Seventh Day-Adventists Believe:
Part 1-A

And many of those teachings are very worthwhile. Please recall that, in spite of the definite problems in Questions on Doctrine, many of its chapters were excellently presented and correctly stated. An example along this line would be the chapter on the State of the Dead in Questions on Doctrine. And if you read the parallel chapter in this new book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, you will find an equally fine chapter. For this we can all be thankful.

Those acquainted with the inroads and teachings of the new theology will recognize that it is in the area of certain key doctrines that the new theology presents new views that produce devastating results when accepted into the lives of our members. Those concepts lead to a lowering of standards, a lack of concern to obey either the laws of God or the standards outlined in His Written Word. This is why we today have members and workers that water-ski on the Bible Sabbath, eat Sabbath lunch in restaurants, partake of wine, appreciate lowered jewelry and cosmetics standards in the church, and send their tithes and offerings to Desmond Ford instead of where they should be sent.

As the present writer opened the pages of this new book, he was heartily warmed to see the large print, simple writing style, and doctrinal accuracy in many points. And we can all rejoice at much that it presents. Yet certain problems that we had with Questions on Doctrine we again unfortunately have with this doctrinal book that was published to replace it.

Oh, how much our people need to be in unity at this momentous time in history! But how can we be unified on doctrinal presentations that pull us apart? The objective of this book is to enable all our people to come into unity of action while still maintaining very divergent beliefs. But that is actually a stay-apart objective! The proper way to do it is to state beliefs that are in exact agreement with our historic Bible-Spirit of Prophecy doctrines and standards—and that will bring us together; that will bring genuine unity.

"But," someone will inquire. "what about the liberals and Evangelicals among us; don’t we need to make them happy too?" Our reply is that they can either unite with us on the one platform of God-given truth, or they can leave us and go unite with the liberals and Evangelicals outside the church! And our reason for that position is a solid one: (1) They are already with the other churches in heart, belief, and spirit. (2) This is our church, for we were here first! Our seniority is based on the fact that our beliefs mirror those of our founders.

The problems in this book are two-fold: First, direct and indirect statements that are in harmony with modern Protestant error, and second, omissions that make no mention of key beliefs of our people.

It is of interest that, throughout this book, the primary contemporary support consists in quotations from modern theologians, rather than from the Spirit of Prophecy. One comes away from a reading with the impression that their voices are more important than hers was.

The part of this book dealing with the Nature of Christ will be found on pages 42-50. Since this is a controverted point in our church today (ironically, stemming back to errors on this score in the book, Questions on Doctrine), we want to know if faithful editors and revisers of this book were able to resist strong pressure from the new theology to present an incorrect view of the Nature of Christ in this book.

We should here mention that, while Christ at His incarnation took our nature, He also had a divine nature. When the doctrine of the "nature of Christ" is discussed, only His human side—His human nature—is referred to or dealt with; all parties are in agreement on the essential characteristics of His divine nature.

The correct view of the (human) Nature of Christ would include these points: (1) Christ fully took our fallen nature; the nature of humanity after 4,000 years of sin. He took the nature of Abraham’s descendants, not that of his ancestor Adam (Hebrews 3:16 and context; Matthew 4; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13), and (2) was actually tempted (Heb 4:15), (3) but, in that nature. Christ never in any slightest degree sinned (Heb 4:15). For example, two classic statements on the nature that Christ took in humanity will be found on pages 49 and 117 of Desire of Ages, a book that is widely available to our readers. Read those two passages carefully. For a fairly complete overview of what the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy has to say on this important subject, you will also want to read our 84-page tractbook, The Nature of Christ. As we proceed farther in this present study, you see, again and again, how very important it is that we properly understand the Nature of Christ, as well as the Nature of Man.

With this background, let us consider the teaching of this new book on this topic:

(1) This book says that Christ took our nature—although it never says He took our "fallen nature" as the Spirit of Prophecy repeatedly declares. Page 49(1:4 [page 49, column 1, paragraph 41 says "Jesus Christ took upon Himself our nature with all its liabilities, but He was free from hereditary corruption." Does that mean He did or did not take our fallen nature? "He possessed the essential characteristics of human nature." (4611:3)

"Adam had the advantage over Christ.

At the Fall he lived in paradise. He had a perfect body possessing full vigor of body and mind. Not so with Jesus. When He took on human nature the race had already deteriorated through 4,000 years of sin . . Christ took a human nature that, compared with Adam’s unfallen nature, had decreased in physical and mental strength—though He did so without sinning." (47/1:1-2) Quoting a theologian, we are told " ‘Christ’s humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adam IC, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin.’ "(47/1:4-47/2:0) Although the above quoted writer equates "fallen nature" with actual experience in sinning (which is not its definition in historic Adventism or the Spirit of Prophecy), but aside from that, his ultimate concept appears compatible with our beliefs. (3) The book correctly teaches that Christ was tempted and could have sinned. "Temptation and the possibility of sinning were real to Christ. If He could not sin He would have been neither human nor our example. Christ took human nature with all its liabilities, including the possibility of yielding to temptation." (47(2:2) "Because He Himself faced the power of temptation, we can know that He understands how to help anyone who is tempted. He was one with humanity in suffering the temptations to which human nature is subjected." (48/1:2) (4) Lastly, a point agreed upon by all parties in the controversy, Christ never in the slightest degree yielded to temptation or sin:

"Indeed, Jesus is humanity’s highest, holiest example. He is sinless, and all He did demonstrated perfection. Truly He was the perfect example of sinless humanity." (49/2:3)

If we could have stopped at the end of page 48, we would say that perhaps all was well, but on page 49 we run into certain statements indicating otherwise. To preface these quotations, let us say that Jesus took our actual, fallen, sinful nature; but in that nature never once yielded in thought, word, or action to sin—never! So His thoughts and actions were totally sinless, but the nature he inherited on his mother’s side (Has human side) was the identical nature that the rest of us inherit: a fallen nature with tendencies to sin. But page 49 of this new doctrinal book teaches that Christ did not have a nature like ours, but rather an unfallen nature with no problem in relation to temptation to sin such as we have. He was therefore NOT our example, according to this new theology teaching.

