Legacy of Guilt:
From Shut Door to Investigative Judgment

By Wes Ringer, Adventist Currents, July 1984

The Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment did not evolve into its present form until the late 1850s. Its birth came out of the Millerite's expectation that Christ would come October 22, 1844; and it grew during the great disappointment as the Adventist pioneers attempted to explain the significance of October 22. Indeed the force of their experience leading up to October 22 caused the pioneers to interpret several key passages of Scripture in totally new ways.

This paper will trace the developing and interlocking chain of logic that finally produced the concept of an investigative judgment. If the pioneers' interpretation of key passages of Daniel, Matthew, Hebrews, and the Revelation were incorrect, then the whole logical basis for the traditional understanding of a preadvent judgment would unravel. For example, in the consensus document that came out of Glacier View (August 1980), scholars were willing to concede that the term "within the veil" of Hebrews 6:19 applied to the most holy place; at the same time they sought to defend the traditional sanctuary doctrine.¹ However the Adventist pioneers in the 1840s could not have understood Hebrews in this way and still given birth to their belief in an investigative judgment.

The Great Disappointment

Ellen Harmon, James White, Joseph Bates, and Hiram Edison were all active participants in the great advent awakening that swept across New England in the late summer and fall of 1844. They experienced the emotions and fervor that all advent believers experienced as they anticipated Christ appearing to cleanse the earth with fire at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. By resorting to various methods of speculation and calculation, they became convinced that Christ would come on October 22, 1844, in fulfillment of the antitypical Day of Atonement. Furthermore, they saw the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25 as being fulfilled in every detail through their pre-advent experience. Thus the delay of Christ's coming in the spring of 1844 was understood as the tarrying time. S.S. Snow's proclamation of the exact day of Christ's return was seen as fulfilling the midnight cry: "Behold the bridegroom comes, go ye out to meet him." They regarded this midnight cry — that Christ would return on October 22 — to be the cry that awoke the sleeping virgins. They were confident that each person's destiny would be forever determined when Christ shut the door at his return on October 22, 1844.

Turning to Revelation 14, they applied the judgment-hour message to the ending of the 2300-day prophecy. The churches that failed to accept the Millerite teaching were regarded as constituting Babylon, the fallen church depicted in the second angel's message of Revelation 14. Adventists came to see the acceptance of the October 22 date as a salvation test. All true Christians would leave these fallen churches and join the Advent bands prior to October 22.

The unity within the Adventist ranks was rent — like the temple veil at Christ's death — in the wake of the great disappointment that followed Christ's failure to return. The largest group, led by J. V. Himes and, later, William Miller, became known as open-door Adventists. They viewed the attempt to pinpoint an exact date for Christ's appearing as a mistake. Acknowledging the human factor in calculating the end of the 2300 days, they reasoned that the 2300 days might not end for several more years. Thus, since Christ had not returned, the shutting of the door in the parable of the ten virgins could not have occurred on October 22, 1844. They therefore felt that their present duty was to preach the soon coming of Christ to ". . . both saints and sinners, that the first may rejoice, knowing their redemption draweth nigh, and the last to be warned to flee from the wrath to come, before the Master of the house shall rise up and shut the door."²

Shut Door Adventists

All of the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers came from the opposing group known as shut-door Adventists. Major parts of the eventual sanctuary doctrine were first formulated by these believers in an attempt to prove that probation had closed when Christ shut the door, as mentioned in the parable of the ten virgins, on October 22, 1844. They viewed the intense emotional experience immediately prior to October 22 as a sign of the Holy Spirit's involvement in, and validation of, the seventh-month movement that had proclaimed that Christ would come on October 22. If this movement had given the true midnight cry, then it seemed logical that October 22 was the correct termination for the 2300-day prophecy.

