El propósito del juicio en la teología adventista reciente: ¿realmente importa la santidad?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56487/dl.v22i1.1080Palabras clave:
Teología adventista − Juicio investigador – Salvación – Justificación − Teología protestanteResumen
La doctrina del juicio, específicamente el juicio preadvenimiento, es sin duda una doctrinaclave del adventismo. Sin embargo, algunos eruditos adventistas han señalado que estadoctrina no ha permanecido invariable a través del tiempo (Rolf J. Pohler, Friz Guy). Unaspecto importante en el que ha variado la comprensión de esa doctrina es en relacióncon el objeto de la sentencia. Para los pioneros adventistas, el llamado juicio investigadorimplicaba un proceso de toma de decisiones con respecto a la salvación de los que son juzgados.Esto implicaba una evaluación de la vida de los creyentes, de su crecimiento en unavida de santidad. Por otro lado, para varios eruditos adventistas recientes, el juicio pareceestar básicamente enfocado en la vindicación del carácter de Dios. Este artículo explorala conexión entre este cambio y la (implícita) influencia creciente en la teología adventistade una interpretación monergista de la justificación por la fe, más en armonía con lateología protestante, que entiende la justificación como un hecho puntual, de una vez ypara siempre. En el contexto adventista, esto implica que la comprensión del juicio previoal advenimiento se enfoca en la exhibición de evidencia que vindica el carácter de Dios,mientras minimiza o elimina la necesidad de un proceso de toma de decisiones durante eljuicio mismo. El artículo evalúa brevemente este cambio en la comprensión del juicio enel adventismo en términos de su coherencia con el resto del sistema teológico adventista ysugiere algunas implicaciones con respecto a la importancia de la santidad en el contextode la soteriología adventista.Descargas
Citas
The term “investigative judgment” was apparently coined by Elon Verts in 1856 and used by James White since 1857. However, the concept is clearly previous to those dates. See Paul A. Gordon, The sanctuary, 1844, and the pioneers (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1983), 118; Roy Adams, The sanctuary doctrine: Three approaches in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, AUSDDS 1 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), 81, and references there. For a discussion of the early development of the doctrine of the investigative judgment, see C. Mervyn Maxwell, “The investigative judgment: Its early development,” in The sanctuary and the atonement: Biblical, historical, and theological studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1981), 545-577.
Rolf J. Pöhler, “Change in Seventh-day Adventist theology: A study of the problem of doctrinal development” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1995), 304.
Ibid., 197n.3.
Fritz Guy, Thinking theologically: Adventist Christianity and the interpretation of faith (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1999), 91. The inner quote comes from Ellen G. White, The great controversy between Christ and Satan (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950), 428.
Jairyong Lee poses that for Ellen G. White the last judgment in general involves four purposes: (1) “Salvation of believers,” (2) “eradication of sin,” (3) “satisfaction of the created beings,” and (4) “vindication of God’s character” (“Faith and works in Ellen G. White’s doctrine of the last judgment” [PhD diss., Andrews University, 1985], 118-123). However, these four purposes relate to the three phases of the judgment, including (1) the pre-Advent investigative judgment; (2) millennial judgment, and (3) the executive judgment at the end of the millennium. This paper focuses only on pre-Advent investigative judgment.
Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and prophets (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1958), 68.
J. N. Andrews, The judgment: Its events and their order (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1890), 17.
Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation: Thoughts, critical and practical, on the book of Daniel and the Revelation; Being an exposition, text by text, of these important portions of the Holy Scriptures (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1897), 135.
“Fundamental principles of Seventh-day Adventists statement,” in Year Book of Statistics for 1889 (Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald, 1889), 151 (statement XXI). Cf. also the statement of beliefs of 1872 (statement XVIII) in A declaration of the fundamental principles taught and practiced by the Seventh-Day Adventists (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the SDA Pub. Assn., 1872), 12.
Ellen G. White, Christ’s object lessons (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1941), 310.
Ellen G. White, Testimonies to ministers and gospel workers (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923), 448. See also E. G. White, The great controversy, 428, where she says: “This work of examination of character, of determining who are prepared for the kingdom of God, is that of the investigative judgment, the closing of work in the sanctuary above.” In ibid., 483, she says: “Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected.”
Pöhler, “Change in Seventh-day Adventist theology,” 242.
Sanctuary Review Committee, “Consensus document: Christ in the heavenly sanctuary,” Ministry (October 1980): 18, emphasis added.
