L.E. Froom, R.A. Grieve……

L. E. FROOM

Froom needs no introduction. It is doubtful whether any other Adventist is known who labored so untiringly at the task of church apologetics. He had an unusual faculty for pertinacity in research.

Well-versed in the issues raised by Ballenger and Fletcher, an intimate of Daniells, it is not strange that Elder Froom should have turned his extraordinary powers of microscopic concentration to the sanctuary issue. His files in the GC Archives demonstrate that the key areas were given intense research. The chief verses used by Ballenger and Fletcher are all listed according to approximately twenty different translations of each. Some lines he wrote concerning Fletcher after the latter’s trial are of interest.

After reading with an open mind all the material submitted by Brother Fletcher, and listening with prejudice through the hours of deliberate

verbal presentation, exposition and answer to related questions, I cannot but have certain personal reactions, and of course have come to certain definite conclusions. These I will state in condensed form, with no attempt to elaborate by inclusion of the Scripture basis. And I should perhaps repeat that they are solely my individual attitude, as I have conferred with no one else, and represent no one else.

I had hoped, before our conferences together, that the points in question were but technical, verbal, and secondary, and that satisfactory adjustment might yet be made by our brother. But it is evident that Brother Fletcher has developed an entire substitutionary system of teaching on the Sanctuary and the Judgment that, if accepted, involves abandonment of the denominational view.

I do not have a closed mind. I am open to advancing light. But I consistently believe that fuller light will not invalidate the light already received. It will not deflect the clear rays of the past. Rather, it will but fill with a fuller, deeper, richer content strengthening and supporting, amplifying and consummating the truths before delivered.

I am asked to cast away my confidence for uncertain inferences, private interpretations, and a speculative philosophy that to me is intangible and mysterious. This I cannot do. My personal duty appears very clear to me. I must earnestly contend for “the faith once delivered,” in accordance with my ordination vows. And being unable to see other than danger, darkness, and disaster in the three propositions submitted, and in the essential corollaries, I must not only clearly deny them but must warn against them.

And this is said with full recognition and sincerest appreciation of the high personal character, the fine spirit, and evident sincerity of our brother, but whose views I solemnly believe to be wrong doctrinally, and inimical to the faith.

As a minister in the church of God, and an officer in the Association of the ministers of this movement, I earnestly entreat you Brother Fletcher as a brother, to retrace your steps. Come back with us, Brother Fletcher, in faith, in hope, in doctrine. I sincerely appeal to you to abandon these divergent private views and to return to the platform of this movement.

I solemnly admonish you to take heed to the united entreaty of the Australasian Division leaders and to your ministering brethren at headquarters. Turn, I beseech you, from the path upon which you have started. Where, I pray you, does it lead? Where have these digressive paths led through all the years of the movement in the past? Let the manifest answer be a solemn warning and deterrent to you.

To what and to whom will you go? It is too late to start a separate movement eighty-five years too late. And the second coming of our Lord is too imminent. Stay by the old ship Zion.

For the sake of those across the seas, whom you will profoundly influence by your decision; for the sake of the unity and advancement in God’s remnant church, and for your own soul’s welfare, I plead with you to be admonished by the prayers and the appeals of your brethren. Start anew in a positive, confirmatory study of the truths which have been confirmed to this people, and that satisfy the minds of a conscientious, truth-loving host of God’s remnant children. Won’t you do it? (35)

What is not so well known is that Froom found himself unable to answer the heretic, and that that factgave him much mental anguish which he endured till his death over forty years later. It is not difficult to datethe beginning of his conflict for we have a letter from one of the editors of the Signs written in reply toFroom on Jan. 28, 1930. There we read:

I think that we have to educate the most of our people, especially certain ones of our leaders, in regard to the fact that there are certain questions that will be forced upon us for discussion. If we are not willing to discuss them frankly among ourselves, our enemies will drive us to this discussion. And if we could only get together and properly discuss these matters among ourselves and arrive at reasonable conclusions, we would not make such scattering shots when the enemy turn their guns upon us.

We have had warnings through the Spirit of Prophecy of how that every position among us will be tested, and that we will have to learn how to defend our faith in the battle that lies ahead of us; and we can all see that this battle is coming. In this conflict we will be tempted to doubt the positions of our faith first. Then we will be led step by step in our doubting of the Spirit of Prophecy. Then we will be led on further in the doubting of the Bible itself, so that the great arch-deceiver can swing us under his tremendous deceptions; and among all those that will be deceived in these last days, none will be more thoroughly deceived than the Seventh-day Adventist who allows himself to wander off in the fog of unbelief.

Now I note particularly what you say about your studies of the sanctuary question, and how that in some details your conclusions are brought into “conflict with the teaching of the Spirit of Prophecy,” and that you “find it necessary to make some readjustments.”

I think, Roy, that we need to be on our guard when we get onto that ground. Personally, I have never regarded the Spirit of Prophecy as being the infallible Word of God, but on the other hand a constant reading of the writings of Mrs. White for the last fifty years has led me to the conclusion that there can be no mistake in regard to the source from which her writings come. (36)

We should carefully observe Tait’s concern, not only about Froom but about the many who took extremepositions on Ellen G. White so much so that they neglected to make the Bible first in their study. His hopethat the doctrinal problems facing the church (such as the sanctuary ones raised by Froom) would bethrashed out by very frank and free discussion was never fulfilled, and has not been until this day. Hiswarning that “if we are not willing to discuss them frankly among ourselves, our enemies will drive us to thisdiscussion” is pertinent for 1980.

