5. The Investigative Judgment and Shut Door

6. Bible Versions and Footnotes

5. The Investigative Judgment and the Shut Door

#46 & #47: "The investigative judgment doctrine that Seventh-day Adventists still cling to came from a reinterpretation of William Miller's failed prophecy that Christ would come to the earth on October 22, 1844."

#46: It's a reinterpretation. Not really. The whole Millerite movement was predicting that the day of judgment would occur around 1843 or 1844. That being so, it can't be a reinterpretation, for they already believed that.

Here's the evidence that Millerites were predicting the commencement of the judgment in the 1840's. First, we have William Miller as early as 1822 saying that he believed that the second coming and the judgment would take place at the same time:

"ART. XVII. I believe in the resurrection, both of the just and of the unjust,-the just, or believers, at Christ's second coming, and the unjust one thousand years afterwards,-when the judgment of each will take place in their order, at their several resurrections; when the just will receive everlasting life, and the unjust eternal condemnation."-Bliss, p. 79.

From his "Lecture 1" printed in 1842, he clearly predicted the beginning of the judgment to take place about 1843. Included also is a bit of his appeal to sinners to give their hearts to Jesus:

And now, my impenitent friends, what say you? ... And are there no signs of the near approach of the Judgment Day? ... "We say, 'You were very unwise to fix on the year 1843, or sooner, for this day to come; for it will not come; and then you will be ashamed." And I hope I may be able, by the grace of God, to repent. But what if it does come? You cannot with any propriety say positively it will not come, for you make no pretence to divination. But I say, what if it does come? Where will you be? No space then for repentance. No, no-too late, too late; the harvest is over and past, the summer is gone, the door is shut, and your soul is not saved. Therefore it can do you no harm to hear, and believe, and do those things which God requires of you, and which you think you would do, if you knew he would appear. First, I ask you to repent of your sins. Would this be right? Yes. Next, I ask you to believe in God. Is this right? Yes. And I ask you to be reconciled to his will, love his law, forsake sin, love holiness, practice his precepts, obey his commands. Would these things be right? Yes, yes. And last of all, and not least, I ask you to "look for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ."-Miller's Works, vol. 2, pp. 26, 27.

The investigative judgment doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism came from a realization, not a reinterpretation, that the judgment did begin after all on October 22 as predicted, but that the second coming was yet future.

And it has to be something like that anyway, for Jesus said, "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22:12). Since Jesus will have his rewards with Him when He comes, the judgment which determines what those rewards will be must have already taken place before He comes.

As the apostle Paul said, "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world" (Acts 17:31). Millerites before October 22 believed that the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14 pinpointed that "appointed" "day" (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 129). And over 150 years later, Seventh-day Advent­ists still believe that the 2300 days pinpointed the commencement of the judgment.

#47: William Miller's prediction of October 22 failed. As brought out under #6, William Miller did not make the prediction, did not teach it, and never accepted it as the certain date when Christ would come.

But let's take a look at the whole question of the "failed prediction." Over and over again the video asks us to believe that the calculation of the 2300 days was in error. We have already looked at this question under #20, but let us look at it again.

Miller and the Millerites merely drew conclusions based on the teachings of some of the greatest scholars of several centuries. The general dates Miller arrived at could not be faulted. Consider the comments of one of his most learned opponents, Dr. George Bush of New York City University, from a letter to William Miller:

I do not conceive your errors on the subject of chronology to be at all of a serious nature, or in fact to be very wide of the truth. In taking a day as the prophetical time for a year, I believe you are sus­tained by the soundest exegesis, as well as fortified by the high names of Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Faber, Scott, Keith, and a host of others, who have long since come to substantially your conclu­sions on this head. They all agree that the leading periods mentioned by Daniel and John do actually expire about this age of the world; and it would be strange logic that would convict you of heresy for holding in effect the same views which stand forth so prominently in the notices of these eminent divines….

Your results in this field of inquiry do not strike me as so far out of the way as to affect any of the great interests of truth or duty.--Advent Herald, Mar. 6 and 13, 1844.

This opponent of Miller freely admits that many famous scholars of old agreed that the prophetic periods of the prophecies would end in Miller's day! What problem, then, did Dr. Bush see with Miller's interpretation? Why did he not become a Millerite if he thought his calculations were correct?

Your error, as I apprehend, lies in another direction than your chronology....

You have entirely mistaken the nature of the events which are to occur when those periods have expired. This is the head and front of your expository offending....

The great event before the world is not its physical conflagration, but its moral regeneration. Although there is doubtless a sense in which Christ may be said to come in connection with the passing away of the fourth empire and of the ottoman power, and his kingdom to be illustriously established, yet that will be found to be a spiritual coming in the power of His gospel, in the ample outpouring of His spirit, and the glorious administration of His providence,-Ibid.

Dr. Bush didn't believe that Christ would literally come. He believed that the Scriptures that speak of Christ's coming should be taken symbolically, not literally. We cannot fault Miller for believing that the second coming would be literal like the Bible says, instead of spiritual like Dr. Bush believed.

That William Miller had a firm biblical footing for his teachings is attested by his basic agreement with the conclusions of multitudes of scholars spanning decades and centuries. Though his ideas were not free from error, the date of October 22, 1844, was correct. Or at least, no solid evidence to the contrary has been presented by his opponents back then or now.

#48 & #49: "At first Adventists believed that the door of mercy was shut on that date."

#48: They believed in a "shut door" of mercy. It's not hard to see why.

"As has been stated, Adventists were for a short time united in the belief that the door of mercy was shut. This position was soon abandoned."-Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, p. 271. When one understands what was happening in those days, this charge becomes irrelevant. Additionally, since Seventh-day Adventism did not yet exist, this is really an argument against the Millerite Movement and first-day Adventism, if it be an argument at all. ("First-day Adventists" is a general term for post-­1844, Sunday-keeping Millerite groups.)

America has been called a Christian nation, yet we haven't acted very Christ-like at times. We used to own slaves. After we freed them, we had lynchings and cross burnings. Blacks couldn't eat in the same restaurants, use the same restrooms, or drink at the same water fountains as whites.

As the expected time for Christ to come ap­proached and passed, a spirit seemed to take hold of those who did not believe in Miller's views. Reports include: meetings broken up by mobs; stones, eggs, snowballs, and spikes thrown at the speakers at meetings; some believers publicly whipped; and a lecturer almost tarred and feathered by a minister and mob (Eugene Durand, Yours in the Blessed Hope, Uriah Smith, p. 21; Bliss, p. 353; James White, Life Incidents, pp. 77, 78; Bible Adventism, p. 193; John N. Loughborough, Great Second Advent Movement, pp. 176, 177, 525).

