"Letters to the
Churches"
by
Pastor M. L. Andreasen
In my first
vision, the Lord showed me that the letters of Pastor M. L. Andreasen should
never be forgotten; that as long as time lasts, they should be passed on by the
younger generation. I have had them on my Website for many years, but will now
publish them as a daily reading, lest we forget these very important
contributions from one of Adventism’s most stalwart men.
God Almighty also showed me that this
presentation by M. L. Andreasen, involves the MINIMUM OF SANCTUARY KNOWLEDGE
ONE WILL NEED TO BE SAVED. Ellen White said
that not one in twenty understand the Sanctuary truth, and that such is
necessary in order to withstand the wiles of Satan at the end-time. After
reading these letters to the churches, you will not doubt this fact of truth.
I have
no recriminations in telling you that if you want to be one of the 144,000, you
must read this manuscript by M. L. Andreasen. And I would further state, that
the salvation of any Seventh-day Adventist will be predicated on the reading of
this truth. Why? Because sighing and crying for all the abominations is A
CONDITION FOR BEING SEALED BY THE MAN IN LINEN IN EZEKIEL 9. Elder M. L.
Andreasen presents the abominations which we are to sigh and cry for ALONG WITH
ALL THE REASONS WHY THEY ARE ABOMINATIONS!
Milian
Lauritz Andreasen (June 4, 1876 – February 19, 1962), was a Seventh-day
Adventist theologian, pastor and author.
He was
one of the Seventh-day Adventist church's most prominent theologians during the
1930s and 1940s. Andreasen held to the belief that Christians can overcome sin,
known popularly as Last Generation Theology, controversial for its views on
atonement and salvation. Andreasen became well known for his protests against
Seventh-day Adventist church leaders during the last years of his life. Andreasen
personally went to spend some time with Ellen White, and came away totally
convinced of her authenticity.
By Vance Ferrell
Elder
Milian Lauritz Andreasen (1876-1962) was a man of God who loved the historic
beliefs of Seventh day Adventists. He dedicated his life to this work and over
the years served in the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a pastor, public
evangelist, and college teacher, dean and president. In later years he was
appointed to the position of Field Secretary of the General Conference, which
post be held for nine years. He was selected as the man to teach the first
courses in what was to become the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary.
It was recognized that be was the one qualified to begin this new project.
After retirement be continued in very active preaching and writing work for
many years thereafter.
Elder
Andreasen combined the qualities of a teacher, theologian, administrator and
evangelist. With these was added an unshakable confidence in historic
Adventism, the Spirit of Prophecy, and the personal conviction that he must
always stand true to what he knew to be right.
When
the book "Questions on Doctrine" was published, Elder
Andreasen spoke up in protest. His protest, penned in late 1957, was in the
form of six mimeographed studies. Later these were gathered together by others
and reprinted in a single booklet.
CHAPTER 1 - THE
INCARNATION - WAS CHRIST EXEMPT?
The word "incarnation"
derives from the two Latin words, in carnis, which mean "in flesh" or
"in the flesh." As a theological term, it denotes "the taking on
of the human form and nature by Jesus, conceived of as the Son of God." In
this sense John uses the word when he says, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of
God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of
God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is not of God." 1 John 4:2,3. This makes belief in the incarnation a
test of discipleship, though doubtless more is meant than a mere belief in the
historical appearance of Christ.
The coming into the world of a
new life-the birth of a babe--is in itself a
miracle. Infinitely more so must be the incarnation of the very Son of God. It
will ever remain a mystery beyond human comprehension. All man can do is accept
it as a part of the plan of redemption which has been gradually revealed since
the fall of man in the garden.
For reasons which we cannot
fully fathom, God permitted sin. In doing so, however, He also provided a
remedy. This remedy comprises the plan of redemption and is bound up with the
incarnation, the death, and the resurrection of the Son of God. It cannot be
conceived that God did not know what creation would cost Him; and the 'council
of peace' which decided the matter, must have included provisions for every
foreseen contingency. Paul calls this plan "God's wisdom in a mystery,
even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds
unto our glory." 1 Corinthians 2:7.
The phrase "before
the-worlds" means before there was creation of any kind. Thus the plan of
salvation was not an afterthought. It was "foreordained." Even when
Lucifer sinned, the plan was not fully revealed, but was "kept in silence
through times eternal." Romans 18:25 A. R. V. For this God gives no
reason. Paul informs us "that by revelation He (God) made known unto me
the mystery. . . the mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known
unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets
by the Spirit." Ephesians 3:3-5.
Became
There are two words in the
epistle to the Hebrews which are of interest in this connection. They are
"became" in verse ten of chapter two, and "behoved" in
verse seventeen of the same chapter.
The Greek word for became is
prepo, and is defined as "suitable, proper, fit, right, comely."
Paul, whom we believe to be the author of Hebrews, is very bold when he thus
presumes to attribute motive to God and declares that it is fit and right for
God to make Christ "perfect through suffering." Hebrews 2:10. He
considers it "comely" of God to do this; that is, He approves of it.
In judging God, he emulates Abraham who was even bolder than Paul. Misunderstanding
what God intended to do, Abraham counseled God not to do it. Said he,
"Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
That be far from Thee to do
after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked. . . That be far from
Thee. Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Genesis 18:23,25.
Moses also essayed to admonish
God and instruct Him. When Israel danced about the golden calf, God said to
Moses, "Let Me alone that My wrath may wax hot against them and that I may
consume them." Exodus 32:10. Moses attempted to pacify God and said,
"Lord, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people?. . . Turn from Thy
fierce wrath and repent of this evil against Thy people." Exodus 32:11,12.
"And the Lord repented of the evil which He thought to do unto His
people." Verse 14.
We
readily see that in this interesting episode God was merely testing Abraham,
and giving him an opportunity to plead for the people. But we also note that
this illustrates God's willingness to talk over matters with His saints; yes,
and with those who are not saints. His invitation to mankind is, "Come
now, and let us reason together." Isaiah 1:18. God is anxious to
communicate with His people. Neither Abraham nor Moses was rebuked for his
boldness.
Behoved
The other word to which we would call attention is
"behoved." Speaking of Christ, Paul says, "In all things it
behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and
faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for
the sins of the people." Hebrews 2:17. While "became" in verse
10 is a mild word, "behoved" in-verse 17 (ophilo in Greek) is a
strong word, and is defined "under obligation," "ought,"
"must," "should," "bound," "indebted,"
"duty," "owe." If Christ is to be a merciful and faithful
High Priest, Paul says it behoves Him "in all things" to be like His
brethren. This is obligatory. It is a duty He owes and must not avoid. He
cannot make reconciliation for men unless He takes His place with them and in
all things becomes like them. It is not a question of choice. He should, He
must, He ought to, He is under obligation to, He owes it. Unless He has to
struggle with the same temptations men do, He cannot sympathize with them. One
who has never been hungry, who has never been weak and sick, who has never
struggled with temptations, is unable fully to sympathize with those who are
thus afflicted.
For this reason it is necessary for Christ in all things, to
become like His brethren. If He is to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,
He must Himself be "compassed with infirmity." Hebrews 4:15; 5:2.
Therefore, if men are afflicted, He also must be afflicted "in all their
affliction." Isaiah 83:9. Christ Himself testifies: "I was not
rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave My back to the smiters, and My
cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not My face from shame and
spitting." Isaiah 50:5,6.
He "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our
sicknesses." Matthew 8:17. In nothing Christ spared Himself. He did not ask
to be exempt from any trial or suffering of man; and God did not exempt Him.
These experiences were all necessary if Christ
was to be a merciful High Priest. Now, He can sympathize with every child of humanity;
for He knows hunger by actual experience and sickness and weakness and
temptation and sorrow and affliction and pain, and feeling forsaken of God and
man. He has been "tempted in all points like as we are, yet without
sin." Hebrews 4:15. It is Christ's partaking of men's afflictions and
weaknesses which enables Him to be the sympathizing Saviour that He is.
June
6, 2018
Was Christ Exempt?
With
these reflections in mind, we read with astonishment and perplexity, mingled
with sorrow, the false statement in Questions
on Doctrine, p. 383, that Christ was "exempt
from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants
of Adam." To appreciate the import of this assertion, we need
to define "exempt" and "passions."
The
College Standard Dictionary defines "exempt": "To free or excuse
from some burdensome obligation; free, clear or excuse from some restriction or
burden." Webster's New World
Dictionary, College Edition defines exempt: "to take out, deliver, set
free as from a rule which others must observe; excuse, release. . . freed from
a rule, obligation, etc., which binds others; excused, released. . . exemption
implies a release from some obligation or legal requirement, especially when
others are not so released."
"Passion"
is defined: "originally suffering or agony. . . any of the emotions as
hate, grief, love, fear, joy; the agony and sufferings of Jesus during the
crucifixion or during the period following the Last Supper. Passion usually
implies a strong emotion that has an overpowering or compelling effect."
Passion is an inclusive word. While originally it has reference to sorrow,
suffering, agony, it is not confined to these meanings nor to passions of the
flesh only, but includes all man's emotions as mentioned above, as well as
anger, sorrow, hanger, pity; it includes, in fact, all temptations that incite
men to action. To take
these emotions away from a man, to exempt him from all temptation, results in a
creature less than a man, a kind of no-man, a shadow man, a non-entity, which
Markham calls a "brother to the ox." Temptations are the character
building ingredients of life for good or ill, as man reacts to them.
If Christ was exempt from the passions
of mankind, He was different from other men, none of whom is so exempt. Such
teaching is tragic, and completely contrary to what Seventh-day Adventists have
always taught and believed. Christ came as a
man among men, asking no favors and receiving no special consideration.
According to the terms of the covenant He was not to receive any help from God
not available to any other man. This was a necessary condition if His
demonstration was to be of any value and His work acceptable. The least deviation from this rule
would invalidate the experiment, nullify the agreement, void the covenant, and
effectively destroy all hope for man.
Satan's
contention has always been that God is unjust in requiring men to keep the law,
and doubly unjust in punishing them for not doing what cannot be done, and what
no one has ever done. His claim is that God ought at least to make a
demonstration to show that it can be done, and done under the same conditions
to which men are subject. Noah, Job, Abraham, David--all were good men, but all
failed to come up to God's high standard. "All men have sinned," says
Paul. Romans 3:23.
God
was not moved by Satan's challenge; for long before, even from eternity, God
had decided upon His course of action. Accordingly, when the time came, God sent "His own Son, in the
likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, and condemned sin in the flesh."
Romans 8:3. Christ did not condone sin in the flesh; He condemned it,
and in so doing upheld the power and authority of the law. By dying on the
cross He further enforced the law by paying the penalty required for its
transgression, and upheld the infliction of its penalty by paying its demand,
He was now in position to forgive without being accused of ignoring the law or
setting it aside.
When
it became evident that God intended to send His Son and in Him demonstrate that
man can keep the law, Satan knew that this would constitute the crisis, and
that he must overcome Christ or perish. One thing greatly concerned him; would
Christ come to this earth as a man with the limitations, weaknesses and
infirmities which men had brought upon themselves because of excesses? if so,
Satan believed he might overcome Him. If God should exempt Him from the passions that corrupt the natural
descendants of Adam, he could claim that God played favorites, and the test was
invalid. In the following quotations we have God's answer:
"God permitted His Son to come, a
helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet
life's perils in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every
child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss."
-Desire of Ages, p. 49.
"Many claim that
it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not
have been placed in Adam's position. . . . Our Saviour took humanity with all
its liabilities. He took the nature of man with the possibility of yielding to
temptation." --Ibid., p. 117.
"The temptations
to which Christ was subject were a terrible reality. As a free agent He was
placed on probation with liberty to yield to Satan's temptations and work at
cross purposes with God. If this were not so, if it had not been possible for
Him to fall, He could not have been tempted in all points as the human family
is tempted." -Youth's Instructor,
Oct. 28, 1899.
"When Adam was
assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in
the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. .
. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan.
For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in
mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of
degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depth of his
degradation."--Desire of Ages,
p. 117.
Christ "vanquished
Satan in the same nature over which Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was
overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour's Godhead was
hidden. He overcame in human nature relying upon God for power. This is the
privilege of all."-Youths Instructor,
April 25, 1901.
"Letters have
been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature
as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He
did not have man's nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a
partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it
were not possible for Him to yield to temptations, He could not be our helper.
It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battle as man, in man's
behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern;
men must become a partaker of the divine nature."-Review and Herald, Feb. 18, 1890.
"Christ bore the
sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to
help man. . He took human nature, and bore the infirmities of the degenerate
race."--The Temptations of Christ,
pp. 30,31.
If Christ had been exempt from passions, He would have
been unable to understand or help mankind. It, therefore, behoved Him "in all things to be made
like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest. .
. for in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor
them that are tempted." Hebrews 2:17,18. A Saviour who has never
been tempted, never has had to battle with passions, who has never
"offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto
Him who was able to save Him from death," who "though He were a
son" never learned obedience by the things He suffered, but was
"exempt" from the very things that a true Savior must experience: such a savior is what this new
theology offers us. It is not the kind of Savior I need, nor the world.
One who has never struggled with passions can have no understanding of their
power, nor has he ever had the joy of overcoming them. If God extended special
favors and exemptions to Christ, in that very act He disqualified Him for His
work. There can be no heresy more harmful than that here discussed. It taken
away the Savior I have known and substitutes for Him a weak personality, not
considered by God capable of resisting and conquering the passions which He
asks men to overcome.
It is, of course, patent to all, that
no one can claim to believe the Testimonies and also believe in the new
theology that Christ was exempt from human passions. It is one thing or the other. The denomination is now
called upon to decide. To accept the teaching of Questions on Doctrine necessitates giving up faith in the Gift God
has given this people.
It may interest the reader to know how these new
doctrines came to be accepted by the leaders, and how they came to be included
in Questions on Doctrine, and thus
receive official standing.
The question of
the nature of Christ while in the flesh is one of the foundation pillars of
Christianity. On this doctrine hangs the salvation of man. The apostle
John makes it a deciding factor by saying, "Every spirit that confesseth
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God." 1
John 4:2,3.
In what kind of flesh did Jesus come to this earth? We
repeat a quotation which we have given above: "Christ took upon Him the
infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could he rescue man from the
lowest depth of his degradation." Desire
of Ages, p. 117.
Only as Christ placed Himself on the level of the
humanity He had come to save, could He demonstrate to men how to overcome their
infirmities and passions. If the men
with whom He associated had understood that He was exempt from the passions
with which they had to battle, His influence would immediately have been
destroyed and He would be reckoned a deceiver. His pronouncement, "I have
overcome the world" (John 16:33), would be accepted as a dishonest boast;
for without passions He had nothing to overcome. His promise that "to him
that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also
overcame and am set down with My Father in His throne" (Revelation 3:21),
would be met by the claim that if God would exempt them from passions, they
also could do what Christ had done.
That God exempted
Christ from the passions that corrupt men, is the acme of all heresy. It is destruction of all true religion and completely
nullifies the plan of redemption, and makes God a deceiver and Christ His
accomplice. Great responsibility rests upon those who teach such false doctrine
to the destruction of souls. The truth, of course, is that God "spared not
His own Son, but delivered Him up for us" (Romans 8:32); rather because
His nature was sensitive to the least slight or disrespect or contempt, His tests were harder and His temptations stronger than any we have to
endure. He resisted "even unto blood." No, God did not
spare or exempt Him. In His agony He "offered up prayers and supplications
with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and
was heard in that He feared." Hebrews 5:7. "'
He were a son, yet learned He obedience by the things
which He suffered." Verse 8.
In view of all this, we repeat the question, how did this
God-dishonoring doctrine find its way into this denomination? Was it the result
of close and prayerful study by competent men over a series of years, and were
the final conclusions submitted to the denomination in public representative
meetings, advertised beforehand in the Review
giving the details of what changes were contemplated, as the denomination has
voted as the proper procedure? None of these things were done. An anonymous
book appeared, and men were judged and the brakes tightened on any
one who objected.
Here is the story of how these new doctrines found their
way into the denomination as reported by Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor of
the religious journal, Eternity, in
the September, 1956, issue of his magazine, later issued as a copyrighted
article entitled "Are Seventh-day
Adventists Christians?" With permission we quote from this article. We
may inject that Dr. Barnhouse advises us that the entire content of the article
was submitted to the Adventist brethren for approval before publication. The
fact that this report has been in print for nearly three years and no
correction or protest has been forthcoming from our leaders would strongly
argue that they accept the truthfulness of the account.
Dr. Barnhouse reports that "a little less than two
years ago it was decided that Mr. Martin should undertake research in
connection with Seventh-day Adventism." Mr. Walter R. Martin was at that
time a candidate for degree of Doctor of Philosophy in New York University and
also connected with the editorial staff of Eternity.
Wishing to get firsthand and reliable information, Mr. Martin went to
Washington to the Adventist headquarters where he got in touch with some of the
leaders. "The response was immediate and enthusiastic."
Mr. Martin "immediately. . . perceived that the
Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had been
previously attributed to them." Chief among these were the
question of the mark of the beast, and the nature of Christ while in the flesh.
Mr. Martin "pointed out to them that in their bookstore adjoining the
building in which these meetings were taking place, a certain volume published
by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary
to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that
Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of
the General Conference officers, that the situation might be remedied and such publications be
corrected."
This concerned particularly the doctrine of the mark of
the beast, one of the fundamental doctrines of the Adventist church held from
near its beginning. When the leaders discovered that Mr. Martin was correct,
they suggested to the officers that the situation be "remedied and such
publications be corrected." This was done. We are not informed which
publications were so "remedied and corrected," nor if the authors
were notified before the changes were made; nor if the duly appointed book
committee was consulted; nor if the book editors or the publishing house were
agreeable to the changes. We
do know, however, that in the Sabbath school lessons for the second quarter of
1958, which dealt with the book of Revelation, chapter by chapter, the
thirteenth chapter which discusses the mark of the beast was entirely omitted.
Chapter 12 was there, so was chapter 14, but there was no chapter 13. The
Sabbath school lessons had evidently been "remedied and corrected."
It is
certainly anomalous when a minister of another denomination has enough
influence with our leaders to have them correct our theology, effect a change
in the teaching of the denomination on a most vital doctrine of the church, and
even invade the Sabbath schools of the world and withhold from them the
important lessons of Revelation 13. For our leaders to accept this is
tantamount to an abdication of their leadership.
But this is not all. Dr. Barnhouse reports that the same
procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh, the subject with which
we have been here dealing. Our leaders
assured Mr. Martin that "the majority of the denomination has always held
(the nature of Christ while in the flesh) 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."
If our leaders told
Mr. Martin this, they told the greatest untruth ever. For the denomination has never held any other view than
that expressed by Mrs. White in the quotations used in this article. We
challenge our leaders, or anybody, to produce proof of their assertion. How
grossly untrue is the statement that certain writers got into print with views
"completely repugnant to the church at-large." Mrs. White was one of those writers who "got into print."
Hear also what our standard book, Bible Readings for the Home Circle, sold to the public by the millions, has to say on
the subject. I have before me two copies, one printed by the Pacific Press in
1916, the other by the Southern Publishing house in 1944. They both read alike.
Here is the accepted teaching by the denomination:
"In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen
nature. If not, then, He was not made 'like unto His brethren,' was not 'in all
points tempted like as we are,' did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is
not, therefore, the complete and perfect Savior man needs and must have to be
saved. The idea that Christ was born of
an immaculate or sinless mother (Protestants do not claim this for the virgin
Mary), inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes
Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is
needed. On His human side,
Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits--a sinful, fallen
nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born
of the Spirit. And this was done to place mankind on vantage-ground, and to
demonstrate that in the same way every one who is 'born of the Spirit' may gain
like victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome
as Christ overcame (Revelation 3:21). Without this birth there can be no
victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin (John 3: 3-7)." Page
21.
In explanation of how these writers "got into
print" with their views, our leaders told Mr. Martin that "they had
among their number certain members of their 'lunatic fringe,' even as there are similar wild-eyed
irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity." I think
this is going too far. Mrs. White did not belong to the
"lunatic fringe" who got into print, nor did the authors
of Bible Readings. Our leaders should
make a most humble apology to the denomination for such a slur upon their
members. It is almost unbelievable that they should ever have made such
statements. But the accusation has been in print nearly three years, and there
has been no protest of any kind. I am humiliated that such accusations should
have been made, and even more so that our leaders are completely callous in
their attitude toward them.
That the reader may see for himself the original report
of Dr. Barnhouse, I herewith reproduce portions of the reprint, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?"
This is not the report in full, but only that part which relates to the
questions here discussed. Later I shall present other extracts.
"A little less than two years ago it was decided that
Mr. Martin should undertake research in connection with Seventh-day Adventism.
We got into touch with the Adventists saying that we wished to treat them
fairly and would appreciate the opportunity of interviewing some of their
leaders. The response was immediate and enthusiastic.
"Mr.
Martin went to Takoma Park, Washington, D. C., the headquarters of the
Seventh-day Adventist movement. At first the two groups looked upon each other
with great suspicion. Mr. Martin had read a vast quantity of Adventist
literature and presented them with a series of approximately forty questions
concerning their theological position. On a second visit he was presented with
scores of pages of detailed theological answers to his questions. Immediately it was perceived that
the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which have
been previously attributed to them.
"As Mr. Martin read their answers he came, for
example, upon a statement that they repudiated absolutely the thought that
seventh-day Sabbath keeping was a basis for salvation and a denial of any
teaching that the keeping of the first day of the week is as yet considered to
be the receiving of the
anti-christian 'mark of the beast.' He pointed out to them that in their
book store adjoining the building in which these meetings were taking place a
certain volume published by them and written by one of their ministers
categorically stated the contrary to what they were now asserting. The leaders
sent for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately
brought this fact to the attention of the General Conference officers, that
this situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected. This same
procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh which the majority of the
denomination has always held to be sinless, holy, and perfect despite the fact
that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary
views completely repugnant to the Church at large. They further
explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of
their 'lunatic fringe' even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in
every field of fundamental Christianity. This action of the Seventh-day
Adventists was indicative of similar steps that were taken subsequently.
"Mr. Martin's book on Seventh-day Adventism will
appear in print within a few months. It will carry a foreword by responsible
leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church to the effect that they have not
been misquoted in the volume and that the areas of agreement and disagreement
as set forth by Mr. Martin are accurate from their point of view as well as
from our evangelical point of view. All of Mr. Martin's references to a new
Adventist volume on their doctrines will be from the page proof of their book,
which will appear in print simultaneously with his work.
Henceforth any fair criticism of the Adventist movement
must refer to these simultaneous publications.
"The position of
the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to
them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane leadership
which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views
divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination.
"To avoid charges that have been brought against
them by evangelicals, Adventists have already worked out arrangements that the
Voice of Prophecy radio program and the Signs of the Times, their largest
paper, be identified as presentations of the Seventh-day Adventist
church." In closing this paper, I wish to re-emphasize certain salient
facts:
1.
Questions on Doctrine,
page 383, states that Christ was exempt. The Spirit of Prophecy makes clear
that Christ was not exempt, from the temptations and passions that afflict men.
Whoever accepts the new theology must reject the Testimonies. There is no other
choice.
2. Mr. Martin was instrumental in having our teaching on the
mark of the beast and the nature of Christ in the flesh changed. Similar changes were made in other books, but we are not
informed what those changes are.
3. Our leaders have
promised not to proselytize. This effectively will stop our work for the world.
And we have promised to report to Mr. Martin those who transgress.
4. We have been threatened to have the brakes applied to
such as fail to believe and follow the leaders. Such are characterized as
"wild-eyed irresponsibles" and are said to constitute the
"lunatic fringe."
5. We are appalled to learn that in some way these
evangelical clergymen have had enough influence with our leaders to cause the
Voice of Prophecy and the Signs of the Times to trim their sails to "avoid
charges that have been brought against them by evangelicals." This is
terrifying news. These organs are instruments of God, and it is unbelievable
that the leaders should permit any outside influence to affect them. In this a
great sin against the denomination has been committed that can be blotted out only
by deep repentance of the guilty parties, or in lieu of this, that the men
concerned quietly resign from holy office.
Our
members are largely unaware of the conditions existing, and every effort is
being made to keep them in ignorance. Orders have been issued to keep
everything secret, and it will be noted that even at the late General
Conference session (1958) no report was given of our leaders' trafficking with
the evangelicals and making alliances with them. Our officials are playing with fire, and the resulting
conflagration will fulfill the prediction that the coming Omega "will be
of a most startling nature."
Seven
times I have asked for a hearing, and I have been promised one, but only on the
condition that I meet privately with certain men, and that no record be given me of the proceedings. I
have asked for a public hearing, or if it is to be a private one, that a tape
recording be made, and that I be given a copy. This has been denied me. As I
cannot have such a hearing, I am writing these messages which contain, and will
contain, what I would have said at such a hearing. Can the reader surmise the
reason why the officers do not want the hearing I ask?
I am a
Seventh-day Adventist, and I love this message that I have preached for so
long. I grieve deeply as I see the foundation pillars being destroyed, the
blessed truths that have made us what we are abandoned.
I am
thankful to be in good health and wish that the blessing of the Lord may be
with each reader. We have come to strenuous times, and it behooves each to keep
close to God in these perilous times. The Lord be with you.
CHAPTER 2
Early
in the summer of 1957 I had placed in my hands, providentially, I believe, a
copy of the minutes of the White Board of Trustees for May of that year. For
those who are not familiar with this Board, I may state that it is a small
committee appointed to have in trust the large volume of letters, manuscripts,
and books left by the late Mrs. E. G. White. In counsel with the officers of
the denomination, the board decides who is to have access to the material, and
to what extent and for what purpose; what is to be published and what is not;
and what material is not to be made available at all.
Much of the work of the
committee consists in examining and editing these writings and recommending for
publication such matter as appears to be of permanent value. This work is of
great importance to the church, for only that which is released by the board
sees the light of day. During her lifetime Mrs. White herself did much of the
work of selecting and editing, and in all cases she had the oversight of what
was done. All knew that whatever was published was under her supervision and
that it had her approval. The board now has taken over this work.
According
to the White minutes, it was on the first day of May, 1957, that two men,
members of the committee which had been appointed to write the book that came
to be known as Questions on Doctrine,
were invited by the board to meet with them to discuss a question that had
received some consideration at a meeting the previous January. It concerned
statements made by Mrs. White in regard to the atonement now in progress in the
sanctuary above. This conception did not
agree with the conclusions reached by the leaders of the denomination in
counsel with the evangelicals. To understand this fully, and its
importance, it is necessary to review some history.
The
Adventist leaders had for some time been in contact with two ministers of
another faith, evangelicals, Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin, respectively editor
and an assistant editor of the religious journal Eternity, published in Philadelphia, and had discussed with them
various of our doctrines. In these conversations, as in the numerous letters
that passed between them, the evangelicals had raised serious objections to some
of our beliefs. The question of greatest importance was whether Adventists
could be considered Christians while holding such views as the doctrine of the
sanctuary; the 2300 days; the date 1844; the investigative judgment; and
Christ's atoning work in the sanctuary in heaven since 1844. Our men expressed the desire that
the Adventist church be reckoned as one of the regular Protestant churches, a
Christian church, not a sect.
The
two groups spent "hundreds of hours" studying, and wrote many
hundreds of pages. The evangelicals visited our headquarters in Takoma Park,
and our men visited Philadelphia and were guests of Dr. Barnhouse in his
comfortable home. From time to time other men were called into consultation on
such matters as the Voice of Prophecy, and our periodicals, all with a view of
ascertaining what stood in the way of our being recognized as a Christian
denomination.
After
long and protracted discussions, the two parties came at last to a working
agreement, and though the evangelicals still objected to a number of our
doctrines, they were willing to recognize us as Christians. We would need to make some changes
in some of our books in regard to the "mark of the beast" and also
"regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh." Eternity, September, 1956. This was
brought to the "attention of the General Conference officers, that the
situation might be remedied and such publications might be corrected."
The corrections were made, and "this action of the Seventh-day Adventists
was indicative of similar steps that were taken subsequently." Ibid. We are not informed what other books
were "remedied and corrected." The evangelicals published a
report of their conferences with the Adventists in Eternity from which the above quotations are taken. Dr. Barnhouse
states that they took the precaution to submit their manuscript to the
Adventists so that no misstatement or error might occur.
Note
by Ron: This (above) was the beginning of the new movement and “BOOKS OF A NEW
ORDER.” 1SM 204-205. End note.
The Adventists published no report. Even at
the General Conference session last year (1958), the matter was not discussed. Only a few knew that there had been any conferences with
the evangelicals. There were rumors that the Adventist leaders had been in
conference with the evangelicals, but that was considered by some only as
hearsay. The few who did know, kept their counsel. There seemed to be a conspiracy of secrecy.
Note
by Ron: Notice the parallel between SDA’s and apostate Israel:
Jer
11:9 And the LORD said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the
men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Jer
11:10 They are turned back to the iniquities of their
forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods [false
doctrines of Babylon] to serve them: the house of Israel and the house
of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.
Jer
11:11 Therefore thus saith the LORD,
Behold, I will bring [Ezekiel 9] evil upon them, which they shall not be able
to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto
them.
Jer
11:12 Then shall the cities of Judah
and inhabitants of Jerusalem go, and cry unto the gods unto whom they offer
incense: but they shall not save them at all in the time of their trouble.
Jer
11:13 For according to the number of
thy cities were thy gods [false doctrines], O Judah; and according to the
number of the streets of Jerusalem have ye set up altars to that shameful
thing, even altars to burn
incense unto Baal.
Jer
11:14 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up
a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry
unto me for their trouble.
Jer
11:15 What hath my beloved [BRIDE—144,000] to do in mine
house [once church], seeing she hath wrought lewdness with
many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then
thou rejoicest. [Remember the Celebration movement in the SDA church, after the
order of Vatican II?]
The
above verses will have an END-TIME COUNTERPART FULFILLMENT SAID THE APOSTLES
AND ELLEN WHITE:
COUNTERPART: "The Lord commanded one of his
ancient servants, 'Pray
not thou for this people [Jer. 7:16 and 11:14], neither lift up cry nor prayer
for them neither make intercession to me for I will not hear thee.' The
prophet thus describes the sins which had called forth this fearful
denunciation: 'The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by
their means and my
people love to have it so and what will ye do in the end thereof?' 'From
the least of them even unto the greatest of them, every one is given to
covetousness and from the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth
falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly,
saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace.' The apostles declare that this state of things will find
its COUNTERPART in the last days. Many have a form of godliness, but in
their daily life deny the power thereof. They have ceased to be convicted of
their sins or alarmed at their state. They say in their hearts, 'The church is
flourishing. Peace and spiritual prosperity are within her borders.' The words
of the prophet may well apply to these self-deceivers, 'They have chosen their
own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will choose
their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them." E. G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 11-07-82.
"Shall the Lord be compelled to say, `Pray not
thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make
intercession to Me: for I will not hear thee' [Jeremiah 7:16]? `Therefore the
showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain....Wilt thou
not from this time cry unto Me, My Father, thou art the guide of my youth'
[Jeremiah 3:3-4]?...
We are to be judged by the light that has been given us,(159) and we can find
no excuse by which to extenuate our course." Review and Herald, Vol. 3, p 69-70 (August 1, 1893). (Brackets by Ellen White)
COUNTERPART: "In the time of the Saviour, the Jews had so covered over the
precious jewels of truth with the rubbish of tradition and fable, that it was
impossible to distinguish the true from the false. The Saviour came to clear
away the rubbish of superstition and long-cherished errors, and to set the jewels
of God's word in the framework of truth. What
would the Saviour do if he should come to us now as he did to the Jews? He
would have to do a similar work in clearing away the rubbish of tradition and
ceremony. The Jews were greatly disturbed when he did this work [As are
SDAs today!]. They had lost sight of the original truth of God, but Christ
brought it again to view. It is our
work to free the precious truths of God from superstition and error."
E.G. White, Review and Herald,
Vol.
2, 308.
End note by Ron.
Till
this day we do not know, and are not supposed to know, who carried on the
conferences with the evangelicals. We do not know, and are not supposed to
know, who wrote Questions on Doctrine.
Diligent inquiry produced no result. We do not know, and are not supposed to
know, just what changes were made, and in what books, concerning the mark of
the beast and the nature of Christ while in the flesh. We do not know who
authorized the omission of the thirteenth chapter of Revelation in our Sabbath
school lessons for the second quarter of 1958, which deals with the mark of the
beast. Dr. Barnhouse reports that to "avoid charges brought against them
by the evangelicals," the Adventists "worked out arrangements"
that concerned the Voice of Prophecy,
and the Signs of the Times.
What was "worked
out" we do not know and are not told. Should we not have a detailed
report? We, of course, also wonder how it came to pass that ministers of
another denomination had any voice or any say whatsoever in how we conduct our
work. Have our leaders abdicated? How is it that they consult the evangelicals
and keep our own people in the dark?
What was Done at the
Conferences?
For a
report of this we are confined almost entirely to the published account in Eternity. The subject that took up much of the time at the
conferences was that of the sanctuary. Dr. Barnhouse was frank in his
estimate of this doctrine. In particular did he object to our teaching on the investigative judgment
which he characterized as "the most colossal, psychological, facesaving
phenomenon in religious history." Later he called it "the unimportant
and almost naive doctrine of the 'investigative judgment"' and said that
"any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable." Eternity, September, 1956.
Dr.
Barnhouse, in discussing Hiram Edson's explanation of the disappointment in
1844, says that the assumption that Christ "had a work to perform in the
most holy before coming to this earth, is a human, face-saving idea (which)
some uninformed Adventists. . . carried to fantastic, literalistic extremes. Mr. Martin and I heard the
Adventist leaders say, flatly, that they repudiated all such extremes. This
they said in no uncertain terms. Further, they 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 ministerial work since 1844.
This idea is also totally repudiated." Ibid.
Note these statements: The idea that
Christ "had a work to perform in the most holy place before coming to this
earth. . . is a human, face-saving idea," "Mr. Martin and I heard the
Adventist leaders say flatly that they repudiated such extremes. This they said
in no uncertain terms."
I
think it is due the denomination to have a clear-cut statement from our leaders
if Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin told the truth when they heard our leaders say
that they repudiated the idea that Christ had a work to do in the second
apartment before coming to this earth. This question demands a clear-cut
answer.
Attempted Tampering
Before
reporting further what was done at the conferences, let us come back to the two
men who on that first day of May, 1957, met with the White Board of Trustees to
seek their counsel and, also, to make a suggestion. The men were well
acquainted with the statements made by Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin, that the
idea of Christ's ministry in the second apartment in the sanctuary had been totally
repudiated. This had been in print several months at that time, and had not
been protested. The men, however, did not need the printed statement, for both
of them had had a part in the discussions with the evangelicals. One of them in
particular had taken a prominent part in the conferences, had visited Dr.
Barnhouse in his home, had spoken in Dr. Barnhouse's churches at his
invitation. He was one of the four men who really carried the load, and the one
chosen to accompany Mr. Martin on his tour of the west coast to speak in our
churches. He was held in high esteem by Dr. Barnhouse. This feeling was mutual.
About
the time when the two men first visited the vault, a series of articles
appeared in the Ministry which
claimed to be "the Adventist understanding of the atonement, confirmed and
illuminated and clarified by the Spirit of Prophecy." In the February
issue, 1957, the statement occurs that the "sacrificial act on the cross (is) a complete,
perfect, and final atonement for man's sin." This pronouncement is
in harmony with the belief of our leaders, as Dr. Barnhouse quoted them. It is
also in harmony with a statement signed by a chief officer in a personal
letter: "You cannot, Brother Andreasen, take away from us this precious
teaching that Jesus made a complete and all-sufficient atoning sacrifice on the
cross. . . . This we shall ever hold fast, and continue to proclaim it, even as
our dear venerated forefathers in the faith."
Note
by Ron: “The intercession of Christ in man’s behalf in the
sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His death
He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in
heaven. We must by faith enter within the veil, “whither the forerunner is for
us entered.” Hebrews 6:20.
There the light from the cross of Calvary is reflected. There we may gain a
clearer insight into the mysteries of redemption. The salvation of man is
accomplished at an infinite expense to heaven; the sacrifice made is equal to
the broadest demands of the broken law of God. Jesus has opened the way to the
Father’s throne, and through His mediation the sincere desire of all who come
to Him in faith may be presented before God.” {GC 489.1}
End note by Ron.
It
would be interesting if the writer would produce proof of his assertion. The
truth is, our forefathers believed and proclaimed no such thing. They did not believe that the
work on the cross was complete and all-sufficient. They did believe that
a ransom was there paid and that this was all-sufficient; but the final, atonement awaited
Christ's entrance into the most holy in 1844. This the Adventists have always taught and
believed, and this is the old and established doctrine which our venerated
forefathers believed and proclaimed. They could not teach that the
atonement on the cross was final, complete and all sufficient, and yet believe
that another atonement, also final occurred in 1844. Such would be absurd and
meaningless. Paying the penalty for our sin was, indeed, a vital and necessary part
of God's plan for our salvation, but it was by no means all. It was, as it
were, placing in the bank of heaven a sum sufficient and in every way adequate
for any contingency, and which could be drawn on by and for each individual as
needed. This payment was "the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb,
without blemish and without spot." 1 Peter 1:19. In His death on the cross
Jesus "paid it all;" but the precious treasure becomes efficacious
for us only as Christ draws upon it for us, and this must await the coming into
the world of each individual; hence, the atonement must continue as long as
people are born. Hear this:
"There
is an inexhaustible fund of perfect obedience accruing from His obedience, How
is it, that such an infinite treasure is not appropriated? In heaven, the
merits of Christ, His self-denial, and self-sacrifice, are treasured up as
incense, to be offered up with the prayers of His people."-General Conference Bulletin, Vol. 3, pp.
101, 102, Fourth Quarter, 1899.
Note
the phrases: "inexhaustible fund," "infinite treasure,"
"merits of Christ." This fund was deposited at the cross, but not
"used up" there. It is "treasured up" and offered up with
the prayers of God's people.. And especially since 1844 is this fund drawn on
heavily as God's people advance to holiness; but it is not exhausted, there is
sufficient and to spare. Hear again: "He who through His own atonement
provided for them as infinite fund of moral power will not fail to employ this
power in their behalf. He will impute to them His own righteousness. . . There
is an inexhaustible fund of perfect obedience accruing from His obedience. . .
as sincere, humble prayers ascend to the throne of God, Christ mingles with
them the merits of His own life of perfect obedience. Our prayers are made
fragrant by this incense. Christ has pledged Himself to intercede in our
behalf, and the Father hears His Son."-Ibid.
When we pray, in this very
year of 1959, Christ intercedes for us and mingles with our prayers "the
merits of His own life of perfect obedience. Our prayers are made fragrant by
this incense. . . and the Father always hears His Son."
Contrast
this with the statement in Questions on
Doctrine, page 381: "(Jesus)
appeared in the presence of God for us. . . But it was not with the hope of
obtaining something for us at that time or at some future time. No! He had
already obtained it for us on the cross." (Emphasis his.) Note the
picture: Christ appears in the presence of God for us. He pleads, but He gets nothing. For 1800 years He
pleads, and gets nothing. Does He not know that He already has it? Will
no one inform Him that it is useless to plead? He Himself has "no
hope" of getting anything now or at any future time. And yet He pleads,
and keeps on pleading. What a sight for the angels! And this is represented to
be Adventist teaching! This is the book that has the approval of Adventist
leaders and is sent out to the world to show what we believe. May God forgive
us. How can we stand before the world and convince any one that we believe in a
Savior who is mighty to save, when we present Him as pleading in vain before
the Father?
