Sanctuary Message in Adventism not 'Developmental'

The Korean Union Friday Night speaker spoke on the Landmark doctrine of the Sanctuary in SDA circles. In the process of feeding the sheep (Jer. 23) there is nothing wrong to warn the sheep not to eat the weed but to eat the grass, provided you know what is weed and what is grass. To hold out the weed for the sheep…well, we are not called for that. Elijah will tell you. Accommodationism is not permitted with God. You cannot ride two motorcycles at the same time. There is truth, normatively in the sense the pioneers had it in articles between 1846-1904 brought together on the Sanctuary and which is in the Sahmyook Seminary Library by Paul Gordon in 1981 together with 101 Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White by Robert Olsen, also in 1981. It was the first year that the Ford debate resided or went into a “sleeping mode”. I remember. I was theology student. I should know. So the first thing you need to ask about a speaker on this topic of the Sanctuary is: what year was he/she baptized? Very important. Post or pre? Secondly, is his base sources one of the Trojan Horse of Liberalism in the church, the accommodationists who try to amalgamate Reformed Theology with complete atonement [Aorist] at the cross with the progressive view of Atonement in Adventism. Not developmental doctrine, no, theirs is a consensus well established as the 1846-1904 articles in RH et al indicates. If a speaker says their doctrine was “developmental” a yellow card is necessary. This is what Arthur Patrick, a colleague of Desmond Ford since 1972 at Avondale tried to portray in 2008. He tried to Heroize the Heretics like Canright, Ballenger, and the list goes on. Even Cottrell who denied the Sanctuary message. Cottrell said that when Gerhard Hasel came to Andrews a shadow came over the seminary. You need to know there are seed in the church and weed. And lifestyle or ontology creates these differences. Because some of them were divorced, and I do not want to get personal, they teach with a slight critical attitude of standard Adventism, or consensus Adventism, the good Adventism. They wish for Wittgenstein and Russell’s relativism and anormatavism to be thrown over the Landmarks of Adventism. The way you live determines the way you thinks and the way you thinks determines your methodology and your methodology determines your product of communication: sermon, table-talk, lecture, book, article, thesis, ideology, convictions, opinions, choice, judgment of what is right and what is wrong. It was the words of Calvinist philosopher Hendrik Stoker in the 1930’s and I do not think he is wrong. In fact, Arthur Patrick took it from me with permission and published it in one of his articles. Our task of Elijah message preachers and teacher is not to confuse the sheep but to be clear. Those who challenge the Sanctuary Message did not succeed, Cottrell’s view never surfaced in central Adventism and Ford removal of his pastoral license after Glazier View are cardinal correct actions by the church for they tried to fuse Calvinism or Lutheranism with Adventism. One can see it clearly in the Commentary on Daniel by Ford where he brings the views of F. F. Bruce of Mancester University into his exegesis on Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13. I could see it clearly already in 1978. So back to the speaker tonight for the Friday Evening preaching on Web here in South Korea. He is too lighthearted on the issues and not well salted in the sources. He too easily borrowed ideas from the critics of Adventism rather than proper exegesis from the majority of scholars in Adventism. The remarks by the GC Committee on the Sanctuary by Dr Earle Hilgert on 24 September 2008 about the confusion among members about the Sanctuary message whether it is biblical must be seen in the light of the horrified history Froom and these members brought the church into at that time. They were trying to apple-shine with the surrounding Protestant churches for recognition. A very dangerous game to play. No wonder they were all confused. If the leaders call for fusion thinking there is no room for separatist doctrines. Then suddenly if something sounds different, it should be made similar or identical. 1946-1964 was not a good period in Adventism. But Patrick did not say it. He described it as if it was normal and “developmental” or “progressive thinking”. Confusion is a better word. Deviation is more fitting. They would have been in trouble with Elijah. They were when Robert Pierson came back from the Mission-fields after 30 years and was shocked by them and thus the Gerhard Hasel “vacuum-cleaner of deviations in methodology” was implemented at Andrews. No wonder Cottrell with his Sanctuary-less thinking felt abandoned. The late-baptized Adventists becoming professors are acting as if they are progressive when they are actually dismantling very important truths, truths that are the core of Adventism and forgotten or overlooked doctrines of the Bible in ages past. Koot van Wyk, Kyungpook National University, Reflecting on a speaker from Sahmyook University on the Sanctuary on 9th of October 2020.