Sanctuary Debate Documents
Spectrum magazine, vol. 11, no. 2 (Nov. 1980), pages 68-75.
© 2003 Spectrum/AAF. All rights
reserved.
Christ in the
Heavenly Sanctuary
The doctrine of
Christ our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary brings us assurance and hope.
It invested the lives of the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with
meaning; it still is a fruitful field for our contemplation and spiritual
growth.
This
distinctive teaching was reaffirmed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs
adopted by the General Conference session at Dallas in April 1980. Our
continuing conviction was there expressed as follows:
"There
is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not
man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the
benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was
inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the
time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300
days. He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a
work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all
sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of
Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of
animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect
sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly
intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him,
are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes
manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments
of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation
into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in
saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained
loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of
Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent."
The
present paper is an elaboration of the Dallas statement. It sets forth the
consensus of the Sanctuary Review Committee, which convened August 10-15, 1980,
at Glacier View, Colorado. The committee sought to make a serious and frank
appraisal of our historic positions, evaluating them in the light of criticisms
and alternative interpretations that have been suggested. Such suggestions are
beneficial in that they drive us to study, force us to clarify our
understanding, and thereby lead us to sharper insights and a deeper
appreciation of the truths that have shaped the Advent Movement.
Thus
the doctrine of the sanctuary, which meant so much to early Adventists, shines
on believers in our day. To see it more clearly is to see Christ more clearly;
and this vision will revive Christian life and give power to our preaching and
witness.
Although the
sanctuary symbolism is prominent throughout Scripture, with Christ as High Priest
being the dominant idea of the Book of Hebrews, Christian thought has given
relatively little attention to this subject. In the nineteenth century,
however, there was a sudden flowering of interest in Christ in the heavenly
sanctuary. Our pioneers brought together the ideas of Leviticus, Daniel,
Hebrews, Revelation, and other scriptures in a unique theological synthesis
that combined the high-priesthood of Christ with the expectation of the end of
history. Christ was not merely ministering in the sanctuary above; He had
entered upon the final phase of that ministry, corresponding to the Day of
Atonement of Leviticus 16.
For
the earliest Seventh-day Adventists this new doctrine was "the key which
unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844". (The
Great Controversy, p. 423).
It was the means by which these firm believers in the imminent return of Jesus
could come [69] to terms with their unfulfilled
expectations. It gave them a new sense of religious identity; it filled their
lives with meaning, for it "opened to view a complete system of truth,
connected and harmonious, showing that God's hand had directed the great advent
movement and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and
work of His people."—Ibid.
Thus they could see that although they had been mistaken, they had not been
utterly deluded; they still had a mission and a message.
The
belief that Christ is our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary is not a relic
from our Adventist past; it illumines all other doctrines; it brings God and
His salvation "near" to us in a way that gives us "full
assurance" (Heb. 10:22); it shows us that God is on our side.
In
heaven above there is One who "always lives to make intercession" for
us (Heb. 7:25, R.S.V.). He is Jesus, our High Priest, who "in the days of
his flesh" (chap. 5:7) suffered, endured the test, and died for us. He is
able to "sympathize with our weaknesses" (chap. 4:15, R.S.V.) and
sends forth timely help from the throne of grace (chap. 2:18; 4:16). So we may
come boldly into the presence of God, knowing that we are accepted through the
merits of our Mediator.
The
doctrine of the sanctuary gives us a new view of ourselves. Humanity, despite
its frailties and rebellion, is important to God and is loved supremely by Him.
God has shown His regard for us by taking human nature upon Himself, and
bearing it forever in the person of Christ, our heavenly High Priest. We are
the people of the Priest, the community of God that lives to worship Him and to
bring forth fruit to His glory.
This
doctrine also opens a new perspective on the world. We see it as part of a
cosmic struggle, the "great controversy" between good and evil. The
heavenly sanctuary is the divine headquarters in this warfare; it guarantees
that eventually evil will be no more, and God will be all and in all (1 Cor.
15:28). His work of judgment that issues from the sanctuary results in a
redeemed people and a re-created world.
While
the sanctuary theme runs throughout Scripture, it is seen most clearly in
Leviticus, Daniel, Hebrews, and Revelation. These four books, which attracted
the attention of the first Adventists, remain the focus of our ongoing study of
the sanctuary in heaven.
In
terms of emphasis, these books fall into pairs. Whereas Leviticus and Hebrews
are concerned primarily with the priestly functions associated with the
sanctuary, Daniel and Revelation relate the divine activity in the sanctuary to
the end of the world. Thus we may say that a major thrust of the first pair is
intercession, while a major thrust of the second is judgment.
The
Book of Leviticus describes the various services of the Old Testament
sanctuary. We read of the continual sacrifices, presented every morning and evening,
for the people of Israel (Lev. 6:8-13). We read also of several types of
individual offerings to express confession, thanksgiving, and consecration
(chapters 1-7). And the climax of the whole system of sacrifices, the Day of
Atonement, is described in detail (chapter 16).
The
Book of Hebrews compares and contrasts these services with the sacrifice of
Jesus Christ on Calvary (chap. 9:1-10:22). It argues that by His once-for-all
death Jesus accomplished what Israel's repeated offerings could never achieve.
He is the reality symbolized by the Day of Atonement sacrifices, as by all the
ancient services. Although it has been suggested that these references in
Hebrews show that the eschatological Day of Atonement began at the cross,
Hebrews is not in fact concerned with the question of time; it concentrates
rather on the all-sufficiency of Calvary. For answers to our questions
regarding the timing of events in the heavenly sanctuary, we look to the books
of Daniel and Revelation. In particular the "time prophecies" of
Daniel 7 to 9 remain crucial for the Adventist understanding of the sanctuary.
They point beyond the first advent of Christ to God's final work of judgment
from the heavenly sanctuary.
The
precise meaning of the Old Testament prophecies is a matter that calls for
ongoing study. This investigation must seek to be true to the varied nature of
the individual prophecies, to take account of the differing perspectives of the
readers (in Old Testament, New Testament, and modern times), to discern the
divine intent in the prophecies, and to maintain the tension between divine
sovereignty and human freedom. Furthermore, this study must give due weight to
the strong and widespread sense of the imminent Second Advent that we find in
the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 13:11-12; 1 Cor. 7:29-31; Rev. 22:20).
