SDA Leaders are on
|
rev·er·ie
P Pronunciation Key (rv-r)
[Middle English, revelry, from Old French, from rever, to dream.] |
[Download
Now or Buy
the Book]
Source: The
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition |
End commentary—back to Interview:
(we see it in charismatic circles today all the
time) - “The Lord has shown me this.”
And it doesn’t happen, now what are you going to do? Say that this person is a false prophet, an
enemy of the Gospel; somebody who is going to be pilloried and never listened
to again, the way biblical false prophets were supposed to be treated? Or are you dealing with a Christian with
spiritual gifts who misuses a gift or mistakes a gift? That’s completely different from calling a
person a false prophet. And some of
Mrs. White’s statements in the early days, as I pointed out to the General
Conference representatives, were theologically off the wall. They just wouldn’t stand up. These men were very tactful. They were true to their convictions, but
they were not intransigent. They were
willing to look at biblical evidence, exegesis, and facts. The resulting book, Questions on Doctrine, was a landmark because it said what so
many Adventists had believed for so long but had never had in print as a
reference.
CURRENTS: So two books came out of these discussions:
one from the Adventists and one that you wrote in 1960?
MARTIN: Right.
At this juncture something unique happened. Roy Anderson can confirm this for you; he
knows the inner working of it.
Somehow, when my book came out, they got an advance copy.
CURRENTS: Was their a prior agreement as to what
would happen to your book when it came out?
MARTIN: Oh, yes.
We would distribute their book and promote it through Christian
bookstores, through Eternity Magazine,
and anyplace else we could.
MARTIN: I have faithfully done that. And they were to take my book and get it
into all the Adventist bookstores and publishing houses so that the
Adventists could see the work I had done.
They reneged on that. The
General Conference reneged on that, and
MARTIN: I don’t, and I wouldn’t make an
accusation. But they did not keep
their word. As a result, only Questions on Doctrine came out in
Seventh-day Adventist bookstores. The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism
did not. In addition to that, they
wrote a book to answer my book without giving my book a hearing. That was wrong. The book is called Seventh-day Adventists
Answer Questions on Doctrine, I don’t object to their answering my arguments
in The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism; that’s only fair. But at least let the people read [for
themselves] what I said!
What
they did was censure they Adventist people.
That’s what they did.
MARTIN: Hung heads and deep apologies from the four
men I worked with, who felt that they, themselves, had not been treated
fairly in that respect. I cannot say
enough for the integrity of these men.
They never backed down on their positions.
About
my book, The Truth About Seventh-day
Adventism - when I got ready to print, I went to Zondervan who said,
“This is explosive stuff. Do you
realize what you are saying?”
I
said, “Yes. It’s true; we should print
it. I am an expert on cults; you
printed my other books, right? I am
the director of the division of cult apologetics for the largest Christian
publishing company. Are you going to
believe me or not?” The Zondervan
brothers said, “We believe you.”
“Fine,” I said, “print it.”
Well,
about two months after that I received a call. “Walter, will you fly to
I
previously had problems with Louis Talbert, at the Theological Seminary. I met with Talbert and presented the
evidence I had uncovered. He was very
impressed by it and said he would wait and see what the outcome of the final
research was before he said anything.
Well, when we published the Eternity
Magazine articles he blew his cork and attacked Barnhouse.
MARTIN: Yes, that’s correct. But God gave us all those subscribers back
again and more.
CURRENTS: What fraction was the 11,000 of the total?
MARTIN: We only had 33,000.
CURRENTS: Almost a third of your subscribers were
lost?
MARTIN: I believe that was the figure. But to Barnhouse’s credit, when we were
faced with this, he said: “It doesn’t make any difference how many we
lose. If it’s the truth, God will see
us through.” That’s courage - more
courage than the General Conference ever had.
They didn’t even have the backbone to face their own constituency.
Back
to the problems at Zondervan. M.R. De
Haan, a popular Zondervan author, was objecting to my book. I flew to
He
was their biggest seller. This was 1957. Pat and Bernie Zondervan said, “Well, M.R.,
we don’t want to lose you; we love you and that means a great deal to
us. But if Walter is telling the
truth, this is a landmark issue. We
want to get out there and tell the truth about it. It is really a breakthrough and we’re going
to print it.” And they did. I think the book sold between 25,000 and
50,000 copies which, in those days, was a very good sale.
