Background to Adventist Investigative Judgment thread

AdamjEdgar said:

I am a Seventh Day Adventist. I am not sure exactly what it is that this topic is attempting to understand? You quote our church fundamentals, clearly have access to E.G .Whites writings along with many other SDA church writings, as another individual has already stated, this has been thrashed out at great length in another thread and after one of you posting over 400 comments, you still got nowhere, why are you waiting for an Adventist to further explain it all to you?

Click to expand...

This is the theology section. We discuss doctrine here. This is an invitation to discuss this doctrine which many are not familiar with. And as with all doctrines we will evaluate whether it is biblical. That often involves debate.

I am quite familiar with the topic. But I am inviting Adventists to explain it themselves so that they do not say I am misrepresenting the topic.

This appears to me to simply be an attempt to find an Adventist who may not be able to answer the difficult questions or get "tongue tied" and that then becomes the basis for calling SDA beliefs a false religion!

Click to expand...

No, I certainly don't want a poor explanation as that would not inform people of Adventist beliefs. Nor would there be much point in discussing a poorly understood explanation. I have discussed or debated the topic with many Adventists, including several on here. I learn something new in every discussion.

Nor do I think Adventists are a "false religion," I was an Adventist pastor for ten years and love many people in the Adventist church. I left the church over doctrine. But I do not think them a false church in that there are many brothers and sisters in Christ there. Though if you go to that other thread linked, some there refer to me as of Babylon, the usual treatment of formers.

I do certainly disagree with some Adventist doctrines, and this is one of them.

Of course this is also a built in audience of people interested to hear the doctrine.

As to the earlier thread it was not a systematic discussion of the 2,300 days prophecy. That is rarely explained around here in a way non-Adventists can understand. But folks are welcome to read it as we discussed a lot of the issues.

I noticed a comment about disagreeing with the Adventist view of Michael the Archangel.

Click to expand...

By a non-Adventist, and I let him know the Adventist church does not view this the same as some others, and do not view Jesus as an angel in the traditional sense, but as the Son of God.

so my answer to you on this is to ask 2 questions,

If the Michal spoken of in Revelation 12 isnt Jesus, who is he?

Click to expand...

This is off topic as I told the other poster. This thread is about the investigative judgment. Folks can start a thread on that topic if they wish.

My personal opinion is that Adventist doctrine is rather logical and not difficult to understand. It also does not require the use of E.G. Whites writings in order to make sense of either. Whilst i did study her writings at university on a low level, I do not use her writings at all for my beliefs. I have tended to shy away from them because it is true that many conservative Adventists in the past preached her in a manner that was very much interpreted as being the source of all truth in preference to the Bible itself. Even Ellen White disputed such a habit...she openly went against such thoughts. Her writings are simply used to further illustrate existing Biblical knowledge and understanding...not the other way around!

Click to expand...

We will be examining it by the Bible in any case. However, I will reference Ellen White for the purpose of illustrating the usual Adventist position at times as few Adventists will disagree with her statements.

The Liturgist said:

So as to put your mind and that of any other Adventist members completely at ease, I am not going to criticize the doctrine in this thread or prejudge it, but rather will reflect on it, because whereas it is true that I do not understand it, I don’t see any fundamental contradiction between it and sacred scripture.

Click to expand...

The poster is new, so he doesn't completely understand how the theology section works.

I am sure you will not critique it. However, the poster should be aware others will, and I will. That is how the theology section works. However, I do intend to let them spell out the whole view, as I think others want to know about it. And it would make sense to allow you and others to ask some clarifying questions before any pronounced debate starts up.

And the Adventists who frequent the theology boards are hardly wilting flowers themselves when it comes to discussing doctrine, challenging other's doctrine, etc.

Nor do they shy away from discussing the same topic in more than one thread, as the many Sabbath threads on the various boards show.

I think they just find this one a bit harder to explain, as it is quite involved. And @LoveGodsWord is a bit busier at work than usual, and @BobRyan is engaged in a creation/evolution discussion currently.

There are certainly others capable around as well, and eventually someone will undertake the task.

