10a.FORD SUMMARY STATEMENT. Desmond Ford was a college teacher for many years within the Adventist church. Here is a general statement by him about Adventist scholarship and the supposed "Investigative Judgment" of Daniel 8:14: Many Adventist scholars have long held that Daniel 8:14 does not teach an Investigative Judgment. Their view was rejected because it seems to contradict Ellen White. It is well nigh certain that had Ellen White not endorsed the doctrine, it would have been surrendered long ago. In practical terms it has been surrendered. Surrendered, not only by Adventist scholars in this country, but also around the world, and by much of European Adventism. As a local example, belief in 1844 and the Investigative Judgment is not considered mandatory for baptism in Germany.(1)
10b.COTTRELL POLL. Dr. Raymond Cottrell is a well known Adventist scholar who has written 2000 pages of the SDA Bible Commentary. He led out in the second ever opinion poll of Adventist Bible scholars in 1958. The poll was sent to the 27 leading SDA Bible scholars of that time. This included eight Hebrew teachers, nine heads of college Bible departments, five other experienced college Bible teachers, and four former college Bible teachers then in administrative or editorial work. Six of the above were teachers at the Theological Seminary. To the question "What linguistic or contextual reasons can you suggest for applying Daniel 8:14 to the services of the day of atonement and thus to the investigative judgment beginning in 1844?", all 27 scholars said that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for so applying it!(2) To the question "What reasons other than language and context would you suggest for applying Daniel 8:14 to the services of the day of atonement and thus to the investigative judgment beginning in 1844?" the responses are shown in Diagram #10: This is hardly the kind of solid Biblical evidence one would want to defend a doctrine claimed to be so important. The Adventist church appointed a Problems in Daniel Committee as a result of this poll which met several times a year from 1961 to 1966. It adjourned without issuing a report. The problems in Daniel remained, unresolved.(3)
10c.GLACIER VIEW POLL. Glacier View was a watershed "Church council" in 1980, held in Glacier View, Colorado as explained in "10d" below. An extensive survey was taken of the 115 specially selected SDA scholars and administrators before and after the Glacier View Conference. These men were all responsible Adventists, chosen because of their expertise and leadership within the church. In the survey, one of the questions dealt with statement number 23 of the 27 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. This is the statement which presents the Adventist view of the investigative judgment. In part it reads: "In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He (Jesus) entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement."(4)
The question on the poll dealing with this statement number 23 read, "Do you agree with statement number 23 of the 27 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists?" Over one-third of the Glacier View delegates (36%), "hand-picked" by the church, disagreed in whole or in part with statement number 23.(5) It might be wondered what some of the scholars who disagree with the traditional Adventist view of the investigative judgment have to say about those who hold the traditional view. It is obvious that many of the "non-traditionalists" are still Seventh-day Adventists. While some have left the Church, the great majority still desire to remain in the Church. Dr. Cottrell's view on the "investigative judgment" is a sample of what some of these scholars would say about the traditional view: "I believe the investigative judgment can be used a symbol of salvation. Its purpose is to remind us that we are responsible before God for what we do, say and think. Just as Jesus uses the symbols of lamb, light, Greek letters, bread, etc. to refer to Himself and salvation, so "investigative judgment" is another symbol (not Biblical) through which we can gain understanding about God who is ultimately beyond our finite understanding. Just as Jesus uses parables to help explain heavenly truth, so the investigative judgment is a vehicle to help in understanding God's ways. "I believe that Jesus is engaged right now in Heaven in the ministry of intercession on our behalf, as the book of Hebrews tells us. For people who believe in a literal sanctuary in which there is a work of investigation going on, I have no problem. I can fellowship with them. I don't make an issue over this. You can hold the views I hold and still have a constructive ministry within the church."(6)
Dr. Cottrrell publicly presented this view, which he calls a "synthesis" view, in the fifth of a series of ten weekly studies on Daniel 8, on October 31, 1991 at the Loma Linda Campus Hill Church. Dr. Cottrell said at that meeting that as far as he knew this was the first time the view had been presented. This view is referred to again in the closing section, 10e.
