The
Ultimate Betrayal of True Seventh-day Adventism
Click here to go to
our Home Page
THE
ULTIMATE BETRAYAL By Neil C. Livingston Remove not the ancient landmark, This policy is the
first step in a succession of wrong steps," Ellen White warned.
"The principles which have been advocated in the American Sentinel
are the very sum and substance of the advocacy of the Sabbath, and when men
begin to talk of changing these principles, they are doing a work which it
does not belong to them to do. . .." (Counsels to Writers and
Editors, page 96, emphasis supplied). This statement by
Ellen White was made in reference to an incident
that took place in 1890 in which ministers who were in charge of the American
Sentinel (Seventh-day Adventist Religious Liberty magazine of the day,
forerunner of our contemporary Liberty magazine) met behind closed
doors to contemplate dropping the name Seventh-day Adventist from the
magazine. This was proposed to gain acceptance from the Sunday-keeping
churches. Ellen White received a vision of what was taking place and gave the
following testimony: In the night season I was present in several councils, and there I
heard words repeated by influential men to the effect that if the
American Sentinel would drop the words "Seventh-day Adventist" from
its columns, and would say nothing about the Sabbath, the great men of the
world would patronize it. It would become popular and do a larger work.
This looked very pleasing. These men could not see why we could not
affiliate with unbelievers and non-professors to make the American
Sentinel a great success. I saw their countenances brighten, and they began
to work on a policy to make the Sentinel a popular success. Ellen G. White, Manuscript
Release, No 1033, pages 59, 60. (emphasis
supplied). "These men
could not see why we could not affiliate with unbelievers and
non-professors." This is a definite statement against Ecumenism, against
affiliating with unbelievers and non-professors. Unbelievers and
non-professors of what? The third angel’s message, of course! "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" the Bible
states. (Amos 3:3). "These men could not see why we could not
affiliate," the Spirit of Prophecy agrees. Yet in 1926, eleven short
years after the death of Ellen White, SDA leadership officially voted that,
"We recognize every agency that lifts up Christ
before man as a part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the world,
and we hold in high esteem the Christian men and women in other communions
who are engaged in winning souls to Christ." ("Relationship To Other Societies," General Conference Executive
Committee, 1926, emphasis supplied). Then in 1955, again
there were men at the head of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who
"could not see why we could not affiliate with unbelievers and
non-professors." Oh, but now there was no living prophet to stem the
overwhelming tide of Ecumenism about to flood into the Church. There were
only the writings of the prophet, which leadership had been ignoring for many
years. The Fourth Wrong
Step Toward Ecumenism We now come to the
fourth wrong step toward ecumenism - the Evangelical Conferences of 1955-56.
Documentation of this historical event is taken from four reliable eyewitness
participants, plus two other reliable sources: (1) Leroy Edwin
Froom, Movement of Destiny. Froom made an early contact with the noted
Evangelical, Dr. E. Schuyler English, editor of Our Hope magazine.
Froom also played a major role in the Evangelical Conferences. (2) T. E. Unruh, the
first Seventh-day Adventist contact with the noted Evangelical, Dr. Donald
Grey Barnhouse, editor of Eternity magazine.
"When the events described here took place, Unruh was President of the
East Pennsylvania Conference." (Editor’s Note, Adventist Heritage,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 1977). (3) Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, "popular radio preacher, minister, of the
Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, author of a number
of Evangelical books, and founder and senior editor of the influential Eternity
magazine." (T. E. Unruh, The Adventist Heritage, Vol. 4, No. 2,
1977, page 35). Barnhouse was also the chairman of
the conferences between the Evangelicals and the Seventh-day Adventists. (4) Walter R.
Martin, Eternity magazine. Martin worked with Dr. Barnhouse
and was a major Evangelical participant in the conferences. At that time he was preparing his Doctoral manuscript on titled, The
Truth About Seventh-day Adventists. (5) Video tapes of
the John Ankerberg television program,
(1983), featuring as guests, Dr. Walter R. Martin (author of The Truth
About Seventh-day Adventists and The Kingdom of the Cults), and
Dr. William G. Johnsson, current Editor of the Adventist
Review. (6) Virginia Steinweg, Without Fear or Favor, "The Life of
M. L. Andreasen," Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington,
D.C., 1979. Leroy Froom’s
Eyewitness Report Of the Evangelical Conferences "The following
chain of circumstances began before the contacts with Walter R. Martin and
Donald Grey Barnhouse," Leroy Froom stated.
"However, this earlier exchange with Dr. English had a definite bearing
upon - though it was separate from - the conferences with Martin and Barnhouse." (Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of
Destiny, pages 468, 469). "One of the
later type [articles] appeared in 1955 in a brief editorial note in Our
Hope, published in Philadelphia and edited by Dr. E. Schuyler English,
also chairman of the Revision Committee of the Scofield Reference
Bible," Froom recalled. "A chain of unique circumstances grew out
of this editorial item that should be told, for his journal led the way in
corrective undertaking." (ibid., MD, p. 468). The footnotes in the
"Scofield Reference Bible" are one of the most
anti-Adventist compositions known to man. And now Froom discloses that Dr. E.
Schuyler English was the chairman of the Scofield Reference Bible
"Revision Committee." How could Dr. English be objective to
"true" Seventh-day Adventist doctrine? "In order to understand the. . .conferences with
Evangelicals Martin and Barnhouse - and the
resultant book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine
(1957) - it is necessary to go back to 1955, and certain pre-preliminary
exchanges with Dr. English, of Our Hope [magazine]," Froom
continues. "In an editorial note in his January,
1955, issue, English stated erroneously, that Seventh-day Adventists `deny
Christ’s Deity’ (p. 409). And he added that we are a group that `disparages
the Person and work of Christ’" (ibid., MD, p. 469). "As to the
latter expression, Dr. English based this misconception upon his
understanding that we hold that Christ, during His incarnation, `partook of
our sinful, fallen nature,’" Froom quoted English. "In this expression he was clearly alluding to the then off-cited
note in the old edition of Bible Readings." (E. Schuyler English,
letter to L. E. F., Mar. 11, 1955, p. 1). (ibid., MD, p. 469). Notice that Froom
says the reason Dr. English believed that Seventh-day Adventists `deny
Christ’s Deity’ was because the book Bible Readings stated that
"we hold that Christ, during His incarnation, partook of our sinful,
fallen nature." Was Dr. English right? No.
Pioneer Seventh-day Adventists did believe in the "Deity of Jesus
Christ." Did pioneer Adventists believe that while on earth Christ
"partook of our sinful, fallen nature?" Yes
they did. Was the position on Christ’s human nature, published in Bible
Readings, the correct position of pioneer Adventists? Yes, indeed it was.
"We immediately
wrote to Dr. English expressing concern over his mistaken understanding of
our teachings on these and other points," Froom stated. "And
further, that the old Colcord minority-view note in Bible Readings -
contending for an inherent, sinful, fallen nature for Christ - had years
before been expunged because of its error." Who were the
"we" that wrote to Dr. English and dared to explain to him what
Seventh-day Adventists believe? When was the statement in Bible Readings
"expunged," and who had the authority to delete Adventist doctrine
from one of Adventism’s most treasured and influential missionary books? The Expunged Note In Bible Readings "Cognizance
must also be taken of the correction, in 1949, of a definite error appearing
in a note on the nature of Christ during the incarnation," Froom stated.
"For years it had appeared, in the standard Bible Readings for the
Home Circle. It was in the section on "A Sinless Life.’" (ibid.,
MD, pp. 427, 428, emphasis supplied). Observe that Froom
admits that, "For years it [the note] had appeared, in the standard Bible
Readings for the Home Circle." Later Froom stated that the note had
been inserted in Bible Readings in 1914 and continued until 1949, a
period of 35 years. Remember, Froom stated in a previous chapter that the
"new" Statement of Fundamental Beliefs in 1931 were accepted because
there was not one protest of objection against them! If the note in Bible
Readings was "a definite error," as Froom states, then why
had not someone protested against it during those 35
years? The Alleged
Erroneous Note The expunged note in
Bible Readings was found on page 174 in the chapter "A Sinless
Life." The note was in response to question number 6, "How fully
did Christ share our common humanity?" The Scripture reference was
Hebrews 2:17, "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like
unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in
things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the
people." The expunged note that Dr. English, Leroy Froom, and Adventist
leadership, then and now, have an aversion to reads as follows: In His humanity
Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not "made like unto His brethren,"
was not "in all points tempted like as we are," did not overcome as
we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the
complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. The idea
that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no
tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the
realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On
His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherited-a
sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was
begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on
vantage-ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way everyone who is
"born of the Spirit" may gain like victories over sin in his own
sinful flesh. Thus each one is to
overcome as Christ overcame. Rev. 3:21. Without this birth there can be
no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. John 3:3-7. Bible Readings
for the Home, Copyright Review and
Herald Publishing Association, all editions 1914-1949, Pacific Press Publishing
Association, page 174. (emphasis supplied). This powerful
pioneer Adventist statement on victory over sin is obviously a thorn in the
side of contemporary "new theology" Seventh-day Adventists. The new
note that was placed in Bible Readings in 1949 reads as follows: Jesus Christ is both
Son of God and Son of man. As a member of the human family "it behoved
Him to be made like unto His brethren" - "in the likeness of sinful
flesh." Just how far that "likeness" goes is a mystery of
the incarnation which men have never been able to solve. Bible Readings
for the Home, Copyright Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1959 edition, Pacific Press Publishing
Association, page 143. (emphasis supplied). Froom’s Explanation Of the Expunged Note In Bible Readings? "Apparently it
was first written by W. A. Colcord, in 1914," Froom wrote. "It
likewise involved one of those questions upon which there had been variance
of view through the years." (ibid., MD, pp. 427, 428, emphasis
supplied). Froom was back to
his devious method of insinuation without documentation. "Apparently it
was first written by W. A. Colcord, in 1914." Froom gives no historical
references to the fact that Colcord might have written the note - just
insinuation by the use of the word "apparently."
