10 Biblical Refutations of Adventism #1: Investigative Judgment

Now, I I like to tell people I don’t really consider myself a particularly deep thinker, but I’m a logical thinker. I think logically. I think I got it from my dad who was a mathematician. And I think logically and it hit me that if 1844 is wrong, if this isn’t true, then our church was founded on a lie. Founded on a lie. Founded on a lie. It’s as simple as that. It was. And I’m going to touch on this a little more tomorrow. So I’d realize if our church arose from the the aftermath the wreckage you want of the Millerite movement based on our reinterpretation

Of the 2300 days and I realized I said I’m sorry if that is wrong then the entire justification the entire prophetic foundation of our church was wrong. And I and so I said, either I get it from the Bible and the Bible alone or I’m out of here. Well, hey there. Thank you for being here as always, especially in a warm welcome if this is your first time with us, Adventist or otherwise. As we just heard from Clifford Goldstein, some of you may or may not know who that is. If the Adventist doctrinal novelty of the atonement is false, so goes seventh day Adventism.

This really is the central pillar upon which the entire House of Cards sits. Not the Sabbath, not the law, but their sanctuary system of redemption. We’re going to get into defining some of those terms tonight because you may or may not know what they mean by those terms, but the investigative judgment is only one of seven steps in their sanctuary system of redemption. Eventually, we will be doing a response to all seven steps of their sanctuary model, but tonight we’re going to be giving a theological beatdown to the investigative judgment in particular. We

Have uh had I don’t know how many people that constantly ask about biblical arguments for any given theological topic. Uh and so these sessions will be focused on having all of those on one topic in one place for you. Well, I shouldn’t say all of them. We’re going to look at 10 tonight. That is by no means exhaustive, but 10 biblical arguments that decimate this teaching. Now, we aren’t going to be listening and responding to a sermon or talk like we usually do. Instead, I will be presenting numerous theological reputations of the topic at hand. Like I

Said, this is the first of many. We will be starting with the investigative judgment, which is what the SDA church means when they use the word atonement. You say, Miles, where are you getting this from? We have looked at this before but notice this is from salvation contours of avenotiology which is the most up-to-date scholastic work from avenous scholarship on the subject of redemption sotiology salvation an SDA theologian John Pauline he writes quote one of the most debated topics of Christian theology is expressed in these questions why the cross What really happened at

The cross? The answers to these questions have been widely debated under the general heading of the atonement. But when 7th Day Adventists approach the matter of atonement, an immediate dilemma is perceived. When Adventists talk about atonement, they refer specifically to what Jesus is doing now in the heavenly sanctuary. On the other hand, when scholars outside the Seventh Day Adventist Church discuss the atonement, they refer specifically to the cross of Jesus Christ and what God was doing there. Close quote. So when Adventists refer to the atonement Christian, they mean what?

The investigative judgment. We also read this in Walter Beach’s uh dimensions in salvation from 1963 which is basically what salvation uh contours of avenous sotiology is basically just repeating but putting a scholastic sort of verbiage to it. But notice what he writes. Quote atonement cannot be restricted to what Christ accomplished on the cross. A biblical view must include the application of the benefits of the sacrifice on the cross to the individual sinner and the actualization of these benefits in his life. Moreover, we believe biblical atonement has yet wider

Connotation, encompassing God’s complete work of salvation and restoration of his creation to its original state. In this larger total sense, atonement involves in broad outline the issues and events in the great controversy between Christ and Satan. Close quote. So, as per usual, when the SDA church talks about the atonement, like we’ve seen before, it is defined in light of their extra biblical paradigm, the great controversy theme. And no, Adventists, that’s not just the belief that there’s a God and a Satan, a good and an evil. They love to try and boil it down to,

“Oh, it’s just” and then try and make it seem like, “Oh, you’re crazy for taking umbrage with this. How could anybody argue with this?” Yeah, because you’re generalizing it. This whole cosmic narrative before the Earth was created and all these events that allegedly happened. You have to have all that stuff. You can’t just Yeah, get out of here with that. But beach as he and notice what he says. He says it doesn’t just encompass the investigative judgment just like Dr. Pauline says, but it actually encompasses the entirety of the great controversy and what the

Adventist God is doing in vindicating himself from Satan, which is what Beach goes on to explain in this chapter. If you are a Christian, any former Adventist can tell you the investigative judgment is one of the most convoluted, complex theological concepts ever imagined. Which is why I’m going to do my best to connect the dots as best I can without belaboring the points. But this will take some time. So be patient, track with me, and take notes if necessary. I always like to say for those that are new, what you’re about to hear is not answering Adventism’s private opinion,

Interpretation, or ideas. I am a messenger. I stand on the shoulders of giants. And the goal of tonight is multifaceted. It is to help Christians and those coming out of Adventism specifically since so many of them have reached out to us better understand where the issues are as well as to demonstrate without question that this doctrine is not only false but completely contrary to both scripture, history, and reason. And I’m going to walk through 10 biblical reasons why. But before we get into it, I want to remind you all that if you like what we are doing here, consider

Becoming a channel member. You’ll gain access to our growing library of membersonly content, including membersonly live streams, the next of which is tomorrow, and you will be partnered with us in helping us fulfill our mission to equip as many Christians as possible to reach as many Seventh Day Adventists as possible with the true Christ and his gospel. You can click the little join button down below this video. You might have to be on a desktop or you may not see it. Um, you can also visit the link in the channel description box. You can also visit our

Channel homepage like you see on the screen and you will see the same join button in multiple places. Big shout out to all of our members. This would not be possible without you. All right. So, we looked at what the SDA organization means by the word atonement, but you also need to understand what atonement model they affirm. What theory of the atonement do they affirm? The organization claims to uphold substitutionary atonement. This is not to be confused with the Protestant belief of penal substitutionary atonement. And there is a massive difference. So another scholar

That contributed to that book contours of avenous sotiology. Norman Gully notice what he wrote in a paper for the Adventist Theological Society some years ago regarding what they mean by substitutionary atonement. quote rightly used. The word substitutionary in no way conotes that Christ took our place in living a perfect life so that we do not need to be fitted for heaven aka sinless perfectionism. It need not conote this any more than it conotes that he ascended to heaven in our place. The word substitutionary properly employed applies solely to

Christ taking our place at the cross, doing for us what we could never do for ourselves, that is perish in the second death. Revelation 20:6, and still live for eternity. In paying the price for our sins, he alone could be our substitute. This is the most glorious good news, the wondrous exchange. Close quote. This is what he says. says the good news is the gospel. That’s part of their message that Jesus was a substitute only on the cross in paying the penalty for death. Remember what they mean when they use the phrase fitted for heaven, sinless perfectionism.

In the Adventist system, the Adventist Jesus incarnated and came to earth as a part of their great controversy narrative. We don’t have time to get into all the specifics tonight on that. I’ve done so exhaustively elsewhere, both here and on our website. But part of that narrative includes the claim that prior to the earth’s creation, Satan began attacking the Ten Commandments and claiming they can’t be kept. So part of why the Adventist Jesus came to Earth was to silence those accusations by demonstrating they are false, which is ultimately why he kept

The law perfectly. It vindicated the law. It proved that what Satan was saying was a lie and that no, it can’t be changed. it can’t be altered, which was one of these claims Satan was allegedly making. And this was to be an example to humanity as well as all the other watching intelligences in the universe that they believe in that Satan’s a liar. The law can be kept when one relies wholly on the power of the spirit like Jesus did. Because the Adventist worldview is strictly physical, they do not have a correct understanding of man’s core problem and issue.

In this model, sin is strictly behavioral. It is not something that is intrinsic to one’s fallen nature. Despite the neoadventist, you know, branch of the movement trying to adopt this aspect, it’s not at all compatible with that model. So, they’re inconsistent in doing that. But because it’s strictly behavioral in the actual worldview, in that in that system, as long as you try really, really, really hard and trust Jesus, you can get to a totally sinless condition in this life. Not only can you, but you must because it’s your duty to do just like

Jesus did and silence Satan by keeping the law perfectly and showing others it can be done as well. This then vindicates the Adventist God from Satan’s accusations, which Adventist scholarship claims is the core focus of the Adventist gospel. So when they say Jesus was a substitute, they only mean he paid the penalty for sin, which is death. It does not include that Jesus’s perfectly sinless life and record is credited to you, the believer, such that God the Father sees you the same way he does Jesus. That’s the classical Protestant teaching in a nutshell.

