|
XXVI - 11(93)
"Watchman,
what of the night?"
"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
THE SANCTUARY
The Heart of Adventist Theology
The heart of Adventist theology is indeed the revelation of God in the sanctuary. His way, His holiness, is revealed in its services, and in its structure. God desired to dwell with man and in man. In type and shadows God outlined how this might be realized by man. This study became the heart of the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as it emerged from the Great Disappointment under Millerism. Now for almost four decades, it has been under attack, first by compromise during the SDA- Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956, then in a direct attack by Dr. Desmond Ford.
The most recent attack has now come from within the framework of the Church
at one of the highest levels of influence by an associate editor of the Church's
official organ, the Adventist Review. It is the more devastating of any previous attack made on the sanctuary doctrine because it comes disguised in the hypocrisy of professing to be giving a true understanding of the heart of Adventist theology. It seeks to revive and promote as truth a heresy promoted in Adventism just after the turn of the Century by Albion F. Ballenger.
Roy Adams' interest in Ballenger's theology did not begin with the
publication of his book - The Sanctuary. It was a part of the doctoral
dissertation written for his degree at Andrews University. The dissertation - The Sanctuary Doctrine - researched "Three Approaches in the Seventh-day Adventist Church," one of which was the teaching of A. F. Ballenger. This is deception in itself because Ballenger was relieved of his credentials and disfellowshipped from the Church because of his teachings. In this the Church repudiated his teachings, thus his views cannot in truth be presented as an acceptable approach by the Church until now. They are being revived in this new publication by Adams as the true heart of Adventist theology, and promoted by Folkenberg as the theological showpiece of his administration.
Page 2
In his dissertation, Adams notes Ballenger's position on the atonement, and its corollary in Christian experience. He wrote:
"In his discussion of the atonement Ballenger's purpose was to emphasize the
concepts of righteousness by faith and Christian assurance through a
finished, universal work of Christ on the cross." (p. 241, emphasis his)
You will observe there are two main points in the Ballenger sanctuary concept - a completed atonement at the cross, and the "Christian assurance" of salvation resulting therefrom.
In the previous issue of WWN (10/93, p. 2), we noted for you this editor's attendance at an "off the cuff" analysis of issues facing the Church
that Wm. G. Johnsson gave at Avondale College last March. We discussed in that
WWN the second issue which he raised - the Incarnation and noted the series by
Johnsson on the doctrine in recent Reviews. But the first issue listed by
Johnsson in his Avondale presentation was the doctrine of grace and the role of
salvation in SDA understanding. He declared that "Folkenberg's primary
design is that Adventists believe that we may know now that we are saved." Johnsson contrasted the style of leadership between Wilson and Folkenberg, and indicated that Folkenberg sees himself as "a spiritual leader" with an emphasis on "the assurance of salvation." He cited a video available to document this position of the GC President.
Johnsson also revealed that Folkenberg believes that he did not experience salvation until he was serving as president of the Carolina Conference. It was at one of the campmeetings where he arranged for Jack Sequira to speak. In listening to his presentations he caught the perception of the assurance of salvation. Johnsson noted that in the United States there is concern about the failure to understand grace, and a great worry about the lack of assurance of salvation in the lives of many of the laity of the Church, but he concluded: "Maybe, we are starting to get it right."
The basic fact emerges, there is now a concerted effort to turn the church to
the teachings of Ballenger which its leadership repudiated in 1905. In the
introduction to his book, The Sanctuary, Roy Adams recalls an experience which took place when Ballenger appeared for his hearing before a selected committee of Church leaders. In this experience, the tone of the book is set. It reads:
"In 1905 Albion Fox Ballenger fell under the wrath of Adventist Church leaders for teaching, among other things, that the atonement was finished at the cross. His trial was held in a small building in Takoma Park, Maryland, at the site of the church's General Conference session that year. Milian Lauritz Andreasen, then a young unordained minister, tells how he and fellow minister L. H. Christian took turns standing on each other's shoulders so as to eavesdrop on the proceedings at that predawn inquiry. Under the light of day, as other meetings of the session proceeded, Andreasen took time to canvass the views of the embattled pariah. With much time on his hands - so few of the more experienced brethren had time for him - Ballenger shared freely.