The Liturgist said:

As my posts in this thread indicate, I do not understand the doctrine of the Investigative Judgement. I am confused by it, and like @tall73 I would really appreciate it if someone could explain it.

Click to expand...

Many who are not in the Seventh-day Adventist church also do not realize how controversial this doctrine has been within the church throughout its history.

Many prominent ministers and theologians have rejected the doctrine, including Crozier who originally formulated part of it as I related earlier.

Canright, Ballenger, Conradi, Waggoner, Grieve, Fletcher, Prescott, Cottrell, and many others took issue with it. Here is what a prominent Adventist theologian said about the issue:

If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital - and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the background. This is not a wholesome situation. If the subject is as vital as we have thought and taught it to be, it is not of secondary importance. Today, in the minds of a considerable part of the ministry, as far as my experience in the Seminary is concerned, it has little vital bearing, either in their lives or theology. I dread to see the day when our enemies will make capital of our weakness. I dread still more to see the day when our ministry will begin to raise questions. M. L. Andreason letter, 1942.

He refers to Ballenger. Albion Ballenger was an Adventist minister. He began to take issue with aspects of the sanctuary doctrine. He wrote to Ellen white with the hopes that she would show him in the Scriptures where his view was wrong. Here are a couple of quotes from that letter.

What I am pleading for in this letter, is, that if there be a 'thus saith the Lord' to support your statement, that, out of compassion for my soul you furnish it.

And a bit later:

And now Sister White, what can I do? If I accept the testimony of the Scriptures, if I follow my conscientious convictions, I find myself under your condemnation; and you call me a wolf in sheep's clothing, and warn my brethren and the members of my family against me. But when I turn in my sorrow to the Word of the Lord, that Word reads the same, and I fear to reject God's interpretation and accept yours. Oh that I might accept both. But if I must accept but one, hadn't I better accept the Lord's? If I reject his word and accept yours, can you save me in the judgment?

Ellen White did not furnish the "thus saith the Lord" that Ballenger was asking for. However, she did tell people not to listen to Ballenger's views.

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

She indicates that the experience of the Adventists for the past 50 years shows that their interpretation is correct, and therefore even scriptural arguments to the contrary are not to be entertained. She is noting not to entertain these ideas when people in the Advent movement express them. You may recall from the discussion on the other thread regarding this.


While she did not correct Ballenger's views, she did say this:

I testify in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is led by satanic agencies and spiritualistic, invisible leaders. Those who have the guidance of the Holy Spirit will turn away from these seducing spirits.—Manuscript 59, 1905. (“The Sabbath Truth in the Sentinel, and Elder Ballenger's Views,” May 20, 1905.)


Questions continued to be raised. Here is a quote from Cottrell, an Adventist scholar who worked on the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, among other projects. This is from Spectrum Magazine, April, 1980. He was particularly asking about the idea that the Day of Atonement cleansing is referred to in Daniel 8:14, which is key to the Adventist sanctuary doctrine.

While editing Bible Readings, and in counsel with Elder Nichol as chief editor of the revision, I wrote to 27 leading Adventist Bible scholars for their response to a series of six carefully formulated questions designed to bring the best contemporary Adventist biblical scholarship to bear on the question. All 27 responded, many at considerable length. A careful analysis and synthesis of their replies provided no additional help with respect to the problems arising from our interpretation of Daniel 8:14, and made evident that we had no satisfactory answer to the criticisms being directed against our interpretation of this key Adventist passage. Thirteen replied that they knew of no other valid basis for making such an application; seven based it on analogy; five, on the authority of Ellen White; two, on what they referred to as a "fortunate accident" in translation. Not one of the 27 believed that there was a linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the heavenly sanctuary, an antitypical day of atonement, or 1844.

The GC then set up the secret 5 year Problems in Daniel Committee which was split in their views and never released minutes or a report. This was disclosed at the Glacier View session (more on that below) by Elder Wilson (General Conference President), and then published in the Ministry Magazine special, October, 1980.