That’s not what they’re saying when they say substitutionary atonement. Whenever the scriptures use the phrases in Christ or in Christ Jesus and its various iterations, these are terms of union with Christ and representation. Headship, something that’s totally foreign to Adventist theology. God the Father sees all of those who are in Christ as though they lived the life that he lived. Which is why despite still struggling with sin and in our war with sin, the believer can rejoice that Jesus is sufficient and enough. Our shortcoming should actually point us

To Jesus. And Adventists will often hear this and think that if you disagree with their belief, then you’re somehow advocating for living carnally. It’s like, no, nothing could be further from the truth. But I say all that to say, you have to understand these details to really understand from the Adventist perspective what role the teaching of the investigative judgment plays. It is step five out of their sevenstep sanctuary model where Jesus is doing the first of three phases of judgment. The first phase dealing with all of those who have professed faith in God

All the way back to Adam to the present day and only those who have professed faith. That’s a key component to this. by the way, in refuting it. We’ll talk about that later. The judgment of everyone else happens in their theory in a second and third phase, something we will cover at another time. The third phase being essentially the execution of what took place in the second phase. But in this investigative pre-advent judgment, the claim is that Jesus is investigating to see who out of these professed believers is fit for heaven, which is what we saw in Norman Gully

Reference. So essentially, the Adventist Jesus is working on vindicating God in his character. And to do that, there has to be a people that are keeping the law perfectly and silencing Satan like Jesus did. That’s supposedly what the investigative judgment is for and to show. You know, people will ask questions. Well, are they saying that Jesus is learning stuff? Well, no. They’re not going to tell you that. The claim is going to be that it’s for other people that are looking in because it’s God having to vindicate himself from Satan. All the angels are

Standing in anticipation. You know, who should we trust, God or Satan? And so all this stuff in this sanctuary model is about this the Adventist God having to vindicate himself from that. I mean this this is a God that is like the the the gods that Elisha mocked. It’s like a a god like a man. But with that backdrop filled in, let’s read the entirety of fundamental belief number 24 to hear how they present it. Then we will begin our exposition. quote, “There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle that the Lord set up and not humans.” By that they mean a physical building,

An architectural structure. In it, Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of his atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. At his ascension, he was inaugurated as our great high priest and began his intercessory ministry which was typified by the work of the high priest in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary. In 1844 at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, he entered the second and last phase of his atoning ministry which was typified by the work of the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary. It is a

Work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin. So that’s what I mean by it’s one of the steps in all these other steps typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the day of atonement. In that typical service, the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Christ. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore in him are deemed worthy

To have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God in the faith of Jesus, and in him therefore are ready for translation into his everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the second advent. and then all the supposed proof texts that support this theory, many of which

We have dealt with on here before. So, there is a lot in here, folks, a lot. And it’s a reminder of why definitions matter. But let’s begin our 10 reasons why the Bible refutes this.

Proof number one, according to the Bible, Jesus was inaugurated as a priest at his baptism, not the ascension. This is to say that according to the Bible, Jesus was inaugurated as a priest before his ascension. Now, the biblical evidence for this is plentiful. For starters, the law required that the day of atonement sacrifice be offered up by who? the high priest. Well, the Adventist organization claims that even though the antiypical day of atonement started in 1844 and is continuing to this day, that the antiypical day of atonement sacrifice took place at the cross.

Notice Leviticus 16 1-5. The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord and died. And the Lord said to Moses, “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.” But in this way, Aaron shall come into the holy place with a bull from the herd for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and shall have the linen undergarments on

His body. And he shall tie the linen sash around his waist, and wear the linen turban. These are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water, and then put them on. and he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. So this is from the chapter regarding the day of atonement instructions and requirements. And who were the instructions given to? The Levites, Aaron, Aaron and his descendants which made up the Levitical priesthood order.

And the law required that the day of atonement sin offering be carried out by the high priest, not just anyone. Which would mean that Jesus, the true fulfillment of the antiypical day of atonement sacrifice, functioned as both the offering and the priest that offered it up. That was done at Calvary, which is before the ascension. Secondly, notice Hebrews 2 and then Romans 3. Hebrews 2 and then Romans 3. Since therefore well halt, let me preface. Before the author gets into this, he’s talking about why Jesus is superior to the angels. This carries over from

Chapter one, but he starts off by laying out his case at the beginning and in chapters two or chapter chapters one and two that Jesus is superior to anything in creation, even the angels. And then he ends this chapter by saying, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the

Offspring of Abraham.” Therefore, he had to be made in his uh brothers. He had to be made like his brothers in every respect so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to make propitiation for the sins of the people. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. So at this part of the book of Hebrews like I said the author is explaining how Jesus did not come to save angels but humans the offspring of Abraham. And part of that included adding unto himself a human nature. He had to be human in order to offer up a true

Atoning sacrifice for humans. And before this paricopy in verses 10 through13, the author quotes the Old Testament which foretold of this that Jesus would not be ashamed to be called our brother, meaning adding unto himself a human nature. But in conjunction with all of that, what does he say in verse 17? that part of him adding unto himself human nature was to become a high priest in the service of God to what? Make propitiation for the sins of the people. So catch that. He came in human likeness not to help angels but humans. And part of that included becoming a high priest

To make propitiation. Well, when did Jesus make propitiation? Because the text tells us that Jesus made propitiation as a high priest. So if propitiation occurred before the ascension, this f this further demonstrates Jesus was not inaugurated to be a priest or a high priest at the ascension but at a point before. Well, Romans 3 tells us where propitiation occurred. I feel like we read this every week at this point. But I never tire of it. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law. Although the law and the prophets bear

Witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there’s no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace, as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness because in his divine forbearance, he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in

Jesus. Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. Now, there’s a lot here and we’ve looked at this paricopy a number of times, like I said, for various reasons. But when does the text say that propitiation occurred? When Christ was put forth, which was at Calvary. Propitiation occurred at Calvary. Which means Jesus functioned as both the priest and the sacrifice at Calvary, which is perfectly in line with what we read in Leviticus as well as Hebrews 2. Not just Hebrews 2, but the entire book, more of which we’re going to look at later, a lot more of. But do a word

Study, folks, on the Greek word for propitiation. We just talked about this last week with regards to the scapegoat. It has to do with what the priest did when he would sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat in the day of atonement ceremony. And we also looked at last week how SDA scholarship tries to make this work in their model. So you can go and catch that if you are curious. Spoiler alert, it doesn’t. The point being this further evidences that Jesus functioned as a priest prior to the ascension. The ascension was Christ’s coronation as a king.

Something their fundamental beliefs or that fundamental belief says nothing about. And we’ll see why in a moment. Christ at his ascension continues in the execution of the office of priest where he intercedes on behalf of his people as the bridge between God and man as the God man himself which we will see in Hebrews 7 later is something he will do forever. But that’s one. Jesus was not inaugurated to be a priest at the ascension.

Proof two, Jesus was not doing not doing analogous work to the Levitical priests in a holy place apartment in heaven until 1844. So the next part in the fund fundamental belief attached to the claim that he was inaugurated as a priest at his ascension is the claim that Jesus began his intercessory ministry which was typified by the work of the high priest in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary. The wording of this is coming from Ellen White who wrote this great controversy page 428. Quote, “In the service of the earthly sanctuary, which as we have seen is a

Figure of the service in the heavenly when the high priest on the day of atonement entered the most holy place, the ministration in the first apartment ceased.” God commanded, “There shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place until he comes out.” Leviticus 16:17. So when Jesus entered the Holy of Holies to perform the closing work of the atonement, he ceased his ministration in the first apartment. But when the ministration in the first apartment ended, the ministration in the second apartment began.

When in the typical service, the high priest left the holy on the day of atonement, he went in before God to present the blood of the sin offering in behalf of all Israel who truly repented of their sins. So Christ had only completed one part of his work as our intercessor to enter upon another portion of the work and he still pleaded his blood before the father in behalf of sinners. Close quote. So here we see she claimed that between the ascension and 1844, Jesus was only in the outer apartment holy place of this building in heaven doing analogous

Work like the Levitical priest who daily uh only ministered in that outer apartment holy place. Remember the most holy was only entered once a year by the high priest on the day of atonement. Then they would leave and then come back the following year repeat. But the SDA church claims that is a picture of what Jesus would do only in heaven. They don’t claim he’s he’s performing sacrifices up there and not that he leaves and enters and leaves and enters like on a yearly cycle. No, no, he only entered into this building. Well, we’ll talk about some of the uh theories uh

Later because there’s varying theories out there. There is the official position which we’ll talk about, but there’s other theories out there as well that well, he did enter and then he left and then he entered again later, but they don’t claim he’s up there performing sacrifices, but that he’s using his own blood from his single sacrifice. So, you have to get this if you’re going to understand what they’re trying to say here. In the Old Testament, the priest would only enter the hol the most holy place once a year. Outside of that, the work was done outside in the outer

Apartment for the daily work. But then on the once once a year day of atonement, the high priest would go into the most holy place. So they claim that’s a picture of what Jesus would do in the building in heaven. That before 1844, Jesus was only in the outer apartment. And that work typified what Jesus would be doing in this building in heaven. And then in 1844 when the day of atonement supposedly began, Jesus entered into the most holy place to begin what that work pictured. And that’s supposed to be a typology of what’s happening in the new covenant.

