Section II

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.