GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | GCO Press Price List 2009-07-04 14:46Z

1844: Embattled Yet Enduring

Presenter:   Kevin D. Paulson

Location:    Internet

Delivery:    2006-08-12 12:45Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2006-08-12 12:45Z

Type:        Article

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-1844.php

It was a conflict destined to divide conferences, campuses, and congregations. And it is with us yet today.

Twenty-five years beyond Glacier View and its stormy aftermath, as the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church studies in Sabbath School the doctrine of the investigative judgment (1), it behooves us to review and to answer—for ourselves, and for the rising generations—the questions raised regarding this doctrine, and why these issues matter so deeply to the church’s relevance and identity.

Across the Internet, in college and university classrooms, in sermons, magazine articles (in mainstream as well as fringe publications), and Sabbath School classes, doubts regarding this doctrine continue to be raised throughout the church. The hemorrhage of pastors, laity, and congregations begun in the fall of 1980 has not ceased, even if at times it seems to ebb and the issues appear to recede. Without fail, former or wavering Adventists raising objections to their faith mention this doctrine. And for good reason. If the 1844 theology is false, the Adventist faith is a colossal hoax. If, by contrast, it is true, the awful yet glorious burden of eschatological destiny rests on the shoulders of every Seventh-day Adventist. It is therefore fitting that attacks on the legitimacy of our faith should focus significantly on this matter.

The drama of a quarter-century ago was one which the present writer experienced both as actor and spectator. I was a sophomore theology major at Pacific Union College, who with many friends was present at the Adventist Forum meeting on October 27, 1979, when Desmond Ford publicly attacked the biblical foundations of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine. An active participant in campus life, I was a daily witness to the struggles of fellow students as they grappled with the issues—the classroom crossfire between critics and defenders, the charge of alleged cover-up, evasion, and unfairness directed at church leaders, the question of where to set limits in the tolerance of expressed ideas, and the persistent notion of too many that the entire discussion was superfluous because “doctrine really doesn’t matter so long as you love Jesus.”

Independent journals published by liberal Adventists have in recent issues noted the twenty-fifth anniversary of these events, complete with the usual allegations of injustice, presumed concealment of facts, and “legalistic” salvation theology as the sanctuary doctrine’s supposed undergirding (2). It is time for those whose faith both survived and triumphed in those years to tell “the other side” of the Glacier View saga.

The Road to Glacier View—and Beyond

The theological alignment (if not collusion) of Desmond Ford and Robert Brinsmead throughout the 1970s has been documented by sympathizers to their cause (5). Both Ford in his position as chairman of the Avondale College Theology Department, and Brinsmead as editor of Present Truth (later Verdict) magazine, exerted their influence during this time in the promotion of such doctrines as original sin, the unfallen nature of Christ, righteousness by faith as justification alone, justification as declarative only, and character perfection as an impossibility this side of heaven (6). The doubts of both men regarding the church’s sanctuary theology were expressed but quietly, if at all. (Brinsmead would later acknowledge that earlier in the decade, he had urged both Ford and Edward Heppenstall to come out publicly against the 1844/investigative judgment teachings of classic Adventism (7)). Careful observers recognized, however, that the tension between the New Theology on salvation and the Adventist sanctuary message would eventually reach a breaking point. Following Ford’s open attack on the sanctuary doctrine, Adventist Review editor Kenneth Wood stated in a letter to the present writer, “It has appeared to me for a long time that Dr. Ford’s approach to the Bible and the writings of Ellen White would eventually lead him to this point” (8).

In 1844 Re-Examined, Brinsmead disputed the Biblical foundation of the Adventist sanctuary message in Daniel 8 (9), insisted that the book of Hebrews taught the immediate entrance of Christ into the heavenly Most Holy Place at His ascension (10), and sought to dissuade Adventists from resorting to Ellen White for a defense of the church’s historic stand, on the grounds that—in his view—one such as Ellen White can possess a genuine spiritual gift while at the same time misusing it (11). In other words, Brinsmead claimed Ellen White could still be seen as a genuine prophet, while presumably being wrong at times in both teaching and lifestyle.

Brinsmead’s challenge was clearly on many minds, especially at Pacific Union College, when I and others arrived for the start of the 1979-80 school year. On the Fall Quarter Events Calendar, we soon noted a scheduled meeting of the Association of Adventist Forums, with Desmond Ford as the featured speaker. His title: “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?” (12) (The very words rang uneasy bells in the minds of the faithful.) The meeting was scheduled for October 27, 1979.

I remember it well.

It was a lovely autumn Sabbath. Word seemed to have gotten around that Ford was about to make a major statement. Devotees of his theology gathered to the PUC campus from far and near. One reported to me much later that the evening before, Ford had stated to her, “What I say tomorrow will be heard around the world.” More than a few seemed to know this. That same evening I spoke on the telephone with Dr. Herbert Douglass, then serving as senior book editor at the Pacific Press. He was certain Ford would be extremely subtle in his assertions, and would need—in Douglass’ words—to be “smoked out of his lair.” He believed it utterly out of the question that Ford would join Brinsmead in directly attacking the historic SDA sanctuary doctrine. I then told Douglass I would call him the following evening, after Ford’s presentation, but only if something dramatic occurred. He seemed quite sure I would not be calling him.

He was in for a surprise.

At 3:30 the following afternoon, two friends and I knelt for prayer in my dormitory room, prior to leaving for the meeting site. Somehow, we too sensed something serious was about to happen. As we approached Paulin Hall, where the meeting was to occur, we saw the doors open and a crowd start pouring out. Running ahead, I learned that due to overflow numbers, the meeting was being relocated to Irwin Hall, PUC’s historic building which then overlooked the lower expanse of classrooms, walkways, and the college church complex. My friends and I turned around and hurried up the long stone staircase, anxious to find good seats. At one point I asked, with a hint of sarcasm, “What are we running for? So we can hear the investigative judgment thrown away?” My negative premonitions were growing stronger.

Ford began his discourse with his own testimony, describing doubts he had held for decades about the harmony of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine with the book of Hebrews. He went on to discount the validity of the year-day principle, denied any linguistic connection between Daniel 8:14 and the depiction in Leviticus 16 of the ancient cleansing of the sanctuary, and declared that the book of Hebrews places Christ in the Most Holy Place, not in 1844, but immediately at His ascension.

The crowd loved every word, greeting Ford’s message with enthusiastic applause. At least one retired North American Division president was there, rising to his feet during the question period with a choked voice and a breaking heart. A group of us gathered in the back after the meeting, hardly believing what we had just heard. Upon returning to my dorm room, I called Herbert Douglass again, as I had promised to do in the event Ford’s message was newsworthy. I read him my notes over the telephone. By the time I finished, his sorrow was palpable.

Tapes of the meeting belted the world in days. Soon the General Conference intervened, arranging with Pacific Union College that Ford be given a six-month leave of absence, during which time he would prepare a defense of his views, which would then be examined by a committee of persons from varied backgrounds. Ford’s manuscript, titled, “Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment,” totaled 991 pages, and was eventually published in book form (13). An abbreviated version of the manuscript was also published in Spectrum magazine (14).

A group of 114 scholars, pastors, and church administrators, soon to be called the Sanctuary Review Committee, met to consider Ford’s case at the Glacier View Ranch near Ward, Colorado, the week of August 10-15, 1980 (15). Less than a month later, following unsuccessful efforts by church leaders to urge Ford’s reconsideration of his stand (16), the General Conference recommended to the Australasian Division that Ford’s ministerial credentials be removed. This was done.

The years that followed would see scores of pastors and a number of congregations exit the ministry as well as the denomination. And the controversy thus ignited continues to this day.

It is an epoch the church dare not forget. And one whose unfinished business remains essential to the task of contemporary Adventism.

Issues

Following is a summary of the major issues raised by Desmond Ford and his fellow travelers regarding the sanctuary doctrine, both in the Glacier View era and in the years since:

1. The focus of the judgment and sanctuary cleansing in Daniel 7 and 8 is not the people of God, but their enemies (17).
2. The year-day principle lacks clear Biblical support (18).
3. The word “cleansed” is not a correct translation of Daniel 8:14 (19).
4. Antiochus Epiphanes was the primary, if not exclusive, fulfillment of the little-horn prophecy in Daniel 7 and 8 (20).
5. The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension (21).
6. The Bible teaches neither a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary nor a two-phased ministry by Jesus in heaven (22).
7. The phrase “within the veil” in the book of Hebrews refers to the second veil, or entrance to the Most Holy Place (23).
8. Seventh-day Adventists are wrong in teaching that sacrificial blood defiled the sanctuary, either on earth or in heaven (24).
9. The writings of Ellen White have no rightful authority in settling doctrinal controversy within the church (25).
10. The sanctuary doctrine, as historically taught by Seventh-day Adventists, contradicts the New Testament gospel of grace (26).

For those wishing an in-depth response to the sanctuary challenges noted above, and related challenges as well, the present writer has prepared a three-part series titled, “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” (27), written in reply to The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, by former Adventist minister Dale Ratzlaff (28). Regarding issues surrounding Ellen White’s inspiration and authority, another paper is recommended (29). The responses that follow are provided for those seeking more abbreviated answers.

Answers

1. The focus of the judgment and sanctuary cleansing in Daniel 7 and 8 is not the people of God, but their enemies.

Divine judgment in Scripture, whether in the Old or the New Testament, is consistently for the purpose of determining who is on the Lord’s side, and who is not. The judgment of Daniel 7 and 8 is no different. Daniel 12:1 is clear that the final deliverance of God’s people is dependent on whether they are found written in God’s book:

And at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Daniel 7:9, 10 is the only other reference in Daniel to heavenly books. The book described in Daniel 12:1 gives every evidence of being the same to which Moses referred, when he prayed, in an effort to exchange his own soul for his wayward people, “Blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written” (Exodus 32:32). God then answered Moses, “Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book” (verse 33). Elsewhere the Bible calls this book the book of life (Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:19).

If the only ones finally delivered among God’s people are those found “written in the book” (Daniel 12:1), and if the vindication of God’s people in Daniel 7—subsequent to the opening of the books (verse 10)—is followed by their possession of “an everlasting kingdom” (verse 27), it is obvious the triumph of the saints both in chapter 7 and chapter 12 refer to the same end-time event. Which means the end-time judgment here described most assuredly involves a determination as to who among God’s professed people is fit for eternal life.

The book of Revelation is clear as to the conditions for being retained in God’s book of life:

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels (Revelation 3:5).

Let us remember also that the little-horn power, whose identity as the Roman papacy clearly comports with the biblical and corresponding historical evidence, professes faithfulness to God. Like those it persecutes, it is professedly Christian. Like the ancient Day of Atonement, the final end-time judgment determines who, among those claiming loyalty to God, are truly His. And just as those found disloyal in the ancient ritual were cut off from God’s people (Leviticus 23:27-29), so the little-horn power will see its claims to faithfulness demolished and utterly destroyed (Daniel 7:11, 26).

2. The year-day principle lacks clear Biblical support.

First, it is clear that Daniel 7, 8, and 9 are all highly symbolic chapters. Strange beasts, ribs, multiple heads and notable horns—rising from turbulent winds and waves—represent kings and kingdoms Daniel 7:17, 23, 24; 8:20-23). It therefore makes perfect sense for the time periods in these chapters (Daniel 7:25; 8:14; 9:24-27)—which, like parallel passages in Revelation (12:6, 14; 13:5), span the sweep of centuries—to be symbolic also.

The seventy-week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 offers amazing clarity regarding the use of days as symbols for years. The word translated “weeks” in this passage is repeatedly used in the Old Testament to refer to a seven-day period (Genesis 29:27, 28; Exodus 34:22; Numbers 28:26; Deuteronomy 16:9, 10, 16; 2 Chronicles 8:13; Jeremiah 5:24; Ezekiel 45:21; Daniel 10:2). Thus, while the precise word “days” may not be found in Daniel 9:24-27, the word “weeks’ makes it clear days are being referred to, and that these days are used to represent years. The Revised Standard Version even translates verse 24 as “seventy weeks of years.”

