“Various ‘Adventist’ teachings from the seventh-day Sabbath to the eternal destruction (as opposed to eternal torment) and the nature of the millennium all can be found scattered throughout Christendom.

Except one: the 1844 pre-Advent judgment. This is ours, indeed, alone.”

This opens the introduction to the Adventist Sabbath School quarterly entitled “The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment,” which will examine the biblical basis of this doctrine from the perspective of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As stated above, this doctrine is arguably the only uniquely Adventist doctrine, yet further in the introduction, we find this: “For the bulk of the quarter, we’ll establish the biblical basis for the 1844 judgment, seeing for ourselves just what a solid basis we have for this teaching, which is rooted in the Cross itself.”

If truly biblical, it is somewhat surprising that two millenia of biblical scholarship has not yielded independent confirmation of this doctrine. Indeed, Adventists are unique in holding this doctrine, about which noted biblical scholar Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse said, “The [sanctuary] doctrine is, to me, the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history. … We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable. … [It is] unimportant and almost naïve” Eternity, 7:67, September 1956, pp. 6-7, 43-45.

In a question and answer session at a San Diego Association of Adventist Forums meeting, the well-respected Adventist biblical scholar Raymond Cottrell introduced these doctrines as follows:

“The traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 with its sanctuary and investigative judgment, which gave birth to Seventh-day Adventism and accounts for its existence as a distinct entity within Christendom, has been the object of more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined. The same is true with respect to church discipline on doctrinal grounds, defections from the church, and the diversion of time, attention, and resources from Adventism’s perceived mission to the world.

It has been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that an ordained minister may believe that Christ was a created being (and not God in the full sense of the word), or that a person can earn salvation by faithfully observing the Ten Commandments, or that Genesis 1 is not a literal account of creation a mere six thousand years ago---without being disciplined and forfeiting his ministerial credentials. But it has also been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that an ordained minister may not conscientiously question the authenticity of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, even in his thoughts, without his ministerial credentials being revoked. As noted below, in several instances as much as half a century of otherwise faithful service to the church has not been sufficient to mitigate this result” The “Sanctuary Doctrine” - Asset or Liability?

And of Ellen White’s role in establishing this doctrine, Cottrell stated, “It was the sanctuary doctrine based on Daniel 8:14 that made us Seventh-day Adventists and that remains, today, the keystone of our distinctive belief system and our mission to the world. Of it, Ellen White wrote: ‘The Scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central pillar of our faith was the declaration, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” and “The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith.”’ ‘Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith’” The “Sanctuary Doctrine” - Asset or Liability?

The stage is set for an interesting quarter. It is our hope and prayer that Adventists will study this doctrine seriously by testing it in the light of Scripture. May the Holy Spirit give us discernment and lead us into all truth (John 16:13).

Thanks Greg for posting that article. The Cottrell paper is a must read for everyone interested in dialogue on this topic.

Stan

How’s this for a stinging indictment of this week’s lesson study?

“We must admit that the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8 faces problems, even serious problems. To the extent that the study guide wishes to establish the fact that 1844 is easy to understand, as it seems to do, it renders disservice to its subject. The guide underreports the complexity of the subject and overestimates the abilities of the ordinary reader of Daniel 8.” -Sigve Tonstad

See the whole thing here: http://www.spectrummagazine.org/onlinecommunity/sabbathschool/060724tonstad.html

Another quote:

“And yet the risk of cognitive dissonance refuses to go away. I say this because I have experienced it firsthand too many times not to let it affect me. A close relative of mine, a very old man by now, has in his lifetime sat through some fifty evangelistic series in which the book of Daniel has been explained in detail. He is no doubt convinced of the soundness of the Adventist interpretation. If, however, he should be assigned the task of expounding it himself, he might be at a loss to do so today, and may have even in his heyday. It is risky, I believe, to let too much ride on an interpretation that an ordinary Adventist is unable to explain on his or her own.”