"The irony of the situation was to come some 50 years later when Andreasen found himself at serious loggerheads with church leaders over the very question of the atonement - among others. This time, curiously, it was the church that defended the view of a finished atonement at the cross, with Andreasen digging in his heels for an unfinished atonement, the very position church leaders were championing in 1905." (pp. 12-13)
Now what does this show? According to Adams it shows "that the church is not closed and that, however slowly, it does move eventually in the direction the Spirit is leading." (p. 13) Not only did we compromise our doctrine of the atonement with the Evangelicals in 1955-1956, but now this compromise is declared to be "the direction the Spirit is leading." And the book by Adams seeks to revise "the heart of Adventist theology" in accordance with Ballenger's teaching.
The rationale in which Adams sets his heresy is beyond question and at the same time deceptive. He quotes from the Writings the statement: "There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No doctrine will lose anything by close investigation." (p. 11;R&H, Dec. 20, 1892)
Based on this, Adams writes that we should "not approach the doctrine of the sanctuary as if the church has learned nothing new since our pioneers fell asleep." "Theology, therefore, is never static." (p. 13) In all this he is correct. But the deception comes in the application. He
Page 3
indicates that we are merely standing on the shoulders of the pioneers, and "ought to be able to see a little farther than they did." Therefore, "those who expect the shaking of the pillars in these pages [of his book] will probably be disappointed." The suggestion is that he is in line with the pillars of the Advent faith because he is assuming that he is standing on the shoulders of those whose feet rested on the firm platform of eternal truth. This is a self-deception. The first pillar or landmark reads: "The cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven, and having a decided relation to God's people upon the earth." (Ms. 13, 1889) Adams' theology is not the theology of one standing on the shoulders of one whose feet was placed firmly on this foundation. In his book, he is teaching a false gospel under the guise of scholarship and praying that by "his feeble effort many readers may come to know a deeper appreciation for the sublime truth of the sanctuary." The effort is indeed feeble, but the deception is strong.
Adams in his book does recognize the various weaknesses which can be found in the historic Adventist interpretation of the sanctuary and related prophecies in Daniel. Any honest student of the Adventist theology built around the sanctuary must admit to the reality of these problems. The deceptions found in this book are the solutions Adams suggests for the correction of these problems. You do not cut down the tree of truth while seeking to clear it from the tentacles of error that have used the tree for their support.
What was the purpose of God in giving the instruction for the erection of the
sanctuary? Adams lists three, the third reason being: "To provide
additional details regarding the plan of salvation." Then he states that at this
point: "we begin to enter potentially controversial territory." (p. 27) The
problem in his thinking is "interpretational." Except for a hint, as Adams
describes it, the rituals of the sanctuary were left undefined until the New
Testament. This should give no problem for we are dealing with one book, the Bible, the formation of which was supervised by the Holy Spirit, and thus it carries one message for all time. It's our perception, not the revelation, that is faulty.
Paul in the book of Hebrews clearly declares that it was the services of the
sanctuary which revealed the Heavenly agenda. (Heb. 8:5) While recognizing the
possibility of this factor (p. 28), Adams stresses in another chapter that the
teaching of Paul in Hebrews "reasons principally by contrast and less by
comparison. This means that the movement is from the new to the old as much as, or even more than, from the old to the new." (p. 49, emphasis his) No one questions that the book of Hebrews majors in "contrasts" showing the superiority of the Heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ over the priesthood derived from Aaron. However, you do not understand the meaning of the services of the Aaronic priesthood through the Heavenly, but rather you understand the agenda of the Heavenly through the revelations given in the type.
As his authority for this "interpretation," Adams quotes his mentor who has written: "It is the heavenly and not the earthly that is genuine. The earthly was but a pale shadow, a temporary device pointing to the real.... The real will explain the shadow, and not vice versa." (p. 50; see footnote #11, p. 58) This concept is also to be found in a research paper presented at the Glacier View conference by
another Australian, A. P. Salom. Salom wrote:
"Neither the structure of the earthly tabernacle, nor its services should be
used as a basis for detailing the heavenly sanctuary. While some general
conclusions about the heavenly sanctuary and its services may be reached by
studying the shadowy outline of the earthly sanctuary, care should be taken not
to press these points too far. The heavenly sanctuary is better described as an
archetype than an antitype and thus our reasoning concerning the sanctuary
should be in the reverse direction to that which it usually takes. The true
nature of the type can only be distinguished by first understanding the
archetype, not vice versa." (Exegesis of Selected Passages of Hebrews 8 and 9, pp. 7-8; emphasis his)
But the next question: Where did this concept break into Adventist thinking? Note:
"It is better to see and study the great realities of the sacrifice
and priestly ministry of Christ than to dwell too much upon the details
of the typical service, which gave an inadequate portrayal of the sacrifice and ministry of Christ. Far better to interpret the earthly tabernacle in the light of the heavenly, rather than to circumscribe the antitypical realities
of the limitations of too close an application of the type." (Questions on Doctrine, p. 379; emphasis theirs)
Thus we see that in his perceptions, Adams is not standing on the shoulders of the pioneers, but rather on the shoulders of the compromisers of basic Adventism at the SDA-Evangelical
Page 4
Conferences.
To further his downgrading of the force of the typical sanctuary in understanding the realities of the Heavenly, he appeals to
the Jesuit theologian, Avery Dulles. Dulles had written in a book on the church "that images are useful up to a point, and beyond that point they can become deceptive." (p. 63) To Adams, the visions of John in Revelation did not describe the realities of the Heavenly sanctuary, but were merely to give us a vocabulary so we are able "to speak about the unspeakable, to comprehend the incomprehensible, however dimly."(p.64)
After quoting his mentor again that there is "'a real ministry in a
real sanctuary,"' he adds - "That question is settled so far as I am concerned." (p. 62) Yet before he closes that chapter, he writes - "I prefer to see the heavenly sanctuary as the dwelling place of God, the seat of His government, the nerve center of the universe. As such, it has always existed," (p. 71)
The heart of Adams' objective and argument in writing this book begins to unfold
in Chapter 6, "The Heavenly Sanctuary: Its Defilement and Cleansing." In
this chapter, in assessing the Adventist contention that there is a connection
between Leviticus 16 and Daniel 8:14, Adams outlines Uriah Smith's position,
Ballenger's, and then makes an assessment of the two together. Finally, he
presents what he calls an "Historical-Theological Background of Daniel 8:14."
While Adams concluded in his original dissertation that, had the Church adopted the position of Ballenger, "It would have made them the theological laughingstock of Protestantism," and
he now sees no reason to modify that position. Nevertheless, he can write that Ballenger's "basic contention as regards the defilement of the sanctuary was correct."
(p. 87) What was Ballenger's position? According to Adams' documentation, Ballenger taught that "the sanctuary was defiled by the sinful act itself, before the confession of sin," and thus "even the devil's sins defile the sanctuary." Ballenger went a step further, and maintained that "confession" belongs to the process of cleansing, rather than defilement. Ballenger also argued that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary took place at Christ's ascension, when He sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat. The cleansing in 1844 refers to the sins of the devil as the instigator of sin. (p. 86)
How does Adams reconcile his assessment of Ballenger's position as correct, with the Church's position that the sanctuary is defiled by the sins of God's people? He invents a new term: "penitential defilement." He writes: "This is the kind of defilement in which the sanctuary took responsibility for the sin of the penitent, letting him go free." (p. 87) This is untenable. The sanctuary can no more assume the responsibility for sin than the Law can produce righteousness. The transfer of sin was to an animal, which symbolized the provision made in the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.
This whole theology concerning the transfer of sin needs to be re-thought through carefully without reference as to who believed what as far as our past theological thinking is concerned. The type was concerned with sins of ignorance. See Leviticus 4. The sin had already been recorded. The type outlined a process of confession by which an atonement, ministered by the common priest was made, bestowing forgiveness on the sinner. The record of that confession was left on the Altar in the Court. The cleansing of the sanctuary, as far as the individual sinner was concerned, could involve only two things - the record of his sins and his uncleanness. The balance of the sin problem involves the very basic issues of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. The sin problem must first be resolved at the point where it began, in heaven itself, at the Throne of the Eternal. This is where the prophecy of Daniel 7 places the beginning of the judgment. When Daniel 7:9-14 is brought into the picture, both Leviticus 16, and Daniel 8:9-14 can be seen in proper perspective.
Adams ignores Daniel 7 altogether, and develops an extensive
"historical-theological" background around the book of II Chronicles which makes
interesting reading. He perceives it as the "bridge between Leviticus 16 and
Daniel 8:9-14" which he says "when combined with an understanding of the dual
concept of defilement [Smith's and Ballenger's], gives us an insight into the
ultimate, eschatological linkage of the two passages." (p. 89) By his approach,
Adams is seeking to avoid the controversy over a linguistic connection between
the two passages of Scripture. He writes: "Seen in this way, the need for a
linguistic connection between tamer of Leviticus 16 and tsadaq of Daniel 8:14, as some would demand, does not arise." (p. 98)
What is interesting at this point is the fact that tsadaq is found only in the Masoretic text, while the LXX and the Vulgate both use the same word in Daniel 8:14 for cleansed in the Greek and
Page 5
Latin which corresponds to taher in the Hebrew of Leviticus 16. In fact the
LXX uses the same identical word both in Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16:30.
Further, current Hebrew scholarship indicates that the word, tsadaq, is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word first used. These Hebrew scholars maintain that the whole of Daniel was originally written in the Aramaic, and the present Hebrew section of the book is a translation out of the Aramaic.
In his next chapter - "Christ and 1844" - Adams raises the question as to where Christ went upon His ascension into Heaven. His conclusion is that Christ went directly to the right hand of the Throne of God, and there has remained. To support this contention, he uses Ballenger's arguments on "within the veil." He then concludes: "Nowhere in Hebrews does the author speak of a Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary in contradistinction to a holy place. The contrast, rather, is always between the earthly sanctuary and the heavenly." (p. 110)
Let's take a look at Hebrews. In Hebrews 9:2-3, Paul defines his terms
because the LXX from which he quotes uses the words, to hagion, in
Leviticus 16:2 to refer to the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary. He had just
used the same words to refer to the sanctuary as a whole. (Heb. 9:1). To avoid
any confusion, he indicates (verses 2 & 3) that Hagia, means the first
apartment, and Hagia Hagion, means the second apartment. He even
emphasizes that concerning this second apartment with its ark of the covenant,
"we cannot now speak particularly." (verse 5) Throughout the rest of the book of
Hebrews, ta hagia, is used six times, and hagia hagion, where the
ark was, and where the services of the Day of Atonement began, is not used once.
The services performed - the daily and the yearly - are noted as "a figure for
the time then present." (9:9) Christ is declared to have entered the hagia "to appear in the presence of God for us." Then where was God when Christ ascended back to Heaven? On the throne of grace, or sitting in judgment? (Heb. 4:16)
So how does Adams relate to all of this? He writes that "we stand on their
[the pioneer's]brave shoulders now, and without altering a single plank of
the basic pillars of the faith, we do indeed perceive a clearer vision." (p. 113; emphasis his) What is that vision? He writes:
"Perhaps a better way of expressing the same truth that came to Hiram Edson on that tear-filled morning would be as follows: At the Ascension, Christ went into the presence of God (and in saying this, we are in line with the New Testament) and there commenced a ' first apartment ministry' (in line with the ancient typical service). At the end of the 2300 days (years) in 1844 (in line with the book of Daniel), He commenced a 'second apartment ministry' (in line with the ancient typical service on the Day of Atonement) - namely, the restoration or vindication or cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (in line with Leviticus 16 and Daniel 8:14)." (p. 113; emphasis his)
There is no question, Adams has created for himself a very "neat" package, but nevertheless an outline that does not conform to the type. If it is as Adams has stated it, then God was playing games in giving the type, for in so doing, He commanded Moses to do much that was irrelevant. For example, in the type, Moses supervised the building of the tabernacle, and after its erection anointed the whole, before Aaron began any ministry therein. (See Exodus 40:1-16) The prophecy of Zechariah indicates that He who was to "build the temple of the Lord" would also be "a priest upon His throne." (Zech. 6:12-13) In Christ, the typical work of Moses was combined with the typical ministry of Aaron. Paul emphasizes, when he asks us to consider "the High Priest of our profession," that Christ as a son over His own house, was as faithful as Moses was over all his house. (Heb. 3:1-6) Further, it is stated that Moses' service was to be "a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after." Here the contrast is between Christ and Moses, but "the house of Moses" included the priesthood of Aaron.
To cite another emphasis of Scripture: Daniel indicates that when the judgment hour was come, thrones were placed, "and the Ancient of days did sit." (7:9-10) There is movement in heaven. The throne of God is not set in concrete; neither is God immobile as an idol upon a throne.
Let us say, that Adams' "package" has merit. Does this then justify acceptance of the position of Ballenger that the atonement was completed, and that the sanctuary was cleansed at the Cross? (p. 144) Never! To set concepts, no matter how correct they may be, in a false setting, does not present truth, but only increases the subtlety of the deception which is covered thereby. This Adams has done!
Note: Throughout the book, Adams never notes Paul as the author of Hebrews. He was only following his mentor, Johnsson, who in his doctoral dissertation referred to the writer of
Page 6
Hebrews as the "auctor ad Hebraeos." Ellen White notes Paul as the author of Hebrews, and the noted scholars of the New Testament
text, Kurt and Barbara Aland, observe in their book, The Text of the New Testament: "The early Church assumed Hebrews to be Pauline."(p. 49) I, too, so assume.
LET'S TALK IT OVER
Adams in his book, at the very beginning, lays a basis for his ultimate conclusions on the fact that truth is ever expanding. But in his very first sentence, he intimated that in his book he would be presenting change in the doctrinal perception which Adventists have held on the subject of the sanctuary te In his book, he has performed "a heart transplant" on "the heart of Adventist Theology." This "new heart," however, is the "heart" of Ballenger's teachings which the Church under the guidance of the living messenger of the Lord rejected, but which in the compromises with the Evangelicals it accepted.
There is no question that "theology is never static," but truth is unchangeable. Our perceptions of that truth will grow under the guidance of the Spirit of truth. The question is how do we properly relate to these changing perceptions of the truth? First comes the hermeneutic - the method of interpretation. Is it valid? Then it must be applied to what the "pioneers" of the Adventist Movement taught in regard to the sanctuary. (It appears that we are going to hear a lot about the "pioneers" in connection with "historic" Adventism as the controversy over truth intensifies. Evidently the PR boys, among some of the "independent ministries," are finding it a good "catch word.") Our spiritual forefathers used a typology hermeneutic combined with the prophetic interpretive principles of fundamental Protestantism prior to 1844. From this combination came our sanctuary theology.
How do we relate to this? The messenger of the Lord told us that God and heaven alone are infallible, and that "we have many lessons to learn," as well as "many, many to unlearn." (TM, p. 30) When a child learns that 2 + 2 = 4, he does not abandon that and accept as accurate that 2 + 2 = 5. However, he does add to this basic knowledge and learns that 8 + 5 = 13. In the experience of learning, various traditional concepts, even old wives' fables, become a part of his store of knowledge. These false and questionable perceptions must be unlearned, and truth substituted for the false. All of this will be involved in any restudy of the sanctuary theology of the Adventist Community.
Such a study will be a painful experience for many, if not all. It will mean that we will recognize that our "pioneers" did make some mistakes in their perceptions of truth as they reacted to the opposition. For example, the early pioneers denied that there was an atonement at the Cross. Yet the type clearly taught that at the Altar of the Court, the common priest "shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him." (Lev. 4:26) It was a forgiveness that restored the sinner to a oneness relationship to God. This Christ achieved by His death on Calvary. But was this all that was necessary for man to be at-one-ment with God? No! There was another atonement - the final atonement.
