Witnessing to Adventists Idea #1

[Protestant101]

Dear Protestant 101,

My post was not directed toward a specific post on this threaad, but rather was in response to multiple posts. I have noticed that some posts by some participants were aimed at discrediting the original poster, without specificly explaining what part was an “error by emmission” or somehow incorrect in a different way.

What do you feel was left out from the first post? As a Catholic learning about something new, I would like to better understand this doctrine/Adventist teaching. If a key component was missing, that is important for this particular discussion, please let us know.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

In the first post, there are a number of things that I question. Granted, adventistnomore did post it respectfully, and I have no problem with him being of a differing mindset because of that. I think that one concern I will mention for this post is simply that he incompletely and innacurately stated our beliefs about Christ’s ministry in the sanctuary. The biggest reason, is perhaps, because he stated it in his own words, and that took a lot away from how we actually state it in our official belief statement.

The comparison he made of our belief to the Catholicview thereof, and the Eucharist is a matter I will save for another post.

I will below state the official Adventist belief and underline in red what he left out, that I feel is quite essential, and without it, it waters down what we believe to what someone else believes we believe:

24. Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension.

In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus.

**The investigative judgment **reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom.

This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.)

If one wants to know what we believe, to better “witness” to us; it is likely best to give direct quotes with references in order to give the most credible view and approach. Adventistnornore essentially stated personal opinion. Too much in “apologetics” boils down to personal opinion which essentially destroys the truth of the matter. People like to call it “The Sanctuary Doctrine;” when, in fact; it is much more than a sanctuary doctrine. The official belief statement is called “**Christ’s ministry **in the Sanctuary,” not “The Sanctuary Doctrine.” The correct wording applied here shows how there are several of our doctrines that fall under the details of this special ministry of Christ.

Also; it is not accurate to say that this doctrine was responsible for the formation of the Adventist Church; it was discovered during our early, formative years but was not in and of itself responsible for our Church’s formation. it is one of the central “pillars” but not the only one.

Also; the fact that adventistnomore gave forum members a classic “apologetics” approach, makes it one of the poorest ways to “witness.”

 

[Protestant101]

What claims of mine are you challenging? My presentation of Adventist theology is accurate. I remind you I was an Adventist, studied under Adventist theologians, and own dozens of Adventist theological works/journals. And please, I do not ask you to cite Andreason, Shea, G. Hasel, Holbrook, Rodriguez, Gulley, or Neall everytime you represent an Adventist position (let alone GC documents). Neither should footnotes be required of me. (If you haven’t read an essay by even one of those names, then I assure you, it is you who do not know Adventist theology.)

Actually, you are wrong. If you are going to make either statements about what Adventist believe; or if you are going to make any accusations about it; people do have a right to ask for references, to make your claims/accusations more credible.

I think it would be a much more interesting study to compare the Catholic Mary Doctrine with the Adventist “sanctuary” doctrines; and to have posters therein supply specific, verifiable references, that the public can also easily access independently.

 

[Hellisreal]

Actually, you are wrong. If you are going to make either statements about what Adventist believe; or if you are going to make any accusations about it; people do have a right to ask for references, to make your claims/accusations more credible.

I think it would be a much more interesting study to compare the Catholic Mary Doctrine with the Adventist “sanctuary” doctrines; and to have posters therein supply specific, verifiable references, that the public can also easily access independently.

Seperate thread would be good for that.

Is this thread still going? I can’t believe it.

 

[adventistnomore]

It appears as if your most substantial criticism of my original post revolves around the fact that I didn’t explore the investigative judgment within my discussion of “Christ’s ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary.” I briefly mentioned the same doctrine, when I said that Adventists believe Christ’s began His work of cleansing the Most Holy Place in 1844. I viewed the investigative judgment from the Dan 8 perspective (according to the Adventist reading), which emphasizes the atoning aspect of this period, rather than the judgment it includes (which Dan 7 underscores). This narrower focus followed my original interest in comparing the antonement models presented in Catholic and Adventist theology.