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Gilbert Jorgensen

I find it amazing that the Seventh-day Adventist Church would even consider bringing up such a poorly supported subject for quarterly Sabbath School study. As a sixth-gneration Seventh-day Adventist, I was taught from childhood that this core SDA belief was biblically sound.

Lately at my blog at http://blogs.ellenwhitenews.org/gjorgensen/ I have been exploring where this theory came from in the first place. In this case its origin is even more bizarre than the doctrine itself. What is most amazing is Ellen White’s glowing endorsement.

You have an excellent website. Keep up the good work!

Gilbert Jorgensen

Hi Gilbert!  Welcome to the site and thanks for the kind words.  I’ve put a link to your blog under the “Links” section at the top of the page.

It seems many people are uncomfortable with the current Sabbath School lesson quarterly.  I recently ran across a blog from an Adventist pastor in Scotland expressing similar views.

He starts by saying this:

“Ok, time to be honest here… I don’t like the Sabbath School Lessons.

Its not the idea of corporate bible study, no I have no problem with that- its just the Sabbath School Study Guide or “quarterlies” as we all know them.

I have several problems with them, however my biggest gripe is that they do not teach/help members to study there (sic) bible. A question is asked, a text is given, the answer is then provided… now tell me how that helps people to gain an appreciation for scripture and learn to study it for themselves....”

He then hits on an important introductory point from the lesson.  Clifford Goldstein sets the basis for the remainder of the lessons by trying to establish the concept of theodicy, which is a branch of philosphy and theology that tries to reconcile the problem of evil with a good and holy God.  (See the wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy) Foundational to Goldstein’s arguments is that the earth is a cosmic theater where God’s character is on display in his redemptive acts to save a rebellious planet, thus demonstrating his goodness in the face of evil to the “heavenly intelligences.” Here’s what the pastor had to say:

Take lesson 1 for example. In an attempt to provide the context for the judgement the author is explaining the great controversy theme and introduces the idea of theodicy and tries to show that three is intelligent life in the universe who are watching us.

“...while scientists are busy trying to find out whether other life exists elsewhere, the Bible shows not only that it does but that it’s involved with us hereon earth” (pg. 6- teachers ed.) Whoa hold on a minute… Whilst I have no problem with the idea of a controversy between God and Satan, there are a few problem which the author is about to walk, nay, run into.

Firstly if the Bible’s so clear why aren’t other Christians trumpeting the existence of other life (oh, sorry this is in a lesson on the subject of the sanctury-investigative judgement!), and secondly, what is the evidence for “showing” this.

...

(not to mention the other problems with theodicy, If this world is to prove that God is right and the devil wrong… how stupid are these intelligent creatures? After all its been more than 3000 years of suffering and hurt… are they that stupid that they don’t get it? And how do you like the idea of been used as a celestial guinea pig to make God look good? Ok, I may have stretched it a bit, but these are some of the deeper theological issues which have been avoided completely)

These are surprisingly strong and refreshingly honest statements, but you have to wonder how long this pastor can continue to speak so freely without it impacting his livelihood?

The blog entry can be found here: http://thepilgrimage.typepad.com/the_pilgrimage/2006/07/sabbath_school_.html

Greg

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
Thanks Greg for posting that article. The Cottrell paper is a must read for everyone interested in dialogue on this topic.

Stan

Yes, the Cottrell paper is an eye opener and I would love to see if anyone has a day by day commentary out of what occurred throughout the Glacier View conference as Cottrell only briefly mentions the spirit that was present...the Puritan witch-hunt spirit that is.

I fail to see how anyone can disregard the comments of a scholar such as Cottrell, who was paramount to cementing the commentary on Daniel for the SDA church, when he points out the problems of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14.

Sometime I am going to have to get my hands on Ford’s book that he had made to prepare for Glacier View.

Welcome again Guibox,

I have the book Ford wrote as the original manuscript, and it is available through various outlets.

Des Ford is a man of grace, and loves the gospel. He was recently forced to officially leave the SDA church recently so he could teach in a Baptist seminary in Australia.

Stan

No big deal. It’s not like the church as an official body wanted him anyway. His staying on the books was his own doing and says more about him as a Christian than anything the church did for him.

It still amazes me with many openly publically believing or teaching the moral influence theory, theistic evolution, denial of the Trinity and going against our prophetic doctrinal interpretation with no discipline or recourse, that Ford is still treated as a pariah by many.

As Cottrell said Ford had the unfortunate disadvantage of ‘coming out’ in the time period he did. Had he said what he said today, many would have simply dismissed him as a ‘heretic’ and then gone on with their lives.  He really is treated the way he is simply because he had the audacity to do what he did at the time he did and people want to make a continual example out of him.

As far as what he denied, it doesn’t even come close compared to today. Especially when you look at what he KEPT after leaving.

Bring him back in and reinstate his credentials I say!

Guibox,

You are right about the liberal theology that runs rampant in Adventism, but the leaders of SDA don’t feel threatend by the liberals.

Desmond Ford struck at the heart of Adventism--the gospel itself--as we contend that the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment as traditionally taught is clearly opposed to the gospel. If the Lord Jesus finished the atonement on Calvary, and sat down in the Holiest at the right hand of the Father at His ascension, and now waits for his enemies to becone His footstool (Hebrews 10), then He did not stand up in 1844 and start a second apartment ministry.

But the description by Ellen White of the IJ in the book Great Controversy where even sins that may be attributed to you after you die, or that some unconfessed sin might keep you out of heaven, is just so oppressive. If Ellen is to be taken seriously, then there is no good news in the gospel.

And since Desmond Ford attacked the only unique doctrine that SDAS hold apart from other denominations, then leadership had to act.

Stan

Here is a partial transcript of an interview of Desmond Ford conducted by the late Walter Martin on his radio show, circa 1982.  I think most of Ford’s points are as equally valid today as they were then.

Walter Martin Interview of Desmond Ford, ~1982

Concerning the Investigative Judgment:

Ford: “The Adventist interpretation is not derived from the words Daniel wrote.  Here is one of many Adventist scholars that says, ‘We know the Adventist position on the investigative judgment is not biblical, but we are holding to it, because the General Conference administrators say that Ellen White taught it, therefore you must.’”

Martin: “So, what we really have is Mrs. White as the infallible interpreter of Scripture.”

Ford: “That’s right.”

Martin: “And if you have an infallible interpreter of Scripture, how do you judge the interpreter?”

Ford: “It’s a logical…impossibility to function in that way, and that’s why the church is being torn apart.  Here is another president of our colleges, Dr. Sakae Kubo.  He wrote an article entitled “The Preisthood of Christ in the New Testament” with particular attention to the book of Hebrews and he presented this to the ministers in England.  In it he said this: ‘According to Hebrews, the time before the death of Christ was the age of the Holy Place.  But the time since is the age of the Most Holy Place.  If the Holy Place symbolizes a time when sin has not been fully dealt with, then it’s difficult at least in Hebrews, to conceive of the Holy Place in heaven.  Heaven is the place of full access, where Christ has gone as the true High Priest.’ Now that’s in flat contradiction to the Ellen White position taken in Great Controversy.”

Martin: “Yeah.”

Ford: “Here’s one from New Testament Studies, by an Australian scholar.  This appeared in 1979 in New Testament Studies.  The article is ‘The Gospel According to Hebrews 9.’ ‘Ta hagia in Hebrews 9 verses 8, 12, 24 and 25, refers unequivocally to the Holy of Holies–heaven itself–the presence of God.’ Now the Great Controversy by Ellen White, has Christ in the first apartment, denying the expressions in Hebrews that he went within the veil.”

