TO THE READER This transcription of the cassette tapes of the May 14, 1983, Ford-Shea debate at Fresno, was made by several different people in the General Conference office in Washington, 0. C. It is strictly a rough copy. At wettain points the words spoken were somewhat unclear So Sbsolute accuracy is not guaranteed. In general, howe yer, it is 2 faithful rendering of what the various speakers said. Robert W. Olson Ellen G, White Estate duly 28, 1983ORTEGA, SHEA, VAN ROOYEN, FORD EXCHANGES 7 FORUM MEETING AT SACRAMENTO SUBJECT: INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT Good afternoon everyone. As president of the San Joaquin valley chapter of the Association of Adventist Foruns, T would like to welcome you to another Forum meeting here today. My name is Joe Battenberg. guéging by the numbers here in the audience, it appears that the topic of the investigative judgment, oF perhaps the way it will be addressed here, is of particular interest. When we began to learn of the potential numbers of people who could be coming, we changed the location of the meeting from the large lecture hall at California state University in Fresno in order to obtain over double the seating capacity in this sanctuary. We had about 250 seats there and it appears that the 500 seats here are filled. we greatly appreciate your patience regarding the move and the fact that some of you initially may have gone first to the university location and then been redirected. we were just very concerned that no one be forced £0 stand out in the Bt cpa (ej jeoke so 14) that lees talusee cao t have been asked to describe how this meeting cane about. Over the past several years many of us have been reading and studying issues related to the sanctuary question. These issues and associated problems have been known by Adventist scholars for many years, and it is only jn the late 1970's that laymen began to hear of them. The Sabbath school class that I had been coordinating and other interested indi- viduals had been meeting on Friday nights on 4 regular basis to discuss some of these questions and other issues. A few months ago our Sabbath school lesson quarterly addressed the subject of the investigative juagnent, and after the discussion a number of vs decided to meet and to study further into the investigative Judgment issuc- one of the group subsequently asked Pastor Alex Ortega if he would be willingto meet with us for additional study. 1 phoned Pastor ortega and expressed my interest in his willingness to discuss the subject. AS we talked I began to get the concept that a much broader group of persons could be interested in this topic. Tt then occurred to me that it could be helpful to have the various understandings regarding the investigative judgment issue presented at the same time in the presence of laymen where we could observe and ask questions. As the concept developed, persons were contacted who could simply and clearly describe the various issues associated with the investigative judgment. We have here today individuals who in general are perceived to be the clearest spokespersons for the traditional and non-traditional positions, and I believe that this is the first time that either side of the issue will be presented before laymen. qt has been a concern of mine that laymen haven't Peen more involved in all aspects of church management and organization as well as some of these doctrinal concerns. 1 have been personally embarrassed by the articles in CHRISTIANITY TODAY and NEWSWEEK magazines which describe what has been taking place within Adventisn. The Glacier pce) a he meeting iast) Jamun y) Between oes Conference and Good News Unlimited personnel were held behind closed doors insofar as the laity was concerned. I have felt that the more these delibera~ een oc ty Oreo ee observing and hopefully asking questions and evaluating, the better the chance for unbiased decisions. 1 would like to introduce to you now our moderator for today's program. Our moderator is Attorney Grant Mitche)t who is also the vice president of the San Joaquin Valley chapter. Grant will describethe process that will follow today in terms of what will follow and who will respond and in what order, and he will also introduce our Panel members. Grant, When Iwas an undergraduate at Pacific Union College, 1 remember Dr Walter Ute telling me that it is relatively easy to be tolerant of views which diverge from your own when those views are on a subject that is not particularly important to you. when the subject is very important to you, perhaps central to your belief, it then becomes much harder to be tolerant. The sanctuary doctrine, to those coming from the Seventh-day Bae pot g ccome folelerineo ther inceer Gatene: onetee 7 jess, I firmly believe that what you are going to see today from having talked to these four gentlemen over the phone and today in person, are two very different viewpoints from four men who hold those views very firmly, who believe that they are import on a very important and central subject and who all believe that we would all be better off if their view were adopted. Nevertheless you are going to see four men who acknowledge that the love of Christ is bigger than that, and I hope that we can all learn that lesson. Tf you have come here today hoping that this matter will be settled and you can go away knowing which is the correct viewpoint, 7 think you will be disappointed. If you have come here today with ® Particular viewpoint that you hope to see vindicated decisively ence and for all, you will probably still be disappointed, even giving human beings ability to hear what we want to hear. But if you have come here today to hear some viewpoints contrasted and argued, I use that in a polite way, and then go back and prayerfully with the HolySpirit use that foundation for further study, I think you will find this meeting of great benefit. Our participants are, starting on my extreme physical right, Dr Desmond Ford and Pastor Smuts van Rooyen, both evangelists for Good News Unlimited. On my immediate left is Dr William Shea, the chairman of the Old Testament Department at Andrews University, and finally on the, far left, Pastor Alex Ortega, pastor of the Hawiian Conference who is currently on leave of absence. Our format today will consist of three questions to be discussed. The three questions are these: (1) what is the investigative judgnent, (2) What is the biblical evidence of the investigative judgment, and (3) How does the investigative judgment affect the doctrine of salvation and practical Christian living. Now we will be following this format on each of the three questions. One of the viewpoints will give a 15-minute presentation of what their point of view is. That will be followed by a 15-minute presentation of the other side, which in turn will be followed by a 5-minute response to each of the viewpoints. As you can see, that comes to about 40 minutes--three questions. We will be taking very short breaks, like a minute or two, inbetween each question to stand and stretch, After the three questions are through, there will be a question and answer period. Now the ushers are poised at the back of the room watching for your raised hand. If at any point during the proceedings a question comes to your mind that you wish to address to all the panelists or some of them, write it down, aise your hand, an usher will pick it up and will pass it to Pastor James Robison who will then be presenting the questions to our panelists. Now even if a question is addressed only to one panelists, we willProbably give each point of view the opportunity to respond to that question, Following our question and answer period each side will be given @ five-minute summation. Now we weren't sure who should go first on the fivBBUifhation so we did the 20th century equivalent of casting jots--we flipped a coin. The toss was won by the gentlemen on ny left and they have elected to have the final summation and to defend the south goal. The first question is, What is the investigative judgment? surely necessary to define our terms first? The first presentation by the gentleman on my left will be given by Pastor Ortega. ALEX ORTEGA It is impossible for a pastor to do anything in 15 minutes, but we are going to try here. First of all, I think we all agree that verbal inspiration is not a scriptural idea, that people are inspired and they deal with concepts. So let us do some conceptualizing here-- let's ask a couple of questions. What is God or Who is God? Is there @ universe involved in this type of a question or just man? In a creation of billions and billions of worlds, is the salvation of man the ultimate issue in the universe? Is that the most important thing going on in God's universe? This little world has become the center stage to resolve the real question of the ages, and I think that/Question is the character of God. Is the Sovereign of the universe self-disclosing? Is He open? Or is He obscured by arbitrariness and secrecy? In Rom 3:4 (NIV) this reading: "God must be true though every man living were a liar, for we read in Scripture, when thou speakest thou shalt be vindicatedand win the verdict when thou art on trial.” an interesting thought, God Himself on trial. According to that scripture God submits to give an accounting of Himself. His honor is to be extablished before the universe, and eternity will be secure. In Nahum 1:9 "Affliction shall not rise up the second time, A clean universe for sin will never happen again. I believe that's what's at stake. Today we have gathered over one little word--investigative. It is kind of interesting that we are all here. There must be something large about that word actually because it does divide, it does cut, it makes decisions necessary, so I would like to look at a brief history of how it came to be used in Seventh-day Adventism, and maybe that way we can establish some sort of perspective to understand the value that God has in self-disclosure. First, let's go back to the mid-nineteenth century setting. We go back to a time when dueling was a way to settle problems, when presidential candidates Polk and Clay attracted masses of people, ten thousand people, in parades watched by hundreds of thousands of people, parades that marched five miles, a time of total involvement, both moral and social as well as religious--all kinds of reform move- ments. 1844 was a time of vigorous expressions. One editor, for example, saw a dog, and he said, That dog has a tail that looks like ah, a three. He has got four legs, he looks like he is 18 years old- 1843. Of course this was during the Miller era, and you can see the temper of the times with just one little comment. And this is multiplied as you read the literature of that time--a time of very vigorous expressions and attitudes.ay Gog Wag tce ccvetal converging elerant.t." tre 714 of 1844, That year Charles Darwin is busy with origin of the species, The concept of evolution is rocking the world of science, philosophy, and religion, The history of man's ideas have been changed. Now the underlying principle of life will be inevitable Progress. That is an important concept--inevitable progress. karl Marx takes that Concept and in a few years he publishes DAS KAPITOL, the Communist manifesto, 1848. 