By Colleen Tinker
This month the Adventist Review has released its fifth of seven podcasts and clusters of articles expounding on what they call “the core beliefs of Seventh-day Adventism”. In spite of the fact that the Adventist organization has 28 Fundamental Beliefs, these seven beliefs are so important to the shape of Adventist theology that they are expounding on them for the entire world membership to read.
In order, the first five beliefs are: the Mark of the Beast, the Trinity, Deception, the State of the Dead, and now the Judgment. Six authors have written from different perspectives to attempt to make the investigative judgment accessible to people. Significantly, the articles are inconsistent among themselves and attempt to redefine or reinterpret the classic explanations given by Ellen White in The Great Controversy.
In order to organize this commentary on Core Belief Number Six, I will discuss the articles one at a time, and I will begin with the article derived from The Great Controversy by Ellen White entitled “Facing Life’s Record”.
“Facing Life’s Record”
Ellen White’s words are excerpted from pages 487–491 in The Great Controversy. Since it was Ellen’s endorsing visions which established this belief as the core doctrine of Adventism, we will begin with the article quoted from her own words.
It must be noted that some of the authors addressing this subject are trying hard to play up the idea of God’s love and of Christ’s sacrifice for sins, but their words are simply rationalizations required to try to be biblical while still believing in Ellen White.
Following are excerpts from this article which may trigger old anxious feelings in those who were taught the investigative judgment as Adventists.
Those who would share the benefits of the Saviour’s mediation should permit nothing to interfere with their duty to perfect holiness in the fear of God. The precious hours, instead of being given to pleasure, to display, or to gain seeking, should be devoted to an earnest, prayerful study of the word of truth.
The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill.…
The sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ’s work in behalf of [men and women]. It concerns every soul living upon the earth. It opens to view the plan of redemption, bringing us down to the very close of time and revealing the triumphant issue of the contest between righteousness and sin…
The intercession of Christ in [humanity’s] behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven.…
If those who hide and excuse their faults could see how Satan exults over them, how he taunts Christ and holy angels with their course, they would make haste to confess their sins and to put them away.…
We are now living in the great day of atonement…. All who would have their names retained in the book of life should now, in the few remaining days of their probation, afflict their souls before God by sorrow for sin and true repentance. There must be deep, faithful searching of heart. The light, frivolous spirit indulged by so many professed Christians must be put away.…
Solemn are the scenes connected with the closing work of the atonement. Momentous are the interests involved therein. The judgment is now passing in the sanctuary above. For many years this work has been in progress. Soon—none know how soon—it will pass to the cases of the living. In the awful presence of God our lives are to come up in review.
At this time above all others it behooves every soul to heed the Saviour’s admonition: “Watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.” Mark 13:33. “If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” Revelation 3:3.
When the work of the investigative judgment closes, the destiny of all will have been decided for life or death. Probation is ended a short time before the appearing of the Lord in the clouds of heaven. Christ in the Revelation, looking forward to that time, declares: “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” Revelation 22:11, 12.
I quote as much of Ellen White as I did above to demonstrate that, no matter how individual Adventists frame their understanding of the investigative judgment, Ellen White’s own words stand as the official definition of this unique Adventist doctrine. Notice some of her assertions:
Those who “would share in the benefits of the Savior’s mediation” are to perfect their holiness and to allow nothing to interfere with that work. In other words, people are qualified to receive Jesus’ mediation only if they refuse to indulge in frivolous or secular pleasures and deliberately work on becoming perfect as they pray and read the Bible. She completely misses the fact that Jesus’ mediation is a guarantee for those who believe and are alive in Christ.
Moreover, she says that those who will make it through these last days have to understand the “sanctuary doctrine” and Jesus’ proper place in it—in other words, they have to know that He entered the Most Holy Place in 1844 and began investigating the books of record to see who was safe to save. Further, although she doesn’t mention it here, the implication is that Jesus is a glorified Aaronic high priest as He mediates in heaven—but we know this belief is patently false. Hebrews 7 explains that Jesus is a different kind of priest, a unique priest in the order of Melchizedek. His duties do not mirror the Aaronic high priest’s duties.
She further claims this supposed heavenly “sanctuary doctrine” reveals the plan of salvation—which was not completed on the cross. Notice above that she says Jesus began His work on the cross, but after His resurrection He ascended to heaven to complete His work. This belief is heresy! Jesus’ work of dying for our sin and of breaking the power of death was completed on Calvary and Easter morning! His ascension marked His exaltation to the right hand of the Father and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on believers so the church was formed. Jesus is NOT completing His atonement in heaven!