But
if the General Conference had kept its promise, which it didn’t, the book
would have gone to all Adventist groups.
Then a lot of the seeding that has taken place through the years would
have been an instantaneous type of event, and Adventist laity would have seen
that there were other legitimate doctrinal perspectives. But they didn’t get the chance. The “old guard, - whoever they are -
apparently have enough power, probably dominated largely by the interest of
the White Estate. And I feel that the
White Estate and the denomination itself have got themselves into a
spiritually compromising position they’re going to have to face. It’s revenue versus repentance. And Mrs. White cannot be defended against
the charges of plagiarism. She cannot
be defended against certain specific theological errors. She can be retained, however, as a pastoral
voice in manifesting spiritual gifts of value to the denomination in the
past, of value now, and of value in the future.
MARTIN: We are talking moral in the sense that she
very carefully hewed the line, biblically.
Unfortunately,
what you just said introduces the problem of ethical and moral integrity in
her publications. Now, all of us, I
have done it myself, quote sections of books.
Usually I try to footnote them unless I paraphrase something and I am
not even aware that I’ve paraphrased it; in which case, if it is brought to
my attention, I’d change it. I can
understand how it is possible. But not
pages and pages and pages!
So,
I feel that there is a compromise, revenue-wise. I think the General Conference leaders are
compromising with the White Estate. I
think they are trying to preserve the entire fabric and structure of the
denomination historically. It can’t be
done. There are too many holes in
everybody’s denominational history and structure to try to preserve it in its
entirety. Everybody has made
mistakes. And they have got to come to
a genuine repentance because they are trying to cover up facts. They are trying to cover up truth. If they will stand with Questions on Doctrine, and if they
will answer my questions - and I have only asked three questions - directly
and truthfully, then I am going to defend them as my brothers in Christ and
try to work with them and pray with them towards a position that really will
reflect the truth.
MARTIN: I prefer not to articulate them now because
I think the General Conference has a right to see them first and respond to
them before I talk about them publicly.
[JANET’S NOTE: The 3 questions plus the 2 answers are given at the
very end of this interview.] But the
questions are very pointed and direct.
There is no possibility of mistaking what I am saying. I am not trying to be an inquisitor. I did not come to the Adventists as an
inquisitor 30 years ago. I am a
brother. But if men will suppress
truth and hold down the truth in unrighteousness, then the Scripture says,
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against this.” In other words, you
cannot survive this. You will not
receive the blessing of God.
CURRENTS: One of your research consultants recently
wrote a letter [in the summer of 1982] to an Adventist, and I quote: “We do expect Professor Martin will be
making some form of public statement concerning his findings and recent
dialogue with the SDA leadership in the very near future.” Have you made a statement somewhere or
would you care to say something about it now for the readers of the Adventist
Currents?
MARTIN: I am going to be printing, as I told
Brother Wilson, a booklet discussing some of the things we are talking about
now, plus more. A large amount of what
I have to say is going to be conditioned by the response I get from the
General Conference, and the answer to the important question, “Why did you
let the most singularly influential book of the last 30 years in your
denomination go out of print? Who was
responsible for it going out of print?
Why? Does the Adventist
denomination, in fact, really hold to what it originally said, or is the
Adventist denomination playing games with us?
Have they changed their position or were they always playing games
with us? I believe these are fair
questions.
CURRENTS: Can you expect a truthful answer after what
happened 30 years ago?
MARTIN: I have ways of making sure that the answer
is truthful... You see, 30 years ago I didn’t have near the audience I have
now. My tapes on the cults have
reached a circulation of 15 million.
those are not my figures but the figures of the people who distribute
them.
Secondly,
the Kingdom of the Cults is in
print as a standard textbook and is used all over the world. It is now in its 37th printing,
coming up for revision and expansion; and in there is a chapter on Adventism,
which I put in deliberately. The book
will be a classic for years. The
chapter has got to be in there spelling out that Adventists are not a cult,
because they are already classified that way.
What better place to deal with it than in a classic book? Anthony Hoekoma came after me with a hammer
and tongs; he is a friend of mine. And
M.R. De Haan came after me, among other people because of the position I
took. I haven’t recanted my position,
but if the Seventh-day Adventist denomination will not back up its answers
with actions and put Questions on
Doctrine back in print - and, in effect, take a strong stand against
people in your denomination who are a very vocal and powerful group and who
very well can bring the judgment of God on up - then they’re in real trouble
that I can’t help them out of; and nobody else can either.
E.
Schuyler English, I should tell you, was the first to print, along with Eternity, the material on Seventh-day
Adventism. He agreed with me that it
was something we should do, regardless of whatever flack we got. Others picked up the same thing. We pretty much split the evangelical
world. But through the years, I can
say this without hesitation, the position Barnhouse took - and I took - and Questions on Doctrine took - prevailed
in the evangelical world, so that a whole new climate exists. The General Conference is now jeopardizing
that whole new climate. They will
throw themselves back half a century if they do not clarify these issues.
CURRENTS: You wrote a review of The White Lie, Walter
Rea’s book about Ellen White. In it
you stated, “...another defense put forth by the SDA hierarchy is that
Ellen’s writings were compiled in the same manner as that of the biblical
writers. Rea presents a concise,
thorough refutation of this premise.”
There is a whole lot behind that.
I am not confident Rea did a good job of parsing the difference
between the problems of source usage in Ellen White and the problems of
source usage in Scripture.
MARTIN: I didn’t write this review.
CURRENTS: Oh!
I’m sorry.
MARTIN: This was done by Lynne Scheffer, a
researcher I put on the project for five months, to sift all the
materials. I have cartons of
material. The article was published in
Forward. Walter Rea I know personally. I knew him in
CURRENTS: Walter feels that you sometimes need a two
by four to get a donkey’s attention, and he hasn’t been able to be persuaded
away from that.
MARTIN: I know.
We talked about this in great detail.
He drove over to see me and showed me the original manuscript of The
White Lie before they ever published it.
I got in touch immediately with Roy Allen Anderson and with a
committee [Kenneth Vine, Robert Olson, Robert Spangler, Bert Beach, and R.A.
Anderson] that met at Loma Linda in January of 1982. I asked the questions I am asking the
General Conference and I specifically made clear-cut statements to them about
the dangers involved. There was a
consensus of opinion among the brethren that something very definite had to
be done of a positive nature to offset a lot of the statements that were
coming out. And I left it there until
my recent letter, since I am getting ready to publish. I sent my letter to
CURRENTS:
If you are going to use source
criticism on one though, it’s legitimate to use source criticism on the other.
MARTIN: Sure, if you are going to assume that you
can use a source criticism, fine.
Writers of the Bible drew upon pagan sources. Paul quoted from uninspired authors in Acts
17. Revelation has quotations from
secular sources. Nobody is denying
that, but that’s not plagiarism.
CURRENTS: The phenomenon is different in that culture
or in that context, perhaps, than it was is the 19th century. Plus the readers knew that the writer knew
that the readers knew.
MARTIN: But, there is a circular reasoning involved
in defending Mrs. White. You have probably already detected it -
“The writers of the Bible did the same thing as Mrs. White. Mrs. White is permitted to do it
also.” That holds if one assumes,
circularly, that Mrs. White is to be considered as one of the writers of the
Bible. And then you are right back to
square one.
Let
me read you something that’s really of a cultic mentality and dangerous, that
you may not be aware of. I’m quoting
an Adventist official:
“This
is a statement I like very much.
Speaking of Christ, the originator of all truth. This is found in Manuscript 25 that Ellen
White wrote:
EGW:
“In his discourse Christ did not bring many things before them at once lest
He might confuse their minds. He made
every point clear and distinct. He did
not disdain a repetition of old
and familiar truths and prophecies if they would serve His purpose to
inculcate ideas. Christ was the
originator of all the ancient gems of truth.”
“Now
I believe there are ancient gems of truth in Hindu writings, in Buddha’s
writings, and ancient gems of truth in Mohammed’s writings, in the Islam
world. I don’t doubt this at all. Through the work of the enemy, these truths
have been displaced; they have been disconnected from the true position,
placed in the framework of error.
Christ’s work was to readjust and establish the precious gems in the
framework of truth. The principles of
truth which have been given by Himself to bless the world, had through
Satan’s agency been buried and had apparently become extinct.”
Now
you’re really in trouble. You’ve got
Christ drawing upon pagan religious sources as a means of restating truth -
this is directly contradicted by Scripture.
Actually, Jesus said, “The words that I speak unto you my Father gave
me, what I should say, what I should speak.”
The Father was not gleaning the ancient writings of religion in order
to instruct His Son.
EGW:
“Christ rescued them from the rubbish of error, gave them a new vital force
and commanded them to shine as precious jewels and stand fast forever.”
