Following the action of the General Conference in session at Dallas in 1980 by voting the 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief, no other article has received the criticism that #23 has received. Why the focus on this article is understandable. The Adult Sabbath School Lessons admit - "The sanctuary doctrine is virtually unknown and untouched by other churches. No group seriously studies and preaches this doctrine as do Seventh-day Adventists." (Quarterly, 4th Qrt, 1988, p. 80) The message of the sanctuary is the unique feature of Adventist belief and the basis of the "sacred trust" committed to the Church. Both the Sabbath School lesson quarterly and the new book - SDA's Believe ... make every effort to give the reader the impression that nothing has been changed in the way the Church has always believed and taught the Sanctuary truth. Yet at the same time they would leave in place the compromises made with the Evangelicals. In both the lesson quarterly and in the book is found the familiar diagram of the earthly sanctuary, and the book carries a chart of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14.

In the time allotted for the Sabbath School lesson discussion, there is no way that the Article #23 can be adequately covered. It would be hoped that small groups would convene apart from the Sabbath School and study in detail the issues at stake. We in this study paper propose to note important areas point by point, thus enabling any serious student to see behind the facade made of fundamental truth to cover the deviations from that truth.

In Statement #23 as voted at Dallas is a sentence which never appeared before in any previous statement of beliefs. It reads: "In it [the Heavenly Sanctuary] Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross." While the lesson quarterly skirts this part of the "Central Teaching," the book meets it head-on. The first three paragraphs of Chapter 23 in SDA's Believe ... Portray

Page 2

the hour of Christ's death on the cross. Then the next paragraph reads:

But there is more to salvation history. It reaches beyond the cross. Jesus' resurrection and ascension direct our attention to the heavenly sanctuary, where, no longer the Lamb, He ministers as priest. The once-for-all sacrifice has been offered (Heb.9:28); now He makes available to all the benefits of his atoning sacrifice. (p. 313) 1(Footnote)

The next section is captioned - "The Sanctuary in Heaven." The one reading only casually is left with the impression that here is the "old time" Adventist ring. The atonement was not completed on the cross, only begun. But go beyond this next section to the middle of the following section on "The Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary." Then note:

On the cross the penalty for human sin was fully paid. Divine justice was satisfied. From a legal perspective the world was restored to favor with God (Rom. 5:18). The atonement, or reconciliation, was completed on the cross as foreshadowed by the sacrifices, and the penitent believer can trust in this finished work of our Lord. (p. 315, col. 2, emphasis mine)

To understand the force of the language - "making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once-for-all on the cross" and "the penitent believer can trust in this finished work" of Christ - one must become conversant with some "recent" past history.

Footnote-- 1 --This paragraph is not without question. Is Jesus "no longer the Lamb" in heaven? In Revelation, He is not only pictured as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (13:8), but also as "a Lamb as it had been slain" before the Throne (5:6). To recognize this, however, would be to negate the conclusion drawn in "The Sanctuary in Heaven." (pp. 313-314) See section - "One or Two" - in this article.

Some History

The first time that Adventist leaders were quoted as believing "that since His ascension Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement He completed on Calvary" was in the report of one of the conferees for the Evangelicals as it appeared in Eternity. Following the SDA-Evangelical Conferences in 1955-56, Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin wrote a series of articles on these conferences and Seventh-day Adventism. The first article - "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" was by Barnhouse, the editor of Eternity. After reviewing the disappointment of the Advent believers in 1844, and the conclusions drawn by these believers that Christ entered the second apartment of the Heavenly Sanctuary, Barnhouse writes concerning "the Adventist leaders" -

They do not believe, as some of their earlier teachers taught, that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead that He is still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844. They believe that since His ascension Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which He completed on Calvary." (Eternity, Sept., 1956, p. 44; emphasis mine)

When Questions on Doctrine was published in 1957, it said the same thing and defined what was meant by this phraseology. This book was said to be "truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." (p. 9) Here is one of the key quotes from the book on the point, and as you read, keep in mind that the underscoring is the emphasis as found in the book:

When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature - even in the writings of Ellen G. White - that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests. (pp. 354-355)

This is the last paragraph of the chapter (30) except for a misinterpreted quote from the Writings of Ellen G. White which attempts to make her say the same thing. In the new book - SDA's Believe... - the author recommends this chapter as "a full discussion of this Biblical concept." (p. 117, Ref. #3)

Now what does this phraseology - "making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement" mean in reference to the ministry of Christ in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary? In the book -Questions on Doctrine- there is a chapter captioned - "The High-Priestly Ministry of Christ." Section VIII is headlined - Redemption Absolute by the Victory of Christ. Then it states:

How glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is also our representative at the court of heaven! This becomes all the more meaningful when we realize that Jesus our surety entered the "holy places," and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. And now as our High Priest He ministers the virtues [benefits] of His atoning sacrifice to us. (p. 381, emphasis theirs)

Page 3

The position that Christ obtains nothing for us after His sacrifice on Calvary, nullifies a final atonement by which a people are cleansed and prepared for translation. This strikes at the very heart of the sacred trust committed to the Church. (See Documentary- "The Sacred Trust Betrayed" --) Further the hierarchy have gone on record that the Church still holds to the teachings as found in Questions on Doctrine. On February 16, 1983, Walter Martin "wrote the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (Washington D.C.), calling for the Conference's public and official statement reaffirming or denying the authority of the Adventist book, Questions on Doctrine,-...." (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 410) In a letter dated, April 29, 1983, W. Richard Lesher, then a vice-president of the General Conference and now president of Andrews University, wrote:

You ask first if Seventh-day Adventists still stand behind the answers given to your questions in Questions on Doctrine as they did in 1957. The answer is yes. You have noted in your letter that some opposed the answers given then, and, to some extent, the same situation exists today. But certainly the great majority of Seventh-day Adventists are in harmony with the views expressed in Questions on Doctrine. (Ibid., emphasis mine)

[Note: Anyone desiring a facsimile documentation of this page from Martin's book, The Kingdom of the Cults, may send a self-addressed stamped envelope to the Foundation, making request.]

All the facade used in Statement #23, in the Sabbath School Lesson #10 for this quarter, and in the book - SDA's Believe... - does not alter the basic position which the hierarchy took for the Church in 1955-1956 in their dialogue with the Evangelicals.

Two Or One?

The book - SDA's Believe... - teaches a single "room" in the Heavenly Sanctuary. When speaking of the originals from which the types were modeled, the author uses Rev. 1:12 as the New Testament reference for the Golden Candlesticks, rather than Rev. 4:5. (p. 314) This latter verse is ignored. The reference in Rev. 1:12 could not serve as the original from which the type was designed because Jesus is seen as walking among seven separate lampstands, not a single stand with seven lamps. In Rev. 4:5, the symbolism represents "the seven Spirits of God" - yet one Spirit. (See Isa. 11:2 where the one Spirit is noted with the six branches enumerated.) The reason why Rev. 4:5 is ignored is not difficult to see. The verse states that "seven torches (Gr.) of fire" were "burning before the throne." This would place "the throne" in the Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary with the "Lamb as it had been slain." (Rev. 5:6) But by omitting reference to this, and stating that "the heavenly altar of incense is located before God's throne (Rev. 8:3) - which in the type was only separated by the second veil, the conclusion can be drawn that "the heavenly sanctuary is the primary dwelling place of God" (Ibid.) - no apartments, no veils! This one-room Heavenly Tabernacle is declared to be "the command center where Christ conducts His priestly ministry for our salvation." (p. 316)

Ta Hagia

In the section "The Sanctuary in Heaven" (pp. 313-314) Hebrews 8:1-2 is quoted and the reader is directed to a footnote. (pp. 327-328) This footnote discusses the use of ta hagia, the Greek translated, "sanctuary" in the KJV of Heb. 8:2. The conclusion is drawn that in all the other places in the book of Hebrews where ta hagia is used, the translation should likewise be, "sanctuary." The appeal for this conclusion is to the Septuagint (LXX) and Josephus. It is true that the LXX was the Early Church's Old Testament, and that they would understand the meaning of ta hagia as used in the LXX. The footnote reads - "the term ta hagia does consistently refer to "holy things" or the "holy places" - i.e., to the sanctuary itself." It is true that ta hagia does refer to the "holy things" of the sanctuary in LXX use, but this does not say that the term is used consistently to refer to the sanctuary as a whole in the LXX. In fact, where there is a clear unmistakable reference to the "sanctuary" as a single unit, the singular of hagia is used. See Numbers 3:31. This is the use followed in Heb. 9:1. There the word translated "sanctuary" is to hagion, singular. The same word, only in the genitive case is used in Numbers 3:31.

