part 2- refuting thunder lauriston's hardtalk charges (2016)

8/18/2019 PART 2- Refuting Thunder Lauriston's Hardtalk Charges (2016)

1/29

1

PART 2 – God’s Church Will Weather

The “Thunder”, Wind and the Rain!!

The Part 2 Response to Elce “Thunder” Lauriston’s

2016 Religious Hardtalk Presentation!!

By Derrick Gillespie

Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and

remains a member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs.

(Contact Info: [email protected] OR https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie)

Published April, 2016

“1 Kings 19:11-12 Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And,

behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains,

and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the

wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the

earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire:

and after the fire a still small voice.”

“God speaks to me not through the thunder and the earthquake… but through

the Son of Man, and speaks in a language adapted to my imperfect sight and

hearing.” -- William Lyon Phelps

“Be grateful for luck [blessings]. Pay the thunder no mind - listen to the birds.

And don't hate nobody.” --- Eubie Blake

--- “Prove all things” ---

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/[email protected]://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespiehttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespiehttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespiehttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/[email protected]


2/29

2

INTRODUCTION:

As indicated in the closing portions of the part 1 presentation--- which was aimed at

respectfully responding to and refuting the charges and claims of brother Elce

“Thunder” Lauriston who had defected from SD Adventism in Jamaica and had made

public on “Religious Hardtalk” his concerns about and charges leveled at SD Adventism

(a Church he now deems an anti-Christian “cult”)--- this part 2 presentation will deal

specifically/largely with clarifying and defending the 1844 Investigative Judgment andSanctuary Messages of SD Adventism, in response to the charges of Brother “Thunder”.

Click the links above to view my part 1 responses and the “Hardtalk” appearance of

brother “Thunder” Lauriston. Also see the picture of Brother Elce Lauriston at the front

of this part 2 presentation, and (if interested; though I strongly recommend it) view a

potent past [or SDA-related] sermon of his at this link, in order to become acquainted

with how mightily he was used of God in the past in Adventism (because despite his

present state of being “misguided” ---in my humble opinion--- yet I will always treasure

his sermons like the one linked above).

Brother Lauriston is a Misguided Scholar in Apocalyptic or Prophetic Matters,

including as it Concerns the SDA Sanctuary and 1844 Judgment Message

As I said in my part 1 presentation, it’s in this area of prophecy-related matters that it

was evidenced that Brother “Thunder” had “bitten off more than he could chew”. And I

say this speaking firmly from a position of being a member of SD Adventism for over 40

years (compared to brother Lauriston’s seven or eight years in the Church), and from a

position where I have personally looked deeply and critically at SDA teachings from

every possible angle, as is humanly possible; including studying out what the critics say,and critically assessing the apologetic arguments presented by SDAs to defend their

theology. I dare say that: I do know what I am talking about!!!

While I will grant Brother Thunder the honesty in admitting on “Hardtalk” that because

of his lack of a Ph.D. in theology he “could be wrong”, yet he had proceeded to

confidently reel off so much of what he read from the anti-SDA critics (like the former

SDA, Dale Ratzlaff ), that one wonders if he realized how woefully misguided he was

sounding in this area (including thinking that one has to have a PhD in theology to

understand the deep things of the Bible). It is in this area that he naturallymisinterpreted so much because, of course, as I already pointed out in my part 1

presentation, if he was so misguided in making judgments regarding less technical

matters about SD Adventism, then it is plain that it’s here that he would certainly lack

true vision when dealing with ‘high powered’ issues of prophecy and its symbolisms

involved.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/309709460/Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/309709460/Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/309709460/Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016http://1spotmedia.com/index.php/vod_item/detail/id/570ea1e0fe2470030044c69fhttp://1spotmedia.com/index.php/vod_item/detail/id/570ea1e0fe2470030044c69fhttp://1spotmedia.com/index.php/vod_item/detail/id/570ea1e0fe2470030044c69fhttp://1spotmedia.com/index.php/vod_item/detail/id/570ea1e0fe2470030044c69fhttp://1spotmedia.com/index.php/vod_item/detail/id/570ea1e0fe2470030044c69fhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN0O38uA9fghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN0O38uA9fghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN0O38uA9fghttp://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2013/1/ratzlaff.htmlhttp://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2013/1/ratzlaff.htmlhttp://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2013/1/ratzlaff.htmlhttp://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2013/1/ratzlaff.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN0O38uA9fghttp://1spotmedia.com/index.php/vod_item/detail/id/570ea1e0fe2470030044c69fhttp://1spotmedia.com/index.php/vod_item/detail/id/570ea1e0fe2470030044c69fhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/309709460/Refuting-Thunder-Lauriston-s-Hardtalk-Charges-2016


3/29

3

I had purposefully left this area of my response for last, since it is the most technical,

and since it’s the area that Brother Lauriston spent most time condemning the SDA

Church over (simply because it is the “heart of Adventism”). Here in this part 2

presentation I intend to deal with his major questions raised and charges leveled at the

SDA Church, but suffice it to say here in passing, almost every major concern and charge

that Brother “Thunder” raised was already addressed in a booklet I had purposefully

written a few years ago to address those very concerns. I will therefore link you to it

(click this link), while I delve into my full response to Brother Thunder about what hesaid on Hardtalk about Adventism’s “1844 Investigative Judgment” and “Sanctuary”

Messages.

Key Questions Raised by Brother “Thunder” about SDA’s 1844 and Sanctuary Message:

Among the several questions raised and claims made by Brother “Thunder” in his TV

appearance are the following; questions and issues which I intend to address head-on

hereafter:

1.If the dead are first being judged before the living since 1844, yet people die daily,

then how will God ever reach the living and then close the Investigative Judgment and

Jesus returns the second time?

2. Isn’t the notion of God scrutinizing every “minutiae” (small detail) of the lives of

Christians seriously antithetical to the gospel which teaches that all sins have already

been paid for by Jesus when he died on the Cross?

3. Didn’t the renowned SDA scholar, Angel Manuel Rodriquez, indicate that there are“issues”/problems with the SDA doctrine on the 1844 Investigative Judgment Message

when he said if we [SDAs] are wrong on this central pillar of SDA teaching then there’s

no reason for the Movement to exist? Click the *link above to see more.

4. Didn’t the renowned SDA historian/theologian/author, George Knight, indicate in his 2008

book, The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism , that an “investigative judgment”

cannot be found in the Daniel 8:14 key text of SDAs, and didn’t the late renowned SDA

theologian/editor, Raymond Cottrell, also systematically and exegetically debunk the SDA

teaching on the 1844 Investigative Judgment and Sanctuary, and hence render the key doctrine

of Adventism invalid? Click the *links above to see more.

5. What justifies the “little horn” symbol in Daniel 8 to be deemed the Papacy, or the Roman

Catholic Church? Click the *link above to read the online chapter in the Bible.

6. What justifies the “trampled” sanctuary in Daniel 8 not being the earthly Jewish one, but

instead the heavenly one?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_Manuel_Rodr%C3%ADguezhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_Manuel_Rodr%C3%ADguezhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_Manuel_Rodr%C3%ADguezhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Knighthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Knighthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Knighthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyv2qxU7R7shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyv2qxU7R7shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyv2qxU7R7shttp://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-8/#14http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-8/#14http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-8/#14https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Cottrellhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Cottrellhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Cottrellhttp://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-8/http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-8/http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-8/http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-8/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Cottrellhttp://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-8/#14https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyv2qxU7R7shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Knighthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_Manuel_Rodr%C3%ADguezhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expanded


4/29

4

7. What justifies the translation of the word “cleansed” (from the Hebrew “sadaq” or “nisdaq”)

in Daniel 8:14, when more modern translations use other renderings of the word and hence

deem “cleansed” in the KJV as an “incorrect” translation? Why do SDAs continue to use the

“incorrect” translation of the word, despite all this?

8. What principle in Daniel 8 would deem it necessary to interpret 2300 days as years?

9. Why would the “2300 days” Daniel 8:14, but interpreted by SDAs as a 2300 years’ time span,begin many centuries before the activities of the “little horn” power?

10. Why would the 2300 years’ time span seem to mean (according to SDA eschatology; or

doctrines dealing with final events) that the activities of the “little horn” power, interpreted by

SDAs as the Papacy, should have ended in 1844 when the sanctuary is “cleansed”, and yet that

power still runs unchecked in its activities against the heavenly sanctuary ever since 1844?

11. Why does the “little horn” power of Daniel 7 come from the fourth beast (or Rome), while

the “little horn” power of Daniel 8 comes from the second beast (or Greece), and yet is deemed

to be the same power of the Papacy which arose only out of Rome?

12. Isn’t it the case that the 1844 Investigative Judgment Message of SDAs detract from the

ministry of Christ simply because his atonement for sinners was “finished” or completed on the

Cross, yet the SDAs teachings say the atonement continue after the Cross, and doesn’t this

heresy, more than any other render Adventism an anti-Christian “cult”?