Ellen also says we are living NOW in the Day of Atonement. This idea also is unbiblical. The fulfillment of the Day of Atonement was the day the Lord Jesus became sin for us and died a penal substitutionary death on the cross. Furthermore, she uses a decidedly non-biblical (but decidedly Mormon) word to describe all those who are waiting to have their names reviewed in the investigative judgment. She says they are on “probation”, and while they wait for the completion of the judgment, they must “afflict their souls” and put away light, frivolous, worldly things.
This “Day of Atonement” argument, in fact, is the reason some historic Adventists refuse to use women’s makeup and why they avoid jewelry in general. Since Israel had to put off their festive clothes and wear solemn, even mournful apparel on the Day of Atonement, Adventists living in the “anti-typical Day of Atonement” must avoid all manifestations of wordliness.
Furthermore, Ellen appropriates Jesus’ words to watch and pray as one sees the Day of the Lord approaching and applies them to waiting for the end of the supposed investigative judgment. While it’s a sin agains God’s people to teach a falsehood about God’s judgment and our place before Him, it’s a different sin altogether to deliberately quote Scripture to support an unbiblical idea.
Ellen White established the foundation of Adventism on a perversion of the Lord Jesus’ work and ministry and removed the power and assurance of His finished work from the Adventist worldview. Now, Adventists of all kinds refuse to give up the investigative judgment, attempting instead to “rework” it to make it more palatable and less terrifying.
Yet no matter what view one holds of this pre-advent judgment, it is a falsehood, and it keeps people in spiritual bondage.
“The Heart of Adventist Theology”
Jud Lake, a professor of preaching and Adventist studies at Southern Adventist University in Colledage, Tennessee, wrote the “anchor” article that explains the history and importance of the investigative judgment to the Adventist organization.
Lake begins with October 22, 1844, the day Jesus failed to return as the followers of William Miller had expected He would. In fact, most of those who were disappointed returned to their Christian churches and repented of their date-setting. Miller himself, in fact, admitted he had been wrong and should not have set a date.
Jud Lake, however, says this about the small group who eventually coalesced into the Seventh-day Adventist organization: “In the confusing aftermath, some of the heartbroken saints knew they should not doubt the soundness of their historical calculations. So they determined to find biblical answers for what really happened on October 22, 1844. This group of Bible-believing truth seekers would eventually develop into the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1860s.”
Interestingly, Lake tells the Adventist story about Hiram Edson, a farmer from New York and a Methodist, who, according to his own account and quoted in the Adventist history textbook Light Bearers to the Remnant, had a vision in a cornfield the very next day. This vision revealed to him that the “cleansing of the temple” that they had supposed meant Jesus’ return to cleanse the earth from sin was actually a cleansing of the heavenly temple when Jesus began applying His blood to confessed sins on October 22, 1844.
Lake, however, omits the detail that Edson had a vision. (This omission has become increasingly common among Adventist apologists; it’s hard to defend and explain visionary revelations that have doctrinal authority from anyone except the prophetess.) Lake says, “According to his own handwritten account, as he and a fellow Millerite were passing through a large field, it occurred to him with great clarity that on the day before, October 22, instead of coming to cleanse the earth, Jesus, our high priest, for the first time entered into the Second Apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.”
In fact, Edson wrote these words: “Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly, and clearly, that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly Sanctuary to come to this earth…at the end of the 2,300 days that he for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary and that he had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to the earth” (quoted in Light Bearers to the Remnant, 1979, Pacific Press Publishing Assn., p. 62).
In fact, Edson’s influence in creating the notion of the investigative judgment was greatly dependent upon the fact that his insight came from a vision which he claimed to be from God. It wasn’t framed as merely an idea he had; it was divine revelation in the minds of the early Adventists.
Significantly, Lake explains clearly that the investigative judgment doctrine teaches that sins are not forgiven when they are confessed, but merely blotted out. He also explains that the details of this convoluted doctrine were explained by co-founder James White, the husband of Ellen whose visions confirmed the doctrine. He writes the following, quoting James White:
[James White] further explained that in the great day of atonement taking place since 1844, “the sins of all who shall have part in the first resurrection will be blotted out.” This time of blotting out sins is not the “time when they are forgiven.” Rather, “we must look to the great day of atonement as the time when Jesus offers His blood for the blotting out of sins. It is at the time of the cleansing of the Sanctuary.”
Lake summarizes the history of this doctrine with these words:
Thus, by the later 1800s there was basic agreement on several fundamental points: the judgment began on October 22, 1844, and therefore occurs before the second coming of Christ. It is investigative in nature; it includes the righteous; it involves cleansing the records of sin; and Christ is at the center of it. Adventists would expand and develop these concepts in the next century and beyond.