But
thank God, this is not Adventist doctrine. Hear this from Sister White, as
quoted above: "Christ has
pledged Himself to intercede in our behalf, and the Father always hears His
Son." This is Christianity, and the other is not.
Shall
we remain silent under such conditions? Says Sister White:
"For the past fifty years every phase
of heresy has been brought to bear upon us. . . especially concerning the
ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. . . Do you wonder that when I
see the beginning of a work that would remove some of the pillars of our faith,
I have something to say? I must obey the command, 'Meet it!'"--Series B,
No. 2, p. 58.
Again:
"The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great
reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this
reformation would consist in
giving up doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith and engaging
in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would
result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant
church, would be discarded. The fundamental truths that have sustained the work
for the last fifty years, would be accounted as error. A new organization would
be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual
philosophy would be introduced. . . Nothing would be allowed to stand in the
way of the new movement."--Ibid., pp. 54,55.
"Shall we keep
silent for fear of hurting their feelings?. .Shall we keep silent for fear of
injuring their influence, while souls are being beguiled. . . My message is: No longer consent to listen
without protest to the perversion of truth."--Ibid., pp. 9, 15.
(Emphasis ours)
I
doubt that the Adventist leaders were fully aware of the many references in
Mrs. White's works to the atonement now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary since
1844. If they were, how would they have dared to take the position they did in
regard to the sanctuary question? This idea finds support in the apparent
surprise of the two men who visited the vault and stated that in their research
they had "become acutely aware of the E. G. White statements which
indicate that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly
sanctuary." − Minutes, May 1, 1957, p. .1483. Why did they become acutely aware?
The discovery seemed to surprise them. In using the plural, statements, they
admit of more than one reference. I do not know how many they found. I have
found seventeen, and there are doubtless others. And why did they use the word
"indicate"? Sister White does more than indicate. She makes definite
pronouncements. Here are some of them:
"At
the termination of the 2300 days, in 1844, Christ entered the most holy place
of the heavenly sanctuary, to perform the closing work of atonement,
preparatory to His coming."-Great
Controversy,
p, 422. "Christ had only completed one part of His work as our Intercessor
to enter upon another portion of the work, and He still pleaded His blood before the Father in behalf of
sinners." -Ibid., p. 429. At "the opening of the most holy
place of the heavenly sanctuary, in 1844 (as) Christ entered there to perform
the closing work of the atonement. They saw that He was now officiating before
the ark of God, pleading His blood in behalf of sinners."-Ibid., p. 433.
"Christ is represented as continually
standing at the altar, momentarily offering up the sacrifice for the sins of
the world. . . A Mediator is essential because of the continual commission of
sin. . . Jesus presents the oblation offered for every offence and every
short-coming of the sinner."--MS. 50, 1900.
These
statements are definite. It was at the end of the 2300 days in 1844, that
Christ entered the moat holy "to perform the closing work of the
atonement." "Be had
ONLY COMPLETED ONE PART OF HIS WORK as our intercessor," in the first
apartment. Now He "enters upon another portion of the work." He
pleads "His blood before the Father." He is "continually
standing at the altar." This is necessary "because of the continual
commission of sin." "Jesus presents the oblation for every offence
and every shortcoming of the sinner. This argues a continuing, present
atonement. He offers up "momentarily". "Jesus presents the
oblation offered for every offence." "He ever liveth to make
intercession for them." Hebrews 7:25.
It is presumed that when
the two men stated that they had "become acutely aware of the E. G. White
statements which indicate that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in
the heavenly sanctuary," they had read the quotations here given and
perhaps others. In view of this knowledge, what did they suggest should be
done? Would they change their
former erroneous opinions and harmonize with the plain words of the Spirit of
Prophecy? No, on the contrary, they "suggested to the trustees that some
footnotes 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.
Ponder
this amazing statement. They admit that Sister White says that "the
atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary," and
then they propose that insertions be made in some of Sister White's books that
will give our understanding of the atonement! They were, however, only acting
in harmony with the official statement in Questions
on Doctrine that when one
reads "in the writings of Ellen G. White that Christ is making atonement
now, it should be understood that we simply mean that Christ is now making
application" etc., pp. 354,355.
If
Sister White were now living and should read this, she would most certainly
deal with presumptions writers and in words that could be understood. She would not concede the right of
anyone, whoever he might be, to change what she has written or interpret it so
as to vitiate its clear meaning. The claim which Questions on Doctrine makes that she means what she does not say, effectively
destroys the force of all she has ever written. If we have to consult an
inspired interpreter from Washington before knowing what she means, we might
better discard the Testimonies
altogether. May God save His people.
Early
in this century when the fate of the denomination hung in the balance, Sister
White wrote: "Satan has laid his plans to undermine our faith in the
history of the cause and work of God. I am deeply in earnest as I write this:
Satan is working with men in prominent positions to sweep away the foundations
of our faith. Shall we allow this to be done, brethren?"--Review and Herald, Nov. 12, 1903.
Answering
her question, "shall we allow this to be done?" she says:
"My message is: No longer consent
without protest to the perversion of truth. . . I have been instructed to warn
our people; for many are in danger of receiving theories and sophistries that
undermine the foundation pillars of the
faith."-Letters to Physicians and Ministers, Series B, No. 2, p. 15.
"For
the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us, to
becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word--especially concerning the
ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. . . . But the waymarks which
have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as
God has signified, through His Word and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls
upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith to the fundamental principles
that are based upon unquestionable authority,"--Ibid., p. 59. "Do you wonder that when I
see the beginning of a work that would remove some of the pillars of our faith,
I have something to say? I must obey the command, 'Meet it!"'-Ibid.,
p. 58. (Emphasis supplied.)
After
the two men had suggested the insertion of notes and explanations in some of
the E. G. White books that would give the reader the impression that she was
not opposed to their new interpretation, they had another suggestion to make.
"This is a matter," they said, "which will come prominently to
the front in the near future, and (that) we would do well to move forward with
the preparation and inclusion of such notes in future printings of the E. G.
White books."Minutes, p. 1483.
I
leave to the reader to decide why the men were in haste to get the notes and
explanations into the Ellen White books. Could it be that doing this would
constitute a "fait accompli," an accomplished fact, a thing that had already
been done and which would be difficult or impossible to change? This is an important
consideration, for there is reason to believe that things are happening to
other of our books, and there is a definite movement to change our doctrine in
other matters. This should be further explored, before it is too late.
May 2
this is recorded in the Minutes: E.
G. White Statements on the Atoning Work of Christ - "The meeting of the
Trustees held May 1 closed with no action taken on the question which was
discussed at length--suitable footnotes or explanations regarding the E. G.
White statements on the atoning work of Christ, which indicate a continuing
work at the present time in heaven. Inasmuch as the chairman of our board will
be away from Washington for the next four months, and the involvements in this
question are such that it must have the most careful consideration and counsel,
it was "VOTED, That we defer consideration until a later time of the
matters that were brought to our attention by Elders "x" and
"y" involving the E. G. White statements concerning the continuing
atoning work of Christ." Minutes of
the White Board, p. 1488.
It was presumably four
months later when Elder Olson had returned that a vote was taken not to grant
the request. This was eight months after their first January meeting, by which
time the matter had been exposed.
After
this situation came to my knowledge, I did a great deal of praying. 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, so I wrote to headquarters. I was there informed that I had no
right to the information I had. That was supposed to be secret, and I had no
right even to read the documents.
After
four letters were passed, I was told 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." As to the scurrilous and untrue
article in the Ministry, "I have
discussed this with the brethren concerned and would like to leave the matter
there." So the door was closed.
Here
are some of the official pronouncements: "The minutes are confidential and
not intended for public use." If wrong is committed, is it forbidden to expose it merely because some
want to keep it confidential?
"You
are doing this upon hearsay and upon confidential minutes which you had no
right even to read." No one ever talked to me of this or informed me. I
read the minutes and acted upon them. The minutes are not hearsay. They are
officially documented and signed.
"
. you have no right even to read." When I have evidence that to me seems
destructive of the faith, am I to close my eyes to what I consider premeditated
attempts to mislead the people by the insertions of notes, explanations, and
appendix notes in the books of Mrs. White? Is this officially approved?
"I
wish to repeat what I wrote before, that men have a perfect right to go to
boards, including the White Estate group, and make their suggestions without
fear of being disciplined or dealt with as heretics."
This
was re-emphasized: "I re-affirm my former statement that I believe these
brethren were entirely in order in going to the, properly delegated and
responsible individuals with any suggestion they had for study."
This
makes it clear that the act of the two brethren is officially approved; that
they did not do anything for which they should be reproved, but that they did
what they had a perfect right to do. I do not think our people will welcome
this new principle.
"To
suggest that good and faithful Seventh-day Adventist men sat down to tamper with
the pillars of our faith is as far from fact as the poles are apart: tampering
with the Testimonies, when no such thing ever took place, nor was there any
attempt ever made to do this."
I
leave to the reader's decision just why the men went to the committee: did they
not come to have insertions, notes, Appendix notes, explanations made in
"some of the E. G. White-books?" While the committee eventually
decided not to do this, the guilt of the men is not changed by that fact. To
assert that as for "tampering with the Testimonies (when) no such thing
ever took place nor was there any attempt ever made to do this," the Minutes speak for themselves. A Serious Situation
This
vault episode brings into focus a serious situation. It is not merely a matter
of two men attempting to have insertions made in some of Mrs. White's books. A
much more serious thing is that this act had the approval of the
administration, who stated that the men had a "perfect right" to do
what they did. This pronouncement opens the way for others to follow, and as
the matter is kept secret, great abuse could readily result. Undoubtedly, if
the matter is left to a vote of the people, there will be no permission for any
to tamper, or attempt to tamper, with the writings of Ellen G. White.
The men
who visited the vault May 1, as related, stated clearly that they had
discovered that Mrs. White taught plainly "that the atoning work of Christ
is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary." On the other hand, the Ministry of February, 1957, stated the
very opposite. It said that the
"sacrificial act on the cross (is) a complete, perfect and final atonement
for men's sins." Questions on
Doctrine attempts to reconcile these opposing views by stating that whether
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,"
etc. pp. 354,355. It is clear that if the atonement on the cross was final,
there cannot be a later atonement also final. When we therefore for a hundred
years have preached that the day of atonement began in 1844, we were wrong. It
ended 1800 years before. The
hundreds of books we have published; the more than a million copies of Bible Readings we have sold; the
millions of hand bills we have distributed saying that it is "court week
in heaven," were all false doctrine; the Bible instruction we have given
the children and the young ministry and which they have imbibed as Bible truth,
is a fable. Uriah Smith, Loughborough, Andrews, Andross, Watson, Danielle,
Branson, Johnson, Lacey, Spicer, Haskell, Gilbert, and a host of others stand
convicted of having taught false doctrine; and the whole denomination whose
chief contribution to Christianity is the sanctuary doctrine and Christ's
ministry, must now confess that we were all wrong, and that we have no message
to the world for these last days. In other words, we are a deceived and
deceiving people. The
fact that we may have been honest does not alter the fact that we have given a
false message. Take
away from us the sanctuary question, the investigative judgment, the message of
the 2300 days, Christ's work in the most holy, and we have no right to exist as
a denominated people, as God's messengers to a doomed world. If the Spirit of
Prophecy has led us astray these many years, let us throw it away.
But no! Halt! God has not led us
astray. We have not told cunningly devised fables. We have a message that will
stand the test and confound the undermining theories that are finding their way
in among us. In this instance it is not the people that have gone astray except
as they have followed the leaders. It is time that there be a turn-about.
It is
now more than four years ago that the apostasy began to be plainly evident. Since that time there has been a
deliberate attempt to weaken the faith in the Spirit of Prophecy, as it is
clear that as long as the people revere the gift given us, they cannot be led
far astray. Of this we shall speak shortly. The time for action has
come. The time to open up the dark corners has arrived. There must no longer be any secret agreements, no compact with other
denominations who hate the law and the Sabbath, who ridicule our most holy
faith. We must no longer hobnob with enemies of the truth, no more
promise that we will not proselytize. We must not tolerate leadership which
condones tampering with the writings entrusted to us, and stigmatizes as
belonging to the lunatic fringe those who dare disagree with them. We must no
longer remain silent. To thy tents, O Israel!
Be of
good courage, brethren. The Lord still lives. We have a work to do. Let us all
work together. And let us not forget that our greatest strength lies in close
union with God, in prayer. Let us all dedicate ourselves anew to Him.
End
Chapter 2
Years
ago while traveling in northern Minnesota, I stayed one weekend in a small
town, and there was no train service on Sunday and buses did not exist. I did
not like to remain idle so I arranged for the use of the Town Hall with the
intent of holding a public service. I posted a handwritten notice that I would
speak in the afternoon on the topic of "Seventh-day Adventists." I
confess that I would rather not have spoken, for I needed a rest. My posted
notice would certainly not draw many people.
To my
surprise the hall was well filled. As the people showed interest in the
subject, I decided to appoint another service for the evening. Promptly a well-dressed
man arose in the audience, introduced himself as the temporary pastor of the
only church in town, and invited me to come over to his church and speak in the
evening. I reminded him of my topic, but he stated that this was satisfactory
and I could come over and speak on Adventism. I thanked him and accepted the
invitation.
After
the meeting that night he told me that he was almost sorry he had invited me.
"When I heard you this afternoon," he said, "I thought you were an
intelligent man. Now I know you are not."
"What
made you change your mind?"
"You
said you believed in Genesis." "Don't you?"
"Of
course not. No intelligent man believes in the Genesis creation story."
"You
don't believe in the Old Testament, then?"
"No
intelligent man does."
"Do
you believe in the New?"
"Well,
yes, there are many good things in it. But when it comes to Paul, I draw the
line. He is the cause of all our troubles."
"What
about Christ?"
"Good
man, very good man. Of course he had his faults."
"But
He was a good man."
"Are
you not a minister?"
"Yes,
in a way. I am president of the Seminary. I am up here on my vacation and am
temporarily substituting for the pastor here in town, one of my former
students."
This
led to a conversation that lasted most of the night, and was very illuminating
to me. I was somewhat acquainted with his institution, and one of my teachers
was attending some classes there.
"Do
you teach your students what you have told me tonight?"
"Yes,
and much more!"
"And
do your students tell their congregations?"
"Oh,
my no! That would never do. The people are not ready for it. They are much more
conservative than the preachers.'' We have to move slowly with them."
This
episode came to mind as I have considered the situation in our denomination of
late years. I have been uneasy since I first heard that our leaders were
negotiating with the Evangelicals; but had hoped that the blandishment of our
church's being reckoned among the established churches as being one of them
would not appeal to our men. We had heard too many sermons on the text, "The people shall dwell alone,
and shall not be reckoned among the nations," to be deceived. (Numbers
23:9). As the negotiations were considered top secrets it was some time
before any definite news leaked out. When it did, it was disturbing. Washington
furnished little news, and all others informed me they had nothing to say. It
seemed apparent, however, our leaders were being influenced and steps were
being taken that would be hard to retrace.
The first
authentic news did not come from our leaders or through our journals but from
an Evangelical publication dated September, 1956, which issued a special
edition with an account of what had taken place. This account was so
unbelievable that we hesitated to give it credence. We were sure that what it
reported had never taken place and that our leaders would promptly issue a
denial. We waited a year, we waited two. But until this date, no protest or
denial has been issued. Reluctantly, we must, therefore, accept the account as
true. Let us consider the situation as it has developed.
As I
read the Review from week to week, I
find the articles generally helpful. The contributors quote freely from the
Spirit of Prophecy, as do the editors and feature writers. There are times when
I disagree with certain positions which I consider unsound, but this is not
often. There are at times reports that savor of boasting, and at other times
much stress is laid on statistics. But I have learned not to take too seriously
some minor matters. I read the Review
with confidence; I enjoy it. I can say the same for the Signs of the Times.
But
not so with the Ministry, our
ministerial journal. The general articles are of the same kind and quality as
the Review, but this is not always so
with the special features and editorials. These I must read carefully and
critically. At times they contain what I consider heresy and
dangerous perversions of truth. This may seem a serious charge. And
it is so indeed. I can best illustrate what I have in mind by presenting a
concrete example.
The Ministry
Of late years there has
been a definite change of emphasis in the Ministry
and not for the better. This change coincides with the period in which our leaders
have been in close contact and rapport with the Evangelicals. The trend was in
evidence before, but now has blossomed. As an example of this, I shall call
attention to an article in the February, 1957, issue entitled, "The
Priestly Application of the Atoning Act." It is claimed that it "is
the Adventist understanding of the atonement, confirmed and illustrated and
clarified by the Spirit of Prophecy." As it has not been renounced or
protested, we may justly conclude that it is officially approved.
The
author gives a short tribute to the "magnifying glass," the Spirit of
Prophecy, then goes on to state that the atonement "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." Ministry, February, 1957, p. 9. The
author stresses the fact that the Spirit of Prophecy clearly teaches that both
these aspects are included, "one aspect being incomplete without the
other, and each being the indispensable complement of the other." Ibid.
That is, both the death on the cross and Christ's ministry in the second
apartment are necessary to atonement. With this, we are in full agreement. The
death was a necessary part of the atonement. The one is incomplete without the
other.
This point should be noted, for 'a few
sentences further on the author will say that the death on the cross is
complete in itself; to quote: "The sacrificial act of the cross (is) a
complete, perfect and final atonement for man's sin." Page 10. After having first said that the sacrificial death was
incomplete, he now says it is complete, perfect, and final. He does not
consider the death merely as a partial atonement, but a complete and perfect
and final one. With this we disagree. The two statements are irreconcilable.
This
is more than merely an unfortunate wording. While in the next paragraph the
author gives lip service to the need of a ministration in the sanctuary above,
he leaves out every essential feature of the atonement and omits the dates,
which are essential to the Adventist concept of the atonement, which justifies
our existence as a denominated people with the message for the world at this
time.
In his explanation of
Christ's work in the sanctuary, he does not refer to or mention Daniel 8:14:
"Then
shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Without this text, Christ's work in the
sanctuary becomes meaningless. He does not mention 457 B. C. or the 70 weeks,
or the middle of the week which pinpoints the time of the sacrifice on the
cross, and is ". . . as a nail in a sure place," (Isaiah 22:23 to
which we fasten the whole chronological scheme in prophecy and which also
justifies the date, 1844.
Remove or change these dates, and
Adventists are without an anchor for the chronological system climaxing in
1844, and are unable to justify their existence as a people who are to proclaim
this most important message to the world for this time: "Fear God, and
give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come." Revelation 14:7. Every one of these dates the author leaves out, and what
remains, in the words of Dr. Barnhouse, "is flat, stale, and
unprofitable." Eternity Extra,
September, 1958, p. 4.
Entry
for June 11, 2018
In Questions on Doctrine, beginning at page
661, there is a section consisting of collections from the writings of Sister
White on the subject of atonement, thirty pages in all. It claims to be a
"comprehensive assemblage" of Sister White's teachings on the
atonement. From the use of the word, "comprehensive," I expected to
find a full and extensive collection. But in consulting this material, I was
disappointed in its paucity and one-sidedness. I found it to be a very
incomplete and meager collection, leaving out numerous quotations that rightly
belong even in a small compilation, not to say a comprehensive one. And strangely enough, quotations
that were omitted were such as must on no account be left out.
First
of all, I wanted to know what Sister White had to say of the date, 1844, which
is the "crisis year." I wanted to know if it had anything
particularly to do with the atonement, or if it could safely he left out. I
found that the one author had omitted it. So I looked in turn for other
quotations, not one of which I found in the assemblage. I looked for the
statement: "At the
termination of the 2300 days in 1844. . . our great High Priest. . . enters the
holy of holies, and there appears in the presence of God, to perform the work
of the investigative judgment, and to make an atonement for all who are shown
to be entitled to its benefits." This is said to be the "great
day of final atonement." Great
Controversy, p. 480. I searched for this important statement in the
comprehensive assemblage, but it was not there. I looked for the parallel
statement: ". . . at
the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ entered the most holy place of
the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement, preparatory to
His coming." Ibid., pg 422. I did not find it. I looked for this
statement:.". . this is the service which began when the 2300 days
ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered
the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn work - to cleanse the
sanctuary." I could not find it. I looked for the statement: "The end of the 2300 days
in 1844 marked an important crisis," Ibid., p. 429. I did not find
it. I looked for other statements, such as: "The sacred work of Christ (that) is going on at the
present time in the heavenly sanctuary," " . . the atoning work of
Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary," "Today He is
making atonement for us before the Father." Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 520; White Board Minutes, p. 1483; Mss. 21, 1895, quoted in Ministry, February, 1957, p. 30. I found
none of these.