Understand the claim? All right. Here is one of many reasons this is false. First, notice what we’re told in Hebrews 9 6-9. Hebrews 9 6-9. These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties. But into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself, and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is

Still standing which is symbolic for the present age. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. All right. So the author is talking about the functions of the le uh Levitical priests before he transitions to why Jesus’s priesthood is superior in the next chapter. But notice verse eight and then the scribal note which is included in the verse in brackets in verse 9. While the Levitical priests were doing their work of dealing with sin, the way into God’s presence was closed off. Only the high priest had access and only once a year. And while that work was continually

Going on every year, every year it was a constant reminder to the people of their sin. as you can see in in Hebrews 10:3. But in these sacrifices when he’s talking he goes back to talking about the the Levitical priest there and in talking about their sacrifices he says they were a constant reminder of the sins every year. And then chapter 10 responds to this where the author continues showing how Jesus’s priesthood and sacrifice is better. We’re told that the single sacrifice of Christ one time perfected for all time those that God is saving. But also notice something else that’s

Mentioned in contrast to what we just read in chapter uh 9. Hebrews 10:1 19-22. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is through his flesh. And since we have a great high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. And thus, the reading of God’s holy word. So, catch that. After telling us

The way for us to enter into the holy places, the presence of God was closed off and only open to the priest, the high priest, once a year. We’re then told a new and living way has been opened for all believers, not just the high priest, and not just once a year. And it’s through the blood of Jesus, we all have access to the blood of Christ, not just a single high priest. And we can all enter into the presence of God. Well, what did Hebrews 9:8 say? While the work of dealing with sin was going on, the way for God’s people to enter before him was closed.

Again, it was only open once a year to the single high priest. And we were told this remains the case while the work of dealing with sin is going on. But since we can enter in with boldness now, that would mean that work is finished and that barrier is no longer standing. So Jesus was not doing the analogous work of the Levitical priest only in heaven for 1813 years in a holy place outer apartment or even after 1844 in a different apartment which is what the SDA church claims because if Jesus were still dealing with sin the way for us wouldn’t be opened.

That’s what separated them from from God. They couldn’t approach and enter in. And that’s why even the priest had to offer up a sin offering for himself, cleanse himself before he could enter into the presence of God, which we’re going to look at later. But this is also why unlike in the old, a person’s conscience can now be cleaned. It was never cleansed with the sacrifice of bulls and goats. The constant work of dealing with sin reminded them that they would be back with sac to sacrifice more animals for their sin. But Jesus’s single sacrifice

Perfectly perfects those it is presented before the father for which is why he can bold uh that which is why we can boldly approach God with assurance. So unless the book of Hebrews is written after 1844, this refutes that claim. This is an issue of Ellen White as well as the SDA pioneers not understanding the two apartment system being a symbol of this age and the age to come. a constant a contrast between Judaism of old and Christianity of new. Two distinct priesthoods, Aaron and MelkiseDC. For Adventism, the two compartments represent a two-phaseed ministry of

Jesus that for 1813 years he did one phase and then in 1844 entered the other apartment to begin a new phase or rather he continued after at the ascension. He he continued and then entered the second phase in 1844.

But that’s not what the the that’s not what the the the compartments were representative of. Yet their mentality was that they’re here, you know, God raised them up to correct everyone else on what the priesthood of Jesus looks like. The issue isn’t the old covenant priesthood work. It was these SDA pioneers twisting of the text and trying to draw out a parallel that breaks down. So that’s proof too. Jesus was not doing the equivalent of the earthly holy place ministry only up in heaven until 1844 in an apartment building analogous to the Levitical priest.

Proof three, which piggybacks off of that. Blood was not taken into the holy place daily for individual penitent Israelites. Blood was not taken into the holy place daily for individual penitent Israelites. Again, they rely on the Old Testament type to try and claim we live in the antityypical day of atonement. The claim being that in the old covenant, individual penitent Israelites would bring their sacrifices daily for their sin and the priest would slaughter it upon the person confessing their sin. They then claimed this transferred the person’s sin in type to the animal and

The blood was then taken by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil. This transference of blood then transfers the person’s sin into the sanctuary and it rested in front of the veil of the most holy place to await being dealt with on the day of atonement when the sanctuary itself was cleansed. So make sure you got that because this is what they try and say pictures for us what the current day we live in is like. You come to Jesus the high priest, confess your sin, and in type it’s transferred to the heavenly sanctuary to be dealt with during this day of

Atonement period, which is 1844 till whenever probation closes and Jesus stops being a priest. Notice again what Ellen White says from patriarchs and prophets. Quote, “The most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of who? individuals. The repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle and placing his hand upon the victim’s head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. by his own hand, the animal was then slain. And the blood was carried by the

Priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil behind which the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony, the sin was through the blood transferred in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases, the blood was not taken into the holy place, but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying, “God hath given it to you. Bear the iniquity of the congregation.” Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of sin from the penitant to the sanctuary. Close quote.

So for starters, scripture nowhere describes blood as a transference mechanism. Nowhere. This is assumed to be what took place by them. But the text nowhere says this. But notice she said the most important part of what ministry?

The daily, the daily ministration for who? Individuals, individual penitent Israelites. And when they would bring a sacrifice, their sin was transferred or or sorry, their sin was transferred to the animal upon confession and laying on of hands and then through the animal’s blood transferred into the holy place to be sprinkled before the veil where it would rest until the cleansing of the sanctuary on the day of atonement. Yeah, this contradicts scripture. Blood was only ever taken into the sanctuary on two occasions outside of the day of atonement. Notice what they are.

Leviticus 4 is what lays this out. The first instance we find is in Leviticus 4 1-6. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments about things not to be done and does any one of them, if it is the appointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the Lord for a sin offering.” He shall bring the bowl to the entrance of the tent of meeting before the Lord

And lay his hand on the head of the bull and kill the bull before the Lord. And the anointed priest shall take some of the blood and the bowl and bring it into the tent of meeting. And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle part of the blood seven times before the Lord in front of the veil of the sanctuary. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. So if the priest sinned then this process was to be followed and the blood of the sacrifice was to be taken into the sanctuary. The second is later in the same chapter Leviticus 4:13-17.

If the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly and they do any one of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done and they realize their guilt when the sin which they have committed becomes known, the assembly shall offer a bull from the herd for a sin offering and bring it in front of the tent of meeting and the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the Lord. ward and the bull shall be killed before the Lord. Then the appointed priest shall bring

Some of the blood of the bull into the tent of meeting and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord in front of the veil. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. So the second was if the entire Israelite nation sinned unintentionally and realized their guilt, then this process was to be carried out and the blood from the sacrifice brought into the sanctuary and sprinkled before the veil. But neither of these two instances were the daily ministration for individual penitent Israelites. The same chapter lays out what was

Supposed to happen in that instance and the blood was never brought into the sanctuary. Adventists will try and appeal to these texts to make them work for their type antitype. We just saw that last week actually, but these aren’t referring to the daily ministration for individual penitent Israelites. Furthermore, scripture nowhere describes blood as a transference vehicle for sin. that it’s that it was used to, you know, as a vehicle to move sin around to different places. It’s like this is so ingrained in SDA theology that it’s almost taken for granted. Yet, it’s not

Biblical. Blood is always described as purifying, cleansing, forgiving, renewing, never transferring

Again. And they make that error like we saw last week with the scapegoat. But that’s proof three which undermines their entire framework and model. Blood was never taken into the sanctuary during the daily ministration for individual penitent Israelites.

Proof number four. Sin was put away at the cross. Sin was put away at the cross. This is actually going to be a two for one with a bonus point added on. Hebrews 9, folks, is what I like to call a theological powerhouse in the Bible. It is saturated with so much rich theology. And in order to grasp what all is being said, understanding the Old Testament, specifically the Levitical priesthood work, is an absolute must. The writer of this book was writing to a predominantly Jewish convert audience, an audience that would have been very familiar with that Old Testament and the

Levitical law work. And in chapter 9, he’s in the middle of explaining what makes Jesus’s priesthood superior to that of the Levites. And part of that includes the once single sacrifice of Christ for all time that never needs repeated because it puts sin away at the cross and is able to perfect the person it was made for cleansing the person’s conscience which was something animal sacrifices could not do. Animal sacrifices we are told were a constant reminder of sin because the person knew there would be more to come even after the once a year day of

Atonement ceremony. But in the flow of the presentation, Hebrews 9:19-26, he writes, “For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calavs and goats with water and scarlet wool and hissup and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law, almost everything is purified with blood. And without the

Shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Whoops. Sorry, I didn’t realize that my slide there didn’t have the earlier verses on it. That was 19-22. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rights, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 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 have suffered 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. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. So this is after he has explained that a new covenant was inaugurated on better promises than that which instituted uh was instituted with Moses. what was enacted with Moses was simply a type that pointed to a greater fulfillment, namely the new covenant. He also explains that the Mosaic

Covenant was inaugurated with blood. You can read about that in Exodus obviously. And everything was then sprinkled um with that blood signifying its ratification. So the book of the law was sprinkled, all the furniture, all that stuff. This is because without the shedding of blood, there’s no forgiveness of sins. Then verse 23 begins a pivot back to the greater which the old shadow pointed to. We are told that it was also necessary for the reality of what that earthly sanctuary pointed to to also be purified by those rights. However, it was better

Sacrifices plural than those earthly animal sacrifices. If you remember the fundamental belief on this, they try and cite this, but they say the sacrifice of Christ singular. This is why I always bring up as well like last week, Jesus is all of the laws, sacrifices, and offerings in one. Sacrifices plural. But when verse 20 uh in verse 24, we’re told that Jesus didn’t enter into a building like what was on earth, an architectural structure made with hands, which were, you know, was only a picture or a type. But Jesus entered into heaven itself to appear in the presence of God