1844 ushers modern spiritism on the scene through the Fox sisters. Spiritism denies a judgment. existentialism is born. Biblical criticism begins developing its tools. During this Period four peculiarly American churches are developed--Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, each of them claiming a prophetic cift. The term eschatology is first used in 1844 and modern exegesis was actually born in 1822. T would like to read something from George Bush, his book, REASONS FOR OBJECTING MR MILLER'S VIEWS ON THE ADVENT written in March of 1844, He was an opponent, as you see, of William Miller. On page 11 “Admitting as I readily do that we have arrived at a momentous era of the world and the expiration of these periods is to introduce by gradual steps a new order of things, intellectual, political, and moral, I still peremptorily deny that the Scriptures soundly interpreted warrant expectation of any such sudden and miraculous disruption of the existing order of things as yourself and those usually termed Adventists are in the habit of teaching." Now just from that one reading, and you can multiply this many times, the vast majority of the scholars and preachers of that era believed that this world was getting better, and better, inevitable progress, and were confidently expecting thegolden era of peace, the millennium. Jesus would not be coming for another thousand years. Premillenniumism had to be revived, and now enters Adventism--the people with a ridiculous message. ‘Fear God and give glory to Him for the hour of His judgment is come." We have read that scripture many times, and perhaps we have put the emphasis on the wrong word. I would like to read again from the New English Bible Revelation 15:3, 4. This is where the song of Moses and the tamb is found, and that song reads: "Great and marvelous are thy deeds © Lord God, sovereign over all. just and true are thy ways, thou king of ages. Who shall not revere thee Lord and do homage to thy name for thou alone art holy, All nations shall come and worship in thy presence for thy just dealings stand revealed." God and His just dealings stand revealed. Now maybe we can read Rev 14:7 again with a different emphasis. "Fear God and give glory to him for the hour of his judgment is come.” The vindication of God. That is the theme in my mind of holy writ. But how is God to be vindicated. Well, the concepts came slowly to our people through much sacrifice. Let's notice something first about the scriptures themselves. To the flood we find--well, the creation story has 800 words. To the flood--five chapters. Starting in Ex 25 through chap 40 the sanctuary and its details. That's 15 chapters. All of Leviticus, chapters 1-27, 27 chapters, much of the book of Numbers, the Psalms are replete with sanctuary language, the Psalm 77:13, "Thy way © God is in the sanctuary." In Kings we see the sanctuary enlarged. In the book of Chronicles we see the sanctuary destroyed. In Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, we see itdesecrated. In the minor prophets we see it restored. By the way, right down the middle of Daniel, chapter 9, this statement, "O God cause thy face to shineupon thy desolate sanctuary." In the New Testament Jesus comes to the outer court--this earth; John 1:29, "Behold, the Lamb of God." We see in the four synoptics a lion, a man, an ox, an eagle, all sanctuary language. In the book of Acts we have Pentecost between the anointing actually of the heavenly high priest. In the book of Hebrews we see a contrast between the earthly and the heavenly. In the epistles we see living temples brought out. Ex 25:8 says "Make a place for me, a tabernacle, that I may dwell with you." In 1 Cor 3:16, it says, "Know you not that you are the temple of God." In the book of Revelation the final scenes of the sanctuary in the judgment which some see Leviticus 16 as a very real tie. Having caught the significance of the sanctuary in the Holy Scriptures, the Law then became the focus, and the first event in Exodus 25 as the sanctuary is developed is verse 10, the ark is made, a dwelling place for the Law, Heb 8:10, "I want to write my laws in your heart." You are the dwelling place, Then the mercy seat came along, Ex 25:1 grace, and love's self-sacrifice. We see the binding claims of the Law immediately and the enabling power of grace. Then the sign of the Creator/Redeemer came--the Sabbath. Then obedience as the fruit of a genuine relationship. Luke 6:46, "Why call me Lord, Lord and do not the things that I say." Then the question, How long, 0 God, how long? And at this point Adventism began to move into strange new rounds. In Rev 6:9-11, I won't have time to read through that section-- this a recap of Daniel 8:13, 14, How can I say that? If you will look at those and study them carefully you will see these elements in both those places. The Greek word there for avenge in Rev 6 is ekdike: which means to vindicate. And in Daniel 8 the word for cleansed is-10- sadeq which means vindicate, so we see the word vindicate in both Places. We see saints being trampled in both places. We see both of them an appeal to God--"How long 0 God." We see both places they're slain. We see the sanctuary in both places. We see in Rev 6 white robes given to them, and in Daniel they're purified. In v 17 oddly enough in both those places the time of the end is brought out. In Rev 6:11 it is called the great day--a special day. In both of these places Satan is the oppressor, the advisary, which is an interest- ing element in itself. Again we won't have time, but in Zech 3:1,3,4,9 we see Satan in the first verse at the right hand of Joshua to accuse him--he is the advisary. And you work your way through that, Joshua is clothed with the righteousness of Christ there. He is vindicated, and in v 9 Jesus says He will do all this in one day. He specifically talks about the land there. Atonement is understood in that section. In Luke 18:2-8 the same word is used again. This isn't going to work. Fifteen minutes doesn't work. The word is vindicate again- you can work your way through How long 0 God before you vindicate me? that section. But the interesting portion about that is v 8, Jesus ties it in to v 9: When the son of man comes will he find any faith in the earth? Jesus Himself talks about His second coming as the time--the key factor here of the total vindication. One of the questions that I think we need to answer here is in this vindication, How do we come into it?--the character of God's people. We will either be Christ possessed and become longsuffering and be in the open ourselves fully disclosed, or we will have the character of Satan himself and become destroyers and do things in-11- Secret. The entire empire must see who God is because God's justice Be Samia d apeoletcieneycina’ and cn ae ee et pn He already knows, Luke 12:2: “For there is nothing covered that shall not be Fevealed, neither hid that shall not be known. Luke 12:8--1'm going fo skip some of these. 2 Cor 5:10 it says, “For we must all have our lives laid open before the tribunal of Christ." (NEB) There is a Judgment of peers under Jesus. Matt 27:52 talks of the resurrection. Rev 5:8-10 deals with the elders who are involved in that judgment. During the millennium, 1 Cor 6:2, the saints will judge the world. Rev 20:4, judgment is given to them through the millennium itself. God's honor will be established before the universe, and eternity will have then been made secure. Now God has nothing to fear from self- disclosure, and neither do His people in whose heart is His law. God will gain the sympathy and approval of the universe. The pioncers knew these things, and they tried to find words to couch these concepts with, James White, after fighting this concept, for many years-- Moderator: Your time is up, I am sorry, We did, I should say that in getting together, we all agreed that we would have to adhere rather strictly to these time limits, and in case you noticed me passing a paper, I thought I might mention one other thing that we agreed, that each speaker would receive a two-minute warning that his time is about to lapse. The opposing viewpoint now will be given by Pastor Van Rooyen.~12- SMUTS VAN RooyEN gative judgment is, The investigative judgment is a two-fold work. ‘Two things, according to Ellen White, happened in 1844. GC 486 says, “At the time appointed for the judgment, the close of the 2,300 days, began the work of investigation and blotting out of sins." two things-- investigation and what? Blotting out of sins. She calls it the Great day of final atonement and investigative judgment. Let's ask the question, Who is investigated? Gc 480: "In the great day of final Gaga Gee Sreestlcetive Judgment, ane lcnly © te considered are those of the professed people of cod. The judgment of the wicked is @ distinct and separate work." So you are going to beginning in 1844 have an investigation of whom? God's people alone. The wicked is Something else. Now it is an investigation. rt's an investigative judgment. People are investigated. cc 483 says: "As the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. Lives are reviewed, Every name #8 mentioned. Every case closely investigated. Names are accepted. Names rejected. So it is an investigation of people to determine their cases, to determine the nature of their character, to determine who will be resurrected. The pioneers testified to this fact very-13- vigorously. William Miller said, “I ask, is there anything in the Scriptures to show that God is not now in His last judicial character deciding the cases of all the righteous so that Christ Speaking after the manner of men will know whom to collect at His coming? Uriah Smith said, "This prefigured a solemn fact mainly that in the great @ay plan of salvation, a time of decision was coming for the human Facer @ work of atonement which was being accomplished. God's people, a true Israel, should stand acquitted and cleansed from all sin," Se we have in the investigative judgment an investigation of people, and if you have believed in Jesus, you, according to this doctrine, will be investigated. Now, this question arises: Why have an investigation of people who have already accepted Jesus Christ at sometime in their lives? This is not a general judgment. It is a judgment of those who have confessed sins that have gone into the sanctuary. Why have a judgment for such people? The answer is that it must be determined if they have overcome their sins so that their sins can be finally blotted out. You see, the pioneers and Ellen White make a big distinction between the forgiveness of sin and the blotting out of sin. When I confess it is forgiven and what? my sin it is forgiven but not blotted out Recorded. Why is it recorded? It remains there on record giving me an opportunity to overcome the sin. When my name comes up in judgment, if I have not overcome the sin, the forgiveness that was provisionally given me, is withdrawn, and the sin is not blotted out. Let me read some to you from Ellen White. Notice the tenses here. “All who have truly repented of sin and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had [past tense]-14- Pardoned against their names in heaven. As they become partakers of fhe righteousness of Christ and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be [future tense) blotted out." So, in other words, all of the sins you have confessed, if you do not overcome them and your name comes up in judgment, you will jose that forgiveness. Those sins will not then be blotted out, and Oe ad oe eee the bock ofniice | tnycna conc tue sin is dealt with in two phases: in the first apartment it is for- given; in the second apartment it is blotted out. The blotting out of sin does not occur until after 1844 according to GC 486. All right, now, let's ask this question: What conditions do you have to meet before your sins will be finally blotted out? cc 488 Says that "Seventh-day Adventists must permit nothing to interfere with their duty to perfect holiness in the fear of God or their sins will not be blotted out." GC 486 says "Sin must be repented of and forsaken. So do you see that this doctrine locks us into perfectionism. It means that in order for me to be ready when Jesus comes, I must not only have asked Him for the forgiveness of my sins, but every sin which has ever been forgiven, I must overcome, or else my name will be blotted out, so that the doctrine of the investigative judgment is the heart of the doctrine of perfection as it has functioned within Seventh-day Adventism. Now, how much time do I have left? You have about four minutes. Great.