The
writings of Ellen White also contain much material dealing with Christ in the
heavenly sanctuary (e.g., The Great
Controversy, pp.
409-432,479-491, 582-678). They highlight the significance of the events of 1844
in the divine plan, and the final events that proceed from the throne of God.
These writings, however, were not the source of our pioneers' doctrine of the
sanctuary; rather, they confirmed and supplemented the ideas that the early
Adventists were finding in the Bible itself. Today we recognize the same
relationship: the writings of Ellen White provide confirmation of our doctrine
of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary and supplement our understanding of it.
In
the remainder of this paper, we offer a brief explanation of this doctrine. The
Biblical material on which the doctrine is based falls into two related phases.
We turn to the first of these: intercession.
The Old
Testament sacrificial system was given by God. It was the way of salvation by
faith for those times, educating the people of God to the dreadful character of
sin and pointing forward to God's way of bringing sin to an end.
But
there was no efficacy in these multiplied sacrifices as such. Sin is a moral
offense, not to be resolved by the slaughter of animals. "It is impossible
that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins" (Heb.
10:4,R.S.V.). In Jesus Christ alone can sin be removed. Not only is He our High
Priest, He also is our Sacrifice. He is "the Lamb of God, who takes away
the sin of the world" (John 1:29, R.S.V.), the Passover Lamb sacrificed
for us (1 Cor. 5:7), God's appointed One whose blood is an expiation for the
sins of all humanity (Rom. 3:21-25).
In
the light of Jesus Christ all the services of the Old Testament sanctuary find
their true meaning. Now we know that the Hebrew sanctuary itself was but a [70] figure, a symbol of the true sanctuary "which is set up not
by man but by the Lord" (Heb. 8:2, R.S.V.; 9:24), a far more glorious
reality than our minds can comprehend (Patriarchs
and Prophets, p. 357). Now we know that all the Levitical priests and
Aaronic high priests were but prefigurations of the One who is the great High
Priest because He is in Himself both God and man (chap. 5:1-10). Now we know
that the blood of animals carefully selected so as to be without blemish or
spot (e.g., Lev. 1:3, 10), was a symbol of the blood of the Son of God, who
would, by dying for us, purify us of sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).
This
first phase of the heavenly ministry of Christ is not a passive one. As our
Mediator, Jesus continually applies the benefits of His sacrifice for us. He
directs the affairs of the church (Rev .1:12-20). He sends forth the Spirit
(John 16:7). He is the leader of the forces of right in the great conflict with
Satan (Rev. 19:11-16). He receives the worship of heaven (chap. 5:11-14). He
upholds the universe (Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:21).
All
blessings flow from the continuing efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. The Book of
Hebrews highlights its two great achievements: it provides unhindered access to
the presence of God, and it thoroughly removes sin.
Despite
the importance of the Old Testament sanctuary, it represented limited access to
God. Only those born to the priesthood could enter it (Heb. 9:1-7). But in the
heavenly sanctuary Christ has opened for us the door to the very presence of
God; by faith we come boldly to the throne of grace (chap. 4:14-16; also 7:19;
10:19-22; 12:18-24). Thus the privileges of every Christian are greater even
than those of the high priests of the Old Testament.
There
is no intermediate step in our approach to God. Hebrews stresses the fact that
our great High Priest is at the very right hand of God (chap. 1:3), in
"heaven itself. . . in the presence of God" (chap. 9:24). The
symbolic language of the Most Holy Place, "within the veil," is used
to assure us of our full, direct, and free access to God (chaps. 6:19-20;
9:24-28; 10:1-4).
And
now there is no need for further offerings and sacrifices. The Old Testament
sacrifices were "imperfect"—that is, incomplete, unable to make a
final end of sin (chap. 9:9). The very repetition of the sacrifices signified
their inadequacy (chap. 10:1-4). In contrast, God's appointed Sacrifice
accomplished what the old ones could not, and thus brought them to an end (chap.
9:13-14). "Every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly
the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had
offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand
of God" (chap. 10:11-12, R.S.V.).
So
Calvary is of abiding consequence. Unlike any other event in history, it is
unchanging in its power. It is eternally present, because Jesus Christ, who
died for us, continues to make intercession for us in the heavenly sanctuary
(chap. 7:25).
This
is why the New Testament rings with confidence. With such a High Priest, with
such a Sacrifice, with such intercession, we have "full assurance"
(chap. 10:22). Our confidence is not in ourselves—in what we have done or what
we can do—but in Him and what He has done and still does.
This
assurance can never take lightly the Sacrifice that has provided it. As we by
faith look to Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary—our sanctuary—and the services He
there performs, we are empowered by the Spirit to live holy lives and provide
an urgent witness to the world. We know that it is a fearful thing to despise
the blood that has redeemed us (chaps. 6:4-6; 10:26-31; 12:15-17).
The
final phase of Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary is that of judgment,
vindication, and cleansing. We should be clear, however, that while Christ is
Judge, He is still our Intercessor. We look first at the time of the judgment
and then at its nature.
The prophetic
period of 2300 days (Dan. 8:14) remains a cornerstone of the Adventist understanding
of the final judgment. Although this part of our doctrine of the sanctuary is
the one most frequently questioned, careful study of the criticisms in the
light of the Scriptures confirms its importance and validity.
Three
aspects of this prophecy, especially, have been called into question: the
year-day relationship; the meaning of the word translated "cleansed"
(Dan. 8:14, K.J.V.) and its connection with the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16); and
the context of the prophecy.
The
year-day relationship can be Biblically supported, although it is not
explicitly identified as a principle of prophetic interpretation. It seems
obvious, however, that certain prophetic time periods are not meant to be taken
literally (e.g., the short periods in Revelation 11:9, 11). Furthermore, the
Old Testament provides illustrations of a year-day interchange ability in
symbolism (Gen. 29:27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Dan. 9:24-27). The year-day
relationship also is recognizable in the interlocking of Daniel 8 and 9.
Additional support is found from parallel prophecies of the 1260 days-years in
Daniel and Revelation (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 12:14; 13:5). Since the prophecy of
Daniel 8 is parallel to those of chapters 2, 7, and 11-12, all of which
culminate in the kingdom of God at the end of history, it is proper to expect
the period represented by the 2300 days to reach to the end time (Dan. 8:17).
