| Author | Message | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
following Sherry's posts on the SDA forum, someone asked about her belief in the sanctuary doctrine and I was glad they asked her and not me. You all may have realized by now that I may have blonde roots, but, what "exactly" is the sanctuary doctrine and what are the biblical facts? I know the veil was rent at Jesus' death and He said "It is finished" Is that the end of the story? I am asking some really dumb questions here lately, I realize, just bear with me. | ||
| Sherry2 (Sherry2) |
Well Sabra, I've given up with that forum for starters. Ugh. I was so sickened by some of the stuff said, and did you see Jesus lifted up? No, EGW!! I asked them about their salvation, how they knew, what they knew, and they ignored it and went on to EGW some more. Puke!! I just can't take it. Sorry...I was very depressed after the last few posts. Hmm...but as to the Sanctuary doctrine...what this really is getting at I think is more of the 1844 Investigative Judgment belief. If you want to understand more of the Sanctuary stuff and fulfillment in Christ, get a Strong's concordance and look up Holy Place, right hand of God, phrases like these in the New Testament. I think you'll find it fun and increase your knowledge of His awesome finished work. Also, reading Hebrews from chapter 1-8 really gets into how Jesus is better than...better than Moses, better than the angels, better than the earthly sanctuary, better than the High priests. It is a most encouraging and awesome piece of Scripture if you ask me. It just shows so vividly how Jesus is the center of it all. You know, I've been thinking lately about how Dale showed from early history how to put the sign of the covenant in the center of the covenant was customary of the time, and that is why the Sabbath sign was in the exact(yes exact) center of the Old Covenant. And as I'm seeing how Jesus fits the center of the whole Bible, do you see how he fits as the real sign of the New Covenant...He is the center of the whole thing. How do we enter that new covenant..first and foremost by receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour. My thoughts though...but Jesus really is so pivotal in doctrine, and what people believe of His importance. Have a great day!!! | ||
| Shephil222 (Shephil222) |
Hello everyone, Sherry. Yeah, I understand about giving up on that forum. I sure did. Those people (well a lot of those people) are stone hearted. They refuse to hear the truth and when you present it to them, especially strait forward and to the point. They've got every reason not to answer your questions nor stick to the subject directly. I've decided to pray for them and leave it at that. Now, on the santuary doctrine. I've done some reasearch on it. The way adventist teach it and the way it really is; is like night and day. Like with the 2300 day prophecy. I have been studying alot on messianic Judism, or Jews for Jesus. and I was introduced to the Macabees. You can find it on line. If you can't I'll post some of it up in the forum if it's ok. The macabees explains the 2300 day prophecy so plainly it's amazing. I've learned that the 2300 day theory (the adventis teaching that is) is a bunch of crock. There's no such thing as Jesus Cleasning the temple in heaven during the 2300 days. And the 2300 meaning each day represents a year. I wish I could explain it in detail to you. For some reason I don't really think I'm making any sense. I just know one thing there is No sanctuary in heaven. Well. God bless Rushelle | ||
| Violet (Violet) |
Rushelle, I studied the Book of Macabees last year. It does make perfect sence. The problem is you have to ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in your interpitations of the Bible, and be willing to accept what He has to tell you. Believe me it is a very humbleing experiance to have to tell you adolecent children you were wrong and we now have to go to another church. If that doesn't humble you nothing will. Vi | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Sherry, I love what you said about Jesus being the center of the Bible and therefore the center of God's covenant. I hadn't thought of the symbolism in those terms. You're right! Yes, the sanctuary doctrine is the catch-phrase for the implications of the 1844 belief. It is the central doctrine of true Adventism. The sanctuary doctrine basically says the OT sanctuary and the sacrifices and the priesthood and the ceremoniesóin short, the whole set of law and symbols connected to the Mosaic lawóare a "type" (they love that word!) of the true sanctuary in heaven. Here's where it gets weird; they say there is an actual, two-compartment sanctuary in heaven after which the one Moses established was patterned. Ellen had a "vision" in which she saw Jesus in the heavenly sanctary, and she describes his clothes and the furniture, etc. She described him wearing the get-up of an Aaronic high priest, just as the OT describes the garments of the high priests. (Interestingly, Joseph Smith had a remarkably similar vision, complete with descriptions, except he had himself in the sanctuary instead of Jesus!) Because the KJV interprets Daniel 8:13-14 as saying that after 2300 days the sanctuary would be "cleansed", instead of "restored" after 2300 "evenings and mornings" as more accurate translations say, SDAs have built an elaborate argument to "prove" that in 1844, 2300 YEARS (remember a day for a year?) after the decree to rebuild the temple went forth to the exiled Jews in Babylon, the heavenly sanctuary was "cleansed" in the manner of the OT Day of Atonement. In other words, that was