But first, before quoting from page 49 of the new doctrinal book, let us consider a most excellent description of what that unfallen nature would be like that Jesus is supposed to have had. Read these words quoted from the Third Quarter 1988 Senior Sabbath School Quarterly that this book. Here is the unfallen nature:

"Because Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, they were spiritually, intellectually, and physically perfect. There was nothing in human nature, as it came from the hand of the Creator, that was predisposed to sin. Adam and Eve had no tendency to evil. They loved God and enjoyed the best fellowship with Him. Their love for each other was free from any taint of selfishness or evil passion. They were perfect individuals in a perfect world. As long as they remained in perfect union with their Creator no sin, sickness, or death could mar their happiness." (49:2)

"Before their fall, Adam and Eve were entirely free from sin. They could speak with God face to face without the slightest fear. They constantly received life from the divine life. They suffered no degeneration of any kind, and never had a desire to disobey." (49:7)

Now for these matching quotations from the new doctrinal book describing how Jesus had such a nature unbattered by temptation as the rest of us have:

"It is self-evident that the divine nature of Jesus was sinless. But what about His human nature?

"The Bible portrays Jesus’ humanity as sinless. His birth was supernatural—He was conceived of the Holy Spirit [sent to unite Christ’s divine nature with our human nature]. As a newborn baby He was described as ‘that Holy One’. He took the nature of man in its fallen state [He took our fallen nature], bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness [He did not take our fallen nature]. He was one with the human race, except in sin." (49/1:1-2)

bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness." The new theology view on the Nature of Christ is subtle in the extreme, and because of this they can say that Christ took our fallen nature—when they do not believe that He took our fallen nature. This quotation from Norman GuIley, a co-author of this new doctrinal book, explains their strange view on this matter: "We can look at the phrase ‘fully man’ in two ways. Jesus had either (1) unfallen human nature, such as Adam possessed prior to the Fall, or (2) fallen human nature. Which is correct? He took both. [!] For Christ took the spiritual nature of man before the Fall, and the physical nature of man after the Fall." (Norman GuIley, Christ Our Substitute, page 33:2, lesson help for the third lesson. First Quarter Senior Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, January 9-15., quoted from The GuIley Quarterly [ WM—65], now in our 84-page tractbook. The Nature of Christ.)

Now you see the KEY to the mystery of how the new theology can say He took our fallen nature, while at other times—or in the next sentence,—say He did not take our fallen nature.

Morris Venden a firm believer in the new theology position on the unfallen nature, in a published interview in Insight magazine, gave the second KEY to the extreme importance of defending the unfallen nature view of the Nature of Christ. It is this: If Christ took an unfallen nature,—then we cannot follow His example (since He did not have our nature), and we cannot therefore in His strength obey the laws of God. It is as simple as that. Here is Venden’s statement:

"There doesn’t seem to be any question that the definition of sin, and the nature of Christ, and perfectionism are a package [i.e., our theology of each of these affects our theology of each of the other two]. I think that the contention is quite valid that if a person defines sin primarily in terms of transgression of the law—in legalistic terms and understandings [Venden’s view: sin is only a broken relationship with God, not the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)]— then he is going to need to have a Saviour who has struggled with all of his same temptations to transgress the law [he will need a Saviour who on earth had the same human nature he has]. In the process one ends up with perfectionism and a behaviorally oriented Christianity [one ends up with a concern to resist sin, obey God’s Written Word, and live a Christian life in regard to both standards and principles].

"Now, if you go back to define sin in terms of living a life apart from God [only the broken relationship needs to be mended, and that can be done by a legal paperwork transaction we new theologians call "justification"]—you don’t need to have a Saviour exactly as you are. In fact, His very difference indicates that He could have lived independently [of His Father], but He chose to depend on God. I feel that His dependence upon the Father is the essence of [all that there is to] Christ’s example to us. After all, He did say, ‘Without Me you can do nothing.’ Allowing a difference [because, contrary to Scripture (Hebrews 2, etc.) we assume a difference] between our nature and Christ’s nature prevents us from getting bogged down in perfectionism, because that’s not where the issue lies, anyway. [Obedience to God—perfect or partial— is not the issue in the Great Controversy nor in our salvation.] Perfection of character must be seen in terms of relationships, not in terms of spelling out ethical and moral options. [we are made "perfect" when, through justification, we are restored to fellowship with God. Obedience to His laws has nothing to do with perfection of character.]

"I don’t know anybody who believes there is any kind of righteousness apart from Jesus—not even among perfectionists. I haven’t heard anyone naive enough to say that. [The new theology publically claims that those who attempt to obey God are legalists trying to do it by themselves, but secretly we know that this claim is not true.]." ("Morris Venden Talks to Insight—Part 2," Insight magazine, May 15. 1979, pages 9-10,—quoted on page 3 of our 4.8-page tractbook, The Teachings of Morris Venden.)

We have given special attention to the doctrine of the Nature of Christ in this new doctrinal book since it is such a pivotal point in our beliefs regarding obedience and salvation, because it is such a controverted point at this time in our church, and because one of this book’s co-authors (Norman GuIley) is a forthright proponent of the new theology position that Christ took the flawless nature of Adam instead of our weakened nature (and could not therefore be either a perfect Saviour or a perfect example for His followers).

It is because of your expressed concerns, written in letters to leaders all through our ranks over the past several years. that this present book is as good as it is. Thank you for coming up to the help of the Lord in a time of denominational crisis. It looks as if you will have to continue to do so in future months and years.

Now we turn our attention to the Creation of this Earth. This topic is discussed on pages 69 to 77 of the book.

In regard to the great truth of Creation, the liberals in our church have an interpretation that is distinctly different than that of historic Adventism.

First, many of them do not believe that this world (our planet) was created during Creation Week, but rather long ages before that event. In this they are trying to combine Bible truth with scientific theories in regard to geological strata, —when Creation Science offers equally acceptable answers to that stratigraphical formations.

Fortunately, in one passage in this chapter we are given a fairly clear statement in support of the correct position: "At Creation Christ commanded and it was instantly accomplished. Rather than vast periods of metamorphosis [gradual development], His powerful word was responsible for Creation. In six days He created all . . He took delight in the unfolding of our planet in those six days." (76/2:2,3) We can be thankful for that statement.

Second, the liberals, as well as the new theologians, do not believe that Creation Week occurred 6,000 years ago, although they will heartily concur that Bible chronology indicates 4,000 years between the time of Creation and the time of Christ (with another 2,000 years from His time down to our own). But that is no problem to them, since they learned in the universities of the land that Bible chronology is not accurate. As a result of their "higher education," they doubt that the Old Testament gives a clear picture of ancient events, much less correct timing in regard to them. Some of these supposed intellectuals imagine that Creation Week—and the beginnings of life on this planet—could have taken place no less than 10,000 years ago, while others think it occurred thousands of millennia before that. Considering themselves to be among that elite group that are wiser than Scripture, they have become fools. There are a surprisingly large number of Seventh-day Adventist science teachers and research workers who were educated in such thinking in the seven years of college and university training that gave them their doctorates. Both the liberal camp and the new theology camp (they are different) view many matters of Scripture far differently than do the simple souls that take Scripture as it reads and believe it.