Martin: “Why is it so difficult to simply say, ‘Mrs. White couldn’t read Greek.  She didn’t understand the meaning of the terms.  She based it on a King James Bible, and she was wrong!’”

Ford: “Correct.  That’s what we should be saying, but it takes a lot of courage and it means risking one’s job to do it.  It’s not that these men detest Ellen White–that’s not so.  Men like Cottrell, Hamill and Kubo recognize the spiritual nature of Ellen White’s writings, because 98% of what Ellen White wrote was about Christian behavior.  There’s only a very tiny percentage that deals with theological issues.  One cannot read a book like Desire of Ages without seeing that the writer was a spiritual woman.  But she never dreamed that her books would be turned into a canon by which to measure those who want to study the Scriptures freely.”

Martin: “And here of course is the great danger.  In my study of cultism over the last 35 years–and I’m joined in this by many scholars who have come to the same conclusion–namely, the seeds of cultism in all of cultic structures revolve around somebody who becomes greater in authority than the word of God.”

Ford: “That is true.”

Martin: “And when they are exalted to that position, you have extrabiblical literature which is raised above Scripture and at that juncture, you are into the world of the cults.”

Ford: “That is tragically true in Adventism, despite Ellen White’s own protests.  For example, in this book The Great Controversy, she says on page 9: ‘The Spirit was not given, nor can it ever be bestowed, to supercede the Bible.’ And then she goes on to say: ‘The word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.’ That was certainly Ellen White’s position.”

Martin: “But how can you test Mrs. White’s writings by the Scripture if she is the infallible interpreter of Scripture?”

Ford: “Well, the big problem is that the church’s administrators, by and large, are not men of great education and there is a tremendous gulf fixed between these men who had traditional training that went as far as college, and the scholars, who have had the opportunity to study the Word of God for decades in the original languages.”

Martin: “So what we’re really facing is this, to put it in a nutshell.  We’re facing leadership of a denomination, which knows perfectly well that this information is true and that it will controvert Ellen G. White, and therefore refuse to do anything because they’re afraid that if Mrs. White falls in that authority, so does the whole denomination.”

Ford: “Tragically that must be the way, some of the administrators at least, must think.”

[quote author="guibox"]
Yes, the Cottrell paper is an eye opener and I would love to see if anyone has a day by day commentary out of what occurred throughout the Glacier View conference as Cottrell only briefly mentions the spirit that was present...the Puritan witch-hunt spirit that is.

Guibox,

For what it’s worth, Desmond Ford’s son, Luke Ford, has a blog and an autobiography that describes the Glacier View conference in some detail here: http://www.lukeford.net/luke_ford/bio/l1.html

To get a glimpse of what was going on behind the scenes from the viewpoint of someone who attended the conference, see Jerry Gladson’s book “A theologian’s journey from Seventh-day Adventism to mainstream Christianity.”

Greg

Thanks so much Greg for posting that Martin interview.

Stan

Yes, thanks Greg. I believe that Ford views EGW in the same way as Bacchiocchi and Graeme Bradford are doing today. The church has unfortunately elevated her status and writings far beyond what she and those in her era did. The 1919 GC session made that quite clear and I guess Bradford in his book ‘More Than a Prophet’ lays out that conference and what happened that the church ignored this discussion and we find ourselves in the mess it is in today. I haven’t read the full book yet, just select chapters, but from what my brother has told me, A.G. Daniells basically found himself in the same position that Ford found himself over the sanctuary doctrine (that is, ‘recant’ or face the consequences) and it ended up getting buried.

Guibox,

What do Bacchiocchi and Bradford think should be done with Ellen White today?  If you take Ford’s commentary above seriously, he implies that the church needs to come clean on the way Ellen White has been misused.  This would bring about a substantial change in the denomination, not unlike what the Worldwide Church of God went through when they renounced Armstrongism.  My sense is that many people, especially in the “evangelical” and “academic” subsets of Adventism know that such change is necessary to maintain theological credibility, but there is a paralyzing fear about what would happen to the denomination if such change were to come about.  The status quo is therefore reinforced through inaction.

