Adventist Online

The SDA 28 Fundamentals has IJ as one of those pillars that upholds the platform we stand on. To my surprise I have noted some of the saints around here do not think there is any Investigative Judgement. So let us see if there is a Investigative Judgement or not. I have also noted that the same Saints do not subscribe to the writings of E G White. So I would prefer that we use the Bible only.

The SDA church does have the Investigative Judgement as one of its 28 fundamentals Quoting:

24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He 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. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.)

28 fundamental Beliefs

The hour of the evening sacrifice arrives. The priest stands in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem ready to offer a lamb as sacrifice. As he raises the knife to kill the victim, the earth convulses. Terrified, he drops the knife and the lamb escapes. Over the din of the earthquake he hears a loud ripping noise as an unseen hand rends the veil of the Temple from top to bottom. What did the tearing of the veil really mean?

Across town, black clouds enshroud a cross. When Jesus, the Passover Lamb of God, calls out, "It is finished!" He dies for the sins of the world.

Type has met antitype. The very event the Temple services have pointed to through the centuries has taken place. The Saviour has completed His atoning sacrifice, and because symbol has met reality, the rituals foreshadowing this sacrifice have been superseded. Thus the rent veil, the dropped knife, the escaped lamb.

But there is more to salvation history. It reaches beyond the cross. Jesus' resurrection and ascension direct our attention to the heavenly sanctuary, where, no longer the Lamb, He ministers as priest. The once-for-all sacrifice has been offered (Heb. 9:28); now He makes available to all the benefits of this atoning sacrifice.

I have noted some of the saints here saying that the atonement was fulfilled on the cross. I wonder how this could be correct? We have many texts telling us that there is an ongoing Investigative Judgement happening in the heavenly courts at this very moment.

Views: 6169

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Hello Mutinta

I think that your understanding is biblical. You are correct if Hebrews indicates Christ is the High Priest and entered the Most Holy place (holy place, holiest of holies.) once and for all. Then adding to his verse is changing scripture.



What version do you use for your study?


I agree. I think we are trying to prove the IJ of 1844. ....By doing so we are trying to make Hebrews fit into our thinking, instead of letting our thinking fit scripture.

I personally use multiple translations when I study, but without even talking translations, we know where the mercy seat was in the earthly sanctuary.. then too, if the Vail of the earthly was torn, maybe there is only one compartment in heaven. Just a thought.




thats why i think paul said it was perfect sanctuary. It is paul who says veil was his flesh...where God is, is the most holy place. thats simole to follow.


Hello Keith

Wise decisions are made with all information considered. So it makes sense to use mutiple versions. Those that are tied to one version are doing so to make a point. They don't read scripture in context, but get caught up in semantics. We cannot hope to change their minds if hey continue to be hemmed up by ideology, and agenda.


This is all silly. Since the Day of Pentecost and the realization that Gentiles could receive holy spirit, any believer has access to God’s heart and presence spiritually and our salvation and atonement is a done deal according to Paul’s epistles.

SDA, especially IJ brings doubt, lack of confidence and guilt and fear about salvation.

Not believing our standing in righteousness before God and that Jesus completed perfectly our redemption and not understanding Paul’s writings which are scripture and ellevating a spurious revelation and doctrine born out of great disappointment and as a convenient saving of face.

This road is dangerous:

1. Believing in Miller’s prophesy of Christ’s return which no man knows, not even Jesus.

2. Miller changes his date, again no one knows the day or hour.

3. Jesus doesn’t come at the appointed day and hour means false prophesy.

4. The people including Edson are depressed greatly.

5. Edson claims a new revelation and doctrine with no basis in scripture which contradicts whole books of the new testament including the Epistles of Paul.

6. E.G.W. and SDA except and condone and institutionalize this false doctrine as a means of saving face despite it still contradicts scriptures and principles.

7. Belief, passage of time and tradition does not negate the plain facts and truth that IJ is a false doctrine that is a slap in the face and a denial of Jesus Christ’s perfect accomplishment of our salvation and is a denial of the wisdom given to Paul by Jesus Christ and his writings which perfectly declare what Jesus accomplished.