What is more, only by understanding these weeks as seven-year periods can this prophecy possibly extend to the time of the “Messiah the Prince” (verse 25). And only if the time period starts with the decree issued in 457 B.C. can it reach to the Messiah’s time. This simple fact settles two issues conclusively: (1) the doubts raised as to whether the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 is the one Daniel 9:25 is referring to; and (2) the question of whether the weeks in this passage refer to weeks of years. Only if the period starts at 457, and only if the weeks represent seven-year periods, can the prophecy reach to the time of Jesus the Messiah.

Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 provide supporting evidence for this principle. Each of these time periods where days symbolized years, like those in Daniel and Revelation, describe periods of time in which God’s people went into eclipse through exile, apostasy, persecution, or some combination of the three, then emerged triumphant at the end. The use of these passages from Numbers and Ezekiel to establish the year-day principle is therefore in full harmony with the theme of the prophecies thus interpreted in Daniel and Revelation.

3. The word “cleansed” is not a correct translation of Daniel 8:14.

The word translated “cleansed” in Daniel 8:14 is the Hebrew word nisdaq, a form of the word sadaq which means “to justify.” In a number of poetic Old Testament passages, where rhyme is one of common meaning rather than sound, the word sadaq is used synonymously with taher, the word for “cleanse” used for describing the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary in Leviticus 16 (see Job 4:17; 17:9; Psalm 19:9; Ecclesiastes 9:2). This point is further clarified by the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, in which the word for cleanse in Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16 is the same one used in Hebrews 9:23, which speaks of the heavenly sanctuary being cleansed with “better sacrifices” (30).

One reason, often unnoticed, why Desmond Ford and those of like mind refuse to consider “cleansed” an appropriate translation of Daniel 8:14, is their insistence that the word “justify” in Scripture means only to declare righteous, not to make righteous (31)—or in other words, to cleanse. Such a narrow definition of justification is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is the Bible truth that when God declares something to be so, as at the Creation, it in fact becomes so (Genesis 1:3; Psalm 33:9).

4. Antiochus Epiphanes was the primary, if not exclusive, fulfillment of the little-horn prophecy of Daniel 7 and 8.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes, seventh king of the Seleucid dynasty of Hellenistic Syria, cannot possibly fulfill the stated criteria in Daniel for the persecuting little horn power. The parallel between the sequence of kingdoms in Daniel 7 and that in Daniel 8 is itself sufficient to rule this out. Antiochus was part of the Greek kingdom, represented in Daniel 7 by the leopard with four wings and heads, after which another kingdom (Rome) was to rise, followed by the ten tribes that conquered Rome, after which at last the little horn comes on the scene, uproots three of the ten tribes, and then establishes its power (Daniel 7:6-8, 23, 24).

Though Daniel 8 abbreviates to some extent the sequence of chapter 7, the greater detail found in chapter 7 makes it impossible for the little horn to enter history prior to the establishment and subsequent demise of the fourth kingdom in this list. In Antiochus’ time, Rome hadn’t even succeeded in subduing the Greek kingdom, and was certainly nowhere near conquest by the barbarian tribes represented by the ten toes of Daniel 2 and the ten horns of Daniel 7.

Moreover, the little horn is described in Daniel 8 as a power which “waxed exceeding great, toward the south, toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” (verse 9). Antiochus waxed “exceeding great” in none of these directions, experiencing defeat wherever he turned (32). Rome, by contrast, did exactly as the above verse describes.

Most of all, Daniel describes the overthrow of the little horn as occurring simultaneous with the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom and the saints’ possession of it (Daniel 7:26, 27). The dominion of Antiochus Epiphanes (which wasn’t much) ended more than 2,100 years ago, and without the saints possessing an everlasting kingdom. Likewise, the angel Gabriel declared to Daniel in chapter 8, “Understand, O son of man, for at the time of the end shall be the vision” (verse 17). The events of this vision, in other words, were to extend to the last days of human history. Under no circumstances could the power in question, whose overthrow does not take place till the end-time (Daniel 7:26, 27), possibly refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes!

5. The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension.

The passage in question is Hebrews 9:12:

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

The word translated “holy place” in this verse is ta hagia, which is the plural form of the word used in this context to refer to both the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries. Literally, this phrase reads, “holy places,” which is why the New English Bible translates it “sanctuary”—the most accurate translation of what the Greek actually says.

Earlier in this chapter, the Most Holy Place is referred to, by the Greek expression Hagia Hagion—the only explicit reference to the Most Holy Place found anywhere in the New Testament (verse 3). If Paul intended to refer believers to the Most Holy Place in verse 12, this phrase was certainly available in place of the ambiguous word he in fact used.

In this passage Paul is drawing a parallel, not between the ascension of Christ and the ancient Day of Atonement—as claimed by critics of the sanctuary doctrine (33)—but between the dedication of the wilderness tabernacle by Moses and Aaron and that of the heavenly sanctuary by Jesus. In verses 18-21 he writes:

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

By contrast, we read in verse 12 that Jesus dedicated the heavenly sanctuary, “neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood.” In no way does this imply that our Lord’s heavenly ministry, begun at His ascension, was a parallel to the work of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. Rather, the parallel is between the inauguration of the Old Testament sanctuary on earth and that of the New Testament sanctuary in heaven.

6. The Bible teaches neither a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary nor a two-phased ministry by Jesus in heaven.

The Bible plainly states that when Moses made the sanctuary in the wilderness, he made it according to the pattern God showed him. The book of Hebrews declares:

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.... For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve upon the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle, for: See, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount (Hebrews 8:1, 2, 45).

Hebrews 9:23 describes the earthly sanctuary as “patterns of things in the heavens.” And in the book of Revelation we read of Christ ministering among the seven golden candlesticks (Revelation 1:12; 4:5), and at the golden altar of incense (Revelation 8:3). But not until chapter 11 do we see the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary opened—when it is time for the judgment of the dead to begin (verses 18, 19).

What is equally significant is that once the plan of salvation is complete and the New Jerusalem is brought to earth, the apostle John declares of the holy city: “And I saw no temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” (Revelation 21:22). If the temple described earlier in Revelation is only symbolic, it would make no sense for the prophet to say he no longer saw it when heaven and earth are re-created. Obviously the temple was necessary while the saga of redemption and the great controversy remained in progress. Once the conflict is over, the temple is needed no longer.

Here we see clear biblical evidence, both for a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary and the two phases of ministry the apartments represent.

7. The phrase “within the veil” in the book of Hebrews refers to the second veil, or entrance to the Most Holy Place

The word for veil in the New Testament, the Greek word katapetasma, is used in the Greek Old Testament to refer to all three veils in the earthly sanctuary—the veil at the courtyard entrance, the veil at the entrance to the Holy Place, and the veil before the Most Holy Place (Exodus 38:18; 39:40; Leviticus 16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; Numbers 3:26; 4:26; 18:7). No Biblical evidence demands that when this word is attached to such prepositions as “within” or “without” or “before,” that it must automatically refer to the veil between the first and second apartments of the sanctuary.

One of the above passages, Numbers 18:7, clearly refers to the veil before the Holy Place:

Therefore thou (Aaron) and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest’s office for every thing of the altar, and within the veil, and ye shall serve.

In context, the altar here described (see verse 3) clearly refers to the altar of burnt offering in the courtyard. “Within the veil” in the above verse thus refers to all those items in the sanctuary not in the courtyard, which would mean everything behind the veil to the Holy Place, obviously including the Most Holy Place as well.

Ellen White is thus not at all in conflict with Scripture when she writes that “within the veil” in Hebrews 6:19 refers to the entrance to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.

8. Seventh-day Adventists are wrong in teaching that sacrificial blood defiled the sanctuary, whether on earth or in heaven.

Seventh-day Adventists have never taught that sacrificial blood defiled either sanctuary at any time. Rather, it is the sin transferred by the blood to the sanctuary that does the defiling. Ellen White makes this clear in the following statement:

As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin offering, so are sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded (34).

This is easy to illustrate. When I take a shower each morning, the water from the faucet transfers the filth from my body to the shower. It isn’t the water that makes the shower dirty; rather, it is the filth washed from my body that does this. Which is why, every few weeks, the shower must be cleaned. Not because of the water used in cleaning, but because of the filth transferred to the shower by the water.

The same is true of the blood of Christ, our sins, and the heavenly sanctuary.

9. The writings of Ellen White have no rightful authority in settling doctrinal controversy within the church.

If it is determined, on Bible grounds, that Ellen White possessed the true gift of prophecy, her authoritative role in settling spiritual disputes of any kind is beyond question. If, by contrast, she fails one or more prophetic test found in Scripture, she has no authority whatsoever.

Moreover, it is clear from the Bible record that other prophets gave authoritative testimony at God’s command besides those whose writings were included in the Biblical canon. Such figures as Deborah, Nathan, Gad, Elijah, Elisha, Huldah, and John the Baptist come quickly to mind. Scripture even mentions prophetic books written by some of these persons (see 1 Chronicles 29:29). Not a shred of Biblical evidence can be produced to demonstrate that prophets later designated by the church as canonical possessed greater authority in the believing community than those not thus designated. A prophet is not authoritative because he or she is canonical. Rather, a prophet is canonical because he or she is authoritative.

If in fact Ellen White is a true prophet, her counsel in matters of doctrine, worship, lifestyle, and all else is the counsel of God Himself. And while her writings contain no truths or principles not found in the Bible, she is clear in those writings that God appointed her to speak authoritatively to His church regarding issues of truth and error:

God has, in that Word (the Bible), promised to give visions in the last days, not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth (35).

The Lord has given me much light that I want the people to have; for there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people. It is light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. This is now to come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors, and to specify what is truth (36).

Serious errors in doctrine and practice were cherished.... God revealed those errors to me in vision and sent me to His erring children to declare them (37).

If at any time Ellen White’s teachings contradict Scripture, the above statements lose any claim on the conscience of believers. But if her teachings harmonize with Scripture, no further argument is needed as to whether Ellen White’s writings possess authority in the doctrinal, liturgical, and behavioral controversies of the contemporary church.

Both in the present paper and the longer one recommended earlier (38), evidence demonstrates the sound Biblical basis for the Adventist sanctuary doctrine, despite the claims of critics that this doctrine is based primarily on the theology of Ellen White. And concerning other continuing challenges to Ellen White’s credibility and authority, the reader is again referred to a book review by the present writer addressing this subject (39).

10. The sanctuary doctrine, as historically taught by Seventh-day Adventists, contradicts the New Testament gospel of grace.

Those who make this accusation have themselves rejected the New Testament (or rather, the biblical) gospel of grace. Those who reject the Adventist sanctuary message based on its presumed conflict with the gospel, hold that this “gospel” includes:

1. Original sin—the idea that all are condemned at birth because of the sin of Adam, before they ever make a sinful choice (40).
2. The idea that Jesus, in His humanity, took the sinless nature of Adam as it was before the fall (41).
3. The idea that the believer’s salvation is based on justification alone (42).
4. The idea that justification, or forgiveness, involves only a legal declaration and not internal transformation (43).
5. The idea that even through the Holy Spirit’s imparted power, sinless obedience remains impossible for the believer here on earth (44).

The Bible, in contrast with the above, teaches that humans become sinners through an act of the will (Ezekiel 18:20; Romans 5:12; James 1:14, 15; 4:17), not through an involuntary state of condemnation received at birth. Scripture also assures us that Jesus, in His incarnation, took the same fleshly nature each of us inherits, with its attendant passions and desires (Romans 1:3; 8:3, 4; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17). Equally clear is the biblical teaching that believers are saved both by justification (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7) and sanctification (2 Thessalonians 2:13), by the work of Christ in us (Titus 3:5) as much as by His work for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). The Bible also teaches that God refuses to impute iniquity only to those “in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psalm 32:2), and that in order to receive God’s forgiveness, sin must be forsaken as well as confessed (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7). Most of all, Scripture unabashedly teaches that through God’s converting, sanctifying grace, all sin can and must be expelled from the lives of committed Christians (Psalm 119:1-3, 11; Zephaniah 3:13; John 8:11; Romans 6:14; 8:4, 13; 1 Corinthians 15:34; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Ephesians 5:27; Philippians 4:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 4:1; 1 John 1:7, 9; 2:1; 3:2, 3; Jude 24; Revelation 3:21; 14:5).

In short, the gospel according to Holy Scripture is not the gospel according to evangelical Christianity. This so-called “gospel,” by which key Adventist doctrines are being faulted and condemned, is not found in the Bible. But the true gospel of Scripture, enunciated in the above answers, is fully and completely in harmony with the biblical doctrine of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, culminating in the final investigative judgment of professed believers. It is only the false gospel of mainstream evangelicalism, falling vastly short of the biblical mark, which finds itself in conflict with the sanctuary doctrine as historically taught by Seventh-day Adventists.

Premises

Critics of the sanctuary doctrine and of Ellen White’s authority have often sought to portray the rift over these issues as occurring between “the uninformed and the dishonest”—in the words of ex-Adventist pastor Dale Ratzlaff in a private conversation with the present writer following Ratzlaff’s removal from the ministry. One recent article in a liberal Adventist magazine, tracing challenges to the sanctuary and Ellen White during the Glacier View era, spoke repeatedly of “floods” and “torrents” of new information coming into the church (45), of a “bewildering array of new evidence” (46), even recalling the Katrina disaster with the metaphor of “breaching a levee bank” (47). The figure of some kind of colossal cover up is repeatedly invoked.

But in reality, neither ignorance nor dishonesty compels conservative Adventists to hold fast their faith without wavering. Rather, it is the simple fact that the evidence produced by the critics is supremely unpersuasive. The author of the article noted above strains credulity when he describes Desmond Ford’s processing of what he calls “the increasing volume of new information that was arriving on the church’s corporate desk,” and places in this category the Palmdale Conference of 1976 on the subject of righteousness by faith (48). He then goes on, in the next paragraph, to state how “during the 1970s the Adventist Church in Australasia made significant progress in better understanding and presenting “‘the everlasting gospel,’” but laments at how it “failed to win the support of older members” (49).

Sadly, the reader of the article we refer to isn’t told how, at the Palmdale Conference to which that author refers, Ford frankly admitted just how little Scripture he took into account in defining the gospel message on whose basis he would later dispute the veracity of the sanctuary doctrine. In Ford’s own words:

1. “Paul is the theologian of the New Testament. Only he sets forth an analysis of the plan of salvation, and the phrase under discussion is found solely in those books of Scripture which bear the name of Paul.”
2. “The only book by Paul which systematically explains Righteousness by Faith is Romans.”
3. “The part in Romans which contains this systematic presentation is Rom. 3:21-5:21, those obviously the preceding and following chapters are related to this central discussion. What we wish to emphasize is that it is here we must find the basic nature of Righteousness by Faith. If what we believe is not here, we need to think again” (50).

Three years later, at a symposium on the same subject at Pacific Union College, attended by the present writer, Ford likewise declared:

Where is the definitive word on the gospel to be found? Certainly not outside Scripture. And where in Scripture? Not even in the Gospels which were written as supplementary to the Epistles. The Cross had to be endured before it could be explained (51).

Following his removal from the ministry, in a book co-authored with his wife Gillian, Ford repeated himself on this point:

Paul was the greatest preacher of the gospel that there has ever been. You say, “What about Jesus?” My friends, Jesus came to make the atonement, not to explain it (52).

No thoughtful Adventist Bible student, whether old or young, could fail to ask on what conceivable grounds a breathtakingly narrow strand of Scripture could become the arbiter of the truth about salvation for the rest of Scripture—not to mention becoming the standard by which the core of Adventism would soon be denounced as “judged by the gospel” and found wanting (53)! One prominent Adventist scholar, responding to a similar attempt by Ford to belittle certain Old Testament Scriptures unfriendly to his position (54), rightly compared Ford’s approach to the Bible to “Scofield-style Dispensationalism” (55).

For any Adventist on the front lines of evangelism for any length of time, such an approach to the Bible as Ford’s could hardly qualify as “new information,” “new evidence,” or anything that could remotely succeed in calling into question fundamental Adventist doctrine, with its basis in the consensus of Scripture. (It should be remembered that Ford’s initial opponents in Australasia were for the most part lifelong evangelists, who were thus intimately familiar with the Bible study methods and shortchanging of Scripture so common in conservative Protestant circles.) The attempt, rooted in Protestant dispensationalism, to reduce the authority both of the Old Testament and the four Gospels within the New Testament—further popularized by Robert Brinsmead in his 1981 attack on the Sabbath (56)—is one Adventists have encountered for decades in the nominal Christian world. Its lack of Biblical support is so easily demonstrated as to make one wonder how anyone, especially an Adventist, could use such a method as the measure of another’s Biblical faithfulness.

Indeed, Ford’s method of Bible study flies directly in the face of the apostle Paul himself, who declared to Timothy:

From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:15, 16).

Two key points stand out in these verses, both of which demolish Ford’s effort to make a brief Pauline passage the final word on righteousness by faith. The first is Paul’s statement that the Scriptures Timothy was taught from his childhood—obviously the Old Testament, since by all accounts none of the New had yet been written—are able to make believers “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (verse 15). The apostle was obviously under no illusion that his doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ was some New Testament innovation. Secondly, the following verse makes clear that “all Scripture”—once again, both Testaments—is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (verse 16). The word for righteousness in this verse is the same as the one used in Romans, and throughout Paul’s other writings, in discussing salvation and the gospel.

In short, Paul is saying the entire Bible is to be the basis of instruction in the gospel of righteousness by faith, as well as every other teaching. Not the slightest hint is offered that any single passage, in Paul’s writings or elsewhere, is to serve as the template for clarity by which the rest of the Bible is measured.

Paul’s exposition of justification and righteousness by faith is based explicitly on Old Testament theology (see Romans 1:17; Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 4:6-8; Psalm 32:1, 2). In the book of Acts, the Berean Christians were commended for testing the apostles’ teachings by the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 17:11). The new, or better, covenant of the Christian faith described in the New Testament (Hebrews 8:6) is taken word-for-word from the Old Testament (verses 8-10; see Jeremiah 31:31-33). When evangelicals of any stripe—be they current, former, or non-Seventh-day Adventists—describe themselves as “New Testament Christians,” they are crafting an identity unknown to the New Testament writers themselves.