when Jesus literally moved from the holy place in the heavenly sanctuary to the most holy placeó(he hadn't been there yet, according to Ellen) and began the investigative judgment in which he reviews everyone's life, checks to see what sins people have asked God to forgive, and those sins he counts as "cleansed". He is "cleansing the sanctuary" by officially forgiving the sins for which people have repented and by condemning those who have not repented. It is the most bizarre and confusing and spurious doctrine, and it MAKES NO SENSE! It is absolutely NOT in the Bible. In short, all of that mish-mash of unrelated texts Adventists use to "prove" that Jesus' work was not finished on Calvary is the "sanctuary doctrine", and Adventists believe that it is the essence of salvation and the mark of the remnant church. All this, of course, is closely tied in with keeping the law (read that keeping the Sabbath) because the way Israel knew they had sinned was by the fact that they broke the law, and they had to offer sacrifices for those infringements. Adventists do not say that the day Jesus died was the fulifllment of the Day of Atonement. Instead, they have the "sanctuary doctrine" to prove that Jesus' atonement in ongoing and unfinished. They make Jesus' work in heaven a copy of the OT high priest's work. Instead, Hebrews says Jesus is not a high priest in the order of Aaron, but in the order of Melchizedek, and where there is a change of the priesthood, there is also a change of the law. Hebrews is a wonderful book; as Sherry pointed out, the first 8 chapters explain how Jesus is superior to EVERYTHING in the OT. The next chapters specifically show how the Mosaic laws and ceremonies were temporary shadows of the reality Jesus has revealed. I am so grateful that, as Violet said above, the Holy Spirit really does guide us in our understanding of the Bible when we want to know truth and ask God to reveal it. In Jesus, Colleen | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Thank you Colleen, You're right, that is very confusing. I guess since I was 5 when my mother joined the SDA church and 10 when I was baptized, no one ever sat me down and explained all of that weird stuff in detail. I never read any of those EGW books, I tried a few times but never could sit down and read that. It was very condecending to me even as a young adult. I guess all of this is to my good fortune, except that I am not the one to refute these doctrines as I don't understand them. So what is the real meaning of the 2300 days? and the 70 years? Do the Adventists not know that Israel is going to sign a peace treaty? Do they not understand that Israel is the first love of Jesus? Thanks so much for your help! | ||
| Sherry2 (Sherry2) |
Now there's a topic, Sabra! As an Adventists, I was raised to believe we SDA's WERE spiritual Israel, and all promises once for literal Israel ahd passed to God's spiritual children, and being that we were the remnant church, those blessings were ours. Did any of you all grow up learning that? Thanks for the encouraging words, Colleen. It is remarkable how Jesus fits the center. I just was so disillusioned to see how EGW really is the center for so many and Sabbath, not Jesus...even though they say with their lips He is. It's very disheartening. I just can't wait till He comes and this stuff is all ended forever. No more deception, no more lies, doesn't that sound great!! | ||
| Violet (Violet) |
Talk about being self centered. To think that someone has the exclusive right to the blessings of God in this day and age. It seems to me when I read the Bible the blessings were extended to ALL who believe. I agree I can't wait until Jesus comes, so we can see Him and worship Him and thank Him for paying the price and.... | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
I was just always told that we were the true church, the remnant. I don't think I ever heard much about Jews except that they had rejected Christ and lost their blessing. I remember not ever being too sure that we were "it". Guess I think too much, but I would see people around me who were obviously christians and not SDA's and think some of them were a lot more "christian" than me so I figured they would make it too. So, they DON'T realize the significance of all of the peace talk? Good grief! They are looking so hard for a Sunday Law that when He does come they won't have a clue where He came from. Another thing I thought of, if He is coming here to reign for 1000 years, wont they think He is the anti-christ since they are not expecting Him to set foot on the earth? | ||
| Jtree (Jtree) |
Colleen, as even in their "bible" the Clear Word Bible ==== NASB "And he said to me, ëFor 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.í" CWB "He said to him, ëAfter two thousand three hundred prophetic days (or two thousand three hundred years), God will step in, proclaim the truth about Himself and restore the ministry of the Sanctuary in heaven to its rightful place. This is when the judgment will begin, of which the cleansing of the earthy sanctuary was a type.í" ==== How can a simple passage be blown up so large to incorporate their own doctrine? | ||
| Lori (Lori) |
