Introduction

The investigative judgment doctrine has always been an intrinsic part of Seventh-day Adventist soteriology. According to this theology, the investigative judgment forms the first phase of the eschatological judgment and commenced at the end of the prophetic periods of the 1260 years of Daniel 7 and the 2300 years of Daniel 8 in 1844. The proceedings of this judgment were inaugurated by the triumphal entry of Christ into the Most Holy place in the heavenly sanctuary.¹

Throughout the history of Seventh-day Adventists, however, the investigative (or Pre-Advent) judgment has been one of the most controversial doctrines, challenged and questioned more than any other Adventist belief. One of the reasons for the doctrine’s controversial nature may lay in the fact that it is directly related to the doctrine of salvation, the means of which have been hotly debated throughout the history of Christianity.

Various interpretations of the way humans are redeemed have led to conflicting opinions about the investigative judgment. For many—especially those coming from within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination—this doctrine is indispensable, as it is irrevocably related to the human response to God’s plan of salvation. Those outside of Adventism, however, regularly challenge the doctrine, at times proclaiming Seventh-day Adventism as a heretical sect that teaches a legalistic understanding of salvation. A salvation scheme involving the investigative judgment doctrine, thus, becomes contrasted with salvation understood as sola gratia et fides (by grace and faith alone).² A perusal of various critical evaluations of Adventism found both in print and on-line, and especially those associated with modern evangelicalism, results in the impression that Adventism is all about investigative judgment and salvation by works. True and honest believers, it is believed, need to be rescued from the manipulative grip of cultic Adventism and introduced to the true evangelical faith, which eschews human works as means of salvation.

It is not surprising, therefore, that under growing external pressure some Adventists have abandoned the doctrine of investigative judgment, considering it a relic of the past and an embarrassment. For others, this doctrine has been the catalyst for abandoning the Adventist faith.³

The evangelical criticism of the investigative judgment doctrine generally centers around four main objections. First, it is often argued that historicism—a method of interpretation that has been normative among Seventh-day Adventists—is no longer viable. Various weaknesses are often highlighted in the contemporary literature, substantiating that claim. Most critics of historicist methodology highlight the tendency of its practitioners to speculation and conjecture, as well as an inability to furnish a uniform interpretation of symbols. Moreover, spurred by the contemporary ecumenical climate, some detractors object to the historicist insistence on identifying the Antichrist, Babylon and the beast of Revelation 13 with modern Roman Catholicism and the papacy.⁴ A historicist approach to prophetic interpretation, it is often claimed, is not relevant to a post-modern worldview. In response to these criticisms, Adventist writers such as Le Roy Froom, Kenneth Strand, Jon Paulien, Richard Davidson, Ranko Stefanovic and others have defended the validity of the historicist approach as the norm of prophetic interpretation.⁵

Second, critics contend that the doctrine of the investigative judgment cannot be “sustained from the biblical text.”⁶ As one theologian wrote: “The [investigative judgment], to me, is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history…[I] personally do not believe that there is a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position.”⁷ In response to claims such as these, Adventist scholars, including Mervyn Maxwell, Jan Paulsen, Marvin Moore⁸ and others, have mounted a vigorous defense of the biblical foundation underlying the doctrine of the investigative judgment.

Third, critics claim that the doctrine has a detrimental effect on assurance of salvation. It is often perceived by critics that forgiveness is not true forgiveness if a person’s life is subject to review. “Taken at face value,” one critic asserted, “the investigative judgment robs a person of any real assurance about personal standing with God.”⁹ Throughout past several years, writers such as Jiří Moskala, Richard Davidson, Woodrow Whidden and Gordon Kainer have addressed this objection.¹⁰

Fourth, critics assert that the investigative judgment doctrine “jeopardizes the Biblical teaching that we are saved by grace alone.”¹¹ A careful and unbiased reading of Ellen G. White’s Steps to Christ,¹² Faith and Works,¹³ as well as other writings on justification by faith¹⁴ should dispel the mistaken notion that Adventists believe in salvation by works. The meaning of the phrase “grace alone” and how it can be interpreted according to different theological paradigms will be addressed in the final part of this chapter.

Finally, critics argue that the doctrine of the investigative judgment is theologically redundant and should be discarded. The only purpose of this “unique theory,” wrote Adventist critic Walter Martin, is “to discipline Christians by the threat of impending judgment and condemnation upon those whose cases are decided upon unfavorably by our Lord.”¹⁵ The doctrine, Martin asserted, “cannot be substantiated by exegesis but rest[s] largely upon inference and deduction drawn from theological applications of their own design.”¹⁶ Adventists, he suggested, “needlessly subscribe to a doctrine that neither solves their difficulties nor engenders peace of mind.”¹⁷ Martin thus concluded that Adventism would be well served and perhaps gain greater acceptance among evangelicals if the doctrine was discarded. Similar attitudes toward the doctrine of the investigative judgment may be found even among evangelical critics sympathetic toward Seventh-day Adventism. This last objection, namely that the sola gratia et fides principle makes the investigative judgment doctrine redundant, is the primary focus of this paper.

A perusal of books and on-line materials critical of the investigative judgment doctrine reveal similar reasoning and argumentation that is repeated over and over again. It would appear that much of the theological opposition to the investigative judgment, especially that of former Adventists, finds it’s source in Albion Fox Ballenger, an ex-Adventist minister who died in 1921. His arguments—whether he is mentioned by name or not—continue to resurface in anti-investigative judgment polemic, both in print and on-line.

Thus, in order to understand the contemporary critique of the investigative judgment doctrine, it is helpful to first explore the theological context of Ballenger’s critique. I begin this paper with a brief biography of Ballenger. I will then explore traditional Adventist teachings of the investigative judgment in order flesh out what Ballenger was most opposed to. This will be followed by an abridged exposition of Ballenger’s soteriology and his critique of the investigative judgment doctrine. The paper will conclude with a theological analysis of the critique of the doctrine advanced by Ballenger and his evangelical followers.

A Short Biography of Albion Fox Ballenger

Albion Fox Ballenger (1861-1921) was arguably one of the important players in the theological war over the investigative judgment in Adventist history. While working as a minister in the United Kingdom in the early 1900s, his Adventist beliefs were challenged by former Adventist evangelists who had abandoned the faith. He thus decided to study the doctrine of the atonement and sanctuary for himself, ultimately resulting in his reinterpretation of these teachings.¹⁸ A denominational inquiry during the 1905 General Conference found his teachings incongruent with Seventh-day Adventist theology, and Ballenger was asked to refrain from propagating his views. His refusal led to the removal of his ministerial credentials, and his working association with the SDA Church ceased.¹⁹

In his writings, however, Ballenger continued to argue against the Adventist positions on atonement, sanctuary and investigative judgment, particularly during the years when he was editor of the Gathering Call (1913-1921). He especially labeled the investigative judgment doctrine as unbiblical and anti-Gospel.²⁰ After his death in 1921, his brother, also an ex-Adventist minister, took over the paper and continued Albion’s quest. It was from his pen that the harshest criticisms of the doctrine of the investigative judgment were issued.²¹ Today, Albion Ballenger’s teachings against the investigative judgment form the foundation upon which much of the contemporary criticism of the doctrine is built.