Greg

To get an idea of how Dr. B feels about the whole matter, he says these words in one of his newsletters (# 87 and 88..very good reading on the whole backlash he experienced by challenging some of the traditional accepted views)

How true it is…

In theory our Adventist church upholds the position articulated by A. J. Daniells. Our general consensus is that our doctrines and practices are derived exclusively from the normative authority of the Bible. This is the position of Ellen White herself: “The Testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God’s Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word of God. . . . Let us prove all our positions from Scripture and substantiate every point they claim from the revealed Word of God"35

In practice, however, Ellen White remains for many sincere Adventists the final interpreter of Scripture. This became evident when I attempted to propose a new interpretation of the 1260 days prophecy. Some rejected a priori my proposal, not because it violated the relevant Bible texts, but because it contradicted EGW’s writings. Incidentally, I will be examining this sevenfold prophecy during the coming weeks, and the results of this investigation may prove to be different from the original proposal. My concern is to be true to what the Bible tell us. This should be our primary goal to let the texts speak for themselves.

And this…

Edward Heppenstall, a respected Seminary professor whose teachings on righteousness by faith during my seminary days contributed immeasurably to stem the tide of legalism in our Adventist church. (Incidentally Dr. Heppenstall officiated at our wedding ceremony on December 21, 1961). With unmistakable eloquence he wrote: “"Ellen White calls upon us to make sure that all the truths we hold are firmly established upon the Scriptures. Therefore we deplore the idea that anything else should have prior authority over the Bible. Let her writings be our guide but not our jailer, our shield but not our straightjacket. The Scriptures comprise God’s final word to us."38 Heppenstall’s eloquent words fittingly express my conviction that EGW’s writings should be “our guide but not our jailer, our shield but not our straightjacket.”

Dr. B sent three newsletters of three chapters from Bradford’s book. I can put them on a word format for you, or you can access the newsletters from Dr. B’s website http://www.biblicalperspectives.com

The basic gist is that they are calling both SDAs and formers who have left the church due to this to find a middle ground. They believe that the role of a ‘prophet’ or ‘messenger’ was NOT to be an expositer or exegete of scripture, or to be considered an authority on history, medicine or theology.

They are calling the SDAs to quit making EGW more than she was supposed to be according to biblical definition. I will leave you with this statement from Bacchiocchi…

It is impossible to establish how widespread was the gift of prophecy in NT congregations. It would appear that in most congregations there were some Christians divinely endowed with a prophetic message of encouragement and exhortation. This is suggested by Paul’s instructions on how the prophets should function in the church: “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged” (1 Cor 14:29-31).

The implications of Paul’s instructions is that all God’s people are potentially prophets. Not all of them will exercise this gift, but all of them are encouraged to seek it. The nature of the gift of prophecy is said to be for the “upbuilding, and encouragement, and consolation” (1 Cor 14:3) of the congregation. Most likely the prophetic messages delivered to the congregation consisted of exhortation to holy living, personal encouragement and testimonies. They were designed to strengthen, comfort, and inspire the congregation to live their faith in their pagan and hostile society.

There are no indications in the NT that prophets expounded biblical texts or explained the historical fulfillment of prophecies. This ministry was fulfilled by teachers and preachers. Prophets were not an authority in doctrines or history. Their ministry consisted in passing on messages of exhortation received from God for the strengthening of the believers.

Guibox,

That last quote from Bacchiochi was very good, and if the SDA church viewed prophecy in that way, then there would not be the problem of Ellen White having veto power over scripture.

I just don’t see how the SDA church will make the changes necessary. I hope they will, but even in the case of the WWCG that Greg mentioned, they still have retained some of Armstrong’s heretical doctrines, such as “most people will be saved after they die.”

The point is, it is very hard to reform an organization that has been under the heavy influence of their founder.

Stan