In his book, “Judged by the Gospel,” former Adventist theologian Robert Brinsmead opens his chapter on the investigative judgment by observing, “If we accept the New Testament gospel, which declares that Christ’s redemptive act is finished, that He already reigns at God’s right hand and that His victory over sin and death inaugurated the last days, we cannot accept the traditional Adventist doctrine of an investigative judgment beginning in 1844.  This does not mean that anyone who believes in the investigative judgment does not believe the gospel.  But their understanding of the gospel is so immature that they have not discerned its eschatological implications.” The book of Hebrews drives a nail through the heart of the investigative judgment and if this book had been studied carefully by the early Adventists in the years following 1844, much confusion and doctrinal error could have been avoided.  The good news of Jesus Christ is that all our sins–past, present and future–have been forgiven and that those who believe in Him will never be condemned, much less be subjected to the searching scrutiny of an investigative judgment (Romans 8:1, John 5:24).  What follows is a brief study of three chapters in Hebrews that stand in opposition to this unique Adventist doctrine, a doctrine that removes our security in Christ and is impossible to reconcile with the gospel.  Read on for the entire article.

“Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?” (Hebrews 7:11 ESV)

The book of Hebrews tells us that the Levitical priesthood established in the Jewish economy was inadequate for salvation, because perfection was not attainable through it.  “Another priest” was therefore necessary to make the attainment of perfection possible, a priest of the order of Melchizedek named Jesus Christ.

The writer of Hebrews identifies Jesus as the priest not because he was granted legal authority as in the case of the Levites, but because he had an indestructible life.

“This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.” (Hebrews 7:15 ESV)

So Jesus is the last priest of mankind, and as such, he is the mediator of a “better covenant” (Hebrews 7:22) than the one made between God and the Israelites on Sinai.  In this covenant, sins are not forgiven one day per year on the day of atonement, but are forgiven “once and for all” through the death of Jesus on the cross.  As it is written, “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” (Hebrews 7:26-28 ESV)

But the writer of Hebrews doesn’t stop there.  The first two verses of chapter 8 even give the location of Jesus upon his ascension to heaven:

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent the Lord set up, not man.” (Hebrews 8:1-2 ESV)

Is the “right hand of the throne of Majesty” in the Holy or Most Holy Place?  Clearly it is the latter, as the Most Holy Place by definition is the very presence of God.  One cannot be “at the right hand” of God and not be in the Most Holy Place!  Furthermore, no “work” of investigative judgment remained for Jesus to accomplish, so he sat down.  Notice the past tense of these texts.  Jesus did not ascend to heaven for a work that remained to be accomplished until the stroke of midnight on October 22, 1844.  No, he approached the right hand of the throne of Majesty and sat down, his work on the cross completed.  This is the only way he could have said “It is finished!” as he gave up his spirit on Calvary (John 19:30).

After a discussion of the earthly sanctuary in Hebrews 9:1-10, we are given yet more evidence of Jesus’ finished work:

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:11-12 ESV)

Again, we see that Jesus entered “once and for all” into the holy places.  If the two apartment ministry model is correct, the writer of Hebrews could not have made this statement when the book was written in the first century, 1800 years before 1844, since Jesus would not have entered “once for all” into the Most Holy Place at that time!  Furthermore, Jesus secured eternal redemption, and did not need to continually plead his blood for the forgiveness of sins.  It was indeed finished.  If this is not yet clear, just keep reading on to chapter 9:

“For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:24-26 ESV)

If we are still not convinced, the writer of Hebrews repeats himself yet again in chapter 10:

“And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:11-14 ESV)

After reviewing these texts from inspired Scripture, I humbly submit to you that Jesus’ work is indeed finished.  We serve a risen Savior whose work on Calvary is sufficient to save all who lay hold of it by faith.  His perfect sacrifice put away sin for all time and he now sits at the right hand of the Father, where he has remained since he rose to heaven (not requiring an eighteen century pause in the Holy Place), his work of redemption complete.

