With Cloak and Dagger
With
Cloak and Dagger
H. H. MEYERS
New Millennium Publications Post Box 290
Morisset N. S.W. 2264.
Australia
1 The Experts
2 "750 Pages
of Wonderful Truth" 3 "Crisis," He Cried!
4 The Dagger
5 The Cloak
6 The Last
Deception 7 Movement of Destiny 8 "Impeaching the
Dead"
9 The 1888
Message (and the Evangelical View)
10 The Dagger
Strikes (Part 1)
11 The Dagger
Strikes (Part 2) 12
False Claims and Trickery
13 Kingdom, Czardom or Popedom?
14 The Atonement:
Completed or Uncompleted-Who Cares?
15 Target:
Australia
16 "We Need
More Funerals"
17 Australasia
Embraces Heresy
18 The Jewel is
Plucked
19 Conflicting
Claims
20 Deception, or
Wishful Thinking?
21 Hierarchy in
Action
22 This Way to
Rome
23 "We Still
Believe"
24 The Washington
"Curia"
25 Rome's Little
Helper
26 "A New
Order"
27 Eighteen
Forty-Four to Evermore
Appendix for Chapter 10
Appendix for Chapter 13
Appendix for Chapter 16
Appendix for Chapter 17
Appendix for Chapter 19
Appendix for Chapter 20
Appendix for Chapter 21
Appendix
for Chapter 25
QOD Seventh-day Adventists
Answer Questions on Doctrine
MOD
Movement of Destiny
B.R.I. Bible Research Institute
(Australasia)
EEOC Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (USA)
G.C. General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists
SDA Seventh-day Adventist
TAUC Trans-Australian Union
Conference
TTUC Trans-Tasman Union
Conference
ARV American Revised Version
AV Authorized Version (same as King James Version)
KJV King James Version
N.T. New Testament
NASB New American Standard
Bible
NEB New English Bible
NIV New International
Version
NKJV New King James
Version
RSV Revised Standard
Version
RV Revised
Version
TEV Today's English Version
CE Counsels to Writers and Editors
Ev Evangelism
EW Early Writings
RH Review and Herald
1SM Selected Messages,
Book 1 1SOP Spirit of Prophecy,
Vol. 1
ST Signs
of the Times
1T Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1
TM Testimonies to Ministers and
Gospel Workers
This
book is written for generic Seventh-day Adventists; those within the
denomination of that name and equally, those who are numbered among the
increasing groups of believers who, by conscience or expulsion, find themselves
outside the pale of the denomination.
The
author does not presume to engage in a definitive defense of historic
Seventh-day Adventism-inspiration and libraries of Adventist publications do
just that, adequately. This book will demonstrate that basic
fundamental principles which were endorsed by God's prophet to His
remnant church as having "unquestionable authority," have since been
systematically eroded and even changed. It explains how this change has been
made possible and is now being consolidated by a system of church
administration which has been set in place contrary to the expressed will of
God.
As
the readers progress through these pages, they will notice how the church's
failure to heed the warnings of its prophet, Mrs. E. G. White, repeatedly prove
her dictum that "a backsliding church lessens the distance between itself
and the Papacy."
The
author, who is an Australian, has been an Adventist all his life. Therefore many of the illustrations used in support of his
propositions are drawn from his own knowledge and experiences within the South
Pacific Division.
Many
of our readers will note a similarity of conduct in their own country, some
even having experienced the heavy hand of state-assisted persecution.
Sadly,
many precious souls are now being admitted into church membership with a
limited knowledge of Adventism. Increasingly, many of these people are further
disadvantaged as they train to take up positions in our ministry and education
system, that seem bent on exchanging the "testimony of Jesus" for the
"doctrines of men." With such people in mind, the author has included
an extensive appendix which will give them an insight into the true position of
Adventism on Christ and His ministry.
It is the sincere desire
of the author that this humble attempt to arouse God's people from their
Laodicean dreamtime will reawaken in the reader that burning commitment which
the pioneers so gladly exhibited in taking to a judgment-bound world the
"everlasting gospel," as found in the revelation of Jesus. We can
then pray with sincerity, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Amen. " The
Author
The
late Donald G. Barnhouse read a copy of that Seventh day Adventist classic,
Steps to Christ. This book has led innumerable people to accept the Lord Jesus
Christ as their personal Saviour. Many servicemen during two world wars
treasured its precious message which brought hope and comfort to their
uncertain existence. It made quite an impression on Dr. Barnhouse; so much so
that he gave the book prominent mention in his evangelical magazine Eternity,
June 1950. Under the heading "How to Read Religious Books," he
claimed that reading such a book with its "half-truths and satanic
error" was akin to a worm on a hook, "the first bite is all worm, the
second bite is all hook, that is the way the Devil works." It is not
surprising then, that he referred to its author, Mrs. E. G. White, as "the
founder of a cult."
Apparently,
such a vicious attack on a church which claimed to be Christian provided no
impediment to the growth of one of Protestantism's most popular magazines.* Such pronouncements evidently accorded with
acceptable Christianity. For, were not Seventh-day Adventists just another
cult? They were credited with believing that Jesus Christ was a sinner, and denying His completed work of salvation at the
cross. They were legalists who believed in salvation by works, part of which
was the keeping of the biblical Sabbath day. And, to cap it off, they had the
temerity to claim that they were God's remnant church on whom God had bestowed
the gift of prophecy! Yet, within six years, Dr. Barnhouse was able to declare:
“I should like to say
that we are delighted to do justice to a much-maligned group of sincere
believers, and in our minds and hearts take them out of a group of utter
heretics to acknowledge them as redeemed brethren and members of the body of
Christ.” (Eternity, September 15, 1956).
* Eternity magazine
ceased publication while this book was being written. Shortly after, its
one-time editor, Dr. Walter Martin, passed away.
Yes,
he was referring to the Seventh-day Adventist Church! Our leaders were
ecstatic. Adventists could now hold their heads high as Christendom extended
their brotherly arms to welcome them into the fold.
What
had brought about this dramatic change? Had Barnhouse seen the light, or had
Adventism changed its "unchristian" views? Let Dr. Barnhouse provide
some clues. On the 16th May 1958, while in conversation with Adventist layman
Al Hudson, Barnhouse said:
“I
hate Saturday as a Sabbath religious day. I hate it because God hates it.” (as
reported in Pilgrims Rest DH 115, p. 1).
On
Adventists' belief that they are the remnant church, Barnhouse said:
“If
you believe that, you are a megalomaniac.” (ibid.).
He
went on to comment on the prolific pen of Mrs. White:
“That's
too much, you know. She was running off at the mouth, and the Holy Spirit
certainly was not doing it.” (ibid., p. 2).
And
again,
“God
Almighty never spoke through a woman.” (Pilgrims Rest DH 114, p. 1).
“You
[SDAs] were founded on a lie.” (ibid., p. 2).
The
editor of Barnhouse's Eternity magazine was Dr. Walter Martin. While lecturing
in the Christian Mission Church, Napa, California, as recently as 22 February
1983, on the subject of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs,
he declared:
“There
is no need for any investigative judgment at any time because Jesus took care
of it all at the cross.”
Obviously,
the three angels of Revelation fourteen had failed to impress Messrs. Barnhouse
and Martin. During the late 1950s, as a result of some
eighteen months of intense dialogue with highranking
representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Barnhouse had insisted
that Adventists publish their doctrinal beliefs. They did so under the title
Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine [QOD], Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1957.
This
book became our passport to Christendom, and enabled Dr. Barnhouse to boast
that he and Martin had changed the theology of a whole denomination (see
Eternity, September 1956, pages 6, 7, 43, 45). Repeatedly we are told by
Adventist leadership that we have not deviated from historical Adventism. In
the Introduction to Questions on Doctrine we read: "This was not to be a
new statement of faith." The writers, counsellors and editors "have
labored conscientiously to state accurately the beliefs of Seventhday
Adventists" (p. 8).
But
shortly after proclaiming Adventists as part of the Christian community,
Barnhouse, in commenting on Questions on Doctrine, was led to observe:
“Let's
face it, in a very nice way, the leaders who have written this book, have moved
from the traditional position of the S.D.A. movement. They've come back toward
the Bible.” (Pilgrims Rest DH 114, p. 3).
Here
is a serious anomaly which questions the integrity of our leadership.
Seventh-day Adventists have been welcomed into the fraternity of Christendom on the basis of change. Our leaders claim that we have not
changed. Has Christendom been duped? Have members of the S.D.A. Church become
victims of the greatest confidence trick since Jacob awoke to find himself in
bed with Leah?
After
Questions on Doctrine was published by the Review and Herald Publishing
Association in late 1957, General Conference president Reuben R. Figuhr was so proud of it that he claimed it to be the most
significant achievement during his term of office.
Yet
B. G. Wilkinson, veteran minister of the SDA Church, college administrator and
author of the scholarly books, Truth Triumphant and Our Authorized Bible
Vindicated had a decidedly different view. After reading the manuscript of QOD
he is reported to have described it as a dagger aimed at the heart of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church (recorded interview, Mike Clute).*
* On January 14, 1985,
evangelist Mike Clute recorded an interview with a friend of the Wilkinson
family. Says Clute: “Of course, the gentleman whom I interviewed does not want
his name disclosed or else he would have done so at the time of the interview.”
(letter to Author, July 8, 1989).
The
General Conference subsidized the cost of this book in order
to ensure it would be widely distributed among non-Adventists. However,
when it was offered to Adventists in Ministry
magazine as "750 pages full of wonderful truth," the price was US
$5.00.
But
surprisingly, no one wanted his name connected with QOD, for we are told only
that it was "prepared by a representative group of Seventh-day Adventist
leaders, Bible teachers and editors." We are also told that the book
"came into being to meet a definite need" (QOD p. 7), that a large
Protestant publisher in the United States wanted to publish a book in which
would be presented a general view of our history and beliefs, that the
publishers approached the General Conference for information which resulted in
an extensive search of our denominational literature and that there followed a
series of meetings drawn out for over a year with the unnamed members of the
committee (ibid.).
What we are not told is that the
publisher was Dr. Donald Barnhouse, a
champion of popular evangelical thought. Neither are we told that he had
absolutely no time for Seventh-day Adventism. He had commissioned fellow
evangelical Dr. Walter Martin, to expose our denomination as a cult. It was
Martin who insisted that he research his subject thoroughly by requesting
dialogue with General Conference officers and that he have access to our
literature.
Subsequent to
the ensuing meetings and publication of QOD, some participants have revealed
the names of the GC conferees. They were elders:
T. E.
Unruh, president of East Pennsylvania Conference
L. E.
Froom, General Conference field secretary
R. A.
Anderson, ministerial secretary and editor of Ministry
W. E.
Reed, General Conference field secretary
(reported
by T. E. Unruh, Pilgrims Rest DH 101, 102)
These
gentlemen were so amiable to their would-be inquisitors that the evangelicals
were soon disarmed and within a very short time were on their knees praying for
Christian unity.
As a result of
these meetings, Barnhouse and Martin were assured that Seventhday
Adventists were now sufficiently theologically tuned to popular evangelicalism
to be regarded as Christians. So a deal was struck. If
Adventists would publish satisfactory answers to some forty-eight questions, Eternity magazine would not expose us as
a cult, but would instead, declare us to be a part of the Christian community.
Barnhouse and Martin even offered to help out where we
had difficulty in translating our "quaint" theological terminology
into understandable Christian language.
The
book, Questions on Doctrine, was the
result. We were declared to be truly Christian, by people whom president Figuhr obviously admired as exponents of Christianity and
as authorities on cultism. Was his confidence misplaced? We shall see.
When
Walter Martin was later questioned about Roman Catholicism's standing in the
cultist world, he replied: "Roman Catholicism is not a cult." Then he
sought to preserve some credibility by adding, "But within the Roman
Church there are cults, such as the cult of Mary. But the basic doctrines of
the Roman Catholic Church are Christ's Catholic theology to which most
Protestants subscribe."
Do evangelicals no longer
subscribe to the basic Christian belief that there is "one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"? (1 Timothy 2:5.)
To
faithful Seventh-day Adventists back in the mid-fifties it was a fearful
doctrinal crisis in our Church. But to the believers in our day it is now seen
to have marked the beginning of the end.
For
the errors that the so-called "Evangelical Conferences" brought into
our denomination grew throughout the sixties and seventies and were used by
modernists in our Church, such as Desmond Ford, to lay a solid foundation for
what is now called the "new theology”.
|
At that time, certain
evangelical Protestants asked a small group of our leaders to reconsider
the stated beliefs of our denomination-and, if possible, to restate them in
"theological terms" that would be acceptable to the Protestant
world around us. That seemed but a small concession in view of the golden
opportunity held out before us: unity and fellowship with the other
Protestant churches is not one of the objectives of the second angel's message
of Revelation 14:8, much less that of the third angel which follows it. Vance
Ferrell "The Beginning of the End," DH 101. |
CHAPTER 3 - "Crisis," He Cried!
The
casual reader of Questions on Doctrine
could be excused for not noticing any startling change in Adventist doctrine.
Indeed, we are assured in the introduction that "this volume can be viewed
as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church" (pp 8, 9).
But some
who were in a position to know claim that the original
manuscript contained a great deal of error. It had to be toned down before
those concerned with its printing would accept it. As one observer put it:
“The
book editors at Review and Herald
could not swallow it. And so it went back to the
General Conference for further revisions. This is why the book is so mixed up. . . . The heresy was then more carefully worded to slip by
the Review book editors.” (Pilgrims
Rest DH104).
This
is probably why it became acceptable to Martin and Barnhouse and yet did not
immediately raise too great a storm among Adventists, especially among the
ministry, the majority of whom were working long hours while conscientiously
carrying out their chosen task of spreading the everlasting gospel.
We have already
mentioned Dr. B. G. Wilkinson's reaction. Unfortunately
we do not have a record of his thoughts in writing. But one retired veteran of
the ministry, also a scholar, teacher and author, has recorded his opinion of Questions on Doctrine. He is Elder M. L.
Andreasen, described in the SDA Encyclopedia as an authority on our message.*
*
Andreasen gave
special study to the doctrine of the sanctuary and was considered an authority
in that field (SDA Encyclopedia,
1976, p. 43)
Having
read the manuscript of QOD, he repeatedly protested to General Conference
president Figuhr concerning changes to our doctrines.
After being curtly rebuffed, he wrote and circulated several open letters which
were subsequently gathered together and published under the title of `Letters
to the Churches. "* Andreasen warned,
“We have reached a crisis
in this denomination when leaders are attempting to enforce false doctrine and
threaten those who object. The whole program is unbelievable. Men are now attempting
to remove the foundation of many generations, and
think they can succeed. If we did not have the Spirit of Prophecy, we would not
know of the departure from sound doctrine which is now threatening us and the
coming of the Omega which will decimate our ranks and cause grievous wounds.
The present situation has been clearly outlined. We are nearing the climax.” (Letters to the Churches No. 3).
Letters to the Churches
is available from Hartland Publications,
P 0 Box 1, Rapidan, VA, 22733, USA.
As a reward for his pains, the Conference rescinded Elder
Andreasen's ministerial credentials and deprived him of his sustentation. When
the poor man applied to the government for relief money, the Social Welfare men
contacted our administrators who were shamed into restoring his allowance.
Elder
Andreasen was an elderly man. As this champion of the faith lay brokenhearted on his deathbed, rejected and punished by the
leadership of his beloved church, we can only imagine his anguish as he
contemplated the fulfillment of Mrs. White's prophecy:
“Books
of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be
introduced.... Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new
movement.” (Special Testimonies Series B,
No. 2, pp. 54, 55).
Or perhaps he would
attempt to answer Mrs. White's rhetorical question pertaining to the Alpha of
apostasy and apply it to the beginning of the Omega:**
**
Referring to Sister White's remarks on books of a new order and the underhanded
tearing down of the foundations of our faith, Andreasen said: “All this was
written to meet the apostasy in the Alpha period. We are now in the Omega period which Sister White said
would come.” (Letters to the
Churches No. 6).
What
influence is it that would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an
underhanded, powerful way to tear down the foundations of our faith-the
foundation that was laid down in the beginning of our work by prayerful study
of the Word and by revelation? (Ibid.)
As we proceed, we shall
seek to discover the answer to this question. We shall reveal the
"underhanded" way in which a mere handful of men set themselves up as
expositors of our faith and interpreters of the Spirit of Prophecy. We shall
see how, under the protection of sympathetic presidents, they have literally
"torn down the foundations of our faith."
|
Important truths concerning the
atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner's stead; but the sin was
not cancelled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which
it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner
acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression,
and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but
he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the Day
of Atonement the high priest, having taken an
offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood
of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, directly over the
law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator,
he took the sins upon himself and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his
hands upon the head of the scapegoat, he confessed over him all these sins,
thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore
them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people. Such was the service performed
"unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." Ellen G.
White The Great Controversy, p. 420 |
Few
Seventh-day Adventists in 1956 knew of the events which have since come to be
known as the Evangelical meetings. They were cloaked in official secrecy. It
was left to Dr. Barnhouse to drop what he called a bombshell, in September of
that year. He published an article in Eternity
magazine titled, "Are Seventh-day
Adventists Christians?" (At the following General Conference session
in 1958, the meetings were officially ignored.)
Speaking
of the second meeting with the G. C. conferees, Barnhouse wrote:
“It
was perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal
positions which had previously been attributed to them. For instance, they
stated that "they repudiated absolutely the thought that Seventh-day Sabbathkeeping was a basis for salvation," and later
in his report, "that Sabbathkeeping is in any
way a means of salvation" (Eternity, September 1956).
When
Walter Martin pointed out to them that we had published teachings considered by
Christendom to be anti-Christian, they professed surprise and "immediately
brought the fact to the attention of the General Conference officers, that this
situation might be remedied and such publications be
corrected" (Eternity, September
1956, p. 6).
Barnhouse then reveals
that the "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, members of the "lunatic fringe" even as there are
similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of
fundamental Christianity (ibid., p. 7).
*
It is interesting
that Larson does not appear to find one written statement by Figuhr, Froom, Anderson or Unruh, expressing their views on
the nature of Christ prior to the Evangelical meetings. Apparently
it was they who regarded our official view as repugnant, but, sensing their
isolated position, they were not courageous enough to express their views
publicly.
Of
the sanctuary belief Barnhouse reported,
“They [the G. C.
conferees] do not believe as some of their earlier teachers taught, that Jesus'
atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead, that He was still
carrying on a second ministering work since 1844.* This idea is absolutely
repudiated. They believe that since His ascension, Christ has been
ministering the benefits of the atonement which He completed on Calvary.” (ibid.).
*
It is interesting to
note that, although the conferees did not fool their inquisitors, Questions on Doctrine was able to claim
that it was not a "new statement of faith" (QOD p. 8) without any
apparent objection from Barnhouse and Martin.
So this is how
Christendom at large and some SDA church members came to know of the historic
meetings. Certainly, few Adventists realized that the doctrinal pillars of our faith were being traded for
the smile of Christendom. Let us just summarize the understanding given
by our leaders to Barnhouse and Martin and square it off with sound Adventist
teaching.
1. That Sabbathkeeping
is not in any way a means of salvation.
It is
quite true that Sabbath observance is no guarantee of salvation. But it is
equally true that those who have a knowledge of Sabbath truth and ignore it,
will not be saved:
The
keeping of the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty to the true God.... It follows that
the message which commands men to worship God and keep His commandments, will
especially call upon them to keep the fourth commandment (GC 438).
Sabbath
observance is eternal:
And
it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath
to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the Lord (Isaiah
66:23).
So we see that
the conferees failed to uphold the message of the first angel of Revelation
fourteen, and showed a reckless disregard for the dire warning of the third
angel (Revelation 14:7, 9, 10).
Here
we come face to face with a statement which can only be resolved by arriving at
one of two conclusions. Either these men had very short memories or they were
deliberately deceiving the evangelicals. Either way, they disqualified
themselves as competent representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Here are a few pertinent facts which will help readers to reach their own
conclusions.
Just
five years prior to the Evangelical meetings, Elder W. E. Read (one of the
conferees) had quoted Sister White in a G. C. Bulletin, 1950, p. 154:
“Jesus
was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh even as we are.”
This
was just one of a plethora of statements in Adventist literature upholding the
biblical concept of a Saviour who came to this earth through the seed of
Abraham and "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without
sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
Dr.
Ralph Larson, in his monumental thesis, The
Word Was Made Flesh, details some four hundred written statements by Mrs.
E. G. White, and approximately eight hundred statements by other SDA writers on
Christ's earthly nature. Over
a period of one hundred years of SDA writers, Dr. Larson was able to find no
statement that Christ received the sinless nature of unfallen Adam, as claimed
by Bamhouse. Our leading doctrinal book, Bible Readings for the Home Circle,
published in the year of Mrs. White's death (1915), had sold by the million. It
stated,
“In
His humanity, Christ partook of our sinful human 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.... Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits-a sinful
nature.” (p. 174).
And
on page 236 we read:
“By
the very dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary ... Babylon teaches that God, in the person of
His Son, did not take the same flesh with us; that is, sinful flesh.”
Yet
it is inconceivable that these conferees were not aware that in the 1949
edition of Bible Readings, the
"sinful nature" of Christ had been quietly deleted. How then could
these men honestly claim to represent historic Seventh-day Adventist beliefs?
As for Read, he had to do a complete somersault by refuting his previous
position, in order to get out of the "lunatic
fringe" and be eligible to join that elite Washington club of "sane
leadership."
3.
A new doctrinal position for Adventism or merely the
position of a few who saw themselves as the "sane leadership" of
Adventism?
As we
have seen, these conferees did not represent a majority group. They were a mere
handful of men from the General Conference who were handpicked by a sympathetic
G. C. president. As to whether or not they represented
sane leadership, it is debatable. One thing we do know: they considered
themselves sufficiently sane to judge Mrs. E. G. White, along with the vast majority of past and contemporary Adventists writers,
as part of the "wild-eyed, lunatic fringe."
4.
They repudiated the belief of some of our earlier
teachers that Jesus' atoning work was not completed at Calvary,
but was still going on in heaven.
It
was not just "some of our earlier teachers" that believed in Christ's
continuing atonement. It had been consistently taught since pioneer days and
was backed solidly by our leaders and the Spirit of Prophecy.
Elder
A. G. Daniells was General Conference president during the years 1901-1922, and
under his leadership, Bible Readings for
the Home Circle was offered extensively to the public as representative of
Adventist belief Of the atonement in type and antitype
it stated:
“In
the heavenly sanctuary the sacrifice is offered but once; and but one atonement
or cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary can be made, which must take place at
the time assigned by God for it. And when the great atonement, or cleansing of
the heavenly sanctuary has been made, God's people will be forever free from
sin and the fate of all will be forever sealed (see Revelation 22:11). This, as
in the type, will be a day of judgment.” (p. 243). [Note: This great truth has been deleted from the
revised 1963 paperback edition of Bible
Readings. So also
has the key reference text of Daniel 8:14 and the year 1844 been deleted.]
While
president of the General Conference, Elder C. H. Watson wrote a book, The Atoning Work of Christ, (Review and Herald Publishing Association,
1934). The contents were accurately described by its title. He made it quite
clear that Christ's work in heaven is a continuation of His atonement which was
begun with His sacrifice:
“Most
certainly by the great work of atonement, which by the sacrifice of Himself
began at the cross, and was continued by His priestly
ministry in the heavenly sanctuary until, in the judgment, sin's reign is
ended.” (p. 175).
To
this could be added the supporting testimony of Elder M. L. Andreasen, and F.
C. Gilbert's Messiah In
His Sanctuary (Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1937). This concurs with the Spirit of Prophecy:
“Instead
of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was
now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the
finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of
His coming.” (Life Sketches of E. G. White, p. 63).
So this is how
the "experts" on Christianity and cults gave the world a grossly
erroneous picture of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its beliefs. Their
aim was to show that we had changed our doctrines sufficiently to enable us to
fit their concept of Christianity.
Had the General
Conference succeeded in fooling Barnhouse and Martin, or had we indeed changed
our beliefs?
The
hitherto highly regarded Eternity
magazine devoted much of its space in its September, October, November 1956 and
January 1957 issues to a defense of Seventh-day Adventism.
Let me
state first, without equivocation, that I believe these editors who are thus
interpreting present-day Seventh-day Adventism as "evangelical" and
advocating that the Christian church should receive its adherents with all of their heresies as "brethren beloved," are
utterly wrong, both in their methods and in their conclusions....
|
Keep in mind that Seventh-day
Adventism is not just a few "big shots," but is composed of
hundreds of churches and individual members. Even if these leaders were to
repudiate some of their heresies, how about the local churches and their
membership who have been "brainwashed" for three generations with
such teachings as that of annihilation of the wicked? Will they accept it
from stem to circumference of the denomination because these leaders say it
is not so any more? Now the question is: Will Mrs.
White have to go? Will the "keystone of the arch" be removed and thus all the superstructure fall
in a heap? This will have to be done if the heresies are abandoned, as
Eternity claims. Louis T.
Talbot "Why Seventh-day Adventism
is Not Evangelical" The King's Business, April 1957, pp. 23-30 |
Further
articles on the Evangelical meetings continued to appear in succeeding issues
of Eternity magazine. These were
mostly concerned with justifying Eternity's
conclusion that Adventists were now a truly Christian denomination, for the
initial reaction among Protestantism was one of profound skepticism.
Christendom was also told that Adventists
no longer regarded themselves as the remnant church, but
considered themselves only as part of the remnant church of God in the last
days. And as for the gift of prophecy, Adventists did not regard
the E. G. White Spirit of Prophecy counsels as in a class with the Bible
prophets. They were regarded as counsels to Seventh-day Adventists only
(Eternity, January 1957).
Such
a generalized statement does not differentiate between special testimonies to
the church and counsels as found in Steps
to Christ, or books in the Conflict of the Ages series, all of which are
eminently suitable for public outreach. When the General Conference published Questions on Doctrine, a book demanded
by Christendom for Christendom in general, they did not hesitate to disregard
their own statement by unselectively quoting Mrs. White in
order to get their points across. A quick glance through just the first
twenty chapters shows that they not only quoted from books suitable for public
use, but quoted from the following:
Gospel
Workers, Testimonies to Ministers, Early Writings, Counsels on Sabbath School
Work, Counsels to Parents, Students and Teachers, Evangelism, Testimonies for
the Church, volumes 2, 6, 8, and even an E. G. White Manuscript, No. 18, 1899.
Such
inconsistencies are common to those who wander into the shifting sands of
conjecture, amendment and invention.
As news of the Evangelical
meetings began filtering through the SDA Church, it was deemed advisable to
prepare the ministry for the forthcoming book, Questions on Doctrine. The church had a ready-made vehicle to carry
out such a task−the Ministry magazine. All that was needed
was a willing editor and a supportive president. Both were in position—R. A.
Anderson and R. R. Figuhr.*
* R. R. Figuhr had been associate editor of the Ministry magazine with R. A. Anderson
who was General Conference Ministerial Secretary from 1950-1956. Assuming that these men were attuned to each other's
doctrinal wavelength, they now had the perfect setup to superimpose mutual
designs upon Adventism.
Editor
Anderson had fielded an opening statement in the Ministry of December 1956, under the editorial title,
"Changing Attitudes Towards Adventism." He told of some recent
articles concerning Adventists in leading religious journals and commented:
“When
certain Christian leaders discovered recently that we believe absolutely in the
sovereign deity of our Lord, in His pre-existence with the Father, in the absolute sinlessness of His
nature during His incarnation on earth, in His all-sufficient atoning sacrifice
on the cross, and in salvation by grace and by grace alone, then the
basis of the misunderstandings which for a century have been a barrier between
other Christian bodies and Adventists was removed” (p. 17).
Evidently,
"caution" was the watchword. Adventists should not be startled. Many
of our ministers would need a careful conditioning process to have them readily
accept Questions on Doctrine. Unlike
the largely non-Adventist readership of Eternity,
most Adventists were well acquainted with our doctrines and had ready access to
our literature including the Spirit of Prophecy. So, in the foregoing quotation
the heresy of Christ's sinless nature was carefully hedged about by our
long-discarded vestiges of Arianism, and the concept of a completed atonement
was wrapped in an "all-sufficient atoning sacrifice."
But it was left to L. E.
Froom to undertake the delicate task of turning our doctrines around.**
**Froom had been
Ministerial Secretary from 1941-1950. During that time, Anderson had been his
associate editor of Ministry
magazine.
In
his outstanding work Beginning of the End,
Vance Ferrell quotes a contemporary G. C. official who claimed that Anderson
had told him personally that Froom "wanted to stand for the landmarks, but
we told him that for the sake of fellowship with the Protestants, we must do
this. This will bring in a new day for Adventists. He [Froom] backed down so we
could agree with the evangelicals" (Pilgrims Rest DH 104). But in the
light of further material to be presented, it seems probable that Froom's reticence was due mainly to
the fact that he might bear the blame for changing our doctrines.
Froom's
article "The Priestly Application of the Atonement Act" (February,
1957), must, in retrospect, be seen as about the greatest exercise in
manipulative semantics ever attempted in Adventist literature.*
The opening statements were good, solid Adventism. The closing statements
contradicted them. (One wonders if Barnhouse's "first bite all worm,
second bite all hook" remarks should not be redirected to this article.)
* In the December 1956
issue of Ministry, Froom had written
an article, "The Atonement, The Heart of Our Message," in which he
stressed the importance of the atoning sacrifice and referred to Christ's High
Priestly work as "ministering its provisions, benefits and effects to the
beneficiaries of His grace-the subjects of His intercession" (p. 13).
Here
are Froom's opening remarks in which he defines the term "atonement"
correctly:
“Despite
the belief of multitudes in the churches about us, it is not, on the one hand,
limited just to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. On the other
hand, neither is it confined to the ministry of our heavenly High Priest in the
sanctuary above, on the antitypical day of atonement−or hour of God's judgment−as some of our forefathers first erroneously thought and
wrote.
“Instead,
as attested by the Spirit of Prophecy, it clearly embraces both−one aspect being incomplete without the other, and each
being the indispensable complement of the other.” (Ministry, February 1957, p. 9).
Having
thus made Adventists feel at ease with his confirmation of a continuing work of
atonement, Froom then gives a twist to what appeared to be a perfectly plain
statement. He does this by mixing a contradiction with two truths:
“That
is the tremendous scope of the sacrificial act of the cross−a complete, perfect and final atonement for man's sins.”
(ibid., p. 10).
Yes,
it is true that the sacrifice was complete and perfect. It is not true that the
atonement was final and complete and Froom had
correctly stated earlier that the atonement was not "limited to the
sacrificial death of Christ on the cross."
But
wait, he has an explanation: "The atonement is two-fold; first a single
comprehensive act, then a continuing process or work of application." Thus our minds are conditioned to the proposition that Christ
is now administering the benefits of an atonement completed at Calvary.
Christ's work of atonement which Mrs. White said began at the cross, really
means "completed," according to Froom. That is the "hook."
How then
could Froom possibly hope to fool all those Adventists out there who knew very
well that the Spirit of Prophecy teaches that the investigative judgment, which
is the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, constituted the final act of
Christ's atonement? He simply postulated an erroneous statement as if it were
fact:
“No
doctrinal proof or prophetic interpretation ever came to this people initially
through the Spirit of Prophecy−not in a single case. . . . The discovery and interpretation of Bible truth was
always left for diligent Bible students.” (ibid., p. 11).
Here is an emphatic
enunciation of an entirely new principle for Seventh-day Adventists. Mrs. White
never contributed any original doctrinal material to our church.*
(!) She was not a diligent student. (!) Apparently L. E. Froom saw himself as a
diligent student and therefore he was qualified to interpret the Spirit of
Prophecy; as witness, this amazing dogmatic statement:
“Let there be no
confusion then, over the term "making atonement" used by Ellen G.
White in connection with Christ's priestly ministry in heaven-obviously meaning
applying the completed atonement to the individual.” (ibid. p. 12).
* "Many of our
people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My
husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder Edson, and others who were
keen, noble and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in
1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them and we
studied and prayed earnestly.... When they came to the point in their study
where they said `We can do nothing more,' the Spirit of the Lord would come
upon me. I would be taken off in vision and a clear explanation of the Passages
we had been studying would be given me ... and I gave others the instruction
that had been given me" (Special
Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, pp. 54, 57).
Thus Froom effectively denies the principle of the blood
atonement which Christ is now applying in heaven on behalf of repentant
sinners. The blood emphasis is sadly lacking in this and others of his writings
on the heavenly sanctuary, a fact which parallels popular evangelicalism
because of its belief that Christ completed His work of salvation on Calvary.
It is
becoming quite evident that the G. C. conferees had certain problems in meeting
the criteria demanded by apostate Protestantism. In short−how to deny the truth. It was one thing to tell the
evangelicals to take no notice of the "wildeyed
lunatic fringe" of Adventism. It was an entirely different matter to tell
that to Adventists. They couldn't! Not only would such "lunatics"
have to include the majority of our past and then
present leaders, but it must necessarily include God's Prophet, Mrs. E. G.
White.
One
solution to the Spirit of Prophecy hurdle was to destroy the effect of Mrs.
White's writings. Such a thought would be hardly original, because she had
warned already that this would happen:
“The
very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of
the Spirit of God.” (1SM 48).
Nevertheless,
as a result of the embarrassment over Spirit of
Prophecy statements, which conflicted with the views now being declared to the
evangelicals, it was decided that two men should approach the E. G. White
Estate, search the Spirit of Prophecy writings for such statements and then
attempt to neutralize them. An
attempt to tamper with Mrs. White's writings actually took
place early in 1957; about the time that Eternity
magazine was spreading the news of Adventism's "conversion" to
Christianity. Providentially, someone saw fit to "leak" a copy
of the White Board of Trustees minutes for May 1957 and the recipient of those
minutes was none other than Elder Andreasen (see Letters to the Churches No. 2).
As mentioned previously,
Andreasen was considered by our denomination to be one of its foremost scholars
on the sanctuary doctrine. He was absolutely committed to the propagation and
maintenance of historic Adventism. Imagine his chagrin when he read in these minutes
that two men had "suggested to the trustees that some foot notes or
appendix notes might appear in certain of the E. G. White books clarifying very
largely in the words of Ellen G. White our understanding of the various phases
of the atoning work of Christ"* (Minutes,
p. 1483, as quoted by Andreasen in Letters
to the Churches, No. 2).
*
Andreasen claims that it was the editor of Ministry
"who in his research became acutely aware of the E. G. White
statements ... and so he suggested that footnotes or appendix notes appear in
certain of the E. G. White books" (Letters
to the Churches, No. 2). Later, in Letter
No. 5, Andreasen reveals that it was R. A. Anderson and W. E. Read who visited the White vault and
proposed the insertions to her writings. W. E. Read had a long
connection with the "Washington club," having experience as field
secretary and chairman of the so-called Defense Committee.
What a suggestion! What
an affront to Christ and His messenger! And what a sad commentary on the
integrity of our leadership, that some should confidently expect that such a
dishonest request could even be entertained, let alone succeed. Not only were
these men prepared to act as interpreter to God's messenger, but they were
prepared to imitate her style of writing by employing "the words of Ellen
G. White" in order that the deception might more readily succeed.**
** "There are those
who will misinterpret the messages that God has given, in accordance with their
spiritual blindness" (Selected
Messages, Book 1, p. 41).
Andreasen
was not the type of man to remain silent, but he decided to follow Christ's
instruction to "speak to him alone." He wrote to the chief officer,
president Figuhr, and this is a portion of the reply:
“I am
certain we can trust the brethren of the White Estate to move cautiously in
this direction and not to take positions that might be embarrassing in the
future. Certainly Brother Andreasen, there is no intention here whatever to
tamper with the writings of Sister White. We value them most highly” (Letters to the Churches, No. 4).
(The
reader will note the prime concern of the "Chief Officer"−it was not about the preservation of truth, but rather of
any embarrassment which must inevitably follow a fraudulent action.)
Andreasen
replied, pleading with Figuhr to "spare thy
people, and give not thine heritage to reproach." He closed his letter
with an expression of confidence in the president as he faced "the
greatest apostasy the church has ever faced" (ibid.) The president's reply,
September 18, 1957:
“I have considered the
matter to which you referred closed. I do not believe that you have the right
to use the Board Minutes of the White Estate as you have done. The Minutes are
confidential and not intended for public use. I hope the time will never come
when we take the position that men are to be condemned and disciplined because
they come before properly constituted church Boards to discuss questions that
they may have pertaining to the work and belief of the church.”*
(ibid.).
* In
spite of Figuhr's admission of these Minutes,
the White Estate Board subsequently denied their substance in a circular letter
to all Divisions dated September 6, 1960 (reported by Pilgrims Rest DH 103 p.
3).
In
his reply, Andreasen noted that the president had condoned the two men's
actions. He pointed out that he had used the information about the Minutes to
inform him [Figuhr] alone, and that:
“I
consider the present instance the greatest apostasy that has ever occurred in
this denomination, and this you would have kept under cover! And you have
closed the door.... You are about to ruin the denomination. I am praying for
you" (ibid.).
But
Andreasen's pleadings with the president were fruitless. Figuhr
was determined to stand by his commitment to the evangelicals. Here is part of
his response:
“This
[Andreasen's activities] will place you in plain opposition to your church. In
view of all this, the officers, as I have previously written, earnestly ask you
to cease your activities" (Letters
to the Churches, No. 4).
Andreasen
did not cease his activities but made his concerns public in what became known
as Letters to the Churches. And so,
as previously noted, he was stripped of his credentials and deprived of his
sustentation.
Thus it can be
seen that our leaders had made no idle commitment to the evangelicals as
reported in Eternity magazine when
Barnhouse said that they, meaning
Adventist leaders, were “determined to put the brakes on any members who seek
to hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the
denomination”. (Eternity EXTRA
September 1956, p. 7).
No doubt, the spectacle
of one of our most respected veterans being persecuted for nobly standing up
and doing his God-ordained duty did not pass unnoticed by other workers in the
church. For most of them, it probably provided a salutary lesson in obedience
to man−a lesson which may explain the conduct of many to this
day.
|
I was thoroughly shaken when I
read the account of men attempting to have explanations
and footnotes inserted into the White books to make it appear that she is in
favor of, or at least not opposed to, the new doctrine that the atonement was
made on the cross. I had been taught from my early connection with the church
that those writings were of God, and must be revered
highly. The idea that men might add or subtract, or in any way
"explain" the writer's intent by adding "footnotes or
explanations" never occurred to anyone. After I had read the record of
what took place, I did a deal of praying and meditation.
What was my responsibility in this matter, or did I have any? I confided to
no one. I decided my first responsibility would be to the officials in
Washington. And so I wrote to headquarters. I was
informed that I had no right to the information I had, for that was supposed
to be secret, and I had no right even to read the documents. After four letters were passed,
I was informed that they did not care to discuss the matter
further. The matter was settled. When I inquired if this meant that the door was
closed, I received the reply: "I have considered the matter to which you
have referred as closed." M. L. Andreasen |
Portion of letter to officers of the General Conference,
December 29, 1957
Even
as Questions on Doctrine, with its
dramatic breakthrough in public relations, was being presented throughout the
world as a savior of Adventism, opposition was steadily mounting. Andreasen's Letters to the Churches were having a
telling effect in North America.*
* In Australasia, the
membership, with its childlike trust in General Conference leadership, was
generally acquiescent. If and when Andreasen's
activities were mentioned, it was usually in a derogatory manner.
Walter
Martin soon began receiving complaints from indignant Seventh-day Adventists.
Not only did they repudiate the new doctrinal positions in QOD, but they
claimed that Barnhouse and Martin had been hoodwinked by the General Conference
men.
This is
not what the Adventist church really believes. You have been deceived.... There
are some important representatives of Seventh-day Adventism who are at this
point beginning to move the denomination back from where they came in 1957
(Martin, Lecture, February 22, 1983, Napa, California).
In
1965, Walter Martin published his book, The Kingdom of the Cults. Pressure from
sections of Protestantism to have Seventh day Adventists redeclared a cult were
again mounting. It had been noted that Adventists had discontinued publication
of QOD, and they had refused to sell Martin's book, The Truth About Adventism in the Adventist Book Centers. Martin
endeavored to quiet the clamor by devoting a section of his book to Adventists.
He admitted that conflicting views on Adventist belief were coming out in print, but stuck to his original contention that QOD was
indeed a passport to Christianity. He quoted from the Review and Herald's claim:
“This book truthfully presents the theology and doctrine
which the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism affirm they have always held.” (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 369).*
* How could Martin keep
foisting this untruth upon his readers when Barnhouse had claimed that they had
changed the doctrines of a whole denomination? Note the discrepancy: "Let's
face it ... the leaders who have written this book [QOD] have moved from the
traditional position of the SDA movement" (Barnhouse). This is confirmed
by Anderson in a letter to Pastor Robert Greive, then
president of the Queensland Conference. After reading the manuscript for QOD, Greive wrote Anderson to see what was going on. Anderson replied, "Yes, we
are trying to change the doctrines, but we want to take it to the Ministry before we go to the people with
it" (Pilgrims Rest DH 104). And again, "While it is truth, we
should be very careful not to set it before the laity until we are prepared to
speak with a united voice" (Letter to Robert Greive,
April 23, 1956).
The
credibility of QOD was under severe scrutiny, both from within and outside our
church. Elder Froom, once so reticent (seemingly) to undertake the task of
altering our doctrines, who with others had declined to have his name appended
to QOD, was by now sufficiently motivated and committed to openly defend the
book and expand considerably on its veiled heresies. His book, Movement of Destiny, published in 1971
by the Review and Herald Publishing
Association did just that.
It is
probably fair to say that no other Adventist publication has come with higher credentials
than this book. The Foreword bore the imprimatur of G. C. president, R. H.
Pierson** and the Preface appeared over the name of the vice-president, Neal C.
Wilson, the latter having acted as chairman of the Guiding Committee for Movement of Destiny (The Fascinating
Story of MOD., p. 11). Said Wilson, We can see God's
timetable and wisdom. He knew exactly when the Remnant Church, and its
leadership would be under attack.*** He knew when the
book would be needed most! It will confirm our faith, it will rekindle the
fires of dedication and commitment" (MOD Preface).
** Although Pierson had
strongly recommended MOD to all Seventh-day Adventists, he later had reason to
change his mind. In a letter dated October 6, 1988 to the author (H. H. Meyers)
he wrote, "Some portions of Elder Froom's manuscript Movement of Destiny I
had not read before its publication.... After reading some portions later, I
declined to have my Foreword included in any subsequent editions." It is
interesting to note that in a subsequent edition of MOD, a new Foreword is
written by H. M. S. Richards. The Preface by Neal C. Wilson remains intact.
