Seventh-Day Adventists/The Investigative Judgement
QUESTION: Dear Tom,
I have a question concerning the 1844 Investigative Judgement (IJ). You see, first i believed the IJ because of what the SOP tells us. Then i found out the gospel and the IJ contradict each other and i was totally convinced by Dr. Desmond his point of view concerning the IJ. I already made up my mind that the IJ was an erroneous teaching. However, i found video presentations and a website of a pastor named Herb Kersten. He tries to reconciliate the gospel with the Investigative Judgement. Since you are a truth-digger like me, would u mind visiting his website and read his articles concerning 1844 and shed your personal opinion on this matter? Here is the link with the relevant documents: http://www.hkea.org.au/index_files/daniel.htm
. Basically he is saying that the heavenly sanctuary has no different apartments, yet does have different phases. He also says that if you read the original Greek/Hebrew the IJ can be substantiated by scripture. Anyways i would very much appreciate it if you red his articles and share your opinion.
ANSWER: Excellent Question: Can the doctrine of the IJ be defended and rehabilitated today? Was Dr. Ford wrong?
Answer: Absolutely not!
No one today should be fooled by the endless double-talk and dishonest propaganda of the SDA Denomination. They no longer care about historical accuracy, doctrinal truth, or theological progress. They have degenerated into a bureaucratic, controlling cult that has no intention of seeking truth, much less repenting and correcting the record. Let all beware.
The late 20th century debate about the IJ culminated in the trial of Dr. Desmond Ford in 1980, at Glacier View, Colorado. At that time, Dr. Ford, a longtime SDA scholar, disproved this doctrine for all to see.
While the vast majority of SDA scholars, including Raymond Cottrell, embraced this new, Gospel view, the church's top leaders refused to admit any error or repent. Thus Dr. Ford was exiled for telling the truth about the Gospel, church history, and the historic fundamentals that define the Advent Movement.
Such outrageous and unchristian behavior by the leaders raised a great outcry from many SDA’s, setting off a firestorm of protest that has only increased over the years. Glacier View caused a great and ongoing schism in the Adventist Community. The very fact we are having a discussion about it so many years after Glacier View, underscores the power of this Gospel conflict that has never been resolved by Adventists.
Glacier View explains why MILLIONS have left the SDA church, and why the SDA’s have not been able to grow in North America since 1980. They will never become credible or grow until they repent for their great sin of rejecting the Gospel and knowingly embracing false doctrine and manipulated church history.
Thanks to Glacier View, the SDA’s are no longer viewed as credible by the majority of their own members, much less by those outside the denomination, who loudly call them a cult. Anyone today can go online and view the legions of websites by former SDA’s who repudiate the IJ and have left the church. This site is no exception.
Leaving the SDA Church
Why People Leave the SDA Church
Why So Many Leave
Leaders Refuse To Repent
In spite of a mountain range of evidence proving Dr. Ford correct, and millions of members now leaving the church, the SDA leaders refused to admit that Glacier View was a horrible mistake. Even when thousands of hidden documents were discovered in the White Estate that vindicated Dr. Ford’s position, they would not confess and repent.
In fact, they continued to slander Dr. Ford pretending he was wrong, even evil, when this was never the case. In 1980, propaganda and error became official truth as the SDA’s, - and for the first time in their history, they produced a written Creed. And now they were going to defend the 27 Fundamentals as the new mission of the church.
Dr. Ford Correct
Let all understand that Dr. Ford was correct in 1980, and he is still correct today. There is no such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible. There never has been such a doctrine, and there never will be. Which is why this teaching has never been embraced, at any time, by any church or denomination, much less the by the apostles or the early church. The IJ is great error, for which the SDA’s alone must repent. And unless they do, they are doomed!
Moreover, Dr. Ford was also correct to state that the IJ, also known as the pre-advent judgment, was NEVER a “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages, much less in the 1st Angels Message. The denomination has been wrong for years on this point, and they are still wrong today. Facts do not change. The record of church history is clear on this point. There was no pre-advent judgment in Historic Adventism.
Dr. Ford only pointed out a fact of history, which could not be refuted. His prophetic view about the IJ was the same as Ellen White and all the Pioneers. Not one of them ever taught or said what the White Estate claimed about the IJ being a fundamental pillar from historic Adventism that could not be examined or changed. Not one of them said that the IJ was part of the 1st Angels Message. Only the 2nd Coming was the Judgment “pillar.” Not the IJ, as the incompetent and legalistic 20th century SDA's taught.
Dr. Ford was correct and his critics very uniformed and wrong about how the Pioneers viewed the IJ. The Takoma Park apologists had been teaching myths for so long that they were treated as facts. And they didn’t appreciate anyone trying to correct their well-published views about the doctrinal development of the Denomination.
But guess what? This website refused to investigate how the Pioneers viewed the IJ. Why? Because they know that to do so would prove Dr. Ford correct on a very critical point of Adventist eschatology. A point, which exposes the pro-IJ crowd as incompetent, even blind and hypocritical.
Dr. Ford is an expert in eschatology. The IJ is just one doctrine of many within the larger eschatological context of the Three Angels Messages. Anyone trying to understand, much less refute Dr. Ford’s view of the IJ, must start from an eschatological context.
Let’s see if this supposed cross-examination of Dr. Ford’s theology has enough sense to deal with the IJ from an eschatological point of view. This would be the correct place to start any examination of this supposedly prophetic doctrine, which was invented in 1857. After all, their board is full of Pastors, Evangelists, and Health Care people. Plus, they had a dozen others read this manuscript, including Ángel M. Rodríguez, Th.D. from the Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference.
So what date will become the starting point for this so called study? 1844, 1857, 1888, or 1980?
How can the IJ be studied from 2004 onward? That is an absurd place to study something that is supposedly dated to 1844 and that was invented in 1857. This makes no sense unless you understand what is taking place. The crafty SDA’s are experts at propaganda. They know that if they started an “examination” of the IJ based on the facts, that they would look foolish and lose the debate. So they ignore the heart of the debate and pretend the historical and theological context does not matter! What wolves these SDA’s are!
Listen to their double-talk:
"Where to start?"
“Dr Ford’s work begins with an examination of the SDA pioneer position. Because the doctrine was under development by the pioneers and in the interests of brevity my focus will be on what the SDA position is on the matter in 2004. If today’s position is incorrect then it is likely the pioneers were also in error. This approach saves time and avoids encyclopedic mass.” Introduction, Page 4.
While these great defenders of the IJ admit, “Dr Ford’s work begins with an examination of the SDA pioneer position,” they claim they don’t have enough time to go back in history and look at the facts. So in the “interests of brevity” they will focus on what the church teaches today, and assume it correct and true.
Since when is “brevity” more important than “truth”?
One cannot examine the IJ without going back and seeing how it was understood by the Pioneers that invented it. This is fundamental to any honest and fair study. And all these educated men know this point. However, they are hell bent on trying to discredit Dr. Ford’s work, knowing full well they cannot do it honestly. So they have to manipulate the data, or in this case completely ignore it.
People who act this way are called wolves, hypocrites and Pharisees. The word liar is not too strong. The NT does not support such behavior. This SDA website, and this document to prove the IJ, and the people who support it, are not being truthful or honest.
Col. 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
Eph. 4:25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR, for we are members of one another.
While the author talks about “evidence,” they run from the very evidence that condemns their position. So they ignore what they don’t like and try to confuse people on other grounds, like the OT book of Daniel. They even pretend that this is a Gospel book, when it is not. This is an absurd claim, one that the NT does not support, much less a casual reading of this OC work.
While the author claims that his paper is “driven by Dr Ford’s propositions regarding the investigative judgment arising out of sanctuary issues,” this is not true. The paper overlooks and ignores how the IJ fits into the eschatological development of the Advent Movement, even as it presumes to have a better understanding of the book of Daniel than Dr. Ford, a world-class scholar and expert. (p2)
Moreover, this author does not understand Gospel, which is a different doctrine, not to be confused with the IJ. So when he says that he will judge Dr. Ford’s view of the IJ with his SDA view of the Gospel, he is wasting everyone’s time; it will not work because he does not understand the Gospel, or the IJ.
