“For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one
may be recompensed for his deeds in the
body, . . . whether good or bad” (2 Cor.
5:10).
“For it is time for judgment to begin
with the household of God; and if it be-
gins with us first, what will be the out-
come for those who do not obey the gos-
pel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17).
If our need for assurance or our empha-
sis on righteousness by faith, as valid as
these are, obscures the biblical teaching
of judgment, then we have allowed it to
become an obsession. Righteousness by
faith and Christian assurance are indeed
fundamental New Testament teachings.
But so is judgment. We gain nothing,
either theologically or experientially, by
attempting to negate or neutralize any
one of them.
As theologians and Bible students, we
do not create theology, we discover it.
This implies that we stand (or perhaps
better, kneel) before the Word, without
prejudice, and listen. To allow any one
biblical emphasis to so dominate our
thinking as to become a litmus test of the
*The New American Standard Bible is used
throughout this article unless otherwise noted.
Discussion questions:
1. Why do some believe the Ad-
ventist concept of an investigative
judgment is incompatible with
righteousness by faith?
2. How would you relate righ-
teousness by faith and the
judgment?
3. What biblical support is there
for an investigative or pre-Advent
judgment?
4. As Adams points out, early
Adventists thought only of those
people who professed allegiance to
God at sometime in their lives as
the defendants in the investigative
judgment. Recently, Adventist
publications and preaching have
suggested that in this judgment,
God Himself must be vindicated as
well. Should we limit our doctrinal
beliefs to those held by Adventist
pioneers—or are development and
a changing emphasis legitimate? If
you think changes are legitimate,
what controls would you place on
such changes?
5. How is the investigative judg-
ment related to the sanctuary?
validity of all others is to short-circuit the
listening process. This was the mind-set
that led Martin Luther, that towering
Reformer, to repudiate the book of
James.
Theological maturity seeks to hold in
balance (sometimes in tension) the vari-
ous fundamental biblical themes. So,
however important righteousness by
faith, and however desirable Christian
assurance, we cannot neglect the judg-
ment and remain faithful to Scripture.
Understanding our critics
In the light of the unequivocal New
Testament affirmation of the judgment,
why the continued vigorous criticism of
the Adventist position? Qur observation
at this point suggests two possible rea-
sons, both essentially psychological.
The first has to do with the contempo-
raneous nature of the investigative judg-
ment. Veteran attorney Louis Nizer re-
members that “on the morning of the
trial all the physical indicia of unbearable
Hands
trepidation are evident. are
clammy, brows . . . wet, cheeks . . .
flushed or sickly pale, eyes
red-rimmed, voices . . . froggy, there are
artificial yawns, dry lips, and . . . fre-
quent visits to the toilet.” ©
Adventists have always taught that
the judgment is now in session, an an-
nouncement potentially unnerving for
anyone who has ever been summoned to
appear in a human courtroom and who
still remembers the shrill voice of the
clerk calling all to rise as the judge enters.
A judgment at the end of all time or after
the millennium does not have the same
psychological impact. Distance tends to
minimize its terror. Even less disturbing
is the theological contrivance that puts
this judgment at the cross — long ago and
far away.
But a judgment in session now! That’s
ominous!
The second reason is essentially tied
up with the first, and revolves around the
word investigative. Linked to the contem-
porary nature of the event, this buzzword
conjures up the image of Christians un-
der surveillance by a celestial, cloak-and-
dagger, round-the-clock investigative
unit.
To heighten the tension even further,
some Adventist preachers have sug-
gested that at whatever moment this
heavenly assize takes up the case of any
living person, it passes a final judgment,
and there and then closes the probation
of that individual. Should this happen at
Their preoccupation
with righteousness by
faith blinds some to
the biblical emphasis
on judgment.
a
a moment when there was the indul-
gence of the slightest sin or mischief in
the life, the person is lost forever. It is
instructive to note that it was this view of
the investigative judgment that Ballen-
ger espoused before he repudiated the
doctrine entirely.
It has not always been easy to provide
from Scripture a straightforward demon-
stration of the notion of an investigative
judgment. However, the concept of a
pre-Advent decision fairly permeates
biblical apocalypse.
For example, in Daniel 12:1, we are
informed of an eschatological time of cri-
sis from which only those “found written
in the book” will be rescued. And in the
apocalyptic account of Matthew we learn
that, at the time of the Parousia, a loud
trumpet call gathers together the “elect
from the four winds” (Matt. 24:30, 31).
The contexts of these two passages
clearly imply a prior determination of the
spiritual standing of these individuals.
In Revelation 16, the seven last
plagues, like guided missiles, pursue only
those who have “the mark of the beast”
(RSV). Obviously, there has been a prior
assessment in order to “legally” affix the
mark to some and not to others.
The locus classicus of a pre-Advent
judgment is Daniel 7. In this apocalyptic
passage, the prophet observes in vision
the little horn’s nefarious activities on
earth and simultaneously views a judg-
ment scene in heaven. He switches back
and forth from earth to heaven, studying
these two arresting scenes, until the no-
torious little horn is destroyed and judg-
ment given in favor of the saints (see
Dan. 7:22). In his recent dissertation,
Arthur Ferch successfully demonstrated
that these two activities transpire within
historical time and, therefore, the judg-
ment of Daniel 7 is pre-Advent. 1°
One must not advance the useless ar-
gument that since God knows every-
thing, the concept of a pre-Advent judg-
ment is theoretical and unnecessary.
Such an approach, carried to its logical
MINISTRY/FEBRUARY/1988 47