When one reads Froom’s discussion on the sanctuary truth in volume 4 of Prophetic Faith, one finds thathis view of the “larger Intent” of the sanctuary doctrine tends to submerge the usual traditional exposition.

HAROLD SNIDE

Harold Snide was born before the turn of the century as a “blue-blood” Adventist whose ancestry wentback to the Miller movement. His grandfather, Elder H. W. Lawrence, was a Millerite in 1844 and was laterordained by James White as a Seventh-day Adventist Minister.

By 1914 Harold Snide was a colporteur, and the Review in the twenties carries

fervent material from his pen. He was the author of Prophetic Essays, a work which drew the attention ofL. E. Froom. By the 1940′s he was teaching at Southern Junior College after many years of dedicated serviceto the cause. While here he found difficulty with our traditional sanctuary positions, especially as he studiedHeb. 9. These he took to L. E. Froom and other denominational leaders but received, he claimed, no help. Avery studious man, he underwent great mental trauma and finally withdrew from the church, though hiswidow remains a faithful member to this day. After his defection he wrote Some Serious Questions forStudious Seventh-day Adventistsa tract calculated to arouse doubts concerning the Spirit of Prophecy andour doctrinal positions. Typical questions in his series include the following:

Does the author of the book of Hebrews make his Old Testament quotations mostly from the Hebrew or from the Greek (Septuagint)? What says M. L. Andreasen, The Book of Hebrews, p. 422? Do scholarly “Introductions” to the book of Hebrews refer to this fact? Do the texts of Westcott and Hart and of Nestle indicate by a different style of type the quotations from the Old Testament? Do these Greek New Testaments supply a key to indicate the Old Testament source of each quotation? Do they show that in Heb. 6:19 “within the vail” (______) is a quotation? From which Old Testament book and chapter is it quoted? Would this fact give this expression in Heb. 6:19 a precise meaning, and determine which vail is meant? Would it make it as definite as does the word “second” in Heb. 9:3? How many times in the Septuagint does this phrase, . . . . . . occur? What are the references?

In Daniel 8 what is the relationship between verse 13 and verse 14? Do they sustain the relation of question and answer? Is any light thrown on this by E. G. White in PK 554? By the comment on this verse in U. Smith, et aI., Daniel and the Revelation? By W. A. Spicer, Certainties of the Advent Movement, p. 120? By E. E. Andross, A More Excellent Ministry, pp. 160-161? Is the period of 2300 days a time “to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” In Daniel 8, is anything said about the ram’s taking away the daily sacrifice and treading down the sanctuary and the host? Did Persia, in fact, do this? In Daniel 8, is anything said about the goat or its first great horn’s taking away the daily sacrifice and treading down the sanctuary and the host? Did Greece under Alexander the Great, in fact, do this? In Daniel 8, is anything said about the oppression of God’s people by the four horns of the goat? Did they, in fact, notably oppress Israel before the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes? Is it true that in Daniel 8 the work of taking away the daily sacrifice and treading down sanctuary and host is predicted and predicated solely of the “little horn” which came out of one of the four horns? Does the reference to “the vision of the evening and the morning” in Dan. 8:25 refer specifically to the time prophecy of Dan. 8:14? Does the question in verse 13 and its answer in verse 14 refer specifically to the work of the “little horn” described in verses 9-12? What says M. L Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, top of page 264, in the last paragraph beginning on page 263? Does the time period of Dan. 8:14 as certainly delimit the persecuting program of the “little horn” of that chapter as the period “a time, and times, and the dividing of time” marks the career of the “little horn” of Daniel 7? Did Rome cease treading down sanctuary and host in 457 BC? Is it reverent exegesis to date the Roman oppression of Israel from a Persian decree to restore and to build Jerusalem given nearly three centuries before Rome contacted Israel. (37)

R. A. GRIEVE

About a decade passed, and the old controversy was revived in Australia over the case of conference president R. A. Grieve, a well-known member of a family whose members had served the church loyally and long at home and abroad in the mission fields. We do not propose to dwell on this history, but a single letter from him explains his view of problems connected with the sanctuary. Several ministers were separated from the work at the same time as Brother Grieve, and some members of the laity withdrew from the church. Here is the letter.

Dear Brother Lawson:

Word has been passed on to me by Brother Lee that like most of yourfellow-members of the church you are wondering why I have been dropped from theAdventist Ministry, and a reign of silence has been wrung down on the issue. Well I wouldnot want to enter upon a long explanation to justify myself. Actually self and what happens tooneself really does not matter. The really big thing that counts is the truth of God and Hissaving gospel realized in the lives of God’s people that really matters.

To begin with, what I preached in Queensland regarding two great truths was the start of thecontroversy. The Sinless Nature of Jesus Christ, and Justification were the twin truths Godimpressed me to preach before I left your conference. The extremists massed, if youremember, at the 1955 camp to oppose these truths. Criticisms were poured into the ears of F.G. Clifford, who himself was no more enlightened or understanding than those who appealedto him.