To be blunt, the author does not know what is talking about. His excuse that Dr. Ford overwhelmed the church with too much information in 1980, and that since that time new information has been found to refute him is utter nonsense and wishful thinking. I am stunned at such an untruthful and outrageous position. But this is how the SDA’s are today. They are corrupt to the core.
Listen to this confused author:
“In 1980 Dr Ford challenged traditional Adventist teaching on the investigative judgment. They said: “It may be that the Church was caught somewhat unprepared to deal with the volume of material Dr Ford brought to bear at that time. It is not so today.”
“A similar situation in 2004 would probably yield a different outcome as many resources are now available which were unavailable then. Authoritative material is readily available in electronic form, facilitating research. Scholars worldwide from different persuasions can be readily contacted by email and the internet burgeons with vast material of varying quality. The information age of 2004 provides ready access to materials that were limited to the select few in 1980.” (page 3)
So Dr. Ford would lose a debate about the IJ today? That is absurd. Facts do not change. The IJ cannot be defended on any level today, and neither can the false Gospel of the SDA’s or their legalistic view of the Sabbath, etc.
To prove this point, here is a link to some online discussions about 1844 and the IJ with Clifford Goldstein. Although he wrote a book about 1844, and became a leading apologist against Dr. Ford, he was unable to defend his book or even enter a debate about the IJ with Tom Norris. This author would fare no better.
1844 Made Simple-2002
1844 Made Simple- 2006
Today, no SDA scholar, historian, or apologist, can defend the IJ against those who have the facts. The IJ is a doctrine so false and misunderstood, that anyone who tries would be instantly embarrassed for all to see, which is why Clifford Goldstein ran away, refusing to have any such debate about his book to defend the IJ. Just read the above discussion and watch Goldstein run away. All the SDA’s run away from the facts, even as they refuse to repent and correct the record.
The IJ is an eschatological doctrine and it must first and foremost be understood in this proper theological and historical context. The 20th century leaders were not being accurate or honest about Ellen Whites view of the IJ or her definition of the Three Angels Messages. The leaders also misunderstood and misrepresented her view about the law and the Gospel. And when confronted with the facts by Dr Ford, Tom Norris, and others they refuse to repent or correct the record. This is not acceptable.
Most did not realize that the church leaders were pretending that Dr. Ford was in error, taking positions against Ellen White, - when they were the one’s doing that, not Dr. Ford! And they are still playing this same game, refusing to study the facts that prove them wrong. This is why no one should trust the SDA’s about anything. They have proven themselves unable to tell the truth, unwilling to admit error and repent.
Dr. Ford Interview by Tom Norris
Let all beware the SDA's.
Three Major Error’s
The road to Glacier View was paved with great error about Ellen White, church history, and the Gospel. Here are three major points that contribute to the confusion about the pre-Advent Judgment, also known as the IJ. Unless the Adventist Community can comprehend these facts, they will never be able to understand the real Pre- Advent Judgment, much less the Gospel.
1. Hermeneutics & Ellen White
The real Ellen White of Battle Creek had no doctrinal authority, nor were any of her writings allowed to be read from the pulpit or printed in the Sabbath School lessons. --But the White Estate took the opposite position, flooding the Denomination with some of her writings while hiding others. They manipulated Ellen White’s writings, even pretending that they must be followed like scripture.
The real Ellen White would have rejected such a hermeneutic, even as she would have agreed with Dr. Ford at Glacier View. She would have said that unless the Bible clearly teaches any doctrine, much less the IJ, that it must have the proper support from the scriptures, and only the scriptures. She would have never told anyone to believe in the IJ because she said so. Thus the leaders were incorrectly taking many positions in the name of Ellen White that she did not support.
Anyone today who uses Ellen White to support doctrine, are misusing Ellen White. Her writings are not to be used to define doctrine; only the Bible can do that. This is what the original SDA’s, including Ellen White taught. Thus the White Estate has been wrong all these years.
2. The Judgment Pillar in Rev 14:7
Regardless of the claims made by the leaders to embrace Ellen White’s supposed view of the IJ, there is a major problem: The real Ellen White never believed or taught that the IJ was a fundamental Pillar in any of the Three Angels Messages. --But the White Estate claimed it to be in the 1st Angels Message. Thus traditional, Takoma Park Adventism manufactured and promoted a myth about the IJ, one that no Battle Creek SDA embraced.
The Takoma Park apologists claimed “the hour of his Judgment has come” represented the IJ, and thus it was the “judgment pillar” from the 1st Angels Message; off limits for discussion or change. But this was never true. And Dr. Ford proved this point of history in his large Glacier View manuscript, but the leaders were blind to the facts, which condemned them.
This point alone demolishes the IJ, because it was never a “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages. And Ellen White never said otherwise. She is in total agreement with Dr. Ford’s view, which is not a matter of opinion, but, one of historical fact.
The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message
3. Law & Gospel:
While Ellen White never viewed the IJ as the judgment pillar of Rev 14, she did believe that such a celestial judgment started in 1844, as all the Battle Creek SDA’s concluded just before the start of the American Civil War. This new interpretation about the sanctuary made sense at this time because they had became very legalistic due to their emphasis on the law and the Sabbath. Sanctification and obedience to the law became part of the SDA view of the Gospel, which is no Gospel at all.
However, the IJ, which was not invented until 1857, was a minor issue in Battle Creek, not even codified until the 1870’s by Uriah Smith. This unique doctrine would only become the topic of debate in the late 20th century, where it was given official approval at Glacier View in 1980. It was used to support a legalistic and false Gospel that blended both Justification by Faith and Sanctification into a false, Roman Catholic Gospel.
While Ellen White was a legalist, as they all were in Battle Creek, she repudiated her error and embraced Luther's Gospel during the 1888 Gospel debates. She also tried to reform the Denomination to accept Luther’s view about the law Galatians, which she declared was truth from Heaven.
But Uriah Smith refused to repent, and Ellen White was exiled to Australia. Then the Battle Creek Empire subsequently collapsed into a well-deserved schism, which is why the church leaders moved to Takoma Park, vowing to cover up what had taken place in Battle Creek.
In the 20th century, Ellen White died, but the White Estate refused to tell her story. They hid the 1888 debate, as well as Ellen White’s changed positions, and promoted her pre- 1888 legalism instead. They also invented this myth about the IJ being in the 1st Angels message; the reason why the SDA church existed. When Dr. Ford confronted these myths, the church refused to repent and correct them.
Glacier View A Sham
Glacier View was a sham; with thousands of Ellen White documents hidden from the church at that time, the Adventist Community was misled and deceived by the Review and the White Estate, and to this day, the leaders refuse to confess, much less correct the record about 1844 and 1888.
So when an SDA says: “I believed the IJ because of what the SOP tells us,” they are being misled. The White Estate has not honestly or accurately explained Ellen White’s true views about the IJ or the Gospel. She never, never, never, claimed that the IJ was a “pillar,” nor did she say it was beyond investigation or correction. The White Estate was knowingly deceiving the Adventist Community. They were manipulating Ellen White for their own twisted purposes, deceiving millions in one of the largest Publishing scandals of all time.
Here is what the real Ellen White would say about the IJ:
“There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation…”
“We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.”
Ellen White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pages 33-42
So the real, post 1888, Ellen White is nothing like a Traditional Adventist who declares the IJ a sacred pillar that defines the church. This idea that Ellen White would have supported the exile of Dr. Ford at Glacier View is impossible and absurd. The real Ellen White would have supported him, even as she would have repudiated the so-called fundamentals of Traditional Adventism. She would also have demanded that the White Estate confess and repent for their great deception about her views.
Post Glacier View Errors
The backlash from Glacier View was devastating to the Denomination. Many were angry and upset that the church was embracing legalism and moving away from a Bible only hermeneutic. It was clear that a schism was going to take place, and this forced the leaders into action. But they once again choose the wrong path.
In an effort to placate the members and stop the mass exodus, the leaders introduced pluralism. This was a policy designed to allow the members to hold differing positions about doctrine. Perhaps this would settle things down and allow those who supported Dr. Ford’s view to remain in the church? But this just made matters worse, angering the conservatives and further exposing the fact that the church was divided about the Gospel and the IJ, and very confused about Ellen White.