I grew up in the Adventist Church--and I never understood all the "doctrines of 1844". It was always so complicated and confusing and I suppose I really wasn't interested enough to learn it. Every time I tried to study and understand "it" I just kept thinking, "The process of Salvation is supposed to be simple enough for a child to understand". So I "filed" it away (along with a lot of other stuff) as unimportant. My philosophy was: I was keeping the Sabbath (sort of) and that was what was important. And, yes, Sherry, I was taught the same thing--WE WERE SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. That's why the argument of the written law being given to Israel doesn't phase an Adventist because THEY are spiritual Israel. You know, Adventism is a well put together deception!!!! There is a built in "safety net" to protect them from anything that might reveal the truth. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Yes, Sherry, I was also taught that "we" replaced Israel, and all promises for Israel transferred to us. Thank you for the Clear Word quote, Jtree. In Daniel the 2,300 evenings and mornings seem to refer to the evening and morning sacrifices in the temple, and the prophecy is about the temple being restored after being desecrated for 1500 days. Daniel even states that the desecrator is from the visionary ram that represents the kingdom of Greece. (Daniel 8:21-25) Although there is some ambiguity about this passage (read Daniel 8:14-26), history does seem to bear out that Antiochus IV, a Greek general, fulfills the role of the one who desecrated the temple and offered a pig on the altar. His power did not last long, however, and at the end of the time prophesied, Judas Maccabeus restored the Lord's altar. (The notes in the NIV Study Bible are helpful here.) So, the problem stems partly from the fact that Adventists have built a doctrine forcing the KJV text to support itóthe sanctuary will be CLEANSED. When more accurate translations appear, they don't even use the language that can support the doctrineóthe sanctuary will be RECONSECRATED (NIV) or RESTORED (NASB). And, as Angel Rodgriguez of the General Conference said in 1999 (or was it 1998?), if we lose the 1844 doctrine, the church has no reason to exist. Pretty shaky bedrock! You're right, Lorió"Adventism IS a well-put together deception" with "built-in safety nets to protect them from anything that might reveal the truth." Praise God for the light of truth! Colleen | ||
| Violet (Violet) |
It is all starting to sound like a bunch of middle school girls getting together and creating a "club" that only they can be a part of. The sad thing is when you start thinking you are better than others you have more light than others you start turning to yourself and away from Jesus. Let's see did not that happen once before with an angel who thought he was better than the other angels and thought he knew it all...hmmmm let me think | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Good point, Violet. I pray that God will give us discernment and a willingness to continue to grow in truth, and that he will protect us from further deception and arrogance. I do praise God for loving us and calling us giving us hope and a future! Colleen | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Violet, I also like your comments about Lucifer thinking that he knew more than everybody else. As we well know, Adventists know everything; if in doubt, just ask them. Obviously, spiritual errogance/elitism is can only be inspired by the Devil. What a relief to realize that we don't have to know everything! Everytime we read the sacred pages of Scripture, we take an incredible risk. The Holy Spirit may impress our minds with new insight that may require an abandonment of rigidly-held views. In awe of Calvary, Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Violet (Violet) |
No kidding Dennis, as I was talking with my new pastor yesterday I told him probably one of the hardest things about leaving Adventism is going to your kids, mine were 11 and 8 and telling them I was wrong and we now have to start studying the Bible from a different perspective. I can testify without reservation that I am so much more peaceful than I ever was in SDA'm. | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
...and, I'm still confused on this subject. I understand that it is finished. What I don't understand is what exactly is the heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews 9? There isn't a heavenly santuary, right? ??? | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
Sabra, all symbols point to a reality that is greater than the symbol itself. In one sense, we can say that there is a heavenly sanctuary, but not like the one built by human hands (see Heb. 8:2, 9:11, & surrounding versus). However, it would be foolish to suppose that the heavenly "sanctuary" referred to by the author of Hebrews is just like the earthly one only bigger and better (as Adventism has taught historically). It's clear from even a cursory reading of Hebrews that the earthly symbols were only shadows of spiritual heavely realities. I believe we would have a more clear picture of Jesus' work as our mediator if we understood all of Heaven, the very presence of God, to be the most holy place imaginable. Jesus is described as sitting at the right hand of God ("at his right hand" being a Jewish idiom for one in a position of power and favor). In other words, the Son has returned to the Father and no longer veils His power as during the incarnation, but reigns in sovereign omnipotence. By virtue of His sacrifice, God the Son is our eternal mediator with God the Father. The eternal relationships within the Godhead guarantee that those who have been made brothers and sisters with Christ are also eternally sons and daughters of God. The reality of Jesus' mediatorial work in the "Most Holy" place goes so far beyond the earthly symbol of a tabernacle that it boggles the mind and fills one with awe and gratitude. The Adventist view of a large heavely building where books of sins are poured over has reduced our standing in Christ to nothing. Worse yet, it has set up an adversarial relationship between the judge and the unworthy sinner. In the end we stand without a mediator with only our own works to save us. How sad. How far from the real truth that is taught in Hebrews and throughout the rest of the New Testament. Imagine it, brothers and sisters with Christ, sons and daughters with God all becasue of our eternal mediator who is ever in the Most Holy place becasue He Himself is God. In some way we have been brought into eternal relationship with the Persons of the Trinity. Unbelieveable!!! Thank you Jesus. Chris | ||