-15- Now I just want to move quickly- Six minutes, excuse me. Thank you very much. ~-to two other traditions that have developed within Adventism. This matter of the investigative judgment has been an enormous embarrassment to Adventists. E J Waggoner left the Adventist Church over it. I read to you from his manuscript which was found on his desk three days after his death called "A Confession of Faith," Here is what he said as to why E J Waggoner left the church. “Seventh- day Adventist teaching concerning the sanctuary with its investigative judgment to precede the blotting out of’ sins, is virtually a denial of the atonement. Too much is made of the antitypical day of atonement beginning in 1844, but that very thing minimizes, if it does not nullify the value of the blood of Christ, in that it teaches that a man may receive the blood, the life, and not receive the atonement. The great attempted revival of righteousness by faith in 1888 collapsed on the rock of the investigative judgment. Two other traditions tried to reinterpret the investigative judgment. one was in the early 1900's around 1920, A G Daniells, WA Spicer, WW Prescott. That they said was this: "Investigative judgment is not of people--it is of the 'little horn.' It is not of Seventh-day Adventists of believers, it is of the papacy. The sanctuary has been defiled not by your sins and my sins, but been defiled by the papacy, and Seventh-day Adventists have been called into being to oppose the Papacy and thus to cleanse the sanctuary." It was totally different from the tradition because the tradition was an embarrassment.-16- Another attempt to change the tradition was made in 1955, in the 50's, by ML Andreasen and Edward Heppenstall. It said this: The investigative judgment is not that you are on trial, but that God is on trial. The sanctuary is not polluted by your sin. the sanctuary is polluted by Satan's questions that he has raised against God, and the sanctuary is cleansed by a people who become pure and live such lives that the questions asked about God are removed. You will not find one word on the vindication of God's character tied to the investigative judgment in the three chapters in GREAT CONTROVERSY, "Into the Holy of Holies, "Facing Life's Record," What is the Sanctuary?” Ellen White simply does not use the investigative judgment for the vindication of God. This is a johnny-come lately, invented in the 50's by Seventh-day Adventists who were embarrassed by what GREAT CONTROVERSY really does teach concerning the investigative judgment. The investigative judgment has become within Adventism a snowball of such proportions that it is impossible to sort out. I have mentioned only three of the traditions. This last week I have studied--there are virtually six different views of what the investigative judgment is within Adventism. Now I want to propose that we go back to the original and see what it says and deal with history honestly. I'm through. Thank you. Pastor van Rooyen will now have five minutes to respond to Pastor ORTEGA's position, I should have added a couple of things, and I'm not taking your time while I'm saying this, each side, if you will, was given the opportunity to divide up their time and have whoever speak that they wished. The other point I wanted-17- fo make was that the respondent will have the opportunity now to question the party to whom he is responding if he so chooses. PASTOR VAN ROOYEN T won't question Elder Ortega because I know he is at least as nervous as I am, but I will make these remarks. I think you will notice that as he gave his talk he started out on a philosophical premise. He asked us a question, What is God like? He did not turn to the historical documents of adventism because he could not. If he did he would not have found the evidence for it. He postulates a philosophical question. He postulated an historical climate, and then having told you what the 1840's were like and the philosophical question he had asked, he then proceeded to say that Seventh-day Adventists had been called to vindicate the character of God, I want to see the chapter in Ellen White that deals with investigative judgment in terms of the vindication of God. I want to see the book or the chapter in the New Testament that does so. I have real difficulty with this view because it seems to know 80 very much about questions are being asked. Where in the Bible do we read that the universe is having a problem with God's integrity. I want to ask you friends, if Gabriel has a question about God's integrity, and he is right at God's side, what basis do you have to trust God? I also want to say this, that if after Calvary Gabriel has a question about God's integrity, he needs his head read because God there revealed the totality of His love and His goodness. God can be trusted. God does not have any skeltons in His closet, friends, and we raise questions about the character of God. God's character does not need to be questioned. You know, the universe is looking on.~18- Friends, if they haven't seen God's character, I don't know what it will take, Now if the investigative judgment is not for the universe but for the rest of us, I don't know how that works because I don't See what happens when your name comes up in record. It certainly cannot--the investigative judgment cannot be for human beings to see what goes on because we don't see it. I have great problems with this because it rejects the tradition. In the 50's Adventists theologians thought that if they simply began to speak as if the investigative judgment was the vindication of God that this would make it the tradition, They tried to pull a creation-week stint on us. You know, when you spoke, it was so, It didn't matter what the document said. It didn't matter what GREAT CONTROVERSY said. They didn't want to explain the documents. They simply affirmed the investigative judgment no longer involves an atonement for you, it involves the character of God,and thought that that would make the tradition different. I hasn't. History stands against the view, The documents say differently, and besides that, the character of God, which need not be questioned, stands against it. MODERATO! While being trained in such matters, I would be the last to attempt to violate anyone's right of free speech, and Adventist pastors are continually trying to get their congregations to respond with hearty amens, and I think that would be appropriate. I hope we don't get to the point as I have seen in many meetings where the word amen becomes a battle cry.-19- Dr Shea will now have five minutes to respond to Pastor Van Rooyen's initial presentation. WILLIAM SHEA Well, someone changed the ground rules on me between the back room and the front room. Moderator: What did I do? Shea: Well, in the first place, the order is out of order, and in the second place, it is foolish for me to answer a cross question to Pastor Ortega. I am giving Brother Ortega his time to respond here. Go ahead. Moderator: Let me just say here I did not intend to change the rules on anyone. That was inadvertent. I apologize. I am still a little confused as to what happened there. Shea: May I comment. I wanted to speak to the question. I think don't /either Pastor Ortega or Pastor Van Rooyen have defined the investigative judgment, that's all. Moderator: Why don't you do that? Shea: No. Proceed. Moderato: Shea: I will comment. Since my section of the program comes up next on the biblical text, we will derive our definition of the investigative judgment from the biblical text. All right then we will go to Pastor ortega.-20- ALEX ORTEGA Okay. I appreciate the opportunity to move into some areas that Twas going to stay away from. I wanted to stay biblical, but Ellen White's name has been mentioned here, and if we need some places to find, Vol 7 of the BIBLE COMMENTARY, p. 986 has this comment: "Christ would have all understand the events of his second appearing. The judgment scene will take place in the presence of all the worlds for in this judgment the government of God will be vindicated and his law will stand forth as holy, just and good. Then every case will be decided and sentence will be passed upon all. Sin will not then appear attractive but will be seen in all its hideous magnitude. All will see the relation in which they stand to God and to one another." That's from REVIEW AND HERALD, 1898. + Mr Chairman, can I respond to that? van Rooye! (Several voices at once) Moderator: Just a minute gentlemen, I think Pastor van Rooyen's point is actually well taken. The response, and of course it becomes a little confusing because he gave two presentations, the response is to be towards Pastor van Rooyen's initial 15-minute presentation. I believe the question he raised about where was the document was in his response to you. Perhaps someone will ask a question where we will have an opportunity to go into that more, but I think his point is well taken out of a point of order. ORTEGA, At that point I am not sure what I am responding to here. Maybe you can clear that up. (van Rooyen: I'm sorry I interrupted.)