THE 1844 INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT DOCTRINE: COMMENTS AND COMMENTARIES—PART 10
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 10 Comments and Commentaries
Title: Rome and Antiochus

Comments on Lesson Ten: Rome and Antiochus          Desmond Ford

See my earlier comments on Daniel 8. Here we will content ourselves with commenting upon some of the statements in the Quarterly.

The Lesson Quarterly offers us several clear references to the Roman Empire as found in the New Testament. It is of considerable interest to find that beginning with the book of Daniel and closing with the Bible’s last book there are four empires actually named. They are the traditional four always mentioned when the prophecies of Daniel are studied—Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece, and Rome.

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

The Sanctuary Doctrine – Asset or Liability? Part 10          Raymond F. Cottrell

10. The Sanctuary Doctrine and Sola Scriptura

The traditional Adventist sanctuary doctrine is based on the historicist principle, or method, of prophetic interpretation. Consequently, those who follow that method automatically find the doctrine flawless. On the other hand, those who follow the historical principle, or method, find it bristling with flaws. As a result, differences of opinion with respect to the sanctuary doctrine can be resolved only by objectively testing the presuppositions and methodology on which it is based, by the sola Scriptura principle. The two methods are as mutually exclusive and irreconcilable as day and night, and a choice between them is decisive for the study of Bible prophecy.

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

Final Reply to the Two Davids          Desmond Ford

I greatly appreciate the efforts of the two David's in support of the traditional teaching on the 1844 Investigative Judgment doctrine. Nonetheless, I should offer them some of the reasons why I find their reasoning inadequate.

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

Is A Key-Stone Doctrine of Adventism in the Process of Being Rejected?
Ranald McLeish

Ten years ago Morris Venden said, “In a time when surveys have shown that 50 percent of Seventh-day Adventists no longer believe in the preadvent judgment (the only unique teaching of our church), it seems important to call attention to it again.” (Morris Venden, “Never Without an Intercessor,” p.5.

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

Why I am a Sanctuary Believer          Barry Kimbrough

The doctrine of the sanctuary is a very important part of our faith and is beautifully taught throughout Scripture. Allow me to explain why I believe in this doctrine so strongly.

[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.

Holding Water?

Dear Editor:

I am much more inclined to the reasoning of Desmond Ford on Daniel 8.

I just shared in Sabbath school class this morning that it is not consistent with the symbolism of Daniel 8 to conclude that the little horn is a kingdom representing Rome. It does not
hold water well.

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

Little Horn?

Dear Editor:

It seems clear to me that the “Little Horn” of Daniel 7 and the “Little Horn” of Daniel 8 are in reference to the same power, which I believe Desmond Ford accepts. 

If that is the case, how then can the little horn of Daniel 7 which comes up AFTER the other ten horns and proceeds out of the fourth beast, which represents Rome, refer to Antiochus Epiphanes who came some time before this?  I have not seen this explained.

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

Debunking Awful Scholarship? Why Not?

Dear Editor:

After pondering the comment by Dr Milton Hook in "It's Not Rocket Science" referring to the culpability of SDA scholars in not debunking the awful scholarship promulgated on the topic of this quarter's Sabbath School Lessons, I thought this could offer Atoday.com an opportunity to develop a vibrant scholarly debate on the topic so that we could advance farther along than we are at present on this topic.

[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]