Investigative Judgment - Criticism of The Doctrine

Criticism of The Doctrine

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. 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. Miller used an English Bible concordance, and found word parallels in English when sometimes the original language was different. It has been criticized for relying on the "prooftext" method, in which disparate Bible verses are linked but sometimes out of context.

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". 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". It has been pointed out that the doctrine was rejected by Miller himself.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Lack of confidence within Adventism – Raymond F. Cottrell, 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. However, see the 7 volumes produced by the Biblical Research Institute on Daniel & Revelation.

According to Cottrell,

"In the years immediately following October 22, 1844 the traditional sanctuary doctrine was an important asset for stabilizing the faith of disappointed Adventists. Today it is an equally significant liability and deterrent to the faith, confidence, and salvation of biblically literate Adventists and non-Adventists alike. It was present truth following the great disappointment on October 22, 1844. It is not present truth in the year of our Lord 2002. Quod erat demonstrandum!"

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.

Lack of pastoral relevance—Individuals such as Desmond Ford 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".