Further, the footnote seeks to unitize the sanctuary of heaven by comparing the use of skene(tent) in Chapter 8, and noting that it, refers to the sanctuary as a whole. This is true, but not so in Chapter 9, where skene is used to refer to each of the apartments of the earthly sanctuary. Note Heb. 9:2-3, where in the KJV, the word is translated, "tabernacle." Whoever was writing down what Paul was saying became aware of the fact

Page 4

that his choice of terms in Chapter 8 could cause misunderstanding and confusion. Therefore, in Chapter 9, before proceeding to describe the work of Christ as High Priest, he defined his terms. He stated that when referring to the first apartment, the word, Hagia, would be used, and for the second apartment, the words would be, Hagia Hagion. (verses 2-3) In the KJV, the word, Hagia, is translated, "sanctuary", and the words, Hagia Hagion are translated, "Holiest of all." Thus all the references - Heb. 9:8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19 and 13:11 - where ta hagia is used, according to the definition refer to the first apartment. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that after describing the Most Holy, Paul adds - "of which we cannot now speak particularly." (9:5) And no where in the following sections of Hebrews is the term - hagia hagion - used.

The only possible references to the second apartment ministry of our Lord is in Hebrews 9:27-28 and 10:25. In this latter verse, it speaks of "The Day," a Hebrew usage referring to the Day of Atonement. (See The Sanctuary Service, p. 170) But in this text it refers to a future work thus leaving the book of Hebrews emphasizing the High Priestly ministry of Jesus in the first apartment as was also given to John in vision. (Rev. 4) Why we would wish to ignore the definition given for the usage ofta hagia in Hebrews is difficult to understand if we really want truth, pure and unadulterated.

The Lesson Quarterly

Lesson #10 - "God Tells Us About Christ's Heavenly Ministry" - as written contains some errors in the presentation of the sin offerings as outlined in Leviticus 4, and the conclusions drawn as to the transfer of the record of confessed and pardoned sins. We will note what is written, and then what the Bible actually teaches. (These errors are found in the authors' comments on p. 76)

2)   None of the sin-offering for the priest was eaten by the priest.

Comment: Since as noted above the priest as an individual was considered in the same category as a ruler, the blood of his sin offering was not taken into the sanctuary, and therefore, was eaten in the court by the priest who officiated. See Lev. 10:17-18; 6:25-26.

3)  Because he [the common priest] later ministered in the holy place, the sin was taken into the presence of God and symbolically transferred to the sanctuary.

Comment: There is no transfer without blood, or the taking of life. (Heb. 9:22) Merely ministering in the daily service - trimming the lamps, offering incense, replenishing the table of shewbread - cannot be considered as acts of transfer. A careful study of Leviticus 4 indicates that the only one who could transfer the record of confessed sin to the Holy Place was the High Priest, not the common priest. The common priest ministered the sin-offering for the ruler and the lay person. He ate the flesh of these offerings in the court, thus taking the guilt of the sin into and upon himself. The record of these confessed and pardoned sins were never taken into the sanctuary but marked on the horns of the Altar of Burnt Offering. This truly represents Jesus who came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and bore our sins in His own body on the Cross, typified by the Altar in the Court. This is alluded to in statements found in DA, p. 25 and 7BC:933, quoted in the Teacher's Quarterly (p. 120) - "Christ 'offered sacrifice, Himself the priest [not High Priest], Himself the victim.'" He , then, as High Priest stands in the judgment not as a "defense attorney" (Qrt., p. 78), but as One who has the right to claim as the trophies of His victory over sin, and His sacrifice for sin, those who have placed their full and complete trust in Him. (John. 5:24)

It should be obvious that the authors of the Sabbath School lessons did not take time to really study the sanctuary service before writing this lesson. Tragically, there has

Page 5

been little study given to the sanctuary teaching over the past few decades, except to make it of non-effect.

General Comment

While Statement #23 makes no reference to the "final atonement," the Quarterly suggests such. It reads - "In the investigation the righteous dead are vindicated, and the living believers are filled with the Spirit of Christ and righteousness as the means of victory over sin." (p. 78) And in the "Summary" (p. 80), it is stated - "In this judgment the heavenly sanctuary is cleansed of the record of pardoned sin, and God's living people are spiritually purified as a preparation to meet their returning Lord." Why not call it the final atonement? Why not admit that the type teaches an atonement at the Altar in the Court (the Cross) resulting in forgiveness. (Lev. 4:26, 31); and a final atonement in the Most Holy Place resulting in cleansing (Lev. 16:30) - in other words - a dual atonement. The reason neither the book, SDA's Believe... - nor the lesson authors can so state is clear to those who know the history of the apostasy and the compromise that has marked the trail of the leadership. They told the Evangelicals - "Adventists do not hold any theory of a dual atonement. 'Christ has redeemed us' (Gal. 3:13) 'once for all' (Heb. 10:19)" (Questions on Doctrine, p. 390, emphasis theirs)

A final observation concerning the Teacher's Quarterly is in order. The author of the helps, Carl Guenther, (his comments are the green type) refers to the writer of the book of Hebrews as "the apostle-teacher who wrote the Epistles (sic) to the Hebrews." (p. 120) [I assume the use of the plural is a proof-readers oversight.] There is much discussion as to who wrote the book of Hebrews. The editor of the Adventist Reviewing his doctoral dissertation refers to the author of Hebrews as "auctor ad Hebraeous" and comments - "We therefore approach the study of the cultus in Hebrews without commitment to any particular author, readers, or date." (pp. 23-24) Recently, Kurt and Barbara Aland, well known scholars of hard research in New Testament textual criticism, co-authored a book - The Text of the New Testament. There in a passing remark, they wrote that "the early Church assumed Hebrews to be Pauline." (p. 49) If, therefore, those closest to the writing of the book could believe it to be of Pauline authorship, even though it differed in style and format from all of his other letters, who am I to seek to avoid designating the authorship as less than Pauline. Perhaps to seek to determine why it differed would be more profitable.

In Conclusion

At the end of this year, each one following the Sabbath School Lesson Quarterlies, and those reading the book - SDA's Believe... will have had the opportunity to study and evaluate the 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief as a Seventh-day Adventist. One conclusion is inescapable. There has been a terrible mingling of truth and error in many of the 27 Statements. May I suggest an answer. Determine to be a truly Bible orientated Seventh-day Adventist in belief and practice, but not a part of the organized apostasy. If you have further questions, please write to the Adventist Laymen's Foundation. We are here to help you to know the truth as it is in Jesus.

WHG

In the previous issue of WWN (XXI-10), in reviewing the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's involvement with the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC, we wrote concerning Dr. Earle Hilgert's appointment to the Commission in 1967 - "Dr. Earle Hilgert, then of Andrews University, was recommended by the General Conference Committee, and approved by the Central Committee of the WCC." (p. 2, col. 1) Interestingly, the day after we placed the issue in the mails, Dr. B. B. Beach was writing a reply to a letter received by Elder Neal C. Wilson from an Adventist on the West Coast. In this letter, he declared - "Dr Hilgert was not recommended by the General Conference Committee." (Emphasis mine)

The cover-up intent of the letter by Beach is revealed in the second paragraph. It reads:

The meeting in Bristol, England, to which you are referring, took place over a dozen years ago. Dr. Earle Hilgert was a member of the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC for a few years, but for many years he has no longer been a member.

There is no mention in the letter that Dr. R. F. Dederen is now a member in place of Dr. Hilgert, and the inquirer is left with the impression that no longer is the Church represented on the Commission. The final paragraph closes with the usual denial -

Let me emphasize, that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not a member of the World Council of Churches and has never been a member and has no plans of becoming a member of this organization.

Page 6

On this point, which is technically correct, it is only necessary to observe that since the revision of the WCC Constitution in 1972, the "Functions and Purposes" of the WCC are identical with the stated objective of the Faith and Order Commission in its By-Laws (See So Much in Common, pp. 40-41 & Faith and Order Paper #111, p. viii) Thus giving consent by being represented on the Commission to the goals of the Commission is also allying the Church with the objectives of the WCC itself, membership or not!

However, this leaves the denial of Beach in regard to Hilgert in direct contradiction to the statement we made in the Thought Paper as to how Dr. Hilgert was placed on the Faith and Order Commission. It was necessary, therefore, that we either seek to verify, or to clarify our statement. We didn't use the right word! Instead of "recommended," we should have used the word, "endorsement." Here is the background as we have been able to put it together: (B. B. Beach can fill in any of the details we have not been able to obtain.)

As a result of the "conversations" which took place between representatives of the SDA Church headed by B. B. Beach, and representatives of the WCC involving Dr. Lukas Vischer, then Secretary of the Faith and Order Commission, a warm relationship developed between these two men. Beach calls it a "friendship." This is further evidenced by the fact that these two men co-authored the WCC publication - So Much in Common - which contains - "Documents of interest in the conversations between the World Council of Churches and the Seventh-day Adventist Church." When, therefore, it was decided to have a Seventh-day Adventist viewpoint represented on the Faith and Order Commission, it was B. B. Beach himself who suggested the name of Dr. Earle Hilgert. But while only the Central Committee of the WCC can vote to place a member on the Faith and Order Commission, it has to have an "ecclesiastical endorsement" from the Church whose viewpoint this person will represent. It also needs to be kept in mind that while this person, whether Hilgert, and now Dederen, does not represent the church per se, he does represent to the Commission the belief and conviction of the Church in theological matters.