Arnold V. Wallenkampf, “A brief review of some of the internal and external challengers to the Seventh-day Adventist teachings on the sanctuary and the atonement,” in The sanctuary and the atonement: Biblical, historical, and theological studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and Richard Lesher (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1981), 597, emphasis added. This paper was adapted and republished as Arnold V. Wallenkampf, “Challengers to the doctrine of the sanctuary,” in Doctrine of the sanctuary: A historical survey (1845–1863), ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1989), 197-216. The referred statement can be found in p. 214. In a similar statement, Richard Davidson suggests that “in a sense the investigative judgment may also be viewed as an accountant’s final audit at the end of the year. The records are faithfully kept throughout the year, and the auditor verifies the completeness and accuracy of the accounts. The audit is a public vindication of the one being audited, that he has conducted his affairs with integrity, in accordance with accepted business practices. At the end of history, God opens the books, as it were, for a public audit of His business practices. The auditors testify to His impeccable integrity” (“The good news of Yom Kippur,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society [JATS] 2, no. 2 [1991]: 27n60. Emphasis in original).
Wallenkampf, “A brief review,” 597.
Clifford Goldstein, “Investigating the investigative judgment,” Ministry (February 1992): 8.
Ibid., 9.
Jiří Moskala, “Toward a biblical theology of God’s judgment: A celebration of the cross in seven phases of divine universal judgment (an overview of a theocentric-christocentric approach),” JATS 15, no. 1 (2004): 154. The same statement can be found in Jiří Moskala, “A theology of judgment in Scripture,” in Richard M. Davidson, A song for the sanctuary: Experiencing God’s presence in shadow and reality (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2022), 457.
Roy Gane, Who’s afraid of the judgment? The good news about Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2006), 21. It is fair to say that more recently, Roy Gane has nuanced this statement by saying, “I would modify what I wrote in my Who’s Afraid of the Judgment? 20-22, to include the participation of God’s created beings in the process of making decisions, based on the facts of each case that God provides” (“Pre-advent judgment in the context of God’s salvation sanctuary,” in Theological issues facing the Seventh-day Adventist Church, ed. Joel Iparraguire and Dan-Adrian Petre [Madrid: Safeliz, forthcoming], n.49). It is clear that Gane understands that the investigative judgment involves a decision-making process with the participation of intelligent creatures.
Ivan T. Blazen, “Justification and judgment,” in The seventy weeks, Leviticus, and the nature of prophecy, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 3 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 383.
William H. Shea, “Foreword,” in Marvin Moore, The case for the investigative judgment: Its biblical foundation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2010), 7-8.
Norman R. Gulley, Systematic theology, vol. 4: The Church and the last things (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2016), 649.
Norman R. Gulley, Systematic theology, vol. 3: Creation, Christ, salvation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2012), 501.
Ibid.
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Church manual, 19th ed. (Silver Spring, MD: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2016), 171, emphasis added. In this sense, there is no difference with the original version of this statement of beliefs published in 1981. See General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Adventist Church manual (Takoma Park, MD: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1981), 44. Both statements say nothing regarding a real participation of heavenly intelligences in a decision-making process. A notable exception admitting that the judgment involves a real evaluation of the life of professed Christians is Gerhard F. Hasel: “The pre-advent judgment is both investigative and evaluative in regard to all who have made a profession to be believers. One of the accomplishments of the pre-advent judgment is the determination of those among the professed people who will inherit the kingdom” (“Divine judgment,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist theology, ed. Raoul Dederen [Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000], 844; see also Woodrow W. Whidden II, The judgment and assurance: The Dynamics of personal salvation [Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2011]). While Woodrow W. Whidden strongly emphasizes the vindicatory aspect of the investigative judgment (see pp. 40, 197), he also admits that “Daniel 7 strongly suggests that it [the investigative judgment] will involve the deciding of individual cases” (ibid., 31-32). According to Whidden, God will “provide [during the judgment] public evidence in support of the ultimate decisions that He will render in the great day when the cases of every human being will be finally settled for eternal life or eternal death” (ibid., 41).
Roy E. Graf, The principle of articulation in Adventist theology: An evaluation of current interpretations and a proposal, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series 11 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society, 2019), 239.
Ellen G. White considers that “pardon and justification are one and the same thing” Ellen G. White, Faith and works ([Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1979], 103).
In Ellen G. White’s words, “the atoning sacrifice through a mediator is essential because of the constant commission of sin. Jesus is officiating in the presence of God, offering up His shed blood, as it had been a lamb slain. Jesus presents the oblation offered for every offense and every shortcoming of the sinner” (Selected messages, vol. 1 [Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1958], 344).
Ibid., 1:366.
Woodrow W. Whidden, Ellen White on salvation (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1995), 151.
For the notion of justification as a present but also an eschatological reality, see Raoul Dederen, “Sanctification and the final judgment,” Ministry (May 1978), 12-13. Regarding the terminology of “final justification,” used by John Weley, see Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s teachings, vol. 2, Christ and salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 55-56.
White, Selected messages, 1:304.
For a list of publications about the topic at that time, see Gary Land, ed., “Shaping the modern Church: 1906-1930,” in Adventism in America: A history, rev. ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1998), 134; Norval F. Pease, By faith alone (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1962), 200-210; Bruno William Steinweg, “Developments in the teaching of justification and righteousness by faith in the Seventh-day Adventist Church after 1900” (MA thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1948), 54-61; 65-70; 72-86. Steinweg’s thesis includes not only books but also articles and other sources in his review. See also Geoffrey J. Paxton, The shaking of Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978), 69-76.
For discussion and references, see Roy E. Graf, “Cambios en la articulación de la teología adventista: del santuario a la justificación por la fe,” TeoBiblica 3, nos. 1-2 (2017): 205-208.
A. J. Gordon, The ministry of the Spirit (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1894), 198. See W. W. Prescott, The doctrine of Christ: A series of Bible studies for use in colleges and seminaries (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1920), 117. Prescott clarifies in the introduction that the only sources credited in his book are those coming from Ellen G. White. Those coming from other authors “are used merely for the expression of the thought, [but] no credit has been given” (ibid., 3).
Meade MacGuire, The life of victory (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1924), 15.
See ibid., 91. Interestingly, MacGuire does not connect justification with Christ’s intercession in the heavenly sanctuary but with the cross only. According to him, “through the death and shed blood of Christ we are justified; through the agency of the Spirit sent forth from heaven by the ministry of our Lord, we are sanctified. We could never be justified without His death and resurrection, nor could we be sanctified without His life and intercession resulting in the descent of the Spirit” (ibid., 73-74).
By “Adventist way” I mean in a way that doesn’t conflict with the Adventist theological system, particularly as this is articulated by the doctrine of the sanctuary. See Graf, The principle of articulation, 135-137.
Pease, By faith alone, 227.
See the last chapter of ibid. Walter F. Specht, reviewing Pease’s book By faith alone evaluated that “our author feels that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is actually becoming more evangelical with the passing years. He endeavors to show the connection between such doctrines as the second advent, the Sabbath, and the judgment with salvation by faith. Salvation by faith is the solution to the problems of the church” (Walter F. Specht, review of By faith alone by Norval F. Pease, Atlantic Union Gleaner, January 20, 1964, 5).
Ibid., 231, emphasis added.
Ibid., 232, emphasis added.
Pöhler, “Change in Seventh-day Adventist theology,” 243.
Leaders, Bible teachers, and editors, Seventh-day Adventist Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1957).
George R. Knight, A search for identity: The development of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000), 172.
Paxton, The shaking of Adventism, 114.
Edward Heppenstall, Salvation unlimited (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1974), 58.
Edward Heppenstall, Our High Priest: Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1972), 171.
See ibid., 136-137.
Edward Heppenstall, “The hour of God’s judgment is come (continued),” in Doctrinal discussions: A compilation of articles originally appearing in “The Ministry”, June, 1960—July, 1961, in answer to Walter R. Martin’s book “The truth about Seventh-day Adventism” (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, [1961?]), 172.
Heppenstall, Our High Priest, 212.
Armando Juárez, “An evaluation of Edward Heppenstall’s doctrine of redemption” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1991), 221. Pöhler also admits that “Heppenstall offered a non-traditional interpretation of the pre-advent judgment, defining it as the final vindication before the entire universe of God as well as of his government, character, and people” (“Change in Seventh-day Adventist theology,” 243).
Knight, A search for identity, 173.
Paxton, The shaking of Adventism, 116-117.
Ford would explain later “that the 2,300 days end with the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement… is blasphemous. The theology of the Christian church for two thousand years has rightly taught that the Atonement took place at Calvary” (Desmond Ford and Gillian Ford, For the sake of the gospel: Throw out the bathwater, but keep the baby ([Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2008], 46).
Desmond Ford, “Daniel 8:14, the day of atonement, and the investigative judgment,” paper presented at the Sanctuary Review Committee, Glacier View, CO, August 10-15, 1980, A-182.