-21- Moderator: Okay, with that understanding we'll go ahead and continue and I will try to figure out how much extra time you need. Ortega: If we're not responding to a response then-- Moderator: Go ahead and respond to anything he said if you prefer. He has indicated that he would have no problem with that. ORTEGA All right. I don't want to go through these various documents here where there are quotations Ellen White linking various phases of the judgment to the vindication of God Himself, so it's not something that is not found in the Spirit of Prophecy writings themselves. As far as the documents in history are concerned, there are several things that tie into these. The parables of Jesus Himself. The marriage parables, for example. There is a history that is readily available to anyone who would like to really check that out going all the way back to Josiah Litch before Adventism was born as we know it--Seventh-day Adventism. In 1840, for example, he talks, he was a Methodist then, about the trial that takes place, and he started it in 1798, and he links it with the word "trial" with an investigation, and he does link God's character to that trial. Again I have read scriptures here out of the New English Bible which are in every Bible although maybe not as clearly stated, but in the NEB it says clearly 4 that God Himself is on trial, I read two of them here: Rev 1! and Rom 3:4. Now, I can appreciate if this documents have not been seen that their comment could be made, but to say that they don't exist, I think that is a little bit harder. There are several different approaches we could take to this.22+ T would like to respond to a comment made about the sanctuary itself and where sin is forgiven. If we study the sanctuary service, the sin was not forgiven in the tabernacle at all. The sin was for- given in the outer court. That's where justification took place. The alter of burnt offering represents Calvary. The outer court represents the planet earth. The holy place represents holy living after one is justified. Now, the people in the sanctuary service setup were not allowed to go into the holy place--only the priest went in there. So he represented them in the holy place as they were being sanctified after justification, and again if we go into types and antitypes, which I didn't have an opportunity to begin, if Jesus in fact forgave us on this earth as an antitype at Calvary, then His immediate next step would be to minister to us in terms of sanctification. Justification/sanctification, you can't separate them, but the fact is the type did show us features of these. One happened in the holy place; one happened in the outer court yard itself, so I think it's not correct to say that sin was taken care of in the holy place. In terms of sins being blotted out, I think that we could go into some real things in the types. The priests always ministered the blood after the sacri- fice was dead--not before and not during the time of death--it was always ministered after the sacrifice was dead the priest went into the holy place. He went into the most holy place once a year to take care of something that had happened all year along. So there are several elements that have been introduced here, and I do apologize that I didn't get to the final point of saying what the investigative judgment is. My 15 minutes ended very quickly to my mind, but perhaps Brother Shea can move in on that in the next section here.-23- Moderator: Some of you I know have been sitting here since 2:30 this afternoon. I think it would be appropriate to take one Rinute. That means I will call you back to order in 45 seconds. Just stand up, okay? Moderator: The second question to be discussed is “What is the biblical evidence of the investigative judgment?" Dr Shea is going to present a 15-minute presentation on that at this point. DR WILLIAM SHEA All right, the key text is Daniel 7. Daniel 7 is a prophecy of the rise and fall of nations. Each one is given dominion in its turn. The word “dominion” is a key theological term to the chapter. The reason it is a key theological term to the chapter is because of the historical nature of the events and because of the judgment of God which responds to this course of events in the court judgment scene which is seen from verses 9 and following. The order of the beasts is, of course, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. The first beast is identified through parallels with Daniel 2. The second beast is identified through parallels with Daniel 8. The third beast is identified through parallels with Daniel 8. The fourth beast is identified through the historical question of what succeeds Greece, and you can see the conquest of Rome extending in the Near East. Rome then is divided in terms of the ten horns. From the ten horns there comes forth a little horn. There are seven identifying characteristics of the little horn. we don't have time to go into all of them. I want to pick just the last.=24- But let me say in summary that the seven characteristics of the little horn are fulfilled historically, complete, en toto in terms of the historical entity of the medieval papacy. The seventh and final characteristic is listed in v 25: “They shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and a half a time." A time must be interpreted it is the word for time, it is not the word for year. The word for time is interpreted as a year by means of parallels with Daniel 4 and Daniel 12 and Revelation 12. We have then three and a half years that are assigned to this little horn power or the medieval papacy. The three and a half years are still symbolic time. That symbolic time is interpreted according to the year-day principle rule. The year-day principle rule derived from Daniel 9, fyou compare the end of the chapter with the beginning of the chapter Daniel 8, if you compare the time period there with the time periods in Daniel 11. We have then a 1260-day time period (day-year time period), for the existence of this power which historically came to an end in 1798 with the deposing of the pope The next scene of the prophecy I would like to read to you: “Thrones were placed. One that was Ancient of Days took his seat. His raiment was white as snow, hair of his head like pure wool, the throne was fiery flames, the stream of fire issued and came forth before him, a thousand thousand served him, and thousands time ten thousands stood before him, the court sat in judgment, the books were opened."The prophet's eye has been taken from the horizontal dimension of human history, has been taken on the vertical dimension of apocalyptic into the heavenly court. He sees there not an ongoing-25- Judgment, he sees rather the commencement or inception of a judgment. He sees the Ancient of Days come into the heavenly court room. He sees the Ancient of Days take His place. He sees the angelic host assemble before Him, and he sees the books open for the first time at that point. Scene A--Commencement of the Judgment. At that point the prophet's eye is brought back on the vertical dimension of apocalyptic, back to earth, where he sees the first result of the outworking of this judgment. There he sees the destruction of the little horn by fire. His view is taken back to the heavenly court where he sees Scene B. He sees there the Son of Man figure to whom is given power, dominion and glory. Let's read verses 13 and 14, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." Scene B--Conclusion to the Judgment; Award of the Kingdom to the Son of Man, Ruler of the Kingdom. This is equated in verse 27 as contemporaneous with the reception of the kingdom by the saints of the Most High. Let's read that: Verse 26, "But the court shall sit in judgment, [this is explanation now; it is the same court scene, in fact, the same phrase right out of Daniel 7:10] and his dominion [that is, of the little horn] shall be taken away" and he is consumed and burned. Verse 27, "And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven [notice it's earthly now, it is an earthly kingdom] shall be be given to the people of~26- the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them 'Him" [correct translation is "Him" not "them" as some erroneously modern translations have it. The antecedent of him is the Son of Man figure back in Scene B, the ruler of the new kingdom. All right, there are two main questions we need to ask then about this, Let me simply define terms now. This is the investigative judgment. This is the biblical definition of the investigative judgment. (1) Is it investigative? By definition it is investigative. as I under- stand a court of law when they open books in a court to examine those books that is by definition investigative. (2) When does this judgment take place? Four different dates have been given for the possible date for this judgment: (1) 165 B.C., (2) 31 A.D., (3) Post 1798 A.D., (4) the very end of time just before Christ comes. 165 B.C. is the date of modern critical scholars who hold that the little horn is Antiochus Ephiphanes. The identification is wrong. The presupposition of non-inspired prophecy here is also wrong in that the prophet just guessed wrong because it didn't happen. We can therefore rule out that view. View No, 2 is what we might call the evangelical view espoused for instance by F F Bruce and some of those sitting to my right. What's wrong with that view? Well the problem is the matter of context. The way this is done is to say, Well, in Matt 28:19 Jesus has given all authority and power. We have here the Son of Man figure as given all authority and power, therefore it must be one and the same event. Not so. The problem is one of context. The Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days. The Ancient of Days is already in the court scene, therefore, if you are making this A.D. 31 you must have-27- the heavenly court assembled. You must have the books of record opened in A.D. 31. I have never heard an explanation of why that should be. No. 2. The court scene meets following the appearance on the scene of action of the little horn, therefore you have to have the little horn on the scene of action by that time. Therefore you have to have a historical identification for the little horn in A.D. 31. I haven't heard a good identification for that. Point No. 3 is the conclusion, working the other way down through the prophecy, the conclusion is found in v 27. What you have here is the final eternal, physical, ultimate kingdom of God. It is even parralleled with the ressurection in Daniel 12. All right, that did not happen in A.D, 31. It is not a spiritual kingdom; it is a final physical kingdom. None of these happened in A.D, 31 therefore if you are going to apply verses 13 and 14 to A.D. 31 you are going to have to wrench these two verses out of their context. This is a historical narrative prophecy in which the events are recited in order and there is a setting, there is a context in which those events occurred. Question No. 3,I guess I am getting to, Who is judged? Smuts at the end of the table I think would imply by his remarks although he didn't clarify this very clearly to me, is that no righteous should be involved in such a judgment. Are the righteous involved in this judgment? Well let me give you a few points on that. In the first place notice the nature of the little horn. Do you have to have a judgment on this scale just to decide that the little horn was wicked when that is ultimately the most obvious thing in the entire chapter? Therefore, the judgment surely should involve something more than just that.