Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Guy, Fritz, Letter To Richard Hammill, 11 May 1980, 6 PP., Typed

    Uploaded by

    Christopher Ege
    4 views6 pages

    Original Title

    Guy, Fritz, letter to Richard Hammill, 11 May 1980, 6 pp., typed

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views6 pages

    Guy, Fritz, Letter To Richard Hammill, 11 May 1980, 6 PP., Typed

    Uploaded by

    Christopher Ege

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    p? MH 1 4 1999 Andrews University Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104 (616) 471-7771 Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary May 11, 1980 Dr. Richard Hammill, Vice President General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 6840 Eastern Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20012 Dear Dr. Hammill: Since I became a menber of Des Ford's “guidance committee" too late to prepare a written response to his chapters one and two before the meet- {ng early in April, I would like tobegin my comments on chapter three with some general observations about the doctrine of the sanctuary as 2 whole, and also about the ways in which Des can, I believe, most ef- fectively present his understanding of it. Then I will make a few more specific observations regarding chapter three. The Scope of the Discussion. As I see it, there are at least five dif- Ferent kinds of questions that need to be explored as the church reviews the doctrine of the sanctuary: ‘a. Logical questions: What is the logical status of our language about the cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven? What kind of sense does it make for us to talk about something happening in heaven at a point in earthly time? Do we really know enough about the ontology of heavenly reality to be able to talk about it as literally as we try to do? (This kind of question may seem overly sophisticated, and it is seldom dis- cussed. But in one sense it is absolutely fundamental; for if our lan- guage about the cleansing of the sanctuary is not logically coherent, there is little if any reason for anyone to take it very seriously.) b. Biblical questions: Is the doctrine of the sanctuary based on unambiguous Biblical evidence interpreted according to recognized prin- ciples of hermeneutics? (This is thekind of question in which Des, along with Ray Cottrell and others, is most interested. Its importance is ob- vious, especially in the light of our reaffirmation in Dallas that the Bible is our “only creed" and "the standard by which all teaching and experience mist be tested.") c. Systematic questions: How is the doctrine of the sanctuary re- Jated to other doctrines, both in general Christian theology (e.g., the “i Page 2 atonement, justification, the nature of God) and in distinctive Adventist theology (e.g., the Sabbath, the "great controversy")? Is our under- standing of the sanctuary the "heart" of Adventism--the essence of its uniqueness, and the point at which it stands or falls theologically? d. Historical questions: What was the original function of this doctrine in the faith and life of the Adventist community? Why did Ellen White, who on previous occasions had urged a thorough investigation and calm evaluation of purported "new light,” react so sharply to the views of A. F. Ballenger? e. Experiential questions: What are the present religious (i.e., spiritual and practical) implications of the doctrine of the sanctuary? What difference does (or should) it make in the way we live and pray and work and serve as individual Christians and as members of the Adventist community of faith? I am not suggesting that Des is obliged to deal with all of these different questions. He has the right to focugon whichever topic(s) he chooses. But_sooner or later the church will have to consider all of them. We must not suppose that when we resolve (in one way or another) the questions ‘that Des has raised, we have thereby done the whole theological task in regard to the doctrine of the sanctuary. There is likely to be more work for us to do. Furthermore, related to most of these kinds of questions is the basic methodological issue of the theological authority of Ellen White. Can we properly use her interpretations of Scripture and her theological af- firmations to establish doctrine that is not clearly warranted by the Biblical evidence per se? What are we supposed to do when her interpre- tation of a Biblical text seems to conflict with the results of our most careful exegesis? Or is her interpretation intended to control our exe~ gesis so that a conflict here is in principle impossible? It is surely not logically illegitimate (i.e., it is not self-contradictory) to ac- knowledge more than one theological authority (the Old and New Testaments already give us some kind of pluralism here); but if there is more. than ‘one authority, the relationships between them need to be worked out as precisely as possible. Although we have often functioned (at least in our intra-denominational discussions) as if the Ellen White writings car- ried an authority similar and equal to that of Scripture, we have never (so far as I know) actually adopted this as our position. Until we settle this question of theological methodology, it is not very likely that we will arrive at a consensus regarding the sanctuary, or sanctification and perfection, or creation, or any other major topic that is the subject of theological discussion and diversity within the church. Having wantered thus afield, I will now return to Des‘s interesting and ‘important project. The Strategy of Presentation. Although I am not an experienced theo- Togical combatant, it seems to me that there are several general problems with the present form of the manuscript. Page 3 a. Relation to "traditional" Adventism. I believe that the manu- script could (and should) state explicitly, and show clearly, that its understanding of the sanctuary is in fundamental continuity with the theological and spiritual heart of Adventism. That is, Des should seek to show, not merely that the questions he seeks to address have had a Jong history in the church, but also--and especially--that the answers he offers reflect the essential genius, the authentic spirit, of historic Adventism. In my judgment (which of course is always fallible, and may in this case be simply wrong), the present draft of the manuscript does lijfar too mich reacting to the apparent defects of the ‘traditional Adventist interpretation, and far too little building on its strengths. Indeed, I think that the manuscript should argue, as far as possible, that this "new" understanding in an appropriate--perhaps even inevitable--consequence of the "old" one. Chapter three contains seme good, positive material in this respect, and it could be further developed; but I think there is still too much negative polemic. b. Citation of scholarly opinion. Ihharmony with the recognition ‘at the beginning of chapter two that commentators carry "no weight on the basis of their personal authority,” thémanuscript could well be relieved of most of its direct (and often overlong) quotations from these sources. Instead, the evidence and reasoning on which the scholarly opinion is based should be thoroughly digested, and where they are relevant and per- suasive they should be formulated in Des's own words, with perhaps a foot- note reference to the source in which he found the argument most effec- tively expressed. Since in the process of Biblical exegesis and theological construction the only "authority" is the Biblical text itself (with its: (pt Yorabulary and syntax understood in its historical and literary context), a the power of Des's argument rests entirely on the strength of this kind jor “lge7 of evidence and on the soundness of the reasoning that interprets it. The | quotation of other opinions, however numerous and/or prestigious, 1s for oF or the most part irrelevant and distracting. We don't need to be reminded, dvy,_-and are at this point not really interested in, what "the majority of o GB scholars" ‘may think about the meaning of the text; what we need to know, we and are profoundly interested in, is the evidential and logical basis of the interpretations that Des has developed. c. Organization. The presentation could be made much more effective by a tighter and clearer structure within the chapters. It would be help~ ful, for example, if Des could divide each chapter into a few (perhaps Four to seven) main sections, and then further organize each of these main sections into an appropriate number of sub-sections. Furthermore, it would be best to deal with one topic at a time, staying with it until it is thoroughly discussed, paring away everything that is not directly related to it, and then moving on to the next topic. d. Recognition of ambiguity. For all of the rhetorical force with swhich the manuscript makes its various claims, the fact remains that in yoy" some cases the situation is more ambiguous than the presentation suggests, yee so that other, alternative interpretations are both possible and plausible. we When the manuscript ignores or underrates contrary evidence, and seems on Page 4 more certain of its assertions thanthe facts warrant, it gives the im- pression of closed-minded debating rather than careful theological think- ‘ing. And even when the evidence séems indisputably clear and its impli- cations utterly inescapable, our theological formulations are never in- fallible; and it is always appropriate to recognize this characteristic of one's own work. ye -nfj>™ e. Clarity of argument. With a complicated subject, a mass of relevant material, and a creative mind, it is especially important that the argument be clear. This means that throughout the manuscript Des should make his reasoning explicit, stating exactly how he believes the evidence he cites leads to the conclusions he offers. I suspect that in many cases his thinking is clearer than his writing, and that he knows perfectly well how he gets from A and B to C; but it is essential that we know this too, Aut64 lyr Gute’ 9 me ), Chapter Three: Daniel and the Day of Atonement. Like each of the pre- || ceding chapters of the manuscript, this one makes some important points || and raises some major questions to which the church must give serious — ,u attention. eaves some loose ends that could perhaps be tied up. This chapter appropriately calls attention to (1), ie: itional_argument for the "day-year" principle in prophetic interpretation; (2) the cdycial importance of the historical and_literary-context_for_a_correct_understandingof Dan 8:14; (3) the evidence of _an—imminenteschatological expectation in the New Testament community; (4) the religious purpose and conditional nature of prophetic revelation regarding the future; (5) the possibility of more than. one theologically appropriate interpretation ofprophetic materials; (6) the Biblical emphasis on divine judgment as active rectification more than deliberation; and (7) the revelatory function of the sanctuary symbolism in relation to the Kingdom of God (that is, the way in which He rules). Even if (as I believe) the manuscript should sometimes makes its case more carefully, take alternative interpretations more seriously, and ii{ State its conclusions more tentatively, its basic thrust in chapter three \)||| seems to be in the direction in whichRdventist theoTo: enerally (and, I believe, correctly) movin. b. Need for clarification. The most important idea of chapter three is that of divine judgment, which is used in connection with sev- eral different (and different kinds of) events: (1) God's activity of deliverance and/or destruction in history, such as the exodus, exile, and restoration of Israel; (2) the death of Jesus, which is the ultimate revelation of love and the absolute condemnation of sin; (3) the procla~ mation of, and response to, the gospel, which is the point of religious crisis (cf. Gk krisis) for human beings; (4) the “pre-Advent judgment," which is a particular emphasis of the Adventist understanding and mission; (5) the Second Advent, which constitutes theend of history of the present world; and (6) the ultimate elimination of sin from the universe. I agree that this broad diversity of usage is Biblically warranted and theologically legitimate, for each kind of use illuminates the others. T would also suggest that all of these uses of the idea of judgment con- Page § ‘i i rt at some point there total Biblical idea of atonement. But rn tribute ere careful consideration no ach of snes sive, oeantngs Sse significance, and their interre) : » for ‘their prec tne meaning and function of the pre-Advent, judgment. which rambles is cpt affirms at various points but does not explain? c. Sone incidental observations. Since the manuscript, in its pres ent (him 124 preliminary draft, it is not surprising that it needs a (good deal of careful copy editing. Ignoring the various infelicities of Style and minor problems of clarity, I will mention only a few details: pages 234-35: It is not clear what the references to the recent books by Woolsey and Winn add to the argument of the chapter, or even how they By Mrelevant to dt. 72, ow A elaZd Lar Caelilend Yttr page 273: The notion of “concealed definiteness" needs some explication. Pages 278-79: It seems unreasonable (to me, at Jeast) to require the applicability of October 22 to 457 B.C., A.D. 27, and A.D. 34, in order {0 regard it as the proper ending of the period of 2300 years. There may be other objections to the date, but this js hardly @ cogent one. Fate, OOO a ety 7 Ne mete 30 Hating oles prs Pages 279a-b: To what is this material related, and how? Page 311: The appendix containing "a much more lengthy and detailed dis- ra9eion of Dan. 8:14 and its explanation in 9:24-27" seems to have been omitted. Page 319: "cleansin: The point of Gerhard Hasel's argument regarding the meaning of "seems to have been missed. Page 321: The translation of haimatekchusia in Heb 9:22 as "sprinkling Ce blood" is incorrect, as Des notes; but his argument seems muddled, Sor he implies that the reference is tothe death of Christ, whereas it is more likely a reference to the Hebrew ritual. G-r-

    You might also like