While the above 12 questions are not the only ones Brother Lauriston had asked, or could have

asked (based on the non-SDA critics he has read), I do think that in addressing the foregoing,

readers will be able to see on what grounds I declared that Brother Lauriston had indeed

“bitten off more than he can chew”, had misinterpreted so much about Adventism’s teachings

on prophecy and the gospel, and had sadly allowed outsiders (critics) and inside dissidents tomislead him about the Adventism he had once loved and labored intensely and selflessly for.

Time to revisit the charges of brother Lauriston, so here goes…

SDAs Never Predicted Jesus’ Second Coming in 1844!!

As seen in the Hardtalk video, program host, Ian Boyne, and brother Thunder together agreed

that it was the “Millerites”, or the MULTI-DENOMINATIONAL group of Bible believers in

America who followed the Baptist preacher, William Miller, who together had thought that

Christ would have returned in 1844; not the SDA Church, which was only officially formed in

1863 (nearly 20 years after). Thus any impression that the public might have taken away fromthe Hardtalk presentation, that SDAs were the ones to make this prediction, that misleading

notion must be dispelled from the outset before I even begin to treat with the 1844 prophetic

issues.IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE OUTSET that since the SDA Church's official founding is dated to

be 1863 (as an official denomination), therefore the 1844 prediction of Jesus' second coming could

*NOT rightly be considered a prediction of SD Adventism, but rather that of the *MULTI-


5/29

5

DENOMINATIONAL Millerite movement of the 1840s. The Seventh-day Adventist Church (formed in

1863) has *NEVER predicted a DATE for the second Coming of Jesus or "Doomsday"!! NEVER!! During

the recent global brouhahas over certain failed "Doomsday" predictions, the RUMOR continued to be

banded about that the SDA Church was one of those organizations that, at one time, had also falsely

predicted a date (in 1844) for the Second Coming of Jesus!! It is time people be informed of the REAL

TRUTH about the matter (even some SDA members themselves are so misinformed; many of whom are

either weak in the faith, or never took the time to find out the REAL truth).

As indicated above, the officially named "SDA Church" was founded in *1863 and has NEVER,

EVER set a date for the coming of Jesus. THE *MULTI-DENOMINATIONAL "MILLERITE"

MOVEMENT OF THE 1840s DID SET A DATE FOR 1844. This mixed group of the 1840s, called

"the Millerites" (not a church denomination), consisted of Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians,

Episcopalians or Anglicans, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Dutch Reformers, Seventh-day

Baptists, Free Will Baptists, among others. That mixed group earlier thought that Jesus would

come in 1844, based on a SYMBOLIC prophecy that was *accurately calculated, but they

misunderstood the EVENT that was to have taken place that year. If any group was 'guilty' of

that misunderstanding it would have applied ALSO to the various church denominations all

those members came from (as above listed).

But after the disappointment of 1844, in the predicted date of Jesus' second Coming, those

initially *FROM that movement broke up and either went back to their specific Churchdenominations (e.g. Baptists, Methodists, etc.), or formed several different and newly named

groups (e.g. the Church of God, Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others), some of which even

remained Sunday-keeping denominations, and which are today called Sunday "Adventists" (e.g.

the Adventist Christian Church); not the Sabbath-keeping SDA church formed LATER. One group

went back to fully study the Bible, and recognized the mistake of the earlier multi-

denominational mixed group of "Millerites", and they LATER formed the Sabbath-keeping "SDA

Church" in 1863 (having learned the lesson well that "no man knows the day nor the hour") and

they have NEVER done any date setting (i.e. GIVING A SPECIFIC YEAR!!) for "Doomsday" since

being officially formed in 1863!!! NEVER, EVER!!

But some may argue that it was the “Adventist” predecessors who made the prediction and so

SDAs formed in 1863 have questionable forefathers as their predecessors. If to be born out of a

previous movement that had certain misconceptions mean condemnation, then why do

Christians proudly accept their outgrowth from Judaism? Wasn't Judaism a movement which

(by way of either SOME or MOST of its adherents):

i] Rejected the very Messiah of Christianity (even today it does), and did not believe Jesus was

divine or even the Son of God, but wrongly felt the Messiah would just be a warrior king to

overthrow the Romans

ii] Practiced slavery and polygamy, and even often sunk into outright idolatry or worshiping of

pagan gods

iii] Practiced racial segregation despite they were to be the vehicle to convert all nations to the

true worship of Yahweh?


6/29

6

If it is that because one's predecessors had misconceptions this means that you being born out

of that movement should forever make you feel ashamed of and shackled by that movement's

misconceptions, then I guess Christianity itself being born out of Judaism, a religion which even

to this day is a strong opposing force to certain fundamental teachings of Christianity, should

forever be something that Christians are ashamed of!! But quite the contrary!! Christians do

believe that despite Judaism had certain misconceptions, and Judaism did make certain

mistakes, yet it was the movement or religion God used for very many centuries to accomplish

much in the unfolding drama of his salvation plan (AND GOD DID SO EVEN WHILE THEY MADEMISTAKES, HAD CERTAIN MISCONCEPTIONS, AND WERE NOT PERFECT IN THEIR IDEOLOGY).

What object lessons can we learn and apply to the SDA movement growing out of the *multi-

denominational "Millerite" movement of the 1840s, which did have certain misconceptions?

Could it be that the "Millerites" were used to accomplish something many people either

overlook or miss? In next section (sub-heading) below I will reveal that to you, dear reader.

Keep reading, and be probably amazed to discover things you never thought of before!!

What Benefit was Derived from the “1844” Millerite Movement?

Why would God inspire a New Testament writer to consider SAMSON (of all persons) to be

listed among the "champions of faith" in Hebrews 11, among such greats as Jacob, Joseph,

Moses, David, etc.? Wasn't the life of Sampson sullied by much self-centeredness and going

after ungodly unions and self-pleasing? How then could he be considered a "champion of faith"

even while much of his life he was misguided? Simple. God's thoughts are often NOT our

thoughts, and the way God accomplishes his purposes sometimes baffles us!! God worked

mightily through Israel, an often backslidden and sometimes misguided religion, evidencingthat God often works through 'less than perfect' instruments to do much more than we might

think. This leads me to the issue of how God could have worked through movements and

people which, by our fallible reasoning, may not have been the 'best choice', and yet much was

still accomplished through them.

The Millerite Movement of the 1840s was one such movement, consisting of a wide cross

section of earnest and passionate MULTI-DENOMINAITONAL Christians (NOT JUST ONE

DENOMINATION). This body of mixed Christians rekindled the fire of passionate expectation of

the second coming (or second "Advent") of Jesus, after very many centuries of dormancyamong Christians (i.e. hardly any fervent preaching about the Second Coming for very many

years), and they blazed a trail of serious Bible study and earnest investigation of the end-time

prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. For the very first time in Christian history since the

fourth century, Christians from all walks of life and from a wide cross section of denominations

banded together to proclaim the second coming of Jesus with the greatest urgency. And for the


7/29

7

first time in all of Church history they spent endless hours in Bible study to understand the

prophecies of Daniel that were "sealed" until "the time of end" (see Daniel 12:4, 9).

Even if the Millerites were misguided in one regard --- that of thinking that a certain TIME

prophecy of Daniel (that was to end in 1844) meant that Jesus would return--- yet they

brought serious focus to the book of Daniel that many had neglected for many centuries, and

they were certainly correct in calculating the time prophecy (from Daniel 8 and 9), even while

mistaken about the EVENT that was to occur in that year. Thus they prepared the way for SDAdventists to discover what their later mission was to be...that of PROCLAIMING THE “1844”

HOUR OF JUDGMENT IN THE LAST DAYS, AND BRINGING FOCUS TO A NEGLECTED BIBLE TRUTH,

i.e. THAT OF JESUS BEING OUR HIGH PRIEST AND JUDGE IN THE SANCTUARY ABOVE.

This scenario I just described reminds me of the how the people of Israel were misguided for

very many years of the TRUE NATURE of the Messiah that was to come, and how even the

disciples of Christ were misguided for a time about the mission of Jesus at his first coming, yet

Jesus used these misguided disciples to promulgate the gospel, and God earlier used Israel (no

matter how often misguided and often backslidden they may have been) to prepare the worldfor the coming of his Son! With the foregoing now said, its time turn my attention to brother

Lauriston’s 2016 charges levelled at the SDA Church over these crucial end time matters.

Brother Lauriston’s Charges against Adventism’s Prophetic Teachings are “Not New”

When brother Lauriston was an SDA preacher, ironically he himself made plain that these

charges which he has now levelled against the SDA Church are “not new”. See him saying so in

this video clip online and recognize that because they are not new, the SDA Church has had the

time to assess them and refute them time and time again. It’s only a pity that he himself neverspent the time carefully looking at how the charges he levelled against Adventism, and the

concerns he raised, have been ALREADY debunked by scholars in Adventism. He seemed to

have spent more time reading the critics, and not equal or more time researching and reading

the SDA apologists. It’s time for me to demonstrate what I mean by the charges being

debunked time and time again.

To FULLY understand what SDAs mean by “The Investigative Judgment” of “1844” taking place

in the “Heavenly Sanc tuary” since that time, and how that date is arrived at, revisit my free

booklet already written to defend the doctrine, entitled The S.D.A. Sanctuary Message

Defended by Derrick Gillespie , and read from page 13 onwards. It is based on a solid SDAteaching, I dare say, despite all the challenges, and it has been able to meet the charges time

and time again. For instance (in light of what brother Lauriston charged):

1. What justifies the translation of the word “cleansed” (from the Hebrew “sadaq” or

“nisdaq” ) in Daniel 8:14, when more modern translations use other renderings of the word

https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/videos/10209798684270118/https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/videos/10209798684270118/https://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/videos/10209798684270118/


8/29

8

and hence deem “cleansed” in the KJV as an “incorrect” translation? Why do SDAs continue to

use the “incorrect” translation of the word, despite all this?

ANSWER:

Of the over 25 translations I have looked up *16 of them translate the word as "cleansed". That

indicates that there is strength in that rendering; not a sectarian rape of Scripture as some

would like to think. In fact, as I wrote this booklet, here’s a snapshot of the Daniel 8:14 text

from my laptop Bible-study software, showing nearly 10 versions using the word “cleansed”:

Daniel 8:14

(LXX+) καιG2532 CONJ

ειπεν V-AAI-3S

αυτωG846 D-DSM

εωςG2193 PREP

εσπεραςG2073 N-GSF

καιG2532 CONJ

πρωιG4404 ADV ημεραιG2250 N-NPF δισχιλιαιG1367 A-NPF καιG2532 CONJ τριακοσιαιG5145 A-NPF καιG2532 CONJ

καθαρισθησεται[cleansed] G2511 V-FPI-3S τοG3588 T-NSN αγιονG40 A-NSN

(ABP+) AndG2532 he saidG2036 to him,G1473 UntoG2193 eveningG2073 andG2532 morningG4404 [3daysG2250 1two thousandG1367 2three hundred],G5145 andG2532 [3shall be cleansedG2511 1theG3588 2holyplace].G39

(ASV) And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings;then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

(BBE) And he said to him, For two thousand, three hundred evenings and mornings; then theholy place will be made clean.

(DRB) And he said to him: Unto evening and morning two thousand three hundred days: andthe sanctuary shall be cleansed.

(KJV) And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall thesanctuary be cleansed.

(RV) And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; thenshall the sanctuary be cleansed.

(WEB) He said to me, “To two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings. Then thesanctuary will be cleansed.”

(WEBA) He said to me, “To two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings. Then thesanctuary will be cleansed.”

More importantly, let me hasten to say that the oldest translations of the Old Testament are

the second century B.C. Septuagint (LXX) and the Theodotion. Both render “sadaq” or “nisdaq”

with the Greek term, katharisthesetai (“shall be cleansed”). Those careful Hebrew scholars

(who themselves spoke Hebrew), and who lived only a few centuries after the time of Daniel,

believed that this was the best single Greek word with which to translate “sadaq” or

“nisdaq”. So “cleanse” is a perfectly acceptable word in Daniel 8:14 and Adventism's

preference for that rendering is in good company.


9/29

9

However “sadaq” or “nisdaq”, in its various verb forms, includes meanings far broader than

merely cleanse, and we have to also recognize them. Other renderings of the word, “sadaq” or

“nisdaq, include:

“Be consecrated”

“Be righted”

“Be restored to its rightful state”“Be restored”

“Be declared right”

“Be justified”

“Be victorious”

“Be vindicated”

“Be made righteous”

“Be sanctified”

Now with that in mind, we can proceed with the thought that, as I have argued in my bookletdefending the Sanctuary Message, despite the word "cleansed" is correctly used by Adventism,

there is nothing wrong with applying the other uses, like "restored to its rightful place",

"righted", "vindicated", etc., since THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PROPHECY NECESSARILY LIMITING

THE MEANING TO ONLY THE "CLEANSING" OF WHICHEVER SANCTUARY IT HAPPENS TO BE AT

THE END OF THE 2300 YEARS (AT THE END OF THE EVENTS IN “ THE VISION ” OF DANIEL 8-9).

Why? I strongly believe that there is ample evidence that the prophecy might just have had

both the Heavenly sanctuary and the earthly spiritual temple (the Church) in mind, i.e. BOTH

relate to God’s people, and BOTH would be "cleansed", but just from different things.

Both would be made victorious or vindicated, but in different contexts. The symbolic trampling

of the sanctuary and God's people underfoot, and the symbolic casting down of the "place" of

God's sanctuary and His truth to the ground, ARE SIMPLY SYMBOLS FOR, ON THE ONE HAND,

THE DEFILEMENT OF THE CHURCH (THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE) BY THE PRESENCE AND PAGAN

INFLUENCE OF THE ANTICHRIST POWER, THE PAPACY (2 THESS. 2:4), AND ALSO THE

OBSCURING OF THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RIGHTFUL PLACE OF GOD'S HEAVENLY SANCTUARY

AND TRUE HIGH PRIEST (OR ONLY MEDIATOR) IN THE LIVES OF CHRISTIANS AFTER THE ROMAN

ANTICHRIST CAME ON THE SCENE.

Thus both sanctuaries would simultaneously (in the same time period; i.e. at the end of the

2300 years) be "made right", "made victorious", and "vindicated", as the truth is made clear

again to the world. Thus while the Heavenly sanctuary is being "cleansed" in the anti-typical

Judgment sense of Leviticus 16 and Yom Kippur, and "vindicated" too, so too the earthly

spiritual temple (the Church) is being "cleansed" (in another context) of pagan defilement, and

https://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expandedhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/224804891/The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message-Defended-by-Derrick-Gillespie-Edited-Expanded


10/29

10

"vindicated" too, as the "Remnant" leaves the confused ranks of spiritual Babylon in

Christendom (since the spiritual awakening of the modern era) and restores the truth about

God's true apostolic Church, God's law, Sabbath, state of the dead, etc. This all happens while

God is "sealing" his chosen elect (making up his jewels) once and for all, thus pronouncing them

"vindicated" and their sinful record fully forgiven or “blotted out”, to the chagrin of Satan, "the

accuser of the brethren".

That discovery, while prayerfully contemplating the Word, has been the impression of the Holy

Spirit of prophecy upon my spirit. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and I don't need highpowered learning about exegesis, and textual analysis (as brother Lauriston seem to think),

before the Holy Spirit can impress such things upon my spirit. I however I think that careful

textual analysis should be used to later intellectually CONFIRM what was discerned in the spirit

and heart (since there are indeed demonic spirits of false prophecy), but the Bible does give me

enough evidence to think this way.

This now brings me to the issue of why do SDAs interpret the “2300 days” in Daniel 8:14 to be

years, and not literal days? Brother Lauriston had asked:

2. What principle in Daniel 8 would deem it necessary to interpret 2300 days as years?

ANSWER:

The designation of time in Daniel 8:14 occurs in the midst of symbols - where all is symbolic

language - the beasts, the horns, the little horn, and the trampling, and casting down of truth,

God’s people and the place of God’s sanctuary by such a power , etc.; and it would seem to be

much more probable that the symbolic method would be adopted as designating the time

referred to than a literal method. Why take out one aspect of the vision which is all symbolic,

and make it literal even before the symbols are explained? That’s not consistent. In addition,

considering that the question in Daniel 8:13 asked specifically, “HOW LONG THE VISION ”, or

“UNTIL WHEN SHALL BE THE VISION ”, and that vision started in the time of the Medo-Persian

empire (symbolized by the ram), and considering that we also see the scope of the vision

leading up to the time of the Grecian empire (symbolized by the he-goat), a time span covering

several centuries, then the time element for the length of “the vision” could not be “2300

days”, when interpreted, but rather a long span of time, and logically called for years to be

understood by the symbol of “2300 days”. Pages 9-10 of my booklet, The S.D.A. Sanctuary

Message Defended by Derrick Gillespie, already delved into the potency of why the contents of

the Daniel 8-9 “vision” (singular) is proven to have related to even Jesus’ time on earth, and

hence satisfies the question as to why the “2300 days” should be years.

The above described also would answer Brother Lauriston’s next question which asked:

3. Why would the “2300 days” of Daniel 8:14, but interpreted by SDAs as a “ 2300 years” time

span, begin many centuries before the activities of the “little horn” power?

ANSWER: Many critics of the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14 prophecy (like Dale Ratzlaff,


11/29

11

Desmond Ford, Raymond Cottrell, et al), fall prey to the same lack of insight, in my humble

opinion. None of these critics have ever disproven the SDA understanding that the question

being answered by Daniel 8:14 was literally asking "HOW LONG THE VISION?" or "UNTIL

WHEN IS THE VISION?" They have never disproven that (according to the SDA viewpoint)

ONLY *ONE GENERAL VISION WAS IN VIEW (not two), and that the time period, as

*SYMBOLICALLY presented in vision (i.e. presented as 2300 “evening morning”, but

translated by Jews themselves in the Septuagint and Theodotion as prophetic “days”), that it

applies to the TIME SCOPE of the entire vision which Daniel got in Daniel 8; not just the

aspects itemized as samples of that vision in Daniel 8:13. That’s why 2300 years MUST be theproper interpretation, and the entire vision therefore logically started in the Medo-Persian era,

and explains why 457 B.C is valid as the starting point, and, ultimately, why the vision started

long before the Romans and the Papacy came on the scene.

If any element of that vision runs into or find fulfillment in the period when Rome was the

“desolator” of Israel (as Jesus showed plainly in Matthew 24:15), then we know that the vision

of Daniel, involving a certain “desolating” power, did not end with Greece, neither was the

Grecian king Antiochus Epiphanes the real power that would bring in “the abomination

[transgression] of desolation”, as mistakenly thought to be so by the critics (including dissident

‘insiders’ like Desmond Ford and Raymond F. Cottrell, and the former SDA Dale Ratzlaff, which

brother “Thunder” Lauriston has chosen to read, and not also, it would seem, his own SDA

apologists). “Kings” in symbol mean whole kingdoms; not one person, like Antiochus Epiphanes.

That’s a major problem for the critics who want to make the “little horn” in Daniel 8, which

grew large/immensely, and brought desolation to Israel, into one person, Antiochus. Yet

Antiochus never desolated the temple, since it was left standing, and he never desolated

Israel, since the nation, via the Maccabees, rose up in rebellion and chased him away

(certainly not a kingdom which “waxed exceedingly great” in Israel’s direction, nor greatly

“prospered” as a power , nor “destroyed wonderfully” ; Daniel 8:9, 12, 24).

In addition, Jesus’ Matthew 24:15 utterance is a major obstacle to the opposing view of the

critics; an obstacle which they must overturn before they can effectively refute the SDA

position on who was the “desolating” power of Daniel 8 and 9, for instance. ABSOLUTELY NOONE HAS YET BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED!! AND I AM SPEAKING

WITH ABSOLUTE HONESTY WHEN I SAY SO. Until they can, then the SDA viewpoint remains

valid.

With the foregoing considered, this now leads me to answer the questions from Brother

Lauriston which asked:

4. Why does the “little horn” power of Daniel 7 come from the fourth beast (or Rome), while

the “little hor n” power of Daniel 8 comes from the second beast (or Greece), and yet it is

deemed by SDAs to be the same power of the Papacy which arose out of Rome? [And]What justifies the “little horn” symbol in Daniel 8 being deemed to be the Papacy, or the Roman

Catholic Church?

ANSWER:

As already explained in my booklet, The S.D.A. Sanctuary Message Defended by Derrick

Gillespie, the fact that Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 IDENTIFIED the power bringing


12/29

12

"*THE abomination [transgression] of desolation" to be Rome, totally obliterates the popular

viewpoint that Antiochus Epiphanes (a Syrian king) fulfilled "THE" (specific article)

"abomination of desolation" that was prophesied by Daniel. I repeat. Antiochus never brought

"desolation", neither to the temple (since he left it standing), nor to Jerusalem (it remained in

place), nor to Israel (since the Jews rose up in successful rebellion against the invasion of

Antiochus, by way of the Maccabees)!! And so he cannot be the REAL agent of "desolation"

(since he brought only *temporary *disruption to Israel’s temple services), but rather the REAL

power in view was the empire of Rome which came nearly 200 years later! Once Rome appears

in the picture as bringing the fulfillment of "THE" (specific article) related "transgression[abomination] of desolation" prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9, then it makes it plain that the

time frame of the “vision” of Daniel 8 and 9 was to run into a long time period represented in

symbol as "2300 days" (but with the “day-for-a-year” prophetic principle in operation in

order for that to happen). In fact, the very fact that Revelation 13, and 17 pictures IN SYMBOL

a Roman power with the "body of a leopard", i.e. it being largely characteristic of the

features of the Grecian power that it came after (remember Greece was the leopard power in

symbol; Daniel 7), this totally nullifies all those opposing viewpoints which believe that a

Roman "little horn" power could not have arisen out of a Grecian empire depicted in Daniel

8. All notable history books depict Rome as a "Greco-Roman" empire, simply because it was

so "Greek" at its core in so many ways.... and this is very telling of what Daniel saw in vision

long before Rome came on the scene, especially with Jesus himself identifying Rome in

Matthew 24:15 as the real power fulfilling the "abomination of desolation" prophecies of

Daniel.

By the way, the he-goat power (representing Greece) that brother Lauriston called “the second

beast” on “Hardtalk” would actually be the third beast power in the general scheme of the

sequence of word powers prophesied about from Babylon onwards. This “third” beast power

actually morphed/transitioned into the fourth beast, or Rome, because Rome in history is called

by all reputable historians as the *“Greco-Roman” power (fancy that!!!). And in the prophecies

of Revelation 13, Rome, by the times of the New Testament, is depicted as a beast (kingdom)

with a body (the largest portion of any animal) being that of a leopard (which in Daniel 7 hadrepresented Greece). Therefore, the Papacy (the religo-political continuation of pagan Rome)

indeed rose from a power largely Greek at its core (i.e. the “Greco-Roman” power). This

satisfies the question as to why the “little horn” (Papal Rome), in either its pagan or papal

stages, could have been depicted as arising from BOTH a Roman as well as an earlier Grecian

power!!

So far, I have been showing, one by one, how the charges/concerns of brother Lauriston are

groundless in terms of the prophetic issues, and I will continue to do so right to the very end.

Here’s his next question:

5. Why would the 2300 years’ time span seem to mean (according to SDA eschatology; or

doctrines dealing with final events) that the activities of the “little horn” power, interpreted

by SDAs as the Papacy , should have ended in 1844 when the sanctuary is “cleansed”, and yet

that power still runs unchecked in its activities against the heavenly sanctuary ever since

1844?


13/29

13

ANSWER:

The answer is simple. Because the 2300 days question related to the length of the entire vision

(Daniel 8:13); not the time span the “little horn” would be casting down the place of the

sanctuary, by obscuring its work. When the 2300 years (represented in symbol as “2300 days”)

or the length of “the vision” would have expired, nowhere does the Bible say the “little horn”

power would not have continued to run its course until the time of the “the end”; a time which

began from Jesus’ time (denoted “the last days”; see Dan. 8:17), and continues up to Jesus’

second coming when the “little horn” power (the Papacy) is “broken without hand” ordestroyed by divine intervention (Daniel 8:25; 2 Thess. 2:8). The time of Antiochus is never

designated the time of “the end” or the “end” times, but the time-span of Rome (pagan and

papal) is indeed within the time of “the end”.

Brother Lauriston also asked:

6. What justifies the “trampled” sanctuary in Daniel 8 not being the earthly Jewish one, but

instead the heavenly one?

ANSWER:

Please note that the sanctuary to be “cleansed” at the end of the 2300 years period of the

entire vision (i.e. in 1844)--- a time certainly within the time of “the end”--- could NOT have

been the earthly Jewish sanctuary, because by then it was no longer in existence (it was

destroyed by the desolating power of Rome since A.D. 70), and so the only candidates for that

post-1844 “cleansing” could only be the heavenly one and the church as the spiritual one. It’s in

the heavenly sanctuary that we see a judgment scene in Daniel 7:9, 10; an investigative

judgment on the “little horn” power which later results in it power being “broken”/destroyed

thereafter. Thus, when we see that the only true sanctuary still in existence to be “cleansed” at

the end of the length of the time span of the entire vision (Daniel 8:13), or after 1844, is the

heavenly one intimately tied to the earthly spiritual temple of the Church, by that alone we

know that the heavenly sanctuary tied to the church (the spiritual sanctuary on earth) would bethe real focus of the vision of Daniel 8; a vision running from the Medo-Persian era to the time

of “the end” (see Daniel 8:17). Never forget that the earthly temple was NOT the true

tabernacle (see Heb. 8:1-2 with Heb. 9:24), but just the symbol of the heavenly one, as tied to

God’s people, the spiritual temple. That TRUE temple is the one Satan hates most!!

Dear reader, by now I am hoping you have begun to see that the SDA beliefs about prophecy

can be defended, so it’s time for me to address the opposition coming from dissident SDA

insiders like late Dr. Raymond Cottrell, Dr. Desmond Ford, and from defectors like Dale Ratzlaff.

Brother Lauriston indirectly asked these questions:

7. Didn’t the renowned SDA historian/theologian/author, George Knight, indicate in his 2008

book, The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism, that an “investigative

judgment” cannot be found in the Daniel 8:14 key text of SDAs, and didn’t the late renowned

SDA theologian/editor, Raymond Cottrell, also systematically and exegetically debunk the

SDA teaching on the 1844 Investigative Judgment and Sanctuary, and hence render the key

doctrine of Adventism invalid?


14/29

14

ANSWER: First, it must be noted that brother Lauriston insisted on “Hardtalk” that the

renowned SDA historian/theologian/author, George Knight, flatly rejected any “investigative

judgment” in Daniel 8:14. Yet, he, just like former member Dr. Andre Hill (who publicly made

the same claim) seem to have missed the statements from George Knight’s 2008 book, The

Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism, clearly saying what he didn’t see in Daniel

8:14 was an investigative Judgment “ OF THE SAINTS” but rather [investigative and executive]

Judgment on the “little horn”, and “a restoration, justification, and cleansing of the sanctuary at

the end of the 2300 days” . But since Scripture must be studied “line upon line; precept upon precept; here a little, there a little” , it is no problem to explain one Scripture like Daniel 8:14 by

linking it to another, such as the parallel thought being expressed in Daniel 7:9, 10. Having read

this 2008 book myself, and since I own it, let me share a snapshot of the very page (page 68)

which brother Lauriston was quoting from on “Hardtalk”. Read it and recognize what George

Knight is saying; I’ll outline those below.

George Knight, like myself, recognize that the only true sanctuary remaining after the 2300

years’ time span (which began in the Medo-Persian era and ended in 1844), is the heavenly

one; and only that true sanctuary could be “cleansed” in a the fashion typified by the Jewish

one which had long passed away. And since Hebrews 9:23 makes plain that the heavenly

sanctuary can and would be “purified” (or cleansed), contrary to some who think this could

never be, then it is no strange thing for that to happen metaphorically after 1844. Also since, to

the Jews, the earthly Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16) was the only templeceremony that involved temple purification or cleansing that is intimately/simultaneously

tied to a day of Judgment or examination of all lives before God (whether bad or good), then

right way we begin to see the link between Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 7:9, 10. We also begin to see

why George Knight linked the two Scriptures. By doing all of this, including defending the I844

doctrine in the above-mentioned book, George Knight shows that Dr. Raymond Cottrell and Dr.


15/29

15

Desmond Ford are misguided. I also personally think that these two renowned SDA theologians

were/are misguided, and I say that after carefully reading Dr. Desmond Ford’s renowned

“Glacier View” papers, as well as the “Asset or Liability” paper of Dr. Raymond Cottrell (which

brother Thunder referenced), and seeing for myself the inherent flaws therein… despite all their

scholarship. “Scholarship” and “intellect” does not automatically mean one must be correct!!!

Never forget that the Jews themselves have long seen Yom Kippur (the day of atonement in

Leviticus 16) as closely tied to a day of investigative judgment (see Yom Kippur online at this

link: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippur).

The Jewish Encyclopedia I cited at the link above puts it this way:

"In rabbinic Judaism the Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur] completes the penitential period of

ten days...[with] the annual day of judgment, when all creatures pass in review before the

searching eye of Omniscience..."

This Jewish understanding is in reality quite ironic, seeing that just as Daniel 7 shows a

vindication of God's people AFTER a judgment scene (obviously occurring in the heavenly

temple above where God dwells), and AFTER an event which results in the "little horn" power'sultimate demise (Daniel 7:9, 10, 26, 27), LIKEWISE Daniel 8 also brings into focus a "cleansing"

of the only remaining LITERAL sanctuary at the very time of "the end" (i.e. the sanctuary

above), and that too results in the "little horn" power being "broken without hand". With this

evident parallelism SDAs firmly believe that the heavenly ceremony of "cleansing" is also one of

investigative judgment that looks into the records of people's lives, and determines their final

destinies and “rewards”, just as the Jews believed about the earthly “shadow” or counterpart

(the Day of Atonement) was a time of divine investigation of the lives of the people of God.

How can the above described connection, as made by SDAs (and Jews), be Biblically supported?

Here’s how. God has appointed ONLY ONE "day", or event, or period (not more than one), for

*JUDICIALLY judging/assessing *BOTH the wicked and the righteous *BEFORE Jesus’ second

coming to establish his glorious kingdom and punish the wicked (see Acts 17:31, 2 Cor. 5:10

with Ecclesiastes 3:17). When Jesus returns he would have rewards for all (Rev.22:12), including

the judicial punishment of the anti-Christ power in 2 Thess. 2:8, and hence THIS JUDGMENT OF

ASSESSMENT MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE TIME OF "THE END" BUT BEFORE JESUS RETURNS

(see Revelation 11:1, 18, 19 roughly locating that investigative event in the period when “the

nations are angry”, i.e. in the period involving World Wars for the first time, or after the 1844

date). From the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, SDAs have learned that when the prophetic period

covered by the entire vision of Daniel 8 (see again Daniel 8:13) is complete (expressed in

symbolic language as "2300 days", but symbolically meaning years) then an event of sanctuary

"cleansing" would take place, and would also be a period of divine Judgment in heaven (thesame one identified in Daniel 7:9-11); one that is "Investigative" in nature, and that would

result in not just the demise of the opposing little horn power, but also a judging and

vindication of God's people by way of their Advocate and High Priest (Jesus Christ) at his

throne. This is what "1844" is all about (the year that ends the period covered by the singular

vision of Daniel 8 and 9), and it has a more solid footing in the Bible than the critics do realize.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippurhttp://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippurhttp://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippurhttp://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippur


16/29

16

HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD JOHN THE REVELATOR SEE THE TRUTH IN VISION (IN REVELATION 11:1, 18,19) THAT THE

JUDGMENT/ASSESSMENT OF ALL IS ALSO TIED TO THE “OPENING” OF THE MOST HOLY PLACE AND THE ARK OF THE

COVENANT BEING SHOWN? ONLY ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT OR YOM KIPPUR WAS THE INNER APARTMENT OF THE

TEMPLE VIEWED BY THE HIGH PRIEST, AND YET HERE IS JOHN SHOWING THE HEAVENLY COUNTERPART, AND ITS INNER

SANCTUM BEING SYMBOLICALLY "OPENED", AND THAT BEING TIED TO A DAY OF JUDGMENT ON ALL.

I think that is rather telling, and gives credence to the Jewish Rabbinical view that Yom Kippur is

also tied to judgment/assessment of people’s lives. Is it any wonder John the Revelator also ties

the “opening” of the Most Holy Place with the "TIME" APPOINTED (SEE AGAIN ACTS 17:31) for

judging ALL people of earth in Revelation 11: 18,19, INCLUDING GOD'S OWN PEOPLE? To those

too blind to see it will not be obvious, but the SD Adventists have long seen the connectionand will continue to preach it no matter the fierce opposition from within and without the

Church.

Some assume that because the book of Hebrews does not specifically address the prophetic

issue of the sanctuary "cleansing", then it denies the "INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT" doctrine as

understood by SDAs, but that is a paltry polemic against the SDA teaching since Hebrews was

*NOT a book meant to explain prophetic issues in detail, but it simply gave a sweeping view of

how Jesus ministers in THE true heavenly sanctuary (AS BOTH THE SACRIFICIAL "LAMB" AND

PRIEST, INCLUDING BEING THE DAILY ANTI-TYPICAL PRIEST AS WELL AS HIGH PRIEST), and that,

no doubt, ALL the earthly symbols/figures in the earthly sanctuary would eventually find

fulfillment in the ongoing ministry of Jesus in the heavenly one (ALL IN THEIR OWN TIME, OFCOURSE).

“Behind the Veil” and all that!!

Brother Lauriston was clearly concerned on “Hardtalk” that Adventism stands alone against all

of Christendom teaching that Jesus’ entry “within [behind] the veil” in the heavenly sanctuary

must mean (as Dr. Desmond Ford postulated) that Jesus must have been dealing with matters

related to the Most Holy Place or engaged in an ongoing “day of Atonement’ ever since his

ascension. And yet here, again, the flaws in the arguments of the critics which brother“Thunder” has read can be shown.

The Bible itself has proven the opposing voices (obligated to bring the 'burden of proof') to not

be convincing enough in the following areas:

a] The book of Hebrews gives no absolute proof that Jesus has been serving within the second

apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, or that he carried out the full/complete work

symbolized by that apartment) ever since his ascension (or before 1844), and the term

"within the veil" in the book of Hebrews, BEING AMBIGUOUS IN NATURE, offers no absolute

refutation of the “Sanctuary Message” as taught by SDAs. The term “within the veil” I will

expound on shortly to show why it is indeed ambiguous. This issue I will demonstrate and

expound on hereafter (citing how even the opposing ‘inside scholars’ like even Desmond Ford

unwittingly proves how ambiguous the term "the veil" really is). But suffice it to say here that it

is true that Jesus ascended to the very presence of His Father, but his work as both the Lamb,

our Advocate (Priest) and High Priest cannot be proven (despite all the protestations of the

critics) as being without natural phases and or happening within its own timetable. The SDA

teaching about Jesus being in God’s very presence even while his work is undergoing phases


17/29

17

can be easily accounted for. In heaven there is no sinful being or person, and so there is no

need to separate heaven’s inhabitants (including angels) from God’s direct presence, as

necessary on earth among the ancient Jews in the earthly temple services. Angels (sinless

beings) freely have full access to the throne room of God, and they stand in his very presence

daily (see Matt. 18:10, Luke 1:19 and Rev. 5:11); unlike sinful humans on earth who were/are

separated from him because of our sinful nature. And even though Jesus remains a human, a

glorified human (see 1 Tim. 2:5), yet because of his inherent divine nature (Heb. 1:8) as well

as his spotlessness or sinless condition as our Advocate he, like all the other inhabitants of

heaven, has direct access to the very throne room of God as well as to God’s very enthronedpresence. Actually Jesus shares the very throne of God (Rev. 3:21). However it is quite

interesting that in Revelation 8:3, Rev. 1:4 and Rev. 4:5 the presence of the heavenly alter

and the symbolic seven branched lamp (representing the Holy Spirit) is seen directly BEFORE

(literally 'in front of') the Throne of God and the Lamb (the same throne as in Rev. 3:21). ON

EARTH THIS "LAMP" AND THE ALTER WAS IN THE FIRST APARTMENT OF THE SANCTUARY (A

PATTERN OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY)!! And this is compelling evidence for me and other

‘doctrinally settled’ SDAs that John's visions of Heaven before the arrival of the pre-Advent

Judgment scene (of Rev. 11:18, 19 or Daniel 7: 9, 10) seem to place God's MOVEABLE throne in

the first apartment of the Heavenly sanctuary; I say “moveable throne” because that is

certainly why in visionary symbol it has “wheels”, and why God in Daniel 7: 9, 10 is represented

in vision as seemingly coming in from elsewhere to “sit” in Judgment and thereafter examine

the records of human lives (i.e. both the wicked and the righteous; see Eccl. 3:17).

All of this biblical reality, as outlined in the foregoing, certainly allows for MOVEMENT of both

God the Father and His throne through the two sanctuary-apartment phases of Jesus’ heavenly

ministry as believed by SDAs!! There is certainly implied a clear “movement” of focus in terms

of what is being accomplished in heaven when the scene in Daniel 7:9, 10 and Rev. 11:18, 19

arrives!! For nearly two thousand years now Jesus has been doing a work of Advocacy as our

Mediator in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:1-6) as himself the Sacrificial Lamb, himself the

daily Priest (Mediator) and himself the High Priest as well. Why?

Since Hebrews 8:1-6 shows that the normal daily priests and their daily services “serve unto

the example and shadow of heavenly things”, then Jesus as Advocate (Priest)*MUST carry out

heavenly work typified by the normal daily priests as well (see Heb. 8:4, 5), and not just the

High Priest’s distinctive one-day work at the climax of the year of all temple activities. That is

why I reject the views of those (like the dissident ‘insider’ Desmond Ford) who say Jesus

ascended to only accomplish the distinctive work of the High Priest as carried out only on the

Day of Atonement. If that was the case then the normal earthly priests and their daily round

of services, and even the normal daily work of the high priest himself as seen in Heb. 7:27

(even going into the first apartment with blood for sins; and Lev. 4:7, 17, 18), these would

have no counterpart in heaven itself (in contradistinction to Heb. 8:4, 5); only the distinctiveone-day or Yom Kippur work of the High Priest would find fulfillment (according to Desmond

Ford misguided claims). But we see Jesus carrying out BOTH roles, but obviously in two

phases as typified repeatedly on earth by the repeated yearly cycles of temple services in the

outer and inner apartment (see Heb. 10:1-12). Jesus in Heaven fulfills the repeated yearly

rounds of activities carried out by both the daily priests and the High Priest as well. He does

this by one sacrifice of himself as the Lamb on earth, by one entry as the human priest into


18/29

18

the heavenly sanctuary, by one ongoing period of advocacy as Mediator, as typified by the

daily priests (and the high priest as well), and he climaxes that one heaven-centered cycle

(singular) of activities, or the one period covering the process of redemption/atonement,

with one special occasion (typified by the day of Atonement) with himself also being the High

Priest. Most critics fail to appreciate that the PROCESS of atonement, as typified by

“shadows” on earth, was one carried out throughout the year (including the work of the

normal priests with the daily “atonement” sacrifices); not just in its climaxing phase on the

special day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) when the High Priest did a distinctive climaxing work

of “atonement”. As on earth with the earthly sanctuary, so it MUST unfold in heaven as aprocess over time, and in phases, or else the “shadows” on earth would find no counterpart

in heaven as the book of Hebrews explains!! These truths I find gripping and cannot ignore,

despite all the ranting’s of the critics.

I also find it very gripping that only when the pre-Advent Judgment "TIME" was introduced in

Rev. 11:18, 19 (i.e. "the TIME” of determining rewards and punishments BEFORE Jesus

returns with all “rewards”; see Rev. 22:12) that John made reference to the Ark of the

Covenant FOUND IN THE INNER APARTMENT (a container for holding the main moral

standards which even the saints will be judged by; see James 2:10-12; 1 Kings 8:9)… thus

strongly indicating that the inner apartment of the heavenly was figuratively “opened for

business”, in a manner of speaking, ONLY when the INVESTIGATIVE Judgment arrived (which

did not cover the whole Christian era, but a specifically “appointed time”- Acts 17:31). The

above cited references, such as Rev. 11:18, 19 and Acts 17:31, et al, I will further explain

hereafter to show their potency.

b] Critics cannot disprove the SDA viewpoint that Jesus ascended to heaven to relate to the

entire heavenly sanctuary and its services as typified on earth in the earthly sanctuary; not

just to relate to the inner apartment and its one item of furniture, the Ark of the Covenant.

Jesus actually ascended and does/did a work related to all aspects, but in unfolding phases.

Proof? Hebrews 8:2, 5 and Hebrews 9:18-24 make plain (in the KJV and many other

translations) that Christ was to relate to ALL the "PATTERNS" AND "THINGS" (PLURAL) IN"HEAVEN ITSELF", and not just one room of the Most Holy place, and its one item, the Ark of

the covenant (BOTH SINGULAR SUBJECTS)’. Jesus is pictured as entered into “heaven itself” and

into a place patterning the "holy places" (Hebrews 9:24) on earth, or he entered “once” into

the sanctuary as a whole (Hebrews 8:2), and this sanctuary is also called “the holy place”

(Hebrew 9:12) or “ta hagia” in Greek. IT WAS THE ENTIRE EARTHLY SANCTUARY THAT HAD ALL

THE ITEMS "WHICH *ARE FIGURES [OR PATTERNS] OF THE TRUE", and this indicates that

where Jesus started to serve as its counterpart "IN HEAVEN ITSELF" it has ALL THE PROTOTYPE

"PATTERNS" [PLURAL] of the earthly sanctuary; not just the one room of the Most Holy place

being a pattern (singular), as the true prototype.By the very reference to "FIGURES/PATTERNS" of the true, and to Jesus entering "HEAVEN

itself" these expressions indicate that the place Jesus started to serve upon his ascension was

filled with "FIGURES" OR "PATTERNS" [PLURAL]. No wonder Hebrews 9:23, when written in the

first century, makes plain that it “should be” [future tense] all "THINGS" (PLURAL) in the

heavenly sanctuary that “should be” (not “have been” but *SHOULD be”) SYMBOLICALLY


19/29

19

"purified" with Jesus’ blood; NOT JUST THE ONE ROOM OF THE MOST HOLY PLACE, AND NOT

JUST THE ONE ITEM OF FURNISHING IN IT (SINGULAR). The very language of Hebrews 9:23,24

makes plain Jesus was to serve in the entire heavenly sanctuary with all it "PATTERNS"

(PLURAL); he was not just to serve in relation to one room, or one item of furnishing, but IN

RELATION TO PLURAL SUBJECTS AND "THINGS" OR "PATTERNS". In addition to this, the very

reference to “purification” of heavenly “things” and “patterns” refutes the claim that nothing

“defiling” can be in heaven. It’s clearly symbolic language at play, and so SDAs are on firm

foundation to refer to symbolic “cleansing” of the heavenly sanctuary in our “SanctuaryMessage”. But the main point here is that Hebrews 9 makes sweeping descriptions of the

overall temple and priestly services and ceremonies, and points to the heavenly ministry of

Christ as their counterpart; Hebrews 9 is not just about the special event on the special Day of

Atonement (Yom Kippur).