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ who has covered our sins—past, present and future—allowing us to boldly enter “through the curtain” into the Most Holy Place and into a new and living way by his work and not our own, giving us full assurance of faith (Hebrews 10:19-22).

Related article: The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment - Introduction

I’m wondering if many formers aren’t preaching to the choir concerning the historical understanding of the IJ. Today’s understanding of the IJ doesn’t believe that our sins are waiting scrutiny to actually see if we meant it when we confessed them. Then Christ can keep us out of heaven when we don’t add up.

I never grew up with this view or know any SDA today that believes such a thing.

IMO, at worst, the IJ is merely a formality, almost a redundancy. Not for us, but for the universe. Now I’m some of you would jump all over that like white on rice, but nonetheless, I wonder if it might be more fruitful to abandon the attacks against the historic view of the IJ.

I recently read again Des Ford’s ‘79 lecture at PUC that got the whole mess started. His take alone on Hebrews is convincing enough and honestly, again, I don’t know any SDA that doesn’t agree with Christ’s atonement on the cross.

Reinstate his credentials I say!

BTW, even though what Brinsmead might say was truth at the time, hasn’t he basically left the gospel for ‘another gospel’? From what I read on his website, he seems to have gone pretty squirrely.

Guibox,

We need to be careful about saying things like “I never grew up with this view or know any SDA today that believes such a thing.” This reflects your personal experience but is dramatically different from the experience of others.  I did not grow up with the IJ either, but when I moved away from the Left Coast , I found the sanctuary and IJ doctrines being taken very seriously.  Clifford Goldstein and Dan Smith’s repackaging of it notwithstanding, the historic doctrine of the IJ is alive and well.  Jan Paulsen, the current GC president, was on the record in support of it in 2002.

In fact, part of what I wrote above was in response to an email from an Adventist who stated, in reference to the atonement:

If “atonement” was completed once and for all at the cross, then what is the need of “such an High Priest”?

It appears from reading your post that 1) you have forgotten about the Sanctuary message” 2) you have not forgotten about it you have just rejected its truths. 3) you where never taught that message.

This quote does not directly deal with the IJ, but it affirms the incomplete atonement which paves the way for the two-apartment ministry of Jesus and the subsequent IJ, all of which are doctrines taught only in Adventism.

While I agree that large segments of the Adventist church have taken leave of this doctrine, it would be myopic to say that nobody believes it anymore.  Furthermore, if it is so unimportant, why doesn’t the denomination admit it was wrong about Desmond Ford?  William Johnsson, former editor of the Adventist Review, went on the Walter Martin radio show and openly criticized Ford’s work saying that the church leaders “did not see light in his views”.  Guibox, are you saying that they’ve now seen the light?  If so, where’s the evidence?

Greg

Guibox, you are right about Robert Brinsmead’s current beliefs.  I have quoted from his book “Judged by the Gospel” because it is Bible-based and credible.  I am not personally acquainted with Brinsmead, but I’ve heard he is no longer affiliated with any church body and may no longer be a Christian.  We can still learn from him, because he wrote during a time period when few Adventist theologians were willing to stand up and be counted.  His job status was less important to him than standing for biblical truth, as was the case of Dr. Ford.

Greg

Greg,

From what I understand, Ford’s dismissal wasn’t in denying that the ENTIRE atonement was done at the cross as opposed to partial atonement. In reading the points made to Ford, I don’t recall one of the ‘heresies’ being ‘the atonement was completed at the cross’ being one of them.

When it all comes down to it, Ford was dismissed for putting something different out there and endorsing it when EGW and the pioneers said differently. Despite Ford’s own protests and personal endorsement of EGW, the leaders made this a ‘he’s contradicting EGW!’ issue and that just didn’t sit well with them.

