With Cloak and Dagger

Click to go to our Home Page

With Cloak and Dagger



New Millennium Publications Post Box 290

Morisset N. S.W. 2264. Australia  


1   The Experts    

2   "750 Pages of Wonderful Truth"     3 "Crisis," He Cried!        

4   The Dagger     

5   The Cloak  

6   The Last Deception          7 Movement of Destiny      8 "Impeaching the Dead" 

9      The 1888 Message (and the Evangelical View) 

10   The Dagger Strikes (Part 1) 

11   The Dagger Strikes (Part 2)  12 False Claims and Trickery 

13   Kingdom, Czardom or Popedom? 

14   The Atonement: Completed or Uncompleted-Who Cares? 

15   Target: Australia 

16   "We Need More Funerals" 

17   Australasia Embraces Heresy 

18   The Jewel is Plucked 

19   Conflicting Claims 

20   Deception, or Wishful Thinking? 

21   Hierarchy in Action 

22   This Way to Rome 

23   "We Still Believe" 

24   The Washington "Curia" 

25   Rome's Little Helper 

26   "A New Order" 

27   Eighteen Forty-Four to Evermore           

Appendix for Chapter 10 

Appendix for Chapter 13 

Appendix for Chapter 16 

Appendix for Chapter 17 

Appendix for Chapter 19 

Appendix for Chapter 20 

Appendix for Chapter 21 

Appendix for Chapter 25



QOD Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine 

MOD Movement of Destiny

B.R.I. Bible Research Institute (Australasia)

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (USA) 

G.C. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 

SDA Seventh-day Adventist 

TAUC Trans-Australian Union Conference 

TTUC Trans-Tasman Union Conference

ARV American Revised Version

AV  Authorized Version (same as King James Version) 

KJV King James Version

N.T. New Testament

NASB New American Standard Bible 

NEB New English Bible 

NIV New International Version 

NKJV New King James Version 

RSV Revised Standard Version 

RV  Revised Version 

TEV Today's English Version

CE  Counsels to Writers and Editors

Ev  Evangelism

EW Early Writings

RH Review and Herald

1SM Selected Messages, 

Book 1 1SOP Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1 

ST  Signs of the Times

1T  Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1

TM Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers



This book is written for generic Seventh-day Adventists; those within the denomination of that name and equally, those who are numbered among the increasing groups of believers who, by conscience or expulsion, find themselves outside the pale of the denomination.

The author does not presume to engage in a definitive defense of historic Seventh-day Adventism-inspiration and libraries of Adventist publications do just that, adequately. This book will demonstrate that basic fundamental principles which were endorsed by God's prophet to His remnant church as having "unquestionable authority," have since been systematically eroded and even changed. It explains how this change has been made possible and is now being consolidated by a system of church administration which has been set in place contrary to the expressed will of God.

As the readers progress through these pages, they will notice how the church's failure to heed the warnings of its prophet, Mrs. E. G. White, repeatedly prove her dictum that "a backsliding church lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy."

The author, who is an Australian, has been an Adventist all his life. Therefore many of the illustrations used in support of his propositions are drawn from his own knowledge and experiences within the South Pacific Division.

Many of our readers will note a similarity of conduct in their own country, some even having experienced the heavy hand of state-assisted persecution.

Sadly, many precious souls are now being admitted into church membership with a limited knowledge of Adventism. Increasingly, many of these people are further disadvantaged as they train to take up positions in our ministry and education system, that seem bent on exchanging the "testimony of Jesus" for the "doctrines of men." With such people in mind, the author has included an extensive appendix which will give them an insight into the true position of Adventism on Christ and His ministry.

It is the sincere desire of the author that this humble attempt to arouse God's people from their Laodicean dreamtime will reawaken in the reader that burning commitment which the pioneers so gladly exhibited in taking to a judgment-bound world the "everlasting gospel," as found in the revelation of Jesus. We can then pray with sincerity, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Amen. " The Author


The late Donald G. Barnhouse read a copy of that Seventh day Adventist classic, Steps to Christ. This book has led innumerable people to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. Many servicemen during two world wars treasured its precious message which brought hope and comfort to their uncertain existence. It made quite an impression on Dr. Barnhouse; so much so that he gave the book prominent mention in his evangelical magazine Eternity, June 1950. Under the heading "How to Read Religious Books," he claimed that reading such a book with its "half-truths and satanic error" was akin to a worm on a hook, "the first bite is all worm, the second bite is all hook, that is the way the Devil works." It is not surprising then, that he referred to its author, Mrs. E. G. White, as "the founder of a cult."

Apparently, such a vicious attack on a church which claimed to be Christian provided no impediment to the growth of one of Protestantism's most popular magazines.* Such pronouncements evidently accorded with acceptable Christianity. For, were not Seventh-day Adventists just another cult? They were credited with believing that Jesus Christ was a sinner, and denying His completed work of salvation at the cross. They were legalists who believed in salvation by works, part of which was the keeping of the biblical Sabbath day. And, to cap it off, they had the temerity to claim that they were God's remnant church on whom God had bestowed the gift of prophecy! Yet, within six years, Dr. Barnhouse was able to declare:

“I should like to say that we are delighted to do justice to a much-maligned group of sincere believers, and in our minds and hearts take them out of a group of utter heretics to acknowledge them as redeemed brethren and members of the body of Christ.” (Eternity, September 15, 1956).

* Eternity magazine ceased publication while this book was being written. Shortly after, its one-time editor, Dr. Walter Martin, passed away.

Yes, he was referring to the Seventh-day Adventist Church! Our leaders were ecstatic. Adventists could now hold their heads high as Christendom extended their brotherly arms to welcome them into the fold.

What had brought about this dramatic change? Had Barnhouse seen the light, or had Adventism changed its "unchristian" views? Let Dr. Barnhouse provide some clues. On the 16th May 1958, while in conversation with Adventist layman Al Hudson, Barnhouse said:

“I hate Saturday as a Sabbath religious day. I hate it because God hates it.” (as reported in Pilgrims Rest DH 115, p. 1).

On Adventists' belief that they are the remnant church, Barnhouse said:

“If you believe that, you are a megalomaniac.” (ibid.).

He went on to comment on the prolific pen of Mrs. White: 

“That's too much, you know. She was running off at the mouth, and the Holy Spirit certainly was not doing it.” (ibid., p. 2).

And again,

“God Almighty never spoke through a woman.” (Pilgrims Rest DH 114, p. 1). 

“You [SDAs] were founded on a lie.” (ibid., p. 2).

The editor of Barnhouse's Eternity magazine was Dr. Walter Martin. While lecturing in the Christian Mission Church, Napa, California, as recently as 22 February 1983, on the subject of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, he declared:

“There is no need for any investigative judgment at any time because Jesus took care of it all at the cross.”

Obviously, the three angels of Revelation fourteen had failed to impress Messrs. Barnhouse and Martin. During the late 1950s, as a result of some eighteen months of intense dialogue with highranking representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Barnhouse had insisted that Adventists publish their doctrinal beliefs. They did so under the title Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine [QOD], Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1957.

This book became our passport to Christendom, and enabled Dr. Barnhouse to boast that he and Martin had changed the theology of a whole denomination (see Eternity, September 1956, pages 6, 7, 43, 45). Repeatedly we are told by Adventist leadership that we have not deviated from historical Adventism. In the Introduction to Questions on Doctrine we read: "This was not to be a new statement of faith." The writers, counsellors and editors "have labored conscientiously to state accurately the beliefs of Seventhday Adventists" (p. 8).

But shortly after proclaiming Adventists as part of the Christian community, Barnhouse, in commenting on Questions on Doctrine, was led to observe:

“Let's face it, in a very nice way, the leaders who have written this book, have moved from the traditional position of the S.D.A. movement. They've come back toward the Bible.” (Pilgrims Rest DH 114, p. 3).

Here is a serious anomaly which questions the integrity of our leadership. Seventh-day Adventists have been welcomed into the fraternity of Christendom on the basis of change. Our leaders claim that we have not changed. Has Christendom been duped? Have members of the S.D.A. Church become victims of the greatest confidence trick since Jacob awoke to find himself in bed with Leah?


CHAPTER 2- "750 Pages of Wonderful Truth"

After Questions on Doctrine was published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association in late 1957, General Conference president Reuben R. Figuhr was so proud of it that he claimed it to be the most significant achievement during his term of office.

Yet B. G. Wilkinson, veteran minister of the SDA Church, college administrator and author of the scholarly books, Truth Triumphant and Our Authorized Bible Vindicated had a decidedly different view. After reading the manuscript of QOD he is reported to have described it as a dagger aimed at the heart of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (recorded interview, Mike Clute).* 

* On January 14, 1985, evangelist Mike Clute recorded an interview with a friend of the Wilkinson family. Says Clute: “Of course, the gentleman whom I interviewed does not want his name disclosed or else he would have done so at the time of the interview.” (letter to Author, July 8, 1989).

The General Conference subsidized the cost of this book in order to ensure it would be widely distributed among non-Adventists. However, when it was offered to Adventists in Ministry magazine as "750 pages full of wonderful truth," the price was US $5.00.

But surprisingly, no one wanted his name connected with QOD, for we are told only that it was "prepared by a representative group of Seventh-day Adventist leaders, Bible teachers and editors." We are also told that the book "came into being to meet a definite need" (QOD p. 7), that a large Protestant publisher in the United States wanted to publish a book in which would be presented a general view of our history and beliefs, that the publishers approached the General Conference for information which resulted in an extensive search of our denominational literature and that there followed a series of meetings drawn out for over a year with the unnamed members of the committee (ibid.).

What we are not told is that the publisher was Dr. Donald Barnhouse, a champion of popular evangelical thought. Neither are we told that he had absolutely no time for Seventh-day Adventism. He had commissioned fellow evangelical Dr. Walter Martin, to expose our denomination as a cult. It was Martin who insisted that he research his subject thoroughly by requesting dialogue with General Conference officers and that he have access to our literature.

Subsequent to the ensuing meetings and publication of QOD, some participants have revealed the names of the GC conferees. They were elders:

T. E. Unruh, president of East Pennsylvania Conference

L. E. Froom, General Conference field secretary

R. A. Anderson, ministerial secretary and editor of Ministry 

W. E. Reed, General Conference field secretary

(reported by T. E. Unruh, Pilgrims Rest DH 101, 102)

These gentlemen were so amiable to their would-be inquisitors that the evangelicals were soon disarmed and within a very short time were on their knees praying for Christian unity.

As a result of these meetings, Barnhouse and Martin were assured that Seventhday Adventists were now sufficiently theologically tuned to popular evangelicalism to be regarded as Christians. So a deal was struck. If Adventists would publish satisfactory answers to some forty-eight questions, Eternity magazine would not expose us as a cult, but would instead, declare us to be a part of the Christian community. Barnhouse and Martin even offered to help out where we had difficulty in translating our "quaint" theological terminology into understandable Christian language.

The book, Questions on Doctrine, was the result. We were declared to be truly Christian, by people whom president Figuhr obviously admired as exponents of Christianity and as authorities on cultism. Was his confidence misplaced? We shall see.

When Walter Martin was later questioned about Roman Catholicism's standing in the cultist world, he replied: "Roman Catholicism is not a cult." Then he sought to preserve some credibility by adding, "But within the Roman Church there are cults, such as the cult of Mary. But the basic doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are Christ's Catholic theology to which most Protestants subscribe." 

Do evangelicals no longer subscribe to the basic Christian belief that there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"? (1 Timothy 2:5.)

To faithful Seventh-day Adventists back in the mid-fifties it was a fearful doctrinal crisis in our Church. But to the believers in our day it is now seen to have marked the beginning of the end.

For the errors that the so-called "Evangelical Conferences" brought into our denomination grew throughout the sixties and seventies and were used by modernists in our Church, such as Desmond Ford, to lay a solid foundation for what is now called the "new theology”.

At that time, certain evangelical Protestants asked a small group of our leaders to

reconsider the stated beliefs of our denomination-and, if possible, to restate them in "theological terms" that would be acceptable to the Protestant world around us. That seemed but a small concession in view of the golden opportunity held out before us: unity and fellowship with the other Protestant churches is not one of the objectives of the second angel's message of Revelation 14:8, much less that of the third angel which follows it.

Vance Ferrell

"The Beginning of the End," DH 101.


CHAPTER 3 - "Crisis," He Cried!

The casual reader of Questions on Doctrine could be excused for not noticing any startling change in Adventist doctrine. Indeed, we are assured in the introduction that "this volume can be viewed as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" (pp 8, 9).

But some who were in a position to know claim that the original manuscript contained a great deal of error. It had to be toned down before those concerned with its printing would accept it. As one observer put it:

“The book editors at Review and Herald could not swallow it. And so it went back to the General Conference for further revisions. This is why the book is so mixed up. . . . The heresy was then more carefully worded to slip by the Review book editors.” (Pilgrims Rest DH104).

This is probably why it became acceptable to Martin and Barnhouse and yet did not immediately raise too great a storm among Adventists, especially among the ministry, the majority of whom were working long hours while conscientiously carrying out their chosen task of spreading the everlasting gospel.

