A. F. BALLENGER

Here is a name that is almost as emotion-creating as that of D. M. Canright, though belonging to a very different type of character and personality.

Albion Ballenger, of ministerial ancestry, lived between 1861 and 1921. In his late twenties, he was appointed the secretary of the National Religious Liberty Association. For a period, he was assistant editor of the American Sentinel. In these capacities he attended camp meetings and other important gatherings in nearly all the conferences in North America. Transferring to the British Isles, he preached in several of the large cities of England, Wales, and Ireland. He became the superintendent of the Ireland Mission. After he was defrocked, some other workers joined him, including one of the officers of the British work, Win. Hutchinson, and L. H. Crisler, a former conference president in the U. S. Ballenger never developed an organized offshoot movement, though from 1914 he edited “The Gathering Call” paper. Renowned as a preacher while still with the church, he spoke and wrote much on the theme of the Holy Spirit, and authored the well-known Power for Witnessing. We suspect from some of his own statements, and some words of Ellen G. White, that strong mystical inclinations were the seed of later problems for Ballenger. It is certain that

p.36

Ellen G. White viewed Ballenger as part of the growing sector of workers influenced by Kellogg’s views which made both God and His dwelling-place unreal.

Clearly condemned by Ellen G. White, Ballenger’s views, particularly on the sanctuary, need to be understood by us. So far as we know, there is nobody in today’s Adventism who holds this man’s sanctuary schema. He believed that Christ operated as priest for 4000 years before coming to earth, and that the sphere of His operations was the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Separating the two apartments was a cordon of angels through which Christ passed at His ascension into the Most Holy Place. In view of the plain statements in Hebrews that a priest had to be taken from among men, and that of necessity He must have a sacrifice to offer, it is not strange that Ellen G. White accused Ballenger of denying “mighty truths held for ages.”

We list the nine propositions submitted by Ballenger at the 5:30 a.m. meeting, May 21, 1905, General Conference Session. (17) The meeting was a secluded one with only some of the leaders present.

I want to read to you now some of the misfits that I find in my attempt to place the first apartment work of the earthly sanctuary this side of the cross:

1. The earthly sanctuary, which was a shadow of the heavenly, located the ark, or throne of God, in the holy of holies, or second apartment, while the priest was ministering in the first apartment. The denominational view of the heavenly sanctuary places the ark or throne of God in the first apartment while the priest ministers in that apartment, in violation of the type.

2. The shadow placed a veil between the priest and the ark or throne of God while the priest ministered in the first apartment. The denominational view has the priest ministering in the heavenly sanctuary in the first apartment, with no veil separating him from the ark or throne of God, but with a veil behind both priest and throne, in violation of the type.

3. The type represents the priest as performing a long ministry in the first apartment of the sanctuary before the blood is shed that pays the penalty of sin. The denominational view teaches that the blood was shed which pays the penalty of sin long before the ministry began in the heavenly sanctuary, thus contradicting the type.

4. The type taught that the priest ministered for a long period in the first apartment, during which time there was accumulated upon him the sins of the people before the blood was shed which met the penalty of those sins which the priest was carrying. The denominational view locates the death of Christ before any ministry has been performed in the heavenly sanctuary whereby the sins of the world are transferred to him.

(We teach that no sins are pardoned except those that go into the sanctuary by the priestly work, and yet we have the sanctuary closed to the patriarchs for four thousand years, and that Christ began the work of carrying sins into the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension. This leaves four thousand years without any priest by which the sin was carried into the sanctuary.)

5. The shadow placed the death of the Lord’s goat, whose blood met the penalty of the law in type, on the great day of atonement. The denominational view places the death of Christ, whose blood meets

p.37

the penalty of the law, more than eighteen hundred years before the great day of atonement is supposed to begin.

6. The shadow represents the high priest going from his ministry in the court where he obtained the blood, directly into the holy of holies on the day of atonement. (He did not stop in that first apartment; he obtained his blood, and then carried it straight through into the holy of holies.) The denominational view teaches that Christ went from His ministry in the first apartment, and not from the court, into the holy of holies, in 1844.

7. The type represents the priest as unloading forever, through the blood of the Lord’s goat, the sins which had been accumulating upon him during the year by his ministry before the veil. (All the sins that had gone into the sanctuary during that one year, and were charged to the priest, that penalty was met on the day of atonement in the holy of holies.) The denominational view represents Christ as loading Himself up again in the first apartment with the same sins which He had before borne at the cross and unloaded in His death.

8. The shadow sends the high priest directly through the first apartment into the holy of holies as soon as he has in his hands the blood of the Lord’s goat, or the blood which pays the penalty of sin . The denominational view stops our great High Priest in the first apartment when He has in his hands His own blood which pays the penalty of sin.

9. The shadow represents the high priest as going immediately with the blood, the warm blood, of the Lord’s goat, into the holy of holies, and sprinkling that blood upon the mercy seat before the veil. The denominational view teaches that our great High Priest did not sprinkle His blood on the mercy seat before the veil for more than eighteen hundred years after it was shed.

Note that the chief emphases of these theses is the tenet that Christ had ministered in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary for millenniums before the cross. It should be observed that even years later when Ballenger wrote his Cast Out for the Cross of Christ, he was still a believer in the judgment beginning in 1844 in fulfillment of Dan. 8:14. (18) But he did not believe that this judgment had anything to do with the saints, and here Ellen G. White strenuously disagreed. (19)

Let us now notice Ballenger’s letter to Ellen G. White, one of which did not receive a personal reply. The letter sums up what were his dominant objections to the church’s position ever after.

Dear Sr. White: For some time I have been constrained to write to you regarding my convictions on the sanctuary. Many of my friends have urged me to do this, while others have thought it useless inasmuch as, in their opinions, the letter would never reach you.

Nevertheless I have decided to write and state my difficulty frankly.

My first difficulty is with the interpretation which you give to the following scripture found in Heb. 6:19, 20, “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 an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.”

I cannot help believing that this term “within the veil” refers to the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary and the scriptures which convinced me, are given below.

pp.38-40

On one side I have placed the interpretation given this scripture by the Word of God and on the other side the interpretation which you have given it. You will note that you merely assert that this term applies to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, but you do not refer to any scripture which uses the term and applies it to the first apartment. What I am pleading for in this letter, is, that if there be a “thus saith the Lord” to support your statement, that, out of compassion for my soul you furnish it.

“Within the Veil” As the Bible Interprets it.

“And thou shaft hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony: and the veil shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy” Ex. 26:33.

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark, that he die not: for 1 will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.” Lev. 162

“And he shall take a censerfull of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil.” Lev. 16:12.

“And he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat.” Lev. 16:15.

“Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest’s office for everything of the altar, and within the veil.” Num. 18:7.

Sr. White, you refer the terms “within the veil” to the first apartment, while the Lord applies the terms “without the veil” and “before the veil” to the first apartment, as appears from the following Scriptures.

“And thou shalt set the table (of shew bread) ‘without the veil.’ ” Ex. 26:35.

“And thou shaft command the children of Israel that they bring thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always in the tabernacle of the congregation, without the veil, which is before the testimony.” Ex. 27:20, 21.

“And he put the table in the tent of the congregation, upon the side of the tabernacle northward without the veil.” Ex. 40:22.

“And he put the golden altar in the tent of the congregation before the veil.” Ex. 40:26.

—Andthe priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the Sanctuary.” Lev. 4:5, 6.

“And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock’s blood to the tabernacle of the congregation, and the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the veil.” Lev. 4:17.

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of Israel that they bring thee pure olive oil beaten for light, to cause the lamps to burn continually without the veil of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation.” Lev. 24:1-3.
“Within the Veil” As You Interpret it.

“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. It was the work of the priest in the daily ministration to present before God the blood of the sin offering, also the incensewhich ascended with the prayers of Israel. So did Christ plead His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners and present before Him also, with the fragrance of His own righteousness, the prayers of penitent believers. Such was the work of ministration in the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven.”

“Thither the faith of Christ’s disciples followed Him as He ascended from their sight. Here (in the first apartment) their hopes centered, ‘which hope we have,’ said Paul, ‘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 an high priest forever.’ ” GC 420, 421.

Five times the Lord uses the term “within the veil” and in every case it is applied to the second apartment of the sanctuary, and not to the first.

Seven times the Lord uses the terms “without the veil” and “before the veil,” and in every instance He applies it to the first apartment or tabernacle of the congregation, and never to the court outside of the door of the tabernacle. But if “within the veil” applies to the first apartment as you teach In your interpretation of Heb. 6:19, 20, then the term “without the veil” must apply to the space in the court outside the tabernacle door. Every one of these seven scriptures which plainly state that “without the veil” and “before the veil” is in the first apartment, is a divine witness to the truth that “within the veil” in Heb. 6:19, 20, must apply to the second apartment.

There are therefore twelve witnesses, a twelve-fold “thus saith the Lord” testifying that the term “within the veil” refers to the holy of holies, and not to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary as you assert.

At my secret trial four years ago, three leading brethren were chosen to answer me. (It is interesting to note in passing that two out of the three were then and are still under your condemnation inasmuch as they both teach that the “daily” of Dan. 8:13 refers to the heavenly service instead of paganism as taught by you in Early Writings.) In private conversation with me one took the position that “within the veil” meant within the sanctuary, but did not refer to either apartment. Another asserted at the trial that the term applied to the first apartment as you have interpreted it. The third, compelled by the witnesses quoted above admitted in his answer that the term “within the veil” does apply to the holy of holies, but that it is spoken prophetically, and although the scripture says Christ is entered “within the veil” we are to understand it to mean that He WILL enter in 1844. This babel of voices did not help me to see my error, if error it be.

Before publishing my MS. I sent it to several ministers holding official positions, whose loyalty to the denomination is unquestioned, and asked them out of love for the truth and my soul, to show me from the Scriptures, where I was in error. I promised that should they do this I would never publish the MS. Not one of these brethren attempted to show me my error from the Word. One wrote thus:

“Candor compels me to say that I can find no fault with it from a Bible standpoint. The argument seems to be unassailable.”

Another said:

“I have always felt that it was safer to take the interpretation placed upon the scriptures by the Spirit of Prophecy as manifested through Sister E. G. White rather than to rely upon my own judgment or interpretation.”

This last quotation expresses the attitude of all those who have admitted that my position seemed to be supported by the Scriptures, but hesitated to accept it.

p.41

Honestly, Sister White, I am afraid to act upon this suggestion; because it will place the thousands upon thousands of pages of your writings in books and periodicals between the child of God and God’s Book. If this position be true, no noble Berean dare believe any truth, however clearly it may seem to be taught in the Scriptures, until he first consults your writings to see whether it harmonizes with your interpretation. This is the principle always advocated by the Roman church and voiced in the following quotation:

“Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still of the two, TRADITION is to us more clear and safe.” Catholic Belief, p. 54.

It was against this putting of an infallible interpreter between the man and his Bible that the Reformation waged its uncompromising war.

The Romanists robbed the individual of his Bible, denouncing the right of “private interpretation”; while the Reformation handed the Bible back to the individual while denouncing the papal dogma that demands an infallible interpreter between the child of God and his Bible.

The brethren urge me to accept your interpretation of the Scriptures as clearer and safer than what they call my interpretation. But I have not interpreted this Scripture, I have allowed the Lord to do this and have accepted His interpretation. Let me illustrate:

The first mention of the Sabbath in the New Testament is found in Matt. 12:1. It does not there tell us which day is the Sabbath, assuming that the reader knows which day is referred to, or if not, he will be able to learn from the Old Testament, which day it is. When one turns to Ex. 20:8-12 and reads, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord,” is not that God’s interpretation? Has any one the right to reply, “That is your interpretation.” Surely not.

In like manner, the first and only instance where the term, “within the veil,” is used in the New Testament, if found in Heb. 6:19. It is taken for granted that the reader will know to which apartment the Holy Spirit refers; but if not, the searcher can learn from the Old Testament which place is meant. Now, when I turn to the Old Testament and find that in every instance this term is applied to the holy of holies, can it honestly be charged that this is my interpretation? I have not interpreted it, but have given that honor to the Holy Oracles themselves. And now Sister White, what can I do? If I accept the testimony of the Scriptures, if I follow my conscientious convictions, I find myself under your condemnation; and you call me a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and warn my brethren and the members of my family against me. But when I turn in my sorrow to the Word of the Lord, that Word reads the same, and I fear to reject God’s interpretation and accept yours. Oh that I might accept both. But if I must accept but one, hadn’t I better accept the Lord’s? If I reject His word and accept yours, can you save me in the judgment? When side by side we stand before the great white throne; if the Master should ask me why I taught that “within the veil” was in the first apartment of the sanctuary, what shall I answer? Shall I say, “Because Sister White, who claimed to be commissioned to interpret the Scriptures for me, told me that this was the true interpretation, and that if I did not accept it and

p.42

teach it I would rest under your condemnation?”

Oh, Sister White, that this answer might be pleasing unto the Lord. Then would I surrender to your testimony. Then would you speak words of encouragement to me again. Then would my brethren, with whom I have held sweet counsel, no longer shun me as a leper. Then would I appear again in the great congregation, and we would weep and pray and praise together as before.

But on the other hand should the great and terrible God say to me on that day, “But disobedient servant, WHAT DID I SAY?” Oh what could I answer?

If I surrender my convictions to escape thy testimonies of condemnation which you heap upon my head; if I yield the Word of God that I might again enjoy the love and fellowship of my brethren, how can I again look into the face of Him who died for me? How could I again lay my Bible open upon my bed, and kneeling, plead for light upon His word? No, no, I cannot do that. I must go on my pilgrimage alone. And while I would not put myself in the company of Him who was despised and rejected of men, the Man of sorrows, the Man of the lonely life, yet I am comforted in the thought that He knoweth my sorrow and is acquainted with my grief.

Your younger brother in Christ,

A. F. Ballenger. (20)

After a silence of four years following his ejection from the ministry, Ballenger published his Cast Out for the Cross of Christ. The following year, the denomination published a reply by E. E. Andross entitled A More Excellent Ministry. In rebuttal, Ballenger wrote An Examination of Forty Fatal Errors Regarding the Atonement a title which clearly indicates his view that the cross fulfilled Yom Kippur. His first pages are significant for our study.

It is gratifying to note that this new book, “Which fully explains the sanctuary question as understood by the denomination,” takes the position that “within the veil” of Heb. 6:19, 20, does refer to the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary, and does teach that Christ entered there at His ascension.

This will doubtless astonish many in the denomination, ministers and people, who have believed the old position as taught by the pioneers for sixty years, and published in the books of the denomination, and supported by Sister White. And none will be more astonished than those ministers and people who have been cast out of the churches for believing what the denomination now publishes as its position on this scripture.

What astonishes the writer most is that this new position is published without a hint that the author, Eld. E. E. Andross, or the denomination ever published or taught any other position. This new book says:

Much stress is laid, by the author of “Cast Out,” upon the expression, “within the veil,” as found in Heb. 6:19, 20, fifteen pages of the pamphlet being devoted exclusively to an effort to prove that this means within the second veil or most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.

A More Excellent Ministry, p. 52.

By this it is intimated that this fifteen-page effort was entirely unnecessary. The author then proceeds to take the same position, just as

p.43

if he and the denomination for whom he speaks, had always held and taught that same position. However the facts are that they have always taught the contrary position, and, during the last eight years, condemned and cast out scores of those who believe this new position.

It is impossible to believe that there was not some one in the many councils held to consider the manuscript of this new pamphlet during its year of rejections and revisions, who had honesty of heart and courage of conviction sufficient to raise some of the following questions. I shall presume that there was, and that his questions were somewhat as follows:

Question: Why are we making this change in the denomination’s position? For sixty years we have believed and taught that “within the veil” of Heb. 6:19, 20, refers to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.

Answer: Because we cannot maintain the position from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are positively against it.

Q. And has the denomination only just found this out? And how did the denomination happen to find it out just now?

A. No doubt Bro Ballenger and his friends would say that it was the result of their agitation of the question.

Q. Would it not be the truth?

A. Possibly.

Q. I remember how Bro. Ballenger, for one solid hour, stood before us, when he was brought to trial over this matter, and read scripture after scripture to prove that “within the veil” of Heb. 6:19, 20, pointed to the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. I remember that we then opposed this position and regarded him and Eld. Win. Hutchinson, who was on trial with him, as sadly in the dark and as having turned them out with scores of their brethren, for believing what they taught, are we now going to adopt their position and publish it to the world as our position?

A. But we are not adopting all of Bro Ballenger’s conclusions from this Scripture.

Q. But you are adopting the two principal positions that he advocated and based on this scripture. First, that the scripture refers to the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary, and second, that it teaches that Christ went there at His ascension. Is this not true?

A. Yes. But we do not believe that Christ remained in that apartment, but that He and the Father immediately moved into the first apartment where they remained until 1844.

Q. But on the two points mentioned, you now agree with Bro. Ballenger and his brethren.

A. Yes.

Q. And you now believe that in publishing these new positions you are publishing the truth?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you now believe that in publishing the old position for sixty years, the denomination has been publishing error?

A. Yes.

p.44

Q. And you believe that when Eld. Daniells and other of the leading brethren went from camp meeting to camp meeting teaching the people that “within the veil” of this scripture referred to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and taught that Christ entered there at His ascension, they were teaching error, were they not?

A. Yes, we presume they were.

Q. When Bro. Ballenger was standing before us on trial for his life as a minister, when he taught with all earnestness of his soul that “within the veil” of Heb. 6:19, 20, referred to the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary, and taught that Christ went there at His ascension, he was teaching the truth, was he not?

A. Yes, it appears so now. (21)

Ellen White’s warnings against Ballenger are found in the White Estate release, (MS760) The Ballenger Letters. She sees him as threatening the very foundations of Adventism, indeed, of Christianity itself. Some of her admonitions seem to place Ballenger into a camp very similar to Kellogg, as “mystical,” unable to “be substantiated by the word of God,” possibly even “departing from the living God in spiritualistic satanic experiences,” “led by satanic agencies,” undermining “the pillars of our faith.” Ballenger was spending his time in presenting as truth that which, if received, would undermine the mighty truths that have been established for ages.” Ballenger’s theories, if received, “would lead many to depart from the faith.” “The Lord has not given him the message that he is bearing regarding the sanctuary service.” Heavenly messengers have pronounced that Brother Ballenger was “substituting human interpretation for the interpretation that God has given.” The new views would mean “the uprooting of faith in God, and the making of infidels.”

Specifically the theories of Ballenger are contrasted with those that emerged “since 1844. “… we who passed through the disappointment of 1844 can testify to the light that was then given on the sanctuary question.” Ellen White distinctly alludes to the Sabbath conferences which established a line of truth leading right to the time when we shall enter the city of God. Repeatedly the pioneers of 1844 are appealed to, and Brother Ballenger’s “proofs” are warned against as unreliable, and certain to “destroy the faith of God’s people in the truth that has made us what we are.” Very specifically Ellen G. White puts her finger on that which concerns her most about Ballenger’s teachings. “. . – the points that he is trying to prove by scripture are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God’s people was a fallacy.” “When efforts are made to unsettle our faith in our past experience, and to send us adrift, let us hold fast to the truth that we have received.” “The warning is given, hold fast to the past experience.” “The truths given us after the passing of the time in 1844 are just as certain and unchangeable as when the Lord gave them to us in answer to our urgent prayers.” Denial of the sanctuary truth is linked to the danger of denying the existence of a personal God an obvious allusion to the teachings of Dr. J. H. Kellogg.

Viewed together, the warnings of the Spirit of Prophecy seem to be directed against mystical pantheistic sentiments which would result in denying the reality of the heavenly sanctuary and the present ministry of Christ our High Priest. Such false teachings would fail to connect the sanctuary service with “present truth” for the people God raised up in 1844. Ballenger did believe in a judgment beginning in 1844, but it had chief reference, not to the disposal of the sins of believers, but those of unbelievers. Strictly speaking, he did not believe in atonement for the saints as part of Christ’s final ministry in heaven.

Ellen White’s repeated references to the passing of the time in 1844 and to the Sabbath conference show clearly her thrust and emphasis. To rightly understand

p.45

her, we should keep in mind that while the teaching on the investigative judgment was not accepted by this church till about a decade after the last of the Sabbath conferences, stress on Christ’s closing ministry for the saints in the holy of holies was present from the date of 1844 itself. Ballenger, by applying the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary to Christ’s priestly work before the cross, and the second apartment to his subsequent work, was denying not only the plain teachings of Hebrews about Christ’s priesthood being subsequent to His incarnation, but also ignoring the Biblical evidence that the second apartment ministry had a special application to the last days. Crosier had taught the eschatological application of the Day of Atonement, but not the investigative judgment. This was true of all those pioneers to whom Ellen G. White refers when mentioning the Great Disappointment and the Sabbath conferences.

One other caveat should be offered. It was customary for Ellen G. White to commend and endorse whatever contained a preponderance of truth regardless of existing errors in the same package. She commended Crosier’s article to every saint despite several positions in it which she repudiated.

Similarly, Ellen G. White endorsed Uriah Smith’s commentary on Daniel and Revelation, despite its Arian sentiments, and a multitude of inaccuracies. Thus her stress on the sanctuary truth which came to the disappointed saints in 1844 does not necessarily endorse every detail subsequently added. It would certainly be wrong to apply Ellen G. White’s warnings as a denial of ALL that Ballenger was saying, particularly as she herself in several places echoes some of the same sentiments expressed by him. (22)