Why Desmond Ford was Wrong About the Sanctuary, Part 2

Share It :

google+
More
Why Desmond Ford was Wrong About the Sanctuary, Part 2

Following is a summary of the major issues raised by Desmond Ford and his fellow travelers regarding the sanctuary doctrine, both in the Glacier View era and in the years since:

 

  1. The focus of the judgment and sanctuary cleansing in Daniel 7 and 8 is not the people of God, but their enemies.[1]
  2. The year-day principle lacks clear Biblical support.[2]
  3. The word “cleansed” is not a correct translation of Daniel 8:14.[3]
  4. Antiochus Epiphanes was the primary, if not exclusive, fulfillment of the little-horn prophecy in Daniel 7 and 8.[4]
  5. The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension.[5]
  6. The Bible teaches neither a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary nor a two-phased ministry by Jesus in heaven.[6]
  7. The phrase “within the veil” in the book of Hebrews refers to the second veil, or entrance to the Most Holy Place.[7]
  8. Seventh-day Adventists are wrong in teaching that sacrificial blood defiled the sanctuary, either on earth or in heaven.[8]
  9. The writings of Ellen White have no rightful authority in settling doctrinal controversy within the church.[9]
  10. The sanctuary doctrine, as historically taught by Seventh-day Adventists, contradicts the New Testament gospel of grace.[10]

 

For those wishing an in-depth response to the sanctuary challenges noted above, and related challenges as well, the present writer has prepared a three-part series titled, “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?”,[11] written in reply to The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, by former Adventist minister Dale Ratzlaff.[12]  The responses that follow are provided for those seeking more abbreviated answers.

Answers

  1. The focus of the judgment and sanctuary cleansing in Daniel 7 and 8 is not the people of God, but their enemies.

 

Divine judgment in Scripture, whether in the Old or the New Testament, is consistently for the purpose of determining who is on the Lord’s side, and who is not.  The judgment of Daniel 7 and 8 is no different.  Daniel 12:1 is clear that the final deliverance of God’s people is dependent on whether they are found written in God’s book:

 

And at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.[13]

 

Daniel 7:9-10 is the only other reference in Daniel to heavenly books.  The book described in Daniel 12:1 gives every evidence of being the same to which Moses referred, when he prayed, in an effort to exchange his own soul for his wayward people, “Blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.” (Ex. 32:32).  God then answered Moses, “Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book” (verse 33).  Elsewhere the Bible calls this book the book of life (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 20:12,15; 21:27; 22:19).

 

If the only ones finally delivered among God’s people are those found “written in the book” (Dan. 12:1), and if the vindication of God’s people in Daniel 7—subsequent to the opening of the books (verse 10)—is followed by their possession of “an everlasting kingdom” (verse 27), it is obvious the triumph of the saints both in chapter 7 and chapter 12 refer to the same end-time event.  Which means the end-time judgment here described most assuredly involves a determination as to who among God’s professed people is fit for eternal life.

 

The book of Revelation is clear as to the conditions for being retained in God’s book of life:

 

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess His name before My Father, and before His angels (Rev. 3:5).

 

Let us remember also that the little-horn power, whose identity as the Roman papacy clearly comports with the Biblical and corresponding historical evidence, professes faithfulness to God.  Like those it persecutes, it is professedly Christian.  Like the ancient Day of Atonement, the final end-time judgment determines who, among those claiming loyalty to God, are truly His.  And just as those found disloyal in the ancient ritual were cut off from God’s people (Lev. 23:27-29), so the little-horn power will see its claims to faithfulness demolished and be utterly destroyed (Dan. 7:11,26).

 

  1. The year-day principle lacks clear Biblical support.

 

First, it is clear that Daniel 7, 8, and 9 are all highly symbolic chapters.  Strange beasts, ribs, multiple heads and notable horns—rising from turbulent winds and waves—represent kings and kingdoms (Dan. 7:17,23-24; 8:20-23).  It therefore makes perfect sense for the time periods in these chapters (Dan. 7:25; 8:14; 9:24-27)—which, like parallel passages in Revelation (12:6,14; 13:5), span the sweep of centuries—to be symbolic also.

 

The seventy-week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 offers amazing clarity regarding the use of days as symbols for years.  The word translated “weeks” in this passage is repeatedly used in the Old Testament to refer to a seven-day period (Gen. 29:27-28; Ex. 34:22; Num. 28:26; Deut. 16:9,10,16; II Chron. 8:13; Jer. 5:24; Eze. 45:21; Dan. 10:2).  Thus, while the precise word “days” may not be found in Daniel 9:24-27, the word “weeks’ makes it clear days are being referred to, and that these days are used to represent years.  The Revised Standard Version even translates verse 24 as “seventy weeks of years.”