Lake continues by mentioning the challenges the doctrine has received through the years. He explains that Adventist scholars have studied and clarified this doctrine and its history, and he says this: “Nonetheless, from the beginning there have been detractors of the sanctuary doctrine, such as D. M. Canright, Albion Fox Ballenger, Louis Richard Conradi, and more recently Desmond Ford and Dale Ratzlaff.”
He acknowledges that modern Adventists have “opened new vistas and depths from the biblical data on Christ’s ministry in heaven. These include the thrilling and reassuring recognition that the verdict of the pre-Adventist judgment favors the righteous.”
Nevertheless, he concludes with these words: “The doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary, including its pre-Advent investigative judgment has been, and will continue to be, the heart of Adventist theology.”
“Jesus Gets the Verdict”
The speaker/director for The Voice of Prophecy, Shawn Boonstra, wrote the article entitled “Jesus Gets the Verdict”. Boonstra attempts to frame the investigative judgment in kinder, friendlier terms. Instead of camping on the frightening aspects of expecting one’s name to come under review without one’s knowing it’s happening, wondering all the while if one has confessed every sin so it can be forgiven, Boonstra explains the progressive Adventist spin that the judgment is really about God, not about us.
He says, “Heaven is not seeking some technicality with which to bar you. The high price paid at the cross to secure you for the kingdom should demonstrate that God is trying to get you in.”
This sentence reveals that Boonstra misunderstands the nature of salvation. God, not we ourselves, initiates our salvation. Furthermore, we cannot even desire God or want to be saved apart from His drawing us. Salvation is of the Lord, not the consequence of our good decisions.
Jesus said this in John 6:44:
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; ad I will raise him up on the last day.”
He also said this in John 6:39–40:
“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I one nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
God is the Author of salvation; He is not looking for ways to get us into heaven; He has clearly provided Himself as a Substitute for us if we believe in Him—the only way anyone is saved. We are not in the salvation driver’s seat; God Himself is. He draws us and gives us the faith to believe (Eph. 2:8-9), and He seals us with His Holy spirit when we do believe.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of Boonstra’s article, however, was his manipulation of Daniel 7 and the concept of “judgment” to arrive at the conclusion that “God has put himself on trial.”
Boonstra challenges the reader to read Daniel 7 and see if he or she appears there. He says,
Did you find any mention of you in that chapter? No. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you won’t face judgment. We all do (see Rom. 2:3-5; 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). But notice that only two individuals are mentioned in Daniel’s account: the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man. The rest of the scene is corporate. It’s a group of angels considering the record of a run of large empires established in defiance of God’s throne. No solitary human being is depicted.
Perhaps because of my sinful, selfish bent, I want to think that the heavenly court session is all about me… But I’m not mentioned in this chapter, and neither are you. As with the rest of Scripture, the central focus is Christ. It’s dealing with His right to His inheritance:
“I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:13, 14).
In other words, the primary subject of the trial is Jesus. Unbelievably, God has put Himself on trial.
By an almost indiscernible sleight of hand, Boonstra has misinterpreted Daniel 7 and concluded that the judgment described there is about Jesus’ worthiness to receive His inheritance! In order to see what the passage really says, let’s read Daniel 7:9–28 below:
“As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire.
A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.
“I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
“As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my head alarmed me. I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things. ‘These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.’
“Then I desired to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet, and about the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three of them fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and that seemed greater than its companions. As I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.
“Thus he said: ‘As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces.
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.
But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end. And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’
“Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my color changed, but I kept the matter in my heart.” (ESV)
Boonstra has misrepresented this amazing vision. Jesus is not on trial; God has not put Himself on trial. When the heavenly court sits in judgment and the books are opened, it is not the Son of Man who is judged. Rather, the blaspheming anti-Christ beast is destroyed, and his body given over to fire—just as Revelation 19:20 confirms.
The Son of Man who appears in the clouds is not judged; rather he is “presented”. Even earthly ceremonies confirm the difference between being judged and sentenced to death and “presented”. When a person is “presented” in social circles, he or she is introduced as a person of honor and worth.
In this passage of Daniel, the Son of Man is presented—not judged—and given full authority and dominion over all nations, languages, and people, and His throne and rule are eternal.
Then, in verses 23–27, the angel continues his explanation of Daniel’s vision. We learn that the fourth beast who is judged will cruelly “devour” the whole earth, crushing it and its people. One of the kings arising out of this beast will blaspheme the Most High and “wear out the saints of the Most High.”