“I
am convinced that if someone took the time, you could find every single
parable in some ancient writing that Jesus used.”
This
is absolute nonsense. I am a professor
of comparative religions; I find this absolute, utter nonsense.
MARTIN: Let’s keep going. I’ll tell you. [Martin forgets to say he is quoting from Ministry Magazine editor and General
Conference Ministerial Association secretary Robert Spangler]
“He
[Christ] gave it to begin with, He took it, changed it around and adapted it
to what He wanted to teach the people.
He was the originator of it to begin with, maybe a thousand years
before. Who knows? First it shook me, like I told you before,
but it no longer bothers me to understand that Ellen White borrowed passages,
words, sentences, paragraphs from other writings, but she put it into a
different framework than the original author who used it. Never forget that. And therefore, I am convinced that God is
speaking to us through the Spirit of Prophecy. He speaks to us through the Word of God,
and no matter where they may have gotten the words from or of some other
language, the beautiful words, whatever, that does not bother me as long as I
know it is the truth...
“Walter
Martin who is a good friend of R.A. Anderson met us in Loma Linda in the
month of January and we spent about two and a half hours together discussing
the relationship of Ellen White to the Scriptures in our church. He had gotten hold of some materials; he
felt that we ought to come out with some kind of statement. That’s in brief what this whole meeting was
all about. So I went back to the
General Conference along with Brother Robert Olson, and also Bert Beach, who was on this committee
along with Kenneth Vine who is the head of the theology department from Loma
Linda, four of us, and R.A. Anderson.
We met with Martin for two and a half hours and he was concerned over
all this talk about Ellen White being put above the Scriptures and so
forth. So, as a result of that, I
brought with me a tentative statement; the trouble is it’s going to take some
time to go through all this but let me give it to you quickly.”
Ron’s
Commentary: Notice that Bert Beach, the SDA church's ecumenical man for over thirty
years, was on a comittee that was dealing with Walter Martin. Beach was
the man who saw that the SDA church followed up on fellowship with Babylon. End commentary.
And
he gives a statement which I think avoids it.
But the gentleman [Spangler] said he had seen so much good, in
Seventh-day Adventism, come out of the movement, he didn’t think there was
anything that could be shown to him that would shake his faith in the
inspiration of Mrs. White! now, this
is the perfect cultic mentality - circular, self-authenticating,
experiential, no basis in objective fact.
If that’s going to be the party line, my brothers, kiss it good-bye
with the evangelical world. They will
descend on this.
CURRENTS: Dr. Martin, doesn’t their behavior - in
regard to your book and their own book, Questions
on Doctrine, basically suppress it and make sure they distance themselves
from it - prove it was not really representative of the church as they led
you to believe?
MARTIN: I think, as I said before, that the men who
spoke to me [in the 1950’s] represented
a conservative Adventism which wanted fellowship with the body of
Christ.
Ron’s Commentary: Reader, do you see anything wrong with
conservative Adventism wanting fellowship with Babylon? End comment.
The
acceptance of Questions on Doctrine,
when it was published, by so many of the leadership of the church and by
people all around the world who were Adventist, hailing it as a major
landmark - a bridge to fellowship
and so forth - indicates that a great body of Adventists, this amorphous
body, are eager for fellowship with
other members of the body of Christ and welcome something like this as a
means of communication. I think there is now a group of powerful
individuals in positions of authority in the denomination who, because the
denomination is very authoritarian, are able to control large segments of the
populace, simply by being their voice.
Ron’s Commentary: Compare the above statement with the Ellen White
statement below. Walter Martin was more insightful in this area than
most SDA's are:
General Conference as the Voice of God: "God has ordained
that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when
assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some
are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man,
or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that
God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General
Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.
When this power, which God has placed in the church,
is accredited wholly to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be
judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed....Let us give
to the highest organized authority in the church that which we are PRONE to
give to one man or to a small group of men." E.G. White, Testimonies,
vol. 9, 261. End comment.
And
I don’t think the average Seventh-day Adventist would deny Questions on
Doctrine, if they went through it point by point. And I don’t think they would be hostile to
it. But I think people would who are
conditioned by the mentality we are now seeing come out of the
leadership. Yes, definitely. But to say the whole denomination was
misrepresented by Anderson and Froom and everyone else - I don’t think the
evidence would support that. Reuben
Figuhr was about as conservative a president as the Adventists ever had. He has been questioned in this are, and is
adamant that Questions on Doctrine
had the major support of leadership in the denomination. After all, they sent the book out all over
the world to their top people, prior to publication, and they only received
minor flack.
CURRENTS: But perhaps the near unanimity with which
it was hailed was the result of that authoritarian administration saying, “We
want to publish this... It is going to be good for us.”
MARTIN: What you are saying is maybe the people
didn’t buy it.
CURRENTS: But they felt obligated to because of the
authoritarian structure that came from the highest levels. Have you considered that possibility?
MARTIN:
It’s always a possibility. Who knows the minds of men and how they
reason and what their methodology is?
But I am not going to extrapolate from the General Conference backing
out on my book and make it a personal issue.
I
am not saying we are categorizing Ellen White in the biblical context of a
false prophet. I’m saying that’s an
ideal way to protect yourself. Joseph
Smith said the same thing: “The time will come when they will challenge what
I said; that only proves that I am telling the truth.” That’s logical madness.
CURRENTS: But really, do you think Adventists care if
they are classified as a cult?
Wouldn’t they look at this as a good sign?
MARTIN: If the mentality has degenerated to the
place where they are willing to say, “For our convictions we will be called a
cult,” without ever really considering the possibility that their convictions
are erroneous, then what you are saying could happen.
CURRENTS: Cast out for Christ.
MARTIN: The mentality would dictate that kind of
behavior pattern. Now, I don’t know
the mind of the General Conference. I
don’t know the mind of Neal Wilson. I
haven’t talked with him. I have
received correspondence. Some of the material I have - there are
boxes full of it here - I’m not supposed to have. It doesn’t inspire much confidence in me
regarding how they deal with their people.
Ron’s Commentary: Did Walter
Martin have privy to information that even you would not nave as and SDA
member of the church? Walter Martin was not impressed with how the SDA
leadership dealt with its people. This is a double-edged sword that
cuts at Martin also. He was impressed with the way the leaders dealt
with him, but not its own people. Did Martin have possession of
material that even you would not be privy to as a MEMBER of the church? End
comment.
And
when a minister asks for a hearing, and a committee comes together, the guy
blows them away; then the committee walks away from that and blows him
away. I have to believe things are not
the way they ought to be biblically.
What I think is happening in the echelons of leadership right now is
that they have gotten to the place where they have elevated Ellen White to be
the infallible interpreter of Scripture.
By doing so they have painted themselves into a theological
corner. They are on
I
never met D.M. Canright, but he was a personal friend of Mrs. White’s A lot of his personal reminiscences are very
revealing about her personality. She
was an ill-educated person; she was a person given to religious reveries,
some of which her own husband didn’t buy.
Ron’s Commentary: Let’s remember that even Jesus received
much adversity from His own family members also. End comment.
She was a person who believed absolutely
that she had received some messages from God; and in some instances I think
maybe she did. That doesn’t guarantee
you are going to be an infallible prophet, and that whatever you say about
Scripture and interpreting Scripture is going to guarantee it for other
people.
Ron’s Commentary: Who was Martin to decide what was true or
untrue? Ellen White never claimed
infallibility, but she was correct on what she saw. What about the erroneous doctrines of Babylon
that Martin believed? From whence
would a commandment-breaker receive the spiritual discernment necessary to
criticize Ellen White and determine what was inspired or not? We may all be sinners and commandment
breakers, but God has had a faithful few in every generation who were
obedience to His Word. The 144,000 are
blameless. God does not level any
indictment against the church of Philadelphia, and Ellen White was certainly
a member of Philadelphia! Martin is
rushing in (further down in this interview), where even God does not indict.
CURRENTS: Have you read the material on the injury to
her head and the hypothesis that she was just suffering from partial complex
seizures?
MARTIN: I read the medical material on the possible
diagnosis of her in this area.
Although I have not read anyone’s rebuttal of that. But I’ll say something; it’s very difficult
to diagnose certain mental or emotional disturbances with the patient in the
room and the machines hooked up and all the sophistication of modern
medicine. I am, therefore, a little
bit suspicious of the smell of roses, the color purple, and these things
being connected with specific mental disorders and to fix them to her, or any
person, historically. It might make a
good case to chase down in a great detective story, but if you are talking
about hard evidence, forget it.
I
believe Ellen White had an extremely complex personality, and I think she
plagiarized materials because she believed the Lord had shown her what the
sources said was the truth. She simply
appropriated material and gave it out.