I want to tell you that if you happen to be among those that accept Scripture—all of it—just as it reads—without cutting out any parts of it,—then you are in a favored position. You have all Heaven on your side and you are far less likely in the days ahead to become a reprobate from the precious Advent Message.

This chapter on the Creation was intended to be something of a meeting of the minds—your mind with that of the liberals. We call this "consensus theology." It has been around a long time, and our church is getting into it more with every passing year. On page 76 we are told that, "according to Scripture chronology, [it has been] about 6,000 years since Creation." (76/2:4) Please understand that that passage is no problem to the liberals in our ranks, since they freely admit that Old Testament chronologies total about 4,000 years from Creation to Christ’s time. They just don’t happen to believe in the inspiration of Bible chronology, just as they don’t happen to believe in the inspiration of a lot of other things in that sacred book.

We are still looking for a statement in this book that tells us categorical that this Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Earlier in the same chapter we discover that the question is asked, "Were the heavens—the sun, moon, and even the stars—really made only 6000 years ago?" (70/2:1) And then, on the next page, this same question is repeated: "Some people are puzzled, and understandably so, by the verses that say that God ‘created the heavens and the earth’ and that He made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of Creation week 6,000 years ago. Were all the heavenly bodies brought into existence at that time?" (71/2:2) Well, that should settle it! the book says that Creation occurred 6,000 years ago. No, the book did not say that; it only asked a question, repeated it, and then disproved it. The question revolves around whether the sun, moon, and stars were created 6,000 years ago, —not whether this earth was created at that time.

The reader will assume a connection here that is not actually given. Thus, three times in this chapter the phrase "6,000 years" is tossed out, giving it an apparent acceptance, but not one in reality.

So we find that nowhere in this chapter—or elsewhere in this book—are we told that our world was created 6,000 years ago.

For more information on how the new theology strongly opposes this doctrinal point, read FF—2-3 (An Appeal by Eight Ministers, now in our 105-page tractbook, Identifying the New Theology. For an unusually complete collection of Spirit of Prophecy quotations on this matter of when the earth was created, we refer you to our tract The Age of the Earth (P.G.—20 7), which should still be available in tract form (since it was released since our most recent tractbook revision).

Chapter 7 is entitled The Nature of Man, (pages 78-96), and on page 90 we arrive at the section corresponding with Original Sin.

In the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, sin is a voluntary, individual act of rebellion against God, His will and His law. The Bible calls it "the transgression of the law"

(1 John 3:4). It is true that we have inherited tendencies to sin, but these are not sin. They can be resisted and overcome in the strength of Christ. There is no sin apart from your and my personal choice to indulge in it.

The error of Original Sin, on the other hand, views sin as something we inherit. It teaches that we are automatically sinful at birth and automatically sinful all the rest of our life as well. We are locked into sin and cannot escape it in this life. Christ died to take us to heaven, but we shall be sinful until He returns, for His grace was only given to forgive and justify from sin, not to save (deliver) from it. It is not possible in this life to obey the Ten Commandments or do anything else that God asks of us. Therefore God does not expect us to try to do so (and if we try to do so, as Desmond Ford and Helmut Ott teach, we may incur the near-unforgivable sin of legalism: trying to obey God). We need only mentally (and perhaps verbally) accept Christ as our Saviour, enjoy life and await that salvation from sin which will not come to us until glorification, when our bodies are changed and we are taken to heaven. (As you may recognize, this concept is closely related to the error of a "finished atonement at the cross concept,—but more on that later in this study.)

Original Sin is the name of an error that Augustine in the fifth century especially promulgated. For more information on this concept, read our tract The Error of Original Sin, The Man of Romans Seven, and our Nature of Christ tracts. All of these are now available in our 84-page tractbook, The Nature of Christ.

 Our interest in Original Sin stems from the fact that it is a tenet of the new theology, and, since the new theology continues to spread in our ranks, we want to know whether it is found in this new doctrinal book. (For those who might be interested, Robert Brinsmead believed in Original Sin all through the 1 1960s, —even before his conversion by Geoffrey Paxton to the Evangelicals in 1970.)

The correct view is that, because of Adam’s sin, we inherit a tendency to sin (a tendency which, by the way, we are powerless to resist apart from the forgiving, enabling grace of our Lord and Saviour). But in dark contrast, Original Sin teaches that we inherit actual sin itself.

What does this new doctrinal book teach in regard to this controversy? Here are some quotations from it:

"History reveals that Adam’s descendants share the sinfulness of his nature." (90/2:1)’ ‘The human heart’s corruption affects the total person." (90/2:3)

The thought here is that we inherit sinfulness. Now, we know that we inherit a tendency to sin, although not sin itself. But do we inherit "sinfulness," as this new book suggests? We do if by sinfulness we mean a tendency to sin; we do not inherit sinfulness if by it we mean actual sin. The Spirit of Prophecy speaks of the "natural sinfulness of our hearts" (4T 109) or our natural (inherited) tendency to commit sinful deeds. More frequently, however, the concept of "sinfulness" in the Spirit of Prophecy deals with the concept of the sinfulness of our lives—our accumulated past commission of sins which we bring to Christ (ST 133; PP 431; SC 31, 52, 65). Not only is there sinfulness in our hearts and our lives,—but there is sinfulness in sin also (AA 504; SL 81). It is as though sin is a container loaded with a terrible thing that is ready to burst forth as soon as action is taken on it. We have sinfulness: tendencies to wrong-doing are within us, but it is only in our voluntary, chosen indulgence, or commission of a sinful act that it bursts forth.

It would appear, then, that we can accept this book’s statement that we inherit sinfulness—a sinful tendency to commit sin.

As you can see, the doctrine of the Nature of Man is closely related to the doctrine of the Nature of Christ, which we have already discussed above. Remember that Christ fully took our nature—and in that nature inherited the tendencies found in it.

Our historic Adventist belief is this: Just as Christ fully took our fallen nature—and in that nature totally resisted temptation and sin by trusting in His Father, so we, because of His death and Sanctuary mediation, can now also totally resist temptation and sin as we cling to our Saviour’s hand and trustingly, obediently walk with Him along life’s pathway.

—Therefore we CAN obey God’s law in this life, and Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 are true. Satan’s accusation that we cannot obey the law of God in the strength of Christ is proved fallacious.