-28- Point No. 2 is the character of the little horn. smuts read a quotation from Ellen White which said the professed people of God will come under the p rview of this judgment. One must therefore make an identification of the little horn. If the little horn is the medieval papacy as I have suggested to you, by virtue of the little horn coming under judgment, under the survey of this judgment, the professed people of God are also coming under judgment because the medieval papacy is indeed a professedly Christian body Point No. 3 parallels with Old Testament judgments. If you look at the body of literature in the Old Testament, the vast majority of literature on judgment in the Old Testament deals not with the Gentiles but with the people of God. Here is the final summary cosmic judgment of all human history. It would be extraordinary to me, to my way of thinking, that this would have nothing to do with the people of God when the vast majority of judgment literature in the Old Testament in which this passage occurs, incidentally, deals with the people of Goa Point No. 4, the parallel with sanctuary judgments. I have bothered in the short little article on sanctuary judgments where the language of judgment is specifically tied to the sanctuary, to collect those. I have found 28 so far, Twenty out of 28 have to do with the people of God. Here we have a sanctuary judgment. By basis of parallel analogy you would also have people of God coming under judgment here. Point No. 5 is the use of books. So far I have found 14 references to biblical heavenly books, roughly half in the Old Testament and half in the New Testament. Of the references to heavenly books, there is-29- only one that I have found in the Bible that has to do with the wicked and that one occurs at the end of the millennium. All of the other references to heavenly books have to do with the people of God. Here are heavenly books being examined. By parallel then if those other dozen references mean anything people of God should be involved in this. All right, the next point has to do with the results of this judgment. Notice the final result in verse 27. Following immediately after the judgment of v 26 the saints of the Most High are given the kingdom. You don't really mean to tell me that those two facts are completely and totally disassociated. ‘The judgment actually has three results: one in terms of the Son of Man, two in terms of the wicked, three in terms of the righteous. The wicked I am taking in terms of the little horn. The next point has to do with parallels elsewhere in the book of Daniel. You have two scenes here, and remember now the prophet saw them in vision: Scene A, beginning of the judgment; Scene B, conclusion of the judgment. What you have then in terms of oral description in Daniel 8:14 you have an oral reference, not a vision, an oral reference to the commencement of the judgment. Scene B not shown in prophetic and view but rather described by the angel Gabriel is in Dan 1 that is a reference to the conclusion of the judgment. Let's read that one passage, Dan 12:1, 2. So you basically have a literary pattern, Scene A in Daniel 7 beginning of the judgment, seen by the prophet; Scene B in Daniel 7 seen by the prophet, the conclusion to the judgment. A again, Daniel 8, oral reference to the commencement judgment; B again, oral reference to the conclusion of the judgment.~30- All right, Dan 12: 1 "At that time shall Michael arise the great prince who has charge over your people, and there shall be a time of trouble such as there never was since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book." Again, another heavenly book dealing with the people of God. Where does that book come from? Out of the books of the judgment scene of chapter 7. And what happens? And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. A resurrection, This is final time. and in that resurrection there is a distinction between two classes--a dis- tinction that is arrived at by a judgment I would like to talk next about Revelation. Could you tell me how much time I have? (You have about two and a half minutes Well let me just say in brief, the book of Revelation divides in half at chapter 14. There are seven consecutive parallel segments. Each one of those seven segments of the book of Revelation is intro- duced by a sanctuary theme: Jesus among the candlesticks in chapter 1, the Father on the throne in chapter 4, the angel at the altar of incense in chapter 8, the opening of the most holy to see the ark of the cove- nant in chapter 11 which introduces chapters12-14, the seven angels coming out of the tabernacle of the testimony (Old Testament terminology, testimony is the law) introduces the seven last plagues, and scene 19 Jesus coming forth on the white charger from the heavenly sanctuary. So you have seven segments of the book, introduced by seven sanctuary scenes. It is a live and active sanctuary, and an ongoing theme through all of those is judgment. I have just bothered to wade through partth of Des' commentary on Revelation a week or so ago, and Des concedes or observes a, what shall I say, a vital theme of the book of Reve- lation is judgment--judgment in the churches. Here are people who have accepted the atonement of Jesus Christ--repent and do your first works for if you don't your crown will be lost; if you do repent (if you do thus and so) you will sit down with me in my throne with my Father. There are two groups. All seven churches have two groups and you are supposed to decide which group you are going to be in. You can be saved or lost. A Christian who has accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour can be saved or lost in those seven churches. All right? Seven seals, judgment, seven trumpets, judgment, seven last plagues, judgment. All right? Now if you take the occurrences the word "judgment" in the book of Revelation, they make an interesting sharp differentiation, There are twelve references to judgment from chapter 15 to the end of the book. There is no probation. Those are executive judgments in that half of the book. There are three references to judgment in the first half of the book. The fifth seal, How long © Lord until you judge, until you reverse the earthly tribunals that have put us, the souls, onto altar to death. Rev 11:18, the time came for the dead to be judged. Very interesting the word "live" doesn't occur there--the "dead" to be judged. But the most important of all, of course, is Rev 14:6, "The hour of his judgment is come." What is the context of Rev 14:6? Three messages. It occurs not in the third message, but in the first message. What are those three messages bounded by? The first four verses of the chapter, the Lamb on Mount Zion with 144,000 (just a minute 1 have got to get the second coming of Christ in here), the second coming of Christ in v 14, the harvest=32- of the earth. That is a final message before the second coming of Christ in context about a preadvent judgment. Thank you. Moderator: At this time Dr Ford will be making his presentation of the question. DESMOND FORD I greatly appreciate the honest commitment of the men on the left who have made their presentations. It is very difficult to get Adventist scholars to speak on this topic, and so I appreciate greatly the coming of these two men. How shall we recognize the truth when there are conflicting voices? (1) Essential and saving truth is always clear and simple. (2) It is always related to Jesus and glorifies Him. (3) It is often repeated in Scripture. (4) It only needs the Bible and the Bible only to support it. (2) Saving truth is clear and simple. Jesus said if any man is willing to do His will he shall know of the doctrine, John 7:17. Any man, black, white, old, young, educated, uneducated, any man. Whosoever believeth. My friends, the truth is always simple so anybody can see it, The wayfaring though a fool shall not err therein. Little children love to come to Jesus because they could understand Him. Scripture says in the multitude of words they wanteth not sin. Let you yea be yea and your nay be nay. So saving truth is always clear and simple. Any man can know it, even the fool. Related to Jesus, Jesus said I am the way, the truth. It has got to glorify Him. (3) Often repeated, Deut 19:15 says in the mouth of two or three=33- witnesses no saving essential truth rests on some single verse ‘Two thousand three hundred days is mentioned only once in scripture. There are four gospels in the life of Christ repeating the truth. (4) Saving truth needs the Bible only to support it. when did Jesus or the disciples ever go outside of Scripture to prove saving truth. So my friends, how do we discern essential truth? simple and clear related to Jesus and glorifies Him, is often repeated, needs the Bible only. Test the investigative judgment by these four. Is it simple and clear? Not one Adventist in a thousand could give an intelligent study of the 2,300 days, and 99% of the third world certainly could not, Our scholars have refused to for decades prior to Glacier View you will not find documented scholarly documents on the investigative judgment. Adventist scholars do not like to talk about it. That's why I honor the men on the left. My friends, how many of you heard in your church on Sabbath a doctrine on the investigative judgment as long as ten years before Glacier View? Raise your hands. How many of you heard a study? I see one hand. Congratulations. Here are another three or four. Well that's not bad out of about 300 Here's a typical article. “what do Seventh-day Adventist believe?” THESE TIMES, 1979, doesn't even mention the investigative judgment. See the missionary book of the year, GOD'S WAY TO A NEW YOU, it mentions 1844 but you won't find the traditional view of the investigative judgment that Smuts has just set out from the GREAT CONTROVERSY. ‘That's the missionary book of the year. Even when we come to something more recent like the REVIEW AND HERALD after Dallas, this is the one on the articles of faith, the special edition, I read things like this: It seems clear, it seems clear, twice, further on down, assuming that,-34- Oaeeee crvecre cn Me nexe line 1:0 ielecsona ie co) caso." 7 term “investigative judgment" is not found in the Bible but, and then it assumes. About half a dozen assumes in the official presentation of the investigative judgment. Scholars have always been wary of Presenting it, No it's not clear and simple. It doesn't glorify vesus, my friends; it makes Calvary incomplete; it makes Christ primarily into a legalistic accountant (3) Is it found in the mouth of two or three witnesses? No. There is no clear statement, even once in the Scripture, of an investigative judgment of the sins of believers. Not once. the context in Daniel 7 and 8 is of a wicked power--not the saints. (4) Does the investigative judgment need the Bible only. No you've got to rest with the Elphantine papyri, Ptolmey's Almegist, and so on. Now, my friends, let's look at some of the assumptions on which the investigative judgment is based. Ten years ago SPA asked me to write a commentary on Daniel, and