In his attempt to undermine the investigative judgment doctrine, Ballenger had first attempted to reinterpret the Adventist teachings on the atonement. He believed that a re-interpretation of this doctrine would provide a sound foundation for rejecting the investigative judgment. As will become evident, however, Ballenger failed in his quest, because the theological meta-paradigm of his choice would not allow for it. What follows is a description and analysis of Ballenger’s attempt to eliminate the investigative judgment within the context of his soteriology, as well as a discussion of the reasons why it was not possible for him to abandon the doctrine, despite his rhetoric.

In order to understand and evaluate Ballenger’s anti-investigative judgment position—and thus much of contemporary evangelical criticism of the doctrine—it is first necessary to define and describe the ideas he was opposed to. We thus begin with a brief description of early Adventist notions of the investigative judgment, particularly those of Uriah Smith and Ellen White, followed by a description of 20th century Adventist understandings of the topic. This will be followed by an exposition of Ballenger’s teachings on sin, atonement, and the investigative judgment, all of which ultimately led to his rejection of Adventism.

A Brief Review of the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine of The Investigative Judgment

Uriah Smith

Uriah Smith, a foremost theologian of early Adventism, is often credited with the development of a systematic doctrine of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment. In his understanding, the investigative judgment was part of a greater anti-typical fulfillment of the sanctuary services of the Old Testament. The first apartment ministry in the earthly sanctuary pointed to Christ’s work as a high priest on behalf of His people, from His ascension to 1844. The second apartment ministry, the typical Day of Atonement, pointed to Christ’s work in the Most Holy place in the heavenly sanctuary. According to a prophetic interpretation of Daniel 7 and 8, this phase of Christ’s ministry began in 1844 and formed the initial work of the judgment that was to precede His second coming.²² Just as the sanctuary in the Old Testament was cleansed on the Day of Atonement, in the same way, during the anti-typical Day of Atonement, the heavenly sanctuary was being cleansed and the sins of God’s professed people were being blotted out. But, according to Smith, in order for this process to be completed, there must be an examination of the lives of God’s people. “Every individual of every generation from the beginning of the world, who has ever become interested in the work of Christ, thus passes in review before the great tribunal above.”²³

Smith’s understanding of this review was based on his interpretation of what had happened on the cross. Rather than being “atonement for sins,” Christ’s death on the cross was only an “offering for sin.”²⁴ As an “offering for sin,” Christ acted for the whole world. In His capacity as High Priest, however, which began after His ascension to heaven,²⁵ He acts only for His people.²⁶ As such, it is necessary for God to review the lives of all His people. If it could be shown that they had maintained Christian lives, their sins were blotted out, their “names … retained in the Lamb’s book of life, and the Savior confesses their names to the Father as those who have accepted of salvation through him.”²⁷

Ellen G. White

Similarly, for Ellen White the typical Day of Atonement signified the closing work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. On the Day of Atonement, the work of the first apartment ceased and the ministration of the second apartment began. The high priest entered the Most Holy Place in order to present before God the blood of the sin offering that washed away the sins of those Israelites who had “truly repented of their sins.”²⁸

In the same way, in the anti-typical Day of Atonement, which began in 1844, Christ began the next phase of His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, where He pleaded “His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners.”²⁹ Christ’s ministry in the Most Holy Place signifies the beginning of the examination of the heavenly records of the lives of those who have claimed to be followers of Christ. When they are “accounted worthy,” the atoning blood of Christ is applied, their sins are blotted out from the book of life, and they shall share the Kingdom of God.³⁰

Thus, according to White, the work of the investigative judgment consists of the examination of the life records of only those who claim to believe in Christ. The judgment of the wicked is “a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period.”³¹ True followers of Christ, however, whose lives show genuine repentance, have nothing to fear in judgment, because they have Christ as their advocate, who pleads their cases with His blood before God.³² During the 20th century, the doctrine of investigative judgment was further refined in publications such as the Questions on Doctrine and the DARCOM and BRICOM series.

Questions on Doctrine

The book Questions on Doctrine [QOD]³³ was the result of Adventist-Evangelical discussions conducted in the 1950’s. This volume represents the work of several Adventist scholars, who desired to present the evangelical world with a clear exposition of Seventh-day Adventist teachings.³⁴ The authors went to extensive lengths to explain some of the more controversial doctrines of Seventh-day Adventism, including the investigative judgment, and to present them in a positive light.

QOD represents a nuanced shift in Adventist thinking in regards to the atonement. In contrast to Uriah Smith’s teachings,³⁵ Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is understood as providing complete atonement for sin, available to the entire human race.³⁶ But His work, accomplished on Calvary, also involved “the application of the atoning sacrifice of Christ to the seeking soul. This is provided for in the priestly ministry of our blessed Lord, our great High Priest in the sanctuary above.”³⁷ It is made clear, however, that Christ’s atoning work on the cross can only benefit human beings as they surrender their lives to Him and experience new birth.³⁸

How does this understanding of the atonement affect the investigative judgment doctrine? While it is true that humanity is saved by grace alone, this grace must be manifested in a visible way in the life of a Christian,³⁹ since “it seems … abundantly clear that the acceptance of Christ at conversion does not seal a person’s destiny.”⁴⁰ God, through the work of the investigation of the records, determines “who are truly His Children.”⁴¹ The authors of QOD, however, made it clear that God, being omniscient, does not need the investigative judgment. The proceedings of this judgment benefit the inhabitants of the universe, to whom God’s love, justice and mercy are vindicated.⁴²

Thus, while the doctrine of the investigative judgment has a slightly adjusted emphasis in QOD than in earlier Adventist writings, it nonetheless still represents a process of examination of the lives of professed followers of Christ, in order to determine the sincerity of their profession of faith.

DARCOM and BRICOM

The volumes produced by the Biblical Research Institute and the Daniel and Revelation Committee signify the most recent official Adventist attempt to address the issues that surround the doctrine of the investigative judgment. Following the lead of QOD, the authors of these volumes seem to accept that complete atonement was made on the cross.⁴³ This, however, does not do away with the need for the investigative judgment. As Arnold Wallenkampf explained, the need for the investigative judgment does not lie in the fact that God’s forgiveness is provisional and that believers need to be definitively cleared of guilt. Instead, it finds its explanation in the fact that there is a difference between actual sin and the record of sin. Wallenkampf thus concluded:

The Scriptures do teach that sins can be forgiven although the record of sin remains. The record of sin is not destroyed at the time sin is forgiven. Ezekiel apparently has this in mind when he says: “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered…”⁴⁴

Thus, while the sin is forgiven, the record remains. And in the case of the relapsed sinner, the guilt is returned to him in full. According to Wallenkampf, the process of the investigative judgment does not, however, determine a person’s destiny; rather, it serves as a verification or confirmation of liquidated debts.⁴⁵ While the role of the judgment is to vindicate the saints, “the pre-advent heavenly audit will mean condemnation to such who once were in Christ Jesus but chose not to remain in the faith relationship.”⁴⁶ There is a need, therefore, to review the lives of the people of God, and to vindicate those who are true followers of God. In this way, the investigative judgment will also “vindicate and forever establish both God’s justice and mercy” before the entire universe.⁴⁷

This brief review shows that, while the doctrine of investigative judgment was refined over time, a common thread remained; namely, that just prior to the second coming of Christ, a review of the lives of God’s people was necessary. It is this point, namely, a review of the lives of believers, which became a bone of contention for Ballenger. Such a review, he argued, was unbiblical and anti-Gospel.