He commanded me not to preach these truths. What seemed to rile him most was that thepeople both in Queensland and New Zealand were rejoicing in the absolute forgiveness oftheir sins and the assurance of salvation. “Rejoicing in error” he styled their heart-stirrings,and ruled at the trial of Pastor Drain “That the denominational position is: God neitherforgives absolutely nor entirely.”

As a corollary to this heresy he added yet another, “That the same Spirit that inspired theBible also inspired the writings of Mrs. White, and THEREFORE WE MUST HAVE THESAME FAITH IN THE WRITINGS OF MRS. WHITE THAT WE HAVE IN THE BIBLE.”By this letter axiomatic deduction he automatically lifted the writings of Mrs. White to theplane of equality with the sacred scriptures.

The whole controversy I have had with the church leaders revolves around these twinheresies. I utterly rejected them as nauseating to the mind and intelligence of true Biblebelievers and Protestants. And in rejecting these untenable teachings at my trial, I was forcedby the committee, elected to support Clifford, to look the Sanctuary teaching of Seventh-dayAdventists fair in the face and decide whether that was correct according to the teaching ofthe great book of Hebrews. You may ask what the Sanctuary has to do with these issues. Ireply, “Everything!” Why, because the whole understanding of the gospel by Seventh-dayAdventistS, the forgiveness of sins, the Investigative Judgment, and the final blotting out ofsin all stem from this. Protestantism as inaugurated by Luther was founded on the book ofRomans, which book makes no reference to the old Aaronic Sanctuary, and therefore all thechurches in line with true protestantism, have believed in the blotting out of sins for thebeliever at the acceptance of Christ. It was the acceptance of the

Sanctuary teaching by the pioneers of the church that countermanded the teachings of Luther,Wesley and other great reformers, and set the teaching on the so-called pattern of Aaronism inopposition to Protestantism. Well I am getting ahead of myself for my understanding of thesetruths came after my trial not before.

At my trial I presented Justification in 25 pages of typewritten material. It was fairlyexhaustive, so I cannot repeat the ideas here, suffice it to say that I proved that Justification inscripture is equivalent to the modern term acquittal, so modern translations indicate, and allGreek scholars acknowledge. When a man is acquitted of all charges and stands innocent,”just as if he had never sinned,” he is justified.

Secondly, forgiveness and pardon, must not be confused with or made synonymous forjustification. In receiving forgiveness or pardon there is the acknowledgment of the deed, arecord of wrongdoing; but in justification there can be no sustaining of the charge, norecording of wrongdoing. So David discovered, “Blessed is the man against whom no sin isrecorded by the Lord” Rom. 4:8. So Peter declares, Acts 3:19. “He has forgiven you all yoursins: Christ has utterly wiped out the damning evidence of broken laws and commandmentswhich always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it over His ownhead on the cross.” Cal 2:14 Phillips trans. Letters to the Young Churches (Only 3/3 paperedition, well worth getting).

My conclusion was: True Protestantism recognizes that in justification the record as well asthe guilt must be blotted out, for record and guilt are indivisible. It is the very negation ofjustification to keep a man’s sins against his name after his acceptance of Christ. This raised astorm. The brethren began to quote “Great Controversy” by the yard. I asked for clear Bibleproof that our sins still remained upon the record. This they promised to do, but my brother itwas just a sham and a pretense. Three men were set up as a committee to study with meBattye, Stewart, Conley. In true Adventist style and in the most childlike way they set out togive me a Bible study on the Sanctuary. When they got to the point of the record remainingthere they broke down. They tried in good Jesuitical fashion to split the difference betweensin as guilt and condemnation and sin as record. They told me that I could believe that sin andguilt is blotted out entirely on the acceptance of Christ, but that the record remains. They readmany statements from E. G. White that Christ on the cross bore our guilt and condemnation.They said Sister White seems to make a difference between guilt and record. On this seem-sofrom the writings of Mrs. E. G. White I was asked to recant. I did agree to use this formulaein order to go as far as my enlightened conscience would allow and to have harmony with mybrethren, but F. G. Clifford although originally agreeing to this definition, this straw splittingterminology, refused to agree to it as a denominational position. He threw it overboard first inorder to force me into the extremist camp or out altogether. I rejected it too, but I went overinto Protestantism.

On my way back to N.Z. it became as clear as the noonday sun why the leadership of thechurch were in a dilemma over justification. For more than a century they had believed in atwo-apartment sanctuary in heaven. They had resurrected in toto the Aaronic sanctuary, theAaronic

priesthood and every detail connected with it and pushed it into heaven where Christ wassupposed to be after the order of Melchizedek, but in practice and service after the order ofAaron. This was the gigantic swindle.

Careful study of Hebrews 9:1-11 proves that the first apartment called the first tabernacle,was only for the time then present, was only to continue until the “new order,” verse 10Moffatt. That Christ as a High Priest went into the Holiest of All, verse 12, Phillips trans.verse 24, and 10:19. And the RSV on Heb. 6:19 says that Jesus enters into the inner shrinebehind the curtain.” Moffatt, “Enters the inner Presence behind the veil.” So there is no holyplace in heaven.