*** Elder Wilson does not
identify the "attackers."
With
such illustrious credentials, Movement of
Destiny should be able to be read with the utmost confidence by Seventh-day
Adventists. Can it?
In
his opening remarks to the reader, Froom deems it advisable to establish his
authority for writing the book and to show that he was destined to bring to the
Movement an understanding of the Gospel which would lead it inexorably on to
victory. He reveals that his mandate came from none other than the late Arthur
G. Daniells, president of the General Conference for some twenty=one years, and
close associate of Mrs. E. G. White.
Said
Froom,
“Back
in the spring of 1930 ... [Daniells] told me he believed that at a later time,
I should undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption-its
principles, provisions and divine personalities-as they unfolded to our view as
a Movement from 1844 onward, with special emphasis upon the developments of
1888 and its sequel.” (MOD, p. 17).
At
the time of the 1888 General Conference session in Minneapolis, Daniells was
serving in the mission field of New Zealand. But it seems that many years
later, after being released from his long term as president of the General
Conference, he had time to reflect on the main theme of the Minneapolis
Conference-Righteousness by Faith. As a result, in 1926, he wrote the book
Christ Our Righteousness. Froom claims that it was this work which Daniells
wanted him to "round out in historical sequence what he had begun in
1926" (ibid., p. 17). Froom continues:
“Daniells
admonished me to be fair and faithful to fact, comprehensive and impartial in
treatment, and to present the full picture in balance. "Truth has nothing
to fear," he admonished, "and everything to gain" (ibid., p.
18).
Froom
unequivocally accepts this challenge:
“I
must not be unfaithful to God and to the Church, and the burden that has been
placed upon me. That is how this portrayal came to be written.” (ibid. p. 23).
As we
examine some aspects of Movement of Destiny and look behind the scenes, we
shall keep in mind Froom's commitment to truthfulness and Daniells' maxim that
"truth has nothing to fear."
We shall also seek to
discover what President Wilson meant when he perceived the church and its
leadership to be under attack and perhaps even find out who its supposed
enemies are.
|
What greater deception could be foisted upon our
people than for Satan to bring falsehood from within the church, while the
members expect it to come from a source outside the church. How well we have been prepared
to receive it by being taught to depend upon a system of religious
organization to warn us of its approach and arrival, rather than encouraged
to look to the platform of truth established in the early years of the
movement. Even now, in this time of great peril, the leadership are foremost
in cautioning against any discussion of the issues that are polarizing the
membership. (See Review, May 24, 1979). They put forth the claim that there
is a great deal more made of such situations than is called for; and if they,
the leadership, are given the time to decide the conclusion of such issues, then all agitation will die
down. Their admonition of
caution, and many times silence, on life and death issues is a cry of peace
and safety. Matters
designed to stir the membership into action are, as a result, not heeded; and
it is left to the leadership-the "dumb dogs" who never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God's people
their transgressions (see 5T p. 211)-to decide for the membership what is and
what is not the truth. Jon A.
Vannoy "Under Which Banner?" 1981, p. 81. |
Doctor
Le Roy Froom was very conscious of accusations against leadership. He had come
in for his fair share of censure for his part in what had come to be seen by
many as the evangelical sellout of the fifties. Under the heading,
"Unjustifiable Charge of Leadership Unfaithfulness," he says,
“Ever
since the 1888 tensions there have been recurrent harpers on the note that the
church, and primarily its leaders, actually rejected the message of 1888.”
(MOD, p. 357).
If
such charges had been recurring since 1888, how then would President Wilson see
Movement of Destiny as arriving just
on time to meet "God's timetable"? There must have been some pressing
and contemporary reason to which Wilson was referring. Perhaps Froom can help
us further? He talks of the
1888 rejection charge still persisting and refers to a recent call for
"retroactive" repentance in order that the Loud Cry and Latter Rain
should revisit our Church. Said Froom,
“Such
a contention is a grave charge to be bandied about. If the charge is true, then
there should be some clear-cut historical evidence. If not true, it
"actually constitutes an impeachment of the dead," and "an
explicit confession is due the Church today by promulgators of a misleading
charge" (ibid. p. 358).
Well,
that surely does sound like enemies of the Church at work, doesn't it? But worse still, it sounds like the
"enemies" are within our church.
It
did not take long for the "mystery" to be made public. In November of
1972, there appeared a booklet titled, An
Explicit Confession ... Due the
Church, and it was signed by Donald K. Short and Robert J. Wieland, two
Seventh-day Adventist ministers with extensive service in Africa and in their
homeland, North America. Let us read from their introductory remarks:
“This
public "confession" is made in response to a duty solemnly enjoined
upon the authors of a private document. After twenty-two years of silence, they
are now required to speak publicly, though they would prefer to remain silent.
“Their
duty to "confess" is made clear by demands upon them published in Movement of Destiny and endorsed by the
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. It is a duty the authors dare not
evade. The Church will expect a sincere response to such an authoritative
public charge. Truth requires it.
“Twenty-two
years ago in the autumn of 1950, the authors prepared
for the attention of the General Conference committee, a private manuscript
entitled 1888 ReExamined.
Without the authors' consent or approval, this document with some six hundred
Ellen G. White exhibits, was by others placed in the hands of an ever-widening
circle of Seventh-day Adventist readers around the world. This is what has now
been responsible for this public call to make.” An Explicit Confession .. . Due the Church.
And
what was 1888 Re-Examined all about? Again we quote from Short and Wieland:
“We said in 1950 that there is a neglected
but essential preparation to make before the final outpouring of the Holy
Spirit in the Latter Rain can possibly come to enable the Church to finish God's
work on earth. That most necessary
preparation is recognition of, and repentance for, the misunderstanding and
rejecting the "beginning" of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry. This
"beginning," according to Ellen G. White, was a message brought by two
young ministers to the 1888 General Conference Session. Nearly one hundred
times in her writings she endorses this message and the messengers in language
never used at any time about any other message or messengers. For us now as a
people to beg Heaven to give us the Latter Rain, without recognizing this
obvious fact, is just as unreasonable as for the Jews to keep on begging the
Lord to send them the Messiah without recognizing how He kept His promise and
did send Him two thousand years ago.” (ibid.).
In the
rest of chapter ten of MOD, Froom sets out to show that the principles of the
"1888 Message" had indeed been adopted and put into practice over the
intervening years. He sees the church's progress as evidence of the outpouring
of the latter rain. As further evidence he embarks on a recital of leaders'
names who upheld the principles of righteousness by faith including the
"ultimate in leadership," Ellen G. White.
Froom
is in trouble! He is citing our prophet's active role in promulgating
righteousness by faith as proof that it had been generally accepted by our
leadership because she herself was the "ultimate leader."
But
the argument does not fit the facts. Sister White had joined with Elders
Waggoner and Jones in traveling around the country with the purpose of urging
its acceptance. In 1890, she was constrained to voice her concern in the Review and Herald:
“For
nearly two years we have been urging the people to come up and accept the light
and the truth concerning the righteousness of Christ, and they do not know
whether to come and take hold of this precious truth.” (RH March 11, 1890).
Why
were our people hesitant to accept the message? She says,
“Our
young men look to our older brethren and as they see that they do not accept
the message, but treat it as though it were of no
consequence, it influences those who are ignorant of the Scriptures to reject
the light. These men [the leaders] who refuse to receive the truth interpose
themselves between the people and the light’” (RH March 18, 1890).
And
why did our "older brethren" not accept the 1888 message? In 1895,
Mrs. White wrote:
“Men
who are entrusted with weighty responsibilities, but who have no living
connection with God have been and are doing despite to His Holy Spirit.... If
God spares their lives, and they nourish the same spirit that marked their
course of action both before and after the Minneapolis meeting, they will fill
up to the full the deeds of those whom Christ condemned when He was upon
earth.” (TM 78-79).
So,
with this misapplication of Mrs. White's concern-that the message of
righteousness by faith should take hold of our people−may we not well ask, Who is
impeaching the dead? and Who is it that dares to impeach a prophet of God?
In
1926, over a decade after Mrs. White's demise, were things any better?
According to Elder Daniells they were not! In his book, Christ Our
Righteousness, we read:
“Through the intervening years [since 1888]
there has been steadily developing the desire and hope-yes, the belief-that
someday the message of righteousness by faith would shine forth in all its
inherent glory, worth and power and receive full recognition.” (pp. 42, 43).
After
twenty-one years as General Conference president, Daniells was well qualified
to speak on this subject. He was keenly aware of the opposition of which Mrs.
White spoke. Said he:
“The message has never been received, nor
proclaimed, nor given free course as it should have been in order to convey to
the church the marvelous blessings that were wrapped in it.” (ibid. p. 47).
Those
marvelous blessings would have automatically followed in the train of the
latter rain had our leaders been receptive. Why then did Froom contradict his
mentor, the very man whom he claims had commissioned him with the awesome
responsibility of expanding on the work that he had commenced? Just listen to
Froom:
“The
denomination as a whole, and its leadership in particular, did not reject the
message and provisions of righteousness by faith in and following 1888.” (MOD,
p. 370).
How then can Froom be claiming to be
carrying out Daniells' commission by contradicting him? Why does he attack two of God's faithful servants,
Elders Short and Wieland, for sharing Sister White's and Elder Daniells'
concerns? The answers to such questions do not come easily. It is not given to
man to divine motives generated in the dark recesses of the heart. We can,
however, examine the facts and learn from history.
Those who have read the
books, Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny must be struck with
their similarities of format and literary style. Probably this is no mere
coincidence, for Froom is given credit for writing most of QOD by none other
than those whom the book was written to please−Barnhouse and Martin.* As one
reads through Movement of Destiny, it
becomes increasingly clear that it is a defense of the evangelical meetings of
the fifties and the doctrinal positions embraced in Questions on Doctrine.
* Veteran evangelist,
Austin P. Cooke claims that during a visit to the USA in 1956, R. A. Anderson
told him that he was involved in writing an important book concerning Adventist
beliefs. Cooke believes this book was QOD (personal conversation with Author,
1988).
At
the time QOD was written, the price to the denomination appeared so high that
no one was courageous enough to underwrite it. But after some fourteen years of
exposure to its deadly heresies, Froom judged Adventists to have been
sufficiently brainwashed for him to safely endorse the heresies in Movement of Destiny with his own
signature. But he did it under the guise of presenting true Adventism in the
fullness of the 1888 message.
Conveniently, neither
Mrs. White nor Elders Waggoner and Jones were still around to object. Neither
was Daniells, for that matter.
Let
us briefly acquaint ourselves with the 1888 message of righteousness by faith
which our prophet claimed is the "Third Angel's Message in Verity"
(RH April 1, 1890) and the beginning of the latter rain. When Sister White heard
Elder Waggoner's presentation at Minneapolis, she was ecstatic:
“It
was the first clear teaching of the subject from any human lips I had heard;
excepting the communication between myself and my husband. I have said to
myself, it is because God has presented it to me in vision that I see it so
clearly and they [its detractors] cannot see it because they have not had it
presented to them as I have; and when another presented it, every fiber of my
heart said Amen.” (Manuscript 5, 1889).
Sister White, born Ellen
Gould Harmon, was reared and baptized in Methodism.
It would be fair to say
that in the Christian world, Methodists had been champions of the Protestant
dictum, "The just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11;
Hebrews 10:38). Unlike many of the Reformationist
churches, they stressed obedience to God's law as evidence of that faith.
Obviously
then, Sister White was referring to a message that encompassed more than
Wesley's understanding of the subject, for like Luther, Calvin and other
Reformers, he did not have an understanding of the
three angels' messages as revealed to Seventh-day Adventists.
It
was Elders E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones who picked up the threads of
Protestantism's unfinished garment and interwove it with the fabric of the
third angel's message. It is this garment of Christ's righteousness which, if
accepted by faith and worn in obedience, would enable the Seventh-day Adventist
Church to give the message that would light the whole world with glory (the
fourth angel of Revelation 18:1). This would be the inevitable result of the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, known as the latter rain. Said Mrs. White,
“There
are but few, even of those who claim to believe it, that comprehend the third
angel's message; and yet this is the message for this time. It is present
truth.... Said my guide: There is much light yet to shine forth from the law of
God and the gospel of righteousness. This message understood in its true character, and proclaimed in the Spirit will lighten the
earth with its glory.” (Ms. 15, 1888; Olsen, p. 296, quoted in 1888
Re-Examined).
That
a true comprehension of the third angel's message would lead us to emphasize to
the world the seriousness of living presently in the day of atonement, is made
clear:
“We
are in the day of atonement, and we are to work in harmony with Christ's work
of cleansing the sanctuary.... We must now set before the people the work which
by faith we see our great High-Priest accomplishing in the heavenly sanctuary”
(RH January 21, 1890).
So it is
abundantly clear that the 1888 message of righteousness by faith is unique to
Seventh-day Adventism. The message went much further than the Reformationist view which was circumscribed "by faith
alone." It was a message of faith that works, a faith that will enable us
to obey and "follow Jesus in His great work of atonement in the heavenly
sanctuary" (GC 430).
It is obvious then, that
those Seventh-day Adventists who deny Christ's continuing work of atonement, by
claiming it was finished at the cross, are circumscribed by Reformationist
theology. Inevitably, they will increasingly hanker after the fellowship of
those whose misunderstanding of the everlasting gospel they have followed. How
then can such leaders expect to be recipients of the latter rain and join with
the fourth angel of Revelation 18 in the magnificent task of lighting the whole
world with His glory?
False
doctrine is one of the satanic influences that work in the church,
and brings into it those who are unconverted in heart. Men do not obey
the words of Jesus Christ, and thus seek for unity in faith, spirit, and
doctrine. They do not labor for the unity of spirit for which Christ prayed,
which would make the testimony of Christ's disciples effective in convincing
the world that God had sent His Son into the world, "that whosoever
believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." If the
unity for which Christ prayed, existed among the people of God, they would bear
living testimony, would send forth a bright light to shine amid the moral
darkness of the world. Ellen G. White Testimonies to Ministers, p. 48
One
of error's insidious traits is its penchant for freeloading on the back of
truth. Its passage through Movement of
Destiny is no exception. If Adventism's doctrinal uniqueness is to be
destroyed, then its very heart, the sanctuary message, must ultimately be
targeted. But the attack must not be too obvious.
Froom
impressively announces the important truths of the sanctuary doctrine as being
crucial to the very existence of Seventh-day Adventism:
“Any
weakening or denial or submerging of the sanctuary truth is not only serious,
but a crucial matter. Any deviation or dereliction there-from strikes at the
heart of Adventism and challenges its very integrity.” (Movement of Destiny, p. 542).
Thus the
reader's mind is lulled into a sense of false security. How many will not
notice the gleam of a two-pronged dagger concealed beneath the cloak of truth?
The first prong is meant
to destroy Adventism's belief in the true humanity of Christ during His
Incarnation−a humanity like ours
in which He resisted sin and thus became our example; which in turn bestows on
Him the biblical qualification which befits Him to carry out the atoning work
as our heavenly High Priest (see Hebrews 4:15).
An
editorial in the Review and Herald
December 16, 1884, announcing a new edition of the book, The Atonement, by J.
H. Waggoner, made this pertinent observation linking Christ's human nature with
his qualifications as a High Priest:
“In
[the atonement] is involved the great central "mystery" of the
Gospel, "God manifest in the flesh," a divine being bearing the
nature of the seed of Abraham.” (as quoted in The Word Made Flesh, p. 42).
The
second prong is meant to show that the atonement was completed at Calvary in order to satisfy the popular evangelical belief that
Christ's work of salvation was completed at the cross. Therefore
any future priestly ministry is explained simply as the application of benefits
flowing from a completed atonement.
Let
us examine the methods employed by Froom in this two pronged
attack.
Froom directs our minds
to the time when a few of our pioneers had brought some Arian* views to
Adventism. Uriah Smith was one such person.
* Arianism. A belief
pertaining to Arius of Alexandria in the fourth century who held Christ to be a
super-angelic being.
Elder
E. J. Waggoner had dealt with this diminishing problem at the 1888 Minneapolis
Conference by upholding Christ's deity as "all the fulness of the
Godhead," meaning of course that Christ was an uncreated and eternal
member of the triune Godhead.
This
position was always taken by Mrs. White as, coming out of Methodism, she had
never held Arian views.
But
while the reader is left pondering over the fact that some of our pioneers had
been wrong, Froom, by innuendo and timing, sets up in the mind of the reader a
link between Christ's earthly nature and the fulness of His Godhead. Referring
to Waggoner's book, Christ and His Righteousness, he says:
“The
full significance of Waggoner's highly significant descriptive concerning
Christ's nature must not be missed. It is vital. He especially declared that
Christ "is of the very substance and nature of God"! (MOD, p. 277).
Froom
then quickly presses home his intent:
“Waggoner
and his colleagues were moving definitely away from both the Arian and semi-Arian positions" (MOD, p.278).
We
are not aware that Waggoner had any Arian or semi-Arian
views, but we do know that he believed that Christ took upon himself the nature
of fallen humanity. Therefore it may appear to some
that Froom is trying to show that those with similar views are hooked on a
vestige of Arianism.
Then in
discussing the 1888 message of righteousness by faith, he says:
“It
involved the very nature of Christ in whom the faith was to be invested.”
(ibid. p. 318).
Is
Froom planting the idea in our minds that Waggoner, in rejecting Arianism, is
repudiating the biblical concept of a truly human Christ? We had better see
just what Waggoner's position was.
“The
spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only
counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself
sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made
righteousness.” (Christ and His
Righteousness, pp. 27, 28).
But
such a forceful declaration on Christ's humanity does not suit Froom. How does
he overcome this problem? He simply resorts to a tactic with which he is
becoming quite adept. He takes a few words and phrases from a statement and
intersperses them with his own wording which, when strung together, form a
statement which obscures the intent of the original author.
Let's
look at Froom's treatment of the last sentence of our quotation from Waggoner:
“He
was actually "made"−vicariously−to "be sin for us" that we "might be made
the righteousness of God in Him." (MOD, p. 197).
Notice
Froom's insertion of the word vicariously. This makes sheer mockery of the plan
of salvation by attributing to Christ a make−believe human nature and constitutes blatant tampering
with Waggoner's stated belief. Dr. Larson cites from the 1891 G. C. Bulletin,
six instances in which Waggoner stated his position. They all accord with this
sampling:
“But
what the law could not do, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh to
do.... Jesus was made in all things like unto those whom He came to save.” (The Word Was Made Flesh, pp.
48-49).
During
the two years following 1888, Mrs. White gave unstinted support to Waggoner and
Jones as they traveled about expounding on the theme of Christ's righteousness.
In 1889, she upheld Christ's true divinity and His acceptance of our fallen
nature by saying:
“He
took upon Him our nature that He might reach man in his fallen condition.” (ST
September 23, 1889).
And
what about Jones? Did he share Froom's "vicarious" nature theory? Not
at all! During his series of lectures on the third angel's message at the
General Conference session of 1893, he made at least three statements similar to this one:
“Ah,
the Lord Jesus Christ, who came and stood where I stand, in the flesh in which
I live, He lived there.” (G. C. Bulletin 1893, p. 412).
Let
us remind our readers that Froom claims to be enlarging on the message
commenced by Daniells in his book Christ Our Righteousness. With that goes the
assumption that he is in agreement with Daniells' view
of Christ's earthly nature. But that is not so. On page 38, Daniells quotes:
“Describe,
if human language can, the humiliation of the Son of God, and think not that
you have reached the climax, when you see Him exchanging the throne of light
and glory which He had with the Father, for humanity.” (RH September 11, 1888).
Is
this Froom's "vicarious" or make-believe humanity that Daniells is
describing? Certainly not! While ministerial secretary of the General
Conference, Daniells had made his understanding plain:
“[He
was made] like you, like me ... having triumphed over sin in sinful flesh.” (RH
November 7, 1929).
So it is clear
that Froom is not fulfilling Daniells' commission (if indeed he had been
commissioned), nor is he in agreement with the exponents of the 1888 message of
righteousness by faith. (Whatever happened to Froom's commitment to
truthfulness when he accepted Daniells' admonition "to be fair and
faithful to fact"? see chapter seven).
Now
we shall see how Froom tackles his biggest obstacle the Spirit of Prophecy.
Typically, he seeks the support of Mrs. White, whom he lauds as "the
peerless witness" (MOD chapters 28, 29). Because her evidence happens to be in disagreement with Froom's "vicarious" or
make-believe human nature of Christ, he resorts to what Dr. Larson describes as
"fraudulent" methods, and something which should be rectified by
Adventists before our enemies expose this perfidy to world gaze. (See The Fraud of the Unfallen Nature, a pamphlet by
Larson.) Also, in his book, The Word
Was Made Flesh, Dr. Larson describes Froom's tactics as "a methodological
monstrosity" (pg. 247).
One
such tactic is to seek to interpret Mrs. White's statements by supplying
misleading subheadings over her statements a device which he apparently
regarded as highly successful in the book Questions
on Doctrine.
We
shall mention here, just one example of several as exposed by Larson. On page
497 of Movement of Destiny we find
subheading No 5, TOOK
SINLESS NATURE OF ADAM BEFORE FALL. There follows a veritable hotch-potch collection of words and phrases taken from
nineteen Spirit of Prophecy quotations. No references are given. These are
linked together by Froom's wording to make them appear to uphold the false
declaration of his subheading.
In
analyzing these nineteen mini-quotes, Larson takes us to the source quotations
and it soon becomes apparent that Mrs. White said the opposite of what Froom is
trying to make her say. Conveniently, Froom deletes the unwanted portions of
her opening statement which provides the context. Here it is with the unwanted
portion emphasized for identification:
“In
taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition [that is, after four
thousand years of sin], Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.”
(1SM 256).
Needless to say, Froom astutely avoids such forceful statements as:
“He
humbled Himself, taking the nature of the fallen race.... He knows by
experience what are the weaknesses of humanity . . . and where lies the
strength of our temptations.” (The
Watchman, 3 September 1907 p. 563, quoted in The Word Was Made Flesh p.
146).
The second
prong of the dagger will be discussed in the following chapter.
|
We need to settle, every one of
us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not. There are
a great many that have got the marks yet, but I am persuaded of this, that
every soul who is here tonight desires to know the way of truth and
righteousness (Congregation: Amen!), and that there is no one here who is
unconsciously clinging to the dogmas of the Papacy, who does not desire to be
freed from them.... Suppose we start with the idea
for a moment that Jesus was so separate from us, that is,
so different from us that he did not have in his flesh anything to contend
with. It was sinless flesh. Then, of course, you see how the Roman
Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception necessarily follows. But why stop
there? Mary being born sinless, then, of course, her mother also had sinless
flesh. But you can not stop there. You must go back to her mother, -and so
back until you come to Adam; and the result? There never was a fall: Adam
never sinned; and thus, you see, by that tracing of it, we find the essential
identity of Roman Catholicism and Spiritualism. E. J.
Waggoner General Conference Bulletin
1901, p. 404. |
Having
appeased the evangelicals, perhaps unwittingly, by robbing Christ of his
qualifications to be our heavenly High Priest (as in Hebrews 2:17, 18; 4:15), Froom
now moves in to emasculate our sanctuary message by cutting the atonement off
at the cross. But as long as Adventism continues to
believe that the earthly sanctuary services were instituted to prefigure the
service of the sanctuary in heaven, this would be impossible.
So Froom sets
about to distance the "earthly" from the "heavenly" by
emphasizing that the earthly shadow was not an exact image (see Hebrews 10:1,
MOD 558). Hopefully then, he can lead us to believe that the shadow was so distorted
that all the atoning work of the earthly priesthood had no counterpart in
heaven.
Ridiculous
as this dissimilarity seems, this is exactly what Froom is about−not that he denies Christ's ministerial role in the
heavenly sanctuary−he just insists that
Christ is applying the benefits of a completed atonement. "The earthly was
simply a figure for the time then present," he says (MOD p. 557).
How
differently the Lord's Messenger views type and antitype!
“We are in the great Day of Atonement and
the sacred work of Christ for the people of God that is going on at the present time in the heavenly sanctuary, should be our
constant study. We should teach our children what the typical Day of atonement
signified, and that it was a special season of great humiliation and confession
of sins before God. The antitypical day of atonement is to be of the same
character.” (5T 520).
How
then, does our self-appointed exponent of righteousness by faith overcome the
recurring obstacle of the Spirit of Prophecy?
He simply
reverts to the old technique of interpreting the SOP to his own ends−a little more subjective selection and word manipulation
arranged under misleading headings. Let us take an example from page 501 of Movement of Destiny. We have a
subheading, "COMPLETE ATONEMENT MADE ON CROSS" under which we read,
"When the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son [on the cross] He said,
`It is enough. The Atonement is complete."' And again, "When He
offered Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the
people." And so on. From such fragments of SOP quotations Froom, draws the
conclusion:
“The
transaction of the cross, then, is indisputably the act of the atonement.” (MOD
p. 501).
Once
again, the references for these fragmented quotations are withheld, and
probably for very good reasons. How many of our readers would have the
inclination or the facilities to source these quotations and check them out? If
we were to do so, it would become apparent that they were written in the
context of the sacrificial aspect of the atonement. (The quotations come from
RH September 24, 1901 and ST June 28, 1899 respectively.)
When
QOD had dealt with exactly the same quotations some
fourteen years earlier, they had been correctly listed under the subheading,
"COMPLETE SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT MADE ON CROSS" (QOD p. 663).
If we
are to believe that Froom was the main author and editor of QOD, it would seem that Froom's interpretative role had expanded
considerably. What was then a "complete sacrificial atonement" had
now become a "complete atonement" (MOD, p. 501).
Briefly,
let us look at another of Froom's misleading subheadings and garbled
quotations:
“CROSS
SOLE MEANS OF ATONEMENT. The cross is thus the "means of man's
atonement." There could have been "no pardon for sin had this
atonement not been made." So, "the cross was ordained as a means of
atonement." Christ "gave Himself an atoning sacrifice" (ibid.,
p. 502).
It
will be noticed that in spite of Froom's efforts, he
does not succeed in making Mrs. White state that the cross was the "sole
means of atonement" (as in the subheading). She merely claims that it was
"a means of man's atonement"−which of course, is
quite correct. There can be no atonement in the heavenly sanctuary (as in the
earthly) without the sacrifice which provides the blood. So once again, Froom
devises an interpretative subheading as a substitute for fact.
No
wonder he refrains from quoting Mrs. White on the continuing atonement in
heaven! In that marvelous work of inspiration, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, she describes
Christ's judicial mediatorial role which started at the close of Daniel's great
time prophecy ending in 1844 (Daniel 8:14):
Attended
by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the Holy of holies, and there
appears in the presence of God, to engage in the last acts of His ministration
in behalf of men to perform the work of investigative judgment, and to make an
atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits (GC 480,
emphasis added).
And
what of Froom's claims that Christ is merely administering the
"benefits" of a completed atonement? Hear the truth from God's
Messenger:
“It is those who by faith follow Jesus in
the great work of atonement, who receive the benefits of His mediation in their
behalf; while those who reject the light which brings
to view this work of ministration, are not benefited thereby.” (GC 430).
So it can be
seen that Dr. Froom's claim of benefits being provided from a completed earthly
atonement is complete nonsense.
What does inspiration say
Christ is doing? He is "pleading His blood before the Father in behalf of
sinners." Whether or not we receive the benefits of His mediation during
this final phase of the atonement, is up to us. Who will not receive the benefits?
"Those who reject the light which brings to view this work of
ministration."
Do
the authors of QOD reject this light? They certainly do, while taking upon
themselves the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Spirit of Prophecy.
Just listen to them:
“When
therefore one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature, even in
the writings of Ellen G. White, that Christ is making atonement now, it should
be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the
benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross.” (QOD pp. 354,
355).
No
wonder no one had the courage to append his signature to this specious
document! No wonder Elder Andreasen described QOD as an attempt to lessen and
destroy confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy and establish a "new
theology."-(See Letters to the
Churches No. 3).
No wonder Dr. Wilkinson
claimed that it was a dagger aimed at the heart of Adventism! What then, would
he have said about Movement of Destiny?
That
there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom
God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that He took on Him the
nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that He
dwelt among men, full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our
sacrifice, and was raised for our justification.
He
ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where,
with His own blood, He makes atonement for our sins; which atonement so far
from being made on the cross, which was by the offering of the sacrifice, is
the very last portion of His work as priest according to the example of the
Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our
Lord in heaven. See Lev. 16; Heb. 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7; etc.
Principle No.
2, Declaration of Fundamental Principles
Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists, 1872.
CHAPTER 12 - False
Claims and Trickery
The
history of apostasy in the Christian church testifies to the fact that the
introduction of heresies is a gradual process. Sometimes they are introduced as
acceptable alternatives, as in the case of Constantine's introduction of Sunday
as a holy day. Others are introduced as new light on previously held views that
eventually end up as supposed corrections to that view. Still others gain a
foothold on the basis that the church has held them all along, but somehow they have been forgotten. None of the heresies gain instant widespread acceptance,
simply because it takes time for a generation of believers to pass away.
Such
methods to achieve change are being repeated in Seventh-day Adventism today.
Just listen to Dr. Froom:
“And in addition to the complete Deity of
Christ, Adventists had long been emphasizing the completed act of atonement on the cross, with our High Priest
applying its wondrous benefits through His heavenly ministry. This was now our
standard and general teaching-for decades before the time of the interviews.
And as stated, this was affirmed and buttressed by the uniform baptismal
certificate, with its covenant and vows of 1941 required of all candidates for
membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” (MOD, p. 482).
Let
us examine this statement and its implications. First, a truth is stated−Adventists had long been emphasizing the complete deity
of Christ (meaning that we were not Arian), but it is coupled to an untruth−that we had long accepted the notion of a completed act
of atonement at the cross and that Christ is now merely applying the benefits
of that act.
Second,
we are told that this had been our standard teaching for "decades"
prior to the evangelical interviews commenced in 1955 (but meaning, at least
since 1935).
Third,
it was a requirement of belief for all baptismal candidates since 1941.
Now
let us test the credibility of Froom's statements. We will go back to the year
1952, only three years prior to the evangelical interviews, when the editor of Review and Herald, F. D. Nichol,
published his ministerial handbook, Answers
to Objections. Speaking of some objections to our doctrines over which some
leave the Adventist Church, he observes on page 751:
“He
[the ex-Adventist] speaks militantly of the "finished work of Christ on
the cross."
Nichol
then goes to some pains to show that such a position is devoid of logic:
“Of
those who charge us with teaching strange doctrines because we believe that
Christ's work of atonement for sin was begun rather than completed on Calvary,
we ask the question "If a complete and final atonement was made on the
cross for all sins, then will not all be saved?" for Paul says that
"He died for all."
“Are
we to understand you as being universalists? "No," you say, "not
all men will be saved." Well then, are we to understand that you hold that
Christ made complete atonement on the cross for only a limited few, and that
His sacrifice was not world embracing, but only partial? That would be
predestination in its worst form.” (Answers
to Objections, 1952, p. 408).
Note
the time just three years prior to the evangelical meetings−not "decades"! But the editor of the Review and Herald was by no means the
only one of our leaders to believe in a continuing atonement. Other books written and/or
circulated during the decades 1935-1955 which upheld Christ's continuing work
of atonement come to mind:
W. H. Branson's Drama of the Ages
F. C. Gilbert's Messiah in His Sanctuary
C. H. Watson's Atoning Work of Christ
M. L. Andreasen's The Sanctuary Service and
The Epistle to the Hebrews
On the other hand
we know of no books published by Adventism that taught a "completed
atonement" prior to the publication of Questions
on Doctrine. We have noted how, in the
1949 revision of Bible Readings the
"repugnant" reference
to Christ's "sinful fallen nature" had been deleted. Yet, no
attempt to revise our belief on the heavenly atonement was made. We quote from
the 1951 edition published by Review and
Herald:
In
the service of the heavenly sanctuary there is but one sacrifice; and but one
atonement, or cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, can be made, which must take place at the time
assigned of God for it (Bible
Readings, 1951, 205).
As
the atonement day of the former dispensation was really a day of judgment, so
the atonement work of Christ will include the investigation of the cases of His
people prior to His coming the second time to receive them unto Himself (ibid., 207).
So
much for Froom's "standard and general teaching for decades before the
interviews" But what about his assertion that the "completed
atonement" was "affirmed and buttressed by the baptismal certificate
of 1941"? Let's take a careful look at Baptismal Vow No. 2:
“Do
you accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as an atoning sacrifice for the
sins of men and believe that through faith in His shed blood, men are saved
from sin and its penalty?” (Church Manual,
1951 edition).
Can an honest person
agree with Froom's contention that this vow supports a "Completed Act of
Atonement on the Cross"? This vow describes Christ's death as an
"atoning sacrifice" just as we would describe the sacrifice in the
typical earthly service. Interestingly, this vow also states that we are
"saved through faith in His shed blood," which is backed up by
traditional Adventist teaching and the Spirit of Prophecy.
Speaking
of the heavenly sanctuary, Mrs. White writes,
“The
ark that enshrines the tables of the law is covered with the mercy-seat before
which Christ pleads His blood in the sinner's behalf. This is represented as
the union of justice and mercy in the plan of redemption.” (GC 415).
And
what of the men who formulated this baptismal statement? Did they intend it to
uphold Froom's contention that it "confirmed and buttressed" a
complete atonement? The committee which formulated the baptismal vow consisted
of thirteen men under the chairmanship of W. H. Branson, some of whom
were:
J. L.
McElhany, G. C. president
W. G.
Turner, G. C. vice-president
L. E.
Froom, secretary of ministerial association
R. A.
Anderson, associate ministerial secretary
D. E.
Rebok, president of SDA Theological Seminary
(D. E. Rebok is credited with the
actual alteration of Bible Readings
on the "nature of Christ" under the direction of R. A. Anderson.)
Well,
we probably know what Froom and Anderson had in mind as to the meaning behind
the wording of the vow, because of their later obvious desire to alter our
sanctuary belief to please Barnhouse. But what of Elder Branson, who was
appointed chairman of the committee? In his book Drama of the Ages, Branson says,
“In
the heavenly [Sanctuary] the blood of Jesus is actually presented as a
sacrificial atonement for the sins of the people. In the earthly sanctuary, the
services were performed by men. In the heavenly, Christ is the minister, and
daily pleads the merits of His own blood in behalf of repentant sinners.”
(p.257).
Furthermore,
Branson had upheld Nichol's teaching of a continuing atonement when he wrote
the Foreword to Answers to Objections.
In it, Branson made known his attitude to Adventist doctrine:
“Throughout
their entire history, Seventh-day Adventists have stood for certain distinct
doctrines, some of which differ rather sharply from the teachings of other
Christian bodies. Because of our insistence upon the scriptural authenticity of
these unpopular teachings, we
have naturally found it frequently necessary to defend our positions against
those who would by careless or faulty interpretation seek to sweep away the
distinctive tenets of our faith.”
How
awesomely significant then, to realize in retrospect, that at least one member
of Branson's committee had knowingly helped to formulate a baptismal vow that
(to his way of thinking) could be interpreted later to uphold a completed
atonement! Significantly, although holding the position of ministerial secretary
and editor of the Ministry from 1941
to 1950, Froom kept his interpretation and views of an emasculated atonement
out of print until such time as a sympathetic
president ascended the throne in Washington. One can only speculate as to how
many more cuckoo's eggs are nestling snugly in the "fundamental"
jargon of Seventh day Adventism.
CHAPTER 13 - Kingdom, Czardom
or Popedom?
We
have seen how error rides smugly on the back of truth. But the converse is not possible,
for truth cannot be attracted to error. It is therefore evident that any cause which relies on concealment, trickery and lies, or any
other subterfuge to get its message across, must of necessity be a dishonest
cause. This fact alone should discount any doctrinal conclusions drawn from
dishonest arguments and propositions as found in Questions On Doctrine and Movement of Destiny.
But
sadly, these books are now looked upon by the majority of
administrators and leaders in the SDA church of Australasia as doctrinally
authoritative. Those who point
out the twin errors of Christ's limited humanity and His limited atonement are
penalized by an administration which is bent on carrying out an undertaking
given to Barnhouse to enforce the new stand. This is not altogether
surprising when we remember that both books were published with the blessings
of the contemporary G. C. presidents* and promoted vigorously by the vast
resources of the church.
* As previously noted, Pastor Pierson
later repudiated his Foreword to Movement of Destiny. Before this
deplorable dilemma can be resolved, it is essential that we understand the
political side of the equation. It is essential to discover how an organization
which was formed to preach the three angels' messages has now become
counterproductive to the very aims which brought it into existence. Why is it
that the call to come out of Babylon has been replaced by demands to conform to
Babylon? Why is it, that instead of being a separate people, we now find
ourselves in bed with Babylon's daughters, the popular evangelicals?
Only
with a proper understanding of the mechanism which has assisted this unholy
union, will the church be able to return to its God-given task of preaching the
third angel's message and be in a position to repel
future attempts at seduction. In other words, it is vital that we learn from
history in order that we may profit by our mistakes. It is not generally known
that organization and religious liberty were issues around the time of the 1888
meetings. Just prior to the commencement of the General Conference meetings at
Battle Creek, 1901, Mrs. White had declared that there must be:
“an
entire new organization and to have a Committee that shall take in not merely
half a dozen that is to be a ruling and controlling power ... to have this
Conference pass on and close up as the Conferences have done, with the same
manipulating, with the very same tone, and the same order −God forbid! ... This thing has been continued for the
last fifteen years or more, and God calls for a change.”(quoted
by Jones in a letter to Daniells, January 26, 1906).
This
makes it plain that Mrs. White was objecting to an organization that had
allowed a few men to "manipulate" our work for a period extending
back prior to the 1888 conference. She continued:
“From
the light that I have ... there was a narrow compass here; there within that
narrow compass is a king-like, a kingly ruling power. God means what He says,
"I want a change here!" (Ibid.)
It
was this "kingly" power which had prevented our leaders from humbling
their hearts and had thwarted the Holy Spirit's attempt to bless our church
with the latter rain.
At
the 1893 General Conference in Battle Creek, Elder A. T. Jones had drawn such
spontaneous confession from the delegates while lecturing on the third angel's
message.
“Now
brethren, when did that message of the righteousness of Christ begin with us as
a people? [One or two in the audience: "Three or four years ago."]
... Yes, four. Where was it? [Congregation: "Minneapolis."] What then
did the brethren reject at Minneapolis? The Loud Cry.... They rejected the
latter rain-the loud cry of the third angel's message.” (G. C. Bulletin, 1893,
p. 183).
It
seems that A. T. Jones soon incurred the displeasure of President Daniells who
had sought to circumscribe his activities during his term at Battle Creek
Sanitarium as Bible instructor. But problems arose as Daniells saw fit to take
part in secret meetings with others of the Sanitarium staff to which Jones was
not invited.
During an address at a regular monthly meeting of the
Sanitarium family held on March 4, 1906, Jones commented at some length on the
meetings and said,
"Whatsoever is not
as open as the day is of the methods of Satan. "*
*Jones enunciated a
principle which does not appear to be understood by some present-day
administrators of the S.D.A. Church, e.g. the secrecy of boardroom meetings.
Jones then read to the
meeting most of a letter which he had written to Daniells a few weeks earlier,
on 26th January. In the main, it had recounted the history of the
reorganization of the General Conference in 1901, and the subsequent return in
1903 of the conference to its former bureaucracy.** He reminded Daniells that
the reorganization of 1901 was the call away from a centralized order of things
in which ... a few men held the ruling and directing power, to an organization
in which all the people as individuals should have a part, with God, in Christ,
by the Holy Spirit as the unifying and directing power (quoted in Jones' letter
to Daniells).
**Jones quotes from the
standard Dictionary: "A bureaucracy is sure to think that its duty is to
augment official power, official business, or official numbers, rather than to
leave free the energies of mankind." This could explain the decretive manner in which the South Pacific Division recently foisted
a Babylonian-like hymnbook and a gallows-like logo upon our church.
It
was with this understanding that a new constitution was adopted and, "the
monarchy was swept away completely." This was in harmony with Mrs. White's
wishes. Said she:
“We
want to understand that there are no gods in our Conference. There are to be no
kings here and no kings in any conference that is formed, "all ye are
brethren"
(ibid.).
So it is quite evident
that the former organization had degenerated into a bureaucratic power led by
presidents. Mrs. White called it a "kingly power." This had now
changed. It was replaced by a committee as described by Jones:
“Under
this [new] constitution the General Conference Committee was composed of a large number of men, with power to organize itself by
choosing a chairman, etc. No president of the General Conference was chosen;
nor was any provided for. The presidency of the General Conference was
eliminated to escape a centralized power, a one-man power, a kingship, a
monarchy.” (ibid.).
But
the General Conference did not remain without a president for long. Like in
Israel of old, there was a clamor for "kingly" leaders. Let Jones
take up the story as he castigates Daniells for disobeying the wishes of God by
violating the newly-formed constitution [just two years after 1901]:
“A
few men . . . without any kind of authority, but directly against the plain
words of the constitution, took it absolutely upon themselves to elect you
president, and Brother Prescott vice-president of the General Conference. And
that there never was in this universe a clearer piece of usurpation of
position, power, and authority ... “You two were, then, of right, just as much
president and vice president of Timbuktu as you were of the Seventh-day
Adventist General Conference.” (ibid.).
The
strength of this rebuke to the two top officers of the church should not be
lost upon readers.* Jones then outlines the actions
taken by Daniells and his supporters to give the usurpation an air of
legitimacy:
“A new constitution was
framed to fit and to uphold usurpation.” (ibid.).
* Neither was this rebuke lost upon Daniells.
Many consider that as a result of such outspoken
rebukes, Daniells virtually hounded Jones out of the Church. But it seems that
in later life, Daniells repented of his attitude toward Jones and acknowledged
that "Jones was right and I was wrong" (source: Pastor G. Bumside, following a conversation with Meade McGuire in
USA, 1946).
This,
Jones saw as "a Czardom ... which has since gone
steadily forward," and he went on to back up his view with the feelings of
some men of experience within the denomination:
“There has never been
such a one-man power, such a centralized despotism, so much of papacy! ... And
as a part of this bureaucracy, there is of all the incongruous things ever
heard of, a Religious Liberty Bureau−a contradiction in
terms.” (ibid.).
And
now for Jones' summation of the situation:
“The
Seventh-day Adventist denomination is more like the Catholic Church than is any
other Protestant church in the world (ibid.).* [For a
reproduction of Jones' historic letter, see Appendix.]
And so
within the Seventh-day Adventist Church was reinstalled an instrument of
"papal-like, kingly" authority, the basic structure of which remains
in place to this day. This is not to imply that all succeeding presidents have
taken advantage of the "kingly" authority. But some have used it to
the peril of our church; and either intentionally or by manipulation, a few men
have usurped a position comparable to the Vatican Curia, taking upon themselves
the responsibility of redefining our church doctrines.
