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.