Holy of Holies an Impassioned Response to Recent Attacks on the Sanctuary and Ellen G

in the Holy of Holies An impassioned response to recent attacks on the sanctuary and Ellen G. White Clifford Goldstein Pacific Press® Publishing Association Nampa, Idaho Oshawa, Ontario, Canada www.pacificpress.com 1 Contents 1. Three-Legged Stools ......................................................................... 7 2. Sliver in the Foot ............................................................................. 17 3. The Antiochus Epiphany ................................................................. 21 4. From Antiquity to Eternity ............................................................... 45 5. Weakest Links? ................................................................................ 73 6. The Gospel and the Judgment ...................................................... 115 7. The Gift of Prophecy ..................................................................... 143 2 CHAPTER ONE Three-legged Stools In the late 1980s, Pacific Press published 1844 Made Simple,1 a somewhat frenetic attempt by a new Adventist (yours truly) to defend the 1844 pre-Advent judgment. Since that time, I have learned so much more that has strengthened my belief, not only in the validity of our 1844 pre- Advent teaching but in its importance as well. Many things have brought me to this point, one of them being that opponents of the doctrine not only have failed to come up with any- thing new to oppose it, they won’t even confront our best defenses of it. One would think that, after so much time, they would have something original—something fresh—to level against what they so boldly disdain. Yet all they do is hurl the same arthritic arguments against the 1844 pre-Advent judgment: What about the context problem of Daniel 8? There’s no validity to the year-day principle. There’s no verbal link be- tween Daniel 8 and 9. Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn, . and on and on. Of course, they claim that these arguments have never been answered. I disagree. In the 1980s and 1990s, the church, using its best theologians, published the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series—seven volumes of scholarly chapters that dealt with many of these challenges. However much they make fun of these books, the critics have never seriously refuted the 3 4 · Graffiti in the Holy of Holies material in them. Instead, they simply utter blanket condemnations of the series, and then move on. Take the year-day principle, one of the bogeymen cited by those op- posed to 1844. On more than one occasion I’ve heard a well-known critic claim that “there’s not a modicum of evidence of the year-day principle in the Bible.” Fine. But instead of mocking the Daniel and Revelation Commit- tee Series (which he has done), why has he never confronted the two chapters in the series that defend the year-day principle? If the year-day principle isn’t biblical, then instead of just attacking the doctrine, or mocking the books that defend it, why not debunk—point by point—this defense of it? I’ve never heard him, or anyone, even try. It’s not just the year-day principle, either. Despite the usual snorting and fuming against the series, why haven’t critics tackled, point by point, its refutation of the Antiochus Epiphanes interpretation of Daniel 8? Or its refutation of the supposed context problem of Daniel 8? Or its powerful chapter on the pagan and papal aspects of the little horn? Or its defense of our position on Hebrews? With so many voices promoting the Antiochus interpretation for Daniel 8, one would think that at least one of these voices would challenge (or at least try to challenge) the church’s best refutation of that interpretation. Instead, (as with the other chapters) there is nothing, which has led me to think that if the critics could refute these things they would, but because they can’t, they don’t—a silence that only strengthens my belief in the 1844 doctrine. But, of course, even more affirming than their silence has been the Word of God itself. While some of these folks are trying to decide which parts of the Bible are correct and which aren’t, my study of the Bible has continued to affirm my belief in the 1844 sanctuary message. Especially helpful has been my greater understanding and appreciation of the gospel in the context of the sanctuary and the judgment. This, with more study on Daniel, Revelation, and the Cross, has enhanced my belief in 1844 and the pre-Advent judgment. Over the years, as I learned more, I kept thinking that I needed to get what I have learned in print—to update and fill out 1844 Made Simple. After years of procrastinating, I finally did so, but only after being spurred on by something else. That catalyst was a book called The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists (CDSDA), written and published by Dale Ratzlaff, a former Adventist minister who left the church in 1981 because he and his wife had, he wrote, “studied our way out.”2 Brother Ratzlaff—a fourth-genera- Three-legged Stools · 5 tion Adventist educated in SDA schools from first grade through semi- nary—now runs Life Assurance Ministries (LAM), which has a specific out- reach “to Seventh-day Adventists, inquiring Adventists, Sabbatarians and concerned Evangelicals.”3 LAM also has a publishing arm whose mission statement reads: “To write, publish, stock and sell books relevant to former Seventh-day Adventists, inquiring Adventists, Sabbatarians and concerned Evangelicals. Our goal is to become the source for accurate information on Adventist doctrine and practice for the Evangelical world.”4 Among the books LAM sells are titles from such luminaries as Desmond Ford, Walter Rea, Ron Numbers, Jerry Gladson, and Brother Ratzlaff himself (in- cluding Sabbath in Crisis, his attempt to debunk the Adventist position on the Sabbath). Though I wouldn’t begin to judge the hearts or motives of these authors, and despite differences in tone, approach, and scholarship, these works (at least the ones I’m familiar with) share one commonality: criticism of either the Seventh-day Adventist Church, its leaders, Adventist doctrines (specifically 1844), and, of course, the ministry of Ellen G. White. Graffiti in the Holy of Holies is my response to The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists. My interest here is not Brother Ratzlaff, his motives, sincerity, or integrity. Regarding him personally, I’m hoping that the words—”Judge not” (Matthew 7:1) and these, “True Christian love cher- ished in the heart and exemplified in the life, would teach us to put the best possible construction upon the course of our brethren”5—will be my guide. The vicissitudes of time have made such principles somewhat easier for me to follow because, still dealing with my own tenacious character defects, I’m less inclined to engage in philippics against those whose hearts I don’t know and whose weaknesses might not be as heinous in the sight of God as my own. In fact, to give (admittedly) faint praise, Brother Ratzlaff has tackled some issues with a frank, even refreshing, bluntness. Unlike others, who—while either subtly or overtly condemning key teachings— still claim to be Adventists, Brother Ratzlaff has taken his premises to their logical conclusions. For example, Brother Ratzlaff writes: “To remove the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment doctrine from SDA theology will bring into question the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen White and the integrity of the whole Adventist movement.”6 I agree. And had I rejected the judgment as he has done, I would have left the Seventh-day Adventist Church as he did. Nevertheless, those seeking to judge Brother Ratzlaff less generously could, if so inclined, find reasons to do so. 6 · Graffiti in the Holy of Holies Take the section from page 43 to page 93 in CDSDA. In these three chapters Brother Ratzlaff claims that Ellen White comprehensively endorsed William Miller’s theology, particularly Miller’s fifteen “proofs” for fastening on the date 1843 (revised to 1844) for Christ’s return. Now, assume that you (like me) reject fourteen of those proofs, while you (like me) believe that one, the one derived from Daniel 8:14, is valid. There’s still the problem of Ellen White’s endorsement of the others because, as Brother Ratzlaff asserts, she sweepingly approved of Miller’s methods and message: “We can see that Ellen White’s endorsement of William Miller is comprehensive. It is of great importance to our study to realize that she unequivocally states that Miller was guided by God in his methods, his conclusions, and his message.”7 He continues: “The foundation of Adventism is laid in Ellen White’s comprehensive endorsement of William Miller’s methods and message.”8 And, again: “In the last chapter we saw that Ellen White gave William Miller a comprehensive, glowing endorsement. She, speaking with ‘prophetic authority,’ stated unequivocally that God chose Miller, guided his mind in the study of the Scriptures, and showed him a method of Bible interpretation which linked one part of Scripture to another in such a way as to help him discover a ‘perfect chain of truth.’ ”9 Immediately after this last quote, Brother Ratzlaff examines Miller’s methods, admonishing his readers “to take the needed time to carefully read each of Miller’s fifteen proofs. Examine his use of Scripture and his resulting conclusions. Without a thorough understanding of this chapter, it will be impos- sible to grasp the arguments and conclusions of this book. This chapter locks in—or out—many of the unique aspects of Adventist theology, hermeneutics and the prophetic ministry of Ellen White (emphasis in the original).”10 Most Adventists, I imagine, would be surprised to discover that “many of the unique aspects” of our theology and hermeneutics can be found in Miller’s proofs (or at least in fourteen of them) that 99.9 percent of us probably never heard of and certainly would not take seriously as proof for 1844 even if we did (apparently, William Miller, after finding a valid proof in Daniel, got a bit carried away).

Load more