And if there is no holy place you would not expect Christ to be ministering after the patternand performance of the common priests or even the High Priest in the Holy Place. And this isthe very teaching of Heb. 7:26, 27. “Who needeth not daily as those high priests, etc. for thisHe did once for all when He offered up Himself.” In other words the practice and pattern ofthe priests in the first apartment met its complete and utter fulfillment in the one and only oneact of Jesus when He presented Himself to the Father. Heb. 10:11, 12 makes the dissimilaritybetween the two priesthoods most apparent. Then it is an absolute heresy to teach that Christwas making applications of blood like Aaron did on earth even to suggest that He is doing itantitypically from the time of the cross until now. Hebrews says that Christ sat down, ceasedfrom offering, was not involved in repeated actions such as the priest of old was, for he neversat down in the sanctuary. The only place in the sanctuary where there was a seat was in theMost Holy Place, and he did not stay long enough to sit down. Christ won a place in the MostHoly Place, realized the goal of Old Testament prophetic enactments, and having realized it,never to go back, sat down.

Well this brings us to the next revelation of the book of Hebrews 9 and 10 that the writer aftermentioning the activities of the priests in the first apartment, Heb. 9:6, then promptly forgetsthem. He is concerned to make a comparison between what the High Priest did on the greatDay of Atonement, Heb. 9:7, and what Christ did when He entered Heaven, verses 11-13, andhe continues to make a comparison between what the High Priest did on the great Day ofAtonement and the antitypical acts of Jesus concerning that final national ceremony. On thatday, and only on that day the High Priest went into the Holy Places (plural) verse 24. Thepriest went through the holy place on his way to the Most Holy; so Christ, verse 11, wentthrough a greater and more perfect tabernacle on the way to the presence of the Father Whowas in the Most Holy Place, verse 24. Nor did Christ have to sacrifice Himself repeatedlyafter the annual habit of the High Priest, verse 25. Nor does Christ have to keep offeringHimself after the pattern of the Day of Atonement. Both sacrifice and offering on the Day ofAtonement order is over, for on the day of resurrection Christ “appeared to put away sin” oras Moffatt and others translate “to abolish sin” verse 26. It was on the Day of Atonement thatthe high priest appeared to put away sin for Israel, and symbolically after that there was nomore remembrance of that year’s sins. So after saying that Christ put away sin, in 10:1-18Paul shows that since Calvary there is no more remembrance of sins for true spiritual Israel.When you grasp these two great facts, one apartment in heaven and one once for all atoningact of Christ, you can see how the message

of Romans on Justification meshes completely with the ministry of Jesus in Heaven.

To clinch the whole thing, Paul proves in Heb. 9:16,17 that a covenant is of force after menare dead, not before. In other words the repeated ceremonial acts of Jewish priests werenecessary because the testator Christ had not died, but after calvary when the testator hadbeen proved to have died, the covenant with all the benefits came into operation. We don thave to wait till 1844 for them. These benefits are enumerated in Heb. 8:12 and 10:15-17. Butaccording to a letter received from W. E. Battye for and on behalf of the denomination whowas about to sack me, only portion of the new covenant is of force now and that portion isHeb. 8:10 the law written on our hearts. He claimed that the other two sections were yetfuture, namely, ‘not teaching every man his neighbour and their sins and iniquities will Iremember no more. When I replied, “that just proves how foolish a man can become in thedefence of an heretical system that is out of harmony with the plainest teachings of the wordof God,” they promptly sacked me. I do not wish to be critical of the brethren, some of whomwere my superiors and some mine equal, but they were the smallest minded group oftheologians ever. They made me ashamed to think I had accepted everything on a platter asQ.E.D. and when I searched the Bible and the Bible alone, I found these apparently profoundteachings the veriest heresy ever.

The two-apartment sanctuary in heaven is based on very superficial reading of the Scriptures.Because Moses was told to make everything according to the pattern showed him in themount, the pioneers and their successors lumped to the unwarranted conclusions that the OldTestament sanctuary was an exact pattern of the one in the third heavens, whereas Pauldeclares, “It was necessary for the earthly reproductions of heaven realities to be purified.”Heb. 9:23. And again, “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come” andnot the very image (Authorized) “instead of the true form of these realities.” Heb. 10:1 RSV.

Basing their whole interpretation of the sanctuary on Dan. 8:13,14, they made the ministrationof the priests in the first apartment apply to the ministry of Christ from His ascension till1844; and the ministry of the High Priest in the Most Holy to Christ from 1844 till He comes.Thus they gave a time value of 1800 years to the first apartment ministry; and a time value of112 years so far to the most holy ministration.

As the GC has laid it down that no doctrine can be built out of the types and shadows or fromthe symbolical books such as Daniel and Revelation, but on the clear unfigurative language ofscripture, I simply ask for one text from the clear unfigurative books of the Bible for thewarrant of giving time values to the shadowy ministry of the Aaronic priests. Just one text.

Further, the GC has stated that every sacrifice of the OT regardless of the time, place, ornumber, represents the one and only sacrifice made by Jesus on the cross. Well then on whatlogical grounds can we say that the priests who ministered and offered those numeroussacrifices, represent two and not one ministry of Christ? If many sacrifices represent but somany facets of one sacrifice made on Calvary’s cross, I ask on what logical grounds say, somany priestly actions and offerings do

not represent so many facets of the one offering of Jesus at His ascension, one act of offeringthat one and no more?

But postulating two apartments in heaven and two ministries the church has split theatonement. Read the statement made by Mrs. White in Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 355,bottom of page, “the offering of the blood in the daily service had not made full atonement, ithad only transferred sin to the sanctuary.” Elsewhere she speaks of the “final atonement”made in 1844. In other words, if the type be followed, during the first 1800 years since thecross, sins were confessed, the blood of Christ applied, but the blood of Jesus had not madefull atonement for sin.

In proof that this is the position read Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 356, first paragraph, that inthe daily service the sinner acknowledged the claims of the law confessed his sin, but he wasnot yet released from the condemnation of the law. So by parallel, those who lived before1844 and even those whose names have not come up in the judgment have not yet beenreleased from the condemnation of the law.

Why does this extraordinary position exist? Because it is stated in the same paragraph ofPatriarchs and Prophets, “Not until the day of atonement did the High Priest go in to the MostHoly and put blood over the mercy seat and consequently over the law ‘to make satisfactionfor its claims. ” In other words, according to the theory of the church and Mrs. White, thebroken law went unsatisfied for 1800 years until in 1844 Christ took the blood in! Hence noone could be entirely released from the condemnation of the law until after 1844!

Thirty years ago W. W. Fletcher was declared a false and heretical teacher because he said theblood of Christ did not transfer sin, but in fact expiated or blotted sin out. This is what thegreat theologians of the church claimed 30 years ago. “Hence it is that the sin offering (in thedaily service) did not completely expiate the guilt. The sinner was not entirely released fromthe condemnation of the law until the type was completed on the Day of Atonement; for theblood did not reach the mercy seat over the law until the type was completed on the Day ofAtonement.” Quoted in Reasons for My Faith, p. 34, W. W. Fletcher. What hereticalnonsense! Yet the same spirit of ignorance and bigotry prevailed at my trial. This time theyrefused to answer mean these paragraphs. They said that all those who have questioned theseparagraphs have trodden on dangerous ground. Dangerous because it is so damnably incorrectwith scripture. Paul said the law was satisfied in his day. Rom. 3:20, 21, “Therefore by thedeeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight; but now apart from the law, therighteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed, or attested by the law …” Towitness or attest the validity of righteousness is to be satisfied with it. The law was satisfiedall right for Paul says, “There is therefore now (in AD 50 not 1844) no condemnation.” Rom.8:1. He did not say like our theoreticians, “not completely expiated,” partly expiated, partlynot. He did not say like Mrs. E. G. White, “Not entirely released from the condemnation ofthe law.” No, he said, “There is therefore NOW NO CONDEMNATION.”

After all these pontifical pronouncements by the leaders of the church they discovered in theE. G. White archives (and they are always discovering when it suits them) this statementwhich contradicts both

Patriarchs and Prophets and Great Controversy, and the AUC statement made to Fletcher 30years ago. This is it “Still bearing humanity, He ascended to heaven, triumphant andvictorious. He has taken the blood of the atonement into the holiest of all, sprinkled it uponthe mercy seat and His own garments, and blessed the people.” E. G. White, “Signs of theTimes,” April 19, 1905. Quoted in The Sanctuary Service by Andreasen, p. 235.

Fletcher has been dead several years. They keep on quoting he died a frustrated man!Frustrated by a church which refuses to acknowledge that she has been wrong at any time inits history! Brother Froom, gentleman and scholar that he is, is making gigantic claims for thechurch, that we are the only true protestant church today, the successor and inheritor of allthat has gone before, and under the cloak of such statements the church is being slowlyaligned to the true protestant position. A young worker told me yesterday, “We don t holdrigidly to the types today as in Fletcher’s day, we don t have to believe in two apartments, wejust believe in two ministries.” Of course I rejoice that such young men believe that way, butone man is thrown out to satisfy caprice and jealousy. But the statement also proves that thechurch was wrong 30 years ago, and I very believe, is wrong now. In another 30 years theywill be where I am today, and I do not say that boastfully.

Well, brother, I have written you lengthily. I do not usually do this nor do I have anyintentions of writing at so much length to all my friends. I am too busy to be able to do so. Iam happy in my work though I have a pang of regret for the people that I cannot now ministerto, not even open my mouth in the church at all for I am under the interdict of the churchauthorities. Still the Lord Jesus is my Saviour and friend and I get big opportunities forwitnessing for Him.

Give my Christian regards to your wife and family, may see you some day.

Sincerely, yours,

R. A. Grieve (38)

In studying the correspondence between the Australian church leaders and the General Conference president, one finds that R. A. Grieve claimed support for several of his positions from veteran evangelist and editor, R. A. Anderson. Certain of these positions such as the sinless nature of Christ, and justification, have now become widespread in the church, and the former particularly came to the fore through the efforts of the then editor of the Ministry. On the matter of the sanctuary, R. A. Anderson was well known for his protests against over-literalization. His teachings on Heb. 9 in Australia in the forties had raised a storm, but none could sustain a charge of heresy against one who so ably and wholeheartedly served his church from childhood. At the time of his trial, R. A. Grieve used personal letters addressed to him by Elder Anderson.

The events of “down under” made it clear that the issue of Hebrews and the sanctuary was by no means dead. It was soon to be raised again in a deeply significant, though novel, approach from laymen.

R. D. BRINSMEAD

The end of the fifties in Australia saw the beginning of the “Awakening Movement” under the leadership of R. D. Brinsmead. While studying for the ministry at Avondale College, Robert Brinsmead became convinced that the church’s note on Dan. 8:14 had become strangely muted. Indeed, he asserted that the corpse of the

investigative judgment doctrine had been denominationally interred. Questions on Doctrine was affirmed to be a “sell-out” to apostate Protestants. The real truth about Dan. 8:14, said Robert Brinsmead, was that it contained a most precious promise concerning the removal of original sin from the hearts and lives of God’s faithful people who trusted in the merits of Christ. In order to give the Loud Cry, it was necessary that the Lord’s people should become as sinless in the flesh as Christ had become through the same miraculous operation of the Spirit.

As chairman of the Bible department of Avondale College from the end of 1960, this present writer was deluged with inquiries on the new teaching regarding the sanctuary. He had earlier written Robert Brinsmead from USA pointing Out that Heb. 9 gave a very different interpretation of the Day of Atonement to that proposed by the new movement. This was the opening sally of polemical interchanges in an unending “war” of approximately a decade until Robert Brinsmead wrote a paper renouncing all hope of eschatological perfectionism, and thereby repudiated his former sanctuary teachings. This is not to infer that Des Ford was responsible for Robert Brinsmead’s change of view, though some slight contribution may have been made to that end.

It was a new view of righteousness by faith which led R. D. Brinsmead to repudiate his former position on eschatological perfection. He frankly traced the development of his original and subsequent positions in a two-part paper entitled A Review of the Awakening circulated early in the 1970 s. simultaneously our general church paper changed Its view on perfection as any study of the journal over the last two decades makes clear but the direction was the opposite to Brinsmead s. Thus those in Australia, including the present writer, who had opposed the “Awakener s” position on Dan. 8:14 for over ten years, now found themselves at odds with the Review.

This was the setting for the Palmdale Conference where this writer as well as sharing In the discussions on righteousness by faith, also in private urged upon church leaders the necessity for studying problems In connection with our traditional sanctuary presentation. His booklet, “Dan. 8:14 The Judgment and the Kingdom of God,” was then placed in the hands of these brethren.

We gave this history to underline the relationship between the righteousness by faith message and our sanctuary teaching. They are closely intertwined, and to be wrong on one is to be simultaneously wrong on the other. R. D. Brinsmead inherited the traditional view of the sanctuary doctrine and it led him into eschatological perfectionism. In some respects his experience is a microcosm of that of many within the church, If living without a mediator after the close of the investigative judgment requires a character without blemish or shortcoming or any type of imperfection, how can perfectionism be avoided? On the other hand, if Gal. 2:16, 21; Rom. 3:20; 8:1, 23, 33, 34; and the doctrine of glorification are to be taken seriously, how can Adventists contend for perfection In the flesh at any time In this life?

R. A. COTTRELL

In 1959, Ford had talked at length with Raymond Cottrell on sanctuary and Daniel Issues, and contact has been maintained over the years with particular reference to these matters. From him he learned that the sanctuary problems had risen again to sharp focus here In Washington during the preparation of volume 4 of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Simultaneously had come the discussions between Walter R. Martin, Donald Grey Barnhouse, and such leaders as L. E. Froom, R. A. Anderson, W. E. Read. Indirectly, the editors of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary were Involved, as almost daily they engaged with their own brethren in the study of problems in Dan. 8 and 9

Brother Cottrell was asked by the editorial committee on Questions on Doctrines to review, summarize, and evaluate the articles by those opposing our sanctuary doctrine. Such statements as the following made such a project necessary.

SDA claims its teachings are based upon the Bible, but an examination of its “FundamentalBeliefs” published in the volume Questions on Doctrine reveals some interesting exceptions.”Fundamental Beliefs” contain 22 propositions, beginning with a statement on the Scripturesand the Trinity, then moving through the gamut of theology. in each instance the biblicalpassages are listed at the end of each statement showing the grounds on which theirconvictions are founded. Without biblical backing, however, are statements 13,14 and 15.These deal with one of the touchiest segments of Adventist teaching the 70 weeks and 2300years and the cleansing of the sanctuary. The date 1844, which involves the 2300 years andthe cleansing of the sanctuary, are pivotal of Seventh-day Adventist faith. Destroy these andcertain conclusions are self-evident. These would be no adequate basis for the existence ofSDA. But there are no definite statements in the Bible which support the view of SDA on thispoint. Their conclusions are derived from the teachings of Mrs. White, which, in turn, are theresult of her interpretation of the Bible. (39)

The latter doctrine [the investigative judgment], to me, is the most colossal, psychological,face-saving phenomenon in religious history We personally do not believe that there is even asuspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believethat any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable. [Farther on he characterizes theinvestigative judgment concept as "unimportant and almost naive."] (40)

In counsel with Elder Nichol, Elder Cottrell wrote twenty-seven leading Adventist Bible teachers for their insights on the contemporary problems. All twenty-seven replied, and many at considerable length. But the replies yielded no additional help and, according to Elder Cottrell, the replies demonstrated that we still had no satisfactory answer to criticisms of our position. For example, all twenty-seven scholars admitted that there is no linguistic evidence for connecting Dan. 8:14 with Leviticus. 16. The majority also asserted that there is no contextual evidence in Dan. 8 for our doctrine of the investigative judgment.

