English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Throughout the history of Seventh-day Adventists, the investigative (or pre-advent) judgment has been one of the most controversial doctrines, challenged and questioned more than any other Adventist belief. This paper explores the reasons critics of Adventism, and particularly Albion Fox Ballenger, object to the doctrine of the investigative judgement. Ballenger was an ex-Adventist minister and one of the strongest critics of Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary during the first part of the 20th century. All other criticism of the doctrine, and particularly of the investigative judgment, go back to Ballenger. This paper is the first of a two-part series on the investigative judgment. The first part offers an abridged exposition of Ballenger’s soteriology and his critique of the investigative judgment doctrine. The second article will conclude with a theological analysis of the critique of the doctrine advanced by Ballenger and his evangelical followers in the context a broader understanding of Protestant soteriology.

The Theological Necessity of the Investigative Judgment: Albion Ballenger and His Failed Quest to Subvert the Doctrine—Part I