Albert Barnes, the noted Presbyterian author of Barnes' Commentary, told of the spiritual declension of those times:

At a recent meeting of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, Rev. Mr. Barnes, pastor of the 1st Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, whose notes are so extensively used in our families and Sabbath-schools, stated that he had been in the ministry for twenty years, and never till the last communion had he administered the ordinance without receiving more or less to the church. But now there are no awakenings, no conversions, not much apparent growth in grace in professors, and none come to his study to converse about the salvation of their souls. With the increase of business, and the brightening prospects of commerce and manufactures, there is an increase of worldly-mindedness. Thus it is with all denominations. -Congregational Journal, May 23, 1844.

The spiritual condition of the nation as a whole and the churches in particular had reached a low ebb. Consider also the words of revivalist Charles Finney and an unknown author:

In the month of February of the same year, Professor Finney of Oberlin College said: "We have had the fact before our minds, that, in general, the Protestant churches of our country, as such, were either apathetic or hostile to nearly all the moral reforms of the age. There are partial exceptions, yet not enough to render the fact otherwise than general. We have also another corroborated fact: the almost universal absence of revival influence in the churches. The spiritual apathy is almost all-pervading, and is fearfully deep; so the religious press of the whole land testifies.... Very extensively, church members are becoming devotees of fashion, join hands with the ungodly in parties of pleasure, in dancing, in festivities, etc.... But we need not expand this painful subject. Suffice it that the evidence thickens and rolls heavily upon us, to show that the churches generally are becoming sadly degenerate. They have gone very far from the Lord, and He has withdrawn Himself from them."

And a writer in the Religious Telescope testified: "We have never witnessed such a general declension of religion as at the present. Truly, the church should awake, and search into the cause of this affliction; for as an affliction everyone that loves Zion must view it. When we call to mind how 'few and far between' cases of true conversion are, and the almost unparalleled impertinence and hardness of sinners, we almost involuntarily exclaim, 'Has God forgotten to be gracious? or, Is the door of mercy closed?' "-Great Controversy, p. 377.

It sure seemed like it.

As pointed out under #12, the term "shut door" comes from the parable of the ten virgins. It is also derived from the following verse:

When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are. (Luke 13:25)

These parables indicate that at some point the bridegroom who is Christ will come, and the door to the wedding feast will be shut. Then the five foolish virgins will try to get in and won't be able to.

The Millerites had been teaching that Christ would come on October 22, and that probation, the door of mercy, would then close. It was only natural for them to think that it had indeed closed on that date, especially given the spiritual declension of the churches and the continual harassment by mobs. No more sinners wanted to hear their preaching, so why should they think they still had a mission to preach to sinners?

#49: They've got to be wrong if they believed this. Besides being irrelevant, this whole objection is an inadvertent attack on the New Testament. Those who have read through the book of Acts will remember that the early church was of the opinion that no Gentile could be saved. Before the door of mercy could be opened for a Gentile, that Gentile had to become a Jew.

To convince them otherwise, God sent Peter the vision recorded in Acts 10. This vision corrected his misunderstanding that the door of mercy was shut to the Gentiles, and he went and preached to Cornelius, the Roman centurion.

When he got back to Jerusalem, the elders met with him to reprimand him, for they were certain that Gentiles could not repent and be saved. Peter recounted his vision and his experience at Cornelius's house, after which the record says, "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18).

To be consistent, if we must automatically reject Mrs. White and first-day Adventism for their misunderstanding, we must reject the apostles and Christianity as well, for they made the same error.

Many Christians still believe something similar today. Calvinists teach that everyone is already predestinated to be saved or lost, and there really isn't anything anyone can do about it. The door of mercy for the strict Calvinist is shut to all those who have been predestinated to damnation.

This writer doesn't agree with such a teaching, but he isn't going to call all the Calvinist churches cults because they teach such.

#50: "Ellen G. White with prophetic authority supported both this date and the shut-door belief."

#50: She supported the shut-door-of-mercy doctrine. While she did support the date of October 22, she never had a vision supporting the shut-door­of-mercy belief:

With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in forty-four I did believe no more sinners would be converted. But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. And am clear and free to state no one has ever heard me say or has read from my pen statements which will justify them in the charges they have made against me upon this point.

It was on my first journey east [February 1845] to relate my visions that the precious light in regard to the heavenly sanctuary was opened before me and I was shown the open and shut door. We believed that the Lord was soon to come in the clouds of heaven. I was shown that there was a great work to be done in the world for those who had not had the light and rejected it. Our brethren could not understand this with our faith in the immediate appearing of Christ. Some accused me of saying that my Lord delayeth His coming, especially the fanatical ones....

I never have stated or written that the world was doomed or damned. I never have under any circum­stances used this language to any one, however sinful. I have ever had messages of reproof for those who used these harsh expressions.-Selected Messages, bk. 1, p. 74.

From this quotation it appears that she believed in no more mercy for sinners for a period of time between October 1844 and February 1845. And for part of even that short period, she had given up the idea that the "shut door" had already occurred (see #12).

As pointed out under #49, it was a vision that corrected the apostolic church and Peter's false idea that the door of mercy was shut for Gentiles. Likewise, it was the vision of February 1845 that corrected the misunderstanding of first-day Advent­ists. One difference though: Mrs. White was mistaken for a few months at most. Peter and the apostles, it would appear, were mistaken for a few years. They were mistaken for a much longer period of time than Mrs. White.

Despite Peter's vision, some early Christians still held onto their false concepts for years, necessitating the council of Acts 15 at least fourteen years later (Gal. 2:1). Still the idea did not die, and Paul had to write his epistle to the Galatians even later.

If a few former Millerites were likewise a bit slow in properly comprehending Mrs. White's visions on this topic, let it be remembered that some members of the early church were even slower.

Mrs. White had another vision along the same lines in 1847. In this one she was shown a large, future evangelistic thrust:

I saw that God had children, who do not see and keep the Sabbath. They had not rejected the light on it. And at the commencement of the time of trouble, we were filled with the Holy Ghost as we went forth and proclaimed the Sabbath more fully.-Word to the Little Flock, p. 19; also in Early Writings, p. 33.

On January 5, 1849, came still another vision which taught that every case had not yet been decided for salvation or damnation. God's wrath had not been and could not be poured out upon the wicked because Christ's intercession had not yet ceased (Present Truth, Aug. 1849; Early Writings, p. 36). Over and over again, "Ellen G. White with prophetic authority" opposed "the shut-door[-of-mercy] belief."

Under "Point 27" in the documentation package, the quotation under #51 is given, but neither in it nor in its full context does Mrs. White once mention a "door of mercy," whether open or shut. No proof is given that she ever had a vision endorsing the idea that there was no more mercy for sinners.