It was not merely the preaching of a literal and soon-coming Christ that led these shut-door believers to conclude that God had separated them out as a distinct people. This, they conceded, was believed by thousands of non-Millerite Christians. No, rather it was the preaching of a definite time that they felt had been "authorized by the Most High."³ A definite time that they felt God had tested and Ellen White concurred with a people for himself based on the preaching of definite time.⁴ She, with other shut-door believers, maintained this despite the fact that non-Adventists repeatedly objected that Christ had taught that no man would know the day or hour of his return. Ellen White categorically judged all ministers who objected to the preaching of definite time as doing so because "they know that their unChristian lives would not stand the test."⁵

This belief that God had tested and separated people based on their acceptance or rejection of the preaching of definite time was incorporated into Ellen Harmon's first (December 1844) vision and was to play an important role in the development of the sanctuary doctrine. In her December vision an angel told her that the light on the path behind the traveling advent band was the midnight cry (the teaching that Christ would come October 22, 1844). Those Adventists traveling to the heavenly city who denied the correctness of the midnight cry stumbled and

. . . fell off the path down in the dark and wicked world below. It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the city as all the wicked world which God had rejected.⁶

The highlighted portion of this vision was deleted when it was republished in Experience and Views in 1851 and later in Early Writings (see The Great Controversy Over Deletions in the Vision of 1844). This was because by 1851 the Whites had begun to give up the belief that sinners could no longer be saved. However, in December 1844 the phrase "all the wicked world which God had rejected" would have been understood by all Adventists to mean that sinners could no longer be saved after the shutting of the door two months earlier.

Ellen White later denied that her visions had ever taught that sinners could no longer be saved, while continuing to maintain throughout her life that those who heard and rejected the Adventist message prior to October 22, 1844, and those Adventists who gave up belief in the significance of October 22 ". . . thereby rejected the Spirit of God, and it no longer plead with them."⁷ Even though William Miller rejected the truth, as shut-door Adventists understood it, Ellen granted an exception in his case. But those who she felt influenced him against her understanding of truth would be held accountable.⁸

Ellen White seemed never to realize the tension that existed between her early judgment against those who objected to the preaching of definite time and her later statements warning against the teaching of definite time for Christ's return. Writing in the Desire of Ages she admonishes:

But the day and hour of His coming Christ has not revealed . . . . There are those who claim to know the very day and hour of our Lord's appearing . . . . But the Lord has warned them off the ground they occupy. The exact time of the Second Coming of the Son of Man is God's mystery.⁹

The Ten Virgins

With the shut-door believers fixed on the certainty that God was behind the preaching of definite time, there yet remained the question of what exactly had occurred on October 22 that constituted the cleansing of the sanctuary described in Daniel 8:14. Since Miller had interpreted the cleansing of the sanctuary to be Christ's second coming, and they still expected Christ's appearing at any moment, it is perhaps not surprising that they turned first to the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25 for an explanation of October 22, 1844. Having already applied this parable exclusively to the Millerite movement, they felt convinced that the wicked and the fallen churches were not the foolish virgins, since they had already rejected God's final call. It was felt rather that there needed to be a little time after October 22 for the foolish virgins' (adventist) lamps to go out.¹⁰ In November 1844 William Miller wrote of his conviction that October 22 marked the decisive point in time when a division and separation was made between the righteous and the wicked.¹¹

The parable concluded with the coming of the bridegroom who took the five wise virgins with him into the marriage. He then shut the door and would not open it, saying to the foolish virgins, "Verily I say unto you, I know you not" (Matthew 25:10). While the Millerites prior to October 22 had correctly applied the coming of the bridegroom and the shutting of the door to the close of probation at the second coming, the shut-door Adventists insisted that the bridegroom (Christ) had come to the heavenly marriage (in heaven) and shut the door on October 22, 1844. Joseph Turner, a fellow believer with Ellen Harmon in Portland, Maine, was the first to fully expound these views in the Advent Mirror of January 1845. Turner argued that Christ had come as the bridegroom to the heavenly marriage in fulfillment of the parable of the ten virgins, and that His coming as the bridegroom was separate from His coming in power and glory to the earth. He concluded that after October 22, 1844, the door in the parable was shut. "But can any sinners be converted if the door is shut? Of course they can not, though change that may appear to be conversions may take place."¹² Turner allowed for the possibility that some who feared God and worked righteousness might grow in their understanding of truth. But it was with this class and this class only that shut-door believers should now labor.

Open-door Adventists objected to Turner's interpretation of this parable. They maintained that Christ's coming as the bridegroom referred to his second coming, and, therefore, the shutting of the door was still future. Nevertheless, Ellen Harmon found that her first vision in December 1844 was in agreement with Turner's article.¹³ In her second vision (February 1845), she saw Christ going as the bridegroom to the heavenly marriage by entering the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary.¹⁴ As a result of Ellen Harmon's relating this vision to the Advent band in Exeter, Maine, they became united in their conviction that the door was shut.¹⁵ It is interesting to note that in Christ's Object Lessons Ellen White interpreted the parable of the ten virgins in the manner of the open-door Adventists, by applying this shut door to the future close of probation and the coming of the "bridegroom" at the second coming.¹⁶ The paradox remains that if in the 1840s Ellen White had understood the parable of the ten virgins in the manner of Christ's Object Lessons, she would have found herself in agreement with the very open-door Adventists whom her early visions so vehemently denounced.

The Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary

Prior to October 22, 1844, the Millerites had accepted the general consensus of Bible commentators concerning the book of Hebrews. They held that Christ, by virtue of His once-for-all atonement for sins, became our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Because of His blood, believers could come with boldness through the veil into the very presence of God. They believed that Christ would leave the most holy place on October 22, 1844, in fulfillment of the antitypical Day of Atonement and come in the clouds of heaven. When Christ failed to return, J. Turner and A. Hale contended that instead of leaving the most holy place on October 22, He entered it for the first time.

The Coming of the bridegroom would point out some change of work or office, on the part of our Lord, in the invisible world, and the going in with him a corresponding change on the part of his true people. With him it is within the veil — where he has gone to prepare a place for us; with them it is outside the veil, where they wait and keep themselves ready till they pass in to the marriage supper.¹⁷

Likewise, Ellen Harmon saw in her second vision (February 1845) that Jesus had left His throne and entered the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary. Those who failed to accept the light of the Advent message were unaware that Christ had left the holy place. Of these Ellen recalled, ". . . I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after he rose up, and they were left in perfect darkness."¹⁸ Those who continued to pray before the now-empty throne were receiving deceptive and unholy influences from Satan. The effect of this vision was to further convince believers in the certainty of the shut door.¹⁹

These early shut-door believers were fully aware that their views ran counter to the generally accepted understanding of Hebrews. Hale had argued that the "heavenly things" mentioned in Hebrews 9:23 that must be cleansed with a better sacrifice than animals' blood referred to Christ's cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary beginning on October 22, 1844.²⁰ Bliss, an open-door Adventist, countered that Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 24, and 10:12-14 clearly taught that Christ had already cleansed the heavenly things mentioned in Hebrew 9:23 with the sacrifice of himself 1800 years ago.²¹

Cleansing of the Sanctuary

The first to attempt a complete explanation of this new understanding of Christ's cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary was O. R. L. Crosier in his February 7, 1846, Day Star article. His article, written in support of the shut-door position, stated that no more sinners could now be converted.²² Ellen White endorsed his article saying, "The Lord shew me in vision more than one year ago that Brother Crosier had the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary . . . ."²³

Crosier based his interpretation of Hebrews largely on an analogy of the typical sanctuary service and on his understanding of Daniel 8:14. He assumed that every aspect of the type must have a corresponding and exact antitypical fulfillment. The weakness of Crosier's reasoning rests on the fact that the typical earthly sanctuary service was only a shadow and not the reality (Hebrews 10:1). Using his reasoning, it could be argued that Christ would have to be offered again and again to fulfill all the various sacrifices in the type. Hebrews, on the other hand, seeks again and again to contrast and show the superiority of Christ's high priestly work and one sacrifice over that of the earthly high priests' work and many sacrifices.

Crosier, using the analogy of the typical sanctuary, argued that Hebrews 9:11, 12, 23, 24 referred to a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary. Christ began his ministry in the holy place after His ascension and continued to minister there until 1844. He then entered the most holy place for the first time to begin the antitypical Day of Atonement by blotting out the sins of the righteous.²⁴ J. N. Andrews, likewise, argued in the February 9, 1853, Advent Review that Hebrew 9:8 and 10:19 do not refer to the most holy place but rather to holy places. From this he concluded ". . . that the heavenly sanctuary consists of two holy places."²⁵

The Seventh day Adventist pioneers built their whole sanctuary doctrine on this conviction that Hebrews taught a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary. Thus it is interesting to note that Richard Davidson, writing in the current Ministry magazine concedes,

Our discussion thus far has not concluded that the author of Hebrews is trying to prove the existence of a bipartite heavenly sanctuary that corresponded to the earthly counterpart.²⁶

Crosier, likewise, insisted that Hebrew 6:19-20 could not refer to Christ's entrance within the veil of the most holy place at His ascension. This denial came largely from his conviction that Christ could not enter the most holy place until after the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14.²⁷ However Seventh-day Adventist New Testament scholar Norman Young has demonstrated decisively that careful exegesis of Hebrews 6:19-20 does, in fact, support the view that the phrase "within the veil" refers to the most holy place.²⁸

