|
Seventh-day Adventism |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
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.[1][2] It is a major component of the broader Adventist understanding of the "heavenly sanctuary", and the two are sometimes spoken of interchangeably.
The investigative judgment teaching was the focus of controversy within the denomination in 1980, when Adventist theologian Desmond Ford was dismissed by the church after openly criticizing the doctrine. While the Adventist mainstream believe in the doctrine and the church has reaffirmed its basic position on the doctrine since 1980, some of those within the church's more liberal progressive wing continue to be critical of the teaching.
According to a 2002 worldwide survey, local church leaders estimated 86% of church members accept the doctrine, although 35% believe there may be more than one interpretation of the sanctuary belief.[3]
Contents |
The belief has evolved over time, but the basis is the same, the time of Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary where the judgement work is done.[4] 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.[5] "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..."[6]
William Miller and his followers, the Millerite Adventist movement consisted of a group of about 50,000 believers[7] expecting Jesus Christ to return to earth on October 22, 1844. They 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).[8]
When Jesus did not return as expected ( an event Adventists call the "Great Disappointment") several alternative interpretations of the prophecy were put forward. The majority of Millerites abandoned the 1844 date, however about 50 members[9] out of the larger group of 50,000 ( including Hiram Edson and O. R. L. Crosier) 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.[10] Edson had claimed to have a vision in a cornfield the day after the Great Disappointment, which resulted in a series of Bible studies with other Millerites to test the validity of his solution.
This became the foundation for the Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary, and the people who held it became the nucleus of what would emerge from other "Adventist" groups as the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The revelation was greatly encouraging for the [Seventh-day] 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)[11] She also predicted that criticism of the belief would come.[12]
It spread through the members, as James and Ellen White supported the belief from Edson, Crosier, and also Uriah Smith. Some critics outside the Adventist church organization accuse Ellen White of borrowing from Smith's work The Sanctuary in her book titled Patriarchs and Prophets. However that claim was historically denied by James White as late as 1851.[13]
After the passing of the Oct 22 date - the Millerites initially held that although the second coming of Christ had not occurred on Oct 22, the "close of probation" had occurred on that day. They based this belief on their understanding of Matthew 25 (the parable of the 10 virgins) and the shut door in that parable. They believed it was too late to be saved if one had not been through the Millerite experience and they still expected that Jesus would return to Earth very shortly, within their lifetimes. Only after they had arrived at a new insight on the cleansing of the sanctuary could they rid themselves of their faulty concept of the shut door.[14] This "shut-door" belief was linked to the sanctuary doctrine,.[15] The shut-door aspect was abandoned by the early 1850s.
Robert W. Olson wrote in a formative 1982 document whilst White Estate director:
Over time, Adventists came to believe that the "cleansing" of the heavenly sanctuary involves a work of judgment as depicted in Daniel 7's courtroom scene prior to the second coming of Christ. 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.[10] 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.[10]
For early Adventists, the Investigative Judgment was closely aligned to their understanding of how one is saved with its strong emphasis on free will and 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 expounded by M. L. Andreasen, in his theology of “last generation” perfection.
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."[15]
In 1887, Dudley M. Canright questioned the doctrine, internally to church workers. He chose to leave the church, and subsequently became its strongest critic.[15][17] Since Canright, roughly every 15 or 20 years a prominent church leader has questioned the belief, and ended up out of the church.[15]
Albion F. Ballenger was disfellowshipped around 1905, and later published his views.[15][18] According to one author, the doctrine was changed as a reaction against Ballenger.[19] After pressure over regarding some parts of the traditional view to be incorrect, William Fletcher resigned in 1930, and also later published his views.[15][20] Louis R. Conradi had his ministerial credentials removed, and chose to leave the church in 1931.[21]
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."[22] 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.[15] 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.[23]
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.[15]
The church at large affirmed the belief throughout this and its broader history also.
