Investigative judgment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventism

Background and history Christianity · Protestantism Anabaptists · Restorationism Pietism · Millerites Great Disappointment Fundamentalism · Evangelicalism

People Ellen G. White James White · Joseph Bates J. N. Andrews · Uriah Smith J. H. Kellogg · M. L. Andreasen Edward Heppenstall

Distinctive teachings Sabbath · Conditional Immortality Historicism · Premillennialism Investigative judgment · Remnant Three Angels' Messages Eschatology

Criticism Criticism of Ellen White

Other Adventists Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement Davidian SDA (Shepherd's Rod) Advent Christian Church Church of God General Conference This box: view • talk • edit

The Investigative Judgment is a unique Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, which asserts that a judgment of professed Christian believers has been in progress since 1844. The doctrine is intimately related to the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and 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 criticising the doctrine. Whilst the church has consolidated its official position since 1980, a considerable portion of its membership (especially those within the progressive wing) continue to be critical of the teaching.

Contents 1 History 1.1 Origins 1.2 Controversy 2 Official belief statements 2.1 Previous statements 2.2 Other statements and significant publications 3 Outline of the Doctrine 3.1 Biblical basis 3.2 Derivation of 1844 date 3.3 The judgment process 3.4 Relationship to the Great Controversy 3.5 Relationship to the sanctuary doctrine 3.6 Relationship to eschatology 4 Traditional Formulation 5 Criticism of the doctrine 5.1 Response from other Christian churches 5.2 Counter-arguments 6 See also 7 External links 8 References 9 Sources

[edit] History

See also: History of the Seventh-day Adventist church

[edit] Origins

The Millerite movement in the USA expected Jesus Christ to return to earth on October 22, 1844, based on their interpretation of Daniel 8:14. When this did not occur (the Great Disappointment), Owen Crosier and certain other members of the movement concluded that the event predicted by Daniel 8:14 was not the return of Christ, but rather Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary.^[1] This new conviction formed the foundation of the Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary, and the people who held it became the nucleus of the emerging Seventh-day Adventist church.

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.^[1] 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.^[1]

[edit] Controversy

See also: Glacier View controversy

According to Desmond Ford, key figures in Adventism have criticized the doctrine since the late nineteenth century.^[2]

In the 1950s, Adventist Bible Commentary editor Raymond F. Cottrell sought the opinion of 27 North American Adventist scholars 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."^[3][4][5] This led the Adventist General Conference to appoint a "problems in the book of Daniel" committee which attempted to study the issue but was unable to reach a consensus.^[4]

According to Desmond Ford, it 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.^[6] Brinsmead later gave up the view. In the 1970s, he attempted to convince leading Adventist theologians Desmond Ford and Edward Heppenstall to write a refutation of it.^[7] Brinsmead said he hesitated "blasting this theology because I thought someone from within Adventism should do it."^[7] After Ford and Heppenstall declined, Brinsmead returned to Australia and wrote the critical work 1844 Re-Examined.^[7]

A major denominational controversy erupted in 1980, following an address by Ford in October 1979 at Pacific Union College.^[8] The church’s leadership responded to Ford's public criticism of the doctrine by summoning him to a meeting of 111 theologians and church administrators to evaluate his views. The meeting took place at Glacier View Ranch in Colorado, United States from 11-15 August 1980. Ford presented his views to the Glacier View attendees in a 900 page document entitled Daniel 8:14, the Investigative Judgment, and the Kingdom of God.

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.^[9] Ultimately, the church's administration chose to take action against Ford, revoking his ministerial credentials one month after Glacier View.

Following Glacier View, the Adventist church formed a committee called the "Daniel and Revelation Study Committee" in order to defend the traditional Adventist understanding of the investigative judgment. This committee has produced a seven volume series, which is available from the General Conference's Biblical Research Institute[1].

It is widely held that many denominational ministers resigned (or were sacked) in the wake of Glacier View, because of their support for Ford's theology.^[10][11] 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.^[12] 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.^[13]

[edit] 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.^[14] (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.)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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."^[15]

Official Adventist publications such as Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine[2] (1957) and Seventh-day Adventists believe (1988) defend the church's traditional teaching.

Documents publicly available on the Biblical Research Institute's website[3] support and defend the traditional doctrine with reference to Scripture.

The 2006 third quarter Adult Bible Study Guide[4], 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."[5]

[edit] Outline of the Doctrine

[edit] 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 20:12.^[14]

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)

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).^[16]

[edit] Derivation of 1844 date

See also: Day-year principle

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. The 1844 date is based principally upon Daniel 8:14, and is arrived at in a series of steps. Firstly, it is observed that Daniel 8:14 gives "2300 evenings and mornings" until the sanctuary is cleansed. Secondly, by assuming that a day represents a year in prophecy, the "2300 evenings and mornings" are held to represent a period of 2300 years. Thirdly, the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 are interpreted as beginning in 457 B.C., during the reign of Artaxerxes I. Fourthly, it is considered that Daniel 8 and 9 are linked prophecies, and therefore the "2300 evenings and mornings" have the same starting point as the seventy weeks. Finally, when 2300 years is added to 457 B.C., the year arrived at is A.D. 1844.^[17]

While no specific date is given in official belief statements, many Adventists hold the original date determined by Miller (22nd October, 1844) as the starting date for the investigative judgment. W. W. Prescott suggested that the investigative judgment occurred in the spring, and not autumn,^[18] but his view was rejected.

[edit] 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 Christians, living and dead, will be examined to determine who is truly worthy of salvation.^[19] "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."^[20]

The judgment will separate out those who are authentic believers in Christ 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."^[20]

During the judgment, Satan will attempt to accuse Christians of transgression and unbelief, 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."^[20]

[edit] 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."^[20] 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."^[21]

[edit] 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.^[19]

[edit] 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."^[20]

The end of the Investigative Judgment is termed "the close of probation" by Seventh-day Adventists.^[19] At this point in time, "the destiny of all will have been decided for life or death"^[20]. 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"^[22], which will be a period of intense conflict and persecution for God's people. Shortly afterwards, 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 determined in 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") and pronounce final condemnation upon them. This is known as the “executive” (as opposed to the “investigative”) phase of the judgment.

[edit] Traditional Formulation

For early Adventists, the Investigative Judgment was closely aligned to their understanding of soteriology 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. Although many “historic Adventists” continue to view the Investigative Judgment in this way, the traditional formulation is rarely found in modern church literature.

[edit] 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.^[23] 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.

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".^[24] 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".^[25] It has been pointed out that the doctrine was rejected by Miller himself.^[25]

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 (with the possible exception of the Jehovah's Witnesses). The “day-year principle” has been abandoned by almost all modern scholars outside of Seventh-day Adventism.

According to many Christian scholars, 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.^[26]

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.^[25]

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 Pauline and Reformation understanding of "salvation by grace through faith alone".^[27]

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.^[28]

Lack of confidence within Adventism – Some critics, including Desmond Ford and Raymond F. Cottrell,^[4] 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.^[4]

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!"^[29]

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.^[30]

Lack of pastoral relevance - Individuals such as Desmond Ford^[31] 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".^[32]

[edit] 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).^[33]

[edit] Counter-arguments

Lack of biblical basis - This criticism is no longer valid, because Adventist scholars have produced quite an extensive treatment of the doctrine purely on the basis of Scripture alone.^[34]

Aberrant interpretation of prophecy - However, 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.

Salvation by works - Adventists have countered this criticism on the basis that Scripture also teaches that judgment is by works and not by faith alone.

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 Arminian concept of assurance of salvation instead. Many Protestant churches teach forensic justification, which concept Adventists find inadequote 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.

[edit] See also

• Heavenly sanctuary
• Seventh-day Adventist eschatology
• Seventh-day Adventist theology
• History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
• Desmond Ford
• Pre-advent judgment

[edit] External links

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
• 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

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

[edit] References

[edit] Sources

• Schwarz, Richard W.; Greenleaf, Floyd [1979] (2000). Light Bearers, Revised Edition, Silver Spring, Maryland: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Department of Education. ISBN 0-8163-1795-X.