 

RELATED ARTICLE: In Defense of the Year-Day Principle

 

What is more, only by understanding these weeks as seven-year periods can this prophecy possibly extend to the time of the “Messiah the Prince” (verse 25).  And only if the time period starts with the decree issued in 457 B.C. can it reach to the Messiah’s time.  This simple fact settles two issues conclusively: (1) the doubts raised as to whether the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 is the one Daniel 9:25 is referring to; and (2) the question of whether the weeks in this passage refer to weeks of years.  Only if the period starts at 457, and only if the weeks represent seven-year periods, can the prophecy reach to the time of Jesus the Messiah.

 

Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 provide supporting evidence for this principle.  Each of these time periods where days symbolized years, like those in Daniel and Revelation, describe periods of time in which God’s people went into eclipse through exile, apostasy, persecution, or some combination of the three, then emerged triumphant at the end.  The use of these passages from Numbers and Ezekiel to establish the year-day principle is therefore in full harmony with the theme of the prophecies thus interpreted in Daniel and Revelation.

 

  1. The word “cleansed” is not a correct translation of Daniel 8:14.

 

The word translated “cleansed” in Daniel 8:14 is the Hebrew word nisdaq, a form of the word sadaq which means “to justify.”  In a number of poetic Old Testament passages, where rhyme is one of common meaning rather than sound, the word sadaq is used synonymously with taher—the word for “cleanse” used for describing the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary in Leviticus 16 (see Job 4:17; 17:9; Psalm 19:9; Eccl. 9:2).  This point is further clarified by the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, in which the word for cleanse in Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16 is the same one used in Hebrews 9:23, which speaks of the heavenly sanctuary being cleansed with “better sacrifices”.[14]

 

One reason, often unnoticed, why Desmond Ford and those of like mind refuse to consider “cleansed” an appropriate translation of Daniel 8:14, is their insistence that the word “justify” in Scripture means only to declare righteous, not to make righteous[15]—or in other words, to cleanse.  Such a narrow definition of justification is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is the Bible truth that when God declares something to be so, as at the creation, it in fact becomes so (Gen. 1:3; Psalm 33:9; Matt. 8:3).

 

  1. Antiochus Epiphanes was the primary, if not exclusive, fulfillment of the little-horn prophecy of Daniel 7 and 8.

 

Antichus IV Epiphanes, seventh king of the Seleucid dynasty of Hellenistic Syria, cannot possibly fulfill the stated criteria in Daniel for the persecuting little horn power.  The parallel between the sequence of kingdoms in Daniel 7 and that in Daniel 8 is itself sufficient to rule this out.  Antiochus was part of the Greek kingdom, represented in Daniel 7 by the leopard with four wings and heads, after which another kingdom (Rome) was to rise, followed by the ten tribes that conquered Rome, after which at last the little horn comes on the scene, uproots three of the ten tribes, and then establishes its power (Dan. 7:6-8,23-24).

 

Though Daniel 8 abbreviates to some extent the sequence of chapter 7, the greater detail found in chapter 7 makes it impossible for the little horn to enter history prior to the establishment and subsequent demise of the fourth kingdom in this list.  In Antiochus’ time, Rome hadn’t yet succeeded in fully subduing the Greek kingdoms, and was certainly nowhere near conquest by the barbarian tribes represented by the ten toes of Daniel 2 and the ten horns of Daniel 7.

 

Moreover, the little horn is described in Daniel 8 as a power which “waxed exceeding great, toward the south, toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” (verse 9).  Antiochus waxed “exceeding great” in none of these directions, experiencing defeat wherever he turned.[16]  Rome, by contrast, did exactly as the above verse describes.

 

What is more, Jesus identified the “abomination of desolation” described by Daniel as still future in His day (Matt. 24:15), nearly two centuries after Antiochus Epiphanes was dead and gone.  The identification of this power as Rome (first pagan, then papal) is thus congruent both with the overall sweep of prophetic history as outlined in Daniel and Revelation, as well as with this key prediction of our Lord.

 

Most of all, Daniel describes the overthrow of the little horn as occurring simultaneous with the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom, the saints’ possession of this kingdom, and all nations serving and obeying the Lord (Dan. 7:26-27).  The dominion of Antiochus Epiphanes (which wasn’t much) ended more than 2,100 years ago, and without the saints possessing an everlasting kingdom or the whole world acknowledging God’s rulership.  Likewise, the angel Gabriel declared to Daniel in chapter 8, “Understand, O son of man, for at the time of the end shall be the vision” (verse 17).  The events of this vision, in other words, were to extend to the last days of human history.  Under no circumstances could the power in question, whose overthrow does not take place till the end-time (Dan. 7:26-27), possibly refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes!