This ruler will be given power for three-and-a-half years, but the heavenly court will judge him and destroy his authority. His power will then be “given to the people of the saints of the Most High,” and they will serve and obey the Most High.
This passage does not remotely suggest that God is on trial! Yet Boonstra articulates what many “progressive” Adventists believe: that God puts Himself on trial. Angels do not, as Boonstra asserts, “review the books” and “come to the unmistakable conclusion that Jesus deserves His inheritance.”
Jesus receives His inheritance because He is God and Man, and as the Son of Man, He fulfilled the requirements of human death for human sin. He was a sinless man who died a substitutionary death; His resurrection was the proof that His sacrifice was sufficient. He did not offer Himself as a sacrifice to prove Himself worthy!
Jesus is exalted by the Father alone; He is never subject to judgment by angels, and He is never subject to our judgment or valuation!
Furthermore, Boonstra argues the quintessential Adventist argument that the heavenly books are for human review as well. He says, “But before the verdict is ultimately executed, He takes us into the courts of heaven to review the books as well (Rev. 20:4, 11, 12). We, too, must be convinced, of our own freewill, that Jesus deserves His throne. Only then does His foot touch the mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4).”
Jesus is never judged. He is the Creator of everything and everyone, including the angels. He is sovereign, and the Lord Jesus is one with the Father and sovereign with Him and the Holy Spirit over all creation.
Boonstra’s convoluted reasoning is based on the idea that human free will is the ultimate value in the universe, that even God limits Himself in order to be fair to us. He puts Himself on trial so that we will see and proclaim Him to be fair and good.
The blasphemy of this notion is shocking when one finally understands that no power, creature, or any other things is outside of God’s sovereign control. Even Satan is subject to God. He is not in an equal fight with the Lord Jesus; rather, he is the creation of the Lord Jesus, and he rebelled against His own Creator. He has no power at all that is not checked and permitted by His Creator, the Lord Jesus.
“Judgment for Dummies”
Adventist Review associate editor Lael Caesar has written an apologetic for the Adventist investigative judgment. He makes similar points to those made by Boonstra and Lake, but he introduces one concept that they did not mention: the idea of “fallen and unfallen intelligences”
“Our interaction with extraterrestrial intelligences does not require monumental IT departments,” he says. “Had it not been for sin, we all would freely interrelate with both natural and supernatural order throughout the universe.”
The idea that we humans are demonstrating obedience to unfallen beings on other planets scattered throughout the universe is an idea that comes from Ellen White. In spite of an utter lack of biblical evidence to support such a notion, Adventism still believes its members are vindicating God’s reputation to the “fallen and unfallen intelligences” in all creation.
The idea that God’s creatures have questioned his “fairness”, that He must be vindicated by those He created in order to be eternally established as a fair and just God is at the heart of the investigative judgment. It is also utterly false.
While Adventism says that Satan and all creation question whether God’s law is fair, that extraterrestrial intelligences question His right to judge sinners, Romans 3: 22–26 tells us the truth:
For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
The question in the universe was not whether or not God is fair to punish those who break His law; the question was just the opposite: how had God allowed sinners to go unpunished? Jesus took the sin of mankind and died our death to demonstrate God’s justice in allowing all those people before the cross to go unpunished. Their sins were placed on Him. His death satisfied God’s demands for justice for fallen humanity. Moreover, Jesus demonstrated that He is both just and also the justifier of those who have faith in Him.
In Jesus all demands for justice are completed.
“Don’t Judge Me!”
Chantal Klingbeil is an associate director of the Ellen G. White estate at the General Conference. She has written a piece not so much about the investigative judgment but about how we don’t need to fear God’s judgment of us because “He is completely on our side.” She says,
If we truly understand that the Judge is completely on our side, and we know that He was prepared to die rather than live without us, then we can face judgment without fear. While we are not trying to gloss over the enormity of our sin and guilt that separate us from a holy God, in faith we have claimed His gift. We have died to the old sinful life and our lives are now “hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).
Klingbeil acknowledges that there will be a final judgment, but she does not mention in her article the fact that Jesus died for human sin and received God’s judgment against us on our behalf. Instead, she says that “The final judgment, rather than exposing to all our pitiful state, will be the public affirmation that we are loved and accepted, no matter where we come from, no matter what our flaws and deficiencies, no matter the mess of unwise choices and destructive decisions.”
The closest she comes to acknowledging that we are asked to respond to the Lord Jesus is her final sentence: “When we are truly in love with our Judge and Advocate, when we know what the verdict will be, rather than saying ‘Don’t judge me,’ we will eagerly say, ‘Please, judge me.’”
