believers beginning in 1844, based upon the historicist view of prophecy and the year-day principle as taught in Scripture."

Official Adventist publications such as Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine[1] (1957) and Seventh-day Adventists believe (1988) defend the church's traditional teaching.

Documents publicly available on the Biblical Research Institute's website[2] support and defend the traditional doctrine with reference to Scripture.

The 2006 third quarter Adult Bible Study Guide produced by the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference, was entitled The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment, and strongly upholds and defends the church's traditional 1844 doctrine. The preface to the study guide states that "From this doctrine, perhaps more than any other, our distinct identity as Seventh-day Adventists arises."[3]

Outline of the Doctrine

Biblical basis

The main Biblical texts quoted by Seventh-day Adventists in support of the doctrine of the Investigative Judgement are Daniel 7:9-10; 1 Peter 4:17; and Revelation 14:6, 7; 20:12.

As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened. Daniel 7:9, 10 (NIV)

For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 1 Peter 4:17 (NIV)

Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come." Revelation 14:6-7 (NIV)

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. Revelation 20:12 (NIV)

Adventists also believe that the Investigative Judgment is depicted in the parable of the wedding banquet, in Matthew 22:1–14. Professing Christians are represented by the wedding guests, and the judgment is represented by the King's inspection of the guests (verses 10, 11). In order to pass the judgment, believers must be wearing the robe of Christ's righteousness, represented by the wedding garments (verses 11, 12).

Derivation of 1844 date

The derivation of the 1844 date for the commencement of the investigative judgment is explained in detail in Adventist publications such as Seventh-day Adventists Believe.

Summary

• Seventy "week" period (Daniel 9:24–27ff.) is held to begin in 457 B.C., the seventh year of Artaxerxes I.
• "2300 evenings and mornings" period (Daniel 8:13–14) is held to commence in the same year.
• 2300 days are held to correspond to 2300 years (see Day-year principle)
• 457 B.C. add 2300 years gives 1844 AD.

Detailed explanation

Beginning of the 70 Weeks: The third decree in 457 BC marks beginning of 70 weeks. King reigns were counted from New Year to New Year following an 'Accession Year'. The Persian New Year began in Nisan (March-April). The Jewish civil New Year began in Tishri (September-October).

The 2300 day prophecy time line.

The beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy started with the decree by Artaxerxes I that allowed for Jerusalem to be restored and rebuilt . Two previous decrees only dealt with the construction of the Temple . The beginning of the 70 weeks occurred in 457 BC during Artaxerxes' 7th year as counted by the Jewish civil calendar.

According to Adventist eschatology, the 70 weeks were "decreed" (or "cut off", Heb.chathak) for the Jewish people from the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. The 70 weeks, therefore, marks the first part of the 2300-day prophecy. This period of 490 years is understood to terminate in AD 34 [= 457 BC add (70 x 7) plus 1 year (for switch from BC to AD)], the year that Paul began taking the gospel to the Gentiles. The 2300 days (years) finishes 1810 [= 2300 subtract 490] years later, in 1844.

While no specific date is given in official belief statements, many Adventists hold October 22, 1844 as the starting date for the investigative judgment. Originally Miller set the end of the 2300 days between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. In mid-1844, Miller stated "I confess my error, and acknowledge my disappointment: Yet I still believe that the day of the Lord is near." In February, 1844, Samuel S. Snow began preaching the end of the 2300 days to be in the Fall of 1844. He soon settled on October 22. In an August camp meeting, October 22 took hold of the Adventists in New England. Miller was one of the last to accept the date. W. W. Prescott suggested that the investigative judgment occurred in the spring, and not autumn, but his view was rejected.

The judgment process

According to Adventist teaching, the works of all men and women are written down in "books of record", kept in heaven. During the investigative judgment, these books will be opened (as described in Daniel 7:10 and Revelation 20:12), and the lives of all professed believers, living and dead, will be examined to determine who is truly worthy of salvation. "The books of record in heaven, in which the names and the deeds of men are registered, are to determine the decisions of the judgment." "As the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. Beginning with those who first lived upon the earth, our Advocate presents the cases of each successive generation, and closes with the living. Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated."

The judgment will show those who are authentic believers in God from those who are not. "All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life." On the other hand, "When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life, and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God's remembrance." "Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner in the day of God."

During the judgment, Satan will bring accusations of transgression and unbelief against believers, while Jesus acts as defense. "Jesus will appear as their advocate, to plead in their behalf before God." "While Jesus is pleading for the subjects of His grace, Satan accuses them before God as transgressors." The good news of the judgment is that Jesus is not only the Attorney, but He is also the Judge.(John 5:22) With Jesus as Attorney and Judge there is nothing to fear.

For a long time people have had held the primitive concept that the pre-advent judgment is primarily concerned with God judging mankind and deciding their eternal destiny. He 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.

But, beginning in the 1950s and on through the 1970s, Heppenstahl began teaching that there were bigger issues involved in the pre-advent judgment than just humans. Heppenstahl’s protégés, Hans LaRondelle, Raoul Dederen and Morris Venden, through the 70s and 80s, taught an understanding of the purpose of the pre-advent judgment that includes humans, the entire universe, and even God Himself.

For the human race

They taught that the pre-advent judgment was conducted so the saved could find answers to any questions that may arise concerning the salvation acquaintances, or the lack there of. Mankind can only look at the outward appearance, not being able to perceive true motives. The records of the investigative judgment will be open for all to examine. All will be able to then see, as God can, the true motives of men. In this way they will be present at the pre-advent judgment.

These teachers and preachers taught that God treats the human race as intelligent beings—that 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 made this provision so that people may thoughtfully, honestly say, "Great and marvelous are thy works, ...just and true are your ways." God is interested not only in justifying sinners, but also in being just at the same time. The cross and the complete atonement justify God in His actions.

The Accuser

File:TheWayItWas.jpg

The Way It Was: Morris Venden's famous parable illustrating the importance of the pre-advent investigative judgment

Besides being for the human race, that pre-advent judgment is demanded by the prosecutor of man—the accuser of God's people (Revelation 12)—the enemy, the dragon, the serpent called the Devil and Satan. He must get his opportunity to prove to all that he is right and God is wrong. Yet there will come a time when even the devil 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

The pre-advent judgment reveals to the universe those who have accepted and continue to accept God’s justifying grace. All who watch need the assurance that justice is being dealt. The pre-advent judgment justifies God, in front of all, in forgiving the ones who get forgiven. And not forgiving those who do not get forgiven. God doesn't force His forgiveness on anybody. It must be freely and continually accepted.

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, by the "accuser of the brethren" whom has been hurling his accusations at God as unfair, unjust, and unreasonable. In order for God to be vindicated, in order for the entire universe, including the human race, 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.

Relationship to the Great Controversy

The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment is closely linked to the Great Controversy theme, another unique Adventist teaching. As the judgment proceeds, angels and "heavenly intelligences" will watch closely. "The deepest interest manifested among men in the decisions of earthly tribunals but faintly represents the interest evinced in the heavenly courts when the names entered in the book of life come up in review before the Judge of all the earth." The result of the judgment, in separating out true from false believers, "vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus" (quoted from 28 fundamental beliefs). "All [will] come to understand and agree that God is right; that He has no responsibility for the sin problem. His character will emerge unassailable, and His government of love will be reaffirmed."

Relationship to the sanctuary doctrine

As has been mentioned, the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment is an integral part of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary. As true believers are found righteous in the judgment, their sins are removed or "blotted" from record by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. This is believed to have been foreshadowed by the work of the High Priest in the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). The investigative judgment is the final phase of Christ's atoning work, which began on the cross and continued after his ascension in the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary.

Relationship to eschatology

Main article: Seventh-day Adventist eschatology

Although the time of the commencement of the Investigative Judgment is clear (1844), no one can know when it will end. "The work of the investigative judgment and the blotting out of sins is to be accomplished before the second advent of the Lord." However, "silently, unnoticed as the midnight thief, will come the decisive hour which marks the fixing of every man's destiny, the final withdrawal of mercy's offer to guilty men."

The end of the Investigative Judgment is termed "the close of probation" by Seventh-day Adventists. At this point in time, "the destiny of all will have been decided for life or death". There will be no further opportunity for unbelievers to repent and be saved. Revelation 22:11 is considered to describe the close of probation: "Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."

Following the close of probation will be a "time of trouble", which will be a period of intense conflict and persecution for God's people. Shortly afterward, Christ will return in glory and raise the righteous dead (the "first resurrection"), whom he will take to heaven together with the righteous living to share his millennial reign. (Just who these "righteous" are will, of course, have been revealed during the course of the investigative judgment.) At the end of the millennium, Christ will again return to earth to raise the wicked (the "second resurrection"). At this time the books will be open for all (sinner and repentant alike) to see and judge. Once all have acknowledged the justice and love of God, the execution of the judgment proceeds—those who accepted forgiveness to eternal life—those who rejected forgiveness to eternal nothingness.

Criticism of the doctrine

The Investigative Judgment is one of the most heavily criticised teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Aside from criticism by non-Adventist theologians, many progressive Adventists disagree with the doctrine of the investigative judgment as it is traditionally taught by the church. The progressive periodicals Spectrum and Adventist Today have on various occasions published alternative views or criticisms of the doctrine.