Within the Veil

Apparently the Adventist pioneers, while attempting to understand the typological symbolism of every other aspect of the sanctuary, never seemed to ask what the veil symbolized. In Leviticus 16:2 God specifically warned Aaron not to come into the most holy place behind the veil lest he die, because it was there that God would appear in glory over the mercy seat. Even on the Day of Atonement the high priest had to fill the most holy place with a cloud of incense that would conceal the mercy seat lest he die (Leviticus 16:13). Hebrews chapter nine likewise notes that the high priest could enter the most holy place but once a year. This limited and partial access into the very presence of God is then contrasted by Christ's full, complete, and final access into the very presence of God by virtue of His one sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 9:12, 10:12). The veil thus symbolized the barrier or separation that existed between God and man. This barrier existed in the Old Testament era because the blood of goats and bulls could not remove sin (Hebrews 10:4). But now through Christ the barrier has been removed. The veil represents Christ's body. By faith in Christ and his blood, the believer may come with boldness into the very presence of God (Hebrews 10:20).

Had Crosier and the other Adventist pioneers correctly understood the message of Hebrews, they would have had to totally revise their understanding of Christ's high priestly work. Their failure to understand Hebrews led to major parts of Crosier's article becoming incorporated into the doctrine of the investigative judgment. These were:

1. The sanctuary to be cleansed in Daniel 8:14 was the heavenly sanctuary mentioned in Hebrews, rather than the temple in Jerusalem in Old Testament times (as understood by most Bible commentators today), or the earth by fire (as believed by the Millerites).²⁹
2. The heavenly sanctuary is composed of two parts — the holy and most holy places.³⁰
3. Each of the Jewish festivals must have a distinct anti-typical fulfillment. Christ's death fulfilled Passover, and Pentecost was fulfilled by the sending of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, Crosier believed that the Day of Atonement was antitypically fulfilled on October 22, 1844, when Christ began to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary. On that day he stopped ministry in the holy place by shutting the door and went within the veil to the most holy place.³¹
4. Prior to 1844 Christ had only forgiven man's sins. These confessed and forgiven sins had polluted the heavenly sanctuary. Christ began in 1844 to make atonement for sins by blotting them out. This blotting out of sins cleansed the heavenly sanctuary.³²

Future Atonement

The concept of a future blotting out of sins became a central concept in the doctrine of the investigative judgment. Crosier based this future blotting out of sin on a single Bible reference in Acts 3:19. But was Peter, as he preached to the crowd in the temple after the healing of the lame man, intending to point to a future blotting out of sins in 1844? W. W. Fletcher, an S.D.A. missionary and Bible teacher, left the church in the early 1930s because of his conviction that the investigative judgment was unbiblical. He noted that Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost parallels that of the one he made in the temple after the healing of the blind man:

Peter's use of blotting out of sins had the same meaning as remission of sins. The clear intent of Peter's words pointed not to a future blotting out of sins in 1844, but to a present blotting out, or remission, of sins in A.D. 31 for all who on the day they heard Peter speak accepted Christ as Messiah.³³

Door of Mercy Shut in 1844

James White in the May 1850 Present Truth restated the basic arguments first advanced by Crosier in 1846. In the autumn of 1844 ". . . the Midnight Cry was given, the work for the world was closed up, and Jesus passed into the Most Holy Place to receive the kingdom, and cleanse the sanctuary."³⁴ James White further stated that after October 1844, ". . . all our sympathy, burden and prayers for sinners ceased, and the unanimous feeling and testimony was, that our work for the world was finished forever."³⁵ The reason for this change of feeling on the part of shut-door believers on earth was that Christ had shut the door in the holy place and had gone into the most holy place when the 2300 days ended.

James White objected to the argument that the door of mercy being shut in 1844 was unbiblical.

"God's mercy endureth forever." Ps. 136; 106, 118. He is still merciful to his saints, and ever will be; and Jesus is still their advocate and priest. But the sinner, to whom Jesus had stretched out his arms all the day long, and who had rejected the offers of salvation, was left without an advocate, when Jesus passed from the Holy Place, and shut the door in 1844.³⁶

The churches that rejected this shut-door truth,

". . . go to seek the Lord" as still an advocate for sinners; but says the prophet, Hosea 5:6, 7 "They shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them. They have dealt treacherously against the Lord: for they have begotten strange children."³⁷

Both James and Ellen White used Hosea 5:6, 7 as if it proved that the door was shut in 1844, and all reported conversion of sinners after 1844 were false.³⁸ They evidence no awareness that Hosea had applied this text to Israel in his day. The December 1849 Present Truth sums up their concern: "Many will point us to one who is said to be converted for positive proof that the door is not shut, thus yielding the Word of God for the feelings of an individual."³⁹

Ellen White's March 24, 1849, vision must be understood in light of this conviction that conversions of sinners would be in contradiction of the Word of God; for she saw that Satan was attempting to deceive God's people during this sealing time by false reports of conversions:

The reformations that were shown me, were not reformations from error to truth, but from bad to worse; for those who professed a change of heart had only wrapt about them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people; but if their hearts could be seen, they would appear as black as ever. My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time of salvation to sinners was past.⁴⁰

James White's May 1850 Present Truth article makes it plain that the reason shut-door Adventists no longer felt "travail of soul for sinners" was because of their conviction that their work for the world was forever finished in 1844. However, when James and Ellen White published Experience and Views in August 1851 — a time in which they were beginning to reinterpret their former shut-door views and to acknowledge sinners could be saved — they deleted the highlighted portion of the March 24 vision. In fact, a footnote was added in which an attempt was made to reinterpret that vision. Thus, while the original vision states that after 1844 sinners were converted in appearance only, since the time of their salvation was past, the footnote asserts that the time for the false shepherds' (open-door Adventist preachers) salvation was past. Consequently, these false shepherds did not feel a genuine "travail of soul for sinners."⁴¹

Sabbath a Test

A further factor that convinced the Adventist pioneers that reported conversions of sinners were false was that these new converts did not keep the seventh-day Sabbath. In the same March 24, 1849, vision mentioned earlier, Ellen White contended that man could no longer find access to God in the same way as he had prior to the shutting of the door in 1844.

I saw that the enemies of the present truth have been trying to open the door to the Holy Place that Jesus shut, and to close the door of the Most Holy Place which he opened in 1844, where the Ark is, containing the two tables of stone on which are written the ten commandments by the finger of Jehovah.⁴²

Joseph Bates in the December 1850 Review and Herald likewise discounted all reported conversions by open-door Adventists because they did not keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

We say, that as long as they continue rebellious against their lawful Prince it is morally impossible to beget for him one peaceful subject. God has a true test, by which to try every individual since the Midnight Cry. It is the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.⁴³"

The following month Bates wrote that the names of all honest believers and children who had not yet reached the age of accountability were written on Christ's breastplate of judgment.

The names of all who fully keep the commandments are retained. Those that do not, will have their names erased before Jesus leaves the Holiest . . . . Sinners and backsliders cannot get their names on the breastplate of judgment now.⁴⁴

That the Ten Commandments and especially the Sabbath had become a test after 1844 was also held by Ellen White. She reasoned that prior to 1844 people could be saved without Sabbath observance because the door into the most holy place had not yet been opened. However, after 1844 man could no longer gain access to God through the holy place. She likened 1844 to 31 A.D., and compared non-Sabbath keeping Christians to Jews who had rejected Christ as their Messiah. By rejecting Christ, these Jews experienced a shut door. Only by accepting Christ as Messiah could they gain the "benefits of His mediation."⁴⁵

The condition of the unbelieving Jews illustrates the condition of the careless and unbelieving among professed Christians, who are willingly ignorant of the work of our merciful High Priest. In the typical service, when the high priest entered the Most Holy Place, all Israel were required to gather about the sanctuary and in most solemn manner humble their souls before God, that they might receive pardon of their sins and not be cut off from the congregation. How much more essential in this antitypical Day of Atonement that we understand what duties are required of us.⁴⁶

The new duty she saw was the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath.⁴⁷

James White Opposes Investigative Judgment as Unbiblical

Thus by the early 1850s all the pieces to what later was to become the doctrine of the investigative judgment were in place; yet James White continued to be adamantly opposed to concept of a preadvent investigative judgment. In A Word to the Little Flock, written in 1847, he asserted that such a judgment was not needed.

It is not necessary that the final sentence should be given before the first resurrection, as some have taught; for the names of the saints are written in heaven, and Jesus, and the angels will certainly know who to raise, and gather to the New Jerusalem.⁴⁸

Just who was urging the concept of an investigative judgment in 1847 is unclear. However by 1850 it is clear that Joseph Bates held such a view.

How evident that both the Father and the Son here left the throne in the Holy and moved into the Most Holy . . . to set in judgment, first to decide who is and who is not worthy to enter the gates of the Holy City; which the Bridegroom, High Priest, Mediator and crowned King of Israel stands before him advocating the cause of all presented on his breastplate of judgment. As Daniel now sees it the judgment is now set and the books are open.⁴⁹

James White, however, continued to oppose the concept of a preadvent judgment. Writing in the September 1850 Advent Review, he summarized his understanding of the events that would occur on the day of judgment.

1. "It would be introduced by the second advent . . . to gather the elect only — the righteous both living and those who sleep."⁵⁰
2. The righteous will then sit on judgment thrones to judge the world, fallen angels and the devil.⁵¹
3. The judgment scene in Daniel 7 refers to the saints sitting in judgment after the second coming, not to a preadvent judgment.⁵²
4. Quoting 2 Timothy 4:1, White inserted the following parenthesis: "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at (not before) his appearing and his kingdom."⁵³
5. Revelations 14:6, 7 which says, "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of judgment is come," does not prove that the day of judgment came in 1840 or 1844 or that it will come prior to the second advent. The testimony of that angel could only signify that the period had come for this generation to be tested by second advent truth.⁵⁴
6. Finally, regarding the biblical basis for a preadvent judgment, White concludes: "Some have contended that the day of judgment was prior to the second advent. This view is certainly without foundation in the Word of God."⁵⁵

James White and other shut-door believers had from 1844-1851 regarded the significance of Christ's entrance into the most holy place as the shut door that left the wicked world, fallen churches, and those who heard and rejected the advent message without a mediator. It was regarded as denial of the shut door to hold during this time that sinners could be saved. However from the summer of 1851 onward they began to reinterpret their shut-door views. Certain of Ellen White's early visions were republished in Experience and Views in August 1851, with the strongest shut-door phrases omitted. By 1853 James White had redefined the shut door as applying only to those who participated in the Advent Movement and then rejected its light. "Those who were not in the movement and did not reject its light, stand on the same ground for salvation, as though such a movement had never taken place"⁵⁶ Further on in the same article he continued, "O, that precious souls would come to this open door (Most Holy Place) and share the Savior's pardoning love."⁵⁷

Investigative Judgment Invented to Cover Flawed Theology

With this change from a shut to open door for sinners, 1844 was in danger of becoming a historic footnote. There was now a pressing need to show that Christ's entrance into the most holy place continued to have ongoing importance to believers in the 1850s.

Uriah Smith — writing in the October 2, 1855, Review and Herald — adopted some of the same arguments that Joseph Bates had used earlier to attempt to prove that a preadvent judgment had commenced in 1844 as a fulfillment of the antitypical Day of Atonement. He stated that Christ, like Aaron, had carried the names of all professed believers into the most holy place on his breastplate of judgment.⁵⁸ Exodus 28 does speak of such a breastplate that Aaron wore as he ministered before the Lord in the holy place. But in Leviticus 16 a full description is made of the clothing, the ritual, and sacrifices that the high priest was to perform on the Day of Atonement. No mention is made that the high priest carried the breastplate into the most holy place on the Day of Atonement.

Thus a major part of Uriah Smith's argument rests on the unproven assumption that in the type, the high priest carried this breastplate with him into the most holy place. "This prefigured a solemn fact; namely, that in the great plan of salvation, a time of decision was coming for the whole human race; a work of atonement, which being accomplished, God's people, the true Israel, should stand acquitted, and cleansed from all sin."⁵⁹

As was previously noted, much of Crosier's and later Adventist sanctuary doctrine was built by drawing analogies from the typical sanctuary and its service. However whenever the typical service did not fit into what the pioneers wished to prove, they felt the freedom to discard the type. First Uriah Smith attempts to prove from the types that Christ must have begun a preadvent judgment in 1844. Then he asserts that contrary to the type:

Atonement was then made for the people of Israel as a body; here the work has to be with individuals; for as individuals we must stand condemned or acquitted at the judgment seat of Christ.⁶⁰

Smith used 1 Peter 4:17 as biblical support for a preadvent judgment beginning in 1844. Peter wrote in the present tense "The time is come," with the clear implication that his words had a present application to his hearers. But even if it could be argued that 1 Peter 4:17 did not apply to Peter's day, Christ could still judge the righteous first at his coming. Smith concluded that this preadvent judgment

. . . must embrace the examination of individual character; and we conclude that the lives of the children of God, not only those who are living, but all who have ever lived, whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life, will during this time pass in final review before that great tribunal.⁶¹"

James White's original objection in A Word to the Little Flock that such an investigative judgment was unnecessary remained unanswered by Uriah Smith. Christ affirmed, "I am the good Shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me" (John 10:14). Smith had already noted that this judgment includes only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. Paul affirms that first-century believers' names were already written in the Lamb's book of life. The very mention of names included in the Lamb's book of life indicates that believers are already, during their life, known in heaven by God and Christ as having eternal life. An investigative judgment would only be meaningful if somehow God was uncertain as to who really was his child and who was not.

James Reverses Position on Investigative Judgment

Finally, in the January 29, 1857, Review and Herald James White himself embraced the concept and used for the first time the term "investigative judgment." After noting that 1 Peter 4:17, 18 refers to two classes to be judged — the righteous and the wicked — James White asserted, "Both classes will be judged before they are raised from the dead."⁶² He also used Revelation 20 to show that the wicked will be judged prior to their being raised from the dead. To prove a preadvent judgment of the righteous, White quoted 1 Timothy 5:24, with parentheses supplied: "Some men's sins (the righteous) are open before the Lord, going before to judgment, and some men (the wicked) they follow after."⁶³ However, in context Paul is referring to open versus hidden sin, and not to a preadvent judgment. This becomes clear through a consideration of the passage, particularly as it is rendered in the New International Version:

The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not can not be hidden (1 Timothy 5:24-28).

Thus, it appears that James White offers no biblical support capable of overturning his original conviction that 1 Timothy 4:1 clearly pointed to the correct time of judgment: "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at (not before) his appearing . . . ."⁶⁴ (parentheses supplied by White).

In 1847 White had been certain that Christ and the holy angels would know whom to raise at Christ's coming. Now he argues:

To place the investigative judgment of the saints after the resurrection of the just supposes the possibility of a mistake in the resurrection, hence the necessity of an investigation to see if all who are raised were really worthy of the first resurrection.⁶⁵

The importance of this investigative judgment for professed Christians was the fact that they could never know at what point in time their names would come up in judgment. James White feared that the living saints faced the real possibility of having their names blotted out in the judgment because their consecration and victory over sin was not complete enough.⁶⁶

Prophetic Stamp of Approval

With James White's article, the concept of an investigative judgment was now fully formed. All that remained for closure was the prophetic endorsement of Ellen White. This came in the form of her most complete explanation of such a judgment in the chapter entitled "The Investigative Judgment" in The Great Controversy. Here she states that Christ in 1844 entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary ". . . to perform the work of investigative judgment and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits."⁶⁷

Just what is it that entitles a believer to have Christ blot out his sins? Ellen White goes on to describe the need for total consecration, the forsaking of sin, and the development in sanctification that borders on perfection: "The Law of God is the standard by which the characters and the lives of men will be tested in the judgment."⁶⁸ She noted that in the heavenly books are recorded

. . . every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for or against evil, with its far-reaching results, all are chronicled by the recording angel.⁶⁹

While noting that sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ, Ellen White stresses the need for sanctification if one's name is to be cleared in the judgment. She writes:

All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life.⁷⁰

For those who are alive just before Christ's second coming, Ellen White warns:

The very mention of names included in the Lamb's book of life indicates that believers are already, during their life, known in heaven by God and Christ as having eternal life.

Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their character must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the Grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle of evil.⁷¹

Ellen White's emphasis on the believer having his character in full harmony with the law of God, coupled with the uncertainty of never knowing when one's name might come up in the judgment, has been responsible for leaving several generations of Seventh-day Adventists uncertain of their salvation. Instead of having complete confidence to enter the most holy place by the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 10:19), they look within themselves to see if their characters are sufficiently sanctified. The more introspective they become, the more character defects, sin, and failure they see. Many feel overwhelmed with a sense of guilt and failure. They conclude that as much as they might desire to be Christians, they just will never make it. Others struggle on, ever guilty and uncertain as to whether or not their names will be cleared in the judgment. It is in these believers' guilt and fear that the legacy of the investigative judgment lives on.