We have already mentioned Dr. B. G. Wilkinson's reaction. Unfortunately we do not have a record of his thoughts in writing. But one retired veteran of the ministry, also a scholar, teacher and author, has recorded his opinion of Questions on Doctrine. He is Elder M. L. Andreasen, described in the SDA Encyclopedia as an authority on our message.*

*              Andreasen gave special study to the doctrine of the sanctuary and was considered an authority in that field (SDA Encyclopedia, 1976, p. 43)

Having read the manuscript of QOD, he repeatedly protested to General Conference president Figuhr concerning changes to our doctrines. After being curtly rebuffed, he wrote and circulated several open letters which were subsequently gathered together and published under the title of `Letters to the Churches. "* Andreasen warned,

“We have reached a crisis in this denomination when leaders are attempting to enforce false doctrine and threaten those who object. The whole program is unbelievable. Men are now attempting to remove the foundation of many generations, and think they can succeed. If we did not have the Spirit of Prophecy, we would not know of the departure from sound doctrine which is now threatening us and the coming of the Omega which will decimate our ranks and cause grievous wounds. The present situation has been clearly outlined. We are nearing the climax.” (Letters to the Churches No. 3).

Letters to the Churches is available from Hartland Publications, P 0 Box 1, Rapidan, VA, 22733, USA.

As a reward for his pains, the Conference rescinded Elder Andreasen's ministerial credentials and deprived him of his sustentation. When the poor man applied to the government for relief money, the Social Welfare men contacted our administrators who were shamed into restoring his allowance.

Elder Andreasen was an elderly man. As this champion of the faith lay brokenhearted on his deathbed, rejected and punished by the leadership of his beloved church, we can only imagine his anguish as he contemplated the fulfillment of Mrs. White's prophecy:

“Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced.... Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement.” (Special Testimonies Series B, No. 2, pp. 54, 55).

Or perhaps he would attempt to answer Mrs. White's rhetorical question pertaining to the Alpha of apostasy and apply it to the beginning of the Omega:**

** Referring to Sister White's remarks on books of a new order and the underhanded tearing down of the foundations of our faith, Andreasen said: “All this was written to meet the apostasy in the Alpha period. We are now in the Omega period which Sister White said would come.” (Letters to the Churches No. 6).

What influence is it that would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhanded, powerful way to tear down the foundations of our faith-the foundation that was laid down in the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation? (Ibid.)

As we proceed, we shall seek to discover the answer to this question. We shall reveal the "underhanded" way in which a mere handful of men set themselves up as expositors of our faith and interpreters of the Spirit of Prophecy. We shall see how, under the protection of sympathetic presidents, they have literally "torn down the foundations of our faith."

Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A

substitute was accepted in the sinner's stead; but the sin was not cancelled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his hands upon the head of the scapegoat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people.

Such was the service performed "unto the example and shadow of heavenly


Ellen G. White

The Great Controversy, p. 420


CHAPTER 4 - The Dagger

Few Seventh-day Adventists in 1956 knew of the events which have since come to be known as the Evangelical meetings. They were cloaked in official secrecy. It was left to Dr. Barnhouse to drop what he called a bombshell, in September of that year. He published an article in Eternity magazine titled, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" (At the following General Conference session in 1958, the meetings were officially ignored.)

Speaking of the second meeting with the G. C. conferees, Barnhouse wrote:

“It was perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had previously been attributed to them. For instance, they stated that "they repudiated absolutely the thought that Seventh-day Sabbathkeeping was a basis for salvation," and later in his report, "that Sabbathkeeping is in any way a means of salvation" (Eternity, September 1956).

When Walter Martin pointed out to them that we had published teachings considered by Christendom to be anti-Christian, they professed surprise and "immediately brought the fact to the attention of the General Conference officers, that this situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected" (Eternity, September 1956, p. 6).

Barnhouse then reveals that the "same procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh, which the majority of the denomination has always held to be sinless, holy, and perfect, despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the church at large."* They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number, members of the "lunatic fringe" even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity (ibid., p. 7).

*              It is interesting that Larson does not appear to find one written statement by Figuhr, Froom, Anderson or Unruh, expressing their views on the nature of Christ prior to the Evangelical meetings. Apparently it was they who regarded our official view as repugnant, but, sensing their isolated position, they were not courageous enough to express their views publicly.

Of the sanctuary belief Barnhouse reported,

“They [the G. C. conferees] do not believe as some of their earlier teachers taught, that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead, that He was still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844.* This idea is absolutely repudiated. They believe that since His ascension, Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which He completed on Calvary.” (ibid.).

*              It is interesting to note that, although the conferees did not fool their inquisitors, Questions on Doctrine was able to claim that it was not a "new statement of faith" (QOD p. 8) without any apparent objection from Barnhouse and Martin.

So this is how Christendom at large and some SDA church members came to know of the historic meetings. Certainly, few Adventists realized that the doctrinal pillars of our faith were being traded for the smile of Christendom. Let us just summarize the understanding given by our leaders to Barnhouse and Martin and square it off with sound Adventist teaching.

1. That Sabbathkeeping is not in any way a means of salvation.

It is quite true that Sabbath observance is no guarantee of salvation. But it is equally true that those who have a knowledge of Sabbath truth and ignore it, will not be saved:

The keeping of the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty to the true God.... It follows that the message which commands men to worship God and keep His commandments, will especially call upon them to keep the fourth commandment (GC 438).

Sabbath observance is eternal:

And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the Lord (Isaiah 66:23).

So we see that the conferees failed to uphold the message of the first angel of Revelation fourteen, and showed a reckless disregard for the dire warning of the third angel (Revelation 14:7, 9, 10).

2. That the majority of SDAs had always held that the incarnate Christ had a nature which was "sinless, holy and perfect" while the views of a minority, the "lunatic fringe," were "repugnant."

Here we come face to face with a statement which can only be resolved by arriving at one of two conclusions. Either these men had very short memories or they were deliberately deceiving the evangelicals. Either way, they disqualified themselves as competent representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Here are a few pertinent facts which will help readers to reach their own conclusions.

Just five years prior to the Evangelical meetings, Elder W. E. Read (one of the conferees) had quoted Sister White in a G. C. Bulletin, 1950, p. 154:

“Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh even as we are.”

This was just one of a plethora of statements in Adventist literature upholding the biblical concept of a Saviour who came to this earth through the seed of Abraham and "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).

Dr. Ralph Larson, in his monumental thesis, The Word Was Made Flesh, details some four hundred written statements by Mrs. E. G. White, and approximately eight hundred statements by other SDA writers on Christ's earthly nature. Over a period of one hundred years of SDA writers, Dr. Larson was able to find no statement that Christ received the sinless nature of unfallen Adam, as claimed by Bamhouse. Our leading doctrinal book, Bible Readings for the Home Circle, published in the year of Mrs. White's death (1915), had sold by the million. It stated,

“In His humanity, Christ partook of our sinful human nature. If not, then He was not made "like unto His brethren," was not "in all points tempted like as we are," did not overcome as we have to overcome.... Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits-a sinful nature.” (p. 174).

And on page 236 we read:

“By the very dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary ...  Babylon teaches that God, in the person of His Son, did not take the same flesh with us; that is, sinful flesh.”

Yet it is inconceivable that these conferees were not aware that in the 1949 edition of Bible Readings, the "sinful nature" of Christ had been quietly deleted. How then could these men honestly claim to represent historic Seventh-day Adventist beliefs? As for Read, he had to do a complete somersault by refuting his previous position, in order to get out of the "lunatic fringe" and be eligible to join that elite Washington club of "sane leadership." 

3.            A new doctrinal position for Adventism or merely the position of a few who saw themselves as the "sane leadership" of Adventism?

As we have seen, these conferees did not represent a majority group. They were a mere handful of men from the General Conference who were handpicked by a sympathetic G. C. president. As to whether or not they represented sane leadership, it is debatable. One thing we do know: they considered themselves sufficiently sane to judge Mrs. E. G. White, along with the vast majority of past and contemporary Adventists writers, as part of the "wild-eyed, lunatic fringe."

4.            They repudiated the belief of some of our earlier teachers that Jesus' atoning work was not completed at Calvary, but was still going on in heaven.

It was not just "some of our earlier teachers" that believed in Christ's continuing atonement. It had been consistently taught since pioneer days and was backed solidly by our leaders and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Elder A. G. Daniells was General Conference president during the years 1901-1922, and under his leadership, Bible Readings for the Home Circle was offered extensively to the public as representative of Adventist belief Of the atonement in type and antitype it stated:

“In the heavenly sanctuary the sacrifice is offered but once; and but one atonement or cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary can be made, which must take place at the time assigned by God for it. And when the great atonement, or cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary has been made, God's people will be forever free from sin and the fate of all will be forever sealed (see Revelation 22:11). This, as in the type, will be a day of judgment.” (p. 243). [Note: This great truth has been deleted from the revised 1963 paperback edition of Bible Readings. So also has the key reference text of Daniel 8:14 and the year 1844 been deleted.]

While president of the General Conference, Elder C. H. Watson wrote a book, The Atoning Work of Christ, (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1934). The contents were accurately described by its title. He made it quite clear that Christ's work in heaven is a continuation of His atonement which was begun with His sacrifice:

“Most certainly by the great work of atonement, which by the sacrifice of Himself began at the cross, and was continued by His priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary until, in the judgment, sin's reign is ended.” (p. 175).

To this could be added the supporting testimony of Elder M. L. Andreasen, and F. C. Gilbert's Messiah In His Sanctuary (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1937). This concurs with the Spirit of Prophecy:

“Instead of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming.” (Life Sketches of E. G. White, p. 63).

So this is how the "experts" on Christianity and cults gave the world a grossly erroneous picture of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its beliefs. Their aim was to show that we had changed our doctrines sufficiently to enable us to fit their concept of Christianity.

Had the General Conference succeeded in fooling Barnhouse and Martin, or had we indeed changed our beliefs?

The hitherto highly regarded Eternity magazine devoted much of its space in its September, October, November 1956 and January 1957 issues to a defense of Seventh-day Adventism.

Let me state first, without equivocation, that I believe these editors who are thus interpreting present-day Seventh-day Adventism as "evangelical" and advocating that the Christian church should receive its adherents with all of their heresies as "brethren beloved," are utterly wrong, both in their methods and in their conclusions....

Keep in mind that Seventh-day Adventism is not just a few "big shots," but is composed of hundreds of churches and individual members. Even if these leaders were to repudiate some of their heresies, how about the local churches and their membership who have been "brainwashed" for three generations with such teachings as that of annihilation of the wicked? Will they accept it from stem to circumference of the denomination because these leaders say it is not so any more?

Now the question is: Will Mrs. White have to go? Will the "keystone of the arch"

be removed and thus all the superstructure fall in a heap? This will have to be done if the heresies are abandoned, as Eternity claims.

Louis T. Talbot

"Why Seventh-day Adventism is Not Evangelical" The King's Business, April 1957, pp. 23-30


CHAPTER 5  - The Cloak

Further articles on the Evangelical meetings continued to appear in succeeding issues of Eternity magazine. These were mostly concerned with justifying Eternity's conclusion that Adventists were now a truly Christian denomination, for the initial reaction among Protestantism was one of profound skepticism.

Christendom was also told that Adventists no longer regarded themselves as the remnant church, but considered themselves only as part of the remnant church of God in the last days. And as for the gift of prophecy, Adventists did not regard the E. G. White Spirit of Prophecy counsels as in a class with the Bible prophets. They were regarded as counsels to Seventh-day Adventists only (Eternity, January 1957).

Such a generalized statement does not differentiate between special testimonies to the church and counsels as found in Steps to Christ, or books in the Conflict of the Ages series, all of which are eminently suitable for public outreach. When the General Conference published Questions on Doctrine, a book demanded by Christendom for Christendom in general, they did not hesitate to disregard their own statement by unselectively quoting Mrs. White in order to get their points across. A quick glance through just the first twenty chapters shows that they not only quoted from books suitable for public use, but quoted from the following:

Gospel Workers, Testimonies to Ministers, Early Writings, Counsels on Sabbath School Work, Counsels to Parents, Students and Teachers, Evangelism, Testimonies for the Church, volumes 2, 6, 8, and even an E. G. White Manuscript, No. 18, 1899.

Such inconsistencies are common to those who wander into the shifting sands of conjecture, amendment and invention.

As news of the Evangelical meetings began filtering through the SDA Church, it was deemed advisable to prepare the ministry for the forthcoming book, Questions on Doctrine. The church had a ready-made vehicle to carry out such a taskthe Ministry magazine. All that was needed was a willing editor and a supportive president. Both were in position—R. A. Anderson and R. R. Figuhr.*

* R. R. Figuhr had been associate editor of the Ministry magazine with R. A. Anderson who was General Conference Ministerial Secretary from 1950-1956. Assuming that these men were attuned to each other's doctrinal wavelength, they now had the perfect setup to superimpose mutual designs upon Adventism.