Froom then states
that, "It likewise involved one of those questions upon which there had
been variance of view through the years." Again
no documentation, just insinuation. Is this statement true? No. The truth is
that James White and all pioneer Seventh-day Adventists, including Ellen
White, believed the human nature of Christ to be as it was written in Bible
Readings. Pioneer Adventists
and Christ’s Human Nature In his excellent
research book, The Word Was Made Flesh, Dr. Ralph Larson found over
1,100 statements by Ellen White and other pioneer Adventists that Jesus came
to earth in the nature of Adam after the fall
in Eden. Larson did not find one statement that Christ took the nature of
Adam before the fall. There is a document in the Ellen G. White
Estate, however, which reveals that the apostate "Holy Flesh"
movement in Indiana (1899-1900) taught the false doctrine that Christ took
upon Himself the nature of Adam before the fall. This document was in the
form of a letter to Ellen White from Stephen N. Haskell, mailed from Battle
Creek, Michigan on September 25, 1900: When we stated that we
believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they [the Holy Flesh
leaders] would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding
the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as
though no one could misunderstand us. Their point of
theology in this particular respect seems to be this: They [the Holy Flesh
leaders] believe that Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell; so He [Christ] took humanity as it was in the garden of
Eden, and thus humanity was holy, and this is the humanity which Christ
had; and now, they [the Holy Flesh leaders] say, the particular time has come
for us to become holy in that sense, and then we will have "translation
faith" and never die. Stephen N. Haskell, Letter
#2, to Ellen G. White, dated at Battle Creek, Michigan, September 25,
1900. (emphasis supplied). Many quotations from
pioneer Adventists on the human nature of Christ, that concur with the
expunged note in Bible Readings, could be presented. However, only
nine will be sufficient to demonstrate this point clearly. "He [Christ]
was indeed a partaker of flesh and blood like unto us," D. Lacy
wrote, "and why? That He might know in His person and be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities." (Bible Echo, 4/01/90, p. 99,
emphasis supplied). "In coming down
from the throne of glory which Christ had with the Father before the world
was, to take upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh," S. McCullagh, first Secretary of Australasian conference,
wrote, "it was that humanity might be met where they were in their
low state. (ibid., Bible Echo, 1/15/1900, p. 43, emphasis
supplied). "Henceforth the
church was to look backward to a Saviour who had come - who lived in
sinful flesh," Eugene William Farnsworth wrote. (1847-1935). (ibid.,
Bible Echo, 11/23/03, p, 568, emphasis supplied). "(Jesus)
took our nature upon Himself," E. Hillard wrote, "and was
subject to our temptations." (ibid., Australia, Signs of the
Times, 10/12/03, p, 492, emphasis supplied). "Do not forget
that the mystery of God is not God manifest in sinless flesh but God
manifest in sinful flesh," Alonzo T. Jones wrote. "There could
never be any mystery about God’s manifesting Himself in sinless flesh, in one
who had no connection whatsoever with sin. That would be plain enough. But
that He can manifest Himself in flesh laden with sin and with all the
tendencies to sin, such as ours is - that is a mystery." (ibid.,
Bible Echo, 11/30/96, p, 370, emphasis supplied). "By
partaking of our nature, His human arm encircles the fallen race,"
Stephen N. Haskell wrote.(ibid., Bible Echo,
2/15/92, p. 56, emphasis supplied). "Christ, in order to reveal His father’s love," W. H. Pascoe
wrote, "took upon Himself our flesh, linked humanity with
divinity, became subject to all our aches and pains. . . ‘Himself took our
infirmities.’ " (ibid., Australia, Signs of the Times,
7/04/04, p. 324, emphasis supplied). "But who did
keep the commandments?" William Warren Prescott asks. (1855-1944).
"Jesus Christ. And who can do it over again, even in sinful flesh?
Jesus Christ." (ibid., Bible Echo, 12/09/95, p. 380, emphasis
supplied). "He [Christ]
came, not where man was before he fell," W. W. Prescott stated, "but
where man was after he fell." (ibid., Bible Echo, 1/6/96 and
1/13/96) (emphasis supplied). "And notice, it
was in sinful flesh that He [Christ] was tempted, not the flesh in
which Adam fell," Prescott concluded. "This is wondrous truth,
but I am wondrous glad that it is so. It follows at once that by birth, by
being born into the same family, Jesus Christ is my brother in the flesh."
(ibid., Bible Echo, 1/6/96 and 1/13/96, emphasis supplied). "Because we are
partakers of flesh and blood, and heirs of its weaknesses," George Bert
Starr wrote. (1854-1944), "He [Christ] became partaker of our nature.
(ibid., Australia, Signs of the Times, 7/04/04, p. 323,
emphasis supplied). Ellen White and
Christ’s Human Nature Many statements by
Ellen White can be produced that concur with the position of pioneer
Adventists on Christ’s human nature. However, we will consider only three
very plain statements to demonstrate this point. (1) Think of
Christ’s humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature,
degraded and defiled by sin. He took our sorrows, bearing our grief and
shame. He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset. He
united humanity with divinity: a divine spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh.
. .. "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," because by so
doing He could associate with the sinful, sorrowing sons and daughters of
Adam. Ellen G. White, The
Youth’s Instructor, December 20, 1900. (emphasis supplied). (2) He who
considered it not robbery to be equal with God, once trod the earth, bearing
our suffering and sorrowing nature. Ellen G. White, The
Bible Echo, August, 1887, page 114. (emphasis
supplied). (3) The example He
has left must be followed. He took upon His sinless nature our sinful
nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. Ellen G. White, Medical
Ministry, page 181. (emphasis supplied). Leroy Froom’s
Erroneous Conclusion On Bible Readings Note "Latitude had
therefore been the accepted attitude on the question," Froom concluded.
"As a result, Adventists had long been censored by theologians not of
our faith for tolerating this erroneous minority position, and this
particular printed statement." (ibid., Movement of Destiny, page
428, emphasis supplied). Ample evidence has
already been shown that the teaching of pioneer Seventh-day Adventists and
Ellen White, on the nature of Christ while in the flesh, was not an
"erroneous minority position," as Froom alludes. Further, it has
been adequately demonstrated that the statements of pioneer Adventists and
Ellen White harmonized perfectly with the statement in Bible Readings for
the Home. Who Dared To Expunged the Note In Bible Readings? "In 1949,
Professor D. E. Rebok, then president of our
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, when it was still in Washington,
D. C., was requested by the Review and Herald to revise Bible Readings for
the Home Circle," Froom stated. "Coming upon this unfortunate
note on page 174, in the study on the "Sinless Life," he
recognized that this was not true." (ibid., Movement of Destiny,
page 428, emphasis supplied). Who were the men at
the Review and Herald Publishing Association that authorized Rebok to revise Bible Readings for the Home? Was
it only Rebok’s opinion that "this was not
true," or was it also the opinion of the Adventist leadership in 1949? "But in
eliminating the note he found that some still held with Colcord in his
position," Froom added further. (ibid., MD, p. 428). Froom does
not divulge who the "some" faithful Adventists were that still held
with Colcord (if he indeed was the one who had inserted the note in Bible
Readings), Ellen White, and other pioneer Adventists. However, in his
splendid research book, The Word Was Made Flesh, Dr. Ralph Larson did
document who the "some" were in 1949 that still believed the true
human nature of Christ as taught by pioneer Seventh-day Adventists. "It was the same
flesh as we of the human family possess," Berthold H. Swartakopf wrote. (ibid., Australia, Signs of
the Times, March 21, 1949, page 7, emphasis his). "The Son of God
became the Son of Man. . .," Robert Hare wrote.
"Dressed in human flesh, united with the one fallen race in the
universe." (ibid., Australia, Signs of the Times, June
20, 1949, page 7, emphasis supplied). "When we read His
(Christ’s) genealogy as given to Matthew and Luke," Mary E. Walsh wrote
(Bible Instructor, Doctrinal Bible Studies for the Layman, Bible
Studies for Catholics; author, The Wine of Roman Babylon), "we
know that His earthly forebears were men who were marked with human weakness."
(ibid., Australia, Signs of the Times, November 24, 1949,
page 11, emphasis supplied). "He is touched
with our feelings and infirmities," J. A. McMillan wrote, "because
He shares our nature." (The Bible and Our Times, England,
December 11, 1952, page 13, emphasis supplied). "The
controversy of the ages was on," Benjamin P. Hoffman wrote. (Missionary,
College teacher, Seminary Professor).. "Its
issue was to be determined in the person of Him who became the partaker of
the same flesh and blood with fallen humanity." (Review and
Herald, April 9, 1953, page 4, emphasis supplied). "Every day of
His humiliation in sinful flesh was a day of suffering," H. L. Rudy
wrote. (Conference President, General Conference Vice-President). (ibid.,
Review and Herald, October 14, 1954, page 3, emphasis
supplied). "Only as a
man with the same handicaps and limitations as other men, could Jesus be
a perfect example for other men," G. Stevenson wrote (Editor, Signs
of the Times, South Africa). "It was necessary that there should
be no natural difference between Himself and the men He came to save."