DR FORD STANDS REFUTED

Many critics and dissident ‘insiders’ alike, e.g. Dr. Desmond Ford, they forget that the work

of the normal daily priests (not just the High Priest) must find fulfillment in Jesus’

heavenly/sanctuary ministry, and they also forget that the High priest on earth served right

throughout the year in the earthly temple AS A WHOLE (e.g. Lev. 4:7, 17, 18); not just on the

one day he entered the Most Holy place annually. If these earthly realities or “shadows” must

find fulfillment in Jesus’ life/work in heaven, then it stands to reason that Jesus is to serve

BOTH as a normal priest would in the heavenly sanctuary (no wonder his priesthood has been

for nearly 2000 years so far), as well as serve as the High Priest would daily, as well as in the

shorter period covered by the final segment of ministry in the Most Holy Place. Hebrews

overall, especially Hebrews 9, proves that his heavenly ministry (involving BOTH his roles AS

THE SACRIFICED LAMB AND OUR HEAVENLY PRIEST) ignores no aspect of the earthly temple as

a whole, with all its "PATTERNS" OR "FIGURES" (PLURAL). I don’t know of any critic that could

take that understanding away from me!!

The dissident SDA ‘insider,’ Dr. Desmond Ford, tried in several of his ‘scholarly’ papers, to make

it seem that because Hebrews 9 refers to Jesus as High Priest entering the “holiest of all” or

serving “within the veil”, and because reference is made to “bulls” or “bullocks and “calves”,

and “goats”, and to Jesus as high priest “entering once into the holy place”, then this must

mean only the special “shadows” of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) activities would

characterize his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary from the very moment he ascended. This, he

argues, would involve only the “most holy place” phase of the work of Jesus as priest, andhence would effectively nullify the SDA “Sanctuary Message” of a two-phased or two-

apartment ministry of Jesus and its related date of 1844. But I find this to be unconvincing

eisogesis (reading into the text) on his part, and I cannot but reject his well-intended but

misguided claims (no matter how ‘scholarly’ they may sound coming from a highly respected

‘intellectual’; “scholarship” and “intellect” does not automatically mean one must be correct).


20/29

20

Apart from what I showed earlier, here are additional points to refute his claims regarding the

above described:

[i] The expression “holiest of all” in Hebrew 9:8 (a reference to the entire sanctuary in heaven)

is NOT exactly the same Greek expression used in Hebrews 9:3; despite also translated as “the

holiest of all” in the KJV. The writer of Hebrews simply made the point in Hebrews 9:8 that

while the earthly sanctuary was still standing, or fully functional, the way into the heavenly

sanctuary or “ta hagia” (translated as the “holiest of all” in the KJV) was not yet manifest, i.e.

Jesus was not yet operating as priest in the heavenly sanctuary during the old testament age.

He first had to become human to become the priest in the heavenly sanctuary, and also had to

have a perfect blood sacrifice to offer, in this case it would be himself, before his ministry above

in the “ta hagia” or “true tabernacle” (also called the “holiest of all”) could begin. In contrast,

we find that when the writer of Hebrews wanted to clinch a more specific meaning, i.e. with

specific reference to the “most holy place” as the second apartment in the sanctuary as a

whole (which is also called the “holiest of all” in the KJV), he used the compound Greek

expression “hagia hagion” , or “hagia hagia”, to specifically mean the “holy of holies” or inner

apartment of the sanctuary!! Thus we cannot just read the English expression “holiest of all”

(translated from the Greek “ta hagia”) and assume it automatically means the “most holy

place” specifically, simply because the expression “ta hagia” is AMBIGUOUS, and Dr. Desmond

Ford himself unwittingly admits this, when he said (while quoting from a newer and misleading

translation):

" [Hebrews 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.

.... the word [ta hagia] that is here translated "most holy place" is literally "holies." .....The word

itself can mean the sanctuary as a whole, or it can mean the first apartment, or it can mean

the second apartment. You can prove nothing from the Greek, because it has these

possibilities..."

-Desmond Ford, The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?

Here Desmond Ford, a staunch critic of Adventism's doctrine of the Sanctuary, admits freely,

and rightly so, that the plural term "holies", sometimes translated "holy place", other times

"holy places" (coming from "ta hagion" or "ta hagia" in Greek) is *AMBIGUOUS, and at times it

means the sanctuary as a whole, sometimes the outer apartment, and other times the inner

apartment, so it is CONTEXT that must be appealed to in order to ascertain meaning. This

ambiguity of the Greek word is similar to the AMBIGUOUS word "law" in the Bible (from the

Hebrew "torah", or the Greek "nomos"), and hence context is crucial. Now, interestingly, I

found out (by doing a careful review of the Greek), that all places where it is claimed that Jesus

"entered" [PAST TENSE] into the Most Holy Place into the presence of the Father is based on


21/29

21

speculation, because THE EXPRESSION COMPLEX, "HAGIA HAGION" IS MISSING!! The

expression used about Christ in the sanctuary in the presence of the Father is always "hagion"

or "ta hagia", which means simply either Heaven itself, or just the sanctuary on a whole (e.g.

Heb. 9:8, and Heb. 10:19). Coupled with that is the fact that in the KJV Jesus is said to have

"entered" into "the holy place" (singular) in Hebrews 9:12 and into "holy places" (plural) in

Hebrews 9:24, with both expressions coming from “ta hagia”. This further MAKES IT VAGUE AS

TO WHICH COMPARTMENT HE "ENTERED" UPON HIS ENTRY INTO THE HEAVENLY

SANCTUARY....thus making the issue not as clear-cut as some think!! But by now it should beplain that “hagia hagia” or “hagia hagion” is used by the writer of Hebrews to specifically

mean the inner apartment, and he used it only when he wanted to clinch that specific

meaning, and so we cannot impose on the holy writ what the writer himself never chose to

write. Thus SDAs are correct when we say Jesus started to serve in the sanctuary (“ta hagia”) as

a whole at first, but the inner apartment phase of his ministry came only later (i.e. in 1844). We

are also on sound footing when we insist that Heb. 9:12 should be translated as he entering the

“holies” or “the “holy places”, or “the sanctuary” on a whole; not specifically the Most Holy

Place/apartment phase of ministry.

[ii] Also, since the much debated expression, "the [temple] veil", needed a qualifying term by

the very writer of Hebrews i.e. "*after [or within] the *SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3), so as to

clinch a more specific meaning with reference to the “hagia hagion” (“the most holy place”),

and since there were two veils to the temple, it is therefore not conclusive that Heb. 6:19 was

referring specifically to behind the "veil" of the Most Holy Place when it was written. Even the

writer of Hebrews SYMBOLICALLY uses the term "the veil" to mean Jesus' flesh (Heb. 10:20). It

is obvious that to be in the Temple demanded that one pass through, and is behind or within

the first "veil" to the door of the Temple. Thus the expression in Heb. 6:19 could be referring to

being "within" or behind any of the two "veils", since Jesus was not a High Priest BEFORE his

incarnation, as He must have been made human to even minister in the Heavenly sanctuary in

the first place (Heb. 5). So his incarnation, obedience, and crucifixion opened the way, or gave

Him the right to His ministry in the Heavenly sanctuary, that is, He earned the right to be

minister "within the veil" or just simply the sanctuary itself. There is no evidence in the

expression itself, i.e. "within the veil" in Heb. 6:19 that this meant SPECIFICALLY “The most Holy

Place", and not just within the sanctuary itself!! In fact as we consider the earthly sanctuary we

realize that the common people could only see the courtyard. They could not enter or see

into the sanctuary itself; only the priests (i.e. the daily as well as the high priest). Thus when

either the priest or high priest disappeared from their view he was entering through the first

veil into the sanctuary as a whole, and only by faith they accepted what took place inside.

Thus the expression “within the veil” can legitimately mean BOTH being in the temple as a

whole, as well as being in the most holy place behind “the second veil” (Hebrews 9:3). The

verses of the entire chapter of Hebrews 9, discuss all the services of the priests and high priests


22/29

22

in their daily rounds, as well as that once a year event involving the High Priest going into the

second apartment. The people could not see the priests in ANY of the work done in the “holy

places” behind the veils of the sanctuary itself, whether it was in the holy place OR the most

holy. In the same way, when Christ ascended to heaven we could no longer physically see

Him. We must follow Him in faith as He ministers for us in the “Holy Places” with all its

original “patterns” (plural) in the true sanctuary of heaven; not just in the Most Holy

Place/apartment.