All the rest of Christianity despite its errors and failure generally to walk effectively in/by the spirit of God and various wrong doctrines has at least correctly not picked up this spurious doctrine as the SDA has officially proclaimed and incorporated it as a “fundamental belief” to their shame. Desmond Ford and those who object to this fraud in defense and protection of the truth are correct and the advocates of this evil doctrine of devils should wake up and read what Paul says in his writings and recant this foolish and pernicious wicked doctrine. Deceiving and religious spirits are often working to deceive people with foolish ideas that are contrary to the scriptures and truth, especially when it is as blatant and obvious as in this case. This doctrine is a complete denial of the perfect and complete accomplishment of what Jesus fulfilled for our salvation.

Col 2:8  Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Col 2:9  For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Col 2:10  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Col 2:11  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Col 2:12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Col 2:13  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Col 2:14  Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

Advocating Jesus didn’t completely accomplish our salvation and that it is not complete yet is totally antichrist and demonic. To elevate Hiram Edson and his false revelation contrary to the completeness of Jesus’ salvation, contrary to Paul is totally a blatant lie without foundation, authority and is foolish beyond imagination.

James: "the completeness of Jesus’ salvation, contrary to Paul is totally a blatant lie without foundation, authority and is foolish beyond imagination." 

Yes have it your way and stop polluting my thread with your while comments. It's one thing to dispute but this is just plain pollution. 

According to many Bible Scholars, the evangelical world, Walter Martin, Desmond Ford and many Seventh Day Adventists, Jesus entered into the Most Holy Place in Heaven in AD 31. This position of course, contradicts the historical official position of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

Did Jesus really entered the Most Holy place in Heaven in AD 31 or in 1844 as Seventh Day Adventists propose?

According to Walter Martin, "If Jesus at the resurrection went into the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is no 1844 investigative judgment. It is a myth....Then there isn't any investigative judgment. Nobody has been looking over the books in heaven since 1844, because Jesus entered at the time of His resurrection into heaven itself with His own blood. It's all over. He obtained eternal redemption for us. You don't need this forced holiness in which you spend your life keeping track of all the commandments that you're supposed to keep in order for you to eventually to come out on the right side"--Walter Martin, March 15, 1989 lecture in Fresno, California.

Let's analyze this answer: While there is absolutely no question that we are saved by faith, there is also no question that we must obey the faith, (Rom 16:26) with and in God's power. I see no "forced holiness" in doing what Jesus said: "If your love me, keep my commandments...He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me..." John 14: 15, 21.

Walter Martin stated that "If Jesus at the resurrection [A.D. 31] went into the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is no 1844 investigative judgment. It is a myth."

If we follow Mr. Martin's assumption, then the opposite assumption should also hold true. That is: If Jesus at the resurrection [AD 31], did not entered the second apartment [because He entered the first apartment] of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is an 1844 Investigative Judgment. It is not a myth.

I do not believe however, that the question regarding where Jesus entered in AD 31, can be answered by either assumption alone. It is just not as sample as that. There is much more we need to investigate and research in the Bible to find out what is God's truth. The Bible alone must interpret itself. The Bible alone must give the true and proper answer.

Before we start our Bible study, let us read on how Walter Martin described the Evangelical Conferences of the mid- 1950's and the Seventh Day Adventist Church, (Walter Martin and the Seventh Day Adventist Church) at his March 15, 1989, Fresno, California, lecture (Published in the Study of Hebrews nine by Vance Ferrel of Pilgrims Rest - Beer-sheba Spgs, TN 37305):

"Now, I'll never forget when we were in Washington {D.C.} at the Seventh Day Adventist Seminary {General Conference building, not the Seminary which was next door} negotiating these various doctrines and going through them in 1956 (spring 1955 to spring 1956). I said:

Why don't you get a couple of Greek scholars from the Seminary bring them over here." and I said, "Dr. Canon {an Evangelical college teacher he brought with him} is a Greek scholar and I read the text of the Greek." I said, "Let us take a look at whether or not Hiram Edson and Ellen White and early Adventists were right, or if in fact the very foundation of the denomination was based upon theological error."

