Arguments against the Adventist doctrines of the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgement take several forms that can be organized in order of importance:
1) ‘The IJ conflicts with the gospel or with the assurance of salvation.’
This argument is the most damaging and should be addressed before anything else. See a & b below.
2) ‘The IJ is like the pinnacle of a house of cards that requires many different assumptions to all be correct or else the entire structure collapses (ex. day-for-a-year principle, the connection between Dan. 7 & 8, Jesus entering the Holy not the Most Holy in Hebrews etc.)’
In reality, the foundation of the IJ is Arminianism + Soul Sleep (see – a – below)
3) ‘Jesus entered the Most Holy in Hebrews’
This point is not relevant to the topic. Adventist theology is not about Jesus’ location but about the type of ministry He is performing.
4) ‘Daniel 8 is about Antiochus Epiphanes’
See section d.
5) Is it relevant
An important argument that was not mentioned here against IJ is a series of exegetical fallacies. There are critical objections which we should answer in the most honest and responsible manner. For example:
1. Wherefrom did the Luciferic horn come out? One of the four winds, or of the four horns?
2. What exactly is the linguistic meaning of ונצדק in Dan. 8:14? If ונצדק meant ”shall be cleansed”, what would be the contextual meaning of this cleansing?
3. Which is the true referent of ”the word” and ”the vision (revelation)” in Dan. 9:23?