To understand the depth of Ballenger’s opposition toward the investigative judgment doctrine, we must examine his understanding of the Fall, the atonement, and the role of personal choice in the process of salvation.⁴⁸

The Sin and Atonement in the Writings of Ballenger

Sin and Its Results

God created Adam as a perfect being who was free to choose to follow God or to reject Him. Confronted by Satan, Adam made a conscious decision to disobey God’s law. This decision had immediate consequences. By his disobedience, Adam became alienated from God, and thus subject to death. As a result of his sin, Adam, in whom all humanity was present, gave rise to a race of sinners, who inherited his sinful tendencies and who continued to be alienated from God.⁴⁹ This alienation meant that, from that point on, no human being was capable of choosing righteousness and life for themselves.⁵⁰ But while the whole of humankind was present in Adam, and while a sinful nature was passed on through the laws of heredity, Adam’s posterity was not responsible for sin. Ballenger thus wrote,

The children of Adam did not make themselves sinners. I did not make myself a sinner. Adam made me a sinner, and I have sinned because I was born a sinner. My sins did not make me a sinner. Crab-apples on a crab-apple tree do not make the tree a crab-apple…It bore crab-apples because it was a crab-apple tree. So your sins did not make you a sinner, but you sinned because you were born [a] sinner.⁵¹
Your sinning did not make you a sinner. Reader, you sinned because you were born a sinner…We were sinners before we sinned. We were sinners because we were born of sinful seed, because we sprang from the root of Adam.⁵²

These statements indicate that Ballenger embraced a broad view of sin. Accordingly, sin was not limited to just disobedience, but extended to the state into which humans are born. While such a position per se was not biblically incorrect,⁵³ Ballenger used it as a platform to develop a novel understanding of the atonement, which was intended to sound a death knell to the doctrine of the investigative judgment.

The Atonement

The fall of Adam was the point where God, who loved the world and saw the hopelessness of humanity, decided to intervene and offer the world the gift of righteousness and life, which was “as free to the human race as Adam’s gift of carnality and death had been.”⁵⁴ Thus, according to Ballenger, at the moment of Adam’s fall, in order to rescue the human race from death, God appointed Jesus Christ as the sin-bearer, who was to suffer the penalty for sin and, through His death, reconcile the world to Himself.

Through His death, Christ atoned for the sin of humanity, paid the penalty required by the law, and redeemed all humankind from the curse of the law.⁵⁵ The words of Christ on the cross, “It is finished!” signified the completed, once for all atonement. The proof for this claim is found, according to Ballenger, in the fact that God raised His Son from the dead and set Him at His right hand, thus accepting His death as an atonement for the sins of those for whom He died, which included the whole world.⁵⁶ The immediate, subjective result of the death of Christ on the cross was that God reconciled all humanity to Himself.⁵⁷ Through this single act of Christ, God “had reached down and put his arms around the fallen world, and lifted it right back up to the place where it was before it fell off the platform of the garden of Eden.”⁵⁸ In this way, through His death, Christ “created a new race of righteous men.”⁵⁹

The essential element of this transaction, in Ballenger’s theology, was that just as Adam’s posterity had no choice regarding Adam’s choice to disobey the law of God, in the same way all human beings were saved by Jesus Christ without their knowledge or consent. For Ballenger, the fact that unbelieving sinners do not feel or act saved does not change the fact that they are saved, “according to [God’s] own purpose and grace which was given… in Christ Jesus before the world began.”⁶⁰ Thus, in Ballenger’s understanding, there was no human involvement in the process of salvation.

Personal Choice and the Unpardonable Sin

The fact that human beings were saved, however, did not necessarily mean that all people, with or without their consent, would go to heaven. For Ballenger, while the death of Christ placed every human being “back on the pier of life, and innocency before the law,” it only assured that, in God’s eyes, humanity stood “where they stood in Adam before Adam pushed them off into sin and death.”⁶¹ As a result, every person was faced with the same choice Adam had. In other words, it was up to the individual whether they chose to go “higher into eternal life or lower into the second death.”⁶² Ballenger wrote: “Individual salvation depends upon individual appropriation by faith of that universal atonement, and on the additional acceptance of the life of Christ to be the life of the individual to save him from continuing in sin.”⁶³ According to Ballenger, the reason why all human beings were placed in the position where they had to make this choice was to transfer the responsibility for personal salvation from God to the individual. This was necessary so that no human or heavenly being could blame God for the eventual annihilation of those who had refused the offer of salvation extended to them.⁶⁴

On this basis, Ballenger developed the idea that there were two types of salvation. He wrote: “there is a general or ‘common salvation’ which includes all men, and there is a special salvation for those who believe. The general salvation will avail nothing to the man who refuses to believe. Why not believe the general salvation and thereby experienec [sic] the special salvation?” Thus, while it seems that the “general salvation” was provided on the cross, “the special salvation” depended on human choice.⁶⁵

The essential part of Ballenger’s understanding of the atonement and human salvation was that, in his theology, a choice to reject salvation constituted the unpardonable sin, i.e. sin for which there was no atonement.⁶⁶ Christ’s death on the cross had atoned for all sin that was the result of humans’ sinful nature, as well as of ignorance; however, His death had not atoned for the sin of rejecting God’s grace. If it had, it would be impossible, according to Ballenger, to “make an end of sin,” which was part of Christ’s mission. Ballenger noted that:

If such sinning were included in the sacrifice of Christ, wicked men and angels could take advantage of this fact to continue their deliberate, defiant campaign against God and His people throughout all eternity. No, there is no sacrifice for such sinning, nor could there be without making Christ the perpetuator of sin.⁶⁷

Having paid the price, Christ waited for humanity to make the choice to accept the gift of grace extended to them.⁶⁸ But did this mean there was no place for Christian living or good works in Ballenger’s teachings? On the contrary, Christ’s death on the cross had provided humanity with two free gifts. When human beings accepted the gift of salvation, they were immediately forgiven for the sin they had committed and would commit in ignorance, and also for the sin that was the result of their sinful human nature.⁶⁹ But as they grew in Christ, He endowed them with “another gift of His grace” – the ability to overcome their sinful nature, to stop sinning and to replace sin with “good works.”⁷⁰ But, as Ballenger noted, these “good works [were] the fruits of salvation, not the foundation. As the foundation of salvation, God regard[ed] them as filthy rags. As the fruit of salvation they [were] a glory to God.”⁷¹ If this visible change did not happen, however, this indicated that the individual had failed to “fulfill the righteousness of the law in his life,” and thus had committed the unpardonable sin.⁷² When human beings made this choice, they endorsed those sins that were committed as a result of their carnal nature, “and thereby re-enacted them in mind and heart, and incurred their guilt.”⁷³ As a result, the benefits of the atonement were removed from them and they were condemned to eternal damnation.⁷⁴

Ballenger’s Rejection of the Investigative Judgment

The above overview of Ballenger’s soteriology helps us to understand why he felt so uncomfortable with the doctrine of the investigative judgment and why he ultimately rejected it. His first and foremost concern regarding the SDA understanding of the investigative judgment was that it suggested that salvation was “dependent on what man ha[d] done for God instead of what God ha[d] done for man,”⁷⁵ a point often repeated in evangelical criticisms of the doctrine. Through His atonement, God had saved the entire human race; there was nothing to review. For Ballenger, the suggestion that salvation depended, in some way, upon human action, signified a return to biblical pharisaism, and thus to the destruction of the essence of the gospel.⁷⁶ In his understanding of the atonement, Ballenger was clearly in polemical disagreement with Smith, who believed that the benefits of the atonement were granted to those whose lives showed their allegiance to God. Smith’s view, he argued, “[made] the offering individual and dependent upon an investigative judgment, instead of general, ‘once offered’ on behalf of all.”⁷⁷

Second, Ballenger claimed that a review of the lives of believers and a final appropriation of Christ’s sacrifice just before His second coming suggested that His sacrifice for sin was incomplete, imperfect and conditional.⁷⁸ As such, it had to be continued and completed through the lives of millions of Christians during all the centuries from the cross to the end of the world.⁷⁹ This, according to Ballenger, was clearly against the teachings of the New Testament, such as Hebrews 10:10-14, 17-18.⁸⁰ He argued:

Was the sacrifice of Christ complete? Or was it partial and incomplete and must be completed by the sacrifices of men? Are the sacrificing lives of all Christian men and women a necessary part of Christ’s sacrifice without which His sacrifice is incomplete? Was the sacrifice of Christ so lacking that it has required the lives of all Christian men and women of the past, and will require the lives of all Christians of the future to complete that sacrifice? … Most of our readers will wonder why such questions are asked. The reason lies in the fact that there is a persistent effort being put forth to persuade the cast-out companies that Christ’s sacrifice for sin was incomplete, and that during all the centuries Christ has been working through men to complete that sacrifice, and will continue to work to complete it until the end of time.⁸¹

Third, Ballenger believed that the investigative judgment, i.e., a review of human choices, invoked fear and thus adversely impacted Christian assurance, as the sinner faced the investigative judgment unsure of His status before God.⁸² In contrast, Ballenger believed that the completed work of Christ on the cross ensured salvation the moment a sinner believed, providing full assurance that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient.⁸³

Fourth, Ballenger declared that the investigative judgment doctrine had no support in the Scriptures. In his opinion, the first angel’s message, one of the passages in which Adventists find support for the investigative judgment, was the announcement of the “judgment of God in general,” i.e. on the persecutors of His people, rather than a pronouncement of the investigative judgment.⁸⁴ Thus, Ballenger stated:

Notice that the souls under the altar are not begging the Lord to start an investigation to see whether an atonement should be made at the mercy-seat to silence the claims of a broken law for their death as transgressors of that law; but they are crying to God with a loud voice petitioning Him to “judge” … By this time the reader must be deeply impressed with the truth that the announcement that the hour of God’s judgment is come, is indeed “eternal good tidings,” and it is good tidings because it announces the destructive judgments of God upon the persecutors of His saints and their eternal deliverance thereby.⁸⁵

A detailed study of certain portions of the book of Revelation convinced Ballenger that this judgment—which was declarative rather than investigative in nature—was still in the future.⁸⁶ Thus, he found no Scriptural support for the claim that God needed to review the lives of His people or that the process had begun in 1844.⁸⁷ Finding no Scriptural foundation for the investigative judgment doctrine, Ballenger declared it the product of human imagination. The reason, he suggested, why it had found its way into Adventist theology was to explain the delay of Christ’s coming after the disappointment of 1844. As time dragged on and Christ failed to appear, Adventists invented the theory that, before Christ could return, He must first investigate the records of sinners’ lives, in order to determine who was worthy of redemption.⁸⁸

Thus, in summary, Ballenger’s theology of atonement was a reaction to the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of atonement at that time, and particularly to the writings of Uriah Smith. In his attempt to redefine the doctrine of the atonement, Ballenger rejected the investigative judgment doctrine, which, according to him, undermined the essence of the gospel by introducing a human element into the doctrine of the atonement. He argued that the official Adventist soteriology of his time made the atonement dependent upon human beings rather than on the atoning death of Christ on the cross, which in turn resulted in a lack of Christian assurance.

Thus, Ballenger proceeded to outline a revised soteriology, where humans were saved on the basis of a completed atonement provided by Jesus Christ on the cross, without any human consent or co-operation. Thus, no review of human life was necessary, as humans’ only role was to accept what Christ had accomplished for them. Despite later Adventist attempts to fine-tune the doctrine, particularly in Questions on Doctrine and the work of BRI, Ballenger would most certainly have continued to oppose the investigative judgment doctrine, as all further refinements continued to involve a review of believers’ lives.

A Failed Quest: Indomitability of the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment

Accordingly, it is to be expected that Ballenger, a harsh critic of Adventist teachings, would distance himself from the investigative judgment doctrine, as well as the language associated with it. Thus, one can search in vain for any reference to the investigative judgment or language associated with it in his soteriology. Despite his best efforts, however, Ballenger was unable to expunge it from his theology conceptually. While it may not seem so to the unprepared reader, the concept of a review is still intrinsically present in his theology.

The clearest evidence of the concept of a review of God’s people is found in Ballenger’s parable, “Not Under Law but Under Grace.”⁸⁹ For Ballenger, this parable demonstrated a true biblical understanding of the atonement. In the parable, the Governor General of a British colony, a man of great wealth and benevolence, was about to show his mercy and grant pardon to a criminal who had been sentenced to death. The Governor decided to redeem this criminal’s life and adopt him as a son, even though it would cost him his entire fortune. The judge, “a man of irreproachable character” who was a friend of the Governor’s and who had just sentenced the criminal, objected to the Governor’s decision. The Governor argued that, because of his surroundings, the criminal did not have the opportunity to choose another type of life, stating: “it is my purpose to instruct him in a better life and lead him to forsake his lawless career.”

The judge objected because he believed that the criminal would be on the streets committing crime as soon as he was released. He argued: “It will be useless to pay the price of his life now, for the simple reason that the crimes he will commit will bring him back under the law almost immediately.” The Governor admitted this possibility, but his counter-argument was that he was placing his entire fortune to pay not just for the criminal’s past crimes, but also for his future ones, which he assumed the criminal would commit “in his ignorance and weakness.” This action, he claimed, did not make the law void, but rather it “establishe[d]” it. With this deposit of grace, the criminal would never come under law again.

Furthermore, the Governor believed that his efforts would reform the criminal and he would become a law-abiding citizen. “But in order to accomplish this, he must be delivered from the law, and kept free,” otherwise the death sentence, demanded by the law, would have to be enforced. The judge threw out one more objection: what if the criminal, who would certainly accept the Governor’s grace, took advantage of his newly found freedom from the law and continued to commit his crimes? Should he be allowed to continue with his life-style without any repercussions? The Governor’s response to this question was intriguing because it revealed the conditionality of forgiveness, thus necessitating a review of the criminal’s life.