As mentioned earlier, Elder Nichol took the results of the inquiry to the president of the General Conference, with the result of the appointment of a select group for a highly confidential committee on the problems in the book of Daniel. The committee consisted of:

H. W. Lowe as chairman, and R. A. Anderson, Raymond F. Cottrell, Richard Hammill,Edward Heppenstall, W. G. C. Murdoch, D. F. Neufeld, Leo Odom, and W. E. Read. Otherslater invited to meet with the committee included Earle Hilgert, S. H. Horn, Alger Johns,Graham Maxwell, and M. R. Thurber. (41)

In order to make freedom of expression easier, no minutes were kept over the five years of the meetings of this committee. Forty-five papers were considered, including four by the present writer. (42) No unanimity was reached on the problems considered, the proposed written conclusions for the benefit of the church were never prepared. Elder Figuhr said it would not be necessary even for the committee to make any sort of official summary of their work for presentation to the officers. (This is the testimony of the committee members.)

Some members of the committee strongly affirmed that it Is quite impossible to legitimately deduce the denominational sanctuary teachings from the Scriptures, and that the answer to the dilemma was to view the inspired writings of Ellen G. White as the authority for “re-interpretation” of the Biblical passages. These members believed that Ballenger, Fletcher, Conradi, Prescott, Grieve and others had

been correct in their reading of Heb. 9) It is hardly possible to exaggerate the importance of this Daniel Committee for the church today. With the new administration, the committee was not continued, and has never been revived since. More on Cottrell’s work shortly.

C. G. TULAND

One Adventist scholar who spent a day with the Daniel Committee on special invitation was Dr. Carl Tuland. Dr. Tuland, a scholar and author in many languages, held pastoral and administrative responsibilities in the Middle East, USA and South America, etc. We quote from a paper on Dan. 8 prepared by him for the consideration of the church. (Style forms are his.)

Yom Kippur was the cleansing of the sanctuary itself from the accumulated sins of Israel, aswell as the cleansing of the people from sin. That, of course, is quite different from thedefilement brought upon the temple AND ITS MINISTRY by physical means such as theintroduction of idols under Ahaz, and with them of pagan worship and destruction of the trueworship, by pagan and papal Rome. These two different types of defilement, either by themoral wrongs of Israel, or its pollution by paganism and false religion, were two distinctproblems, and, therefore, required two different kinds of “cleansing.” Thus it seems that ourfundamental points of comparison are out of focus if we equate the annual cleansing of thesanctuary from the sins of Israel with the cleansing of the whole temple and its services fromidolatry. One leads to the moral purification of Israel, the other to the restoration of the wholecult. Thus, neither Hezekiah’s restoration nor Dan. 8:14 have any direct reference to YomKippur. Such an analogy can be used only by introducing the (last phase of) the ministry ofChrist, limiting it to the day of judgment (investigative judgment), which in my opinion is anarbitrary and unilateral exegesis.

It seems to be of extraordinary significance, the most prominent contemporary Seventh-dayAdventist writers, including publications printed under the auspices of the GeneralConference have recognized the actual meaning of as “be restored to its rightful state” or arendering close to this concept. However, this admission has always been made with certainreservations and hesitancy which will be understood as we read their observations. M. L.Andreasen agrees that the word sadaq means “justified” in Hebrew. “The word contains theidea of restoration as well as of cleansing.” (The Sanctuary Service, p. 29) While the first partof this statement Is right, the second is definitely incorrect.

Another instance how also Adventist authors can be prejudiced is found in George McCreadyPrice’s book, The Greatest of the Prophets, when he SAYS: “The literal Hebrew is not’cleansed, but rather ‘justified, or ‘vindicated, meaning that at the time specified thesanctuary or temple, in Daniel’s day lying in ruins, would again function as before, its servicesnaturally culminating in Yom Kippur, the climactic ceremony of the year. Indeed, thispassage might well be translated: ‘Then shall the sanctuary have made atonement for it. “(TheGreatest of the Prophets, p. 188) as right as his acceptance of the correct meaning of theHebrew term is, so incorrect is his conclusion and suggestion as to rendering that part of Dan.8:14.

But it seems that more than most of our authors, McCready Price has struggled with theproblem of correctly understanding the meaning of

the text. He also says: “In the light of these principles, we may well ask again, What is thereal meaning of the clause, Then Shall the Sanctuary Be Cleansed? (emphasis his).” (idem, p.197) He then proceeds quoting a number of translations which all support the Hebrew text incontradistinction to the KJV. (idem. pp. 197, 198) After that he makes a strenuous effort toreconcile the two different concepts, but not without sacrificing the meaning of the Hebrewterm by making a near equation of cleansing and justifying. “From all this discussion itshould become clear that this answer, Then Shall the Sanctuary Be Cleansed or justified, hasa depth of meaning in it, much more than might appear on the surface. In face, it may meaneither or all of the following: (idem, p. 198) In his subsequent interpretation he comesactually very close to the true meaning of the prophecy, yet he is not willing to give up theKJV. (idem, pp. 198, 199) But McCready Price has sensed the greater significance of thatprophecy.