Criticism has been levelled at the doctrine at the following points:

Lack of biblical basis—Many have argued that the doctrine is based almost exclusively on the writings of Ellen G. White, who in turn drew heavily from Uriah Smith, and that there is very little (if any) scriptural support for it. It was originally based on the King James Version of the Bible, which is not considered the best translation today. Miller used an English Bible concordance, and found word parallels in English when sometimes the original language was different. It has been criticized for relying on the "prooftext" method, in which disparate Bible verses are linked but sometimes out of context.

Questionable origins—Critics have been quick to draw attention to the fact that the sanctuary doctrine did not initially arise from careful biblical exegesis, but as a response to William Miller’s 1844 mistake. Donald Barnhouse denounced the doctrine as "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history". Likewise, religion scholar Anthony Hoekema stated that the doctrine was "simply a way out of an embarrassing predicament" and therefore "a doctrine built on a mistake". It has been pointed out that the doctrine was rejected by Miller himself.

Unorthodox interpretation of prophecy—The 1844 date is based on a highly unorthodox interpretation of a single biblical verse (Daniel 8:14); no other Christian denomination recognises this date as being significant. The “day-year principle” has been abandoned by almost all modern scholars outside of Seventh-day Adventism.

According to many modern commentators, Daniel 8:14 refers to 2300 evening and morning sacrifices, and therefore covers a period of 1,150 days (or 3.5 years). This prophecy refers to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes which began in 167 B.C. and ended 3.5 years later when the Maccabees regained control of the temple and reinstituted their services.

Unorthodox view of the Atonement—Protestant Christianity has traditionally taught that Jesus Christ performed his work of atonement on the Cross, and that his sacrificial death brought to fulfillment the entire Old Testament sacrificial system, including the Day of Atonement. The idea that the Day of Atonement does not meet its antitype until 18 centuries after Jesus' crucifixion is a major deviation from historic Christian theology.

Lack of support from Christian tradition—No church besides the Seventh-day Adventist denomination teaches this doctrine, and no theologian outside the Adventist church has ever found evidence for it in the Bible. It is difficult to see how such a significant doctrine could be so widely overlooked.

Faith vs. works—the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment seems to give works an undue place in salvation. On a strict reading of Ellen G. White, a Christian might be disqualified from salvation by failing to repent of every single sin. This seems to contradict the Reformation understanding of "salvation by grace through faith alone".

Assurance of salvation—if a Christian must repent of every single sin to be saved, and his or her works are judged to determine his or her eligibility for salvation, and confessed sins remain on record until each individual "passes" the judgment, it would seem impossible to ever have assurance of salvation.

Passage of time – Although the original exponents of the doctrine expected the investigative judgment to be a very brief period, more than 150 years have now passed since the year 1844. The ever increasing span of time between 1844 and the second coming casts significant doubt on the validity of the belief.

Lack of confidence within Adventism – Some critics, including Desmond Ford and Raymond F. Cottrell, have alleged that the investigative judgment doctrine has very weak support within Adventist academia. Among other things, they point to the “Committee on Problems in the book of Daniel”, convened in the 1960s, which failed to produce any conclusions despite 5 years of labour. However, see the 7 volumes produced by the Biblical Research Institute on Daniel & Revelation.

According to Cottrell,

"In the years immediately following October 22, 1844 the traditional sanctuary doctrine was an important asset for stabilizing the faith of disappointed Adventists. Today it is an equally significant liability and deterrent to the faith, confidence, and salvation of biblically literate Adventists and non-Adventists alike. It was present truth following the great disappointment on October 22, 1844. It is not present truth in the year of our Lord 2002. Quod erat demonstrandum!"

Cottrell also claimed that disciplining of ordained ministers due to theology was inconsistent – that one may believe Christ was a created being, legalism or works-oriented salvation, or the non-literalness of the Genesis creation account without losing their credentials; yet lists many who have lost their jobs regarding the investigative judgment.

Lack of pastoral relevance—Individuals such as Desmond Ford and John McLarty have said that in practice, the investigative judgment is not preached in churches. Larty claims that the doctrine "is not helpful in providing spiritual care for real people in the real world".

Response from other Christian churches

Non-Adventist Christian churches and theologians have repeatedly found that the investigative judgment is an aberrational doctrine with which they cannot agree. In a discussion between Adventist leaders and representatives from the World Evangelical Alliance in August 2007, the investigative judgment was noted as one of three points of doctrinal disagreement (the other two being the Sabbath and the authoritative role of Ellen G. White).

Counter-arguments

Lack of biblical basis—This criticism is no longer valid because Adventist scholars have produced an extensive treatment of the doctrine purely on the basis of Scripture alone.

Aberrant interpretation of prophecy—Before 1844 many Protestant and Catholic theologians supported the day-year principle and, like Miller, advocated that (Daniel 8:14) indeed ends in 1844.

Atonement not complete at the cross—This criticism is not entirely valid. Many Protestant and Catholic scholars, including some early church fathers, have noted the high priestly ministry of Christ in heaven on the basis of the book of Hebrews. The Adventist link with atonement derives from their Wesleyan-Arminian roots by extending the Wesleyan-Lutheran understanding of the atonement to include the high priestly ministry. Thus, Adventist use the term "atonement" more broadly than the traditional theology. W. G. C. Murdock, former dean of the SDA theological seminary, stated, "Seventh-day Adventists have always believed in a complete atonement that is not completed." The sacrifice of Jesus was indeed complete at the cross. But His sacrifice has not yet completed repairing broken relationships cause by sin, which will only occur after the end of the sinful world.

Salvation by works—Salvation is by faith alone, but faith without works is dead. Several times in Luke Jesus said "If you love me keep my commandments." Only those who have been saved could ever love Jesus. So keeping his commands is not a condition to salvation, rather, keeping his commands comes from obedience out of love. These, works of obedience come about by faith through love in the Saviour.

Undermining of assurance—This criticism comes mostly from Calvinistic circles, which often teaches the concept of "once saved, always saved" as the basis for assurance of salvation. Adventists reject this Calvinistic position, teaching the Arminian concept of assurance of salvation instead. Many Protestant churches teach forensic justification, which concept Adventists find an inadequate description of righteousness by faith.

Passage of time since 1844—Adventists counter this criticism by noting that the close of probation does not come before the fulfilment of certain eschatological prophecies predicted in the Book of Revelation. Judgement continues in heaven as long as there are individuals that accept salvation until the close of probation.

Adventists reject Calvinistic predestination. Such a decision makes judgement a necessary part of the divine plan of salvation (Wesleyan-Arminian concept). Adventists use the term "atonement" more broadly than traditional theology, which has been a source of some undue criticism.

See also

• SDA interpretation of Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy
• Heavenly sanctuary
• Seventh-day Adventist eschatology
• Seventh-day Adventist theology
• History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
• Desmond Ford
• Pre-advent judgment

References

• Tarling, Lowell R. (1981). "The Sanctuary". The Edges of Seventh-day Adventism: A Study of Separatist Groups Emerging from the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1844–1980). Barragga Bay, Bermagui South, NSW: Galilee Publications. pp. 171–185. ISBN 0 9593457 0 1.
• Schwarz, Richard W. (2000) [1979]. Light Bearers (Revised ed.). Silver Spring, Maryland: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Department of Education. ISBN 0-8163-1795-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Roy Adams, The Sanctuary Doctrine: Three Approaches in the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, Andrews University Press, 1981). See also "After the Cross", Adventist World October 2008; "The Pre-Advent Judgment", Adventist World August 2007
• Gary Land, Historical Dictionary of Seventh-day Adventists, bibliography p347–48

External links

General:

• "The Essence of Adventism: Part E — The Essence of the Sanctuary Teaching" by Norman H. Young. SDANet AtIssue
• "The Investigative Judgment, 1844–2008: A Short, Documented History of an Adventist Teaching" by Arthur Patrick. SDANet AtIssue
• 1844 Lesson Commentaries collection from the Adventist Today website
• Bibliography by Gary Shearer
• Investigative judgment articles as catalogued by the Seventh-day Adventist Periodical Index (SDAPI)

Supportive:

• "Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary", chapter 23 in Seventh-day Adventists Believe... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (1988 edition), by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Ministerial Association
• "Sanctuary" documents from the Biblical Research Institute
• Light in the Shadows- An Overview of the Doctrine of the Sanctuary, by Frank B. Holbrook, 1983.
• Chapter 23: What is the Sanctuary? in The Great Controversy by Ellen White
• Sanctuary articles from the Biblical Research Institute
• The ABCs of Dr. Desmond Ford's Theology from the Biblical Research Institute
• The sanctuary pivotal teaching of Adventism by Le Roy Edwin Froom. Ministry 1982, v55, Aug 1, p18-20
• "The Pre-Advent Judgment: Should we be scared? Or filled with hope?" and "After the Cross: Ministering from the nerve center of the universe", both by 
Roy Adams in Adventist World

Critical:

• Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgement by Desmond Ford
• The "Sanctuary Doctrine" – Asset or Liability? by Raymond Cottrell
• 1844 Lesson Commentaries on the Sabbath School Lessons; Adventist Today website
• 1844 Re-Examined by Robert Brinsmead in Present Truth Magazine
• Investigating the Investigative Judgment, Masters thesis by Larry Pahl