Editor Anderson had fielded an opening statement in the Ministry of December 1956, under the editorial title, "Changing Attitudes Towards Adventism." He told of some recent articles concerning Adventists in leading religious journals and commented:

“When certain Christian leaders discovered recently that we believe absolutely in the sovereign deity of our Lord, in His pre-existence with the Father, in the absolute sinlessness of His nature during His incarnation on earth, in His all-sufficient atoning sacrifice on the cross, and in salvation by grace and by grace alone, then the basis of the misunderstandings which for a century have been a barrier between other Christian bodies and Adventists was removed” (p. 17).

Evidently, "caution" was the watchword. Adventists should not be startled. Many of our ministers would need a careful conditioning process to have them readily accept Questions on Doctrine. Unlike the largely non-Adventist readership of Eternity, most Adventists were well acquainted with our doctrines and had ready access to our literature including the Spirit of Prophecy. So, in the foregoing quotation the heresy of Christ's sinless nature was carefully hedged about by our long-discarded vestiges of Arianism, and the concept of a completed atonement was wrapped in an "all-sufficient atoning sacrifice."

But it was left to L. E. Froom to undertake the delicate task of turning our doctrines around.**

**Froom had been Ministerial Secretary from 1941-1950. During that time, Anderson had been his associate editor of Ministry magazine.

In his outstanding work Beginning of the End, Vance Ferrell quotes a contemporary G. C. official who claimed that Anderson had told him personally that Froom "wanted to stand for the landmarks, but we told him that for the sake of fellowship with the Protestants, we must do this. This will bring in a new day for Adventists. He [Froom] backed down so we could agree with the evangelicals" (Pilgrims Rest DH 104). But in the light of further material to be presented, it seems probable that Froom's reticence was due mainly to the fact that he might bear the blame for changing our doctrines.

Froom's article "The Priestly Application of the Atonement Act" (February, 1957), must, in retrospect, be seen as about the greatest exercise in manipulative semantics ever attempted in Adventist literature.* The opening statements were good, solid Adventism. The closing statements contradicted them. (One wonders if Barnhouse's "first bite all worm, second bite all hook" remarks should not be redirected to this article.)

* In the December 1956 issue of Ministry, Froom had written an article, "The Atonement, The Heart of Our Message," in which he stressed the importance of the atoning sacrifice and referred to Christ's High Priestly work as "ministering its provisions, benefits and effects to the beneficiaries of His grace-the subjects of His intercession" (p. 13).

Here are Froom's opening remarks in which he defines the term "atonement" correctly:

“Despite the belief of multitudes in the churches about us, it is not, on the one hand, limited just to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. On the other hand, neither is it confined to the ministry of our heavenly High Priest in the sanctuary above, on the antitypical day of atonementor hour of God's judgmentas some of our forefathers first erroneously thought and wrote.

“Instead, as attested by the Spirit of Prophecy, it clearly embraces bothone aspect being incomplete without the other, and each being the indispensable complement of the other.” (Ministry, February 1957, p. 9).

Having thus made Adventists feel at ease with his confirmation of a continuing work of atonement, Froom then gives a twist to what appeared to be a perfectly plain statement. He does this by mixing a contradiction with two truths:

“That is the tremendous scope of the sacrificial act of the crossa complete, perfect and final atonement for man's sins.” (ibid., p. 10).

Yes, it is true that the sacrifice was complete and perfect. It is not true that the atonement was final and complete and Froom had correctly stated earlier that the atonement was not "limited to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross."

But wait, he has an explanation: "The atonement is two-fold; first a single comprehensive act, then a continuing process or work of application." Thus our minds are conditioned to the proposition that Christ is now administering the benefits of an atonement completed at Calvary. Christ's work of atonement which Mrs. White said began at the cross, really means "completed," according to Froom. That is the "hook."

How then could Froom possibly hope to fool all those Adventists out there who knew very well that the Spirit of Prophecy teaches that the investigative judgment, which is the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, constituted the final act of Christ's atonement? He simply postulated an erroneous statement as if it were fact:

“No doctrinal proof or prophetic interpretation ever came to this people initially through the Spirit of Prophecynot in a single case. . . . The discovery and interpretation of Bible truth was always left for diligent Bible students.” (ibid., p. 11).

Here is an emphatic enunciation of an entirely new principle for Seventh-day Adventists. Mrs. White never contributed any original doctrinal material to our church.* (!) She was not a diligent student. (!) Apparently L. E. Froom saw himself as a diligent student and therefore he was qualified to interpret the Spirit of Prophecy; as witness, this amazing dogmatic statement: 

“Let there be no confusion then, over the term "making atonement" used by Ellen G. White in connection with Christ's priestly ministry in heaven-obviously meaning applying the completed atonement to the individual.” (ibid. p. 12).

* "Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder Edson, and others who were keen, noble and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them and we studied and prayed earnestly.... When they came to the point in their study where they said `We can do nothing more,' the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me. I would be taken off in vision and a clear explanation of the Passages we had been studying would be given me ... and I gave others the instruction that had been given me" (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, pp. 54, 57).

Thus Froom effectively denies the principle of the blood atonement which Christ is now applying in heaven on behalf of repentant sinners. The blood emphasis is sadly lacking in this and others of his writings on the heavenly sanctuary, a fact which parallels popular evangelicalism because of its belief that Christ completed His work of salvation on Calvary.


CHAPTER 6 - The Last Deception

It is becoming quite evident that the G. C. conferees had certain problems in meeting the criteria demanded by apostate Protestantism. In shorthow to deny the truth. It was one thing to tell the evangelicals to take no notice of the "wildeyed lunatic fringe" of Adventism. It was an entirely different matter to tell that to Adventists. They couldn't! Not only would such "lunatics" have to include the majority of our past and then present leaders, but it must necessarily include God's Prophet, Mrs. E. G. White.

One solution to the Spirit of Prophecy hurdle was to destroy the effect of Mrs. White's writings. Such a thought would be hardly original, because she had warned already that this would happen:

“The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.” (1SM 48).

Nevertheless, as a result of the embarrassment over Spirit of Prophecy statements, which conflicted with the views now being declared to the evangelicals, it was decided that two men should approach the E. G. White Estate, search the Spirit of Prophecy writings for such statements and then attempt to neutralize them. An attempt to tamper with Mrs. White's writings actually took place early in 1957; about the time that Eternity magazine was spreading the news of Adventism's "conversion" to Christianity. Providentially, someone saw fit to "leak" a copy of the White Board of Trustees minutes for May 1957 and the recipient of those minutes was none other than Elder Andreasen (see Letters to the Churches No. 2).

As mentioned previously, Andreasen was considered by our denomination to be one of its foremost scholars on the sanctuary doctrine. He was absolutely committed to the propagation and maintenance of historic Adventism. Imagine his chagrin when he read in these minutes that two men had "suggested to the trustees that some foot notes or appendix notes might appear in certain of the E. G. White books clarifying very largely in the words of Ellen G. White our understanding of the various phases of the atoning work of Christ"* (Minutes, p. 1483, as quoted by Andreasen in Letters to the Churches, No. 2).

* Andreasen claims that it was the editor of Ministry "who in his research became acutely aware of the E. G. White statements ... and so he suggested that footnotes or appendix notes appear in certain of the E. G. White books" (Letters to the Churches, No. 2). Later, in Letter No. 5, Andreasen reveals that it was R. A. Anderson and W. E. Read who visited the White vault and proposed the insertions to her writings. W. E. Read had a long connection with the "Washington club," having experience as field secretary and chairman of the so-called Defense Committee.

What a suggestion! What an affront to Christ and His messenger! And what a sad commentary on the integrity of our leadership, that some should confidently expect that such a dishonest request could even be entertained, let alone succeed. Not only were these men prepared to act as interpreter to God's messenger, but they were prepared to imitate her style of writing by employing "the words of Ellen G. White" in order that the deception might more readily succeed.**

** "There are those who will misinterpret the messages that God has given, in accordance with their spiritual blindness" (Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 41).

Andreasen was not the type of man to remain silent, but he decided to follow Christ's instruction to "speak to him alone." He wrote to the chief officer, president Figuhr, and this is a portion of the reply:

“I am certain we can trust the brethren of the White Estate to move cautiously in this direction and not to take positions that might be embarrassing in the future. Certainly Brother Andreasen, there is no intention here whatever to tamper with the writings of Sister White. We value them most highly” (Letters to the Churches, No. 4).

(The reader will note the prime concern of the "Chief Officer"it was not about the preservation of truth, but rather of any embarrassment which must inevitably follow a fraudulent action.)

Andreasen replied, pleading with Figuhr to "spare thy people, and give not thine heritage to reproach." He closed his letter with an expression of confidence in the president as he faced "the greatest apostasy the church has ever faced" (ibid.) The president's reply, September 18, 1957:

“I have considered the matter to which you referred closed. I do not believe that you have the right to use the Board Minutes of the White Estate as you have done. The Minutes are confidential and not intended for public use. I hope the time will never come when we take the position that men are to be condemned and disciplined because they come before properly constituted church Boards to discuss questions that they may have pertaining to the work and belief of the church.”* (ibid.).

* In spite of Figuhr's admission of these Minutes, the White Estate Board subsequently denied their substance in a circular letter to all Divisions dated September 6, 1960 (reported by Pilgrims Rest DH 103 p. 3).

In his reply, Andreasen noted that the president had condoned the two men's actions. He pointed out that he had used the information about the Minutes to inform him [Figuhr] alone, and that:

“I consider the present instance the greatest apostasy that has ever occurred in this denomination, and this you would have kept under cover! And you have closed the door.... You are about to ruin the denomination. I am praying for you" (ibid.).

But Andreasen's pleadings with the president were fruitless. Figuhr was determined to stand by his commitment to the evangelicals. Here is part of his response:

“This [Andreasen's activities] will place you in plain opposition to your church. In view of all this, the officers, as I have previously written, earnestly ask you to cease your activities" (Letters to the Churches, No. 4).

Andreasen did not cease his activities but made his concerns public in what became known as Letters to the Churches. And so, as previously noted, he was stripped of his credentials and deprived of his sustentation.

Thus it can be seen that our leaders had made no idle commitment to the evangelicals as reported in Eternity magazine when Barnhouse said that they, meaning Adventist leaders, were “determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination”. (Eternity EXTRA September 1956, p. 7).

No doubt, the spectacle of one of our most respected veterans being persecuted for nobly standing up and doing his God-ordained duty did not pass unnoticed by other workers in the church. For most of them, it probably provided a salutary lesson in obedience to mana lesson which may explain the conduct of many to this day.

I was thoroughly shaken when I read the account of men attempting to have

explanations and footnotes inserted into the White books to make it appear that she is in favor of, or at least not opposed to, the new doctrine that the atonement was made on the cross. I had been taught from my early connection with the church that those writings were of God, and must be revered highly. The idea that men might add or subtract, or in any way "explain" the writer's intent by adding "footnotes or explanations" never occurred to anyone.

After I had read the record of what took place, I did a deal of praying and

meditation. What was my responsibility in this matter, or did I have any? I confided to no one. I decided my first responsibility would be to the officials in Washington. And so I wrote to headquarters. I was informed that I had no right to the information I had, for that was supposed to be secret, and I had no right even to read the documents.

After four letters were passed, I was informed that they did not care to discuss

the matter further. The matter was settled. When I inquired if this meant that the door was closed, I received the reply: "I have considered the matter to which you have referred as closed."

M. L. Andreasen

Portion of letter to officers of the General Conference, December 29, 1957

CHAPTER 7 - Movement of Destiny

Even as Questions on Doctrine, with its dramatic breakthrough in public relations, was being presented throughout the world as a savior of Adventism, opposition was steadily mounting. Andreasen's Letters to the Churches were having a telling effect in North America.*

* In Australasia, the membership, with its childlike trust in General Conference leadership, was generally acquiescent. If and when Andreasen's activities were mentioned, it was usually in a derogatory manner.

Walter Martin soon began receiving complaints from indignant Seventh-day Adventists. Not only did they repudiate the new doctrinal positions in QOD, but they claimed that Barnhouse and Martin had been hoodwinked by the General Conference men.

This is not what the Adventist church really believes. You have been deceived.... There are some important representatives of Seventh-day Adventism who are at this point beginning to move the denomination back from where they came in 1957 (Martin, Lecture, February 22, 1983, Napa, California).

In 1965, Walter Martin published his book, The Kingdom of the Cults. Pressure from sections of Protestantism to have Seventh day Adventists redeclared a cult were again mounting. It had been noted that Adventists had discontinued publication of QOD, and they had refused to sell Martin's book, The Truth About Adventism in the Adventist Book Centers. Martin endeavored to quiet the clamor by devoting a section of his book to Adventists. He admitted that conflicting views on Adventist belief were coming out in print, but stuck to his original contention that QOD was indeed a passport to Christianity. He quoted from the Review and Herald's claim:

“This book truthfully presents the theology and doctrine which the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism affirm they have always held.” (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 369).*

* How could Martin keep foisting this untruth upon his readers when Barnhouse had claimed that they had changed the doctrines of a whole denomination? Note the discrepancy: "Let's face it ... the leaders who have written this book [QOD] have moved from the traditional position of the SDA movement" (Barnhouse). This is confirmed by Anderson in a letter to Pastor Robert Greive, then president of the Queensland Conference. After reading the manuscript for QOD, Greive wrote Anderson to see what was going on. Anderson replied, "Yes, we are trying to change the doctrines, but we want to take it to the Ministry before we go to the people with it" (Pilgrims Rest DH 104). And again, "While it is truth, we should be very careful not to set it before the laity until we are prepared to speak with a united voice" (Letter to Robert Greive, April 23, 1956).

