And for the record:
"house" is not the same word as "sanctuary" or even "temple".
"oikos" is a residence -- as in "a house".

In the book of Hebrews we see "oikos" used as in -- the house of Israel (Hebrews 8:8 and 8:10)
Or Hebrews 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Noah saved his "house" in the ark, in Hebrews 11:21

Moses was faithful in the position that he was given over the house of Israel.
Christ is far greater than Moses, and He is faithful over the house of spiritual Israel.

But that word is not the same as "hagios" or TA HAGIA which the author of Hebrews uses ten times when speaking of the heavenly sanctuary where Christ is ministering as our High Priest.

Thus says the Lord:

"Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
Where is the HOUSE that you will build Me?
And where is the place of My rest?

For all those things My hand has made,
And all those things exist,
Says the Lord.
But on this one will I look:
On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit,
And who trembles at My word.

He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck;
He who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood;
He who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol.
Just as they have chosen their own ways,
And their soul delights in their abominations,

So will I choose their delusions,
And bring their fears on them;
Because, when I called, no one answered,
When I spoke they did not hear;
But they did evil before My eyes,
And chose that in which I do not delight."

The meaning of the parable was given by Jesus himself. There is no need to add to it. He was merely saying that forgiveness by God should result in a change of character towards the Divine similitude; but if not, there's a price to pay. On the other hand, what you are trying to do is add unnecessary significance to each and every detail without consulting the reason for the parable or the conclusion at which Jesus himself arrived. Consider what Peter was asking and, if you can, the answer for which he might have been hoping. Then read the parable from that perspective; and refrain from imposing "the doctrine" on it.

///

I agree -- "He was merely saying that [u]forgiveness by God should result in a change of character towards the Divine similitude; but if not, there's a price to pay". Justification (forgiven of all sin) releases us from the guilt and depressing weight of sin. Now we are to be dead to sin and alive in Christ. Growing in His grace to reflect His character more and more.

1. But how is it determined what "price" will be executed -- life or death? Who is to say how far the Holy Spirit has led a person? And how is it determined whose character is genuinely being changed towards the Divine similitude by the Holy Spirit and not a "dead works" program?

2. There are people who appear very pious and good and even loving and kind, whose characters have not been changed into a divine similitude. And there are people, who are covered by God's grace, but who others would probably condemn, yet whose characters are being refined into the Divine similitude.

3. God allowing sin to go on for thousands of years is for a purpose -- to show all intelligent created beings that God's law and His dealings with individuals is holy, just and good, and His ways are true, holy, and righteous. God isn't going to simply assign salvation to those He alone knows are His, while leaving the rest to eternal destruction.

4. The court is seated, the books are opened and Christ is presenting the names of those who have on his robe of righteousness before the Father and the angels. There is a record, their is a court. (Daniel 7:10, Rev. 3:5) Why are there books, why present names before God and the angels, why have a court, since God already knows everything? It so there will be NO SECRET as to why an individual is saved or lost. No lingering doubts in any mind as to the justice of God for not bringing a certain loved one into paradise.

Isaiah is simply telling us that God is far greater than any building that man built.

However the author of Hebrews makes a clear distinction in his choice of words. When he is referring to the temple or sanctuary he uses the word "ta hagia" or it's variations. when he is referring to a group of people like "the house of Israel" he uses a completely different word. "iokos" And he says the "ts hagia" is in heaven. (9:24)

So why can't you say what word is translated "HOUSE" in Is. 66:1-4 and whether the original word denotes either a family or a building?

The angels of God trust His judgement. Only SDA teach distrust in heaven.

???
I'm not getting your point.
The word is bayith, and it can denote either a family (Numbers 12:7, Joshua 24:15, 1 Sam. 20:15, 1 Chron. 17:14, etc.) or a building (Lev. 14:35, Judges 11:31, 19:23, 2 Sam. 11:11, 1 Kings 21:2, 1 Chron. 28:6, Isa. 56:7, Eze. 44:7).

In Isa. 66:1 it refers to a building, in the same sense that Solomon says: "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this house which I have built?" (1 Kings 8:27).

However, the term ta hagia is exclusively applied to the physical building of the sanctuary. And it's specifically said that it is in heaven.

Only dictators think that their subjects don't deserve to know the reasons for the decisions they make.

That is true. In other words, the building is symbolic of the people, as "HOUSE" is "either a family or a building".

It is evident that the Church is the heavenly sanctuary that was cleansed by the sprinkling of the "blood of Christ".