Short Note on Questions of Doctrine
and Adventism
So much have appeared on the book of
Questions on Doctrine in the 1950’s and scholars and laymen are trying to trace
precursors back to the 1919 Bible Conference and its issues and questions and
answers at times. I want to make something clear:
questions on doctrine of the Sanctuary that were raised by Desmond Ford, or
Ballenger, or Conradi or any other person outside or inside the Adventist
church in the previous century or until recent, are not new. Why do I say this? The book by Paul
Gordon [Paul A. Gordon, (1981, July). Pioneer Articles on the Sanctuary Daniel
8:14, The Judgment, 2300 days, Day-Year Principle 1846-1904. Ellen White
Estate. Also at Sahmyook Theological Library on floor 4 in Seoul, South Korea]
clearly indicate that the writers to the Review and Herald and Present Truth
between 1846-1904 wrote in order to answer questions exactly the same as were
asked by Ford, Ballenger, Brinsmead, Waggoner, Jones, Conradi, and the list
goes on. The writing style is answer to objections. Take one example from J. N. Andrews in
Review and Herald of July 7, 1853 page 4 on Hebrews 9:8 talking about the
plural word “holies of holies” [plural] does not indicate “most holy place” or “holiest
place” but the whole type: “We think that this truth shines out from the text
with vivid distinctness, namely: that while the first tabernacle with its two
holy places was standing – that is, while the typical dispensation lasted – the
way into the greater and more perfect tabernacle was not laid open. – But when
the typical dispensation ended, and the pattern was superseded by the true
tabernacle, the way of the heavenly holy places [plural] was laid open, and we
have boldness to enter where our High Priest is ministering for us”. A fantastic answer to objection here.
This question or misapplication pops-up time and again in preteristic
commentaries and also by liberal or so-called “progressive” thinkers in
Adventism [who are actually trying to align with these preteristic or Reform
tradition commentaries they are utilizing] by making the distinction by Paul
here horizontal between two zones in the tabernacle when the distinction is
actually vertical between earthly tabernacle and heavenly tabernacle as J. N.
Andrews so eloquently indicated. In conclusion I would suggest that
anyone who has questions on doctrine pertaining to the Sanctuary should first
do their homework: not by reading Ford, not by reading Ballenger, not by
reading Questions on Doctrine of 1953, not by reading Conradi, or Waggoner or
Jones, but by analyzing the Sanctuary doctrine explicated by the Pioneers J. N.
Loughborough, Ellen White, James White, J. N. Andrews, Uriah Smith, David
Arnold and others between 1846-1904. Solomon said so well: “There is
nothing new under the sun.” Never say that this doctorate or that
doctorate was completed recently at Andrews University “indicating conclusively
. . . “ because the data is all there in the doctorate, but how this data is
dealt with, how it is classified, how it is analyzed makes the difference. Two scholars will take the same data in
the doctorate and they will come to different conclusions. Why? The answer is: the
way you live [lifestyle = ontology] determines the way you think [epistemology]
and the way you think [worldview, church view, inspiration view, doctrinal
view] determines the way you go about analyzing [methodology] and your
methodology determines the end-product [doctorate, article, book, sermons,
talk, comment, opinion, idea, twitter]. Remember that it is in the footnotes
that the weakness of the doctoral candidate as to his own ideas shows up with
incriminating comments. Read the doctorate from the back to the front and from
the footnotes to the text!
Koot van Wyk, South Korea, August 2018