I think she wanted the credit for it and that’s why she didn’t
footnote. She was mortal; she was a
sinner like anyone else.
CURRENTS: So she was a commandment breaker - which to
her was one of the worst sins. If you
were a commandment breaker, how terrible.
Where does that leave us?
MARTIN: When I was once seated with a group of
Seventh-day Adventist theologians and we got on the subject of commandment
breaking, I said, “I am going to sound heretical to you, but we do know each
other pretty well and therefore I am speaking as your brother.” And they all laughed. I continued, “None of us in this room is a
commandment keeper. Because the
Scripture says, ‘If we say we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves and the
truth is not in us. Sin is the
transgression of the law, and all unrighteousness is sin.’ Please tell me if anyone in this room
considers himself, for a 24-hour period, totally righteous?
No
one said, “Boo.” “We are all commandment
breakers.” I said.
Ron’s
Commentary: So were the prophets of
Scripture commandment-breakers! All
men have sinned. But that does not
mean that God has not preserved the gift of prophecy amongst His people, and
especially at the end time when we need it most.
Joe 2:28 And
it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all
flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream
dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Act 2:17 And
it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men
shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Now,
we don’t begin our day saying, “Today I am going to make the effort to keep
the Ten Commandments.” We begin our
day saying, “Lord Jesus, give me the grace that I may walk with you.” Because if I am going to walk with Christ,
I’ll be obeying the will of God and the law of God. Now, I’m not going to make it all day. Maybe I might one day, but I miss the hours
of 2, 4, 6 and 8 on Thursday, and 2, 5, 7 and 9 on Wednesday, whatever it may
be. That’s what the Pharisees were
into - the idea of how they were going to keep the law perfectly. They missed the whole point of the law.
CURRENTS: But that’s her point. She would make that point in a very stern
way and then turn around and break the same commandment.
MARTIN: I know.
D.M. Canright said she was whipped up in a lather about the slaughter
house techniques and how the meat was bad to eat, etc. Of course this is a well-known fact of the
time and she picked it up from Kellogg and others, not through divine
revelation. It was a fact in the
newspapers, but Mrs. White turns around and has a pork sandwich in Canright’s
presence. Canright almost choked. I believe Canright. I believe she ate a pork sandwich in his
presence when she got through telling people they shouldn’t eat pork, because
she was a sinner.
Ron’s Commentary: Canright was proven to be an inveterate
liar. Who do we believe, him or Ellen
White?
CURRENTS: I can’t corroborate the pork story but I
can provide you with a letter in which she writes to her daughter-in-law, in
the eighties, and orders some fresh oysters.
MARTIN: And it’s forbidden under Mosaic law. But anyway, we don’t want to get into
straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. I am not an enemy of Adventism. I am a friend of Adventist people and a
lover of truth. I did my level best at
great risk - in 1956 and from then on - to take a strong position on the
basis of Questions on Doctrine. If they are going to repudiate the book and
turn back the pages, I have no other alternative but to rewrite the chapter
in The Kingdom of the Cults. And I’ll have no other alternative but to
come out and do another tape or series of tapes. I mean, just lay the whole thing out. I don’t want to do that. I’d much rather see them come around to a
solid position.
CURRENTS: Haven’t they repudiated it already in the Review during the last couple of
years? Haven’t they condemned Questions on Doctrine as a terrible
heresy?
MARTIN: Well, now...this is an important
point. Is that the General
Conference’s position or of that an editor of the Review? Are we talking
about a person? People high in
Adventism have told me that [Kenneth] Wood was an unfortunate choice for the
position and they are very happy he is not there. It is possible that Wood got away in the
authoritarian structure with saying lots of things because no one could get
to him or get at him. Well, the next
editor of the Review might come
along and do a complete about-face.
I’m waiting to see what they’re going to do. You see, one magazine knocking a book
doesn’t bother me. One prominent
Adventist knocking it, or a group of them, doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is the possibility that the
governing body of the denomination has really taken it out of print because
they don’t want to believe it. Well,
if they no longer want to believe, I want them to answer more questions.
CURRENTS: Is there any documentation from any General
Conference leadership in the 1960’s when they officially stopped publication
of Questions on Doctrine?
MARTIN: I was told by a high authority it was
scheduled for republication. They
wanted to make a few minor changes, nothing really to do with answers; and I
was to see it before they did it. He
was enthusiastic about it going ahead.