At
first I thought that this book, Questions
on Doctrine, did not have room for these texts, nor did the Ministry. But I had to abandon this
reasoning when I observed that it was only a particular kind of statements that
was omitted. The omitted
quotations all clustered about the important "crisis" date, 1844, the
investigative Judgment, Christ's entering into the most holy for the final
atonement; His making atonement n now, His making atonement "today before
the Father." These are the statements that Dr. Barnhouse ridiculed and
which he said our leaders had "totally repudiated." He had also ridiculed Hiram Edson's experience in the
cornfield and had called the investigative judgment not only a
"peculiar" but a 'human, face-saving idea," in fact "the
most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon, in religious
history." Eternity Extra,
September, 1956, pp. 3, 4. And now we found all these offending statements left
out of the "comprehensive assemblage." Can this be a mere coincidence?
We
wonder what effect the ridicule of the Evangelicals had upon our leaders and upon
the author of the article in the Ministry,
which we are discussing. One
thing that kept our men from going overboard, body and soul, to the
Evangelicals, was, doubtless, Mrs. White's writings. She is very emphatic on the question
of the sanctuary, and it would not be easy to convert our people to the new
view, as long as they had the Testimonies to sustain them in the old position.
The faith of our people in the
Spirit of Prophecy must be weakened, or better yet, destroyed, before much
headway can be made in bringing in the new view. The Ministry article serves well for this purpose.
It was the editor,
himself, who in his research had "become acutely aware of the E. G. White
statements which indicate that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in
the heavenly sanctuary.' White Minutes,
p. 1483. This did not at all fit in with the new view that the atonement was
made on the cross, and so he suggested that "footnotes or Appendix notes
might appear in certain of the E. G. White -books clarifying very largely in
the words of Ellen White our understanding of the various phases of the atoning
work of Christ." Ibid. And he suggested haste in the "preparation and
inclusion of such notes in future printings of the E. G. White books."
When the plan became known, it was abandoned. The author of the article in the
February, 1957, Ministry then took
over and had the article printed which we are considering.
Not In A Single Case
The
author asks this question, "Why, in the early days, in the light of all
this, did not Mrs. White point out and correct the limited or sometimes
erroneous concept of some of our early writers concerning the atonement? And
why did she employ some of their restricted phrases without contrasting, at the
time, her own larger, truer meaning when using them?" Ministry, February, 1957, p. 11.
This
was the dilemma. Some of our early writers had erroneous concepts about the
atonement, the author claims. Sister
White did not correct them, but even used some of their own restricted phrases.
How could this be explained? The answer, which the author gives, is the most
astonishing and astounding answer that has ever been given to such a question.
Hear this:
"In Answer: it is essential that
we first of all remember this basic fact: No doctrinal truth or prophetic
interpretation ever came to this people initially through the Spirit of
Prophecy - not in a single case." (Emphasis his.)
Read those words again. And have in mind that
this is an article which claims to give the true meaning of the atonement, the
official interpretation; that it has the approval of the administration and
that the editor passed it. Also, it has not been retracted or changed. It
stands.
These
are bold words, almost unbelievable words, and utterly untrue words. To assert that Sister White
never, not even in a single case, initially contributed any doctrinal truth or
prophetic interpretation will not be believed by her thousands and millions of
readers who all have been benefited by her works. For myself, I have
been greatly helped and instructed by her doctrinal teachings and prophetic
interpretation. Even the author himself, who on page 11 of the February, 1957, Ministry, says, "We are
fundamentally Protestants, taking the Bible only as our sole rule of faith and
practice," in a signed letter the next month asserts, "I take the
total Spirit of Prophecy teachings on a given subject to be the authoritative
Seventh-day Adventist teaching." It does not strengthen faith to have a writer say
publicly, "The Bible and the Bible only" and privately deny it.
One statement is evidently
made to the world for them to believe; the other to our people to quiet their
fears. Some explanation is due.
The
reader will have noted that the author does not say that Sister White never
contributed any doctrinal truth or prophetic interpretation. He says that she
never contributed anything initially, that is, she never made any original
contribution. She got it from somebody else, she "lifted" it. Our
enemies have made that assertion for years, but I never thought that such would
be announced to the whole world with the consent of the leaders. But here it
is. Whatever Sister White wrote, be it the counsel of Father and Son in
eternity, or Satan's inmost rebellious thoughts, "somebody told her."
She never contributed a thing, initially. Never in a single case! Let me
produce a single case. The following is taken from Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, pp. 56, 57:
"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. Often we remained together until late at
night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying
the word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in
order that we might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. 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, with instruction as to how
we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to
understand the Scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood.
A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the
city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave others the instruction that the
Lord had given me."
In this case there was
no human intermediary. Unless we are to believe that Sister White did not tell
the truth, she got her instructions from above. In this case the instruction
concerned "Christ, His mission, and His priesthood," the very
subjects we have now under consideration. Whatever we may be, or not be, sure
of, we know now that the instruction that came to Sister White on the subject
of Christ, His mission and His priesthood came direct from God. This means that the sanctuary
question as our forefathers taught and believed it has God for its author. It
came as a result of a vision, which I do not believe can be said of any other
doctrine we hold.
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 foundations 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.
I am
well aware that oftentimes visions were given to confirm previous study. I am
well aware that for some time Sister White's mind was "locked," as
she expressed it, and that hence visions were given, as in the instance here
considered. She herself says that "for two or three years my mind
continued to be locked to an understanding of the Scriptures." During that
time the Lord gave visions. Then an experience came to her, and she records,
"from that time to this I have been able to understand the word of
God." Ibid., p. 58. For "two or three years" Mrs. White's mind
was locked. This was evidently intended by God to strengthen their faith in the
gift; for the men knew that of herself she had no knowledge. Then, when they
came to the end of their knowledge and did not know what to do, light came from
a source of which they knew that of herself she could not solve their problems.
It was clearly the Lord's leading, and they confessed it and "accepted as
light from heaven the revelations given."
In an
attempt to protect himself, the author now turns completely around and says
that she frequently went "far beyond the positions taken by any of the
original advocates, and her counsels would often be so clear, so full, and so
far reaching that they proved to be far ahead of the concepts of any of her
contemporaries - sometimes fifty years in advance of their acceptance by
some." I wonder whom she copied under such circumstances.
End of
June 11 entry.
Entry
for June 12
In composing the book, Questions on Doctrine, it became
necessary to do some research work in Sister White's published and unpublished
manuscripts to ascertain beyond a doubt just what she had said on various
subjects. This work was turned over to the Ministry
author who reports as follows in the Ministry
for February, 1957, p. 11:
"The
further question has likewise arisen: 'Just why were these counsels,
clarifications, and expositions on the atonement, and its priestly
manifestations, not brought together for our use before this?' The answer, we
believe, is equally simple and straightforward and obvious: No one had taken the time for
the sustained effort involved in laborious, comprehensive search necessary to
find, analyze, and organize them.
"Since our leaders were largely
unaware of this latent evidence and its priceless value, the need was not felt,
and the time required for such a vast project was not considered available. Access to the complete files of all the old periodicals
containing Ellen White's two thousand articles is not easy, for there is no
complete file in any one place. More than that, the priceless manuscript statements are not available
in published form.
"Further,
as a church we have been so engrossed in giving our special message to the
world, in keeping with our complex movement rolling onward in its multiple
activities, that no one
seemed to have the time or even the burden for such a huge task. It was
known that the search would be a most laborious one because of the vast amount
of material that must he compassed.
"However,
when the need clearly arose and the time for such a search had obviously come,
the necessity was recognized and the time taken to compass not only the
familiar book statements, but the vast array of periodicals, articles, and
manuscript counsels bearing thereon."
It will be noted that the author does
not minimize the task that faced him - and it was a great task. It is to he regretted
that he should take the opportunity to inform us that the leaders had not felt
the need of this work, did not have the time for it, and did not even have any
burden for it.
It was
in this research that they discovered that Mrs. White did not contradict or
change what she said in the beginning of her work. The author puts it in his
peculiar phraseology that, "Mrs.
White's later statements do not contradict or change her earlier
expressions." He had evidently hoped that she had changed her position on
the atonement, which position he had criticized and attempted to explain by
saying that she never, not even in a single case, had contributed anything
initially to doctrine or prophetic interpretation. It is clear that if she
intended to change her position, she had abundant opportunity to do so in the
sixty or more years she lived after making her position clear on the atonement.
But she did not contradict or change what she had once written. This is the
testimony of the very one who had challenged her early position, and who now is
compelled to testify that she did not change. It is a poetic justice that the
author of the Ministry article should
be the one to testify after he had examined all the material that there is no
evidence that she ever changed her mind or contradicted what she had written
earlier.
This created another dilemma for our
author. He must now let stand all she had ever written, and could not argue
that she had authorized any change whatsoever. What then could he do or did he
do? A most unique solution he had: he
calmly asserted that Sister White did not mean what she said; Note again his peculiar use of the English language, not
a direct statement but a passive approach: he says, ".. a distinct
clarification of terms and of meaning emerges that is destined to have
far-reaching consequences." Her later statements "invest those
earlier terms with a larger, truer meaning inherently there all the time."
And so he explains when she says that Christ is making atonement (he is omitting the word now), she is "obviously meaning
applying the completed atonement to the individual." Emphasis his.
This is in complete harmony with the
statement in Questions on Doctrine
where the author boldly asserts that if any one "hears an Adventist say,
or reads in Adventist literature - even in the writings of Ellen White - that
Christ is making atonement now,' it should be understood that we mean simply
that Christ is making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement
He made on the cross."
This
is news indeed. I have written several
books, one of them on the Sanctuary Service and hence these may come under what
he calls "Adventist literature." And now some unauthorized individual proclaims to the world
that when I say that Christ is making atonement now, I do not mean it. I mean
that He is making application, but not atonement which was made 1800 years ago.
However, it is only a minor matter that he presumes to act as my interpreter
and tell what I mean by what I say. But when he undertakes to tell
the world that when Sister White says Christ is making atonement she means
simply that He is making application, that is serious. God's reproof
to Job when he was talking too much may apply here: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by
words without knowledge?" Job 38:1. It is not often that God is
sarcastic. But here He is. Read verse 21.' Job deserved it.
And so
when I read, ". . . even in the writings of Ellen G. White," that
Christ is making atonement, I am not to believe it. He made the atonement 1800
years ago, not now; and even if she affirms that Christ is making atonement
now, that "today He is making atonement," that "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 (1882 in the heavenly sanctuary should be
our constant. study," I am still to apply to the interpreter to find out
what she means. (See Testimonies,
Vol. 5, p. 520)
Such is playing with words, it is
playing with fire, and makes any interpretation possible. If the author is right, I am permitted to take any word
of an author and say that he means something else than what he says. Such makes
inter-communication impossible, and the world a Babel. What would agreements
amount to, or contracts, or words of mouth, if I am permitted to put my own
interpretation on what another man says? The Bible says that the seventh day is
the Sabbath. That seems plain enough. But the author's theory would permit me
to hold that the Bible means no such thing. Absurd, you say. And I say Amen.
When the Bible says seven, it does not mean one. With the author's philosophy,
however, words become meaningless. "Let your nay be nay, and your yea, yea," James says. That
is, mean what you say. To make the plain statement that "Christ is making
atonement now" means that He is making application now is indefensible on
grammatical, philological, theological, or common-sense ground. And to go farther and upon such
false interpretation, build a new theology to be enforced by sanctions, is
simply out of this world. Undue assumption of authority coupled with
overconfidence in the virtue of bestowed honors have borne fruit. And the fruit
is not good.
The present attempt to lessen and destroy
confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy and establish a new theology, may deceive
some, even many, but the foundations upon which we have built these many years,
still stands, and God still lives. This warning should not go unheeded.
"If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies He has sent
them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram." Testimonies to the Church,
vol. 5, p. 66.
In an
incomplete research which I conducted years ago I found what the author found,
and more. Among other things, I found in a small pamphlet entitled, "A Word to the Little Flock."
published by James White in Brunswick, Maine, May 30, 1847, a statement by
Sister White on the sanctuary that immediately drew my attention. It is dated
April 21, 1847, and written from Topsham, Maine. On page 12, I found these
words, which I suppose our Ministry
author also found. Says Sr. White:
"I believe the sanctuary, to be
cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which
Christ is a minister. The Lord shew (showed) me in vision, more than a year
ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary,
etc., and that it was His will, that Brother C (Crosier) should write out the
view which he gave us in the Daystar, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully
authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint. I pray that
these lines may prove a blessing to you, and to all the dear children who may
read them. Signed, E. G, White."
I lost no time to get a
copy of that Extra and read it. As I write this I have before me a photostatic
copy of the Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, and on pages 40 and 41 of that
issue I read Brother Crosier's article. After having discussed certain theories
in which he does not believe, Brother Crosier observes:
"But again, they say the atonement
was made and finished on Calvary when the Lamb of God expired. So men have
taught us, and so the churches and the world believe; but it is none the more
true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few
or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it
rests.
"1. If the atonement was made on
Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a
priest; but who officiated on Calvary? Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.
"2. The slaying was not making the
atonement; the sinner slew the victim. Lev. 4;1-4, 13-15, etc., after that the
priest took the blood and made the atonement. Lev. 4:5-12, 16-21.
"3. Christ was the appointed High
Priest to make the atonement, and certainly could not have acted in that
capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing
anything on earth after His resurrection which could be called the atonement.
"4. The atonement was made in the
sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.
"5. He could not, according to
Heb. 8:4 make the atonement while on earth.. 'If He were on earth, He could not
be a priest.' The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine, the
heavenly.
"6. Therefore, He did not begin
the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till
after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary
for us."
This, then is` the "true
light," which the Lord showed Sister White in vision, had His approval,
and which she felt fully authorized to recommend to every saint. Only as we
downgrade Sister White can we reject this testimony of hers. We are not ready
to do this.
We now
face this situation: Did our Ministry
author in his thorough search find this statement that Brother Crosier had
"the true light?"
If he
did not find it, he has little ground to feel pleased with his work. In either
case, if I were a teacher and had sent him to do this research work and he
presented the collection in Questions on
Doctrine as his report, I would have to give him a straight F, which in
school language stands for Failure. It is either a case of poor research, or of omission, which latter, under
the circumstances, is most serious.
End
entry for June 12
Entry
for June 13
In the
documents and letters I have sent out from time to time concerning what I
consider a serious departure from the faith on the part of the leaders, I have
adhered strictly to the advice which Christ gives in Matthew 18:15-17. There He
says that if differences arise among brethren, "tell him his fault between
thee and him alone." If he will not hear, "take with thee one or two
more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church." This
principle I have followed as will appear from the record.
In the
month of May, 1957, there was placed in my hand, providentially I believe, a
copy of the minutes of the White Board of Trustees for May 1 and 2, 1957,
recording a meeting of two brethren with the Trustees concerning a statement
they had found in Mrs. White's writings regarding the atonement.' They sought
counsel in this matter, inasmuch as what they had found did not harmonize with the
new view which the leaders were advocating. What attitude should these
researchers take in view of Mrs. White's statement?
For a number of months, even for years, our
leaders had been studying with some evangelical ministers with a view to
eventual recognition of the Adventists as an-evangelical Christian body. The
studies were concerning the doctrines of the Adventists, particuarly the
Atonement, the Investigative judgment, and Christ's work in the heavenly
sanctuary since 1844. These doctrines the
evangelicals had called " the most colossal, psychological, face-saving
phenomenon in religious history," and had so denominated them in their
journal, Eternity, for September,
1956, reprinting the article in an Extra under the title, "Are Seventh-day
Adventists Christians?"
The
evangelical ministers appear to have made a pronounced impression upon the
Adventist leaders, so much so that Dr. Barnhouse, one of the participating evangelical ministers, reports
that the Adventist leaders "totally repudiated" some of their most
important doctrines. It may be best to let Dr. Barnhouse tell the story
himself as he reported it in the Extra named above, for September, 1956. The
particular subject which he discusses is what is called "The Great
Disappointment,"
and has reference-to the great disappointment of the Adventists in 1844 when
they expected the Lord to come. Here is his account:
"On
the morning after the 'Great Disappointment' two men were going through a corn
field in order to avoid the pitiless gaze of their mocking neighbors to whom
they had said an eternal Good-bye the day before. To put it in the words of
Hiram Edson the man in the corn field who first conceived this peculiar idea),
he was overwhelmed with the conviction 'that instead of our High Priest coming
out of the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the
tenth day of the seventh month at the end of 2,300 days, He for the first time
entered, on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary, and that He had
work to perform in the most holy before coming to this earth. It is to my mind,
therefore, nothing more than a human, face-saving idea! It should also be
realized that some uninformed Seventh-day Adventists took this idea and carried
it to fantastic, literalistic extremes. Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventist leaders say, flatly,
that they repudiate all such extremes. This they have said in no uncertain
terms. Further, they 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 also
totally repudiated. They believe that since His ascension Christ has been
ministering the benefits of the atonement which He completed on Calvary.
"Since
the sanctuary doctrine is based on the type of the Jewish high priest going
into the Holy of Holies to complete his atoning work, it can be seen that what
remains is most certainly exegetically untenable and theological speculation of
a highly imaginative order. What Christ is now doing, since 1844 according to
this version, is going over the records of all human beings and deciding what
rewards are going to be given to individual Christians. We personally do not
believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such
a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is
stale, flat, and unprofitable." (Emphasis in original).
In
explanation of this somewhat involved statement, I append the following explanation,
which may clarify some expressions.
Dr.
Barnhouse first reports the well-known incident of Hiram Edson going through
the cornfield on the morning after the "Disappointment," and becoming
convinced that "instead of our High Priest coming out of the most holy. .
. He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that
sanctuary, and that He had a work to perform in the most holy before coming to
this earth." The work
He was to do before coming to this earth was the completion of the atonement
which involved the investigative judgment. This conception, says Dr.
Barnhouse, "is nothing more than a human, face-saving idea." Then he
continues, "Some uninformed Seventhday Adventists took this idea and
carried it to fantastic, literalistic extremes." That is, they believed that Christ really did go
into the most holy to do a work which had to be done before His coming to this
earth, which involved the investigative judgment and the completion of the
atonement. Dr.
Barnhouse reports: "Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventist leaders say,
flatly, that they repudiate all such extremes. This they have said in no
uncertain terms."
If we are to believe Dr. Barnhouse's
statement, then our leaders repudiated a doctrine which we have held sacred
from the beginning. This is made clear as
Dr. Barnhouse continues: "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 ministerial work since 1844. -This idea is also totally
repudiated."
When
Dr. Barnhouse says that "some" of our earlier teachers taught
"that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary," he must have
gotten his information from some of the "uninformed" authors of our
new theology; for history records that all our teachers taught this.
James White, J. H.
Waggoner, Uriah Smith, J. N. Andrews, J. N. Loughborough, C. H. Watson, E. E.
Andross, W. H. Branson, Camden Lacey, B. S. Owen, 0. A. Johnson, H. H. Johnson,
F. D. Nichol (until 1955), all
stoutly defended the doctrine of Christ's atoning work since 1844, and
committed their convictions to writing. As I write this, I have nearly
all of their books before me. James White, who was three times the General
Conference president, when he was elected the first editor of Signs of the Times, wrote in the first
issue of that paper an article "to correct false statements circulated
against us. . There are many who call themselves Adventists, who hold views
with which we can have no sympathy, some of which, we think, are subversive of
the plainest and most important principles set forth in the word of God."