The Roman Catholic, modern Protestant, and new theology view is strikingly different, but then you would expect it to be different when you recall its papal source. Interestingly enough, this position works backwards: Instead of beginning with Christ and what He was and did, it begins with the assumption that all the descendants of Adam are automatically locked into Original Sin and cannot stop sinning. That assumption is held by men who have not been able to resist sin and who therefore need a theological excuse to continue indulging in it. (Augustine was a notorious sexual indulger.) Therefore they maintain that Christ took the nature of Adam, not our fallen nature, for if He had done so, He could not have resisted temptation and sin. (But please notice that this is based on an assumption that our human nature has Original Sin, — and therefore Christ dared not take it! Our nature was too terrible for even Christ to take, so say these men.) In the sinless, immaculate nature of Adam, Christ lived and died. He was not our example; only our Saviour, and that salvation is not given to us until death or translation. In this life we receive no saving, or delivering from the power of temptation and sin. —Therefore we CANNOT obey the Law of God in this life, and Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 are both lies.

Here is an interesting statement to keep in mind: "Could excuse for it [sin] be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin." Great Controversy, 493.

Now back to our new doctrinal book: "All who accept God’s offer of grace will know an enmity against sin that will make them successful in the battle with Satan. through faith they will share in the Saviour’s victory at Calvary." (94/1:1) If it were not for that ONE sentence in this chapter, we would not have the answer we are seeking. On the basis of that one sentence we can say that this chapter stands on the right side—with the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy—in regard to Original Sin and the nature of man, even though there are issues that are not mentioned.

While we are in this chapter, let us examine the Man of Romans Seven. The new theology (as well as Roman Catholicism and apostate modern Protestantism) teaches that Romans Seven refers to the experience of the converted Christian, who is forever in this life locked into sin. The Bible and Spirit of Prophecy teach that the Man of Romans Seven is an unconverted man, and that the experience of Romans Eight is the experience of one who is living in Christ. (The most complete set of Spirit of Prophecy quotations on this point that we know of, will be found in The Man of Romans Seven [FF421 which is also included in our 84. page tractbook, The Nature of Christ. For a wealth of additional background on all this, read The Australasian Controversy— Part 1-3 [FF-5-7], which is now in our 49-page tractbook, History of the Australian Apostasy. By the way, an excellent study on the Nature of Sin, as given in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, will be found in the second half of our Man of Romans Seven tract.)

Nowhere in the Bible do we find that the converted Christian is ever locked into sin and sinning —except if we give a twisted interpretation to Romans Seven. Obviously, the Man of Romans Seven is integral to the false doctrines of Original Sin and the unfallen (inherited) Nature of Christ.

For purposes of clarification, let us here say that we do not know of any major group within the Adventist Church or in Protestantism (with the exception of the Mormons) that teaches that Christ yielded to temptation and sinned at any time during His earthly life. The correct view of the (human side of the) Nature of Christ is that He took our fallen (inherited) nature; the incorrect position is that He took the unfallen nature of Adam, and not your nature, my nature, or the nature of the descendants of Abraham (read Hebrews 2:16-17). —But neither side in this controversy tolerates the idea that Christ ever yielded to sin.

On page 91 of this new doctrinal book will be found a reference to Romans Seven. (91/1:4-91/2:2)

This passage correctly views Romans Seven as speaking about the unconverted man, and Romans Eight as describing the experience of the converted child of God.

Next we come to Justification and Sanctification (pages 121-131). Justification is discussed on pages 121,122-123, and Faith and Works on 121-122. Both appear to present balanced, correct presentations. Sanctification is found on page 123 if. (page 123 and several pages that follow).

Both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy emphasize the importance of works as well as faith, but the new theology tendency is to downgrade works as something secondary and of less consequence. This is understandable, since the new theology students learned this modernism from the teachers in our colleges. and they in turn were taught it by non-Adventist professors in Protestant, Catholic, and secular universities. If we hired our college teachers on the basis of Christian experience, a solid record of Adventist missionary work, and a proven grasp of our Bible-Spirit of Prophecy teachings,—we would turn our entire denomination into a better direction within ten years. But instead we hire men because they have a doctorate from an outlandish school ("outlandish" in the Bible means "foreign, out of Israel, from another land").

The correct view of justification is a coming to Christ, being forgiven of our past sins, and then standing justified—legally accepted—in the sight of God. It is a legal transaction, based on the great salvation provided through the life, death, resurrection, and heavenly intercession of Christ. But it is also a real experience to be known and felt by those who have experienced it. All are pretty much in agreement on this.

But the new theology makes justification the overwhelming factor in salvation, with sanctification something of a tag-along item which is of far less significance.

The correct view is that we are saved because of justification and sanctification combined; the false view is that we are saved because of justification alone, and sanctification is just something that hitches a ride for the trip to heaven but has no particular significance other than that of maintaining one’s profession of Christ. Thus the incorrect view downplays the importance of obedience to the laws of God and His revealed will in Sacred Scripture.

(In connection with this, please understand that in the genuine Christian life there is a new conversion every day. "I die daily," Paul said. The once-save-always-saved Baptists erroneously imagine that they are to experience only one conversion and one justification in a lifetime. Justification and sanctification are continually intermingled in the life of the humble child of God.

There is a tendency in this new doctrinal book, as there was in Questions on Doctrine, to downplay the importance of obedience as a factor affecting our salvation. The Protestant and new theology approach is simply to lump obedience as "fruit" of salvation (which it is), rather than also a requirement of salvation (which it also is). The fallen churches see obedience as an effect and not a cause. We are saved solely through the merits of Jesus Christ, but we shall not be saved if we do not obey His Written Word. That concept is given repeatedly in the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Spirit of Prophecy. All are agreed on the first part of that italicized sentence; only the remnant believe the last part.

But before continuing, let us examine that sentence a little more closely.

Justification comes solely as a result of what Christ has done, yet we must choose to come or we shall not be justified. That choosing to come involved obedience. So obedience was a requirement of justification. Yet we could not come to Christ if He did not draw us, so all the praise goes to Him for that obedience, yet we had to do our part. And without our part. God will not do His. The same holds true with sanctification. The work of sanctification in our life is totally impossible without the merits of Christ’s death and intercession, yet if we did not do our part, there would be no sanctification, today, tomorrow, or ever. The great truth is that salvation is the result of a cooperative act by Christ and the individual believer as the life is surrendered to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Continuing on with our analysis of sanctification note that this Experience in its presentation, through 123/1m we are shown that there is a place for works, but that they have no relation to our salvation. "Many wrongly believe that their standing before God depends on their good or bad deeds." (121/2:3) "Neither justification nor sanctification is the result of meritorious works. Both are solely due to Christ’s grace and righteousness." (12311:3-123/2:0)

The four pages after that (123/2-127/1) explain a new view of sanctification that fully agrees with the new theology, as well as with certain writers in our church today. Here for the first time in our travels through this book, we have come into solid new theology.

