THE 1844 INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT DOCTRINE: COMMENTS AND COMMENTARIES—PART 9
Ervin Taylor, Series Editor

“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

To clarify questions raised by some readers, Adventist Today wishes to state that the opinions and points of view expressed in the materials presented in ATNewsbreak are those of the individual authors and may or may not be shared by any member of the Adventist Today board or editorial staff. The purpose of ATNewsbreak is to advance one of the goals of Adventist Today which is to promote a sense of connection among people who treasure both their Adventist heritage and the continuing quest for “present truth” by fostering creative conversations about how to preserve and promote the best of Adventism.

Another source of constructive commentaries on these lessons can be found at the web site of the PROBE comments from the School of Theology at Walla Walla College edited by Dr. Alden Thompson. They can be found at www.wwc.edu/probe. Other interesting commentaries and blogs on this topic can be found at the Spectrum web site, www.spectrummagazine.org. The web site, www.ATomorrow.com also contains some interesting comments on this topic.

Excerpts from Week 9 Comments and Commentaries
Title: Day-Year Principle

Comments on Lesson Nine: Day-Year Principle            Desmond Ford

A former Seventh-day Adventist Conference president, Kai Arasola, wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on The End of Historicism commenting upon the demise of the year-day principle. Today it is still held by Jehovah’s Witnesses who thereby come up with Christ’s invisible return to earth in 1914 to set his seal on the Watchtower organization. Among Bible scholars, the theory has been defunct for over 100 years. Jehovah’s Witnesses borrowed it from Adventists.

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

The Sanctuary Doctrine – Asset or Liability? Part 9            Raymond F. Cottrell

9. Flaws in the Sanctuary Doctrine

There can be no question as to the sincerity, diligence, and integrity of those who formulated the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14. It is equally obvious that they were following the flawed principles of the proof text method: (1) In four major instances they adopted translation errors where the KJV misrepresents the Hebrew text. (2) They completely ignored the literary context in which Daniel 8:14 occurs. (3) They likewise ignored the historical context specified by the first six chapters and chapter 9:1-19 of the book, within which its several prophetic pericopes were given and to which they specifically applied. (4) They did not take into account the salvation history perspective specified by the book (and the entire Old Testament), [126] within which Daniel 8:14 occurs and to which Daniel specifically applies it. As set forth in the preceding section of this paper, sola Scriptura and the historical method both require that these factors be taken into account.

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

Significance of 1844 and the Pre-Advent Investigative Judgment: Comments From David R. Smith and David Shavlik and A Response From Desmond Ford

Adventist Today Comment: A statement entitled “Arguments Opposing the Traditional Adventist Understanding of the Significance of 1844 and the Pre-Advent Investigative Judgment” had been previously posted in this series. David R. Smith, a divinity student in the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan and David Shavlik, an assistant professor of biostatistics, Loma Linda University School of Public Health, Loma Linda, California, have provided extended responses and Desmond Ford provided a comment.  

[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. The date of receipt of a reader comment and the posting may be from one to five weeks apart.

Argue vs. Agree
Dear Editor:
I have just spent the better part of an hour reading the hashing/re-hashing of the “investigative/pre-advent judgment and all the scholarly opinions delivered therein.

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

Unambiguous Biblical Support?

Dear Editor:

I just had a general question: what's the definition of “unambiguous biblical support”?

Geoffrey Marshall
by email

Adventist Today Editorial Response:

The fourth commandment is "unambiguous biblical support" for Sabbath keeping. In fact, the Ten Commandments, as a whole, are rather unambiguous about their prohibitions and injunctions.
 
Romans 14 offers unambiguous support for the notion that Sabbath keeping or not keeping Sabbath is not something about which we should condemn others.
 
While these two passages appear to contradict each other, at least, on their own, in their own context, they are clear, understandable statements.

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

False Assumptions and An Incurable Malady

Dear Editor:

It is a pity to see such desperate efforts within the Adventist Church to try and support those doctrines that are falling under their own weight of false assumptions.

One must ask the question: why such a recent 'revisit' of the book of Daniel. Dr. Pfandl covered the topic not two years ago. I remember in the 1970s and 80's we would wait many years before the topic was revisited. Not so any more. So what motivated Goldstein to impose his views yet again onto the minds of Adventists worldwide? And what about in a few years when it is
apparent that all that was written fell on deaf ears? Yet another SS Lesson on Daniel?

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

Receipt and Web Site Posting Schedule

The dates for the receipt of comments and commentaries and posting target dates on the Adventist Today web site for the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study for July-August-September 2006, “The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment”

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