FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER ONE

1. M.A. Thesis, 1959, Daniel 8:14 and the Latter Days (Potomac University), Ph.D. Thesis, 1972, The Abomination of Desolation In Biblical Eschatology (Manchester University).

2. See appendix, “The Checkered History of ‘Within the Veil. ”

3. Edward Heppenstall, Our High Priest (Washington, ‘72), 202, 207-208, 108.

4. James E. Bear, “The Bible and Modern Religions The Seventh-day Adventists,” Interpretation, Jan. 1956,/0(1), 53, 54-55.

5. Ev 256.

6. It should be kept in mind that we never find the expression “the cleansing of the sanctuary” in Leviticus. 16, though it is certainly implied, but we do find a clear statement in Heb. 9 on the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (V. 23).

7. Only in Hebrews is the priesthood of Christ discussed, and similarly only here do we find the sanctuary offered for our consideration.

8. Froom worried about the problem for forty years, but discussed it only with intimates. See later pages of this chapter for the discussion on the men, and their relationship to the sanctuary doctrine.

9. Letter from F. G. Clifford, president of Australasian Division of Seventh-day Adventists, to F. D. Nichol of Review & Herald Publishing Assn., Aug. 8, 1957. Emphasis ours throughout this manuscript, unless otherwise stated. G. C. Archives.

10. Letter from F. D. Nichol to F. G. Clifford and L. C. Naden of Australasian Division, Aug. 29, 1957. G. C. Archives.

11. P. G. Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission (Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), 123.

12. ibid., 132.

13. D. M. Canright, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced (N. V., 1889), 117, 118-120, 121 -1 23.

14. D. M. Canright, Life of Mrs. E. G. White (Cincinnati, 1919), 101, 102.

15. See Canright’s LMW, 106-107, and Damsteegt, 157.

16. E. J. Waggoner, “Confession of Faith” (1916), 14-20. For the rest of Waggoner’s statement see appendix, “Waggoner on the Investigative Judgment.”

17. A. F. Ballenger, “The Nine Theses,” before the ministers attending the General Conference, Washington, D.C., May 21, 1905, 5:30 a.m. GC Archives.

18. See A. F. Ballenger’s Cast Out for the Cross of Christ, 67-82.

19. Probably she would also have questioned the following Ballenger positions. “The veil in the earthly sanctuary was decorated with figures of angels, representing the real angels which guarded the approach to the throne of God, and it is before this cordon of living angels that the Melchisedec priesthood ministers from creation to the cross. For four thousand years, the sins of a world separated God’s only begotten Son from His place at the side of His Father on the throne. For four thousand years, Christ was barred from His Father’s face because He was the sinner’s substitute.

“How can men assert that Melchisedec was a mortal man who was born and died like other men when the Holy Spirit plainly declares that unlike mortal men

97

who live and die, he, like unto the Son of God abideth a priest continually? and again, that “he liveth,” in contrast to “men who die”?

“Since Melchlsedec was a priest of the heavenly sanctuary in the days of Abraham, it follows that the heavenly sanctuary, which all admit existed from the beginning with God upon the mercy seat in the holy of holies, was not closed to a fallen world, as some assert, for four thousand years, with no ministering priest to minister pardon and life (blessings of the New Covenant) from the mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary to the penitent sinners of earth.

“Some of the more studious of my brethren in the ministry have admitted that there was a service conducted between the heavenly sanctuary and the sinning world, from the fail to the cross, carried on by ministering angels. But they are loath to admit that it was a priestly ministry. But if these ministering angels offered the penitent prayers of sinners before the heavenly veil, and carried back the new covenant blessings of pardon and life, what more could a priest do? This is just what the priest did in the first apartment of the typical tabernacle. 0 the power of a creed to shackle the mind of the search after truth” (A. F. Ballenger, Cast Out, 45, 84, 85, 87.)!

“The healing of the sick must, therefore, follow the preaching of the Word. ‘Preach the kingdom of God and ‘heal the sick, is the order In which the commission is given. It is therefore evident that if the Word is not preached, God will not confirm it with signs following. For God to confirm the preaching of anything but the Word, would be for Him to confirm the preaching of a lie. If there is, therefore, any failure in the preaching of the Word, there must inevitably follow a failure in the signs following.

“The absence, therefore, of the confirming signs is a sad and solemn witness to the fact that there is a failure somewhere in the preaching of the Word” (Ibid., 104, 105).

20. ibid., 106-112. In his Gathering Call journal of June 1921, p. 3, Ballenger wrote, ….. no reply was received from Sister White, though the letter was registered and a signed receipt received.” Of course, it is always possible that only W. C. White saw the letter rather than his mother.

21. A. F. Ballenger, An Examination of Forty Fatal Errors Regarding the Atonement, (Riverside, n.d.), 1-3.

22. See DA 757; AA 33; ST April 19,1905; EW55. This last reference uses “within the veil” for the second apartment, not the first.

23. Letter from A. G. Daniells to L. E. Froom, Feb. 27, 1929. GC Archives.

24. W. W. Fletcher, Reasons for My Faith, 11. Again we would remind the reader that our quoting of dissidents does not necessarily indicate agreement. The present writer finds considerable fault with the doctrinal positions of Waggoner, Ballenger, Fletcher, Conradi, etc., though aware they were correct in certain criticisms that they made.

25. A. G. Daniells, Fernando, Thursday morning, May 12, 1910, 5 am. Before the faculty of the Fernando Academy. GC Archives.

26. Statement of the Conradi Case, 4. GC Archives.

27. Ibid., 10.

28. ibid., 10.

29. ibid., 10. 98

30. Ibid., 10.

31. Officer’s Meeting Minutes, Jan. 22, 1934, 9:00 a.m. GC Archives.

32. Letter from W. W. Prescott to Elders W. H. Branson and I. H. Evans, Feb. 2,1934. GC Archives.

33. A. W. Spicer note, “Bro. Prescott’s Statement,” GC Archives.

34. Letter from E. S. Ballenger to W. W. Fletcher, July 4,1931.

35. Statement made by L. E. Froom, July 20, 1930. GC Archives.

36. Letter from A. O. Tait to L. E. Froom, Jan. 28,1930. GC Archives. A letter from R. A. Grieve to this writer in April of this year stated that L. E. Froom had promised to visit Brother Grieve but did not keep his promise when he discovered that the latter could not accept the doctrine of the investigative judgment.

37. Harold E. Snide, “Some Serious Questions for Studious S.D.A. s” question #7 and #5, in that order. (Housed in E. S. Ballenger’s library now owned by Donald Mote, Riverside, CA.)

38. Letter from R. A. Grieve to Lawson, June 12, 1956. GC Archives. We give some documents at full length so reader can see the full context, and be assured that contrary evidence has not been omitted.

39. Harold Lindsell, “What of Seventh-day Adventism?” Christianity Today, Mar. 31, 1958, 8. Emphasis his. (A second article appeared in the April 14 issue.)

40. D. G. Barnhouse, Eternity, Sept. 1956. Emphasis his.

41. “In the Critics Den,” The Eschatology of Daniel, 9-10. Unpublished manuscript.

42. See appendix for the latter.

43. C. G. Tuland, A Partial Re-examination of Seventh-day Adventist Interpretation of Dan. 8:14, 10, 16-19. Emphasis his, likewise stylistic forms. 44. For example, the document, “Dr. Ford’s Dangerous Doctrines” by G. Burnside.

45. This information was volunteered by the son-in-law of Elder Sinz after a conversation between the two in Jan. 1980. The article referred to was on the front page of Der Adventbote, May, 1928 (No. 9).

46. The chief Adventist apologetics on the sanctuary are: U. Smith, The Sanctuary and the 2300 Days (Battle Creek, 1877); U. Smith, Looking Unto Jesus (Battle Creek, 1898); E. E. Andross, A More Excellent Ministry (Mountain View, 1912); S. N. Haskell, The Cross and Its Shadow (South Lancaster, 1914); C. H. Watson, The Atoning Work of Christ (Washington, 1934); F. C. Gilbert, Messiah in His Sanctuary (Washington, 1937); A. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service (Washington, 1937); A. Andreasen, Hebrews (Washington, 1948); W. H. Branson, Reply to Canright (Washington, 1933); E. Heppenstall, Our High Priest(Washington, 1972).

47. Reiner, Atonement 43.

48. In Fullest Confidence, (Nashville, 1979).

49. William Johnsson, In Fullest Confidence, 115.

50. ibid., 23.

51. R. F. Cottrell, Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly on Daniel, Jan-Mar., 1967. See our appendix summary of key statements from this quarterly.

52. We would stress that by “new position” in all this series we do not imply that there is unanimous agreement on such position, but only that the new view has

99

become prominent among our writers and teachers whereas such was unknown to the whole corpus of our 19th century literature (with the possible exception of the Spirit of Prophecy writings). Neither should it be assumed that this writer necessarily carte blanche endorses the new and discards the old. Another thing to keep in mind is that a mass of evidence on the new positions cannot here be shown because it belongs to the confidential documents of the Daniel Committee.

53. Desmond Ford, “The Reality of the Heavenly Sanctuary,” 3-6.

54. Ibid., 5.

55. M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, 130-131.

56. E. E. Andross, A More Excellent Service, 52.

57. Beatrice S. Neall, “Anchored to the Throne” (n.d.), 4-5.

58. Norman H. Young, “The Checkered History of the Phrase ‘Within the Veil, “5, 6. See Ford’s “Dan. 8:14: The Judgment and the Kingdom of God.” Young’s article is an appendix of this present manuscript.

59. Letter from J. C. Stevens to L. E. Froom, Jan. 2,1930. GC Archives.

60. SDABC 5:1109.

61. See Doctrinal Discussions, 182.

62. W. E. Read, Doctrinal Discussions, R & H, 48, 49.

63. E. Heppenstall, Doctrinal Discussions, 168, 169.

64. Ibid., 171. See also the lesson quarterly on Daniel, first quarter 1967, which agrees with Heppenstall.

65. Bert Haloviak, “In the Shadow of the ‘Daily Background and Aftermath of the 1919 Bible & History Teachers Conference,” 35-36. (Written 1979.)

66. Ibid., 42.

67. W. A. Spicer, Certainties of the Great Advent Movement, 121.

68. Letter from W. W. Fletcher to conference presidents re Daniel 8, copied by G. B. Starr, and letter from G. B. Starr, Sept. 17, 1930. GC Archives.

69. Report of the Committee on Revision and Republication of the Book “Daniel and the Revelation,” 7-8. GC Archives.

70. Letter from M. R. Thurber to M. L. Neff, Jan. 15, 1942. GC Archives.

71. Letter from M. L. Neff to M. R. Thurber, Jan. 7,1943. GC Archives.

72. Letter from W. W. Prescott to W. C. White, April 6,1915. White Estate.

73. Letter from W. W. Prescott to A. O. Tait, Nov. 23, 1916.

74. Letter from W. A. Spicer to L. R. Conradi, Nov. 30, 1914. GC Archives.

75. DA 632.

76. From the files of F. C. Gilbert. GC Archives. Spelling as in document.

77. 1919 Bible Conference notes, 26, 26a. GC Archives.

78. SDABC 5:503.

79. Especially theological research since this is everybody’s ball park.

80. It will be noticed that we have almost ignored the apologetic works by Andross, Watson, Branson this is because they no longer have general scholarly

100

support. Similarly, Andreasen’s books on the sanctuary and Hebrews have grave inadequacies, and in apologetic areas are completely inadequate. One need only compare the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary pronouncements by way of comparison to see that such is indeed the case. Documents belonging to the Daniel Committee are replete with glaring evidence to the same end.

In an attempt to summarize many of the new positions and their relevance in such a way as to leave intact the Seventh-day Adventist teaching of the eschatological application of Dan. 8:14 and the reality of a pre-advent judgment there was prepared in 1974.75 a xeroxed booklet entitled Dan. 8:14 The Judgment and the Kingdom of God A Rebuttal of Criticisms of the Adventist Sanctuary Doctrine. Copies were placed in the hands of officers of the General Conference and also at Andrews University. It has been used as a textbook in eschatology classes by the author for approximately five years, while most of its contents has been used prior to that time from 1961. It includes a classic study by Dr. Norman H. Young, who wrote his doctoral dissertation on “The Day of Atonement in the New Testament.” That study is found attached to this document as an appendix. Its title is “The Checkered History of the Phrase ‘Within the Veil.’

Much of the material delivered in the Oct. 27 Forum Lecture at PUG is available in this booklet which contains articles written between 1959 and 1974.

In the Seventh-day Adventist Commentary on Daniel by the same writer, which was written in 1974, approximately 250 pages (about of the book) are devoted to some of the problems discussed on Oct. 27. As stated at the New Orleans meeting of college Bible teachers and others in 1979 this commentary is actually an apologetic for our eschatological application of Dan. 8:14. Much space in the prefaces to Dan. 8 and 9 is devoted to evidence that this verse applies to the antitypical day of atonement the judgment of the world. It should be noted, however, that many of the traditional arguments have been either avoided or rejected and replaced by some the writer felt to be Biblically sound. Many of the “new” positions listed above are embodied in Daniel, particularly the concept of conditional fulfillment of prophecy which implies that God’s ideal plan was that the end of all things should have taken place in the first century, not long after the cross, if Israel had prepared the world for the Messiah’s coming. See PK 703-704. The relationship between inaugurated [or proleptic] and consummated eschatology is stressed as the key to otherwise insolvable problems.

*************

The reader should read the following appendices at the close of this manuscript which are pertinent to this chapter. We cannot urge too strongly their importance and they should not be overlooked or treated as of marginal significance. The four appendices are:

Appendix 1: Waggoner on the Investigative Judgment

Appendix 2: The Problem of Dan. 8:14 and Its Context

Appendix 3: The Checkered History of the Phrase “Within the Veil”

Appendix 4: CUC Course Outline on the Sanctuary and 1844