To me, the biggest issue was his take on Daniel 8:14 as opposed to whether the atonement was finished at the cross. Yes, this is part of the understanding of the IJ but to me it was not the underlying factor in his witch-hunt. It was disagreeing with the prophetic stance of the pioneers and EGW.

Either way you slice it, the investigative judgment doctrine, the sanctuary, and Ellen White’s infallible authority remain untouched to this day.  At Glacier View, the Adventist church arrived at a fork in the road: follow the Bible or follow Ellen White.  They took the road marked “infallible interpreter of Scripture” and to this day will not admit their mistake.

It would be charitable to simply say that the church administration misled their members on this issue.  With the evidence that these doctrines (which lack Biblical support) are vitally important to Adventism, how do you see this playing out?  How is it possible to remain a committed Adventist while acknowledging that the church was founded on a false interpretation of Daniel 8:14?  What would you say to a potential convert about the sanctuary doctrine and the church’s steadfast refusal to come clean on it?

Greg

Edit: After looking at this a little more Guibox, I think you are right to say that Ford’s major “heresy” was not the denial of the completed atonement but his questioning of the two-apartment ministry of Jesus and the investigative judgment which came out of the early Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14.  The incomplete atonement was a by-product of the desire to explain why Christ did not return in 1844.  But importantly, if Christ’s work was finished upon his ascension to the right hand of the Father, a work of investigative judgment could not have been left unfinished.

[quote author="Greg"]
How is it possible to remain a committed Adventist while acknowledging that the church was founded on a false interpretation of Daniel 8:14?  What would you say to a potential convert about the sanctuary doctrine and the church’s steadfast refusal to come clean on it?

Greg,

My stance on the matter is the same as Cottrell’s in his paper “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Asset or Liability?”

We may think of the heavenly sanctuary explanation of the great disappointment as a prosthetic device, a spiritual crutch that enabled the “little flock” of Adventist pioneers “scattered abroad”’ to survive the
great disappointment of October 22, 1844 and not lose faith in the imminent return of Jesus, as so many others did. That explanation was the best they could do, given the prooftext method on which, of necessity, they relied.
With the historical method at our disposal today, we no longer need that crutch and would do well to lay it up on the shelf of history. It is counterproductive in our witness to the everlasting gospel today, to
biblically literate Adventists and non-Adventists alike.

And this one…

In the years immediately following October 22, 1844 the traditional sanctuary doctrine was an important asset for stabilizing the faith of disappointed Adventists. Today it is an equally significant liability and
deterrent to the faith, confidence, and salvation of biblically literate Adventists and non-Adventists alike. It was present truth following the great disappointment on October 22, 1844. It is not present truth in the year of our Lord 2002

Look at all the phenomenal advancements in religious education, relief ministry, health and mission work the SDA church has done around the world throughout the last century and a half. What would have happened if the SDA church never existed? It is possible that without the 1844 movement and message it might not have happened. As Ford and others against the IJ have pointed out, the 1844 message was good in that it established a revival in spiritual thinking toward the coming of the Lord and established an organization that has done way more good than bad.

Having said that, we must recognize what our pioneers felt as well: we must be progressive, look to the Bible and change what needs to happen. I don’t believe our church was meant to stay stagnant and I don’t think the pioneers did also.

Recognize it for the role it played but don’t use it like a straight jacket as if we are the Catholic Church and it is anathema to make changes where we see the need.

And I think even the newer twists on the IJ such as the idea that the IJ is to vindicate God’s justice to the universe, and to the angels, takes a low view of God and His sovereignty. It is just ridiculous to think that the God of the universe needs vindication.

Instead of inventing these other twists which Ellen White did not teach in GC, and trying to somehow vindicate this doctrine in some way, when the original viewpoint of Ellen White is totally unbiblical, then adding other unbiblical interpretations seems so disingenious.