This is made possible for us by the exegetical application of the year-day
relationship.
According
to many older versions of the Bible, at the end of the 2300 days the sanctuary
is to be "cleansed." The Hebrew word here is nitsdaq, which has
a broad range of possible meanings. Its basic idea is "make right,"
"justify," "vindicate," or "restore"; but
"purify" and "cleanse" may be included within its
conceptual range. In Daniel 8:14 it is evident that the word denotes the
reversal of the evil caused by the power symbolized by the "little
horn," and hence probably should be translated "restore." While
there is, therefore, not a strong verbal link between this verse and the Day of
Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16, the passages are, nevertheless, related by
their parallel ideas of rectifying the sanctuary from the effects of sin.
Daniel
8 presents the contextual problem of how to relate exegetically the cleansing
of the sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days with the activities of the
"little horn" during the 2300 days. This wicked power casts down the
place of the sanctuary (Dan. 8:11) and thus occasions the need for its
restoration or purification. The "little horn," however, is on earth,
whereas we understand the sanctuary to be in heaven. But a careful study of
Daniel 8:9-26 points to a solution of this [71] difficulty. It becomes clear that
heaven and earth are interrelated, so that the attacks of the "little
horn" have a cosmic, as well as historical, significance. In this way, we
may see how the restoration of the heavenly sanctuary corresponds to—and is a
reversal of—the earthly activity of the "little horn." But while we
believe that our historic interpretation of Daniel 8:14 is valid, we wish to
encourage ongoing study of this important prophecy.
Our
conviction that the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days in 1844 marks the
beginning of a work of judgment in heaven is supported by the parallelism of
Daniel 8 with Daniel 7, which explicitly describes such a work, and by the
references to heavenly judgment in the Book of Revelation (chaps. 6:10; 11:18;
14:7; 20:12-13).
Thus
our study reinforces our belief that we have indeed come to the time of
pre-Advent judgment, which historically we have termed the "investigative
judgment." We hear again God's call to proclaim the everlasting gospel
around the world because "the hour of his judgment is come" (chap.
14:6-7).
The
teaching of "judgment to come" has a firm base in Scripture (Eccl.
12:14; John 16:8-11; Acts 24:25; Heb. 9:27; etc.). For the believer in Jesus
Christ, the doctrine of judgment is solemn but reassuring, because the judgment
is God's own intervention in the course of human history to make all things
right. It is the unbeliever who
finds the teaching a subject of terror.
The
work of divine judgment that issues from the heavenly sanctuary has two
aspects: One centers in God's people on earth; the other involves the whole
universe as God brings to a successful conclusion the great struggle between
good and evil.
Scripture
tells us that we "must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ"
(2 Cor. 5:10), and that we are to give account for even the "idle
word" (Matt. 12:36). This aspect of the end-time events reveals who are
God's (see The Great Controversy, pp. 479-491). The overarching
question concerns the decision we have made with respect to Jesus, the Saviour
of the world. To have accepted His death on our behalf is to have passed
already from death to life, from condemnation to salvation; to have rejected
Him is to be self-condemned (John 3:17-18). So this end-time judgment at the
close of the 2300-day period reveals our relationship to Christ, disclosed in
the totality of our decisions. It indicates the outworking of grace in our
lives as we have responded to His gift of salvation; it shows that we belong to
Him.
The
work of judging the saints is part of the final eradication of sin from the
universe (Jer. 31:34; Dan 12:1; Rev. 3:5; 21:27). At the close of probation,
just before the final events in the history of our earth, the people of God
will be confirmed in righteousness (Rev. 22:11). The divine activity from the
heavenly sanctuary (chap. 15:1-8) will issue in the sequence of events that at
length will purge the universe of all sin and Satan, its originator.
For
the child of God, knowledge of Christ's intercession in the judgment brings
assurance, not anxiety. He knows that One stands in his behalf, and that the
work of judgment is in the hands of his Intercessor (John 5:22-27). In the
righteousness of Christ the Christian is secure in the judgment (Rom. 8:1).
Moreover, the judgment heralds the hour of transition from faith to sight, from
earthly care and frustration to eternal joy and fulfillment in the presence of
God.
God's
judgment, however, is concerned with more than our personal salvation; it is
cosmic in scope. It unmasks evil and all evil systems. It exposes hypocrisy and
deceit. It restores the rule of right to the universe. Its final word is a new
heaven and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13), one pure
song of love from Creation to creation (Ibid.,
pp. 662-678).
And
in this act of divine judgment. God Himself is shown to be absolutely just. The
universal response to His final acts from the heavenly sanctuary is, "
'Great and wonderful are thy deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are
thy ways, O King of the ages!' " (Rev. 15:3, R.S.V.).
The Role of the Ellen G. White Writings
in Doctrinal Matters
The Seventh-day
Adventist Church from its beginning has recognized the existence of the gifts
of the Spirit as promised by our Lord for building up the body of Christ. Among
these is the gift of prophecy (Eph. 4:10-13). The following statement on the
gift of prophecy was adopted at the General Conference session in April, 1980,
as part of the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs:
"One
of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark
of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As
the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of
truth and provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.
They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and
experience must be tested."
The
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are divinely inspired. This canon of
Scripture is the standard of faith and practice. Ellen G. White was inspired in
the same sense as were the Bible prophets, but her [72] ministry and
writings were given to exalt the Bible. Ellen G. White's writings, by her own
testimony, were not intended to give new doctrine, but to direct minds to the
truths already revealed in Scripture (Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 663-665; Early
Writings, p. 78).
While
the fundamental doctrines of the church are structured on the authority of
Biblical writers, expanded understanding and insight toward their full
development may be found in Ellen G. White's writings. These writings also
confirm Biblical truth, without in the least intending to inhibit serious
research built upon sound principles of interpretation.
Recognizing
that the operation of the Holy Spirit in the life and writings of Ellen G.
White over a period of approximately 70 years resulted in a growth of her
understanding of the Bible and God's activities in behalf of humanity, we
believe that her authority transcends that of all noninspired interpreters.
We
see need for a careful exposition of the Ellen G. White writings. Not all her
uses of Scripture were designed to provide a strict exposition of the Biblical
text. At times she employs Scripture homiletically. At other times she looses
passages from their Biblical context for special applications. Again, she may
use Biblical language merely for literary style. Ellen G. White's total context
and situation in life, with attention to time and place, must always be taken
into consideration.
We
affirm that the Ellen G. White writings are significant for our day as
underscored by her statement "Whether or not my life is spared, my
writings will constantly speak, and their work will go forward as long as time
shall last."—Selected Messages, book 1, p. 55.
The Ten-Point Critique
After study of
Dr. Desmond Ford's document "Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the
Investigative Judgment," the following preliminary report regarding the
validity of some of the author's views is submitted:
First,
we express appreciation to Dr. Ford for his many years of diligent service for
the church. We recognize his talents as a teacher and preacher. His ministry
has stimulated the minds of thousands of students and believers. His wealth of
knowledge and personal life-style have been the source of blessing for many.
We
gratefully acknowledge the author's deep concern that our presentation of the
sanctuary doctrine be done in such a manner as to "recommend it to the
best minds of non-Adventists, as well as our own people, and be able to survive
the most searching scrutiny" (p. 5).
We
further acknowledge that his manuscript has encouraged a deeper and more
careful examination of the Biblical foundation for our traditional view of the
sanctuary doctrine. However, while we have gladly and with good intention
stated some of the positive aspects of the author's ministry, we must in
fairness state that some of his activities have been neither a source of
strength nor in the best interests of our church.
We
feel it necessary to state that we cannot agree with certain views set forth in
his document, which we regard as major aspects of his theological position on
the sanctuary doctrine. These disagreements are as follows:
1) Methodology. We recognize the enormous amount of time and energy the author
has invested in his document, which with appendixes constitutes a sizable work
of nearly 1,000 pages. However, because of the size of the manuscript, with its
numerous footnotes and references, which will be impressive if not coercive to
many readers, we feel it imperative to make a statement on its accuracy.
After
a preliminary examination of the author's use of references and sources, we
find that in various instances they have either been taken out of context or
used indiscriminately and thus not in harmony with the quoted writers' original
intent. This is true of both secular and Spirit of Prophecy statements.
2) The Day of Atonement in the Book of Hebrews. In his position paper, Dr. Ford
asserts emphatically that the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches that the risen
Christ, by virtue of His own blood or sacrificial death, entered into the
heavenly Most Holy Place at His ascension (pp. 187, 195). The cleansing of
"the heavenly things" mentioned in Hebrews 9:23, he also believes,
applies only to the initial New Testament period (pp. 169, 191).
The
Day of Atonement sacrifice, as well as the other Levitical sacrifices and the
high priest's entrance into the Most Holy Place, finds fulfillment, according
to Ford, in Christ's death and ascension into the presence of God (p. 253). Christ,
then, as the high priest at God's right hand, has opened up a new access and
center of worship for the people of God (p. 244).
Ford
declares that he can find in Hebrews no allusion to Daniel (p. 169) or any
reference to a two-phased ministry of the risen Christ (p. 163). He does [73] affirm, however, the reality of the heavenly sanctuary (p. 240).
There
is basic agreement that Christ at His ascension entered into the very presence
of God, as symbolized by the earthly high priest's entrance on the Day of
Atonement. There is also general acceptance that neither Daniel nor a
two-phased ministry are referred to in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But we do
deny that His entrance into the presence of God precludes (1) a first-apartment
phase of ministry or (2) marks the beginning of the second phase of His
ministry.
Ford
believes that the heavenly sanctuary intercession of Christ finds a
providential crisis in what he understands to be the rediscovery of the gospel
through a new appreciation of sanctuary symbolism (p. 260). This rediscovery he
relates to the 1844 movement and the visions of Ellen G. White (p. 260).
However, Ford denies that Christ's heavenly ministry climaxes in the initiation
of a judgment-intercession, beginning in 1844 (pp. 595, 261).
Ford
does believe that the Day of Atonement imagery finds fulfillment in
judgment—even pre-Advent judgment—in the book of Revelation (pp. 449, 650).
This latter, however, is a declaration at the close of Christ's heavenly
intercession just before the Second Advent; it is not a heavenly judicial
process beginning in 1844 (p. 595). The proclamation that providentially began
in 1844 refers, in Ford's opinion, only to the believer's present decision of
faith and the future pre-Advent judgment, but not to a present judicial process
in heaven (pp. 652, 260-261).
This
is an unwarranted reduction of Adventist belief.
3) The Phrase "Within the Veil" as
Found in Hebrews 6:19, 20.
We acknowledge the insights in Dr. Ford's study of the letter to the Hebrews;
however, we disagree with the theological implications he draws from the phrase
"within the veil."
We do
not believe that the phrase was intended to mean that from the time of His
ascension Christ has been engaged in a ministry equivalent to that which the
Old Testament high priest performed once a year in the second apartment of the
tabernacle on the Day of Atonement, to the exclusion of the daily phase of the
priestly ministry. "Within the veil," we believe, was intended to
convey the conviction that, since Christ's ascension, we have full, free, and
direct access to the very presence of God.
The
Old Testament believer had limited access to that presence by means of the high
priest, who entered with fear and with limited effectiveness the Most Holy
Place of the earthly tabernacle once a year. Since our Lord's ascension the
believer has had full and free access to the presence of God through Christ.
Through His sacrifice on the cross He has opened a new way to the presence of
God so that we have continual and confident access to Him.
"Within
the veil" refers to this symbolic picture of the presence of God in a
first-century application of the Day of Atonement imagery rather than the
antitypical fulfillment of the Old Testament type. This way of speaking in no
way precludes our understanding of Christ's two-phased mediatorial ministry in
the heavenly sanctuary, which the letter to the Hebrews neither teaches nor
denies.
4) Year-Day Principle. While Dr. Ford professes a belief
in the year-day principle as a useful tool of Biblical interpretation, we
regret that he does not see fit to apply the principle to the time prophecies
of Daniel. He operates with the presupposition that all Old Testament prophecies were to be fulfilled by the first
century A.D., which prevents him from using the year-day principle.
Dr.
Ford believes that the year-day tool became a providential discovery
"after the Advent hope of the early church had faded away" (p. 294).