The second of the twenty-five articles
of faith reads in part as follows: Christ "lived our example, died our
sacrifice, was raised for our justification, 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 but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work
as priest."
These
Fundamental Beliefs, were also printed in a little tract and circulated by the
thousands. It would be interesting if the one who wrote pages 29,30,31,32, in Questions on Doctrine would furnish us
with a list of writers who held views contrary to those of the authors
mentioned above. I have not found any proof for the incorrect statements found
on those particular pages.
To continue our study of
Dr. Barnhouse's report in the Eternity
Extra. He has just affirmed that the Adventist leaders have "totally
repudiated" the idea that Christ is "still carrying on a second
ministering work since 1844," by which he means an atoning works Instead
of this, he says, "they believe that since His ascension Christ has been
ministering the benefits of the atonement which He completed on Calvary."
This view, however, he does not consider consistent. The Old Testament informs us that the high priest
killed the sacrifice in the court outside the tabernacle. But the killing was
not the atonement. "It is the blood that maketh atonement." Leviticus
17:11. Therefore
the high priest shall "bring his blood within the vail. . . and sprinkle
it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat, and he shall make an
atonement for the holy place." Leviticus 16:15, 16. "He goeth in to
make an atonement." Verse 17. Dr. Barnhouse argues, that as we base
our doctrine of atonement largely on the figure given us in Leviticus, and use
that in our teaching on the atonement, we must believe that as the high priest
on earth took the blood into the sanctuary and there made atonement, so Christ
must do likewise, He must go in to complete the atonement. Else we have an atonement
without blood. If we do not take the last step, then we are compelled to
believe that the atonement was made in the court and not in the sanctuary,
which completely destroys all typology. If this last service with the blood is omitted, then our
theory of the atonement is sadly incomplete, and "is most certainly
exegetically untenable, and theological speculation of a highly imaginative
order." If Christ does not go in with the blood to complete the
atonement, then what we have left "is stale, flat, and unprofitable."
He has a good argument. Is It True?
When I
first read in the Extra that our
leaders had repudiated the doctrine of Christ's atoning work in the sanctuary
since 1844, and had substituted for this "the application of the benefits
of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross," I could not believe
it, and did not believe it. When
I was told that even if I read in "the writings of Ellen G. White, that
Christ is making atonement now," I am not to believe it, I wondered,
"What are we coming to?" The atonement was made 1800 years
ago, our leaders say. Sr.
White says the atonement is going on now. Questions
on Doctrine says it was made 1800 years ago. The Ministry says the atonement on the cross
was final. Whom or what am I to believe? To me, to repudiate Christ's ministry in the second
apartment, now, is to repudiate Adventism. That is one of the foundation pillars
of Adventism. If we reject the atonement in the sanctuary now, we may as well
repudiate all Adventism. For this, God's people are, not ready.' They will not
follow the leaders in apostasy.
At
this juncture it occurred to me that perhaps the Eternity men had regretted what they had written and had retracted,
or would retract, all they had written. So I wrote to Eternity, asking if they still published the Extra. They answered that they did. The article being copyrighted,
I then asked for permission to quote them. I received this answer: "We are
glad to give you permission to quote from the article, 'Are Seventh-day
Adventists Christians?' and would appreciate you giving credit to Eternity when you do this." This letter was dated Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, May 2, 1958, and signed by the editor.
This
was twenty months after the article had first appeared in Eternity. If at any time during those twenty months our leaders had
protested, if they had made a demurrer, in honesty the editor would have warned
me not to use the material, and not to quote these statements. But the editor
did no such thing. He was glad and willing for me to use the material, willing
to stand by what the Extra had
published, willing for me to quote them. It is fully five years since the
discussions began, and three years since the Extra was published. For this long time I have been waiting for our
men to deny the charges, and rebuke the evangelicals for publishing such
defamation of our entire leadership. But I have heard no protest.
On the contrary, I have
read several references in our papers to these evangelicals as being fine,
Christian gentlemen, which I believe is true. Such men do not tell falsehoods.
In the absence of any denial or protest from our men, I have reluctantly drawn
my own conclusions. But if our men will make a straightforward declaration that
Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin never heard them make such statements as Eternity avers, I will immediately get
in contact with the evangelicals and ask them to make apologies for such
serious and grave accusations. This matter is too serious to go by default.
Thousands of our people have read the Eternity
article and are seriously concerned. One of the main pillars of our faith has,
according to Eternity, been removed.
Shall we stand idly by and permit the sanctuary to be trodden under foot, and
that by its supposed supporters?
The Vault Incident
We
shall now return to the two men who entered the White vault in May, 1957, to
counsel with the White Trustees. They had finished their research work, and reported to the board that
they had found "indications" that Sr. White taught that "the
atoning work of Christ is now 1880) in progress in the heavenly
sanctuary." This
discovery was a death-blow to their new theology. It was evidently impossible
to believe that the work of atonement was completed on the cross and was final,
and also to teach that it was still in progress in heaven. Both statements
could not be true. However, the denomination had already committed itself on
this point, and had in 1957 published in the Ministry that the great act on the cross was "a complete,
perfect, and final atonement for man's sin." Ministry, February, 1957. The article said that this is now
"the Adventist understanding of the atonement, confirmed, and illuminated
and clarified by the Spirit of Prophecy." Ibid. This statement has never
been retracted, or modified, or changed, and neither the writer nor editor has
been reproved. It stands.
In
view of the situation, what were the researchers to do? They were faced with the statement of Mrs. White's
that the atonement is now in progress in heaven. They were face to face with the other statement of
the leaders that the atonement was made and finished on the cross. They must
accept one or the other. They chose to go with the leaders.
But
what about Sister White's statements, for there are many of them? It was clear that in
some way her influence must be weakened and her statements watered down. But
that was a delicate piece of work; and whatever was to be done had to be done
in secret. If it were found out in time, the plan would not succeed. If,
however, they could work in secret, and work rapidly, that matter would be a
"fait accompli" - done before any one found out about it.
It was
at this time that a copy of the White
minutes were handed me. I shall now present the minutes, so that all may
see for themselves what was done.
The Minutes, as of May 1, 1957, p. 1483:
'At
this juncture in our work, Elders X and Y were invited to join the Trustees in
discussing further a matter that had been given study in January. Elder X and
his group who have been studying with certain ministers have become acutely
aware of E. G. White statements which indicate that the atoning work of Christ
is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary. In one statement in Fundamentals of Christian Education, the
word "sacrifice" is used. To non-Adventists, unfamiliar with our
understanding of the sanctuary question, references to a continuation of the
atoning work of Christ, are difficult to grasp, and it was suggested to the-Trustees that some
footnotes or Appendix notes might appear in certain of the E. G. White books
clarifying very largely in the words of Ellen White our understanding of the
various phases of the atoning work of Christ. It was felt by the
brethren who joined the Trustees in the discussion that this is a matter which
will come prominently to the front in the near future, and that we would do
well to move forward with the preparation and inclusion of such notes in future
printings of the E. G. White's writings. The matter was discussed carefully and
earnestly, but at the time that the meeting broke up to accommodate other committees,
no action was taken."
Meeting, May 2, p. 1488. E. G. White
Statements on the Atoning Work of Christ
"The
meeting of the Trustees held May 1 closed with no action taken on the question
which was discussed at length - suitable footnotes or explanations regarding
the E. G. White statements on the atoning work of Christ which indicate a
continuing work at the present time in heaven. Inasmuch as the Chairman of our
board will be away from Washington for the next four months, and the
involvements in this question are such that it must have the most careful
consideration and counsel, "It was VOTED, That we defer consideration
until a later time of the matters that were brought to our attention by Elders
X and Y involving the E. G. White statements concerning the continuing atoning
work of Christ."
Note
by Ron: Elders X and Y were LeRoy Froom and Roy Allen Anderson. End note.
After
the chairman of the board had returned from his four-month's trip, the matter
was further discussed, and it was decided not to grant the request. This action is worthy of
commendation, but the praise is somewhat dimmed by the fact that it took eight
months to come to this decision, and that they did not arrive at this
conclusion until the plan had become known.
This report stunned me. How did anyone dare
to suggest inclusions in Sister White's writings to bolster the new view? I pondered long, and prayed much. Did I have any
responsibility in this matter? If I did, it would be my duty to speak to one
man, and one only. As the transgression was not against me but against the
church and our most holy faith, it was my duty to speak to our highest officer.
This I did.
In my
letter of February 27, 1957, I had voiced my fear of publishing the proposed
book, Questions on Doctrine, as it
had been prepared altogether too hurriedly and-after only a short time of
study. Books of this kind
cannot be written on short notice and should be prepared by men who have given
a life-time of study to the subject and spent years in research of the
Testimonies.
March
7, 1957, I received this answer- "I notice your observation:
'I
fear greatly for the contents of the book that is being published setting forth
our belief.' I do not believe, Brother Andreasen, that you need to fear for
what will appear in the book. It is being carefully gone over by a *group of
capable men in whom we have the utmost confidence. I feel quite confident you
will be happy with the results."
In my
answer of March 11, I again expressed my fear of the contents of the book.
Referring to an article that appeared in the Ministry, February, 1957, I said: "If the committee agrees
with his published views, I must most earnestly protest. For the views are most
certainly not Adventist doctrine, but views derived from a superficial study of
certain portions of the writings of Sr. White, and do not represent the general
teachings." I finished with these words:
"I hereby lodge my protest against the
publication at this time of any doctrine of the atonement, and wish my protest
to be duly recorded. I can but feel that some of the brethren have been led
into the present predicament by a desire to be like the nations around us
(churches) and that we will yet rue the day when we began making concessions
because of pressure from outside sources."
Receiving
no answer, I wrote again May 10, 1957:
"I
trust that you get the idea that I am in earnest. I have the utmost confidence
in you. In my more than sixty years of official connection with the
denomination, one of my chief aims has been to inspire confidence in the Spirit
of Prophecy. The last two years I have spoken on the subject 204 times. I have
felt that our people needed help, and I have tried to help them. I am
heartbroken of what the future seems to hold unless God helps us. May the Lord
give you both wisdom and courage to do what the situation demands."
After
I had come into possession of the confidential minutes of the White Estate
board, I followed Christ's instruction to "speak to him alone," and
sent four letters to our chief officer. June 26 1957, I received this answer:
"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.
End
entry for June 13
Entry
for June 14
"Referring
to the book on Questions and Answers,
let me assure you here, too, that this is not the work of the brethren whose names
you mention. It is true that they did certain original work, but it was taken
out of their hands and is the product of a large group of men rather than a
few." July 4, 1957, I answered. Here is part of this answer.
"I
fear the day may come when this matter will become known to the people. It will
shake the faith of the whole denomination. Of course, some will rejoice that at
last Sr. White has been disposed of. Others will weep and cry to the Lord for
consolation, 'Spare thy people, and give not thine heritage to reproach.' And
when we are caught in our own net, will the churches of the world gloat?
Please, brother, see to it that the proposed book is not published. It will be
fatal. If there is no
atoning work now going on in the sanctuary above, then the denomination may as
well admit their mistake openly and fairly, and abide by the consequences. Let
us throw Sr. White aside, and no longer hypocritically defend her writings, but
behind thee scenes edit them and still claim that they are her work. . . . I
close with an expression of high regard for you, facing the greatest apostasy
the church has ever faced."
September
18, 1957, I received this communication.
"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." September 27, 1957, I answered:
"I
thank you for your letter of September 18, wherein you state that 'the matter
to which you refer is closed.' I called for an investigation. This you denied.
You have condoned the men involved, and you have also said I had no right to
use the information which has come to me, and then you closed the door. May I explain that the only way
I have used my information is to inform you, and no one else. What else could I
do? You state that if such information had come to you, you would not have used
it. Quite an admission. I consider the present instance the greatest apostasy
that has ever occurred in this denomination, and this you would have kept under
cover! And now, you have closed the door. . . . I do not believe, Brother
Figuhr, that you have considered the seriousness of the situation. Our people
will not stand for any tampering with, or attempt to tamper with the
Testimonies. It will give them an uneasy feeling that all is not well at
headquarters.
"Read again my letter of September
12. You can save the situation, but only as you are willing to open up the
matter. You are about to ruin the denomination. I am praying for you."
My
correspondence with Washington proceeded along this line until on December 16,
1957, I received this ultimatum:
"They
(the officers) therefore request that you cease your activities."
Three
days later I received this additional word: "This will place you in plain
opposition to your church, and will undoubtedly bring up the matter of your
relationship to the church. In view of all this, the officers, as I have
previously written, earnestly ask you to cease your activities."
Up
till this time there had been no suggestion of a hearing. I was simply ordered
to cease my activity, and the implied threat that if I did not do this,
"it will undoubtedly bring up the matter of your relationship to the
church." There was no suggestion of a hearing, I was simply ordered to
stop my activity. I would
be condemned without recourse. The threat that my name would come up for
consideration could mean anything. There was no question raised as to the justice of my complaint. I was
condemned already; the only question was what my punishment would be.
This brought to mind what had been
published in the Eternity Extra, that
our men had "explained to Mr. Martin that they (the Adventists) had among
their number certain members of their "lunatic fringe even as there are
similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental
Christianity."
In contrast to this lunatic fringe they had a "sane leadership,"
meaning themselves. I do not know how our leaders conducted themselves while
with the evangelicals, but they left the impression upon these men that "the majority group of sane
leadership (which) is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to
hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the
denomination." Eternity Extra,
September, 1956, p. 2.
Let the reader ponder this. We have a sane
leadership according to their own estimation. We have also a lunatic fringe of
wild-eyed irresponsibles. This sane leadership is determined to put the brakes
on "any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the
responsible leadership of the denomination."
I could not believe this when I first read
it. Here I was, for fifty years an honored member of the church, having held
responsible positions. But if I dared hold "views divergent from that of
the responsible leadership of the denomination," I became a member of the
"wild-eyed irresponsibles" who constituted the "lunatic
fringe" of the denomination; and without a hearing I was ordered to cease
my activity or feel the "brakes" applied. If I did not now have the documents before me, I would
have difficulty in believing that any "sane leadership" would attempt
to stifle criticism and make threats against any members who seek to hold views
divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the church. Had it come to
this? Rome went but little
further.
Some will object that this is only what the
evangelicals say of our leaders. The fact remains that our men have never
protested against these accusations. My own case makes clear that without any
trial or hearing I was to be brought before the tribunal, not for a hearing,
but to be condemned without a hearing by the men who had appointed themselves
as judges. It is to be had in mind that this was before the General Conference
of 1958, before the new theology had been officially accepted, and before the
denomination had an opportunity to express itself on the subject. All public
criticism must cease. If I did not cease, it will "undoubtedly bring up
the matter of your relationship to the church." This was an ultimatum.
How
did I react to this? As any man would. Here was a usurpation of authority. I
wrote that I was a man of peace, and that I could be reasoned with, but not
threatened. I felt, and I now
feel, that this denomination is facing the apostasy foretold long ago, that our
leaders are following the exact procedure which the Spirit of Prophecy outlined
they would follow, and that I have a duty which I must not shirk. I regret very
much that our leaders by their actions have made it possible for our enemies to
bring deserved reproach to God's cause. In my early letters I mentioned again
and again that our enemies would sooner or later discover our weakness and make
capital of it. I pleaded with our leaders to make amends for what had been
done; but without results. We are now reaping what we have sown.
In my next letter I shall recount the
efforts I have made to get a hearing - not a secret hearing, but a public
hearing - and if that was not thought best, a private hearing, but one that
would be recorded and of which I would get a copy. In this I have failed. I
shall give the documented reasons for my failure to get a recorded hearing.
I have
been asked what I expect to accomplish. I have received hundreds of letters
pledging support if I will only do certain things. I answer very few letters,
as it is physically impossible for me to enter into correspondence. I have
received many offers of advice and direction, but I don't want to involve
others. I have had all manner of motives attributed to me, some good people
apparently failing to understand that to attribute motives is judging. Also, it seems impossible for some
to understand that doctrine in itself is important enough to furnish motive to
protest. In this crisis we are now in, it would be cowardice for me to fail to
come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty.
I have
had three delegations come to me to plead with me to do something
"practical." In effect they said: "We are with you, but you are
not going at the matter in a practical way. The moment we take our stand with
you, we may, and probably will, lose our position. (They were ministers.) If
you had something to offer us, if you would start another movement which we
could join, we would go with you. But to be left stranded without any prospect,
is unrealistic. You will never get anywhere unless you have something to
offer."
To
that I answer that I am a Seventh-day Adventist, that I am not interested in
starting any movement, and that I do not care for the support of any who hold
such views. They are not the kind of material that will stand in the coming
crisis.
I am a
Seventh-day Adventist, rejoicing in the truth. Right and truth will triumph in
the end. I am hoping that as the truth of the present situation becomes known,
there will be men and women who will protest and exert influence enough to
effect certain changes in our organization that will ensure men in holy office
that are faithful to the truth once delivered to the saints.
I end
this with hearty greeting to all. My next letter on the matter of a hearing
should be an interesting one. Till then, may the dear Lord be with you.
End
June 14 entry.
June
15 entry:
CHAPTER
5 - WHY NOT A HEARING?
In a
previous letter I have related how in the month of May, 1957, I came into possession
of some official minutes of the White Board of Trustees - supposed to be secret
- which revealed an attempt to tamper with the Testimonies by having inserted
in some of the volumes notes and explanations that would make it appear that
Sr. White was in harmony with, or at least not opposed to, the new theology
advocated in the Ministry and the
book Questions on Doctrine. I was
dumfounded when I read this official document, and doubly perplexed when I
learned that this plan had the sanction of the leadership, and was approved
procedure. This would mean that men could freely attempt to have insertions
made in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy that would vitiate or change the
intended meaning of what Sr. White had written. What assurance could we then
have that the books being published were the unadulterated teachings of the
author, and that they were not "remedied and corrected" as were other
books, according to the account in the Eternity-Extra,
of September, 1956?
While
I felt uneasy at what the men had attempted to do, my real concern was the
realization that this had been approved by the administration, and was
henceforth to be accepted policy. Men could now go to the White Board, and with
its approval, have inserted explanations and notes secretly and privately
before any one would find out what was happening. And they could do this with
the assurance that if any one learned of this and revealed what was being done,
the administration would deal with such and threaten them unless they ceased their
"activity."
In my
case, I was told that the minutes were confidential, that I had no right to
have them or even read them. Though I had quoted directly and correctly from
the official minutes,' I was told, "You are doing all this upon hearsay
and upon confidential minutes which you have no right even to read." Letter, December 1957. While the men wished to insert
"notes," "explanations," "appendix notes,"
"foot notes," "suitable notes," "in future printings
of the E. G. White writings," (note that all these statements are
in the plural) the chairman minimized the matter by declaring in a letter of
September 20, 1957, that all it involved was a "cross reference inserted
at the bottom of a certain page;" that is, one cross reference, at the bottom
of one page, in one of Sr. White's books. This is altogether at variance with
the official record. How can this discrepancy be explained?
My
first thought and hope was that I would be called to account immediately, and
be asked to prove my charges or retract them; that an impartial group of men
would be asked to conduct a hearing. But in this I was disappointed.
The
first reaction to my "activity" came in a letter of December 16,
1957. There I was told: "The question of your activity was discussed by
the officers of the General Conference and they deeply deplore what you are
doing. They therefore request you to cease your present activities."
Before I had an opportunity to answer, I received the following on December 19:
"I
wish to repeat what I wrote you before, that men have a perfect right to go to
boards, including the White Estate group, and make their suggestions without
the fear of being disciplined or dealt with as heretics. When we recall that
you are doing all this upon hearsay, and upon confidential minutes which you
had no right even to read, it certainly impresses one as not the Adventist way
of doing things. You were not present at this board meeting, and all you know
about it is hearsay and the brief notes recorded by the secretary of that
meeting . . . . Now for you to go forward and broadcast a matter like this,
certainly puts you in an unenviable light. If you do this, we shall have to do
some broadcasting, too. This will again place you in plain opposition to your
church, and will undoubtedly bring up the matter of your relationship to the
church. In view of all this, the officers as I have previously written,
earnestly ask you to cease your activities."
As will be noted, there was no suggestion
of a hearing to ascertain the truth or falsity of my charges. I was simply
asked to cease my "activities," or else . . .
How
did I react to this? As any man would under threat. I answered that I was a man
of peace, that I could be reasoned with, but not threatened. I asked them to go
ahead with their plans. I was ready for whatever might come.
What
would come? I did not know what was meant by considering my "relationship
to the church." It might mean anything. I know what impression they had
left upon Dr. Barnhouse if any should object to their usurped authority. Here
is what he recorded.
"The position of the Adventists seems
to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to them it may be merely
the position of the majority group of sane leadership which is determined to
put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the
responsible leadership of the denomination." Eternity Extra, September 1, 1956.
It seems unfortunate that
our leaders should have left such an impression upon the evangelicals. This
statement has now been in print three years. The attention of our leaders has
been called to it and requests made that they disavow any such intention. But
they have made no such disavowal or protest, and our people have somewhat
reluctantly come to the conclusion that Mr. Barnhouse is correct in his
estimate of our leaders. Add to this what Mr. Martin reports the leaders told
him, that "they (the Adventists) have among their number certain members
of their 'lunatic fringe' even as there are similar 'wild-eyed irresponsibles' in
every field of fundamental Christianity." This is what our leaders told the evangelicals in
discussing the important topic of the nature of Christ while in the flesh.
These statements I consider an insult. It shows the contempt our leaders have
for those who disagree with them. I think these statements are ample ground for
impeachment. Our people are longsuffering, but this is the first time of which
I know that insults are heaped upon loyal Seventh-day Adventists by the
leaders.
The only
meeting I have ever had with our leaders was one day in February, 1958, when
two officers asked me to meet with them for the few minutes they had to spare
between sessions of their business meetings. The chief thing seemed to be their
desire to know if I intended to continue my "activity." I told them I
would. A remark was made as to why I had not asked for a hearing. It had never
occurred to me that I should ask for a hearing. I expected to be summoned. But
thinking it over, the next day I wrote:
"I
did not know that you wanted me to come to Washington for a hearing or
discussion as you never mentioned such a thing. If that is your desire, I am
ready to come. . . . I have only one request, that the hearing be public; or
that a stenographer be present, and that I receive a copy of the-minutes."
letter, February 5, 1957.
In
response to this I received this, dated February 10, inviting me to come,
saying:
"In
compliance with your wish, the brethren see no objection whatever in recording
our conversation. It is suggested that a tape-recording would likely be the
most practical way of doing this."
This
was satisfactory to me. I noted, however, that nothing was said of my receiving
a copy of the minutes. But perhaps, I thought, this was taken for granted, as I
had made this a condition, and they had accepted my proposition. But I felt
uneasy. If I should write for further confirmation it might appear that I was
questioning their sincerity. But when by February 21, I had received no further
word, I wrote:
"Whether
by oversight or intent, you did not answer my request that I be given a copy of
the minutes. This is necessary; for in any discussion of what is said or not
said, it will be my word against that of twelve. I cannot afford to put myself
in that position. This is the condition upon which I come."
To
this I received a reply dated February 27:
"In
the matter of record, I think I indicated in my letter of February 10 that the
brethren had in mind recording on tape the proceedings of the meeting. This
would provide a full record of what is said and done. We assume that such a
complete record would be agreeable to you."
I had
asked for a copy of the minutes, and this letter assured me that a tape
recording would be made which would "provide a full record of what is said
and done." It was assumed "that such a complete record would be
agreeable to you." It would be. At last I was assured that a full and
complete record would be made, and that according to their own suggestion it
would be taperecorded. I could ask for no more.
But having read Questions on Doctrine carefully, I had noticed that certain things
would be said on one page, and a few pages further on this would be ignored. I
had made note of certain double-tongued expressions, and it gave me a sense of
uncertainty. I could not avoid the conviction that some of these expressions
were used for the purpose of confusion and were intended to mislead, I
therefore reread the letters I had written, and also those I had received,
especially the portions dealing with my request for a copy of the minutes. I
found that nowhere had my request been acknowledged, but the issue had been
avoided. This made me wonder. Had there throughout been a studied purpose not
to give me a copy of the minutes, while the letters were so worded as to give
the impression that I would get a copy? The evidence seemed to substantiate my
suspicion. To make sure of my ground, I wrote on March 4 that I wanted absolute
assurance, plainly stated, that I would get a "full and complete copy of the
minutes" each as had been mentioned. I closed by saying: "On this
point I must have absolute assurance."
As by
March 12 I received no answer, I wrote again, "I am still waiting for
definite word that not only will a tape recording be made, but that I will get
a copy. As I stated in my first letter, this is a necessary condition."
March
18 this answer came:
"You
have referred to a desire to have minutes kept, and also a copy of the minutes.
In discussing this with the officers, it occurs to the brethren that we do
this, which would seem fair to all concerned: a secretary be appointed from the
group to write out the conclusions we arrive at, and these be submitted to the
whole group for approval, after which each will be given a copy. We believe,
Brother Andreasen, that this suggestion will be agreeable to you."
This
was a wholly new and entirely different suggestion. After I had been told in
the February 27th letter, that a tape-recording would be made, a
"full" record of "what was said and done," and hope expressed
that such "a complete record would be agreeable" to me, I was now presented with a new and
previously unheard of proposal, a complete face-about. There would be no
stenographer, no taperecording, no minutes at all, but one of the men would
write down the conclusions arrived at. And that was supposed to be
agreeable to me! It certainly was not agreeable to me. It was a complete breach
of faith. It was like substituting Leah for Rachel, a dishonorable transaction.
I felt as did Jacob that I had been beguiled. Three weeks earlier, I had been promised "a complete
copy" of the minutes which it was hoped would be agreeable to me. Now I
was offered a copy of the conclusions, which it was also hoped would be
agreeable to me.
This March 18 letter reveals the fact that
it was never the intention to give me a copy of the minutes, and yet they had
played me along, thinking I would accept their suggestion, coming to a hearing
or discussion, and having no record whatever of the discussion, but only of the
conclusions. In the dark ages heretics were
taken and convicted in secret. There was no habeas corpus act in existence
then. And now the officers suggested an unrecorded session, where only a few
would be present and no record of any kind be made! I consider this an immoral suggestion. Of what
were they afraid? Moreover, before coming to such a hearing the condition was
made "that you agree, in submitting your case to the General Conference
committee, to abide by the decision of the committee." (Letter of May 13, 1958). This
clearly reveals the intent of the committee. A hearing is to be held, a secret
hearing, and a discussion entered into, but before the hearing or discussion is
held, I am to agree to
accept their conclusion and verdict. Under these conditions, how could they
help winning their case?
It appears that the officers had in
mind appointing themselves accusers, jurors, judges, and executors. In *a case involving points of doctrine where of
necessity there must be discussion to arrive at sound conclusions, a neutral
committee of men not directly involved in the controversy must hear the case.
No judge ever hears a case where he is personally interested. He refuses to sit
on a case where he is even remotely concerned. But our officers appoint
themselves to hear the case and act as arbiters in a dispute involving points
of theology, with powers to act, and ask that one side agree beforehand to
accept whatever decision might be made. This, of course, is tantamount to
accept the dictum of men elevated as administrators, executives, promoters,
financiers, organizers and counselors to have jurisdiction over doctrine, for
which work they are not educated. I have heard every one of them say, "I
am no theologian."
March
26, 1958, I answered the letter which stated that there would be no record of
any kind, but that I would get a copy of the conclusions. I did not need this.
I knew beforehand what they would be, for I had already been judged and
threatened. I had purposely been kept in ignorance of the intent not to give me
a copy of the minutes but to try me secretly. Apparently it was the intention
to keep the matter from becoming known, and if I agree beforehand to accept
their conclusions, I could be accused of breaking my promise if I made any
further comment. If I could be induced to come to Washington under these
conditions, I surely would be "sunk." With the whole case in mind,
with the repeated evasions of my request for a copy of the minutes, I felt I
had been deceived and ended my letter by saying, "Your broken promise
cancels the agreement." My faith in men had been severely shaken.
April
3 I received an answer stating that my letter "had been received and its
content presented to the officers." There was no mention whatever of my
statement, "Your broken promise cancels the agreement," the most
important part. Also, this statement was not read to the officers, for a month
later I received a letter saying, "Through others I have learned that you
feel we have broken our promise to you." This perversion of my words has
gone out to the field, who would naturally believe that I had written to others
and not to the person concerned. I don't do that kind of work.
In
this same letter of April 3, the writer states:
"It
is true, as you state, that a tape recording was suggested at first, without a
promise, however, of giving you a copy. Since making this suggestion, we have
thought further about the matter and believe that such recording would not be a wise plan to follow. . .
. A tape recording of every little remark would not be fair to the
participants. In such discussions it is not uncommon for earnest men to
make a slip which they later regret and correct. Mortal man is subject to such
errors; but why preserve them? The sincere purpose of the meeting would be to
arrive at conclusions together. . As I look over your letters, this would
appear to be in accord with your original suggestion."
This
makes clear several matters. It admits that a tape-recording was suggested at
first. It also makes clear that it was never the intention of giving me a copy,
though the letters were written to hide this fact. It also states that the
officers changed their mind and decided that it would not be a wise plan to
record anything, as it "would not be fair to the participants," a most
astounding reason, and revealing a most decided weakness. And then the last
untrue statement: "As I look over your letters, this would appear to be in
accord with your original suggestion."
Greater untruth was
never uttered. I challenge the writer who says he looked over, my letters to
find any place where I say or intimate any such thing. And yet, this impression
has gone to the field from Washington. Never suspecting that Washington would
tell anything but the absolute truth, the men in the field who were admonished
to "hold the line," naturally would believe that this was my
"original suggestion." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Again and again, again and
again, I stressed in all my letters that I wanted a copy of the minutes, and
now the writer says as he looks over my letters that a copy of the conclusions
was my original suggestion. What was his reason for such patent
misstatement? I think I know. Is it possible that news from Washington is given
a biased slant?
Why
This Sudden Change?
There must
have been some weighty reasons why it was suddenly decided not to have any
record at all, after it was first decided to have a complete and full record
"of all that was said and done?" The records of the 1888 crisis, the Alpha of apostasy,
have largely disappeared, and the existing records are safely hidden and not
available. We do not want a like situation in the time of the Omega. Let there
be light.
I do
not know why the change came about. I can only surmise. It was understood that
my "activity" would be considered as well as my relationship to the
church. The brethren also suggested that perhaps I had some matters also that
should be discussed. I had. I made a list of these subjects. Here it is:
1. Elder Froom's articles, particularly those in the February
number of the Ministry, 1957,
downgrading Mrs. White.
2. The vault visits of Elders Anderson and Read in regard to
having insertions made in the writings of Mrs. White, and the general policies
now prevailing.
3. A list of the topics discussed with the evangelicals,
which had taken "hundreds of hours," and the main conclusions
reached.
4. A detailed list of the books "remedied and
corrected" at the recommendation of Mr. Martin, and a further list of
books yet to be remedied.
5. The $3,000 law suit.
6. Proselytization. What was agreed to?
7. The meaning of "putting the brakes on" and
"lunatic fringe" and "wild-eyed irresponsibles."
8. The new university and the languishing foreign fields.
9. "Exchange monies."
10. A complete audit by a responsible firm of public
accountants.
This list
I did not send to Washington, for I well knew that it would be a matter of
months to compass such a program. I suggested only a few subjects, and of
course, I did know what the results would be. But, curiously enough, at just
this time the brethren decided that it would not be wise to have any recording
made. Under the circumstances I agree with their decision. The pusillanimous
reason given for not having a record made− that the brethren
might make remarks of which they later would repent− is simply inane. But let there be no misunderstanding.
An accounting will yet have to be made.
To top
it all comes this in the April 3 letter: "You never asked for a
hearing." I will let the reader decide this question for himself. I
answered:
"Make no mistake on that point. I not
only want a hearing, but such a hearing must be held if this sorry matter is
ever to be settled. You say that you wonder if I am really sincere in wanting a
hearing. Yes, I want a hearing, I demand one. Not a secret hearing. An open
one, or else with a full and complete record of all that is said and done. This
has been my desire from the beginning. No star chamber proceedings."
My
last communication to headquarters was dated June 28, 1958. I asked if it was
still the determination to give me a hearing with a tape-recording for me. A
secretary answered:
"With reference to a
tape-recording of the meeting, I am instructed to say that our correspondence
reveals no promise of a tape-recording for you. If desired, one can be made,
but it will be kept in this office for a permanent record as previously
stated."
This leaves me free. I
have exhausted all means of corresponding with the men I should address. I can
now speak to the church, as Christ said might be done if other means fail. This
I shall do. But I still hold myself ready to come to a hearing or trial,
properly conducted and properly recorded. Let the light in.
On
page 383 of the book Questions on
Doctrine occurs the statement that Christ "was exempt from the inherited passions and
pollutions that corrupt the natural descendents of Adam."
This is not a quotation from the Spirit of Prophecy. It
is a new doctrine that has never appeared in any Statement of Belief of the
Seventh-day Adventist denomination, and is in direct conflict with our former
statements of doctrine. It has not been "adopted by the General Conference
in quadrennial session when accredited delegates from the whole field are
present," as Questions on Doctrine
says must be done if it is to be official. See page 9. It is therefore not
approved or accepted doctrine.
End
June 15 entry
June
16 entry
There
are two statements in the Testimonies which are referred to as proving that
Christ was exempt from inherited passions. The first says that Christ "is
our example in all things. He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in
possessing like passions." Testimonies,
vol. 2, p. 202. The other states, "He was a mighty petitioner, not
possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like
infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are." Ibid., p. 509. Both of
these statements mention passions, neither mentions pollutions. The word exempt
is not found.
Does
Sr. White's statement that Christ did not have or possess passions mean that He
was exempt from them? No, for not to have passions is not equivalent to being
exempt from them. They are two entirely different concepts. Exempt is defined
"to free or excuse from some burdensome obligation; to take out, deliver,
set free as from a rule which others must observe, which binds others; to be
immune from." Was Christ excused from "a rule which others must
observe, which binds others"? No, "God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe,
subject to (not exempt from) the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet
life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every
child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss."
Desire of Ages, p. 49.
"While He was a child, He thought
and spoke as a child, but no trace of sin marred the image of God within Him.
Yet He was not exempt from temptation. He was subject to (not exempt from) all
the conflicts which we have to meet." Ibid., p. 71.
"God
spared not His own Son." Romans 8.:32. "No child of humanity will
ever be called to live a holy life amid so fierce a conflict with temptation as
was our Saviour." Desire of Ages,
p. 71. "It was
necessary for Him to be constantly on guard to preserve His purity." Ibid.
A man may not have cancer, but does that mean that he is immune from it, exempt
from it? Not at all. Next year he may be afflicted with it. Sr. White does not
say that Christ was exempt from passions. She says He did not have passions,
did not possess passions, not that He was immune from them.
Why did Christ not have passions? Because "the soul
must purpose the sinful act before passion can dominate over reason, or
iniquity triumph over conscience." Testimonies,
vol. 5, p. 177. And Christ did not purpose any
sinful act. Not for a moment was there in Him a sinful propensity. He was pure,
holy, undefiled. But this did not mean that He was exempt from temptation or
sin. "He could have sinned, He could have fallen." Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128. I am still puzzled how any one
can make Sr. White say that Christ was exempt, when she says just the opposite,
and does not use the word exempt.
Is Temptation Sin?
Temptation is not sin; but it may
become so if we yield to it. "When impure thoughts are
cherished, they need not be expressed in word or act to consummate the sin and
bring the soul into condemnation." Testimonies,
vol. 4, p. 623. "An impure thought tolerated, an unholy desire cherished,
and the soul is contaminated. . . . Every unholy thought must be instantly
repelled." Testimonies,
vol. 5, p. 177.
Satan
tempts us to get us to sin. God uses controlled temptation to strengthen us and
teach us to resist. Satan tempted Adam in the garden; he tempted Abraham and
all the prophets; he tempted Christ; he tempts all men, but God will "not suffer you to be
tempted above that ye are able." 1 Corinthians 10:13.
"Christ
was a free moral agent who could have sinned had He so desired. He was at
liberty to yield to Satan's temptations and work at cross-purposes with God. If
this were not so, if it had not been possible for Him to fall, He could not have been tempted in
all points as the human family is tempted." Youth's Instructor, October 28, 1899.
The Great Law of Heredity
Questions on Doctrine says, page 383, that Christ was "exempt from the
inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendents of
Adam." Every child, that is born into this world, inherits varying traits
from his ancestors. Did Christ likewise inherit such traits? Or was He exempt?
Here is the answer:
"Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of
the great law of heredity."
Desire
of Ages, p. 48. "What these results were is shown in the history of His
earthly ancestors." Ibid. Some of these ancestors were good people; some
were not so good; some were bad; some were very bad. There were thieves,
murderers, adulterers, deceivers, among them. He had the same ancestors that
all of us have. "He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and
temptations." Ibid.
"Jesus accepted humanity when the race
had been weakened by four thousand years of sin." Ibid.
In view
of these and many other statements, how can any say that He was exempt? Far
from being exempt or reluctantly submitting to these conditions, He accepted
them. Twice this is stated in the quotations here made. He accepted the results
of thee working of the great. law of heredity, and with "such heredity He
came to share our sorrows and temptations."
The choice of the devout Adventist is
therefore between Questions on Doctrine
and Desire of Ages, between falsehood
and truth. "God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the
weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with
every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it,
at the risk of failure and eternal loss." Desire of Ages, p. 49.
"Christ knew that the enemy would
come to every human being to take advantage of hereditary weakness. . . and by
passing over the ground which man must travel, our Lord has prepared the way
for us to overcome." Desire of Ages, pp. 122, 123. "Upon Him who had laid off His glory, and accepted
the weakness of humanity, the redemption of the world must rest." Ibid.,
p. 11.
Few,
even of our ministers, know anything of what Sr. White calls the great law of
heredity. Yet this is the law which made the incarnation effective and made
Christ a real man, like one of us in all things. That Christ should be like one
of us in all things, Paul
considered a moral necessity on the part of God, and makes bold so to state.
Says he: "In all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren,
that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to
God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people; for in that He Himself
hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."
Hebrews 2:17, 18. Behoved here means "ought to," a moral duty
devolving upon God.
The great law of heredity was decreed by God to make
salvation possible, and is one of the elemental laws that has never been
abrogated. Take that law away, and we have no Saviour that can be of help or
example to us. Graciously Christ "accepted" this law, and thus made
salvation possible. To teach that Christ was exempt from this law negates
Christianity and makes the incarnation a pious hoax May God deliver Seventh-day
Adventists from such teaching and teachers!
I have
not touched upon the subject of pollution, though it is mentioned in Questions on Doctrine in connection with
passions. Christ was subject to the great law of heredity, but that has nothing
to do with pollution. Impure thoughts tolerated, unholy desires cherished, evil
passions indulged in, will issue in contamination, pollution, and downright
sin. But Christ was not affected by any of this. He "received no
defilement;" "Jesus,
coming to dwell in humanity, received no pollution." Desire of Ages, p. .266.
Passion
and pollution are two different things, and should not be placed together as
they are in Questions on Doctrine. Passion can generally be equated
with temptation, and as such is not sin. An impure thought may come unbidden even on a sacred
occasion, but it will not defile; it is not sin, unless it is dwelt upon and
tolerated. An unholy desire may suddenly flash to mind at Satan's instigation;
but it is not sin unless it is cherished.
The
law of heredity applies to passions and not to pollutions. If pollution is
hereditary, then Christ would have been polluted when He came to this world and
could not therefore be "that holy thing." Luke 1:35. Even the children of an unbelieving
husband are called holy, a statement that should be a comfort to the wives of
such husbands. 1 Corinthians 7:14. As Adventists, however, we do not believe in original
sin.
On this
matter of pollution there is much to say. But as the problem we are facing
deals only with passions, we shall not discuss pollutions further. On occasion I may have more to
say about passions, for I consider the statement in Questions on Doctrine deadly heresy, destructive of the atonement.
My next
letter will be the last one in this series. But if the reader will consult the
list of ten subjects which I have enumerated elsewhere in this letter, he will
see that there is yet much to be done. And that list is not exhaustive.
However, I shall give time for what I have said to sink in, for large bodies
move slowly, and it takes time for the leaven to "leaven the whole
lump." But the leaven is working, and in due time expected results will
come. But I am in no haste. Time is with truth, and truth will make its way,
and is not dependent on any human instrument. I get many encouraging letters,
and am thankful for them, and only sorry that I must leave most of them
unanswered. One rather prominent man from Washington wrote me of the confusion
existing there, and stated: "We are watching events, and when the time
comes, we will be ready to act. Personally, I do not believe that the time is
quite ripe, but nearly so. We are with you, and you can depend on us."
I am
glad to report that my health is good, and that I am enjoying life to the
limit. It is wonderful to live in such a time as this. "I am immortal till
my work is done." That may be tomorrow, but if so, I am satisfied and
ready."
Greetings
to all my friends with 1 Thessalonians 5:25.
End
June 17 entry
The
serious student of the atonement is likely to be perplexed when he consults the
Spirit of Prophecy to find two sets of apparently contradictory statements in
regard to the atonement. He will find that when Christ "offered Himself on
the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people." Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899. He
will find that the Father bowed before the cross "in recognition of its
perfection. 'It is enough,' He said, 'the atonement is complete."' Review and Herald, September 24, 1901.
But in
Great Controversy he will find this: "At the conclusion of the
2300 days, in 1844, Christ entered the most holy place of the heavenly
sanctuary, to perform the closing work of the atonement." p. 422. In Patriarchs and Prophets p. 357, I read that sins will "stand
on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement." (in 1844) Page 358
states that in "the final atonement the sins of the truly penitent are to
be blotted from the records of heaven." Early Writings, p. 253, says that "Jesus entered the most holy
of the heavenly at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, to make the fine
atonement."
The
first set of statements says that the atonement was made on the cross; the
other says that the final atonement was made 1800 years later. I have found
seven statements that the atonement was made on the cross; I have twenty-two statements that
the final atonement was made in heaven. Both of these figures are
doubtless incomplete; for there may be others that have escaped my attention.
It is evident, however, that I
may not accept one set of statements and reject the other if I wish to arrive
at truth. The question therefore is which statements are true? Which are
false? Or, are both true? If so, how can they be harmonized?
I was
perplexed when in the February number of the Ministry, 1957 I found the statement that "the sacrificial act
of the cross (was) a complete, perfect, and final atonement." This was in
distinct contradiction to Mrs. White's pronouncement that the final atonement
began in 1844. I thought that this might be a misprint, and wrote to Washington
calling attention to the matter, but found it was not a misprint but an
official and approved statement. If we still hold the Spirit of Prophecy as of
authority, we therefore have two contradictory beliefs: the final atonement was
made at the cross; the final atonement began in 1844.
Definition
of Atonement
I have
listened to several discussions of the meaning of the Hebrew word
"kaphar," which is the word used in the original for atonement, but
have received little help. The best definition I have found is a short
explanatory phrase in Patriarchs and
Prophets, p. 358, which simply states that the atonement, "the great
work of Christ, or blotting out of sin, was represented by the services on the
day of atonement."
This
definition is in harmony with Leviticus 18:30 which says that "the priest
shall make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all
your sins before the Lord." Atonement is here equated with being
"clean from all your sins." As sin was the cause of separation
between God and man, the removing of sin would again unite God and man. And
this would be at-one-ment.
Christ did not need any
atonement, for He and the Father were always one. John 10:30. Christ prayed for
His disciples "that they may all be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me and I
in Thee, that they may be one in Us." John 17:21.
The
definition of atonement as consisting of three words− at-one-ment− is
by some considered obsolete, but it nevertheless represents vital truth. Mrs.
White thus uses it. Says she: "unless they accept the atonement provided
for them in the remedial sacrifice of Jesus Christ who is our atonement,
at-one-ment, with God." Mss. 122, 1901.
God's plan is that in
"the fulness of time He might gather together in one all things in
Christ."
Ephesians 1:10. When
this is done, "the family of heaven and the family of earth are
one."-Desire of Ages p. 835.
Then "one pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast
creation."-Great Controversy, p.
878. At last the atonement is complete.
Much confusion in regard
to the atonement arises from a neglect to recognize the two divisions of the
atonement. Note what is said of John the Baptist, "He did not distinguish
clearly the two phases of Christ's work - as a suffering sacrifice, and a
conquering king." Desire of Ages,
pp.136, 137. The book Questions on
Doctrine makes the same mistake. It does not distinguish clearly; in fact
it does not distinguish at all; it does not seem to know of the two phases;
hence the confusion.
The
first phase of Christ's atonement was that of a suffering sacrifice. This began
before the world was, included the incarnation, Christ's life on earth, the
temptation in the wilderness, Gethsemane, Golgotha, and ended when God's voice
called Christ from the "stony prison house of death." The fifty third
chapter of Isaiah is a vivid picture of this.
Satan
had overcome Adam in the garden of Eden, and in a short time nearly the whole
world had come under his away. At the time of Noah there were only eight souls
who entered the ark. Satan claimed to be prince of this world, and no one had
challenged him.
But
God did not recognize Satan's claim to dominion, and when Christ came to earth,
the Father "gave the world into the hands of the Son, that through His
mediatorial work He may completely vindicate the holiness and the binding
claims of every precept of the divine law." Bible Echo, January, 1887. This was a challenge to Satan's claim,
and thus began in earnest the great controversy between Christ and Satan.
"Christ
took the place of fallen Adam. With the sins of the world laid upon Him, He
would go over the ground where Adam stumbled." Review and Herald, February 24, 1874. "Jesus volunteered to
meet the highest claims of the law." Ibid., September 2, 1890.
"Christ made Himself responsible for every man and woman on earth."
Ibid., February 27, 1900.
As Satan claimed ownership
of the earth, it was necessary for Christ to overcome Satan before He could
take possession of His kingdom. Satan knew this, and hence made an attempt to
kill Christ as soon as He was born. However, as a contest between Satan and a
helpless child in a manger, would not be fair, God frustrated this.
The first real encounter
between Christ and Satan took place in the wilderness. After forty days of
fasting Christ was weak and emaciated, at death's door. At this time Satan made
his attack. But Christ resisted, even "unto blood," and Satan was
compelled to retire defeated. But he did not give up. Throughout Christ's
ministry, Satan dogged His footsteps, and made every moment a hard battle.
The
climax of Christ's struggle with Satan, came in the garden of Gethsemane.
Hitherto Christ had been upheld by the knowledge of the approval of the Father.
But now He "was overpowered by the terrible fear that God was removing His
presence from Him." Spirit of
Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 95. If God should forsake Him, could He still resist
Satan and die rather than yield? "Three times His humanity shrank from the
last, crowning sacrifice. The fate of humanity trembled in the balance."
Ibid., p. 99. "As the Father's presence was withdrawn, they saw Him
sorrowful with a bitterness of sorrow exceeding that of the last struggle with
death." Desire of Ages, p. 759.
"He fell dying to the ground," but with His last ounce of strength
murmured, 'If this cup may not pass from me except I drink it, Thy will be
done.
'A
heavenly peace rested upon His bloodstained face. He had borne that which no
human being could ever bear; He had tasted the sufferings of death for every
man." Desire of Ages, p. 694. In
His death, He was victor.
"When
Christ said, 'It is finished,' God responded, 'It is finished, the human race
shall have another trial.' The redemption price is paid, and Satan fell like
lightning from heaven." Mss. 11,1897.
"As
the Father beheld the cross He was satisfied. He said, It is enough, the
offering is complete." Signs of the
Times, September 30, 1899. It was necessary, however, that there should be
given the world a stern manifestation of the wrath of God, and so, "in the
grave Christ was the captive of divine justice." M. V. F. February 24, 1898. It must be abundantly attested that
Christ's death was real, so He must "remain in the grave the allotted
period of time." Review and Herald,
April 26, 1898. When the time was expired, a "messenger was sent to
relieve the Son of God from the debt for which He had become responsible, and
for which He had made full atonement." Mss. 94, 1897.
"In
the intercessory prayer of Jesus with His Father, He claimed that He had
fulfilled the conditions which made it obligatory upon the Father to fulfill
His part of the contract made in heaven with regard to fallen man. He prayed,
'I have finished the work which Thou gayest me to do." Mrs. White then
makes this explanation, "That is, He had wrought out a righteous character
on earth as an example for men to follow." Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 280.
The
"contract" between the Father and the Son made in heaven, included
the following: 1. The Son was to work out a "righteous character on earth
as an example for man to follow." 2. Not only was Christ to work out such
a character, but He was to demonstrate that man also could do this; and thus
man would become "more precious than fine gold, even a man than the golden
wedge of Ophir." 3. If Christ thus could present man as a new creature in
Christ Jesus, then God was to "receive repentant and obedient men, and
would love them even as He loves His Son." Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 280; Desire of Ages, p. 790.
Christ
had "fulfilled one phase of His priesthood by dying on the cross. He is
now fulfilling another phase by pleading before the Father the case of
repenting, believing sinners, presenting to God the offerings of His
people." Mss. 42, 1901.
"In
His incarnation He had reached the prescribed limit as a sacrifice, but not as
a redeemer." Mss. 11., 1897. On Golgotha He was the victim, the sacrifice.
That was as far as He could go as a sacrifice. But now His work as redeemer
began. "When Christ cried 'It is finished,' God's unseen hand rent the
strong fabric which composed the veil of the temple from top to bottom. The way
into the holiest of all was made manifest." Ibid.
With
the cross the first phase of
Christ's work as the "suffering sacrifice" ended. He had gone the
"prescribed limit" as a sacrifice. He had finished His work
"thus far." And now, with the Father's approval of the sacrifice, He
was empowered to be the Saviour of mankind. At the ensuing coronation forty
days later He was given-all power in heaven and earth, and officially installed
as High Priest.
End
June 17 entry
June
18 entry
"After His ascension our Saviour
began His work as High Priest. In
harmony with the typical service He began His ministration in the holy
place, and at the termination of the prophetic days in 1844. . . He entered the
most holy to perform the last division of His solemn work, to cleanse the
sanctuary." Spirit of Prophecy,
vol. 4, pp. 265, 266. On the same page, 266,
Sr. White repeats, apparently for emphasis, "at the termination of the
2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly
sanctuary, into the presence of God, to perform the closing work of atonement
preparatory to His coming." The reader cannot fail to note how clearly and
emphatically this is stated. John
the Baptist "did not distinguish clearly the two phases of Christ's work,
as a suffering sacrifice and a conquering king." Desire of Ages, pp. 136, 137. Our theologians are making the same
mistake today - and are inexcusable. They have light, which John did not have.
In studying this part of the atonement, we
are entering a field that is distinctly Adventist, and in which we differ from
all other denominations. This is our unique contribution to religion and theology,
that which "has made us a separate people, and has given character and
power to our work." Counsels to
Editors and Writers, p. 54. In the same
place she warns us against making "void the truths of the atonement, and
destroy our confidence in the doctrines which we have held sacred, since the
third angels message was first given."
This is vital counsel, and written for this
very time when efforts are being made by some among us to have others believe
that we are like the churches about us, an evangelical body and not a sect. Paul, in his day, had the same heresy to meet. He was
accused of being a "pestilent fellow," a "ringleader of the sect
of the Nazarenes." Acts 24:5. In his answer before Felix, Paul confessed that after the
"way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our Fathers believing
all things which are according to the law and which are written in the
prophets." Acts 24:14. R. V. In those days men spoke sneeringly of
the true church as a sect, as men do now. Paul was not disturbed by this. We
have no record that he attempted to have the church of the living God
recognized as an evangelical body by men who trampled the law of God in the
dust. On the contrary, whatever they might call him and his "sect,"
he confessed that he believed "all things which are written in the law and
the prophets." Verse 14.
The religious journal, Christianity Today, states in the March
3, 1958 issue, that "the Adventists today are contending vigorously that
they are truly evangelical. They appear to
want to be so regarded." Mentioning the book, Questions on Doctrine, it says that this "is the Adventist
answer to the question whether it ought to be thought of as a sect or a fellow
evangelical denomination." It states further that "the book" is published in an effort to
convince the religious world that we are evangelical and one of them.
This
is a most interesting and dangerous situation. As one official who was not in
favor of what was being done stated to me: "We are being sold down the river." What a sight
for heaven and earth! The church of the living God which has been given the
commission to preach the gospel to every creature under heaven and call men to
come out of Babylon, is now standing at the door of these churches asking
permission to enter and become one of them. How are the mighty fallen!
Had their plan succeeded, we might now be a member of some evangelical
association and not a distinctive Seventh-day Adventist church any more, in
secrecy "sold down the river." This is more than apostasy. This is giving up Adventism.
It is the rape of a whole people. It is denying God's leading in the past.
It is the fulfillment of what the
Spirit of Prophecy said years ago:
"The
enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was
to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would
consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as pillars of our faith, and
engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place,
what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to
the remnant church would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The
fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years
would be accounted an error. A new organization would be established. Books of
a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be
introduced. . . . Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new
movement," Series B, No. 2, pp. 54, 55.
"Be
not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits
and doctrines of devils. We have before us the alpha of this danger. The omega
will be of a most startling nature." Ibid., p. 18.
"When
men standing in the position of leaders and teachers work under the power of
spiritualistic ideas and sophistries, shall we keep silent for fear of injuring
their influence, while souls are being beguiled? Those who feel so very
peaceable in regard to the works of the men who are spoiling the faith of the
people of God, are guided by a delusive sentiment." Ibid., pp. 9, 11.
"Renewed
energy is now needed. Vigilant action is called for. Indifference and sloth
will result in the loss of personal religion and of heaven. My message to you
is: No longer consent to
listen without protest to the perversion of truth. We must firmly refuse
to be drawn away from the platform of eternal truth, which since 1844 has stood
the test." Ibid., pp. 14,15,50.
"I
hesitated and delayed about the sending out of that which the Spirit of the
Lord impelled me to write. I did not want to be compelled to present the
misleading influence of these sophistries. But in the providence of God, the
errors that have been coming
in must be met." Ibid., p. 55.
"What
influence is it that would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhanded, powerful way to tear
down the foundation of our faith - the foundation that was laid at the
beginning of our work by prayerful study of the word and by revelation?
Upon this foundation we have been building the past fifty years. Do you wonder
that when I see the beginning of a work that would remove some of the pillars
of our faith, I have something to say?. I must obey the command, 'Meet
it.'" Ibid., p. 58.
All
this was written to meet the apostasy in the alpha period. We are now in the omega period
which Sr. White said would come, and which would be of a "startling
nature." And the words are even more applicable now than then. Is
the reader one of "those who feel so very peaceable in regard to the works
of the men who are spoiling the faith of the people of God?" Ibid., p. 11.
"Shall we keep silent for fear of injuring their influence, while souls are being beguiled?"
Ibid., p.
9. It
is time to stand up and be counted. There are times when I have been tempted to
think that I stood alone as did Elijah. But God told him that there were 7000
others. There are more than that now, thank God. They need to reveal themselves
- and they are doing it. Most heartening are the letters I am receiving. It is
with deep regret that I find I am unable to enter into extended correspondence.
I am overwhelmed with work.
Christ's
death on the cross corresponds to the moment when on the day of atonement the
high priest had just killed the Lord's goat in the court. The death of the goat
was necessary, for without its blood there could be no atonement. But the death in and of itself
was not the atonement, though it was the first and necessary step. Sr.
White speaks of the "atonement commenced on earth." Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 261. Says
Scripture: "It is the blood that maketh atonement." Leviticus 17:11.
And, of course, there could be no blood until after the death had taken place.
Without a blood ministration the people would be in the same position as those
who on the passover slew the lamb but failed to place the blood on the door
posts. "When I see the blood," said God, "I will pass over
you." Exodus 12:13. The death was useless without the ministration of the
blood. It was the blood that counted.
It is
the blood that is to be applied, not "an act," "a great
act," "a sacrificial act," "an atoning act," "the
act of the cross," "the benefits of the act of the cross,"
"the benefits of the atonement," all of which expressions are used in
Questions on Doctrine, but any
reference to the blood is carefully avoided. It is not an act of any kind that
is to be applied. It is the blood. Yet in all the 100 pages in the book dealing
with the atonement, not once is the blood spoken of as being applied, or
ministered. Can this be merely an oversight, or is it intended? Are we teaching
a bloodless atonement? Elder Nichol states the Adventist position correctly
when he says, "We believe that Christ's work of atonement was begun rather
than completed on Calvary." Answers
to 0bjections, p. 408. This was published in 1952. We shall be interested
to see what the new edition will say. Many are waiting to find out what they
are to believe on this important question.
Note
by Ron: In all truth, the Atonement began in the Heavenly Sanctuary when
Christ, as the Testator, was “slain from the foundation of the earth” by His
Testator Testament which involved forever “dying” to His past eternal existence
as being DIVINE HOLY SPIRIT ONLY, to become human as well, FOREVER. This is the
eternal atonement that pays the eternal death wages of sin. The blood of the
cross was entirely necessary as well, because Christ’s humanity had our sins
placed upon Him, and He was faithful unto death in overcoming sin, even will
all our sins placed upon Him. No human is tested with a fraction of that
severity.
Heb
9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the
testator.
Heb
9:17 For a testament is of
force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the
testator liveth.
Rev
13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not
written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world.
The
Testator had to “die” to something eternally. He forever died to existing in
His Divine Nature Holy Spirit ONLY, to become Human as well FOREVER. This was
an unfathomable sacrifice that far transcends the Cross.
“Christ was treated as we deserve, that we
might be treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had
no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no
share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive
the life which was His. “With His stripes we are healed.” {DA 25.2}
By His
life and His death, Christ has achieved even more than recovery from the ruin
wrought through sin. It was Satan’s purpose to bring about an eternal
separation between God and man; but in Christ we become more closely united to God than if we had never
fallen. In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a
tie that is never to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked with us.
“God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.” John 3:16. He gave Him
not only to bear our sins, and to die as our sacrifice; He gave Him to the
fallen race. To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His
only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His
human nature. This is the pledge that God will fulfill His word. “Unto us
a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be
upon His shoulder.” God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and
has carried the same into the highest heaven. It is the “Son of man” who shares
the throne of the universe. It is the “Son of man” whose name shall be called,
“Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
Peace.” Isaiah 9:6.
The I AM is the Daysman between God and humanity, laying His hand upon both. He
who is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” is not ashamed to
call us brethren. Hebrews 7:26;
2:11. In Christ
the family of earth and the family of heaven are bound together. Christ
glorified is our brother. Heaven is enshrined in humanity, and humanity is
enfolded in the bosom of Infinite Love. {DA 25.3}
Of His
people God says, “They shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an
ensign upon His land. For how great is His goodness, and how great is His
beauty!” Zechariah 9:16, 17.
The exaltation of the redeemed will be an eternal testimony to God’s mercy. “In
the ages to come,” He will “show the exceeding riches of His grace in His
kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” “To the intent that ... unto the
principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known ...
the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed
in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Ephesians
2:7; 3:10, 11,
R. V. {DA 26.1}
The
death which was ours is eternal death.
Rom
6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord.
What
you have read in this note is the Spirit of Elijah’s contribution to the
Everlasting Covenant. Malachi 3.
Mal
3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he
shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly
come to his temple, even the
messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come,
saith the LORD of hosts.
Mal
3:2 But who may abide the day of his
coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire,
and like fullers' soap:
Mal
3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and
purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as
gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in
righteousness.
Mal
3:4 Then shall the offering of Judah
and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in
former years.
I
don’t claim to be Elijah, but Elijah was to come with a message about the
Covenant that would turn the hearts of men to God. My message on the Covenant,
the Testament of the Testator, is in the spirit of Elijah. If knowledge of this
eternal sacrifice of Christ will not make you love Him and the Father with all
your heart, soul, and might, NOTHING ELSE WILL. As Ellen White said, if love
won’t win, nothing will, and this is a presentation of the utopian sacrificial
expression of love, as manifested by the Testator, and the Father as well for
agreeing with His Son and permitting this unfathomable sacrifice for sinful
man. There is nothing else to compare with this in all the pseudo theologies of
the world.
"The Incarnation of Christ was an act of
self-sacrifice; His life was one of continual self-denial. The highest glory of
the love of God to man was manifested in the sacrifice of His only-begotten
Son, who was the express image of His person. This is the great mystery of
godliness. It is the privilege and the duty of every professed follower of
Christ to have the mind of Christ. Without self-denial and cross bearing we
cannot be His disciples." E.G. White, Selected Messages, Book 2, p. 185.
"Christ
declared that after his ascension, he would send to his church, as his crowning gift,
the Comforter, who was to take his place. This Comforter is the Holy Spirit,--the soul of his life, the efficacy of his church, the light and life of the
world. With his Spirit Christ sends a reconciling influence and a power that
takes away sin.
In the
gift of the Spirit [HIS LIFE--THE SOUL OF HIS LIFE], Jesus gave to man the highest good that heaven could bestow....
The
Spirit was given as a regenerating agency, and without this the sacrifice of
Christ would have been of no avail....
It is
by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer
becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given his Spirit as a
divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and
to impress his own character upon the church." E.G. White, Review and Herald Articles, May 19,
1904, vol. 5, p. 42.
“Christ
had stooped to take upon Himself man’s nature; He was to bear an infinite
weight of woe as He should make His
soul an offering for sin; yet angels desire that even in His humiliation the Son of
the Highest might appear before men with a dignity and glory befitting His
character.” E.G. White, The Great
Controversy, pp. 313, 314.
The
wages of sin is death. How could Christ make His soul, His Holy Spirit, the
soul of His life and the life of His soul, an offering for sin? The answer that
God showed me is that the Son died FOREVER to His Divine ONLY existence. This
met the prescribed limit of a sacrifice per the Testator’s Covenant (Testament
of the Testator).
Two sacrifices: One in the Heavenly Sanctuary | One
on Earth
"The darkness rolled away from the
Saviour and from the Cross. Christ bowed His head and died. In His Incarnation
He had reached the prescribed limit as a sacrifice, but not as a
redeemer." E.G. White Manuscript Releases Volume Twelve, p. 409.
A Redeemer before as after His Incarnation
“The world has been committed to Christ, and
through Him has come every blessing from God to the fallen race. He was the Redeemer before as
after His incarnation. As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour. He has given light and
life to all, and according to the measure of light given, each is to be judged.
Desire of Ages, p. 210.
Because
the above version of the Everlasting TESTATOR’S Covenant involves the highest
good crowning gift heaven can bestow, there is no higher revelation of the love of God for man. This is
what the Spirit of Elijah will establish. Elijah could make no greater appeal
for there is non-other.
End
Note by Ron Beaulieu.
Here
are some expressions from the Spirit of Prophecy in regard to blood atonement:
"Jesus was clothed with priestly garments. He gazed
in pity on the remnant, and with a loud voice of deep pity cried, 'My blood,
Father; My blood; My blood; My blood.'" Early Writings, p. 38. "He appears in the presence of God as our
great High Priest, ready to accept the repentance, and to answer the prayers of
His people, and, through the merits of His own righteousness, to present then
to the Father. He raises His wounded hands to God, and claims their
blood-bought pardon, I have graven them on the palms of My hands, He pleads.
Those memorial wounds of My humiliation and anguish secure to My church the
best gifts of omnipotence." Spirit
of Prophecy vol. 3, pp. 261, 262.
"The ark that enshrines the tables of the law is
covered with the mercy seat, before which Christ pleads His blood in the
sinner's behalf." Great Controversy,
p. 415.
"When
in the typical service the high priest left the holy place on the day of
atonement, He went in before God to present the blood of the sin-offering, in
behalf of all Israel who truly repented of their sins. So Christ had only completed one part of His work as
our intercessor, to enter upon another portion of the work, and He still
pleaded His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners." Ibid., p.
429.
Christ
is "now officiating before the ark of God, pleading His blood in behalf of
sinners." Ibid., p. 433.
"Christ,
the great high priest, pleading His blood, before the Father in the sinner's
behalf, bears upon His heart the name of every repentant, believing soul."
Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 351.
"As
Christ at His ascension appeared in the presence of God to plead His blood in
behalf of penitent believers, so the priest in the daily ministration sprinkled
the blood of the sacrifice in the holy place in the sinner's behalf." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357.
"The
blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the
condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it was to stand on record
in the sanctuary until the final atonement." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357.
And with all these
statements before him, not once does the author of Questions on Doctrine mention the blood as being applied or
ministered.
"The Father ratified the covenant
made with Christ, that He would receive repentant and obedient men,
and would love them even as He loves His Son." This, as stated above, was
on the condition that "Christ was to complete His work and fulfil His
pledge to make a man more precious than fine gold even a man than the golden
wedge of Ophir." Desire of Ages,
p. 790. "This Christ guarantees." Spirit
of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 250.
Note
by Ron: This (above) is why we should love the Father as well. He felt every
pang of the Son’s sacrifice. He love His Son the more for His eternal
sacrifice. End note.
When
Christ says in His high priestly prayer "I have finished the work which
Thou gayest me to do," (John 17:45 Sr. White comments: "He had
wrought out a righteous character on earth as an example for man to
follow." Spirit of Prophecy,
vol. 3, p. 260.
In
working out this righteous character, Christ demonstrated that it could be
done. But could others do the same? That needed to be demonstrated also. Christ
had guaranteed it could. It was now for Christ to make good His pledge.
Character is not created. It is made;
it is developed; it is built through manifold tests and temptations and trials.
God at first gives a light test, then a little stronger, and still a little
stronger. Little by little resistance to temptations grows stronger, and after
a while certain temptations cease to be temptations. A man may have a great
struggle with tobacco; but at last he is victorious, and his victory may be so
complete that tobacco is a temptation no longer.
Thus, ideally, it should be with every
temptation. Holiness is not attained in a
day. "Redemption is that process by which the soul is trained for
heaven." Desire of Ages,- p.
330. A man may gain victories
every day, but still may not have attained. Even Paul had to admit that
he had not "already attained, either were already perfect." But
undaunted He exclaims, "I follow after that I may apprehend that for which
also I am apprehended of Jesus Christ." Philippians 3:12.
Christ
had pledged to make man "finer than gold," even the golden wedge of
Ophir. In this work man must
not be a submissive instrument only; he must take an active part. Note
these quotations:
"The
ransom of the human race was appointed to give man another trial," Mss.
14, 1898. "The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race,
to give man another trial." Signs of
the Times. April 26, 1899. God "looked upon the victim expiring on the
cross and said, 'It Is finished; the human race shall have another
trial."' Youth's Instructor, June
21, 1900. "That the transgressor might have another trial. . . the eternal
Son of God interposed Himself to bear the punishment of transgression." Review and Herald, February 8, 1898.
"He suffered in our stead that men could have another test and trial."
Special Instruction Relating to the
Review and Herald Office, p. 28. "As Jesus was accepted as our
substitute and surety, every one of us will be accepted if we stand the test
and trial for ourselves." Review and
Herald, June 10, 1890. "The Saviour overcame to show man how he may
overcome." "Man
must work with his human, power aided by the divine power of Christ, to resist
and to conquer at any cost to himself. In short, he must overcome as
Christ overcame. . . . Man must do his part; he must be victor on his own
account, through the strength and grace that Christ gives him." Testimonies, vol. 4, pp. 32, 33.
Christ had pledged to
make men overcomers; He had "guaranteed" this. It was no easy task;
but the work of atonement was not finished until and unless He did it. And so
Christ persevered till His task should be done. Out of the last generation, out of the weakest of the weak,
Christ selects a group with which to make the demonstration that man can
overcome as Christ overcame. In the 144,000 Christ will stand justified and
glorified. They prove that it is possible for man to live a life
pleasing to God under all conditions, and that men can at last stand "in the sight of a holy God
without an intercessor." Great
Controversy. p. 614. The testimony is given them, "they have stood without an intercessor
through the final outpouring of God's judgments." Great Controversy, p. 649. "They
are the chosen ones, joint heirs with Christ in the great firm of heaven. They
overcame, as He overcame " MS. November 28, 1897. To us comes the
invitation, "Now, while our High Priest is making atonement for us, we
should seek to become perfect in Christ." Great Controversy, p. 623.
Note by Ron: The 144,000
must involve Regeneration of the bride of all ages in the last generation, for
the disciples were part of the bride of Christ, DA 179, as were the
Philadelphians of the first century Christian church. They all will be made
pillars in the Temple, Rev. 3:10-12, AND ONLY THE 144,000 go into the Temple on
Mt. Zion.
Some have suggested that
the disciples and the Philadelphians of all ages could come forth in the
special resurrection to comprise the 144,000. Such person(s) don’t have the
spiritual discernment to see that it is a necessary requisite that the 144,000
go through the time of trouble without an intercessor, and the special
resurrection is AFTER the time of trouble, at the coming of Christ. Ellen White
said that only the 144,000 who are translated without seeing death, go into the
Temple on Mt. Zion. Early Writings,
p. 19.
There is absolutely
nothing strange about Regeneration of the bride of all ages, if you recall that
at Christ’s resurrection, people came out of the grave to witness to the
gospel. They later were translated to heaven at Christ’s translation.
The bride of all ages
must be tried and proven at the time of Satan’s highest, state of the art
devisings to tempt man. Thus, he nor anyone else could ever question that Satan
could have corrupted the folk of ancient times if he had access to them at the
end-time. That argument will forever be silenced by Regeneration of the Bride
of Jesus Christ, for the final generation just before He comes the second time.
Philadelphia, Rev.
3:1012, is given the promise that she will be kept (preserved) through the
worst time of trouble that is to come upon the entire earth. For this to be
fulfilled, she must be Regenerated. There is no other way, and the Lord has
shown me that the special resurrection does not answer to the problem for the
reason I stated. However, the late J. Wilfred Johnson said that the special
resurrection is the awakening of the bride to her real identity. I believe that
truth.
End note by Ron.
In his epistle to the
Ephesians, Paul presents us with a mystery. Says he, "For this cause shall
a man leave his father and his mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and
the two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning
Christ and the church." Ephesians 5:31, 32. Marriage fitly represents the
union between Christ and the church, effected by the atonement. In harmony with
this picture of a marriage, the public announcement is made at the close of
probation; "The marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife has made
herself ready. . . . And to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in
linen, clean and white; for the linen is the righteousness. of the
saints." Revelation 19:8. As husband and wife are one, so now are Christ
and the church. The atonement, the true atonement, the final atonement, the
complete atonement, has bean made. "The family of heaven and the family of
earth are one." Desire of Ages,
p. 835.
Note by Ron: The bride
has a far greater development of character, to the point of being without
fault. She will teach all others who are saved during the Millennium. During
that time they “grow up” in Christ, and qualify as the bride of Christ as well.
For that reason, THERE IS NO TEMPLE IN THE NEW EARTH. THERE IS NO NEED OF A
TEMPLE. Christ will be the head, and His bride will be His body. The Lord has
shown me that this accounts for the Ellen White statements which seem to make
the entire church the bride of Christ, while others appear to contradict. But
in the grand scheme of things, she is correct and does not contradict, for
after the Millennium all the saved become the bride of Jesus Christ the Head of
the Body.
This knowledge is not
discerned by minds that are not led by the Holy Spirit, and that is why they
erroneously conclude the unfeasible option that the Philadelphians could be
raised in the special resurrection. But as stated, the 144,000 must go through
the time of trouble to go through a test similar to Christ’s in the Garden of
Gethsemane.
End note by Ron.
Practically
all Adventists have read the last few chapters in Great Controversy, which describe the fearful struggle through
which God's people will pass before the end. As Christ was tried to the utmost
in the temptation in the wilderness and in the garden of Gethsemane, so the 144,000 will likewise be
tried. They will apparently be left to perish, as their prayers remain
unanswered as were Christ's in Gethsemane when His petitions were denied. But
their faith will not fail. With
Job they exclaim, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him." Job
13:15.
The final demonstration of what God can
do in humanity is made in the last generation who bears all the infirmities and
weaknesses which the race has acquired through six thousand years of sin and
transgression. In the words of Sr. White
they bore "the results of the working of the great law of heredity." Desire of Ages, p. 48.
Note
by Ron: And this (above) is the express objective of Regeneration of the bride
of all ages. She must prove that under ALL THE INFIRMITIES AND WEAKNESSES which
the race has acquired through the FULL 6,000 years of sin and transgression,
and Satan’s highest development of his arts and craft to deceive, that by the
grace of Christ’s Holy Spirit given for obedience, Rom. 1:5, she overcomes as
Christ did—via moment by moment dependence upon His empowering grace (Holy Spirit),
as Christ was dependent moment by moment on the empowerment of His Father’s ONE
ETERNAL SPIRIT. That is how Christ offered Himself through the ONE ETERNAL
SPIRIT:
Heb
9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without
spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
End
note by Ron.
The
weakest of mankind are to be subjected to the strongest of Satan's temptations, that the
power of God might be abundantly shown. "It was an hour of fearful,
terrible agony to the saints. Day and night they cried unto God for
deliverance. To outward appearance, there was no possibility of their
escape." Early Writings, p. 283.
Note
by Ron: The Desire of Ages, 179,
identifies the disciples as the bride of Christ, as prepared by John the
Baptist, the Spirit of Elijah. Without Regeneration she could not live at the
end-time to be subjected TO THE STRONGEST OF SATAN’S TEMPTATIONS. The above
quote is obviously referring to the 144,000 during the Great Time of Jacob’s
Trouble. This is but another evidence that the bride of all ages
(Philadelphians) must be Regenerated and go through the Great Time of Jacob’s
Trouble, rather than being raised in the special resurrection in order to
fulfill Revelation 3:10-12, and Early Writings, p. 19, wherein only the 144,000
go into the Temple on Mt. Zion, when Philadelphians are made PILLARS
(LEADERS—PRIESTS) in the Temple on Mt. Zion, with Christ being the HIGH PRIEST.
End
note by Ron.
According to the new theology which our leaders have
accepted and are now teaching, the 144,000 will be subjected to a temptation
immeasurably stronger than any Christ ever experienced. For while the last
generation will bear the weaknesses and passions of their forefathers, they
claim that Christ was exempt from all these.
Christ, we are told, did
not inherit any of the passions "that corrupt the natural descendants of
Adam." Questions on Doctrine, p.
383. He was therefore functioning on a higher and altogether different
level from men who have to battle with inherited passions and hence He does not
know and has not experienced the real power of sin. But this is not the kind of
saviour I need. I need One who
has been "tempted in all points like as we are." Hebrews 4:15.
The "substitute christ" which our leaders present to us, I must
reject and do reject. Thank God-, "we have not a high priest which cannot
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted
like as we are, yet without sin." Ibid.
But
more than even this is involved in the new theology; it places an indictment
against God as the author of a scheme to deceive both men and Satan. Here is
the situation:
Satan has consistently maintained that God
is unjust in requiring men to obey His law, which he claims is impossible. God
has maintained that it can be done, and to substantiate His claim offered to
send His Son to this world to prove His contention. The Son did come and kept the law and challenged men to
convince Him of sin. He was found to be sinless, holy and without blame. He
proved that the law could be kept, and God stood vindicated; and His
requirement that men keep His commandments was found to be just. God had won,
and Satan was defeated.
But there was a hitch in this; for Satan
claimed that God had not played fair; He had favored His Son, had
"exempted" Him from the results of the working of the great law of
heredity to which all other men were subject; He had exempted Christ "from
the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of
Adam." Questions on Doctrine, p.
383. He had not exempted mankind in general, but Christ only.
That, of course, invalidated Christ's work on earth. He was no longer one of us
who had demonstrated the power of God to keep men from sinning. He was a
deceiver whom God had given preferred treatment and was not afflicted with
inherited passions as men are.
Satan
had little difficulty in having men accept this view; the Catholic church
accepted it; in due time, the evangelicals gave their consent; and in 1956 the leaders of the
Adventist church also adopted this view. It was the matter of
"exemption" that caused Peter to take Christ aside and say, "Be
it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee," which so raised the
wrath of Christ that He told Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan."
Matthew 16:22, 23. Christ did not want to be exempt. He told Peter,
"Thou savourest not the things that be of God." So some today savour
not the things of God. They think it merely a matter of semantics. God pity
such and open their eyes to the things that be of God. With the surrender of
the Adventist leaders to the monstrous doctrine of an "exempt"
Christ, Satan's last opposition has surrendered. We pray again, may God save His people.
I have
been asked what I expect to accomplish. I am not out to "win" any
argument. I am a
Seventh-day Adventist minister whose work is to preach the truth and combat
error. The Bible is mostly a record of the protest of God's witnesses
against the prevailing sins of the church, and also of their apparent failure.
Practically all protesters sealed their testimony with their blood, and the
church went on until God intervened. All Paul hoped was that he might
"save some." 1 Corinthians 9:22. Practically all the apostles died martyrs, and Christ
they hanged on a tree. It took forty years before the destruction came. But
when God intervened He did thorough work.
This denomination needs to go back to
the instruction given in 1888, which was scorned. We need a reform in
organization that will not permit a few men to direct every move made anywhere
in the world.
We need a reform that will not permit a
few men to handle finances as is now being done. We need a reform that will not
permit men to spend millions on institutions not authorized by the vote of the
constituency, while mission fields are suffering for want of the barest
necessities. We need a change in the
emphasis that is given to promotion, finances and statistics. We need to
restore the Sabbath School to its rightful place in the work of God. We need to
put a stop to the entertainments and suppers that are creeping in under the
guise of raising money for good purposes. We need to put a stop to the weekly announcements in church
that are merely disguised advertisements. This list could be greatly
enlarged.
But all these, while
important, are after all only minor things. We need a reformation and revival
most of all. If our leaders will not lead in this, "then shall there enlargement
and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place." Esther 4:14. I am
of good cheer, praying for the peace of Israel.
Note by Ron: My wife and I
have personally been present (the last time we attended an SDA church in 1985)
when the ANNOUNCEMENTS by a man on one side of the rostrum and a woman on the
other, spent more time giving ADVERTISEMENTS than the minister took giving the
divine service sermon. We looked at ourselves and asked: WHAT ARE WE DOING
HERE? WE ARE WASTING PRECIOUS TIME.
End note by Ron Beaulieu
Brief
Biography of Milian Lauritz Andreasen:
- Born in 1876 in Denmark. - Ordained in 1902.
- President of the Greater New York Conference from 1909 to
1910.
- President of the Hutchinson (SDA) Theological Seminary
from 1910 to 1918.
- Dean of Union College from 1918 to 1922.
- Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Nebraska
in 1920.
- Master of Arts degree from the same institution in 1922.
- Dean of Washington Missionary College from 1922 to 1924.
- President of the Minnesota Conference from 1924 to 1931.
- President of Union College form 1931 to 1938.
- Professor of Theology at the Seventh-day Adventist
Theological Seminary (at Washington D.C.) from 1938 to 1949.
- Field Secretary of the General Conference from 1941 to
1950.
-
Author of numerous
Seventh-day Adventist books that were published by our denomination, including:
"The Sanctuary Service," "The Epistle to the Hebrews,"
"A Faith to Live By," and
'What
Can a Man Believe?'
- He was considered a denominational authority on the
doctrinal subject of the Sanctuary service.
- Wrote "Letters to the Churches" in the late
fall of 1957. - He died in 1962.
The
End of Letters to the Churches
Dear
Young People,
In
Jesus’ precious name, please never let these writings by M. L. Andreasen be
forgotten.
~rwb