Archive for the ‘Daniel 8:14 The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgement’ Category

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)

As we consider the next figure, it is with a measure of shock.

E. J. Waggoner, “the Lord’s messenger” in 1888, had become heretical by the early 1890s. In 1916 Waggoner died, and his last writing is known as his Confession of Faith. There he states his long-silent position on the sanctuary a position which reflects his growing departure from objective justification.

We quote him at length because of his influence upon Adventism, and because he ably sets forth views which were rapidly growing amongst us. The statement is most interesting, although it contains as many things open to criticism as the views he was examining. There were references by Waggoner to 1844 in later years, but they were not presented with much conviction. We wish to stress that here and in other places where we quote critics of our sanctuary doctrine, such quotation does not necessarily affirm the present writer’s agreement with the contentions made.

Neither at the cross, nor before or since, has there been any new feature introduced any change in the way for sinners to approach the Throne of Grace. Christ has from the foundation of the world been the Lamb slain; His life has always been the one perfect sacrifice for sin; and His royal priesthood has been unchangeable. He is from first to last the “one mediator between God and men.” He has borne the sins of the world from the beginning of sin; and He has “taken away” the sin from as many of the world as have been willing to have it blotted out of their lives.

Also, twenty-five years ago, these truths, coupled with the self-evident truth that sin is not an entity but a condition that can exist only in a person, made it clear to me that it is impossible that there could be any such thing as the transferring of sins to the sanctuary in heaven, thus defiling that place; and that there could, consequently be no such thing, either in 1844 AD, or at any other time, as the “cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.”

“Then what took place in 1844?”

34

That question puzzled me for many years; for I had been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea of a 2300-year period ending in 1844, that it never occurred to me to doubt it. Indeed, I never did doubt it for a moment; but one day the light dawned upon me, and I saw that that period had no foundation whatever, and then of course I simply dropped it.

How did I learn this? you ask. Well, I suppose I should never have seen it if I had not been for so many years fully convinced that the thing which I, from my boyhood, had been taught took place in 1844 did not occur, then nor at any other time.

But what about the 2300 days? Are we to throw away the prophetic rule of “a day for a year”? By no means; that rule holds, but it has no application in this case, for the simple reason that the eighth chapter of Daniel makes no mention whatever of 2300 days. Not the “King James” version, nor any other version, but the Hebrew text, must settle the question, and that says “two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings” (literally “evening-mornings”), as correctly rendered in the revised version.

“But,” it is asked, “doesn’t an evening and a morning make a day?” Yes; but what reason have we for gratuitously assuming that the term is here used as a periphrasis for “day”? In that case we should have a figure of a figure! We are placed under the necessity of interpreting a figure of speech, and then taking that interpretation as a prophetic figure. When a prophetic symbol is used, the symbol itself ought to be absolutely clear, needing no explanation. But here we are told to believe that we have for the figurative day a term that is never elsewhere used in the Bible for the word “day.” Why should we assume an exception here? There is a Hebrew word that is everywhere rendered “day,” and it is the only word for “day” in the Hebrew Scriptures. Has it never occurred to you to wonder why an exception should be made here? It certainly rests with those who claim an exception here to show the most clear and convincing proof of the alleged fact, and to give a plain and conclusive reason therefor.

If the translators of the 1611 version had translated the Hebrew words ereb boqer (evenings mornings), instead of substituting “day” for the proper rendering, I doubt if even the maintaining of a theory would have led anyone to light upon so farfetched an interpretation. I ask again, what reason can be given for the introduction by inspiration of a new, absolutely unknown, and clumsy expression, instead of the simple and well-known word for “day,” if the reader were intended to understand “day”? I say “clumsy expression,” meaning only, of course, as a circumlocution for “day.” In reality there is nothing clumsy about it when taken in its obvious sense. It seems so obvious as to need no argument, that the term “evening-mornings,” when used in connection with the sanctuary, must refer only to evening and morning sacrifices.

Incidentally there comes in here, of course, a consideration of the application of the “little horn.” Consistency demands that the horn of a goat should be of the nature of a goat a process, a continuation of the animal in question. But this would preclude the application of a Grecian horn to Rome, since Greece and Rome were two distinct, independent powers. Why is there any more ground for saying that Rome came out of Greece, than there is for saying that Greece came out of Medo-Persia, or that Medo-Persia came out of Babylon? It is true that a victory

35

over a Macedonian king gave Rome great prestige, but not so great as the victory over Darius gave Alexander, or the conquest of Babylon gave Cyrus. Rome, like its predecessors in universal dominion, originated in territory to the westward of the kingdom immediately preceding it, and had an origin as distinct from Greece as Greece had from Medo-Persia, or Medo-Persia from Babylon. The facts do not fit the interpretation which Seventh-day Adventists have given the prophecy. Strangely enough, the chart that has always been used by the denomination, and the supposed picture of the goat, which still appears in all the books and articles devoted to this prophecy, plainly show the inconsistency of the interpretation. Look it up, if you do not have the picture in mind, and you will see that the “little horn,” marked “Rome,” is represented as coming from behind the goat, and that the goat horn marked “Syria” is represented as uniting with that previously-existing little horn, instead of the latter coming out of the Syrian horn. The awkward picture contradicts the words of the prophecy; but if it had been made true to nature and to the text, the little horn could not have been labeled “Rome.”

I had thought to devote a little space to a positive consideration of the application of the little horn, but I will not cumber the argument with it. I did not really need to refer to the horn at all, it being sufficient for my purpose, in dealing with the atonement, to show that the eighth chapter of Daniel does not contain any long prophetic period, at the end of which sins are to be blotted out. My only burden in this writing is that sin is not an entity, a commodity, that can be taken away from a person and deposited intact somewhere else, awaiting its final destruction. Since no earthly sinners have ever been in the sanctuary in heaven, their sins can never have defiled that place, necessitating its cleansing. But the sanctuary at Jerusalem in Judea, which alone was the subject of Daniel’s anxiety, had been most horribly defiled by Antiochus, and did need cleansing.

“But what about the Investigative Judgment?” Yes, indeed, what about it? In truth, there is no responsibility resting on me to say anything about it, because in the entire Bible, from Genesis. 1:1 to Rev. 22:21, inclusive, there is never once any mention of such a thing. (16)

Foremost among those who polemicized against the church’s position on the sanctuary in the 19th century was Dudley M. Canright, who vacillated in and out of the Adventist community for years. In his bitter Seventh-day Adventism Renounced he wrote:

Seventh-day Adventists make everything turn upon their view of the sanctuary. It is vital with them. If they are wrong on this, their whole theory breaks down. The reader should, therefore, study this subject carefully. They dwell upon it constantly, and affirm that they are the only ones in all Christendom who have the light on the subject. 1. Do the Adventists know that they are right about this question?

No. 2. If this subject is as plain and as important as they say it is, it is strange that nobody ever found it out before.

3. After being perfectly familiar with their view of it, and knowing all their arguments, I feel sure they are mistaken about it. [p. 117]

1. God sent the Adventists with a last solemn message to earth upon which the destiny of the church and the world depended. The very first thing they did was to get the wrong year, ‘43 instead of ‘44. Then, when they got that fixed up, instead of announcing the real event to take place, the change in Christ’s work in the sanctuary in heaven, 31 they said He was to come to earth, raise the dead, and burn the world, when nothing of the kind was to occur!

2. Not one in fifty of the original Adventists ever found out the real mistake they had made. Not even one of the leading Adventists, like Miller, Himes, Litch, etc., ever accepted this sanctuary explanation. Only a mere handful out of the great mass of 1844 Adventists found out the truth about the sanctuary, and these were men of no note in Miller’s work.