They said, "Fine." They sent for Dr. {William} Murdoch and for Dr. Theodore Heppenstall, both of whom were excellent Greek scholars. I'll never forget Dr. Canon sitting at this large table with all these Adventists around us, and Dr. Canon saying, "I wonder if we turn in our Bibles-I'd like you to do that right now,-to the Epistle to the Hebrews." And they said, "Fine." And they turned to Hebrews, chapter 9. When they got to Hebrews, chapter 9, we all had our Greek New Testamentsout. And Dr. Canon said, "I would like to exegete for me Hebrews 9 versus 11 and 12. We won't look at any theology books, yours or ours... Just the text, and you tell me what the text says."

Dr. Murdock looked at the text, Dr. Heppenstall looked at the text, and Dr. Canon read:

"But Christ, having become a High Priest of good things which are to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say not of this building, not earthly, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the Holy Place having obtained eternal redemption for us."

Canon went through it in Greek {verbally translated it to them}, and I turned to Dr. Roy Allan Anderson, head of all Seventh-day Adventist ministers and missionaries, and I said, "All right this passage contradicts Ellen White, Hiram Edson, and all the foundations of Adventism. If Jesus at the resurrection went into the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is no 1844 investigative judgment. It is a myth.

Anderson looked down at the text and he turned to Ted Heppenstall and said these words, "Does the Greek text say that, Ted?" And Ted Heppenstall looked up from his Greek New Testament and said, "Yes." Dr. Murdoch said, "It does."

Does the Greek text really say that? Let us use several Bible versions, and let us look at the original Greek using several Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bibles, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Strong's Bible Concordance:


Let us you and I examine Hebrews 9, verses 11 and 12 in the New International Version (NIV): {9:11} "When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation."

{9:12} "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." This particular translation states that He entered the Most Holy Placeonce for all by his own blood. Obviously this is AD 31.

But, let us now look at the King James Version:

{9:11} "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;"

{9:12} "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

According to this version, in this particular verse, he entered the Holy Place not the Most Holy Place as stated in the New International Version. Again, this is AD 31, but not the same placeWhich is right the NIV or the KJV? This gets even more confusing when we compare the NIV and the KJV in the following verses:

NIV {9:24} "For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence."{9:25} "Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own."

KJV {9:24} "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:" {9:25} "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;"

The NIV in verse 24 uses the word "sanctuary" and the KJV uses the word holy places. In verse 25, the NIV uses the words "Most Holy Place" and the KJV uses the words "holy place". As we can see these two Bible versions do not agree with each other. However, in Hebrews 9:8, they do:

NIV {9:8} "The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most HolyPlace had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing."

KJV {9:8} "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing". In this case "The Holiest of all" and the "Most Holy Place" are the same thing. But is the "Holy Place" and the "Most Holy" place, also the same thing? or the same place? Let us ask the question again, which is right? The NIV or the KJV?

What if we use another version. Let us try the New American Standard Heb-Greek Key Study Bible 1977 in Hebrews 9: 24, 25 and 8:

NASB {9:24} "For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;"{9:25} "nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters theholy place year by year with blood not his own." {9:8} "The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing."

According to the NASB (New-American Standard) Hebrew-Greek Study Bible,Jesus entered the holy place, not the Most Holy Place in AD 31! Once more, let us ask the question: Which Bible version is right? The NIV, the KJV or NASB?

To determine which is right, we need to determine the meaning of the Greek words in the Bible manuscripts for the words: "sanctuary", "holy place" and the "most holy place". We find the words "hagion", "hagia" and "hagia-hagion", are used in the original language in which the book of Hebrews was written.

We will start our investigation of the meaning of these three words by looking Abingdon"s Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Let's see how it defines the word hagion:

39. hagion {hag'-ee-on} neuter of 40; a sacred thing (i.e. spot):---holiest (of all), holy placesanctuary.

According to the above definition (s), the word can mean 'holiest', 'holy place' or 'sanctuary'. This is where the problem begins. This is the reason why many Bibles, (particularly modern translations) use one of the three terms to define 'hagia' or 'hagion' or 'hagia hagion' as the same thing. The author of the Book of Hebrews however, was very consistent in its use. In fact, the author (of Hebrews) defines its use in the first three verses of Hebrews chapter 9. He used 'hagion' to mean the entire two apartment sanctuary {9:1}, he used 'hagia' to define 'holy place' {9:2} and he used 'hagia hagion' to define the 'holiest' or "Most Holy Place' {9:3}. He was consistent. When he meant to use 'hagia' he used 'hagia'. When he meant to use 'hagia hagion', he used 'hagia hagion', etc.

