THE 1844 INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT DOCTRINE: COMMENTS AND COMMENTARIES—PART 3

“The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment” is the topic of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Third Quarter Adult Bible Study Guide, published by the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The study guide states that one purpose of this series of lessons is to “establish the biblical basis for the 1844 judgment [doctrine].” This doctrine teaches that a pre-Advent judgment—the investigative judgment—was begun by God in 1844.

The Adventist Today web site, www.atoday.org is hosting a series of varied and contrasting commentaries and discussions designed to illuminate the nature of the arguments supporting and opposing the only unique doctrinal position taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Some Adventist scholars and pastors understand and teach that this doctrine constitutes the central core of Adventism. Other Adventist scholars and pastors believe that this doctrine, as traditionally taught, has no unambiguous biblical support. And still others view this doctrine as fundamentally flawed

Excerpts from Week 3 Comments and Commentaries
Title: Daniel 2

Arguments Opposing the Traditional Adventist Understanding of the Significance of 1844 and the Pre-Advent Investigative Judgment

Adventist Today Comments: This is a brief overview of the arguments opposing the traditional Adventist understanding of 1844 and the doctrine of the Pre-Advent Investigative Judgment. Adventist Today would welcome a brief summary statement supporting the traditional Adventist understanding organized with the same format and containing approximately the same number of words (500-600).

[Please go to www.atoday.org for the complete text]

Comments on Lesson Three: Daniel 2            Desmond Ford

Despite the laborious research of scholars over the last century and a half, SDAs have learned nothing from them about Daniel 2. We have retained the basic prophetic positions of William Miller. Let me illustrate.

[Please go to www.atoday.org for the complete text]

The Sanctuary Doctrine – Asset or Liability? Part 3            Raymond F. Cottrell

3. Six Church Leaders Who Questioned the Sanctuary Doctrine

For about forty years the sanctuary doctrine raised no known eyebrows or protests. But on an average of every fifteen or twenty years or so since 1887 an experienced, respected, and trusted church administrator or Bible teacher has called the attention of fellow church leaders to flaws in the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, forfeited his ministerial credentials, and either been disfellowshiped or voluntarily left the church. With one or two possible exceptions none of them had either spoken or taught their doubts regarding the biblical authenticity of the sanctuary doctrine, but were fired for thinking such thoughts and sharing them with fellow church leaders! Furthermore, none of them were novices, but experienced administrators or Bible teachers. Three of them had served the church faithfully for more than half a century each.

[Please go to www.atoday.org for the complete text]

Daniel 2            Brad Cole

These words of Nebuchadnezzar’s magicians are, for me, the highlight of Daniel 2:

“What Your Majesty is asking for is so difficult that no one can do it for you except the gods, and they do not live among human beings.” (Daniel 2:11 – GN)

[Please go to www.atoday.org for the complete text]

Prophecies Cannot and Do Not Fail for the Committed            T. Joe Willey

“Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it, finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong; what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.” Festinger, et al. 1956. p. 31.

[Please go to www.atoday.org for the complete text]

Comments from Readers

Adventist Today Comment: We have received a number of comments, both supporting and disagreeing with earlier postings. Adventist Today will attempt to post at various times throughout the quarter as many of these comments as possible, subject to editing for length and appropriate language.

Dear Editor:
In response to Pastor Kevin James loving Christ-like statement "If you don't believe in the investigative judgment, then leave,” our church was told that two years ago. So I left.

Jim Snelling
Dowling, Michigan
by email

Dear Editor:

The content of this article [Good News and the Judgment] is nearly as bad, or perhaps worse, as 1844 / IJ; i.e. without Biblical support or evidence.

Talk about twisting the texts and isogesis. God being judged, the Gospel equals a revelation of God's character of love, I become changed when I see that...etc.

[Please go to www.atoday.org for the complete text and a response from Dr. Cole]

Dear Editor:

Thank you for having the courage to get before us these various commentaries.

It is sad that the proponents of the sanctuary doctrine have only ambiguous contortions of text and EGW to fortify their theory. If one sets aside preconceived ideas, and adheres to “sola scriptura,” they will find this to be a strange gospel…

Bobbi Barlow
Salem, Oregon
By-email