The most prominent questioning of the doctrine was by Dr. Desmond Ford, who was head of the theology department at Avondale College, and a lecturer at Pacific Union College, who served for a number of years on the Adventist Biblical Research Committee, which is the denomination's theological committee. He noted the various ministers in the past who questioned aspects of the doctrine, and raised questions which resulted in the denomination holding a gathering at Glacier View Ranch to look into the issue.

The result was that the church issued in Ministry Magazine a special edition that included the Glacier View documents. Note this quote from the primary document that Glacier View produced, Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary:


According to many older versions of the Bible, at the end of the 2300 days the
sanctuary is to be "cleansed.'" The Hebrew word here is nisdaq, which has a
broad range of possible meanings. Its basic idea is "make right," "justify,"
"vindicate," or "restore"; but "purify" and "cleanse" may be included within
its conceptual range. In Daniel 8:14 it is evident that the word denotes the reversal of the evil caused by the power symbolized by the "little horn," and hence probably should be translated "restore." While there is, therefore, not a strong verbal link between this verse and the Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16, the passages are, nevertheless, related by their parallel ideas of rectifying the sanctuary from the effects of sin. (emphasis supplied)

They are noting that the Day of Atonement does not appear to be in view here. They are looking at the world "cleanse" but I think the issue is less even that word, which can have a range of meanings including cleansed, as we see in the LXX. The larger issue is that the whole context is not in line with the cleansing in the Day of Atonement service. Rather, the context as they note is the reversal of the evil caused by the little horn.

This was essentially an agreement with Ford. They try to limit the damage by saying that the concepts are related because of ridding the sanctuary from the effects of sin. That is a difficult argument to make. Cleansing from outside defilement by an external power is not the same as cleansing the sins of all the people in the Day of Atonement.

After Glacier View Dr. Ford had his ministerial credentials removed. This records the view of one of the people in the meeting with Dr. Ford and General Conference President Wilson:

Events since Glacier View

The discussion turned to the matter of "new light" and the counsel of the Lord that such light will not contradict or negate light already given. The idea was set forth that one must submit "new light" to brethren of experience and then yield to their judgment, for there is safety in a multitude of counselors. Pastor Wilson commented that Dr. Ford did not appear really to accept this philosophy, that he required evidence before changing an opinion, and has set up his own criteria of what is acceptable evidence--criteria that exclude the writings of Ellen G. White as being doctrinally authoritative.

And a bit later:

The discussion turned to the matter of Ellen G. White and her role in doctrinal and theological matters. Her authority, in relation to Scripture, and the question of whether she could be considered a reliable, inspired commentary of Scripture was examined. In this area Dr. Ford set forth his viewpoint, and indicated that he cannot agree with what the church holds in this matter. Both Pastors Wilson and Bock pleaded with him to look again at the issues, but he indicated that to change his views without evidence would be to deny his conscience.

Ford wanted Bible evidence before changing his views, and could not accept Ellen White's statements as having doctrinal authority.

The issue of the Sanctuary is tied to Ellen White because she endorsed it again and again.

After Glacier View the Denomination noted a need to further study the issue. And they had scholars draw up material released by the Daniel and Revelation Committee. And research has continued since then. But it has not removed the controversy.

Ford had been an influential figure in Adventism, especially in Australia where he taught ministers for many years. In the aftermath of his removal a large number of ministers in Australia and New Zealand resigned over the next decade. Not all left due to the issues raised by Ford, or his treatment, but quite a few of them did.

This study looks in depth at the departure of ministers in Australia and New Zealand over the ten year period after the Ford crisis.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...lis&f=false

In the course of my research I compiled a list of 182 ministers who left the Adventist ministry between 1980 and 1988. This figure is equivalent to an astonishing 40 percent of the total ministerial work force in Australia and New Zealand--a statistic without presidence in the Adventist Church at any other time or in any other place.

Pastors have also resigned in other parts of the world, and still do. I have known a number of pastors who, like me, left the Adventist church due to their inability to reconcile this doctrine with the Bible. Because Adventists are required to adhere to the 28 fundamental beliefs they did not feel they could continue to belong to the church. However, some ministers do continue to pastor while admitting privately that they do not agree with the Sanctuary teaching, and I knew some of these as well.

In some more liberal congregations Ellen White and the sanctuary teaching are often downplayed.

In the 1950's cult researcher Walter Martin worked with Donald Barnhouse at Eternity Magazine, and engaged in discussions with Seventh-day Adventist leadership. Martin and others had previously classified Adventists as a cult. However, after dialogue with church leaders both Martin and Barnhouse came to accept that Adventists were not a cult. However, they did not think too highly of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine.

https://www.trsc.today/php/Articles/Eternity Magaine Articles-Barnhouse & Martin 1957-marked.pdf

A couple of quotes from Barnhouse's article:

In the past two years several evangelical leaders have come to a new attitude toward the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The change is a remarkable one since it consists in moving the Seventh-day Adventists, in our opinion, out of the list of anti-Christian and non-Christian cults into the group of those who are brethren in Christ; although they still must be classified, in our opinion, as holding two or three very unorthodox and in one case peculiar doctrines.

Speaking of the aftermath of the Millerite disappointment:

In their disappointment little segments of these disillusioned people drew together. One of the segments kept Saturday as the Sabbath. Still another of the segments believed in conditional immortality and soulsleeping, and a third segment fell upon the doctrine of "the investigative judgment." The latter doctrine, to me, is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history!

In Raymond Cottrell's Sanctuary Doctrine—Asset or liability. He reviews the history of a number Adventists who questioned the sanctuary doctrine. This is just a few selections:

The traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 with its sanctuary and investigative judgment, which gave birth to Seventh-day Adventism and accounts for its existence as a distinct entity within Christendom, has been the object of more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined. The same is true with respect to church discipline on doctrinal grounds, defections from the church, and the diversion of time, attention, and resources from Adventism's perceived mission to the world.

Twenty-five years later W. W. Prescott (a member of the GC ad hoc committees appointed to meet with the dissidents) commented in a letter to W. A. Spicer, then president of the General Conference: "I have waited all these years for someone to make an adequate answer to Ballenger, Fletcher and others on their positions re. the sanctuary but I have not seen or heard it."

In August 1980 115 leading administrators and Bible scholars from around the world (at an administrator's estimated cost of a quarter of a million dollars) were summoned to Glacier View in Colorado, to serve as the Sanctuary Review Committee. They were specifically instructed not to evaluate Ford's beliefs with respect to Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment by the Bible itself, but as set forth in the statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs, which the church had already determined to be normative. Several weeks later the Australasian Division withdrew his ministerial credentials.

As a matter of fact, the consensus report voted at the close of the week-long conference tacitly agreed with Ford on six major points of exegesis. Later, some forty Bible scholars signed a document known as the Atlanta Affirmation, remonstrating with Neal Wilson for the way the church had treated Ford at, and after, Glacier View.

We could wish that such encounters with the sanctuary doctrine were a thing of the past. But a new generation of victims is repeating their traumatic experiences all over again. If the past is any index to the future they will be repeated indefinitely unless and until the church faces up to the facts objectively and deals realistically and responsibly with them in harmony with the sola Scriptura principle. It is said that more than 150 ordained ministers, mostly in Australia, forfeited their ministerial credentials in the aftermath of the Ford affair. Hundreds of lay persons, mostly in the United States, left the church and formed effervescent "fellowships" as a result.

Speaking of his own experience Cottrell states:

I first encountered problems with the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, professionally, in the spring of 1955 during the process of editing comment on the Book of Daniel for volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary. As a work intended to meet the most exacting scholarly standards, we intended our comment to reflect the meaning obviously intended by the Bible writers. As an Adventist commentary it must also reflect, as accurately as possible, what Adventists believe and teach. But in Daniel 8 and 9 we found it hopelessly impossible to comply with both of these requirements.