[iii] Finally, while it is true Hebrews 9 makes reference to purification, bulls, goats, calves,

heifer, sprinkling of ashes and blood, and refers to the high priest entering the most holy place

once yearly, etc., and while it is true its mainly an imagery of the specific Day of Atonement

(Yom Kippur) and references the work in the most holy place, yet these descriptions are NOT

ONLY about that. Bulls, calves and goats were used other days of the year, for instance (with

blood entering the first apartment by way of the high priest on other crucial occasions like in

Lev. 4:7, 17, 18), and the sprinkling of ashes of the heifer, and dedication or symbolic

purification of all the vessels and furnishings of temple with blood relate to other days in the

yearly round of activities as well. This again debunks the claim of Dr. Desmond Ford that it was

only the inner apartment work Jesus entered upon. And so the SDA position in its “Sanctuary

Message” remains sound, despite the attempts of dissidents like Dr. Ford to use ambiguousbiblical references to try and overturn it.

c] Critics cannot prove that a pre-Advent Judgment by Christ (2 Cor. 5:9, 10; John 5:22) is not

needed, and they also cannot that prove that it is not prophetically timetabled, neither can

they prove that it’s not possible to know when it will start. Here’s why they cannot!! When

Jesus ascended he ascended as a person invested with very many overlapping roles that either

were already fulfilled in Him or will be fulfilled in Him (e.g. He is Priest, High Priest, Sacrificial

Lamb, Final Judge, Rewarder, King of kings, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Elder brother,

Second Adam, et al) and it was and is proper to identify him by every role/title, even if he has

not fully officiated in that role at the time of he being referred to in writing or speech as such.It is also quite logical that the unfolding of the salvation plan in Jesus, serving in his various

capacities, this does have a certain time table, and will unfold in its proper sequence

according to God’s plan. That is why, despite Jesus was expected to return immediately after

his ascension by New Testament Bible writers and apostolic Christians alike, yet almost two

thousand years of waiting has demonstrated quite convincingly that the redemption time

table is spread out over more time than had been previously thought. No doubt this is what

Jesus alluded to just before he ascended. Note carefully!

“Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at

this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to

know the times or the seasons , which the Father hath put in his own power.”- KJV

“Times or seasons” ‘[plural] naturally unfold in sequence and naturally have a timetable! No

doubt that is why it was further recorded about Jesus’ work above:

“ Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men

everywhere to repent: Acts 17:31 Because he [God] hath appointed a day, in the which he will


23/29

23

judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained [i.e. Jesus]; whereof he

hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” - KJV

“Ecclesiastes 3:17 God shall judge [*BOTH] the righteous and the wicked : for there is a time for

every purpose and for every work .” – KJV

The Biblical expressions indicating that [1] God has “appointed a day in which he will judge the

world” and [2] “ there is a time for every purpose and for every work ” as it concerns “judging”both the wicked and the righteous, these present irrefutable proofs that a divine timetable is

being followed for Jesus to “judge the world” (see John 5:23); whether in terms of what 2

Corinthians 5:9,10 and Ecclesiastes 12:13,14 bring to view as an INESCAPABLE investigation of

one’s life record, or whether in terms of the later executing of justice and giving rewards at

Jesus’ appearing. BOTH are timetabled by God! And for those who think that believers saved

by grace through faith are exempt from an examination of their life record thereafter by Jesus

(see 2 Cor. 5:10), and who think that their assurance of salvation is so-called “made uncertain”

by the notions of a required standard of obedience and an investigative judgment on their lives,

they are easily refuted by the following Scriptures (it’s crucial that they be all read beforemoving on):

THE INESCAPABLE “INVESTIGATIVE” JUDGMENT ALL OVER THE BIBLE

- See Philippians 2:12 with 1 Corinthians 9:25-27 and with John 15:1-8

-see Ecclesiastes 3:17 with Matthew 22:1-14 and with 1 Peter 4:17-19

-see James 2:10-12 with Revelation 11:1, 18, 19 and with Malachi 3:16-18

-see Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14 with Matthew 12: 36, 37 and with Revelation 20:11-15

Notice especially in Mal. 3:16-18 (just like in the parables of the talents and of the sheep and

the goats; Matthew 25) God carefully examining the book of record of those who fear him, and

in an event involving him “making up his jewels” he is seen actively examining his saints. Notice

too in James 2:12 how (in accordance with Ecclesiastes 12:13,14) it makes the point that saints

too should be mindful of being “judged” by “the law” that was referenced in verses 10 and 11

of James 2 (obviously the Ten Commandments). And notice how Rev. 11:1, 18, 19 brings to

view the Ark of the Covenant (see why in 1 Kings 8:9 and Malachi 4:1, 4) just when the saints

are also being examined or “measured” against a standard while rewards are determined. And

there are certainly other Scriptures like the ones above showing clearly that both the saints and

the lost will be examined/investigated, and rewards and punishments determined, and

obviously before Jesus returns with rewards for all (Rev.22:12). Saints are certainly saved by

grace (Eph. 2:8, 9), but will be judged by “works” of willing obedience (see Rev. 22:12-14); the

very good “works” that grace “teaches” us to do THROUGH GOD’S INDWELLING (see Titus

2:11-14 and James 2:20-24). God assesses the lives of the saints for the required “fruit” of

obedience to be shown, even as we remain or “abide” in Jesus in order to willingly show fruit


24/29

24

of obedience or “good works” (Eph. 2:10 and Titus 2:11). Failure to show “fruit” of obedience

will stand in judgment against the Christian (John 15:2), and hence why he can lose his initial

standing with God, as John 15:1-8 and 1 Cor. 9:25-27 clearly shows!! This is what the

examination of lives by God in the pre-advent judgment, even of the saint is all about (2 Cor.

5:9, 10; Eccl. 12: 13, 14; Mal. 3:16-18), and many want to sidestep or belittle this crucial

aspect of the Bible!!

Now, as it concerns “judgment” on all in Acts 17:31 (written by A.D. 63) notice carefully the

future tense of the words “he will judge the world” as it relates to the already “appointed”

“day” for this event. Thus when Acts was written by Luke by 63 A.D. (decades after Jesus had

already ascended) that event of “judgment” (whatever it would be like) had not yet occurred,

nor was it already going on since Jesus’ ascension!! I am convinced that there is nothing

unbiblical about SDAs teaching that while the timing of the second coming may have been

withheld (not just from the disciples at the time Jesus spoke, but now we know it is still being

withheld until he comes), but that does not necessarily mean that we cannot know about the

timing of the investigative aspect of God “judging” or examining BOTH the righteous and the

wicked (see again 2 Cor. 5:9,10; Eccl. 3:17; Mal. 3:16-18), i.e. as done through Jesus in the

Sanctuary above before he comes with rewards for all (see Rev. 22:12). SDAs believe that

certain Bible prophecies (as recorded in Daniel) would have been “unsealed” late in the very

“time of the end”, and in those very prophecies is revealed the “appointed time” for the

investigative judgment phase of Jesus’ work. This we believe has to be so in order that a special

Judgment “hour” message can be given when the appropriate time required it (symbolized as

being preached by “three angels”, as recorded in Revelation 14:6-12). This is what SDAs are

distinctively known for as it concerns proclaiming its unique “Sanctuary Message” and or

“Judgment Hour Message”, and hence fulfilling a unique ‘prophetic role’ in Christendom,

despite all the opposition!! We believe that this “Sanctuary Message” MUST be preached, that

it will be fiercely opposed by Satan more than any other message of the “end times” (because

of its serious import), and we believe it can be biblically defended, and this is what this

presentation by me is all about.

Final Questions Regarding the Investigative Judgment of 1844

Now that I have demonstrated BIBLICALLY that the SDAs doctrines on prophetic matters and its

Sanctuary and Investigative Message can be defended with reasonable appeal, it’s time to close

by tying up the loose ends, and answering the remaining few question brother Lauriston

agonized over on “Hardtalk”. Here goes…

Brother “Thunder” asked, indirectly:

If the dead are first being judged before the living since 1844, yet people die daily, then how

will God ever reach the living and then close the Investigative Judgment and Jesus returns the


25/29

25

second time?

ANSWER:

I am of the view that with God all things are possible, and just as the program host of

“Hardtalk” (Ian Boyne) remarked when brother “Thunder” expressed this concern about this, I

say, “remember it is God we are dealing with”, and what may baffle us in terms of a solution is

nothing to him. Keep in mind that God also has another seeming conundrum on his hands, in

that it is his will for every man to come to a saving knowledge of him and be saved, and yetevery day new babies are born. Should we deem it a ‘problem’ for God (who doesn’t expect

babies to hear sermons, believe on the Jesus and accept the gospel), that he will always be

waiting infinitum until all babies grow up to consciously accept the gospel and be saved, even

while others are being born (in an ongoing cycle)? Hmmm. I leave that one to God, and simply

believe that the intricacies of how the Investigative Judgment issues will all be resolved, that is

not my

part 2- refuting thunder lauriston's hardtalk charges (2016)

Documents