On behalf of his people. Notice what Charles Haden Spurgeon says about this in his uh Metropolitan Tabernacle sermons. So he was preaching on this chapter and he says, quote, “There’s a true house of God, a real temple of the infinite, a living abode of the Godhead.” The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched in not man. There is still a trusting place where God doth meet with man and hold fellowship with him. That place is the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead bodily. The manhood of Christ is become

To us the antitype of that tent in the center of the camp. God is in Christ Jesus. Christ Jesus is God. And in his blessed person, God dwells in the midst of us as in a tent. For such is the force of the original in our text. The word was made flesh and tabernacled or tented among us. That is to say, in Christ Jesus, the Lord dwelt among man, as God of old, dwell in his sanctuary in the midst of the tribes of Israel. This is very delightful and hopeful for us. The Lord God doth dwell among us through the incarnation of his son, but the substance far excels the shadow. For

In the wilderness the Lord only dwelt in the abode of man, but now his approaches to us is closer, for he dwells in the flesh of man. Close quote. It all points to Jesus, my friend. All of it, including the physical tabernacle where God’s presence dwelt. Jesus is that tabernacle amongst us like the physical building was. And he entered into heaven itself where the manifest presence of God dwells. But that issue aside, the Levitical priests also entered into the presence of God, but only the high priest and only once a year. The author has already told us that

Previously in the chapter, like we saw in Hebrews 9:7, the high priest entered into the presence of God, but only once a year, not without blood. But what did that Levitical priest have to do before he could enter into the presence of God? He had to make atonement for himself and his household. This was because he was a sin-laden sinner. He could not enter into God’s presence without being cleansed and pure. So remember that in light of what the author says next, verse 25.

Jesus didn’t enter into heaven itself to offer repetitive sacrifices like the Levitical priest did. If this were the case, then he would have had to have suffered repeatedly for the rest of time. Instead, he entered into the presence of God one single time after putting sin away at the cross. Why is the author saying this here? The Levitical priest engaged in repetitious sacrifices. And even on the once a year day of atonement, he knew that he would be back the following year because the blood of bulls and goats was not sufficient. Jesus is the opposite of this.

Yet notice what he said about sin being put away at the cross. Again, we have to ask why is the author saying this here? Well, just like the earthly priest was covered in sin as a sinner, so too Jesus became such. 1 Peter 2:24 says that he bore our sins in his body on the tree. Uh Isaiah 53 says that God the Father laid on him the iniquity of us all and he was crushed and bruised for those. In 2 Corinthians 5, we’re told that he who knew no sin became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God. So on the cross, Jesus was covered in sin despite not being a sinner himself.

And just like the earthly priest had to put that sin away before he could enter into God’s presence, so too, Christ had to put the sin that was placed on him away before he entered into his rightful state and entered back into the presence of God as the God man to mediate for his people. This is not at all compatible with the investigative judgment and sanctuary model. They claim that Jesus transferred sin by means of his blood up into a building in heaven for it to rest on record. Then in 1844, he would begin investigating the books that record this sin and start dealing

With blotting it out then, which would mean the sin is there in the presence of God. for a movement that claims to have mastered the Old Testament, specifically the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. Yeah, this is strong evidence that this is not the case. Now, the bonus point that I mentioned earlier, Hebrews 9:22 said that without the shedding of blood, there’s no forgiveness of sin. Now, one must tread carefully here and pay close attention because one could point out that there were bloodless atoning sacrifices under the law, such as Leviticus 5 11-13,

Which was a grain offering. God told Israel that if they couldn’t afford two pigeons or two turtle doves, then a tenth of an ea of fine flour could be substituted. So, does that mean the author didn’t know what he was talking about and that, well, the shedding of blood wasn’t required for the forgiveness of sins? Of course not. Because in the day of atonement ceremony, blood was offered for the sins of the entire nation. All of the cleansing rights of the old covenant, like the bloodless grain offering, were subsumed under the absolute necessity of a blood sacrifice

Once every year. So while the grain offerings could atone for sin in some cases, they were only effectual because of this annual event which included sacrifice. Make sense? Since this is the case, the SDA model has a serious problem. They claim that the antityypical day of atonement began on October 22nd, 1844 when Jesus started the investigative judgment. But they also say that the antityypical day of atonement sacrifice took place at Calvary almost 2,000 years before this antityypical day of atonement actually began. So they have this massive gap in between

When the sacrifice itself took place and when the actual antitypical day of atonement work began. In this work starting in 1844, they claim that Jesus began the process of remitting sins. But how can that happen if Jesus isn’t in heaven shedding his blood? Without the shedding of blood, there’s no forgiveness of sins. Scriptur is clear that Jesus only shed his blood one time, and we just read the instance of this. So, on the one hand, they claim he didn’t remit sins when he actually shed his blood, but began doing so almost 2,000 years removed from that

In a new event that he started where he isn’t actually shedding his blood. Makes total sense, right? Yeah. Clear as mud. But that’s proof four. Jesus put sin away at the cross. He isn’t dealing with it in heaven still. And this was absolutely necessary because he had to put it away before he could enter into the presence of God. On top of that, he isn’t shedding his blood in heaven, which means he can’t be dealing with the removal of sin like they claim he currently is.

Proof five, simple and quick. If sin was put away at the cross, the scapegoat can’t be Satan. And yes, that refutes the investigative judgment because they need that to be true for this whole chain to work. So in conjunction with proof four, this is a death blow to the investigative judgment because you can’t have the rest of the framework without it. They have to have this as a link in their chain of events, otherwise the system breaks. Now, I’ve already demonstrated this exhaustively elsewhere, such as last week, so you can go and check that out for more in-depth

Analysis on this one. Proof six, Jesus is seated on his throne, signifying that the work of dealing with sin is finished. All throughout Hebrews as well as elsewhere like the book of Acts, the biblical writers go to great lengths to talk about Jesus being seated on his throne. Again, the original audience of the Hebrews understood the Old Testament very well. And when they would have heard this, they would have understood how stark a contrast this was to the Levites. For starters, the Levites were not kings. There was no throne for them to sit on

In the tabernacle, though the mercy seat is the equivalent of such because God’s manifest presence, but it wasn’t for them to sit on in the tabernacle. And they never sat down because their work of dealing with sin was forever ongoing. In Hebrews 10 8-14, the author gives us a picture of this complete uh you know or or gives us a a a picture of this compare and contrast. Notice when he said above, you have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings. These are offered according to the law. Then he added,

“Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Ah, the difference between experiential and positional sanctification, another topic we’re going to talk about in the coming weeks. 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 foottool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. Notice Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins. And in doing so we’ve been sanctified. Goes on to say those who are being sanctified. Again, we will talk about progress or uh experiential and positional sanctification in another night. But the author tells us it was not God’s plan for sacrifice to take place indefinitely for the rest of existence.

And God did away with the first co covenant, abregating it by inaugurating the new. And remember in the previous chapter, he went through this already. Some of which we saw earlier. This was done by the once-foralltime single sacrifice of Christ. Then verse 11, what does he say that the Levitical priests stood daily at his office which was the work of dealing with sin. That was their job. And they did so by repeatedly offering sacrifices for sin which could never actually take it away. But unlike them, Christ offered himself one time, actually put sin away at the

Cross, like we just saw in Hebrews 9:26, and then did what? Entered into the presence of God and sat down at the right hand of God, where he will remain until all of his enemies are made a foottool. And his single sacrifice actually perfects all of those for whom it was made, which are the individuals that God is presently sanctifying by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is what Christ is presently doing, folks. He is ruling and reigning as a priest king because Hebrews 7:1 says that Melkisedc was both a priest and a king simultaneously. The Levites were only priests, which is

Why they didn’t have a throne to sit on. It is very telling that the SDA fundamental belief number 24 on the investigative judgment in the sanctuary says absolutely nothing about the kingship of Christ. And this is because they don’t teach he’s actually functioning as a king right now, ruling and reigning over his kingdom. We have looked at this before and listened to numerous SDA figures talk about this and we have seen how they say he will receive his kingdom after the investigative judgment is complete because Jesus’s kingdom is the people that make it up, not territorial.

And since the investigative judgment is where it is being determined who is and isn’t fit for his kingdom, something else we saw earlier, Jesus isn’t actually functioning as a king right now. This ultimately is coming from a vision from Ellen White, something else we’ve looked at numerous times where she claims in the future he will cease being a priest, taking off his priestly garments and putting on his kingly ones. But no, they have it totally backwards. Christ is simultaneously a priest and a king right now. The fact that he is seated represents

The fact that he isn’t still dealing with sin anymore like the the Levitical priests who were always standing. On top of this, if an Adventist wants to make the argument that what was on earth was identical to what is in heaven, only what was on earth was a scaled down version, then they need to provide an example for us where there was a throne for the Levites to sit on. Not just that, but based on Ellen White’s alleged vision, there’s apparently two thrones with one in the holy place, outer apartment. Then they got up off the throne and moved into the holy place. Yeah. Yeah.

That doesn’t sound like it was identical to what was on earth, but that’s proof six. Jesus is seated as a priest king and is presently making all of his enemies his foottool as he rules and reigns with all authority in heaven and on earth. He’s not dealing with sin anymore. let alone did he begin expedating it in 1844.

