Pastor Jack Sequeira's Sanctuary Teaching?

Click to go to our Home Page

Dear Reader, For the benefit of others who might have the same question, I publish the below stated question directed to me and my response to the question:


I was reading this on Jack Sequeira's web page, is he Correct in his teaching below?

Christ is the Reality of the Sanctuary

EX. 25:8 (JH. 1:14); PS. 77:13 (HEB. 10:5-10); JN. 2:19-22




(31 A.D. - New Earth; Heb. 10:12,13)


(4 B.C.? - 31 A.D.; Heb. 9:12)

1. DAILY - Intercession

(31 A.D. - Probation Closes)


(Birth - Temptation in the Wilderness)

2. YEARLY - Cleansing

(1844 - New Earth)

2. SACRIFICE - Dying

(Baptism - Cross)

Ron's response:


Sequeira's Sanctuary scenario provides no separate eternal sacrifice of the Son of God in the Heavenly Sanctuary at His Incarnation, which, according to Ellen White and reason, was a sacrifice in and of itself and was the only specified requirement of the Everlasting Covenant:

"The darkness rolled away from the Saviour and from the Cross. Christ bowed His head and died. In His Incarnation He had reached the prescribed limit as a sacrifice, but not as a redeemer." E.G. White Manuscript Releases Volume Twelve, p. 409.

What was the prescribed limit of the Everlasting Covenant? It was that the Testator must die. Die for what? For the wages of our sin. What is the wages for our sin? Eternal death and not three days in a tomb.

Sequeira's view provides only for a three day death sacrifice of the Son of God. That does not satisfy the penalty of death for our sins, which is eternal death. Thus, Sequeira, like all ministering brethren, are left wide open to believe the Trinity doctrine, which, like Martin's scenario, provides no semblance of any satisfaction of the Everlasting Covenant's specification that the Testator must die some form of eternal death. We know that His death was to be in payment for the penalty of the wages of sin, which is eternal death. The Son of God met that penalty by laying aside His Holy Spirit life and soul as a regenerating gift for us by which we can be sanctified. This provides a remedy for sin, without which His death on the cross would have been of no avail except to justify sin forever.

Any portrayal of the Sanctuary Service which does not teach that the Son of God made an eternal sacrifice of His first estate life and soul, is faulty in the degree that it totally ignores the greatest crowning gift--greatest good that was ever proffered by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Thus, Sequeira totally omits in his summation of the life of Christ, the greatest thing Christ ever did for us! That is serious. That is fatal.

If this factor was recognized by the ministering brethren, they would never have been deceived by the Trinity doctrine which makes no proviso for any form of eternal death sacrifice on the part of the Testator. As stated, this is the same problem with Martin Eldon's scenario--and that of Lynnford Beachy, Allan Stump and the others who teach as they do on the Godhead. Thus, Sequeira's schematic of the Sanctuary Service and the Life of Christ, is indeed faulty by omitting the greatest sacrifice He made for us.

"Christ declared that after his ascension, he would send to his church, as his crowning gift, the Comforter, who was to take his place. This Comforter is the Holy Spirit,--the soul of his life, the efficacy of his church, the light and life of the world. With his Spirit Christ sends a reconciling influence and a power that takes away sin.

In the gift of the Spirit [HIS LIFE--THE SOUL OF HIS LIFE], Jesus gave to man the highest good that heaven could bestow....

The Spirit was given as a regenerating agency, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail....

It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given his Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress his own character upon the church." E.G. White, Review and Herald Articles, May 19, 1904, vol. 5, p. 42.

Ron Beaulieu