But coupled with his uncertainty regarding the use of the year-day principle is
his uncertainty regarding the dates for the beginning and ending of the time
prophecies in Daniel (pp. 320, 321, 344).
Because
Ford believes that the year-day principle was not God's original intent for
Daniel's time prophecies, he believes its present use, in harmony with God's
"providential" arrangement, should not be with punctiliar precision.
We
believe, however, that the year-day principle is a valid hermeneutical tool and
called for by the context containing the time prophecies. When the context
relates to historical narrative with literal people, literal time periods are
used in Daniel 1, 3, 5, and 6. In the apocalyptic passages, when time periods
accompany symbolic figures, it is natural and appropriate to expect those time
periods also to be symbolic in nature. Numerous other reasons help the
prophetic interpreter to distinguish between literal and symbolic time.
We
further believe that all of the apocalyptic prophecies in which time elements
are found have stood the pragmatic test. That is, their predicted events did
occur at the intervals expected, according to the application of the year-day
principle.
In
reference to Daniel 8:13, 14, we believe that the context requires the use of
the year-day principle, and thus a fulfillment beginning in 457 B.C. and ending
in A.D. 1844.
We
thus reject Dr. Ford's assertion that Daniel 8:14 "applies also to every
revival of true religion where the elements of the kingdom of God, mirrored in
the sanctuary by the stone tablets and the mercy seat, are proclaimed afresh,
as at 1844" (p. 356).
5) Apotelesmatic Principle. Dr. Ford uses the apotelesmatic
principle to affirm that "a prophecy fulfilled, or fulfilled in part, or
unfulfilled at the appointed time, may have a later or recurring, or
consummated fulfillment" (p. 485).
In
short, by his usage of this hermeneutical principle, Dr. Ford is able to accept
multiple reinterpretations and applications of prophetic symbols and
statements. Almost a corollary to this principle is the author's borrowed
axiom: "All are right in what they affirm and wrong in what they
deny" (p. 505).
We
reject the use of this axiom, whether explicit or implied, because with its use
no positively stated assertion could ever contradict another positively stated
assertion. With this guiding axiom coupled with the apotelesmatic principle,
the author says that all prophetical interpretations by all four prophetical
schools—preterists, historicists, futurists, and idealists—are correct (ibid.).
When
he applies the apotelesmatic principle to Daniel 8:13,14, we discover that the
original meaning or purpose of these verses should have been fulfilled sometime
after the postexilic restoration. If the Jewish nation had been faithful in
proclaiming the gospel, and [74] thus preparing the world for the
Messiah, "that Messiah would have been confronted at His coming by the
eschatological tyrant Antichrist ('little horn'). Antichrist would have been
successful in his initial warfare against God's people and truth for 2300 days,
but then Christ would have brought him to his end, with none to help him.
Having broken Antichrist 'without hand,' the kingdom of the Rock of Ages would
have become God's holy mountain filling the whole earth for eternity" (p.
485).
In
this brief scenario, Dr. Ford has interpreted, by means of the apotelesmatic
principle, Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11. He could do it only by denying the
year-day principle and the historicist method of interpretation.
However,
though Israel was not faithful, the "main idea" of Daniel's
prophecies would yet be fulfilled "in principle" in later events (ibid.). Thus, the "little
horn," for example, would be fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes, in pagan
Rome, in papal Rome, and in Satan's manifestation just before and after the
millennium. Each of these entities would experience judgment and be destroyed
with none to help them, thus "fulfilling" "in principle"
the intent of Daniel's prophecies. "These successive judgments were
predicted by 'then shall the sanctuary be justified.' Every era of revival of
the truths symbolized in the sanctuary may claim to be a fulfillment of Daniel
8:14" (p. 486).
Although
we recognize the possibility of more than one fulfillment (when the context
requires it or when a later inspired writer makes the application), we must
reject Ford's usage of the apotelesmatic principle, because it lacks external
control. Any principle of interpretation that permits any prophecy to mean many
things is not a helpful tool.
6) Use of Sadaq in Daniel 8:14. The niphal use of the root sadaq in Daniel 8:14 is unique in the
Old Testament. Though the basic meaning of the root sadaq is "to
be right," "to justify," "to restore," the semantic
range of this root includes the meaning "to cleanse." This is evident
from (1) the use of sadaq with taher ("to cleanse," "to purify"; e.g., in Job
4:17) in synonymous parallelism and zakah
("to cleanse," "to purify"; e.g., in Job 15:14), (2) the
translation of sadaq in several versions, and (3) the
hithpael use of the root sadaq (the hithpael,
like the niphal, is passive or reflexive) in Genesis 44:16.
Though
Ford, in a number of places in his document, allows for the translation of sadaq
in Daniel 8:14 as "to cleanse" (p. 348), he also remarks
categorically in his listing of the church's assumptions for its interpretation
of the sanctuary: "That 'cleansed' is an accurate translation in Daniel
8:14. (Though this is certainly not the case)" (p. 290, italics ours).
While
we agree with Ford that there does not appear to be an explicit verbal link
between sadaq of Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16, it seems that he does not give
due weight to the meaning "to cleanse" (which we consider justifiable
in the context of Daniel 8:9-14) and the possibility of a relationship with
Leviticus 16, particularly in the light of the common ideas between the two
passages.
7) The Relationship of Daniel 7, 8, and 9. Dr. Ford claims that Daniel 9:24-27
(the 70-week prophecy) parallels Daniel 8:14 (the 2300-day prophecy) rather
than being a segment of the 2300-day prophecy (p. 403). He further suggests
that both chapters 9:24-27 and 8:14 parallel Daniel 7:9-14 (court scene in
heaven) (pp. 368-376).
While
the apocalyptic time prophecy of Daniel 8 basically parallels that of Daniel 7
(as well as Daniel 2), it also amplifies Daniel 7 considerably. The prophecies
of Daniel 2,7, and 8 began with either Babylon or Persia and take the reader to
the end of human history (the eschaton).
However,
we do not find the argument valid that Daniel 9:24-27 parallels both Daniel 7 and
Daniel 8:14, since the time and subject matter of these passages differ.
8) Antiochus Epiphanes. Regarding the little horn of Daniel
8 and its parallelism in Daniel 11, Dr. Ford holds that "only Antiochus
Epiphanes fulfilled the chief specifications of Daniel 8's little horn, and the
vile person of Daniel 11. All other fulfillments, such as pagan and papal Rome,
are fulfillments in principle rather than in detail" (p. 469).
As
far as Rome is concerned, he affirms that "all attempts to make Rome the first and major fulfillment of
all the specifications of the little horn ignore both the symbolism and the
interpretation" (p. 383, italics his). On the contrary, we believe that
while Antiochus Epiphanes bears some resemblance to the description of the
little horn, pagan and papal Rome fulfill the specifications of this prophetic
symbol.
9) Saints in Judgment. In the context of a discussion of
the judgment of Daniel 7, Dr. Ford's claim that "the Son of Man judges the
little horn and delivers the beast to the flames" (p. 365), his stress on
the judgment of the little horn, and his contention that in Daniel 7
"unbelievers, not believers, are the 'eye' of that storm (i.e., the
judgment)" (p. 369) are all dubious.
Nowhere
in Daniel 7 does the "Son of Man" judge either the little horn or the
beast. While it is true that the little horn power, which receives punishment
as its reward, is judged indirectly in Daniel 7, it also is clear that God's
people, who receive the eternal kingdom after the judgment has sat, are all
judged worthy of the ultimate covenant blessings. Both the apocalyptic sections
of Daniel (chaps. 7:21, 22 and 12:1-3) and the historical chapters depict God's
people on trial (e.g., chapter 1, where the Hebrew worthies are on trial;
chapter 3, where Daniel's friends are tested; chapter 6, where Daniel is
tried). The judgment reveals those who have retained their intimate convenantal
relationship with God. The motif of the judgment of God's people is further
supported in numerous instances within classical prophecy.
10) The Role of Ellen White in Doctrinal
Understanding. One cannot
be a Seventh-day Adventist very long and not recognize that our theology is
shaped to a significant degree by the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her
philosophy of history as reflected in her "great controversy theme"
and her concern for the development of the whole person are but two examples of
insights she has provided that have helped to illuminate the Scriptures and to
foster serious Bible study within the church.
This
means that Seventh-day Adventists recognize in Ellen G. White an authority in
doctrine and life that is second only to that of the Scriptures. She was not,
nor ever pretended to be, an expert in biblical languages or in other technical
disciplines related to biblical interpretation of the Holy Spirit. Yet as her
understanding grew under the inspiration of the Holy [75] Spirit, she
provided counsel for the church that has helped it to confirm light found in
the Word of God and to avoid doctrinal errors that threatened its very
existence. The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds the writings of Ellen G.
White in the highest regard as a source of doctrinal understanding.
For
these reasons we believe that some of Dr. Ford's statements regarding Ellen G.
White's ministry to the church in doctrinal areas will be misunderstood. Some
Adventists have inferred that in Dr. Ford's view Ellen White's authority does
not extend to doctrinal issues. On this point the Seventh-day Adventist
position is that a prophet's authority cannot justifiably be limited in this
way.
This
doctrine of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, this unique teaching of
Seventh-day Adventists, invites earnest study on the part of every believer.
Our pioneers found it by diligent searching of the Word and became motivated by
it. We too must find it for ourselves and make it our own. We must come to
realize that "the sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work
in behalf of men," and that His ministry there "is as essential to
the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross" (The
Great Controversy, pp. 488,
489).
As we
seek to know and understand Christ in the heavenly sanctuary as fervently as
did the first Adventists, we shall experience the revival and reform, the
assurance and hope, that come with a clearer view of our great High Priest.
The
following papers were either sent out to the delegates in advance or
distributed at Glacier View (indicated by asterisk).
Cottrell, Raymond F. "A
Hermeneutic for Daniel 8:14"—a comparison of the proof text method and the
historical method, applying both methods to Daniel 8:14; the nature of the
problems of interpreting Daniel 8:14; the distinction between symbols and the
ultimate reality they represent.
Cottrell, Raymond F. "Report of a
Poll of Adventist Bible Scholars Concerning Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9"*—a
poll taken in May 1980 consisting of 72 questions and 189 possible responses;
includes summary of responses to a similar poll conducted in 1958, from which
grew the former Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel.
Damsteegt, P. Gerard.
"Relationship of the Ellen G. White Writings to the Bible on the Sanctuary
Issue"—Ellen White's principles of interpretation related to the sanctuary
doctrine; "Father Miller's" hermeneutic compared to Ellen White's;
Ellen White's use of the Bible text concerning the sanctuary.
Ellen G. White Estate. "The
Integrity of the Sanctuary Truth"*—a compilation of Ellen White statements
concerning Ballenger's teachings. Manuscript release No. 760.
Farag, Wadie. "Source Material on shabu'im, 'sevens' or 'weeks'
"*—xerox copies of relevant material from Bible dictionaries, the Talmud,
the Bible, and Ellen White concerning the time element in the prophecies of
Daniel.
Ford, Desmond. "Daniel 8:14, the
Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment"—for a summary of this
manuscript, see pp. 30-36.
Guy, Fritz. "The Ministry of
Christ as High Priest in Heaven: Some Suggestions Toward a Theology of the
Sanctuary"—for a version of this manuscript, see pp. 44-53.
Holoviak, Bert. "Pioneers,
Pantheists, and Progressives: A. F. Ballenger and the Divergent Paths to the
Sanctuary"— xamines contemporary sources, tracing the history and
interrelationships of the Ballenger case from 1898 to 1911; the relationship of
the Ballenger controversy to the 1888 message and the "daily" debate.
Hasel, Gerhard F. "Blood
Sacrifice: Cleansing and Defilement by Blood"—an exegetical analysis of
relevant Old Testament passages, arguing that the sanctuary was defiled by accumulated
sins and cleansed on the day of atonement.
Jorgensen, Alfred S. "The Fletcher
Case: A Report of the Salient Teachings of W. W. Fletcher and the
Administrative Actions Taken by the Australasian Union Conference in Dealing
with Him"—a brief biographical sketch and analysis of Fletcher's postion;
extensive documentation.