The whole doctrine of the sanctuary and the IJ needs, as Robert Brinsmead once said, to be put in a dump truck, and dumped over a cliff. There is no redeeming quality to a doctrine that was false in the original way it was taught. The fact is, if anyone openly challenges the denomination on this doctrine they will lose their credentials. But, it is OK to teach a bloodless atonement, and open theism, which are clearly doctrines of demons.

However, notice the charitable tone of Brinsmead here:

“This does not mean that anyone who believes in the investigative judgment does not believe the gospel. But their understanding of the gospel is so immature that they have not discerned its eschatological implications.”
---------------------------------------------------------
I will be gone the next week, but may get on from time to time.

Stan

Guibox, I understand Cottrell’s position.  It’s an interesting twist to say that it was more important for Adventists to remain a group bound together by error than to return to their Protestant Christian denominations.  Surely the positives you’ve mentioned are also found among the Protestant Christian churches.  Conversely, there are many non-Christian groups who have also given rise to the advances you mentioned yet this does not justify their error, does it?

Greg

[quote author="Stan"]And I think even the newer twists on the IJ such as the idea that the IJ is to vindicate God’s justice to the universe, and to the angels, takes a low view of God and His sovereignty. It is just ridiculous to think that the God of the universe needs vindication.

Instead of inventing these other twists which Ellen White did not teach in GC, and trying to somehow vindicate this doctrine in some way, when the original viewpoint of Ellen White is totally unbiblical, then adding other unbiblical interpretations seems so disingenious.

Hmmmm. Are you sure about EGW not treating the Sanctuary doctrine in this way? It is true that in the chapter called Facing Life’s Record, she highlights the doctrine’s “record keeping” dimension. But I seem to recall that the notion of the judgement, and SDA commandment keeping in the end times, vindicating God was a regular theme of her writing.

On a side note, I’m almost done reading a biography of Joseph Bates by George Knight. In light of this post, it’s worth mentioning that the initial Great Controversy theme appears to have come from Bates, although it revolved more around Revelation 14:12 and his idea of a commandment-keeping people facing persecution over the Sabbath in the last days than it did the conflict in heaven as written by EGW in later years.

In addition, while Bates was influential in synthesizing many of the strands of doctrine that would eventually be melded into SDAism, the place of the book of Hebrews doesn’t get much attention. That just be an oversight by Knight and that Hebrews did contribute substantially to Crozier’s Day of Atonement thesis (which is where Bates got it). Or It may be that like many aspects of the key doctrines, some of the justifications for them were not realized or adapted until later (Bates died in 1872).

On the vindication of God, this theme comes up a number of times, particularly in the prophetic books of the OT. Of course in these readings, it is always the situation that it is God that is vindicating Himself; man is not vindicating God. We can see this particularly in Daniel where the prophet implores God in Chapter 9 to restore Israel and Jerusalem on the basis of His mercy and for His good name among the nations, rather than relying on Israel’s keeping of its covenantal obligations, in which Daniel recognizes it has failed. 

I don’t recall the ‘vindication’ being us vindicating God when it comes to the IJ. God is merely showing the universe that His ways are fair and just, Satan’s claims are fruitless and God has the right to determine who is saved and lost.

Worthy is the lamb who was slain...’

Now whether one wants to argue that this occurred at the cross is another point.

It’s interesting that when Job encounters God, after all the questions about Job’s character and God’s justice, God does not come on the scene to be cross-examined or vindicated.  Instead of subjecting Himself to a work of investigative judgment, God vigorously confronts his questioner:

“Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
Will you even put me in the wrong?
Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?
Have you an arm like God,
and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:7-9 ESV)

The questions for Job come fast and furious through chapters 40-41, leading him to reply:

“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:2-6 ESV)

God does not need to be vindicated by a work of investigative judgment.  This did not happen at the cross nor did it begin in 1844.  The book of Job may be the oldest in the Bible, and God gave no indication that he required cross-examination to prove his justice–quite the opposite.