*Let us remind the
reader that this is Jones describing the S.D.A. organization of 1906. Any
similarity of Jones' description to conditions today is entirely providential
and warrants close examination.
CHAPTER 14 - The Atonement, Completed or Uncompleted-Who Cares?
Recently,
the author was discussing Adventism's latest pronouncement- "Seventh-day
Adventists Believe. .. " with a retired minister.
The observation was made that President
N. C. Wilson and the General Conference* were still pushing the heresy of a
completed atonement, citing the following:
“The atonement, or reconciliation, was completed on the
cross as foreshadowed by the sacrifices, and the penitent believer can trust in
this finished work of our Lord.” ("Seventh-day
Adventists Believe. ..
", p. 315).
* Under the heading
"We Gratefully Acknowledge ..." we read: "With the authorization
and encouragement of president Neal C. Wilson and the other officers of the
General Conference of Seventhday Adventists, the
Ministerial Association has undertaken to prepare this volume to furnish
reliable information on beliefs of our church" ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe... ", p. v).
Imagine the author's
surprise to learn that this minister, who to the best of the author's knowledge
is a firm believer in our sanctuary message, could see nothing wrong with such
a statement.**
** The reader will notice
that this statement not only repeats Froom's error of a completed atonement,
but incorrectly implies that this was foreshadowed by the earthly sacrifices, and comes perilously close to satisfying the
evangelicals' demands that a Christian must believe in Christ's completed work
of salvation.
A
similar experience took place a few days later while talking to a very
respected evangelist whose faith in our sanctuary and other historic messages seems
undiminished. He could see nothing wrong with the claims of Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny, that Christ is now
"administering the benefits of a completed atonement at the cross."
Both men felt that the author was reading an unwarranted intent into a
perfectly innocent statement.
But
let it ever be remembered that the overriding purpose of QOD was to convince
Christendom that we believe in Christ's completed work of atonement (and by
implication, salvation) in order to escape the stigma
of cultism. Barnhouse and Martin, having been satisfied on this point,
then ridiculed our claim that Christ is carrying on a further work in the
heavenly Sanctuary as being illogical. Said Barnhouse:
“Any
effort to establish it [Christ's heavenly ministry] is stale, flat and
unprofitable.” (Eternity, September
1956).
And
again,
“The
latter doctrine [investigative judgment], to me, is the most colossal, facesaving phenomenon in religious history!” (Ibid.).
An attempt to overcome
such "logical criticism" is currently being manifested in the South
Pacific Division where ministers are teaching that the "pre-Advent
judgment" [the preferred term for the investigative judgment]*
refers to God's judgment; i.e. it is God who is being judged in order that the
universe should see the justice of God in His dealings with Satan.
* In "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. ", p. 317, the
investigative judgment is referred to as the pre-millennial judgment" and
"pre-Advent judgment."
While preaching at the
Avondale Memorial Church, Pastor Geoff Youlden of the
South Pacific Division Media Centre claimed that in the pre-Advent judgment,
"God is up for judgment" and that "God is in the hot seat"
(Sermon, "The Gospel and the
Judgment," August 20, 1988). When the author later pointed out to him
that this is an echo of Fordian teaching,**
he claimed that he knew nothing of what Ford believes or teaches! Such a claim
is all the more astounding when it is realized that Youlden studied under Ford at Avondale College. Such teaching
appears to retain belief in the investigative judgment, while shifting its
emphasis on to God's shoulders. Thus the impact of the
first angel's message of Revelation 14, which is an urgent call for personal
preparedness, is effectively muted.
** Ford wrote in Australian
Signs of the Times, June 24, 1957 under the heading "Will believers and Their Sins Come to
Judgment?": "God has placed Himself on trial before the
universe."
This view is not only comparatively new to
Adventism but is contrary to the Spirit of Prophecy:
“The
act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven
accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son
in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan.” (PP 69; see Appendix for chapter
twenty five).
The
authority of the Spirit of Prophecy is upheld in the S.D.A. Bible Commentary. Here it is clearly acknowledged that God's
method of dealing with sin has been eternally vindicated before the universe:
“The
supreme demonstration was made by the incarnation, life and death of God's own
Son. God now stood wholly vindicated before the universe.... Thus
the charges of Satan were refuted and the peace of the universe was made
eternally sure. God's character had been vindicated before the universe.” (S.D.A. Bible Commentary vol. 6, p. 508).
There
is no doubt that many Adventists are quite naive when accepting deceptive
pronouncements which are aimed at destroying biblical Adventist positions. If
such statements should come with the blessings of presidents and others who
have attained influential positions, it becomes difficult to accept that they
are misleading. Instead, some strive to interpret these statements to harmonize
with traditional Adventist beliefs. This is the genius of Satan's chicanery,
for while trusting souls are silently consenting, heretics are energetically
exploiting this dual state of the art.
Dr.
Desmond Ford, ex-minister of the S.D.A. Church and still a member of Pacific Union College Church,
exploits the "finished atonement" concept to explain his evangelical
view of a term used almost exclusively by Adventists−"Everlasting Gospel."
In his magazine, Good News Australia, August 1988, Ford
writes under the heading,
"Meditation upon the Everlasting Gospel."
He says,
“Thus in every place where Paul mentions "the
righteousness of faith," he means not sanctification, but that
justification which is based on the finished atonement.” (p. 2).
Notice
that his conclusions on sanctification and justification are based on a
"finished atonement."
Even
being a credentialed minister of the S.D.A. Church does not hinder Pastor Vern Heise from expressing his views in Ford's Good News Australia. Naturally, they are
compatible with Ford's evangelical-type gospel. In an article, "Have You Been to Church at Antioch?",
Heise takes a tilt at religious "groups that
feel that they are "sole custodians of the truth." Of course, being a
veteran minister past retiring age, he would be very aware that the S.D.A.
Church is the "sole custodian" of the sanctuary truth with its
judgment-hour message. Heise tells us that “there
were those in Jerusalem that wanted to make Christianity hard work. They were
enjoying their masochism-their self-imposed penances. They were like some today
who will perform their religion even if it kills them!” (Good News Australia, September 1988).
Then comes the punch line to which his whole article has
been targeted:
“On
the other hand, the church in Antioch rejoiced in and celebrated the finished
work of Christ.” (ibid.).
Yes, that is how the "finished work of our
Lord" ("Seventh-day Adventists
Believe . . . ") is being interpreted from within our church−shades of Barnhouse, who sees our belief in Christ's
heavenly atoning ministry as "stale, flat and unprofitable," and the
keeping of Sabbath as legalistic. (A "self-imposed penance"?
"Performing their religion even if it kills them"?)
May
we remind the reader of Elder F. D. Nichol's words quoted in chapter 12:
“[The
ex-Adventist] speaks militantly of the finished work of Christ on the cross.” (Answers to Objections, p. 751).
Now, over thirty-five
years later, it is a credentialed, ordained minister of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church who so speaks. And who does he now have to back him? Well,
according to "Seventh day Adventists
Believe. ..
", he could quote the Ministerial Association, who have the authorization
and encouragement of president Neal C. Wilson and the other officers of the
General Conference.
But
worse is to come. The Ministerial Association tells us that "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " is a biblical
exposition of the twenty-seven "Fundamental
Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists" (p. iv and cover title). Yet all
the while, recent converts to our church, and young people particularly, are
being brainwashed with the evangelical interpretation of a make-believe
brother/Saviour Who finished His work at Calvary.
To
the carnal mind, a bargain in cheap grace, or salvation in sin, is very
appealing. Qualms of conscience can be assuaged by deductive reasoning based on
new and erroneous positions touted by official publications of the S.D.A.
Church. It goes something like this:
Because Jesus came to this earth with the
nature of unfallen Adam, He did not inherit the sinful tendencies that I
received from my parents, and therefore, He had an advantage over me and He
does not expect me to follow Him as my example.
And because He completed His atoning work
of salvation at the cross, there is no need for a later investigative judgment
in heaven. If I try to keep his commandments, I am rejecting Christ's victory
over sin on my behalf and I am actually committing the
sin of trying to save myself by my own works.
Perhaps
in the cold light of logic, we should be grateful to the General Conference for
showing us in "Seventh-day
Adventists Believe ... " that they are unable to clearly interpret their Fundamental Belief No. 23, as
enunciated at Dallas. Just look at this pathetic effort to portray the
earthly sacrifice as the atonement in an attempt to
make their "completed atonement" at the cross appear credible:
“The
application of the atoning blood during the mediatorial ministry of the priest
was also seen as a form of atonement.” (Leviticus 4:35) ("Seventh-day
Adventists Believe .. . ", p. 315).
"A
form of atonement"? What nonsense! It was a crucial part of the atonement.
But
lo and behold, these equivocators are caught in the trap of their own making
and go on to contradict their previous statement of "the finished
work." In defiance of Barnhouse's and Ford's logic, they have to justify Christ's further ministry in heaven.
They
say,
“Christ's
priestly ministry provides for the sinner's forgiveness and reconciliation to
God.” Hebrews 7:25 (ibid., p. 317).
And
again,
“The heavenly
sanctuary is the great command center where Christ conducts His priestly
ministry for our salvation.” (ibid., p. 316).
And yet, just one page back (315), we have
been told that "the atonement or reconciliation was completed on the
cross"! Such is the dilemma into which
people arrive when they endeavor to produce a book on Adventist beliefs that
has something for everyone.*
And if this dose of double-talk
has not sufficiently confused the meaning of Fundamental 23, here is more, as
we read:
“The issue [investigative judgment] is with God and the
universe, not between God and the true child.”
(ibid., p. 326).
*Many
consider the latest statement of Fundamental
Beliefs to be a consensus statement. This was openly claimed by pastor Rex
Moe at a special business meeting of the Avondale church (September 27, 1987)
in his attempt to prove that various interpretations of our Fundamentals are
allowed. Now, in "Seventh-day
Adventists Believe. ..
", we have the farcical
situation of a consensus interpretation of a consensus statement!
In
the light of such enchanting statements, the instruction given by God's
messenger takes on a new urgency for Seventh-day Adventists today:
“We are individually to be judged according
to the deeds done in the body. In the typical service, when the work of
atonement was performed by the high priest in the Most Holy Place of the
earthly sanctuary, the people were required to afflict their souls before God,
and confess their sins, that they might be atoned for and blotted out. Will any
less be required of us in this anti-typical day of atonement, when Christ in
the sanctuary above is pleading in behalf of His people, and the final
irrevocable decision is to be pronounced upon every case? ..
.
”We must no longer remain
upon enchanted ground. We are fast approaching the close of probation.... Let
the church arise, and repent of her backslidings
before God. Let the watch men awake and give the trumpet a certain sound. It is
a definite warning that we have to proclaim. God
commands His servants "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a
trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their
sins" (Isaiah 58:1). (1SM 125, 126).
So,
just how important is it that Seventh-day Adventists resist the teaching of a
completed atonement? Let us hear from the Church's proclaimed authority on the
sanctuary:
“No Adventist can believe in a final
atonement on the cross and remain an Adventist.” (Andreasen, Letters to the Churches titled "The Living Witness," p. 2, as reprinted
by LMN Publishing, 1988).
The
truth of this statement is supported by the Spirit of Prophecy.
“The scripture which above all others had
been both the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith was the
declaration "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed.” Daniel 8:14 (The
Story of Redemption, p. 375).
“When Christ entered the most holy place of the heavenly
sanctuary to perform the closing work of the atonement, He committed to His
servants the last message of mercy to be given to the world. Such is the
warning of the third angel of Revelation 14.” (ibid., p. 379).
Elder
A. F. Ballenger was once one of our leading evangelists, and
won many souls to the truth. Eventually he was dismissed from the church
because of theological differences, and, as one would say, "of all
things," the heresy for which he was dismissed is the very doctrine now
being forced upon us, teaching that the atonement was made on the cross!
|
In commenting on his dismissal, Mrs. White said:
"[His] proofs are not reliable. If received
they would destroy the faith of God's people in the truth that has made us
what we are.... "It was under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit that the presentations of the sanctuary
questions were given.... Another and still another, will arise and bring in
supposed great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old
landmarks (Selected Messages, Book
1, pp. 161-162). M. L. Andreasen on the Atonement Letters to the Churches,
January 19, 1958 |
It was
well nigh impossible for heresy to gain a permanent foothold while God's
Messenger, Mrs. E. G. White was alive. Her influence survived her death and the work prospered in proportion to
the number of her dwindling contemporaries.
Particularly
was this so in Australasia, where Mrs. White had established the Avondale
School for Christian Workers (now Avondale College) according to the blueprint.
This model of Christian education was eventually to make its presence felt as
its missionaries not only encompassed Australasia, but they were eventually to
take a prominent part in speeding the advance of the everlasting gospel around
the world.
They had no illusions as to the message
contained in the everlasting gospel and they did not deem it advisable to
attend colleges of "higher" learning to discover that message. They called their brothers out of Babylon into God's
remnant church, that they too might catch a vision of a judgment-bound world on
the brink of eternity. They were not ashamed of this "gospel of
Christ" with His atoning role as ministering High Priest in the heavenly
sanctuary.
If, and when Satan tried to gain an heretical foothold within the church, such efforts were
stoutly and ably resisted. One such attempt
was made in the late 1920s through the person of one of Australasia's capable
leaders, Pastor W. W. Fletcher. Some say that he had been sidetracked by Elder
L. R. Conradi of Europe, on our sanctuary message and
on the Spirit of Prophecy. Let it be stated here, that unlike some later and
contemporary heretics, Pastor Fletcher presented his propositions honestly by
acknowledging that he believed differently to historic Adventism.
A
subcommittee to study Fletcher's propositions was appointed early in 1930 by
the Australasian Union Conference of which Pastor W. G. Turner was president.
Their report, which rejected Fletcher's views, was forwarded to the General
Conference where another committee had been formed to counsel with Fletcher. The
chairman of that committee, Pastor Montgomery, wrote to the Australasian Union
thanking them for the subcommittee's work and conclusions. He said,
“We
feel that this statement is both tenable and adequate to prove the error of the
views held by Brother Fletcher.”
In the
light of present heresies, it is interesting to note one of the highlights of
the subcommittee's statement:
“If sin was cancelled at the cross, there
is no need for a scapegoat. The typical service however, provided one, which is
proof that the sin was not cancelled at the altar of burnt offering, which is
the equivalent of the cross. The sin was finally atoned for, not at the cross,
but in the true tabernacle in heaven before the "ark of the
testament," which John saw in vision (p. 5).”
The
late Pastor A. W. Anderson was asked to prepare a paper on Fletcher's attitude
to our sanctuary doctrine. This was circulated with the committee's report. In
it he correctly observed:
“On
the reconciliation [atonement], "That this reconciliation was not completed on the cross is evident
from the fact that it was the work of a high priest to make reconciliation.
When He was on earth, He was not a priest. (see Hebrews 8:4).
If reconciliation was completed on the
cross, then when Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary with His own blood and
became our High Priest, His work was already completed."
The
concluding paragraph states:
“After
a careful re-examination of the ninety passages of scripture in which the words
"atonement" and "reconciliation" occur, I am more
profoundly convinced than ever that W. W. Fletcher is wrong, and the
denominational teaching on the cleansing of the sanctuary is right.
(It should be noted that one of the men
on the General Conference committee which commended their Australasian brethren
for their defense of a continuing atonement in the heavenly sanctuary was none
other than L. E. Froom.)
God
signally blessed the efforts of His hard-working, dedicated servants and time
came when the homelands of Australia and New Zealand attained one of the
highest percentages of Adventists in the world. But things were to change.
Satan had targeted this hard-won bastion of truth for one of his most amazingly
successful attacks against God's remnant church. He was to succeed eventually in reversing the role of the
"blueprint" missionary college to that of a veritable brooder of
heresy, with the inevitable result of bringing the advance of the third angel
of Revelation 14 to a virtual standstill in Australia and New Zealand.
This
dramatic change is revealed in the statistical reports published annually in
the Australasian Record. For instance, the report for the year ending June
1972, shows a peak membership gain of approximately 1,023 in the two homeland
Unions. This was achieved with the help of 235 ordained ministers. Within ten
years (1982) the annual gain had dropped to 448 souls
but it took 52 more ministers (287) to achieve this dismal result. The total
tithe received in the homelands in 1982 was $18,577,755 which means that for
each member increase, it cost $41,468 of tithe against $4,697 for each member
increase back in 1972. During the year ending 1984, the Trans-Australian Union
Conference actually suffered a membership loss of 166
members.
How
could such a catastrophe come about? We must hark back to those fateful years
of the early 1950s when vice-president Figuhr and his
boys of the Washington club were smarting under the stigma of cultism. When
Elder Figuhr came to Australia shortly before his
election to the General Conference presidency, he used his fist to emphasize
the direction in which he believed authority should travel:
"Representation comes up," he said, "but direction comes
down."
At
that same gathering in Melbourne, he also gave our workers an insight into the
characteristics of leaders best qualified to keep that authority moving in the
desired direction. He is reported to have spoken along these lines:
“When a man's name is brought up for
nomination to leadership, it is not his spiritual or doctrinal standing that is to
be questioned, or even his administrative capabilities. No, it is his ability to get
on well with his fellows and maintain harmony that should be of paramount
consideration.”
According to the worker
reporting this revelation, this was a rather startling departure from accepted
ideals and practice. There was no doubt in the worker's mind that Figuhr was speaking about pliable
middle-of-the-road men.* Many years later,
Australian Adventists were to see the baleful results of the implementation of
this unscriptural policy.
* While Figuhr was making his
acceptance speech, after being elected G. C. president, he described himself as
a "middle-of-the-road" man.
Note by Ron: That would
be “a Laodicean, sitting on the fence man.” End note.
In the year 1957, our
zealous Dr. Froom came to Australasia, promoting his book Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers and the forthcoming book Questions on Doctrine. We are told that he took the
opportunity to prepare our ministry for the great leap "forward" that
would be expected to follow our new understanding of righteousness by faith.
He introduced them to the
mysteries of Christ's "vicarious human nature" and the wonders of His
"completed atonement."**
** Vicarious: deputed;
acting for another, substituted (Collins)
Vicariously: by
substitution (Collins)
If Christ took my human nature in place of me, what sort of nature does
that leave me with?
By the end of the same
year, Dr. Edward Heppenstall of the Washington
Seminary had arrived at Avondale College to take part in a lengthy extension
school for ministers. After a lapse of over thirty years, recollections of all
that transpired in his lectures are growing dim. But certain shock statements
have left their mark. One
student recalls how Heppenstall told them that there
is only one covenant. When asked how such a statement can be reconciled with
Adventism's two-covenant position as outlined in Patriarchs and Prophets, ***
he is reported to have replied smugly, "You don't."
*** Pastor Mervyn Ball, a retired
Australian evangelist, told the author how he quoted the Spirit of Prophecy. It
counters a claim by L. E. Froom that the atonement had been completed at
Calvary. Froom's only response was a stony silence. Apparently other workers
felt too embarrassed to press the issue, a phenomenon that has shown up
repeatedly in this Division's march toward apostasy.
Others recall how he frequently stressed
the need for ministers to emphasize the love of God in their sermons,
and left them with the feeling that perhaps doctrines were not too
important. Yet another remembers how Heppenstall
recited his encounters with M. L. Andreasen, whom he portrayed as a decided
hindrance to the advancement of Adventism.
Still others of his
students claim that Heppenstall prevented the then
Division president, F. G. Clifford from sitting in on his classes. In
hindsight, this is not surprising, as Clifford's reputation for doctrinal
orthodoxy had probably registered in Washington. By some accounts, there were
three students who made quite an impression, not only on Heppenstall,
but also on their colleagues. It
appears that Heppenstall was very impressed by their
receptive attitude to "new light." He warmly commended them and urged
them to go abroad for advanced study. Some dutifully followed his advice and
eventually all three achieved a degree of notoriety among Adventists: Desmond
Ford left the imprint of his name on apostate Adventism, and his theology in
Avondale College; Walter R. L. Scragg achieved the honor while president of the
Euro-African Division, of overseeing the bestowal of the goldplated
medal on the pope;* and Lend Moulds was fired from the theological department
of Avondale College for teaching heresy which he picked up while studying in a
North American Adventist University.**
* See Review and Herald, August 11, 1977 on
Medal.
**Moulds is to be
commended for showing a rare degree of honesty, in that, unlike some others at
the College, he refused to conceal his new-found "faith" from the
administration.
So it was, that
doubts on the competency of those who worked out our historic doctrinal
positions were planted in the minds of our workers while the authority of
leadership as interpreters of scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy was
established in the minds of many. All that was needed now was a pliable
leadership, amenable to the dictates of a Washington hierarchy. But the time was not yet. President Clifford had a firm
grip on the reins. As Froom
had seriously observed,***
“We need more funerals to get Adventism up and going.”
*** According to a tape of Mike Clute's interview, Froom would ring up
Wilkinson on his birthday and express disappointment that he was still alive.
|
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. 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. God has shown me that these men are Hazaels
to prove a scourge to our people. They are wise above what is written. This unbelief of the very truths
of God's word because human judgment cannot comprehend the mysteries of His
work, is found in every district in all ranks of society. It is taught in
most of our schools, and comes into the lessons of
the nurseries. E. G.
White Testimonies for
the Church, vol. 5, p. 79. |
Note by
Ron: The following statement is so apropos and has been since soon after the
death of Ellen G. White in 1915:
“The patience of God has an object, but you are defeating it. He is
allowing a state of things to come that you would fain see counteracted by and
by, but it will be too late. God commanded Elijah to anoint the cruel and
deceitful Hazael king over Syria, that he might be a
scourge to idolatrous Israel. Who knows whether God will not give you up to the
deceptions you love? Who knows
but that the preachers who are faithful, firm, and true may be the last who
shall offer the gospel of peace to our unthankful churches? It may be that the
destroyers are already training under the hand of Satan and only wait the departure
of a few more standard-bearers to take their places, and with the voice of the
false prophet cry, "Peace, peace," when the Lord hath not spoken
peace. I seldom weep, but now I find my eyes blinded with tears; they
are falling upon my paper as I write. It may be that erelong all prophesyings among us will be at an end, and the voice
which has stirred the people may no longer disturb their carnal slumbers.
{5T 77.1}
When God shall work His
strange work on the earth, when holy hands bear the ark no longer, woe
will be upon the people. Oh, that thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day,
the things that belong unto thy peace! Oh, that our people may, as did Nineveh,
repent with all their might and believe with all their heart, that God may turn
away His fierce anger from them.” {5T 77.2}
The Ark was the
presence of God. If once holy hands bear the ark no longer, this means that
God’s presence has departed, and that is how He expresses His fierce anger and
His strange word at the end. He withdraws His presence, and demonic destruction
and woe begins. End note by Ron.
While
our Australasian workers were left pondering this twist to Adventist theology,
Froom was busy back in Washington, defending and promoting Questions on
Doctrine
and anxiously counting the "funerals." [of the last faithful
leaders.]
But
they were slow in coming. Andreasen, who was now an elderly man, just wouldn't
go away, and Wilkinson at eighty-five was aggravatingly healthy. And, there
were those two troublesome missionaries, Elders Wieland and Short, who had
submitted a paper, 1888 Re-Examined,
to the General Conference. They had been sent back to their fields of labor in
Africa after consenting to let the matter drop. But now, others had seen fit to
circulate a number of copies of their paper, and
laymen were complaining about a cover-up.
The
original response to Wieland and Short's paper by the Defense Committee, while
not supportive, had been generally civil and understanding. It carried the
signature of the committee chairman, W. E. Read, and was dated December 4,
1951. It said: "The manuscript gives every evidence of earnest, diligent
and painstaking effort." But in September 1958, the two missionaries
received a second report, from the officers of the General Conference−this time without any signatures.
Not only had there been a
change in presidents (Figuhr had succeeded W. H.
Branson), but there had been a decided reversal of tone and attitude. The
General
Conference
stated:
“After
having checked and examined the Spirit of Prophecy sources and their use in the
manuscript, it is evident that the authors have revealed considerable
amateurishness in both research and use of facts.” (p. 47).
They
concluded,
“Had
the authors succeeded in substantiating their charges, their work might have
been worthy of serious consideration.” (U. 49)
In
studying Wieland and Short's reply to such insults, one can only praise God for
their Christian attitude. They were able to demonstrate that the General Conference's
charges were unable to bear the test of careful analysis. To the careful
reader, it appears that the reckless charges of the leadership could be better
applied back upon themselves. Nevertheless, Elders Wieland and Short were able
to write:
“Lastly,
if anything in this analysis of "Appraisal" seems to be
disrespectful, critical, or presumptuous to your dignity as the Lord's
appointed leaders of His work, His "anointed," we assure you that it
is not so intended to be. Circumstances have required that we speak frankly.” (Letter to Officers and Executive Committee
of G.C., October 1958).
These
loyal workers were apparently resigned to letting the matter rest there, for in
a letter addressed to G. C. secretary, W. R. Beach, January 21, 1959 they wrote:
“We
wish to state herewith our desire to leave this matter, to drop it henceforth
and to continue as in the past to refrain from any agitation whatsoever or the
pressing of our view upon the General Conference or the church.... We return to
our mission field, therefore with no desire to make an issue of our views there
or elsewhere."
Here
the matter could have rested, as far as Brethren Wieland and Short were
concerned. They had delivered their message. But, in the providence of God, His
messengers were not meant to remain silent. Things happened in this way:
Being
an employee of the General Conference, it is highly probable that L. E. Froom
would be among those leaders who had complained, "that the manuscript (of
Wieland and Short) revealed a very critical attitude concerning the leadership,
the ministry, and the plane of work in God's cause" (G. C. "Further Appraisal of 1888 ReExamined" p. 2).
This
unfortunate attitude of many of our leaders was similar to
that of the leaders in 1888 who rejected the Minneapolis message. They regarded
the messengers, Waggoner and Jones, as young upstarts who were attacking the
leadership of older and experienced men. These leaders were not willing to
humble themselves by accepting the message lest they be seen
as being reproved by God. Said Mrs. White, while commenting on the
Minneapolis situation:
“They
[the opposers] heard not, neither would they understand. Why? Lest they should
be converted and have to acknowledge that all their
ideas were not correct. This they were too proud to do, and therefore persisted
in rejecting God's counsel and the light and evidence which had been given.” (Ms 25, 1890, quoted in 1888 Re-Examined, p. 24).
As this rebuke
to Wieland and Short came from the General Conference
(meaning
its officers), the church was once more doomed to wander in the wilderness and
forego the outpouring of the latter rain. Once again
its leaders had failed to grasp the real meaning of righteousness by faith in
all its beauty and fullness. But this time the rejection would go even further.
The church would eventually repudiate the "third angel's message in
verity."
I watched them tearing a building down, A gang of men in
a busy town.
With
a ho-heave-ho and a lusty yell
They
swung a beam and the sidewall fell.
I asked
the foreman, "Are these men skilled And the men
you'd hire if you had to build?" He
gave a laugh, saying, "No, indeed!
Just
common labor is all I need.
I can
easily wreck in a day or two
What
builders have taken a year to do."
-Anon
(Published
in Review and Herald, January 7,
1954.)
End
of Chapter 16
In
1972 Dr. Desmond Ford returned to Australia to resume his position as head of
the theology department of Avondale College. Safely in his possession was a
precious doctorate from Manchester University in England. Probably he carried
with him something else of great import−a
copy of Froom's recently released Movement
of Destiny. Ford could scarcely believe his luck! Here was a book published
by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, recommended by the president and
vice-president of the General Conference, to which he could appeal to support much of his popular evangelical view of the gospel,
which was now further clouded with shades of Plymouth Brethrenism.*
* In the special edition
of Ministry, October 1980, devoted to
reporting the Glacier View meetings, is to be found a brief, but highly
significant statement by Ford. Referring to his defense paper, he said:
The task on which I was
working was not a novel one, but one engaged upon by other men well known to
us, such as W. W. Prescott and L. E. Froom.
As chairman of the
Guiding Committee for Movement of Destiny,
N. C. Wilson [as G. C. president] was later to find himself sitting in judgment
of Ford. History has shown that he wore two hats.
He had come a long way
since taking the advice of Heppenstall back in 1957.
Following Avondale
College's affiliation with Pacific Union College, he had returned to Avondale
to complete his bachelor's degree and then, under sponsorship, had gone to
America for post-graduate studies. By the early 1960s, Dr. Ford was appointed
chairman of Avondale's theology department. It was not long before discerning
ministers were noticing that ministerial graduates of the College were
expressing some strange doctrinal beliefs.
Even
more disturbing were Ford's expositions on the prophecies of Daniel eight and
nine as published in papers like the Australasian
Signs of the Times (see Signs of the
Times, June-October 1973). Although such articles impinged on Adventists'
understanding of the sanctuary message with its investigative judgment, yet there seemed to be no
counter from Division leadership. Protests from loyal ministers and laymen were
not followed with the positive action that had been previously taken to combat
heresy, as demonstrated in the handling of W. W. Fletcher and R. Greive. It seemed as if our leaders had been mesmerized.
It is not necessary to
rehearse all the sorry tale of events leading up to an examination of Ford's
doctrinal standing because they have been documented so well by other writers.*
*The author recommends the
Standish brothers' book Adventism
Challenged for an excellent account of the Australasian Division's march to
apostasy. It may be obtained from:
Hartland Publications
P 0 Box 1, Rapidan, VA,
22733, USA
Neither
is it desirable to divert too far away from our pursuit of the methods used by
leadership, first to cloak
the dagger of apostasy and second, to follow the outworking of a form of
governmental control described by Mrs. White as "kingly power."
Suffice
it to say, Pastor R. R. Frame, then president of the Division, eventually and
reluctantly agreed to a group of concerned ministers and laymen meeting with the
Biblical Research Institute of
Australasia, to put their case in the presence of Dr. Ford (see Appendix for
names of participants). Two meetings were held, on the third and fourth of February, 1976. The irony of the situation is, that this
institute had been established to examine "new light" and protect the
church against the intrusion of heresy. In Ford's case, the BRI had made no attempt to examine
his theology. Now the
concerned brethren were virtually on trial as they presented the historic
Adventist position on doctrines vital to the mission of Seventh-day Adventists.
As
Ford defended his theology, it became apparent to the older concerned men that
he was expressing similar views to those of a previous chairman of Avondale
College Bible Department, the late Pastor W. W. Fletcher. But there were two
significant differences: Fletcher
correctly admitted that he was out of step with the Spirit of Prophecy. He was
eased out of the ministry. Ford attempted to cloak his heresies by expressing
full confidence in Mrs. White's writings.
Another
difference was to be found in the attitude of the administrators. There had
been no sympathy for Fletcher's popular evangelical views, while Ford obviously
had the support of influential leaders. According to Dr. R. R. Standish, who
participated in the meetings:
“The
most heated speech of the day undoubtedly issued from the lips of one of the
Conference presidents in
defense of Dr. Ford*.” (Adventism
Challenged, p. 142).
Dr. R.
R. Standish gives credit to Pastors R. Stanley and A. Tolhurst
for expressing reservations about what Ford was teaching, but unfortunately they did not press their point. We are told by
another witness that Stanley's objections "went over like a lead
balloon":
“There was dead silence from the members of
the BRI.” (Anchor No. 7, p. 2).
(See Appendix for an
eyewitness account.)
* Following a heated
attack by Pastor Rex Moe on the editor of Anchor
magazine, (Avondale Memorial Church business meeting September 27, 1987)
Pastors G. Bumside and O. K. Anderson identified the
conference president who
"heatedly" defended Ford, as Rex Moe.
Among
the Institute's findings, particularly in the areas of the sanctuary, the age
of the earth, and inspiration, they found:
1. That ... Dr. Desmond Ford ably demonstrated that such
stances as he takes which appear to diverge from what some senior men hold as
"Present Truth" can be justified by reference to majority positions taken by current
Seventh-day Adventist authors and scholars.
2. The senior ministers (as represented by their speakers)
were somewhat unaware of the movements in Adventist thought and style of
doctrinal presentation in recent years, a fact which explains their reaction to
some contemporary expositions (quoted in Adventism
Challenged, p. 151).
In retrospect,
it is plain to see that the Administration had abused the very purpose for
which the Biblical Research Institute
was named, for they found in
favor of Ford on non-biblical grounds: namely, what some scholars had written
and taught. Later, some
in the Institute realized the terrible implication of being seen to accept
doctrine on the authority of man, so the minutes were amended to add "the
Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy" as a basis for Ford's stand.
This
statement was later shown to be no more than a face saving
device, as Ford was fired
following Glacier View simply because he could not support his stand from
Inspiration.
Further,
their findings illustrate the tremendous inroads such books as Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny had made into the
thinking of Australasian leadership. They admitted that there had been a "movement away" from our
historic doctrines and then condemned our senior ministers for being unaware of
the shift.
The
secretary of the Biblical Research
Institute revealed to some extent the political opposition behind the
grudging assent given the meeting, by "asserting that the whole concern was really simply a personal
attack upon Dr. Desmond Ford"* (Adventism
Challenged, p. 149). This disgraceful but revealing remark was
immediately protested and then quickly withdrawn (ibid.).
So it was, that Ford and those who defended
him all continued in their jobs, ostensibly to uphold and advance historic
Bible based Adventism, when in fact they had declared to the church that they
upheld the "doctrines of men." To
this very day, all of them who remain as active workers, retain positions of
prominence in administration or in educational fields.
* The Standish brothers do
not reveal the identity of the person making this statement. Other eyewitnesses
have identified him as the secretary of the Institute and this has been
confirmed by R. Standish in conversation with the author. This is an important
point in establishing the biased attitude of the BRI toward Ford. Other witnesses
claim that the secretary spoke in much stronger terms, accusing the concerned
men of conducting a "personal vendetta" against Ford.
End Chapter 17
By the
end of 1976, Pastor R. R. Frame had opted out of the controversy by resigning
the presidency of the Australasian Division, handing over the reins of Division
leadership to Pastor K. Parmenter. As secretary of the Division at the time of
the February BRI meetings, Parmenter had taken a leading part in exonerating Dr.
Ford.
It
soon became apparent that the "new theology" espoused by Ford was
prospering under a sympathetic administration. The editor of the Australasian
Record and Australasian Signs of the
Times, himself one of the BRI Committee, cooperated to the full by
affording generous space in these magazines for the furthering of Fordian theology. It is not surprising then, that
conference presidents soon got the message and provided Avondale's ministerial
graduates with cozy enclaves from which they were able to freely dispense their
new-found bargains in "cheap grace," and salvation in sin. It was as if Adventism had
suddenly burst forth from the restraining bonds placed around it by ignorant
pioneers and a false prophetess.
The
possibilities of church growth as a result of
abolishing the restraints of obedience to God's law must have loomed large in
their vision of a popular and successful Evangelical church. Love, not doctrine, would be
their key to success from now on. But little did they realize that within
some three years, their oracle would be fired and homeland church growth [in
Australia] would plunge to the point of virtual stagnation.
It is
not surprising then, that their new-found gospel of "love" was not
large enough to encompass "stubborn" ministers who persisted in
supporting the now discredited historic Adventism. In March 1977, a group of
concerned brethren led by veteran evangelist J. W. Kent, succeeded in meeting
with Division president Parmenter, Division and Union leaders, and Dr. Ford. We
will let the Standish brothers describe the meeting:
“On
this occasion, the Concerned Brethren were informed that this meeting would be
the last time they could approach leadership as a group. In the meeting, Dr.
Ford firmly maintained his erroneous position, in spite of
clear statements read to him from the Spirit of Prophecy. At the conclusion,
the Division president and chairman, in ending the meeting, declared himself
for Dr. Ford, saying that never before had Dr. Ford
stood so high in his estimation as the present. He also stated that he himself
had problems in regard to our doctrine of the
Sanctuary. Then turning his head slightly in the direction of Pastor Burnside,
he [Parmenter] warned in an intimidatory tone that if the attacks on Dr. Ford
continued, he would have them [the Concerned Brethren] dealt with.... In an
earlier meeting the senior Concerned Brethren had been forcefully reminded by
the Division president that Robert
Brinsmead had been disfellowshiped, not for doctrinal
deviation but for opposition to church authority.” (Adventism
Challenged, p. 280).
(Pastor
A. P. Cooke, veteran evangelist, who was at this meeting confirmed the above
report.)
With
such arbitrary manifestations of "kingly power" and
"popery" at Division level, it is not surprising that conference
presidents and others down the hierarchal line of power displayed similar
conduct. Pastor O. K. Anderson, a veteran retiree living near Avondale, had
already received a letter of censure from the then president of the North New South
Wales Conference. It was written in response to Ford's complaints that Anderson
had been counselling with some of his students at Avondale College. Part of the
letter read:
“I
have carefully studied the position taken by the theology department of Avondale
College. I see very little conflict, and certainly no major conflict, between
the emphasis and that which I have stood for and preached for the last twenty
years. . . .
“I would like to state in
conclusion that I will make recommendation for your name to be included in the
preaching plans for this conference, when I have evidence that you have
dissociated yourself from the misrepresentation and subsequent attacks upon the
theology department of Avondale College and upon Des Ford in particular [meaning
he had removed Anderson from the preaching plan]. You see, Brother Anderson,
you have been too wise a counsellor and too long a servant in the cause of God,
to go down in these latter years of your life as one who supports unscholarly
research and misrepresentation. I appeal to you to endeavor, with all your
might to endeavor to understand what Dr. Ford is endeavoring to say, without
forming conclusions at every line and sentence.”*
(Dated December 22, 1976, signed by Athal Tolhurst.)
* It should be noted that Tolhurst was not creating a precedent in acting on Ford's
complaints.
Pastor 0. K. Anderson told the author that during the
early 1970s, president Rex Moe, while on the Avondale College Board, had telephoned
him requesting that he refrain from disturbing Ford's students by refuting
Ford's teaching. Later the Division
president, Pastor R. R. Frame, in 1975 had acted on complaints by Ford and
issued instructions to the president of the South Australian Conference to
prevent Pastor Anderson from preaching at the invitation of the Prospect Church
pastor (also reported in Adventism
Challenged, p. 319). So it is apparent, that well
before the BRI meetings of February 1976, the Division leadership had decided
not only to back Ford, but to use the office of "kingly power" to
repress any who stood in the way of "Dr. Seventh-day Adventist."
Time,
and Ford's eventual dismissal, have shown who stood in need of advice. At the
time of writing, Pastor Anderson has not received an apology for this example
of gross misuse of "kingly power" by incompetent leaders, nor has the
ban on his preaching been officially lifted. Less than a year earlier, at the
February BRI meetings, Tolhurst had cautiously
expressed concern over Ford's teachings. Failure of Division leadership to act
on his cue had apparently not been lost on Tolhurst.
Was he now giving them a practical demonstration of his undoubted loyalty by
backing Ford?
Other
presidents soon followed suit. Within two years, the president of Greater
Sydney Conference, Pastor K. Bullock had instructed the ministers of his
conference by letter to deny Pastors J. W. Kent and G. Burnside the use of
their pulpits. Once again,
the reason behind the ban was to protect the jewel in the crown of Australian
Adventism, Desmond Ford. He had been exposed in a pamphlet written by
the two pastors for retailing the Plymouth Brethren− and Jesuit-inspired futuristic interpretation of the man
of sin in his thesis for Manchester University. (For contents of letter dated
December 18, 1978, see Adventism Challenged, p. 316.)
By
this time, Ford was on loan to the theology department of Pacific Union
College. No doubt it was with some pride that the Australasian administration
had agreed to allow "Dr. Seventh-day Adventist" to share his
"advanced" doctrinal insights with less "enlightened"
Adventists in North America.
But in
the providence of God, it was not realized that this decision was soon to lead
to a time of trouble such as the Australasian Division had never seen. It is
now a matter of history that those entrusted with the preservation of the faith
in North America took their ordination vows far more seriously than their
counterparts in Australasia−or, as seen in hindsight,
some at least wanted to appear to take their responsibilities seriously.
At the
now-historic Glacier View meetings of August 1980, Ford's position, which he
had been given six months to reconsider, was found to be doctrinally
unacceptable. His main problem revolved around Adventism's sanctuary message
and consequently the related and very important area of righteousness by faith
(see Ministry magazine, October 1980,
for official report). It will be remembered that in the above area of doctrine,
Ford had been exonerated by the Australasian leadership in 1976.
Strangely, Ford's affection for the Roman
Catholic invention of original sin and its corollary, a make-believe Saviour
who did not inherit our human nature, did not appear to be an issue. Perhaps
this is an indication that most of the Adventist ministry had been so dazzled
by authors like L. E. Froom, that they failed to see the deadly connection
between the heresy of the "unfallen nature" and righteousness by the
kind of faith which does not require obedience.
What a
shock it must have been to the administration of the Australasian Division when
president Parmenter was instructed to pluck the jewel out of their
"kingly" crown! It was now the credibility of the Australasian
Division leadership which was at stake. And had not the president himself asserted to the Concerned
Brethren that he also had problems in regard to the
sanctuary doctrine?
President
Parmenter now bent over backward to save Ford and salvage what little
credibility might be left for the leadership. He went so far as to publicly
plead with Ford to compromise his considered beliefs by holding them "in
abeyance and not discussed unless at sometime in the future they might be found
compatible with the positions and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church" (Ministry Magazine,
October 1980).
And so
the Adventist world was treated to the spectacle of a Division president
pleading with a man to remain in the role of keeper of the faith knowing full
well that he did not believe in what God's Messenger has identified as the
foundation of the Adventist message (Ev 221). And
while being supported by the sacred tithe, he was invited to deliberately
refrain from preaching the three angels' messages in all their fullness and
beauty. And then, horror of
horrors, the president makes known his implied expectation that the time will
come when the church's doctrinal positions may change sufficiently to allow
Ford to preach the very heresies for which he had just been fired.*
* In view of some subsequent
publications of the SDA Church written by Morris Venden,
Helmut Ott's book, Perfect in Christ
and the general acceptance of Fordian teaching on
righteousness by faith in the South Pacific Division, Parmenter's expectation
of "compatibility" must surely have been realized ere now. It would
be encouraging to know that Ford rejected such a hypocritical invitation.
But, that does not appear
to be so. The secretary of the Australasian Division, Pastor R. W. Taylor
circulated an undated leaflet explaining the circumstances of Ford's dismissal.
It told how Ford had met with
president Neal C. Wilson and vice-president L. L. Bock and promised to refrain
from speaking on doctrines unique to Adventism. That would, of course, include
the sanctuary, investigative judgment and the Spirit of Prophecy. So it does appear, according to Taylor, that Ford accepted
Parmenter's offer. But Taylor
claims that Wilson and Bock said that it was improper for a minister of the SDA
Church to be silent on two such distinctive matters of doctrine.
