Another common objection against Adventism focuses on the Sanctuary Doctrine. I will get into this topic in much more detail in future lessons, but for now, my main concern is to address the question of whether this should fall under the ‘Acceptable Variation’ or ‘Heresy’ categories in Olson’s schema.
I should mention first that the Adventist sanctuary construct has been miscategorized as a doctrine, when in fact it is a biblical framework; an alternative and corrective of more common Protestant frameworks such as Covenantalism, Dispensationalism, and New Covenant Theology (the Adventist approach is closest to Covenantalism but resolves a problem with how this and the other two frameworks deal with salvation in the Old Testament). The part of this construct that has concerned various critics is the soteriological component: for some, it appears anti-gospel. To address this, I need to give a brief introduction to Protestant soteriology.
Traditional Protestant soteriology can be divided into three factions: Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS) view. If we took all the Protestants in the world that still follow the traditional formula – salvation by grace alone through faith alone – roughly 1/3 of these people would belong to each faction. The factions have been debating each other for centuries, and while individuals switch back and forth, there has been no overall progress or consensus. It does not make sense for a denomination to switch sides simply due to pressure from another faction because, the minute they do, 2/3 of Protestants will still insist they are wrong.
Because terms such as Calvinism and Arminianism tend to confuse people, I will use a different labeling setup:
Instead of “Calvinism,” I will use the phrase “0-Point Salvation Model,” because under this system, humans do nothing and God decides who is saved or lost.
Instead of “OSAS,” I will use the phrase “1-Point Salvation Model,” because here, at some point during a person’s life, if they make a decision for Christ, nothing they do after that matters.
And, instead of “Arminianism,” I will use the phrase “2-Point Salvation Model,” because under this system, a person can make a decision for Christ and instantly receive all the benefits of salvation (acceptance, forgiveness, justification, etc.), but, if later in life they decide to walk away from God, it is still possible for them to be lost.
Again, as mentioned, these factions transcend Adventism and represent the views of all Protestants going back almost as far as the Reformation itself. Under this schema, Adventism falls under the 2-Point Salvation Model (Arminianism). The part of all this that is pertinent to the current discussion is that the Adventist sanctuary construct is built on top of the 2-Point Salvation Model: when a person comes to Christ, their case is taken up in the Sanctuary and, if at some point the individual turns away from Christ, their name is removed. This process takes place in all Arminian 2-point models, even if they don’t use the sanctuary superstructure.
What is unique about the Adventist approach is that, because we believe in soul sleep, we place this process at the end of history, while other Arminians typically place it as soon as people die, as they need to immediately go to heaven or hell. Given that both Arminianism and Soul Sleep are classified as ‘Acceptable Variation’ in Olson’s schema, there is no reason why the sanctuary construct wouldn’t be as well.
Hopefully, this and the previous post have addressed these common concerns sufficiently, so we can now begin a more systematic, sequential presentation of the Adventist worldview.