Neall, Beatrice. "An Attempt to
Harmonize Daniel with Leviticus on the Cleansing of the
Sanctuary"—distinguishes between internal and external defilement, between
defilement by the sins of Israel and by Israel's enemies; the cosmic setting of
the cleansing of the sanctuary.
Neall, Beatrice. "The Contextual
Problem of Daniel 8:14: 'The Transgression that Makes Desolate' "—[76] argues that the
"transgression of desolation" refers to Israelite apostasy connected
with the "abomination of desolation," or an apostate form of worship
imposed by the little horn; thus the cleansing of Daniel 8:14 includes the sins
of God's people.
Olson, Robert W. "A Historical
Survey of Seventh-day Adventist Statements on the Doctrine of the Cleansing of
the Heavenly Sanctuary"—compilation of relevant passages from Adventist
publications, arranged chronologically.
Salom, A. P. "Exegesis of Selected
Passages of Hebrews 8 and 9"—excellent, detailed exegesis of relevant
passages.
Shea, William H. "Daniel and the
Judgment"—for a version of this manuscript, see pp. 37-43.
Strand, Kenneth A. "Apocalyptic
Prophecy: A Brief Introduction to Its Nature and Interpretation"—basic characteristics
of apocalyptic, with specific application to Daniel's apocalyptic prophecies
and the apocalyptic message of Revelation.
Desmond Ford Correspondence
Parmenter Sets Conditions
August
15,1980
Dear Des, It
gives me no pleasure to address this letter to you. In fact I am deeply grieved
to think that you as a personal friend of mine over many years should find
yourself in your present position. I do have a responsibility, however, which
I'm sure you recognize, to place certain matters before you, so that I can
convey your response to the Avondale Board and Division Committee.
Since
your lecture to the Forum at PUC in October 1979, in which it was considered
you took issue with certain fundamental beliefs of the church, you have been
given more than six months to prepare a carefully documented statement of your
present doctrinal position. This manuscript in which you deal with vital areas
of the sanctuary truth, the role of Ellen White, and related areas has now been
completed. You, of course, are aware that a specially appointed committee of
120 people representing Bible scholars, educators, pastors, administrators and
representatives from the world church met at Glacier View Camp in Colorado
August 10-15, 1980, to study and evaluate your doctrinal position as revealed
in the above document. At this meeting you were given opportunity to make
statements and respond to questions.
You
are now aware that the above committee has reached a consensus expressing
confidence in the "Fundamental Beliefs" held by the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, believing that they can be adequately supported by the Bible
and the Spirit of Prophecy. The same committee, however, finds your manuscript
presenting several positions that are at variance with the presently held fundamental
doctrines of the church. It would seem to us that you are still challenging the
pillars of our faith particularly in the area of the doctrine of the sanctuary
and the role of the Spirit of Prophecy.
Our
real concern now is to know whether you feel you could be in error in some of
these problem areas, and whether you are willing to yield to the judgment and
counsel of your brethren and hold in suspense your particular views which are
at variance with the established "Fundamental Beliefs" of the church
as indicated in the attached document. What we really need to know, Des, Is
there any shift in your position? Are you willing to state clearly and
precisely in written form:
1.
That you are willing to acknowledge that there are several points in your present
position on the doctrine of the sanctuary and related areas and the role of
Ellen White that are out of harmony with the "Fundamental Beliefs" of
the church—as indicated in the attached paper—and that in counsel with your
brethren you are prepared to suspend these views in harmony with Spirit of
Prophecy counsel and make a public statement to this effect?
2.
That from henceforth your teaching and preaching will be in harmony with the
"Fundamental Beliefs" of the church as voted in session at Dallas in
April, 1980?
3.
That because your special views on the sanctuary doctrine and related areas are
so widely known you will indicate your willingness to acknowledge publicly that
your PUC lecture and recent manuscript do present some areas of doctrine that
are out of harmony with the pillars of our faith, and these will be held in
abeyance and not discussed unless at some time in the future they might be
found compatible with the positions and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church?
4.
That you are prepared to cooperate with the church by pen, voice, and influence
to restore confidence in the "Fundamental Beliefs" of the church with
a desire to restore unity in Christ and His church? That to this end you will
endeavor as a minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to do what you can
to [77] protect the fundamental beliefs of the church from internal and
external attack and develop an atmosphere of unity, of faith, doctrine, and
practice?
Des,
I know you are a man of integrity. There is no desire on my part to force or
coerce you to go against your conscience. I believe in religious freedom.
However, while you are being supported by the tithe of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, we do not believe it is too much to ask for an indication
from you that you will henceforth uphold and teach, preach, and write in
harmony with the fundamental beliefs which represent the pillars of our faith.
Our
great desire is to see you preserved for the ministry. But for us to help you,
there must be some cooperation on your part. We earnestly pray that you will be
able in all good conscience to find it in your heart to respond to this letter
positively. We await your reply with real concern for you, and deep love as
your friend and brother in Christ.
Yours
very sincerely,
K. S.
Parmenter, President
Australasian Division
Ford's First Reply
August
26,1980
Dear Brother
Parmenter,
I
deeply appreciate your letter of August 15 and the graciousness with which it
softens certain conditions verbally expressed by you on August 15. In harmony
with that spirit I wish to do all I can in good conscience to support the
church I love and for which I have labored these thirty years.
I
sincerely regret the sorrow I have brought to many by acceding to the request
of my fellow teachers at PUC in speaking on the topic of their choice in their
Forum of October 27, 1979. I realize that both that address and my sanctuary
manuscript conflict with our "Fundamental Beliefs" statement on
Daniel 8:14 as commonly understood.
May I
state clearly, however, that I am now, and always have been, in the fullest
harmony with the main doctrinal positions of our church set forth in the
"Statement of Fundamental Beliefs" as voted in Dallas in April this
year. The differences to which you refer relate to accepted sanctuary views in
contrast with my sanctuary manuscript and October 27 presentation. Here,
indeed, there is a clear divergence of understanding.
I
appreciate more than words can express the tremendous effort the church has
made to establish a unity in our understanding of the sanctuary message
entrusted to us by God. The Glacier View meetings were marked by earnestness
and sweet Christian fellowship. I am greatly encouraged by the consensus
statement, "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary," and the honest, frank
acknowledgments it makes. In harmony with its essence, as I understand it, I
can gladly teach and preach such to the same extent as the majority of my
fellow teachers present at Glacier View.