Such a
proper decision highlights the fundamental weakness that had become almost
endemic to top Australasian leadership. They had simply lost sight of the
church's mission to preach all three angels' messages. What a picture! Here is a Division leader telling Ford
to stay on and be silent, while world leaders tell Ford that it's no use being
a Seventh-day Adventist minister unless he preaches the unique message
entrusted to Adventism.**
** This fundamental
weakness, denoting lack of true purpose, remains in the South Pacific Division
to this day. Pastor D. B. Hills, president of the Trans-Australia Union, in
defending presidents against the charge that they knowingly employ Fordian ministers, makes this astounding admission:-"The
leadership of the church that I am associated with are fully aware that there
are people who don't teach error, but also don't teach all the truths of the
Word of God" (letter to H. H. Meyers dated February 1, 1989).
So it was, that
the many loyal Adventists who had expressed their deep concerns over the
inroads of heresy through the Administration's protection of Ford had been
vindicated. Naturally, they could expect the issue to be settled once and for
all and look forward to their church utilizing its energies and facilities
fully in the proclamation of the "everlasting gospel." Pastor Athal Tolhurst, president of the
North New South Wales Conference apparently thought so. He called a meeting of
regional churches to be held in the large Avondale College auditorium. No
doubt, encouraged by the top-level decision against Ford's theology, he
recounted the events leading up to and at Glacier View, and enthusiastically
proclaimed himself for the old-time religion. But he was in for a shock! Not
all his listeners agreed with him, for he was right on the home ground of
Fordism.
Within a short time a meeting of the Australian Forum* was convened in the
College. Two theology lecturers who had attended the Glacier View meetings gave
quite a different version of proceedings. They let it be known that Ford had many supporters at
Glacier View and that the decision to fire Ford had been neither unanimous nor
popular. These two men were delegated (obviously with Pastor Parmenter's
permission) to travel around the Division spreading their disquieting story to
the workers. In the process, much sympathy was generated for Ford.
* Adventist Forums:
The Association of
Adventist Forums is a lay organization whose purpose is "to encourage
thoughtful persons of SDA orientation to examine and discuss freely ideas and
issues relevant to the church in all its aspects and to its members as
Christians in society." It publishes Spectrum,
a journal of essays, book reviews, art and poetry. Organized in 1967, it framed its constitution after extensive
consultation with G. C. officials, chaired by N. C. Wilson, then vice-president
of the North American Division. At the 1967 Annual Council, the North
American Division Committee on Administration recognized the organization,
stating, as reported in Review and Herald,
January 11, 1968, that "we express sympathy with the stated aims and
objectives of the proposed association" and "our desire [is] to
cooperate as far as Possible in the development of any means which will serve
to make this relationship more meaningful and actually beneficial" (SDA
Encyclopedia, p. 87).
It was soon perceived by
many that Fordism was still alive and well in Australasia. God in His mercy had
given the leadership a marvelous opportunity to admit their terrible mistake, to
repent and turn the church around in the direction of historic Adventism. But
pride and use of "kingly power," the hallmarks of papal-like
government reestablished in the General Conference in
1903, had now become the norm in the Australasian Division. Elder Figuhr's advice given in Melbourne back in the mid-1950s,
regarding the selection of leaders, had long since become common practice. Harmony and unity, a political
formula for success, had become paramount. Therefore, no admission of errors of
judgment or wrongful action, particularly against loyal watchmen, must ever
reach the ears of the laity. All must appear to be well with the Seventh-day
Adventist Church.
|
"If
any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally,
and upbraideth not; and it shall be given
him." Mercy and love and wisdom are to be found in God; but many who
profess to know Him have turned from the One in whom our hope of eternal life
is centered, and have educated themselves to depend
upon their erring and fallible fellowmen. They are crippled spiritually when
they do this; for no man is infallible, and his influence may be misleading.
He who trusts in man not only leans upon a broken reed, and gives Satan an
opportunity to introduce himself, but he hurts the one in whom the trust is
placed; he becomes lifted up in his estimation of himself,
and loses the sense of his dependence upon God. Just as soon as man is
placed where God should be, he loses his purity, his vigor, his confidence in
God's power. Moral confusion results, because his powers become unsanctified
and perverted. He feels competent to judge his fellowmen and he strives
unlawfully to be a god over them. Ellen
G. White Testimonies to
Ministers, p. 376 |
End Chapter 18
The
residents of Australia's largest city, Sydney, awoke to another workaday
morning on May 2, 1983. But many Seventh-day Adventists were in for a second
awakening, albeit a rude one, before the day was much older.
As
they opened the pages of the Sydney Daily
Telegraph newspaper, their eyes were transfixed by the bold headline,
"SEVENTH-DAY CRISIS." Sure enough, the double page spread was all
about troubles in their beloved church. The writer, Ken Anderson, described
himself both as a writer for the Telegraph and as a "dissident Adventist
minister" who expected to get the sack as a result of
his revelations regarding the theological problems and unsavory practices of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
"Did
you know that the only people entitled to records of the legal Association and
Trust Funds of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are the top
administrators?" he asked.
Anderson
claimed that his article was based on the results of an investigation
"with both dissident scholars and ministers and established church
leaders" and upon examination of books, documents, balance sheets and
"other financial records not normally made available to the public and on
an authoritative survey."
“The
survey also shows that 67% of members have been influenced by Des Ford, the
pastor who taught theology to hundreds of students at Avondale College,
including Michael Chamberlain.”
In
defense, secretary of the Division, Pastor Ron Taylor was reported as playing
down the church's problems:
“About
two or three years ago a number of members, not a majority by any means, were
asking, "What's going on?" but not today. People are saying now,
"We know where we stand so let's get on with it."
As for
suggestions that the lay people of the church were victims of a bureaucratic hierarchy,
the Division communication director, Pastor Russell Kranz also got into the
act:
“The Adventist Church is
possibly the most democratic in the world. Lay members have a representative
form of government right to the very top.”*
* How different is Kranz's claim for Adventist
Church government from that of the administration! It will be shown in chapter
25, how the G. C. endeavored to convince a U. S. District Court that the
Adventist Church is governed by a hierarchy.
Taylor
then denied any flirtation of the church with Fordian
doctrine:
“If
Des Ford's beliefs were accepted they would be destructive to the church
because he is hitting at areas of belief which the church holds to be
fundamental.”
(While
Taylor's reasoning is perfectly correct, the reader will recall that the
Division, through the Biblical Research
Institute, had already accepted Ford's doctrinal stance on
the grounds that he was in agreement with other Adventist writers and
scholars (see chapter 17). This
finding has never been rescinded officially.) As if this public airing
of Adventist "dirty washing" were not embarrassing enough, Adventists
were again subjected to another double-page dose of "investigative"
journalism the following day:
“Australian-born
dissident church man, Dr. Des Ford, says the Seventh-day Adventist Church faces
a future in which it will be composed of those who don't care and those who
don't think.
“It
needs to let lay people have a much bigger say in decision making. The Bible
teaches that there are no masters, that we are all brethren and every church
member is on equal footing with any minister and every administrator.”
The
futility of equivocation should be apparent to the reader. In this case, the
administration has failed to please both Fordians and
true Adventists alike. Truly, "no man can serve two masters." Other
aspects of the "investigative" report informed the public of the
Davenport scandal and the supposed irregularities of Mrs. E. G. White as a
prophetess. Interestingly, no article of objection by the Division appeared in
the Daily Telegraph over the next few days, nor does it appear that any
"Letter of Objection" was written to its editor.
Obviously,
such reporting was not inspired by those who had an abiding love for God's
remnant church. The term "dissident" is correctly applied to such
informers. But pride and "kingly power" were not to be unseated by
such malicious exposure. The cloak would be drawn even tighter and the time
would come when the administration of the Australasian Division would transfer
the term "dissidents" from those who confessed, to those who opposed
the administration's devious ways.
It is
not surprising then, that confidence in the administration of the church
slumped to an all-time low. This distrust was reflected by an inordinate
increase in apostasies which had brought church growth to a virtual standstill.
By 1982, the annual increase for the two home Unions had declined to less than
four hundred, while the statistical report for 1983 was entirely omitted from
the Australasian Record. In 1984, the Trans-Australia Union Conference actually sustained a membership loss of 166 souls. (When
studying statistical reports of the South Pacific Division, it should be noted
that by far the largest growth rate is in the Island Unions.)
End
Chapter 19
CHAPTER 20 - Deception, or Wishful Thinking?
It was
into such confusion that Pastor Walter R. L. Scragg entered when he assumed the
presidency of the Australasian Division in 1984. Would he set about to remove
the "dagger" from the bleeding heart of Adventism? Would he insist on the ministry and
the church's educators upholding and teaching the three angels' messages in the
manner of the pioneers who had so successfully proclaimed the everlasting
gospel in all its fullness? Would he give the trumpet a "certain
sound" with a clarion call to "come out of Babylon"? Would he encourage his flock to live
sanctified lives in readiness for that great moment when their names must
inevitably appear before the great Judge?
Apparently the president
did not see things that way. It was not long before he was soothing the
membership with joyful messages. The May 5, 1984 edition of the Record contained a message from the
president titled, "Arms of Joy." After copious doses of the New
English Bible's version of biblical examples of joy, Pastor Scragg was
encouraged to dispense a little of his own:
Joy
comes from accepting the positive action of God, on your own behalf, another's
behalf, on the church's behalf. The record accessions of our church in recent
years, the perilous but successful stemming of the currents of false doctrine,
the upsurge in interest in personal holiness, the fast fulfilling of the signs
of our Lord's return, these create joy for God's action on behalf of his
church.
If such
a statement were all true, it would indeed be cause for great rejoicing. As we
have already seen, church growth in the homelands was almost nonexistent. If
indeed, the homelands had shared in these record accessions (for they were
virtually confined to Unions in the mission field), this would only serve to
highlight the extraordinary increase in apostasies. As for the successful
stemming of the currents of "false doctrine," the president must have
been almost alone in noticing it, unless of course, his perception of false
doctrine differed from those who adhered to historic Adventism.
The
author of this book wrote two letters to the president asking him to identify
the "false doctrine" to which he referred. But to this day, he has
declined to identify even one. Many are still looking in bewilderment for
evidences of the increased interest in "personal holiness, an attribute
which rightly applies to personages of the Godhead but
which has been misappropriated by the "Man of Sin."
Later
in the same year, October 4, 1984, an article appeared in the Adventist Review titled "Progress
After Pain." It was a report on the Australasian Division compiled by
editor Dr. William Johnsson. He presented to the
world a Division whose doctrinal controversy was apparently a thing of the
past. But President Scragg was quick to realize that here, for the first time,
was a specific announcement to the world of Adventism, of past serious
doctrinal problems with all its attendant pain. He quickly moved to minimize
the admission by placing an explanatory letter in the Review, November 8, 1984:
“In
understanding the situation [as described by Johnsson],
readers should be aware that the "internal wrangling," "bitter
spirit" and "brother arguing against brother" were limited to a relatively
small number of people in a few restricted areas.”
Possibly
the most generous assessment of such a statement is to attribute it to the
ignorance of one who had not been present in the Australasian Division during
those years of "pain." But the pain was to continue. Loyal Adventists
had to sit in their pews and endure sermons that not only lacked the
certainties of the judgment-hour message, but in many cases, listen to outright
attacks on our distinctive doctrines and on the pioneers
who propounded them.
The obvious lack of doctrinal and prophetic
emphasis in our pulpits lent credibility to a widely held belief that such
practice conformed to leadership's policy.
Is it a mere coincidence that some of our leaders attended Heppenstall's
Avondale lectures in 1957/1958? (See chapter 15). It is no wonder, then, that
groups of sincere Adventists banded together in order to
hear the straight message. Soon, message-hungry members were flocking to hear
the full gospel preached in meetings described by some administrators as
"unauthorized." Instead of recognizing the symptoms of spiritual
starvation and applying the obvious remedy, President Scragg led his officers
in opposing those who "illegally" dispensed the words of life, as
witness the following example:
For
many years, Australian brothers Colin and Russell Standish have been employed
in education and medical work respectively, by Seventh-day Adventist
organizations abroad. Periodically, while at home on furloughs, they have been
giving the trumpet a certain sound while conducting meetings at the invitation
of discerning Adventist groups. Usually, they were denied the use of church facilities and venues for
such meetings. While these meetings brought much spiritual joy and
encouragement to many members, they also brought much unhappiness to some
presidents who felt that they had been endowed with the divine right of
determination as to whom their members may listen.
Following
complaints by the then president of North New South Wales, A.D.C. Currie and Trans-Tasman
Union Conference president Athal Tolhurst,
concerning "unauthorized" meetings by Dr. Colin Standish, Division
president Walter Scragg decided to act. He forwarded a copy of Currie's letter
of complaint (with its false accusations−see Anchor, November 1985, "No Fruit
for the Master") to the president of the North American Division, C. E.
Bradford. For good measure, he included a covering letter of his own which said
in part:
“I
regret to have to write to you regarding the activities of one of our
Australian brethren who is working in North America. However
we feel that you should know that the activities of Colin Standish in our
Division are far from constructive. You can see the nature and extent of the
problem and the way it troubles the church in Australasia. I believe it would be well if the
administrative body which governs the Hartland Institute should be advised of
the activities of Dr. Standish in the hope that they might be able to give him
counsel on how to conduct himself while on furlough.
“There
is a problem with individuals such as Colin Standish who are not under direct
conference direction but relate rather to the Association of Self-Supporting
Industries. I recognize that it is a difficult and complex issue
but we would like as much assistance as you are able to give to endeavor to
control some of his activities.”
(Wahroonga, March 19, 1985.)
Thankfully,
such ill advice was not accepted, for no attempt was made to apply the rod of
"kingly power." Dr. Standish continues in his position as president
of Hartland Institute and continues to exercise his God-given commission to
preach the gospel according to the light conferred upon His remnant church.
But this striking rebuff has not deterred president Scragg in his quest
for authoritarian control over his vast section of popedom.* He has consistently evidenced a zealous watch over
itinerant speakers that would be highly laudable were it applied to those who
are bringing Babylonian doctrines into our church. But, as an example, we will
continue with the South Pacific Division's apparent preoccupation with
disciplining Dr. Standish.
* According to Pastor George Burnside, who attended the
New Orleans General Conference, president N. C. Wilson several times referred
to his Division presidents as "Cardinals." (Conversation
between Burnside and author in 1988. This is corroborated by Dr. R. R. Standish
in a conversation with the author, 1989.)
The
Hartland Institute, a self-supporting Adventist ministry in Virginia, U.S.A.,
has sponsored many Firm Foundation conferences throughout North America, Europe
and Australasia. Dr. Colin Standish is the president of Hartland. Some sixteen
months prior to coming to Australia, Dr. Standish approached the administration
of the South Pacific Division for their support. But the Division president let Dr. Standish know that the
Firm Foundation meetings were not needed, nor were they wanted. This is
quite understandable in the light of the president's false claim of "the
successful stemming of the currents of false doctrine" (Record, May 5, 1984, "Arms of
Joy").
The
Firm Foundation meetings went ahead, nevertheless, during the summer of
1986/1987. One president desperately attempted to discredit the campaign as a
means by which local conference finances could be depleted. An Anchor reporter said:
“In
the West Australian Conference, each minister and elder was circulated with a
letter falsely stating that the Firm Foundation conferences took large sums of
money from Europe for Hartland Institute. (Yet, four months earlier, Dr. Colin
Standish had personally answered this charge to the South Pacific Division
president.)
“The
specific charge was that 800,000 guilders (about $500,000) was taken from
Holland in donation.... The facts are that about $400.00 worth of books were
sold and this was the only money received and taken out.” (Anchor No. 10, p. 2).
Such a
flagrant example of irresponsible reporting is probably indicative of the
desperation of a Division that has lost its vision and its way. But it seems that
by early 1989, President Scragg could at last savor the satisfaction of being
able to announce a successful result to his persistent efforts.
The occasion was a workers' retreat at Yarrahapini, NSW, where he announced that Colin Standish's
ministerial credentials had been revoked. The news soon spread throughout the
homeland Unions with the rapidity of a scandal.
Had the report been the result of a misdemeanor, one wonders just how people
whose priority should be the preaching of the three angels'
messages, would find the time and the inclination to damage the
reputation of the ministry by spreading such appalling news.
But
once again, the report was nothing more than a rumor spawned by the wishful
thinking of some whose priorities undoubtedly must be suspect. Several letters
of protest have since been written by members of the Standish family to
Division, Union and conference leadership, some of which have been circulated
extensively among leadership.
As many of the concerns
expressed therein are indicative of the general situation now prevailing in the
South Pacific Division, some have been reprinted in full or in part in the
Appendix. Read them while keeping in mind the type of organization described by
Mrs. White as a "kingly power" and by A. T, Jones variously as a
"czarist" oligarchy and a "papal" hierarchy.
|
The souls who love God, who
believe in Christ, and who eagerly grasp every ray of light, will see
light, and rejoice in the truth. They will communicate the light. They will grow
in holiness. Those who receive the Holy Spirit will feel the chilling
atmosphere that surrounds the souls of others by whom these great and
solemn-realities are unappreciated and spoken against. They feel that they
are in the council of the ungodly, of men who stand in the way of sinners,
and sit in the seat of the scornful.... Yet
many have listened to the truth spoken in demonstration of the Spirit, and
they have not only refused to accept the message, but they have hated the
light. These men are parties to the ruin of souls. They have interposed
themselves between heavensent light and the people.
They have trampled upon the word of God and are doing despite to His Holy
Spirit. Ellen
G. White Testimonies to
Ministers, pp. 90-91 |
End
Chapter 20
In
keeping with the Adventists' desperate attempts to convince a United States
District Court that the government of the S.D.A. Church is papal in structure
(which will be described in chapter 25), we may expect to find an authoritarian
attitude extending right down the hierarchal chain of command through Division
presidents, Union presidents, conference presidents and thence through
conference workers and church pastors. Let us briefly look at the chain of
command in the South Pacific Division, not only to see if it is authoritarian
in nature, but also to find out its true objective. Does it advance the cause
espoused by the Adventist pioneers or does it aid the slide toward Rome?
We
have noted at some length, Division president Scragg's attitude to Dr. Colin
Standish's speaking at "unauthorized" meetings−he was unappreciative. Yet Colin's audiences were very
enthusiastic, which simply adds up to the fact that they were listening to
messages which they seldom hear.
Similarly,
other visiting and local preachers find their "unauthorized" meetings
in considerable demand. One such preacher is veteran retired evangelist, Pastor
Austin P. Cooke. In this connection, let us now look at the Union presidents
and discover their administrative attitudes. Do they render allegiance to God
and the divine commission given to the remnant church, or do they bow to the
wishes of men?
We
have two Union Conferences in the homelands of the South Pacific Division−the Trans-Tasman Union with headquarters in Sydney and
the Trans-Australia Conference, controlled from Melbourne. Both the Union
presidents, Pastor Harold Harker and Pastor Desmond Hills respectively, know
what historic Adventism is all about and to the best
of the author's knowledge, are quite capable of preaching it. Indeed, both have
publicly stated in the hearing of the author, their unswerving allegiance to
preaching the three angels' messages.*
* Special Business meeting
called in attempt to silence Anchor
magazine, Avondale Memorial Church (September 27, 1987).
Seventh-day
Adventist retired ministers receive their honorary credentials through the
Union in which they reside. It is the president's duty to know about the
suitability of those to whom his committee issues credentials. There are
certain guidelines laid down in the Church Manual regarding church discipline.
From page 158 of the Church Manual we read:
No
individual member or group of members should start a movement or form an
organization or seek to encourage a following for the attainment of any
objective, or the teaching of any doctrine or message not in harmony with the
fundamental religious objectives and teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church.
Now, surely one would not
be presumptuous in regarding Dr. Desmond Ford's Good News Australia magazine as the official organ of an
organization that falls within this category, for Ford is still (early 1989) a
member of the S.D.A. Church.*
*The fact that Dr. Ford is allowed to remain a
member of the S.D.A. Church while contravening conditions of membership laid
down in the Church Manual, is another issue to which President Neil Clayton
Wilson apparently turns a blind eye.
We
have already noted at some length (chapter 14) that a retired minister, Pastor
V. Heise, credentialed in the T.T.U.C., openly
supported Ford's organization by contributing an article to Good News Australia (September 1988). Surely any member, especially a
minister, who so boldly identifies with the ideals of Ford's organization
cannot, according to the Church Manual, be considered a loyal church member,
let alone hold ministerial credentials issued by the S.D.A. Church.
On February 23, 1989, the
author wrote to the president of the Trans-Tasman Union Conference expressing
concern. Enclosed was a copy of Heise's article. In
reply, Pastor Harker attempted to dodge the main issue−that of public support for Ford−with the following diversionary remarks:
“There
was nothing in the article that could be seen "as cause for disciplinary
action." . . . I also do not see Pastor Vern Heise,
who is retired, forming a new organization or trying to get a following.”
(letter March 16, 1989).
However,
to his credit, he did eventually get around to addressing the real concern of
the author by noting before closing that:
“It
does tell where sympathies lie and this should be
noted.” (ibid.).
During
the latter part of May 1989, the T.T.U.C. executive met in session and Pastor Heise's credentials were left intact. But those of veteran
Pastor Austin Cooke, who publicly upholds historic Adventism and denounces
error, were revoked (Letter from Harker to Cooke, May 23, 1989).
Meanwhile, in the
Trans-Australia Union Conference, a lay member of the S.D.A. church had been
recently admitted into church employment as a high school teacher. He also
had publicly supported Ford by writing articles appearing in Good News Australia. On January
26, 1989, the author wrote to T.A.U.C. president, Pastor D. Hills expressing
general concern:
“that so
many of our administrators knowingly employ men whose interpretation of truth
coincides with Des Ford's reformationist concept of
righteousness by faith and other views aberrant to Seventh-day Adventism. Need
I remind you of the great influence our teachers have upon our youth and the
significance of placing Fordian teachers in our
church schools?”
In
reply (February 1, 1989) Pastor Hills stated:
“It is
not true that "many of our administrators knowingly employ men whose
interpretations of the truth coincide with Des Ford's etc.” Then followed an
astounding admission:
“The leadership of the church that I am
associated with are fully aware that there are people who don't preach error
but also don't preach all of the Word of God.”
He
then defended the teacher on the grounds that his
president didn't "know of this church member teaching views held by Des
Ford or withholding truths upheld by the Seventh-day Adventist Church." Apparently these remarks were primarily based on the fact
that the teacher in question had taught Sabbath School classes and came
"with positive recommendations as a loyal Seventh-day Adventist."
In this case, the president of the T.A.U.C.
entirely ignored the point of concern that the teacher was sufficiently
supportive of Ford to declare his position publicly−so he ignored it. The
author replied, February 17, 1989, pointing out that:
“You
have ducked the question of employing Fordian
sympathizers.... May I point out to you that you are being given the opportunity
to give credibility to your numerous affirmations [of loyalty to Adventists'
perception of truth].”
In
reply, President Hills sought to minimize the impact of his admission by
stating that:
“You
need to note that the statement was made with reference to "people"
and you are not correct in presuming that that's specifically stated "church employees."
But, the careful reader will note that the
concern expressed in the correspondence has been only about people employed by
the church.
By
now, it must be evident that in a hierarchal system of administration, even
though an administrator may be inclined to act to uphold the standards required
for the preservation of Adventist beliefs and ideals, it is most unlikely that
subordinates will act against the direction of their superiors. If they were so
in the habit, it is not likely that they would have attained their position on
the ladder of hierarchy. But the end result is that both the two homeland Unions are
administratively tolerant of Fordian supporters−a fact which contrasts with their attitude shown toward
some ministers who are openly loyal to historic Adventism.
We now
come down the ladder of hierarchy to conference level. In the North New South
Wales Conference, of which Pastor Rex Moe is president, some curious methods
have been used in "advancing" God's work. A recent spate of disfellowshipments and resignations indicate the surfacing
of an undercurrent of disenchantment with what is seen as evidence of
"kingly," "papal like" power.
Pastor
Moe took upon himself the task of shutting down the Anchor magazine.* During a special
business meeting of the Avondale Memorial Church, September 27, 1987, he
claimed that the Anchor's charges
that the Australasian Division had accepted apostasy when they had exonerated
Ford at the Biblical Research grounds
Institute's at that time Ford had not declared his apostate position.
Yet the editor of Anchor was able to produce two witnesses
(who were in attendance at the BRI meetings) to say
that President Rex Moe had
vigorously defended Ford, especially in connection with Ford's claim that the
earth's age was considerably more than 6,000 years. Moe hotly objected
to this testimony, saying that he had always been comfortable with Sister
White's position−that the earth is
around 6,000 years old.
But the editor had come
into possession of a curious set of papers which President Moe, through his
committee, had arranged to circulate quietly among his workers. These papers
were written and prepared by one of his ministers, Pastor S. R. Goldstone, who
had taken the liberty of entitling them "The Seventh-day Adventist Church Believes . . ." (he had
beaten the G. C. ministerial association to the punch with their book "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " ).
* A letter to the editor
of Anchor magazine appeared in "Anchor Lines," February 1987
edition: "A friend of mine from Glen Innes (North New South Wales) claims
that the president told church members there, that "they" were going
to deal with the Editor and shut the Anchor
up."
Further light on the
wishful intentions of the administration is revealed in a South Queensland
church bulletin dated August 15, 1987:
"Action was taken by
the church where he [the editor] holds membership, to apply church discipline
if he continues to publish Anchor.
In the event, such action
was not initiated until February 27, 1988, over six months after the
"event" was announced.
A
motion to disfellowship Meyers failed by 101:54 (see Anchor No. 19, pg 13 for report).
The Anchor magazine was brought
into being in April 1985 to uphold historic Adventism and expose error. Its
first editor was H. H. Meyers, an Adventist layman with membership at the
Avondale Memorial Church. It is presently
being edited jointly by Ron and Ula Cable, and its continued success indicates
the real need which it and other similar magazines fulfill. Back numbers and
current copies may be obtained from:
The Editors, Anchor magazine
P.O.Box 19, KALBAR
Queensland 4309 AUSTRALIA
Quite
a deal of resource materials accompanied Goldstone's comments on each of the
fundamentals. Each section of the fundamentals was preceded with a full page on
which appeared a large cautionary notice written in Goldstone's handwriting:
Resource
Material only. Please use with discretion.
But
preceding a section containing some forty of Mrs. White's quotations bearing on
the earth's age, appeared an extra injunction:
Note that the Bible
nowhere makes statements regarding the age of the earth. It is adamant that God
was the Creator. Where the Bible is silent we ought to be silent.*
*If the Bible nowhere makes statements on the age of the earth, then by
the same method of reasoning, it nowhere mentions the year 1844 as the start of
the investigative judgment. There is no end to the possibilities of such
specious reasoning.
The
editor then produced this evidence before the assembled business meeting,
showing that some twelve years on from Ford's BRI meetings, we have a president who denies
supporting Ford, yet is presently assisting in the distribution of Fordian material which casts doubt not only on the
denomination's understanding of the age of the earth, but also by implication,
on the Spirit of Prophecy.
The fact that this sort of material is
being circulated to the ministry with a caution as to how it is used, holds
grave implications, for obviously it is not intended for the eyes of the laity. But other ideas are quietly injected into the minds of
the ministry. In the section dealing with fundamental No. 23, p. 10, relating
to our distinctive beliefs on the investigative judgment, Goldstone says,
“The conclusion reached by the
consensus of scholars within the Seventh-day Adventist Church is that the Book
of Hebrews neither confirms nor denies our belief in the investigative judgment.”
In
fairness to Goldstone, we here record that he claims to believe in an
investigative judgment but he gets his belief from an
overall view of the Bible−not just Hebrews. But even this affirmation gets a
watering down:
“I
believe the primary purpose of the investigative judgment is to vindicate God's
name before His intelligent creatures. God is on trial more than men.” (p. 13).
But
his view is strangely at variance with that of the pioneers who regarded the
warnings of a personal
judgment as a message to be urgently proclaimed.
It is no wonder that the ministry is
cautioned over and over again to be discreet in their
use of such information!
The
next stage in the attempt to silence the Anchor
took place just five months later-on February 27, 1988. This time a Special
Business meeting of the Avondale Memorial Church was called to consider
disciplining the editor, H. H. Meyers, for continuing to publish Anchor. By church standards, this was an
illegal meeting, for it contravened the clear rules of the Church Manual:
“No church officer should advise, no
committee should recommend, nor should any church vote, that the name of a
wrongdoer shall be removed from the church books, until the instruction given
by Christ has been faithfully followed.” (Church
Manual p. 155).
Christ's instructions, as
mentioned in the Church Manual are to be found in Matthew 18. Surely these would require that the
church pastor with a church elder would have visited the editor. But it seems that silencing those
who "sigh and cry" has such priority that Christ's instructions don't
apply, for neither the church pastor nor the president nor anyone delegated by
the church came to discuss the matter with editor Meyers.*
No one even bothered to ascertain whether or not the time for the disciplinary
meeting was convenient to the "erring one."
* Another example of
reckless dissemination of false information concerns President Scragg's
correspondence concerning the Editor of Anchor.
In responding to a letter
from a church member expressing surprise that Meyers had never been visited by
the church pastor, Scragg said, "I know that the conference president and
church pastors have visited him more than once" (Letter, January 13,
1988). But in reply to
persistent correspondence, Scragg had to admit his error: "You are right;
there have been no recent pastoral visits to Hilton Meyers" (Letter, April
21, 1988). In
fact, there had never been any pastoral visits to Meyers.
However, the president did
show his interest by attending the meeting. He sat there and by his silence
condoned the efforts to discredit the editor and then watched a motion
instigated to have the editor disfellowshiped. But he
was in for a surprise! He was forced to witness the scheming and conspiring of
some eighteen months come undone. By secret ballot, the motion was lost−101 votes to 54.
Had
church pastor J. Beamish followed the injunction of Christ and had dialogue
with the editor, he could have learned that he had been negotiating for several
months with new editors who were about to take over. In the event, the meeting
was a big fuss over nothing, for by this time, Meyers was no longer the editor. One cannot escape the conclusion
that if similar planning and energy were directed toward spreading the third
angel's message, there would be no need for journals like the Anchor.
Pastor
Ross Goldstone has since been appointed pastor of the Avondale Memorial Church.
Pastor Austin Cooke has had his membership there during the previous eight
years of his retirement. Never once in all these years has he been invited to
preach in divine service or take a Sabbath School lesson. It is no wonder then,
that he commenced fellowshiping in another church, at
nearby Boolaroo. There he has been able to
participate by teaching Sabbath School lessons.
In
November 1988, he applied to have his membership transferred to the Boolaroo church. But, by April 17, 1989, at the time of an
Avondale Memorial Church business meeting, his transfer had still not been put
to the church for vote. Pastor Cooke requested at this meeting that in view of
the inordinate delay, his transfer be put to the vote and settled at that very
meeting.
Pastor
Goldstone, who chaired the meeting, flatly refused. After difficult attempts to
question him, it appeared that he was awaiting advice from the Trans-Tasman
Union Conference.
This
unusual procedure seems to denote a lack of confidence in a credentialing
system that has shown confidence in Pastor Cooke throughout his outstandingly
successful evangelistic career. Is this part of a popish pattern in the South Pacific Division to
suppress the teaching of established truth? In Pastor Cooke's case, his
standing as a church member is under question, simply because he has offended
an authoritarian system by moving around the Division giving truth-starved
church members the historic Adventist message and denouncing apostasy.
In years gone by, such commitment would be lauded by conference presidents. Why
not now?
Which
brings us to another important sphere of Division influence−Avondale College, and in particular,
its theology department. This is the college which was brought into being under the direct
guidance of God through Mrs. E. G. White. Our pioneers denied themselves
in order to have a "School for Christian
Workers." Later it became known as the "Australasian Missionary
College" and as such it has been eminently successful. But now it is
known as Avondale College, a "college of higher learning." The management still claim to
run a "blueprint" college.
This
is where young church members train to be Seventh-day Adventist ministers, but
having studied Babylonian theology, not all of them know what Seventh-day
Adventism should be about. One
recent graduate had to ask the meaning of the term, "three angels'
messages."
The
theology department is very sensitive to criticism. Around the end of 1988, a
video tape was produced by a lecturer in evangelism at Avondale College, Pastor Graeme Bradford. It was directed against the preaching of a veteran
retired minister who, while exposing apostate Adventism, had brought the
college into it. This tape has been quietly circulated around the
conferences and played to selected audiences. Although Bradford frequently addresses the veteran by name,
he had not bothered to advise him of the tape's existence, let alone afford him
the courtesy of seeing it.
Discerning viewers of this video will be
grateful for the fact that we now have an unequivocal admission from the
theology department that they are in the track of Calvinistic-evangelical
theology. Bradford follows Froom's subtle approach in promoting "new
theology," raises doubts on the competency of the pioneers by showing that
new light demanded that they forsake Arianism, and from this, attempts to have
Mrs. E. G. White imply that new light will continue to be revealed (even on
accepted truth).
Part of this "new light"
appears to be old light revealed by the Roman Catholic Church. Bradford comes
down heavily for Augustine's invention of original sin, claiming that we are
all born sinners except Christ who, because He didn't sin, must have entered
this world with a different nature from ours.
But, quite unfairly, he fails to give credit to Augustine for his inventive
genius, which runs contrary to scripture (1 John 3:4) and claims that he gets
this doctrine (of anti-christ, 1 John 4:3) from the
Bible.
Note
by Ron: All apostate leaders of the church, always try to demonstrate that
because Jesus did not commit sin, He had an advantage over us, so that He could
overcome sin and we can’t. That flies in the face of the very mission of
Christ, in coming in our sinful human nature, and sacrificing His Divine Nature
Holy Spirit ONLY NATURE, which He had eternally with the Father, so as to give it to us as the “highest good, crowning gift
that heaven can bestow,” to enable us to overcome as He did. This GIFT OF ALL
GIFTS, it the gospel in a nutshell. It is righteousness by faith in a nutshell.
This “highest good, crowning gift” levels the playing field between Christ and
man. We are to be born again and receive this gift of the Holy Spirit Divine
Nature of Christ, which enables us to overcome, for He then abides in us and
does the works lest any man should boast. We are invited to partake of His
Divine Nature, to wit:
2Pe
1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be
partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the
world through lust.
End
note by Ron.
However,
can Bradford make the Bible contradict itself? It's quite simple. Rome has
already provided him with her Roman corruptions of Scripture and, in keeping
with those who promote apostate Adventism, he turns to Rome for help. He reads
from Psalms, according to the NIV:
Surely I have
been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me (Psalm
51:5, NIV).
Says Bradford, “That's
the word of God−sinner from birth.”
But those who believe that "all
scripture is given by inspiration of God" will know that God cannot
contradict Himself. He says: "For sin is the transgression of the
law" (1 John 3:4). And God's Messenger tells us that this is the only
definition of sin in the Bible (GC 493). But God tells us in His Holy Word just
what David really did say:
Behold I was shapen
in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm 51:5, KJV).
Bradford
tries to tell his viewers that the KJV has the same meaning as given in the
NIV. Then why did he cite the NIV? The reason is obvious−it doesn't. Bradford here shows that he does not believe
the SDA Bible Commentary on this text, which says:
David recognizes that children inherit
natures with propensities to evil (Vol. 3, p. 755).
Isn't that why God chose Mary to be
Christ's mother−so that Jesus would
inherit a similar nature to that with which you and I started life?
The
owner of the NIV copyright is the New York International Bible Society. Their
Preface claims that their Bible is "a completely new translation ... made
by over 100 scholars" and that it is "trans-denominational," that is,
suitable for a variety of denominations because it reflects the philosophy of the Christian Reformed
Church and the National Association of Evangelicals. So
it is an ecumenical Bible!
As
with the KJV, the translators appear to rely on the Masoretic text, but we are
advised that there are "variant readings" not necessarily specified
by footnotes. As the translators of the KJV also claim to rely on the Masoretic
text, then it seems that the NIV translators went elsewhere to translate Psalm
51:5. Was it the Septuagint? No−the
LXX agrees with the Masoretic from which the KJV derives:
“For, behold I was conceived in
iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.” (The Septuagint Greek and
English, Bagster).
We
must search the NIV Preface again for clues. Here we are told that readings
from the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome were occasionally used in the Psalms
"where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of
these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading."
Well,
that really gives us something to think about, doesn't it? We are told that the
translators are associated with the Christian Reformed Church and the National
Association of Evangelicals. If
a reading seemed doubtful to their religious beliefs they simply searched for a
"textual witness that appeared to provide a correct reading," in this
case, a reading that would uphold Augustine's invention of original sin.
But
even Jerome, a friend and admirer of Augustine, was not able to translate Psalm
51:5 so as to entirely support his friend's invention
of original sin as translated in the NIV. A literal translation of his Latin
Juxta Hebraica would read something like this:
“Behold, I was born in a condition of blame and in sin my
mother conceived me.”
(Recently, the author was
browsing through a religious book shop in the Philippines. All the Bibles on
display were Roman Catholic publications with the exception
of one other−the NIV.)
In his video, Bradford frequently
identifies with the theology of most of the ministry in Australasia, which is
not surprising. They too have received ministerial training that is tainted, if
not impregnated with Fordism. But Bradford's
video reveals another identifying characteristic of a forlorn cause. He
conducts an interview with a retired history professor who sets about to
discredit our retired evangelist over a minor historical mistake, which he is
alleged to have made during a lecture some thirty years
back, yes, thirty years ago!
As if
that were not puerile enough, this frustrated professor then resorted to a
vitriolic attack on God's veteran. He described what he perceived to be one of
the evangelist's idiosyncrasies:
“And so
he feels free to make what amounts to be defamatory statements ... about people
and institutions and does it with an inane neurotic laugh that you would expect
to get from a firebug or a saboteur.”
Is this an insight into the kind of
"love" that is promoted by a theology that advocates more love and
less doctrine?
How
deplorable to realize that those who have been entrusted with the training of
Seventh-day Adventist ministers have misdirected their time and talents in such
destructive pursuits! But even
more devastating is the realization that there are presidents and/or other
workers around the conferences who encourage such unchristian and
un-Adventist-like ventures by disseminating such a destructive video.
One
June 8, 1989, during a meeting held to "enlighten" elders of the
South Queensland Conference at Kallangur, Pastor
Bradford advertised this series of video tapes, assuring the elders that they had approval of South
Pacific Division leadership. Conference president David Lawson
enthusiastically offered to help in the distribution. Then in the July edition
of his conference paper, Focus, Lawson took the opportunity to get Bradford's
message to all of his constituents:
If you
did not hear Pastor Bradford at the Elders' Meeting, let me suggest that you
obtain a set of the videos produced by Avondale College featuring Pastor
Bradford.
Truly
the experiences of the pioneers could well be emulated by our leaders today.
God's Messenger says,
“We are to be established in the faith,
in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. .
. . We would search the scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit
would bring the truth to our minds.... The power of God would come upon me, and
I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error.
“As the points of our faith were thus established, our
feet were placed on a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point
under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and
explanations would be given me.... It is the enemy that leads minds off on
side-tracks [such as the Bradford video tape]. He is pleased when those who
know the truth become engrossed in collecting scriptures to pile around
erroneous theories, which have no foundation in truth. The scriptures thus used
are misapplied; they were not given to substantiate error, but to strengthen
truth.” (Gospel Workers, ed. 1915, 302-303).
|
Unless the church, which is now being leavened with her
own backsliding, shall repent and be converted,
she will eat of the fruit of her own doing, until she shall abhor herself.
When she resists the evil and chooses the good, when she seeks God with all
humility and reaches her high calling in Christ, standing on the platform of
eternal truth and by faith laying hold upon the attainments prepared for her,
she will be healed. She will appear in her God-given simplicity and purity,
separate from earthly entanglements, showing that the truth has made her free
indeed. Then her members will indeed be the chosen of God, His
representatives. The time has come for a thorough reformation to take
place. When this reformation begins, the
spirit of prayer will actuate every believer and will banish from the church
the spirit of discord and strife. Those who have not been living in Christian
fellowship will draw close to one another. Ellen
G. White Testimonies
for the Church, Vol. 8, 250-251 Note by Ron: Ellen White gave testimony to prove that
such a reformation would NEVER take place, when she said that the omega
heresy would wax stronger until Jesus comes, and that Ezekiel 9 slaughter and
destruction will LITERALLY begin at His church, His Sanctuary, the House of
Jacob. 5T 211. She said that Ezekiel 9 will literally be fulfilled, and that
it begins at God’s church, as does Ezekiel 9, wherein God says: begin at my
sanctuary. Eze 9:6
“Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children,
and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary.
Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house,” while the
faithful go forth out of Jerusalem just as they did in the last literal
fulfillment of Ezekiel 9 in A.D. 27-70. Isaiah 37:321, 32. Isa 37:31 And
the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root
downward, and bear fruit upward: Isa 37:32 For
out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount
Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this. THERE IS ONE MORE GOING OUT FRIEND! When one joins the
SDA church, he/she thinks they have “ARRIVED,” but there is ONE MORE GOING
OUT OF A REMNANT NOT ONLY FROM BABYLON, BUT FROM APOSTATE JERUSALEM AS WELL.
The final Midnight Loud Cry is to ALL TEN VIRGINS IN ALL CHURCHES. COL,
405-406. It is the voice of God, AND THE VOICE OF THE BRIDE, THE 144,000,
that awakens ALL TEN VIRGINS. End note by Ron. |
End Chapter 21
When we read in Adventist
literature the oft-repeated term "apostate Protestantism" we
understand that the author is talking about Protestant churches that are
backsliding to Rome. When the Seventh-day Adventist Church accepts the
teachings of apostate Protestantism and imitates the ways of Rome, it is
logical to refer to that condition as apostate Adventism, for the very term
"apostasy" denotes a turning back or backsliding from a position once
espoused.
God's
Messenger had no illusions as to the direction in which a backsliding church is
headed:
“It is a
backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy.” (Signs of the
Times, February 19, 1894).
We
have seen how, in 1903 the church deliberately defied God's will by returning
to a type of bureaucratic government described by Mrs. White as a "kingly
power" and by A. T. Jones as "a government more like that of the
Papacy than any of the Protestant churches" (see chapter 13).
We
have also seen how the doctrinal changes brought into the Seventh-day Adventist
Church under the cloak of historic Adventism, have brought us into favor with
popular evangelicalism. Let us now briefly examine the veracity of our
Messenger's claim that such changes lead toward the Papacy, by examining the two prongs of the dagger-namely, the unfallen nature and
the judgment in relation to a completed atonement.