Proof number seven, Jesus is an eternal priest king. Jesus is an eternal priest king. In our world today, folks, this is something people really need to understand. And Christians really need to understand this because if you understand what Christ’s role currently is right now, it’ll give you a lot better perspective on our at least if you’re in the west. I can’t speak to what’s going on in the east that that that well right now, but if you’re in the west today and you’re a Christian, this reality, this truth should bring you great joy and hope.

But in conjunction with proof five, scripture teaches that Jesus will forever be a priest king, which evidences that the SDA understanding of what the priestly work of Christ in heaven looks like is badly skewed. Hebrews 7 and the Psalms, which the author of Hebrews cites, is crystal clear on this. I I don’t know if there is any further of a thus plain thus sayeth the Lord in all of scripture. It’s like so much so it’s almost hard to believe the SDA church tries claiming this still. But again, alleged visions from Ellen White confirm this. So they’re stuck

Having to try and defend it. First we will look at the biblical witness and then we will look at the supposed vision. Hebrews 7 11-25. Little bit of reading here, but pay very close attention. 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 MelkiseDC rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are

Spoken belong to another tribe from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah. And in connection with that tribe, Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of MelkiseDC who has become a priest not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, you are a priest forever after the order of Melkisedc. For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its

Weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect. But on the other hand, a better hope is introduced through which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, you are a priest forever.” This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office.

But he holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him since he always lives always lives to make intercession for them. And thus the reading of God’s holy word. Folks, it really does not get much more plain than that. Unlike the Levitical priests who were many in number because they would eventually die, Jesus holds his office permanently because of his indestructible life. He then cites Psalm 110 which is a messianic psalm about Jesus where it was

Foretold that Jesus is a priest for how long after the order of Melkisedc? Forever. And again, 71 already told us that MelkiseDC was both a priest and a king simultaneously. That’s the office that Jesus will hold forever. And it’s part of what makes the new covenant better. Jesus forever lives to make intercession for his people. As the God man, he bridged the gap between man and God. And he will forever be the God man and forever even into eternity intercede for us by keeping us in union with him forever. That’s why he is able to save to the uttermost perfectly.

I don’t think the author could have said it any more times than he did there. Forever. Forever. Permanently. You have sworn your mind will not change. Talking about God the Father speaking to the Son. You’re a priest forever. And that’s an oath unbreakable by the Almighty himself. Well, notice now what the Adventist prophetus had to say about this and how she botches it. Quote, “About 4 months since, I had a vision of events all in the future, and I saw the time of trouble such as never was.” Jesus told me it was the time of Jacob’s trouble, and that we should be delivered

Out of it by the voice of God. Just before we entered it, we all received the seal of the living God. Then I saw the four angels cease to hold the four winds. And I saw famine, pestilence, and sword. Nation rose against nation, and the whole world was in confusion. Then we cried to God for deliverance day and night, till we began to hear the bells of Jesus’s garment. And I saw Jesus rise up in the holiest. And as he came out, we heard the tinkling of bells and knew our high priest was coming out. Then we heard the voice of God which spoke the heavens or or which shook the

Heavens and earth and gave the 144,000 the day and hour of Jesus’s coming. Then the saints were free united and full of the glory of God. For he had turned their captivity. And I saw a flaming cloud come where Jesus stood. And he laid off his priestly garment and put on his kingly robe. took his place on the cloud which carried him to the east where it first appeared to the saints on earth a small black cloud which was the sign of the son of man. While the cloud was passing from the holiest to the east which took a number of days the synagogue of Satan worshiped

At the saints feet. Close quote. So she claims to have had a vision of future events, namely the time of trouble. For those unaware, this was also a time when it was present truth to believe that the time of trouble was about to begin. Visions like this one being used to bolster this narrative. But in this vision, she allegedly saw Jesus rise up off his throne, which was indicated by the tinkling on the hem of his garments. Yes, this is because she claimed elsewhere he was wearing Levitical priesthood garments, despite Exodus telling us those were distinct to Aaron

And the Levites. They were then told the day and the hour of Jesus’s return with the belief being that they, the present group, were a part of the 144,000. This entire time she’s using inclusive pronouns, we, us, etc., including herself into the group. They obviously pivoted on this like tons of other doctrines. But amidst this, she then says, “A flaming cloud approached the Adventist Jesus’s feet after he stood up and he did what? Took off his priestly garment and put on his kingly robe.” We’ve looked at it before, but SDA scholar and professor Roy Ga has written

On this where he says it’s not literal garments that he changes. He isn’t literally wearing Levitical priesthood garments. This was just representative for Ellen White to let her see Jesus’s change in function. The priestly garments just represented his work as a priest. The kingly garments represent the assumption of the role of king, which is exactly what they teach theologically, that Jesus will cease being a priest after the investigative judgment finishes, probation will close, the time of trouble will begin, and it will last roughly 7 days because Ellen

White also claimed that it will take them 7 days to get here according to the book of Revelation. Notice Christ in his sanctuary, page 153. quote, “Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless. Their characters must be purified from sin by the sprinkling of blood through the grace of God and their own diligent effort. They must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward

In heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification of putting away of sin among God’s people upon the earth. This work is more closely presented or clearly presented in the messages of Revelation 14. Close quote. Yeah, this flagrantly contradicts Hebrews 7 and shows a fundamental ignorance around both the nature of Christ as well as his function. During the time of trouble, Adventism claims you’ll have to have gotten to a totally sinless condition or you won’t make it. Satan will get you. We’ve

Looked at that quote from Great Controversy a lot of times as well. Or she says, “This is the condition that you must be in if you want to make it through the time of trouble after explaining Jesus in the wilderness and that Satan could find absolutely no sin in him. So unless you are perfectly sinless as Jesus was, you’re not going to make it.” and Jesus will have ceased mediating for you, which elsewhere in this book, she claims he’s actually only mediating for those that believe this teaching. Those who hear about it and see all of the holes and fallacies,

They are said to be willingly ignorant of the work that Jesus is currently doing and he and they can’t be benefited thereof. But that’s proof seven. Jesus is seated on his throne, signifying that the work of dealing with sin is finished already. Ellen White and Adventism have him seated on various thrones in various compartments in a building in heaven where he’s still dealing with sin from a seated position with the sin in the presence of God and he ceases being a priest.

Proof number eight, Jesus entered into the equivalent of the earthly most holy place at his ascension, not in 1844.

Hebrews 6:1 19-20 is not only the select text chosen for this ministry, but they have a longstanding history for the SDA church. First, let’s read it and then get into their arguments and why they are dead on arrival. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of MelkiseDC. and thus the reading of God’s holy word. So I just want to point out again the author tells us Jesus is a priest

Forever. So add that to the list for proof number seven. But this is the author’s segue into chapter 7 where he begins describing the Melkisedcian priesthood. And Adventists take umbrage with the phrase within the veil or some will render it behind the curtain. They have issues with this referring to the equivalent of the most holy place. I don’t have time to get into all of the back and forth on that, but these are some of the most contested verses by the SDA church, which really came to a head with Desmond Ford and his dissenting work on the subject.

But from the earliest days of the movement, people like OL Croer were putting forth theories on this passage to try and make it fit with 1844 theology. This is what the major arguments have been for their view regarding this verse or these verses. One that the tabernacle had two veils and the one that separated the holy place from the courtyard is what’s in focus. And they try and use Hebrews 9:3 where it’s giving the layout of the furniture in the earthly sanctuary. And they try and say that’s what’s in reference when it talks about there being a second veil. See, there were two

Veils. So that’s what’s in reference in 619. Another is the same Hebrew word and the same Greek word are applied to both curtains. That was Uriah Smith’s argument. So Smith argued on the basis of this that because the word veil in the Old Testament is ambivalent, we can’t say with specificity that within the veil in 619-20 is referring to the equivalent of the second veil into the most holy place. And we’ve looked at some modern SDA scholarship on here before who embrace this position and argument. But then you have EE Andros who wrote an apologetic

Response to AF Ballinger who left Adventism. He argued that within the veil does indeed refer to the most holy place and Jesus entered there at his ascension. But this was only momentarily and this is what I was referring to earlier. I’ve recently heard a number of SDA pastors that are beginning to embrace this position. They appeal like Andros did to Hebrews 9:21 and say Jesus had to go into the most holy place temporarily to activate the temple by dedicating his blood. Then following this event, he left back to the outer apartment to do that work

Until 1844 and then he returned back into the most holy place. But then the fourth is WW Fletcher in 1925 put forth the defense that in addition to Hebrews 9:3 and the second veil argument, the inner veil of the most holy place is qualified with the term second veil. Then he would appeal to numbers 18:7 where the phrase within the veil is used to generally refer to the sanctuary as a whole. So he tried interpreting the text to be saying that Jesus entered into the sanctuary building generally but the text doesn’t specify enough about which veil was entered

Bro left the SDA church in 1930 by the way and most importantly the SDA prophetus an alleged stamp of approval you know directly from God claiming the simple declaration that Croer put forth that it refers to the one that separated the courtyard from the holy place. This is from an article by Roy Ga in Ministry magazine December 1983 where he quotes Ellen White, but notice what he says. Quote, Ellen White uses Hebrews 6:19-20 to refer to Christ’s passage through the first veil and the consequent commencement of his holy place ministry. Then he quotes her. The ministration of