In 1958 the Review and Herald Publishing Association needed new printing plates for the classic book Bible Readings, and it was decided to revise it where necessary to agree with the Commentary. Coming again to the Book of Daniel I determined to try once more to find a way to be absolutely faithful to both Daniel and the traditional Adventist interpretation of 8:14, but again found it impossible. I then formulated six questions regarding the Hebrew text of the passage and its context, which I submitted to every college teacher versed in Hebrew and every head of the religion department in all of our North American colleges---all personal friends of mine. Without exception they replied that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14.36

When the results of this questionnaire were called to the attention of the General Conference president, he and the Officers appointed the super-secret Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, of which I was a member. Meeting intermittently for five years (1961-1966), we considered 48 papers relative to Daniel 8 and 9, and in the spring of 1966 adjourned sine die, unable to reach a consensus.

LoveGodsWord said:

Goodness what nonsense. Your argument now is the testimony of men that left the Adventist Church rather than the Words of God? Same method of argument that those who reject Gods 4th commandment rely on who seek the testimonies of men outside of the scriptures telling a one sided story. You seem to be in good company now I see. Why not post the counter arguments to those you post above?

Click to expand...

I have specifically invited Adventists to present their view. If I present the Adventist view you will again say I am misrepresenting what you believe. So we will wait.

In the meantime I am posting historical documents. They accurately show the controversy this teaching has caused. I have not asked people to disbelieve the doctrine because of these historical documents. We will evaluate the teaching by Scripture.

However, we are waiting for an Adventist to present the teaching. And don't forget to spell out the central element, which is the 2,300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14.

Multiple non-Adventist, and non-formers have said they have an interest. This should be a great opportunity for an Adventist to explain one of their fundamental beliefs.

LoveGodsWord said:

we are better off discussing the scriptures in my view as it is only in scripture we see Gods' Word.

Click to expand...

I have been trying to get you or others to post Scripture in this thread the entire time.

They can see that Adventists are reluctant. They just don't know why without a little history.

LoveGodsWord said:

Reluctant nonsense. We have already been down this path before have we not?

GOD'S LAW AND JUDGEMENT TIME - ARE YOU READY?

Click to expand...

No, we have not. You stated the purpose of that thread was not to examine the 2,300 day prophecy. This is an invitation to do so with a built-in, waiting audience.

Besides, you have never held back from discussing the same topic in multiple threads.

And yes, Adventists have been quite reluctant to spell out their views in this thread so far.

You wanted to leave when we started discussing scripture to talk about EGW quotes which we also investigated by adding the contexts you left out that did not agree with your interpretation of them.

Click to expand...

Not true, and anyone looking at the thread will see that. I made 402 posts in the thread looking at Scripture and Ellen White's statements.

That was in the context of people who were familiar with the teaching.

But what is being asked for here is something you should be eager to do--explain the doctrine from the outset, including the 2,300 days prophecy for those wanting to hear it.

LoveGodsWord said:

Reluctant nonsense.

Click to expand...

Your reasoning of not having enough time to post in this thread is looking less and less plausible when you continue to post, but only to explain why you won't spell out your doctrine more than once. Especially since you didn't spell it out there completely.

The time you have used to object in this thread could have been used to spell out the teaching, and we could be looking at it now, instead of me continuing to post related historical documents.

I am sure anyone the least bit curious about that thread has now had opportunity to look at it. But you have people here wanting to hear your doctrine explained in a way they can understand it.

LoveGodsWord said:

No that is not true. Early on in the thread at your arrival I posted what the purpose of the thread was afterwards however what your not telling anyone is that you wanted to discuss the investigative judgement which we started doing did we not? Anyone in the who sees the thread will see I am telling you the truth here but it seems you do not believe me which is ok. You were posted both scripture and context everything you posted that did not agree with you. Soon after you left the discussing.

Click to expand...

401 posts is not soon after. If you explained the 2,300 day prophecy from start to finish in a way that a non-Adventist could understand it in that thread then just copy and paste it right here. Should be easy, with less time required than you have taken to object.

LoveGodsWord said:

There was no need as you were familiar with it and you did not give me the chance to. Is this not truth?

Click to expand...

It is true there was no need, which I said earlier in the thread, because we were all familiar with it.

And you stated it was not the purpose of the thread which I quoted here earlier. But now you have acknowledged that thread did not in fact spell out what folks here are waiting to hear.

We can wait for an Adventist to spell it out.