If he transgresses the law willfully after he has come to the knowledge of the truth … there will remain no part of my sacrificing deposit for him … if he tramples upon my sacrifice for him; if he comes to count the giving of my fortune as something given that he may continue in law-breaking; if he thus deliberately does despite to the spirit of grace shown him, then there remains no deposit of grace for him. Then he must fall into the hands of the civil authority, and will be deserving of sorer punishment than if he had never known of my abundance.⁹⁰

These statements clearly reveal two phases of judgment: the if and the then phase. First, the sinner’s life must be examined to determine if his/her life was congruent with the grace given to him/her. Once this process was completed, then the sentence would be pronounced. Thus, even though grace was given to all humanity and all humanity was saved from the penalty of the law, the life of the sinner after his/her conversion played a definite role, i.e., as an indicator of his/her sincerity.”⁹¹ Accordingly, it would appear that God must review the lives of those who claim to be Christians, in order to determine the validity of their claims to salvation.⁹²

This process of if and then appears to find support in Ballenger’s other writings, where he suggests that if believers continue to abuse God’s grace, then Christ’s sacrifice becomes ineffective. In one article he stated: “if God’s deposit of grace on behalf of the transgressor of His law does no more than perpetuate the lawless life of the transgressor, it will have been made in vain … it will have served to reveal the mercy and love of God . . . but it will have been spent in vain so far as the sinner is concerned.”⁹³ Elsewhere, Ballenger wrote that if the sinner refused to “afflict his soul” through repentance, “receive the atonement” and show that his life was in agreement with God’s law, he would be “cut off,” the benefits of the atonement would be removed, and the sinner would continue to live in a state of total separation from Christ.⁹⁴ A legitimate question at this point would be: What process does God use to determine if His “deposit of grace” has been spent “in vain?” How does He know whether the person who professed to accept His grace is to be redeemed or “cut off?”

Ballenger did not provide his readers with answers to these questions; but his soteriology – according to which “it is possible for man, by rejecting grace, to commit sins for which Christ did not substitute, whose penalty Christ did not pay in His death, and which can only be paid in the death of the sinner himself”⁹⁵ – appears to require a review of believers’ lives. Although investigative judgment terminology is absent from Ballenger’s writings, it manifests itself through his if and then terminology. Through their life choices—the “human element” so reviled by Ballenger—human beings either accept the provisions of the atonement or reject them.

This raises an important question: How could a critic of the investigative judgment doctrine, particularly the concept of a review of believers’ lives, ultimately make it part of his theology? What inclined him to retain the element of Adventist doctrine that he was so vehemently opposed to? A broader understanding of Protestant soteriology can aid in answering this question. To this we now turn.

The Theological Necessity of the Investigative Judgment: Theological Analysis

Seventh-day Adventists have always regarded themselves as children of the sixteenth-century Reformation, and have seen the Protestant faith, enshrined in the reformation slogans sola gratia, sola fide and soli Deo gloria, as an antidote to the Catholic merit oriented soteriology. These slogans express the ideas that the salvation of humanity is accomplished by God’s grace and must be accepted by faith. The last phrase, soli Deo Gloria, expresses the conviction that God alone is responsible for the salvation of humanity, and that saved humans cannot claim credit for being saved. All biblically oriented and theologically informed Protestants, including Seventh-day Adventists, affirm these basic truths.

What is not often known and acknowledged, however, is that the Protestant faith, which embraces the above-mentioned slogans, is expressed according to two diametrically opposed theological meta-paradigms known as monergism and synergism. This is in contrast to Roman Catholic soteriology, which has always been synergistic.⁹⁶

For all believers, a synergistic paradigm is easier to embrace, as it more closely correlates with human experience, including upbringing, education, and various cultural experiences. These experiences, in turn, exert a powerful leverage on a believer’s soteriology.⁹⁷ Thus, a synergistic paradigm of salvation is highly intuitive. This is not so with a monergistic paradigm. Monergism has its roots in a narrow interpretation of certain biblical passages, leading to a paradigm according to which all reality, including salvation, is explained. In contrast to synergism, thus, monergism is highly counterintuitive. While believers tend to naturally operate within a synergistic paradigm, a monergistic paradigm requires believers to be much more intentional.

Understanding these two meta-paradigms and how they function within Protestantism is crucial, as it impacts the meaning of sola gratia, sola fide and soli Deo gloria. In other words, when synergists and monergists utter these slogans, they do not mean the same thing. It is thus not sufficient to affirm the Protestant faith expressed in these slogans; it is also important to understand the soteriological meta-paradigm within which this faith is expressed. Understanding this will make sense of the dilemma faced by Ballenger, as well as many other Adventist critics of the investigative judgment doctrine. We will begin with Protestant monergism.

Monergism⁹⁸

Within the Protestant context, monergism (Greek mon: one, and érg[on] “work”) is a soteriological paradigm where God alone is responsible for the salvation of humanity. Any form of human input, including free will, is precluded. Protestant monergism almost always manifests itself in either universalism or double predestinarianism.⁹⁹

Protestant universalism, a less known outgrowth of monergism, is a theory that has periodically appeared in theology since the sixteenth century.¹⁰⁰ Although it has several variations, the basic thrust of the theory is that God’s plan is to restore all humans, regardless of their choices, into relationship with Him. This was the original purpose for which humanity was created.¹⁰¹ Because universalism raises critical questions about God’s character, particularly His justice, and about human morality and responsibility, few Protestant thinkers have embraced this view.¹⁰²

A far more well-known and widely embraced version of monergism is Protestant double predestinarianism, and from this point on the term “monergism” will be used only in reference to double predestinarianism. This version of monergism affirms that in eternity past God decreed who would be saved and who would be lost. This decision is irrevocable and unconditional. Humanity plays no role in the process of salvation and individuals have no way of affecting or changing this divine decision. Freedom of will regarding spiritual matters is denied. Those who are predestined to be lost, i.e., the reprobate, do not experience the genuine wooing of the Holy Spirit toward repentance and conversion. Those who are predestined for salvation will, solely by the grace of God, experience conversion and become Christians. Decreed by God in eternity past, salvation cannot be lost; thus the phrase “once saved always saved.”

Obviously, this position has serious implications on the Protestant belief of justification by faith, with the slogans sola gratia, sola fide and soli Deo gloria having specific meanings. Sola, in all three phrases, indicates that God is in complete control of the process of salvation, and human free will is excluded. Gratia is understood as a gift from God that precludes the possibility of rejecting it; in other words, grace is irresistible. In monergistic literature this is sometimes referred to as a “strong” or “total” theology of grace.¹⁰³ Faith, in sola fide, is viewed as passive, i.e., human faith does not have any influence upon God’s decision. This belief flows from the conviction that the Fall damaged Adam and his posterity so completely that they are unable to respond to God’s offer of salvation. Thus salvation becomes God’s work alone—through election—with no human input. Only predestined individuals receive the gift of faith from God, and predestined individuals simply accept that they are justified by faith, i.e., their faith is in no way instrumental in their salvation. Within the monergistic paradigm, therefore, the phrase justification by faith does not mean that the person chooses, by faith, to accept God’s offer of salvation; rather, it means that an individual simply accepts the decision God made in eternity past. Accordingly, sola fide is basically reduced to the ‘aha’ moment when the elect believer recognizes what has already been accomplished. For many monergists, introducing any human element into the process of salvation, including faith based on free human choice, implies a return to Catholic synergism.¹⁰⁴

It goes without saying that the main purpose of monergism is to provide complete assurance of salvation by removing the ‘human element’—including choice— from the process of salvation. If a person has faith—a gift from God—it means that they are saved. Their lives will certainly not be subject to review. It is for this reason that monergist rhetoric may be attractive to Christians who feel burdened by legalism.