The priest throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary within the veil which formed the door and separated the holy place from the outer court represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at his ascension. It was that uh it was the work of the priest in the daily ministration to present before God the blood of the sin offering also the incense which ascended with the prayers of Israel. So did Christ plead his blood before the Father in behalf of sinners and present before him also with the precious fragrance of his own

Righteousness the prayers of penitent believers. Such was the work of ministration in the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven. Close quote. But those are the standard responses that you’ll hear from SDAs. Now there is an assumption undergirling this discussion that for the sake of argument I will simply agree with in the adventist context they are envisioning a literal building up in heaven with different rooms and Jesus moving around in those. I don’t think within the veil I don’t believe within the veil is referring to a literal curtain in heaven. It’s simply

Using the earthly sanctuary language to convey to the original here where Jesus entered into the presence of God. This is made clear by simply continuing to read the book. We’re told that where Jesus entered is an anchor for our soul. We’re told Jesus entered into the presence of God. Any person familiar with the Old Testament that heard this would have known God’s presence was only ever in the most holy place. Furthermore, the text doesn’t say he simply went behind the veil. It says he went into the inner place within the veil. The Old Testament refers to the inner

Place in the context of the sanctuary to talk about the most holy place. And the author goes on to great lengths after these two verses to explain why Jesus’s priesthood is better, many of which we looked at earlier. One of those is the difference that unlike the the Levites where only one person once a year could enter into God’s presence and not without taking blood in the new covenant all believers can enter with boldness through the single sacrifice of Christ. We have direct access to the presence of God. This then gets into Eucharistic theology

And lots of other fun stuff. But the point being it is very obviously referring to where only the high priest could go. It’s saying Jesus as a high priest entered into where the high priest could go, but he did so after the order of MelkiseDC, not Aaron. And then he goes on to explain why Melkisedcian is greater and superior to ironic, which perfectly segus into him explaining all of those things. The only place in the Old Testament where it refers to where the high priest entered within the veil, it always refers to the day of atonement which referred to the most holy place.

So that’s one. Within the actual flow of the narrative, it’s clear it’s referring to the heavenly equivalent of the earthly most holy place. Jesus entered into God’s presence and he is our anchor for the soul there in the presence of God the father. Secondly, even if we assume the SDA mindset of it taking or it talking about various apartments in a building, one of their primary arguments for this is Hebrews 8:5 where they say it says what was on earth was an identical copy of what’s in heaven. Only what is in heaven is at a much larger scale. Again, if you use this argument, then

God’s presence was never in the holy place, only the most holy. Yet the author of Hebrews explicitly states Jesus entered into the presence of God and does the new uh uh uh and as the New Testament does elsewhere. So that argument backfires because apparently it’s only a perfect copy in so far as the SDA system needs it to be. But other biblical assessments of Hebrews 6:19-20 that evidence this is in reference to the heavenly uh equivalent of the earthly most holy place. One is that regarding worship the outer veil had little significance. It was

That inner veil that had significance in the mind of the Israelite. Remember the author didn’t just say Jesus entered behind the veil but into the inner place. The Old Testament refers to the inner place within the context of the sanctuary when talking about the most holy place. The chances of the author referring to the significant one are a lot higher than simply to say Jesus entered into the curtain at the tabernacle entrance. And then two, that inner veil had a worshipful importance to the Israelite. So with the focus of the author on the day of atonement and Jesus’s once giving

Of himself, it makes far more sense to recognize that the inner veil is in focus with its day of atonement role in focus. Again, the fundamental issue is that for Ellen White as well as the SDA system of theology, they do not understand the two apartment system being a symbol of this age and the age to come. A contrast between Judaism of old and Christianity of new. two distinct priesthood Aaron’s Melkisedc for Adventism the two compartments represent a two-faced ministry of Jesus and that for 1813 years he was doing one thing and then in 1844 he entered into the second phase of the

Atonement into a different apartment to begin that phase. This was not done through exogesis of the biblical text, but she would use these phrases prophetically and within documenting her visions which allowed her to project her own viewpoint. Excuse me. The outer apartment represented an age of elementary principles such as meat and drink, washings, regulations. All that stuff was waxing old and passing away, which is what the author tells us in Hebrews 8:9. That stuff was ready to vanish away. But Ellen White thought the outer place ministry represented the work which

Christ would begin at his ascension. According to Great Controversy, page 420, a a very warped understanding that entirely misses the substance and richness of the text at the behest of having to prop up this ridiculous 1844 theology as it pertains to the argument that Jesus entered in and then exited back to the first apartment and then went back into the most holy in 1844. This may sound clever and like it solves the problem, but it actually just creates another one. The author makes it clear Jesus entered in one time and sat down. He didn’t enter in and leave to then sit

Outside on a throne in a hol in the holy place and then stand up and move in 1844 to sit down again on a second throne in the most holy place. But then he’s also seated and dealing with sin. This is fatuous. Furthermore, the author says he entered in once and sat down. this particular argument would have us to believe he entered twice. This is a bad argument and it’s probably why it’s hasn’t become a majority SDA view or you know one embraced by the SDA church as an you know in an official capacity. But like I said, I’ve started to recently hear a lot more administ

Pastors putting this argument forth. We had a friend or listener who I call friend submit a video from their previous Adventist pastor. People submit all sorts of videos for us to review and listen to. And he was putting forth this theory. And friend, if you see this, the reason why we never got to that is um no offense to your former pastor, but man, some of them are just much better at getting to the point. Um, and that guy was just he was just going and going and going and there just really wasn’t much for us to respond to because it was all

This stuff leading up to this climactic thing of like 40 minutes, all of it to get to that. And so I don’t think the audience wants to listen to that for 40 minutes while we just then get to that single thing. But he was putting forth this position and this was a video from two years ago trying to use Moses as an example to say Moses had to enter into the temple to activate it before it could be used. So to Jesus had to go into the most holy place to activate the temple in heaven and then he left to begin working in the outer apartment. But that only creates

Further contradictions. So that is proof 8. Hebrews 6:1 19-20 clearly indicates that Jesus entered into where only the high priest could, which was the most holy place. And he did this at his ascension, and he only entered one time.

Proof number nine, the SDA interpretation of Colossians 2:14 refutes 18:44. You might be thinking, interesting. What do you mean? This one is an internal critique argument that is examining the SDA system for consistency. First, let’s read this paricopy. Colossians 2:13-15. And you who were dead in your trespasses in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. By cancelelling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands, this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame by triumphing over them in him. Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. Now, SDAs typically will cite this from the King James because of the way it renders that phrase record of debt. They need the King James’ rendering for their argument. It translates it handwriting of ordinances in response to people that claim this verse says the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross. something answering Adventism does not affirm. By the way, they try and argue that no, Paul is saying the ceremonial law was nailed to

The cross. Notice what SDA pioneer Uriah Smith says in his exposition of this paricopy. Quote, we call the one the moral law because it related to moral duties alone. The other we call the ceremonial law because it related wholly to ceremonial observances. It is not claimed that the terms moral law and ceremonial law are found in the scriptures. But they are convenient terms to express distinctions which the scriptures clearly teach. Ah remember that statement next time an adventist asks you to you know utilize the verbatim fallacy. The scriptures do not use the words

Probation, prophetic, millennial, moral, mental, physical, and a host of other terms which are exceedingly convenient to express distinctions recognized in the Bible and to which no one objects. We say that Colossians 2:14-17 refers exclusively to the ceremonial law, having to the moral law, not the remotest illusion, whatever. close quote. So leading up to this quote, he’s formulating his argument for there being two laws. God’s law, which is the Ten Commandments, and then Moses’s law, which is the ceremonial law. And it was the ceremonial law that was

Nailed to the cross. Pretty standard SDA claim. That argument aside, I’ve dealt with that elsewhere, and we’re doing an internal critique. This interpretation backfires on their entire sanctuary model. Notice what Leviticus 23:26-28 says. This is laying out the requirements for all sorts of ceremonial aspects of the law. I’m going to get a drink here.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Now on the 10th day of the seventh month is the day of atonement, it shall be for you a time of holy convocation, and you shall afflict yourselves and present a food offering to the Lord, and you shall not do any work on that very day, for it is a day of atonement to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. So, the day of atonement was a part of the ceremonial law. Yet, the SDA church claims the antityypical day of atonement wasn’t the crucifixion day, but a long period of

Time beginning on October 22nd, 1844. We allegedly live in the day of atonement period right now. But at the same time, they tell us Colossians 2 says the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross, just not the day of atonement. Apparently, it’d be far more consistent for them, if they want to roll with this interpretation of Colossians 2, to recognize the crucifixion day as the true fulfillment of the day of atonement, where the ceremonial law, including the day of atonement, was nailed to the cross and fulfilled entirely by Christ there on that day.

But they can’t have that, of course, because that would bury 1844 theology. Again, I don’t hold the position that any laws were nailed to the cross because that’s not what Paul’s talking about as the record of death. But next time you hear this argument from an Adventist regarding Colossians 2 only referring to ceremonial law, kindly remind them that interpretation backfires on them and creates a massive contradiction in their system. But that’s proof nine, an internal critique of how the way they interpret Colossians 2:14 refutes claims about the

Antityypical day of atonement.

And last but not least, proof number 10, Daniel 8:14. Daniel 8:14, no matter how many ways they’ve tried to twist it, has nothing to do with 1844 in the start of the investigative judgment. Now, we won’t be able to exhaustively drill down on every single aspect and claim the SDA church makes about this text, but because of everything else we’ve looked at, we will look at a number of them and point out both internal inconsistencies within their own framework as well as textual ones which are sufficient enough. Like I said, considering the other, well, 10,

Including the bonus proof. First, notice what Ellen White had to say about this text. This is from chapter 23 of the great controversy titled, “What is the sanctuary?” Quote, “The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith was the declaration unto 2,300 days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Daniel 8:14. These had been familiar words to all believers in the Lord’s soon coming. By the lips of thousands was this prophecy repeated as the watchword of their faith. All felt that upon the events

Therein, foretold, depended their brightest expectations and most cherished hopes. These prophetic days had been shown to terminate in the autumn of 1844. In common with the rest of the Christian world, Adventists then held that the earth or some portion of it was the sanctuary. They understood that the cleansing of the sanctuary was the purification of the earth by the fires of the last great day and that this would take place at the second advent. Hence the conclusion that Christ would return to the earth in 1844. Close quote. Yeah. It wasn’t the rest of the

Christian world that believed that. It was these sects that sprang up in the 19th century that were all damning everyone uh you know else for not buying into their second great awakening fervor and fanaticism that believed uh you know that which is then equated with the rest of the Christian world. But here she’s referring to the general Adventist Millerite movement and she highlights how Daniel 8:14 was the central pillar for that movement. This is before the birth of the 7th Adventist movement out of the great disappointment. This text then carried the same weight

Into the SDA movement because their theology was built upon William Miller’s foundation. Speaking about this in his book, Father Miller’s Daughter, notice what Donald Casebolt points out. Quote, “Miller claimed that he only used his Bible in a concordance, that he had set aside all commentaries, and that in divinely inspired dreams, God had commissioned him to proclaim his 15 proofs to the world.” Father Miller’s spiritual daughter, Ellen Harmon, accepted Miller’s self-conception at face value. Then she enhanced and disseminated Miller’s system and self-perception,

Going so far as to claim that Father Miller had been prefigured by Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, and that God had given Miller individualized divine insight into prophecies that had been shrouded in mystery for centuries. Miller’s spiritual daughter upon assuming the prophetic role of God’s special messenger perpetuated this hagographal conception of Miller. More importantly, he endorsed his nonliteral methodology. As a result, the church that Ellen White founded retained the vestigial uh vestigial remains of many of Miller’s purported proofs as well as his

Nonliteral methodology. all the while imagining that Miller’s method was literal and common sense. Close quote. And this is exactly correct. And you’ll still see this today with many Adventists. They think their movement was raised up by God with special prophetic insight to the Bible, namely with regards to Daniel and Revelation. Insight that no one else but them has. And it began with William Miller, who allegedly only used his Bible in a concordance with zero outside input, utilizing a plain literal interpretation of the Bible. Oh, and and alleged uh divinely inspired

Dreams. Don’t forget that Casebolt rightly recognizes before this quote earlier in the preface how what they call a plain literal reading of the Bible is actually an allegorical typological historical model, an abuse of history paired with drawing out typologies way too far. inserting those, you know, those events from history and allegorizing away certain things in such a way that allowed him to try and make all of his 15 proofs fit with scripture. The point being, when it comes to the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14, this is the crux upon which their whole

System swings. That’s why we heard what we heard in the intro. Despite their pivoting and changing of what they claim it means over the decades, it’s still built upon William Miller’s faulty handling of scripture and it’s still the central pillar for the system. Ellen White giving the stamp of approval on Miller’s handling and treatment of the Bible. Albeit she was smart enough to recognize that he clearly was wrong on certain areas, which is why they had to regroup and try and come up with new theories. With that background in mind, we’re going to listen to a clip from Doug

Bachelor regarding this text so you can hear the 21st century claims about this text which are not identical to those of the 19th and 20th centuries. Afterward, we will examine the text and show why this has so many holes it could rightly be called Swiss cheese theology. You read in Daniel 7:2, “This beast power would cast the truth to the ground. He would think to change times and laws.” And then you read on in um Daniel chapter 8, he says, “2,000,” let’s read the next verse here. “Because of transgression concerning the s the daily sacrifice, an

Army was given to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices. He cast truth to the ground. He did all this and he practiced and he prospered. Then I heard one holy one speaking to the other holy one who said to that certain holy one who spoke. And next verse, how long will be the vision concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation? There’s a time period given of giving both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot. How is it trampled underfoot? And the Bible says, “If you’ll turn away your foot from the Sabbath, trampling on truths.”

How long would that happen? For 2,300 days, then the sanctuary will be cleansed. After 2,300 days, a cleansing would begin. It’s almost like when God told Adam and Eve, “In the day you eat thereof, you will die.” He actually said, “In in dying, you will die.” You will begin dying. There would be a new phase of cleansing that would take place after 2,300 days. All right. So, what Doug put forth is pretty standard fair claims about this text. It’s interesting he points out Genesis 3. We heard this from Dr. Jud Lake as well, one of the last times we

Responded to him where he tried to where he was talking about Genesis and he’s like, you could think of it kind of like an investigative judgment type scene. That’s what Doug is alluding to there. But what he put forth is a pretty standard fair claim. Daniel was allegedly shown a large sweeping view of human history into the future. And when Daniel 8 says that truth was cast down to the ground, it was in reference to all sorts of truthful doctrines that were cast down to the ground by the papacy and were then rediscovered by various people beginning with the

Reformation. They then attach onto that William Miller and call him an American reformer and that he laid the groundwork for the truth of the sanctuary doctrine that only SDAs have and is the only entirely unique doctrine of their movement. So the truth cast to the ground is supposedly the truth about the SDA sanctuary doctrine and Daniel was supposedly shown that after a certain period of time the truth of this doctrine would be rediscovered. And Doug even tried to work in the alleged Sabbath truth in there as well. Something he said earlier in that

Lecture is a truth that if one rejects, God rejects them. In conjunction with this, prior to that clip, Doug also claimed that the sanctuary to be cleansed is allegedly the people of God, the temple that everyone who is a believer makes up with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. So it went from the earth being the sanctuary with William Miller to the sanctuary being a building up in heaven to then well it’s the church the people of God. It’s God cleansing his people from their sins through sanctification. So let’s look at some of these reasons and why it is badly flawed.

For starters, this idea that it’s some revived truth that got trampled underfoot and needed to be restored conflicts with the organization’s own claims about the teaching. We’ve looked at this before, but notice what the review and herald says regarding their special present truth message. Quote, “The very fact that this prophecy of the three angels messages covers the period between 1844 and the end of the age shows conclusively that this three-fold message is God’s special message for us at this very hour. Just as surely as we are living between

1844 and the coming of Christ, just so surely may we know that this three-fold message of Revelation 14 6-12 is God’s present truth for this present time. The time for this message is very definitively fixed to the present generation. This prophecy of Revelation 14 6-14 does not and cannot refer to any proclamation of the gospel in the days of the apostles, the early Christian fathers or the reformers of the 16th, 17th or 18th centuries. It is strictly a last day message applicable to those who live just before the return of Christ. Close quote.

So the teaching of the investigative judgment is a part of what they call the everlasting gospel. It is a part of their three angels messages. Well, here they tell us that this everlasting gospel message wasn’t preached by the apostles or anyone before them. It is strictly a last day message applicable only to those before the return of Christ. That includes the message of the investigative judgment. So, how was it downtrodden for 2300 days if before the 2300 days it wasn’t even known, taught, or believed? It wasn’t revived, restored, rediscovered, anything. It was cut whole

Cloth from novelty due to needing to try and find a new solution to the great disappointment. Second, they need the day-toear principle to be valid in order for their handling of the 2300 number to be valid. Let’s grant that principle as valid and not rabbit trail off into all that. Well, that principle only applies when the text utilizes the Hebrew or Greek word day, which is not found in in Daniel 8:14. You know, I’ve had adversar like, well, it obviously means day when it says evening and morning. That’s what a day is. I friend, you’re not going to make it.

They just assert that it says evening and morning represents a day. So, therefore, they can apply the principle there. No, doesn’t work that way. And lots of historicists that utilize the deer day principle because Adventists aren’t the only historicists. These individuals watch this channel and I’m sure they will comment down below and can explain why no other historicists in history arrived at the conclusion that the SDAs do with this text. So that’s two. The Hebrew word isn’t uh you know the Hebrew word day is not found in Daniel 8:14. Thirdly, the

2300 days is about when something ceases, not when something will start or begin. Notice, out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. It grew great even to the host of heaven. And some of the host, and some of the stars that threw down to the ground, and trampled on them, it became great, even as great as the prince of the host. and the regular burnt offering was taken away from him and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. And a host will be given over to it

Together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression and it will throw truth to the ground and it will act and prosper. Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary, and the host to be trampled underfoot.” And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings, then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.” Thus, the reading of God’s holy word.