In fact, there is no way we can be “truly in love” with Jesus apart from our recognizing that we are hopeless sinners in need of a Savior, repenting before Him, and believing that He has paid the price for all our sin. We must be born again before we can know what it means to love Jesus. Without being born again, we remain dead in sin, unable to seek or to please God (Rom. 3:9–18).
Klingbeil reflects a current trend among many more progressive Adventists to suggest that Jesus’ death took care of all sin, so everyone is “good to go” unless they opt out of salvation. In other words, the assumption is that people are born forgiven, and to be lost, they must choose to walk away.
Scripture teaches the opposite. We are born dead in sin, by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1–3). We must be saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus, and even our faith to believe is a gift from Him. (Eph. 2:8–9).
“I Won’t Be Afraid of Love”
Anna Miller, a pastor’s wife and mom of three in Colorado, wrote the final article. In it she tells of her fear growing up: fear of God’s judgment because she wanted to fit in with her peers at school. She tells of hearing a sermon in her sophomore year of college that changed her concept of God.
She saw for the first time a God who “desired to save [her] more than [she] desired to save [herself].” She describes how her Bible reading changed, and she read the account of the Lord silencing Satan’s accusations against Joshua the high priest and giving him new, clean clothes in place of his filthy ones (Zech. 3).
She closes with these words: “I am so thankful that I have been able to overcome the misconceptions of God’s ongoing judgment. I don’t have to live in fear of judgment, because instead of “GUILTY!” I know now what my verdict is: forgiven!”
Anna’s words remind me of my experience during the last years I spent in Adventism. I saw that the Bible did not teach the investigative judgment, and I began to realize I did not have to live in fear of it.
Nevertheless, her account lacks an understanding of the new covenant. As an Adventist pastor’s wife, she is not able to embrace fully knowing Jesus as her Savior and her Sabbath rest. She still reflects the Adventist way of thinking that God is not a “hard, exacting taskmaster” but her “best friend”.
Adventists, even those who begin to see how the Bible contradicts their core doctrines, tend to see God as their “friend” rather than as their Savior and Lord.
Anna’s article can coexist with the mainstream teaching of the investigative judgment. Only when one understands that Jesus took God’s judgment of us in His body on the cross, destroying the dividing wall of the law and rendering it obsolete, can one fully see that there is no possibility of remaining in an Adventist context where the investigative judgment percolates on the back burner.
Summary
This month’s presentations discussing Adventism’s core belief of Judgment reveals that Adventists do not all think of the investigative judgment the same way. Nevertheless, Adventists attempt to endorse it, because, as Jud Lake says, it is “the heart of Adventist theology.”
They may redefine it, hide its more cultic aspects, or even ignore it, but they still believe it is true in some sense. Adventism believes that God is on trial, that people cannot know they are saved until Jesus returns, and that they must do their best to keep the law—especially the Sabbath—in order to be saved.
The Adventist understanding of judgment is firmly linked to the organization’s endorsement of Ellen White’s authority. They cannot jettison their only unique doctrine because it forms the cornerstone of their religion. The Adventist Jesus who performs His work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary is the Jesus they “believe”, and this belief is the legal of Ellen White’s visions and teaching.
Because of their Adventist worldview, they don’t understand God’s sovereignty, their own depravity and spiritual death, or their need for new birth. If Adventists were to be able to read Scripture without an Ellen White filter, they investigative judgment would crumble, and the organization ultimately would fail.
It is not surprising that “Judgment” is one of the seven topics the Adventist Review designated as the core beliefs of its religion. It is the central doctrine that supports all others. Adventism is expounding this and the other six beliefs in their world publication so that the members in every demographic will become indoctrinated into the Adventist worldview defined by Ellen White’s visions and writings.
No matter how they describe it, Adventists all endorse some version of the investigative judgment because to reject it would mean the death of their Adventist worldview.
- May 4–10, 2024 - May 2, 2024
- We Got Mail - May 2, 2024
- April 27–May 3, 2024 - April 25, 2024
Historically Adventism since its inception has “covered up” false beliefs by reinterpreting them in some way instead of forsaking them and moving to the clarity of the gospel itself. Your article documents the simple fact that the investigative judgment doctrine has been reinterpreted and steered away from how EGW presents it in GREAT CONTROVERSY which she did acknowledge borrowing from pioneer writings. It is my understanding that before a minister can be ordained in the SDA Church that he must subscribe to a belief in the investigative judgment. God is NOT on trial before men or unfallen angels.