 

  1. The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension.

 

The passage in question is Hebrews 9:12:

 

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

 

The phrase translated “holy place” in this verse is ta hagia, which is the plural form of the word used in this context to refer to both the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries.  Literally, this phrase reads, “holy places,” which is why the New English Bible translates it “sanctuary”—the most accurate translation of what the Greek actually says.

 

RELATED ARTICLE: Restoring the Sanctuary

 

Earlier in this chapter, the Most Holy Place is referred to, by the Greek expression Hagia Hagion—the only reference by name to the Most Holy Place found anywhere in the New Testament.  If Paul intended to refer believers to the Most Holy Place in verse 12, this phrase was certainly available in place of the ambiguous word he in fact used.

 

In this passage Paul is drawing a parallel, not between the ascension of Christ and the ancient Day of Atonement—as claimed by critics of the sanctuary doctrine[17]—but between the dedication of the wilderness tabernacle by Moses and Aaron and that of the heavenly sanctuary by Jesus.  In verses 18-21 he writes:

 

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

 

By contrast, we read in verse 12 that Jesus dedicated the heavenly sanctuary, “neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood.”  In no way does this imply that our Lord’s heavenly ministry, begun at His ascension, was a parallel to the work of the high priest on the Day of Atonement.  Rather, the parallel is between the inauguration of the Old Testament sanctuary on earth and that of the New Testament sanctuary in heaven.

 

  1. The Bible teaches neither a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary nor a two-phased ministry by Jesus in heaven.

 

The Bible plainly states that when Moses made the sanctuary in the wilderness, he made it according to the pattern God showed him.  The book of Hebrews declares:

 

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 of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. . . . For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve upon 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 showed to thee in the mount (Heb. 8:1-2,45).

 

Hebrews 9:23 describes the earthly sanctuary as “patterns of things in the heavens.”  And in the book of Revelation we read of Christ ministering among the seven golden candlesticks (Rev. 1:12; 4:5), and at the golden altar of incense (Rev. 8:3).  But not until chapter 11 do we see the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary opened—when it is time for the judgment of the dead to begin (verses 18-19).

 

RELATED ARTICLE: The Reality of the Heavenly Sanctuary

 

What is equally significant is that once the plan of salvation is complete and the New Jerusalem is brought to earth, the apostle John declares of the holy city:

 

And I saw no temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it (Rev. 21:22).

 

If the temple described earlier in Revelation is only symbolic, it would make no sense for the prophet to say he no longer saw it when heaven and earth are re-created.  Obviously, the temple was necessary while the saga of redemption and the great controversy remained in progress.  Once the conflict is over, the temple is needed no longer.

 

Here we see the clearest Biblical evidence, both for a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary and the two phases of ministry the apartments represent.

 

  1. The phrase “within the veil” in the book of Hebrews refers to the second veil, or entrance to the Most Holy Place

 

The word for veil in the New Testament, the Greek word katapetasma, is used in the Greek Old Testament to refer to all three veils in the earthly sanctuary—the veil at the courtyard entrance, the veil at the entrance to the Holy Place, and the veil before the Most Holy Place (Ex. 38:18; 39:40; Lev. 16:2,12,15; 21:23; Num. 3:26; 4:26; 18:7).  No Biblical evidence demands that when this word is attached to such prepositions as “within” or “without” or “before,” that it must automatically refer to the veil between the first and second apartments of the sanctuary.

 

One of the above passages, Numbers 18:7, clearly refers to the veil before the Holy Place:

 

Therefore thou (Aaron) and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest’s office for every thing of the altar, and within the veil, and ye shall serve.

 

In context, the altar here described (see verse 3) clearly refers to the altar of burnt offering in the courtyard.  “Within the veil” in the above verse thus refers to all those items in the sanctuary not in the courtyard, which would mean everything behind the veil to the Holy Place, obviously including the Most Holy Place as well.

 

Ellen White is thus not at all in conflict with Scripture when she writes that “within the veil” in Hebrews 6:19 refers to the entrance to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.[18]

 

  1. Seventh-day Adventists are wrong in teaching that sacrificial blood defiled the sanctuary, whether on earth or in heaven. 

Seventh-day Adventists have never taught that sacrificial blood defiled either sanctuary at any time.  Rather, it is the sin transferred by the blood to the sanctuary that does the defiling.  Ellen White makes this clear in the following statement:

 

As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin offering, so are sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ.  And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded.[19]

 

This is easy to illustrate.  When I take a shower each morning, the water from the faucet transfers the filth from my body to the shower.  It isn’t the water that makes the shower dirty; rather, it is the filth washed from my body that does this.  Which is why, every few weeks, the shower must be cleaned.  Not because of the water used in cleaning, but because of the filth transferred to the shower by the water.

 

The same is true of the blood of Christ, our sins, and the heavenly sanctuary.

 

  1. The writings of Ellen White have no rightful authority in settling doctrinal controversy within the church.

 

If it is determined, on Bible grounds, that Ellen White possessed the true gift of prophecy, her authoritative role in settling spiritual disputes of any kind is beyond question.  If, by contrast, she fails one or more prophetic test found in Scripture, she has no authority whatsoever.

 

Moreover, it is clear from the Bible record that other prophets gave authoritative testimony at God’s command besides those whose writings were included in the Biblical canon.  Such figures as Deborah, Nathan, Gad, Elijah, Elisha, Huldah, and John the Baptist come quickly to mind.  Scripture even mentions prophetic books written by some of these persons (see 1 Chron. 29:29; II Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22).  Not a shred of Biblical evidence can be produced to demonstrate that prophets later designated by the church as canonical possessed greater authority in the believing community than those not thus designated.  A prophet is not authoritative because he or she is canonical.  Rather, a prophet is canonical because he or she is authoritative.

 

RELATED ARTICLE: What Should We Do with Ellen White?

 

If in fact Ellen White is a true prophet, her counsel in matters of doctrine, worship, lifestyle, and all else is the counsel of God Himself.  And while her writings contain no truths or principles not found in the Bible, she is clear in those writings that God appointed her to speak authoritatively to His church regarding issues of truth and error:

 

God has, in that Word (the Bible), promised to give visions in the last days, not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth.[20]

 

The Lord has given me much light that I want the people to have; for there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people.  It is light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.  This is now to come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors, and to specify what is truth.[21]

 

Serious errors in doctrine and practice were cherished. . . . God revealed those errors to me in vision and sent me to His erring children to declare them.[22]

 

If at any time Ellen White’s teachings contradict Scripture, the above statements lose any claim on the conscience of believers.  But if her teachings harmonize with Scripture, no further argument is needed as to whether Ellen White’s writings possess authority in the doctrinal, liturgical, and behavioral controversies of the contemporary church.

 

Both in the present paper and the larger one recommended earlier,[23] evidence should be sufficient to demonstrate the sound Biblical basis for the Adventist sanctuary doctrine, despite the claims of critics that this doctrine is based primarily on the theology of Ellen White.  Whatever is affirmed or clarified in the writings of Ellen White regarding this or other Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, is first and foremost based on a Biblical foundation.

 

10. The sanctuary doctrine, as historically taught by Seventh-day Adventists, contradicts the New Testament gospel of grace.

 

Those who make this accusation have themselves rejected the New Testament (or rather, the Biblical) gospel of grace. Those who reject the Adventist sanctuary message based on its presumed conflict with the gospel, hold that this “gospel” includes:

 

  1. Original sin—the idea that all are condemned at birth because of the sin of Adam, before they ever make a sinful choice.[24]
  2. The idea that Jesus, in His humanity, took the sinless nature of Adam as it was before the fall.[25]
  3. The idea that the believer’s salvation is based on justification alone.[26]
  4. The idea that justification, or forgiveness, involves only a legal declaration and not internal transformation.[27]
  5. The idea that even through the Holy Spirit’s imparted power, sinless obedience remains impossible for the believer here on earth.[28]

 

The Bible teaches, in contrast with the above, that humans become sinners through an act of the will (Eze. 18:20; Rom. 5:12; James 1:14-15; 4:17), not through an involuntary state of condemnation received at birth.  Scripture also assures us that Jesus, in His incarnation, took the same fleshly nature each of us inherits, with its attendant passions and desires (Rom. 1:3; 8:3-4; Heb. 2:14,16-17).

 

Equally clear is the Biblical teaching that believers are saved both by justification (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7) and by sanctification (II Thess. 2:13), by the work of Christ in us (Titus 3:5) as much as by His work for us (II Cor. 5:21).  The Bible also teaches that God refuses to impute iniquity only to those “in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psalm 32:2), and that in order to receive God’s forgiveness, sin must be forsaken as well as confessed (II Chron. 7:14; Prov. 28:13; Isa. 55:7).