God does not need to do anything to prove his fairness to the world.  He has been more than fair to humanity by allowing the sun to rise on both the good and the evil and by sending rain on both the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:43-45).  His invisible attributes have been perceived by everyone in the things He has made, so we are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20).

If anyone has questions about God’s fairness, they need to answer a few questions themselves (as Job faced) before leveling any charges at the sovereign Creator of the universe.

Somehow along the way we’ve put ourselves on the judgment seat and relegated God to the witness stand.  We could not be more wrong about this.

Greg

Here is something I came across today from Saint Augustine.  This short paragraph lays out a basic principle for understanding and interpreting Scripture–interpret the obscure Bible texts by the plain ones.  This was written in 397 A.D. and contains wisdom that, if appreciated by the early Adventists, would have prevented the doctrinal detour they took into date-setting, explaining why Christ didn’t actually come in 1844, the sanctuary doctrine and the resultant investigative judgment.

How we should proceed in studying Scripture

In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

Reference here.

If the very obscure passage of Daniel 8:14 is interpreted in the light of the very plain passages in Hebrews 7-9, we would not have a “two-apartment ministry” of Jesus, an 1844 year pause in the Holy Place, a need for Jesus to investigate the lives of his professed followers, nor a need for anyone to put God on trial.

Greg

Speaking of obscure, the monthly magazine Our Firm Foundation, the flagship publication of Hope International-a “historic” SDA outfit--has just released its April edition, which continues a now three-month study of “the Daily”.

The case of Job is interesting. On the one hand, Satan challenges God on His fairness, and God basically takes Satan up on His challenge, allowing Satan to “test” Job through trial. In Job’s faithfulness to God, God’s “fairness” is implied to be vindicated, Satan’s allegations about Job, and about God, demonstrated to be wrong.

On the other hand, it is intriguing that God does not explain Himself to Job. Although I haven’t gone through anywhere near the trials of Job, I have found myself reading the last few chapters of Job where God recalls for Job His many wonders and acts in creation and finding God’s treatise here applicable to my own life of questioning. “Was I there, when the foundations were laid”? No, I was not. I don’t mean to imply that God doesn’t appreciate or tolerate our questioning. I am confident He does. Questioning is a natural part of conversation, and conversation a natural part of relationship. But it does make me realize that all my questions will probably not be answered and probably could not be answered given the disparity between God’s experience, character and viewpoint, and my own.

A few other side notes about Job, and “God on trial”. I do find this story to be at least one indicator of a challenge made to God’s kingdom, and which could be used to support the construct of an investigative judgment, however loosely. But a frequent construct within the Great Controversy theme is the idea that the controversy is over whether man can keep God’s commandments. This idea has some intuitive logic to it. But I don’t find it to be a central, or even peripheral concern of most of scripture. In the case of Job, it wasn’t a matter of Job’s being able to keep God’s commandments; the first chapter of Job describes him as being without fault in that regard. The dispute centers, rather, on the conditions of Job’s relationship with God, and whether Job (or we) will stick by God when times are bad, when things don’t make sense.

This “God on Trial” idea deserves a little more comment, and it’s something I’ve pondered over off an on, and I may have some further comments on it later. 

Glenn, thanks for your comments.  I’ll have to sit down and read that “Our Firm Foundation” series in my free time (cough).

Another consequence of the Great Controversy motif is that it puts Jesus on the same plane as Satan, with all of the universe watching to see who will emerge victorious.  This “bringing Jesus down to the level of Satan” has been graphically depicted as a knock-down, drag-out fight with, of all things, light sabers:

http://www.pinkoski.com/files/images/SW_signs04.jpg

Theological implications aside, Jay Leno found this to be entertaining enough for his TV show:

http://www.pinkoski.com/files/images/LenoSIGNS.jpg

Jokes aside, we must never forget that Jesus is already victorious over Satan.  “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.” (John 12:31). 

Greg