The issue of the "investigative judgment" will come into focus with the contrast between it and our current descriptive word, of a "Pre-Advent" judgment. There is much in Daniel 7 to which we have given little, if any, thought, but which is connected with the concept of judgment both in relationship to Daniel 8:14, and Leviticus 16. There is truly much to learn, and much, much to unlearn. Yet it is not doing "a heart transplant" on "the heart of Adventist theology."
whg
OBSERVATIONS
During the first week in September, we were in the Dallas-Fort Worth area on Foundation business. While visiting with friends, we were given
a handbook by Elder Mark Finley, Studying Together. As we were driving home, my wife paged through the handbook, and noted a section on "Understanding Churches, Denominations, and other Religious Groups." It reminded me of an encounter with a Mormon missionary early in my ministry, who pulled from his pocket such a handbook and followed the suggestions it contained as we discussed various points of doctrine. What was more intriguing was the fact that in this section of Finley's book was a discussion on "Former Seventh-day Adventists." This topic was prefaced with the observation that "research indicates that most former
Page 7
Adventists do not leave the Church because of doctrinal reasons. Some do, but not the majority." (p. 188) He then lists four reasons why individuals leave, and tells how to meet those reasons, so as to help the person to return to the Church. However, in this counsel he does not even hint at a suggestion as to how to relate or answer those who have left the Church because of doctrinal reasons. Is he saying by this, there is a valid reason doctrinally for leaving the Church, and there is no answer?
There are only two reasons for leaving the Church over doctrinal issues. 1) The Church is teaching what one has come to believe is error. This would involve such as are following Dr. Desmond Ford. However, there is a Biblical answer to Ford. 2) The Church has apostatized from the truth which was taught when one accepted the message. For this there is no answer as Finley's book indicates.
Within the week after arriving back home, the October issue of Ministry
was on my desk. Its cover emphasis was "Adventists and Change: The Dynamic Nature of Present Truth." The illustration was intriguing. A man stood before a full length mirror dressed in the ministerial attire of the pioneers. The reflection in the mirror was a minister of today in street dress. There it was, cosmetic change, but dare there be a change of heart and mind in regard to the truth itself between the two eras?
There can be no question that "Present Truth" is dynamic, and our perception of it should be on the "cutting edge." But when basic truth, committed in sacred trust to a people, is altered and in its place error is accepted, then there is a need to cry out in alarm.
In the Ministry one third of the space was devoted to two articles which reflect the cover design. One
by Dr. Woodrow Whidden, associate professor of religion at Andrews University, contrasts "essential" Adventism with "historic" Adventism. He chooses two areas of belief to discuss - the incarnation and perfection. On the subject of Christ's human nature he writes:
"While Ralph Larson has demonstrated that there was a rather strong consensus on a post-Fall view until the middle 1950s, George Knight has shown that there was provocative opposition to the post-Fall view of A. T. Jones in the mid-1890s."
He is citing Knight's analysis in the book, From 1888 to Apostasy. However, in checking over this analysis, we found that Knight plainly wrote that the view of Waggoner, Jones and Prescott, the post-Fall view, "created no controversy in the Adventism of the 1890s. It was a generally accepted theological nonissue." Knight indicated that this did not change until "the 1950s when it
became the theological subject for many Adventists on both sides of the question."
(p. 133) Somebody is misreading somebody.
Knight's article in the same issue of the Ministry notes changes in Adventist teaching and diet during its history. He cites the teaching on the Godhead as evidence of doctrinal change, and even notes Ellen G. White's change of thought in regard to 1844, and "the shut door." On the dietary question, the original practice of the White's in regard to the eating of pork is noted. How does this relate to change, and the dynamic nature of present truth? The last word is not yet in on the Godhead, and the present formulation is open to serious question. It must also be remembered that there is a vital difference in how one perceives the atonement, as revealed in the sanctuary truth, and the evangelical concept. Substitution of error for truth is not evidence of the dynamic nature of present truth.
"No one truth is rightly held till it is clearly conceived and stated, and no single truth is adequately
comprehended till it is viewed in harmonious relations to all the other truths of the system of which Christ is the centre."
Archibald Alexander Hodge
|