Have We Followed Cunningly Devised Fables? — Robert J. Wieland

CONCLUSION

If this thesis is correct, it would vindicate the Adventist pioneers as especially led of the Holy Spirit.

The foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist church (the sanctuary doctrine) rests on a solid linguistic, contextual, and historical basis.
Adventist pioneers were the first group ever to properly reconstruct the true import of the Daniel 8 prophecy (as the Holy Spirit intended).
The Jewish interpretation of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn is the product of early apostasy and unbelief, even from the time of the Maccabees.
The preterist interpretation continues as the product of papal unbelief.

Our "new view" is logically an apotelesmatic appendage of the Antiochus Epiphanes view.

The Syrian king is a type, the papacy an antitype, of the little horn.
This view involves serious linguistic, contextual problems.
It's inconsistencies virtually render Daniel a taboo topic. Our people, especially the youth, are widely ignorant of the Book of Daniel. Few sermons are preached on the prophecies of Daniel. Into this vacuum rushes the Cottrell-Ford assertion of Adventist prophetic illegitimacy which is widely accepted by scholars whose doubts are too often uncritically accepted by the laity.
The result: serious distrust of 1844 and our unique sanctuary truth.

1844 and 1888 are complimentary dates. If one stands, the other does; if one falls, inevitably, the other does also. If one loses significance, inevitably the other does also.

Present anti-1844 propaganda within Adventism is always accompanied by a parallel antipathy for the 1888 message.
As with Conradi, failure to discern the uniqueness of the 1888 view of justification by faith prepares for failure to appreciate the prophetic foundation of 1844.
The 1888 Message of righteousness by faith is integrally united with the doctrine of the cleansing of the sanctuary. It is parallel to and essentially consistent with it.
The 1888 message imparted spiritual appeal to the sanctuary doctrine, freeing it from narrow egocentric legalism.
Failure to appreciate the 1888 message perpetuated the old egocentric concept of the sanctuary doctrine, preparing the way for widespread internal and external criticism of the doctrine of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment. The 1888 view of the 1844 truths is refreshingly Christocentric, not the "stale, profitless" egocentric view decried by external and internal opponents.

In no way restricts the spiritual significance of the sanctuary doctrine.
Establishes 1844 and the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary as the only possible linguistic understanding of Daniel 8:14.
It securely locks them in as exclusively referring to the terminus of the 2,300 day/years in the Christian era—that is 1844 A.D.
It eliminates the possibility of a logical reversion to Antiochus Epiphanes or any other preterist view.
Eliminates all futuristic conjectures in applying the 1260, 1290, 1335, and 2300 days literally.
Is supported exegetically, linguistically, and contextually, by the Hebrew text.
Is the obvious response of history to prophecy.
Is a lost truth whose hour has come, necessitated by the present anti-1844, anti-sanctuary propaganda.
Is simple to understand. Common people all over the world can readily "see" the principle of apostate Christianity supplanting or absorbing paganism as a historical reality and as an on-going principle observable even today.
The pioneers' view was clear and cogent, tying together Daniel 8 and 2 Thessalonians 2, focusing the 2300 days as years. There is no mental stumbling block.

It is true that no Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant commentaries support our view of ha tamid; but should this keep us from accepting it?

Inconsistencies of the popular view involve all these commentaries in a quagmire of confusion and conjecture.
Some commentators attempt to reconstruct or rewrite the text in order to make it fit their preconceived, popular theories. This we cannot do.
We are unworthy to exist if we are unwilling to confess truth which is obviously supported by the Bible, regardless of an inability of popular churches (or Jews) to see it.
Straightforward linguistic, contextual, historical exposition of these prophecies will command respect from thoughtful people "in Babylon." We have no need to fear in presenting truth.
No non-Adventist Christian commentaries support us on the Sabbath truth; shall we abandon that truth for fear of opposition?

Although the ha tamid truth is simple to understand, opposition and the discussions of it through the decades have appeared to be confusing and distracting. Shall we refuse to restudy it for fear of controversy? Truth never causes disunity; only error does.

Nearly universal acceptance of Conradi's view has now led us to a serious crisis over the sanctuary, 1844, and the Spirit of Prophecy positions. Our general concept of Daniel's prophecies are out of focus.
There is no lack of intelligence in the Seventh-day Adventist church; many minds need the challenge of deeper study as an alternative to the pervasive preoccupation with amusement and mental and spiritual stagnation in respect to Bible study.
The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary truth is of incomparable importance to the world and to the universe. No effort, time, or expense involved in establishing it can be thought wasted.

Desmond Ford's Glacier View manuscript links Conradi's "daily" as the vital factor in shaping the anti-1844 views of Ballinger, Fletcher, Snide, Grieve, Brinsmead, Hilgert, Sibley, and himself:

Conradi was the first to introduce this view to us. 25
Ballinger acknowledged Ellen White opposed it. 26
Fletcher recognized the new view as the essential link in his rejection of the sanctuary doctrine. 27
G.B. Star opposed Fletcher by upholding the old view of the "daily." 28
Ford links the new view with downgrading the investigative judgement; considers it the essential step. 29

Of itself, in our original context as a people, "the daily" was not a prominent or vital leading doctrine, as Ellen White says (but it is nonetheless truth). But the abandonment of that apparently unimportant truth creates the confusion that triggers a tragic disavowal of our sanctuary doctrine.

Notes: