Clearly there is a PreAdvent Judgement. It's not a difficult concept.
Executive summary
The pre‑Advent judgment is a theological claim—most prominently held by Seventh‑day Adventists—that a heavenly, investigative judgment of humanity occurs before Christ’s Second Coming, serving to vindicate God’s justice and determine the saved and lost prior to the Advent (the Last Judgment being understood as occurring earlier than the Second Coming) [1] [2]. That claim is doctrinally central within Adventism and contested outside it: scholars inside the movement defend scriptural and historical bases while many other Christian traditions reject the timing and necessity of a separate pre‑Advent investigative process [3] [4].
1. What proponents mean by “pre‑Advent” and “investigative” judgment
Advocates describe a courtroom‑style heavenly review in which the lives of persons whose names are recorded in the Book of Life are examined before Christ returns, a process sometimes dated by Adventists to have begun in 1844 and tied to Daniel and Revelation passages and the year‑day prophetic principle; Adventist sources call this the Investigative Judgment or Pre‑Advent Judgment and say its purpose is to show God’s justice and reassure the universe that the redeemed are safe to receive into heaven [2] [5] [6].
2. Historical roots and denominational centrality
The doctrine grew out of 19th‑century Adventist reflection after the Great Disappointment of 1844 and crystallized into a distinct teaching within Seventh‑day Adventism; Adventist institutional and scholarly bodies continue to affirm the investigative/pre‑advent judgment as a defining element of their eschatology [7] [4] [3].
3. Scriptural and theological arguments offered
Supporters point to prophetic texts (notably Daniel and Revelation) and New Testament language about judgment and books being opened as warrant for a pre‑Advent review, and argue that the doctrine explains Revelation’s proclamations that “the hour of His judgment has come” prior to Christ’s visible return; proponents also contend the judgment vindicates God’s character before the created universe [8] [9] [5].
4. Criticisms, ambiguities, and intra‑church debate
The doctrine is controversial: virtually no major non‑Adventist church accepts the investigative judgment as presented by Adventists, and notable Adventist theologians (e.g., Desmond Ford) and critics have argued the teaching is unhelpful, historically contingent, or biblically tenuous, producing internal debates and institutional friction over its pastoral value and theological plausibility [4] [7] [9]. Some voices within Adventism prefer the simpler label “pre‑Advent judgment” to avoid polarizing language, while others worry such reframing obscures unique doctrinal claims [10] [7].
5. Practical and pastoral consequences
Advocates claim the doctrine increases assurance for believers by portraying a just process in which Christ intercedes for the saved, while critics warn it can produce legalism, confusion about death and the soul, and pastoral strain if presented without careful theological framing; Adventist educational and devotional materials promote the doctrine as both comforting and motivating, even as scholarship wrestles with its implications [6] [11] [5].
6. What the reporting supports — and what it does not
Reporting and denominational sources make clear that the pre‑Advent/investigative judgment is an established Adventist doctrine with historical, biblical, and institutional defenses and that it remains widely rejected outside Adventism; available sources describe internal debate and pastoral concerns but do not resolve contested exegetical claims or provide definitive proof of the precise heavenly mechanics or timing beyond denominational assertions [3] [4] [2].
7. Bottom line
For those within Seventh‑day Adventism the pre‑Advent investigative judgment is real, consequential, and central to their eschatology; for most other Christians it is unfamiliar or unacceptable as formulated by Adventists, and scholarly and pastoral disputes about its scriptural basis and effects remain unresolved in public reporting [1] [4] [11].