Other than that, you repeat the charge that much of what I claim is “personal opinion.” I reviewed my original post, and would like to know which of the following four statements I made does not accurately reflect Adventist theology (these are taken almost verbatim from the original post):

1. Adventists emphasize that the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross does not complete the plan of redemption.
2. The blood of Christ must also be applied to believers on earth and to the Heavenly Sanctuary.
3. They also add that Christ began cleansing the Most Holy Place of the Heveanly Sanctuary in 1844.

4.Christ presents His body and blood before the Father to cleanse [by this I meant: cleanse through atonement, not executive punishment] the universe of sin prior to His Second Coming.

These are the only four statements regarding the Adventist doctrine I made.

 

[adventistnomore]

To save everyone a drop of time, I will cite Ellen White (perhaps the most universally-accepted Adventist authority) in defense of each of the four points I made in my original post:

1. Adventists emphasize that the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross does not complete the plan of redemption.

“The intercession of Christ on man’s behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His earth upon the cross. by His death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven.” (GC 489)

1. The blood of Christ must also be applied to believers on earth and to the Heavenly Sanctuary.

Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. (GC 425)

What is the cleansing of the sanctuary? That there was such a service in connection with the earthly sanctuary is stated in the Old Testament Scriptures. But can there be anything in heaven to be cleansed? In Hebrews 9 the cleansing of both the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary is plainly taught. “Almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these [the blood of animals]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Hebrews 9:22, 23), even the precious blood of Christ.

The cleansing, both in the typical and in the real service, must be accomplished with blood: in the former, with the blood of animals; in the latter, with the blood of Christ. (GC 417-418)

1. They also add that Christ began cleansing the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary in 1844.

in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming. (GC 422)

4.Christ presents His body and blood before the Father to cleanse [by this I meant: cleanse through atonement, not executive punishment] the universe of sin prior to His Second Coming.

Christ, who presents His blood, shed from the foundation of the world." (1 SM 344)

When in the typical service the high priest left the holy on the Day of Atonement, he went in before God to present the blood of the sin offering in behalf of all Israel who truly repented of their sins. So Christ had only completed one part of His work as our intercessor, to enter upon another portion of the work, and He still pleaded His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners. (GC 429)

As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary. 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 to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded.
…
Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary (GC 421-422)

 

[adventistnomore]

My thoughts:

The only place where I see my original post deviated from EGW’s understanding of the heavenly sanctuary was when I claimed that Christ presents “His body and blood”. She never says Christ presents “His body,” though she asserts that He does present His blood. I shouldn’t have inserted that extra word, though I believe the same squares well with Adventist theology. After all, “we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10), which He pleads before the Father, as He also does His blood (which, nevertheless, remains THE ground for atonement, according to Hebrews).

Also, the “cleansing the universe” quote was ill-advised, since the cleansing of the universe isn’t technically complete until the ejection of the scapegoat, or perhaps even more properly, to the destruction of the wicked in hellfire. “Cleansing the heavenly sanctuary” or “cleansing the righteous” would have been far more appropriate. Still, this misstep is incidental,and does not undercut my essential argument.

 

[FCEGM]

My thoughts:

The only place where I see my original post deviated from EGW’s understanding of the heavenly sanctuary was when I claimed that Christ presents “His body and blood”. She never says Christ presents “His body,” though she asserts that He does present His blood. I shouldn’t have inserted that extra word, though I believe the same squares well with Adventist theology. After all, “we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10), which He pleads before the Father, as He also does His blood (which, nevertheless, remains THE ground for atonement, according to Hebrews).

Also, the “cleansing the universe” quote was ill-advised, since the cleansing of the universe isn’t technically complete until the ejection of the scapegoat, or perhaps even more properly, to the destruction of the wicked in hellfire. “Cleansing the heavenly sanctuary” or “cleansing the righteous” would have been far more appropriate. Still, this misstep is incidental,and does not undercut my essential argument.