The credibility of QOD was under severe scrutiny, both from within and outside our church. Elder Froom, once so reticent (seemingly) to undertake the task of altering our doctrines, who with others had declined to have his name appended to QOD, was by now sufficiently motivated and committed to openly defend the book and expand considerably on its veiled heresies. His book, Movement of Destiny, published in 1971 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association did just that.

It is probably fair to say that no other Adventist publication has come with higher credentials than this book. The Foreword bore the imprimatur of G. C. president, R. H. Pierson** and the Preface appeared over the name of the vice-president, Neal C. Wilson, the latter having acted as chairman of the Guiding Committee for Movement of Destiny (The Fascinating Story of MOD., p. 11). Said Wilson, We can see God's timetable and wisdom. He knew exactly when the Remnant Church, and its leadership would be under attack.*** He knew when the book would be needed most! It will confirm our faith, it will rekindle the fires of dedication and commitment" (MOD Preface).

** Although Pierson had strongly recommended MOD to all Seventh-day Adventists, he later had reason to change his mind. In a letter dated October 6, 1988 to the author (H. H. Meyers) he wrote, "Some portions of Elder Froom's manuscript Movement of Destiny I had not read before its publication.... After reading some portions later, I declined to have my Foreword included in any subsequent editions." It is interesting to note that in a subsequent edition of MOD, a new Foreword is written by H. M. S. Richards. The Preface by Neal C. Wilson remains intact.

*** Elder Wilson does not identify the "attackers."

With such illustrious credentials, Movement of Destiny should be able to be read with the utmost confidence by Seventh-day Adventists. Can it?

In his opening remarks to the reader, Froom deems it advisable to establish his authority for writing the book and to show that he was destined to bring to the Movement an understanding of the Gospel which would lead it inexorably on to victory. He reveals that his mandate came from none other than the late Arthur G. Daniells, president of the General Conference for some twenty=one years, and close associate of Mrs. E. G. White.

Said Froom,

“Back in the spring of 1930 ... [Daniells] told me he believed that at a later time, I should undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption-its principles, provisions and divine personalities-as they unfolded to our view as a Movement from 1844 onward, with special emphasis upon the developments of 1888 and its sequel.” (MOD, p. 17).

At the time of the 1888 General Conference session in Minneapolis, Daniells was serving in the mission field of New Zealand. But it seems that many years later, after being released from his long term as president of the General Conference, he had time to reflect on the main theme of the Minneapolis Conference-Righteousness by Faith. As a result, in 1926, he wrote the book Christ Our Righteousness. Froom claims that it was this work which Daniells wanted him to "round out in historical sequence what he had begun in 1926" (ibid., p. 17). Froom continues:

“Daniells admonished me to be fair and faithful to fact, comprehensive and impartial in treatment, and to present the full picture in balance. "Truth has nothing to fear," he admonished, "and everything to gain" (ibid., p. 18).

Froom unequivocally accepts this challenge:

“I must not be unfaithful to God and to the Church, and the burden that has been placed upon me. That is how this portrayal came to be written.” (ibid. p. 23).

As we examine some aspects of Movement of Destiny and look behind the scenes, we shall keep in mind Froom's commitment to truthfulness and Daniells' maxim that "truth has nothing to fear."

We shall also seek to discover what President Wilson meant when he perceived the church and its leadership to be under attack and perhaps even find out who its supposed enemies are.

What greater deception could be foisted upon our people than for Satan to bring falsehood from within the church, while the members expect it to come from a source outside the church. How well we have been prepared to receive it by being taught to depend upon a system of religious organization to warn us of its approach and arrival, rather than encouraged to look to the platform of truth established in the early years of the movement. Even now, in this time of great peril, the leadership are foremost in cautioning against any discussion of the issues that are polarizing the membership. (See Review, May 24, 1979). They put forth the claim that there is a great deal more made of such situations than is called for; and if they, the leadership, are given the time to decide the conclusion of such issues, then all agitation will die down. Their admonition of caution, and many times silence, on life and death issues is a cry of peace and safety. Matters designed to stir the membership into action are, as a result, not heeded; and it is left to the leadership-the "dumb dogs" who never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God's people their transgressions (see 5T p. 211)-to decide for the membership what is and what is not the truth.

Jon A. Vannoy

"Under Which Banner?" 1981, p. 81.


CHAPTER 8 - "Impeaching the Dead"

Doctor Le Roy Froom was very conscious of accusations against leadership. He had come in for his fair share of censure for his part in what had come to be seen by many as the evangelical sellout of the fifties. Under the heading, "Unjustifiable Charge of Leadership Unfaithfulness," he says,

“Ever since the 1888 tensions there have been recurrent harpers on the note that the church, and primarily its leaders, actually rejected the message of 1888.” (MOD, p. 357).

If such charges had been recurring since 1888, how then would President Wilson see Movement of Destiny as arriving just on time to meet "God's timetable"? There must have been some pressing and contemporary reason to which Wilson was referring. Perhaps Froom can help us further? He talks of the 1888 rejection charge still persisting and refers to a recent call for "retroactive" repentance in order that the Loud Cry and Latter Rain should revisit our Church. Said Froom,

“Such a contention is a grave charge to be bandied about. If the charge is true, then there should be some clear-cut historical evidence. If not true, it "actually constitutes an impeachment of the dead," and "an explicit confession is due the Church today by promulgators of a misleading charge" (ibid. p. 358).

Well, that surely does sound like enemies of the Church at work, doesn't it? But worse still, it sounds like the "enemies" are within our church.

It did not take long for the "mystery" to be made public. In November of 1972, there appeared a booklet titled, An Explicit Confession ... Due the Church, and it was signed by Donald K. Short and Robert J. Wieland, two Seventh-day Adventist ministers with extensive service in Africa and in their homeland, North America. Let us read from their introductory remarks:

“This public "confession" is made in response to a duty solemnly enjoined upon the authors of a private document. After twenty-two years of silence, they are now required to speak publicly, though they would prefer to remain silent.

“Their duty to "confess" is made clear by demands upon them published in Movement of Destiny and endorsed by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. It is a duty the authors dare not evade. The Church will expect a sincere response to such an authoritative public charge. Truth requires it.

“Twenty-two years ago in the autumn of 1950, the authors prepared for the attention of the General Conference committee, a private manuscript entitled 1888 ReExamined. Without the authors' consent or approval, this document with some six hundred Ellen G. White exhibits, was by others placed in the hands of an ever-widening circle of Seventh-day Adventist readers around the world. This is what has now been responsible for this public call to make.” An Explicit Confession .. . Due the Church.

And what was 1888 Re-Examined all about? Again we quote from Short and Wieland:

“We said in 1950 that there is a neglected but essential preparation to make before the final outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Latter Rain can possibly come to enable the Church to finish God's work on earth. That most necessary preparation is recognition of, and repentance for, the misunderstanding and rejecting the "beginning" of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry. This "beginning," according to Ellen G. White, was a message brought by two young ministers to the 1888 General Conference Session. Nearly one hundred times in her writings she endorses this message and the messengers in language never used at any time about any other message or messengers. For us now as a people to beg Heaven to give us the Latter Rain, without recognizing this obvious fact, is just as unreasonable as for the Jews to keep on begging the Lord to send them the Messiah without recognizing how He kept His promise and did send Him two thousand years ago.” (ibid.).

In the rest of chapter ten of MOD, Froom sets out to show that the principles of the "1888 Message" had indeed been adopted and put into practice over the intervening years. He sees the church's progress as evidence of the outpouring of the latter rain. As further evidence he embarks on a recital of leaders' names who upheld the principles of righteousness by faith including the "ultimate in leadership," Ellen G. White.

Froom is in trouble! He is citing our prophet's active role in promulgating righteousness by faith as proof that it had been generally accepted by our leadership because she herself was the "ultimate leader."

But the argument does not fit the facts. Sister White had joined with Elders Waggoner and Jones in traveling around the country with the purpose of urging its acceptance. In 1890, she was constrained to voice her concern in the Review and Herald:

“For nearly two years we have been urging the people to come up and accept the light and the truth concerning the righteousness of Christ, and they do not know whether to come and take hold of this precious truth.” (RH March 11, 1890).

Why were our people hesitant to accept the message? She says,

“Our young men look to our older brethren and as they see that they do not accept the message, but treat it as though it were of no consequence, it influences those who are ignorant of the Scriptures to reject the light. These men [the leaders] who refuse to receive the truth interpose themselves between the people and the light’” (RH March 18, 1890).

And why did our "older brethren" not accept the 1888 message? In 1895, Mrs. White wrote:

“Men who are entrusted with weighty responsibilities, but who have no living connection with God have been and are doing despite to His Holy Spirit.... If God spares their lives, and they nourish the same spirit that marked their course of action both before and after the Minneapolis meeting, they will fill up to the full the deeds of those whom Christ condemned when He was upon earth.” (TM 78-79).

So, with this misapplication of Mrs. White's concern-that the message of righteousness by faith should take hold of our peoplemay we not well ask, Who is impeaching the dead? and Who is it that dares to impeach a prophet of God?

In 1926, over a decade after Mrs. White's demise, were things any better? According to Elder Daniells they were not! In his book, Christ Our Righteousness, we read:

“Through the intervening years [since 1888] there has been steadily developing the desire and hope-yes, the belief-that someday the message of righteousness by faith would shine forth in all its inherent glory, worth and power and receive full recognition.” (pp. 42, 43).

After twenty-one years as General Conference president, Daniells was well qualified to speak on this subject. He was keenly aware of the opposition of which Mrs. White spoke. Said he:

“The message has never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free course as it should have been in order to convey to the church the marvelous blessings that were wrapped in it.” (ibid. p. 47).

Those marvelous blessings would have automatically followed in the train of the latter rain had our leaders been receptive. Why then did Froom contradict his mentor, the very man whom he claims had commissioned him with the awesome responsibility of expanding on the work that he had commenced? Just listen to Froom:

“The denomination as a whole, and its leadership in particular, did not reject the message and provisions of righteousness by faith in and following 1888.” (MOD, p. 370).

How then can Froom be claiming to be carrying out Daniells' commission by contradicting him? Why does he attack two of God's faithful servants, Elders Short and Wieland, for sharing Sister White's and Elder Daniells' concerns? The answers to such questions do not come easily. It is not given to man to divine motives generated in the dark recesses of the heart. We can, however, examine the facts and learn from history.

Those who have read the books, Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny must be struck with their similarities of format and literary style. Probably this is no mere coincidence, for Froom is given credit for writing most of QOD by none other than those whom the book was written to pleaseBarnhouse and Martin.* As one reads through Movement of Destiny, it becomes increasingly clear that it is a defense of the evangelical meetings of the fifties and the doctrinal positions embraced in Questions on Doctrine. 

* Veteran evangelist, Austin P. Cooke claims that during a visit to the USA in 1956, R. A. Anderson told him that he was involved in writing an important book concerning Adventist beliefs. Cooke believes this book was QOD (personal conversation with Author, 1988).

At the time QOD was written, the price to the denomination appeared so high that no one was courageous enough to underwrite it. But after some fourteen years of exposure to its deadly heresies, Froom judged Adventists to have been sufficiently brainwashed for him to safely endorse the heresies in Movement of Destiny with his own signature. But he did it under the guise of presenting true Adventism in the fullness of the 1888 message.

Conveniently, neither Mrs. White nor Elders Waggoner and Jones were still around to object. Neither was Daniells, for that matter.

CHAPTER 9 - The 1888 Message (and the Evangelical View)

Let us briefly acquaint ourselves with the 1888 message of righteousness by faith which our prophet claimed is the "Third Angel's Message in Verity" (RH April 1, 1890) and the beginning of the latter rain. When Sister White heard Elder Waggoner's presentation at Minneapolis, she was ecstatic:

“It was the first clear teaching of the subject from any human lips I had heard; excepting the communication between myself and my husband. I have said to myself, it is because God has presented it to me in vision that I see it so clearly and they [its detractors] cannot see it because they have not had it presented to them as I have; and when another presented it, every fiber of my heart said Amen.” (Manuscript 5, 1889).

Sister White, born Ellen Gould Harmon, was reared and baptized in Methodism.

It would be fair to say that in the Christian world, Methodists had been champions of the Protestant dictum, "The just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). Unlike many of the Reformationist churches, they stressed obedience to God's law as evidence of that faith.