Equally discrediting to Ford’s case for a justification-alone gospel is the heavy reliance by his material on uninspired theological commentaries as a means of explaining the Bible, in the selfsame context in which he seeks to marginalize Ellen White’s role in the controversy on the basis of her statements that “the Bible and the Bible only” is our creed (56). In Ford’s own words:

Inasmuch as ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ is our creed (E.G.W.) we enquire from Holy Writ as to the significance of the Pauline expression ‘Righteousness by Faith.’ The greatest classic in print on this topic asserts that the Scripture evidence can be summarized as follows: (58).

This “greatest classic in print” to which Ford refers is The Doctrine of Justification, by James Buchanan, from which Ford draws two giant quotes consuming the subsequent one-and-a-half pages (59). Then Ford writes:

A multitude of quotations from New Testament commentaries such as Sanday and Headlam, Cranfield, Alford, Murray, Nygren, Bruce, Manson, Dodd, Haldane, Barclay, Barrett, Barth, Meyer, Moule, etc, could be given to support the main emphasis of Buchanan’s statements—namely that Righteousness by Faith is identical with Justification by Faith (60).

He then proceeds to inform us, without any supporting Biblical evidence, that the supremely definitive passage of Scripture on this subject is Romans 3:21-5:21, declaring dogmatically—as we noted earlier—that “it is here we must find the basic nature of Righteousness by Faith,” and that “if what we believe is not here, we need to think again” (61). The lack of Biblical support for Ford’s arbitrary preference for this passage seems not to disturb him, since he quickly assures us:

All exegetes we know of, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant (including Seventh-day Adventist) are agreed that the theme of this section of Romans is Justification. It is not discussing that gradual growth in holiness which theologians call sanctification (62).

So much for sola scriptura! Conservative Adventists have rightly observed that, far from teaching sola scriptura, Ford and his theological allies in fact follow the principle of sola theologian (63). Ford’s vaunted reverence for “the Bible and the Bible only” gives every evidence of being a poorly-disguised attempt to keep the writings of Ellen White—whose consensus poses major problems for his teachings—safely removed from his theological formulations.

Put simply, if this is the kind of “new information” and “new evidence” by which orthodox Adventist teachings—regarding the gospel or anything else—have been called into question, it is no wonder conservative church members remain unconvinced. The “gospel” by which the core of their faith—the sanctuary, the Sabbath, the remnant-church theology, and much more—is being “judged” and found wanting, is admittedly based on a minuscule portion of Scripture, kept apart by its promoters from any balancing or clarifying evidence found elsewhere in Scripture, but with heavy support from uninspired Bible commentators. While promoters of this theology declare Adventism to be “judged by the gospel” and found wanting, in reality it is their view of the gospel and salvation that has been judged by the Scriptures and found wanting.

When all is said and done, challenges to the Adventist sanctuary doctrine boil down to two basic premises: (1) the presence of the evangelical gospel, often called the New Theology in contemporary Adventism; and (2) the use of methods and presuppositions of higher criticism. Concerning the first premise, Dale Ratzlaff has perhaps said it best:

Does the SDA doctrine of the cleansing of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment distort, undermine, or contradict the one and only new covenant gospel of grace? This is the acid test. All that has been said thus far—as important as it is—fades, in comparison with this test (64).

My larger paper on this topic (65), together with what has been reviewed in the present article, demonstrates the falsity of the “gospel” taught by Ford, Ratzlaff, and their fellow travelers. If one rejects the Ford/Ratzlaff gospel, accepting in its place the biblical gospel of sin as choice, Christ taking fallen human nature, salvation by both justification and sanctification, justification as both declarative and transformative, and the perfectability of Christian character in this life, no conflict is found with the Adventist sanctuary doctrine. If, however, the “gospel” producing this conflict is found to be biblically false, any challenge to the sanctuary doctrine on such grounds is clearly invalid.

The late Raymond F. Cottrell, in a summary of his objections to the sanctuary doctrine written just before he died, is clear that one’s method of Bible study determines whether the sanctuary doctrine is seen as flawed or flawless:

The traditional Adventist sanctuary doctrine is based on the historicist principle, or method, of prophetic interpretation. Consequently, those who follow that method automatically find the doctrine flawless. On the contrary, those who follow the historical principle, or method, find it bristling with flaws (66).

What Cottrell here calls the “historical method” is, in simple words, higher criticism—the reduction of the Bible, in his own words, to a “historically conditioned” document replete with “thought forms with which they (the original hearers) were familiar, [reflecting] the salvation history perspective of their time” (67). Such a premise views Bible prophecy, not as the unerring word of the eternal God superseding time and space (2 Peter 1:19), but rather as a localized spiritual instrument of guidance and comfort, limited by culture and circumstance and reflective of the agendas and prejudices of those by whom it was written and to whom it was addressed. Such a view of the inspired Word robs it of transcendence and thus of any enduring ability to measure human thoughts and deeds, in the end granting veto power over God’s written counsel to the opinions, scholarly speculations, and personal experiences of fallible mortals. The logical extension of such thinking leaves no room for an objective standard of right and wrong, no immutable law by which sin and righteousness are defined, and thus the evisceration of Christianity itself.

In short, objections to the Adventist sanctuary doctrine must either deny the gospel according to Holy Scripture in favor of a truncated substitute, or deny the transcendent authority of Scripture itself in favor of relativism and higher-critical guesswork. No scholarly education or mindless aversion to change is needed to persuade thoughtful Adventists that either view presents a mortal threat to the most basic rationale for their church’s—and Christianity’s—existence.

The claim that “new information” is responsible for calling Ellen White’s authority into question is likewise untenable. A careful review of Ellen White criticism through the years soon reveals that, aside from the extent of Ellen White’s use of sources, little or nothing that is new has been alleged in recent decades by her critics. The exact extent of Ellen White’s source usage will likely be debated for some time, though the vast volume of her written work—with its overwhelming linguistic, structural, and thematic similarity—may in the end constrain the honest researcher to conclude her borrowing was as minor as many early apologists claimed. (After all, almost no borrowing has been alleged outside such major works as the Conflict Series, very little in the Testimonies (68), and almost none in her voluminous periodical articles, published and unpublished manuscripts, and letters of counsel.) But the extent of Ellen White’s borrowing, such as it was, is really beside the point. If in fact the working of inspiration through the ages has demonstrated that inspired writers are allowed to take the uninspired words of others and incorporate them into inspired messages, as the evidence from Scripture clearly demonstrates, the extent of source usage by an inspired writer really doesn’t matter. If originality is not a test of inspiration, the level of originality found in any set of inspired writings becomes irrelevant.

The accusation that the Ellen White Estate and denominational leaders deliberately sought for years to hide the fact or extent of Ellen White’s literary borrowing, is not supported by the facts. As early as 1933, W.C. White and D.E. Robinson wrote a paper titled Brief Statements, which specifically acknowledges how Ellen White, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, used the writings of others in preparing some of her books (69). W.C. White addressed this same issue at the Advanced Bible School in Angwin, California, in which he asked, “Can the description of scenes and events copied from another writer find a proper place in the inspired writings of a messenger of God?” He then answered this question in the affirmative (70). Francis D. Nichol’s Ellen G. White and Her Critics, published in 1951, contained at least sixty-five pages on the plagiarism charge (71), in addition to addressing countless other charges. None other than Walter Rea declared, in 1965:

Controversy has flared from time to time concerning close similarities or outright adaptations in Mrs. White’s writings drawn from other contemporary sources.... If God in His infinite wisdom chooses to sanctify the thoughts of Conybeare and Howson, Wiley, or Edersheim and bring them to our attention by the pen of Ellen White or anybody else, so be it.... I have established myself in the writings of Ellen G. White, regardless of the human problems involved (72).

Arthur White likewise dealt with the issue of Ellen White’s use of sources in his supplement to volume 4 of The Spirit of Prophecy, published in 1969 (73), as well as in his 1973 book The Ellen G. White Writings (74).

Perhaps it is fair to say the illusion of cover-up and deception on these issues has only been possible on the part of some because they haven’t paid attention to the research and official statements that have long been available, but in which little interest has existed. If people aren’t interested in a particular subject at a given time, statements regarding that subject tend not to be noticed. And if suddenly interest does arise in such a topic, it is easy for those not familiar with the record to claim nobody made the effort to share these things, even if the facts say otherwise.

Conclusion—Embattled Yet Enduring

As Seventh-day Adventists the world over study the sanctuary, the investigative judgment, and the significance of 1844, they can do so in full confidence that this core teaching of their faith is Biblically sound, and in full harmony with the true gospel of grace found in Holy Scripture.

The quest for relevance, rightly or wrongly, has become the consuming passion of much of the contemporary church. In view of this concern, it will doubtless be asked, What does this controversy mean to my daily life? Do modern Seventh-day Adventists, living in the twenty-first century, still need the 1844 doctrine?

Yes, and for two fundamental reasons:

First, the universe must be sure that those God takes to heaven won’t start another revolution. Why, in Daniel 7, do we find the hosts of heaven assembled for the investigative judgment (verse 10)? Because only when the books of record are opened will they be certain that God is just. The unfallen citizens of the universe may see what humans do behind closed doors; but according to Scripture, only God knows the heart (1 Kings 8:39). Only the disclosure of inner motives will demonstrate God’s fairness in taking some to heaven and leaving others out.

What thinking person, Adventist or otherwise, can view the continuing tragedy of the human experience and not see the need for God to prove conclusively, by the most thorough investigation possible, that those rescued from this rebel planet will never rebel again?

Secondly, the investigative judgment can’t happen till the end of time because only then will God have a totally perfected people (2 Peter 3:10-14; 1 John 3:2, 3; Revelation 10:7; 14:5). The deepening of the sin problem through centuries of time has made it essential for God to produce a people whose reliance on His power makes possible the resistance of the most deeply rooted sinful tendencies in human nature and society. The judgment of God’s professed people has been delayed till 1844 because only at the end of time could it be shown that the most ingrained and rampant sin is still without excuse. The Bible speaks in several places of how Satan’s accusations against God’s people are silenced by the claiming of divine power for victory over sin (Job chs. 1, 2; Zechariah 3:1-4; Revelation 12:10, 11). Once this is demonstrated, the universe will at last be persuaded that sin will not rise a second time (Nahum 1:9).

Many former Adventists, and some current ones, are most uncomfortable with the thought that their words, acts, and secret motives will decide their destiny in God’s judgment. But Jesus Himself taught this principle. In His parable of the sheep and the goats, He declared that how we treat fellow humans will determine whether or not we enter His kingdom (Matthew 25:31-46). In another passage He declared, “That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matthew 12:36, 37).

The New Testament didn’t invent this teaching, of course. Solomon declared in the Old Testament, “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14). The apostle Paul echoed this teaching in the following verse:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:10).

In his book attacking the investigative judgment, Dale Ratzlaff quotes a number of Ellen White statements which speak of our words, acts, and secret motives deciding our eternal fate (75). Then he declares, “This is not the gospel; it is condemnation” (76). But the above verses make clear the case for Ellen White’s plagiarism is at last conclusive—she copied this teaching straight out of the Bible!

Long ago, in the time of David and Solomon, a priest named Asaph seems to have faced a crisis in his walk with God. He writes, “For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked” (Psalm 73:3). After describing at length how the wicked seemed to be getting away with so much (verses 4-15), he declared:

When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end (verses 16, 17).

For us also, even in this post-9/11 world, the biblical sanctuary doctrine—as historically taught by Seventh-day Adventists—offers this assurance. GCO