3. Miller himself opposed the Seventh-day Adventists’ move, rejecting. the idea of the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the third angel’s message. What a hopeless tangle that Advent work was! No wonder people rejected it. What if Moses had opposed Joshua, and John the Baptist had opposed Christ? Miller was sent to do a work, got it wrong, and then opposed those who did finally get it right!

4. Instead of receiving the “light” on the sanctuary question from Mrs. White’s visions, or from heaven, they got it from O. R. L. Crosier. But he soon gave it all up as an error, and has opposed the Seventh-day Adventists for many years. It looks badly for a theory when its very authors renounce it.

5. Seventh-day Adventists at first adopted the sanctuary theory to prove that the door of mercy was shut in 1844, a theory which Mrs. White and all of them held at that time. Here is my proof on this point: Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 1,1887 Elder D. M. Canright: “I kept the seventh day nearly a year, about 1848. In 1846,1 explained the idea of the sanctuary in an article in an extra double number of the Day Star, Cincinnati, O. The object of that article was to support the theory that the door of mercy was shut, a theory which I and nearly all Adventists who had adopted William Miller’s views, held from 1844 to 1848. Yes, I know that Ellen G. Harmon now Mrs. White held the hut door theory at that time.”

Truly yours, O. R. L. Crosier

Now listen to Mrs. White: “Topsham, Me., April 21, 1847.

. . . The Lord showed me in vision more than one year ago, that BrotherCrosier had the truelight on the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc., and that it was His will that Bro C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day Star (extra), Feb. 7,1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that extra to every saint. E. G. White in “A Word to the Little Flock,” pages 11, 12. Here you have the origin and object of that sanctuary theory. Before me lies “The Present Truth,” Vol. I, No. 5, Dec. 1849, by James White. “The Shut Door Explained,” is the leading article, In which it is argued from the type Leviticus. 16:17, that when the high priest entered the Most Holy there could be no more pardon for sin. “On this day of atonement He is a high priest for those only whose names are inscribed on the breast plate of judgment,” p. 44. No more salvation for sinners, Is what their sanctuary theory was then used to prove. The whole volume is full of this idea.

6. Their argument from the type on this point was right; in the type no sin could be confessed and conveyed into the sanctuary after the high priest entered theMost Holy. Leviticus. 4:1-7; 16:17, 23, 24. So if this was a type of the entrance of Christ into the Most Holy in heaven in 1844, then truly the door of mercy did close there, and all sinners are lost.

7. No work whatever was to be done on the Day of Atonement, or day when the sanctuary was cleansed. Leviticus. 23:27-32. The law was very strict. If the Advent argument on the sanctuary is correct and the Day of Atonement began in 1844, then they ought not to have worked a day since. Hence, many Adventists after 1844 held that it was a sin to work; but time starved them out, and they had to go at it again.

8. Finally, being compelled to abandon the position that the door of mercy was entirely shut against sinners in 1844, they next taught that only those could be saved who knew of the change which Christ made in the sanctuary in Heaven in 1844. [pp. 118-120] After thoroughly investigating the whole subject of the sanctuary, I feel sure that they are in a great error on that point.

1. God’s throne was always in the Most Holy place of the sanctuary,between the cherubim, over the ark, never once in the Holy place. For proof on this point see Leviticus. 16:2; Numbers. 7:89; I Sam. 4:4; 2 Kings 19:15. Smith argues that God’s throne was sometimes in the holy place, and refers to Ex. 33:9. But here the Lord appeared outside the tabernacle, and not in the Holy place at all. So his text fails him.

2. When Jesus ascended to Heaven, eighteen hundred years ago, He went directly to the right hand of God and sat down on His throne. Heb. 8:1. Hence, He must have entered the most Holy then, instead of in 1844.

3. “Within the veil” is in the most Holy place. “And thou shalt 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. Also see Leviticus. 16:2, 12, 13. None can fail to see that “within the veil” is in the most Holy place where the ark was. This is just where Jesus went eighteen hundred years ago. Proof: “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.” Heb. 6:19, 20. As the high priest went “within the veil,” so Jesus, our high priest, went “within the veil,” into the most Holy place, to the right hand of God and sat down on His throne. Nothing could be more plainly stated. This upsets the whole Advent theory of 1844. For further proof see Ex. 27:21; 30:6; 40:22-26; Leviticus. 4:16, 17; 16:15; 24:3; Numbers. 18:7; Matt. 27:51.

4. “Before the throne,” Rev. 8:3. Elder Smith asserts that “the throne of God was in the first apartment of the sanctuary,” because it is said that the seven lamps and the golden altar were “before the throne,” Rev. 4:5; 8:3. It is a desperate cause which seizes upon such proof. The same argument would prove that the ark and God’s throne were always in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary, which we know to be false. As there was only a veil which divided the holy from the most holy, where God’s throne was, things in the holy place were said to be “before the Lord,” as they were so near to the throne, which was just behind the curtain. Proof: Ex. 27:20, 21; 30:6-8; 40:23-25; Leviticus. 4:6, 15-18. Even outside of the tabernacle entirely, where the beasts were killed, was “before the Lord,” as Leviticus. 4:15 shows. Abraham walked “before the Lord,” Genesis. 24:40, yet he was on earth, and the Lord was in heaven.

5. Not a single text can be found in all the Bible where the ark and cherubim and throne were in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary, the type; yet in the antitype they have the throne of God in the holy place, not on some special occasion, but all the time for 1800 years, just contrary to the type! [pp. 121-123] (13)

In his later Life of Mrs. E. G. White, Canright’s chief protest against the Adventist position was the charge that “in this theory the atonement did not take place until over eighteen hundred years after Jesus died on the cross!” (p. 101) He then led into the shut door thus:

In Crosier’s theory it was held that the work in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary was for “forgiveness of sins” only; hence, when the work in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary closed (Oct. 22, 1844), there ended forgiveness of sins for all the world! Probation for sinners ended there! So, after 1844, Christ’s work of atonement in the Most Holy Place was for saints only!

Mr. Crosier states that the object of this article on the sanctuary was to prove that probation ended in 1844, and Mrs. White endorsed it for that reason . (14) It should be pointed out that while Crosier in the 19th century affirmed that his historic article was written to support the shut door concept, he later denied that it supported that idea. James White agreed with the latter claim. (15)

The moral is clear. When our best scholarship worked on Hebrews, it came up with this conclusion Do not use in support of our sanctuary doctrine the only New Testament passage which discusses the meaning of the tabernacle and its services. Especially ignore its references to the Day of Atonement.

Let us now take a rapid survey of the history of the sanctuary issues amongst us. No attempt is made to be exhaustive as that would yield a massive volume, at least partly irrelevant for our purposes. Instead we touch upon high points, and refer chiefly to well-known names of people who after study felt our traditional exposition of the sanctuary truth to be inadequate.

O. R. L. CROSIER

The first to find fault with the Adventist sanctuary teaching was its creator

O. R. L. Crosier. Damsteegt tells us concerning him, “In 1846 he accepted the Sabbath but soon repudiated it together with his sanctuary teaching.” (11)

JAMES WHITE

The second prominent figure with difficulties in this area was James White. Not until 1857 did he accept the doctrine of the investigative judgment, and prior to that time he wrote against any such concept. For example, in the Advent Review of September, 1850, he declared:

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. Daniel, “in the night visions” saw that “judgment was given to the Saints of the Most High,” but not to mortal saints not “until the Ancient of days came,” and the “little horn” ceased prevailing, which will not be until he is destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming. “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at (not before) his appearing and his kingdom” 2 Tim. 4:1.