Obviously then, Sister White was referring to a message that encompassed more than Wesley's understanding of the subject, for like Luther, Calvin and other Reformers, he did not have an understanding of the three angels' messages as revealed to Seventh-day Adventists.

It was Elders E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones who picked up the threads of Protestantism's unfinished garment and interwove it with the fabric of the third angel's message. It is this garment of Christ's righteousness which, if accepted by faith and worn in obedience, would enable the Seventh-day Adventist Church to give the message that would light the whole world with glory (the fourth angel of Revelation 18:1). This would be the inevitable result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, known as the latter rain. Said Mrs. White,

“There are but few, even of those who claim to believe it, that comprehend the third angel's message; and yet this is the message for this time. It is present truth.... Said my guide: There is much light yet to shine forth from the law of God and the gospel of righteousness. This message understood in its true character, and proclaimed in the Spirit will lighten the earth with its glory.” (Ms. 15, 1888; Olsen, p. 296, quoted in 1888 Re-Examined).

That a true comprehension of the third angel's message would lead us to emphasize to the world the seriousness of living presently in the day of atonement, is made clear:

“We are in the day of atonement, and we are to work in harmony with Christ's work of cleansing the sanctuary.... We must now set before the people the work which by faith we see our great High-Priest accomplishing in the heavenly sanctuary” (RH January 21, 1890).

So it is abundantly clear that the 1888 message of righteousness by faith is unique to Seventh-day Adventism. The message went much further than the Reformationist view which was circumscribed "by faith alone." It was a message of faith that works, a faith that will enable us to obey and "follow Jesus in His great work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary" (GC 430).

It is obvious then, that those Seventh-day Adventists who deny Christ's continuing work of atonement, by claiming it was finished at the cross, are circumscribed by Reformationist theology. Inevitably, they will increasingly hanker after the fellowship of those whose misunderstanding of the everlasting gospel they have followed. How then can such leaders expect to be recipients of the latter rain and join with the fourth angel of Revelation 18 in the magnificent task of lighting the whole world with His glory?


False doctrine is one of the satanic influences that work in the church, and brings into it those who are unconverted in heart. Men do not obey the words of Jesus Christ, and thus seek for unity in faith, spirit, and doctrine. They do not labor for the unity of spirit for which Christ prayed, which would make the testimony of Christ's disciples effective in convincing the world that God had sent His Son into the world, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." If the unity for which Christ prayed, existed among the people of God, they would bear living testimony, would send forth a bright light to shine amid the moral darkness of the world. Ellen G. White  Testimonies to Ministers, p. 48


CHAPTER 10 - The Dagger Strikes (Part 1)

One of error's insidious traits is its penchant for freeloading on the back of truth. Its passage through Movement of Destiny is no exception. If Adventism's doctrinal uniqueness is to be destroyed, then its very heart, the sanctuary message, must ultimately be targeted. But the attack must not be too obvious.

Froom impressively announces the important truths of the sanctuary doctrine as being crucial to the very existence of Seventh-day Adventism:

“Any weakening or denial or submerging of the sanctuary truth is not only serious, but a crucial matter. Any deviation or dereliction there-from strikes at the heart of Adventism and challenges its very integrity.” (Movement of Destiny, p. 542).

Thus the reader's mind is lulled into a sense of false security. How many will not notice the gleam of a two-pronged dagger concealed beneath the cloak of truth?

The first prong is meant to destroy Adventism's belief in the true humanity of Christ during His Incarnationa humanity like ours in which He resisted sin and thus became our example; which in turn bestows on Him the biblical qualification which befits Him to carry out the atoning work as our heavenly High Priest (see Hebrews 4:15).

An editorial in the Review and Herald December 16, 1884, announcing a new edition of the book, The Atonement, by J. H. Waggoner, made this pertinent observation linking Christ's human nature with his qualifications as a High Priest:

“In [the atonement] is involved the great central "mystery" of the Gospel, "God manifest in the flesh," a divine being bearing the nature of the seed of Abraham.” (as quoted in The Word Made Flesh, p. 42).

The second prong is meant to show that the atonement was completed at Calvary in order to satisfy the popular evangelical belief that Christ's work of salvation was completed at the cross. Therefore any future priestly ministry is explained simply as the application of benefits flowing from a completed atonement.

Let us examine the methods employed by Froom in this two pronged attack.

1. The "Vicarious" Humanity of Christ

Froom directs our minds to the time when a few of our pioneers had brought some Arian* views to Adventism. Uriah Smith was one such person.

* Arianism. A belief pertaining to Arius of Alexandria in the fourth century who held Christ to be a super-angelic being.

Elder E. J. Waggoner had dealt with this diminishing problem at the 1888 Minneapolis Conference by upholding Christ's deity as "all the fulness of the Godhead," meaning of course that Christ was an uncreated and eternal member of the triune Godhead.

This position was always taken by Mrs. White as, coming out of Methodism, she had never held Arian views.

But while the reader is left pondering over the fact that some of our pioneers had been wrong, Froom, by innuendo and timing, sets up in the mind of the reader a link between Christ's earthly nature and the fulness of His Godhead. Referring to Waggoner's book, Christ and His Righteousness, he says:

“The full significance of Waggoner's highly significant descriptive concerning Christ's nature must not be missed. It is vital. He especially declared that Christ "is of the very substance and nature of God"! (MOD, p. 277).

Froom then quickly presses home his intent:

“Waggoner and his colleagues were moving definitely away from both the Arian and semi-Arian positions" (MOD, p.278).

We are not aware that Waggoner had any Arian or semi-Arian views, but we do know that he believed that Christ took upon himself the nature of fallen humanity. Therefore it may appear to some that Froom is trying to show that those with similar views are hooked on a vestige of Arianism.

Then in discussing the 1888 message of righteousness by faith, he says:

“It involved the very nature of Christ in whom the faith was to be invested.” (ibid. p. 318).

Is Froom planting the idea in our minds that Waggoner, in rejecting Arianism, is repudiating the biblical concept of a truly human Christ? We had better see just what Waggoner's position was.

“The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made righteousness.” (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 27, 28).

But such a forceful declaration on Christ's humanity does not suit Froom. How does he overcome this problem? He simply resorts to a tactic with which he is becoming quite adept. He takes a few words and phrases from a statement and intersperses them with his own wording which, when strung together, form a statement which obscures the intent of the original author.

Let's look at Froom's treatment of the last sentence of our quotation from Waggoner:

“He was actually "made"vicariouslyto "be sin for us" that we "might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (MOD, p. 197).

Notice Froom's insertion of the word vicariously. This makes sheer mockery of the plan of salvation by attributing to Christ a makebelieve human nature and constitutes blatant tampering with Waggoner's stated belief. Dr. Larson cites from the 1891 G. C. Bulletin, six instances in which Waggoner stated his position. They all accord with this sampling:

“But what the law could not do, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh to do.... Jesus was made in all things like unto those whom He came to save.” (The Word Was Made Flesh, pp. 48-49). 

During the two years following 1888, Mrs. White gave unstinted support to Waggoner and Jones as they traveled about expounding on the theme of Christ's righteousness. In 1889, she upheld Christ's true divinity and His acceptance of our fallen nature by saying:

“He took upon Him our nature that He might reach man in his fallen condition.” (ST September 23, 1889).

And what about Jones? Did he share Froom's "vicarious" nature theory? Not at all! During his series of lectures on the third angel's message at the General Conference session of 1893, he made at least three statements similar to this one:

“Ah, the Lord Jesus Christ, who came and stood where I stand, in the flesh in which I live, He lived there.” (G. C. Bulletin 1893, p. 412).

Let us remind our readers that Froom claims to be enlarging on the message commenced by Daniells in his book Christ Our Righteousness. With that goes the assumption that he is in agreement with Daniells' view of Christ's earthly nature. But that is not so. On page 38, Daniells quotes:

“Describe, if human language can, the humiliation of the Son of God, and think not that you have reached the climax, when you see Him exchanging the throne of light and glory which He had with the Father, for humanity.” (RH September 11, 1888).

Is this Froom's "vicarious" or make-believe humanity that Daniells is describing? Certainly not! While ministerial secretary of the General Conference, Daniells had made his understanding plain:

“[He was made] like you, like me ... having triumphed over sin in sinful flesh.” (RH November 7, 1929).

So it is clear that Froom is not fulfilling Daniells' commission (if indeed he had been commissioned), nor is he in agreement with the exponents of the 1888 message of righteousness by faith. (Whatever happened to Froom's commitment to truthfulness when he accepted Daniells' admonition "to be fair and faithful to fact"? see chapter seven).

Now we shall see how Froom tackles his biggest obstacle the Spirit of Prophecy. Typically, he seeks the support of Mrs. White, whom he lauds as "the peerless witness" (MOD chapters 28, 29). Because her evidence happens to be in disagreement with Froom's "vicarious" or make-believe human nature of Christ, he resorts to what Dr. Larson describes as "fraudulent" methods, and something which should be rectified by Adventists before our enemies expose this perfidy to world gaze. (See The Fraud of the Unfallen Nature, a pamphlet by Larson.) Also, in his book, The Word Was Made Flesh, Dr. Larson describes Froom's tactics as "a methodological monstrosity" (pg. 247).

One such tactic is to seek to interpret Mrs. White's statements by supplying misleading subheadings over her statements a device which he apparently regarded as highly successful in the book Questions on Doctrine.

We shall mention here, just one example of several as exposed by Larson. On page 497 of Movement of Destiny we find subheading No 5, TOOK SINLESS NATURE OF ADAM BEFORE FALL. There follows a veritable hotch-potch collection of words and phrases taken from nineteen Spirit of Prophecy quotations. No references are given. These are linked together by Froom's wording to make them appear to uphold the false declaration of his subheading.

In analyzing these nineteen mini-quotes, Larson takes us to the source quotations and it soon becomes apparent that Mrs. White said the opposite of what Froom is trying to make her say. Conveniently, Froom deletes the unwanted portions of her opening statement which provides the context. Here it is with the unwanted portion emphasized for identification:

“In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition [that is, after four thousand years of sin], Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.” (1SM 256).

Needless to say, Froom astutely avoids such forceful statements as:

“He humbled Himself, taking the nature of the fallen race.... He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity . . . and where lies the strength of our temptations.” (The Watchman, 3 September 1907 p. 563, quoted in The Word Was Made Flesh p. 146).

The second prong of the dagger will be discussed in the following chapter.



We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or

not. There are a great many that have got the marks yet, but I am persuaded of this, that every soul who is here tonight desires to know the way of truth and righteousness (Congregation: Amen!), and that there is no one here who is unconsciously clinging to the dogmas of the Papacy, who does not desire to be freed from them....

Suppose we start with the idea for a moment that Jesus was so separate from

us, that is, so different from us that he did not have in his flesh anything to contend with.

It was sinless flesh. Then, of course, you see how the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception necessarily follows. But why stop there? Mary being born sinless, then, of course, her mother also had sinless flesh. But you can not stop there. You must go back to her mother, -and so back until you come to Adam; and the result? There never was a fall: Adam never sinned; and thus, you see, by that tracing of it, we find the essential identity of Roman Catholicism and Spiritualism.

E. J. Waggoner

General Conference Bulletin 1901, p. 404.


CHAPTER 11 - The Dagger Strikes (Part 2)  “Atonement Completed at Calvary"

Having appeased the evangelicals, perhaps unwittingly, by robbing Christ of his qualifications to be our heavenly High Priest (as in Hebrews 2:17, 18; 4:15), Froom now moves in to emasculate our sanctuary message by cutting the atonement off at the cross. But as long as Adventism continues to believe that the earthly sanctuary services were instituted to prefigure the service of the sanctuary in heaven, this would be impossible.

So Froom sets about to distance the "earthly" from the "heavenly" by emphasizing that the earthly shadow was not an exact image (see Hebrews 10:1, MOD 558). Hopefully then, he can lead us to believe that the shadow was so distorted that all the atoning work of the earthly priesthood had no counterpart in heaven.

Ridiculous as this dissimilarity seems, this is exactly what Froom is aboutnot that he denies Christ's ministerial role in the heavenly sanctuaryhe just insists that Christ is applying the benefits of a completed atonement. "The earthly was simply a figure for the time then present," he says (MOD p. 557).

How differently the Lord's Messenger views type and antitype!

“We are in the great Day of Atonement and the sacred work of Christ for the people of God that is going on at the present time in the heavenly sanctuary, should be our constant study. We should teach our children what the typical Day of atonement signified, and that it was a special season of great humiliation and confession of sins before God. The antitypical day of atonement is to be of the same character.” (5T 520).

How then, does our self-appointed exponent of righteousness by faith overcome the recurring obstacle of the Spirit of Prophecy?

He simply reverts to the old technique of interpreting the SOP to his own endsa little more subjective selection and word manipulation arranged under misleading headings. Let us take an example from page 501 of Movement of Destiny. We have a subheading, "COMPLETE ATONEMENT MADE ON CROSS" under which we read, "When the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son [on the cross] He said, `It is enough. The Atonement is complete."' And again, "When He offered Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people." And so on. From such fragments of SOP quotations Froom, draws the conclusion:

“The transaction of the cross, then, is indisputably the act of the atonement.” (MOD p. 501).