two-thirds of that commentary wrestled with these problems. That's in pages--two thirds of it. In the ten years that followed the writing of it, it took years to get through the committees because I battled over Antiochus. In the years that have followed, some things have come clearer to ne For example, in Daniel 8:14 it says “Unto two thousand and three hundred evening mornings." It doesn't say ‘days! The margins of your Bibles that might use days has evening morning. There's no days there. Now please note: the investigative judgment teaching rests on the assumption that the evening mornings are days and that the days are years. Now number one, it is impossible, impossible to-35- Prove that the evening morning are days. Not once in Scripture is evening morning used as a substitute for day. It is used in con- nection with a day in Genesis 1. That was the first evening dusk and the first dawn, but not once in Scripture is evening morning used as a substitute for day. Not once. As regards the year-day principle prior to my presentation on the investigative judgment at Pacific Union College, one of the editors of the REVIEW wrote an article in the REVIEW repudiating it. That article reappears in the Glacier View Manuscript. The editor of the REVIEW repudiated it and said Christ could have come in the first century and the year-day principle didn't that come in the leading of God until about a thousand years later. it wasn't Biblical, There is no statement of the year-day principle anywhere in Scripture. Numbers 14:34 speaks of the future in literal terms--not symbolic--and likewise Eze 4:6. So that first assumption, my friends, is impossible to support, that 8:14 mentions days which actually mean years. Secondly, another assumption is that we should begin the 2,300 years in 457 B.C. We assume that 408 is correct for the finishing of the city. We assume that Christ died in A.D. 31. We assume that Stephen was stoned in A.D. 34, None of them are proveable. None of them. And the SDA COMMENTARY witnesses to that fact in at least three out of those four dates. Read the article on chronology in the New Testament first volume in the SDA BIBLE COMMENTARY. My friends it's not well known that for a hundred years there has been a creat battle over the sequence of Ezra and Nehemiah, I could read to you volumes like the INTERPRETER'S BIBLE which, for example, say this: "The chronology problem seems best solved by-36- assigning Ezra to the period of Artaxerxes the Second. You see Ezra 7 which we date at 457 doesn't say which Artaxerxes. There were three of them. It doesn't say which, and for a hundred years scholars have wrestled over which one it is, and books like the INTERPRETER'S BIBLE and the vast majority of modern scholarly works in print, the vast majority, say it wasn't Artaxerxes the First but Artaxerxes the Second. That's about the time of 398. I could read you statements ad infinitum, It's not so. I think Artaxerxes the First could be correct, but it is not proveable. Frank Cross put out a study on it three years ago that is quite good, but it is just not demonstrable. It is another assumption, my friends. That's the problem. I have letters here from Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, all the main theological seminaries, that all reject that evening morning necessarily means days. The majority of these men believe that the Artaxerxes of chapter 7 is Artaxerxes the Second. That's 50 years after. I could read to you from the Good News Bible in 8:14 that says for example, because of these problems, it uses this expression: “I heard the other angel answer, ‘It will continue for 1,150 days, during which evening and morning sacrifices will not be offered. Then the Temple will be restored.'" Now that's interpretation, but it is the interpretation most scholars give Daniel 8:14. So here is a single text, 2,300 days appears in one place, it's meaning is very much debated by most Bible scholars today, not just the liberals. I could read to you from the Adventist SOURCE BOOK. Please read them on Ezra, Nehemiah. The last two comments on Ezra, Nehemiah, look under "E" for Ezra, in the Adventist SOURCE BOOK, points out the great warfare as to who was first, and therefore which Artaxerxes is meant. The last statement here says Artaxerxes the Second, so-37- 457 is gone, my friends, of any certainty. You can't be certain of 2,300, you can't be certain that it is days, you cannot be certain that days should be years, you cannot be certain of 457 or 408, Dr Hasel said in the MINISTRY, You can't prove 408, you can't prove A.D. 31, most chronologies take another date. QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE said you can't prove A.D. 34. It is all up for grabs, my friends. NO. 3. The seventy weeks are weeks of days. The SDA BIBLE COMMENTARY in its latest edition, please note what I say, the first edition said that year-day principle in Daniel 9, the last edition said the word here shebuim (?) which Dr Hasel says is the word for weeks, he says that word never means a week of days anywhere in Scripture. Now the root of it does, but the word in the form in which it occurs in Daniel 9 is never used for week of days. QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE, DOCTRINAL DISCUSSIONS, McCready Price, the latest edition of the SDA COMMENTARY all say you should not make the word weeks in Dan 9:24 mean a week of days. They all say the year-day principle isn't there. So that one's gone too. + + +. that cleansed in Dan 8:14 is the same as in Lev 16, my friends, read any modern translations--it's not the same word and doesn't have that meaning. Next assumption that the question that 8:13 is a call for judgment on the saints; my friends, the context is always on a wicked power in 7 and 8, never the saints. Now the most important one. My friends you can argue until the cows come home on prophetic symbolism. What I want is a clear rebuttal of clearcut didactic statments in the New Testament. Listen to me. There is only one chapter in the New Testament that discusses the-38- meaning of the two apartments of the sanctuaries--only one chapter, and there it says the first apartment represented the Jewish era, and the second apartment represented the Christian era. Read Heb 9:2-10. Secondly, this is the only chapter that discusses the meaning of the cleansing of the sanctuary. Read v 23, And it says it has already happened with Christ's entrance into heaven. Read Dan 3-28. And thirdly, this is the only chapter that discusses the day of atonement. Listen, I read to you from this section, Heb. 9:12: "When Christ went through the tent and entered once and for all into the most holy place." That's 9:12 of Hebrews; let me go on to v 25: ‘The Jewish high priest goes into the most holy place every year, but Christ did not." My friends, Hebrews very clearly, read any modern translation, and don't argue on the Greek; I'm prepared to face any man on the Greek of this chapter, and for as many hours and as many days as they like, in public discussion on it. You can't get anything more out of the Greek than you can get out of a modern translation, my friends. who is there amongst us who is a better Hebraist or better Greek student than those who translated the Bibles we have? You don't need esoteric information. The Bible is enough as we have it, and the Bible clearly teaches in Hebrews chapter 9 that the antitype of the day of atonement took when our Lord Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place and sprinkled, s0 to speak, the warm blood on the atonement of the mercy seat. It was done at Calvary, my friends, that's it. Now, my friends, lastly the believer's destiny is not ever in jeopardy. It does not depend on the extent but the reality of His spiritual growth. Justification means one hundred per cent imputed righteousness. It is all Christ's--none of it is ours. our destiny-39- Goes not depend on whether we have reached Perfection. God forbid. None of us would have a hope. We're all going to hell if that's true, Yustification is a hundred per cent imputed righteousness, and we have salvation the moment we have Christ. He that believeth hath everlast- ing life and doesn't come into condemnation. oh yes, there is a final judgment, even for Christians, but no risk it says in John. No danger Gg germ one (No wondecte2DWNi tol wrote Gece 24 it's in this Glacier View manuscript, saying "Don't base the sanctuary teaching on Hebrews." No wonder leaders like Conradi and others pulled out on the sanctuary. Read it here, No wonder Andreasen wrote our brethren warning them. No wonder one REVIEW editor threw the whole thing out and wrote a questionnaire and got confirmation from scholars. No wonder another threw it out with him. Two REVIEW editors both threw it out. Listen, my friends, Scripture says "Add not to his words lest there be bound a liar." May God have mercy on our church. Moderator: Dr Shea will now be responding to Dr Ford's presentation. DR WILLIAM SHEA No. 1. Is it simple? Okay you go home and read Daniel 7:9-13 and Iwill tell you a story, I was on a small committee for only one Gay at Andrews, and as we left the small committee room before Glacier View, T said to Des, "Des, at Glacier View this is going to be fought more over Daniel 7 than Daniel 8." And Des said to me, "That's all right, let it come." Des had six hours on the floor of Glacier View, The second question asked of him on Tuesday afternoon, Elder Heppenstall got up and read Daniel 7:9-13, and he said, "Des, doesn't this represent~40- @ get petty 2 Neavencal (Ces cove: (never af. question and he didn't answer it here today, In all of that mass of obfuscation he never answered the questions of the judgment scene of Daniel 7. Now he is welcome to do it in the next five minutes when he gets it. All right, No. 2, is it Jesus centered? Well, there came one like the Son of Man, and he is awarded the kingdom. He is worthy. Now for my interpretation that's Jesus Christ, and he cannot say that Daniel 7 is not Christ-centered unless you rip that verse out of this prophecy. That's where it ends. All right, No. 3. You have to have it said over and over again because we are so dense. well, Des, just give me how many verses you have the Trinity in the Bible? All right, No. 4, the Bible only. Well, in my 15 minutes I don't remember that I referred to anything but Biblical texts. No. 5, that this little horn power is a wicked power. Sure it's wicked, but it's professedly Christian. No. 6, the matter of dates, I find it very curious that Des started wading into these dates because by denying these dates you are also denying the Messiahship of Christ in Daniel 9. All right, the evening and mornings. What about those evenings and mornings? What is an evening morning. No. 1, Genesis 1 chronologically it's a 24-hour period of time, but that's not what it's all about in Daniel 8, Why does it use-. Hey wait a minute, I've been talking three minutes! All right, Well, 457. Let me just finish on evenings and mornings, That's a sanctuary day, and how do you know it's a sanctuary day? Because the pillar of cloud changed to fire and thePillar of fire changed