- Sep 23, 2005
- 32,690
- 6,107
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Please quote where she sent him Bible evidence.
Your source is a bit obscure, and you didn't cite it. However, upon finding it the source refers to Light Bearers to the Remnant. That text indicates that the British Union Conference Committee further sent him before another group.
In any case, Ballenger describes his experience at the trial in his letter to Ellen White in which he asks here to send him Scripture evidence, some time later. It is included in his book.
Full text of "Ballenger, A. F. Cast Out for the Cross of Christ (1909)"
In private conversation with me one took the position that "within the veil" meant within the sanctuary, but did not refer to either apartment. Another asserted at the trial that the term applied to the first apartment as you have interpreted it. The third, compelled by the witnesses quoted above admitted in his answer that the term "within the veil" does apply to the holy of holies, but that it is spoken prophetically, and although the scripture says Christ IS entered "within the veil" we are to understand it to mean that he WILL enter in 1 844. This babel of voices did not help me to see my error, if error it be.
Before publishing my MS. I sent it to several ministers holding official positions,
whose loyalty to the denomination is unquestioned, and asked them out of love for the truth and my soul, to show me from the Scriptures, where I was in error. I promised that should they do this I would never publish the MS.
Not one of these brethren attempted to show me my error from the Word. One wrote thus:
- "Candor compels me to say that I can find no fault with it from a Bible standpoint. The argument seems to be unassailable."
Another said:
- "I have always felt that it was safer to take the interpretation placed upon the
Scriptures by the Spirit of Prophecy as manifested through Sister E.G. White rather than to rely upon my own judgment or interpretation."
This last quotation expresses the attitude of all those who have admitted that my
position seemed to be supported by the Scriptures, but hesitated to accept it.
Honestly, Sister White, I am afraid to act upon this suggestion; because it will place the thousands upon thousands of pages of your writings in books and periodicals between the child of God and God's Book. If this position be true, no noble Berean dare believe any truth, however clearly it may seem to be taught in the Scriptures, until he first consults your writings to see whether it harmonizes with your interpretation. This is the principle always advocated by the Roman church and voiced in the following quotation:
- "Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still of the two, TRADITION is to us more clear and safe." Catholic Belief p. 54.
It was against this putting of an infallible interpreter between the man and his Bible that the Reformation waged its uncompromising war.
The Romanists robbed the individual of his Bible, denouncing the right of "private
interpretation;" while the Reformation handed the Bible back to the individual while denouncing the papal dogma that demands an infallible interpreter between the child of God and his Bible.
The brethren urge me to accept your interpretation of the Scriptures as clearer and safer than what they call my interpretation. But I have not interpreted this Scripture, I have allowed the Lord to do this and have accepted his interpretation. Let me illustrate:
The first mention of the Sabbath in the New Testament is found in Matt. 12:1 . It does not there tell us which day is the Sabbath, assuming that the reader knows which day is referred to, or if not, he will be able to learn from the Old Testament, which day it is. When one turns to Ex. 20:8-12 and reads, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord," is not that God's interpretation? Has any one the right to reply, "That is your interpretation." Surely not.
In like manner, the first and only instance where the term, "within the veil," is used in the New Testament, is found in Heb. 6:19. It is taken for granted that the reader will know to which apartment the Holy Spirit refers; but if not, the searcher can learn from the Old Testament which place is meant. Now, when I turn to the Old Testament and find that in every instance this term is applied to the holy of holies, can it honestly be charged that this is my interpretation? I have not interpreted it, but have given that honor to the Holy Oracles themselves. And now Sister White, what can I do? If I accept the testimony of the Scriptures, if I follow my conscientious convictions, I find myself under your condemnation; and you call me a wolf in sheep's clothing, and warn my brethren and the members of my family against me. But when I turn in my sorrow to the Word of the Lord, that Word reads the same, and I fear to reject God's interpretation and accept yours. Oh that I might accept both. But if I must accept but one, hadn't I better accept the Lord's? If I reject his word and accept yours, can you save me in the judgment? When side by side we stand before the great white throne; if the Master should ask me why I taught that "within the veil" was in the first apartment of the sanctuary, what shall I answer? Shall I say, "Because Sister White, who claimed to be commissioned to interpret the Scriptures for me, told me that this was the true interpretation, and that if I did not accept it and teach it I would rest under your condemnation?