"The three phases of sanctification the Bible presents are: (1) an accomplished act in the believer’s past; (2) a process in the believer’s present experience; (3) and the final result that the believer experiences at Christ’s return.

"As to the believer’s past, at the moment of justification the believer is also sanctified ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" He or she becomes a "saint." At that point the new believer is redeemed, and belongs fully to God." (123/2:1-2)

In the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy there is not a past, present, and future sanctification, —there is only one sanctification—a now sanctification. At the moment of initial conversion there was justification and intermingled obedience (sanctification); In the years that followed, there was more intermingled justification and sanctification as justifying forgiveness by Heaven and sanctifying obedience by a cooperative effort of us and the Holy Spirit—with all based and empowered by the meritorious grace of Christ our Sacrifice and High Priest. In the future, this will continue until the Close of Probation, when grace will cease and the people of God will have had their sins removed in the Investigative judgment (for both the heavenly Sanctuary as well as our lives are cleansed by the antitypical Day of Atonement experience—read Leviticus 16:30,33; also stated in this book (317/2:3, 318/1:2 last sentence). Following probation’s close there will be no more mediation for sin, and those satisfied to remain in sin when human probation ends will be forever lost. (Carefully read and reread Early Writings. 71, along with Revelation 22:11.) At the Second Advent there will be a divinely-given act of immortality to our previously mortal bodies,—but that act is not "future sanctification" on our part for it is nothing that we did.

This book teaches a "past sanctification" that comes as an instantaneous act of God alone, a "present sanctification" that is a daily act of God alone, and a "future sanctification" that is an instantaneous act of God alone.

According to the above quotation (123/2:1-2), the believer experiences instantaneous sanctification and redemption at the moment of his conversion. Now that may not be what the authors themselves believe,—but that is what they published in this book for the rest of us to believe.

As we conclude reading the above paragraph in this book, we surely expect to find something— some word, phrase, or paragraph—to be given afterward that will somehow offset this astoundingly wrong statement, this declaration of instantaneous sanctification. But as we continue on with the next several paragraphs we do not find what we are searching for.

Then, on page 124/1:2, a description of "present" sanctification begins. Well, now, we may not be familiar with the apostate Protestant concept of instantaneous sanctification at conversion (a concept, by the way, which enables them to maintain that we do not have to keep God’s law or honor the Bible Sabbath),—but now we shall discuss "present sanctification," a kind that you and I should be quite familiar with. This description continues on over to the bottom of the first column on page 127. But upon reading it we find that, although beautiful both in concept and presentation, it seems to be omitting something. We know that daily sanctification involves forgiveness (1 Jn 2:1), obedience (Jn 15:10), resisting temptation and sin (James 4:7), and earnestly seeking for ways to help and bring others to a knowledge of these last-day truths (1 Cor 9:16). What is the concept of this book in regard to what it calls "present" sanctification:

Although it says that in "present sanctification" there is some development and growth, yet it is done quite apart from any effort or activity on our part other than be-holding Christ, reading His Word, having faith, and waiting patiently for Him to do for us whatever he wants to do for us. He will do it all through the Holy Spirit, as we look and rest and let Him do it. He will "creatively" "adapt" us, quite apart from any effort or activity on our part. (You will note that what I have just said is somewhat self-conflicting: On one hand, we do nothing, and on the other, we study and behold; but that is the way it is presented in the text of these pages.)

"Feelings of guilt may be dispensed with, for in Christ all is forgiven, all is new. By daily bestowing His grace, Christ begins transforming us into the image of God. As our faith in Him grows, our healing and transformation progresses, and He gives us increasing victories over the powers of darkness. His overcoming of the world guarantees our deliverance from the slavery of sin. Our new relationship brings with it the gift of eternal life." (124/1:2-3)

"Our sinful past has been cared for; through the indwelling Spirit we can enjoy the blessings of salvation." (124/1:4)

These paragraphs are attractively worded, but the missing element is the matter of personally resisting temptation and sin, —to the point when necessary of very strongly resisting them. When Joseph’s test suddenly came, he had to make an equally sudden, decided decision; it was not the time to relax and wait for the Lord to take care of the problem. Yet, although this truth is a prominent feature both of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, yet it is a matter of little or no concern or consequence in this chapter. Yes, "as a new creation, believers have new responsibilities" toward "ethical holiness" (1 24/2:3,2), but it is only done as we participate, and our

"participation" is to stand back and let Christ do it for us at His own time and in His own way, someday, someday. But, according to this book, even this new responsibility has little to do with one’s salvation, for that was already attained at Calvary and then received at an earlier time in one’s life when conversion brought justification and "past sanctification."

We find in this new book, and in the Sabbath School quarterly accompanying it, salvation and obedience are free gifts that we do nothing to receive other than to take them. "Experiencing God’s grace, which offers Christ’s perfect life of obedience, His righteousness, and His atoning death as a free gift, leads to a deeper relationship with God." (116/2:1) As with modern Protestant theology, we are to come to Christ for initial conversion, but after that we need only sit back, behold Christ and read His Word,—and let Him do whatever He wants to with our sins, with no push, urgency, or fight on our part to cooperate, with Him in casting out the hateful bird from the cage of our hearts.

"Only the Creator can accomplish the creative work of transforming our lives. However, He does not do so without our participation. We must place ourselves in the channel of the Spirit’s working, which we can do by beholding Christ. As we meditate on Christ’s life, the Holy Spirit restores the physical, mental, and spiritual faculties. The Holy Spirit’s work involves revealing Christ and restoring us into Christ’s image." (125/1:4-125/1:0)

Very beautiful, isn’t it? We can be thankful for the truths given here, but without their complement—the other side of the coin,

—they present a picture that is not accurate.

Yes, we need meditation on Christ, but transformation of character is not one of passive inaction as shown on these pages. The picture given here is indeed beautiful, but it becomes correct when we combine it with active efforts on our part to resist sin, obey God, and bring work to bring many others to righteousness. And all those efforts are carried out in cooperation with the Holy Spirit as we depend on Christ’s grace, work in His strength, submit continually to His will, and rejoice in His imputed, imparted, and providential blessings.

We have had several years now to observe the new theology in action. Because it teaches resting in sin now while waiting for future glorification, it tends to produce people devoted to worldly entertainment, lowered standards, and little regard for Sabbath sacredness. When people have their salvation too assured, soon they drift away and have no salvation at all. Our heavenly Father knows us better than we know ourselves. A person only values that which he has to work for. Yes, salvation is a free gift of God and He does it all in and through those who will accept it. But He does not do it without earnest, persevering, hard work on their part. No one drifts into heaven, even though the new theology claims they are drifting there as peacefully as can be.

We rejoice at the thought of letting Christ work in us to fulfill His will! For that is the way it is to be. But in this cooperative work, we are to work with Him in doing what needs to be done to help souls get to heaven. Contrary to new theology opinion, there is nothing defiling about work. Good solid work wherever it is needed is far better than this new theology sloth that desires to go to heaven while loaded with worldly baggage.

The perfection given in this book is new theology in concept. According to pages 127 and onward, perfection is something we already have. We’ve had it for quite some time, and will continue to have it until Jesus returns. But the Bible-

Spirit of Prophecy view is broader: it includes a goal to be reached: the overcoming of sin, not merely the "mature living" depicted in this book.

"What is Biblical perfection? How can it be received?.. In the New Testament perfect often describes mature persons who have lived up to the best available light and attained the potential of their spiritual, mental, and physical powers." (127/2:1,4)

According to that, only young people in their early twenties can have full perfection; the rest of us are continually growing older and weakening in our physical capacities.

"In God’s sight a perfect person is one whose heart and life are wholly surrendered to the worship and service of God, who is constantly growing in divine knowledge, and who is, through God’s grace, living up to all the light he has received while rejoicing in a life of victory." (127/2:4)

We have here that same instantaneous sanctification again. Since we were supposed to have been given salvation and the victory at the cross, and then received in at our initial conversion,—we do not henceforth need to be concerned about temptation and sin. The impression given in the book is that in our daily sanctified life we are living in a realm apart from the domain of sin. There is a reason why this key chapter on daily Christian living in this doctrinal book, The Experience of Salvation, has little to say about sin or its conquest. By avoiding a mention 4.4 the subject, on one hand, the new theology advocates are not disturbed, since for them sin in this life is something to be happily endured, not vigorously uprooted. Because of their belief in Original Sin, they are fondly locked to sin in this life. On the other, historic Adventists would be upset if more was said here about the enduring nature of sin in the life of the Christian.

So instead we are presented with a perfection of character that is forensic like justification, and, if imparted to us at all in this life, comes by a gift with no effort on our part to do away with sin in our lives.

"Full perfection in Christ: How can we become perfect? The Holy Spirit brings to us the perfection of Christ. By faith Christ’s perfect character becomes ours.

People can never claim that perfection independently, as if it were their innate possession, or theirs by right. Perfection is a gift of God." (127/2:5-128/1:0)

It is a straw man to say that humble Christians who are seeking perfection of character are doing so independently of Christ. The truth is that perfection of character is found only by those that dwell in Christ. and that it is perfect obedience to the will of God.

In contrast, one incorrect view is that our perfection is found in proxy in Christ. He alone has it, and in this life we will never have it. A second incorrect view is that in Christ we can have perfection, but that perfection consists only of general maturity in regard to citizenship, relationships, and goals in life. And a third erroneous concept is that we received fullest sanctification at Calvary as well as salvation; all we need do now is rest as it is placed in our lives by the Holy Spirit. All three of these erroneous positions are to be found on these two pages (127-128).

"In Christ these qualities constitute our perfection. He completed, once for all [on the cross], our sanctification and redemption. No one can add to what He has done. Our wedding garment, or robe of righteousness, was wrought out by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The Holy Spirit now takes the finished product and works it out in the Christian’s life.’’ (128/1:2)

What you are here reading is a mirror of Norman Gulley’s 1983 book, Christ our Substitute, which taught a doctrine that matched its title. Recall to mind that page v of this book stated that the draft of this book was based on a manuscript penned by Professor Gulley. At this point in the book, someone else inserted several paragraphs that carry the reader part of the way toward a better direction:

These paragraphs are 128/2:1-12911:0. Here we are told that the sanctified life does have difficulties, that we must hold our confidence steadfast to the end in order to be saved, that we can fall away from salvation, that we should have "holiness of character even though salvation is always by faith," but also that this fitness is good because it reveals that salvation has already happened to us.

We now turn our attention to the future outcome of all this, as we enter pages 129 to 131. As an introduction to it, we are presented with a very revealing definition of salvation that is, to say the least, somewhat astounding. Read this paragraph carefully:

"The scriptural view that in one sense adoption and redemption—or salvation—-have ‘already’ been accomplished and that in another sense they have not yet been accomplished has confused some. A study of the full scope of Christ’s work as Saviour provides the answer. [Quoting an Adventist Seminary theologian:] ‘Paul related our present salvation to the first coming of Christ. In the historic cross, resurrection, and heavenly ministry of Christ our justification and sanctification are secured once and for all. Our future salvation, the glorification of our bodies, Paul related, however, to the second coming of Christ.

‘For this reason Paul can say simultaneously: "We are saved," in view of the cross and resurrection of Christ in the past; and "we are not saved," in view of the future return of Christ to redeem our bodies.’ " [emphasis theirs] (130/1:2-3)

And then the authors of the book add this:

"To emphasize our present salvation to the exclusion of our future salvation creates an incorrect, unfortunate understanding of Christ’s complete salvation." (130/1:4-130/2:0)

"The indwelling of Christ in our hearts is one of the conditions for future salvation—the glorification of our mortal bodies." (129/2:2)

So now we have the new Adventist theology of sin and salvation: You and I have already received our salvation full and complete; all that is left to be supplied is the added touch of physical immortality which we will receive when Christ returns. That "glorification" is the "future salvation" awaiting the people of God; the "past and present salvation are already ours." At last we have come full circle—and are now walking back into the ranks of the Evangelicals.

The final paragraph in this chapter, The Experience of Salvation, provides us with a fitting introduction to one of the last main areas of study we shall do in this book.

"The Holy Spirit brings the ‘It is finished’ of Calvary within, applying the only experience of God’s acceptance of humanity to us. This ‘It is finished’ of the cross calls in question all other human at-

tempts to gain acceptance. In bringing the Crucified within, the Spirit brings the only ground of our acceptance with God, providing the only genuine title to and fitness for salvation available to us." (131/2:2)

This paragraph tells us that salvation at the cross negates the need for us to now obey God or resist sin. Just a statement will bring rejoicing to the hearts of those urging new theology in our schools, churches, and institutions. "Relax and do what comes naturally, for salvation was gained at the cross," is the key to the strong appeal this heresy has when presented to the heart of man, always ready for a way out of the self-denial and self-sacrifice that genuine Christianity demands.