| Melissa (Melissa) |
So timely that this topic would be brought up again. Isn't God grand!!! B gave me this yesterday as explanation for the IJ: "The Investigative Judgement theology has nothing to do with salvation. As I'm quite sure we discussed long ago, God knows who are His. However, the Bible makes it plain that there are "books" that are used in judgement. I do not believe that the judgement is more than a reckoning so that all sentient, created beings can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is just. Perhaps I'm misguided in my understanding of that teaching but that's what I've understood all my life. It certainly has NOTHING to do with salvation. It is instead an explicitly detailed record of those who has [sic] been saved or lost." As Colleen pointed in her March 2002 posting, I have thought it was their "essence of salvation", part of their gospel. I thought the teaching was about weighing ones works with ones sins to determine if one had earned salvation. The wording may be different, but that seems to be what they are trying to dance around saying. Am I way out in left field of my understanding? I told B that if he really did read all of Cultic Doctrine, he would understand that topic very differently. Do many believe as B? I do think his understanding of this doctrine has changed through our years, and maybe it is his reading Cultic Doctrine. I remember years ago that he was dogmatic that it was clearly Biblical. So, I was somewhat surprised at this benign definition. It still doesn't make sense. | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
Melissa, regardless of what any one individual Adventist may say their personal understanding of the IJ is, there is a definitive source on this teaching. One need only read the latter chapters of the Great Controversy (GC) to know exactly what the essesnce of the IJ doctrine really is. Despite all attempts to soft peddle or redefine this doctrine, it remains a judgment of works for salvation as long as EGW is still held to be the authoritative prophet for the denomination and as long as GC continues to be printed, promoted, and sold by the SDA denomination. The best counter argument to attempts to redfine this cultic doctrine is to simply read passages from GC back to the person attempting the redfinition. They can't both uphold Ellen and negate the core concepts of the IJ. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Chris is right. The fact is that many Adventists today are explaining the IJ differently so it doesn't sound so heretical. Graham Maxwell had a part in redefining it so it comes out sounding like something that will prove God's justice. Many say that the IJ is reviewing the reasons why people are saved or lost so the watching universe (including all of humanity, eventually) will know WHY God did what he did with each person. John McLarty, editor of Adventist Today, has said that God will not stop until he has satisfactorily answered every question we might ever have about his character and decisions. The IJ, therefore, is something for our benefit and for God's. It justifies God in the face of Satan's accusations before the questioning universe. Even with this horrible re-definition, the IJ is heretical. In fact, it's almost worse than before. Imagine the audacity of claiming God, the sovereign Judge and Creator and Lord of Lords, must earning our approval by answering every question our perverse sinful natures might ever raise. God answers to no one. He is just and righteous, and he is not seeking to justify himself in our eyes. But Chris is right. There is a definitive explanation of the IJ, and that still stands as long as EGW is upheld by the church. No matter what they say, it is what it is. Praise God for his word alone! Colleen | ||
| Freeatlast (Freeatlast) |
God never even gave Job an explanation, one whom He called "righteous" (yet covered himself in sackcloth and ashes because he felt repentant). Who is God, that He should explain Himself to me? | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Thank you all....Funny, Bacchiocchi talks about this in his last newsletter (the 2nd one this week :0 ) It was so confusing I didn't even read it all. This is the craziest doctrine I can imagine. It's almost like the Muslims with the scales: If the scale tips in your favor you get to go to heaven. Bacchiocchi says it is exclusive to SDA's. Well go figure. He also says it is the foundation of the SDA faith and if it is wrong many other doctrines could be as well. Still he upholds it. I still don't understand it exactly. Hard to debate it when I can't get it. Could the heavenly sanctuary be Jesus? | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Yes, Sabra, I believe God (the Trinity) is our sanctuary. Jesus is the one to whom we run for sanctuary in God (since he is the part of the Trinity through whom we have access to God and eternity). Colleen | ||
| Leigh (Leigh) |