Rather than apologize to Dr. Ford and correct their false views about the IJ, Ellen White, and the Three Angels Messages, as well as the Gospel, the corrupt leaders determined to launch a propaganda campaign to discredit Dr. Ford. This included setting up a committee, DARCOM, to pretend that the IJ was a true doctrine.
This website boldly embraces and supports DARCOM, pretending it to be an honest refutation of Dr. Ford’s theology, when it is only rank propaganda. Those who support error and false doctrine are running this site. Listen to their endorsement of DARCOM:
“Criticism of the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 continues to be ventilated by some folk who may be misinformed because out-dated arguments continue to be belabored which have been discredited since the release of DARCOM and other SDA works.”
But DARCOM is nothing but worthless propaganda and double talk by those too proud to admit they are wrong. Here is a link to a discussion about DARCOM:
Official Anti-Ford Publications- DARCOM
In addition to the fraud of DARCOM, the leaders have spent many MILLIONS $$ on what was essentially a “counter-reformation” against Dr. Ford’s Protestant view of the Gospel. The Adventist church now exists to promote false doctrine and propaganda. This is the practical mission of the SDA hierarchy today.
A decade or so after Glacier View, as part of this Counter Reformation, the Denomination embarked on a massive online campaign to encourage, fund, and promote legions of websites that show the IJ and other SDA errors in the best light possible. Many of them are ”stealth “ sites, meaning that they do not identify themselves as SDA.
This site you asked about is part of this massive “counter-reformation” against the Gospel by the unrepentant SDA’s. They claim to be one of 324,000 such sites that embrace the IJ, proving that if you are a billion dollar church, you can pay people to make truth seem to be whatever you can afford. Sad. Let all beware the SDA’s. They have more money than brains, ethics, or truth.
“At last count the internet yielded 324,000 sites for the investigative judgment.” (page1)
But for every new site that defends the IJ, two seem to come online to refute it, so this plan is not working. The Internet has leveled the playing field, and thus anyone can go online and see legions of angry, former SDA’s testifying to the great errors of the IJ. Even though many today have never heard of Dr. Ford or Glacier View, they still discover the facts and reach their own conclusions, and then leave the church.
The SDA’s have become a dishonest and confused cult, full of corruption and double-talk, all in the name of God. No one should support them in any way. To do so, is to sin against the truth of the Gospel and the teachings of Christ.
New SDA Views About the IJ
After Glacier View, the credibility of the SDA’s started falling, and so too their membership. Many of the church leaders were embarrassed that the IJ was so legalistic. However, rather then admit their error and apologize to Dr. Ford, the leaders tried to spin the IJ into a more Gospel friendly doctrine. Thus they began to teach that God was on trial in the IJ, and this “celestial investigation” was for the good of the universe, to make God seem more fair.
Of course the Pioneers never took such a position, but that made no difference to those who cared so little for truth. The SDA’s will do anything and say anything to try and keep their dishonest empire from total collapse.
Another post Glacier View change to the IJ was to eliminate the two different apartments, which was a very important and critical part of the original 19th century doctrine. They also replaced the term IJ with the “pre-advent judgment,” all in an attempt to try and make false doctrine credible and deceive the public.
Updated SDA Gospel Still Wrong
The real debate about the IJ is about the Gospel, the foundational pillar of the Advent Movement and the Christian church. Those SDA’s who invented and promoted IJ did not understand the Gospel. They were great legalists who taught that obedience to the Moral law was necessary for salvation.
When the 20th century debate erupted about the IJ in the 1970’s, it was really a debate about the Gospel. Those like Dr. Ford, who understood the Gospel correctly, could no longer reconcile the IJ doctrine with the Protestant Gospel, and this is what led to Glacier View.
Thus Dr. Ford had an opposing view of both the Gospel and Judgment, the first two “pillars” in the Three Angels Messages. He was correct on both points.
Dr. Ford’s promoted a powerful and correct Gospel, which he refused to recant. He educated many about the Gospel, and when exiled, many left the church as a matter of Gospel duty. Realizing this problem, the SDA’s have tried to adjust their semantics about the Gospel, making it sound better and more appealing. But they refused to address the core issue, which is to remove law keeping from the definition of the Gospel.
In fact, after Glacier View, many SDA apologists and evangelists started quoting Dr. Ford, even though they still refuted his correct theology. This officially endorsed evangelistic website is full of such diversion and dishonesty. The word Gospel, and righteousness by faith, is everywhere, and so too many other uncredited Gospel quotes from Dr. Ford, which are all used out of context, twisted to mean the opposite of what the Protestant Gospel teaches.
But regardless, at the end of this apologetic, it still comes down to obeying the law for the SDA’s, and anyone who embraces the IJ. This is the great error of the old Covenant minded SDA’s. Which is why it makes sense to them that God would conduct a “Celestial Judgment” in deep outer space to see how well a Christian obeyed the Moral law. Such an “Investigation” will reveal how well one did with his or her sanctification. Listen to this tired double-talk:
“What does the gospel save you from? It saves you from the penalty of sin – eternal death. It saves you from the guilt that sin brings. It saves you from the power of sin. It saves you from the presence of sin when Jesus returns.”
“We are saved by faith alone in Christ’s achievements alone, but saving faith is never alone – it is always accompanied by a willingness to obey God in everything.”
This is code for legalism and a false Gospel, which is accompanied with a false view of the Sabbath, and a many other errors, like tithing and Jewish food laws.
22 Points of Error:
In chapter 10, the author puts forth what he claims is a “summary” of Dr. Ford’s positions against the IJ. He will attempt to deal with each one and show it to be wrong. But as we shall see, he is not grasping the proper points or being honest with the issues.
The author states:
“Dr Ford lists 22 points1 as representative of a prolonged series of assumptions and inferences that provide “perilous dependence” for the Adventist position on the sanctuary interpretation of 1844 and the investigative judgment.”
“For those who do not have the time to read Dr Ford’s “Dan 8:14 The Day of Atonement and The Investigative Judgment” it is fair to say that his 22 points summarise the entirety of the publication. “ (See page 124)
As usual, when it comes to the IJ, the SDA’s are full of dishonest double-talk and diversion. They refuse to come to grips with the issues, choosing instead to play games. So we must PROTEST what is taking place here. The author has NOT been fair to claim that these 22 points “summerize the entirety of” Dr. Ford’s large publication against the IJ. While they are still true points that cannot be refuted by honest scholars, they do not represent the main points that Dr. Ford has presented.
So rather then get lost in the technical and diversionary debate about the start of the 2,300 day prophecy, and the “year day principle,” or the merits of the historicists viewpoint, let’s cut to the chase and deal with the top 7 reasons why the IJ is false and impossible doctrine. While there are scores of reasons why the IJ is wrong, let’s just deal with the general points that repudiate this false doctrine. This will not only save time but honestly deal with the real issues.
7 Irrefutable points
Here are 7 irrefutable points that prove the IJ wrong. The first one alone, is sufficient to reject it, and so too any of the others. None of these points were properly addressed by this dishonest website, much less refuted.
1. Jesus does not support the SDA interpretation of Dan 8:14; He embraces another view, which all that follow Christ must also embrace.
2. The Pre-Advent Judgment of the Church cannot be in the OT or the book of Daniel. If the PAJ exists at all, which it does, it must be found in the NT. Only the NT can define Gospel doctrine for the church, not the OT.
3. The PAJ of the last church is found in Rev 3: 14. It is not found in the OT book of Daniel as the SDA’s claim. Here is the true doctrine of the Pre-Advent Judgment, which applies to every church and denomination today, including the SDA’s!
See link below:
Understanding the Pre- Advent Judgment
4. Neither the OT nor the NT supports a “celestial Judgment” to examine the believers sanctification. There is no such Judgment in the Bible. The IJ is an error, and no amount of double-talk from the SDA’s can change the theological or historical facts.
5. No serious scholars or historians support the IJ, nor has any church or denomination ever embraced this teaching, except for the SDA’s, and most of them now repudiate this doctrine, including their best scholars, like Dr. Ford and Raymond Cottrell. The SDA’s are being very dishonest to pretend otherwise.