It is historically documented that the Reformers such as Jan Huss (1371-1415)¹⁰⁵, John Wyclif (ca. 1320-1384),¹⁰⁶ as well as all the Magisterial Reformers, namely, Martin Luther (1483-1546), John Calvin (1509-1564) and Urlich Zwingli (1484-1531), embraced a monergistic form of Protestantism.¹⁰⁷ In their reaction against the Catholic emphasis on Christian works as essential for salvation, they adopted Augustinian monergism. Augustine (354-430AD) believed that humanity in its totality was a condemned mass (massa damnata) and that the only solution for the human situation was God’s action in eternity past. This action provided believers with an ultimate assurance of faith.¹⁰⁸ During the seventeenth century, monergistic Protestant faith found its expression in the acronym TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints). This is the most prevalent form in which Protestant monergism manifests itself today.¹⁰⁹

Synergism

In contrast to monergism, synergism (Greek syn: with, and érg[on] “work”) is a soteriological paradigm where God and humans cooperate in the process of salvation. This paradigm has a venerable pedigree, and has been embraced by the majority of the Christian tradition. A synergistic approach to salvation offers several important advantages over monergism: first, as stated above, it is an intuitive approach to faith; second, it appears to be more naturally aligned with Scripture than monergism; third, it is based on a broad, rather than narrow, interpretation of Scripture; fourth, it does not require awkward re-interpretation of words such as “whosoever,” “all,” “each,” “everyone,” (Acts 2:21; John 3:16; Titus 2:11, 2 Peter 3:9);¹¹⁰ and finally—its most consequential feature—it stresses the existence of genuine human free will in matters of salvation. It is this last characteristic that raises the ire of monergist theologians.

Unlike monergism, however, synergism suffers a major complication. Monergism offers a unified approach to salvation, i.e., it is either monergism or it is not. There are thus no shades of Christian monergism.¹¹¹ Synergism, on the other hand, has many shades, resulting in various approaches to salvation, all of which are under the same synergistic umbrella. Synergistic approaches to salvation tend to differ from denomination to denomination. Furthermore, various approaches are often found within the same denomination. This is also the case with Seventh-day Adventism.

At the extreme end of the Christian synergistic spectrum there is work-centered synergism, often identified with Pelagianism.¹¹² Pelagianism views Adam’s sin as having no effect upon his posterity. Thus, humans are born with the same nature and freedom of will possessed by Adam prior to the Fall. Humanity, thus, may earn their salvation by their own effort. A variety of mediating approaches, often labeled as semi-Pelagianism or semi-Augustinianism, mix faith and works in differing configurations.¹¹³

At the other end of the spectrum there is grace-centered synergism, which fully embraces the Protestant faith expressed in sola gratia et fides and soli Deo gloria. For grace-centered synergists, the sola of the slogans always remains just that: sola, i.e., they believe that it is God alone who initiates the process of salvation, restores human free will through His prevenient grace,¹¹⁴ enables good works, oversees the entire process of salvation through the agency of the Holy Spirit, and crowns it with the salvation of those who choose to become followers of Christ. All of this is accomplished solely by God’s grace, thus grace-centered synergists are in agreement with the Protestant slogans sola gratia et fides and soli Deo gloria. Grace-centered Protestant synergism finds its roots in the writings of Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560),¹¹⁵ in some branches of the Radical Reformation, and particularly in the writings of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) and his follower John Wesley (1703-1791).

Monergism, Synergism, Free Will and the Investigative Judgment

As noted above, the most significant difference between monergism and synergism is that the latter, in all its forms, embraces the existence of genuine free will. Pelagianism and various forms of semi-Pelagianism assert that the Fall did not damage humanity in such a way that free will was lost.¹¹⁶ Grace-centered synergists agree with monergists that the Fall did damage humanity in such a way that they are not able to respond to God’s offer of salvation. Thus, they embrace the teaching that, regarding spiritual matters, human beings are “totally depraved;” however, in contrast to monergists, grace-centered synergists believe that God restores human free through the agency of His prevenient grace.

It is the existence of human free will that necessitates some sort of review on the part of the Creator; otherwise, what would be the point of providing His creatures with free will? Some critics of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment opine that an omniscient God does not need a lengthy review to know who are His. This is beside the point. Whether long or short, whether it began in 1844 or not, such a review is a theological necessity. It is not surprising, therefore, that all synergistic religions – both Christian and non-Christian – and all synergistic denominations embrace a form of investigation or review of the lives of believers. “We shall all,” wrote John Wesley in his famous sermon The Great Assize, “stand before the judgment-seat of Christ… and in that day ‘every one of us shall give account to God’.”¹¹⁷ Wesley was, of course, a synergist.¹¹⁸

This is not the case with monergism. For Christian monergists, the idea of a review of human lives, which might possibly be linked with one’s destiny,¹¹⁹ is anathema. The decision of a sovereign, all-knowing God, made in eternity past, cannot be changed or questioned. Such a review would diminish God’s glory, diminish the effectiveness of His grace and, most importantly, introduce a human element into the process of salvation. This is why a great chasm exists between a monergist system of belief and those who espouse any form of synergism. While some may grudgingly acknowledge grace-centered synergism as heterodox (as shown in the next section), anything beyond that is heresy.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the strongest arguments against the investigative judgment doctrine come from monergists. Their arguments, cleverly disguised as representing the true form of biblical Christianity, tend to focus on the cross of Christ alone and the absoluteness of Christian assurance. Supposedly, only a monergist point of view can provide a Christian believer with true assurance of salvation. In reality, the attack on the investigative judgment doctrine is a monergist attack against any form of synergism. Being unfamiliar with the dynamics of the monergist/synergist controversy, the defenders of the investigative judgment doctrine—even those embracing a grace-centered synergism—are often forced on the defensive. But, for synergists, there is nothing to be defensive about. The eschatological review of believers’ lives is a fact necessitated by the existence of the free will.

While having an overall positive effect upon Adventism, the conversations between evangelical and Adventist leaders during the 1950’s illustrate the standoff between monergism and synergism. They also demonstrate the inability of monergist scholars to grasp the dynamics of grace-centered synergism.

A Clash of Meta-Paradigms120

During the early 1950’s, East Pennsylvania Conference president T. E. Unruh listened to a radio series on righteousness by faith in the book of Romans. The series was presented by Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, a prominent Presbyterian pastor and an editor of the renowned Eternity Magazine. Unruh was impressed with Barnhouse’s message and sent a letter of appreciation. In his reply, Barnhouse expressed surprise that an Adventist would appreciate his message, since “it was well-known that Adventists believed in righteousness by works.”¹²¹ Thinking he could clear up some misunderstandings, Unruh mailed a copy of Steps to Christ to Barnhouse. Barnhouse read the book and published a harsh critique of it and its author. Discouraged, Unruh did not pursue further correspondence.

Unruh may not have become so discouraged had he understood that Barnhouse was a monergist,¹²² and thus judged Steps to Christ according to the precepts of his soteriological paradigm. Both the title and the message of the book would have irked him greatly. From the monergist perspective, steps to Christ and human free will are impossible.