"Calls in question all other attempts to gain acceptance" is what we are told in the above quoted paragraph. A certain puzzlement frequently confronts the reader as he faces this. It sounds as if "all other attempts" must be legalist do-it-yourself-apart-from-Christ methods. But the reason that he has this puzzlement is that there are here only being presented to him two alternatives,—when in reality there are three:

(1) The Protestant and new theology position: Our salvation was finished at the cross. From that time onward humanity need only accept the salvation already gained and await glorification at the Second Advent. [The position of this book.] (2) The "other position" that the new theology always uses as a straw man to try to prove the correctness of its point: Some legalists want to add something more to the "finished atonement" and "finished salvation" completed at the cross; they want to add their own works. But all such efforts will only bring condemnation from God and eternal death, for they are only trying to save themselves by their own efforts to obey God’s Word. [All will agree that trying to save yourself by your own efforts is wrong.] (3) But there is a third position, one that the new theology tries to pretend does not exist. This is the truth given in the Bible and Spirit of

Prophecy: Something more than the cross Is needed; man must not only accept Christ as his Saviour, he must live a clean, godly life in obedience to the Word of God. This obedience God requires of him but man cannot render It by himself. It was part of God’s plan that, through the sacrifice and mediation of Christ, enabling grace could be given so that man in cooperation with the Holy Spirit can indeed obey every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God—and do it in this life.

Though they do not care to admit it, the modernists among us do not present the third alternative because they do not want it to exist. Their Original Sin concept teaches that man (1) cannot obey God in this life because he is hopelessly locked into sin, (2) that God never intended that man obey His laws in this life, and that He does not want him to even try to do so since the task is hopeless; and (3) that if man attempts to obey God’s laws he will receive eventual damnation for his efforts, since Christ did not die on Calvary to save man from sin (Matthew 1:21), but only to provide him a way to take him to heaven’s entrance laden with those sins.

Adventist new theology, being taught in our colleges and in many of our local churches by their graduates, maintains that obedience to the law of God through faith in Jesus is really a dead works program that is wrong and unscriptural. But, reality is different: The new theology program is a dead faith program that is wrong and unscriptural.

One of the last topics that we shall give our attention to in this study will be that of our Sanctuary Message. This includes the atonement in all its aspects, the death on the cross, the intercession of Christ. and the Investigative Judgment. In studying this topic we shall not deal with one chapter as we did earlier, but with passages in several locations, since the book scatters them somewhat.

The first subtopic for consideration is the Atonement. The word "atonement" comes from the old English, "at-one-ment." The atonement brings God and man together. By the life, death, and mediation of Christ, God and man are reconciled, man can begin a new life in Christ, cooperate with Christ in living a better life and ministering to those in need, and, if faithful to the end, ultimately be saved and taken to heaven. An atonement provides reparation for a wrong done to someone. We have terribly wronged our Creator, and the death and mediation of Christ, along with our humble acceptance and cooperative efforts with the Holy Spirit in remolding our lives through obedient living, can provide a solution to the sin problem. Although some well-known Adventist writers wish it were not so, sin is more than separation from God; it is also disobedience to God. Through the plan of salvation Jesus takes away our sins; He doesn’t merely justify for them. God will one day soon take those, who have yielded their lives to the working out of His plan, to heaven at the return of Jesus. All this the atonement accomplishes.

The Bible-Spirit of Prophecy view of this topic reveals that by His earthly life Jesus gave us on example to follow; and, at Calvary, He provided the atoning death that forms the basis of this atonement. His death on the cross was an atonement, but it was not all of the atonement. At His ascension a few weeks later in the spring of AD. 31, Jesus went to heaven and, following a ten-day dedication service within the heavenly Sanctuary, began His ministry within its first apartment 50 days after the crucifixion. That ministry continued on for eighteen centuries. We call it the antitypical daily service.

At the end of the 2300 year prophecy, on October 22, 1844, Jesus and the Father went from the throne room in the first apartment into the second apartment of the heavenly Sanctuary, where thrones were placed (not "cast down," see Hebrew of Daniel 7:9), there to begin the last phase of His atoning work, a ministry which we call the final atonement. For mankind, that event marked the closing of the door to the first apartment and the opening of the door directly into the second apartment. It also signaled the be-ginning of the Investigative Judgment. Later in this study we will deal more particularly with this special work of judgment.

The new theology (in harmony with the teachers in modern apostate Protestantism and Catholicism that taught it all it knows) firmly maintains that there is no structure in heaven called a "sanctuary," but rather that all heaven—where God is—is the sanctuary. They especially laugh at the idea of "rooms" in a structure in heaven, or furniture—such as the golden lampstand or the ark of the covenant. And no doors there! They earthly tabernacle had all these things,—but nothing like it in heaven! They presume to be wiser than the Word which God sent to teach them that beautiful plan that is called the atonement.

"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a Minister of the Sanctuary, and the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For [the earthly priests] - . serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount," (Hebrews 8:1-3,5)

Since, in the view of these modernists, nothing of much consequence occurs between 31 A.D. and the Second Coming of Christ, they attach little importance to the ministry of Christ in the heavenly Sanctuary. They do not even bother to call Him a "High Priest" in His work there, but say that the atonement was finished at the cross, salvation was given to us 2,000 years ago, and, after Calvary, To placate historic Adventists, they say that Jesus may be doing something in the way of mediation in heaven but regarding specific details of what it is that He is doing they could not say.

(If you would like to read—and draw spiritual strength from—a rather detailed description of what that heavenly intercession is and it should mean to you, we urge you to read Great Controversy, chapters 23, 24, and 28.)

With that background, we shall now consider what this book has to say about the Sanctuary Message, as it relates to Calvary, the atonement, the Sanctuary in heaven, Christ’s heavenly ministry, 1844, and the Investigative Judgment. First, let us look at Calvary and the Atonement.

"Christ’s serving as the surety meant that if the human race would fall into sin He would bear the price of their redemption; He would make the atonement for their sin . . At the cross Jesus fulfilled His pledge to be humanity’s surety in the covenant. His cry ‘It is finished’ marked the completion of His mission." (94/1:3, 94/2:2)

In most passages in this book where the atonement is spoken of, it is almost always applied to the death of Christ on Calvary, —which as you may recall was one of the primary problems with Questions on Doctrine, which spoke of the "finished atonement on the cross." This dichotomy of referring to cross experience as the atonement and heavenly Sanctuary experience as mediation is the common pattern in this book.

