ALLEGED FALLACIES OF RONALD OBIDOS on 1844 INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT REFUTED! Part 2

This blog is about the sharing of ideas about the SDA Sanctuary doctrine between me and my friend, Jonathan Espina, a fellow Adventist defender. For me, bro. Espina deserves the title "defender" for his capacity and capability to address the real SDA issues at a higher level. He owns volumes of theological references and SDA resources. I find no difficulty in dealing with his reasoning for we share the same rhythm and enthusiasm. 

JONATHAN ESPINA:

Dear SDA readers: Please bear with me for this article is quite long because I have quoted verbatim our Church’s response to the issue I will discuss today. As you can see Ronald Obidos issue is not new to us. He just recycled it. Please read on. Thanks. 

RONALD OBIDOS:

Because the SDA response is not good enough and resulted in much confusion and disunity among the SDAs. The real problem of Jonathan Espina here is that he relies more on the philosophical arguments and SDA traditions than on what the text really says itself along with contexts. Also, this controversial issue is not new to the SDA since this complicated doctrine of the 1844 Investigative Judgment has been doubted by many SDA theologians since 1846.

JONATHAN ESPINA:

Hebrews 6:19, 20 states: “which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (KJV).

In conjunction with Hebrews 9:12 of NIV, Ronald used Hebrews 6:19, 20 (again from NIV) to support his argument that upon His ascension, Christ began His ministry in “the inner sanctuary behind the curtain” (NIV), that is, in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary that excludes the first-apartment phase of ministry. This interpretive approach to 6:19, 20 is not new. [1] And just like other sanctuary issues, the SDA Church has already made a response to this kind of objection.

RONALD OBIDOS:

Yes, it is true that “This interpretive approach to Heb. 6:19, 20 is not new” along with the conflicting views offered by SDA since 1845! Here they are,

1.  R.L. Crosier points out that the tabernacle had two veils and concludes that the veil in “chapter 6, being the first of which he speaks, must be the first veil, which hung before the Holy Place.”[1]
   
   
2. E. Andross accepts that Heb. 6:19 does refer to the second veil and that Jesus at His ascension did enter into the holiest. However, this was only temporary. He claims that Jesus’ initial entrance into the holiest was an act of dedication of a heavenly sanctuary by means of His blood then, Jesus went out from the Most Holy Place and began His work in the first apartment or Holy Place.[2]
   
   
3. Ellen G. White occasionally uses the phrase “within the veil” not for the inner but for the outer curtain.

“The ministration of the priest throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary, “within the veil‟ which formed the door and separated the holy place from the outer court, represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at His ascension.”

Ellen White then goes on to speak of the disciples‟ hopes centering in the holy place “within the veil” (Heb. 6:19 is quoted). The reference is clearly to the first apartment for she adds, “For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary.” [3]

Yet it is also incontestable that even as early as February, 1845, E.G. White quite realized that the phrase “within the veil” referred to the inner curtain. Speaking of the new sanctuary teaching she says,

“I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and did sit.”[4]

She also rather frequently speaks of the saints‟ prayers or hope entering to that “within the veil,”[5] and one gains the impression she here means into the Most Holy Place.

The SDA Bible Commentary offers 3 views to shed light on the meaning of “within the veil” in Hebrews 6:19:

1. The veil referred to is the inner curtain but Paul is speaking of Christ’s entrance into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary in order to dedicate it.^[6]

Note: This is the same as Andross's position and implies Christ later came out into the first apartment. This is unlikely because, as noted, the phrase “within the veil” has a day of atonement background, it is never used in connection with the dedication of the sanctuary. Hebrews assimilated the dedication ritual to the day of atonement (Heb. 9:21-25) while this position tends to do the reverse.

2. “Within the veil” is a figure of speech, and means simply to be in the presence of God.

Note: This is undoubtedly the correct view provided we do not lose sight of the fact that the figure of speech which the writer is using is the annual entrance of the high priest on the day of atonement into the holy of holies. Mr. Jonathan Espina seems to place his vote on this no. 2 option. But, unfortunately, Mr. Espina’s given solution to the SDA problem is not the final one and it didn’t resolve the issue at all since Mr. Espina’s choice is just one of the conflicting interpretations among the other SDA theologians.

3. The “veil” in Heb. 6:19, unlike Heb. 9:3, is unqualified and must refer to the curtain at the door of the tabernacle.

Note: This view goes back to Crosier, and is reiterated by every Adventist apologist since 1846. In fact “veil” is further described, namely by the word “within” (esoteros), and this indicates unequivocally the inner veil.

Conclusion:

Yes, Jonathan Espina is correct when he said that “the SDA Church has already made a response to this kind of objection.” But the question is, does the SDA church resolved the conflicting interpretations among the SDA theologians since the beginning and arrive at just one unanimous interpretation of “within the veil” in Hebrews 6:19? Evidently NO! Any cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormon church, Iglesia ni Cristo can provide a response as a defense for their own pet doctrines despite its unbiblical nature, but the question is the response sufficient enough? Did they really addressed the issue or deny it? Did the answer come from the Bible itself or a mere philosophical argument? Their own beloved prophet Ellen White warns about trusting theologians than the Bible,

“But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support. Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will. ” The Great Controversy p.595

It is so obvious that the interpretations of Hebrews 6:19 provided even by the learned SDA theologians themselves are conflicting and confusing. Ellen White herself, considered as a Prophet with the Gift of Prophecy among the Adventist church had made a contradicting definition of the phrase “within the veil” in Hebrews 6:19. This is shameful for me as a former Adventist defender to discover these embarrassing doctrine. Many Adventist members and even Pastors are not even aware of this matter even today.

I’m convicted by the Holy Spirit to expose this fact for the sake of my SDA friends who love the truth. I pray that my SDA friends would prayerfully study these issues and decide to choose the truth than remain in error. If we only let the Bible explain itself we will arrive at the correct conclusion that Hebrews 6:19 is clear evidence that when Christ ascended to heaven in 31 AD, He entered the Most Holy Place. In fact, even the SDA theologians admit it.

Let me borrow the quote that Jonathan Espina quoted in his article:

“It may be admitted that if the author is using Day of Atonement imagery in chapter 6:19, 20 (a view held by most scholars), it does indeed heighten and sharpen the message he wished to convey to his readers that by virtue of Christ’s death and priesthood they now had direct access to God. Through the ministry of their ever-living high priest they could draw near to God ‘in full assurance of faith’ (7:25; 10:19-22). His efficacious blood would be mediated for them in the very presence of the Deity (9:14, 24).

Hence, the SDA readers should take note of this warning as we proceed to look at how Jonathan Espina makes an attempt to defend the 1844 investigative judgment merely on the opinions of his beloved SDA theologians.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] O.R.L. Crosier, “The Law of Moses,” The Day Star (Feb. 7th, 1846), p. 41.

[2] E.E. Andross, A More Excellent Ministry (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press, 1912).

[3] GC, pp. 420f. Cf. SG I, p. 159; EW, p. 251.

[4] To the Little Remnant Scattered Abroad, quoted by F.D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics (Washington, D.C.: R.H., 1951), 1951), p. 178. Cf. EW, p. 55.

[5] 1T, p. 566; 57, p. 113; SD, p. 354; MYP, p. 89; COL, p. 1; SDABC VII, p. 930.

^[6] Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1980). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 7, p. 437). Review and Herald Publishing Association.