Barnhouse, however, did not forget his conversation with Unruh, and some time later he initiated a series of evangelical-Adventist conversations. These conversations culminated in a controversial statement, which Barnhouse published in Eternity Magazine. The statement proclaimed that while many Adventist beliefs were heterodox, as long as Adventists held on to the essentials of the Christian faith, such as the full deity of Christ and the efficacy of His atonement on the cross, they could be counted as “born-again Christians and truly brethren in Christ.”¹²³

One “heterodox” belief particularly critiqued by Barnhouse and his colleague Walter Martin—a specialist on American cults—was the investigative judgment doctrine. Adventists put forth a valiant but ultimately unsuccessful endeavor to convince their evangelical colleagues of the biblical foundations for the investigative judgment in the 1957 book Questions on Doctrine.¹²⁴ Three years after the publication of Questions on Doctrine, Walter Martin, also a monergist, published a book on Adventism, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.¹²⁵ While to a large degree this book was a sympathetic presentation of Seventh-day Adventism, Martin devoted considerable effort to explain and refute the investigative judgment doctrine. Similarly to Barnhouse’s critique of Steps to Christ, Martin conducted his critique from a monergistic perspective, giving little consideration to the foundational synergistic theological framework of Adventism. It is not surprising, therefore, that Martin dismissed the investigative judgment doctrine in these words:

Seventh-day Adventists, we believe, needlessly subscribe to a doctrine which neither solves their difficulties nor engenders peace of mind. Holding as they do to the doctrine of the investigative judgment, it is extremely difficult for us to understand how they can experience the joy of salvation and the knowledge of sins forgiven.¹²⁶

Indeed, for a monergist who believed in the unbridled sovereignty of God, total grace theology and the non-existence of human free will, a review of believers’ lives was a needless exercise. The fate of believers had already been determined in eternity past. What was there to review? “For those who believe in ‘eternal security,’ Martin wrote, “there is no judgment for the penalty of sin.”¹²⁷ Such a judgment, according to this view, “diminishes Christ’s work on the cross.”¹²⁸ This, however, is a misunderstanding of the Adventist version of synergism.

2 Corinthians 5:10 - A Monergist Version of the Investigative Judgment

In the light of the previous paragraph, it is important to bear in mind that Christian monergism does not deny an eschatological review of human behavior. After all, the Apostle Paul wrote: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10). Compelled by biblical evidence, Christian monergists recognize that, at the end of time, a review of human lives must occur. This review, however, follows rather than precedes the Second Coming. As Louis Berkhof, a well known Calvinist theologian, explained in his Systematic Theology:

Some regard the final judgment as entirely unnecessary, because each man’s destiny is [already] determined at the time of his death . . . Since the matter is settled, no further judicial inquiry is necessary, and therefore such a final judgment is quite superfluous. But the certainty of the future judgment does not depend on our conception of its necessity. God clearly teaches us in His Word that there will be a final judgment, and that settles the matter for all those who recognize the Bible as the final standard of faith.¹²⁹

Thus, it is apparent that monergist theologians not only accept the necessity of an eschatological judgment, but also that the notion of investigation is embedded in the final judgment. Such an investigation has two objectives: first, to display “before all rational creatures the declarative glory of God in a formal, forensic act, which magnifies on the one hand His holiness and righteousness, and on the other hand, His grace and mercy;”¹³⁰ and second, to review the lives of all human beings.¹³¹

An immediate question arises: if the matter of final destiny is settled by God’s decree in eternity past, what is the reason for the “investigative” phase of judgment? Monergist theologians put forth this ingenuous solution: the purpose of judgment is not to ascertain who goes to heaven and who goes to hell; this was indeed determined in eternity past. Instead, the purpose of the “investigative judgment”— terminology some Calvinist thinkers actually employ¹³²—is to determine the level of reward or punishment. According to Berkhof, “there will be different degrees, both of the bliss in heaven and of the punishment of hell. And these degrees will be determined by what is done in the flesh.”¹³³ In other words, a review of human life is still necessary. Human works on earth are still determinative. However, human works do not determine salvation. Instead, they determine the degree of reward. Charles Stanley, a well known Calvinist theologian and preacher, put it this way:

The kingdom of God will not be the same for all believers. Let me put it another way. Some believers will have rewards for their earthly faithfulness; others will not. Some believers will be entrusted with certain privileges; others will not. Some will reign with Christ; others will not. Some will be rich in the kingdom of God; others will be poor…Some will be given true riches; others will not…some will be given heavenly treasures of their own; others will not …Privilege in the kingdom of God is determined by one’s faithfulness in this life. This truth may come as a shock. Maybe you have always thought that everyone would be equal in the kingdom of God. It is true that there will be equality in terms of our inclusion in the kingdom of God but not in our rank and privilege.¹³⁴

Here lies the most significant difference between synergism and monergism: for the latter, the investigative judgment has something to do with the believer’s salvation and occurs before the Second Coming; for the former, it determines rank and privilege in heaven and hell and occurs after the Second Coming.¹³⁵ With this distinction in mind, Walter Martin wrote:

Christians, therefore, need not anticipate any investigative judgment for their sins. True, we shall ‘all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive the deeds done in the body’ (II Cor. 5:10), but this has nothing to do with any investigative judgment. It is judgment for rewards.¹³⁶

It becomes evident, therefore, that Martin and other monergist Christians champion their own version of the investigative judgment while denying it to the Adventists. Instead, they judged Adventist teachings using a monergist yardstick. According to this yardstick, no matter how grace-centered Adventism might be, it would always fall short of the monergistic view of God’s sovereignty.¹³⁷ Adventism would have to embrace monergism as its undergirding theological meta-paradigm in order to be considered a genuine expression of biblical Christianity by the mostly monergist evangelical world. Viewed from the perspective of monergism the Adventist doctrine of the Sanctuary with the investigative judgment makes no sense at all and would have to be abandoned. Historicism, as a method of prophetic interpretation would have to be discarded, as it is incompatible with the monergistic meta-paradigm. But all that would come at a great price. Such a move would not only destroy the overarching Adventist theological framework of the Great Controversy but possibly Adventism itself. From being a prophetic movement, Adventism would become another Christian denomination with heterodox beliefs such as the Seventh-day Sabbath and conditional immortality. This brings us back to Albion Fox Ballenger and his criticism of the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment.

Bringing It All Together

In his criticism of the investigative judgment doctrine, Ballenger took a page from the monergists’ playbook and judged the doctrine by the standards of that ideology. The subtle influences of this ideology became evident in his explanation of the atonement, and the cross of Christ became the singular focus of his attention. Mimicking monergist Christians, Ballenger argued that the investigative judgment doctrine made the atonement “dependent on what man has done for God instead of what God has done for man,” thus introducing the human element into the doctrine of salvation. ¹³⁸ Furthermore, he asserted that the investigative judgment doctrine diminished the value of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; that it invoked fear in the hearts of believers, thus adversely impacting Christian assurance; and, finally, that it is not found in the Bible and thus redundant theologically.