Ibid., 583.
Desmond Ford, Right with God right now: People as shown in the Bible’s book of Romans (Newcastle, CA: Desmond Ford, 1999), 58.
Ford, “Daniel 8:14,” 583.
Ford, Right with God right now, 156.
Desmond Ford, The coming worldwide Calvary: Christ versus Antichrist (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2009), 77; see also ibid., 123, emphasis added. Ford virtually holds a monergistic view of salvation (similar to the one of Luther), with justification covering sins that the believers has not committed yet. Monergism implies that human beings cannot be lost (see the next section for the distinction between monergism and synergism). However, he still believes that human beings have free will (see Ford, Right with God right now, 202). Obviously, both concepts are incompatible, but he seems to be unaware of that. Anthony MacPherson evaluates this incompatibility by saying: “Ford was not a Calvinist but an Arminian, nor did he explicitly affirm ‘once saved always saved,’ but his rhetoric and explanations were sometimes indistinguishable from those views. The resulting ambiguity has led more recent scholars to question the consistency and coherence of his theology and rhetoric concerning faith, freedom, judgment, and the possibility of apostasy” (“Investigative judgment [ Judgement],” Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventists, September 26, 2022, under “Paradigms,” accessed November 11, 2022, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=7FOL#fnref100). For additional discussion and references, see also Roy E. Graf, “La articulación de la teología adventista, Desmond Ford y la doctrina del santuario,” Theologika 33, no. 2 (2018): 202-210.
Ford, “Daniel 8:14,” A-183, emphasis added.
Ibid., 670.
According to Ford, “the teaching of an Investigative Judgment beginning in 1844 denies the finality of the cross, God’s omniscience, and the reality of saving faith” (Desmond Ford, Seventh-day Adventism: The investigative judgment and the everlasting gospel; A retrospective on October 27, 1979 (n.p.: Desmond Ford, n.d.), 35.
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series did no dedicate too much space to discuss Adventist understanding of justification by faith. For a partial exception see Ivan T. Blazen, “Justification by faith/judgment according to works,” in The seventy weeks, Leviticus, and the nature of prophecy, Daniel & Revelation Committee Series 3, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1986), 339-368. This paper, however, does not offer an explicit evaluation of Ford’s position about justification by faith.
Gerhard Pfandl, “Remembering Desmond Ford,” Adventist World (March 15, 2018), under “The righteousness by faith controversy,” accessed October 24, 2022, https://www.adventistworld.org/remembering-desmond-ford/.
Gerhard Pfandl, “Desmond Ford and the righteousness by faith controversy,” JATS 27, nos. 1-2 (2016): 351.
John Calvin’s definition of predestination can illustrate well this view point: “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” (Institutes 3.21.5).
See, for example, Millard J. Erickson, a Calvinist Baptist theologian, according to whom “as we study the final judgment, we should keep in mind that it is not intended to ascertain our spiritual condition or status, for that is already known to God. Rather, it will manifest or make our status public” (Christian theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990], 1200-1201, emphasis added). See also Frank B. Holbrook, “Light in the shadows: An overview of the doctrine of the sanctuary,” Journal of Adventist Education 46, no. 1 (1983): 33.
Calvin understands that the judgment doesn’t modify the condition of saved that the elect already have based on God’s absolute predestination: “It is most consolatory to think, that judgment is vested in him who has already destined us to share with him in the honour of judgment (Mt. 19:28). […] It certainly gives no small security, that we shall be sisted at no other tribunal than that of our Redeemer, from whom salvation is to be expected; and that he who in the
Gospel now promises eternal blessedness, will then as judge ratify his promise” (Institutes 2.16.18, emphasis added).
Ellen G. White clearly holds a synergistic view of salvation. She affirms: “Let no man present the idea that man has little or nothing to do in the great work of overcoming; for God does nothing for man without his cooperation. […] From first to last man is to be a laborer together with God” (Selected messages, vol. 1, 381).
Darius W. Jankiewicz, “The theological necessity of the investigative judgment: Albion Ballenger and his failed quest to subvert the doctrine—Part II,” Theologika 35, no. 2 (2020): 119.
As Sergio Celis has pointed out: “One problem within Protestant theology concerning the judgment is that, by separating the application of personal salvation from its cosmic dimension, the last judgment has been reduced to a revelatory event in which no participatory process in making the decision about salvation is involved” (“Divine governance and judgment in history and in the context of the Seventh-day Adventist perspective of the cosmic conflict” [PhD diss., Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2017], 397-398).
For a discussion of the biblical evidence for creature’s participation in the judgment, see Celis, “Divine governance and judgment,” 390-397. See also Miguel Patiño, “The divine judgment and the role of angels based on the ontology of God: An evaluation of two conflicting models” (PhD diss., Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2019), 179-253.
Celis, “Divine governance and judgment,” 414.
See Protestant authors metioned by Wallenkampf, “A brief review,” 593-594. See also Darius W. Jankiewicz, “The theological necessity of the investigative judgment: Albion Ballenger and his failed quest to subvert the doctrine—Part I,” Theologika 35, no. 1 (2020): 27-28.
Actually, Guy perceives the change in the understanding of the purpose of the judgment favorably by suggesting that if “the traditional Adventist doctrine of investigative judgment produces long-termed spiritual anxiety [as sometimes alleged] by raising doubt regarding the reality of forgiveness, then the substance of the doctrine, or its presentation, or both, may require re-examination” (Thinking theologically, 105n31).
Roy Adams, The sanctuary: Understanding the heart of Adventist theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1993), 117.
Erickson, for example, poses that “assurance of salvation, the subjective conviction that one is a Christian, results from the Holy Spirit’s giving evidence that he is at work in the life of the individual. And wherever the Spirit’s work results in conviction that one’s commitment to Christ is genuine, there is also the certainty on biblical grounds that God will enable the Christian to persist in that relationship, that nothing can separate the true believer from God’s love” (Erickson, Christian theology, 996-997). However, Erickson also admits, after considering biblical examples of apostacy, that “we conclude that those who appear to have fallen away were never regenerate in the first place” (ibid., 996). One may wonder if a person who believes that he/she is a real believer is actually a person deceiving himself/herself and was never really regenerate. For additional discussion, see Woodrow W. Whidden, “Assurance of salvation: The dynamics of Christian experience,” Salvation: Contours of Adventist soteriology, ed. Martin F. Hanna, Darius W. Jankiewicz, and John W. Reeve (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2018), 385-388.
See examples in Ford, “Daniel 8:14,” 368; Ford, Seventh-day Adventism, 35. MacPherson considers that “Ford used John 5:24 as a favorite proof text” (“Investigative judgment [judgement],” under “Issues in relationship to the gospel”).
Wallenkampf, “A brief review,” 597, emphasis added.
Gulley, Creation, Christ, salvation, 502.
Regarding the misuse of John 5:24 in order to affirm that believers are not under judgment, Ivan Blazen explains: “The text does not say necessarily that believers do not come into judgment in any sense. The Greek noun for judgment here sometimes bears the meaning ‘condemnation’ in John ( John 3:19; 5:29; see the same use of the Greek verb in 3:17-18; cf. Acts 13:27; Rom 14:22; and 2 Thess 2:12). Since judgment is the opposite of eternal life in John 5:24, the text must be saying that the believer does not come into a judgment of condemnation, meaning a judgment which issues in condemnation” (“Justification and Judgment,” 384-385). Of course, the believer is not under condemnation provided that he/she has remained a believer until the end of his/her life.
See the quotation that corresponds to footnote 81. Ford also suggests something similar; see footnote 64.
Goldstein, “Investigating the investigative judgment,” 8.
Blazen, “Justification and judgment,” 383. For additional references, see Graf, The principle of articulation, 239n482.
Celis, “Divine governance and judgment,” 414.
According to this view, “When God is said to judge or to save humans, it is not God who changes. […] God does not decide at a particular point in time to redeem the world. The judgment and the redemption are already decided at the moment of creation, which of course, from God’s point of view, is the very same moment as the moment of the end of time—and as every other moment in between” (Keith Ward, God: A guide for the perplexed [London: Oneworld, 2002], 143).
White, The great controversy, 486.
Ibid., 486-487.
Ibid., 489-490.
See Roy E. Graf, “El santuario y la misión de la iglesia,” El conflicto cósmico y la misión de la iglesia, ed. Ezequiel González, Joel Iparraguirre, and Roy E. Graf (Glendale, CA: Southern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists − Hispanic Region, 2021), 38-39.
Hasel, “Divine judgment,” 845. Hasel concludes this statement by saying that “The commission to preach the ‘good news’ in all the world as a powerful witness is seen in a new light in connection with the pre-Advent investigative judgment” (ibid).
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2023 DavarLogos
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