6. While Traditional, Takoma Park Adventism defines the IJ as a fundamental “pillar” of the Advent Movement, anchored in Rev 14: 7. This was never true. Not one Pioneer, including Ellen White or Uriah Smith made such a claim. In fact, there is no such “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages, nor is this doctrine the reason why Adventists exist, as many have been indoctrinated.
The doctrine of the 2nd Coming as the Day of Judgment is the reason why the Advent Movement came into existence. Rev 14: 7 was only interpreted as being the Judgment of the 2nd Coming. The later developing IJ, (1857) had zero to do with the doctrinal development of any the Three Angels Messages, which pillars had already been erected by 1847.
7. The doctrine of the IJ is associated with long list of additional false, legalistic doctrines from the SDA’s, such as tithing, OC Sabbath keeping, Jewish food laws and perfectionism, just to name a few. It is not a stand-alone error, but one of many that must be repudiated.
The IJ repudiates the Gospel and marginalizes the 2nd Coming, which is the real Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message. It is a doctrine that refutes the Foundational pillars of Historic Adventism, and thus it must be repudiated by anyone who claims to embrace the Three Angels Messages.
These 7 points will stand the test of time. They are irrefutable. Which is why the SDA’s refuse to have a public discussion about the IJ or tithing, or any doctrine. They know they cannot withstand a cross examination from those who know the facts. So they prefer to mischaracterize and slander their critics, safely hiding behind their multi-billion $$ media Empire and their many dishonest websites.
It is clear that the modern SDA’s prefer propaganda to the facts and this wretched and dishonest website is just another case in point.
Jesus and Dan 8:14
Let’s focus again in the first and most devastating point that condemns the IJ. Let all understand how to understand the real meaning of Dan 8:14, which is the same view that Jesus embraced.
Listen as Dr. Raymond Cottrell tells his personal story about how he came to understand that Dr. Ford was correct to repudiate the IJ. It is such a simple truth that anyone should be able to master the meaning of Dan 8:14 without having to do one back flip after another.
Listen to Dr. Cottrell, who supports Dr. Ford:
"My first great shocker about the ‘IJ, Daniel 8:14 and 1844’ was when I read a Hallmark Hanukkah Card in a store that explained the entire story about how the FIRST Hanukkah, and how it lasted for 8 days because that's how long the oil lasted that they'd found in the Temple, once they had "cleansed" the Sanctuary" and set it back up for proper worship.”
“The Jews had even carried OUT every single stone that had been used in the alter because they couldn't take a chance of having a stone in the alter of God that would have such a history of holding up a pig at one time! The Hallmark Card Company had gone to great lengths to tell this story correctly, and they did it!"
"And there I was reading the story WELL OVER 2000 years later that fit a part of the puzzle that at one time had me greatly perplexed. You don't need to go to what "the Christians" think Daniel 8:14 is talking about, but just go to the JEWS who it was written for and ask THEM what the meaning was all about and you'll see that it had nothing to do with 1844, but everything to do with 165 B.C. instead! "
Dr. Raymond Cottrell
Dan 8:14 is primarily associated with Hanukkah and the Jewish Temple. Daniel is not talking about a "cleansing" of a heavenly sanctuary” as the SDA's incorrectly teach. Rather, he is writings about what became the Hanukkah story, which was embraced by Christ when on earth. All SDA's need to understand Hanukkah, then they can better understand the book of Daniel and stop making fools of themselves.
Once the original, Jewish meaning of Dan 8:14 is understood, all the SDA (Gentile) arguments in the world to defend the IJ quickly become worthless straw. The NT clearly shows Jesus supporting and observing Hanukkah. He never taught the IJ at any point, much less at the Hanukkah Festival that we know he attended in the 1st century. Nor did his apostles.
Not one SDA in 10,000 understand the facts about Dan 8:14. And this is by design. Their corrupt leaders have become experts at hiding truth so that they can promote false doctrine. However, the following NT passage is about Dan 8:14. Let all understand what the Word teaches.
John 10:22 At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem;
John 10:23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.
John 10:24 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me.
John 10:26 “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
John 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
John 10:29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”
John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Did you get it? John 10:22 and the “Feast of the Dedication” is all about Dan 8:14, not the IJ. Jesus supports the Jewish interpretation, and so too must all that follow him.
Thus Jesus would have known the Hanukkah story that is referenced in Daniel 8: 14, even as he participated in this festival about it. This is what all Jews teach, and what Christ also believed.
Had there been another meaning for Daniel 8:14, one that the church needed to know, Jesus would have communicated that information to the church through his Apostles. But there is no such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible, much less the NT, and thus everyone must embrace Jesus view of Dan 8:14, not Uriah Smith’s or Ellen White’s view.
The SDA's are going to have to REPENT in humiliation and tears for what they been teaching all these years about Dan 8: 14. They have been fighting against Christ and his Gospel, as well as Jesus’ specific view of Dan 8: 14. No wonder the Laodicean Message applies to the SDA's, they have more false doctrine than all others.
Dr. Ford Corrects Clifford Goldstein
While Clifford Goldstein refused to have a debate with either Dr. Ford or Tom Norris, he often defends the dysfunctional traditions of the SDA church through articles, books and the Sabbath School lessons. Here is an article by Dr. Ford that speaks about the IJ and references 1844 Made Simple. Here Goldstein was caught parroting the lame apologetics of Dr. Shea, but Dr. Ford meets this nonsense head on and debunks it.
Listen to Dr. Ford:
"In his book 1844 Made Simple, Adventist author Clifford Goldstein argues that compared with Persia and Greece, Antiochus was not "exceeding great," and therefore could not have been the little horn of Dan. 8:9. A careful reading of Dan. 8:9 reveals that the prophecy never says the little horn will be exceeding great in comparison to Persia and Greece. The little horn is not compared with other powers, but merely said to wax "exceeding great" in three regions: to the south, the east, and the pleasant land.”
“Antiochus was not a big horn on a big stage. He was a little horn that played a big role on a little stage. His conquering of Egypt and his attack against Judaism can certainly be described as "exceeding great" on the stage of Middle Eastern history during this time period.”
“It can be argued that of all the foes of Judaism, Antiochus Epiphanes came the closest to stamping out the religion. His attack upon Judaism can only be described as "exceeding great."
Dr. Ford Responds Further to Goldstein’s Comments on Lesson Five: Daniel 8;
Listen to Dr. Ford
“The chief issue in the exegesis of Daniel 8 is the identity of the little horn. Does it represent Rome or primarily Antiochus Epiphanes?” [Abbreviated here as “AE”)]
“Even those evangelical scholars emphatic that Rome is the fourth kingdom in chapters two and seven usually find AE in chapter 8. Leupold’s famous commentary, for example, says of the little horn: “… almost all commentators regard it as a reference to that one of the Seleucidae, a king of Syria, who in history has the name Antiochus Epiphanes…” (p. 345).
“The very recent commentary by Ernest C. Lucas, another evangelical speaks similarly. We quote: “There is near unanimity among commentators that in chapter 8 the horn is a symbol for Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The similarities with the small horn in chapter 7 suggest that the referent is the same there. The differences are not contradictions, but are complementary views resulting from differences in focus in the two visions.” (pp. 214, 215).
“Edward J. Young, most conservative of all evangelicals says: ‘There seems to be general agreement among expositors that the one horn which grew from smallness is Antiochus Epiphanes.’ p. 170. John Calvin, in his commentary wrote on this symbol: “Antiochus, indeed, … is here alluded to.” (Geneva Series of Commentaries, Daniel, p. 95)
“Even George McCready Price saw in AE a likely early fulfillment (see his The Greatest of the Prophets, pp. 30, 31) and those who have read the transcript of the 1919 Bible Conference find AE recognized by scholars back then. Siegfried Horn held this position and expressed it in the fracas that preceded the publishing of my SPA Daniel. He told F. D. Nichol so, and consequently the SDABC added a note saying that AE was probably somewhere in the prophecies of Daniel.” 4:868
“Turning now to Scripture itself, we read that the little horn would spring up when the divisions of Alexander’s empire were in their latter days, and from one of these divisions. Thus we are to look for a power originating from the Greek world sometime after 300 BC. It is a power to the north of Palestine for it waxes great towards the south and the east. Israel was never menaced from the west.”