As to how the "ecclesiastical endorsement" was given, there are three possible avenues: 1) The General Conference Committee [This Beach would appear to deny.] 2) The General Conference Officers; and 3) A letter from W. R. Beach, who, at the time of Hilgert's appointment, was Secretary of the General Conference. If in fact this latter avenue was the way the "endorsement" was conveyed to the WCC's Central Committee, then it needs to be clarified whether "Papa" Beach consulted with the officers of the General Conference before writing the letter, or whether it was done as a unilateral act. If the letter was written with the consent of the Officers of the General Conference, this would then implicate Robert H. Pierson, who was the President at that time.

Certain facts remain: 1) The Faith and Order Paper #111 clearly states that the Lima Text, a "convergence" statement on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, was "unanimously" recommended for transmittal to the churches as a step in the Commission's goal of "visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship." Further it names -"Adventist" - as one of the "traditions" which gave consent. 2) The objective of the Faith and Order Commission for one confession of faith based on the Creed adopted by the Church Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) has already been made a part of the 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief as voted at Dallas, Texas, in 1980. These facts speak louder than all the denials of B. B. Beach.

WHG

Page 7

In the Commentary, Vol II, #2, we reprinted a letter (p. 3) from Christianity Today (CT) written by the pastor of the Point Loma SDA Church in San Diego, California. Below, we produce the letter in full, underscoring that which was reprinted in CT. It is evident the Pastor did not use the title "Reverend" as would be inferred by the letter as edited. It is also evident Pastor McCary was commenting on two articles in the January 15, 1988, issue of CT, rather than just one as indicated in the edited letter. However, the two concepts as underscored in our reprint of the letter as it appeared in CT, March 18, 1988, remain in context as stated by the Pastor; namely, "we evangelicals" and "Is being gay a sin? The Scriptures certainly have little light to shed in response to that question." Both of these concepts are open to serious challenge.

WHG

Point Loma Seventh-day Adventist Church --------  Gary McCary, Pastor

Where you can "grow in grace"

January 21, 1980

Editorial Offices

Christianity Today

465 Gunderson Dr.

Carol Stream, IL 60188

Dear Sirs:

The controversial issue of homosexuality raised its eternal head in a very clear and forceful manner as I read your Jan. 15, 1988 journal. On the one hand we heard a plea from Philip Yancy - a summons, really - for genuine, Christlike civility and respect of one's neighbor, even if that neighbor is a homosexual. Contrasted with Yancy was David Wells' expose on how, supposedly because we don't want to offend someone, we skirt around calling a spade a spade by using toned-down, "secularized" phraseology. But, as I'm sure many readers noticed, Mr. Wells' article was really about sex. Nine-tenths of its contents dealt with various sexual illustrations. And what forcefully comes through his pen is not so much that we have used "linguistic sleights of hand" in our sexual-terminology, but rather that sexual promiscuity has become all-pervasive, and we evangelicals are in danger of getting caught up in all the fun!

Mr. Wells also addresses homosexuality, showing his colors as clearly as Yancy does. To wit: "the suggestion is made, ever so subtly, that being gay is a legitimate option, an alternative. This is their 'sexual preference.' Sexual preference? What on earth are we talking about? God offers no such alternative, and he allows no such preference.

I'm wondering two things, really: (1) How can Mr. Wells be so sure? Certainly being gay is not an "option," but neither is being straight! I've never in my life met a homosexual who made a well-thought-out decision to have sexual urges for someone of the same sex ... And I have yet to meet a heterosexual who made a similar decision for someone of the opposite sex. Is being gay a sin? The scriptures certainly have little light to shed in response to that question. (2) What is the difference between Mr. Wells' blatant assumptions regarding the homosexual, and the self-righteous taunts of the zealous Christians Yancy observed that day in our nation's capital? I know that if I were gay Mr. Wells' remarks would sting just as powerfully as any "Aids, aids, it's comin' your way" chant.

These two articles point out an ever-burgeoning threat to evangelical Christianity, namely, that our understanding and misunderstanding, our knowledge and ignorance, of homosexuality, may one day split the church in a very visible way. I don't know of a Christian worth his salt who denies that homosexual "promiscuity" (Yancy's carefully chosen word) is a sin. The confusion and debate centers around whether a committed, monogamous homosexual partnership is sin. Many are still waiting on evangelical scholarship to clear the air. A little over two years ago, Dr. John Stott presented an article, published in your journal, that was a start. But it was not a textual treatment from scripture. might CT be willing to pick up the torch and carry it farther?

Sincerely (signed)

Gary McCary

Pastor

4425 Valeta St., San Diego, CA 92107 (619) 224-2040