colleen, you mentioned Graham Maxwell. Who is he? I've heard that he was writing a book about EGW. thanks | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Graham Maxwell used to be on the faculty of religion at Loma Linda University. (I think he is retired now.) He has taught a S.S. class in Loma Linda for years; I think he still teaches it, although I am not 100% sure about that. Tapes of his classes were sent to other countries because his ideas were considered so significant. He is also one of the sons of Uncle Arthur, the author of The Bible Stories and Bedtime Stories. I would not be at all surprised to hear that he is writing a book about EGW. He is a loyal Adventist. Maxwell is also a key figure behind the recent Adventist focus on calling God our friend and saying that the death of Jesus was not necessary in order for God to forgive us. Colleen | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
ì . . . the death of Jesus was not necessary in order for God to forgive us.î <face turns beet red, steam shoots out of ears> OK, Iíll calm down. <takes slow, deep breaths; unclenches fists> Of course, in essence, this is the logical result of a legalist doctrine. However, does he (or any other Adventist) actually have the temerity to state this explicitly? Surely, this is not to become an official statement about the Cross. I cannot imagine how they would uphold their campaign to appear ìJesí plain olí down home evangelical Christians, like yíallî if this is incorporated into the official literature. What indescribably putrid mess of reasoning could come up with this eisegetal gem? How many verses of scripture did they need to mangle to justify this position? Rhetorical questions, of course, but Iíd L ñ O ñ V ñ E to read any document that makes this conclusion. After all, I do so enjoy horror stories. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
No, Jerry, I don't think any "official", GC-authorized books (such as textbooks, etc.) will ever say Jesus didn't have to die, but I interviewed Graham Maxwell for an article in The Quiet Hour Echoes in the mid-80's, and he was talking about this idea then. (As far as GC-authorized books, The Clear Word is officially not an official SDA book, either, although it was written by the then-head of the theology department at Southern Adventist University, and it's sold in Adventist book centers.) Maxwell is probably the premier teacher of what SDAs have come to call "the moral influence theory". In other words, Jesus came to reveal the Father, and the primary revelation was that God is loving and forgiving, and we don't need to fear him. He came to win us over to living "righteously" because we don't have to fear God. He loves us, so we can be free to love him. (I realize I'm not exhaustively explaining the idea, but this is general out-take.) Further, Maxwell's theory states that God does not destroy the wicked or cause any kind of suffering or pain. Because he is a good God, he would never turn on his enemies in wrath. Such a God could never be trusted. Rather, the wicked pull themselves away from God and ultimately destroy themselves by removing themselves from the source of life. The quick burn at the second coming merely cleans up the mess the wicked have created for themselves. I know that his teachings have had far-reaching influence, especially by means of his tapes. My mom tells of a friend of hers and dad's in Oregon who was an avid follower of Maxwell, and his SS class comments always touted a forgiving, loving God who would not punish or hurt. I read a booklet a few years ago disseminated by the 1888 Committee. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of it. The 1888 Committee has tried to resurrect the teaching of Jones and Waggoner who were initially disparaged by EGW and the church, then later exonerated by EGW. They taught "righteousness by faith." Today's 1888 adherents are trying to teach righteousness by faith, but they mix it with EGW and the Sabbath, of course. In said booklet, the author stated that the reason for Jesus' death was to allow us to see how debased we had become: we were willing to kill God! Our bottom-line sin, he said, was that we wanted to replace God--just as EGW said Satan wanted to do before the fall. We harbor(ed) in our unregenerate hearts a deep, unconscious desire to kill God (just as Satan did). Therefore, the crucifixion was the ultimate display of how low the human race had sunk in its effort to be dominant. We HAD to see, the book said, how abhorrent our unconscious sinfulness was--hence God's allowing us to kill Jesus. The book never said the blood of Jesus had to be shed to pay the price for sin. Rather, it was an object lesson for us to recognize that we needed this Savior who allowed us to crucify him in order to effect our repentance and salvation. It's really twisted. I'll bet you could do a Google search on Graham Maxwell and find some links to some of his ideas. He's not 1888-Committee stuff, though--he's more liberal than that. Interesting, though, what a common thread there is re: the blood of Jesus! Colleen | ||
| Doc (Doc) |
The "moral influence" theory is in fact just one of the mediavel theories of the atonement. It originates from Peter Abelard in the 12th century. He emphasised God's love at the expense of his juctice, and basically taught that it is our own attitudes that keep us apart from God. The teaching of the atonement as a substitutionary sacrifice really only came in with the Reformers. If Adventism revives this theory, then they will take one more step in the direction of that mediaeval Catholicism that they like so much. (I taught Christology at Theological College this year, so I had to brush up on some of this stuff) God bless, Adrian |