Once again, the references for these fragmented quotations are withheld, and probably for very good reasons. How many of our readers would have the inclination or the facilities to source these quotations and check them out? If we were to do so, it would become apparent that they were written in the context of the sacrificial aspect of the atonement. (The quotations come from RH September 24, 1901 and ST June 28, 1899 respectively.)

When QOD had dealt with exactly the same quotations some fourteen years earlier, they had been correctly listed under the subheading, "COMPLETE SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT MADE ON CROSS" (QOD p. 663).

If we are to believe that Froom was the main author and editor of QOD, it would seem that Froom's interpretative role had expanded considerably. What was then a "complete sacrificial atonement" had now become a "complete atonement" (MOD, p. 501).

Briefly, let us look at another of Froom's misleading subheadings and garbled quotations:

“CROSS SOLE MEANS OF ATONEMENT. The cross is thus the "means of man's atonement." There could have been "no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made." So, "the cross was ordained as a means of atonement." Christ "gave Himself an atoning sacrifice" (ibid., p. 502).

It will be noticed that in spite of Froom's efforts, he does not succeed in making Mrs. White state that the cross was the "sole means of atonement" (as in the subheading). She merely claims that it was "a means of man's atonement"which of course, is quite correct. There can be no atonement in the heavenly sanctuary (as in the earthly) without the sacrifice which provides the blood. So once again, Froom devises an interpretative subheading as a substitute for fact.

No wonder he refrains from quoting Mrs. White on the continuing atonement in heaven! In that marvelous work of inspiration, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, she describes Christ's judicial mediatorial role which started at the close of Daniel's great time prophecy ending in 1844 (Daniel 8:14):

Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the Holy of holies, and there appears in the presence of God, to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of men to perform the work of investigative judgment, and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits (GC 480, emphasis added).

And what of Froom's claims that Christ is merely administering the "benefits" of a completed atonement? Hear the truth from God's Messenger:

“It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of atonement, who receive the benefits of His mediation in their behalf; while those who reject the light which brings to view this work of ministration, are not benefited thereby.” (GC 430).

So it can be seen that Dr. Froom's claim of benefits being provided from a completed earthly atonement is complete nonsense.

What does inspiration say Christ is doing? He is "pleading His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners." Whether or not we receive the benefits of His mediation during this final phase of the atonement, is up to us. Who will not receive the benefits? "Those who reject the light which brings to view this work of ministration."

Do the authors of QOD reject this light? They certainly do, while taking upon themselves the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Spirit of Prophecy. Just listen to them:

“When therefore one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature, even in the writings of Ellen G. White, that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross.” (QOD pp. 354, 355).

No wonder no one had the courage to append his signature to this specious document! No wonder Elder Andreasen described QOD as an attempt to lessen and destroy confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy and establish a "new theology."-(See Letters to the Churches No. 3).

No wonder Dr. Wilkinson claimed that it was a dagger aimed at the heart of Adventism! What then, would he have said about Movement of Destiny?

That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that He dwelt among men, full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, and was raised for our justification.

He ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, with His own blood, He makes atonement for our sins; which atonement so far from being made on the cross, which was by the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work as priest according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven. See Lev. 16; Heb. 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7; etc.

Principle No. 2, Declaration of Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists, 1872.


 CHAPTER 12 - False Claims and Trickery

The history of apostasy in the Christian church testifies to the fact that the introduction of heresies is a gradual process. Sometimes they are introduced as acceptable alternatives, as in the case of Constantine's introduction of Sunday as a holy day. Others are introduced as new light on previously held views that eventually end up as supposed corrections to that view. Still others gain a foothold on the basis that the church has held them all along, but somehow they have been forgotten. None of the heresies gain instant widespread acceptance, simply because it takes time for a generation of believers to pass away.

Such methods to achieve change are being repeated in Seventh-day Adventism today. Just listen to Dr. Froom:

And in addition to the complete Deity of Christ, Adventists had long been emphasizing the completed act of atonement on the cross, with our High Priest applying its wondrous benefits through His heavenly ministry. This was now our standard and general teaching-for decades before the time of the interviews. And as stated, this was affirmed and buttressed by the uniform baptismal certificate, with its covenant and vows of 1941 required of all candidates for membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” (MOD, p. 482).

Let us examine this statement and its implications. First, a truth is statedAdventists had long been emphasizing the complete deity of Christ (meaning that we were not Arian), but it is coupled to an untruththat we had long accepted the notion of a completed act of atonement at the cross and that Christ is now merely applying the benefits of that act.

Second, we are told that this had been our standard teaching for "decades" prior to the evangelical interviews commenced in 1955 (but meaning, at least since 1935).

Third, it was a requirement of belief for all baptismal candidates since 1941.

Now let us test the credibility of Froom's statements. We will go back to the year 1952, only three years prior to the evangelical interviews, when the editor of Review and Herald, F. D. Nichol, published his ministerial handbook, Answers to Objections. Speaking of some objections to our doctrines over which some leave the Adventist Church, he observes on page 751:

“He [the ex-Adventist] speaks militantly of the "finished work of Christ on the cross."

Nichol then goes to some pains to show that such a position is devoid of logic:

“Of those who charge us with teaching strange doctrines because we believe that Christ's work of atonement for sin was begun rather than completed on Calvary, we ask the question "If a complete and final atonement was made on the cross for all sins, then will not all be saved?" for Paul says that "He died for all."

“Are we to understand you as being universalists? "No," you say, "not all men will be saved." Well then, are we to understand that you hold that Christ made complete atonement on the cross for only a limited few, and that His sacrifice was not world embracing, but only partial? That would be predestination in its worst form.” (Answers to Objections, 1952, p. 408).

Note the time just three years prior to the evangelical meetingsnot "decades"! But the editor of the Review and Herald was by no means the only one of our leaders to believe in a continuing atonement. Other books written and/or circulated during the decades 1935-1955 which upheld Christ's continuing work of atonement come to mind:

W. H. Branson's Drama of the Ages

F. C. Gilbert's Messiah in His Sanctuary

C. H. Watson's Atoning Work of Christ

M. L. Andreasen's The Sanctuary Service and The Epistle to the Hebrews

On the other hand we know of no books published by Adventism that taught a "completed atonement" prior to the publication of Questions on Doctrine. We have noted how, in the 1949 revision of Bible Readings the "repugnant" reference to Christ's "sinful fallen nature" had been deleted. Yet, no attempt to revise our belief on the heavenly atonement was made. We quote from the 1951 edition published by Review and Herald:

In the service of the heavenly sanctuary there is but one sacrifice; and but one atonement, or cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, can be made, which must take place at the time assigned of God for it (Bible Readings, 1951, 205).

As the atonement day of the former dispensation was really a day of judgment, so the atonement work of Christ will include the investigation of the cases of His people prior to His coming the second time to receive them unto Himself (ibid., 207).

So much for Froom's "standard and general teaching for decades before the interviews" But what about his assertion that the "completed atonement" was "affirmed and buttressed by the baptismal certificate of 1941"? Let's take a careful look at Baptismal Vow No. 2:

“Do you accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of men and believe that through faith in His shed blood, men are saved from sin and its penalty?” (Church Manual, 1951 edition).

Can an honest person agree with Froom's contention that this vow supports a "Completed Act of Atonement on the Cross"? This vow describes Christ's death as an "atoning sacrifice" just as we would describe the sacrifice in the typical earthly service. Interestingly, this vow also states that we are "saved through faith in His shed blood," which is backed up by traditional Adventist teaching and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Speaking of the heavenly sanctuary, Mrs. White writes,

“The ark that enshrines the tables of the law is covered with the mercy-seat before which Christ pleads His blood in the sinner's behalf. This is represented as the union of justice and mercy in the plan of redemption.” (GC 415).

And what of the men who formulated this baptismal statement? Did they intend it to uphold Froom's contention that it "confirmed and buttressed" a complete atonement? The committee which formulated the baptismal vow consisted of thirteen men under the chairmanship of W. H. Branson, some of whom were: 

J. L. McElhany, G. C. president 

W. G. Turner, G. C. vice-president 

L. E. Froom, secretary of ministerial association 

R. A. Anderson, associate ministerial secretary 

D. E. Rebok, president of SDA Theological Seminary 

(D. E. Rebok is credited with the actual alteration of Bible Readings on the "nature of Christ" under the direction of R. A. Anderson.)

Well, we probably know what Froom and Anderson had in mind as to the meaning behind the wording of the vow, because of their later obvious desire to alter our sanctuary belief to please Barnhouse. But what of Elder Branson, who was appointed chairman of the committee? In his book Drama of the Ages, Branson says,

“In the heavenly [Sanctuary] the blood of Jesus is actually presented as a sacrificial atonement for the sins of the people. In the earthly sanctuary, the services were performed by men. In the heavenly, Christ is the minister, and daily pleads the merits of His own blood in behalf of repentant sinners.” (p.257).

Furthermore, Branson had upheld Nichol's teaching of a continuing atonement when he wrote the Foreword to Answers to Objections. In it, Branson made known his attitude to Adventist doctrine:

“Throughout their entire history, Seventh-day Adventists have stood for certain distinct doctrines, some of which differ rather sharply from the teachings of other Christian bodies. Because of our insistence upon the scriptural authenticity of these unpopular teachings, we have naturally found it frequently necessary to defend our positions against those who would by careless or faulty interpretation seek to sweep away the distinctive tenets of our faith.”

How awesomely significant then, to realize in retrospect, that at least one member of Branson's committee had knowingly helped to formulate a baptismal vow that (to his way of thinking) could be interpreted later to uphold a completed atonement! Significantly, although holding the position of ministerial secretary and editor of the Ministry from 1941 to 1950, Froom kept his interpretation and views of an emasculated atonement out of print until such time as a sympathetic president ascended the throne in Washington. One can only speculate as to how many more cuckoo's eggs are nestling snugly in the "fundamental" jargon of Seventh day Adventism.

CHAPTER 13 - Kingdom, Czardom or Popedom?

We have seen how error rides smugly on the back of truth. But the converse is not possible, for truth cannot be attracted to error. It is therefore evident that any cause which relies on concealment, trickery and lies, or any other subterfuge to get its message across, must of necessity be a dishonest cause. This fact alone should discount any doctrinal conclusions drawn from dishonest arguments and propositions as found in Questions On Doctrine and Movement of Destiny.

But sadly, these books are now looked upon by the majority of administrators and leaders in the SDA church of Australasia as doctrinally authoritative. Those who point out the twin errors of Christ's limited humanity and His limited atonement are penalized by an administration which is bent on carrying out an undertaking given to Barnhouse to enforce the new stand. This is not altogether surprising when we remember that both books were published with the blessings of the contemporary G. C. presidents* and promoted vigorously by the vast resources of the church.

* As previously noted, Pastor Pierson later repudiated his Foreword to Movement of Destiny. Before this deplorable dilemma can be resolved, it is essential that we understand the political side of the equation. It is essential to discover how an organization which was formed to preach the three angels' messages has now become counterproductive to the very aims which brought it into existence. Why is it that the call to come out of Babylon has been replaced by demands to conform to Babylon? Why is it, that instead of being a separate people, we now find ourselves in bed with Babylon's daughters, the popular evangelicals?

Only with a proper understanding of the mechanism which has assisted this unholy union, will the church be able to return to its God-given task of preaching the third angel's message and be in a position to repel future attempts at seduction. In other words, it is vital that we learn from history in order that we may profit by our mistakes. It is not generally known that organization and religious liberty were issues around the time of the 1888 meetings. Just prior to the commencement of the General Conference meetings at Battle Creek, 1901, Mrs. White had declared that there must be:

“an entire new organization and to have a Committee that shall take in not merely half a dozen that is to be a ruling and controlling power ... to have this Conference pass on and close up as the Conferences have done, with the same manipulating, with the very same tone, and the same order God forbid! ... This thing has been continued for the last fifteen years or more, and God calls for a change.”(quoted by Jones in a letter to Daniells, January 26, 1906).

This makes it plain that Mrs. White was objecting to an organization that had allowed a few men to "manipulate" our work for a period extending back prior to the 1888 conference. She continued:

“From the light that I have ... there was a narrow compass here; there within that narrow compass is a king-like, a kingly ruling power. God means what He says, "I want a change here!" (Ibid.)

It was this "kingly" power which had prevented our leaders from humbling their hearts and had thwarted the Holy Spirit's attempt to bless our church with the latter rain.

At the 1893 General Conference in Battle Creek, Elder A. T. Jones had drawn such spontaneous confession from the delegates while lecturing on the third angel's message.

“Now brethren, when did that message of the righteousness of Christ begin with us as a people? [One or two in the audience: "Three or four years ago."] ... Yes, four. Where was it? [Congregation: "Minneapolis."] What then did the brethren reject at Minneapolis? The Loud Cry.... They rejected the latter rain-the loud cry of the third angel's message.” (G. C. Bulletin, 1893, p. 183).

It seems that A. T. Jones soon incurred the displeasure of President Daniells who had sought to circumscribe his activities during his term at Battle Creek Sanitarium as Bible instructor. But problems arose as Daniells saw fit to take part in secret meetings with others of the Sanitarium staff to which Jones was not invited.

During an address at a regular monthly meeting of the Sanitarium family held on March 4, 1906, Jones commented at some length on the meetings and said,

"Whatsoever is not as open as the day is of the methods of Satan. "*

*Jones enunciated a principle which does not appear to be understood by some present-day administrators of the S.D.A. Church, e.g. the secrecy of boardroom meetings.

Jones then read to the meeting most of a letter which he had written to Daniells a few weeks earlier, on 26th January. In the main, it had recounted the history of the reorganization of the General Conference in 1901, and the subsequent return in 1903 of the conference to its former bureaucracy.** He reminded Daniells that the reorganization of 1901 was the call away from a centralized order of things in which ... a few men held the ruling and directing power, to an organization in which all the people as individuals should have a part, with God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit as the unifying and directing power (quoted in Jones' letter to Daniells).

**Jones quotes from the standard Dictionary: "A bureaucracy is sure to think that its duty is to augment official power, official business, or official numbers, rather than to leave free the energies of mankind." This could explain the decretive manner in which the South Pacific Division recently foisted a Babylonian-like hymnbook and a gallows-like logo upon our church.

It was with this understanding that a new constitution was adopted and, "the monarchy was swept away completely." This was in harmony with Mrs. White's wishes. Said she:

“We want to understand that there are no gods in our Conference. There are to be no kings here and no kings in any conference that is formed, "all ye are brethren"


So it is quite evident that the former organization had degenerated into a bureaucratic power led by presidents. Mrs. White called it a "kingly power." This had now changed. It was replaced by a committee as described by Jones:

“Under this [new] constitution the General Conference Committee was composed of a large number of men, with power to organize itself by choosing a chairman, etc. No president of the General Conference was chosen; nor was any provided for. The presidency of the General Conference was eliminated to escape a centralized power, a one-man power, a kingship, a monarchy.” (ibid.).

But the General Conference did not remain without a president for long. Like in Israel of old, there was a clamor for "kingly" leaders. Let Jones take up the story as he castigates Daniells for disobeying the wishes of God by violating the newly-formed constitution [just two years after 1901]:

“A few men . . . without any kind of authority, but directly against the plain words of the constitution, took it absolutely upon themselves to elect you president, and Brother Prescott vice-president of the General Conference. And that there never was in this universe a clearer piece of usurpation of position, power, and authority ... “You two were, then, of right, just as much president and vice president of Timbuktu as you were of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference.” (ibid.).

The strength of this rebuke to the two top officers of the church should not be lost upon readers.* Jones then outlines the actions taken by Daniells and his supporters to give the usurpation an air of legitimacy:

“A new constitution was framed to fit and to uphold usurpation.” (ibid.).

 * Neither was this rebuke lost upon Daniells. Many consider that as a result of such outspoken rebukes, Daniells virtually hounded Jones out of the Church. But it seems that in later life, Daniells repented of his attitude toward Jones and acknowledged that "Jones was right and I was wrong" (source: Pastor G. Bumside, following a conversation with Meade McGuire in USA, 1946).

This, Jones saw as "a Czardom ... which has since gone steadily forward," and he went on to back up his view with the feelings of some men of experience within the denomination:

“There has never been such a one-man power, such a centralized despotism, so much of papacy! ... And as a part of this bureaucracy, there is of all the incongruous things ever heard of, a Religious Liberty Bureaua contradiction in terms.” (ibid.).

And now for Jones' summation of the situation:

“The Seventh-day Adventist denomination is more like the Catholic Church than is any other Protestant church in the world (ibid.).* [For a reproduction of Jones' historic letter, see Appendix.]

And so within the Seventh-day Adventist Church was reinstalled an instrument of "papal-like, kingly" authority, the basic structure of which remains in place to this day. This is not to imply that all succeeding presidents have taken advantage of the "kingly" authority. But some have used it to the peril of our church; and either intentionally or by manipulation, a few men have usurped a position comparable to the Vatican Curia, taking upon themselves the responsibility of redefining our church doctrines.

*Let us remind the reader that this is Jones describing the S.D.A. organization of 1906. Any similarity of Jones' description to conditions today is entirely providential and warrants close examination.

CHAPTER 14 - The Atonement, Completed or Uncompleted-Who Cares?

Recently, the author was discussing Adventism's latest pronouncement- "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " with a retired minister. The observation was made that President N. C. Wilson and the General Conference* were still pushing the heresy of a completed atonement, citing the following:

“The atonement, or reconciliation, was completed on the cross as foreshadowed by the sacrifices, and the penitent believer can trust in this finished work of our Lord.” ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. ", p. 315).

* Under the heading "We Gratefully Acknowledge ..." we read: "With the authorization and encouragement of president Neal C. Wilson and the other officers of the General Conference of Seventhday Adventists, the Ministerial Association has undertaken to prepare this volume to furnish reliable information on beliefs of our church" ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe... ", p. v).

Imagine the author's surprise to learn that this minister, who to the best of the author's knowledge is a firm believer in our sanctuary message, could see nothing wrong with such a statement.** 

** The reader will notice that this statement not only repeats Froom's error of a completed atonement, but incorrectly implies that this was foreshadowed by the earthly sacrifices, and comes perilously close to satisfying the evangelicals' demands that a Christian must believe in Christ's completed work of salvation.

A similar experience took place a few days later while talking to a very respected evangelist whose faith in our sanctuary and other historic messages seems undiminished. He could see nothing wrong with the claims of Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny, that Christ is now "administering the benefits of a completed atonement at the cross." Both men felt that the author was reading an unwarranted intent into a perfectly innocent statement.

But let it ever be remembered that the overriding purpose of QOD was to convince Christendom that we believe in Christ's completed work of atonement (and by implication, salvation) in order to escape the stigma of cultism. Barnhouse and Martin,  having been satisfied on this point, then ridiculed our claim that Christ is carrying on a further work in the heavenly Sanctuary as being illogical. Said Barnhouse:

“Any effort to establish it [Christ's heavenly ministry] is stale, flat and unprofitable.” (Eternity, September 1956).

And again,

“The latter doctrine [investigative judgment], to me, is the most colossal, facesaving phenomenon in religious history!” (Ibid.).

An attempt to overcome such "logical criticism" is currently being manifested in the South Pacific Division where ministers are teaching that the "pre-Advent judgment" [the preferred term for the investigative judgment]* refers to God's judgment; i.e. it is God who is being judged in order that the universe should see the justice of God in His dealings with Satan. 

* In "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. ", p. 317, the investigative judgment is referred to as the pre-millennial judgment" and "pre-Advent judgment." 

While preaching at the Avondale Memorial Church, Pastor Geoff Youlden of the South Pacific Division Media Centre claimed that in the pre-Advent judgment, "God is up for judgment" and that "God is in the hot seat" (Sermon, "The Gospel and the Judgment," August 20, 1988). When the author later pointed out to him that this is an echo of Fordian teaching,** he claimed that he knew nothing of what Ford believes or teaches! Such a claim is all the more astounding when it is realized that Youlden studied under Ford at Avondale College. Such teaching appears to retain belief in the investigative judgment, while shifting its emphasis on to God's shoulders. Thus the impact of the first angel's message of Revelation 14, which is an urgent call for personal preparedness, is effectively muted. 

** Ford wrote in Australian Signs of the Times, June 24, 1957 under the heading "Will believers and Their Sins Come to Judgment?": "God has placed Himself on trial before the universe."

This view is not only comparatively new to Adventism but is contrary to the Spirit of Prophecy:

“The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan.” (PP 69; see Appendix for chapter twenty five).

The authority of the Spirit of Prophecy is upheld in the S.D.A. Bible Commentary. Here it is clearly acknowledged that God's method of dealing with sin has been eternally vindicated before the universe:

“The supreme demonstration was made by the incarnation, life and death of God's own Son. God now stood wholly vindicated before the universe.... Thus the charges of Satan were refuted and the peace of the universe was made eternally sure. God's character had been vindicated before the universe.” (S.D.A. Bible Commentary vol. 6, p. 508).

There is no doubt that many Adventists are quite naive when accepting deceptive pronouncements which are aimed at destroying biblical Adventist positions. If such statements should come with the blessings of presidents and others who have attained influential positions, it becomes difficult to accept that they are misleading. Instead, some strive to interpret these statements to harmonize with traditional Adventist beliefs. This is the genius of Satan's chicanery, for while trusting souls are silently consenting, heretics are energetically exploiting this dual state of the art.

Dr. Desmond Ford, ex-minister of the S.D.A. Church and still a member of Pacific Union College Church, exploits the "finished atonement" concept to explain his evangelical view of a term used almost exclusively by Adventists"Everlasting Gospel."

In his magazine, Good News Australia, August 1988, Ford writes under the heading,

"Meditation upon the Everlasting Gospel." He says,

“Thus in every place where Paul mentions "the righteousness of faith," he means not sanctification, but that justification which is based on the finished atonement.” (p. 2).

Notice that his conclusions on sanctification and justification are based on a "finished atonement."

Even being a credentialed minister of the S.D.A. Church does not hinder Pastor Vern Heise from expressing his views in Ford's Good News Australia. Naturally, they are compatible with Ford's evangelical-type gospel. In an article, "Have You Been to Church at Antioch?", Heise takes a tilt at religious "groups that feel that they are "sole custodians of the truth." Of course, being a veteran minister past retiring age, he would be very aware that the S.D.A. Church is the "sole custodian" of the sanctuary truth with its judgment-hour message. Heise tells us that “there were those in Jerusalem that wanted to make Christianity hard work. They were enjoying their masochism-their self-imposed penances. They were like some today who will perform their religion even if it kills them!” (Good News Australia, September 1988).

Then comes the punch line to which his whole article has been targeted:

“On the other hand, the church in Antioch rejoiced in and celebrated the finished work of Christ.” (ibid.).

Yes, that is how the "finished work of our Lord" ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . ") is being interpreted from within our churchshades of Barnhouse, who sees our belief in Christ's heavenly atoning ministry as "stale, flat and unprofitable," and the keeping of Sabbath as legalistic. (A "self-imposed penance"? "Performing their religion even if it kills them"?)

May we remind the reader of Elder F. D. Nichol's words quoted in chapter 12:

“[The ex-Adventist] speaks militantly of the finished work of Christ on the cross.” (Answers to Objections, p. 751).

Now, over thirty-five years later, it is a credentialed, ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who so speaks. And who does he now have to back him? Well, according to "Seventh day Adventists Believe. .. ", he could quote the Ministerial Association, who have the authorization and encouragement of president Neal C. Wilson and the other officers of the General Conference.

But worse is to come. The Ministerial Association tells us that "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " is a biblical exposition of the twenty-seven "Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists" (p. iv and cover title). Yet all the while, recent converts to our church, and young people particularly, are being brainwashed with the evangelical interpretation of a make-believe brother/Saviour Who finished His work at Calvary.

To the carnal mind, a bargain in cheap grace, or salvation in sin, is very appealing. Qualms of conscience can be assuaged by deductive reasoning based on new and erroneous positions touted by official publications of the S.D.A. Church. It goes something like this:

Because Jesus came to this earth with the nature of unfallen Adam, He did not inherit the sinful tendencies that I received from my parents, and therefore, He had an advantage over me and He does not expect me to follow Him as my example.

And because He completed His atoning work of salvation at the cross, there is no need for a later investigative judgment in heaven. If I try to keep his commandments, I am rejecting Christ's victory over sin on my behalf and I am actually committing the sin of trying to save myself by my own works.

Perhaps in the cold light of logic, we should be grateful to the General Conference for showing us in "Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... " that they are unable to clearly interpret their Fundamental Belief No. 23, as enunciated at Dallas. Just look at this pathetic effort to portray the earthly sacrifice as the atonement in an attempt to make their "completed atonement" at the cross appear credible:

“The application of the atoning blood during the mediatorial ministry of the priest was also seen as a form of atonement.” (Leviticus 4:35) ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe .. . ", p. 315).

"A form of atonement"? What nonsense! It was a crucial part of the atonement.

But lo and behold, these equivocators are caught in the trap of their own making and go on to contradict their previous statement of "the finished work." In defiance of Barnhouse's and Ford's logic, they have to justify Christ's further ministry in heaven.

They say,

“Christ's priestly ministry provides for the sinner's forgiveness and reconciliation to God.” Hebrews 7:25 (ibid., p. 317).

And again,

“The heavenly sanctuary is the great command center where Christ conducts His priestly ministry for our salvation.” (ibid., p. 316).

And yet, just one page back (315), we have been told that "the atonement or reconciliation was completed on the cross"! Such is the dilemma into which people arrive when they endeavor to produce a book on Adventist beliefs that has something for everyone.* And if this dose of double-talk has not sufficiently confused the meaning of Fundamental 23, here is more, as we read:

“The issue [investigative judgment] is with God and the universe, not between God and the true child.” (ibid., p. 326).

*Many consider the latest statement of Fundamental Beliefs to be a consensus statement. This was openly claimed by pastor Rex Moe at a special business meeting of the Avondale church (September 27, 1987) in his attempt to prove that various interpretations of our Fundamentals are allowed. Now, in "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. ", we have the farcical situation of a consensus interpretation of a consensus statement!

In the light of such enchanting statements, the instruction given by God's messenger takes on a new urgency for Seventh-day Adventists today:

“We are individually to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. In the typical service, when the work of atonement was performed by the high priest in the Most Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary, the people were required to afflict their souls before God, and confess their sins, that they might be atoned for and blotted out. Will any less be required of us in this anti-typical day of atonement, when Christ in the sanctuary above is pleading in behalf of His people, and the final irrevocable decision is to be pronounced upon every case? .. .

”We must no longer remain upon enchanted ground. We are fast approaching the close of probation.... Let the church arise, and repent of her backslidings before God. Let the watch men awake and give the trumpet a certain sound. It is a definite warning that we have to proclaim. God commands His servants "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins" (Isaiah 58:1). (1SM 125, 126).

So, just how important is it that Seventh-day Adventists resist the teaching of a completed atonement? Let us hear from the Church's proclaimed authority on the sanctuary:

“No Adventist can believe in a final atonement on the cross and remain an Adventist.” (Andreasen, Letters to the Churches titled "The Living Witness," p. 2, as reprinted by LMN Publishing, 1988).

The truth of this statement is supported by the Spirit of Prophecy. 

“The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith was the declaration "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Daniel 8:14 (The Story of Redemption, p. 375).

“When Christ entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of the atonement, He committed to His servants the last message of mercy to be given to the world. Such is the warning of the third angel of Revelation 14.” (ibid., p. 379).


Elder A. F. Ballenger was once one of our leading evangelists, and won many souls to the truth. Eventually he was dismissed from the church because of theological differences, and, as one would say, "of all things," the heresy for which he was dismissed is the very doctrine now being forced upon us, teaching that the atonement was made on the cross!

In commenting on his dismissal, Mrs. White said: "[His] proofs are not reliable. If received they would destroy the faith of God's people in the truth that has made us what we are.... 

"It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentations of the

sanctuary questions were given.... Another and still another, will arise and bring in supposed great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old landmarks (Selected Messages, Book 1, pp. 161-162). 

M. L. Andreasen on the Atonement Letters to the Churches, January 19, 1958

CHAPTER 15  - Target: Australia

It was well nigh impossible for heresy to gain a permanent foothold while God's Messenger, Mrs. E. G. White was alive. Her influence survived her death and the work prospered in proportion to the number of her dwindling contemporaries.

Particularly was this so in Australasia, where Mrs. White had established the Avondale School for Christian Workers (now Avondale College) according to the blueprint. This model of Christian education was eventually to make its presence felt as its missionaries not only encompassed Australasia, but they were eventually to take a prominent part in speeding the advance of the everlasting gospel around the world.

They had no illusions as to the message contained in the everlasting gospel and they did not deem it advisable to attend colleges of "higher" learning to discover that message. They called their brothers out of Babylon into God's remnant church, that they too might catch a vision of a judgment-bound world on the brink of eternity. They were not ashamed of this "gospel of Christ" with His atoning role as ministering High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.

If, and when Satan tried to gain an heretical foothold within the church, such efforts were stoutly and ably resisted. One such attempt was made in the late 1920s through the person of one of Australasia's capable leaders, Pastor W. W. Fletcher. Some say that he had been sidetracked by Elder L. R. Conradi of Europe, on our sanctuary message and on the Spirit of Prophecy. Let it be stated here, that unlike some later and contemporary heretics, Pastor Fletcher presented his propositions honestly by acknowledging that he believed differently to historic Adventism.

A subcommittee to study Fletcher's propositions was appointed early in 1930 by the Australasian Union Conference of which Pastor W. G. Turner was president. Their report, which rejected Fletcher's views, was forwarded to the General Conference where another committee had been formed to counsel with Fletcher. The chairman of that committee, Pastor Montgomery, wrote to the Australasian Union thanking them for the subcommittee's work and conclusions. He said,

“We feel that this statement is both tenable and adequate to prove the error of the views held by Brother Fletcher.”

In the light of present heresies, it is interesting to note one of the highlights of the subcommittee's statement:

“If sin was cancelled at the cross, there is no need for a scapegoat. The typical service however, provided one, which is proof that the sin was not cancelled at the altar of burnt offering, which is the equivalent of the cross. The sin was finally atoned for, not at the cross, but in the true tabernacle in heaven before the "ark of the testament," which John saw in vision (p. 5).”

The late Pastor A. W. Anderson was asked to prepare a paper on Fletcher's attitude to our sanctuary doctrine. This was circulated with the committee's report. In it he correctly observed:

“On the reconciliation [atonement], "That this reconciliation was not completed on the cross is evident from the fact that it was the work of a high priest to make reconciliation. When He was on earth, He was not a priest. (see Hebrews 8:4).

If reconciliation was completed on the cross, then when Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary with His own blood and became our High Priest, His work was already completed."

The concluding paragraph states:

“After a careful re-examination of the ninety passages of scripture in which the words "atonement" and "reconciliation" occur, I am more profoundly convinced than ever that W. W. Fletcher is wrong, and the denominational teaching on the cleansing of the sanctuary is right.

(It should be noted that one of the men on the General Conference committee which commended their Australasian brethren for their defense of a continuing atonement in the heavenly sanctuary was none other than L. E. Froom.)

God signally blessed the efforts of His hard-working, dedicated servants and time came when the homelands of Australia and New Zealand attained one of the highest percentages of Adventists in the world. But things were to change. Satan had targeted this hard-won bastion of truth for one of his most amazingly successful attacks against God's remnant church. He was to succeed eventually in reversing the role of the "blueprint" missionary college to that of a veritable brooder of heresy, with the inevitable result of bringing the advance of the third angel of Revelation 14 to a virtual standstill in Australia and New Zealand.

This dramatic change is revealed in the statistical reports published annually in the Australasian Record. For instance, the report for the year ending June 1972, shows a peak membership gain of approximately 1,023 in the two homeland Unions. This was achieved with the help of 235 ordained ministers. Within ten years (1982) the annual gain had dropped to 448 souls but it took 52 more ministers (287) to achieve this dismal result. The total tithe received in the homelands in 1982 was $18,577,755 which means that for each member increase, it cost $41,468 of tithe against $4,697 for each member increase back in 1972. During the year ending 1984, the Trans-Australian Union Conference actually suffered a membership loss of 166 members.

How could such a catastrophe come about? We must hark back to those fateful years of the early 1950s when vice-president Figuhr and his boys of the Washington club were smarting under the stigma of cultism. When Elder Figuhr came to Australia shortly before his election to the General Conference presidency, he used his fist to emphasize the direction in which he believed authority should travel: "Representation comes up," he said, "but direction comes down."

At that same gathering in Melbourne, he also gave our workers an insight into the characteristics of leaders best qualified to keep that authority moving in the desired direction. He is reported to have spoken along these lines:

“When a man's name is brought up for nomination to leadership, it is not his spiritual or doctrinal standing that is to be questioned, or even his administrative capabilities. No, it is his ability to get on well with his fellows and maintain harmony that should be of paramount consideration.”

According to the worker reporting this revelation, this was a rather startling departure from accepted ideals and practice. There was no doubt in the worker's mind that Figuhr was speaking about pliable middle-of-the-road men.* Many years later, Australian Adventists were to see the baleful results of the implementation of this unscriptural policy.

* While Figuhr was making his acceptance speech, after being elected G. C. president, he described himself as a "middle-of-the-road" man.

Note by Ron: That would be “a Laodicean, sitting on the fence man.” End note.

In the year 1957, our zealous Dr. Froom came to Australasia, promoting his book Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers and the forthcoming book Questions on Doctrine. We are told that he took the opportunity to prepare our ministry for the great leap "forward" that would be expected to follow our new understanding of righteousness by faith. He introduced them to the mysteries of Christ's "vicarious human nature" and the wonders of His "completed atonement."** 

** Vicarious: deputed; acting for another, substituted (Collins)

Vicariously: by substitution (Collins)

If Christ took my human nature in place of me, what sort of nature does that leave me with?                  

By the end of the same year, Dr. Edward Heppenstall of the Washington Seminary had arrived at Avondale College to take part in a lengthy extension school for ministers. After a lapse of over thirty years, recollections of all that transpired in his lectures are growing dim. But certain shock statements have left their mark. One student recalls how Heppenstall told them that there is only one covenant. When asked how such a statement can be reconciled with Adventism's two-covenant position as outlined in Patriarchs and Prophets, *** he is reported to have replied smugly, "You don't."

*** Pastor Mervyn Ball, a retired Australian evangelist, told the author how he quoted the Spirit of Prophecy. It counters a claim by L. E. Froom that the atonement had been completed at Calvary. Froom's only response was a stony silence. Apparently other workers felt too embarrassed to press the issue, a phenomenon that has shown up repeatedly in this Division's march toward apostasy.

Others recall how he frequently stressed the need for ministers to emphasize the love of God in their sermons, and left them with the feeling that perhaps doctrines were not too important. Yet another remembers how Heppenstall recited his encounters with M. L. Andreasen, whom he portrayed as a decided hindrance to the advancement of Adventism.

Still others of his students claim that Heppenstall prevented the then Division president, F. G. Clifford from sitting in on his classes. In hindsight, this is not surprising, as Clifford's reputation for doctrinal orthodoxy had probably registered in Washington. By some accounts, there were three students who made quite an impression, not only on Heppenstall, but also on their colleagues. It appears that Heppenstall was very impressed by their receptive attitude to "new light." He warmly commended them and urged them to go abroad for advanced study. Some dutifully followed his advice and eventually all three achieved a degree of notoriety among Adventists: Desmond Ford left the imprint of his name on apostate Adventism, and his theology in Avondale College; Walter R. L. Scragg achieved the honor while president of the Euro-African Division, of overseeing the bestowal of the goldplated medal on the pope;* and Lend Moulds was fired from the theological department of Avondale College for teaching heresy which he picked up while studying in a North American Adventist University.**

* See Review and Herald, August 11, 1977 on Medal.

**Moulds is to be commended for showing a rare degree of honesty, in that, unlike some others at the College, he refused to conceal his new-found "faith" from the administration.

So it was, that doubts on the competency of those who worked out our historic doctrinal positions were planted in the minds of our workers while the authority of leadership as interpreters of scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy was established in the minds of many. All that was needed now was a pliable leadership, amenable to the dictates of a Washington hierarchy. But the time was not yet. President Clifford had a firm grip on the reins. As Froom had seriously observed,***

“We need more funerals to get Adventism up and going.”

*** According to a tape of Mike Clute's interview, Froom would ring up Wilkinson on his birthday and express disappointment that he was still alive.

There are men among us in responsible positions who hold that the opinions of a

few conceited philosophers so-called, are more to be trusted than the truth of the Bible, or the testimonies of the Holy Spirit. Such a faith as that of Paul, Peter, or John, is considered old-fashioned, and insufferable at the present day. It is pronounced absurd, mystical, and unworthy of an intelligent mind.

God has shown me that these men are Hazaels to prove a scourge to our

people. They are wise above what is written. This unbelief of the very truths of God's word because human judgment cannot comprehend the mysteries of His work, is found in every district in all ranks of society. It is taught in most of our schools, and comes into the lessons of the nurseries.

E. G. White

Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 79.


Note by Ron: The following statement is so apropos and has been since soon after the death of Ellen G. White in 1915:

“The patience of God has an object, but you are defeating it. He is allowing a state of things to come that you would fain see counteracted by and by, but it will be too late. God commanded Elijah to anoint the cruel and deceitful Hazael king over Syria, that he might be a scourge to idolatrous Israel. Who knows whether God will not give you up to the deceptions you love? Who knows but that the preachers who are faithful, firm, and true may be the last who shall offer the gospel of peace to our unthankful churches? It may be that the destroyers are already training under the hand of Satan and only wait the departure of a few more standard-bearers to take their places, and with the voice of the false prophet cry, "Peace, peace," when the Lord hath not spoken peace. I seldom weep, but now I find my eyes blinded with tears; they are falling upon my paper as I write. It may be that erelong all prophesyings among us will be at an end, and the voice which has stirred the people may no longer disturb their carnal slumbers.  {5T 77.1}

When God shall work His strange work on the earth, when holy hands bear the ark no longer, woe will be upon the people. Oh, that thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day, the things that belong unto thy peace! Oh, that our people may, as did Nineveh, repent with all their might and believe with all their heart, that God may turn away His fierce anger from them.”  {5T 77.2} 

The Ark was the presence of God. If once holy hands bear the ark no longer, this means that God’s presence has departed, and that is how He expresses His fierce anger and His strange word at the end. He withdraws His presence, and demonic destruction and woe begins. End note by Ron.