“Neither Rome nor Italy ever belonged to the Alexandrian empire from which this horn was to arise. This antichrist figure comes from the goat—from Greece—and has its origin as a new-born horn after the divisions of Greece have matured and are waxing old.” “This also will not fit Rome, which had existed for centuries prior to the birth of Christ."
"To say, as some have said, that the horn comes from one of the four winds of heaven, rather than out of one of the four horns, destroys the visual unity of the symbol. Horns come out of heads, not out of winds. Note that this special horn is still linked to the body of the goat—i.e. the Alexandrian empire. Rome cannot fit such specifications of place or time. The little horn naturally begins as much smaller than the horn from which it emerges. This could never fit Rome, which was much more potent than Macedonia at the time of its conquest of that territory.”
“This new horn first attacks the south, then the east, and en route to the latter, attacks the pleasant land of Israel where it casts down some of the host. But Rome became great particularly to the northwest, the east, Israel and the south. AE came from the north against Egypt, then invaded Armenia and Persia after oppressing Palestine. This sequence exactly fits the prophecy but Rome does not. Antiochus had his sphere of operations only in the three areas mentioned. This was not true of the widespread operations of Rome.”
“When the little horn is described as “exceedingly great” it is not with comparison to the preceding powers, but has reference to its strength in the three regions mentioned.”
“See how l Maccabees in its first chapter uses some of the very words of Daniel’s prophecy in describing the history of AE. Also read 2 Maccabees 6:1-7; 10:1-8. All this is commemorated in John 10:22, a fact that not one in a million Adventists is aware of. The great deliverance from AE was the last in Israel’s history before the coming of Jesus, and was thought of as typical of a final deliverance yet to take place. Within a few months of John 10:22, that deliverance transpired at Calvary.”
“Daniel 8:13,14 had its first fulfillment in the depredations of AE and the victorious rededication of the sanctuary by the heroic Maccabees. Its final fulfillment will be when the final antichrist of Revelation 13 is defeated, and the whole universe becomes a sacred temple to God.”
“The Quarterly on p. 46 says that, “The Protestant Reformers almost unanimously saw it (the little horn) as papal Rome.” Actually Calvin saw it as the Caesars, and Luther changed his mind occasionally, and on Oct. 28, 1529 he said the Turk was symbolized by the little horn of chapter 7, but he saw AE as the horn of chapter 8.” See Froom’s The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 268, 269, 270.
“Again the Quarterly has good things to say, but also sad omissions, and egregious errors. The idea that the little horn comes from one of the winds shows an ignorance of Hebrew usage. On p. 60 of the Adult Teachers Guide the cleansing of the sanctuary is equated with the demise of the little horn. This is a far cry from the original Adventist tradition but it is nearer the truth. (All of the above has reference also to Lesson Ten of the series.)”
“Beginning with this lesson and repeated over twenty times “the cleansing of the sanctuary” is referred to by the Quarterly. But as the Glacier View Consensus statement acknowledged the verb in 8:14 does NOT mean cleansed. It means, “Justified” or “vindicated” or “restored.” This word is never used in Lev 16. The KJV borrowed it from the LXX whose translators used the Greek word for “cleansed” because they understood 8:14 as applying to the work of the Maccabees who “cleaned up” the mess left by Antiochus Epiphanes.”
Dr. Desmond Ford
On and on, point after point, the facts overwhelm the dishonest SDA’s. There is no possibility that the IJ is correct on any level. It is not correct eschatology, prophecy, or Gospel doctrine. It is false doctrine many times over. Let all run from the IJ, and from anyone so confused and wrong about the teachings of Jesus, the head theologian and savior of the church.
The site you mention is full of error and false doctrine. It is nothing more than worthless propaganda from start to finish.
While this amateur and confused author claims to be cross-examining Dr. Ford’s views, he is doing no such thing. This dishonest paper ignores anything that proves the SDA’s wrong, even as these double-talking apologists are incapable of objectively or honest looking at the data. The SDA’s are wolves in sheep’s clothing, fully and knowingly supporting false doctrine, for which they are paid. The Jews acted the same way against the Gospel.
Today, Dr. Ford’s teaching about the Gospel and the Judgment are solid truth. This idea that new information repudiates his view, and that of the rest of the scholarly world is absurd. The SDA’s are deliberately promoting confusion, misinformation and false doctrine. They should be ashamed of themselves for thinking propaganda and double-talk will ever pass for serious Gospel doctrine.
Shame on the blind and dishonest SDA’s. They will not be able to stand in the Day of Judgment, and they will have no one but themselves to blame. Like the Jews in Christ’s day, they too have chosen to become blind.
John 9:39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”
Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
I trust this answers your question about the IJ.
Tom Norris for All Experts.com & Adventist Reform
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Dear Tom,
Sorry for not responding sooner, i was very busy. I appreciate your insights and your point of view concerning church doctrine in general. I was hoping Herb Kersten was reforming the church from within by putting the true gospel on the forefront. I mean, if the church adopts a view of the IJ which is not contrary to the New Testament gospel that is huge progress right? For the worst aspect of the IJ is that it replaces the true gospel by a false gospel.
You stated that the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 is Antiochius Ephiphanus. I ve studied this issue for myself, and in all honousty i cannot believe that. Because Daniel 7 clearly says the little horn comes after Rome. However, do you think it might be possible that if the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 is Ephiphanus, that this is an antitype of the great whore in Revelation? i mean there are so many similarities, it is undeniable there has to be some kind of connection. My question is actually, how do you know so certain the prophecies of Daniel concern only the past? Do you interpret Jesus setting up his kingdom in Daniel as Jesus establishing his church on earth? And why did Jesus refer to Daniel as a book to be studied in the endtime if Daniel is all about the past?
In all honesty, i have mixed feelings. On the one hand i am a huge fan of the gospel of grace as preached by Desmond Ford and i fiercely oppose a false gospel which cannot be supported from scripture as is taught with the IJ. On the other hand i have the feeling that because the church makes this huge terrible error, there is a spirit of hostility whereby all the other doctrines of the church are being attacked. It is so sad because Jesus wants us to be one fold, one herd, under one shepherd; Jesus himself. Now if 1844 is a prophetic date there are multiple possibilities:
- Either there IS an investigative judgement which we do not understand as of yet. How do you interpret the verses in Daniel where it says that the books were openened and there was a judgement?
- The restoring of the sanctuary could refer to the restoring of truth in 1844 amongst God his people. In this interpration the sanctuary of God are his people.
- The restoring of the sanctuary could refer to the fact that people started realising there was a heavenly sanctuary and so that the earthly roman catholic one was a false one.
If 1844 was not a prophetic date then ofcourse your interpretation makes more sense. But in any case, let's be honoust; that no matter how we interpret bible prophecy, each interpretation has its strong and weak points. Personally i think historicism makes much more sense than preterism or futurism. Another thing that pops up in my mind is this; if Daniel should be interpreted in a preterist way why was the book sealed unto the time of the end? What value was there in unlocking the prophecies of Daniel in the times of the end if the times of the end in Daniel refer to the ending of the Jewish people as the chosen people? Now i think about it, if people at the end of the Jewish era before Christ studied these prophecies about Antiochius, then they would know that afterwards would come the Messiah who would set up his kingdom. Is this a likely possibility?
These are a lot of questions and i really appreciate your efforts and time you spent in guiding people to the light. God bless you and can t wait for your response!
Questions about the Investigative Judgment:
Rogier said: I was hoping Herb Kersten was reforming the church from within by putting the true gospel on the forefront.
Tom said: This group is very dishonest, legalistic, and wrong. They are destroying the SDA church from the inside, misleading people away from the Gospel and from the Protestant fundamentals of the Advent Movement. They are not being honest about Dr. Ford’s views. I have no kind words for such wolves.
Today, the world is full of worthless religious propaganda, and this SDA crowd belongs in this category. For them to pretend that they are objectively examining Dr. Ford’s views is an insult to anyone that knows the facts. They are just trying to divert, misinform, and brainwash innocent people into believing false doctrine and manipulated church history. Beware false prophets.
Matt. 7:15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Rogier said: I mean, if the church adopts a view of the IJ, which is not contrary to the New Testament gospel, that is huge progress right? For the worst aspect of the IJ is that it replaces the true gospel by a false gospel.
Tom said: First off, the IJ is nowhere taught in the OT or the NT. There is NO such doctrine as the IJ in the Bible. It is false. Period. So any view of the IJ is wrong.
Second, there is a doctrine called the Pre Advent Judgment of the last church. This is a true eschatological concept, one that the SDA’s were correct to try and understand. However, their mistake was to equate the IJ with the PAJ. This is great error; the IJ is not the genuine PAJ.
So if the IJ of Dan 8:14 is NOT the PAJ, what is? And where is it?
Answer: the genuine PAJ of the last church is found in Rev 3: 14, --not in Dan 8:14. Let all Adventists repent and embrace the genuine PAJ, repudiating the imposter.
Third: The OT does not judge the Church or anyone in it. The book of Daniel is an Old Covenant work; it cannot determine doctrine in the NC. Only the NT can be used for church doctrine.
Fourth: This idea that Dan 8:14 and 1844 is a pillar in the Three Angels Messages, is false. Doctrinal pillars, by definition stand unmoved, but this passage has been changed, revised, and re-interpreted 6 times, and it still wrong. So how can it be called a “pillar”?
Adventist Reform is promoting the 7th and final interpretation of Dan 8:14, which is to say that the PAJ is something else, somewhere else. This last understanding is present truth for the Advent Movement today.
Let all understand the ever changing interpretations of Dan 8:14. See below:
The Changing Sanctuary Doctrine & Dan 8:14
While many SDA's think the Sanctuary doctrine is an important, unchanging fundamental pillar that must be preserved at all costs, the facts are very different. No teaching associated with Dan 8:14 has ever been "solid" or fully correct, - at any time in Adventist history. From the very beginning of the Adventist Movement, there has ALWAYS been serious error with the understanding of the Sanctuary. Which is why this doctrine has been changed and revised so many times. And why it is still so full of problems and even more revisions today.
First Two Views Wrong
From the very first attempt to understand Dan 8:14, Miller had the doctrine wrong when he declared that the Sanctuary was the earth that would be "cleansed by fire" at the Second Coming, --when the 2300 days terminated. When this event failed to take place within Miller's time frame, other Adventists, against his advice, revised the date for this "Sanctuary Cleansing" by proclaiming that it would take place on October 22, 1844. This was the first revision of Dan 8:14. And it soon proved to be wrong.
The 3rd Interpretation; Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary
Following the Great Disappointment, the two previous Sanctuary positions were declared to be erroneous and Dan 8:14 was dramatically re-interpreted by the SDA’s to mean that the Heavenly Sanctuary was the object to be "cleansed" of sin prior to the Second Advent. This was the third interpretation; it was called "The Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary."
So by 1845, there had been three different visions of Dan 8:14, and there were at least three more to come because this process of reinterpretation and change would continue well into the 20th and even the 21st century. Why? Because there was never a time within the history of the Adventist Movement when Dan 8:14 and the Sanctuary doctrine was without error. Even today, the teaching is still controversial and erroneous, and few realize how many times this dubious doctrine has been adjusted, revised, and changed over the years.
The 4th Interpretation; the IJ
As the Adventist Movement went forward after the great 1844 disappointment, the Battle Creek SDA's in the late 1850's made further revisions to Dan 8:14. Here is when they added the concept of a Celestial Judgment of the saints to the previous correction, (referred to as the "Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary.") This is when the SDA's added the teaching that the individual characters of the saints would be judged to see if the professed believers were good enough to be saved. This would also become known as the Pre-Advent Judgment of the last church.
Thus the fourth revision to Dan 8: 14 is the Investigative Judgment. It slowly developed within Battle Creek and became famous, thanks primarily to Uriah Smith, the long time Review Editor. He is the one that articulated this doctrine in the late 1870's, even writing a large book that detailed this evolving and unique SDA doctrine, turning it into an extremely legalistic teaching that was very different from the earlier doctrine of "the Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary."
The 5th Revision & the Myth About Historic Adventism
Following the great Battle Creek schism and the relocation of the denomination to Takoma Park, the Sanctuary Doctrine would not remain static. It would soon undergo its fifth revision; a revision, which would never have been approved by Uriah Smith, Ellen White, or any of the Pioneers.
Unfortunately, the Takoma Park apologists began to incorrectly teach that the IJ was located and anchored in the 1st Angels Message and thus, this view of the PAJ was proclaimed to be a fundamental part of Historic Adventism, a doctrine that could never be challenged or changed.
Although this was never true, the White Estate and the Review promoted so much propaganda on this point, supposedly from Ellen White, that this position became normative for all 20th century SDA’s. The IJ and the date of 1844 became associated with “Historic Adventism,” and was taught for generations as the PAJ by the church. However, this historically incorrect and legalistic position would have dire consequences because it elevated the IJ into the status of a "Pillar" that was unknown to the Battle Creek Pioneers.
Moreover, those, like Dr. Ford, who would not accept this fifth revision would eventually be ostracized from the Adventist Movement and considered a traitor to the Cause. Thus Dr. Ford was exiled for refuting myths and clear error, and the SDA church has been self-destructing ever since.
In 1980, in spite of Dr. Ford’s scholarly work disproving the IJ, Glacier View turned this fifth version of Dan 8:14 into official and sacred Adventist doctrine, creating great confusion and controversy that has effectively derailed the Adventist Movement.
With such a backlash unfolding, it didn't take long for the leaders to realize they had made a serious mistake. Therefore they went to work to make more adjustments to the ever-changing Sanctuary doctrine of Dan 8:14.
The 6th Revision
The post Glacier View leaders were naturally anxious to stop the debilitating Glacier View schism and promote church growth. They were weary of all the angry debate over the IJ. So they had to act. Although the Conservatives loudly protested any change to their victory at Glacier View, it was to no avail because it was obvious that Dr. Ford's Gospel was far superior to Uriah Smith's legalistic theology, and therefore, the sixth revision to Dan 8:14 was about to take place.
Within a decade after Glacier View, the Review back tracked about the Sanctuary Doctrine and started to promote most of Dr. Ford's Gospel views, (without ever admitting this), even as they took steps to silence the legalistic Conservatives.
At the same time they also introduced a new policy called "pluralism," which allowed both sides of the IJ debate to embrace either the fifth or the more recent and Gospel friendly, sixth version. Such a compromise was designed to allow the church to move forward without having to admit that they had been wrong about Glacier View.
Notwithstanding all this post Glacier View politicking and propaganda, the hierarchal leaders now declared that this celestial "investigation" was not about who was "good enough" to be saved--but rather--who had “saving faith in Christ.”
In addition, instead of the saints being placed on trial, as Uriah Smith taught, the new version placed God on trial, claiming that he needed to prove that he was just and fair.
Here was a very different teaching about the PAJ that represents the sixth revision to Dan 8:14. It promoted points that were never contained in Uriah Smith's legalistic version, even as it used semantics to hide the real issues. But regardless, this new spin about the Sanctuary was officially promoted by the Denomination as if the IJ were a Gospel friendly doctrine. Such a plan could only work if everyone ignored the facts and forgot about Dr. Ford and Glacier View.
Today, after SIX revisions of Dan 8:14, no one should be under any illusion that the sanctuary doctrine is correct or unchangeable. As if it has not undergone numerous and repeated revisions over time.
The fact of the matter is that Dan 8:14 is the most problematic, revised, and controversial doctrine in the SDA church. Consequently few today correctly understand its complex and checkered history that has destroyed the mission and the message of the Adventist Movement.
The failure to correctly understand the Pre-Advent Judgment has left the SDA church mired in theological chaos and endless schism that will never be resolved until the Seventh and final interpretation of Dan 8:14 takes place.
The 7th View of Dan 8:14 & the PAJ
Today, it is time for the Adventist Community to understand the true meaning of Dan 8:14 as well as the Pre-Advent Judgment.
