10/27/18 - #2
Recollections on the investigative judgment doctrine and the "unanimous" vote
By Raymond Cottrell, D.Div. (1912-2003)
In 1958 it fell to my lot, as a Review and Herald Publishing Association editor, to revise the perennial classic Bible Readings (published for nearly 100 years)…The old plates had worn out and we had to make new plates… The Review and Herald thought it would be highly desirable to bring Bible Readings into harmony with the Seventh‑day Adventist Bible Commentary) so that we wouldn’t be saying something out of one corner of our mouth and something else out of the other corner.
It fell to my lot, then, to come to Daniel 8:14, the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment. And with all these statements – of Martin and Barnhouse and Lindsell and DeHaan and name them — reverberating in my mind just like an echo that kept going back and forth …, I decided that I would try to find some way to say what we wanted to say about the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in a way, that would take the ammunition out of these people’s hands so they couldn’t criticize us like they were ‑‑ present it as Biblical.
And after struggling, I found that it couldn’t be done!
So I went to Elder Nichol (then Editor of the Review and Herald ) one day and I said, ‘Elder Nichol, what do you do in a case like this"’ I was really trying my very best to present the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in the book Bible Readings — I couldn’t do it! He said, ‘Well, what do (our) college Bible teachers have to say? … Write them a letter.’ So I composed a letter in which I asked a number of key questions on getting the sanctuary doctrine out of Daniel 8:14. And I sent this questionnaire out to every teacher of Hebrew in our colleges we didn’t have any universities at the time ‑ and to the head of every Bible department and a number of other Bible teachers I was personally acquainted with. And I protected them by assuring them their names would never be associated with any responses they made.
I asked these questions and all twenty-seven I wrote to replied. Without exception the responses expressed the opinion that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the antitypical Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment.
There was not one college Bible teacher who came out and said there is a basis in exegesis – that is in the language or the context.
THE "SANCTUARY DOCTRINE" – ASSET OR LIABILITY?
Raymond F. Cottrell, D. Div.
Obscurantism and the Sanctuary Doctrine
Webster defines obscurantism as “depreciation of or positive opposition to enlightenment or the spread of knowledge, esp. a policy … of deliberately making something obscure or withholding knowledge from the general public.”
Here, the word “obscurantism” is used in the specific sense of making presumably authoritative decisions and/or statements with respect to the sanctuary doctrine on the basis of untested, preconceived opinions and/or without first weighing all of the available evidence on the basis of sound, recognized principles of exegesis and basing conclusions exclusively on the weight of all the evidence.
Obscurantism has characterized the official response of the church to every question raised with respect to the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary doctrine, and the investigative judgment.
In at least most instances this obscurantism has been inadvertent and not intentional, but its effect has been the same as if it had been intentional.
It is high time for the church to be done with the traditional clichés with which it has heretofore responded to questions regarding the sanctuary doctrine.
It is time to face up to and to deal fairly and objectively with all of the evidence.