In this book, "atoning death" and "atoning sacrifice" is continually repeated. For example, it is to be found 21 times in just 5 portions of the book: 53/2:1; 110/2:4; 111/1:1; 111/1:2; 111/1:3-111/2:0; 111/2:1; 112/1:4; 115/2:1; 115/2:2; 116/1:1; 116/1:1; 157/2:3; 160/1:1; 240/1:1; 240/2:2; 242/1:1; 242/2:2; 243/1:4; 31 5/1:3; 315/1:4; 315/2:1; 315/2:2.

However, in four passages, the work in the heavenly Sanctuary is spoken of as having some kind of part in the atonement:

1 —"The process of reconciliation has been associated with the term atonement. Many Christians limit the term atonement exclusively to the redeeming effects of Christ’s incarnation, suffering, and death. In the sanctuary services, however, atonement not only involved the killing of the sacrificial lamb but also included the priestly ministering of its shed blood in the sanctuary itself. According to this Biblical usage, then, atonement can refer to both Christ’s death and His intercessory ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. There, as High Priest, He applies the benefits of His complete and perfect atoning sacrifice to achieve the reconciliation of humans to God.

"Vincent Taylor has observed that the doctrine of atonement has two aspects ‘(a) the saving deed of Christ, and (b) the appropriation of His work by faith, both individual and commmunal. These two together constitute the Atonement.’ From this insight he concluded that ‘atonement is both accomplished for us and wrought in us." [emphasis his] (110/3, 110/2:1-2)

2—"The application of the atoning blood during the mediatorial ministry of the priest was also seen as a form of atonement. The English term atonement implies a reconciliation between two estranged parties. As the atoning death of Christ reconciled the world to God, so His mediation, or the application of the merits of His sinless life and substitutionary death, makes reconciliation or atonement with God a personal reality for the believer." (315/2:4-316/1:0)

3—[Speaking of the Leviticus 16 experience, and paraphrasing Leviticus 16:30,33,341: "The high priest thereby made an atonement for the sanctuary, as well as for the people, and brought about the cleansing of both." (318/1:2)

4—"Today we are living in the great antitypical day of atonement. . Although we live in the awesome time of the antitypical day of atonement, we have no need to fear." (327/1:3, 327/2:2)

The remainder of the chapter The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, (pages 110-116) is primarily occupied with the atonement that was completed at Calvary, and frequently speaks of the atoning sacrifice on the cross. In order to familiarize us with the fact that the atonement and the cross experience are synonymous, the death of Jesus on Calvary is frequently called the "atoning sacrifice" in this book. For example:

"Speaking about Christ’s atoning sacrifice, Peter said, . ." (94/1:1)

"He would make the atonement for their sins . . At the cross Jesus fulfilled His pledge . . Through faith in His atoning blood, repentant sinners would be adopted." (94/1:2, 94/1:3,94/2:2) "Christ’s priestly minister in heaven, where He constantly applies the benefits of His atoning sacrifice to repentant believers was effectually negated [in the Dark Ages] when the church substituted the mass for the Lord’s Supper.’’ (157/2:3-158/1:0) "Justification by faith, the great principle of the gospel, was rediscovered [at the time of the sixteenth century Reformation], as was a new appreciation for the once-for-all atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His all-sufficient mediatorial priesthood." (169/1:1) "Type has met antitype [at Calvary]. The very event the Temple services have pointed to through the centuries has taken place. The Saviour has completed His atoning sacrifice." (313/1:3)

"God provides the atoning sacrifice: That sacrifice is ‘Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation.’ "(315/1:2) "By contrast, the Antitype—the actual atoning death of our Lord—took place at Calvary." (315/1:4-2:0).

And then comes this very definitive statement, as though from modern Protestantism:

"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." (31 5/2:1)

Frankly, this statement works to nullify the four quoted above (310, 315, 318, 327). It is as if two diametrically opposite views were both at work on the text of this new doctrinal book. We can be thankful that some faithful believers set their hand to modify the concepts presented into something more acceptable to the people of God.

The problem is that whenever truth is mingled with error, people are more easily persuaded to accept the error than they otherwise might have done. It would be better not to print this book at all, than to so intermingle it with true and fallacious sentiments.

In connection with all this, it is of interest that this book instructs the reader that the work within the heavenly ministry of Christ is done solely for only two purposes: to forgive us our past sins, and to cloth us with a garment of righteousness. The crucial matter of providing us with enabling strength from the heavenly Sanctuary to resist temptation and sin and obey the commandments of God is not mentioned. Here is the statement:

"As sinners we not only need the debt to be canceled, we need our bank account restored. We need more than release from prison, we need to be adopted into the family of the King. The mediatorial ministry of the resurrected Christ has the twofold objective of forgiving and clothing—the application of His death and life to our life and our standing before God. Calvary’s ‘It is finished’ marked the completion of a perfect life and a perfect sacrifice. Sinners needed both.’’ (114/2:2)

There is a mention of "a second division" of the priestly ministry (317/2:3) in the most holy place of the earthly tabernacle, and a prior one in the holy place (316/1:4). But we are not told that the heavenly Sanctuary also has these two apartments. The only clear statement on these two apartments applies only to the earthly tent:

"In the earthly sanctuary the priests carried out two distinct ministries—a daily ministry in the holy place, or first apartment and a yearly ministry in the Most Holy Place, or Second Apartment. Those services illustrated Christ’s priestly ministry." (316/1:3) The earthly may illustrate the heavenly, but we are not told that the heavenly also has two apartments. A historic Adventist reading this will assume that a concrete correlation exists; the new theology advocate will assume that it does not exist. Thus both sides will be kept happy and contented in their own beliefs as they read through this section.

Some may imagine that this matter of two apartments in heaven is a small thing, but such is not so. If there be not two apartments in that heavenly Sanctuary, then a change in our doctrines immediately takes place: (1) there was no ministry in its first apartment for sixteen centuries; (2) Jesus entered directly into the second apartment in 31 A.D.; (3) Jesus did not go from the first to the second apartment in 1844; (4) the door to the first apartment was not closed and the door to the second apartment opened in 1844; (5) the great importance of the work of investigative judgment which began at that time becomes blurred and less consequential; (6) the date 1844 itself becomes less significant as a great transitional point; (7) all of the initial Sanctuary insights given to Ellen White centered around this two-apartment factor, the door that was opened then, and the obedience to the Law and Sabbath rediscovered at that time, as predicted in Revelation 11:19.

CONTINUE - Dates and Transitions