Ellen G. White and Her Critics

Enlarged View of Sanctuary Service

Somewhere between their first glimpse of the sanctuary truth, immediately after the disappointment, in 1844, and this date in February, 1853, the Sabbathkeeping group had greatly enlarged their understanding of the service of Christ in the most holy place. They first thought of His going into the most holy to receive a kingdom and to cleanse the sanctuary, that is, to dispose of the confessed sins of the faithful. This earliest view of Christ’s work in the most holy seemed to have in it little, if any, of the idea of intercession for sin. But in this 1853 quotation, Andrews specifically declares that in the most holy place Christ “offers his blood, not merely for the cleansing of the sanctuary, but also for the pardon of iniquity and transgression.” EGWC 613.4

In The Day-Star, in 1846, O. R. L. Crosier set forth, in a formal way, the truth of the ministry of Christ in the most holy place in heaven above, and stabilized the thinking of Sabbathkeeping Adventists. For a little while he was numbered with the Sabbathkeeping group of Adventists. But he soon turned away and became a militant critic of both the Sabbath and the sanctuary doctrines. In 1853 he wrote an article in the Harbinger, one of the Adventist papers, chiding our Sabbathkeeping fathers for quoting, still, from his [1846 Day-Star] article, and for two reasons: First, because he had now “somewhat changed” his views on the subject of the sanctuary. Second: “The above named persons [certain Sabbathkeepers] appear to me insincere in quoting from that article, (1) because they know that it was written for the express purpose of explaining and proving the doctrine of the ‘shut door,’ which they now, I understand, disclaim.” EGWC 613.5

We quote Crosier’s statements as they appear in an editorial note in the Review of March 17, 1853, page 176. Here, in part, is the editor’s reply. On the first: EGWC 614.1

“We have quoted from C’s article, for no other reason than this, it contained precious truth, which we wished to spread before the flock of Christ.” EGWC 614.2

On the second: EGWC 614.3

“As C. has informed the readers of the Harbinger that we disclaim the doctrine of the shut door, that paper should no longer reproachfully call us ‘shut-door Sabbatarians.’ But we say that C’s article on the law of Moses [in the Day-Star, 1846], no more goes to prove a shut door than it does an open door. It is in harmony with the Bible doctrine which we hold, that at the termination of the 2300 days, in 1844, there was a change in the work of our High Priest—a door was then opened into the Most Holy, while another was shut.” EGWC 614.4

Crosier also made a general observation, intended to be critical, of the Sabbathkeepers’ philosophy: EGWC 614.5

“I think we have no means of knowing the precise time when the antitype of the ancient 10th day of the 7th month service did or will begin: but we have evidence that it will not close the ‘door of mercy’ against all the previously impenitent.” EGWC 614.6

The editor’s comment was this: EGWC 614.7

“As to the ‘door of mercy’ of which C. speaks, we read of no such door, only in the writings of uninspired men. But the truth that C. wished to state here, for truth it is, is this, that there would be those who might come to God through the mediation of Jesus Christ, and find pardon of their sins, after the work of the antitype of the tenth day of the seventh month services should commence. This, to us who believe that this is the period of the antitypical tenth day service, is an important truth. While the great work of saving men closed with the 2300 days, a few are now coming to Christ, who find salvation.” EGWC 614.8

The important point here is not that James White—and he reflected the view of the group—should still believe that the majority of men had sinned away their day of grace, but that he believed that those who would might come to Christ and receive salvation. EGWC 614.9

In an issue of the Review the next month is a long editorial entitled “The Shut Door.” Near the close of the editorial is this statement: EGWC 614.10

“Although there is a shut door which excluded those represented by the foolish virgins, (those moved by the proclamation of the Advent, who had none of the grace of God, no real faith,) and also those who were foolish and wicked enough to reject, and fight against the glorious news of a soon coming Saviour, yet we rejoice to publish to those that have an ear to hear, that there is an Open Door.”—April 14, 1853, p. 189. EGWC 614.11