back to cloud and that marked the evening and morning sacrifice, and that's when the Priest lit the lamps in the Sanctuary. It's a sanctuary day--that's what they are all about, All right 457 B.C. I find it incredible that somebody could Goubt that the seventh year of Artaxerxes is 457 B.C. I have written Gy gen gapteies OD ehciene chronology) ce one chronogropher in modern literature that doubts that date of 457 spring to spring of the seventh year of Artaxerxes, and if Des can Produce that, fine. Now, he says for centuries the order of Ezra and Nehemiah has been Feversed. Incredible, incredible. That was first invented by Hoenacher in 1698--a Dutch scholar. That is a higher critical Position by humanist, Fationalist scholars and he knows it and he quotes the SOURCE BOOK and he doesn't quote the source that the SOURCE BOOK quotes. All right, one final remark, and that is since my time is gone. J heard a slur about Harvard and Yale and all those fancy people back there. Well I spent three years at Harvard and I spent four years at the universtiy of Michigan so you can check those two off the list. Frank Cross was one of my major professors. Moderator: You have 30 seconds more. Shea: 0 do I, really, oh wow, we got more. Thank you. All right, Hebrews 9. Hebrews 9. Get this now, please. What is the contrast in Hebrews 9. Des says the first apartment old Testament, second apartment, New Testament. Not so. What's the contrast. The contrast is old covenant, old covenant sanctuary; new Covenant, new covenant sanctuary. That's the contrast that Hebrews is talking about. To split those apartments in half is nonsense because the lesson is limited access. How do you get limited=42- access? You've got to have the most holy place in the Old Testament era, That's where the limited access is. Okay. Moderator: At this point Dr Ford will now respond to Dr Shea. DESMOND FORD Let's come to Daniel 7 in which Dr Shea is so interested and rightly so. My friends, to understand Daniel without the New Testament is to wander in the morass. The New Testament interprets Daniel. As a matter of fact, it is the most important book the New Testament @wells upon as Wescott says in his comments on Daniel. Now the New Testament interprets Daniel 7 as well. You see, the expression "the kingdom of heaven" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament except in Daniel. The point is this, that when Israel failed, the book of Daniel was reinterpreted to apply to the new situation and the new Israel, and you must ever remember that apocalyptic literature is parabolic, and to try and stress exact sequences and tiny points is about as much trouble as to get hell fire out of the rich man and Lazarus. Now, my friends, when Jesus came, He said the kingdom of God is at hand, and he was quoting from Daniel 7, as many commentators point out. Jesus said, quoting Daniel 7, the verse that our brother read to us, "the Son of Man shall come in the clouds of heaven." Read in Matthew 24, read in Mark 13--the Son of Man shall come to mean the second advent--not something 150 years before it. Jesus quoted this verse of the Son of Man coming in the clouds, and He applied it to the second coming. Yes, the New Testament reinterprets Daniel, and it says that this verse about dominion being given to the Son of Man applied at the coming of the kingdom. You see, the kingdom of heaven in the New Testament is first of all the kingdom~43- inaugurated at the cross, and then the kingdom consunmated at the second coming, At the time when the kingdom was inaugurated, Jesus said, "All power in heaven and earth is given unto me." In your dominion was given to the Son of Man at the judgment scene because Christ's death was the judgment of this world--John 12. so you have eerr—‘“—OSNOOOOSOOSOSOCSCOCSésrs—SC—sC—OSC and the use of the Son of Man, the use of the kingdom of heaven, the use of the clouds of glory, are taken from Daniel by Jesus and applied Poth to the kingdom of the cross, the kingdom inaugurated, and to the Kingdom of glory, the second advent, but never to some event beginning 150 years before the second advent. so much for Daniel 7. As regards the reference to the books of judgment that Dr shea mentioned, that verse is quoted too in the New Testament, but it too comes in connection with the second advent and following events. Revelation 20 quotes it, ny friends, read it. You can do it. It quotes it. Doesn't apply@hat verse about the books before the second advent; it applies it after. Now as regards all these liberals and critical scholars, here is the SOURCE BOOK, and if any of you want to come and see it, just come, and the Adventists didn't borrow it with carelessness when they borrowed it from these critical scholars. They borrowed that which they thought would suit their purpose ana their conscience, and here's a statement that does. Two theories about the relative order of Ezra and Nehemiah are held by competent scholars, Catholics and Protestants, conservatives and liberals--conservatives and liberals are found on both sides of the discussion, And then it goes on where Albright says "this writereS maintains the order Nehemiah-Ezra with increasing conviction." 1 could fill in hours, my friends, with statements of modern summaries on this. Here's just one from the Anchor Bible, one of the most scholarly modern commentaries: "One of the most troublesome, possibly insoluable problems is that of the relationship between Nehemiah and Ezra. It is, of course, certain that Ezra did his work in the reign of artaxerxes, but which Artaxerxes?" He goes on to suggest Ezra 2. Now my friends, my last point, because of the five minutes. Daniel 7, yes, listen to the judgment scenes: "The court shall sit in judgment and his dominion shall be taken away to be consumed and destroyed." Whose dominion? The little horn's. The judgment's on the little horn. Moderator: You have one minute. SMUTS VAN ROOYEN I'd like to respond to the concept that if you deny the dates you deny the Messiahship of Christ. It seems to me that most Protestants deny the dates. They would see the death of Christ as occurring in A.D, 33, for instance. To assume that because someone does not subscribe to a chronological system that he therefore denies the authenticity of Christ's Messiahship is a nonseguitur. The conclusion does not follow the argument. It is possible to deny the dates and affirm the Messiahship of Christ. Most Christians do. Moderator: That ends the discussion on that particular question. Why don't we take one more minute to stretch. Okay.THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT (Ford, van Rooyen, Mitchell, Shea) MODERATOR Tam prepared to stand by my timekeeping; however, there is at least one member of the congregation who indicates that according to the chronograph?) Dr. Shea was shorted by one minute. In view of that, and in view of the fact that Dr. Shea obviously had points yet to be made, we have agreed that he will get a minute, and if the gentlemen on my left care for a minute to respond to that, they will get it, also. DR. SHEA I thought it was awfully short, Actually, I am responding to Des’ Fesponse. If you think Daniel 7, verses 13 and 14 are equivalent to Mark 13 with the scene of Christ coming in the clouds of heaven, then that's a reinterpretation. You just go home and reed those two passages side by side. One is @ heavenly event; one is an earthly event. All right. Des misunderstands me. I don’t think thet event was 150 years before Jesus comes. Isaidit was Scene B that closes the judgment. Now, he cites W. F. Albright and the Anchor Bible as wonderful sources why we should reverse the order of Ezra and Nehemiah. My dear friends, W. F. Albright ise liberal, critical scholar. The Anchor Bible is « liberal, critical commentary written by two Jesuits. Now, I think they misunderstand the nature of my argument about Daniel 9. Sure, there's lots of people—the Pope just told us that Jesus went to heaven in 33. This is the holy year, you can get the indulgence, so you might as well take that date, But let me point out that all, all liberal, eritical Scholars deny those dates for Christ in this prophecy, in this prophecy. They do not end at $1, 33, 34,—anywhere, They end in 165 B.C. That's where Daniel 9 ends for one-third of all the commentariesInvestigative Judgment/2 MODERATOR: written on Daniel. ©-K. Tknow I ean keep a minute. And thet was a minute. Dr. Ford, I would Bive you one minute to respond to that, if you care to, FORD MODERATOR: ‘The fullness of it is here. I hope you'll get one and read it, But let me Sey something briefly. The picture in Daniel 7 of Christ's coming is before the books are opened. It cannot be the end of the judgment, as Dr. Shes contends. It hes to be beforehand, The books are opened after he comes. That's number one. Number two. Heaven end earth—he's forgotten what I said—the New Testament reinterprets Daniel and, therefore, you must reed the New Testaments finel word. Never Daniel, the finel word, Thirdly, the use of Albright was his concession that conservative scholars agree on the problem, And the New Bible Dictionary, which I have here, which is as conservative as they come—more then us, says "Dogmatism Must be ruled out on the order of Ezra and Nehemiah." That's clear enough. Let me say that as @ criminal defense attorney, I occasionally do that kind of work, and one of the hazards is, of course, that the district attorney always gets the last shot. And one of the things that I always tell a jury is, Ladies and gentlemen, somebody has to go last, and the law says it's going to be the other side. So don't just accept whatInvestigative Judgment/3 FORD: they say uncritically. Always think of the questions that I would have not asked. AndT am sure any of our perticipants who is/lest would ask you to do the same thing. Someone has to go last. ‘The last question to be addressed today on this pert of the program, though I'm not foreclosing your written questions—is, How does the investigative judgment affect the doctrine of salvation and practical, Christian living? For this question pastors van Rooyen end Ford will be making the initial presentation. They'll be sharing their time. My friends, at the General Conference some years ago, it was seid by the head of the Ministerial Association that the average Adventist gives one Bible study per year. That's sharing your faith, The reason is because most Adventists lack assurance. They're not sure they are saved themselves. Why go end share their uncertainties? A person crippled ith rheumatism is not & good advertisement for cure. My friends, the Teason Adventists lack assurance is because they think thet until they get over the hurdle of the investigative judgment, they can't be sure they have eternal life. The fact is, my friends, once you believe in Jesus, you have eternal life, and nothing ean take it from you except your unbelief. Good works don't get you in, and bad works don't get you out. But e Christian will hate sin. And his growth in sanctification will testify to the reality of his justification.Investigative Judgment/4 Now, in Hebrews 10:19, 20, Iread this statement. "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of ‘Jesus, by @ new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body; and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us Grew near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from e guilty conscience.” My friends, the first pert of the chapter says the Day of Atonement coming every year showed that in the type they never felt quite clean of their sins. But it's different now, my friends, now that Jesus Christ has come and the atonement is finished. The moment you believe, thet moment you receive. You hear the words of love, you gaze upon the blood, and you have peace with God. And the law can no more condemn you than it can condemn Jesus, while you're trusting in His merits. You can't play with sin while you're trusting in His merits, but the law can't condemn you, You have everlasting life. John 5:24, Rightly did Roy Adams say in his doctrinal study on the sanctuary, "The most serious problem," he said, "awaiting the Church” (and he listed them in this order, on page 282) he seid, "The most critical would seem to relate to— He says, "Serious questions remain unresolved." Thet's his point—serious questions remain unresolved, One, the salvation historical significance of 1844. If at Calvary it was finished, what need have we of 18447 Number two, the theological relationship between 8:14 and Leviticus 16. Our scholars in the (or editor) in the REVIEW says questionnaire in response to an editoritInvestigative Judgment/s there's neither linguistic nor contextual. My friends, most Adventists don't know, for over 20 years out of the last 0, this church has had official committees wrestling with the problems of the investigative judgment, And none of them heve come to & conclusion except Glacier View, and the conclusion wes, get rid of the person—don't solve the Problem. You'll find thet all documented here, my friends. That's number two. The theological regimen. And three, the de: “year prineiple, And four, the validity of the concept of the investigative judgment. The Bible does teach a judgment, and @ Jetter-day judgment. I agree with all Dr. Shea has said about these Verses on the judgment. Iagree that they say where God is. Of course, I have to believe. That's why the senctuery is mentioned, That's where God is. There is e reality in the judgment, but J John tells Us very clearly that the Christian has no fear in that judgment—no fear at all; thet perfect love casts out fear. But the Adventist concept of Perfection to be reached so you'll live without @ Mediator, my friends, that's contrary to the gospel, and it flies in the face of the curse of Galatians 1:8, Now, let me summarize es I close, Unless we have assurance, my friends, you cannot go out and share your faith, And you can't have the assurance on the investigative judgment, because it is so unsure itself. Here's a summary. Please note the "ifs." If the 2,300 evenings/mornings represent days; if those days represent years; if the ‘77's represent 490 days; if the 490 days representInvestigative Judgment/6 VAN ROOYEN MODERATOR: 490 years; if the 490 years are to be cut off thet,300; if they both begin at the same time; if that time is the degree of Artaxerxes; if that Artaxerxes is the Artaxerxes the first; if that was issued on the Day of Atonement; if theré‘vitdicating of the sanctuary from the little horn's Gefilement means really the cleansing of heaven from the saints' sinsy if the plurality of the sanctuary’s apartments, unlike the plurality of sacrifices and priests, points to a plurality in antityp. if Christ is @ high Priest after the order of Aaron; if the Bible clearly teaches an attenuated investigative judgment; if justification does not mean counted one hundred percent righteous; if all these "ifs" constitute doctrines essential for salvation, then all who do not see these improbabilities as certainties should be disfellowshiped—if. But, if not, again I say, mey God have merey on our Chureh, And here's my last word. This was written by a reformer. "Soon the time will come when Christ will be preached purely, without any admixture of human traditions, which is not now true. O Gospel, spring of the water thet springs forth unto eternal life. When shall you reign in all your purity? When shall Christ be all in all? When will the only study, the only comfort, the only desire of all be to know the gospel, and to spread it everywhere? Then will all be persuaded as our ancestors were—that to know nothing save the gospel is to know everything. I want to, umm—How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman? About ten minutes.Investigative Judgment/7 VAN ROOYEN Ah, fantestic Des.1 want to object to @ concept that says that when I ask God to forgive my sin, He makes a record of it, I want to ask these questions. Where did Peter's mother-in-law's fever go when Jesus healed her fever? Where did the leprosy of the ten men who were healed of leprosy go when Jesus healed them of leprosy? Where did Bartimaeus’ blindness go? Where did the lameness of the lame man go? The answer is, they went nowhere. They became nothing. Where do your sins go when God forgives them? Friends, they go the same place the lepers’ leprosy goes—nowhere. They're gone. They are not recorded. God is not an Indian forgiver, that forgives you provisionally end if you overcome, then He will finally blot the sin out. ‘The glory of Scripture is found in Romans, chepter 4, it says this, that God justifies the ungodly. Friends, God does not forgive you because you overcome your sin. God forgives you in spite of the fact that you've not yet overcome it. Then He helps you with your sin. Overcoming is not a precondition to forgiving. What hope is there for the person who is having @ problem with sin, and the gospel is you've got to overeome—then you will be forgiven. There's no essurance, no happiness in thet. Sins, when they are forgiven, are forgotten. They become nothing, God remembers them no more. And if, in the future, I should turn against Him; if in the future I should reject Christ, the rejection of Christ in itself is reason enough for me to lose eternal life @ thousand times over.Investigative Judgment/8 MODERATOR: ‘A word about perseverance. I believe in the perseverance of the saints, but I do not believe that the Seripture teaches that the doctrine of perseverance is, we must persevere in overcoming, and if we overcome, then we will receive our salvation. It is a perseverance in Christ, it is not a perseverance in overcoming. The issue is not, How am I managing with all of my sins? The issue is, Am I remaining loyal to Jesus Christ? ‘And people who do not remain in Christ will lose their selvation. We are not speaking about once seved, always saved. Arminius challenged Calvin on once saved, always saved in the 1500's. Arminius didn't believe in the investigative judgment. I do believe there is e future judgment, I do believe in the perseverance of the saints, but I do not believe that the perseverance of the saints is this doctrine—that God is looking at me to see if overcome all my problems; and if I don't overcome all of my problems, He will undo His forgiveness and be en Indian forgiver. That is not the gospel. We will now have the contrary presentation from the gentleman on my left. I believe Pastor Ortega will be starting tht. ORTEGA: You know, I really don't think we have @ contrary presentation here. There's so much of what Smuts and Des have just said that I have to ‘agree with all the way. There ere elements, however, that I'm not quite sure how they got built into the same sentence. And/'ll try to clarify it as Igo along, here. For example, we have heard that we don't need the Greek, the Bible is enough the way it reads. And yet, we've been swamped here with a plethora of scholers,Investigative Judgment/9 quote, ter quote, after quote, And] might make the same statement, well, do we need all these scholars to understand the Scriptures, or can we take the Bible only? In talking about the Adventist Chureh, I notice some phraseology, "they." And then in another sentence, "Our church.” You know, these statements just don't come together for me. The Adventist concept out there. There are scriptures that we have not Gealt with here, obviously, in these short time periods. We can't. But there are seriptures from the mouth of Jesus, "Go and sin no more." Is He telling people to do something impossible? Or is He saying something from the Word of God, Himself? John 6, John 8. The reason I'm bringing up some of these things is because—not to argue, that's not my point. ‘The question is, Whet does salvetion have to do with all of this? T think it has everything to do with it, In spiritual reelms truth cen't have two sides to it that are opposite. There's only one Jesus Christ. He can only say one thing that makes sense. The other side can't be right, whatever it is, So, what are we desling with here? Are we dealing with @ scholarship that chenges through the years? Or let's take another discipline, medicine. Are we in the seme place today that we were ten years ago? twenty years ago? e hundred years ‘ago? Can we say thet progress is inevitable? Can we make thet statement? That was the hangup beck in the 1840's, I think, in the same context, progress is not inevitable, even in the field of theology. Let's look at just « few things which I consider to be important in terms of salvation, in terms of reality, of really tuning in to the Holy Spirit,Investigative Judgment/10 and seeing what He's been doing in the history of salvation—not just in books that we ean read today that might have different views, even mong themselves, There is an entire history of the 2,300 days. That's been brought into this. And I would just like to mention just a few things. In 1440, Nicholas Krebs of Cusa wrote a book called, Conjecture Concerning the Last Days, and he took the 2,300 days from Persia to the cleansing of the sanetuary—the second advent in his mind. I'm going to G0 through this very quickly. In 1564 Johann Funck made the 2,300 days 457 B.C. to S4 A.D. in Germany. In 1654 John Tillinghast—he said the 490 years are within the 2,300 years. He was in England. In 1689 Drue Cressener the 1,260 years started with Justinian and will end somewhere around 1800. In 1789 Johann Petri said the 2,300 years began with the 490 years. This is @ new thought, this is something that some weird conservative thought up as @ face-saving device. This is historical. Now, Hans Wood in Ireland did the same thing. In 1810, John Aquila Brown said the 2,300 years were from 457 B.C. to 1843. Williem Devis, in this country, in 1810 dated it from 453 to 1847. He said it was certified by the cross in the middle of thet week. Then some 60 men wrote also of terminus dates that were somewhere around 1843, 1844, 1847, Those all were before 1836, they wrote those things. In 1836 Bishop Daniel Wilson said they're from 453 to 1847. He wes over in India, There's an entire world keying in during that historical period to the 2,300 days. And to say thet no one considered them to be years just is not historical. We've just cited few, here.