10d.DR. RICHARD HAMMILL. Dr. Richard Hammill, former President of Andrews University, and a member of the Problems in Daniel Committee, was placed as chair of the Sanctuary Review Committee, a specially chosen group of scholars whose task it was to consider the teachings of Dr. Desmond Ford at Glacier View, Colorado in August, 1980. Ford marshalled a major attack on the doctrine of the investigative judgment.(7) Since the church had quietly adjourned the Problems in Daniel Committee, without encouraging further discussion or inquiry, it was only to be expected that there would arise further controversy in that area. Dr. Hammill and the Sanctuary Review Committee gave responsible consideration to Ford's views. The Committee did not endorse all or even most of Ford's teachings, but they were favorable to several of his major points. Their report was to a large extent glossed over by the Adventist Church Administration at that time(8) , and by its ministerial journal Ministry which chronicled the work of Glacier View.(9) In a recent major statement of the Adventist Church's North American Division, the work of the Glacier View committee was badly misrepresented.(10) The Sanctuary Review Committee counseled the Adventist Church that "there are some aspects of our sanctuary teachings that need careful restudy."(11) It has been Dr. Hammill's burden to continue to urge this counsel on the Church. He laments: "In the years following the committee's report, the church has appointed committees to study the sanctuary topic further, but Adventist scholars who have not supported the traditional interpretation have been left off the committees, and in some cases dropped off in later years. When books and articles were published, only traditional views were accepted...There is...a very real need for oral and written forums in which these traditional secondary aspects of our sanctuary teaching may be examined candidly without placing the discussants under a cloud of suspicion."(12) "The need for careful restudy of some aspects of our sanctuary teaching becomes apparent when our published defenses of these teachings are carefully examined. One finds that our published positions, when carefully scrutinized, become extremely vague and equivocal when Biblical support is being advanced..."(13)
10e.A FINAL PERSONAL WORD. Perhaps with this present Biblical inspection of Daniel 8:14 and the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment, some of the greater openness that Dr. Hammill hopes for can be achieved. Dr. Cottrell's "synthesis" view can be the bridge between the scholarly camp that recognizes the Biblical inadequacies of the investigative judgment doctrine, and the laity who think it is inviolable. The synthesis view which Dr. Cottrell has formulated allows both views--the traditional and the Biblical (the traditionalists call the other camp "new theology")--to receive credibility and acceptance. The students who see Biblical problems with the traditional view of the investigative judgment should be allowed to follow their conscience, and follow the Bible as they see it. While Dr. Cottrell, an influential and patriarchal scholar in the Adventist denomination, makes it plain that the traditional view is without Biblical foundation--the conclusion of this present study--he nonetheless accepts those who hold that belief. Viewing the doctrine of the investigative judgment as a parable does shed some light on the grand fact that God is the Judge of all. Our standing in Heaven is not based on which side of this issue we are standing. Therefore the Adventist Church should not make a distinction among its members as to which view is held, as if accepting a certain view condemned that person. While it is also obviously the view of this paper that the investigative judgment theology is unbiblical, and while it is my firm opinion that the potential misreprestation of God's character is one of the major liabilities of the investigative judgment theology, nonetheless I want it known that I accept as brothers in the faith those who cling with their life to the investigative judgment theology. God is love.
1John 2:10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
1 John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1 John 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
I do not believe I am better or more righteous than traditionalists because of the views expressed here. I believe we "all stumble in many ways." (James 3:2) I stumble. Traditionalists stumble. God is not looking down to see who has the perfect theology. He is looking down to see who is so overawed by His goodness, and so aware of their own weaknesses, that they meld together in the light of His love. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)
Hallelujah!