It is time to resolve this embarrassing and counterproductive situation that is preventing the Adventist Community from moving forward in Gospel unity and apocalyptical purpose. Now is the time for Adventism to unite on the final and correct interpretation about Dan 8:14 and the PAJ. Now is the time for Adventist Reform.
Rogier said: You stated that the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 is Antiochius Ephiphanus. I’ve studied this issue for myself, and in all honesty i cannot believe that.
Tom said: First off, the Gospel is not in any way dependant in AE or the definition of the “little horn,” nor is it necessary for anyone to understand such ancient history. This anti-Semitic warrior is not important for our salvation. The very fact that some SDA’s make such a big deal out of this issue only proves that they don’t understand the Gospel.
Second: Did Jesus ever preach about the little horn? No. Did he ever teach about the IJ and 1844? No. Did he embrace Hanukkah, which is the story about Dan 8:14 and AE being defeated by the Jews? Yes.
So what is the debate? The history of the Jews, as well as most all scholars and historians view AE as the little horn. Those SDA’s today who say otherwise are only doing so in a futile attempt to defend the IJ. But they are wasting their time. The IJ is false regardless of the definition of the little horn.
Third: Most all scholars agree that the little horn is AE. Moreover, no credible scholars believe in the IJ. NONE!
Listen to Dr. Ford; a world class Protestant expert on the book of Daniel discuss the little horn:
Comments on Lesson Five:
By Dr. Desmond Ford
The chief issue in the exegesis of Daniel 8 is the identity of the little horn. Does it represent Rome or primarily Antiochus Epiphanes? [Abbreviated here as “AE”)] Even those evangelical scholars emphatic that Rome is the fourth kingdom in chapters two and seven usually find AE in chapter 8. Leupold’s famous commentary, for example, says of the little horn: “… almost all commentators regard it as a reference to that one of the Seleucidae, a king of Syria, who in history has the name Antiochus Epiphanes…” (p. 345).
The very recent commentary by Ernest C. Lucas, another evangelical speaks similarly. We quote: “There is near unanimity among commentators that in chapter 8 the horn is a symbol for Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The similarities with the small horn in chapter 7 suggest that the referent is the same there. The differences are not contradictions, but are complementary views resulting from differences in focus in the two visions.” (pp. 214, 215). Edward J. Young, most conservative of all evangelicals says: “There seems to be general agreement among expositors that the one horn which grew from smallness is Antiochus Epiphanes.” p. 170. John Calvin, in his commentary wrote on this symbol: “Antiochus, indeed, … is here alluded to.” (Geneva Series of Commentaries, Daniel, p. 95)
Even George McCready Price saw in AE a likely early fulfillment (see his The Greatest of the Prophets, pp. 30, 31) and those who have read the transcript of the 1919 Bible Conference find AE recognized by scholars back then. Siegfried Horn held this position and expressed it in the fracas that preceded the publishing of my SPA Daniel. He told F. D. Nichol so, and consequently the SDABC added a note saying that AE was probably somewhere in the prophecies of Daniel. 4:868
Turning now to Scripture itself, we read that the little horn would spring up when the divisions of Alexander’s empire were in their latter days, and from one of these divisions. Thus we are to look for a power originating from the Greek world sometime after 300 BC. It is a power to the north of Palestine for it waxes great towards the south and the east. Israel was never menaced from the west.
Neither Rome nor Italy ever belonged to the Alexandrian empire from which this horn was to arise. This antichrist figure comes from the goat—from Greece—and has its origin as a new-born horn after the divisions of Greece have matured and are waxing old. This also will not fit Rome, which had existed for centuries prior to the birth of Christ.
To say, as some have said, that the horn comes from one of the four winds of heaven, rather than out of one of the four horns, destroys the visual unity of the symbol. Horns come out of heads, not out of winds. Note that this special horn is still linked to the body of the goat—i.e. the Alexandrian empire.
Rome cannot fit such specifications of place or time. The little horn naturally begins as much smaller than the horn from which it emerges. This could never fit Rome, which was much more potent than Macedonia at the time of its conquest of that territory.
This new horn first attacks the south, then the east, and en route to the latter, attacks the pleasant land of Israel where it casts down some of the host. But Rome became great particularly to the northwest, the east, Israel and the south. AE came from the north against Egypt, then invaded Armenia and Persia after oppressing Palestine.
This sequence exactly fits the prophecy but Rome does not. Antiochus had his sphere of operations only in the three areas mentioned. This was not true of the widespread operations of Rome.
When the little horn is described as “exceedingly great” it is not with comparison to the preceding powers, but has reference to its strength in the three regions mentioned.
See how l Maccabees in its first chapter uses some of the very words of Daniel’s prophecy in describing the history of AE. Also read 2 Maccabees 6:1-7; 10:1-8. All this is commemorated in John 10:22, a fact that not one in a million Adventists is aware of.
The great deliverance from AE was the last in Israel’s history before the coming of Jesus, and was thought of as typical of a final deliverance yet to take place. Within a few months of John 10:22, that deliverance transpired at Calvary.
Daniel 8:13,14 had its first fulfillment in the depredations of AE and the victorious rededication of the sanctuary by the heroic Maccabees. Its final fulfillment will be when the final antichrist of Revelation 13 is defeated, and the whole universe becomes a sacred temple to God.
The Quarterly on p. 46 says that, “The Protestant Reformers almost unanimously saw it (the little horn) as papal Rome.” Actually Calvin saw it as the Caesars, and Luther changed his mind occasionally, and on Oct. 28, 1529 he said the Turk was symbolized by the little horn of chapter 7, but he saw AE as the horn of chapter 8. See Froom’s The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 268, 269, 270.
It is time for Adventists to admit the obvious and stop trying to defend error and false doctrine. Dan 8:14 does not teach the IJ, nor the PAJ. Period.
Rogier said: Because Daniel 7 clearly says the little horn comes after Rome. However, do you think it might be possible that if the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 is Ephiphanus, that this is an antitype of the great whore in Revelation?
Tom said: The primary association of the “great whore” in Rev is with Babylon, not Greece or AE. The book of Daniel features Babylon and it’s fall, and so too does Revelation.
Rogier said: I mean there are so many similarities, it is undeniable there has to be some kind of connection. My question is actually, how do you know so certain the prophecies of Daniel concern only the past?
Tom said: There is no real debate about AE, except with SDA’s. Both the Jews as well as most all other scholars understand OT history correctly on this point.
The Advent Movement needs to stop obsessing about OT prophecy and spend more time understanding NT eschatology. All should study what Jesus teaches about the end of the world. And then the apostles. The NT is a far superior source for prophecy than Daniel, which is an OT book.
Moreover, Daniel does contain more than just the past. It does have prophetic meaning for the future. Dr. Ford never said otherwise.
Rogier said: Do you interpret Jesus setting up his kingdom in Daniel as Jesus establishing his church on earth? And why did Jesus refer to Daniel as a book to be studied in the endtime if Daniel is all about the past?
Tom said: The RCC has traditionally viewed this passage to mean the church. However, the Adventists had a different view. They viewed the stone as crushing the visible church and civilization as the 2nd Coming.
Dan. 2:32 “The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze,
Dan. 2:33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.
Dan. 2:34 “You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.
Dan. 2:44 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.
While Daniel is not all about the past, one must first understand the original intent of the author. Which is to say that Dan 8;14 must first be understood the way the Jews understood. Thus the original historical view of this passage is defined by the Hanukkah story. This can never change. It is the base line meaning of the passage. If there are future meanings, they can only be understood if the original meaning is not misunderstood.
In addition, the book of Daniel features the story of Babylon. THIS is important because the end of the world is equated with the fall of Babylon in Revelation. To understand how the world will end, one needs to know this story. So the book does have eschatological meaning for us today.
Dan. 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a dream and visions in his mind as he lay on his bed; then he wrote the dream down and related the following summary of it.
Rev. 14:8 And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality.”
Rev. 18:10 standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’
Rev. 18:21 Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.