We may assume that in the book Problems in Bible Translation (1954), prepared by acommittee specially appointed by the General Conference, we have an authoritative statementregarding the denominational interpretation of Dan. 8:14. The following excerpts are foundon pp. 174-177. “The Hebrew word sadaq is used here, for which no variant readings aregiven in any Hebrew Bible. All lexicons agree in giving the meaning of the word as ‘to bejust, to be righteous. In Dan 8:14 the word occurs in the Niphal form (the reflexive orpassive), and would ordinarily be translated ‘be justified, or ‘be made righteous. “(Problems,p. 175) After giving a few examples of translations supporting this right view, the writercontinues: “It therefore appears that the translators of the RSV as well as other versions haveapproached very closely to the correct translation of the word when they render ‘then thesanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state. Those versions that render it ‘be righted, ‘bedeclared right, ‘be justified, or ‘be vindicated have also handled the word acceptably.”(idem, p. 175) What follows is a quite accurate statement of the reason for our adherence toan inadequate interpretation: “The word itself does not really mean ‘to cleanse in the sense towash. That meaning is borrowed from the sanctuary ritual, as we shall note below.” (idem, p.175) Then, again, the writer reverts to what might be called as preconceived interpretation,but not a translation” -as well ss from the fact that the basic meaning of the word ‘tojustify, ‘to vindicate, or ‘to set right very definitely has a ceremonial aspect in all Semiticlanguages in which the word occurs.” (idem, p. 175) To the latter view I would hardlysubscribe, for the conclusions cannot be based on the premises that “to cleanse” and “tojustify” can be derived from the same word sadaq. But we can avoid the censure of incorrecttranslation by a better exegesis of the text, i.e. understanding the “cleansing” of the sanctuaryas what It is in reality, namely, only a part of the greater truth, which is the restoration of thesanctuary to its rightful state.

Another attempt in this direction if found in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary:”Be Cleansed.” From the Heb. sadaq, “to be just,” “to be righteous,” the verb occurs in theform here found (niphal) only this once in the OT, which may suggest that a specializedmeaning of the term is indicated. Lexicographers and translators suggest various meanings,such as “be put right,” or “be put in a rightful condition,” “be righted,” “be declared

right,” “be justified,” “be vindicated.” The translation “shall be cleansed” is the reading of theLXX, which here has the verb form from Katharisthesetai. It is not known whether thetranslators of the LXX gave an adapted meaning to the Heb. sadaq or translated frommanuscripts employing a different Hebrew word, perhaps tahar, the common Hebrew wordfor “to be clean,” “to cleanse.” The Vulgate has the form mundabitur, which also means”cleansed.” (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 4:844) Of course, there are alwayspossibilities of errors, but as we have read in Problems in Bible Translation, there are novariant readings in the Hebrew Bible for this text. It seems that there is no need for asteadying of the ark by improbabilities, and the truth is not in need of being saved by doubtfulargumentation. We have been admonished to investigate the books of Daniel and Revelationfor the wealth of truth still to be discovered in them, and it seems to me that by interpretingDan. 8:14 in the larger context, as has been suggested, we can accept the Hebrew termwithout sacrificing our position.

In Questions on Doctrine (1957) additional information is found. “This, we believe, is thetemple that not only is to be ‘cleansed (Dan. 8:14), but is also to be ‘justified (margin), ‘putright, ‘vindicated, as will be noted shortly.” (Questions on Doctrine, p. 263) This is followedby a lengthy discussion.

9. Intent of “Cleansed.” The significance of the various terms used by translators to indicate the full intent of the “cleansing” (Hebrew tsadaq) of the heavenly sanctuary (Dan. 8:14) should not be lost. Eleven different renderings appear in standard translations. These are: (a) “Cleansed” (Septuagint, Rheims-Douay, Moulton, Boothroyd, Spurrell, Martin, Vulgate, Harkavy, Ray, Knox, Noyes, French-Osterwald, Segond, and Lausanne the KJV, and the ARV); (b) “be justified” (Leeser; Sawyer; ARV, margin; KJV, margin); “be victorious” (Margolis); (d) “be righted” (Smith-Goodspeed; (3) “(be) declared right” (Young); (f) “be restored to its rightful state” (RSV); (g) “be made righteous” (Van Ess); (h) “be restored” (Moffatt); (I) “be sanctified” (Fenton); (j) “be vindicated” (Rotheram); and (k) “be consecrated” (Luther). (idem, pp. 265, 266)

After a reference to Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 174, 175, a text already quoted abovewe again find the same kind of reasoning characteristic for this position: “We recognize thatthe justifying, vindicating, and making righteous of the Levitical sanctuary was accomplishedby the services on the Day of Atonement, when the sanctuary was cleansed from alldefilement (Leviticus. 15:16).” (idem, p. 266) We can only repeat that the restoration of thesanctuary encompassed more than its cleansing, if the ministry of Christ in the heavenlysanctuary shall be understood in its totality and not be confined to a single phase, even if thishappens to be one of great importance. (43)

Dr. Tuland proceeds to give an interpretation of Dan. 8:14 along the lines of Conradi, Prescott, Daniells, W. C. White in other words, the “new” view of the daily. But with Tuland, it is obvious that this is not an addition to the investigative judgment concept but the reality taught in the verse. Dr. Tuland also views Heb. 9 identically to Fletcher.

L.E. Froom, R.A. Grieve……

Leave a Reply