#51: "Her first vision contained a fearful judgment on Adventists who had given up the 1844 message called the midnight cry. She said they had fallen off the path to heaven. 'It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the city as the entire wicked world which God had rejected...' The Day-Star January 24, 1846."

#51: Her first vision taught the shut-door-of­ mercy doctrine. This is not true.

The first published account of her vision in the January 24, 1846, issue of The Day-Star is taken from a letter written by Mrs. White to Eli Curtis, the editor of that journal. The last sentence of her letter says, "This was not written for publication; but for the encouragement of all who may see it, and be encouraged by it." We may therefore expect that the wording is not perfect.

Mrs. White testified:

These two classes are brought to view in the vision-those who declared the light which they had followed a delusion, and the wicked of the world who, having rejected the light, had been rejected of God. No reference is made to those who had not seen the light, and therefore were not guilty of its rejec­tion.-Selected Messages, bk. 1, p. 64.

Therefore, her first vision was not teaching that there was no more mercy for sinners. The statement in question is only dealing with those who had rejected light, not those who had never yet seen the light. This thought is also expressed in the quote about her February 1845 vision cited under #50.

To the contrary, her first vision taught that there was still mercy for sinners. In that vision she saw "the living saints, 144,000 in number," who were alive at the second coming. The 144,000 are men­tioned a total of six times, yet there were only 50,000 Millerites in 1844, and her vision pictured many of these falling off the path. Obviously, since there would have to be a lot of evangelism to get the number up to a literal 144,000, the door of mercy could not yet be shut.

The Jewish leaders of Jesus' day rejected light and hardened their hearts to the point that they could no longer be reached with the gospel. Likewise, those who rejected the light to that point in 1844, the light regarding Christ's coming being literal and soon, could no longer be reached.

#52: "Years later, when her first vision was reprinted, even though the preface stated that no changes were made in idea or sentiment, the portion of her vision which taught the shut door to salvation was just left out. [Picture of the July 21,1851, issue of Review and Herald shown.]"

#52: The preface said there was no change. The entire preface to the reprinted vision can be read, and one will fail to find any such statement saying that there were no changes in idea or sentiment. Instead, one will read:

Here I will give the view that was first published in 1846. In this view I saw only a very few of the events of the future. More recent views have been more full. I shall therefore leave out a portion and prevent repetition.

We leave it with the reader to determine whether a statement saying that a portion was left out should be used to prove that there were no changes in idea or sentiment.

Under "Point 28" in the documentation package, the only evidence for this charge is a secondary source which quotes the last two sentences of the paragraph quoted above. Thus the documentation package substantiates that the preface said "a portion" was left out. It also substantiates that it is the 1851 reprinting the video is referring to, not a later one.

On January 4, 2000, Dale Ratzlaff emailed the present writer a few answers to his questions regarding parts of the video. He began by saying, "A few quick answers but first a note or two: I was not the one to edit this video. I would have done it much differently. I feel that some of the material would have been better left out or changed."

Would Mr. Ratzlaff have left out his own referral to a statement that does not exist?

The vision in question was first published in the January 24, 1846, issue of Day-Star. Then it was printed in a broadside on April 6 of that year. In May 1847 it was printed in A Word to the Little Flock. These printings all contained the sentence that Mr. Ratzlaff under #51 found so objectionable, though each did contain other sorts of minor editorial changes.

The next printing in the Girdle of Truth, and Advent Review, Extra, of January 20, 1848, indeed left the sentence out. This printing was done by Eli Curtis, not James or Ellen White.

In the July 1851 Review Extra the vision was reprinted once again, with a "portion" left out that included the sentence in question. Why was the sentence left out? Did the version of the vision being reprinted already have the sentence deleted? Such is possible. Or, were the Whites trying to avoid folk giving the sentence a meaning it was never intended to have? This too is possible.

One month later, Sketches of the Christian Experience and Views of Mrs. E. G. White was published. It included the version of the vision printed in the Review the month before. "Years later," in 1882, Early Writings was published, which reprinted Experience and Views along with two other works. The "pub­lisher's preface" of this 1882 reprinting stated:

"Aside from [footnotes and an appendix], no changes from the original work have been made in the present edition, except the occasional employment of a new word, or a change in the construction of a sentence, to better express the idea, and no portion of the work has been omitted. No shadow of change has been made in any idea or sentiment of the original work, and the verbal changes have been made under the author's own eye, and with her full approval." -Early Writings, 1945 ed., III, IV.

Of course that's true. There were no changes in "idea or sentiment" in Early Writings, for Experience and Views already contained the deletion in question! The "change" appeared by 1851, and the 1882 reprinting was an authentic copy of the one of 1851.

Thus in the end we succeed in finding the elusive words that Mr. Ratzlaff used, words written thirty­one years later than what the video alleges, words that do not help the video's case at all.

#53 & #54: "After 1851 the other shut door passages were either dropped or reinterpreted."

#53: There were other shut door passages. What other passages? The documentation package does not mention any other alleged shut-door passages in Mrs. White's writings. Indeed, there really aren't any that speak of a shut door of mercy, that say that no more sinners will ever be converted.

Not that some don't try to manufacture others. Take for example the place where she speaks of apostate ministers who no longer had a burden for souls (Early Writings, pp. 42-45). Immediately after writing this out in March of 1849, she penned the following: "We know we have the truth, the midnight cry is behind us, the door was shut in 1844 and Jesus is soon to step out from between God and man."-Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, p. 200. Now if Jesus is soon to step out from between God and man, He must still be there now, and thus there must still be mercy for sinners!

#54: They were reinterpreted after 1851. The "reinterpretations" referred to surfaced long before 1851, for it is a simple fact that the term "shut door" amongst Millerites meant a number of different things:

1. A shut door of mercy for all sinners.

2. A shut door of mercy for those who have persistently rejected truth.

3. A shut door of access to the people to present God's message.

4. A shut door to the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, since Christ's ministry is now in the Most Holy Place.

When one reads the term "shut door" in a Millerite publication, one has to be careful to choose the correct definition of the term. If the context does not indicate which meaning is intended, it may not be possible to know for sure what the speaker or writer meant.

Further explanations of these four usages follow, taken in part from P. Gerard Damsteegt's Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission, pages 106 ff.

1. Shut "door of mercy" for all sinners. While this was the initial view of the subject, "it was soon abandoned" (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, p. 271). Enoch Jacobs opposed it in November of 1844, claiming it was unbiblical (Western Midnight Cry, Nov. 29, 1844, p. 20). Himes similarly advocated preaching to "lost and perishing sinners" in late December 1844 (Advent Herald, Jan. 15, 1845, p. 182). This gives us an idea of what "soon abandoned" means.