I
take this opportunity to declare that I have pledged myself to seek and to
foster, to defend and to preserve that unity in the church for which Christ
prayed so earnestly. As I have always sought to recognize the human weaknesses
to which I, with all others, am subject, I admit that in the solutions I have
offered to our sanctuary problems I could be wrong. I therefore accept the
counsel of my brethren and God's messenger (to which counsel I earnestly wish
to respond positively) to keep to myself the views that have brought
perplexity. As the brethren continue to study, I will refrain from teaching and
preaching on the sanctuary in any area that might bring confusion and
misunderstanding.
I
have confidence in the leadership of the church and wish to give my brethren
loyal and intelligent support. I greatly appreciate the spirit of openness so
manifest at Glacier View and our resolve to continue the study so well begun
there. I love this church and wish to see it fulfill the great purpose for
which a divine providence brought it into existence.
If this
letter is used in a public way it should be used in full, or not at all, in
order to make two points clear to all. First, I am set for the defense of the
body of Christ, and I am willing to do all I can to support it in good
conscience and to refrain from causing it any hurt whatsoever. Secondly, I
cannot compromise in my understanding of the doctrinal issues. Inasmuch as the Adventist Review has now published to
the church and the world acknowledgments of the accuracy of certain key points
of my sanctuary MS (see postscript), to withdraw such would be to repudiate the
consensus statement and bring confusion confounded. May the Lord bless and
guide us as we strive unitedly for the blessing of His people.
With
warmest personal regards,
Sincerely
your brother in Christ,
Desmond
Ford
P.S.
The key points referred to from above, which for the first time have now
appeared in our own press, include the following:
1. It
is the little horn, and not the sins of the saints, which defiles the
sanctuary.
2.
The cleansing of Daniel 8:14 has to do with restoring the damage done not by
the saints but by the little horn.
3.
The meaning of the key verb in Daniel 8:14 is not basically
"cleanse," but justify, vindicate, restore.
4.
There is no obvious verbal link between Daniel 8 and Leviticus 16.
5.
The year-day principle is not explicit in Scripture.
6.
Hebrews 9 does draw on the Day of Atonement to illustrate that which Christ did
by His sacrifice.
7.
"Within the veil" applies to the second veil, not the first, and
points to access to the Most Holy Place.
8.
Hebrews does not teach a two-apartment ministry (or two phases).
9.
Christ, not the Father, is the great Judge in the final judgment.
10.
We should not speak of our Lord's heavenly ministry in terms of apartments.
11.
The N.T. viewed the second advent as imminent in its day.
12.
Sacrificial blood purifies rather than defiles.
[78]
Ford's Second Reply
September
1, 1980
Dear Brother
Parmenter,
There
were two items to which I should have made reference in last week's letter—one,
my relationship to the Spirit of Prophecy, and the other—supposed collusion
with those critical of the church.
I
believe that E.G. White was entrusted with the gift of prophecy, a special
messenger to this people. My sanctuary MS 602-641 summarizes this conviction.
See particularly from 631 onwards, which is a polemic against those who wish to
reject E. G. White. However, from 1887 to the present, our official statements
regarding the nature other inspiration deny inerrancy and I fully agree with my
brethren on that matter. As an inspired leader she has and does teach the
flock, but never are her writings to be made the sole basis of doctrine. This
she affirmed repeatedly, and I gladly concur.
On
the other matter, neither I nor my wife have any relationship with critics of
this church, which would be disloyalty to the body of Christ. Despite
accusations, we have never been a channel of "in house" matters to
such. We are well aware that much GC committee material is "leaked"
to the outside, but it has not been through us. The limit of my sharing of
information with any "outside" has been the statement that the task
on which I was working was not a novel one, but one engaged upon by other men
well known to us such as W. W. Prescott and L. E. Froom. In view of the
materials circulated by Walter Rea on Prescott and certain nontraditional
presentations to be found in Froom—such information was hardly top-secret.
With
warmest of regards,
Sincerely
your brother,
Desmond
Ford
The Final Decision
September
19,1980
Dear
Des, It is with heavy heart that I write this letter in order to convey to you
the action of the Australasian Division Executive Committee. Your brethren here
in this part of the world remember with affection and appreciation their
fellowship with you and your service to the church over many years. However,
your stated doctrinal position has created a divergence of views between you
and the church.
As
you are aware, the Sanctuary Review Committee studied your proposals in detail
and their findings along with the PREXAD recommendations have been conveyed to
you. Pastors Wilson and Parmenter and others have talked with you at length
concerning your position which it seems remains unchanged. These matters were
reported to the committee yesterday and the following action voted:
"WHEREAS:
Doctor Desmond Ford publicly challenged basic doctrines of the church and was
subsequently given six months leave of absence to enable him to provide a
documented statement of his beliefs, and this statement, having been studied by
the Sanctuary Review Committee (a group of more than one hundred scholars and
administrators appointed by the General Conference committee), was found
unacceptable on the sanctuary, the investigative judgement and the role of
Ellen White, and
"WHEREAS:
Doctor Ford admits that his belief is no longer in accord with some of the
accepted teachings of the church and that he therefore could not preach or
support them, and at best could only keep silent on matters which the church
sees as distinctive doctrine; and in spite of urging from church
administrators, theologians, ministers and friends, he is unable to accept the
counsel of his brethren to reconsider his position, and
"WHEREAS:
The General Conference, through the Presidents' Executive Administrative
Committee has counseled that the Australasian Division should relieve Doctor
Ford of his responsibilities as a minister and teacher and withdraw his
credentials, it was
"VOTED:
That with deep regret we withdraw Doctor Desmond Ford's ministerial credentials,
noting that this does not annul his ordination, and
"FURTHER:
To recommend to the Avondale College Board that he be relieved of his
responsibilities as a minister and teacher."
It is
our prayer Des that God will be with you and Jill, and it is our sincere hope
that the day will come when you will once again be able to espouse wholly and
conscientiously the full doctrinal position of the church.
With
Christian greetings,
Yours
sincerely,
R. W.
Taylor
Secretary
P.S.
Our Treasurer, Brother W. T. Andrews, will be contacting you concerning
financial and policy matters.