Speaking of the scapegoat, have you seen this article? -

godspy.com/faith/Good-Friday-The-Scapegoat-and-the-Trinity.cfm

 

[Protestant101]

It appears as if your most substantial criticism of my original post revolves around the fact that I didn’t explore the investigative judgment within my discussion of “Christ’s ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary.”

For now; please allow me to refer you back to my post, #53. How, from this post would you reach this specific part of your conclusion?

I believe that you have not correctly stated the Adventist side of the equation, because you appear to not be addressing the portions I underlined in red within that post. Because you have not included this aspect, where our official belief says:

This judgment **vindicates the justice of God **in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom.

When you do not correctly or completely state one of our’s or anyone’s official beliefs, and then you take this belief and put it in your own words, and then you try to prooftext your own words with quotes from Ellen G White, then you are giving people several false ideas about Adventist beliefs.

Our official belief about Christ’s entire ministry in the heavenly sanctuary has the overall theme of “that He might be just, and the Justifier.” (Rom.3:26).

An incomplete statement about our beliefs is the same as an incorrect one. There is no difference. I was hoping you would say that, yes, you should have directly quoted our official belief, but instead, you are showing a preference to just put it in your own words.

When you compare Catholic doctrine re the eucharist, with Adventist doctrine on Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary; you should start with Scripture, start with the official belief statements, and then use other sources such as EGW. When we can do it this way, it will start to become apparent why our two respective positions are so different.

 

[adventistnomore]

When you do not correctly or completely state one of our’s or anyone’s official beliefs, and then you take this belief and put it in your own words, and then you try to prooftext your own words with quotes from Ellen G White, then you are giving people several false ideas about Adventist beliefs.

Haha! After I capitulate to your request that I substantiate my claims from Adventist sources, you accuse me of “prooftexting.” I am laughing. I back up my statements nearly word-for-word from Ellen White and you still accuse me of simply presenting my “own words.”

If you want me to take your future posts seriously, please detail your grounds for dismissing my citations of Ellen White (show me where I flatly contradict her essential meaning on a certain point, etc.).

An incomplete statement about our beliefs is the same as an incorrect one. There is no difference. I was hoping you would say that, yes, you should have directly quoted our official belief, but instead, you are showing a preference to just put it in your own words.

As I mentioned previously, the sanctuary doctrine is a complex doctrine embracing two major ideas: the Dan 7 theme of Judgment, and the Dan 8 theme of cleansing/atonement. I chose to focus on the latter, since the Catholic convergences with Adventist theology revolve around that particular theme.

When you compare Catholic doctrine re the eucharist, with Adventist doctrine on Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary; you should start with Scripture, start with the official belief statements, and then use other sources such as EGW. When we can do it this way, it will start to become apparent why our two respective positions are so different.

In Adventist theology, Christ is presently in heaven presenting His blood to the Father so to apply the merits of His atonement. In Catholic theology, Christ does the same, applying His blood both to the heavenly places and to His people here on earth (through the Eucharist). Of course there are substantial differences between the two doctrines; I could easily exhaust myself listing them all. But in a post tying to emphasize common trains of thought in the christology of both parties, it is unnecessary to detail these differences, and show “why our two respective positions are so different.” We are all aware great differences exist between our churches, but interreligious dialogue of any sort is supposed to help us see our commonality first and foremost.

Now, you have done a quaint job exploring the other aspect of the Adventist doctrine of Christ’s heavenly ministry, that is, the investigative judgment. But nothing in the investigative judgment excludes the commonality between the bare atonement models of Adventism and Catholicism.

How does this:This judgment **vindicates the justice of God **in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom.

or this,
Our official belief about Christ’s entire ministry in the heavenly sanctuary has the overall theme of “that He might be just, and the Justifier.” (Rom.3:26).
undercut the common idea that Christ presents His real blood to the Father in the heavenly sanctuary for the atonement of our sins?

.

 

[Protestant101]

How about you you just go ahead and “witness” to us Adventists, since you want to be the “expert.”

 

[adventistnomore]

How about you you just go ahead and “witness” to us Adventists, since you want to be the “expert.”

The argument of a man with none left.

…Please respond to the substance of my posts, or do not respond to me at all.

 

[SDA2RC]

When you compare Catholic doctrine re the eucharist, with Adventist doctrine on Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary; you should start with Scripture, start with the official belief statements, and then use other sources such as EGW.

We would start with scripture… but since there is no scripture to support your belief… it is hard.

 

[Protestant101]

We would start with scripture… but since there is no scripture to support your belief… it is hard.

Hmmm. Since in many posts you just call me “Protestant” instead of my actual user name of “Protestant101;” I am thinking that maybe I will shorten your user name to “SDA2” Har! That might get your attention 4 sure.

Your statement which I have quoted above is so brief; I do not know what to respond with at this point. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Can you tell me what specific belief/s I have which there is “no scripture for?” If you give something specific with a reference; then maybe there is some discussion possible?

 

[Protestant101]

The argument of a man with none left.

…Please respond to the substance of my posts, or do not respond to me at all.

I am still waiting for you to “witness.” You don’t appear to have much steam left either.

 

[adventistnomore]

I am still waiting for you to “witness.” You don’t appear to have much steam left either.

I repeat:

Please respond to the substance of my posts, or do not respond to me at all.

 

[Protestant101]

I repeat:

Please respond to the substance of my posts, or do not respond to me at all.

Likewise my friend.

 

[SDA2RC]

Hmmm. Since in many posts you just call me “Protestant” instead of my actual user name of “Protestant101;” I am thinking that maybe I will shorten your user name to “SDA2” Har! That might get your attention 4 sure.

Your statement which I have quoted above is so brief; I do not know what to respond with at this point. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Can you tell me what specific belief/s I have which there is “no scripture for?” If you give something specific with a reference; then maybe there is some discussion possible?

Protestant,
Hugo quoted the official “messenger” of the Adventist Church (EGW) to substantiate his statements, you then replied to use scripture. My statement was that if we thought there was scripture to use in defense of the Sanctuary Doctrine (since this is what we are talking about from an Adventist persepective) then we would still be Adventists. Since there is no scriptural support for the doctrine, we use EGW to point out Adventist statements. It appears that there is a new thread you started about this subject, therefore, we can continue this discussion there.

Warm regards,
“SDA2”

 

[adventistnomore]

Likewise my friend.

My latest extended response is at the top of this page. You have yet to offer your comments on it; I also asked you a question at the end to which you have yet to respond.

 

[adventistnomore]

Oops. I forgot to respond to your earlier question (you’ll have to excuse me, I’ve been sick):

For now; please allow me to refer you back to my post, #53. How, from this post would you reach this specific part of your conclusion?

You related only one doctrinal qualm in post 53:

I will below state the official Adventist belief and underline in red what he left out, that I feel is quite essential, and without it, it waters down what we believe to what someone else believes we believe.

You also took issue with (1) the lack of references in my first post (since resolved), (2) the proper name of the sanctuary doctrine, and (3) how critical the doctrine was to the formation of the Adventist Church. Since none of the latter three criticism’s were doctrinal in nature, I considered the first “your most substantial criticism.”

 

[adventistnomore]

I’d also like to respond to another comment you made:

When you compare Catholic doctrine re the eucharist, with Adventist doctrine on Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary; you should start with Scripture, start with the official belief statements, and then use other sources such as EGW.

As long as we’re discussing “official belief statements,” allow me to cite two of them in my defense:Fundamental Belief 18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction…

A Statement of Confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy
“…we also believe, as did Ellen G White’s contemporaries, that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine.” (GC Session, Utrecht, June 30, 1995)
If you ask me to substantiate my claims from authoritative Adventist sources, I can think of none more appropriate than the writings of Ellen White. She hardly qualifies as mere “other sources”; even the Church’s “official belief statements” aren’t said to carry “divine authority for doctrine.”