(South Africa Signs of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 2, page 3, emphasis
supplied). Froom’s Own Son
Concurred With Pioneer Adventists "He was born as
a babe in Bethlehem, subject to like passions as we are," Fenton
Edwin Froom wrote. "If Christ had been exempt from temptation, without
the power and responsibility to choose, or without the sin-filled
inclinations and tendencies of our sinful nature, He could not have
lived our life without sin." (Our Times, December,
1949, page 4, emphasis supplied). Curiously, this
statement by Leroy Froom’s son, Fenton, is more clear
than any pioneer statement on Christ’s Human Nature! The contradiction is
that Leroy Froom’s own son, Fenton, was one of those who "still held
with Colcord in his position." "So the inaccurate note was deleted, and has remained out
in all subsequent printings [of Bible Readings], " Leroy E. Froom
concluded triumphantly. "Thus another
error was removed through these revisions of the 1940's, as concerned
some of our standard and otherwise helpful books." (ibid., MD, p.
428). Our standard books
were "otherwise helpful," except for the errors that Froom and other
leaders alleged! Errors were "removed from some of our standard
books?" We are not told which of our other "standard" books
were "revised" during the 1940's. Standard Seventh-day
Adventist Books Not To Be Revised We do know the
details of the revision of one major Seventh-day Adventist book in the
1940's. Uriah Smith’s book, Daniel and the Revelation, was first
published in 1881. By 1888 the book had gone through six editions, but
with no revisions! In 1941 the first "revised" edition was
published, long after the death of Uriah Smith. The largest and last revision
was done in 1944, again long after the death of Uriah Smith. W. W. Prescott,
former president of Battle Creek College, who had from 1903 to 1909 served as
editor of the Review and Herald, and was in 1910 carrying
leadership responsibilities, and A. G. Daniells, president of the General
Conference, having espoused the so-called "new view" of the
identity of the "daily" of Daniel 8:13 (See SDA Encyclopedia,
article, "Daily"), were drawn into heated discussions with
advocates of the "old view" expounded by Uriah Smith in his
much-used and fruitful book Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. .
.. There was talk of the possible revision of books in which the old view
was advocated, particularly the widely sold Thoughts on Daniel and the
Revelation. Publishers note,
Ellen G. White Estate, Manuscript Releases, Vol. 18, page 49.
(emphasis supplied). Uriah Smith passed
away in 1903, seven years before this proposal to revise his book was
attempted. The revision of these standard Seventh-day Adventist books was
done in total opposition to the counsel given by Ellen White. "If we should
now sow broadcast seeds of doubt as to the correctness of our printed books
and tracts, and encourage the thought that there must needs be a general
revision of our published books," Ellen White counsels, "a work
will have begun that the Lord has not appointed us to do." (Letter
70, 1910, pages. 1, 3, August 11, 1910) (See also, Manuscript Releases,
Vol. 10, "Counsels Concerning W. W. Prescott and A. G. Daniells,"
pages 364- 366, emphasis supplied). "Even a
suggestion as to inaccuracies would, if made public, lead some to vindicate
their course of action in spending much time in an
effort to search for flaws and to find fault," Ellen White
counseled. "It is not safe to set some minds running in such channels of
thought, as this would lead to a harvest of doubt and unbelief. I know
whereof I speak, for the Lord has opened this matter before me."
(ibid., Letter 70, 1910, pages. 1, 3, August 11, 1910, emphasis
supplied). "In the
night season I have seen men looking over our
printed books in search of something to criticize, and the adversary
was standing by their side, making suggestions to their minds,"
Ellen White concluded. "The natural result of unwise criticism would be
to bring infidelity into our ranks." (ibid., Letter 70,
1910, pages. 1, 3, August 11, 1910, emphasis supplied). The Nature Of Adam - Before the Fall, Or After the Fall? In his letter to Froom,
Dr. English stated that, "He [Christ] was perfect in His humanity, but
He was none the less God, and His conception in His incarnation was
overshadowed by the Holy Spirit so that He did not partake of the fallen
sinful nature of other men." (ibid., MD, p. 469, emphasis
supplied). In his reply letter to Dr. English, Froom stated, "That, we
in turn assured him, is precisely what we [Seventh-day Adventists]
likewise believe." (ibid., MD, p. 470, emphasis supplied). In his book Movement
of Destiny, Froom stated that, "He [Christ] was like Adam before
his fall, who was similarly without any inherent sinful
`propensities.’" (ibid., MD, p. 428, emphasis supplied). Is this
the position of Ellen White and pioneer Seventh-day Adventists? No. It is
not. Note carefully the following two statements from the pen of inspiration: (1) He [Christ]
took the nature of man, with all its possibilities. We have nothing to
endure that He has not endured. . .. Adam had the advantage over Christ, in
that when he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were
upon him. He [Adam] stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing
the full vigor of mind and body. He [Adam] was surrounded with the glories of
Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus
with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four
thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in
mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the
infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from
the lowest depths of degradation. Ellen G. White, Manuscript.
113, 1902, pages. 1, 2. (See, Desire of Ages, page 117) (emphasis
supplied). (2) In Christ are
united the divine and the human. The Creator and the creature, the nature of
God, whose law had been transgressed, and nature of Adam, the transgressor,
meet in Jesus,-the Son of God and the Son of man. Ellen G. White, Bible
Training School, February 1, 1908. (emphasis supplied). It is obvious from
these two statements that Leroy Froom is not in harmony with the Spirit of
Prophecy on the nature that Christ assumed while in the flesh. What Froom
told Dr. English that Seventh-day Adventists believe is just not true. This
is not what Seventh-day Adventists historically believed and taught in their
writings. Tobie E. Unruh’s
First Contact With Evangelicals "While some
Adventist and non-Adventist dissidents have been vociferous in their
denunciation of the Adventist definitions of the Evangelical
evaluation," T. E. Unruh began, "in retrospect the conferences
improved the understanding and appreciation of the Seventh-day Adventist
church on the part of many Evangelical leaders and likewise warmed many
Adventist leaders toward the Evangelicals." (T. E. Unruh, The
Adventist Heritage, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1977, page 35, emphasis supplied). We might paraphrase
Unruh’s statement "and likewise warmed many Adventist leaders toward
Babylon." In this first paragraph Unruh added, "It was a time
when the gates between sheepfolds stood open." (ibid., AH, p.
35, emphasis supplied). The time was right for Evangelical heresies to be
introduced into the Seventh-day Adventist Church. "There was no
thought of precipitating in anything of such historic consequence when I wrote
a letter on November 28, 1949, commending Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse
for his radio sermons on righteousness by faith based on the book of Romans,"
Unruh disclosed. "At the time, Dr. Barnhouse
was a popular radio preacher, minister, of the Tenth Presbyterian Church of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, author of a number of
Evangelical books, and founder and senior editor of the influential Eternity
magazine."(ibid., AH, p. 35). Unruh added further that, "I
was the president of the East Pennsylvania Conference, with headquarters
in Reading." (ibid., AH, p. 35, emphasis supplied). Tobie E. Unruh,
president of the East Pennsylvania Conference, was the first Seventh-day
Adventist (other than Leroy Froom) to reach out to the Evangelical leaders.
Unruh must have had an obscure knowledge of the true teaching of
Righteousness by Faith as it was taught by Ellen White and pioneer Adventists
E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones. "The Lord in
His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through
Elders Waggoner and Jones. . . ," Ellen
White wrote. "It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it
invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made
manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God." (Testimonies
to Ministers, pages 91-92, emphasis supplied). What would Dr. Barnhouse, a Presbyterian minister, know about the true
teaching of Righteousness by Faith? The Lord sent a special, "a most
precious message," to the Seventh-day Adventist Church on Righteousness
by Faith. Why did not Jesus simply tell Adventists to "Study
Righteousness by Faith as taught by the Presbyterian Church? "In his reply
to my letter Barnhouse expressed
astonishment that an Adventist clergyman would commend him for preaching
righteousness by faith," Unruh continued, "since in his opinion
it was a well known fact that Seventh-day
Adventists believed in righteousness by works." (ibid., AH,
p. 35, emphasis supplied). Notice that Barnhouse was astonished that an Adventist would believe
in the "free grace" concept of Righteousness by Faith as taught by
a Presbyterian. Indeed, Barnhouse stated that
"it was a well known fact that Seventh-day
Adventist believed in righteousness by works." Dr. Barnhouse also knew that Adventists believed in a
different Christ than Evangelicals. The Christ of the Seventh-day Adventist
is "the Lord of the Sabbath,"(Matt. 12:8), and the Christ that
Adventists believed in, came to earth in the human nature of "the seed
of Abraham." (Heb. 2:16). Unruh verified this pioneer position of Seventh-day
Adventists on the human nature of Christ by relating that Barnhouse
"went on to state that since boyhood he had been familiar with
Adventists and their teachings, and that in his opinion about their views
about the nature and work of Christ were Satanic and dangerous." (ibid.
AH, p. 35, emphasis supplied). Barnhouse then
concluded his letter "by inviting this strange Adventist to have lunch
with him." (ibid., AH, p. 35). Notice that Dr. Barnhouse considered Unruh to be a "strange
Adventist" because of his "Presbyterian" concepts of
Righteousness by Faith. "We did not
then get together for lunch, but we did correspond for a time," Unruh
recalled. "I returned a soft answer to the first letter from Barnhouse and sent him a copy of Steps to Christ,
at the same time affirming the evangelical character of Adventist doctrine."
(ibid., AH, p. 35, emphasis supplied). T. E. Unruh
obviously did not have a clear concept of what Seventh-day Adventists really
believe, because true Adventist doctrine does not have an "evangelical
character." Adventists are not a part of Evangelical Babylon. The Advent
message calls people out of the erroneous Sunday-keeping churches of Babylon.
Unruh’s
Misconception Of Evangelical Trust "I thought we
had an agreement that Barnhouse would publish no
further criticism of Adventists before there was further contact and
clarification," Unruh lamented. "However, in Eternity for
June 1949, he sharply criticized Steps to Christ and its author
[E. G. White]. After that, I saw no point in continuing the correspondence."
(ibid., AU, pp. 35, 36, emphasis supplied). Where was Unruh’s
head? Evangelicals have always "sharply criticized" Adventist
literature and Ellen White. Our faith cannot be compromised with that of the
Evangelical Sunday-keeping churches of Babylon. "There is as great a
difference in our faith and that of nominal professors, as the heavens are
higher than the earth," Ellen Whites reminds us. (Spiritual Gifts,
Vol. 2, page 300). "Here a man
of great spiritual stature, a bold crusader for truth, revealed his
prejudice against Adventism and Ellen White," Unruh recalled of Barnhouse. Unruh’s perception
of Adventism is totally devoid of understanding! That a Seventh-day Adventist
Conference President regarded a Presbyterian to be "a bold crusader
for truth" is beyond the comprehension of any thinking Adventist. About the Ellen
White book Steps to Christ, Unruh stated that
Barnhouse "quoted a number of statements which
he called half truths introducing Satanic errors, like a worm on a hook, `the
first bite is all worm, the second bite is all hook. That is the way the
Devil works.’" (ibid., AH, p. 36, emphasis supplied). Unruh should have
known that Dr. Barnhouse and all Evangelicals
believe in, (1) the sacredness of Sunday, the child of the Papacy, (2) that
man goes to heaven or hell when he dies, (3) the rapture of the living
saints, and all the rest of the false doctrines of Babylon. How could Unruh
continue to believe in a man who accused the messenger of the Lord of
teaching "Satanic errors," and "that is how the devil
works?" After reading the wonderful inspired work, Steps to Christ,
Dr. Barnhouse could glean nothing from the book,
only condemnation! Unruh then added that, Barnhouse
came to the place where he "acknowledge that Seventh-day Adventists were
his brethren in Christ." Preposterous! (ibid., AH, p. 36). "In the spring
of 1955, almost six years after my correspondence with Dr. Barnhouse began," Unruh continued, "I heard
from Walter R. Martin, who had seen our correspondence and who asked for face
to face contact with representative Seventh-day Adventists. Martin had
written a chapter critical of Adventism in his Rise of the Cults and
now wanted to talk with Adventists before doing further writing on the subject
of our doctrines." (ibid., AH, p. 36). Tobie Unruh’s
Eyewitness Report Of the Evangelical Conferences: Considering time and
place in history we now come to the infamous Evangelical Conferences of
1955-1956. Why were Adventist leadership so anxious to meet "face to
face" with those who were "critical of Adventism?" Unruh’s Short Sketch
Of Walter Martin’s Credentials: Walter Martin had
come to the attention of Dr. Barnhouse when the
former was in his early twenties, a graduate student in the history of
American religion at New York University. By 1955 Martin had to his credit
several books about American Cults which were recognized as standard works in
that field. He was a consulting editor on Eternity staff, a Southern
Baptist clergyman, and a member of the Evangelical Foundation, known to
the faithful as "How Firm a Foundation," an organization
started by Christian businessmen who managed the financial aspects of the Barnhouse Enterprises. T. E. Unruh, Adventist
Heritage, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1977, pages 36, 37. Unruh is now stating
that the Evangelical Foundation is "known to the faithful" as
"How Firm a Foundation." This statement is so foreign to pioneer
Seventh-day Adventist thinking that it boggles the mind! It is organizations
like the "Evangelical Foundation," the "Lord’s Day
Alliance," and the contemporary "Christian Coalition," that
will be successful in establishing a national Sunday Law in America. Are
these people "the faithful?" No. The real faithful are those who
recognize "How Firm Is Our Seventh-day Adventist Foundation," not
"How Firm Our Evangelical Foundation." Indeed
the faithful few are Seventh-day Adventists who are watching prudently the
waymarks, the sign-posts, of political developments in the contemporary
Evangelical Sunday-keeping Churches of America. Watching as these churches of
Babylon are moving slowly but surely toward a national Sunday Law. The
faithful few are Adventists who recognize pioneer Adventist doctrine as
"How Firm Our Foundation." The faithful few are those who "keep
the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (Rev. 14:12). "It was
understood at the onset that Martin, a research polemicist, had been
commissioned to write against Seventh-day Adventism," Unruh
recalled. "Nevertheless, he declared that he wanted direct access so he
could treat Adventists fairly." (ibid., AH, p. 37, emphasis
supplied). Again, Adventist
leadership was content to confer with an influential Evangelical who
"had been commissioned to write against Seventh-day Adventism." Why
should Adventist leadership trust leaders of Babylon who had already shown
their hatred of Seventh-day Adventist truth? "When I
explained to a friend at Adventist headquarters in Washington, D.C., they
agreed that Martin should be treated fairly, and provided with the
contacts he sought," Unruh continued. "Martin expressly
asked to meet Leroy E. Froom, with whose Prophetic Faith of Our
Fathers he was already familiar with. Froom suggested the inclusion of
W. E. Read, then a field secretary of the General Conference." (ibid.,
AH, p. 37, emphasis supplied). In our study of
apostasy in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the name of
Leroy Froom looms once again as a major participant. Not only that, but Froom
was allowed to choose another to serve on the conferences.
Unruh then disclosed that, "I served as moderator or chairman throughout
the conferences." (ibid., AH, p. 37). This would make Unruh’s
documentation, as chairman of the Evangelical Conferences, a valuable one
indeed. "In March 1955,
Martin came to Washington for his first meeting with the Adventists,"
Unruh continued. "With him was George E. Cannon, a professor of theology
on the faculty of the Nyack, New York, missionary college. Martin, for his
part, seemed to expect a degree of resistance and cover-up, such as he may
have met in some of his other investigation. . .." (ibid., AH, p.
37). Unruh added further that, "This first meeting can best be described
as a confrontation." Walter Martin stated
in 1984 on the John Ankerberg television program that,
"George Cannon took out his Greek New Testament and proved from the
Greek that, at the ascension, Christ went into the most holy place in
the heavenly sanctuary, not in 1844, as Mrs. White says - and all the
Adventists present, Froom, Anderson, Read, Figuhr, Heppinstall, and others, agreed with Cannon that this was
a true exegesis of Hebrews 9." "Martin began
going through a list of questions which reflected his reading, "Unruh
recalled. "We Adventists, rather than launching into a defense, began
with a positive presentation in which we emphasized those doctrines held by
our church in common with Evangelical Christians of all faith in all
ages." (ibid., AH, pp. 37, 38, emphasis supplied). Doctrines held in
common with Evangelicals? What does the pen of inspiration say about such a
position? "Here is to be
found an image of the papacy," Ellen White replies to our question.
"When the churches of our land, uniting upon such points of faith as
are held by them in common. . .." (Spirit of Prophecy. p. 278).
Leadership Defines
Doctrine To Evangelicals (1) "We stated
our conviction that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and the only rule
of Adventist faith and practice." This first statement is true. The
Bible is our only rule of doctrine. (2) "We affirmed
our belief in the eternal and complete deity of Christ, in His sinless life
in the incarnation." This second statement is also true. Adventists have
always taught that Christ lived a sinless life. However, it must be
remembered that the Evangelical concept of the doctrine of the
"deity" of Christ is a different concept than that which was held
by pioneer Seventh-day Adventists. Pioneer Adventists believed that
"Christ lived a sinless life in sinful flesh." Documentation
for this has already been presented above. (For further study see, Dr. Ralph
Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh). What Unruh and the contemporary
Adventist conferees told the Evangelicals was the same thing Leroy Froom told
Dr. E. Schuyler English. In his letter to Froom, Dr. English had stated that,
"He [Christ] was perfect in His humanity, but He was none the less God,
and His conception in His incarnation was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit so
that He did not partake of the fallen sinful nature of other men."
In his reply letter to Dr. English, Froom had stated, "That, we in turn
assured him, is precisely what we [Seventh-day Adventists] likewise
believe." (ibid., Movement of Destiny, page 470, emphasis
supplied). Remember Froom had also stated that, "Dr. English based this
misconception [of our belief in the deity of Christ] upon his understanding
that we hold that Christ, during His incarnation, `partook of our sinful,
fallen nature.’ In this expression he was
clearly alluding to the then off-cited note in the old edition of Bible
Readings." (E. Schuyler English, letter to L.E.F., Mar. 11,
1955, p. 1, emphasis his). (See also, MD, p. 469). (3) Unruh related
how they told the Evangelical conferees that we also believe, "In His
atoning death on the cross, once for all and all-sufficient."
(emphasis supplied). This again was a partial truth. Pioneer Seventh-day
Adventists did believe in the atoning death of Christ on the cross. But the
wording implies a completed atonement on the cross, which pioneer Adventists
did not believe. (Ample documentation for the "final atonement in
heaven" was presented above in Chapter #12, "The Final
Atonement"). (4) The Adventist
conferees told the Evangelicals that we believe "in His literal
resurrection, and in His priestly ministry before the Father, applying the
benefits of the atonement completed on the cross." (Questions on
Doctrine, pages 354, 355, emphasis theirs). Again
a partial truth. Pioneer Adventists did believe in Christ’s literal
resurrection, they did not believe that as our High Priest, Christ is "applying
the benefits of the atonement completed on the cross." They did not
believe that the atonement was finished and completed on the cross. They
believed that the "final atonement" was begun in 1844 in the
heavenly sanctuary and will be final and complete at the close of probation
when Michael, Jesus Christ, our High Priest stands up. Dan. 12:1. (See, Owen
R. L. Crosier, Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846; James N. Andrews, The
Sanctuary and Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist
Publishing Association, Battle Creek, Mich. 1872, page 90; Joseph Bates, Eighth
Way Mark, "Bridegroom Come," page 101; Stephen N. Haskell,
"Preparation For Reception Of the Holy Spirit," 1909 General
Conference Daily Bulletin, May 20, 1909, page 106; A. T. Jones, "The
Times of Refreshing," The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection,
page 124; J. N. Loughborough, Great Second Advent Movement, page 334;
E. J. Waggoner, Review and Herald, September 30, 1902; James White,
"The Sanctuary," Bible Adventism, pages 185, 186). The four Adventist
conferees "rephrased" our doctrines so they would be accepted by
the Evangelicals and they would then consider us brethren and would no longer
think of Adventism as a cult. Notice how the thread of ecumenism runs strongly
throughout the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church after the death of
Ellen White and the other pioneer Adventists. "It quickly
became clear to the Adventist conferees that both questions and answers would
have to be stated formally in writing," Unruh continued, "that the
answers would have to be made crystal clear to the Evangelical conferees and
to those they represented, and that a way would have to be found to
demonstrate the consensus we were sure we had. Martin was given books and
periodicals to substantiate the claims we had made in our opening
statement." (ibid., AH, p. 38). "The immediate
concern of the Adventists was the list of questions with which Martin had
begun his interrogation," Unruh stated. "Froom, who had a facile
pen, took the responsibility of composing the initial answers, in a document
running into twenty pages, whipped into shape by his secretary after
hours until two o’clock in the morning." (ibid., AH, p. 38,
emphasis supplied). Again Leroy Froom is heavily involved in stating what
Seventh-day Adventists believe to contemporary Evangelical leaders. One
man was telling the leaders of Babylon what Adventists really believe! Donald Barnhouse’s Eyewitness Report Of
the Evangelical Conferences: "Immediately
it was perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain
doctrinal positions which had been previously attributed to them,"
Dr. Barnhouse observed. "As Mr. Martin read
their answers he came, for example, upon a statement that they repudiated
absolutely the thought that seventh day Sabbath keeping was a basis for
salvation and a denial of any teaching that the keeping of the first day of
the week is as yet considered to be the receiving of
the antichristian `mark of the beast.’" (Eternity, October, 1956, emphasis supplied). Notice that even the
Evangelicals could see that "the Adventists were strenuously denying
certain doctrinal positions which had been previously attributed to
them." However, by "strenuously denying certain doctrinal
positions" an embarrassing problem emerged for the Adventist leadership.
"Martin pointed
out to them that in their book store adjoining the building in which these
meetings were taking place a certain volume published by them and written by
one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary to what they were
now asserting," Dr. Barnhouse reported. (ibid.,
Eternity, 10/56, emphasis supplied). If those allegations
were true, what could the Adventist leadership do at that point to abate the
concern of the Evangelicals? The solution came swiftly - alter the books
that disagree with what they were stating to the Evangelicals! "The leaders
sent for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately
brought this fact to the attention of the General Conference officers,"
Dr. Barnhouse recalled, "that this
situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected." (ibid.,
Eternity, 10/56, emphasis supplied). Again we have a historical document stating that
Seventh-day Adventist books were altered. Statements that did not agree with
what the Adventist leadership was telling the Evangelicals, was simply
expunged from the books. This is precisely how the statement on the human
nature of Christ was expunged from Bible Readings for the Home in
1949. The Big Historical
Lie "This same
procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the
flesh," Dr. Barnhouse reported further, "which
the majority of the denomination has always held to
be sinless, holy, and perfect, despite the fact that certain of their
writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely
repugnant to the Church at large." (ibid., Eternity,
10/56, emphasis supplied). Who were some of
these writers who had "occasionally gotten into print with contrary
views" that were "completely repugnant to the [contemporary
Seventh-day Adventist] Church at large?" Ellen White for one! Her
books are filled with statements on the human nature of Christ. (See Dr.
Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh). Uriah Smith, Waggoner and
Jones, W. W. Prescott, Stephen Haskell, E. W. Farnsworth, G. B. Starr, and
many others had "gotten into print with contrary views" that were
"completely repugnant to the [contemporary Seventh-day Adventist] Church
at large?" The enemy of souls
has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take
place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist
in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The
principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church,
would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental
principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be
accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of
a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would
be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a
wonderful work. The Sabbath, of course, would be lightly regarded, as also
the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the
new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but
God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which,
without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and
storm and tempest would sweep away the structure. Ellen G. White, Selected
Messages, Book 1, pages 204, 205. (emphasis supplied). Note carefully the
following scenario. (1) Ellen White predicted that, "The fundamental
principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be
accounted as error." (ibid., SM, Bk. 1, p. 204, emphasis
supplied). Remember, Ellen White penned this statement at the turn of the
century. The fundamental principles were taught by pioneer Seventh-day
Adventists from 1844 to the turn of the century. That is what is meant by the
statement "the past fifty years." (2) The Evangelical conferees
stated that, "Immediately it was perceived that the Adventists were
strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had been previously
attributed to them." (ibid., Eternity, 10/56, emphasis
supplied). Ellen White predicted that "this reformation would consist in
giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith." (ibid.,
SM, Bk. 1, p. 204). (3) The Evangelicals stated that, "The leaders sent
for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought
this fact to the attention of the General Conference officers, that this
situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected." (ibid.,
Eternity, 10/56, emphasis supplied). To this Ellen White replies,
"Who has authority to begin such a movement? We have our Bibles. We have
our experience, attested to by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit."
(ibid., SM, Bk. 2, p. 205, emphasis supplied). "We have a
truth that admits of no compromise," Ellen White concluded. "Shall
we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth?"
(ibid., SM, Bk. 1, p. 205, emphasis supplied). "They [the
Adventist leadership] further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among
their number certain members of their `lunatic fringe’ even as there are
similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of
fundamental Christianity," Dr. Barnhouse
reported. "This action of the Seventh-day Adventists was indicative of
similar steps that were taken subsequently." (ibid., Eternity,
10/56). This report of what
the Adventist leadership told Barnhouse and Martin is
beyond betrayal and deception! To think that contemporary Seventh-day
Adventist leadership had the audacity to call faithful pioneer Adventists
such names as "lunatic fringe" and "wild-eyed irresponsibles" is beyond the realm of Christian
demeanor. "There are men
among us in responsible positions who hold that the opinions of a
few conceited philosophers, so called, are more to be trusted than the
truth of the Bible, or the testimonies of the Holy Spirit," Ellen
Whites replies. "Such a faith as that of Paul, Peter, or John is
considered old-fashioned and insufferable at the present day. It is
pronounced absurd, mystical, and unworthy of an intelligent mind." (Testimonies
for the Church. Vol. 5, page 79, emphasis supplied). "The position of
the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position,"
Barnhouse continued, "to them it may be merely
the position of the majority group of sane leadership which is determined
to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that
of the responsible leadership of the denomination." (ibid., Eternity,
10/56, emphasis supplied). Notice that the
"sane [insane] leadership is determined to put the brakes on any
members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible
[irresponsible] leadership of the denomination." First the
Seventh-day Adventist leadership demean faithful Adventists by labeling them
"lunatic fringe"and "wild-eyed irresponsibles." Then the leadership portrays
themselves as "sane leadership" and "responsible
leadership" Then this so-called "sane leadership promised the
Evangelical conferees that they "are determined to put the brakes
on" any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the
responsible leadership of the denomination." What does inspiration say
about this "new movement," this "new theology?" "Nothing
would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement," Ellen
White replies. "The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice,
but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power,
which, without God, is worthless." (ibid., Selected Messages, Bk.
1, p. 205, emphasis supplied). Historical
documentation of "putting the brakes on" does not here need to be
produced. Any contemporary Seventh-day Adventist layman who has studied at
all in the past forty years knows that more people have been disfellowshipped
for "views held divergent to so-called `sane’ leadership" since
1955 than in the entire history of the Church! The truth is that a
majority of those excommunicated from the Church in the past forty years were
disfellowshipped, not for immoral purposes, but simply because their
doctrinal concepts were not in harmony with the "sane leadership"
of the Church, and because they did not recognize the so-called "duly
authorized authority" of the leadership of the Church. Indeed, "the
brakes have been put on." As a side-light to
this issue, Charles Ferguson, current pastor of a prominent Seventh-day
Adventist Church in the North Pacific Union, in a sermon given Saturday,
February 28, 1995, stated that,"If the Church
board voted to keep Sunday, you should go along with the board’s decision for
the sake of the unity of the Church." (From a tape recording). "The second
[meeting] will never be forgotten by those who participated in the
conferences," T. E. Unruh stated. "As the morning session began
Martin announced that, as the result of the first round of discussion and the
reading matter he had been given, he was admitting that he had been wrong about
Seventh-day Adventism on several important points and had become persuaded that
Adventists who believed as the conferees were truly born
again Christians and his brethren in Christ." (ibid.,
Adventist Heritage, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1977, page 38, emphasis supplied). "In a dramatic gesture he [Martin] extended his hand in fellowship,"
Unruh added triumphantly. (ibid., AH, p. 38). "Be ye not
unequally yoked together with unbelievers," my Bible says, "for
what fellowship. . . hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14). "What can there
be in common between these parties?" Ellen White asks. "There
can be no fellowship, no communion. The word fellowship means
participation, partnership." (Fundamentals of Christian Education,
page 476, emphasis supplied). "What communion
can there be between light and darkness, truth and unrighteousness?"
Ellen White asks again. "None whatever. Light represents
righteousness; darkness, error, sin, unrighteousness." (ibid.
Fundamentals of Christian Education, page 476, emphasis supplied). The Evangelical
churches the Adventists were conferring with in 1955 and 1956 were, and still
are, in "darkness." They reject totally the three foundation
pillars of Adventism; (1) The final atonement and the blotting out of sins in
the heavenly sanctuary truth of 1844, (2) the seventh day Sabbath, (3) the
soul-sleep of man in death. The Landmarks
Defined "[1] One of the
landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving
people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God," Ellen White
wrote. "[2] The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed it’s strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of
God’s law. [3] The nonimmortality of the wicked is
an old landmark." (Councils to Writers and Educators, pages 30, 31).
Then in this same statement Ellen White concluded, "I can call to
mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks."
(ibid., Counsels to Writers and Educators, pages 30, 31, emphasis
supplied). Again, it cannot be over-stressed that the Evangelical
Sunday-keeping churches of Babylon unequivocally reject all three of these
most important Bible truths of which Ellen White states are "the old
landmarks." Please remember, dear Adventist friend, even after the
agreements made in the conferences of 1955-56, and until this very day, the
Evangelicals still rejected these three "old landmarks" of
Seventh-day Adventism! "He [Martin]
was not convinced that Adventists were right on doctrines we described as
`present truth,’" Unruh continued, "nor was he ever convinced of
these." (ibid., AH, p. 38, emphasis supplied). True Seventh-day
Adventists will never convince most of the Evangelicals of the "present
truth" of the great Advent message. A good case in point - Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi’s book, From
Sabbath to Sunday, published by the Pontifical Gregorian University
Press, in Rome, Italy, with the IMPRIMATUR of, R. P. Herve
Carrier, S.I., the head Jesuit theologian of the Jesuit University, was
endorsed on the back pages by some of the highest ranking Roman Catholic and
Evangelical scholars - yet to this day not one has accepted the Bible
truth on the seventh day Sabbath! "We Adventists
also faced problems," Unruh recalled. "The Evangelical conferees
were satisfied that we were presenting contemporary Adventist doctrines, because
we were supported by the 1931 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, which
appeared regularly in official yearbooks and manuals of the church, and by
the amplified statement in the baptismal covenant." (ibid., AH,
p. 38, emphasis supplied). Again we come back in history to the heretical "1931
Statement of Fundamental Beliefs" which was written by one man. "As
no one else seemed willing to take the lead in formulating a statement, [M.
C.] Wilcox-as a writer and editor-wrote up for consideration of the committee
a suggested summary of `Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists,’"
Leroy Edwin Froom stated about the 1931 document. (Movement of Destiny,
pages. 377-380). Froom stated further that, "Approval by [the] Committee
[was] not required. The authorizing did not call for submission to any other
committee for approval." (ibid., MD, 414). Here again, the 1931
"Statement of Fundamental Beliefs" were sustained in the
contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church because there was no protest or
opposition to the statements first published in the new Church Manual in
1931. The Adventist conferees should have convinced the Evangelicals of true
Adventist doctrine from Scripture, rather than from a Church Manual and an
official Statement of Beliefs. However, the stratagem the leadership used by
falling back on the 1931 "Statement of Fundamental Beliefs" did not
convince the Evangelicals. "But, they [the
Evangelicals] asked, `if the Adventist church had reached a firm consensus,
why did they find contrary or misleading statements in Adventist
publications, for sale in Adventist book and Bible houses?’" Unruh
continued. "We explained that this was the results of efforts by the
church to avoid an officially adopted creedal statement, and the denomination’s
preference for an open-end theology which permitted new light to penetrate in
depth." (ibid., AH, p. 38). The Adventist
conferees told the Evangelicals that "the church [wished] to avoid an
officially adopted creedal statement." But instead of proving our
cardinal doctrines from Scripture they fell back on the 1931
"creedal" Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. What was the response
of the Evangelicals to this ploy? "This
explanation did not impress them," Unruh lamented. "They asked
if we did not think that we ourselves were to some extent to blame if these
erroneous statements were used against us." Then Unruh made this
astounding admission, "We could only reply that correction had begun."
(ibid., Adventist Heritage, page 38, emphasis supplied). Was the Adventist
leadership accepting New light from the Evangelicals in 1955, or were they
presenting a new Adventist theology to the Evangelicals? Indeed, Dr. Barnhouse in his Eternity article had stated
earlier that, "Immediately it was perceived that the Adventists were
strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had been previously
attributed to them." (Eternity, 10/56). Again, the Evangelicals
did not believe the Adventist leaders in their attempt to fall back on the
1931 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs to prove unity of the Church in the
"new" doctrine being presented. "While church
leaders had known of the conferences from the start, a point was reached
where we thought it was wise to make a formal report to the church,"
Unruh continued. "In a long letter to Froom and Read, dated July 18,
1955, I reviewed the progress in understanding achieved so far in the
conferences." (ibid., AH, p. 38). Notice that,
"Church leaders had known of the conferences from the start." Finally the four Adventist conferees decided that they
should make a formal report to the Church. "A copy of this
letter was sent to R. R. Figuhr, president of the
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists," Unruh continued.
"Thereafter Figuhr gave the support of his
office to the conferences and the publication of the definitive statement of
Adventist belief which resulted." (ibid., AH, p. 38). "In
anticipation of the extension of Evangelical participation in the conferences
Froom early in August urged the enlargement of the Adventist conferee
group," Unruh revealed. "He recommended the inclusion of R.
Allen Anderson (secretary of the Ministerial Association, GC, and editor of Ministry
magazine) as a regular member because of the latter’s background as
evangelist, college teacher of religion, author, and especially because of
his gift for diplomatic dialogue with leaders of other communions." (ibid.,
AH, p. 39, emphasis supplied). Again, we see Leroy
Froom manipulating, dominating, not only the agenda, but also who was to be
added to the conferee team. It should be noted here that Roy Allen Anderson
was converted to the Seventh-day Adventist Church from the Presbyterian
Church. This is significant because the Adventist and Evangelical conferees
were debating "Presbyterian" concepts of Righteousness by Faith,
the doctrine of "free grace," and the atonement completed and final
upon the cross. From editorial statements published in Ministry
magazine, while Anderson was editor, it is obvious that Anderson still held
to Presbyterian theology on righteousness by faith. (See below). "Since April he
[Anderson] had been participating in the conferences," Unruh added.
"Thereafter he was a member of the team." (ibid., AH, p.
39). "We four Adventists
[Unruh, Froom, Read and Anderson] were authorized by the General Conference
to plan with Martin and Cannon for the meeting with Barnhouse
at his home in Doylestown," Unruh disclosed. "The planning was held
in Anderson’s Washington office on August 22." [1955] (ibid., AH,
p. 39). Remember that George
Cannon was the man who later in the conferences took out his Greek New
Testament and, according to Walter Martin, proved that at His ascension, not
in 1844, Christ entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, and also according to Martin, "all the Adventists
present agreed with Cannon - Leroy Froom, Roy Allen Anderson, Rubin Figuhr, W. E. Read, Tobie Unruh, Heppinstall
- I believed these were all honest men." (Dr. Walter Martin,
(syndicated) John Ankerberg television program,
1984). "So it came about then on August 25 and 26, 1955, we four
Adventists [Unruh, Froom, Anderson, Read], with Walter Martin and George
Cannon, sat down with Donald Grey Barnhouse, one
of the most influential men among American Protestants and internationally
famous as a representative Evangelical," Unruh concluded, "to
discuss what Seventh-day Adventists really believe. (ibid., AH, p.
39, emphasis supplied). Notice that only
Four men sat down with the leading Evangelicals and told them what the rest
of us Adventist people "really believe." Astounding! Absolutely
amazing! Leadership Expunges
Sentence From Spirit of Prophecy In the book Evangelism,
pages 592, 593, Ellen White makes an amazing statement about the leadership
of the Seventh-day Adventist Church near the close of probation. The original
source for this statement is found in Manuscript 15, 1886. However,
the last sentence in the original statement in Manuscript. 15, 1886,
is expunged from the Evangelism statement. First
we will note the statement as it appears in Evangelism: Under the cloak of
Christianity and sanctification, far- spreading and manifest ungodliness will
prevail to a terrible degree and will continue until Christ comes to be
glorified in all them that believe. In the very courts of the temple, scenes
will be enacted that few realize. God’s people will, be proved and tested,
that He may discern "between him that serveth God and him that serveth
Him not." Ellen G. White, Evangelism,
pages 592, 593. Note that there were
no ellipses . . . . at the end of this statement,
although there was one more sentence to follow. Now we will note the
statement as it first appeared in Manuscript. 15, 1886. The expunged
last sentence of the statement will be underscored: Under the cloak of
Christianity and sanctification, far- spreading and manifest ungodliness will
prevail to a terrible degree and will continue until Christ comes to be
glorified in all them that believe. In the very courts of the temple
[Church], scenes will be enacted that few realize. God’s people will, be
proved and tested, that He may discern "between him that serveth God
and him that serveth Him not." Vengeance will be executed against
those who sit in the gates deciding what the people should have. Ellen G. White, Manuscript
15, 1886. (emphasis supplied). Notice that it is
not God’s intention that Church leaders should define doctrine to the members
of the Church. "Vengeance will be executed against those who sit in the
gates deciding what the people should have." William Grotheer,
writing to the White Estate for an explanation of the expunged sentence,
received this reply: "Unreleased because it could be misused." It
was not in God’s plan that Church leaders should define our doctrines to the
leaders of the modern churches of Babylon. Neither was it God’s plan that the
leadership of the Church should expunge portions from the writings of the
Spirit of Prophecy. "In the first
Doylestown conference there was much discussion of
Froom’s Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, as providing an historical
background for Adventism," Unruh continued. "It was clear that
the Evangelicals had respect for Froom’s scholarly attainments." (ibid.,
AH, p, 40, emphasis supplied). Again, Leroy Froom
is portrayed as the leading figure in the big lie that was told to the
Evangelicals in 1955. The lie about what Seventh-day Adventists really
believe. "Our friends
[the Evangelicals] helped us to express our beliefs in terms more easily
understood by theologians of other communions," Unruh revealed. (ibid.,
AH, p, 40, emphasis supplied). An excellent comment
to this statement can best be given by the then editor in chief of the Review
and Herald, Francis D. Nichol: There is a subtle
temptation facing Adventists today-this day of our increasing popularity-to
feel that if we re-phrase our beliefs a little, setting them forth
in less disturbing form, we can have good fellowship on all sides. . . . Greatly would the evil one like to persuade us to
fall into that trap. . . . The Advent message is
poles removed from the modern religious thinking that would give us a foggy,
inspirational kind of emotion as a substitute for rugged doctrines, and those
sharply etched concepts of God and His requirements, that are vital to true
religion. Francis D. Nichol,
Editor in Chief, Review and Herald, "Warning Lesson From Bogus Books," February 26, 1959. (emphasis
supplied). "That same
evening, in our motel, Martin and Cannon came to express their amazement over
the change they had witnessed in Dr. Barnhouse,"
Unruh continued. "To them it seemed a miracle. To Martin it meant that
he would not have resistance from Barnhouse in
writing the truth about Seventh-day Adventism, as he had come to see it.
(ibid., AH, p. 40, emphasis supplied). Martin had come to
see Adventist doctrine through the eyes of Leroy Froom and the other three
Adventist conferees. But this was not the true belief of most Seventh-day
Adventists! The Adventist people did not know anything about what was taking
place until the apostate book Questions on Doctrine was published two
years later in 1957. "We [four]
Adventists had come to see that we could state our doctrinal positions with
clarity, in language understood by the theologians of other churches. . . ," Unruh stated, because, "Our friends
helped us to express our beliefs in terms more easily understood by
theologians of other communions." (ibid., AH, p, 40, emphasis
supplied). Unruh added that in
restating the doctrines they were "never bending for the sake of clarity
or harmony alone." (ibid., AH, p. 40). But indeed
the Adventist conferees did "bend for the sake of clarity or
harmony" with the Evangelicals. A new doctrinal phrase, never before known in Seventh-day Adventist theology was
coined at that time, "Christ is now making application of the
benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross." (Questions
on Doctrine, pages 354, 355, emphasis theirs). Leroy Froom was probably
the first Adventist to use the phrase, "the benefits of His
atonement." This phrase is now prominate in
the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe - 27." "There is a
sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not
man," contemporary SDA Church leadership states. "In it Christ
ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His
atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross." (Seventh-day
Adventist Believe. . . 27 Fundamental Doctrines, 1988, page 312, emphasis
supplied). "We say that,
while there had been doctrinal deviation, and this was still a possibility, it
was essential for us to demonstrate the existence of a majority position,"
Unruh continued, "a preponderant view that a consensus actually
existed, and that we were correctly reflecting that consensus."
(ibid., AH, p. 41, emphasis supplied). Unruh is here
stating that it was important that they convince the Evangelicals that
Adventist leadership was not telling them a lie about what Seventh-day
Adventists believed. It was imperative that the four Adventist conferees
convince the Evangelicals that their position was the majority position of,
not only the "contemporary" Seventh-day Adventist Church at large,
but also the position of pioneer Seventh-day Adventists. However, Barnhouse had observed that, "The position of the
Adventist seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position:
to them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane
leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to
hold view divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the
denomination." (Eternity, 10/56, emphasis supplied). We repeat
here Donald Grey Barnhouse’s observation of the
Adventist approach to this problem: The leaders sent for
the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought
this fact to the attention of the General Conference officers, that this
situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected. This same
procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh which
the majority of the denomination has always held to
be sinless, holy, and perfect, despite the fact that certain of their
writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely
repugnant to the Church at large. They further explained to Mr. Martin
that they had among their number certain members of their "lunatic
fringe" even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles
in every field of fundamental Christianity. This action of the Seventh-day
Adventists was indicative of similar steps that were taken subsequently. Donald Grey Barnhouse, Eternity, October,
1956. Note carefully the
phrases used by the Adventist conferees to convince the Evangelicals that the
entire Seventh-day Adventist Church, leaders and laymen, were united on the
false doctrines they were now espousing. (1) The nature of
Christ while in the flesh "which the majority of
the denomination has always held to be sinless." This, of course, is
just not true. (See, Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, 1888-Re-examined,
1950). (2) Certain
Adventist writers had "occasionally gotten into print with contrary
views completely repugnant to the Church at large." This again was a
lie. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was united before 1952 on the nature of
Christ while in the flesh. (See, Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh,
"One Hundred Years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology," The
Cherrystone Press, P. O. Box 3180, Cherry Valley, California, 92223). (3) The Adventist
conferees told the Evangelicals that among their members were those of a
"lunatic fringe" who were "wild-eyed irresponsibles."
The Adventist conferees were telling the Evangelicals that anyone who
believed the pioneer Seventh-day Adventist position on the nature of Christ
while in the flesh was a "wild-eyed irresponsible" from a
"lunatic fringe" of the Church. (4) The Evangelicals observed that,
"This action of the Seventh-day Adventists was indicative of similar
steps that were taken subsequently." "In another dimension,
it was planned to demonstrate consensus by submitting the questions and
answers to Adventist leaders in North America, and then around the world,
using a mailing list of more than 250 names," Unruh continued. "The
document by this time had grown to some sixty questions and answers, and was
beginning to be thought of as having book possibilities-a definitive
statement of contemporary Adventist theology, in convenient reference
book form." (ibid., AH, p. 41, emphasis supplied). "In another
dimension," the manuscript of the forthcoming book, Questions on
Doctrine would be sent to leading Adventists around the World proving to
the Evangelicals that there was a "consensus" among the
contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church Notice also that the forthcoming
book Questions on Doctrine would be "a definitive statement of contemporary
Adventist theology." Adventists who are awake and studying recognize
this "contemporary Adventist theology" to be the "new"
theology. "A committee of
fourteen members with General Conference approval, was to prepare the
document for distribution to church leaders, and to analyze and evaluate the
feedback," Unruh stated. "Figuhr,
president of the General Conference, was chairman of this committee." (ibid.,
AH, p. 41). Unruh then disclosed the names of the others who were on this
committee, "Also on the committee were, A. V. Olson [secretary, White
Estate]; W. B. Ochs; L. K. Dickson; H. L. Rudy; A. L. Ham; J. I. Robison; W.
R. Beach [father of B. B. Beach, who gave the gold medallion to the pope,
[See below, Chapter #18, "The Invaders"]; C. L. Torrey; F. D.
Nichol [editor, Review and Herald]; T. E. Unruh, chairman of
conferees, President, East Pennsylvania Conference]; R. A. Anderson
[Ministerial Secretary, General Conference, editor, Ministry]; L.
E. Froom, [History Department, Andrews University]; W. E. Read [Field
Secretary General Conference]." (ibid., AH, p, 41, emphasis
supplied). "Correspondence
relating to the project was entrusted to J. L. Robison, the president’s
secretary," Unruh related. (ibid., AH, p. 41). David Bauer recalled
how his father, Clifford L. Bauer, at that time president of the Pacific
Union, received one of these 250 copies to evaluate. As his father was
preparing to return the "sixty question" document by mail, David
scolded his father because he had not read the document. Clifford Bauer
replied that he had complete faith and confidence in the brethren and did not
need to evaluate the document. How many times this scenario was repeated
around the world will only be revealed when the Master of the vineyard
returns for the final accounting. "The response
was good, the consensus was demonstrated, and the decision to publish was
made," Unruh concluded. "Thus Questions
on Doctrine came into being." (ibid., AH, p. 41). Triumphal Adventist
Objective Attained In the Evangelical Conferences "Martin, in
November 1955, reported talks with Pat Zondervan who was to publish The
Truth About Seventh-day Adventism and who was interested in the new
direction the book was taking," Unruh stated. "A month later,
Martin reported going over the questions and answers in their entirety in a
five-hour session with Dr. Barnhouse, and stated
that Barnhouse was satisfied that Adventists were
fundamentally Evangelical in matters concerning salvation." (ibid.,
AH, p. 41, emphasis supplied). Ecumenism! This, obviously, was the
bottom-line objective of the Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership of 1955.
Indeed, ecumenism has ever been the motive of all historical Seventh-day
Adventist apostasy since the death of the pioneers and Ellen White. "Martin also
reported that Frank E. Gaebelein had written to
James DeForest Murch,
stating his opinion that the Seventh-day Adventist Church would qualify
for membership in the Evangelical group, if they so desired," Unruh
stated. (ibid., AH, p. 42, emphasis supplied). Notice that with
their "new" Statement of Fundamental Beliefs the Seventh-day
Adventist Church could qualify for membership in the National Association of
Evangelicals "if they so desired." The Adventist leadership did so
desire in 1955. That was the initial objective of the dialog with the
Evangelicals. If the blind Adventist leadership could have seen into the
future, they would see the time when the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist
Church could now also qualify for membership in the World Council of
Churches! "Dr. Gaebelein was the founder and director of the famed Stony
Brook School (of which Martin was a graduate), a member of the Reformed
Episcopal church, and an official in the National Association of
Evangelicals," Unruh added further. "Dr. Murch,
prolific author of religious works, publications director and later president
of the National Association of Evangelicals and the editor of United
Evangelical Action, was a member of the Disciples of Christ." (ibid.,
AH, p. 42). The nauseating
adulation of man, position and education, by contemporary Adventist
leadership cannot be overlooked. Indeed, strict warnings have come from the
pen of inspiration about this new system of Church leadership. "A system of
intellectual philosophy would be introduced. . . ," Ellen White prophesied,
"they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God,
is worthless. . .." (Selected Messages, Bk. 1, pp. 204, 205,
emphasis supplied). "It is unsafe
for any church to lean upon some favorite minister, to trust in an arm of
flesh," Ellen White warned. "God’s arm alone is able to uphold
all who lean upon it." (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 4, page
594, emphasis supplied). "Meanwhile,
correspondence between Froom and E. Schuyler English, editor of Our Hope
and chairman of the revision committee of the Scofield Reference Bible,
resulted in an editorial statement by Dr. English in February 1956,"
Unruh continued, "correcting misconceptions about Adventist doctrine
as to the nature of Christ in the incarnation, the Trinity, and
the completed atonement on the cross, followed by an article by Walter
Martin in November 1956, the earliest affirmation of the essential
Christianity of the theology of Adventism on matters relating to salvation
to appear in a non-Adventist journal of note." (ibid., AH, p. 42,
emphasis supplied). The earliest
affirmation of the "new theology" of Adventism to appear "in a
non-Adventist journal of note." This erroneous "new theology"
is stated in three points according to Froom, (1) the sinless human nature of
Christ in the incarnation, (2) the Trinity, (3) and the completed atonement
on the cross. As documented above in Chapters #11 and #12, these three
doctrines were not taught or believed by pioneer Seventh-day Adventists,
neither were they taught in the Spirit of Prophecy. These three erroneous
Evangelical doctrines had to be compromised into Adventist doctrine for the
contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church to qualify for membership in the
National Association of Evangelicals, and later as official
"observers" in the World Council of Churches. The distinctive
truths proclaimed by Seventh-day Adventists for more than a century have
never been popular in theological circles, and it is futile to expect
that they ever will be. . .. Were Seventh-day Adventists to yield their
distinctive teachings in order to win and wear the
robe of theological respectability, they would doubtless be accepted by
other Christian bodies. But in so doing they would be traitor to the
truths that have made them a people. . .. They would no longer be
Seventh-day Adventists. Raymond F. Cottrell,
Associate Editor, Review and Herald, "Can Truth Be Popular?"
May 15, 1958. (emphasis supplied). This observation by
Raymond Cottrell has come to pass. The leadership of the Church has
"yielded their distinctive teachings in order to
win and wear the robe of theological respectability." The leadership was
successful in their quest to "be accepted by other Christian
bodies." "But in so doing" the leadership has become a
"traitor to the truths that have made them a people." Because the
leadership has betrayed their trust, they are no longer Seventh-day
Adventists! "In August
1956, Russell Hitt, the managing editor of Eternity,
came to Washington to go over with us the long-awaited Barnhouse articles repudiating his former position on
Adventism," Unruh recalled. "Support articles by Martin, to follow
in Eternity, were also gone over. We were given permission to
quote or otherwise refer to these articles." (ibid., AH, p. 42,
emphasis supplied). This document by T.
E. Unruh discloses that the Adventist leadership approved of the statements
written by Donald Grey Barnhouse, "Are
Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" and Walter Martin’s series of
articles in Eternity magazine titled, "The Truth About
Seventh-day Adventists." The following are a few choice excerpts from
those Eternity articles. The position of the
Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position:
to them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane
leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to
hold view divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the
denomination. Donald Grey Barnhouse, "Are Seventh-day Adventists
Christians?" Eternity, October, 1956
(emphasis supplied). Inside Editorial Box
Of the Barnhouse Article: Have the Seventh-day
Adventists been proselytizers? During the course of
our dealings with Adventist leaders we brought up the complaints, common to
the mission field, that Adventist missionaries and workers have been
proselytizers. The leaders affirmed vehemently that they have been doing
everything possible to prevent such proselytizing, and, while there
may have been such cases in the past, they hold that such methods are not
now in use. In cooperation with them we will gladly receive from any
missionaries in the world fully documented instances of such proselytization
that have taken place during the past two years. Such documentation, if any,
sent to the Rev. Mr. Walter R. Martin, in care of Eternity, will be
forwarded to Adventist leaders, who have promised a thorough investigation. ibid., Donald Grey Barnhouse,
"Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" Eternity, October, 1956 (emphasis supplied). The word
"proselytize" means to make an Adventist out of Baptist, Lutheran
or other Christians. With this kind of a policy on "proselytizing"
how is it possible for Seventh-day Adventist missionaries or evangelists to
call God’s people out of Babylon and into the present truth of the Advent
movement? It is not possible. The new position is that we should simply be
Christian brethren with the Evangelical Sunday-keeping churches of Babylon.
We should not "proselytize" their members and make Seventh-day
Adventists out of them. After all, one current Adventist leader goes so far
as to state that the Pope of Rome is his Christian brother. (Mitchell A.
Tyner, The Columbian Union Visitor, June 1, 1995, p. 6). Again, this policy
which was told to the Evangelicals is in perfect harmony with the policy
adopted at the 1926 General Conference which stated that, "In the desire
to avoid occasion for misunderstanding or friction in the matter of
relationship to the work of other societies, the following statement of
principles are set forth as a guidance to our workers in mission fields in
their contacts with other religious organizations": #1. We recognize
every agency that lifts up Christ before man as a
part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the world, and we hold
in high esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are
engaged in winning souls to Christ. "Relationship To Other Societies," General Conference Executive
Committee, 1926. (emphasis supplied). It must be
remembered that this policy was voted sixteen years after the death of Ellen
White. Testimony would have been given immediately against this betrayal of
the three angel’s messages. "There is as
great a difference in our faith and that of nominal professors, as the
heavens are higher than the earth," Ellen White stated. "True
brotherhood can never be maintained by compromising principle." (Spiritual
Gifts, Vol. 2, p. 300; Manuscript 23b, 7/25/96, emphasis
supplied). "God has
committed to us," Ellen White wrote, "the special truths for this
time to make known to the world." (Testimonies for the Church,
Vol, 5, p. 236). In Chapter #11,
"A warning, and Its Rejection," and Chapter #13, "The Final
Atonement," we discovered that the leadership of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church accepted a new Christ and changed the time of the final
Atonement in the first angel’s message from the heavenly sanctuary to the
cross. In the Evangelical conferences of 1955-56 the leadership admitted
those changes to the Evangelical church leaders of Babylon. In 1957 the
Church leadership published those changes to the world in the
"official" book, Seventh-day Adventists Answer, Questions on
Doctrine. In Chapter #1,
"The Invaders," we learned that the Seventh-day Adventist Church
leadership rejected the third angel’s message when they stated to the world
in a Supreme Court Brief that "it is not good Seventh-day Adventism to
express, as Mrs. Tobler has done, an aversion to Roman Catholicism as such."
(United States District Court, Northern District of California. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Pacific Press Publishing Association,
Civ. No. 74-2025 CBR. Reply Brief for Defendants in Support of Their Motion
for Summary Judgment. (emphasis supplied). Now we have learned
in the past three Chapters that the Church leadership has rejected the first
and second angel’s messages as taught by pioneer Adventists. Again we ask, has the Seventh-day Adventist Church been
faithful to the message of trust given to her? Can the Church give up the
three angel’s messages and still be considered faithful? To these two most
important questions we must sadly answer, no, no. Has the contemporary
Seventh-day Adventist Church joined hands with the enemy? Oh, how sadly we
must answer, yes! "How is the
faithful city [Church] become an harlot!" an angel said to Ellen White
in vision. "My Father’s house is made a house of merchandise, a place
whence the divine presence and glory have departed! For this cause there is weakness, and strength is lacking." (Testimonies
for the Church, Vol. 8, p. 250, emphasis supplied). |