Furthermore, it is true that Jesus referenced the book of Daniel often. Did he ever teach the IJ from Dan 8:14? No. He embraced the Hanukkah view. So this is what we must also do. No one who claims to follow Christ can embrace the myth and error of the IJ.
Here is some unfilled prophecy in Dan about a final war in the Middle East: This is requires study to understand:
Dan. 11:40 “At the end time the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them and pass through.
Dan. 11:41 “He will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab and the foremost of the sons of Ammon.
Dan. 11:42 “Then he will stretch out his hand against other countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape.
Dan. 11:43 “But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels.
Dan. 11:44 “But rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him, and he will go forth with great wrath to destroy and annihilate many.
Dan. 11:45 “He will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.
Dan. 12:1 “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
Dan. 12:2 “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
Dan. 12:3 “Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
Dan. 12:4 “But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”
Today, knowledge about history and the Gospel have greatly increased. Now is the time for all to go forward and better understand eschatology. It is no time to cling to outdated and erroneous, 19th century views.
Rogier said: In all honesty, i have mixed feelings. On the one hand i am a huge fan of the gospel of grace as preached by Desmond Ford and i fiercely oppose a false gospel, which cannot be supported from scripture as is taught with the IJ.
Tom said: The IJ is incompatible with the Gospel and OT history. It is false doctrine that has NEVER been imagined or promoted by anyone in the entire history of the church until the late 1850’s - by the SDA’s. After more than 100 years of promoting this error, NO church, or credible historians or scholars, have embraced this view. None!
Moreover, by 1980, the best and brightest of the SDA’s, like Dr. Ford and Cottrell, also came to repudiate the IJ as total error. Neither the OT nor the NT teaches such a doctrine. Period! Thus all SDA’s must repent of the IJ.
Rogier said: On the other hand i have the feeling that because the church makes this huge terrible error, there is a spirit of hostility whereby all the other doctrines of the church are being attacked. It is so sad because Jesus wants us to be one fold, one herd, under one shepherd; Jesus himself.
Tom said: Just because the IJ is wrong, it does not mean there is no truth in Adventism. There is some truth in most all denominations, even the RCC, though they are all full of error and false doctrine today, like all others.
The Adventists were the first modern Christians to correctly understand the doctrine of the 2nd Coming. When all others were dead wrong, they stood up and corrected the popular errors of their day, even as they went on to make other necessary corrections, such as the State of the dead, which many today, incorrectly think, is just another false, SDA doctrine. But it is a correct doctrine, supported by Luther.
The SDA’s were also correct to understand that Sunday was wrong, and that only the 7th day could be the correct day for the weekly Lord’s day.
Only when the SDA’s admit and confess their great error about the IJ, will anyone take the time to pay attention to some of their other views, some of which are brilliant. But so long as they try and hold onto what is so false and wrong, no one should pay any attention to them. They are acting like the 1st century Jews that rejected the Gospel.
Rogier said: Now if 1844 is a prophetic date there are multiple possibilities:
Tom said: 1844 is not a prophetic date. No judgment started in heaven on that date, nor is there any such judgment as the IJ in the Bible.
Moreover, this date stands for error and disappointment, not flawless doctrine. The Three Angels Messages are not based on the date 1844, and neither is the Gospel, by which we are saved.
Rogier said: - Either there IS an investigative judgment which we do not understand as of yet.
Tom said: There is a PAJ. But it is not the IJ. It is the Laodicean Message.
Rogier said: How do you interpret the verses in Daniel where it says that the books were opened and there was a judgment?
Tom said: The doctrine of a Judgment is well established in Judaism and the ancient world. In Dan, the heavenly court is not examining Christians or their behavior to see if they are good enough to be saved, rather, they are judging those that attack the people of God and “speak out against the Most High.”
Dan. 7:26 ‘But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever.
So the IJ, which is a supposedly Celestial examination of the believer’s sanctification, does not even fit with the passage or the context. Daniel does not contain the IJ.
Rogier said: - The restoring of the sanctuary could refer to the restoring of truth in 1844 amongst God his people. In this interpretation the sanctuary of God are his people.
- The restoring of the sanctuary could refer to the fact that people started realizing there was a heavenly sanctuary and so that the earthly Roman Catholic one was a false one.
Tom said: The original definition of Dan 8: 14 is Hanukkah. Once this is understood, there may be secondary meanings, but none will be credible if the original interpretation is lost.
Rogier said: If 1844 was not a prophetic date, then of course your interpretation makes more sense. But in any case, let's be honest; that no matter how we interpret bible prophecy, each interpretation has its strong and weak points.
Tom said: The IJ has only weak points. It was never a “pillar” in any of the Three Angels Messages. Nor does it have any strong points, which is why NO ONE has ever embraced it outside the SDA Community. And even then, their most educated scholars have repudiated it as error.
All SDA’s are going to have to understand that while the IJ is history, it is not correct theology. The IJ is not part of the Gospel, nor is it the PAJ.
Rogier said: Personally i think historicism makes much more sense than preterism or futurism.
Tom said: These views are not to be embraced exclusively. You need to read Dr. Ford’s Interview where he discusses these three schools of thought, as well as all these issues.
Listen to Dr. Ford:
In terms of prophetic interpretation, the preterist sees the fulfillment of prophecy as past, in the first century of this era. The futurist sees prophecy as yet future, for the last days, while the historicist views prophecy as a continually unfolding application with special reference to secular events affecting the church at specific dates. I do not belong to any of these categories because while each has a measure of truth, they also have a corresponding measure of error.
Bible prophecy DID have meaning for those who first received it (preterist). It does have a continual unfolding application, but no dates beyond Passion Week (see Acts 1:7), and it will have a flowering significance for those living in the last days. This is known as the apotelesmatic principal whereby prophecy in some cases is intended for more than the original recipients.
George Macready Price used this term in his commentary on Daniel and it is well known to scholars. E.G. White used this principle over and over again as I have documented in my Glacier View manuscript and so, too, does the SDA Commentary (see particularly the notes of the latter on the prophecy of 2 Thess. 2). The principle was only denied when I used it at Glacier View to show that Daniel 8:14 had already been fulfilled in a primary and historical sense, which by no means would prevent future fulfillments. The Glacier View denial of the "apotelesmatic principle" was not taken seriously by the scholars present.
Rogier said: Another thing that pops up in my mind is this; if Daniel should be interpreted in a preterist way why was the book sealed unto the time of the end?
Tom said: Good point. However, this is the place to start. Past fulfillment must precede any future fulfillment. If this is misunderstood, how can anyone go on to understand a secondary fulfillment?
Rogier asked: What value was there in unlocking the prophecies of Daniel in the times of the end if the times of the end in Daniel refer to the ending of the Jewish people as the chosen people?
Tom said: Good point. That is why a preterist only viewpoint is absurd.
Rogier said: Now i think about it, if people at the end of the Jewish era before Christ studied these prophecies about Antiochius, then they would know that afterwards would come the Messiah who would set up his kingdom. Is this a likely possibility?
Tom said: The Hanukkah Story, which is about Dan 8:14, gave the Jews hope that God would save them from their enemies. Many thought Jesus would lead them in a Macabean type revolt against the Romans.
But not only did Jesus not act like the hero Judas Macabees, he acted like AE, who also claimed to be a god.
Jesus says, “I and My Father are one!” (10:30). That statement had heavy religious overtones for the (Dan 8;14) festival which they were presently celebrating.
Those gathered on the Temple Mount recalled the events nearly 200 years before on the very mount where Antiochus IV, a mere man, proclaimed himself to be god. Jesus, God manifest in human flesh, made the same claim—but His claim was true.
The Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy because, in their thinking, He was a man who made Himself out to be God (10:31–33). Jesus declared that He was the fulfillment of Hanukkah by saying the Father “sanctified” the Son of God and sent Him into the world (10:34–36). The Father was in Him and He in the Father (10:38).
If the Greek word “sanctified” were translated into Hebrew, it would be “dedication” or Hanukkah!
Rogier said: These are a lot of questions and i really appreciate your efforts and time you spent in guiding people to the light. God bless you and can t wait for your response!
Matt. 7:7 Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Matt. 7:8 “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Happy to help,
Tom Norris for All Experts.com & Adventist Reform