1. God
sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3)
“The
Romanists have been trying to get the human nature of Christ as far away from
our humanity as possible, and hence have taught the Immaculate Conception of
Mary.” (Bishop Simpson in his "Yale Lectures on Preaching," quoted in
Bible Echo, December 1897).
Note
by Ron: Bible Echo was an SDA publication. End note.
“By
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Rome teaches that
the mother of Jesus was preserved from the stain of "original sin," and that she had sinless flesh. Consequently
she was separated from the rest of humanity. As a result of
the separating of Jesus from sinful flesh, the Roman priesthood has been
instituted to mediate between Christ and the sinner (Sabbath School Quarterly, second quarter 1913, p. 25).
“Ancient
Babylon affirmed that the gods (or God) dwelt not in the flesh. By the dogma of
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (that is, that she herself was
born without a taint of original sin) modern Babylon teaches that God, in the
person of His Son, did not take the same flesh with us; that is, sinful flesh (Bible Readings for the Home Circle,
1915, p. 236).
“The Scripture plainly teaches that Jesus,
when born of a woman, assumed sinful flesh (Hebrews 2:14; Romans 8:3) and thus
became united with man in his fallen condition.
This doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary separates Jesus
from the human family in its present state, by giving Him "perfect human
nature" free from the stain of original sin, and thus prepares the way for
the introduction of the human mediation which is one of the prominent features
of the Roman Catholic system. The very essence of Christianity being the
experience, "Christ in you, the hope of glory," it thus appears that
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary strikes at the very heart
of Christianity.” (note by editors, Source Book for Bible Students, p. 220, Review and Herald, 1919; deleted from
the 1922 edition).
In spite of
such striking statements, all of which appear in official publications of the
SDA Church, the books Questions on
Doctrine and Movement of Destiny
uphold the Roman Catholic heresy which is dependent on the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception. Both teach that Christ did not
inherit a sinful human nature.
Examples
follow:
“Took Sinless Human Nature.” (QOD, p. 650)
“Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall.”
(MOD, p. 497)
2.
“For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether
it be good or whether it be evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14).
“For there
is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1
Timothy 2:5).
When a
Seventh-day Adventist publication states
"Complete Atonement Made on Cross" (MOD p. 501) and "The
atonement, or reconciliation was completed on the cross as pre-shadowed by the
sacrifices, and the penitent believer can trust in this finished work of our
Lord" ("Seventh-day Adventists
Believe . . . ", p. 315) the church's belief in an atoning role of
Christ in heaven as High Priest and Mediator is logically brought into
ridicule. In commenting on Adventism's changed position, Barnhouse described
our belief in the investigative judgment as "stale, flat and
unprofitable" (Eternity,
September 1956).
But,
as seen earlier in this chapter, the Roman Catholic Church seeks to abort
Christ's role of heavenly High Priest by insinuating its own mediators between
God and man. Satan is determined one way or another to rob Jesus
Christ of His mediatorial role for which He alone is qualified.
Forasmuch then as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the
power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death
were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the
nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 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. For in that he himself hath suffered
being tempted, he is able to succour them that are
tempted (Hebrews 2:14-18).
Whether
Christ's work of salvation is cut off at the cross with a "completed act
of atonement" or whether His work is circumscribed by the confines of a
papal wafer in a virtual state of perpetual crucifixion, is of little
consequence to the archdeceiver. Either way, there is no need for an
investigative judgment−which is described by
our prophet as Christ's final act of atonement.
By
either means, man is not constrained to seek an intimate union with our Saviour
by following "Jesus by faith into the heavenly sanctuary" (EW 255).
Instead, he can delude himself that he need not obey God, for he is already
saved at the cross; or by the incantations of a mystical human mediator:
“The
Holy Eucharist is the sublime source of this intimate union with Jesus Christ
during man's earthly pilgrimage, for in receiving Holy Communion, the Christian
soul may truly exclaim: "And I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in
me" Galatians 2:20 (The Catholic
Church the True Church of the Bible, pp. 132-133, quoted in Source Book for Bible Students, 1919, p.
297; 1922 edition p. 319).
But in
recent years, Adventists have come up with an ingenious Clayton-like* device
consisting of a judgment which you have when you're not being judged! The term
"investigative judgment" is far too descriptive for some, so they
prefer to call it the "preAdvent
judgment."
* "Clayton" is a
brand of non-alcoholic drink advertised in Australia as "The drink you
have when you're not drinking."
They
tell us its primary purpose is to give the universe an opportunity to judge
God. Apparently this face-saving concept has been officially accepted by the
ministerial association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,** for in their publication "Seventh-day Adventist Believe. ..
", we read:
This
judgment is not for the benefit of the Godhead. It is primarily for the benefit
of the universe, answering the charges of Satan and giving assurance to the
unfallen creation that God will allow into His kingdom only those who truly
have been converted. So God opens the books of record
for impartial inspection. Daniel 7:9-10 ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. ", p. 325).
The issue is with God and
the universe, not between God and the true child (ibid. p. 326).
** "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " comes "with the
authorization and encouragement of President Neal C. Wilson and the other
officers of the General Conference ... to furnish reliable information on the
beliefs of our church" (p. v).
Such
teaching is rank heresy and if believed, does have the effect of taking the
urgency of the warning of the first angel away from the individual by placing
God in the "hot-seat."* This brings us closer to the beliefs of Rome
and her daughters whose teachings leave no room for an individual investigative
judgment. How can they, when
they believe that at death, the soul has already been consigned to heaven,
purgatory or the everlasting flames of hell?
* Terminology used by G. Youlden
(Sermon, Avondale Memorial Church, August 20, 1988).
This
teaching in "Seventh-day Adventists
Believe .. . " is very different from that of
historic Adventism. Just listen to what the then president of the General
Conference had to say just thirteen years earlier (1975):
“The
apostle Paul declares: "We
must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that everyone may receive
the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good
or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10). We may not like it, we may not
believe it, but the inspired writer declares it nonetheless certain that every
one of us has a court case pending before the heavenly tribunal.... The great
final judgment determines in which group you and I and every person born into
this world will be−saved or lost−when Jesus returns. Not everyone who makes a start in the
Christian way will go through to the kingdom. "Once in grace, always in grace" is a doctrine
neither of the remnant church nor of the Scriptures. "He that shall endure
unto the end, the same shall be saved," Jesus taught. (Matthew 24:13). The
judgment separates those who merely begin to serve the Lord from those who
follow Him unto the end.” (R. H. Pierson, We Still Believe, pp 123124).
Note
by Ron: Robert H. Pierson was a President of the General Conference. End note.
Truly,
a backsliding church does lessen the distance between itself and the Papacy.
A
church can apostatize in either of two ways−it
can grow careless and indifferent to its special beliefs that have set it apart
as a denomination; or it can revert to the beliefs and practices which it had
originally discarded by assiduously promoting a deceitful campaign of
subversion.
Both
types of apostasy require the assistance of time and funerals. The latter type
must inevitably be planned and controlled by the religious system to which its
victim is attracted. We know of but one religious system which has formed a
specific organization to subvert Protestantism−the
Roman Catholic Church with its misnamed
"Society
of Jesus."
In his
book Alberto, ex-Roman Catholic priest Dr. Alberto Rivera tells how he was one
of many young seminarians trained by the Jesuits to infiltrate Protestant
denominations. He says:
“The
first Protestant groups they [the Jesuits] moved on were the 7th Day Adventists
[sic] and the Full Gospel Business Men” (p. 28).
In a
later public interview with Mike Clute, Alberto not only reaffirmed that
Jesuits had penetrated the S.D.A. Church but said that on a membership basis,
the S.D.A. Church has been infiltrated more thoroughly than any other.
Not surprisingly, along with the Roman Catholic Church, some Evangelical-type
Adventist ministers and academics have not only denied Rivera's claim, but they
are known to have exercised their imagination with hilarious descriptions of
Jesuits lurking in the shadows of Adventist churches and institutions. The
author does not seek to gainsay such people for they probably have the
advantage of varying degrees of association with Rome and her daughters.
In the
following three chapters we will briefly consider aspects of the Church's
conduct which appear to be consistent with that of a papal hierarchy,
and leave it to the reader to determine the credibility of Alberto
Rivera's claims.
End
Chapter 22
When
Robert Pierson became General Conference president, the plan to pervert Adventist
doctrine received a setback. Questions on
Doctrine went out of print. LeRoy Froom had to act to salvage the
situation, so he wrote the book, Movement
of Destiny under the guise of fulfilling Elder Daniells' wish that he explain to the church the meaning of righteousness by faith.
In reality, MOD
turned out to be a defense of the book Questions
on Doctrine which, if its real purpose were known, was not likely to evoke
the enthusiasm of President Pierson. Froom must have realized that it was vital
to have the president's approval and recommendation for his book to have wide
distribution and acceptance. So Froom had printed
thousands of copies of a promotional pamphlet titled The Fascinating Story of Movement of Destiny. In it he made great
store of the fact that he was about to fulfill Elder Daniells' commission, and
that the Foreword to Movement of Destiny
contained a glowing recommendation by the president of the General
Conference-Elder Robert Pierson. Neither was he backward in proclaiming that
the vice-president, Neal C. Wilson had given a similar recommendation in his
Preface.
However, after
publication of Movement of Destiny,
President Pierson received a rude shock. He was reading things that he had not
seen in the manuscript! His reaction was to forbid the
publishers to use his Foreword in any future editions.*
So when the next edition came out, Pierson's Foreword was deleted, but Elder
Wilson must have agreed wholeheartedly with the book, for his Preface of
approval remained.
* On October 6, 1988,
Elder Robert Pierson wrote the author: "Some portions of Elder Froom's
manuscript Movement of Destiny I had
not read before its publication. Much of it I had read however, and what I read
I heartily agreed with and was glad to write the requested Foreword. After
reading some portions later, I declined to have my Foreword used in any
subsequent editions."
Elder
Pierson was troubled! He had been unwittingly and unfairly used. So he set about to write a book titled We Still Believe (Review and
Herald Publishing Assoc., 1975). The very title indicates that he was aware
that heresy was abroad. In it he reaffirmed the doctrines worked out by our
pioneers, including our belief in Christ's continuing work of atonement in the
heavenly sanctuary. Commenting on Fundamental Fourteen of the SDA Yearbook, 1973-1974 which states
that "the priestly work of our Lord is the antitype of the work of the
Jewish priests," he says:
“The
Seventh-day Adventist Church today still believes the great truths presented in
these symbols of salvation. We have neither changed our minds nor our
position-the sanctuary truth is present truth today just as it was October 23,
1844, when the Lord revealed it initially to Hiram Edson" (We Still Believe, p. 111).
On
page 119, he quotes the Lord's Messenger:
“The
Sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work on behalf of men.” (GC
488).
And
again,
“The
intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential
to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross.” (ibid. p. 489).
Then
he makes crystal clear his belief that Christ's present work in the sanctuary
is a continuation of the atonement by quoting from The Great Controversy, p. 489:
“We
are now living in the great day of atonement.” (We Still Believe, p. 120).
In 1978, Elder R. H.
Pierson retired from the presidency of the General Conference before his term
of office had expired.* During the Annual Council of
the General Conference (1978) he was moved to give a farewell address in which he
gave an impassioned plea for the preservation of the faith. He warned of the
approach of the omega of apostasy:
“Brethren,
I beg of you, study, know what is ahead, then with God's help prepare your
people to meet it.
“Regrettably
there are those in the church who belittle the inspiration of the total Bible .
. . who question the Spirit of Prophecy's short chronology of the earth, and
who subtly and not-so-subtly attack the Spirit of Prophecy. .
. . There are some who point to the reformers and contemporary
theologians as a source and the norm for Seventh-day Adventist doctrine....
There are those who wish to forget the standards of the church we love. There
are those who covet and would court the favor of the evangelicals; those who
would throw off the mantle of a peculiar people; and those who would go the way
of the secular, materialistic world.
“Fellow leaders, beloved
brethren and sisters−don't let it happen! .
. . I appeal to Andrews University, to the Seminary, to Loma Linda University−don't let it happen! We are not Seventh-day Anglicans,
not Seventh-day Lutherans, we are Seventh-day Adventists! This is God's last
church with God's last message!
* While it is
generally believed that Elder Pierson retired for reasons of health, some who
are close to the G. C. consider that he was "eased" out of the
presidency. In view of his
adherence to historic Adventism (as shown by his repudiation of some teachings
in MOD in his book We Still Believe,
this claim appears credible.
Further, it will be noted
that since his retirement, practically every one of the warnings given in his
farewell speech have gone unheeded; on the contrary, it seems that some
Curia-like body has seen to it that they have been put into practice.
End
Chapter 23
The
Roman Curia is described as "the highly complicated and structured
hierarchical body which is the Holy See's civil service" (Thomas and
Morgan-Witts, Pontiff, p. 49, Granada Publishing).
“Popes
may come and popes may go, but the Roman Curia, like
the civil servants of an elected government need to remain in place. It is the
curia which shapes and coordinates the political affairs of the
pseudo-Christian system centered in the Vatican.
“Pope
John Paul I did not appreciate all the advice tendered to him by his Curia. He
had some plans of his own. On the thirty-third day of his pontificate, he made
the decision to pull his liberal army of Jesuits back into line. He summoned the iron-willed
Superior-General of that society, Pedro Arrupe, to
appear before him on the following morning to answer to charges of spiritual
sedition, having steered his twenty-seven thousand members "on a direct
collision course with orthodox Church dogma (ibid., p. 364).
“Before Pope Paul I finally retired that
night he sat up in bed going over the papers that had been prepared for the
Jesuit Superior. But they were not to be delivered; they were found the next
morning scattered near his dead body, still sitting up in bed!” (Ibid., p.
378).
It
seems that the General Conference of the SDA Church has had a few men who have
entrenched themselves in the administration at Washington D.C. Presidents come
and presidents go, but some names appear almost as fixtures in a Curia-like
band of executive directors.
While
God's Messenger remained in our midst, such men were subjected to the
restraining voice of rebuke. But after her death the papal-like tendencies of
the "kingly" government were nurtured and exploited by the growing
hierarchy. Soon they would take the opportunity to flex their muscles.
Dr.
Benjamin G. Wilkinson was a forceful and outspoken figure of the time. His
feelings about the exercise of "kingly power" were well known, for
along with Mrs. White and Elders Waggoner and Jones, he had, as a young worker,
voted in 1903 against the reinstitution of a presidential-type government.
The SDA Encyclopedia reveals some
interesting details about Wilkinson's outstanding career. He trained for the
ministry at Battle Creek College, became an evangelist in Wisconsin, obtained a
B.A. at the University of Michigan and returned to Battle Creek College as
dean. After a short spell as president of the Canadian Conference, he became
the dean of theology at Union College. He is credited with commencing our work
in Rome, Paris, and in Spain, having spent four years as president of the Latin
Conference in the Southern European Division.
Returning
to North America, we find him as evangelist, dean of theology at Washington Missionary
College and president of Columbia Union Conference, and Kansas and East
Pennsylvanian Conferences.
In 1935 Wilkinson became
president of the Washington Missionary College, which post he held until 1945.
While in his previous position as dean, Dr. Wilkinson perceived the trend among
Adventist scholars to favor the modern versions of the Bible.*
*This is not surprising as, in 1926, the Berrien Springs College
Press published a text book on doctrines for use in S.D.A. colleges, in which
it claimed the ARV to be "more accurate, more scholarly, more
valuable" than the AV (p. 59).
Note
by Ron: The King James Version (KJV),
also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version
(AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the
Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 End note by Ron.
He was aware that the Pacific Press Association had
published a book by William P. Pierce titled The World's Best Book (1930). This book elevated the American Revised Version by saying that
the two thousand or more changes in the New Testament "had done no
violence to the original sense" but had in fact refined it (p. 83).
Such a conclusion was
based on the premise that since the translation of the King James Bible, more
reliable codices had become available, such as the Alexandrian, Vatican and
Sinaitic, which the author describes as "great Codices" (The World's Best Book, chapter XIII).
Wilkinson
knew that the ARV had done "violence to the original sense." He was aware that these "more
reliable" manuscripts carried Roman Catholic readings of the Latin Vulgate
which had been rejected by the Protestants of the Reformation. They had
been secretly injected into the supposed revision of the Authorized Version in
1881 by the extensive use of the carefully hidden Greek New Testament of
Doctors Westcott and Hort. These clergymen of the Church of England had long
fallen under the spell of ritualism, Romanism and higher criticism (See Our
Authorized Bible Vindicated, chapter IX).
The Revised
Versions had not been generally received with favor. Some sixty years after the
publication of the RV and twenty years after the ARV, the popular Ladies' Home Journal commented on the
virtues of the Authorized Version:
“Now, as the English-speaking people have
the best Bible in the world . . . we ought to make the most of it. . . . This means that we ought invariably in the church
and on public occasions to use the Authorized Version; all others are
inferior.” (November 1921).
A few
months later, the Herald and Presbyter
magazine denounced the Revised Version:
“This
Revised Version is in large part in line with what is known as
"Modernism." Those who really investigate the matter ... realize that
the RV is part of a movement to modernize Christian thought and faith and do
away with established truth.” (July 16, 1924).
Apparently Dr.
Wilkinson's concerns over our church's acceptance of the ARV were not
appreciated by the Washington hierarchy. General Conference president W. A.
Spicer wrote to Wilkinson expressing his concern that he or the college should
make an issue of the comparative merits of Bible translations. He stated:
“When
one of our leading colleges gives publicity to this matter as really a
controversial issue, it is blazing a new trail. It is my conviction that none
of our colleges should give public agitation to a question that involves a new
issue, especially one pertaining to the Word of God, without counsel from the
General Conference Committee in Council.” (Letter, November 18, 1928).
But it
seems that Wilkinson was by no means the only one to air his views without
obtaining the sanction of the growing papal like power in Washington. On
January 14, 1930, President Spicer was constrained to write to Elder W. W.
Prescott, who as Signs editor had run
a series of articles on the versions. (In reality, these
articles downgraded the KJV by elevating the revised versions):
“I
have just read the fourth article of the series. I must say, Brother Prescott,
that I feel concerning your setting forth of the faultiness of Bible
manuscripts that this is illtimed and harmful. The
tendency of this kind of discussion I believe is to spread questioning and
unbelief.”
But
even as Spicer was showing his concern, Dr. Wilkinson had been busy and by June
1930 he had written and published a book, Our
Authorized Bible Vindicated. It was "written with the fervent hope
that it will confirm and establish faith in God's Word, which through the ages
has been preserved inviolate" (Foreword).
He
then demonstrated that there were fundamentally two different Bibles−the uncorrupted and the corrupted, as represented by the
Protestant Bibles and the Roman Catholic. It was the Authorized Bible of King James, which nourished
the Protestant Reformation in the English-speaking world, having followed the
same N.T. text of Erasmus as Tyndale had used in his English Bible.
Wilkinson then showed how the Jesuits had
infiltrated Oxford University, and insinuated their
Roman Bibles into the Revised Version in order to combat the authority of the
Authorized Version which they saw as a "paper pope." Catholics
gloated at the fact that this had been accomplished by Protestants themselves. Said Cardinal Wiseman,
“When
we consider the scorn cast by the Reformers upon the Vulgate (Catholic Bible),
and their recurrence, in consequence to the Greek [text of Erasmus], as the
only accurate standard, we cannot but rejoice at the silent triumph which truth
has at length gained over clamorous error. For, in fact, the principal writers
who have avenged the Vulgate, and obtained for it its critical preeminence, are Protestants.” (Wiseman Essays, Vol. 1, p. 104).
Wilkinson
also dealt at length with the Roman input into the American RV. He showed how
Dr. Philip Schaff, president of the American Committee of Revision had brought
from Germany the contaminating theory of "historical development"
which had filled Oxford with the Roman poison of Modernism. Wilkinson quoted
(p. 236):
“It is
quite time that the churches of our country should awake to the extent and
tendencies of this movement in the midst of American
Protestantism. After a series of advances and retractions, strongly resembling
the tactics of the Tractarian party [an Oxford group] in England, we have at
length a bold avowal of the "primacy of Peter," the fundamental and
test doctrine of the Papacy, followed by a concision of every vital point of
Christianity−Church, Ministry,
Worship, Sacraments, and the right of Private Judgment to Romanism, and that
too, while the name and the forms of Protestantism are (as far as possible)
studiously retained.” (New Brunswick
Review, May 1854, p. 20).
Wilkinson's book brought a swift response
from the General Conference−but not the kind of
response that Bible-believing Protestants would expect. The church that had
"recognized the equal value of the Authorized and the ARV" (G. C.
Committee, March 20, 1930) and had recently extolled the virtues of the ARV in
The World's Best Book, denounced Wilkinson's book as "unauthorized."
Said vice-president J. L. McElhany in a letter to
Union and local conferences in North America:
“The book in question has not been passed
upon by a book committee of any of our publishing houses.... Our Authorized
Bible Vindicated can be of no particular help to our work,
and will only serve to continue the agitation of a question which we
believe should be avoided.” (Letter, July 27, 1930).
But the Washington "Curia" did not let the matter
rest. They were so concerned by Wilkinson's exposure of the Jesuit plan to
wreck the Protestant Bible that they formed a committee to defame Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.*
* As
usual, the members of the committee remain anonymous. But the names L. E.
Froom, L. E. Howell, and M. E. Kern are currently connected with this
committee. It is interesting to note that when the AV was presented in The World's Best Book as having inferior
manuscripts to the ARV, the "Curia" showed no concern.
They
came up with a document, which purported to be a review of Wilkinson's book.
But for reasons best known to themselves, no names are appended to this
document. A copy of Wilkinson's Answers
to the Reviewer's Objections is in the author's possession.
Fortunately,
Wilkinson listed each significant objection and replied to each one, so we have
a fairly accurate overview of the objections. His
reply must be regarded by any impartial reader as an exposure of a gross
misrepresentation of facts by a hostile review committee. Wilkinson comments
thus:
“But
those who wrote the document to which I now reply were under obligation, since
they called it a "review" to be impartial and to present the good and
the strong side of my arguments as well as those phases which seemed to them to
be weak. This they notably failed to do.” (Introduction p. 1).
He then listed eight great arguments which the Reviewers
had chosen to ignore:
1. The Romanizing and Unitarian character of Westcott and Hort, two leading English revisers.
2. The grave charges concerning Dr. Philip Schaff, president
of the American Revision Committees.
3. The connection between the Revision of the AV and the
Oxford movement which Jesuitized England.
4. The arguments drawn from the [Roman Catholic] Council of
Trent, which voted among other means of combating the Reformation to "put
the [Roman Catholic] Vulgate on its feet."
5. That the Catholic scholars rejoiced that the RV had
restored Catholic readings that had been denounced in the Reformation.
6. The argument drawn from the chapter "The Reformers
Reject the Bible of the Papacy."
7. The tremendous argument drawn from the great struggle
over the Jesuit Bible of 1582.
8. The chapter, "Three Hundred Years of Attack on the
King James Version" by Jesuits, higher critics, and pantheistic German
scholars (from Introduction to Answers to
Reviewer's Objections).
It will be noticed that all
of the above points involve the struggle for Papal supremacy over
Protestantism. These the Reviewers could not
deny, so they ignored them. The objections and accusations which they did
raise, many of which were puerile, were ably refuted by Wilkinson. No wonder
the General Conference "Curia" were anxious to bury all traces of
this resounding defeat. It is
reported that the General Conference requested that Wilkinson not circulate his
reply to their objections. (Clute tape).
Interestingly, in later years, and
currently the denomination's attempts to justify most modern versions to the
detriment of the Authorized King James Bible, ignore those same great points
listed by Wilkinson. Instead, they trot out the time-worn arguments put forth
by Roman Catholics and their lackeys in Protestantism. A typical example is to
be found in the recent series of six articles by Arthur J. Ferch,
published in the South Pacific Record, commencing March 25, 1989, titled
"History of the New Testament."
Dr. Benjamin
G. Wilkinson was a studious man with an inquiring mind. During investigations
which he had made into the history of the New Testament, he had come to realize
that God's guardians of His truth through the Dark Ages were also the
custodians of true Scripture. This, of course is
logical, and had been acknowledged by Mrs. E. G. White:
“The Waldenses were among the first of the
people of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures....They had the
truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and
persecution.... But in a most wonderful manner it was preserved uncorrupted
through all the ages of darkness.” (The
Great Controversy, pp 65,69).
According
to a friend of the Wilkinson family, Wilkinson's ability as a scholar and
researcher had come to the notice of Cordell Hull, then U. S. Secretary of
State. He issued to Wilkinson, credentials which virtually unlocked to him the
vaults of the world, thus enabling him to examine rare historical documents and
manuscripts.
In
1944, the Pacific Press Publishing
Association published Wilkinson's findings in the book, Truth Triumphant. Like his previous
work, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,
it was greatly appreciated by the rank and file of Adventists. Here was a book
which demonstrated that the great truths of God had been safely handed down
from apostolic times and guarded by His true church until present times. But it
was the church in the wilderness and not the church in Rome that was the
custodian of Truth! This was a book that would strengthen the faith and beliefs
of every Seventh-day Adventist. But the Washington "Curia" was not
pleased. According to the
Clute interview, L. E. Froom instructed the Pacific
Press to destroy the plates of Truth
Triumphant. This could explain why this much-sought-after book has
not been republished by the denomination.*
* Truth Triumphant is
available from Hartland Publications, P 0 Box 1, Rapidan, VA 22733 USA
No doubt
Wilkinson's exposure of the false scriptures and the role played by them in
fostering apostasy had left its mark on Adventism.
In
1954, the General Conference reacted by publishing the book Problems in Translation, the work of a nameless committee.
But most of the problems were in fact, brought about by the church's increasing
acceptance of the modern versions. It sought to deal with the problem by trying
to please everyone. After reciting the stance taken back in the early 1930s,
that the 1611 KJV and the 1901 ARV "Shall serve us without
discrimination," they also appealed to our workers to cooperate "in
endeavoring to preserve the unity of our people" by "leaving all free
to use the version of their choice" (Problems
in Translation, pp. 74-75).
So once
again, Wilkinson's timely warnings had been rebuffed mainly on the grounds of
unity. No attempt was made to
address the real issue-that it was the church in the wilderness which had been
appointed as the guardian of God's Word and not Rome, and that Rome had foisted
its corrupted versions upon unsuspecting Protestants and Seventh-day Adventists
alike.
And
then comes this remarkably contradictory statement:
“If
resort is made indiscriminately to the various translations, the reader or
hearer gets the impression that the different versions stand on an equal
footing, as far as authoritatively transmitting the word of God is concerned,
which is not the case.” (ibid., p. 57).
(Such
a foray into the minefields of consensus must have been deemed successful, for
the Seventh-day Adventist Church has since come to rely increasingly on
consensus statements.)
But the time was not far off when the
church would drop all pretense of caution and impartiality. They would not only
foist the Roman Bibles on their own membership, but
would become foremost in recommending them to Christendom at large. In short,
they would become "Rome's Little Helper." But that is another story to be told in the following
chapter.
In
retrospect, the decade of the 1950s must be seen as a
great watershed in Seventh-day Adventist history. By 1954, Elder R. R. Figuhr had assumed the presidency of the General
Conference. He was fresh from associate editorship of the Ministry magazine with Elder R. A. Anderson, who in turn had been
an Associate Editor with L. E. Froom. Circumstances were now favorable for the
great leap forward (backward) into apostasy. We have seen how this was
accomplished with the help of the evangelicals, Dr. Barnhouse and Walter
Martin.
Before
long, an event took place which President Figuhr saw
as a distinct threat to the "Curia's" plans. A book, titled The Living Witness, consisting of
forty-seven "significant articles" was published by the Pacific Press Publishing Association in
1959. When Elder Figuhr read it, he reacted with
alacrity. Here was a book, published within two years of Questions on Doctrine which contradicted the "completed
atonement." What would Barnhouse and Martin say? What would our new-found
friends in Christendom think?
The
offending article was written by the late Elder James White, editor of the Signs of the Times.
“[Jesus
Christ] ascended on high to be our only mediator in the Sanctuary in heaven
where, with His own blood, He makes atonement for our sins; which atonement, so
far from being made at the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice,
is the very last portion of His work as priest, according to the example of the
Levitical priesthood which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord
in heaven.” (The Living Witness, p.
2).
We are
indebted to Elder M. L. Andreasen for the following account of Figuhr's reaction:
“When
Elder Figuhr read the statement in the "Living Witness" that the atonement
was not made on the cross, he ordered the books that had already been bound
destroyed. Several hundred books that had already been shipped out, were also
destroyed, as well as 2000 signatures that had not yet been bound. The
financial loss would be worthwhile.... It was necessary that a whole signature
of 16 pages be replaced with corrected material.” (M. L. Andreasen's Letters to the Churches).
Andreasen
continued with this highly significant statement:
“If
the question was raised why a discussion should arise as to where and when the
atonement was made, Elder White would answer: "On this question hangs the
existence of the SDA denomination. If the atonement was made on the cross in
A.D. 31 and this atonement was complete, perfect, final as the Ministry
asserts, then there cannot possibly be another final atonement 1810 years
later. And if there is no day of atonement at the end of the 2300 days in 1844,
then the whole 1844 movement was a mistake, and the Adventists false prophets.
If there was no cleansing of the sanctuary in 1844, then the Three Angels'
Messages and the Hour of Judgment call were a false alarm, and then we may as
well "totally repudiate" our entire message as the evangelicals state
our leaders have done and which the leaders have never denied.” (ibid.).
(Both
quotations as reprinted in The M. L. Andreasen File, p. 96, by Laymen Ministry
News, 1988.)
Surely
it would be difficult to imagine an action more closely aligned with papal-like
behavior! Its exposure by Andreasen in his Letters
to the Churches helps us to understand why the "Curia" sought
revenge by depriving him of his credentials and his sustentation.
And so
today, when we turn to the book The
Living Witness, we find that the "Witness" has been maimed. The
dagger struck and His message has been muted. We may
well ask:
Which
church has a vested interest in abolishing Christ's mediatorial role between
God and man, if it is not the Church of Rome? Which church would want to
replace the Bible which brought on the Protestant Reformation and from which we
obtained our doctrines?
Is Alberto's claim that the Jesuits have
successfully infiltrated Adventism really so
incredible?
Why should Rome not take advantage of a
system with which they are familiar already?−the
papal-like system that A. T. Jones had identified as that already adopted by
the Seventh day Adventist Church?
End Chapter 24
CHAPTER 25 - Rome's Little Helper
By the
end of Elder Figuhr's term as G. C. president, some
of the modern Bible versions had become highly popular with many Adventist
scholars and writers. The N. T. Greek of Westcott and Hort
had long become the authoritative text in our colleges. The writer recalls that
this was the Greek N. T. used in the training of ministers at the Australasian
Missionary College (now Avondale College) as far back as 1937.
Consequently, when a question arose over a
controversial text in the modern versions, the Jesuit-corrupted text of
Westcott and Hort from which most modern versions
derive, was appealed to as the best arbiter. Such fallacious reasoning is
commonly used to this day.
But it
appears that the Washington "Curia" was not content to rest on its
laurels. There was a whole wide world of Christendom out there and it was lagging behind, burdened with the "archaic" Bible
of King James.
Elder
R. H. Pierson succeeded Elder Figuhr as G. C.
president. Although he was considered to be
conservative and fundamental it was perceived that in his writings he was an
enthusiastic supporter of modern versions. (Later, in his book We Still Believe (1975) we witness the
anomaly of a "Defender of the Faith" having to gain permission to use
scripture from the owners of four modern versions.)
So in 1969, the SDA
Church seriously launched its career as Rome's Little Helper per medium of
their public outreach journal, Signs of
the Times (May 1969). The question, "Can We Trust Modern Bible Versions?"* was answered by A.
Graham Maxwell:
“You can trust the modern versions. Read as many as you can.” (p. 31).
*This article, "Can We Trust Modern Bible Versions?"
must have been regarded as a masterpiece by successive admirers of Roman
inventiveness for it has occasionally reappeared in Adventist publications,
e.g. Adventist Review, November 1985.
Unfortunately, Maxwell seeks to instill
trust in the modern versions by denigrating the Authorized Version to the
status of a "revision." He calls
it the "1611 revision." But it is apparent that the translators of
the AV would not appreciate Maxwell's designation, for they regarded their work
as a translation. Read their offering to the "Most high and mighty Prince
James":
“That
out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours,
both in our own, and other foreign languages of many worthy men who went before
us, there should be one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the
English tongue.”
As for
the Revised Version, it is claimed that it is dishonestly named, for it is not
a revision of the KJV. It was supposed to be, and it is claimed to be, but the
fraud was quickly exposed by Dr. John William Burgon,
Dean of Chichester. He comments on the New Testament:
“The English (as well as
the Greek) is hopelessly at fault.... But the "Revised Version" is
inaccurate as well; exhibits defective scholarship, I mean in countless places.
“It is however, the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does
so grievously offend me; for this is nothing else but a poisoning of the River
of Life at its sacred source.” (Dedication
to Revision Revised, 1883, p. vi).
Burgon comments
further on the intrusion of the underlying Greek text of Westcott and Hort (as opposed to the Greek text of Erasmus used by the
King James translators):
“For
if the underlying Greek text be mistaken, what else but incorrect must the
English translation be.... To my surprise and annoyance, it [RV] proved to be a
new Translation rather than a Revision of the Old.” (ibid., Preface p. xii).
Bible
teacher, J. J. Ray simply shows the fallacy of Maxwell's argument:
“The
Revision of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard
Version, the Amplified, Expanded and Paraphrased Bibles are in no true sense a
revision of the King James of 1611. If they were, they would follow the same
Greek text, the Textus Receptus. All that they should
have done, was to replace the obsolete words.... Instead of doing this, the Revision
Committee yielded to human arguments, and permitted the new radical changes to
be secretly forced upon them.” (God Wrote
Only One Bible, p. 30).
It is
also sad to note the pathetic attempt by Maxwell to invest the RV and the ARV
(1901) with the aura of "authorization," describing the latter as the
fifth "Authorized Version" of the English Bible.
“It
must be obvious to God-fearing Christians that the only truly Authorized Bible
is that which was given by God to man. The King James Bible has become known as
the Authorized Bible simply because it was commissioned by royal decree.... But
to call the ARV an authorized Bible is incredible for it was authorized by none
other than those who financed the venture and kept the American cash registers
ringing. As for the RSV, which claims to be a revision of the ASV, it was
authorized by vote of the National
Council of Churches of Christ.” (Preface to RSV, p. iv).
Such
semantic adventures by Maxwell can only be regarded as a strained association
of ideas calculated to present the modern versions as healthy descendants of
the KJV.
But
interestingly, Maxwell's claim is also refuted by none other than the
translators of one of the modern versions which he recommends:
“The Revised Version, which appeared in
1881, makes a new departure, especially in that it abandoned the so-called
Received Text, (Erasmus) which has reigned ever since the printed editions of
the New Testament began.” (Introduction
to NEB, New Testament).
And, as
if to put the lid on Maxwell's specious argument, we read this astounding
admission in the New KJV:
“A
growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text far more reliable than
previously thought.... The New King James New Testament has been based on this
Received text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525
and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorized Version.”
(Preface.)
Wilkinson's
contention that his reviewers had failed to acknowledge the corrupted stream of
Romanism in the new versions is still valid today. Certain influential people in the SDA organzation prefer to promote Constantine's illegitimate
offspring of church and state. The aforementioned series
of articles by A. J. Ferch in the South Pacific Record (1989) is an
example.
Among
the various Bible Societies is one based in the United Kingdom, known as the
Trinitarian Bible Society. New Testaments based on the Greek
New Testament of Westcott and Hort are notorious for
their degradation of Christ's divinity. Therefore, the Trinitarian
Bible Society promotes and distributes only Bibles based on the Received Text,
the most shining example of which is the KJV. This is in stark contrast to the
various national Bible Societies which come under the umbrella of the United
Bible Societies (UBS) and under the spell of Rome. The SDA Church has
long since become one of UBS's loyal supporters.
The
United Bible Societies are very active in translating Scripture into various
languages. Mostly they are ecumenical projects which produce interconfessional
Bibles. The October 1985 quarterly Record of the Trinitarian Tract Society sheds some interesting
information on ecumenism which involves the SDA Church:
“The work of the Bible Society [UBS]
acquired a new dimension with the setting up of a conservative committee made
up of three representatives from the Roman Catholic, the Anglican and the Seventh-day Adventist Churches. This committee will
supervise the translation, reproduction and distribution in the Seychelles (UBS
Report, 1984).
“Monsignor
Alberto Ablondi, who in 1985 was an executive member
of the European Regional Executive of the UBS, sees these ecumenical projects
as "one of the most important advancements of
post-Vatican II ecumenism-an important step toward unity" (Ward-Event No. 57, p. 6, 1984).
As
interconfessional Bibles must of necessity be of the
variety acceptable to Rome and her Babylonian daughters, and in view of
Adventism's newly-demonstrated preference for Roman corruptions of Scripture,
surely it is correct to assume that the SDA denomination has now
joined with Rome in their Jesuit-inspired plan to produce as well as to
disseminate Bibles of anti-christ.
But the "Curia" of Washington has
gone much further than this. They are now foisting Rome's Bibles upon their
hapless Adventist church members by the mandatory use of the Seventh day
Adventist Hymnal (1985).
This hymn book contains a
section of responsive Scripture Readings for corporate worship, together with a
selection of canticles and prayers. They are taken from eight Bible versions.
From the following table it will be seen that our official hymn book denigrates
the Protestant Bible of our pioneers to a minor position among the versions
used. The Roman Catholic
Jerusalem Bible is used over two-and-a-half times more frequently than the KJV.
The NIV used 68 times The Jerusalem Bible used 38 times
|
The NKJV |
used 34 times |
|
The RSV |
used 28 times |
|
The NEB |
used 22 times |
|
The TEV |
used 15 times |
|
The KJV |
used 14 times |
|
The NASB |
used 3 times |
So, by this Trojan-horse device, people who
normally would use only the KJV are placed in a position where the pastor can
maneuver them into reading from the new versions.
Dr.
Alberto Rivera, who claims to have been trained by the Jesuits to infiltrate
Protestant churches, has written a booklet, Sabotage, explaining the Jesuit
plan to subvert Protestantism by the use of
Roman-tainted Bibles. He says,
“In the last eighty
years we've had about eighty-one new English Bibles (all Roman Catholic) based
on Origen's corrupted text, all trying to push the King James Bible out of the
picture. Soon there will be an ecumenical bible (one common bible for all
religions) preparing the way for the anti-Christ.” (Sabotage, 1979, p. 29).
Predictably,
the Roman Catholic church denies Rivera's priestly training. But surprisingly,
many SDAs join with apostate Protestantism in slavishly repeating Rome's
denials! In so doing they indicate their refusal to recognize the role of
Jesuits as destroyers of Protestantism. But more particularly, such denials are designed to protect
versions of the Bible which are seen as providing a
semblance of authority for the teachings of apostate Adventism.
Of particular interest
is the trans-denominational popularity of the NIV. Its meteoric rise to favor
with SDA educators, writers and pastors, and as we have just seen, its
overwhelming predominance among the scripture readings of the SDA Church
Hymnal, is nothing short of phenomenal.
Undoubtedly, this is
the ecumenical Bible to which Dr. Rivera referred as "preparing the way
for anti-christ."
(It is available in most Roman Catholic bookshops.) As we consider the
doctrines so destructive to Adventism as discussed in the two-pronged dagger
aimed at the heart of Adventism, can an honest Seventh-day Adventist deny the
truth of Rivera's prediction?
As we note the insinuation into the SDA
Church of doctrines favorable to Rome, we marvel at the fervor and dedication
with which the Washington "Curia" has expedited the Roman plan to
replace the Protestant Bible of King James with their own corrupted bibles.
Such actions would be entirely consistent with a Jesuit-controlled church. But
if Rivera's claim of Jesuit infiltration is incorrect, then surely it is
reasonable to conclude that certain people in the Adventist "Curia"
are every bit as competent, and dedicated in the work
of Roman subversion as the Jesuits themselves.
But
there remains another powerful witness to the church's desire to emulate Rome.
It is the confessions and actions of leadership itself which conform to A. T.
Jones' description of a "kingly ruling" church power:
“The
Seventh-day Adventist denomination is more like the Catholic Church than is any
other Protestant church in the world.” (see chapter 13).
As the year 1974 drew to its close, the General
Conference found itself in a United States District Court as the defendant in a
lawsuit brought against the Pacific Press
Publishing Association (PPPA) by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) of the United States.
The
case centered on the PPPA's treatment of two of its female employees-one a
secretary to the editor of the Signs of
the Times, the other an editorial assistant to the book editor. It appears
that the Church's treatment of these people in pecuniary matters fell
considerably short of what was considered fair and equitable by the EEOC.
For the purpose of
this chapter, we will not concern ourselves with the rights and wrongs of the
case, but rather we shall note the tactics of the General Conference, through
its Brief, in its desire to successfully contest the suit.
The opening Brief sought
to confuse the real issue by claiming that this was a "head-on
confrontation between church and state" and that the government was
seeking an injunction which would control the affairs of the Church and dictate
the manner in which the Church carries on God's work:
(CIV NO.74-2025 CBR, Opening Brief).
This,
Brief saw as a violation of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and
as the General Conference was the Church, it should be above all laws of the
land. In describing the meaning of the term "General Conference" it
was said to have three overlapping meanings:
a.
The embodiment of
the remnant church as a Christian denomination.
b.
The actual
quadrennial meeting of delegates, which body alone has authority
to
alter Church structure in doctrine or organization.
c.
The permanent staff
at world headquarters in Washington D. C. which, acting through the executive
committee, attends to the Church work between quadrennial conferences (ibid.)
So we see that
the Washington headquarters staff takes upon itself the status of "the
Church." The Brief described Elder R. H. Pierson, president of the G.C. as
"the first minister" of the SDA Church, while Elder Neal C. Wilson,
vice-president for North America, described himself as "the spiritual
leader" of SDAs in North America (ibid.).
For the purpose of
defending the suit, it appears that Brief for the defendants sought to establish the supreme authority of
the General Conference in the organizational structure of the Church:
“The plain and undeniable fact is that the
Seventh-day Adventist Church is most assuredly not a "congregational"
one . . . but it is clearly of the
"representative" or "hierarchical" variety.” (Reply Brief for Defendants 74-2025 CBR).
But it
will be noted that a "hierarchical variety" of church government is
akin to the Roman Catholic variety, where the "spiritual leader" of
the church also is a man. It is not surprising then that Brief sought to
categorize the two female employees as nuns, and by implication, they should be
happy to receive whatever reward the hierarchy saw fit to pay them. This is
borne out in Neal C. Wilson's affidavit where he quoted from the North American
Division's Working Policy, p. 36:
“They
[employees] shall never appeal to any court of law for redress from such
adjustments as may be made by the denomination concerning any personal claim
they may make.” (Affidavit of Neal C. Wilson 74-2025 CBR).
So it was
pointed out that one employee had attained a status of a licensed missionary of
the Church and the other, a credentialed missionary which, according to Brief,
made her a "minister of the Church." Therefore:
“Those who work for the Seventh-day
Adventist Church respond to a religious vocation in exactly the same sense as
does a cloistered nun.” (ibid.).
But it
is evident that the two ladies, both of whom were married, had a decidedly
different view of their relationship to their employer. This, Elder Wilson saw
as their main problem:
“The
primary reason for the conflict is that these workers in the Church have been
unwilling to recognize and accept the authority of the Church in determining internal
policies governing the ecclesiastical nature and mission of their employing
organization.” (Affidavit of Neal C. Wilson 74-2025 CBR).
Lest
such authority appear to show papal-like overtones in defiance of state laws,
Wilson closed his affidavit by revealing his source of authority:
“Finally, being conscious
of the full weight and burden of my responsibilities as the spiritual leader of
approximately one half million souls, it is my duty to God and to my church to
reaffirm that, with all respect and veneration for the secular laws of the
United States of America duly and justly realized and rendered, we the church
owe and must render our first obedience and service to the Divine Law of Jesus
Christ that the will of God may be done "on earth as it is in
heaven"; and this we solemnly and reverently do, even should the carrying
out of our sacred obligations result, in the words of St. Paul to the
Corinthians (2 Corinthians 6:4, 5 [RSV] "in afflictions, hardships,
calamities, beatings, imprisonments."* (Sworn 27th day of November 1974
and signed, Neal C. Wilson.)
* Many in the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, especially those in Hungary, must wonder "\what happened
to our president's solemn resolve to render first obedience to God amid
afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments."
In his
affidavit, president R. H. Pierson described himself as "an ordained
minister of the Gospel and president of the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists, which is the Seventh-day Adventist Church." He stated that he
was its "first minister for the time being," and proceeded to outline
the order of the hierarchy:
“The
orders of ministers in the Seventh-day Adventist Church include ordained
Ministers, credentialed Missionaries, licensed Ministers, licensed
Missionaries, and credentialed literature Evangelists.” (Affidavit of Robert H.
Pierson, No. 74-2025 CBR).
Elder
Pierson explained:
“All
denominational employees in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are regarded as
church workers placed in one of two harmonious categories and designated as
ministers or missionaries" (ibid.).
But
one of the interveners, Lorna Tobler, who was employed as an editorial
secretary found such claims very extravagant. During her twenty-five years of
connection with Adventist-related institutions she had never been called a
pastor or elder, never been ordained, performed a baptismal or marriage
ceremony or presided at the Lord's Supper.
In spite of her
considerable denominational experience, and that she was married to an Adventist
minister, she had never heard or seen the term "first minister"
applied to a General Conference president:
“I
have frequently heard the term "hierarchy" used among Adventists when
reference is made to the Roman Catholic system, of which I have always been
taught that Adventists strongly disapprove. . . . I
have never heard of Adventist religious "orders" or "orders of
ministry" . . . among Adventists, I have always heard this term used to
apply to Roman Catholicism, which I have been taught to reject. I have never
heard any employee of Adventist-related institutions, or any Seventh-day
Adventist at all, compared to "a cloistered nun" and believe such a
concept to be alien to Adventist thought and practice.... I have never heard
any belief that everything Adventist ministers or administrators do is
"sacramental" .. . I have never heard it
said among Adventists that the church claims exemption from all civil
laws" (Sworn on February 18, 1975 by Lorna Tobler).
In the
Reply Brief for Defendants appears a startling but significant statement which
probably indicates the underlying philosophy behind present attitudes
manifested in the Seventh-day Adventist Church:
“Although it is true that there was a
period in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church when the denomination
took a distinctly anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term
"hierarchy" was used in a pejorative [deprecatory] sense to refer to
the papal form of church governance, that attitude on the church's part was
nothing more than a manifestation of widespread anti-popery among conservative
Protestant denominations in the early part of this century and the latter part
of the last, and which has now been consigned to the historical trash heap so
far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is concerned.”
So there we
have the witness of modern-day leadership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
When the chips were down and the dollar signs were up,
the truth came out. The Adventist "Curia" showed its true colors and
the banner of Protestantism was trampled in the rush to deny the message of the
third angel. What would our prophet have to say about such crass apostasy?
End
Chapter 25
And
when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift
up your heads; for your redemption draweth
nigh. Luke 21:28
As our
tired world staggers toward its rendezvous with the twenty-first century after
Christ, we are reminded that some day along the way, we shall probably silently
slip into earth's seventh millennium of history. To some the notion, that the
seventh millennium should coincide with a millennium spent in Paradise, is so
appealing as to make it a desired expectation.
Certainly we
have lived to see the day when the world can be seen to have waxed old as a
garment (Psalm 102:26). Man's insatiable quest to improve his standard of
living has brought us to the place where the very oxygen needed to sustain life
is running out. His success in some areas of planet earth is causing him to
flounder in his own garbage.
We have
societies where people battle with their appetite in order to
reduce weight, yet a large section of the world's population rarely experience
the sensation of a full stomach. They are the main contributors to a population
explosion.
In
practically every field of man's endeavor, we find conditions that seem to
indicate a fast-approaching climax. For instance: how long can the moral depravity of man continue to worsen
before civilization as we know it becomes no longer tenable? With the
vast buildup of nuclear and biological weapons and the technology with which to
deliver them to any point on earth; with the continuing breakdown of law and
order through corruption of traditional law enforcement agencies, a scenario
develops that could plunge part or all of the world
into utter chaos. This has happened in limited regions of the world with
increasing frequency over the latter half of this century.
When
we look at the world's financial affairs, we see a situation where in spite of all the post-war plans to bring about equity
among nations, the have-nots have slipped further into debt, while others have
reached a state of prosperity rarely seen in earth's history. Yet today, some
previously prosperous nations have reached a situation where they can no longer
service their debts, let alone reduce their principal borrowings.
In the
past, such were the ingredients of which wars were made. How long before man's
fear of an exterminating war is overcome by his perceived need for greater
wealth? From whatever viewpoint we look upon man's modern dilemma, all roads
seem to be leading toward an inevitable climax-a situation where we are nearing
the end of the line. And all lines seem to be converging toward the close of
the twentieth century.
The
apostle Paul had foreseen some of the perils of the last days. He lists their
causes for posterity:
For
men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud ... (2
Timothy 3:1, 2).
As he
continues in succeeding verses he outlines the characteristics of those who
have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.
That's right. He is talking about people who profess to be followers of God.
They're an unthankful and unholy lot, some are false accusers and think nothing
of breaking their word. They are fierce people who actually
despise those who are good. Some have even lost all
natural affection! Paul is not talking about a bunch of ignoramuses. Not
at all! Some are highly intellectual. They have degrees from the top
universities. They are "ever learning" he says, yet "never able
to come to the knowledge of the truth" (verse 7).
What a tragedy! Yet, we are told that there will be some
who will not be deceived. They are those who continue in the things that they
have learned from the Holy Scriptures−the
things "which are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which
is in Christ Jesus" (verse 15).
Particularly
in Western society do we see Paul's predictions as reality. Here are
civilizations where laws are based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. They have prospered
as a result of the Protestant Reformation and its
attitude toward work. They have arrived! So countries like Australia don't need
Christianity any more. Australia has been removed from the United Nations' list
of Christian countries! Just contemplate that! We have discarded the very
foundation on which our society and prosperity have been built. No wonder
politicians have described Australia's course as leading to a "banana
republic"!
But just as Western
society is suffering because of its abandonment of true Protestantism, so the
Seventh-day Adventist Church, to whom the flickering torch of Protestantism was
handed, is sliding back into the arms of Rome. It is called apostate Adventism.
Think about it, dear reader-the heresies propounded by our leadership find
favor in the eyes of Rome; every suspect and corrupt practice followed by our
leadership harks back to a type of organization described by A. T. Jones as
"papal-like," and the methods used to promote and enforce such
practices are the methods of popery.* Instead of preaching the message of 1844
and calling people to come out of Babylon (Roman error) and prepare for the
judgment, we appear determined to be counted with Babylon.
* Some half-century later, Andreasen concurred with Jones: "Here I was,
for fifty years an honored member of the church, having held responsible
positions. But if l dared hold "views divergent from that of the
responsible leadership of the denomination," I became a member of the
"wild-eyed irresponsibles" who constituted the
"lunatic fringe" of the denomination; and without a hearing I was
ordered to cease my activity or feel the "brakes" applied.... Rome
went but little further" (Letters to
the Churches, no. 6).
Loyal
Adventists will recognize these signs as those which must precede the return of
Christ. They could not appear until after the close of the last great time
prophecy as outlined by Daniel the prophet, which culminated in the
commencement of the investigative judgment in 1844, for it was upon the
discovery of this great truth that the remnant church was founded.
Our
situation was foretold by John in the Revelation of Jesus Christ: "And the
dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war
with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 12:17).
Which is the church that has traditionally
claimed to be the remnant? Which advocates the keeping of all the Decalogue and
has the testimony of Jesus in the manifestation of the Spirit of Prophecy? Only
one church has ever made this claim−the Seventh-day
Adventist Church.
But John tells that "the dragon
[Satan] was wroth with the woman, and went to make war
with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ." Today, having failed in his attacks from
outside the Adventist denomination, Satan is attacking from within. He can do this quite easily because he has successfully
insinuated a type of organization into the Seventh-day Adventist Church that is
geared to meet the demands of a papal-like government as defmed
by A. T. Jones. It happened in 1903 when, against the wishes of the church's
prophet, A. G. Daniells allowed himself to be elected as president of a church
government by men and for men.
This followed hard on the heels of the
leaders' rejection of the 1888 message of righteousness by faith, which,
although they may not have realized it, was probably the rejection of Jesus
Christ as the head of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
And so our leaders plunged headlong into a behavioral pattern
that to this very day, continues to vindicate Mrs. E. G. White as a true seer
of God. Listen to her predictions and see how they have come to pass:
“A new organization would be established.
Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy
would be introduced.” (1SM 204).
A
"new order" has certainly been promoted with the publication of books
like Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny. They have ushered
in a new order based on the intellectual philosophy of men who wish to meet the
requirements of apostate Protestantism.
And
what of the General Conference's latest official pronouncement on our
doctrines? "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. ..
"-a book written and published under the patronage of world president,
Neal C. Wilson: Is it a book of a new order as predicted by our prophet?
In
some respects, this book is a more subtle attack on
our 1844 sanctuary message than its predecessors. As previously mentioned, it
is a consensus explanation of a consensus statement on our fundamental beliefs.
But as also pointed out, it goes further than previous books in drawing the
logical conclusion that if the atonement was completed at the cross, then
"the penitent believer can trust in this finished work of our Lord"
("Seventh-day Adventists Believe. ..
", p. 315).
This, then, makes an investigative judgment
completely redundant; but this book is not honest enough to come out and openly
deny the judgment that started in 1844. It
tries to get around it by removing the professed followers of God as the
subject of the judgment and, to use the expression of one Adventist minister, puts God in the "hotseat." It claims: "The issue is with God and the universe,
not between God and the true child" (ibid. p. 326). But as we have already noted,
this goes against the historic beliefs of Adventism and the inspired writings
as shown in the SDA Bible Commentary.
And
what of Mrs. White's claim of the introduction of a system of intellectual
philosophy? As with the modern Sabbath
School Quarterlies, "Seventh-day
Adventists Believe. ..
" quotes extensively from
non-Adventist theologians along with the Spirit of Prophecy as though all were
equally authoritative. God's Messenger was awake to such a ploy:
“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.” (5T 79).
One theologian
in question is the late Dr. B. F. Westcott. On page 48, he is quoted in an attempt to explain the nature of Christ during His
incarnation. Again he is cited on page 320 as an
authority on the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.
Now,
for our purpose, we are not much interested in what Westcott believed on
Christ's nature, or on the sanctuary service either. It is the fact that the
ministerial department of our General Conference regards his credentials as
fitting him (and his ilk) to instruct us on Adventist beliefs.
Dr. B.
F. Westcott and his colleague, Dr. Hort, were the two
Cambridge professors who secretly produced a Greek New Testament based largely
on the Roman Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.*
* These two famous
manuscripts represent the relatively rare, corrupted Western text; yet they
figured largely in the Westcott-Hort Greek N.T. which
was used in producing most of the modern versions. See Wilkinson, Our Authorized Version Vindicated,
available from Harland Publications, P 0 Box 1, Rapidan, VA 22733, USA.
They
secretly led the team of "revisers" of the Authorized Version to
accept their New Testament, so that instead of ending up with a revision of the
KJV, Protestantism was cumbered with a new translation and a Roman
Catholic-inspired Bible (see chapter 25). Said Dr. John W. Burgon,
Dean of Chichester, in his Revision Revised concerning the revisers:
“Our
Revisers ... stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of
Inspiration in every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated
Readings which the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has
rejected with abhorrence and which only survive at this time in a little
handful of documents of the most depraved type.” (Dedication, pp vi-vii, 1883).
It is
not surprising that Westcott, although professing to be a Church of England
clergyman, should cumber Protestantism with a Roman Catholic Bible, for he was
already an ardent admirer of Romanism. In 1847 he wrote from France to his fiancee describing his idolatrous visit to a Roman Catholic
monastery:
“Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with
one kneeling place; and behind a screen was a "Pieta" [statue of the
Virgin Mary and dead Christ] the size of life. Had I been alone I could have
knelt there for hours.” (Life of Westcott,
vol. 1, p. 81).
While writing to the Archbishop of
Canterbury on March 4, 1890, Westcott commented:
“No one now, I suppose, holds that the
first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history.” (ibid.,
vol. 2, p. 69).
It is no wonder that he displayed little
inhibition when tampering with the Scriptures, for he was able to write:
“The battle of the inspiration of scripture
is yet to be fought.” (ibid., vol. 1, p. 94).
The authors of "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " then call on Dr. F. F. Bruce to help
explain Christ's nature (p. 48). This is the man under whom Desmond Ford
studied theology at Manchester University. He is reputed to follow the Plymouth
Brethren persuasion, and his system of prophetic interpretation lets the Roman
Catholics off the "beastly" hook of Revelation 13. In his Foreword to
Ford's book Daniel, Bruce says:
“The Gospel which he [Ford] proclaims is
the Gospel which I acknowledge; may it continue to speed on and triumph.”
But that's
not by any means all the non-Adventist theologians who are called upon to
confuse us on the nature of Christ.
It is
difficult to find out from "Seventh-day
Adventists Believe ... " just what SDAs do believe or even are
supposed to believe. Dr.
R. Larson claims that this book is now teaching the post-lapsarian
nature (Our Firm Foundation, September 1988), while S. R. Buckley claims it is
teaching holy flesh. (Omega of Apostasy,
p. 7).*
* It is apparent that the
authors of "SDAs Believe. .. " have moved away from
the dogmatic Position taken in QOD and MOD, that Christ took the unfallen
nature of Adam. The author takes the view that after such indisputable evidence
as recently given by R. Larson, D. Priebe and L. B. Kostenko,
upholding the "fallen nature," thinking students would hesitate to
put their credibility on the line by appearing to refute them.
Yet, if "SDAs Believe. .. " were to come out for
the "fallen nature," the very basis of apostate Adventism would be
removed, and the credibility of those who recommended and upheld Froom's work
would suffer. Hence the obfuscation. As N. C. Wilson was the chairman of the
guiding committee for MOD and highly recommended the book in his Preface, and
is given credit for authorizing and encouraging the ministerial association to
produce "SDAs Believe ...p.v), we can see the predicament
in which such people find themselves.
The
historic SDA biblical position could easily have been made clear by quoting a
few strong statements from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, e.g. Romans
8:3; Hebrews 2:16-17; Hebrews 4:15; The
Desire of Ages, pp. 49, 112, 117).
Now, they call upon Dr. Philip Schaff
to throw in his ideas (p. 48). This is the
man who brought his "historical development" theory from Europe to
America, which gave rise to what became known as the "Mercersburg
Movement"−seen by some as a
counterpart of the Oxford Movement in England. It was seen by the New Brunswick Review, May 1954, as a
defense of Romanism and an attack on American Protestantism (see chapter 24). In short, the authors of "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " seem to find it prudent
to use the thoughts of another Protestant traitor in an
effort to aid their cause.
Yes,
friends, we are talking about the books of which Mrs. White warned-the "books of a new
order" based on a "system of intellectual philosophy." It
is produced, recommended and distributed by a type of government resembling
that "new order" type which God's Prophet condemned.
It is
this type of organization, allowed to remain in place since 1903, which has
continued to restrain the outpouring of the latter rain and to delay the
consequent return in glory of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. The futility
of such a form of government was a foregone conclusion in view of the dire
consequences predicted by Mrs. White back in 1904:
“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, and engaging
in a process of reorganization.” (1SM 204).
Although
God's Anointed specifically mentioned the attack on our sanctuary doctrine and
the messages of the three angels of Revelation 14, she also indicated that such
messages vital to Adventism would not be lost:
“We are God's commandment-keeping people.
For the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon
us, to becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word-especially
concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and the
message of Heaven for these last days, as given by the angels of the fourteenth
chapter of Revelation. Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon
Seventh-day Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point,
has been sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle-working
power of the Lord. But the waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be
preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word
and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip
of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable
authority.” (1SM 208).
How encouraging,
then, to know that the great prophetic truths entrusted to God's remnant church
are to be preserved! Our leaders may fail, but God's truth will prevail. Does this not suggest that God's
truth will triumph without the present type of government, which has been in
place since 1903? Our church's acknowledged authority on its sanctuary
doctrine, Elder M. L. Andreasen, thought so back in the 1950s.
“This
denomination needs to go back to the instruction given in 1888, which was
scorned. We need a reform in organization that will not permit a few men to
direct every move made anywhere in the world... .
“We need a reformation
and revival most of all. If our leaders will not lead in this then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from
another place.” Esther 4:14 (Andreasen, Letters
to the Churches, no. 6).
Note by Ron: Ellen White
said the apostasy will wax stronger until Jesus comes. This
is why Ezekiel 9 begins at His Sanctuary. 5T 211 and Ezekiel 9:6.
"One
thing it is certain is soon to be realized, the great apostasy, which is
developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will continue to do so until the Lord shall descend from heaven
with a shout. We are to hold fast the first
principles of our denominated faith, and go forward
from strength to increased faith. Ever we are to keep the faith that has been
substantiated by the Holy Spirit of God from the earlier events of our
experience until the present time. We need now larger breadth, and deeper, more
earnest, unwavering faith in the leadings of the Holy Spirit. If we needed the
manifest proof of the Holy Spirit's power to confirm truth in the beginning,
after the passing of the time, we need to-day all the evidence in the
confirmation of the truth, when souls are departing from the faith and giving
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. There must not be any
languishing of soul now." (E.G. White, Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, p. 57).
End Chapter 26
Let us
hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments:
for this is the whole duty of man. Ecclesiastes 12:13.
As we
look at the Seventh-day Adventist Church today, we have every reason to take
courage. Never in its history have we seen such an upsurge of ministries by
Seventh-day Adventists that are independent of the church organization. Never before have we seen the great truths contained in the
books of the Spirit of Prophecy being printed and distributed at low cost by
independent publishers. Many independent colporteurs, while selling low-cost
copies of The Desire of Ages, Bible
Readings and The Great Controversy,
are deluged with opportunities to explain the three angels' messages to inquiring
souls-especially those who have questioned the dogmas of Roman Catholicism.
Independent ministries are
not new. Wherever and whenever God's appointed agents have faltered, there have
arisen messengers of God, ready and able to fill the gap. When Elder Daniells
and others showed their determination to organize in a way contrary to the
instruction of Mrs. White, she began to encourage the setting up of
self-supporting work. She actually helped to set up a self-supporting school
near Madison, Tennessee, USA, and instructed the two principal founders,
Brethren E. A. Sutherland and Percy T. Magan, to stay
separate from the organization (refer Spalding-Magan Collection of E.G.W. Unpublished Testimonies, pp
411, 412).*
* Madison College was
later absorbed into the organized work and eventually ceased to exist.
Today,
with the understandable proliferation of independent ministries, Satan as ever,
seeks opportunity to jump on the bandwagon and divert ministry from its
rightful course. We should be aware that such ministries are particularly
vulnerable through their Boards of Directors, which can be infiltrated
relatively easily by imposters in the same way as institutions and sections of
the organized body of the church have been diverted from their original
purposes. It seems that
the smaller the ministry and the simpler its type of organization, the less
vulnerable it is to Satan's plans. That is why there is no substitute
for committed men and women who, acting as individuals under the unction of the
Holy Spirit, develop their God-given talents and allow themselves to be used of
God to save precious souls.
Nowhere
is such ministry more apparent than in lands where the Church has succumbed to
the demands of state and abandoned those of its membership who refuse to bow to
Baal. Today in Hungary,
the largest single congregation of Seventh-day Adventists is to be found
outside the General Conference and state-recognized churches. The
unrecognized congregations are rapidly increasing because they have not abandoned
the message as revealed to God's remnant people following 1844.
Independent reports from Christian
organizations concerned with religious affairs in the [former] USSR indicate
that the "underground" branches of Christianity are thriving. In the
case of those calling themselves Seventh-day Adventists, it is estimated that
there are more in the "underground" church than in the
officially-recognized church.
Many
sincere members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have come to regard the
church as Babylon. This they suppose to be true as they see that Babylonians
have taken over control of some key positions in our work. But to accept such a
proposition is merely to legitimize the position of those usurpers who have set
up a papal-like form of government to promote heresies of the anti-Christ. In
modern parlance, it's like accepting the authority of hijackers.
Note by Ron: Even though Sister White said
that the church could become a sister to fallen Babylon, we should not
designate the church as Babylon for the important reason that the Bible makes
important proclamations regarding spiritual “JERUSALEM,” such as in Ezekiel 9
it says “begin at my Sanctuary,” verse 6, and Isaiah
37:31, 32, say:
Isa 37:31
And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take
root downward, and bear fruit upward:
Isa 37:32
For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out
of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this.
Ellen White said Ezekiel 9 will be
literally fulfilled. In A.D. 27-66, in the first literal fulfillment of Ezekiel
9, a faithful remnant went out of apostate “JERUSALEM,” AND IF THAT IS
LITERALLY FULFILLED AGAIN, as it will be, then if we call the apostate SDA
church Babylon, Isaiah 37:31, 32 would not apply. The apostate church is the
Synagogue of Satan, just as Jesus referred to the apostate Jewish organization
as the Synagogue of Satan, but let’s keep the nomenclature pure and clear. The
SDA church is apostate spiritual Jerusalem, out of which a final remnant will
“GO FORTH OUT,” as well as the final call to come out of the fallen Babylonian
churches. Let’s not mix them up and muddy the waters! Apostate Adventism is
WORSE than Babylon, because it knew the truth.
The Synagogue of Satan will include Babylonians
as well as apostate “Jerusalonians!”
End note by Ron.
Such
imposters are not new to Adventism. Mrs. White went to considerable pains to
point out that the remnant church is not, and cannot be, Babylon. Such would be
a contradiction in terms, for it is the remnant or last church which gives the
call to come out of Babylon, and to keep God's commandments. It has the
testimony of Jesus. Such an assumption would be self-destroying and illogical.
In 1893, Sister White was constrained to write to a "Brother S" in
Napier, New Zealand,
“My
brother, if you are teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is Babylon,
you are wrong.” (TM 59).
She
had just explained to "Brother S" that:
“The second
angel's message was to go to Babylon [the churches] proclaiming her downfall, and calling the people to come out of her. The
same message is to be proclaimed the second time. "And after these things
I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power, and the earth
was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying
Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils,
and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful
bird.... And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come
out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive
not of her plagues" (ibid., p. 59).
And
so, loyal Seventh-day Adventists today are faced with a dilemma. They see the
church being controlled by some who, far from calling people to come out of
Babylon, are deliberately misusing the resources of the Church to take us back
to Babylon! Are we to stand idly by and support such subversive activities by
our silence? As stewards of God, have we not been given the responsibility to
see that the means entrusted to us are used fully to warn the world of the
great judgment-hour message?
Fortunately,
God in His great wisdom and mercy has not left His people without a prophet to
guide us through end-time events. We shall turn to Inspiration for guidance and
reassurance.
Contrary to what some of our leaders may wish us to
believe, the General Conference does not constitute God's remnant church as
claimed in the U. S. Supreme Court (see chapter 25). Paul defines the church of the living God as
"the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Seventh-day
Adventists have traditionally believed that we have been entrusted with the
truth for the last days of earth's history. Of this church, God's Messenger has
said,
“God
has a church on earth who are lifting up the downtrodden law,
and presenting to the world the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of
the world. The church is the depository of the wealth of the riches of the grace
of Christ, and through the church eventually will be made manifest the final
and full display of the love of God to the world that is to be lightened with
its glory”. (TM 50).
If the
General Conference of SDAs circulates teaching contrary to the "pillars
and ground of the truth," can it honestly claim to be the voice of God?
Mrs. White was constrained to pass judgment on our General Conference leaders
back in the year 1901, for less obvious heresies:
“That
these men should stand in the sacred place to be the voice of God to the
people, as we once believed the General Conference to be, that is past.” (G. C.
Bulletin, 1901, p. 25).
That
is why God's Messenger called for, and got, a reorganization of the General
Conference. But as we have seen, this reorganization was all too short-lived.
How much more applicable are the words of the Prophet today:
“A
strange thing has come into our churches. Men who are placed in positions of
responsibility that they may be wise helpers to their fellow workers have come
to suppose that they were set as kings and rulers in the churches to say to one
brother, do this; to another, do that; and to another, be sure to labor in such
and such a way.” (TM 477).
Is not
this the spirit which now motivates the actions of leaders who refuse to allow
loyal Adventist veterans to travel around the conferences feeding the words of
life to truth-starved souls? Are such so-called leaders able to transmit the
will of God? According to
Mrs. White, we place in peril our own salvation when we sanction or assist
those who are not in harmony with truth and righteousness.
“I
call upon God's people to open their eyes. When you sanction or carry out the
decisions of men who, as you know, are not in harmony with truth and
righteousness, you weaken your own faith, and lose your relish for communion
with God.” (TM 91).
As if
this warning were not enough, God's servant warns of terrible woes against both
those who carry on, and those who support the work of an unsanctified ministry.
“If God pronounces a woe upon those who are
called to preach the truth and refuse to obey, a heavier woe rests upon those
who take upon them this sacred work without clean hands and pure hearts. As
there are woes for those who preach the truth while they are unsanctified in
heart and life, so there are woes for those who receive and
"maintain" the unsanctified in the position which they cannot fill.”
(2T 552).
Does
Mrs. White have anything else to say about supporting those who are not
upholding the messages entrusted to Seventh-day Adventists? Yes, she does:
“It would be poor policy to support from
the treasury of God those who really mar and injure His work, and who are
constantly lowering the standard of Christianity.” (3T 553).
Do our
leaders who have supported and continue to support such errors and/or
fabrications as found in some of our official publications, come under the
category of those who mar and injure God's work? Hear the answer from God's
Messenger:
“The men who close their eyes to divine
light are ignorant, deplorably ignorant, both of the Scriptures and the power
of God. The Holy Spirit's working is not agreeable to them, and they attribute
its manifestations to fanaticism. They rebel against the light, and do all they
can to shut it out, calling darkness light, and light darkness....
“Those who entertain and speak this belief
do not know what they are talking about. They are cherishing a love of
darkness; and just as long as these Christless souls
are retained in positions of responsibility, the cause of God is imperiled.”
(TM 284).
So we see that
as long as such leadership are in position they are imperiling the cause of God
(i.e. His church and its mission). These are the ones who are exploiting the
"new order" organization about which Mrs. White warned. She gives the
reason why such men are attracted to presidential types of government:
“But some men, as soon as they are placed
in sacred positions of trust, regard themselves as great men; and this thought,
if entertained, ends the desire for divine enlightenment, which is the only
possible thing that can make men great.” (ibid.).
Do we
as stewards have a responsibility when it comes to determining how we should
support God's work? Or should we leave it up to the "great men" to
direct all the means which God has entrusted to us? The Lord's anointed laid
down a very important principle of stewardship when she sent special
instruction from Cooranbong, New South Wales,
relating to the Review and Herald office and work in Battle Creek:
“But the Lord has made us individually His
stewards. We each hold a solemn responsibility to invest this means ourselves.
God does not lay upon you the burden of asking the Conference, or any council
of men, whether you shall use your means as you see fit to advance the work of
God in destitute towns and cities and impoverished localities.” (Letter No. 68, 1896).
As for
the ultimate destination and purpose of the tithe, she was very definite:
“The tithe should go to those who labor
in word and doctrine, be they men or women.” (Ev
492).
Now,
as Seventh-day Adventists, we know what kind of doctrinal preaching Mrs. White
is referring to, don't we?
Is it
the kind of doctrine that robs Jesus Christ of His qualification to be our High
Priest, by saying that He did not overcome while being tempted like us? (See
Hebrews 4:15).
Is it
the kind of doctrine that tells us that Christ's atonement was completed at the
cross and thus gives support to the popular evangelical view that His work of
salvation was also complete, and there is therefore no need for an
investigative judgment?
Is it
the kind of doctrine that appears to Adventists to uphold still the historic
belief in the judgment, yet seeks to maintain some credibility with the
evangelicals by putting God in the "hot-seat" and judging Him?
The
answer, of course, is perfectly obvious. Such preachers are the ones that have
got our church organization into bed with the popular evangelicals−the daughters of Babylon. They are not the people whom
Mrs. White describes as being worthy of the tithe because they do not
"labor in word and doctrine." They labor with "cunning"
words and "craftiness" as described by Paul, to undermine our
doctrines (Ephesians 4:14).
These
are the leaders who, because they are the equivalent of biblical hirelings,
will desert the cause of God. They will not stay in the church once they are
deprived of their sustenance and experience persecution. Such a time is known
as the "shaking time" and this shaking experience has already started
in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, especially in lands where there is state
and church intolerance of religion. Back in 1876, Mrs. White said,
“God is now sifting His people-testing their
purposes and their motives. Many will be but as chaff no wheat, no value in
them.” (4T 51).
And in
1900 she warned about failure to obey what God has set before us as truth:
“We
are in the shaking time, the time when everything that can be shaken will be
shaken. The Lord will not excuse those who know the truth if they do not in
word and deed obey His commandments.” (6T 332)
Note by Ron: Although it is true that some
SDA leaders won’t remain in the apostate church because they want to go back to
Babylon, it is NOT true that all the bad will leave. In the last literal
fulfillment of Ezekiel 9, read Ezekiel 22:17-31 to learn EXACTLY WHERE THE
APOSTATE JEWS WERE GATHERED—“into the midsts of
Jerusalem, for burning and melting.” So it will be in
the next literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 9, Ezekiel 9:6, and Testimonies, Vol.
5, p. 211. The chapter begins on p. 207, quoting Ezekiel 9. End note.
God in
His mercy has extended the time of probation in our fair lands of Australasia.
But His servant warns us:
“Just
as soon as God's people are sealed and prepared for the shaking, it will come.
Indeed, it has begun already; the judgments of God are now upon the land, to
give us warning, that we may know what is coming.” (4BC 1161).
But
God's followers must not be complacent, nor expect sanctification without
obedience:
“As
the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third
angel's message, but who have not been sanctified through obedience to the
truth, abandon their position, and join the ranks of the opposition.” (GC 608).
Now is
the time for every loyal follower of Christ, every committed Seventh-day
Adventist, to encourage our fellow believers and warn those who have not as yet seen the light. To fail to do so is to sanction
apostasy and invite spiritual disaster.
“When you sanction or carry out the
decisions of men who, as you know, are not in harmony with truth and
righteousness, you weaken your own faith, and lose your relish for communion
with God.” (TM 91).
Here
is a warning and a promise:
“The
work which the church has failed to do in a time of peace and prosperity she
will have to do in a terrible crisis under most discouraging circumstances....
At that time the superficial, conservative class, whose influence has steadily
retarded the progress of the work will renounce their faith.” (5T 463).
So, as
we of God's remnant people give the trumpet a "certain sound," we may
take courage in the fact that those who are responsible for hindering the
finishing of the work, and thus delaying Christ's return, will be removed from
us. And again, the servant of the Lord says,
“In
the absence of persecution there have drifted into our ranks, men who appear
sound and their Christianity unquestionable, but who, if persecution should
arise, would go out from us.” (Ev 60).
Note
by Ron: They go out from Zion, the bride, Isaiah 62 and COL 405-406, which are
“gathered out” to give the gospel to the world, Desire of Ages, 232. End note.
“In
the light of increased willingness shown in recent years for certain leaders of
our church to assiduously promote heresy under the cloak of supposed truth, how
much more relevant are the warnings of our Prophet to these closing days of
earth's history! Only as we understand the sinister workings of the dragon's
wrath against God's remnant people, can we interpret the signs in a way which
will quell discouragement and enable us to fortify our minds and hearts for the
great battle ahead. We will then be fully aware that the contest is between the
commandments of God and the commandments of men. In this time, the gold will be
separated from the dross in the church.” (5T 81).
Note
by Ron: The context of 5T 81, is the time of the National Sunday Law apostasy.
In that time, the gold will be separated from the dross in all apostate
churches. But that does not mean that God will not have a faithful bride He has
separated, and I refer to the 144,000 who are without blame, Rev. 14:1-4, and
Ellen White said that it is impossible to unite with the corrupt and
remain/become pure. So the bride could never mature
amongst the apostates. That is why Jesus “gathered out” those who would take
the gospel to the world in His day. Desire
of Ages, 232. We were to JOIN not NEW MOVEMENT, so Satan came in and formed
one AMONG/WITHIN the once SDA church, 1SM 204-206. That New Movement “removed
God,” ibid. p. 205. There is only one other master left. End note.
If,
through faith, we will follow Christ in His great saving work of atonement, it
follows that we will have a faith that also enables obedience. God's power will
then energize even those of us who are retiring and reticent by nature.
“Those
who have been timid and self-distrustful, will declare themselves openly for
Christ and His truth. The most weak and hesitating in
the church, will be as Davidwilling to do and dare.”
(ibid.).
The
final stages of the Church's march to victory will not be characterized by
timidity, doubts and despair. Memories of those who have led God's children
into apostasy will, with their heresies, be reduced to mere asterisks in the
great controversy between Christ and Satan. God's Prophet has dramatically
portrayed the remnant church of Christ, when it has been purged of
"dross," as a pure but militant army, “fair as the moon, clear as the
sun, terrible as an army with banners.” (5T 82).
God's
Messenger to the remnant is not describing an army of people who have been
tricked into following the commandments of men. No! She is speaking of those
who keep the commandments of God and proclaim the message of 1844 to Evermore.
Final note
by Ron: Ellen White clearly prophesied the final fate of the SDA church
militant:
PROLEPSIS
PROPHETIC STATEMENT:
[proh-lep-sis]
noun, plural pro·lep·ses [proh-lep-seez] /proʊˈlɛp siz/.
1. Rhetoric. the anticipation of possible
objections in order to answer them in advance.
2. The assigning of a person, event, etc., to a
period earlier than the actual one; the representation of something in the future as if it already existed
or had occurred; prochronism.
3. The use of a descriptive word in anticipation of
its becoming applicable.
4. A fundamental conception or assumption in
Epicureanism or Stoicism arising spontaneously in the mind without conscious
reflection; thought provoked by sense perception.
5. Pathology. the return of an attack of a periodic
disease or of a paroxysm before the expected time or at progressively shorter
intervals.
Here is the Spirit of Prophecy prophesied prolepsis
statement regarding the final fate of that once Noble Ship. This is a major
LYNCHPIN to my warning message. Can you explain it away? Are you a passenger on
this once NOBLE SHIP, that is about to sink to rise no more?
NOTICE WHO
SEPARATES FROM WHOM:
"Jesus sends HIS PEOPLE a message of warning
to prepare them for his coming. To the prophet John was made known the closing
work in the great plan of man's redemption. He beheld an angel flying 'in the
midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that
dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and
people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him for the hour
of his Judgment is come and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the
sea, and the fountains of waters [Rev. 14:6, 7.].
The angel represented in
prophecy as
delivering this message, symbolizes a class of faithful men, who, obedient to the promptings of
God's Spirit and the teachings of his word, proclaim this warning to the
inhabitants of earth. This message
was not to be committed to the religious leaders of the people. They
had failed to preserve their connection with God, and
had REFUSED THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN therefore they WERE NOT of the number
described by the apostle Paul: 'But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that
that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and
the children of the day we are not of the night nor of darkness' [1 Thess. 5:4,
5].
The watchmen upon the walls of Zion should be the first to catch
the tidings of the Saviour's advent, the first to lift their voices to proclaim
him near, the first to warn the people to prepare for his coming. But they were
at ease, dreaming of peace and safety, while the people were asleep in their
sins. Jesus saw HIS CHURCH, like the barren fig-tree, covered with
pretentious leaves, yet destitute of precious fruit. There was a boastful
observance of the forms of religion, while the spirit of true humility,
penitence and faith--which alone could render the service acceptable to
God--was lacking. Instead of the graces of the Spirit, there were manifested
pride, formalism, vainglory, selfishness, oppression. A BACKSLIDING CHURCH closed their eyes to the signs of the
times. God did nor forsake them, or suffer his
faithfulness to fail but they departed from him,
and SEPARATED THEMSELVES from his love. As they REFUSED
TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS, his promises were NOT FULFILLED to
them." E.G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4,
pp. 199-200 [The
1884 edition of The Great Controversy, 199, 200].
Note these important delineations in
the above statement:
·
Ellen
White is addressing HIS PEOPLE.
·
Ellen
White is addressing those to whom God committed the EVERLASTING GOSPEL of
Revelation 14.
·
Ellen
White is defining the angel represented in prophecy as symbolizing a class of
faithful men.
·
Ellen
White is saying emphatically that the final Loud Cry message is delivered NOT
BY THE LEADERS OF THE SDA CHURCH, but by a class of faithful men, because
the leaders had failed to preserve their connection with God and had refused
light from heaven!
·
Ellen
White is addressing "watchmen upon the walls of Zion," NOT FALLEN
BABYLON!
·
Twice
Ellen White mentions HIS CHURCH, NOT FALLEN BABYLON.
·
It is the MEMBERS of
said church that SEPARATE FROM GOD, AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO SEPARATE FROM
THEM OR BE CORPORATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR APOSTASY.
·
The above reasons
are why there is another coming out of a faithful remnant FROM APOSTATE
JERUSALEM AS WELL AS FALLEN BABYLON.
·
Isa 37:31 And the remnant that is escaped of the house
of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward:
·
Isa 37:32 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a
remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts
shall do this.
Ellen White is addressing a BACKSLIDING CHURCH
whose leaders and laity alike failed and rejected light from heaven and
who refused to comply with the conditions so that God's promises are not fulfilled
to them. Consider the following commentary on the 1884 Great Controversy that
the above statement is quoted from:
“Consider for a few moments the chapter in the
first edition of Great Controversy, Volume IV, published by Pacific
Press in 1884. In Chapter XXVII, ‘The Snares of Satan,’ you find that about
four pages in the latter part of the chapter were omitted from the later
editions of Great Controversy. These four pages are to be found in
Testimonies to Ministers, pages 472 to 475. The information contained in these
four pages is very valuable to Seventh-day Adventists and was very
appropriately included in the first edition of Great Controversy, Volume IV,
which when it was published was like the other volumes considered to be A
MESSAGE ESPECIALLY TO SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, and to [all] Christian people
sympathizing with them in beliefs and aims.” W. C. White, Selected Messages,
Appendix C, pp. 452, 453.
Never
forget this friend of mine: If all the bad leave the apostate SDA church,
EZEKIEL 9 WOULD NOT BEGIN THERE AS IT DID WITH THE APOSTATE JEWISH CHURCH!
Study Ezekiel 9 "Study the 9th chapter of
Ezekiel. These words will be literally fulfilled yet the time is passing, and
the people are asleep. They refuse to humble their souls and to be converted.
Not a great while longer will the Lord bear with the people who have such great
and important truths revealed to them, but who refuse to bring these truths
into their individual experience. The time is short. God is calling will YOU
hear? Will YOU receive His message? Will YOU be converted before it is too
late? Soon, very soon, every case will be decided for eternity. Letter 106,
1909, pp. 2, 3, 5, 7. (To "The churches in Oakland and Berkeley, September
26, 1909.)" E. G. White Manuscript Releases Volume One, p. 260.
“The ruin of Jerusalem was a symbol of the final
ruin that shall overwhelm the world. The prophecies that received a partial
fulfillment in the overthrow of Jerusalem have a more direct application to the
last days. We are now standing on the threshold of great and solemn events. A
crisis is before us, such as the world has never witnessed. ”
Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, pp. 120,
121.
“The time will soon come when the prophecy of
Ezekiel 9 will be fulfilled; that prophecy should be carefully studied, for it
will be fulfilled to the very letter.”— Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, p. 1303.
End
Final Chapter 27
Appendixes
to Follow
But the Scriptures have placed the
identity of antichrist beyond either guesswork or confusion. The Bible has
clearly named the guilty one. John says that he denies that "Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh." 2 John 7. Let this be the first mark of antichrist
by which his identity will be placed beyond dispute. The verse does not say
that antichrist denies that Jesus is come, but that he denies "He is come
in the flesh." Far from denying the existence of Christ, the text suggests
that antichrist teaches that Christ has come but teaches a doctrine about His
coming which denies that "He is come in the flesh." If the Catholic
Church is guilty, as the Protestant Reformers claimed her to be, then her
teaching concerning the nature of Jesus in His incarnation into this world as a
babe will reveal it. Let us examine that teaching in the light of the text
before us.
The Bible teaches that Jesus was
born into the world through Mary, who was a direct descendent of Adam. By
inheritance she partook of Adam's nature. Adam's nature was mortal and subject
to death as a result of the transgression of God's
will in Eden. His flesh was by nature that of the "children of
Wrath." Mary partook of this nature in all its aspects. She was a
representative of the whole human race, and in no way different from others
descended from Adam's line. She was "favoured among women" only
because she was the one chosen of God through whom the "mystery of
godliness was to be made manifest," and through whom Jesus was to be
incarnated into the fleshly state of Adam's race. It was God's purpose that
through a divine miracle Jesus should be brought from heaven, where He had been
one with the Father in the Godhead, to be born into the human family, there to
partake of all the temptations to which Adam's race is subject. This was
possible only as He would partake of the nature of Adam's race. Of this Paul
says, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He
also Himself likewise took part of the same.... Wherefore in all things it
behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren." Hebrews 2:14-17.
If further evidence were needed
the same writer supplied it. In 1 Timothy 3:16 he
records: "Great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the
flesh." Here, he says, is the mystery of godliness, the ability of Jesus
to come from heaven, suffer Himself to be manifest in human flesh, and yet to
live sinlessly.
This latter fact antichrist was to
deny. He was to deny that Jesus came in a divine manifestation which brought
Him in all phases of His nature to partake of the weakness of Adam's race. He
would deny that Jesus came "in the flesh," the same flesh as that of
mortal men. On this first count, the denial that Jesus "is come in the
flesh," the Catholic Church stands convicted of guilt and thus is
identified by the marks of antichrist. Through the teaching of the
"Immaculate Conception of Mary," that she was preserved from all
original sin, they in theory provide "different flesh" from that of
the rest of Adam's race to be the avenue through which Jesus was incarnated
into the plan of salvation. To state their teaching with authority, it will be
best to quote our evidence from Catholic authors.
Our first proof will be from the
pen of Cardinal Gibbons in his book, Faith of our Fathers, pages 203, 204. He
says: "We define that the blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her
conception ... was preserved free from the taint of original sin. Unlike the rest
of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary was never subject to sin."
Cardinal Gibbons has here clearly stated the teaching
of the Roman Catholic
Church concerning the sinlessness
of the Virgin Mary. It is a teaching not taught in the Bible, but which has been
introduced by Catholic teachers who claim to have authority even above that of
the Scriptures, in matters of doctrine.
Here I would ask my readers, both
Protestant and Catholic, to ponder carefully what this teaching does to the
gospel plan. It means that if Mary was born without sin and was preserved from
sin for the express purpose of bringing Jesus into the world, then Jesus was
born of holy flesh, which was different from that of the rest of Adam's race.
This means that He did not take upon Himself our kind of flesh and blood, and
in His incarnation did not identify Himself with humanity. It means, too, that
He was not tempted "in all points" as we were. It means that Paul was
all wrong when he wrote the Book of Hebrews in which he declares that Jesus
"also Himself likewise took part of the same" flesh as the rest of
Adam's race, that "in all things" He was made "like unto His
brethren" Hebrews 2:14, 17.
But above all this, if the
Catholic teaching is true, then Jesus, not having come within reach of humanity
by partaking of man's nature, cannot be the "one mediator between God and
men." Nor can we "come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may
obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of
need" Hebrews 4:16. All this plays conveniently into the hands of the
Catholic plan of salvation. It opens wide the door for the intercession of the
Virgin Mary and the respective "saints," who form part of the papal
mediatorial system. And moreover, it places in the hands of the priesthood the
power to usurp authority which God in the Scriptures has never delegated to
them−that of
being controllers of the approaches to the throne of mercy.
At this stage of our review of the
subject of antichrist, I believe all fairminded
people will acknowledge that if the Papacy is not the antichrist it has been
singularly unfortunate in being so like the scriptural description of him. In
the papal claim that Jesus was born of one who had been "preserved from
every taint of original sin" and who "unlike the rest of the children
of Adam ... was never subject to sin," we find the first mark of
antichrist indelibly implanted. The Papacy certainly teaches that Jesus Christ
did "not come in the flesh."
Then came the General Conference
at Battle Creek. According to the arrangements I was to report the proceedings
of the Conference; and according to the arrangements, Brothers Prescott and
Waggoner were not expected evidently to have even that much to do. But before
the Conference actually assembled in session, there occurred that meeting in
the Library room of the College Building, in which Sister White spoke on
General Conference matters and organization, declaring that there must be
"an entire new organization and to have a Committee that shall take in not
merely half a dozen that is to be a ruling and controlling power, but it is to
have representatives of those that are placed in responsibility in our educational
interests, in our Sanitariums, etc., that there should be a renovation without
delay. To have this Conference pass on and close up as
the Conferences have done, with the same manipulating, with the very same tone,
and the same order-God forbid! God forbid, brethren.... And until this come we
might just as well close up the Conference today as
any other day.... This thing has been continued for the last fifteen years or
more, [1901 minus 15 takes us back to 1886], and God calls for a change.
"God wants a change, and it
is high time-it is high time that there was ability that should connect with
the Conference, with the General Conference right here in this city. Not wait
until it is done and over with, and then gather up the forces and see what can
be done. We want to know what can be done right now. "From the light that
I have, as it was presented to me in figures. There was a narrow compass here;
there within that narrow compass is a king-like, a kingly ruling power. God
means what He says and He says, "I want a change
here."
"Will it be the same thing?
Going over and over the same ideas, the same committees-and here is the little
throne-the king is in there, and these others are all secondary. God wants
those committees that have been handling things for so long should be relieved
of their command and have a chance for their life and see if they cannot get
out of this rut that they are in-which I have no hope of their getting out of,
because the Spirit of God has been working and working, and yet the king is in
there still. Now the Lord wants His Spirit to come in. He wants the Holy Ghost
King.
"From the light that I have
had for some time, and has been expressed, over and over again, not to all that
are here, but has been expressed to individuals-the plan, that God would have
all to work from, that never should one mind, or two minds or three minds, nor
four minds, or a few minds I should say be considered of sufficient wisdom and
power to control and mark out plans and let it rest upon the minds of one or
two or three in regard to this broad field that we have.
"And all the work all over
our field demands an entirely different course of action than we have had; that
there needs the laying of a foundation that is different from what we have had.
... In all these countries, far, and near, He wants to be an arousing,
broadening, enlarging power. And a management which is getting confused in
itself-not that anyone is wrong or means to be wrong, but the principle is
wrong, and the principles have become so mixed and so fallen from what God's
principles are.
"These things have been told,
and this stand-still has got to come to an end. But yet
every Conference has woven after the same pattern, it is the very same loom
that carries it, and finally it will come to nought."
She declared that God wants us to
take hold of this work, every human agency. Each one is to act in their
capacity in such a way that the confidence of the whole people will be
established in them and that they will not be afraid, but
see everything just as light as day until they are in connection with the work
of God and the whole people.... All the provision was made in heaven, all the
facilities, all the riches of the grace of God was imparted to every worker
that was connected with the cause, and every one of
these are wholly dependent upon God. And when we leave God out of the question, and allow hereditary and cultivated traits of
character to come in, let me tell you, we are on very slippery ground.
God hath His servants-His church,
established in the earth, composed of many members, but of one body; that in
every part of the work one part must work as connected with another part, and
that with another part, and with another part, and these are joined together by
the golden links of heaven and there is to be no kings in the
midst of all. There is to be no man that has the right to put his hand
out and say: No you can not go there. We won't support
you if you go there. Why, what have you to do with the supporting? Did you
create the means? The means comes from the people. And those who are in
destitute fields-the voice of God has told me to instruct them to go to the
people and tell them their necessities, and to draw all the people to work just
where they can find a place to work, to build up the work in every place they
can.
Upon that instruction and much
more to the same effect in that talk you and Brother Prescott and others took
hold of the matter pertaining to the then pending General Conference [1901],
set aside entirely the old order of things, and started it new. At the opening
of the General Conference, April 2, Sister White spoke briefly to the same
effect as in the College Building the day before. Brother Irwin followed with a
few words; and then you spoke a few words and introduced a motion that the
usual rules and precedents for arranging and transacting the business of the
Conference be suspended, and the General Committee be hereby appointed ... to
constitute a general or central committee, which shall do such work as necessarily
must be done in providing the work of the Conference, and
preparing the business to bring before the delegates. Thus
the new order of things was started.
The night of that very first day
of the Conference, I was appointed to preach the sermon. Since I had been
appointed to report the proceedings I expected to have no preaching or other
work to do. Therefore when I was called to preach that
one time during the conference, and have me do it at the beginning, so that I
could go on afterwards unmolested with the reporting. I spoke on Church
Organization. When that meeting was over, I supposed that my preaching during
the Conference was done. Therefore, I was surprised when only two days
afterwards-April 4, you came to me at the reporter's table and said we want you
to preach tonight! I said I supposed that my preaching was over, since I have
the reporting to do. I can not do this and preach often. You said to me,
"You have light for the people, and we want them to have it." I
consented and preached again on the subject of Church
Organization, developing the subject further, and on the same principles
precisely as on the night of April 2.
In that Conference [1901] the
General Conference was started toward the calledfor-reorganization.
All understood that the call was away from a centralized order of things in
which one man or two men or three or four men or a few men held the ruling and
directing power, to an organization in which, all the people as individuals
should have a part, with God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit as the unifying,
and directing power. Indeed, the day before my second sermon on organization,
Sister White had said, April 3, we want to understand that there are no gods in
our Conference. There are to be no kings here, and no kings in any Conference
that is formed, "All ye are brethren."
"The Lord wants to bind those
at this Conference heart to heart. No man is to say I am a god, and you must do
as I say. From the beginning to the end this is wrong. There is to be an
individual work. God says, "Let him take hold of My strength that he may
make peace with Me and he shall make peace with Me."
"Remember that God can give
wisdom to those who handle His work. It is not necessary to send thousands of
miles to Battle Creek for advice, and then have to
wait weeks before an answer can be received. Those who are right on the ground
are to decide what shall be done. You know what you have to wrestle with, but
those who are thousands of miles away do not know." Bulletin 1901, pp 69,
70. And on the very day of my second sermon, April 4, she said in a talk at
9:00 a.m., this meeting will determine the character of our work in the future.
How important that every step shall be taken under the supervision of God! This
work must be carried in a very different manner to what it has been in the past
years-Bulletin 1901, p. 83.
In this understanding an entire
new Constitution was adopted; and that such was the understanding in adopting
this Constitution is plainly shown in the discussions. Under this Constitution the
General Conference Committee was composed of a large number
of men, with power to organize itself by choosing a chairman etc. No
president of the General Conference was chosen; nor was provided for. The
presidency of the General Conference was eliminated to escape a centralized
power, a one-man power, a kingship, a monarchy. The Constitution was framed and
adopted to that end in accordance with the whole guiding thought in the
Conference from the beginning in that room in the College Building.
Shortly after the Conference
ended, you suggested during the meeting at Indianapolis that my sermon on
organization ought to be printed in a leaflet so that our people everywhere
could have it for study in the work of reorganization. Your suggestion was
agreed to and I was directed to prepare it for
printing. I did so and it was printed at General
Conference direction in Words of Truth Series No. 31, Extra May 1901.
Now after all this, it was not
long before the whole spirit and principle of the General Conference
Organization and affairs began to be reversed again. This spirit of reaction
became so rife and so rank that some before the General Conference of 1903 at
Oakland, Calif., two men, or three men, or four men, or a few men I should say,
being together in Battle Creek or somewhere else, and without any kind of
authority, but directly against the plain words of the Constitution, took it
absolutely upon themselves to elect you president, and Brother Prescott
vice-president of the General Conference. And than that there never was in this
universe a clearer piece of usurpation of position, power and authority. You
two were then of right, just as much president and vice-president of Timbuktu
as you were of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference.
But this spirit did not stop even
there. The thing was done directly against the Constitution. This was too plain
to be escaped. And it was just as plain that with that Constitution still
perpetuated in the coming General Conference, this usurpation of position, power,
and authority could not be perpetuated. What could be done to preserve the
usurpation−Oh,
that was just as easy as the other. A new Constitution was framed to fit and to
uphold the usurpation. This Constitution was carried to the General Conference
of 1903 at Oakland, Calif., and in every unconstitutional way, because in every
truly constitutional government the constitution comes in some way from the
people, not from the monarch. Thus the people make and
establish a Constitution. The monarch grants a Constitution. When the people
make a Constitution the people govern. When a monarch
grants a Constitution he seeks to please the people
with a toy and keeps the government himself. This difference is the sole
difficulty in Russia to-day; and the difference is simply the difference
between monarchy and government of the people; and between oppression and
freedom. The people want to make a Constitution. The Czar wants to grant them a
Constitution, and have them endorse anew his autocracy
and bureaucracy by adopting the Constitution that he grants.
And this is just the difference
between the General Conference and its Constitution of 1901 and the General
Conference and its Constitution of 1903. In 1901 the monarchy was swept aside
completely, and the Conference itself as such and as a whole
made a new Constitution. In the General conference of 1903 the usurpers
of monarchial position and authority came with the Constitution that fitted and
maintained their usurpation, and succeeded in getting
it adopted. And how?−None
of the people had asked for a new Constitution. The General Conference
delegation asked for it. In behalf of the usurpation it was brought before that
Committee and advocated there, because, in very words, "The Church must
have a visible head." It was not even then nor was it ever, favored by
that Committee. It was put through the Committee, and reported to the
Conference, only by permanently dividing the Committee,−a minority, of the
Committee, opposing it all the time, and-a thing almost unheard of in
Seventh-day Adventist Conferences, a minority report against it. And when at
last it was adopted by the final vote, it was by a slim majority of just five.
And it was only by the carelessness of some of the delegates that it got
through even that way; for there were just then downstairs in the Oakland
Church enough delegates who were opposed to it, to have defeated it if they had
been present. They told this themselves afterwards. But they did not know that
the vote was being taken, and by their not being in their places, the
usurpation was sanctioned; the reactionary spirit that had been so long working
for absolute control had got it; the principles and intent of the General
Conference of 1901 was reversed; and a Czardom was
enthroned which has since gone steadily onward in the same way and has with
perfect consistency built up a thorough bureaucratic government, by which it
reaches and meddles with, and manipulates, the affairs of all, not only of the
union and local conferences, but of local churches, and of individual persons.
So that some of the oldest men in active service to-day, and who by their life
experiences are best qualified to know, have freely said that in the whole
history of the denomination there has never been such a one-man power, such a
centralized despotism, so much of the Papacy, as there has been since the
Oakland Conference [of 1903]. And as a part of this bureaucracy there is, of
all the incongruous things ever heard of, a Religious Liberty Bureau-a
contradiction in terms.
Now when I was opposed to this thing before and in the
General Conference of
1897, and before and in the
General Conference of 1899, and before and in the General Conference of 1901,
and before and in the General Conference of 1903, why should you be perplexed that
I have not fallen in with it and helped to make it a success since 1903? Why
should I in 1903, abandon all the principles and teachings by which I was right
in opposing it, until and including 1903, when I was in the right all these
years in opposing it and doing all that I could to keep it from succeeding, Why
and upon what principles should I have swung in and favoured it just because at
last in a most arbitrary, unconstitutional and usurping way it did at last
succeed?
Again in
the General Conference of 1901 you yourself said that in the principles of
organization that I preached I had "light for the people." Those
principles were the ones that prevailed in that Conference; and at your own
suggestion these principles as preached in my first sermon, were published for
the help of the denomination in the work of reorganization. But the principles
and the form of organization of 1903 were directly the opposite of this that in
1901 you said were "light for the people." If my second sermon in the
General Conference of 1901 had been printed along with the first, the people
would have been able to see more plainly how entirely the course of things in
1903 was the reverse of that in 1901. And anyone can see it now by reading The
General Conference Bulletin of 1901, pp. 37-42, and pp. 101105.
Now brother, were those principles
light in 1901? If so, then what did you do when you exposed the opposite of
them in 1902, 1903? Or were those principles light in 1901, and darkness in
1903? Or were those principles really darkness in 1901 when you said that they
were light. Or are they still light today as they were in 1901? And if in the
General Conference of 1901 you were not able to distinguish between light and
darkness what surety has anybody that you were any more able to do it in
1902-1903? Or is it possible that in 1902-1903 you were not, and now are not, able to see that the principles and the course of
action of 1902- 1903 are not the same as those of the General Conference of
1901? In other words, is it possible that you can think that certain principles
with their course of action, and the reverse of them are one and the same? I
know that the principles that in 1901 you said were "light for the
people" were then really light, and that they are
now light and forever more will be light. They are only plain principles of the
Word of God. I hold these principles today exactly as I did in 1901 and long before, and shall hold them forever. For this cause I was opposed to the usurpation and unconstitutional
action of 1902-1903 that were the opposite of these principles; and shall
always be opposed to them.,
In view of all these facts again I
ask, Why should you think that I should abandon all,
just because you and some others did? I think that it was enough for me to keep
still these three years. It is true that I have had no disposition to do
anything but keep still about it. For when the General Conference of 1903 made
their choice that way, I have no disposition to oppose it in any other way than
by preaching the gospel. Indeed the strongest possible
opposition that can be made to it is the plain, simple preaching of the plain
gospel. There is this about it, however, that now the plain simple preaching of
the plain gospel will be considered disloyal to the General Conference,
disloyal to the organization, etc. Nevertheless, I am going to continue to
preach the plain gospel, and that gospel is in the Word of God. For when the
General Conference and the organized work put themselves in such a position
that the plain preaching of the gospel as in the Word of God is disloyalty to
the General Conference and the "organized work," then the thing to do
is to preach the gospel, as it is in the Word of God....
In 1901 the General Conference was
turned away from a centralized power; a one man or two men, or three men, or
four men, or a few men power, a kingship, a monarchy; because the instructions was in very words, the principle is wrong. It will not do to
say that in 1902-1903 circumstances had changed. For whatever change may ever
occur in circumstances, principles never change.
I stated that the present order of
the General Conference affairs is a thoroughly bureaucratic government. Not
every section of it is called a bureau; but that is what in practice every
section is, whatever it may be called; and the title of the Religious Liberty
Bureau is expressive of the whole.
I stated that the phrase
"Religious Liberty Bureau" is a contradiction in terms, on every
principle that is the truth. There are many words of our language that are the
result and expression of invariable human experience through ages.
The result of human experience
through ages has in certain things been so invariable that a word tells it, and
tells it so truly, when that word is used, that a certain order of things is
described; and when that word is espoused, then we have in certainty the
situation and order of things which the word expresses. Bureaucracy-Government
by bureaus-is one of these words: and the definition, which is but the
expression of ages of invariable experience is as follows:
"Bureaucracy: Government by
bureaus: specifically, excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power
in, administrative bureaus. The principle of bureaucracy tends to official
interference in many of the properly private affairs of life, and to the
inefficient and obtrusive performance of duty through minute subdivisions of
functions, inflexible formality, and pride of place." Century Dictionary.
"A bureaucracy is sure to
think that its duty is to augment official power, official business, or
official numbers, rather than to leave free the energies of mankind."Standard
Dictionary.
The serious student of the
atonement is likely to be perplexed when he consults the spirit of Prophecy to
find two sets of apparently contradictory statements in
regard to the atonement. He will find that when Christ "offered
Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people:
(Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899. He will find that the Father bowed before
the cross "in recognition of its perfection. `It is enough,' He said, `the
atonement is complete' (Review and Herald, September 24, 1901.
But in The Great Controversy he
will find this: "At the conclusion of the 2300 days, in 1844, Christ
entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, to perform the closing
work of the atonement," page 422. In Patriarchs and Prophets, 357, I read
that sins will "stand on record in the sanctuary until the final
atonement" (in 1844). Page 358 states that in "the final atonement
the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of
heaven." Early Writings, 253 says that "Jesus entered the Most Holy
of the heavenly at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, to make the final
atonement."
The first set of statements says
that the atonement was made on the cross; the other says that the final
atonement was made 1800 years later. I have found seven statements that the
atonement was made on the cross; I have twenty-two statements that the final
atonement was made in heaven. Both of these figures
are doubtless incomplete; for there may be others that have escaped my
attention. It is evident, however that I may not accept one set of statements
and reject the other if I wish to arrive at truth. The question therefore is, Which statements are true? Which are false? or, are both
true? If so, how can they be harmonized?
I was perplexed when in the
February issue of the Ministry in 1957, I found the statement that "the
sacrificial act of the cross [was] a complete, perfect, and final
atonement." This was in distinct contradiction to Mrs. White's
pronouncement that the final atonement began in 1844. I thought that this might
be a misprint, and wrote to Washington calling attention to the matter, but
found it was not a misprint but an official and approved statement. If we still
hold the Spirit of Prophecy as of authority we
therefore have two contradictory beliefs: the final atonement was made at the
cross; the final atonement began in 1844.
I have listened to several
discussions of the meaning of the Hebrew word "kaphar"
which is the word used in the original for atonement, but
have received little help. The best definition I have found is a short
explanatory phrase in Patriarchs and Prophets, 358, which simply states that
the atonement, "the great work of Christ, or blotting out of sin, was
represented by the services on the day of atonement."
This definition is in harmony with
Leviticus 16:30 which says that "the priest shall make atonement for you,
to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord."
Atonement is here equated with being "clean from all your sins." As
sin was the cause of separation between God and man, the removing of sin would
again unite God and man. And this would be at-one-ment.
Christ did not need any atonement,
for He and the Father were always one (John 10:30). Christ prayed for His
disciples "that they may all be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in
Thee, that they may be one in Us" (John 17:21).
The definition of atonement as
consisting of three words atonement is by some considered obsolete, but it
nevertheless represents vital truth. Mrs. White thus uses it. Says she:
"unless they accept the atonement provided for them in the remedial
sacrifice of Jesus Christ who is our atonement, at-one-ment
with God" (Manuscript 122, 1901).
God's plan is that in "the
fullness of time He might gather together in one all things in Christ
(Ephesians 1:10). When this is done, "the family of heaven and the family
of earth are one" (DA 835). Then "one pulse of harmony and gladness
beats through the vast creation" (GC 678). At last the atonement is
complete.
Much confusion in
regard to the atonement arises from a neglect to recognize the two
divisions of the atonement. Note what is said of John the Baptist, "He did
not distinguish clearly the two phases of Christ's work-as a suffering
sacrifice, and a conquering king" (DA 136-137). The book Questions on
Doctrine makes the same mistake. It does not distinguish clearly; in fact, it
does not distinguish at all; it does not seem to know of the two phases; hence
the confusion.
The first phase of Christ's
atonement was that of a suffering sacrifice. This began before the world was,
included the Incarnation, Christ's life on earth, the temptation in the
wilderness, Gethsemane, Golgotha, and ended when God's voice called Christ from
the "stony prison house of death." The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah
is a vivid picture of this.
Satan had overcome Adam in the
garden of Eden, and in a short time nearly the whole world had come under his
sway. At the time of Noah there were only eight souls who entered the ark.
Satan claimed to be the prince of this world, and no one had challenged him.
But God did not recognize Satan's
claim to dominion, and when Christ came to earth, the Father "gave the
world into the hands of the Son, that through His mediatorial work He may
completely vindicate the holiness and the binding claims of every precept of
the divine law" (BEcho, January,
1887). This was a challenge to Satan's claim, and thus began in earnest the
great controversy between Christ and Satan.
"Christ took the place of
fallen Adam. With the sins of the world laid upon Him, He would go over the ground
where Adam stumbled" (RH February 24, 1874). "Jesus volunteered to
meet the highest claims of the law" (RH September 2, 1890). "Christ
made Himself responsible for every man and woman on earth" (RH February
27, 1900).
As Satan claimed ownership of the
earth, it was necessary for Christ to overcome Satan before He could take
possession of His kingdom. Satan knew this, and hence made an
attempt to kill Christ as soon as He was born. However, as a contest
between Satan and a helpless child in a manger would not be fair, God
frustrated this.
The first real encounter between Christ and Satan took
place in the wilderness.
After forty days of fasting,
Christ was weak and emaciated, at death's door. At this time Satan made his
attack. But Christ resisted, even "unto blood" and Satan was
compelled to retire defeated. But he did not give up. Throughout Christ's
ministry, Satan dogged His footsteps, and made every moment a hard battle.
The climax of Christ's struggle with Satan came in the
garden of Gethsemane.
Hitherto Christ had been upheld by the knowledge of
the approval of the Father. But now
He "was overpowered by the
terrible fear that God was removing His presence from Him (3SOP 95). If God
should forsake Him, could He still resist Satan and die rather than yield?
Three times His humanity shrank from the last crowning sacrifice.... The fate
of humanity trembled in the balance" (3 SOP 99). "As the Father's
presence was withdrawn, they saw Him sorrowful with a bitterness of sorrow
exceeding that of the last struggle with death" (DA 759). "He fell
dying to the ground" but with His last ounce of strength murmured,
"If this cup may not pass from me except I drink it, Thy
will be done.... A heavenly peace rested upon His bloodstained face. He had
borne that which no human being could ever bear; He had tasted the sufferings
of death for every man" (DA 694). In His death, He was victor.
"When Christ said, `It is
finished' God responded `It is finished, the human race
shall have another trial.' The redemption price is paid, and Satan fell like
lightning from heaven" (Ms 11, 1897).
"As the Father beheld the
cross He was satisfied. He said, `It is enough, the offering is complete"'
(ST September 30, 1899). It was necessary however, that there should be given
the world a stern manifestation of the wrath of God, and so "in the grave
Christ was the captive of divine justice" (ST November 15, 1899). It must
be abundantly attested that Christ's death was real, so He must "remain in
the grave the allotted period of time" (RH April 27, 1898). "When the
time was expired a messenger was sent to relieve the Son of God from the debt
for which He had become responsible, and for which He had made full
atonement" (Ms 94, 1897).
"In the intercessory prayer
of Jesus with His Father, He claimed that He had fulfilled the conditions which
made it obligatory upon the Father to fulfill His part of the contract made in
heaven with regard to fallen man. He prayed `I have
finished the work which Thou gayest Me to do."' Mrs. White makes this
explanation, "That is, He had wrought out a righteous character on earth
as an example for men to follow" (3 SOP 260).
The "contract" between
the Father and the Son made in heaven, included the following:
1.
The Son was to work out a righteous character on
earth as an example for man to follow.
2.
Not only was Christ to work out such a
character, but He was to demonstrate that man also could do this; and thus man would become "more precious than fine gold,
even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir."
3.
If Christ thus could present man as a new
creature in Christ Jesus, then God was to "receive repentant and obedient men, and would love them even as He loves His Son" (3
SOP 260; DA 790).
"Christ had fulfilled one
phase of His priesthood by dying on the cross. He is now fulfilling another
phase by pleading before the Father the case of repenting, believing sinners,
presenting to God the offerings of His people" (Ms
42, 1901). "In His incarnation He had reached the prescribed limit as a
sacrifice, but not as a redeemer" (Ms 11, 1897).
On Golgotha He was the victim, the sacrifice. That was a far as He could go as
a sacrifice. But now His work as a redeemer began. "When Christ cried `It
is finished' God's unseen hand rent the strong fabric which composed the veil
of the temple from top to bottom. The way into the holiest of all was made
manifest" (ibid.).
With the cross the first phase of
Christ's work as the "suffering sacrifice" ended. He had gone the
"prescribed limit" as a sacrifice. He had finished His work
"thus far."
And now, with the Father's
approval of the sacrifice, He was empowered to be the Saviour of mankind. At
the ensuing coronation forty days later He was given
all power in heaven and earth, and officially installed as High Priest.
"After His ascension our
Saviour began His work as High Priest. . . . In
harmony with the typical service He began His ministration in the holy place,
and at the termination of the prophetic days in 1844 ... He entered the most
holy to perform the last division of His solemn work, to cleanse the
sanctuary" (4SOP 265-266). On the same page, 266, Sister White repeats,
apparently for emphasis, "at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844,
Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, into the
presence of God, to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His
coming."
The reader cannot fail to note how
clearly and emphatically this is stated. John the Baptist "did not
distinguish clearly the two phases of Christ's work, as a suffering sacrifice
and a conquering king" (DA 136-137). Our theologians are making the same
mistake today and are inexcusable. They have light which John did not have.
In studying this part of the
atonement, we are entering a field that is distinctly Adventist, and in which
we differ from all other denominations. This is our unique contribution to
religion and theology, that which "has made us a separate people, and has
given character and power to our work" (CE 54). In the same place she warns
us not to make "void the truths of the atonement, and
destroy our confidence in the doctrine which we have held sacred since the
third angel's message was first given."
This is vital counsel,
and written for this very time when efforts are being made by some among
us to have others believe that we are like the churches about us, an
evangelical body and not a sect. Paul, in his day, had the same heresy to meet.
He was accused of being a "pestilent fellow," a "ringleader of
the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). In his answer before Felix, Paul
confessed that after the "way which they call a sect, so serve I the God
of our Fathers believing all things which are according to the law and which
are written in the prophets" (Acts 24:14 RV). In those days men spoke
sneeringly of the true church as a sect, as men do now. Paul was not disturbed
by this. We have no record that he attempted to have the church of the living
God recognized as an evangelical body by men who trampled the law of God in the
dust. On the contrary, whatever they might call him and his "sect" he
confessed that he believed "all things which are written in the law and
the prophets" (verse 14).
The religious journal,
Christianity Today, states in the March 3, 1948 issue, that "the
Adventists today are contending vigorously that they are truly evangelical.
They appear to want to be so regarded." Mentioning the book Questions on
Doctrine, it says that this "is the Adventist answer to the question
whether it ought to be thought of as a sect or a fellow evangelical
denomination." It states further that "the book" is published in an effort to convince the religious world that we are
evangelical and one of them.
This is a most interesting and
dangerous situation. As one official who was not in favor of what was being
done stated to me: "We are being sold down the river." What a sight
for heaven and earth! The church of the living God which has been given the
commission to preach the gospel to every creature under heaven and call men to
come out of Babylon, is now standing at the door of these churches asking
permission to enter and become one of them. How are the mighty fallen! Had
their plan succeeded, we might now be a member of some evangelical association
and not a distinctive Seventhday Adventist Church any
more, in secrecy "sold down the river." This is more than apostasy.
This is giving up Adventism. It is the rape of a whole people. It is denying
God's leading in the past. It is the fulfillment of what the Spirit of Prophecy
said some years ago:
“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, and
engaging in a process of reorganization. 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.... Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way
of the new movement.” (2SpTB, 54-55).
“Be not deceived; many will depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. We
have before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a more startling
nature.” (ibid, 16).
“When men standing in the position
of leaders and teachers work under the power of spiritualistic ideas and
sophistries, shall we keep silent for fear of injuring their influence, while
souls are being beguiled? ... Those who feel so very peaceable in regard to the works of the men who are spoiling the faith
of the people of God, are guided by a delusive sentiment.” (ibid. 9, 11).
“Renewed energy is now needed.
Vigilant action is called for. j
Indifference and sloth will result in the loss of personal religion and of
heaven. . . . My message to you is: No longer consent
to listen without protest to the perversion of truth. We must firmly refuse to
be drawn away from the platform of eternal truth, which since 1844 has stood
the test.” (ibid., 1415,50).
“I hesitated and delayed about the
sending out of that which the Spirit of the Lord impelled me to write. I did
not want to be compelled to present the misleading influence of these
sophistries. But in the providence of God, the errors that have been coming in must
be met.” (ibid., 55).
“What influence is it that would
lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhanded, powerful way
to tear down the foundation of our faith-the foundation that was laid at the
beginning of the work by prayerful study of the word and by revelation? Upon
this foundation we have been building the past fifty years. Do you wonder that
when I see the beginning of a work that would remove some of the pillars of our
faith, I have something to say? I must obey the command, "Meet it".”
(ibid. 58).
All this was written to meet the
apostasy in the alpha period. We are now in the omega period which Sister White
said would come, and which would be of a "startling nature." And the
words are even more applicable now than then. Is the reader one of "those
who feel so very peaceable in regard to the works of the men who are spoiling
the faith of the people of God?" "Shall we keep silent for fear of
injuring their influence, while souls are being beguiled?" It is time to
stand up and be counted. There are times when I have been tempted to think that
I stood alone as did Elijah. But God told him that there were seven thousand
others. There are more than that now, thank God. They need to reveal themselves-and they are doing it. Most heartening are
the letters I am receiving. It is with deep regret that I find I am unable to enter into extended correspondence. I am overwhelmed with
work.
Christ's death on the cross
corresponds to the moment when on the day of atonement
the high priest had just killed the Lord's goat in the court. The death of the
goat was necessary, for without its blood there could be no atonement. But
death in and of itself was not the atonement, though it was the first and
necessary step. Sister White speaks of the "atonement commenced on
earth" (3 SOP 261). Says Scripture: "It is the blood that maketh
atonement" (Leviticus 17:11). And, of course, there could be no blood
until after the death had taken place. Without a blood ministration the people
would be in the same position as those who on the Passover slew the lamb but
failed to place the blood on the door posts. "When I see the blood"
said God, "I will pass over you" (Exodus 12:13). The death was
useless without the ministration of the blood. It was the blood that counted.
It is the blood that is to be
applied, not "an act," "a great act," "sacrificial
act," "atoning act, "the act of the cross," "the
benefits of the act of the cross," "the benefits of the atonement,"
all of which expressions are used in Questions on Doctrine; but any reference
to the blood is carefully avoided. It is not an act of any kind that is to be
applied. It is the blood. Yet in all the 100 pages in the book dealing with the
atonement, not once is the blood spoken of as being applied,
or ministered. Can this be merely an oversight, or is it intended? Are
we teaching a bloodless atonement? Elder Nichol states the Adventist position
correctly when he says, "We believe that Christ's work of atonement was
begun rather than completed on Calvary" (Answers to Objections, p. 408).
This was published in 1952. We shall be interested to see what the new edition
will say. Many are waiting to find out what they are to believe on this
important question.
Here are some expressions from the
Spirit of Prophecy in regard to blood atonement:
“Jesus was
clothed with priestly garments. He gazed in pity on the remnant, and with a
loud voice of deep pity cried, "My blood Father; My blood; My blood; My
blood" (EW 38).
“He appears in the presence of God
as our great High Priest, ready to accept the repentance and to answer the
prayers of His people, and, through the merits of His own righteousness,
present them to the Father. He raises His wounded hands to God, and claims
their blood bought pardon. I have graven them on the
palms of My hands, He pleads. Those memorial wounds of My humiliation and
anguish secure to My church the best gifts of omnipotence.” (3 SOP 261-262).
“The ark that enshrines the tables
of the law is covered with the mercy seat, before which Christ pleads His blood
in the sinner's behalf.” (GC 415).
“When in the typical service the
high priest left the holy place on the day of atonement, He went in before God
to present the blood of the sin-offering, in behalf of all Israel who truly repented
of their sins. So Christ had only completed one part
of His work as our intercessor, to enter upon another portion of the work, and
He still pleaded His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners.” (GC 429).
“Christ is "now officiating
before the ark of God, pleading His blood in behalf of sinners"” (GC 433).
“Christ, the great high priest,
pleading His blood before the Father in the sinner's behalf, bears upon His
heart the name of every repentant believing soul.” (PP 351).
“As Christ at His ascension
appears in the presence of God to plead His blood in behalf of penitent
believers, so the priest in the daily ministration sprinkled the blood of the
sacrifice in the holy place in the sinner's behalf.” (PP 357).
“The blood of Christ, while it was
to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to
cancel the sin; it was to stand on record in the sanctuary until the final
atonement.” (PP 357).
And with all these statements
before him, not once does the author of Questions on Doctrine mention the blood
as being applied or ministered.
"The Father ratified the
covenant made with Christ, that He would receive repentant and obedient men,
and would love them even as He loves His Son." This as stated above, was
on the condition that "Christ was to complete His work and fulfill His
pledge to make a man more precious than fine gold, even a man than the golden
wedge of Ophir" (DA 790). "This Christ guarantees" (3 SOP 250).
When Christ says in His high
priestly prayer, "I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to
do," (John 17:4) Sister White comments, "He had wrought out a
righteous character on earth as an example for man to follow" (3 SOP 260).
In working out this righteous
character, Christ demonstrated that it could be done. But could others do the
same? That needed to be demonstrated also. Christ had guaranteed it could. It
was now for Christ to make good His pledge.
Character is not created. It is
made; it is developed; it is built through manifold tests and temptations and
trials. God at first gives a little light, then a little stronger, and still a
little stronger. Little by little resistance to temptations grows stronger, and
after a while, certain temptations cease to be temptations. A man may have a
great struggle with tobacco; but at last he is victorious, and his victory may
be so complete that tobacco is a temptation no longer.
Thus, ideally, it should be with
every temptation. Holiness is not attained in a day. "Redemption is that
process by which the soul is trained for heaven" (DA 330). A man may gain
victories every day, but still may not have attained. Even Paul had to admit
that he had not "already attained, either were already perfect." But
undaunted he exclaims, "I follow after that I may apprehend that for which
also I am apprehended of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 3:12).
Christ had pledged to make man
finer than gold, "even the golden wedge of ophir."
In this work man must not be a submissive instrument only; he must take an
active part. Note these quotations:
"The ransom of the human race
was appointed to give man another trial" (Ms 14,
1898). "The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race, to
give man another trial" (ST April 26, 1899). God "looked upon the
victim expiring on the cross and said, `It is finished; the human race shall
have another trial"' (YI June 21, 1900). "That the transgressor might
have another trial ... the eternal Son of God interposed Himself to bear the
punishment of transgression" (RH February 8, 1898). "He suffered in
our stead that men could have another test and trial" (Special
Instructions Relating to the Review and Herald Office, p. 28). "As Jesus
was accepted as our substitute and surety, every one of us will be accepted if
we stand the test and trial for ourselves" (RH June 10, 1890). "The
Saviour overcame to show man how he may overcome." "Man must work
with his human power aided by the divine power of Christ, to resist and to conquer
at any cost to himself. In short, he must overcome as Christ overcame.... Man
must do his part; he must be victor on his own account, through the strength
and grace that Christ gives him" (4T 32, 33).
Christ had pledged to make men
overcomers; He had "guaranteed" this. It was no easy task; but the
work of atonement was not finished until and unless He did it. And so Christ persevered till His task should be done. Out of
the last generation, out of the weakest of the weak, Christ selects a group
with which to make the demonstration that man can overcome as Christ overcame.
In the 144,000 Christ will stand justified and glorified. They prove that it is
possible for man to live a life pleasing to God under all conditions, and that
men can at last stand "in the sight of a holy God without an
intercessor" (GC 614). The testimony is given them, "they have stood
without an intercessor through the final outpouring of God's judgments"
(GC 649).
"They are the chosen ones, joint heirs with
Christ in the great firm of heaven.
They overcame, as He
overcame" (Ms. November 28, 1897). To us comes the invitation "Now,
while our High Priest is making atonement for us, we should seek to become
perfect in Christ" (GC 623).
In his epistle to the Ephesians,
Paul presents us with a mystery. Says he, "For this cause shall a man
leave his father and his mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and the two
shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and
the church" (Ephesians 5:32-32). Marriage fitly represents the union
between Christ and the church, effected by the atonement. In harmony with this
picture of a marriage, the public announcement is made at the close of
probation, "The marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife has made
herself ready.... And to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in
linen, clean and white; for the linen is the righteousness of the saints"
(Revelation 19:8). As husband and wife are one, so now are Christ and the
church. The at-one-ment, the true atonement, the
final atonement, the complete atonement has been made. "The family of
heaven and the family of earth are one" (DA 835).
Practically all Adventists have
read the last few chapters in The Great Controversy, which describes the
fearful struggle through which God's people will pass before the end. As Christ
was tried to the utmost in the temptation in the wilderness and in the garden
of Gethsemane, so the 144,000 will likewise be tried. They will apparently be
left to perish, as their prayers remain unanswered as were Christ's in
Gethsemane when His petitions were denied. But their faith will not fail. With
Job they will exclaim, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" (Job
13:15).
The final demonstration of what
God can do in humanity is made in the last generation, who bear all the
infirmities and weaknesses which the race has acquired through six thousand
years of sin and transgression. In the words of Sister White
they bore "the results of the working of the great law of heredity"
(DA 49). The weakest of mankind are to be subjected to the strongest of Satan's
temptations, that the power of God might be abundantly shown. "It was an
hour of fearful terrible agony to the saints. Day and night
they cried unto God for deliverance. To outward appearance, there was no
possibility of their escape" (EW 283).
According to the new theology
which our leaders have accepted and are now teaching, the 144,000 will be
subjected to a temptation immeasurably stronger than any Christ ever
experienced. For while the last generation will bear the weaknesses and
passions of their forefathers, they claim that Christ was exempt from all
these. Christ, we are told, did not inherit any of the passions "that
corrupt the natural descendants of Adam" (Questions on Doctrine, p. 383).
He was therefore functioning on a higher level from men who have
to battle with inherited passions and hence He does not know and has not
experienced the real power of sin. But this is not the kind of Saviour I need.
I need One who has been "tempted in all points like as we are"
(Hebrews 4:15). The "substitute Christ" which our leaders present to
us, I must reject and do reject. Thank God, "we have not a high priest
which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,
but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin"
(ibid.).
But more than even this is
involved in the new theology; it places an indictment against God as the author
of a scheme to deceive both men and Satan. Here is the situation:
Satan has consistently maintained
that God is unjust in requiring men to obey His law, which he claims is
impossible. God has maintained that it can be done, and to substantiate His
claim, offered to send His Son to this world to prove His contention. The Son
did come and kept the law and challenged men to convince Him of sin. He was
found to be sinless, holy and without blame. He proved that the law could be
kept, and God stood vindicated; and His requirement that men keep His
commandments was found to be just. God had won, and Satan was defeated.
But there was a hitch in this; for
Satan claimed that God had not played fair; He had favoured His Son, had
"exempted" Him from the results of the working of the great law of
heredity to which all other men were subject; He had exempted Christ "from
the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of
Adam" (Questions on Doctrine, p. 383). He had not exempted mankind in
general, but Christ only. That of course, invalidated Christ's work on earth.
He was no longer one of us who had demonstrated the power of God to keep men
from sinning. He was a deceiver whom God had given preferred treatment and was
not afflicted with inherited passions as men are.
Satan had little difficulty in
having men accept this view; in due time, the evangelicals gave their consent;
and in 1956 the leaders of the Adventist church also adopted this view. It was
the matter of "exemption" that caused Peter to take Christ aside and
say, "Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee," which
so raised the wrath of Christ that He told Peter, "Get thee behind me,
Satan" (Matthew 16:22-23). Christ did not want to be exempt. He told
Peter, "Thou savourest not the things that be of
God." So some today savour not the things of God.
They think it merely a matter of semantics. God pity such and open their eyes
to the things that be of God. With the surrender of the Adventist leaders to
the monstrous doctrine of an "exempt" Christ, Satan's last opposition
has surrendered. We pray again, May God save His people.
I have been asked what I expect to
accomplish. I am not out to "win" any argument. I am a Seventh-day
Adventist minister whose work is to preach the truth and combat error. The
Bible is mostly a record of the protest of God's witnesses against the
prevailing sins of the church, and also of their
apparent failure. Practically all protesters sealed their testimony with their
blood, and the church went on until God intervened. All Paul hoped was that he
might "save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22). Practically all the apostles
died martyrs, and Christ they hanged on a tree. It took forty years before the
destruction came. But when God intervened He did thorough work.
This denomination needs to go back
to the instruction given in 1888, which was scorned. We need a reform in
organization that will not permit a few men to direct every move made anywhere
in the world. We need a reform that will not permit a few men to handle
finances as is now being done. We need a reform that will not permit men to
spend millions on institutions not authorized by the vote of the constituency,
while mission fields are suffering for want of the barest necessities. We need
a change in the emphasis that is given to promotion, finances and statistics.
We need to restore the Sabbath School to its rightful place in the work of God.
We need to put a stop to the entertainments and suppers that are creeping in
under the guise of raising money for good purposes. We need to put a stop to
the weekly announcements in church that are merely disguised advertisements.
This list could be greatly enlarged.
But all these, while important,
are after all only minor things. We need a reformation and revival most of all.
If our leaders will not lead in this, "then shall there
enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place" (Esther
4:14). I am of good cheer, praying for the peace of Israel.
Appendix for Chapter 17
In February 1976, when Dr. Ford's
theology was investigated by the B.R.I., he himself was a member of the
Institute. Normal ethics were dispensed with for his membership was not
suspended while his doctrinal positions were investigated. Such conduct lends
credence to the feelings of some of the "Concerned Brethren" who felt
it was, in fact, their positions which had come under question. The points of
issue were as follows:
Dr. Ford claimed that obedience to
the Decalogue under the power of the Holy Spirit is not possible prior to
glorification. He further claimed that sanctification is not part of the Gospel
message. This easily demonstrable false stand was opposed in papers presented
by Pastor Frank Basham and Dr. John Clifford.
Dr. Ford claimed that the
Atonement was completed at the cross and that Jesus entered the Most Holy place
in A.D. 31, rather than in 1844. These were the main issues upon which Dr. Ford
was later dismissed following the investigations of the Glacier View meetings.
Pastor Burnside most perceptively demonstrated the non-scriptural basis of Dr.
Ford's position.
Dr. Ford taught that creation week
occurred thousands of years earlier than the approximately six thousand years
testified to in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. Dr. Russell Standish
presented the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy truth on this matter.
Dr. Ford taught that there were
many errors of fact concerning science, history, genealogies etc. in Scripture,
while stating it is free of error in setting forth the path to salvation.
Pastor Frank Breaden had little difficulty in
overthrowing Dr. Ford's error on this point. Eventually, only three matters
were considered by the Bible Research Institute-viz. the Sanctuary message, the
Age of the Earth and the Infallibility of Scripture.
Dr. Ford was exonerated of heresy
solely on the grounds that "reference to majority
positions taken by current S.D.A. authors and scholars" upheld his
positions.
Sometime later, when it was
pointed out that this must surely be the first time in which doctrines were
accepted on the basis of what some authors and
scholars believed, an amendment to the original finding was hurriedly made. It
added the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy to the authority of the scholars.
Such equivocation only served to
exacerbate the dilemma of the B.R.I., for it would be difficult to imagine
anything more futile than to attempt to use the Bible and the Spirit of
Prophecy to prove the earth is considerably older than six thousand years.
Surely, we are talking about the
greatest retraction of truth ever undertaken by any leadership in any Division!
These people then returned to their positions of trust in leadership of the
Division and in the theology department of Avondale College.
It would indeed be reassuring if
the leadership of the South Pacific Division on the occasion
of this tenth anniversary were to:
1.
Have the B.R.I. publicly reverse its findings in
the Record or the Review, stating concisely and precisely where and why Dr.
Ford was wrong in each issue listed above.
2.
Reaffirm the message of the third angel of
Revelation 14 as the message entrusted to the remnant church and identify the
"beast" as the Papacy and "his image" as apostate
Protestantism.
Should the leadership deem the
foregoing account of the B.R.I. proceedings to be inaccurate and our
suggestions unreasonable, let them now justify such a position by releasing
copies of the unexpurgated tapes of the meetings to the brethren concerned, as
initially promised.
Failure to do so will leave our
Church in an official state of apostasy, and the leadership will continue to be
seen to condone and encourage heresy.
Author's Note:
At the time this book was written,
no official response to this appeal has been forthcoming. For the record, the
names of the participants in the 1976 B.R.I. meetings are listed below:
ADMINISTRATION:
Pastor C. Adams, Conference president Pastor D. Bain,
Division health director
Pastor C. Barritt,
Conference president Pastor C. Christian, Conference president
Doctor D. Ford, chairman, Avondale theology department
Pastor R. Frame,
Division president Pastor A. Jorgensen, B.R.I. and
field secretary Pastor C. Judd, T.T.U
Conference president Doctor E. Magnusson, principal,
Avondale College Pastor R. Moe,
Conference president Pastor L. Naden, retired Division
president Pastor K. Parmenter,
Division secretary
Pastor R. Parr, editor, Signs of
the Times
Doctor A. Patrick, theology
lecturer, Avondale College Doctor A. Salom, church
pastor, Wahroonga Pastor R. Stanley, Division
ministerial secretary Pastor A. Tolhurst, Conference
president
Pastor L. Tolhurst,
theology lecturer, Avondale College Pastor S. Uttley,
T.A.U. Conference president Doctor N. Young, theology lecturer, Avondale
College
CONCERNED MEMBERS:
Pastor O. K. Anderson, retired
evangelist Pastor F. Basham, retired church pastor Pastor
F. Breaden, retired church pastor Pastor
G. Burnside, retired evangelist
Doctor G. Clifford, layman
Pastor R. Heggie, retired Mission
president Pastor A. Jacobsen, retired Mission president Pastor L. Jones,
retired evangelist
Pastor J. Keith, retired Union and
Mission president Pastor J. Kent, retired evangelist Pastor A. Knight, retired
Bible teacher Brother R. Marks, layman Pastor E. Martin, retired missionary
Brother H. Reed, layman Doctor R. Standish, layman Brother F. Williams, layman
(As one who believes that we are all accountable to our Maker in the great day
of God's judgment, the writer feels it his duty to make the following facts
known regarding the late Pastor S. M. Uttley who at
the time of the B.R.I. meetings was president of the Trans-Tasman Union
Conference. He therefore, was among the administrators who took part in the
B.R.I. meetings of February, 1976.)
Prior to publication of the above
account of the B.R.I. meetings in the Anchor, the author, who was editor of the
Anchor magazine submitted the script to Pastor S. Uttley
for comment. Pastor Uttley claimed that his
recollections of the meeting were hazy, but he was adamant that Desmond Ford
had "pulled the wool over their [the administration's] eyes." He
could see nothing in the article which he felt needing correcting.
At this time, he claimed that he
was quite aware that many of Dr. Ford's beliefs were still being taught at
Avondale College, naming in particular one theology
lecturer who was at the B.R.I. meetings.
Printed in The Anchor, July 1986
It is a matter of easily
verifiable historical record that on February 3 and 4 of 1976, the members of
the Australasian B.R.I. (Biblical Research Institute) met with a group of
ministers and laymen at Avondale and Wahroonga to
hear allegations of doctrinal deviations against Desmond Ford and his answer to
the allegations.
The February 3 meeting was held at
Avondale College and the February 4 meeting was held at the Division office, Wahroonga. Pastor Robert Frame was chairman and a complete
tape recording was made of the papers presented, the replies given and the
general discussion.
Papers presented by the field men
sought to uphold the traditional, published sanctuary teachings of the
Seventh-day Adventists-especially the positions set forth in the Ellen G. White
writings-which affirm:
1.
A real sanctuary in heaven with two segments or
apartments-corresponding with the "holy place" and the "Most
Holy place" of the earthly sanctuary.
2.
Christ's two-phase ministry in the heavenly
sanctuary, corresponding with the "daily service" and the
"yearly service" on earth.
3.
Christ's "first apartment" ministry
beginning at His ascension in A.D. 31 and His "second apartment"
ministry beginning in 1844 at the end of the 2,300 prophetic "days"
of Daniel 8:14.
Dr. Ford's replies showed that he
did, indeed, deviate radically from traditional Seventh-day Adventism regarding
its longheld and widely published sanctuary doctrine.
He was especially emphatic and
explicit in his rejection of a heavenly sanctuary with "two
apartments," and his repudiation of published Adventist positions became
more and more evident as the meeting proceeded.
One curious-even
baffling-circumstance was the apparent approval and acceptance of Dr. Ford's
denials of historic S.D.A. faith, by the B.R.I. members, which of course
included the Division officers and some other administrators. Certainly they made no outcry against Desmond Ford's
denials. The very silence of the Division administrators represented
endorsement. While there was vocal, emphatic, unequivocal disapproval of Dr.
Ford's views by the field men, there was no corresponding disapproval from the
B.R.I. members, with one conspicuous exception.
During the second session, held at
Wahroonga on February 4, Pastor Raymond Stanley, then
Divison Ministerial Association secretary and a
member of the B.R.L, rose to his feet, addressed the chair and asked permission
to speak. He held up a copy of the S.D.A. Baptismal Certificate, which contains
a condensed summary of our Church's doctrines, and is "official" in
the sense that since 1931 it has been repeatedly endorsed by plenary sessions
of the General Conference.
Pastor Stanley then read the full
text of Article 8 of the Baptismal Certificate, which says:
Upon His ascension, Christ began
His ministry as High Priest in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, which
sanctuary is the antitype of the earthly tabernacle of the former dispensation.
A work of investigative judgment began as Christ entered the second phase of
His ministry, in the most holy place, foreshadowed in the earthly service by
the Day of Atonement. This work of the investigative judgment in the heavenly
sanctuary began in 1844, at the close of the 2,300 years, and will end with the
close of probation. Hebrews 4:14; 8:1-2; Leviticus 16:2, 29; Hebrews 9:23-24;
Daniel 8:14; 9:2427; Revelation 14:6-7; 22:11.
Pastor Stanley commented that
while he felt bound to adhere to this Article, he was unable to reconcile this
official doctrinal statement with what he had heard from Dr. Ford, and he
appealed for help in his dilemma.
The saddest fact of all was that
Pastor Stanley's poignant appeal for guidance "went over like a lead
balloon." There was dead silence from the members of the B.R.I.
Not one of the Division
administrators sprang to his feet and voiced support for Pastor Stanley and/or
opposition to Dr. Ford. Not one of the college theologians sprang to his feet
to do the same. The B.R.I. members seemed like men bewitched. They were as
still as statues and as silent as the grave.
Is it any wonder that our Division
leaders have lost credibility in the eyes of faithful and loyal minsters and
members? Here is a case where our Australasian leaders, in the presence of many
witnesses, refused point-blank to declare their loyalty to their own
denominational Baptismal Certificate! And yet they-in common with every church
member-have solemnly taken Baptismal vows, and thus pledged themselves to observe
and defend these precious Articles of our historic faith.
Appendix for Chapter 19
Thank you for your circular. You
surely are moving around your parish.
I had a long letter from Walter in
which he wrote up again his views on Righteousness by Faith. He told me how he
had attended a meeting on this subject a few weeks ago bringing together our
top theologians and administrators. He said that Elders Pierson, Wood, and
another contended for our old views while the theologians for the new. He
rather sided with the new. In his letter of four large pages he wrote up the
new. I read it carefully and then turned him to Hosea 7:8 which tells of
Ephraim mixing himself with the people and his being a cake not turned. I wrote
him that was what he had set up, "a cake not turned." Baked on one
side and left doughy on the other.
We cannot have Righteousness by
Faith without repentance. Repentance means true sorrow for sin and the power to
be converted and turned to righteous living.
In your circular you wrote of
evangelism in this home field of 17,000,000 people. Think of it, 2,000 baptized
last year for a year's work in the home field. What a dearth for the year!
Minus the apostasies and those who died in the home field? I shall state here
the reason that has caused such poor success:
1.
Many of our theologians have not been successful
evangelists, therefore they have not passed on to our young men experiences
gathered from their own endeavors to win souls.
2.
The downright rubbish that has been passed onto
them under their lecturers.
3.
The casting off of the
old teachings of Sister White and Uriah Smith on such subjects as Armageddon,
the King of the North, the Struggle between Capital and Labor, the Jew and the
Arab in Prophecy, etc.
4.
The fact that because of our vast involvement in
business and public collection for money, we have softened down our attack on
Apostasy and we are not giving the Message with a loud cry. We are afraid to
prejudice the public in these two areas stated above.
5.
Our preaching and our lecturing to the public is
too apologetic in a general way.
6.
The motorcar has made, on a large scale, our
workers lazy.
7.
Our leaders and teachers do not set an example
in soulwinning. They sit too much on their hind quarters when they could be out
giving studies. Every worker from the G. C. president down to the boy who
sweeps the office should strive to win souls. On a whole our workers talk of
the Second Coming with their tongue in their cheek. They don't really believe
that Christ's coming is near. Many are poor watchmen such as stated in Isaiah
56:10. Actions speak louder than words.
Think it through; two thousand
baptisms would be about on an average of two souls to each worker and nothing
from 47,000 members and I should add the number of about 10,000 young people.
Think of the aids we have today re
television and radio programs. The Five Day Plans and
health units operating, of some 40,000 Signs or more a month in circulation,
etc., etc.
I led out as a president for
twenty-two years and I know I had to get after the workers hot and strong to
get them up and at it. If I were in your place I do not think I would take
things as complacently as you are writing.
Where is the fire that
characterized our old workers? We have had three workers here the last ten
years and you could count on the fingers of one hand the number who have been
brought in by them from the public.
Enormous tithes are coming to our
treasury and it would seem that it is costing 15,000
dollars to win a soul throughout Australia and New Zealand. Workers have their
eyes on the building of homes for the future more than the mansions above.
Brother ... it is by the
"foolishness of preaching" that souls are stirred and won. We need
the J. W. Kents, the Roy Andersons, the George
Burnsides to be resurrected today to help us out. We should have a strong
evangelist in every city leading out a good team, in a mighty preaching of the
Word. Outstanding evangelists are scarcer than presidents. We are
over-administered today. Too many money changers in the house of God. Pray for
Christ to send the Holy Spirit to ship them out to soul-winning evangelism
before He returns. We need another Sister White right now. Please be concerned
over the dearth in souls being won.
Our task is to win a remnant
multitude to close the work of God. See Daniel 8:14, 26; Daniel 12:4;
Revelation 10:11; Revelation 14:6; Revelation 7:9. These texts point us to our
responsibility.
We are in the world to finish the
task of soul-winning.
Sister White wrote that a thousand
will come in a day. This brushes the 144,000 aside. Let us set our sights on the
144,000.
By my understanding of Revelation
13:11-18 we are not near the finished work. Some of our outstanding prophecies
are not yet in sight of being fulfilled.
You are the leader in this field
and God will hold you responsible.
Well, God bless and cheer you on
to do your duty, Yours for an abundance of souls.
Appendix for Chapter 20
Larne B. Kostenko
- "The Human Nature of Christ in S.D.A. Christology" Portion of
Research Paper Andrews University S.D.A. Theological Seminary, 1982.
The concept of the human nature of
Christ that continually and completely characterized S.D.A. theology from the
1880s through the 1940s originated at least as early as 1874-1875 in the
writings of Ellen G. White. E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones championed this view
from the 1880s through the early 1900s. Ellen White's unequivocal support of
their (and her) view explains the fact that this view continues within
Adventism even today-notwithstanding wishful statements to the contrary by men
such as Anderson and Froom.
Seventh-day Adventists have always
held that Christ in His human nature was sinless. Originally, this was
understood to mean that Christ, who took our humanity, so depended on and was
linked to divine power that He lived sinlessly. The
fact that Christ took our humanity was emphasized to mean that He is our
example. The incarnation of Christ in fallen humanity supplies the need of
fallen man for divine power in order to overcome
Satan.
In the 1950s, some of our leading
men began introducing the terminology and concepts of original sin. Sin was no
longer identified solely with "character," "life," and
"morality." Sin is defied as something one inherits at birth. Christ
was "born holy." We are not. His body "was free from the taint
of sin." Ours are not. Christ had no "inborn sin." We do. The
result of the introduction of this view of sin was the denial that Christ was
in all points tempted like as we are.
This new view did
not, however, meet with unanimous acceptance. Even while it was being
introduced, the older view was published in our magazine-sometimes in the same
issue.
Robert Brinsmead was used to
champion the historic view in 1964. However, as Brinsmead sharpened his
doctrine of original sin, he capitulated to the new view by 1973. As he applied
the doctrine of original sin systematically to other distinctive doctrines, he
repudiated one by one the judgment, the law, and the Sabbath.
It is significant that the
doctrine of original sin was an issue at the 1901 General Conference. Under the
leadership of E. J. Waggoner and Ellen G. White, it, and the view that Christ
took prelapsarian human nature were both repudiated. Only the sponsorship of
Ellen G. White explains the fact that this view of the humanity of Christ gained
such prominence in S.D.A. theology. Jones and Waggoner would not have gotten
off the ground in 1888 were it not for her support. It is significant that she
never once rebuked them privately or publicly for their view on the humanity of
Christ. A survey of the index cards [in the E. G. White vault] of her letters
to them reveals that she was well able to rebuke them on many personal matters
as well as theological ones. But she never once corrected them for a faulty
view of the humanity of Christ.
The new view was not only the
result, however, of absorbing the terminology and concepts of original sin. It is clear that Adventist leadership was intent on
rectifying an impaired Adventist image. The desire to avoid being called a cult
and gain acceptance in the evangelical world was a top priority. This
motivation is praiseworthy. However, it seems sad that what was intended to
accomplish greater influence of the church has resulted in impoverishing her
historic doctrines.
Desmond Ford was a seminary
student in Washington D. C. at the time of this Christological turmoil in 1958.
He was to intensify its emphasis of the new view in the late 1970s and early
1980s. This intensification led Ford so far outside historic Adventism that he
was defrocked.
Another effect of the new view
within Adventist scholarship and thought is denial of Christian perfection.
This concept of which Ellen G. White wrote so much has become a matter of
embarrassment for many Adventists.
In 1978 the author of this paper
wrote a research paper on perfection in the thought of Ellen G. White. When he
presented it to a seminar of senior theology majors at Walla Walla College, the
thesis that God expects moral perfection of His followers was ill-received.
Having read the paper of E. G. White quotations, the instructor seemed
surprised, but countered "What about Scripture sources to support this
view?" In addition he added that my view of sin
was "superficial." He defined perfection as "maturity within a
relationship"-a view that originates from Edward Heppenstall,
one whom Paxton identifies as accepting the doctrine of original sin and
denying perfection.
The whole point of mentioning this
incident is to illustrate some of the effects that changing our doctrines of
sin and Christ can have on how we accept the authority of E. G. White and how
we come to regard other historic Seventh-day Adventist doctrines.
Dr. R. R. Standish on
Rumor Spreading.
Letter to Pastor
Walter Scragg, president, South Pacific Division, February 28, 1989
I have just read a letter from my
esteemed brother-in-law, Dr. David Pennington. In it I learned for the first
time that senior Division leadership had circulated, verbally and in writing a
false and damaging rumor that my dear brother, Colin, had been relieved of his
sacred ministerial credentials for misbehavior.
May our heavenly Father forgive
you and your fellow leaders who exulted over the "news." This is the
second major false rumor that has been issued from your office. Each time you
place responsibility for your actions upon the General Conference. But you have
a personal responsibility too. The first was the utterly unfounded assertion
that the Hartland Team had taken 800,000 guilders out of the Netherlands. I
have never heard that a written correction was made when the facts were obtained and you discovered that the figure had been
inflated one-thousand-fold. One such mistake would surely have cautioned care
in the future.
Is it the practice of the Division
secretariat to send throughout the Unions and Conferences details of each case
of pastors whose credentials are removed?
When a man forfeits his
ministerial calling by his conduct, it is a matter of the greatest heartache to
God's people. It is not a matter over which we rejoice, nor which we hasten to
spread without confirmation, from one corner of a Division to the other. May I
be bold to suggest that this is not the way to treat one of the sons of your
Division even if the gossip had been correct. Would not it have been a more
Christian course to have expressed sorrow and concern and to have requested the
North American Division for details of their decision? In this case, had such a
proper procedure been followed, your administration would have ascertained the
true situation and would have spared itself a shameful episode.
None had expressed deeper concern
for the teaching of Dr. Ford than had Colin and I. Yet
the day I learnt that he had been relieved of his credentials, tears of deep
sorrow welled up in my eyes. We did not exultantly send the news far and wide.
God can testify to that. Our true emotions were expressed in writing. There was
no gilding of the truth: they were and remain our sentiments. "As the
inevitable procession was taken through Glacier View, disavowal of Dr. Ford's
teachings, loss of credentials and finally annulment of his ordination, we
watched with gnawing anguish of heart. While we could not fault the decisions
of our brethren in these matters, none of this altered our vision of a man seen
over thirty years previously through the eyes of admiring sixteen-year olds. To us Des was still the old college mate, the youth
bursting with potential; still the man of unmeasurable God-bestowed talents;
the supreme orator; the quick-silver debater; but most of all, as ourselves, a
man so in need of the very truths which he saw fit to reject. No doctrinal
disagreement could remove from our hearts the bond of Christian charity we held
for Des.
"And it is the human tragedy
of the new theology which impels us to write, lest others be snared by its
errors. While Des is the most notable, the most visible casualty of the new
theology others just as precious to their Redeemer and to their loved ones have
imbibed its philosophies" (Adventism Challenged, Vol. A., pp 26-27).
Walter, I fear lest you find
yourself in this latter situation. Your dear father, my first Conference
president as a new worker in 1952, loved you dearly and he expressed his
concern for your doctrinal bent a few years before his death. In a letter to
the man who then held your position, he stated (September 24, 1978), "I
had a letter from Walter in which he wrote up again his views on Righteousness
by Faith. He told me how he had attended a meeting on this subject a few weeks
ago bringing together our top theologians and administrators. He said that
Elders Pierson, Wood, and another contended for our old view while the
theologians for the new view. He rather sided with the new. In his letter of
four large pages, he wrote up the new. I read it carefully and then turned him
to Hosea 7:8 which tells of Ephraim mixing himself with the people and him
being a cake not turned. I wrote him that that was what he had set up, "a
cake not turned." "Baked on one side and left doughy on the
other."
Walter, if you had heeded the
godly counsel of your father you would not now be fighting every dedicated
preacher of truth but uplifting their hands as they preach their mighty
messages centered upon God's Word.
For too long, men of the caliber of Pastor Burnside,
Pastor Anderson, Pastor
Cooke, Pastor Jacobson, Pastor
Keith, Pastor Ball, Pastor Breaden, Pastor Kent,
Pastor Heggie, Pastor White, Pastor Knight, Pastor Basham, Pastor Jones, Pastor
Martin, Pastor Needham, Pastor Ferris and others have felt the full fiery of
the ecclesiastical wrath of the South Pacific Division leadership. Yet God's
record of the lives of this noble band of men of God will prove entirely
different.
Your course is wrong. It is a
discouragement to many and a snare to others. Walter, I dearly wish to spend
eternity with you. Please, for the sake of the One who died for you and put you
in such a position of leadership as a shepherd of His flock, alter the course
that you have set against God's servants who uplift truth.
Your leadership is an
encouragement to Conference presidents to follow your example. How quickly the
president of the Western Australian Conference, perhaps the most controversial
appointment ever to a Conference presidency in the Division, has spread widely
both the false reports you have circulated. He thought he could trust your
word. It has quite unnecessarily brought him into terrible disrepute amongst
his flock.
Indeed
this whole episode has brought great anguish and terrible distrust of you
personally and the entire Division leadership. This causes me no little anguish.
Had the rumor been true, it would have fermented similar emotions, but that it
contains no veracity whatsoever has heaped coals of fire upon the situation.
May our God return peace and divine purpose once more to our Division. I love
God's church. I love the brethren. I am a Seventh day Adventist to the marrow
of my bones. I have dedicated every fiber of my soul to its cause and our
Saviour. I am devastated that you continue to see it as your mission to follow
this course. I pray God that He will show you a better way.
There is so much in our
Australasian church which needs our prayers and fervent efforts to reform.
Apostasy is rampaging through the church. Dancing at socials, charismatic
activities, rock music in churches, secular and even sacrilegious music (e.g.
Jesus Christ Superstar theme) presented in our churches, lowered standards, all
are on the increase. Truly our church in Australia and New Zealand has never
faced such a crisis of truth. Surely these should capture our attention rather
than the efforts of God's men to preach the acme of love for Jesus, keeping His
commandments. Let us beware for we have been warned that "A refusal to
obey the commandments of God, and a determination to cherish hatred against
those who proclaim these commandments, leads to the most determined war on the
part of the dragon, whose whole energies are brought to bear against the
commandment-keeping people of God (8T 117).
How I know from thousands of
letters and personal meetings that Colin holds a humble commitment. God has
used him and will continue to do so. I have no fear of that.
Throughout all the efforts to
subvert our ministries, God has seen fit to guide us through. I just love Him
so much for that.
You will know from the kind
defense that my brother-in-law has made, just how deeply our family feels. But
one matter I wish to make plain (and I believe I speak for every member of the
loyal Standish Seventh-day Adventists); we will hold no grudge. We have freely
forgiven. This forgiveness is unconditional. It is not based upon a public
retraction. It is extended to all who have spread this rumor, particularly
those who have delighted to do so. God help them. It extends to those whose
only emotion is one of shame-facedness and to those
who are deeply disappointed to learn that the rumor is false. The faith of the
members of the Standish family in our Seventh-day Adventist Church, both in
Australia and worldwide, has never wavered nor been stronger. We will ever
remain as its dedicated servants.
I wish to share this commitment
with our many loyal friends whose faith has been severely tested by this
episode. Thus I plan to circulate this letter widely
since I wish to encourage those who have felt utter despair in believing the
false rumor. I wish them to love God and His church more fully than ever and to
rejoice and offer prayers of gratitude that God has once more cared for His
servant and preserved His ministry.
May God bless and strengthen you
in your ministry for Him. Yours in the blessed hope.
Appendix for Chapter 21
One "rumor" causing
concern among Adventists is that there are Jesuit agents among our church
officials and educators. It is reported that a Jesuit priest converted to the
Baptist faith divulged this information. To assert that it is untrue and
unfounded does not satisfy most lay people, simply because it is just as hard
to disprove as it is to verify such a story. However, the problem can be
studied from another angle. I propose to ask, (1) Is it possible for Jesuit
agents to enter our ranks as church officials and educators? And then, (2) Is
it probable?
I
venture to say that it is entirely possible for secret agents to infiltrate the
S.D.A. organization. The following episode during my tenure in office of
Secretary of the China Division shows how easily a special agent of any kind
can enter one of our institutions:
In 1950 our Chiaotoushen
training school was struggling to keep going with a reduced teaching staff,
when word was received that a recent convert baptized in an effort in Hong Kong
offered to connect with the school as a teacher of Social Science. The
evangelist who recommended him reported that he had a Ph. D. degree and would
be a real asset to the cause. So the School Board
voted to employed the learned Professor. I visited with him after he came. In
his photo album I saw pictures of this man dressed in military attire, taken in
Italy. But I did not suspect that he was anything but a learned scholar.
However, the young people who attended his classes soon nicknamed him "Dr.
Punk" because they had sized him up, and knew
that he was just an emptyheaded dumb-bell. But the head of our school prized
him as the only Ph. D. on his staff, even though no one ventured to examine his
diploma. We just believed what the preacher in Hong Kong told us. After about a
year the true identity of this "scholar"
came to light. He was a Kuomintan agent engaged in
counter-revolutionary activities. He had even brought a bodyguard disguised as
a student. Before his arrest, if anyone had said that there were undercover
political agents in our ranks, I would have denied it.
But now I've learned to be wiser,
because the fact is, in the face of secret infiltration, the S.D.A.
organization is wholly defenseless. We have no counter-espionage system, and of
course we don't want one, simply because we are organized to spread the gospel.
But if and when a secret setup such as the Society of
Jesus makes up its mind to infiltrate us, we make an easy victim-the easiest in
the world.
Now to the next question: Is it
probable?
Considering that the third angel's
message is most effective in exposing the papal man of sin,
and remembering what the Society of Jesus was founded for, we may safely
say that it is highly probable that the Jesuits have picked out the S.D.A.
Church as one of their chief targets, and even now their secret agents occupy
important posts in our organization.
If I were a modern Jesuit chief, I would certainly
regard the Seventh-day
Adventists one of the greatest
obstacles to papal ambitions for papal world supremacy. So
I would concentrate a strong task force to alter the teachings, cripple the
finances, and control the leadership of this organization. In different parts
of the world I would enlist say 10,000 Catholic youth to attend S.D.A.
evangelistic efforts, be baptized and then enroll in the S.D.A. Colleges and
Seminaries. I would instruct them to study hard, graduate with honors and then
apply for work as preachers and teachers. They would be taught how to undermine
the S.D.A. doctrines, destroy the influence of Ellen White, convert the S.D.A.
educational system and sever S.D.A. hospitals. My long-term global program
would have as its goal the complete subversion of the S.D.A. Church in one
generation. In all this I would have the blessing of the pope and almost
limitless funds.
Impossible? Preposterous? Not at
all. It is highly probable. In fact the present state
of things among us seems to indicate that just such a program was initiated as
early as 1950. I dare say that if the Jesuits are engaged in a less ambitious
scheme, they would be unworthy of the Jesuit name, for the oath of the Knights
of Columbus binds every Jesuit to destroy all "heretics" by every
possible means.
Is It I?
Another "rumor" is that
our administrative officials are "tainted with papalism." Unlike the
first "rumor," which is a question of fact, this is a matter of
opinion. But it is neither untrue nor unfounded, because of certain incidents which
would have been unthinkable forty years ago, but have now become church
history, such as "our" audience with the pope and the gold medallion
we presented to him. It is said that when our official representative called on
the Roman pontiff, he addressed him as "holy father." This detail may
be hard to verify, but I dare say it too is highly probable, because many
Adventists are already accustomed to address Catholic priests as
"father" so-andso. So why all the fuss
about adding a "holy" or "most holy" to it? We are just
following accepted social practice. And, anyway, "pope" and
"papacy" are derived from "papa." Perhaps ten years from
now it won't be necessary to deny that we are "tainted with papalism"
as then it will be quite natural for us to admire the pope and call him
"holy father."
Because there are concerned lay
members who would by God's help arrest such a dangerous trend, this
"rumor" is being kept alive. But it should be
pointed out that the responsibility for it does not rest with our lay members,
but with those who arranged for that audience with the pope. To say that the
men who conceived such a move are "tainted with papalism" is no
exaggeration, and if our leaders have any sense of responsibility toward God
and His people they should not attempt to deny or to excuse this shameful
"taint," but should humble themselves before God and publicly confess
that they have offended Him by befriending the power which has spoken blasphemy
against the Most High, and is drunken with the blood
of His saints. Every true Seventhday Adventist will
refuse to follow the leadership of any man who claims to be a son of
God, but in fact honors the man of
sin by calling him "father."
It is understandable that if the
"rumors" mentioned above continue to be circulated, an air of mutual
suspicion will prevail, and the "morale of leadership" will suffer.
But again, we insist that the source of the trouble is not the lay people, but
the men whose words and actions furnish ground for such rumors. If they continue
to make friendly overtures to Babylon and her daughters on the one hand and
make "categorical" denials of any such leanings on the other, the lay
people certainly will not be deceived. A sorry state of
affairs may develop in which our watchmen must be watched, lest they
fail to detect the approach of danger and open the city gates to let the enemy
in.
What I present is not fantasy, but
reality. We face serious problems. Unfounded rumors need not worry us, but a
single "rumor" arising from historical facts cannot be silenced by a
thousand denials. We must ponder the question, "When the Son of man
cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" instead of pointing the finger
at the supposed source of rumors. Let each of us rather ask, "Lord, is it
I?" Am I in word and deed an unwitting ally of the enemy of souls? Am I
among the "wheat" or the "chaff'? After all, there were false
brethren in the days of the apostles, and "men of Belial" among the
braves who sided with David when he fled from Saul. So
it is not strange to discover some traitors among us. Only let every soul
determine to be among the "called, chosen and faithful." For in every
crisis God has His Calebs and Joshuas.
Be it Jesuit infiltration or internal apostasy, what should we do about it?
Sigh and cry? Yes, but the crying should be confined not to weeping, for the
Lord says, "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up the voice like a trumpet"
(Isaiah 58:1). "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the
Lord of hosts," will He take care of His church and "throughly purge His floor."
He calls upon us to hold firmly,
with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon
unquestionable authority" (1SM 208).
In 1872 the Seventh-day Adventist
Publishing Association published "A Declaration of the Fundamental
Principles" which they taught and practiced. Hence
they are the principles which Mrs. White claimed were "based upon
unquestionable authority."
Because Mrs. White singled out
"the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary" and the
messages of the three angels of Revelation 14, as those which come under
special attack, we here reproduce the relevant Fundamental Principles as
published in 1872, emphasis added.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES (1872)
Fundamental Principle No. 2. That
there is One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom
God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that He took on Him the
nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that He
dwelt among men, full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our
sacrifice, and was raised for our justification.
He ascended on high to be our only
mediator in the sanctuary in Heaven, where, with His own blood, He makes
atonement for our sins; which atonement so far from being made on the cross,
which was by the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His
work as priest according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed
and prefigures the ministry of our Lord in Heaven. See Leviticus 16; Hebrews
8:4, 5; 9:6, 7.
Fundamental Principle No. 10. That
the sanctuary of the new covenant is the tabernacle of God in Heaven, of which
Paul speaks in Hebrews 8 and onward, of which our Lord, as great High Priest,
is minister; that this sanctuary is the antitype of the work of the Jewish
priests of the former dispensation. Hebrews 8:1-5, etc.
That this is the sanctuary to be
cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, what is termed its cleansing being in
this case, as in the type, simply the entrance of the High Priest into the Most
Holy place, to finish the round of service connected therewith, by blotting out
and removing from the sanctuary the sins which had been transferred to it by
means of the ministration in the first apartment, Hebrews 9:22, 23; and that
this work, in the antitype, commencing in 1844, occupies a brief but indefinite
space, at the conclusion of which the work of mercy for the world is finished.
Fundamental Principle No. 13. That
as the man of sin, the Papacy, has thought to change times and laws (the laws
of God), Daniel 7:25, and has misled almost all Christendom in
regard to the fourth commandment; we find a prophecy of a reform in this
respect to be wrought among believers just before the coming of Christ. Isaiah
56:1, 2; 1 Peter 1:5; Revelation 14:12; etc.
Fundamental Principle No. 18. That
the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary (see proposition 10), synchronizing
with the time of the proclamation of the third angels message, is a time of the
investigative judgment, first with reference to the dead, and at the close of
probation with reference to the living, to determine who of the myriads now
sleeping in the dust of the earth are worthy of a part in the first
resurrection, and who of its living multitudes are worthy of translation-points
which must be determined before the
Lord appears. (Emphasis supplied.)
A comparison with the Fundamental
Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists as published in the Church Manual 1986,
reveals that the General Conference has "attacked" the above
principles by making the following changes:
1.
Deleted reference to Christ taking the nature of
Abraham's seed (Fundamental Belief, No. 4).
2.
Confined the atonement to Christ's life, suffering,
death and resurrection (Fundamental Belief No. 9) and claims that Christ is now
"making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice"
(Fundamental Belief No. 23).
3.
Deleted the term "most holy place"
(Fundamental Belief No. 23).
4.
Presented the investigative judgment as
primarily a judgment of God to vindicate Him before "heavenly
intelligences" (Fundamental Belief No. 23).
5.
Deleted all reference to the Papacy as "the
man of sin" (as found in Fundamental Principle No. 13), thus snubbing the
message of the third angel of Revelation 14.
Let us briefly consider the
underlying reasons for the changes in Fundamental Belief No. 23, as voted at
the Dallas 1980 G. C. Session.
In the concluding portion of this
statement we read: "This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving
those who believe in Jesus"!
What a profound conclusion! Could
we expect "heavenly intelligences" to have any other expectation
after watching God send His beloved Son into this world to be made sin, that He
might save sinners? In Chapter 14, we noted the S.D.A. Bible Commentary quoting
from the Spirit of Prophecy to show that "God's character had been
vindicated before the universe" at the time of Christ's incarnation and
death. Mrs. White had also stated, "When Christ cried `It is finished' the
great sacrifice was complete. Satan and his angels were uprooted from the
affection of the universe" (Signs of the Times, September 23, 1889).
So why has the
General Conference departed from its earlier belief? Why has the change come
about only in recent times? Let us seek the answers by reverting to the year
1957.
1957 was a dramatic year for
Adventism which in retrospect, can be seen as a
watershed in the doctrinal direction of our church. It started with the amazing
revelation by Eternity magazine that the Seventh-day Adventist Church had been
converted to Christianity. One of the reasons for this was our acceptance of a
"completed atonement." In order to harmonize
this position with the Spirit of Prophecy, an attempt was actually made to
tamper with Mrs. E. G. White's writings.
At this time, Elder M. L.
Andreasen, the church's proclaimed authority on our sanctuary message, had
commenced writing letters to General Conference president Figuhr,
protesting changes to our doctrines which he described as "new
theology."
Early in 1957, the manuscript for
the forthcoming book Questions on Doctrine, was in the hands of the publishers.
It would come off the press before the year-end and it would show to the world
that we had changed sufficiently to be regarded as Christians. But would these
changes be accepted by the S.D.A. church members and the ministry?
Thanks to the setting-up of a
"blueprint" college in Australia under the direction of the Spirit of
Prophecy, the ministry in Australia was seen as
orthodox. The workers were unlikely to be fooled by the heresies nestling among
the truths in Questions on Doctrine. So it was deemed
advisable for Dr. Le Roy Froom to visit Australia and forestall any fears that
might be expressed by the ministry.
Fresh from recent dialogue with
the evangelicals, Froom would have been acutely aware of the precarious
position to which the church had arrived as a result of
claiming to believe in a completed atonement.
Barnhouse had stated in no
uncertain terms that to cling to our belief in Christ's further work for
sinners in the heavenly sanctuary was "stale, flat and unprofitable,"
and that the doctrine of an investigative judgment was to him "the most
colossal face saving phenomenon in religious
history!" (Eternity, September 1956).
This dilemma would be just one of
the problems with which Froom could expect to be confronted. Apparently
M. L. Andreasen saw such a problem as insoluble, for he was to write: "No
Adventist can believe in a final atonement on the cross and remain an
Adventist."
In the event, Froom made an
extensive tour of Australia during the first half of the year 1957. Among the
workers with whom Froom counselled at that time was a promising young man by
the name of Desmond Ford. Just what thoughts were exchanged between these men
we do not know.
Shortly after Froom's visit to
Australia, an article appeared in the Australian Signs of the Times (June 24,
1957) asking the question, "Do Believers and Their Sins Come to
Judgment?" The question was
answered in the affirmative; but on the back of this
biblical truth was a free-loading
interloper−"God
has placed Himself on trial before the universe." The author of this
article was Desmond Ford.
So now Adventists had been given
two reasons for the investigative judgment. Probably this seedling of heresy
went practically unnoticed, else surely it would have been immediately rooted
out. Some eighteen years on (1975) President Pierson had been able to write of
the investigative judgment, "The judgment separates those who merely begin
to serve the Lord from those who follow Him unto the end" (We Still
Believe, p. 124). No mention was made of God being placed on trial. (See page
114 of this book).
Meanwhile Ford was molding the
thinking of the ministry at Avondale College. Predictably, his interpretation
of the first angel's message was soon being heard as young ministers began
spreading the "good news" that God has to
face up to a judgment. The seedling had grown and blossomed into the fruit of an heresy distinctly unique in the Christian world-that God
could be judged and would be judged.
Such bold pronouncements as
"God is up for judgment.... God is in the hot seat" and "God is
on trial more than men" have been cited on pages 63 and 104 of this book.
Soon, some older ministers, who should have known better, began parroting these
cliches-probably because they heard no dissenting
voices from the leadership. Perhaps they saw Revelation 15:3, 4 as supporting this
claim. If so, they failed to realize that a judge comes to be
seen as "just and true" by the way he has dispensed justice
and mercy. In the process, it is not he that has been on trial, neither were
the trials arranged for his benefit. His reputation is consequential to the
trials which he conducted.
So it is
with God. "In the day of final judgment, every lost soul will understand
the nature of his own rejection of truth.... Men will see what their choice has
been. Every question of truth and error in the long-standing controversy will
then have been made plain. In the judgment of the universe, God will stand
clear of blame for the existence or continuance of evil.... When the thoughts
of all hearts shall be revealed, both the loyal and rebellious will unite in
declaring, "Just and true are Thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not
fear Thee, 0 Lord, and glorify Thy name? . . . for Thy judgments are made
manifest" (Revelation 15:3-4; (DA 58).
With the publication of
"Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " the
evolution of Adventism's investigative judgment is taken one step further. On
page 326 we read a quotation from Holbrook's Light in the Shadows, page 34:
"So a judgment is neededbefore the Second Coming
of Christ to sift the true from the false and to demonstrate to the interested
universe God's justice in saving the sincere believer. The issue is with God
and the universe, not between God and the true child" (emphasis supplied).
Note the last sentence and compare
this statement with Adventism's concept of the investigative judgment as
expressed in Fundamental Principle No. 18. Or compare it with the following
quotations:
The ark that enshrines the tables
of the law is covered with the mercy seat, before which Christ pleads His blood
in the sinner's behalf (GC 415).
Of one thing we may be sure, that
as certainly as Christ once appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of
Himself, so surely is the judgment a definite feature of the great atoning work
by which sin is put away (C. H. Watson, The Atoning Work of Christ, p. 176).
Christ had pledged to make men
overcomers; He had "guaranteed" this. It was no easy task; but the
work of atonement was not finished until and unless He did it (M. L.
Andreasen, Letters to the
Churches, No. 6, 1959).
Would this sampling of Seventh-day
Adventist thoughts on the investigative judgment, stressing the blood of
atonement being applied on behalf of sinners, uphold the contention that the
issue is not between God and the true child? No! Note that the blood atonement
does not figure in an issue that "is with God and the universe."
As in Froom's book, Movement of
Destiny, the blood atonement is left at the cross and we are told that,
"now He makes available to all the benefits of this [His] atoning
sacrifice" ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe. ..
", p. 313).
So in effect, the General Conference has destroyed the message of the first angel by altering the meaning of the judgment and putting God on trial. Therefore, the problem of a blood atonement in heaven in relation to a completed work of atonement at Calvary no longer remains as a point of contention with the Evangelicals. The message of the first angel becomes meaningless. It is destroyed. If there is no first angel, can there be a second and third angel? Hardly! This could explain the reason for the church's fascination with things Babylonian. How else could the General Conference consign Protestantism's traditional view of the beast of Revelation 13 to "the historical trash heap"!
The End