The advent angel (Rev. 14:6, 7) saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to him: for the hour of his judgment is come does not prove that the day of judgment came in 1840, or in 1844, nor that it will come prior to the Second Advent.

Prior to that he had declared in his Word to the Little Flock, p. 24,

“The event which will introduce the judgment day, will be the coming of the Son of Man, to raise the sleeping saints, and to change those that are alive at that time.

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.

There is no evidence that at this time Ellen G. White differed with her husband on this point. Her 1849 statement in Early Writings 36 about the judgment is only a general statement and seems to place it after the seven last plagues.

saw that the anger of the nations, the wrath of God, and the time to judge the dead, were separate and distinct, one following the other.

Damsteegt’s comment about James White probably also applies to Ellen G. White:

“The view of a pre-Advent judgment was only gradually adopted by J. White.” (12)

It took Joseph Bates, J. N. Andrews, J. N. Loughborough, and Uriah Smith to fully formulate the judgment doctrine over a period of years, and by the end of the fifties, more than a decade after the great disappointment, the doctrine became prevalent in the small community of Sabbath-keeping Adventists. In 1857 James White uses the expression “the investigative judgment” (R&H, Jan. 29,1857). It should be kept in mind that this doctrine was not formulated by the historic Sabbath conferences, the sixth of which took place in 1848. It is not one of the landmarks, though the final atonement in the heavenly sanctuary is. Rather, it seemed to emerge to fill the gap made by the collapse of the first interpretation of the shut door. Believers everywhere wanted to know “Well, if probation for the world did not close in 1844, just what did happen?”

Dear Brother Nichol:

I am not very happy over the way the references to the heavenly sanctuary are handled. In fact I am disturbed, and feel that unless some of the vagueness can be cleared up the material will do more harm than good when it reaches the field.

You mention that “the general conclusion we have reached with regard to the evidence in Hebrews concerning the apartments in heaven is found in the comment on Heb. 10:20.” My reading of the comment in question leads me to say that it practically destroys any idea of a sanctuary in heaven.

In the comments on chapter 6:19 the sanctuary is mentioned, but so many divergent views are given concerning the expression “within the veil” that the reader is left wondering if this is an SDA Commentary or merely one written to show the variety of views held by Seventh-day Adventists and Bible students in general without any expression of opinion as to what the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches. Again, in the comments on chapter 8:2 the sanctuary in heaven is affirmed, but at the same time the comment casts doubt on the matter of apartments. Again reference is made to the heavenly sanctuary in comment on chapter 9:8, with the summing up of Adventist belief, evading the question of two apartments.

In chapter 9:11 there is a brief positive statement affirming the existence of a heavenly sanctuary with a cross reference not yet complete, but the evidence in this text for the existence of the heavenly sanctuary is treated with much more feebleness than it deserves.

In chapter 9:12 the heavenly sanctuary is affirmed.

While the above references affirm a belief in a heavenly sanctuary, the general treatment of the subject would enable the reader, in my opinion, to question whether the Seventh-day Adventist church firmly believed in a sanctuary in heaven as an appointed place where a definite work of vital importance is being carried forward.

Then I would refer to the general teaching on the heavenly sanctuary, including two apartments, as taught in our books, both those generally circulated among our workers and people and those sold to the public by subscription. In the first group I would mention the “Book of Hebrews,” by M. L. Andreasen, pp. 325-331, 336-341, 356-357; the “Atoning Work of Christ,” C. H. Watson, pp. 154, 160-163, 186. By the way, Brother Watson is a most respected figure in Australasia, and the brethren do not consider his opinions lightly, since he wrote his book largely to rebut the sanctuary-destroying teaching of Brother W. W. Fletcher, the influence of which, some of our brethren feel, was responsible for our latest apostasies among the ministry.

Next I would mention “Our Firm Foundation,” vol. I, pp. 322, 334, 336, 358, 9; vol. 2, pp. 29, 32, 33, 40-42. 27 In some of the above works argument is put forth to establish two apartments. In most places it is taken for granted as something that is most surely believed among us.

Chapter 9:9 “Time then present.” It speaks of the apartments with their services being a parable of the then existing age. Should this not read in both instances parable for the then existing age. There is considerable difference in theology between the use of the words of and for in this case.

Chapter 9:23 “As a result of this the sinner’s conscience is purged,” etc. This teaches that the purifying of things in the heavens is really the purging of the sinner’s conscience. This seems foreign to the teaching of the denomination and the Spirit of Prophecy. I understand the purifying of heavenly things to be the cleansing from the heavenly sanctuary the record of confessed sin. “Great Controversy,” pp. 418-421.

Yours sincerely,

F. G. Clifford (9)

* * *

Dear Brethren:

The indictment you brethren bring against the Commentary on Hebrews is a

heavy one. None of the replies I received from our North American College Bible Departments, and from certain General Conference brethren, and others, on the Hebrews galleys, support your indictment. On the contrary, they were very commendatory.

The Commentary editors are not in the business of inventing theology for the denomination. Instead, we seek to ascertain precisely what the Bible writers have actually said, and then to discover the consensus of sound theological thought among Seventh-day Adventist leaders.

I am well aware of the long-standing problems in relation to the book of Hebrews. For years I lived in California where Ballenger fumed and stormed against us. I had hardly more than gotten to Washington, about thirty years ago, when I was placed on the committee that dealt with W. W. Fletcher. My task was to go through his bulky document and summarize his argument. Elder Spicer was in the chair. As a result of our meetings with Fletcher / drew certain conclusions regarding the book of Hebrews, as follows:

1. That some of the things Paul wrote that are hard to understand and that unstable souls wrest to their destruction, are found in the book of Hebrews.

2. That the construction of the argument and the construction of the Greek do not permit us to reach the dogmatic conclusions some of us have sought to reach on certain of the passages in Hebrews. This fact is clearly revealed in the variant interpretations that have been given to certain key passages in well-recognized Adventist works.

3. That our opponents can produce a plausible, though invalid, argument in support of their view by giving a certain value to some of the Greek terms used to describe the sanctuary and its apartments.

4. That if we take too literalistic a view of the heavenly sanctuary we aid our opponents. For example, Christ ascended to go into the presence of God for us; indeed His position since His ascension is in the presence of God where He is seated at God’s right hand. Various of our opponents argue that the presence of God is where the Shekinah glory is found, namely, in the second apartment. Therefore, since the ascension Christ has been ministering in the second apartment! /remember what Brother Spicer said to me at the time of the Fletcher hearings as we walked home one day. It was, in substance, this: “We must not press the figure too tar and think of two tight compartments in a building in heaven.” He felt, of course, that the two ompartments in the earthly sanctuary were intended to teach the great truth of the “two great divisions,” as Mrs. White expressed it, of Christ’s heavenly ministry in our behalf. We shall always have some honest differences of opinion as to how literally a symbol is to be understood, but so long as we keep clear the prime truth of “two great divisions” in Christ’s heavenly ministry, we have met our opponents squarely and have preserved our 1844 date, which is ever the focal point of attack. A symbol must always stand for something beyond itself, or else it is not a symbol but simply a literal statement. John saw, as he looked heavenward in vision, a Lamb as it had been slain, but we know that in heaven above there is found no slain lamb. However, we have no difficulty in understanding the import of the symbol. You will observe from what I say in the Additional Note on Chapter 10 that I consider it very proper to use the Biblical symbolism of two apartments because those symbols convey an important truth. But I don t want to press the symbol so literally as to play into the hands of our opponents in their argument about Christ’s going into the presence of God, and also some other arguments they can build upon ultra-literalism.

5. That because of the fact that some passages in Hebrews are difficult to understand, we ought never to allow our opponents to maneuver us into fighting the decisive battle as to the sanctuary doctrine on the battlefield of Hebrews. I believe we ought always to take our strong stand on the sanctuary doctrine, including its two apartments, on other and clearer scriptures. Having done that, I think we are well protected against the plausible, but invalid, conclusions that our opponents seek to reach by their attempts to make Paul’s passages in Hebrews support them. After all, this is the standard exegetical method we follow on many difficult matters of Scripture, as you brethren will agree. I have followed this procedure in my Additional Note for Chapter 10. Taking this procedure, we may willingly grant that it cannot be established with certainty as to what Paul may mean in a few places in Hebrews, but we can affirm with certainty that he does not mean what our opponents allege that he means. In other words, though we no longer attempt to find dogmatic proof for certain aspects of our sanctuary doctrine in Hebrews, we deprive our opponents of finding there any valid proof against that doctrine. To borrow again the figure of battle, we thus prevent them from bringing us into confusion on the field of Hebrews and make them fight their unholy warfare against us in the great areas of Scripture where we can win easily and completely.

6. That Paul is not seeking, in Hebrews, to focus upon the definite divisions of Christ’s work in heaven above, that instead he makes reference to this or that aspect of Christ’s heavenly ministry as a part of a grand argument to prove that the Jewish Christians could now avail themselves of “a more excellent ministry” than that of the earthly sanctuary. We have sought to make this great Pauline thesis stand out clearly in the rewritten section on “Theme” in the Introduction.

These conclusions that I reached about 30 years ago, I see no reason to change today.

Now, my dear brethren, my letter is very long, but I am trying to share with you my thinking, and I believe it is essentially the thinking of my brethren who have sent approving reports on the galleys. It is a line of reasoning that weakens in no way our sanctuary doctrine. Rather, I think, it greatly protects it. The fact that we do not attempt to prove a certain aspect of our sanctuary doctrine specifically in the book of Hebrews does not mean that we are letting that great doctrine ravel out. You contrast our treatment of the sanctuary with the strong support we have given to the Sabbath doctrine throughout the Commentary. If you will look again at the galleys you will note that we declare at some length that we do not believe that Hebrews 4:9 presents a valid argument for the Sabbath; I am sure some folks will grieve over this and perhaps even argue that we have weakened the Sabbath doctrine. We do not believe so. We simply believe that Hebrews is not the place to try to establish the Sabbath doctrine. I think the analogy is evident.

Sincerely your brother in Christ,

F. D. Nichol (10)

HISTORY OF SANCTUARY PROBLEMS IN THE SDA CHURCH AND RECOGNITION OF THESE PROBLEMS BY ADVENTIST WRITERS

Not the recurrence of problems within the church over our sanctuary teaching, but the failure to deal adequately with these problems is the strangest feature of any historical review of the subject. While we have works which are exhaustive in treating objections regarding our views on the Sabbath and the nature of man, there is no parallel in the issue of the sanctuary. Instead, a silence confronts us.

According to many of our contemporary Adventist scholars, all our sanctuary apologetic works of this century are both inadequate and inaccurate. This charge will be substantiated in chapter two. F. D. Nichol told the present writer that ‘a definitive work on the sanctuary is our greatest need.” His own classic, Answers to Objections, has next to nothing on the problems which threaten “the foundation of our faith.” His section on the sanctuary touches on the atonement, and Azazel, but the many other major challenges are ignored. Having corresponded with Elder Nichol on the sanctuary doctrine, such silence is no surprise to this inquirer. F. D. Nichol accepted our official position, but practically by faith a/one.

As one surveys the boxes and boxes of files in the Archives from the libraries of such deceased scholars as L. E. Froom, W. E. Read, M. L. Andreasen, etc., one is impressed with the evidence there that such men were acquainted with the problems concerning our traditional exposition on Dan. 8:14. One finds folder after folder with factual data on Heb. 9 and kindred passages, but rarely does one find a statement of conclusions reached.

While L. E. Froom was prodigious in research, as is well-known, and while we find him inquiring on problems concerning Heb. 9 from the beginning of the 1930 s, he wrote nothing in any detail upon those problems. When Harold Snide, thirty years in the work and Bible teacher at Southern Junior College, went to him for help, according to Snide’s letters he was not offered anything of value. If we had published materials from Froom confronting the issues and answering them, or even attempting to answer them, we could disregard Snide’s accounts. But we have none such.

As for Nichol, who could tackle such thorny problems as the shut door in the Ellen G. White writings, and the charges of plagiarism, etc., he likewise was as silent as the tomb on the problems which concern us most. Consider the fact that the man who did the painstaking research to disprove the ascension robe and insanity stories regarding the Millerites, left us nothing of value on such more important issues as the Day of Atonement in Heb. 9.

F. C. Gilbert wrote the well-known Messiah in His Sanctuary, and a large volume on the same topic years earlier. In his Archival files we have evidence of research into issues concerning 1844, but in his published materials there is hardly a jot or tittle to indicate that he had the needed answers.

When C. B. Price (brother of George McCready Price) wrote C. H. Watson some queries on his Atoning Work of Christ, Brother Watson excused himself from the task of answering. Twenty-five years ago a young worker by the name of Ford sent off a series of letters to our top scholars asking for solutions, and while he met with kindness, only one respondent, E. Heppenstall, had anything significant to offer.

The second aspect which becomes apparent when the history is reviewed is our latter-day reversal of many former sanctuary positions, and our rejection of former arguments. This was touched upon in our introductory chapter where nineteenth and twentieth century teachings were summarized.

The change in our apologetic stance can be illustrated by two letters an interchange over the initial writing on Hebrews for the SDA Bible Commentary. These letters illustrate the old and the new, though the second letter, in face of criticism, bends over backwards to be accommodating. Note the contrast between the attitude taken in distant Australia to the more recent understandings of Hebrews, and the complacent acceptance of the same positions by our better informed American scholars.

It must not be assumed that the present writer hereby affirms all those positions on the right and denies those on the left. The significance of some of these points will become apparent later. Several have bearing on the nature of inspiration and the issue of inerrancy.

When one considers this list on the right, one wonders how much is left of traditional Adventist sanctuary teaching, and the inevitable inquiry arises: “What should be preached in explaining Dan. 8:14?”

The practical intent of the present document is to attempt an answer to this question which will be intellectually responsible, Biblically defensible, and yet sustain our eschatological understanding of the Day of Atonement as a work of pre-Advent judgment. Obviously, this cannot be accomplished without some divergence from our usual apologetic so readers are invited to shun the hope for a square circle, or a living corpse.

To further motivate the conviction that this project is vital, some straws waving in the wind of recent Seventh-day Adventist history will be plucked.

For approximately twenty years, some leading Seventh-day Adventist scholars have contended that it is impossible to Biblically prove our doctrine of the investigative judgment. (For example, Raymond Cottrell and Don Neufeld. These have so affirmed in the presence of others, but many others have so believed without making public statements. See the articles on the sanctuary and on inspiration in the most recent issue of Spectrum [April, 1980]. This whole edition should be read most carefully by all who are concerned regarding the current sanctuary discussion. Previous numbers of the same journal have also relevant articles.) In 1958, a questionnaire on Dan. 8:14 was sent to twenty-seven of our top men in language and exegesis. All twenty-seven replied that it was impossible to make a linguistic connection between Dan. 8:14 and Leviticus. 16. They pointed out that “cleansed” was a faulty translation, and that “justified” or “restored” was more accurate, though quite unlinked with the Day of Atonement.

On the basis of this questionnaire, F. D. Nichol asked Elder Figuhr for a committee on problems In Daniel a confidential committee which would not keep minutes. For five years the committee met and studied together, but without reaching agreement on the basic problems. Finally, Elder Figuhr declared it was not necessary to make a written report of the findings. To this day, the problems canvassed and postures taken by individual members remain confidential except where those members have publicly expressed themselves.

Few are aware that today most Adventist New Testament scholars admit that Hebrews 9 teaches Christ’s entrance into “the Most Holy Place” at His ascension. These scholars recognize that “within the veil” of Heb. 6:19 refers to the second apartment ministry which, according to Hebrews, Christ had already commenced. They further see that 10:19-20 clearly teaches that identical truth, and likewise 9:8, 12, 24-25. (2)

Both Old and New Testament scholars amongst us frequently confess that it is scripturally impossible to prove the year-day principle, and it is well-known that Dan. 8 and 9 constitute a nest of unsolved exegetical problems. For example, there is no way of demonstrating that Christ died in AD 31, and it is well known amongst scholars that there is no way of proving that the decree of 457 BC is the one referred to in Dan.9:25. There Is nothing in Ezra 7 giving permission to rebuild the city, and Ezra 6:14 and context show that the decree by Artaxerxes concerned the temple and not the city.

One thing is sure unless the church works in this area with promptness and efficiency, the sanctuary doctrine as traditionally taught will become an increasing source of embarrassment, and a cause of loss of membership among both ministry and laity. With our increasing number of graduate students proficient in the original languages of Scripture and the tools of grammatico-historical exegesis, awareness of the problems under consideration is inevitably going to spread and multiply.

W. E. Read in Doctrinal Discussions noted, “The Seventh-day Adventist view of the investigative judgment has come in for a good deal of criticism during the years,” (p. 43). And Edward Heppenstall speaks even more strongly:

Among the friends and critics of Seventh-day Adventists nothing has aroused more discussion and opposition than the teaching of an investigative judgment in heaven reserved for the people of God prior to Christ’s return. For many this doctrine seems to shatter all possibility of assurance here and now and leaves uncertain one’s standing with God. How can a Christian in this life be sure of his destiny and future with God until the pro-Advent judgment has laid bare the facts of each person, and judgment is pronounced? [p. 202]

How shall we understand the “investigative judgment” of God’s people? Such a judgment can hardly mean that God needs to make such an investigation on the presumption that He is ignorant of the facts about His people.

Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his (2 Tim. 2:19). I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine (John 10:14).

Obviously, there can be no doubt or question in the mind of God concerning those who have kept the faith. Through all the years the saints cannot stand in jeopardy until the judgment hour. What about Enoch, Moses, and Elijah in heaven, and the multitude of captives resurrected when Christ had completed His work on earth, and taken to heaven? Do they have to wait until the pre-Advent judgment begins to learn whether their position in heaven is secure? Do they anticipate the possibility of a reversal of the divine verdict that led God to resurrect and translate them to heaven? Obviously not.

If God needs no investigation, then why have one? If God has known all along who are saved and who are lost, why bring the saints to judgment? If a person is a forgiven, redeemed child of God to the end of his life, why bring up the past for consideration? [pp. 207-208] Why is an investigative judgment of the saints necessary? Did not Jesus teach? ” ‘in very truth, anyone who gives heed to what I say and puts his trust in him who sent me has hold of eternal life, and does not come up for judgment, but has already passed from death to life. ” (John 5:24 NEB)? If Christ promised immunity from judgment to His followers, how can God hold such a judgment without breaking His promise?

Second, we must also take into account that “the Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim.2:19). “I … know my sheep, and am known of mine” (John 10:14). According to this, God does not need to postpone His verdict of acquittal concerning His people until the last-day judgment. One can hardly affirm that God is not certain who the saved are until a final formal judgment takes place. For if this were true, how could there be any experience of security for the saints while on earth? Does not their very security here and now rest on the clear assurance that “there is.. no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1)? Are we not commanded here and now to make our calling and election sure (see 2 Peter 1:10)? If even God does not make the final decision until after 1844, how could Paul confidently affirm: “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:8)? How could Paul have been so sure at that time? [p. Page 108).

Not one non-Adventist scholar has ever been favorably impressed by our traditional sanctuary presentation. (So claimed Dr. Raymond Cottrell in his Loma Linda address on the sanctuary, Feb. 20, 1980.) it has been declared “stale, flat, and unprofitable” and a mere “face-saving device.” For example, a leading theological journal has published the following:

Is not the doctrine that Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary in Oct., 1844 a pure assumption? It was suggested by Hiram Edson’s vision in the corn field. It was also endorsed by a vision of Mrs. White. Of course, if one holds that those visions were inspired, nothing more is needed. But we wonder if a real biblical justification for the doctrine can be given? Dan. 8:14 states, “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” but the text does not say who shall cleanse it or where the sanctuary is located. The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of a heavenly tabernacle and of Christ entering it. But in Hebrews is not His entrance and atoning work always spoken of as a past fact? Was not His High Priestly intercession continuous from the time of His exaltation? He had already “entered within the veil” at the time when the Epistle was written (Heb. 6:19-20). He was available as a High Priest for the readers of the Epistle (Heb. 4:14-16). “Through his own blood he entered once for all” (not will enter) “into the holy place” (Heb. 9:12). His atoning work is all connected with His death on the cross (Heb. 9:26-28). Note statements like the following: “Christ entered not into the holy place made with hands.., but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us” (Heb. 9:24). “He, when he had offered one sacrifice for sin forever, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). “We have such a High Priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle” (Heb. 8:1-2).

But Mrs. White would seem to put Christ’s entrance into the sanctuary in the year 1844.

Now we ask: Why does He delay His coming so long when He started the final judgment in 1844? We feel sure the early Seventh-day Adventists felt that the time till the Advent would be short, but it has been more than 100 years since the judgment started. Why has it not been completed? We do not wish to seem facetious, but we may well ask: Does it take the omniscient Judge more than 100 years to examine the books? Or do we say, man’s probation is still continuing, and He is waiting for more generations to be born and die before the judgment is finished? If so, why did He start the judgment in 1844? Of course, if we had clear biblical teaching that He did start investigation in 1844, we might be content not to know the reason. But since such clear evidence is lacking, we wonder if this problem of the hundredodd years investigation does not call for a new appraisal of the validity of the whole doctrine?

Such criticisms have in recent years moved from the outside of the church to the inside. Years ago, this writer warned the GC that a storm was coming over this topic and that we should begin to prepare. That storm broke at Riverside, California, early in 1979, when R. D. Brinsmead began to circulate his 1844 Re-Examined and to lecture upon its contents. The winds reached Angwin, California, where the Forum of Adventist Scholars requested a public meeting on the topic of the investigative judgment. The October 27 meeting was an attempt to indicate the dimensions of our denominational problems in this area, and to suggest a solution. Some, traumatized by the former, failed to listen to the latter. Thus the present document hopes to remedy that situation, but it is written in tentative spirit, and is accompanied by the request for all available help from its readers.

Limitations

Many of the topics listed in the 19th and 20th century series above would be sufficient challenge on their own for a six-month research project. Indeed, we have not settled a number of them after 130 years of study. Of necessity, strict limitation is needed in this initial presentation. Time alone imposes severe limitations in topics discussed, and in less important themes particularly, the amount of attention given, is of necessity, minimal. We would be happy to study any significant area but not all of them at the same time, and with the vain hope of one tiny mouth sucking the ocean dry at a single intake.

This document is limited chiefly by the key positions taken at the Oct. 27 Forum presentation, where the problem of Heb. 9 was stressed and a solution offered. On that occasion, it was stated that Dan. 8:14 does not have any linguistic connection with the Day of Atonement chapter in Leviticus, and neither does Hebrews in its exposition of the sanctuary refer us back to Dan. 8:14. It was suggested that the well-known theological concepts of inaugurated and consummated eschatology, whereby events to be materially fulfilled in connection with the end of the world had a prior legal application at the cross, offer us a key to our chief problem.

The chapter outline on page 17 indicates the areas treated. Even these limited Themes are actually too many to fully canvass, for any one of them fully developed would require the equivalent of a Ph.D. dissertation. But this writer hopes to say enough to make clear his general direction for purposes of review and evaluation. It is hoped that these pages will pave the way for more thorough subsequent work by other writers and committees.

Particularly, it should be pointed out that chapter six does not propose to cover the ground essayed by F. D. Nichol in Ellen G. White and Her Critics. This writer believes in the divine inspiration of Ellen G. White and her special mission, but he does not here intend to solve all the problems raised by such a faith. Instead, he proposes to chiefly set forth the support he finds in Ellen G. White for the thesis proposed, and to attempt a tentative answer to some urgent problems.

Another aspect of limitation should be emphasized: the first five chapters deal with the topics from scripture only. This is done in deference to the counsel found in Evangelism 356 and many other places.

The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God’s Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word . . – Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God. (5)

Our statement of Fundamental Beliefs in the Church Manual assures us that our doctrines are based on Scripture only. It is not the writer’s intention to neglect any of the special guidance given this people, but to keep it in its right place subordinate to Holy Writ, “the only unerring rule of faith and practice” (Fundamental Beliefs, Article 1); “the one unerring guide” (ST 389); “the only infallible authority” (GC 177); the “only sufficient, infallible rule” (GC 173). “The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union” (ISM 416).

Organization

Every theological issue is raised in a historical context and our first chapter offers such orientation. Explanation may be needed for the place of chapter two. The only place in Scripture where the significance of the ministry in the first apartment of the sanctuary is commented upon is Hebrews 9. Similarly, the only place in Scripture where the ministry of the second apartment is didactically expressed is Hebrews 9. Thirdly, the only place in the New Testament where the meaning of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is set forth in Hebrews 9.(6) Yet Adventism has never written a book, or offered a scholarly document, exegeting Heb. 9 with special reference to our sanctuary doctrine. (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary deliberately separates the one from the other, i.e. the Bible chapter from our sanctuary teaching.)

We hope the reader will not pass by these three points on Heb. 9 without givingthem due weight. As Christians, to ignore the only New Testament chapter which actually discusses the themes central to our basic teaching is, to say the least, strange. (7) Hebrews 9 is the divine Word on the meaning of the sanctuary ritual, and anything that conflicts with that explanation cannot be urged upon others as a doctrine to be believed and taught. We must not make the mistake of trying to prove doctrine from types or parables these have a legitimate place in illustrating and enforcing only that which elsewhere is didactically presented in literal terms. Even prophecy must never be so interpreted as to clash with clear apostolic proclamation. Either our basic sanctuary doctrine is found in the New Testament chapter which alone deals with that theme, or it is not found in Scripture at all. This is the rock which has brought untold numbers of thoughtful Seventh-day Adventist ministers to a hard place, including such men as W. W. Prescott, and L. E. Froom. (8)

The reason for chapter three is obvious our prophetic and doctrinal conclusions drawn from Dan. 8:14 must be the fruit of the rules of grammatico-historical interpretation or they are invalid. This chapter suggests that Dan. 9 indeed explains 8:14, and that in Dan. 9 the Day of Atonement in anti-type is clearly predicted.

Chapter four is concerned with the relationship between inaugurated (or proleptic) and consummated eschatology, and shows that themes already set forth in the gospels and epistles as fulfilled by Christ at His first advent yet have a final application to the end-time including the kingdom, the judgment, and the Day of Atonement. Revelation is the book of the New Testament on eschatology, and our positions on the end-time must be supported by it or be surrendered.

The titles of chapters five and six are self-explanatory. The chief burden of the final chapter is to show that Ellen G. White is Biblical in applying the Day of Atonement soteriologically to the first advent in her books on that theme, and eschatologically in that book which deals specifically with latter-day events and the end of the world.

Objectives

The first objective of this work is to make clear the doctrinal problem confronting our church. It is one which has troubled earnest believers over our whole history, and it has never been officially considered In adequate depth. As Christian growth depends upon overcoming all revealed sin, so church growth depends upon adequate resolutions of those problems revealed to the body corporate. We cannot have an effective apologetic for the non-Adventist world, nor successful soul-winning on a large scale, until this matter is resolved. The writer, as with many of his readers, has urged people to risk their employment and even their marriage and family relationships on the basis that Dan. 8:14 points to this movement as one of divine origin and should be joined at any personal cost. We have had many workers who have come to the place where they could no longer so urge others because of their personal problem with Hebrews 9. Furthermore, fears concerning personal standing in the investigative judgment have cut the nerve of joyous witness for many church members. Legalism is one result, and lack of assurance another, when the judgment is traditionally presented, for the primacy of grace and imputed righteousness is usually forgotten.

The second objective is to suggest a solution to the problem the writer has found effective and satisfying throughout his ministry.

Assumptions

Attempted demonstration of all beliefs would lead to an infinite regress of argumentation. No axiom can be proved, and complete proof regarding anything In the real world is impossible to mortals, requiring as it would an Infinite number of observations, perfect measuring instruments, and complete objectivity none of which is available to us. All research begins with assumptions that can only be supported, not by demonstration, but by a weight of evidence. This includes the assumption that the project is worthwhile.

In this instance the assumptions include the following:

There is a personal God who has by special revelation made Himself and His truth known through His divine Son and by the Inspired writings we call the Bible.

SDAs are indeed Protestants, and therefore believe in Sola Scripture, without denying that the Bible speaks of spiritual gifts and the special leading of the Spirit through prophets in times subsequent to the closing of the canon. But “the Spirit was not given nor can it be bestowed to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested” (GC vii).

The hermeneutical system of grammatico-historical interpretation is here assumed as the only valid means of doing full justice to the meaning of Scripture. The well-known five principles of exegesis lexical, grammatical, contextual, historical, and the analogy of faith are considered as basic for all serious work in Biblical research. This stands in sharp contrast to the proof-text method which sufficed in the days when the conclusions of the 19th century series above were formulated. Particularly should it be kept in mind that SDAs scholars today do not believe that types or prophetic interpretation should be used as the basis of doctrine.

The sixth century dating of Daniel is an assumption in this project not because it is without serious challenge, but because the answering of that challenge is outside the proposed scope of this work.

That Ellen G. White had the gift of prophecy is assumed, but common understandings of inspiration are not. This writer wholeheartedly embraces the view of inspiration found in Selected Messages 1:15-39, a passage which he feels has never been closely studied by most SDAs, and consequently leaves the vast majority of church members open to error and bewilderment.

While acknowledging this assumption of the inspiration of Ellen G. White, it seems to this writer that the warning found in the Teachers Helps of the Jan-Mar. 1980 Adult Sabbath School Lessons, “Redemption in Romans,” page 12, expresses aptly the caveat offered in chapter six of this document. We quote:

Among the complaints brought against Seventh-day Adventist teachings today is one that insists that we are not really biblical in our positions, that we do much talking about the Bible but do not really study the Bible itself. We are seen by some as particularly likely to take Ellen White’s comments on the Scriptures as reason to close off any further study or consideration. For many “Ellen White says” is the end of further (or even any) investigation.

Such an approach to Bible study seems particularly unfortunate when it flies in the face of the persistent appeal of Ellen White for church members, pastors, and teachers to study the Word, even to make the Bible the test of the special work of Ellen White. What is not assumed in this document is that “all our arguments are without a flaw,” that our exegesis of Dan. 8 and 9, Heb. 6-10 is adequate, that we fully understand the Day of Atonement, or God’s intention in raising up this church in 1844.

Finally, the Golden Rule is assumed to apply not only to the writer, but to the reader i.e. the latter should require no more of the former in this project than if he were the former. The present work, to quote the reference last given (ISM 20), is “for practical purposes” and is not an inquire-within upon everything.

Sources and Acknowledgments

The writer gratefully acknowledges the generous help of the White Estate and the GC Archives, and R. A. Olson, D. Yost, and B. Haloviak in particular, in the matter of researching some aspects of our denominational history which have bearing on the sanctuary doctrine. Other sources than historical documents are but the usual ones of Biblical scholarship, except for my own writings in earlier years from which I have freely drawn.

A special “thank you” is due to Mrs. Gwen Brown, who so ably typed this manuscript.

Validation of the Project

The present writer has as his intent the defense of the church. For thirty-five years he has contended for its doctrines in public halls, private homes, churches, and the classroom. He has debated with opponents of the church publicly and privately, orally and in writing. Only in one area of our fundamentals has he felt embarrassment the traditional mode of setting forth the sanctuary truth. Since 1955 he has found he is not alone in this. Innumerable discussions with fellow scholars, theologians, and administrators of the church have demonstrated that the embarrassment is widespread amongst us.

Despite the contemporary discussions on righteousness by faith, this writer has spent more time over the years in studying how to better present Dan. 8:14 and the judgment than he has spent on the issue of justification and sanctification. This study commenced in 1945, and has continued unabated to the present.

Both an M.A. and a Ph.D. program were dedicated to the task. (1) Over a period of years he has personally known several key figures connected with our sanctuary apologetic, particularly most of the members of the committee on Problems in Daniel, as well as prominent opponents of our position.

Discussion and correspondence with such men as R. A. Anderson, R. Cottrell, H. Lowe, L. F. Froom, F. D. Nichol, W. E. Read, D. Neufeld, E. Hilgert, D. Sibley, W. G. Murdoch, S. Horn, E. Heppenstall, and many others have only underlined the need of the present study. (This is not meant to imply that those named agree or disagree with the writer’s tentative conclusions.)

Not all of our administrators are aware of the many indications that our traditional mode of presenting the sanctuary truth has in recent years become almost passe. It is a long time since our leading theological institution has taught a course wholly dedicated to the sanctuary doctrine. (One has been recently planned for the Seminary.) For years it has been possible for young men to becomeSeventh-day Adventist ministers without studying the topic, or even taking a course in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Almost unanimously our scholars neglect the theme the only publication in any depth of recent times has been Heppenstall’s Our High Priest [1972], noteworthy both for its emphasis on the gospel and its departure from the traditional exposition.

In evangelism around the world some prefer not to present the sanctuary doctrine publicly, or if so presented, many experience great relief when what they consider a “ticklish” issue is in the past. Some speak of the increasing embarrassment the growing stretch of time since 1844 has brought upon us. The contrast with our pioneers who expected Christ’s ministry in the Most Holy to last only a few months is stark.

Our doctrinal Maginot line in this area has increasingly crumbled since the time of the publication of Uriah Smith’s Sanctuary [1887] and E. G. White’s Great Controversy [1889]. To illustrate (but documentation is left till later):

19th Century Positions (held by most)
20th Century Positions (held by some)

Christ moved from one apartment to another in the heavenly sanctuary.
The apartments are only symbolic of phases of ministry in heaven.

The judgment work inside the second apartment would be brief. ‘Its whole duration is to be spanned by one generation.” Matt. 24:34. Looking Unto Jesus, 269.
The work has been going on for 136 years – a far cry from the single DAY of the atonement, and embarrassingly or incomprehensibly long.

p.15

19th Century Positions (continued)
20th Century Positions (continued)

The atonement was not made at the cross.
The atonement was made at the cross.

The blood from the daily offerings of the common people was taken into the sanctuary.
The blood from the daily offerings of the common people was NOT taken into the sanctuary.

Blood defiles.
Blood cleanses.

“Within the veil” can only mean within the first veil.
It can and must mean within the second veil.

The Bible teaches the year-day principle for symbolic prophecy.
The year-day principle is not a Biblical datum, but a providential disclosure in church history.

Since 1844, God has been examining the books of record to find who should be saved.
“God is not poring over books … .. The Lord knoweth them that are his.”

Dan. 7:9-13 pictures the judgment of the saints.
Dan. 7:9-13 pictures the judgment on the wicked little horn.

Rev. 14:7 speaks of a judgment of believers only.
Rev. 14:7 speaks of judgment on the wicked, not the saints.

Christ was not a priest at Calvary.
Christ was priest at Calvary.

The offering was one of sinful human nature.
The offering was of siniess human nature of infinite value because of the divine Person.

Christ will become King when Hispriestly work is completed.
Christ is already King as well as priest.

God the Father does the judging.
God the Son does the judging.

Dan. 8 and 9 are separated by only a few months.
Dan. 8 and 9 are separated by about 12 years.

Dan. 8:14 reads: “Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”
Dan. 8:14 reads: “Then shall the sanctuary be restored to its rightful state” or “justified.”

Dan. 8:14 is linguistically linked with Lev. 16.
Dan. 8:14 is not linguistically linked with Lev. 16.

Dan. 8:14 is contextually an island, not related to the issues of the question in verse 13.
Dan. 8:14 is not an island, but is related to the issue of the question in verse 13.

Dan. 8:14 applies to events in heaven, unlike verse 13.
Dan. 8:14 must include events on earth, like verse 13.

In Dan. 8:13, the “daily” is pagan Rome.
In Dan. 8:13, the “daily” is Christ’s gospel ministry.

In Dan. 11:31 the sanctuary is Rome.
In Dan. 11:31 the sanctuary is the sanctuary of God.

The little horn has nothing to do with Antiochus Epiphanes.
The little horn, like Matt. 24, has more than one application, and has its first fulfiliment in Antiochus Epiphanes.

Dan. 11, which expands Dan. 8, ends with Turkey.
Dan. 11, which expands Dan. 8, ends with Antichrist.

Acts 3:19 applies only to the blotting out of sins in the investigative judgment.
Acts 3:19 parallels 2:38, and refers to the forgiveness accompanying the gift of the Spirit.

p.16

19th Century Positions (continued)
20th Century Positions (continued)

1 Peter 4:17 applies to the investigative judgment.
1 Peter 4:17 does not so apply.

1 Timothy 5:23 applies to the investigative judgment.
1 Timothy 5:23 does not so apply.

The cleansing of the sanctuary points specifically to the investigative judgment which closes before Christ comes.
The cleansing of the sanctuary points to the purification of the universe from sin and sinners and extends to the new earth, or it means … ?

The doctrine of the investigative judgment was discovered just after the great disappointment in 1844 by Edson and others.
The doctrine of the investigative judgment was not part of the general beliefs of the SDA church until about fifteen years after the 1844 crisis.

The doctrine of the investigative judgment was oneof thedoctrines hammered out in the Sabbath conferences, and was there confirmed by the leading of the Spirit of Prophecy.
The doctrine of the investigative judgment was not one of the doctrines decided upon at the Sabbath conferences and confirmed by the Spirit of Prophecy.

The doctrine of the investigative judgment is one of the “landmarks” of the pioneers.
It is not one of the “landmarks” of the pioneers – was not taught by Edson Crosier, or James or Ellen White in the 1 840’s.

The visions from the beginning, by their reference to Christ’s special work in the Most Holy Place, clearly alluded to the investigative judgment.
The visions do not so allude.

The heavenly sanctuary is a building, though, of course, much more vast than the typical tabernacle.
The heavenly sanctuary, being “heaven itself” and “not made with hands” is not a building. “Real” and “literal” should never be equated. A building suggests limitations, but to reject a building does not mean to reject the reality of the heavenly sanctuary. Buildings are what they are because of the imperfect conditions which characterize sin-cursed existence. We have walls and doors and a roof to keep out inclement weather, fierce animals, and untrustworthy people. Heaven is not threatened by any of these. EGW refers to the original home of our first parents as a “sanctuary,5′ though it contained no buildings, and was an extension of heaven (Paradise) on earth. The fact that EGW speaks of the heavenly sanctuary as the abode of the great God and all His angels makes this matter plain. As with other prophets, EGW frequently used the language of the type, leaving it to the reader to make the transition. Compare John 1:29 and the whole book of Revelation.

p.17

19th Century Position (continued)
20th Century Position (continued)

The human race was not justified at the cross.
The human race was justified at the cross, but that justification only becomes effective for an individual when he surrenders to Christ.

The Second Advent could not come until after the 1260 and 2300 year periods.
The Second Advent could have come in the first century.

That is, a judgment period after 1844 was essential before the world could end.
A judgment period after 1844 was not essential before the world could end.

Dan. 9:24-27 uses the year-day principle.
Dan. 9:24-27 does not necessarily use the year-day principle.

Rev. 11 points to the French Revolution and climaxes with the beginning of “the time of the end” in 1798 and gave impetus to the Second Advent movement.
There is no way of proving that Rev. 11 applies to the French Revolution.

Matt. 25:11-13 applies to Christ’s coming to the Most Holy Place in 1844 as the Bridegroom to be married to the New Jerusalem.
Matt. 25:1-13 applies to the Second Advent, when He will be married to His church.

The sixth trumpet ended Aug. 11, 1840, just as the cleansing of the sanctuary was about to commence.
The sixth trumpet has nothing to do with Aug. 11, 1840.

Mal. 3:1-2 applies to Christ’s coming to the Most Holy Place in 1844.
Mal. 3:11-2 points to the two visible comings of Christ.

The High Priest wore his glorious garments on the Day of Atonement, according to some such as Haskell.
The High Priest wore the linen garment of a common priest for his distinctive work on the Day of Atonement.

The scapegoat bears the sins of the saints.
The scapegoat bears his part in the sins of the saints.

Heb. 9 teaches the SDA sanctuary doctrine.
Heb. 9 says nothing on the distinctive Adventist doctrine of the two-apartment ministry.

“Holies” in Heb. 9 points to a plurality of apartments in the heavenly sanctuary.
“Holies” in Heb. 9 does not necessarily point to a plurality of apartments in the heavenly sanctuary.

Heb. 9:12 speaks of the first apartment.
Heb. 9:12 is speaking of the second apartment, as verses 8, 24-25.

SDAs never taught that the shut door of the sanctuary pointed to the close of probation for the world.
SDAs did teach probation closed in 1844.

EGW never so believed (above).
EGW did so believe.

EGW’s commentary on her visions of the shut door meant by that term something different to her contemporaries.
EGW’s commentary on her visions of the shut door meant by that term something similar to her contemporaries.

The early visions were reproduced in full by later editions.
The early visions were not reproduced in full by later editions.

All of that which we now have in such volumes as GC is EGW’s own original or miraculously given insights into doctrinal truth – the only outside interference being a correcting of grammar.
That which we have in GC and some other volumes includes a vast amount of matter which is not original, nor miraculously given. Furthermore, it was not unknown for secretarial help to omit some of EGW’s own pages and substitute whole blocks of material from other sources – material often, but not always, historical in nature. The Don McAdams study indicates this. The sanctuary chapters draw largely from the writings of J. N. Andrews and Uriah Smith. EGW indicated this type of procedure in her introduction to GC.

p.18

19th Century Positions (continued)
20th Century Positions (continued)

Histories of early Adventism by men such as Loughborough are reliable.
Histories of early Adventism by men such as Loughborough are not reliable. (e.g. His account of EGW and the family Bible.)

The prophecy of 1856 re “some food for worms, some for the seven last plagues, and some for translation” was not conditional.
The prophecy of 1856 was conditional.

Those who saw the failing of the stars in 1833 would also see Jesus come after the investigative judgment. Matt. 24:34 so applies.
Those who saw the falling of the stars are dead. Matt. 24:34 does not so apply.

The heavenly sanctuary was shown Moses in vision as a pattern.
What Moses saw was not the actual heavenly sanctuary.

Dan. 8:14 clearly teaches the investigative judgment.
Dan. 8:14 does not clearly teach the investigative judgment.

Chapter Page
Section I.. Introduction 14
Validation of the Project 14
Limitations 21
Objectives 23
Assumptions 23
Sources and Acknowledgements 24
Section II, History of Sanctuary Problems in the SDA Church and
Recognition of These Problems by Adventist Writers 25
O. R. L. Crosier 29
James White 29
D. M. Canright 30
F. J. Waggoner 33
A. F. Ballenger 35
E. Ballenger 45
W. W. Fletcher 45
L. R. Conradi 47
W. W. Prescott 50
L. E. Froom 51
Harold Snide 53
R. A. Grieve 55
R. D. Brinsmead 60
R. A. Cottrell 61
C. G. Tuland 63
E. Hilgert 66
D. Sibley, D. Ford 66
New Sanctuary Positions Assumed by Adventist Scholars (Issues)
The Atonement 73
Literal Apartments 73
Was Moses Shown the Actual Heavenly Sanctuary? 75
Did Blood From the Offerings of the Common People Go Daily into
the First Apartment? 76
Does Blood Defile? 76
What Sins were Recorded by the Blood? 77
Within the Veil Heb. 6:19 79
Nature of the Judgment 79
Daniel 7:9-13 79
Revelation 14:7 79
Daniel 8:14 84
Terminus for Daniel 8:14 84
Little Horn of Daniel 8 84
Hebrews 9 85
“Holies” in Hebrews 9 85
Texts Such as Acts 3:19; I Peter 4:17, I Timothy 5:23, Prove
the Investigative Judgment 85
The Year-Day Principle is a Biblical Datum 87
The Prophecies of Daniel, Christ, and John are Not Conditional 88
Justification of the Human Race 8
Second Advent Could Not Come Till After 1844 88
Prophecies of the End 88
Footnotes 96

Appendices Particularly Relevant to This Chapter:

1. Waggoner on the Investigative Judgment
2. The Problem of Dan. 8:14 and Its Context
3. The Checkered History of the Phrase “Within the Veil”
4. CUC Course Outline on the Sanctuary and 1844

HISTORY OF SANCTUARY PROBLEMS IN

THE SEVENTH~DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH

AND RECOGNITION OF THESE PROBLEMS

BY ADVENTIST WRITERS.