1 Desmond Ford, "Hope On", Good News Unlimited, Vol. 12, No. 10, October 1992, Auburn, CA, 95603, p. 4.
2 Dr. Raymond Cottrell, "Report of a Poll of Adventist Bible Scholars Concerning Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9", a paper self-published by the author, 335 Midori Ln., Calimex, CA, 92320, p. 14.
3 There are, of course, no "problems" in Daniel. The problems are with the Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment. If these be insisted upon, then there are "problems" in Daniel.
4 Seventh-day Adventists Believe...A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, Ministerial Association of Seventh-day Adventists, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, MD., 1988, p. 312.
5 Dr. Raymond Cottrell was responsible for both the 1958 polling of Adventist scholars and this 1980 Glacier View poll. General results of these polls are available from him in printed form. (Dr. Raymond Cottrell, 335 Midori, Calimex, CA, 92320). The specific statistic in the text was given to me by Dr. Cottrell in a telephone conversation on 4-21-91 at 2:30pm EST.
6 Dr. Raymond Cottrell, in the interview referenced in the previous footnote.
7 Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment, Euangelion Press, PO Box 1264 Casselberry, FL 32707, 1980.
8 Dr. Richard L. Hammill, Pilgrimage: Memoirs of an Adventist Administrator, Andrews University Press: Berrien Springs, MI 49103, 1992. Dr. Hammill tells of the frustration of the Glacier View delegates who had been hand-picked to represent Adventism from around the world, scholars, administrators and other leaders, when the President of the General Conference, at the same time, quietly appointed a small committee for the supposed purpose of issuing an independent critique of Dr. Ford's document. They came to Glacier View without ears, bearing hatchets on Ford's teachings and purposed to prop up the traditional Adventist teachings and understandings. Hammill writes: "When the small report of the Critique Committee was read to the Sanctuary Review Committee at its last session, a pall descended over the group. The Bible teachers felt they had been betrayed, that their work was just window dressing; they considered, and rightly, as it turned out, that the small committee report would be considered the definitive one. They saw it as an administration-sponsored report intended to compete with the one issued by the large committee representing the world field." (pp. 194-5.)
9 This is Dr. Hammill's account in both his recently published autobiography Pilgrimage (see note 16) and in a self-published paper "Reflections on the Adventist Typological Interpretation of the Mosaic Tabernacle and Its Cultus", January, 1990. In the autobiography in the chapter "The Sanctuary Review Committee and Desmond Ford" Dr. Hammill writes: "...I was very disappointed in the Ministry report. I think in several important respects its articles were contrary to the intent of the Sanctuary Review Committee actions...in its comments on the doctrinal issues, Ministry did not present the view of the Sanctuary Review Committee on crucial passages in Hebrews, especially 9:23. The Ministry explanation was the opposite of the discussion on the committee. The Ministry report ignored the crucial statement in Hebrews 1:3 in discussing the cleansing of the sanctuary..." (pp. 193-4.)
10 "Statement Pertaining to Issues Between the SDA Church and Certain Private Organizations", Ministry, December 1992, pp.24-26. The statement says "In 1980 the church examined and then rejected the rising dissident views relative to the sanctuary and to prophetic interpretation." It is unfortunate that honest scholars who love the Bible and love God must be called "dissident". It is also unfair to call the Glacier View proceedings a "rejection" of Dr. Ford's views questioning the investigative judgment, as almost 1/3 of the participants agreed in several key areas with Dr. Ford. There was a majority and minority statement authored at the end of the Glacier View session and even the majority statement accepted at lease six of Dr. Ford's arguments. Many people in the church, including no small percentage of the 115 Glacier View delegates hold similar views to Ford's, not unlike many of the arguments in this thesis. These people are Adventists, members of "the church".
11 Dr. Hammill, "Reflections...", p. 7.
12 Ibid., pp 4-5.
13 Ibid., p. 5.