So Daniel sees this vision of this wicked little horn which threw some of the stars to the ground and trampled on them. This wicked little horn then became great causing the burnt offering practice to be halted by overthrowing and desecrating the sanctuary. In doing so, this wicked little horn prospered for a select duration of time. Daniel then hears an angel ask another angel, “How long will this overthrowing of the burnt offering practice being overthrown, you know, be overthrown and trampled underfoot? to which the angel responds with the time frame for 2300 evenings and

Mornings. After that, the sanctuary would return to its normal practice of offering up sacrifices again. This is not a time frame for when something will start. It is a time frame for how long this wicked figure will do wicked things. And the sanctuary in focus is very obviously the earthly sanctuary where sacrifices were taking place, not the entirety of the earth, not a building in heaven, the earthly tabernacle. So without even having to get into interpreting who the wicked little horn is, what the stars represent, etc., It can plainly be deduced from the context

That the time frame and reference to how long a wicked figure will engage in wicked behavior before then being cut off and the original practice that was halted will remain. Nothing to do with the church being cleansed when Jesus enters an architectural building in heaven and yada yada. We then have the problem of the Roman Catholic papacy somehow defiling heaven which is why more and more Adventists I think have pivoted off of this because they claim the wicked little horn is the Roman papacy and the text says the figure defiles the sanctuary to which they’ve you know used to claim

Was referring to the heavenly sanctuary. This then led to the obvious question of how did the papacy defile heaven in which the new solution presented has been what the likes of people like Doug Bachelor claim which is that the sanctuary in focus is actually the body of Christ the New Testament church where God is cleansing the individual believer of his sins and that’s what the the cleansing in focus is. Now this is not to say they’re saying well no there isn’t actually a building in heaven. They’re just saying that here it’s actually focusing on the sanctuary and

Focuses the the new temple of God, the body of Christ, all the individual believers. On top of all of this though, the text says nothing about a judgment for only professing believers, which is what the SDA church claims the investigative judgment is. Now, I don’t agree with him on a lot of stuff, but Desmond Ford tried putting, you know, pointing this out in his massive work on the subject before they dysfellowshipped him and started slandering him as some vitriolic apostate Judas a Scariot. Notice what he incites. And for those that do not know, this is

Coming from a man that still considered himself an Adventist, folks. He loved the SDA church and Adventist. was soft, cordial, honest, sincere, genuine, and they tore his name to shreds and continue to slander him to this day, despite the fact that he’s now deceased. But Ford still held that this text was about a judgment event. But notice what he highlights. Quote, “The overall message of and witness of the parallel passages of Daniel make it quite clear that 8:14 has to do with the redress of wickedness.” the punishment of those outside of Christ and the vindication of believers.

The judgment brought to view has the lost as the focus, not the people of God. It is the little horn that is being investigated, not the suffering saints. The books enshrine the records of willful transgressions of Satan’s followers, not the failures of the worshippers of Yahweh. Similarly, the judgment of Revelation 14:7 as set forth by the Daniel quarterly of 1967 is not a judgment of the saints but of Babylon. This harmonizes with the use of judgment throughout the apocalypse. Revelation 14:7 is made clear by the parallel passages of 6 9-10, 16 4-7,

171, 186-10, 1820, and 1913. Close quote. So even if we grant even more to their position, I’ll grant the physical building in heaven. Let’s grant that it’s a judgment that’s in focus. Even if we grant that some judgment event is occurring in this passage, like Ford still embraced, he was still able to recognize that the subject in focus is a wicked figure, not professing believers, just like in Revelation 14, which they had to pivot off of. started saying, “Well, it’s talking about God coming back to cleanse the earth with fire and the wicked because there’s a

Judgment on the wicked, but then it pivoted to being exclusively about the righteous.” It’s the exact opposite. Revelation 14’s all about the wicked. Now, personally, I think Ford still had vestigages of a great controversy worldview that sometimes clouded his interpretive handling, but at least he was honest in his assessment. The book of Mcabes, while not inspired scripture, it does document history of what Daniel 8:14 is referring to, and it’s the earthly sanctuary, which was cleansed during the Makabian revolt after Antus Epiphies defiled it by

Putting a severed pig’s head on the altar of sacrifice. We’ve talked elsewhere about all of the SDA church’s claims about this and why it can’t that, you know, they say this can’t be what’s in focus, and I’ve addressed those there. So, you can go and check those out for a more exhaustive rundown on that. The Jewish festival of Hanukkah, what John 10 calls the feast of dedication or the feast of lights, is a celebration of the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14. And while the Jewish understanding of something in the Old Testament doesn’t make it the deacto correct

Understanding, it’s very telling that this is universally understood by them to have been fulfilled during the Makabian revolt. And Hanukkah is a result of its fulfillment. And John 10 actually tells us that Jesus was present for this taking place in his day. And it’s interesting that he doesn’t correct them. You know, Adventists will tell you the text doesn’t say he was celebrating. It just that he was there. Yeah. Well, it’s quite odd that he didn’t correct them. He didn’t say something to the effect of, “Well, what what you’re celebrating is wrong. Why are you

Celebrating the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14, what we call Daniel 8:14?” Because they didn’t have chapter and verses like we do. Why are you celebrating the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 when that won’t be fulfilled until 1,800 years from now? But that’s proof number 10. Daniel 8:14 has so many issues both grammatically and contextually that no matter how they’ve tried to spin it and change things around, it’s only created more problems. And then when you factor in all the other proofs on top of that, it’s clear to see for anyone without a bias and attachment to this doctrine,

It’s not biblical. That’s not even all the proofs. We didn’t look at John 5 where Jesus speaking about judgment for condemnation. He’s not talking there about those who believe will come into no judgment whatsoever. Well, no, that would create contradictions with Paul’s own words to the Corinthians, namely that we’ll all stand before. Same with the author of Hebrews. Contextually, Jesus is talking about judgment for condemnation. And he clearly says that believers don’t come into judgment for condemnation because they’ve already passed from death to life.

They’ve already been judged. Yet the investigative judgment is a judgment for condemnation and it’s exclusively for believers. We didn’t even look at how there’s no decree in Ezra 7 to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem. Adventist friend, yes, we know what you are appealing to. And then when you read the narrative, no, there’s no decree from a Persian king to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. We have an article on this on our website. People can go check it out if you follow the narrative of the story line. It was to rebuild the temple, not the

City. And then they get stopped because wicked people try stopping God’s people. And they’re halted for a season. And then a new king comes along and God raises up two prophets and the two prophets speak and and God essentially says, “Continue building and I’ll provide for you guys. Just do what you need to do. I’ll take care of you.” They’re stopped again by these wicked people while they’re starting back up. And they say, “Hey, actually, can you relay a message to the the new king? There should be in the archives a former decree that allowed us to rebuild the

Temple, not the city, the temple.” So they do that and then the king says, “Well, by golly, it is.” And hey, for your troubles, I’m going to give you a bunch of precious metals and a bunch of stuff you guys need for worship, fulfilling God’s promise to them. I’ll take care of you guys. And they had everything they needed to start. And then you get into Ezra 7 where it’s talking about Ezra entering into the the law work of God, but there’s no decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. and they’re taking something from a individual that’s in correspondence. It’s just the whole

Thing is off yet that is necessary for this teaching to be true and there are many many more. The fact that this teaching is entirely novel to the 19th century should be caused for concern enough and do not fall for the twisting of the SDA church that this doctrine’s conception is no different than any other doctrine of the reformation. That is a whole another subject that that they conflate the reformation with restoration. No, no, dude. No. Remember what we read at the beginning. This teaching is rooted in the larger SDA theory of atonement. It has all sorts of major implications

For their system, which is why Clifford Goldstein so plainly recognized the logic. If this teaching falls, the SDA church is built on a lie. The investigative judgment requires the support of alleged visions from Higher Medson and Ellen White. The idea that it’s plainly there in scripture and no one saw it until a fringe group of fanatics with no formal training or theological prowess discovered it is another red flag that should cause any rational person’s radar to go off. But as former SDA General Conference president put it, GI Butler, quote, “Our position on the testimonies,

That’s the writings of Ellen White, is like the keystone to the arch. Take that out and there’s no logical stopping place till all the special truths of the message are gone.” Our enemies and the master they serve realize this, but some of our people are so blind that they do not. Nothing is sure than this. that the message and the visions belong together and stand or fall together. Close quote. If there is anything that should be classified as a special truth when it comes to Adventism, it’s the investigative judgment and the sanctuary. At least Butler was honest

Enough to recognize that without Ellen White, not just the doctrine, but the entire structure comes toppling down. I understand Adventists may genuinely believe this teaching. I understand that Adventists may think they can prove it strictly from the Bible, but it doesn’t change the fact that the context of scripture drives interpretive methodology. And when that is employed, this doctrine collapses to dust. When one removes the SDA pretext of approaching the Bible to try and support an already accepted belief, a pretext, it’s plain to see that the plain

Teaching of sacred scripture decimates this doctrine. If you’re a Christian, the hope is that you’re better equipped now to reach Adventists with the truth and your love for the word of God has been strengthened. If you’re an Adventist, the hope is you’ll repent of this damnable uh demonic doctrine which distorts the atonement, distorts the gospel, and uh is essentially antithetical to the Christian faith. But may Christ richly bless you in the grace and peace won by him and his vicarious death on the cross for sinners. Hallelujah. Marinatha, until next time,

God bless.