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 being 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,
In 1955, according to Raymond Cottrell, 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. 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."[25][26][27][28] 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.[27] (In 2001 Cottrell would publicly criticized the doctrine, yet remained an Adventist. He also wrote papers[29] 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.")[30]
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.[31] Yet Brinsmead came to reject it, and in the 1970s attempted to convince leading Adventist theologians Desmond Ford and Edward Heppenstall to write a refutation of it.[32] Brinsmead said he hesitated "blasting this theology because I thought someone from within Adventism should do it."[32] After Ford and Heppenstall declined, Brinsmead authored the critical work 1844 Re-Examined.[32] He later "swung from one extreme to the other and had moved over to Ford's position on righteousness by faith."[33]
Some feel that Edward Heppenstall, a leading theologian of the church, and others shifted the emphasis of the Investigative judgment doctrine to be more grace-centered.
Australian Desmond Ford was a theologian in the church. In 1979 he addressed an Adventist Forums meeting at Pacific Union College critiquing the doctrine.[34] 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.[35] 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.[36] Ford formed the non-denominational ministry Good News Unlimited.
This became controversial and some ministers resigned in the wake of Glacier View because of their support for Ford's theology.[37] 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.[38] This amounts to "the most rapid and massive exit of Adventist pastors in the movement’s 150-year history"[39] (although he cautions that the fallout may have involved more than one factor). Cottrell believes Ford has given more scholarly study to the belief and written more on it than any other person in history.[15]
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.[15] This committee has produced the seven-volume Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, with main contributing authors William H. Shea and Frank B. Holbrook.[40] 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.[15]
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.[41] Some 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.[42]
Morris Venden's portrayal of the investigative judgment emphasizes the fairness of God as a judge,[43] He emphasized the grace of God.
Recent critics include Dale Ratzlaff, who left the church following the Ford crisis,[44] and former lecturer Jerry Gladson.[45]
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.
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.[46] (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.)
The doctrine as featured in the earlier published beliefs was often spread out across multiple statements. For example, in the beliefs published in 1872 the wording now found in belief 24 titled "Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary", was spread out over belief statements 2, 9, 10 and 18 (as designated at that time by Roman numerals).
In the 1931 statement of beliefs, the beliefs comprising the Investigative Judgment doctrine were placed in sequence as statements 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Every five years the Adventist World Church meets in session to review current issues, add doctrinal statements and clarify church positions. Although a significant restatement of the published beliefs took place in 1980 General Conference session, the church has chosen to leave the doctrinal statement on the Investigative judgment virtually unchanged from its formulation in the 1870s.
The constitution of the Adventist Theological Society affirms the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.
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 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."[4]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that texts such as Hebrews 8:1-2 teach that the two-compartment design of the earthly sanctuary built by Moses, was in fact a model patterned after the Heavenly Sanctuary "which the Lord pitched not man" Hebrews 8:2 (NASB). They believe that statements in Hebrews 7:17-28 as well as statements found in Hebrews chapters 8 and 9, reveal that Christ entered the first phase of His Heavenly ministry (in the Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary) as our High Priest after His bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven. According to this view the 2300 days (years) found in Daniel 8:13-14 point to the date when Christ's Most Holy Place ministry in Heaven would start. This is the event typified by the Day of Atonement described in Leviticus 16 and in Levitcus 23:26-32. The Investigative Judgment doctrine states that in 1844 Christ moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place in heaven as described in Daniel 7:13-14, and that this began the judgment described in Daniel 7:9-10. .[46]
The main Biblical texts quoted by Seventh-day Adventists in support of the doctrine of the Investigative Judgement being applicable to the professed people of God in all ages, are Daniel 7:9-10; 1 Peter 4:17; and Revelation 14:6, 7; 20:12.[46]
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).[48]
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.
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.[50] W. W. Prescott suggested that the investigative judgment occurred in the spring, and not autumn,[51] but his view was rejected.[52]
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.[53] "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."[54]
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."[54]
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."[54] 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.[55]
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 does not need years and years to pore over the books.[56]
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.[57]
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 thereof. 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 does not 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.
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
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 does not force His forgiveness on anybody. It must be freely and continually accepted.
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" who 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.
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."[54] 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."[58]
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.[53]
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."[54]
The end of the Investigative Judgment is termed "the close of probation" by Seventh-day Adventists.[53] At this point in time, "the destiny of all will have been decided for life or death".[54] 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",[59] 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.
The Investigative Judgment teaching of the Seventh-day Adventist church has been extensively criticized. Aside from criticism by non-Adventist theologians, some progressive Adventists disagree with the doctrine of the investigative judgment as it is traditionally taught by the church.[60] 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—Some 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.[15] Miller used an English Bible concordance, and found word parallels in English when sometimes the original language was different.[15] It has been criticized for relying on the "prooftext" method, in which disparate Bible verses are linked but sometimes out of context.[15]
Questionable origins—Critics have drawn attention to the fact that the sanctuary doctrine did not initially arise from 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".[61] 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".[62] It has been pointed out that the doctrine was rejected by Miller himself.[62]
Unusual interpretation of prophecy — The 1844 date is based on an interpretation of a biblical verse (Daniel 8:14) that is exclusive to the Millerite/Adventist movement. According to modern Preterist commentators, Daniel 8:14 refers to 2300 evening and morning sacrifices, and therefore covers a period of 1,150 days (or 3.5 years); it 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.[63]
Different 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 deviation from historic Christian theology.[64]
Lack of support from Christian tradition—No church besides the Seventh-day Adventist denomination teaches this doctrine. It is difficult to see how such a significant doctrine could be so widely overlooked.[62]
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".[65]
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.[66]
Lack of confidence within Adventism – Raymond F. Cottrell,[27] 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.[27] However, see the 7 volumes produced by the Biblical Research Institute on Daniel & Revelation.[67]
According to Cottrell,
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.[68]
Lack of pastoral relevance—Individuals such as Desmond Ford[69] and John McLarty have said that in practice, the investigative judgment is not preached in churches. McLarty claims that the doctrine "is not helpful in providing spiritual care for real people in the real world".[70]
Non-Adventist Christian churches and theologians have found that the investigative judgment is a 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).[71]
Lack of biblical basis—According to apologists this criticism is no longer valid because Adventist scholars have produced an extensive treatment of the doctrine purely on the basis of Scripture alone.[72]
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—According to apologists this criticism is not entirely valid. The Adventist publication "The 27 Fundamental Beliefs" (pages 110-111) affirms that Christ's atoning sacrifice was completed at the cross and so also does the book Questions on Doctrine (page 375) affirm the Adventist belief that the death of Christ as our Atoning Sacrifice was completed once for all. However Adventists embrace the broad view of the Leviticus 16 "Day of Atonement" model where the scope for the term "Atonement" involves not only the sacrifice of the sin offering (Christ's completed atoning sacrifice) - but also the work of the High Priest in the Sanctuary. 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.[73]
Salvation by works—Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in salvation by works. Adventist doctrine states that salvation is by faith alone,[74] but they note that faith without works is dead as we find in James 2. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said "If you love me keep my commandments." Only those who have been born-again and walk in the Spirit (Romans 8:4) could ever love Jesus. Adventists point out that under the New Covenant (as listed in Hebrews chapter 8) the saints receive the Law of God written on the heart and mind, so for the saints keeping His commands is "not burdensome" (1John 5:3). Adventists insist that Christ's command to "keep My Commandments" was not given as a means of salvation, rather, keeping his commands is the fruit of a changed life. As Christ states in John 15 obedience is the result of love. In the Adventist view of sanctification, works of obedience come about as a result of love that is born of faith in the Savior.
Passage of time since 1844—Adventists counter this criticism by noting that Christ's Holy Place ministry in heaven lasted for 1800 years and that during His Most Holy Place ministry in heaven the door of salvation remains open to all who seek Him. The close of probation for mankind does not come before the fulfillment of certain eschatological prophecies predicted in the Book of Revelation and still future to human history. Judgment 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 judgment a necessary part of the divine plan of salvation (Wesleyan-Arminian concept). Adventists use the term "atonement" in harmony with the "Day of Atonement" service found in Leviticus 16. That service includes both the death of the sin offering, and the ministry of the high priest in the sanctuary before the full scope of atonement is completed. Many Christians today limit their concept of atonement to the point where the sin offering has been made and is completed. This difference in the way the term is defined by the various groups within Christendom has been a source of some undue criticism.
General:
Supportive:
Critical: