Introduction – part 1

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.