 

Most of all, Scripture unabashedly teaches that through God‘s converting, sanctifying grace, all sin can and must be expelled from the lives of committed Christians (Psalm 4:4; 119:1-3,11; Zeph.3:13; John 8:11; Rom. 6:14; 8:4,13; I Cor. 15:34; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 5:27; Phil. 4:13; I Thess. 5:23; I Peter 2:21-22; 4:1; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 1:7,9; 2:1; 3:2-3; Jude 24; Rev. 3:21; 14:5).

 

In short, the gospel according to Holy Scripture is not the gospel according to evangelical Christianity.  The latter so-called “gospel,” by which key Adventist doctrines are being faulted and condemned, is not found in the Bible.   The true gospel of Scripture, enunciated in the above passages, is fully and completely in harmony with the Biblical doctrine of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, culminating in the final investigative judgment of professed believers.  It is only the false gospel of mainstream evangelicalism, falling vastly short of the Biblical mark, which finds itself in conflict with the sanctuary doctrine as historically taught by Seventh-day Adventists.

Click here to read the rest of this series on Desmond Ford.

______

Notes.

[1] Desmond Ford, Noel Mason, & Brad McIntyre, “Who’s On Trial in Daniel 7?” Good News for Adventists (Auburn, CA: Good News Unlimited, 2005), pp. 28-30; Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource/An Appeal to SDA Leadership (Sedona, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996), p. 180.

[2] Ford, Good News for Adventists, pp. 32,52; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 176-177.

[3] Ford & McIntyre, “Constant Debate Over Daniel 8,” Good News for Adventists, pp. 32-33; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, p. 179.

[4] Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Castleberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), pp. 234-239; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 169-172.

[5] Ford, Mason, & McIntyre, “A ‘Better’ Interpretation of Hebrews 9,” Good News for Adventists, pp. 37-39; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, p. 210.

[6] Ford, Mason, & McIntyre, Good News for Adventists, pp. 38-39,52-53.

[7] Ford, Good News for Adventists, p. 52; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 173-175.

[8] Ford, Good News for Adventists, p. 52; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 207-208.

[9] Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. 335-399,A-238-245; Good News for Adventists, p. 5; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 276-278.

[10] Ford & McIntyre, Good News for Adventists, pp. 13-15,22-24; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 225-240,302-303,319-341.

[11] Kevin D. Paulson, “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Parts 1-3, http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/01/sanctuary-doctrine-cultic-or-biblical.html; http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/01/sanctuary-doctrine-cultic-or-biblical_13.html; http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/01/sanctuary-doctrine-cultic-or-biblical_16.html

[12] Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource/An Appeal to SDA Leadership (Sedona, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996).

[13] Unless otherwise noted, all Bible texts are from the King James Version.

[14] See Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Little Horn, the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8,” The Sanctuary and the Atonement (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1981), p. 227.

[15] Ford, Documents from the Palmdale Conference on Righteousness by Faith, pp. 5-6; “Redemption, Objective and Subjective,” p. 2; Mason, Good News for Adventists, p. 41.

[16] See Michael Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982), pp. 102,279.

[17] Ford, Good News for Adventists, p. 52; Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 43.

[18] Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 420-421.

[19] Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, p. 266.

[20] Early Writings, p. 78.

[21] Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32.

[22] Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 655-656.

[23] Paulson, “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Parts 1-3, http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/01/sanctuary-doctrine-cultic-or-biblical.html; http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/01/sanctuary-doctrine-cultic-or-biblical_13.html; http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/01/sanctuary-doctrine-cultic-or-biblical_16.html

[24] Ford, The Palmdale Documents, p. 28; Desmond & Gillian Ford, The Human Nature of Christ in Salvation, p. 10.

[25] The Palmdale Documents, pp. 30-36; Desmond & Gillian Ford, The Human Nature of Christ in Salvation, p. 11; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 285-290.

[26] Desmond & Gillian Ford, The Human Nature of Christ in Salvation, p. 13; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, p. 302.

[27] Ford, ”Redemption, Objective and Subjective,” p. 2; The Palmdale Documents, pp. 5-6; Mason, Good News for Adventists, p. 41.

[28] Ford, The Palmdale Documents, 28-33; Good News for Adventists, p. 5; McIntyre, “Investigating the Investigative Judgment,” Good News for Adventists, p. 24; Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, pp. 215-216.

Share It :

google+
More

About the author

Kevin Paulson

Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and serves as a script writer for the It Is Written television ministry and other media ministries within the church. He also serves as the leading webmaster of ADvindicate.com, where many articles by him and others can be found which address a variety of denominational issues. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan.