An Evaluation To The Historical Objection of The Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrine of The Pre-Advent Investigative Judgment

Abstract

The Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the pre-advent investigative judgment has been
attacked by some former Adventist members. Desmond Ford, one of the opponents, doubted
the historical basis of the doctrine. He argued that this Adventist’s distinctive doctrine highly
relies upon and can merely be proven from E. G. White’s writings. He claimed that the
Millerites and the early Sabbatarian Adventist did not teach this teaching. No references in
their writings explained this doctrine. The purpose of this study is to present historical facts
from the writings of Adventist pioneers as an evaluation to the objection. This study is a
historical approach using documentary research method. From each development stage of the
view, researcher uses primary resource. The researcher also employs the secondary resources
only to see current opinion about the subject. From the historical facts, it is found that the
teaching of the pre-advent investigative judgment has been taught before E. G. White wrote
it. Some Millerites and early Sabbatarian Adventists employed several terms to express the
concept, such as the typical Day of Atonement, breastplate of judgment, announcement of
God’s judgment hour, scene of God’s, Christ’s parable of the wedding ceremony, judgment
of the “house of God”, the term “Laodicea”, and God’s rewards either for salvation or
punishment at the second coming of Christ. Thus, it is evident that before E. G. White wrote
about the pre-advent investigative judgment, some Millerites and early Sabbatarian
Adventists have already mentioned it in their writings. The terms used by Millerites and
Sabbatarian Adventists to describe the teaching of the pre-advent investigative judgment are
important to prove that the doctrine is not merely derived from E. G. White.