The author of Hebrews used 'hagia' in the following chapters and verses: 8:2; 9:2, 8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19; 13:11, which means Holy Place. He did not use 'hagia hagion' (Most Holy).

Let us see another definition of the same word under the number:

(hagia, hagion): The interior (either the outer or the inner of the two rooms) of the sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple or of the earlier tabernacle or of a corresponding 'spiritual holy place,' perhaps regarded as being in heaven - 'the holy place'...'a tent was constructed, the outer one...which was called the Holy Place' He 9:2; 'he entered once and for all into the Holy Place' He 9:12. The inner room was more specifically identified by the phrase [hagia hagion] literally 'holy of holies He 9:3,a Hebrew idiom indicating superlative degree" The Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains-Second Edition. United Bible Societies, New York, 1989 Volume 1 - Under the number 7.35.

So we can see accordingly, that Jesus entered the Holy Place in AD 31, not the Most Holy (Holy of Holies). Personally I have studied quite a few other different Bible versions in the Spanish and English languages, compared text by text, using several standard Hebrew-Greek Study Bibles and Bible concordances. My conclusions are simply as follows:

1. Different Bible versions have been translated by different men or groups of men with different backgrounds and in many instances, these men give "tradition" equal force or equal inspiration as the Bible Inspired Text, making both one distinctive source of revelation. One example of this we find in the New American Bible (NAB)-Catholic Bible Press - Thomas Nelson Publishers. The NAB states under the section titled: "Purpose of the Bible" pg. IX:

"...the Bible and Tradition go hand in hand: they are not two distinct sources of revelations. As the Fathers of Vatican II put it. "Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God which is committed to the church" (Dei Verbum, #10). In a sense, Tradition is Scripture lived in the Church."

Another interesting statement found in the same page states:

"He reveals himself in the Church through the Councils, through what Catholics call the magisterium, or "teaching authority of the Popes and Bishops," and through the lives of our people. In the Catholic faith this has been called "Tradition."

We can see then, that "tradition" plays a mayor role in what is determined as "bible truth" and / or "bible doctrine". This "tradition" placed as equal or above inspired scripture, allow for certain words to be admitted in some old bible translations and more so in the new modern ecumenical translations as the "true original Hebrew and / or Greek words", in spite of the real meaning given by the original bible authors, as we have seen and will further see in the case of Hebrews nine.

In many modern Bible translations words have been omitted, changed, substituted or modified. For example Philip Mauro {a Greek scholar} has recorded no fewer than 7, 578 verbal divergences in the gospels alone between the Textus Receptus and the Codex Vaticanus. These consist of the omission of 2,877 words, the addition of 536 words, the substitution of 935 words, the transposition of 2,098 words and the modification of 1,132 words (Philip Mauro, Which Version? Authorized or Revised?, quoted in D.O. fuller, op. cit., pg. 78Also quoted in Modern Bible-Translations Unmasked, Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish pg. 10)

2. With the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum) and with the directive of Pope Pius XII, new modern bible translations have been made with the approval of the Catholic Church in cooperation with the "separated brethren". This fact is evidenced in the New American Bible (NAB) cited earlier. This Bible states:

"...the translators have carried out the directive of our predecessor, Pius XII, in his famous Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum), which prescribed that 'up-to-date and appropriate translations be made in the various languages, by preference from the original texts of the sacred books,' and that 'with approval of Church authority, these translationsmay be produced in cooperation with our separated brethren' so that 'all 'Christians may be able to use them." Link


Thank you very much for your post. I always knew that the NIV was not friendly to SDA doctrines and now I know why. Many who advice on what you need for Bible study recommends you have a KJV Bible as one of your study tools. We see here why indeed.

I think this would clear up if Christ entered the Holy or Most Holy in AD 31, as I see it it's the Holy. 



I would think that you believe any version that does not support the Adventist doctrine is not friendly to the SDA church. However, if you study versions the intent of each is to represent the temple service in Hebrews 9. The high preist was the only preist allowed in the Most Holy place on the day of attonement. It doesn't take a theologin to figure that out. Also the catholic version of the RSV states holy place and not most holy place. People who are interpreting the bible into english are not thinking about the unique Adventist doctrine.



Historically, SDA's have contradicted themselves before.


Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2020   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service