It is thus not surprising that Ballenger opened himself up to the charge that he had embraced monergism. His discussions with the leadership of the church at the 1905 General Conference proved particularly vexing, as he was informed that his teaching undermined the pillars of Adventism and amounted to heresy.¹³⁹ On the one hand, he was accused with promoting universalism. He was forced to vigorously deny this accusation for the rest of his life. The following incident expresses his frustration and desire to be understood correctly. At the end of the question time, he was asked by W. W. Prescott whether he believed that when Christ paid the penalty on the cross, he freed the whole human family from death. Ballenger hesitated in answering this question, claiming that there was insufficient time to explain his teachings fully. Finally, pressed, he answered:

I will say it plainly. I do not believe that any man will ever groan under the same guilt under which Christ groaned on Calvary; but that men will groan because they reject so great salvation. “Of how much sorer punishment think ye he shall be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God?” I know that now I will be charged with teaching Universalism; but this is not universalism [sic].¹⁴⁰

Ballenger clearly understood that universalism had no Scriptural support. He claimed that while it was true that Christ died for all people, not all people would be saved.¹⁴¹ To escape the trap of universalism, Ballenger taught that Christ, through His death on the cross, placed all humankind on the “platform of life.” Eternal life, however, “was on a higher platform, a gift of grace to be had by choosing.”¹⁴² This, according to Ballenger, was a “thousand miles from universalism.”¹⁴³

On the other hand, Ballenger was forced to defend himself against charges of predestinarian monergism. While he agreed that Christ’s death on the cross was a “once and for all” penalty for sin that was paid without consultation with or co-operation of sinners,¹⁴⁴ he disagreed with the limitation of the benefits of the atonement to the chosen elect, thus “leaving the rest of the world in hopeless despair,” and also with the notion that once saved, the sinner could not fall away from the grace of God.¹⁴⁵ In response to the charge of predestinarian monergism, he would point out that “a gift of grace [is] to be had by choosing.”¹⁴⁶

Ballenger’s problem was that while he was strongly attracted to the monergist assurance of salvation arguments and used them in his polemic against Adventism, his understanding of salvation continued to incorporate a human element. In short, he could not fully embrace monergism, and thus remained a reluctant synergist. While he taught that atonement was solely an act of God, he was unable to embrace the monergist understanding of human free will. In Ballenger’s soteriology, therefore, the final responsibility for salvation seemed to be in the hands of human beings, who, exercising their free will, choose their destiny. This choice would be reflected in the way in which they live their lives after conversion.¹⁴⁷

When a theologian includes an element of human free choice in his soteriology—thus leaving the realm of monergism—he must be prepared to accept the next logical step: a review of human choices and their implication for salvation. Thus, at some time before Christ’s return to earth, God will conduct some form of review or evaluation of the believer’s life in order to determine whether His sacrifice was truly appropriated by the person, and whether his or her life reflected this accordingly.¹⁴⁸ Such a review is an inherent and necessary element of any Christian synergistic soteriology. Whether it is referred to as an investigative judgment, a pre-Advent judgment or an “if and then” process, it is still a review of the believer’s life.¹⁴⁹

It becomes clear, therefore, that Albion Fox Ballenger, as well other critics of the investigative judgment doctrine, did not clearly perceive the great Protestant divide between monergism and synergism; between God’s sole salvific action and His allowing human free will in the process of salvation. Those Adventists who are critical of the pre-Advent judgment doctrine also appear to misunderstand this dynamic, not realizing that a review of believers’ lives cannot be erased from Adventist soteriology. It is the existence of human free will—a gift that the Creator endowed upon humanity— that necessitates a review on the part of the Creator; otherwise, human free will becomes a theologically redundant proposition.

It is evident that Ballenger was mightily attracted by the concepts he may have encountered in monergist literature. For the sake of complete Christian assurance he came as close as he could to the gulf that divides monergism from synergism; and yet, ultimately, he could not cross the great divide between these two meta-paradigms. This is because, at heart, he remained a synergist. Thus, his quest to controvert the doctrine of the investigative judgment for the purpose of Christian assurance ended in a failure.

A Final Word

The pursuit of Christian assurance is littered with difficulties and unanswered questions. Christian monergism claims to have solved the problem of Christian assurance by eliminating the human element in the process of salvation. On the one hand, universalistic monergism offers ultimate Christian assurance but creates serious theological problems related to God’s character, particularly the nature of His love and justice, and makes a mockery of human moral responsibility. This is an enormous price to pay for having complete assurance of salvation. On the other hand, predestinarian monergism also claims to provide believers with complete assurance. In addition to the problems associated with universalism, however, it adds its own. It is one thing to assert complete assurance for the elect, but it is another thing altogether to determine who belongs to that exclusive group. The question, “How can I know that I am one of the elect?” has occupied the minds of many Protestant believers, with no clear answers ever proposed.¹⁵⁰

Christian synergism, with its belief in human free will, also faces the problem of Christian assurance. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there are many varieties of synergistic belief systems, each offering diverse solutions to the problem of Christian assurance. According to some of these systems, a review of believers’ lives may indeed be a scary proposition. Perhaps this is how Ballenger perceived the investigative judgment process, and perhaps why he ultimately rejected it. In some respects, therefore, we should be grateful to Ballenger – as well as to Barnhouse and Martin – for challenging the church to develop a more grace-centered understanding of the investigative judgment.¹⁵¹ As often happens in the heat of polemic, however, Ballenger lost his synergistic bearings, became attracted to monergistic arguments against the investigative judgment, and threw the baby out with the bathwater. Thus, rather than following Ballenger to the end, we must place the investigative judgment within the framework of grace-centered synergism.

It is my opinion that only grace-centered synergism—which accepts that it is God alone (thus soli Deo gloria) who initiates and completes the process of salvation, restores human free will through prevenient grace,¹⁵² enables good works, and oversees the entire process of salvation through the agency of the Holy Spirit—that offers believers a genuine and biblically based assurance of salvation and a positive view of the investigative judgment.¹⁵³ This can only happen when believers become convinced of their spiritual inability (total depravity)¹⁵⁴ and that their good works (sanctification) do not constitute the ground of their salvation as “it is God who works in [them] to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose” (Phil 2:13 NIV);¹⁵⁵ only then they may embrace the fact that they are always covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ so long they hold on to Him by faith. The Apostle Paul stated: “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against him” (Rom 4:7-8 NIV). This means that when believers appear before the judgment seat of God Christ righteousness covers them entirely.¹⁵⁶ The investigative judgment, thus, should be welcomed rather than feared (Psalm 26:1; 27:1). This is congruent with the Old Testament notion of judgment, which was always followed by the redemption of God’s people.¹⁵⁷ It should thus be the believer’s greatest desire to appear before the heavenly judge; and having a kinsman-redeemer as judge can be the foundation of an assurance far greater that anything Ballenger or Walter Martin could offer.

In the final analysis, because of the nature of Christian faith, complete assurance of salvation on this earth is impossible. Faith is, after all, “a confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Heb 11:1 NIV). Thus, complete assurance will only be possible in heaven when we see God face to face. Meanwhile, we are invited to pursue Jesus Christ—rather than assurance of salvation—and fix our eyes on Him who is “the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb 12:2 NKJV). When we do that, He, through the agency of His Holy Spirit will produce in us true sanctification (2 Pet 1:3-4) and grant us a sufficient measure of Christian assurance to take away the fear of judgment.