References

1. Adult Bible Study Guide, The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment (Silver Spring, MD: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2006).
2. Gregory Schneider, “Twenty-Five Years After Glacier View and Who Cares?” Spectrum, Winter 2005, pp. 5-8; Arthur Patrick/James Stirling, “Twenty-Five Years After Glacier View,” Adventist Today, Nov-Dec 2005, pp. 11-17.
3. See Colin D. Standish and Russell R. Standish, The Gathering Storm and The Storm Bursts (Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, 2000), pp. 57-60.
4. Robert D. Brinsmead, 1844 Re-Examined—Syllabus (Fallbrook, CA: IHI, 1979).
5. Geoffrey J. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism, (Wilmington, DE: Zenith Publishers, Inc, 1977), pp. 221-124, 128-133; Ray Martin, “What is Happening in Australia?” p. 1.
6. Desmond and Gillian Ford, The Human Nature of Christ in Salvation (Cooranbong, N.S.W: Avondale College Theology Department, 1975); Brinsmead, “A Summary of Basic Catholic/Protestant Differences on Justification by Faith,” Present Truth, October 1975, p. 40; “The Theology of Imitation: Is Salvation by Imitation or by Grace?”
7. Larry Pahl, “Where is Robert Brinsmead?” Adventist Today, May-June 1999, p. 13.
8. Letter, Kenneth H. Wood to Kevin Paulson, December 6, 1979.
9. Brinsmead, 1844 Re-Examined, p. 79.
10. Ibid., pp. 82-84.
11. Ibid., p. 162.
12. Schneider, “Twenty-Five Years After Glacier View and Who Cares?” Spectrum, Winter 2005, p. 6.
13. Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Castleberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980).
14. ________, “Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement,” Spectrum, November 1980, pp. 30-36.
15. William G. Johnsson, “Overview of a historic meeting,” Adventist Review, September 4, 1980, pp. 2-7.
16. “Events Since Glacier View,” Ministry, October 1980, pp. 14, 15.
17. Desmond Ford, Noel Mason, & Brad McIntyre, “Who’s On Trial in Daniel 7?” Good News for Adventists (Auburn, CA: Good News Unlimited, 2005), pp. 28-30; Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource/An Appeal to SDA Leadership (Sedona, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996), p. 180.
18. Ford, Good News for Adventists, pp. 32,52; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 176, 177.
19. Ford & McIntyre, “Constant Debate Over Daniel 8,” Good News for Adventists, pp. 32-33; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, p. 179.
20. Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Castleberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), pp. 234-239; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 169-172.
21. Ford, Mason, & McIntyre, “A ’Better’ Interpretation of Hebrews 9,” Good News for Adventists, pp. 37-39; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, p. 210.
22. Ford, Mason, & McIntyre, Good News for Adventists, pp. 38, 39, 52, 53.
23. Ford, Good News for Adventists, p. 52; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 173-175.
24. Ford, Good News for Adventists, p. 52; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 207, 208.
25. Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. 335-399, A-238-245; Good News for Adventists, p. 5; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 276-278.
26. Ford & McIntyre, Good News for Adventists, pp. 13-15, 22-24; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 225-240, 302, 303, 319-341.
27. Kevin D. Paulson, “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Pt. 1, The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Pt. 2, The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Pt. 3.
28. Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource/An Appeal to SDA Leadership (Sedona, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996).
29. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
30. See Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Little Horn, the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8,” The Sanctuary and the Atonement (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1981), p. 227.
31. Ford, Documents from the Palmdale Conference on Righteousness by Faith, pp. 5, 6; “Redemption, Objective and Subjective,” p. 2; Mason, Good News for Adventists, p. 41.
32. See Michael Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982), pp. 102, 279.
33. Ford, Good News for Adventists, p. 52; Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 43.
34. Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, p. 266.
35. ________, Early Writings, p. 78.
36. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32.
37. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 655, 656.
38. Kevin D. Paulson, “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Pt. 1, The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Pt. 2, The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Pt. 3.
39. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
40. Ford, The Palmdale Documents, p. 28; Desmond & Gillian Ford, The Human Nature of Christ in Salvation, p. 10.
41. ________, The Palmdale Documents, pp. 30-36; Desmond & Gillian Ford, The Human Nature of Christ in Salvation, p. 11; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 285-290.
42. Desmond & Gillian Ford, The Human Nature of Christ in Salvation, p. 13; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, p. 302.
43. Ford, “Redemption, Objective and Subjective,” p. 2; The Palmdale Documents, pp. 5, 6; Mason, Good News for Adventists, p. 41.
44. Ford, The Palmdale Documents, pp. 28-33; Good News for Adventists, p. 5; McIntyre, “Investigating the Investigative Judgment,” Good News for Adventists, p. 24; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 215, 216.
45. Patrick & Stirling, “Twenty-Five Years After Glacier View,” Adventist Today, Nov-Dec 2005, p. 12.
46. Ibid., p. 16.
47. Ibid., p. 13.
48. Ibid., pp. 13, 14.
49. Ibid., p. 14.
50. Ford, The Palmdale Documents, p. 4 (emphasis supplied).
51. Ford, “Righteousness by Faith,” Study Papers, Series One: Righteousness by Faith (Angwin, CA: Pacific Union College Religion Department, 1979), p. 17.
52. Desmond & Gillian Ford, The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity (Newcastle, CA: Good News Unlimited, 1982), p. 253 (emphasis original).
53. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, pp. 303-311; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 258-262.
54. “Ford Responds to Shea,” Spectrum, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 54.
55. “Shea Replies to Ford,” Spectrum, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 57.
56. Brinsmead, “Procedural Methods,” Verdict, June 1981, pp. 6, 7.
57. Ford, The Palmdale Documents, pp. 2, 10.
58. Ibid., p. 2.
59. Ibid., pp. 2-4.
60. Ibid., p. 4.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Colin D. & Russell R. Standish, Adventism Vindicated (Paradise, CA: Historic Truth Publications, 1980), p. xiv.
64. Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, p. 319.
65. Paulson, “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Pt. 1.
66. Raymond F. Cottrell, “The ’Sanctuary Doctrine’—Asset or Liability?” (A Presentation of San Diego Adventist Forum, P.O. Box 3148, La Mesa, CA 91944-3148, February 9, 2002), p. 28.
67. Ibid., p. 14.
68. See Walter T. Rea, The White Lie (Turlock, CA: M&R Publications, 1982), pp. 282-309.
69. Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and Ellen White (Washington, D.C: Ellen G. White Estate, 1981), p. 109.
70. Ibid.
71. Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1951), pp. 403-467.
72. Rea, Claremont Dialogue, vol. II, no. 2 (1965), pp. 31, 34, 36, quoted by Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 109.
73. Arthur L. White, Supplement to Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, pp. 507-549.
74. Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. White Writings (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1973), pp. 107-136.
75. Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, pp. 307-315; Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 36; Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, p. 294, quoted by Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 235, 236.
76. Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, p. 236.

© 2006 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Contributing author Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. His published work has appeared in numerous venues. He is also editor of Quo Vadis, a truth-filled magazine predominantly featuring the work of SDA young people. Kevin has also since 2003 served as the speaker for “Know Your Bible,” a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.