Oh, Sister White, that this answer might be pleasing unto the Lord. Then would I
surrender to your testimony. Then would you speak words of encouragement to me again. Then would my brethren, with whom I have held sweet counsel, no longer shun me as a leper. Then would I appear again in the great congregation, and we would weep and pray and praise together as before.
But on the other hand should the great and terrible God say to me on that day, "But disobedient servant, WHAT DID I SAY?". Oh what could I answer?
If I surrender my convictions to escape the testimonies of condemnation which you heap upon my head; if I yield the Word of God that I might again enjoy the love and fellowship of my brethren, how can I again look into the face of him who died for me? How could I again lay my Bible open upon my bed, and kneeling, plead for light upon his Word? No, no, I cannot do that. I must go on my pilgrimage alone. And while I would not put myself in the company of Him who was despised and rejected of men, the Man of sorrows, the Man of the lonely life, yet I am comforted in the thought that he knoweth my sorrow and is acquainted with my grief.
Your younger brother in Christ, A.F. BALLENGER. Tropico, Cal.
They did not answer him from Scripture.
Twenty-five years later W. W. Prescott (a member of the GC ad hoc committees appointed to meet with the dissidents) commented in a letter to W. A. Spicer, then president of the General Conference: "I have waited all these years for someone to make an adequate answer to Ballenger, Fletcher and others on their positions re. the sanctuary but I have not seen or heard it." Cottrell's Sanctuary Doctrine—Asset or liability.
And the irony is that later Adventist scholarship actually admit Ballenger's point which he wrote to Ellen White about, regarding "within the veil", and for the same reasons Ballenger presented. They look at the Scriptural usage.
So for instance, here is a quote from the April 2002 Andrews University Seminary Studies by Adventist OT professor Richard Davidson, responding to articles by Adventist professors Roy Gane and Norman Young (from your region, and now retired).
Andrews Unierersity Seminury Studies, S p ~ g 2002, Vol. 10, No. 1,69-88. Copyright * 2002 Andrews University Press.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=old-testament-pubs
I appreciate the opportunity to continue the dialogue with my friend and colleague Norman Young over important matters in the book of Hebrews raised by Roy Gane's article and our two responses in recent issues of AUSS.' First of all, I wish to soften the language of the editor in his introduction of our two articles in the last issue of AUSS. The editor writes that I offer a contrasting view to both Gane and Young."' Awkward wording in an earlier draft of my article may have given the editor that impression, but the final (published) draft is, as far as I can determine, in complete harmony with the study by Gane. I agree with Gane that reference by the author of Hebrews to the veil in Heb 6:19-20,following LXX usage, most probably has in view the 'second" veil, i.e., the veil before the Most Holy Place. This was also the major conclusion of Norman Young's article, and thus I find myself in agreement with both Gane and Young in regard to their main point (i.e., the identification of the veil of Heb 6:19) and their basic methodology (recognizing the consistency of the author of Hebrews with LXX usage).
My article actually addressed a further, deeper issue, building upon the previous one: what is the OT background of Heb 6:19-20. I applaud Young for acknowledging in his reply to my article that "this indeed is the real issue." On this issue of background Young and I do come to different conclusions. I see the OT background of Heb 6:19-20 and parallel "entering" passages in Hebrews as inauguration, while Young sees the background as the Day of Atonement.
Young rightly points out that the inauguration background to Heb 6: 19-20 was suggested almost a century ago by E. E. Andross, in his book A More Excellent Ministry. However, Andross based his arguments largely on thematic typological parallels to the O T inauguration services and allusions to these elsewhere in the NT, and did not ground his conclusions in an examination of the intertextual use of key LXX terms by the author of Hebrews. Furthermore, Andross argued that Christ, following his inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary, left its Most Holy Place and sat down at the right hand of the Father on a throne in the Holy Place. Young assumes that "the logic of my position leads to the same conclusion, but in fact I do not concur with Andross on this point. I agree instead with Young, that in Hebrews the "throne of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb 8:1), the "throne of God" (Heb 1 2 4 , where Christ sat down, most probably should be located in the heavenly equivalent to the Most Holy Place, just as in the earthly sanctuary YHWH was enthroned in the Most Holy Place, above the ark between the cherubim Exod 25:22; Num 7:89; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:l5). But I find attractive the further suggestion of my colleague Roy Gane, who argues that Christ is by no means confined to his position on the throne with the Father in the heavenly equivalent to the Holy of Holies.
All three of them agree that within the veil likely refers to the MHP. This was a key contention of Ballenger, and they now all agree with it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