But there were some who adopted strange positions, and incorporated an ongoing version of this view into their theology. According to John Loughborough, Joseph Turner was the originator of this (Great Second Advent Movement, pp. 220 ff.). Loughborough cites Himes's eye-witness account of Turner's views as of the spring of 1845. Turner taught that Christ really had come after all, that now it was a sin to work, and that the door of mercy was shut.

Ellen White was directed by God to oppose Turner's views. Someone had to, for as she described the situation, "honest, precious souls had been rejected by these fanatics, and by them told that they were rejected of God."-Arthur White, vol. 1, p. 83; Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 49-51. Turner's retaliation for the rebuke was most unkind.

2. Shut "door of mercy" for only those who have rejected truth. In contrast to number 1, this view related only to those who had had opportunity to hear the message of a soon-coming Savior, and had rejected it.

J. B. Cook came out strongly for this view in the January 30, 1845, issue of Western Midnight Cry. This was the position that Mrs. White took, and it is biblical. The Bible contains a number of examples of people who rejected truth to the point that they could no longer be reached with the gospel. Even Paul said, "It is impossible ... to renew them again unto repentance" (Heb. 6:4-6).

3. Shut "door of access" to preach the gospel: This view was often espoused along with number 2, and sometimes with number 1. No longer were there the opportunities to preach the gospel that there once had been, for the Lord had shut the "door of access." Scriptures from the New Testament supporting this meaning of "shut door" are found under #58.

Enoch Jacobs, J. B. Cook, and J. D. Pickands were all using the term "door of access" in 1845. Joseph Bates in his 1847 Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps says the same while using different words (pp. 109, 110).

4. Shut door to the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, God's temple in heaven. Mrs. White described her vision of March 24, 1849, using language like this (Early Writings, pp. 42, 86; Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, p. 200). The previous January Joseph Bates was also using such language (A Seal of the Living God, p. 20), language derived from Jesus's message to Philadelphia:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he ... that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth .... I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it .... Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God. (Rev. 3:7-12)

The door to the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary was shut in 1844, but the door to the Most Holy Place was then opened, and Christ's interces­sion continued there.

Chapter 3 isn't the only place where Revelation alludes to these two doors.

After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven. (Rev. 4:1)

And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. (Rev. 4:5)

And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. (Rev. 8:3)

And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament. (Rev. 11:19)

In Revelation 4:1, John sees "a door" "opened in heaven." After going up to heaven he sees seven lamps of fire in 4:5 and a golden altar of incense in 8:3, 4. Since the seven lamps and the golden altar were pieces of furniture in the Holy Place (Ex. 40:24, 26), the first door opened must have been the door to the Holy Place of the heavenly temple. When the temple is "opened" in Revelation 11:19, John sees the ark, a piece of furniture from the Most Holy Place (Ex. 40:21). This opening would therefore be of the second door, the door to the Most Holy Place.

The strong possibility also exists that a Millerite's use of the term "shut door" might refer to the validity of the date October 22, 1844, and nothing more. In other words, some Millerites undoubtedly had a conviction that something was shut on that date, but were not sure what exactly was shut.

It is a fact that not believing in a shut door of some sort was a repudiation of the idea that October 22 was a fulfillment of prophecy. Therefore, belief in a shut door was synonymous with belief in the 2300 days ending in 1844, but not necessarily synonymous with a shut door of mercy.

Let's conclude by returning to the idea of post-1851 "reinterpretations" of non-existent shut-door passages in Mrs. White's writings. As we have seen, defini­tions 2 and 3 surfaced by 1845, and definition 4 by 1849. So having "reinterpretations" after 1851 is a bit late.

#55: "An explanation for the 1844 disappointment had to be found. Two Millerites, Hiram Edson and Mr. Crosier, introduced a new sanctuary theology which taught that instead of Christ coming visibly to earth in 1844, He entered for the first time the Most Holy Place in heaven. This new teaching gave them a way out of their dilemma without actually admitting their error."

#55: They never admitted their error. To the contrary, they did admit their error.

Daniel 8:14 said that at the end of the 2300 days the sanctuary would be cleansed. The Millerites taught that on October 22, 1844, Christ would return. Something obviously went wrong.

There were primarily two possible alternatives: 1) Admit that there was an error in the predicted date of the event of Christ's return. 2) Admit that there was an error in the predicted event for the date of 1844.

Edson and Crosier chose the second alternative. They freely admitted their error in thinking that the predicted cleansing of the sanctuary was the second coming.

That the first alternative, admitting that the date was wrong, was not really plausible, please see #20 and #47.

#56: "Ellen G. White immediately put God's endorsement on this new explanation for the date October 22nd, 1844. 'The Lord shew me in vision more than one year ago that Brother Crosier had the true light of the cleansing of the sanctuary.' A Word to the Little Flock p. 12."

#56: She immediately put God's endorsement on their explanation. Actually, she put God's endorsement on Edson and Crosier's explanation before she heard that they had found an explanation, and even before they had had time to publish it.

Edson and Crosier's findings were printed in the February 7, 1846, issue of the Day-Star, published in Cincinnati. Their findings may have also appeared in an issue of the Canandaigua, New York, Day Dawn in March or April of 1845, though opinions vary on this (Lest We Forget, 3rd qtr., 1994, p. 5; "Day-Dawn" and "Crosier, Owen Russell Loomis," Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia).

However, in mid-February of 1845, Mrs. White had a vision at Exeter, Maine, during her first journey east, the same vision referred to under #50. This vision endorsed Edson and Crosier's ideas:

While in Exeter, Maine .... It was then I had a view of Jesus rising from His mediatorial throne and going to the Holiest as Bridegroom to receive His kingdom. They were all deeply interested in the view. They all said it was entirely new to them.... Previous to this I had no light on the coming of the Bridegroom, but had expected Him to [come to] this earth to deliver His people on the tenth day of the seventh month. I did not hear a lecture or a word in any way relating to the Bridegroom's going to the Holiest. Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, pp. 97, 98.

There was no way she could have heard of Edson and Crosier's study at the time she had this vision.

Typically, someone else found a doctrine in the Bible, and then her visions endorsed it. In this case her visions endorsed the doctrine before she heard of it.

#57: "All doctrines were soon adjusted to fit 1844 as the cleansing of the sanctuary and the beginning of the investigative judgment. [#58:] The shut door had to be opened to allow salvation for their own children who had been born after 1844 and to evangelize others into Adventism. [#59:] Salvation for everyone, even those who lived in Bible times, had to be conditional on this judgment, and so soul sleep was introduced. [#60:] The prophecies of Daniel and Revelation had to be reinterpreted to fit the investigative judgment. [#61:] It was a time of turmoil and doctrinal reversal, but the investigative judgment doctrine survived with Ellen White's stamp of approval."

#57: All doctrines were soon adjusted. And what doctrines were these? The documentation package doesn't explain this statement or list any "adjusted" doctrines. What follows in Mr. Ratzlaff's list doesn't include any doctrines "adjusted" to fit the cleansing of the sanctuary or the investigative judgment. 

#58: That shut door of mercy had to be opened. The shut door was dealt with under #48-#54. We'll add another point here.

What made it so obvious to at least some of the apostolic Christians that the door of mercy was not shut to Gentiles was the fact that the door of access to reach them was now open. After Stephen's stoning in Acts 7, they could preach to Samaritans, Ethiopian eunuchs, and Roman centurions, something they had not been able to do before. So if Peter's vision of Acts 10 wasn't enough to correct their theology, the early church also had the simple fact that now the "door" of access was "opened":

And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed ... how [God] had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. Acts 14:27)

But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. For a great door and effectual is opened unto me. (1 Cor. 16:8, 9)

Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord. (2 Cor. 2:12)

Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ. (Col. 4:3)

If Adventists holding shut-door-of-mercy beliefs allowed it to, Mrs. White's vision of February 1845 corrected their theological misunderstanding. Also, the sanctuary doctrine explained what doors were opened and shut in 1844, and how there was still an open door of mercy into the Most Holy Place. But even though the "door of mercy" was still open, the "door of access" definitely was not.

At first the vast majority of non-Millerites, like the Gentiles in the days of the apostles, had no interest in hearing Adventists preach. The door indeed was shut. But at some point, like in the early church, a change came. The door was opened, and people wanted to listen.

Such an opening of the door would not be an adjustment because of the cleansing of the sanctuary and investigative judgment doctrines, but rather the result of the providence of God and the workings of His Spirit. It was the result of a change in the climate for evangelism, not an "adjustment" of doctrine.

 #59: Soul sleep was introduced because of the investigative judgment. This is not true, and the context of a statement found in the documentation package proves it.

Under "Point 33" is a selection from page 49 of Life Sketches describing Mrs. White's hearing of a sermon on soul sleep some months after a conversation between her and her mother on the same subject. Both the conversation and the sermon took place before October 22, 1844, as the context clearly shows.

Yet the doctrine of the investigative judgment, as understood today, did not come along until after October 22. Thus soul sleep could not have been introduced because of the investigative judgment doctrine.

The phrase "investigative judgment" was coined by Elon Everts in a letter dated December 1856, which was published in the January 1, 1857, issue of Review and Herald (p. 72). It was at this time that the doctrine of the investigative judgment was crystal­lized, though hints of some of its fundamental concepts had surfaced previously.

Prominent Millerite leader, Josiah Litch, suggested as early as 1840 that there had to be a trial phase of judgment before an executive phase. Occasionally, Sabbatarian Adventists would refer to Christ's wearing the "breastplate of judgment" on the Day of Atonement or to judgment beginning at the end of the 2300 years, but at other times they would declare that the Day of Judgment could not begin before the second advent. Not until 1857 was a solid under­standing of the subject arrived at by Sabbatarian Adventists (C. Mervyn Maxwell, "The Investigative Judgment: Its Early Development," in The Sanctuary and the Atonement, pp. 545-581).

So while soul sleep was introduced before October 22, 1844, the doctrine of the investigative judgment was not crystallized and fully formulated until over twelve years after.

Who introduced the concept of soul sleep or, as it is also known, conditional immortality among the pre-1844 Millerites?

Deacon Henry Grew of Philadelphia became a believer in conditional immortality while serving as a Baptist preacher. He later wrote a tract on the subject which was read by George Storrs, a Methodist preacher, in 1837. Storrs then wrote his own tract in 1841, and published six sermons on the subject in 1842. Copies of his six sermons eventually amounted to 200,000, and even reached England.

Just after their publication he heard of Miller's teachings and became a Millerite preacher himself. He preached to thousands in New York, Indiana, and Ohio. A number of Millerite ministers joined with him in his belief on conditional immortality.

Miller, Josiah Litch, I. E. Jones, and the Signs of the Times all came out against his views on conditional immortality, so his views were anything but unanimously held. But the point is that the idea of conditional immortality was definitely introduced before a consensus was reached among Sabbatarian Adventists regarding the investigative judgment (Froom, vol. 4, pp. 805-807; Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 300-315).

As earlier mentioned, Joseph Bates, James White, and Ellen White are viewed as being founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Both Bates and James White were members of the Christian Connection, which "as a body rejected the inherent-immortality­of-the-soul-position" (Ibid., pp. 283, 672, 675). Bates and James were therefore acquainted with the idea long before Storrs introduced the subject among Millerites.

The Bible says:

1. We are to seek immortality (Rom. 2:7).

2. We put on immortality at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53, 54).

3. Only God has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16).

If we must seek it, it must be something we do not yet have. And obviously we don't yet have it. Immortality means "unable to die," and we presently can and do die.

Only upon condition that we accept Jesus as our Savior do we receive immortality at the resurrection. For this reason, "soul sleep" is called "conditional immortality."

 #60: The prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were reinterpreted to fit the investigative judgment. This accusation doesn't really make sense. Once the doctrines of the cleansing of sanctuary and the investigative judgment were formulated, what prophecies needed to be reinterpreted to fit them?

The basic interpretations of Daniel and Revelation were already worked out before October 22, 1844. This was before Edson and Crosier published their study on the cleansing of the sanctuary in 1845 or 1846. It was definitely before Elon Everts helped crystallize the subject of an investigative judgment in 1857.

The documentation package lists this as "Point 34." Under "Point 34" are two pages out of The Great Controversy, but nothing on these two pages refers to a reinterpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation to fit the investigative judgment.

#62 & #63: "The terms of this new investigative judgment doctrine, or sanctuary doctrine as it came to be known, were harsh. It taught that a recording angel now kept track of every move, even to the extent of recording wasted moments, where one might want some leisure time. 'Every man's work passes in review before God and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Opposite each name in the books of Heaven is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs, neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for good or evil, with its far reaching results; all are chronicled by the recording angel.' Great Controversy 482."

#61: It was a time of doctrinal reversal. What doctrines were reversed? The shut door? But Adventists were definitely actively preaching to non­Millerites long before 1857, the "door of access" having opened a number of years earlier. A change in the time to keep the Sabbath (see #164-#174)? Changing by minutes or an hour when to commence the Sabbath wouldn't constitute a doctrinal reversal.

#62: The idea of an angel recording everything is harsh. In essence, this statement asserts that the Bible's teachings are harsh. That there are books of record in heaven is clearly taught by the following verses:

A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. (Dan. 7:10)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Rev. 20:12)

That these books used in the judgment must contain everything we have ever done can be seen from the fact that we will be judged by everything we have ever done: "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Feel. 12:14). Jesus took it one step further by declaring that that includes everything we have ever said as well. So every word we have ever spoken must be recorded too:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Mat. 12:36, 37)

So according to the Bible, the video's declaration that this basic Bible teaching is harsh has been recorded in the books of record in heaven. According to Jesus, the makers of this video will have to "give account thereof in the day of judgment" for this very statement.

#63: This doctrine teaches that you can't have leisure time. There is a typographical error in the above quotation that makes it less understandable. The video mistakenly added a comma. "Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs, neglected, ...." should be "Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected 

As far as wasted moments and leisure time go, technically, the question is how we should spend our leisure time, not whether or not we should have any. Mrs. White was not against people having leisure time. That this must be the case is clear from the following statement written by her in 1867:

I was shown that Sabbathkeepers as a people labor too hard without allowing themselves change or periods of rest. Recreation is needful to those who are engaged in physical labor and is still more essential for those whose labor is principally mental. It is not essential to our salvation, nor for the glory of God, to keep the mind laboring constantly and excessively, even upon religious themes.-Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 514.

Consistently, she advocated using one's leisure time in activities that were beneficial and useful:

As a rule, the exercise most beneficial to the youth will be found in useful employment. The little child finds both diversion and development in play; and his sports should be such as to promote not only physical, but mental and spiritual growth. As he gains strength and intelligence, the best recreation will be found in some line of effort that is useful. That which trains the hand to helpfulness, and teaches the young to bear their share of life's burdens, is most effective in promoting the growth of mind and character.-Education, p. 215.

Who would argue with this? Notice also her concern for children:

Give some of your leisure hours to your children; become acquainted with them; associate with them in their work and in their sports, and win their confidence. Cultivate friendship with them. In this way you will be a strong influence for good.-Review and Herald, May 26, 1910.

And her concern for ministers:

If a minister, during his leisure time, engages in labor in his orchard or garden, shall he deduct that time from his salary? Certainly not, any more than he should put in his time when he is called to work over hours in ministerial labor. Some ministers spend many hours in apparent ease, and it is right that they should rest when they can; for the system could not endure the heavy strain were there no time for letting up. There are hours in the day that call for severe taxation, for which the minister receives no extra salary, and if he chooses to chop wood several hours a day, or work in his garden, it is as much his privilege to do this as to preach. A minister cannot always be preaching and visiting, for this is exhaus­tive work. -Evangelism, p. 660.

While Mrs. White was all for people having leisure time, she was against wasting time. Yet she was not the only Christian leader to call upon believers not to waste time, even moments of time. Consider this selection from Charles Spurgeon, who called wasting time a sin:

I need not stop to mention the various sins of which ye have been guilty.... Oh, do you not think within yourselves, "... Have I not wasted many hours within this week that I might have spent in winning souls to him? Have I not thrown away many precious moments in light and frivolous conversation which I might have spent in earnest prayer?" -The Spurgeon Sermon Collection, vol. 1, p. 1027.

The revivalist Charles Finney called upon the members of the church to use their leisure time in soul winning:

If [church members] have any leisure time, let them then make extraordinary efforts for the conversion of sinners and the sanctification of the Church. This is reasonable, this is right, and I see not how this can be neglected without sin. -Letters on Revival, or Revival Fire, pp. 66, 67.

Would not the world be a better place if every Christian utilized their leisure time in spreading the gospel, helping the poor, teaching their children Bible truths, meditating upon the Word of God, etc.? However, the time many professed Christians spend in some activities of pleasure benefits no one, not even themselves.

#64 & #65: "Truly this doctrine of investigative judgment, unique to Seventh-day Adventists, has colored every other doctrine in the Movement. There has been much controversy and debate since it cannot be supported from the Scriptures."

#64: It's unique to Seventh-day Adventists. This is a bit of an oversimplification, for almost all of the basic elements of this doctrine were taught by others who were neither Seventh-day Adventists nor Millerites:

1. The work of judgment includes an investigation. It seems pretty obvious that the judgment the Bible talks about must include an investigation, or else it really wouldn't be a judgment. The word "investigation" was used by Lactantius (d. 330 AD) in his description of the judgment in Divine Institutes:

Nor, however, let any one imagine that souls are immediately judged after death. For all are detained in one and a common place of confinement, until the arrival of the time in which the great Judge shall make an investigation of their deserts. Then they whose piety shall have been approved of will receive the reward of immortality; but they whose sins and crimes shall have been brought to light will not rise again, but will be hidden in the same darkness with the wicked, being destined to certain punish­ment.-Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, p. 445, 446, italics added.

2. The righteous and wicked receive their rewards after the judgment, not before. Adam Clarke, a prominent Wesleyan commentator from Ireland, said as much in the articles of faith he wrote out not too long after 1783:

XXIX. There will be a general judgment; after which all shall be punished or rewarded, according to the deeds done in the body; and the wicked shall be sent to hell, and the righteous taken to heaven.-J. W. Etheridge, The Life of Rev. Adam Clarke, LL.D., p. 68.

3. The Day of Atonement was a day of judgment. The Puritan writer John Owen back in 1680 listed three tasks that the Old Testament high priest did on the Day of Atonement: " '1. To offer sacrifices to God for the people. 2. To bless the people in the name of God. 3. To judge them.' "-Bryan Ball, The English Connection, p. 303.

4. Judgment begins with the professed people of God, and the judgment of the wicked takes place later. Barton W. Johnson was a Disciples of Christ commentator. In his 1891 People's New Testament, in a comment on 1 Peter 4:17, he wrote: "The time for judgment is come. It begins at the house of God, the church. In Matt., chapter 25, the righteous are judged first."

5. The 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 are 2300 years. The list on this point would get a bit long if it included everyone. Here is a sample of individuals who held this view: the writer of the anonymous pamphlet De Semine in 1205 AD; Villanova in the 1290's; Nicholas of Cusa in 1440; Sir Isaac Newton in 1727; and Judge John Bacon, a Congregational clergyman from Massachusetts, in 1799. Jewish expositors who held the same view include: Nahawendi in the 8th or 9th century; Bar Hiyya about the 11th century; and Abravanel about the 15th century.

6. The 70 weeks of Daniel 9 are part of the 2300 years. The notes found in the Berlenburg Bible, which was finished in 1739, state the same. This Bible was popular among German Baptists, and has the honor of being the first Bible printed in America, in 1743.

7. The 70 weeks and the 2300 days begin at the same time. This sounds similar to point 6, but while the Berlenburg Bible taught point 6, it did not teach this point. Besides Johann Petri in 1768 (see #5), this view was held by: William C. Davis, Presbyterian minister from South Carolina, in 1811; Dr. Joshua L. Wilson, Presbyterian minister and General Assembly moderator from Ohio, in a sermon first preached in 1828; Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ, in an 1829 debate in Ohio; and Samuel M. M'Corkle, a Disciples of Christ layman from Tennessee, in 1830.

Did any of these folk get their ideas from William Miller? No, for Miller didn't start preaching until 1831.

8. The 70 weeks begin with the seventh year of Artaxerxes. This view was held by: Samuel Osgood, American soldier, legislator, and Postmaster General, in 1794; George Stanley Faber, prebendary of Salisbury Cathedral, in 1811; and Thomas Scott, Church of England commentator, in 1812.

9. The 70 weeks begin in 457 BC. This view was held by: Robert Reid, Reformed Presbyterian minister of Pennsylvania and president of Erie Academy, in 1828; and Miss Harriet Livermore, "first woman ever to speak publicly within the walls of the U.S. Congress," in 1839.

10. The first 69 weeks of the 70 end with Christ's baptism. The 1599 Geneva Bible's footnote for Daniel 9:25 plainly teaches this.

11. The 2300 days end around 1843. This view was held by: John A. Brown of England in 1811; Archibald Mason, Reformed Presbyterian minister in Scotland, in 1820; and William Cuninghame, Esquire of Lainshaw in Scotland, in 1826.

Many, many expositors could be added who felt that the 2300 days would end in 1843, 1844, or 1847, three dates that were essentially the same. The 1843 group started with Artaxerxes' seventh year in 457 BC and calculated forward to 1843. The 1844 group took into account the fact that there was no year 0, making 2300 full years end in 1844 instead of 1843 (cf. #16). The 1847 group thought Christ was born in the year 0 instead of 4 BC. They then calculated back from Christ's time to determine when was Artaxerxes's seventh year, and arrived at 453 BC instead of 457 BC. Beginning the 2300 days at this four-year-off date, they then arrived at 1847 AD.

12. Daniel 8:14 is talking about a) the antitypical Day of Atonement services in b) the heavenly sanctuary. Of all the basic aspects of the investigative judgment doctrine, these appear to be the only ones that are truly unique to Seventh-day Adventists. Yet they are very natural conclusions if one already believes the other aspects.

(Information above not already referenced is taken from Leroy Froom's Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers. See the summary charts in vol. 1, pp. 894, 895; vol. 2, pp. 156, 157, 194, 784, 785; vol. 3, pp. 252, 253, 744, 745; vol. 4, 396, 397, 404, 405. See also the pages in Froom cited in these charts.)

 #65: The doctrine of the investigative judgment cannot be supported by the Scriptures. Let's see if that's true.

The Bible teaches that before God hands down a sentence or executes judgment, He always investi­gates the facts of the case, even though He already knows everything. First He searches hearts, then He rewards:

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (Gen. 3:9-11)

And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? (Gen. 4:9)

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. (Gen. 11:5)

And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. (Gen. 18:20, 21)

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. (Rev. 2:23)

Repeatedly, Jesus foretold that God will separate the wheat from the tares, the good fish from the bad, the sheep from the goats, the righteous from the wicked (Mat. 13:30, 48; 25:32, 33). One would think He would precede this with an investigation too, just like He did with Adam, Cain, Babel, and Sodom. Indeed, Jesus foretold that right before the wedding, just such an investigation will occur of all professed believers, all who respond to the gospel:

So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen. (Mat. 22:10-14)

This wedding occurs at the end of time (Rev. 19:7­9). So near the end of time before the rewards are passed out, an investigative judgment will occur. But that's not all.

Daniel 7 discusses a succession of empires and ends with the judgment. Daniel 8 discusses a succession of empires and ends with the cleansing of the sanctuary. Would not therefore the judgment and the cleansing of the sanctuary be the same event?

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein" (Rev. 11:1). What does it mean to measure the worshippers? "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Mat. 7:2). So measuring the temple, altar, and worshippers means that the temple, altar, and worshippers are being judged.

It just so happens that these same three entities being judged in Revelation 11 are the same three entities being cleansed on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. Revelation is thus tying together the Day of Atonement's cleansing of the sanctuary with the judgment.

In fact, the Hebrew word for "cleansed" in Daniel 8:14 is used in Deuteronomy 25:1 to refer to judicial acquittal. Daniel 8:14 might therefore be interpreted to mean, "then shall the sanctuary be acquitted in court." Thus Daniel 8:14 itself suggests a connection between the judgment and the cleansing of the sanctuary.

And if all that's not enough, take a look at Revelation 10.

And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, ... And he had in his hand a little book open:... And the angel ... lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever.... that there should be time no longer. (Rev. 10:1-6)

Now compare this with Daniel 12.

But thou, 0 Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:... How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, ... when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half all these things shall be finished.... And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.... But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. (Dan. 12:4-13)

Several facts may be noted:

1. The two passages are connected, since in both we have an angel lifting his hand to heaven and swearing by Him who lives forever. This suggests that the open book of Revelation 10 is the book of

Daniel, once closed but now unsealed.

2. Daniel is told that his book is to be sealed until the "time of the end." Then he hears the question asked, When will that end be?

3. The answer given involves the 1260-day time prophecy, a prophecy found seven times in Daniel and Revelation. Sometimes it is said to be 1260 days, sometimes 42 months, and sometimes 3 1/2 years ([1] time + [2] times + 1/2 time = 3 1/2 times or years; cf. Rev. 12:6, 14).

4. After giving this answer, the angel tells Daniel a second time that his book will be sealed till the time of the end, and then he connects this time of the end with the "end of the days."

What part of Daniel was sealed so that it could not be understood until the end of the 1260-day time prophecy? The head of gold in chapter 2 was identified as being Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom of Babylon. Daniel 8 identifies the next two empires as being that of Medo-Persia and Grecia. These things were never sealed. They've always been understood.

But there was one part that was specifically said to be sealed:

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred [evening-morning]; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.... Understand, 0 son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.... And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.... and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. (Dan. 8:14-27)

Thus the one part specifically said to be sealed until the end of the 1260 days is the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. It is that prophecy, therefore, that is unsealed and opened in Revelation 10. When the angel in Revelation 10:6 declares, "There should be time no longer," he must therefore be announcing the approaching end of the 2300 days.

Do you see the point? While Revelation 11:1 ties together the judgment with Leviticus 16's cleansing of the sanctuary, Revelation 10 ties both these subjects together with the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14.

Before moving on, we should address a few questions that are sometimes raised regarding the identity of the horn that desolates the sanctuary in Daniel 8. The four universal kingdoms brought to view in chapters 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel, as most agree, are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome. In Daniel 8, since the ram and goat are identified by Gabriel as being Medo-Persia and Grecia, one would think that the horn that comes after them and waxes "exceeding great" should be the next kingdom in the series, Rome. Some, however, identify this horn as being Antiochus Epiphanes, a Grecian king of the Seleucid dynasty. Yet there are some problems with this view:

[The ram] became great.... Therefore the he goat waxed very great .... a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. (Dan. 8:4-9)

Clearly, the little horn must become greater than either Medo-Persia or Alexander's Grecian empire in three directions in a precise order. Antiochus's conquests, pseudo-conquests, and failures never attained to the glory of Cyrus the Great or Alexander. He went east last, not second, and perished there. In stark contrast, Rome excelled all in might, annexing Carthage to its south first, Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt to the east second, and Judea third. Thus Rome fulfilled the prophecy to a "T," even getting the order of conquest right.

The position that Daniel 8's little horn had something to do with pagan and/or papal Rome was held by such greats in the past as Martin Luther (1522), Philip Melanchthon (1543), Heinrich Bullinger (1557), George Downham (1603), Sir Isaac Newton (1727), the Berlenburg Bible (1743), Thomas Newton (1754), and John William Fletcher (1800) (Froom, vol. 2, pp. 269, 270, 289, 290, 343, 535, 662, 685, 688, 703, 784, 785).

In the typical service only those who had come before God with confession and repentance, and whose sins, through the blood of the sin offering, were transferred to the sanctuary, had a part in the service of the Day of Atonement. So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God. - Great Controversy, p. 480.

If one reads through the first chapters of Leviticus, one finds that through the blood of the sin offerings, the sins of the repentant were transferred to the sanctuary throughout the year. It was these sins that the sanctuary was cleansed of on the Day of Atonement. All this in Old Testament times was but a symbol of the gospel. The sins of the penitent are transferred to the heavenly sanctuary through the blood of Jesus. It is these sins that the sanctuary is being cleansed of during the investigative judgment.

"But," says the objector, "it is the little horn that defiles the sanctuary in Daniel 8, not the sins of God's people." To this we reply that as the above quote indicates, Adventists have always said that the investigative judgment involves "the professed people of God." Rome during most of its 2000 years of dominance in international affairs (c. 200 BC - 1798 AD) definitely qualified as being part of that group.

Moreover, the only passage that describes the Day of Atonement services prefaces that description with, "And the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died" (Lev. 16:1). The two sons of Aaron were Nadab and Abihu, two priests that went astray by substituting the wrong kind of fire for what God had specified to be used in His worship services (Lev. 10:1, 2).

Daniel 8 prefaces the cleansing of the sanctuary with a description of the little horn. The authorities referred to above identified this little horn as being, at least in part, priests who had gone astray by substituting a different form of worship than the one God had specified in the Bible. Thus we have yet another connection between Daniel 8 and the Day of Atonement services of Leviticus 16.

Most certainly, the doctrine of the investigative judgment can be "supported from the Scriptures."

#66, #67, & #68: "This central Adventist doctrine, which states that the judgment of believers' works will determine their salvation, is blatantly unbiblical, and is not taught by any legitimate Christian denomination."

#66: They teach that the judgment of believers' works determines their salvation. Technically, using the way evangelicals popularly use the term "saved," this charge is not true.

A lot depends on how we define the term "salvation." The plan of redemption includes a number of aspects:

1. Justification: pardon and conversion.

2. Sanctification: the believer's daily growth in Christ.

3. Glorification: the "redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:23), when we receive bodies that will never die.

Each of these three is a miracle of divine grace and is based on the finished work of Christ on Calvary's cross, not on our own works. Each is likewise made possible today through the intercession of Christ.

Some use the word "salvation" to mean only justification, while others use it to mean both justification and sanctification, while still others use it to mean all three. Later on, the video explicitly uses the term "saved" to mean only justification (see #143). But that cannot be the meaning here, for this statement mentions "believers' works." If they are already believers, then they must be already justified and converted, as well as daily growing in grace. So the video itself is using more than one definition of the word "saved," and the viewer should take note of this fact.

A major problem is that most evangelicals who hear the above statement from the video will think of justification when the video is really referring to glorification.

Adventists do not believe that works determine justification for the simple reason that individuals cannot perform good works (in the New Testament sense) until they are justified and converted. Until that point, all works are tainted by selfishness and are essentially "works of the flesh" (see Gal. 5:16-25).

They do believe, however, that justification occurs on condition of repentance and confession, and most nearly everyone agrees. Repentance and confession do not buy justification and conversion, but they are conditions for receiving this free gift of God.

Adventists also believe that glorification, and the retaining forever of justification and sanctification, are conditional. The investigative judgment determines who has complied with the conditions and who has not. What those conditions are is dealt with under the next point.

Many evangelicals disagree with the concept that glorification is conditional, since many believe that justification cannot be lost. We respect those who disagree, and we hope they will likewise respect us, for this Adventist belief is by no means uncommon in Christianity.

Does one have to accept Christ in order to have one's name written in the book of life?

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life. (John 3:36)

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 Jn. 5:12)

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already. (John 3:18)

These texts indicate that the answer is yes. Only the names of believers are written there. Once written, can they ever be blotted out?

Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin-; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. (Ex. 32:32, 33)

Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. (Ps. 69:28)

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Rev. 3:5)

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev. 22:19)

So it is possible to have one's name blotted out of the book of life. And where do those whose names do not appear there end up? "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15).

It is apparent, then, that an individual can be justified, and then later turn away from God and be lost. This concept explains the following Scripture, which is difficult to explain otherwise:

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:29)

So someone can be sanctified by the blood of Christ, and then be lost. This is why Peter says, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure" (2 Pet. 1:10). Just being called and chosen isn't enough. We have to "make" them "sure."

And yet we have Jesus saying:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. (John 10:27-29)

Notice that it is those that the Father gives to Jesus who can't be taken out of His hand. Now consider the following: "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gayest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12). The Father gave the disciples to Jesus, and "no man" could take them out of Jesus hand. Yet one was lost, Judas Iscariot. It would appear, then, that "no man" does not include the one who is in the hand. While no one can take us out of Jesus hand, we can take ourselves out!

 #67: This is blatantly unbiblical. Not so. The Bible clearly says that obedience and holiness are conditions for the retention of justification and the reception of glorification:

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. (Heb. 12:14)