MARTIN: When it was going out of print. I don’t know what the date was, but he
knows. He said he okayed it and it was
going to be done. Then the powers that
be, dominating the publication committee, whoever they were at that time,
decided just to simply let it go out of print because there was pressure
being placed on them from other sources.
I suspect the White Estate and other people, zealous of preserving the
image of an Ellen White they had created, did not like Questions on Doctrine, because it was honest.
I don’t know the inner
workings of it. And I am not too impressed with
I
have yet to receive a response to questions that went back to the General
Conference - two representatives [Robert Olson and Robert Spangler] took them
back. I have yet to receive a response.
CURRENTS: You have talked about what you perceive to
be several of Ellen White’s documentable shortcomings or sins, if you want to
call them that, and plagiarism or what not.
However, you have not brought up the perjury issue. I am not sure how much you are aware of the
recent information concerning her involvement with the Shut Door idea, which
was subsequently obscured by her statements essentially denying any
involvement with the spreading of that heresy, if you will.
MARTIN: I think she believed it.
CURRENTS:
The White Estate has admitted she
misunderstood her early visions which seemed to teach it.
Ron’s
Commentary: If you have any doubts
concerning the “shut door” issue, read this document:
https://omega77.tripod.com/openandshutdoorolson.htm
MARTIN: We knew a long time ago but they wouldn’t
admit it.
CURRENTS: But it involves her, essentially, perjuring
herself in order to save her credibility.
I read your account of Jehovah’s Witnesses in The Kingdom of the Cults
and the part where you are detailing the perjury committed by Russell, which
totally destroys his credibility and his worthiness as a Christian
leader. How would you apply that same
reasoning and argument to Ellen White?
MARTIN: I think she made a mistake. I think she committed a sin. I think she panicked and tried to cover it
up. I think those around her aided and
abetted her in this. Also, I think the
White Estate had it in conspiracy for years.
About that, I don’t think there is any doubt at all.
The
difference between her and the Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the crime
itself. That was wrong. Whether Russell did it or whether Mrs.
White did it is irrelevant. It’s the
nature of the person we are talking about.
Was Charles Russell a Christian?
Did Charles Russell hold to the foundations of the gospel? Did Charles Russell promulgate the things
of Christianity and stand in their defense?
No. Did Ellen White? Yes.
Therefore, though she committed the same crime he did, I cannot judge
her on the same basis I am going to judge Charles Russell. She is a Christian who committed a
sin. That should be brought out and
spelled out clearly so it will show that Christians do these things. You have to be very careful about what they
say, and even more careful in the light of something like that. That doesn’t mean everything Mrs. White
ever said, or wrote, or did, automatically loses its credibility.
If
you go back into Church history and look at some of the people who wrote -
and some of the things that were done - you get the distinct feeling they
were sinners saved by grace. And yet,
you do not throw out some of the great minds of the Church - and people in
Church history - and say they have no credibility because they committed a
sin or made a mistake.
CURRENTS: Should a distinction be made between what
are just sins and those acts committed under the guise of inspiration and
absolute authority? Such as saying,
“The angel has shown me...” or saying, “In the name of God, I swear, I never
had those kind of visions,” and publish that under the name of God? Is there a difference between that and,
say, committing adultery in private?
MARTIN: Sin is the transgression of the law. There are sins that are greater in
magnitude and there are greater punishments for them. Christ taught that there were degrees of
sin and there were degrees of punishment.
It is an even greater sin when someone in a position of authority, who
is looked to and respected, deliberately does something with full knowledge,
and covers it up or perjures himself.
Yes. Or plagiarizes or
something like that. Yes. That is a great sin, and we cannot ignore
sin. But I’ve got to make a
distinction here that may not make some people happy. I have been pressed and pressed by people
to get me to say Ellen White is a false prophet.
The
logic used is, “But she said God told her something and it didn’t come to
pass or it wasn’t true, and, she claimed to be speaking prophetically; that
makes her a false prophet.”
Let
me make an important distinction at this juncture. A biblical false prophet - that’s what they
are really getting at - was not a believer.
A biblical false prophet was a servant of the devil attempting to lead
people away from the truth. You will
find that in Exodus and Deuteronomy:
“He
hath spoken for the purpose of turning you away from the Lord your God.” It’s a prime characteristic of a biblical
false prophet in the Scripture. You
don’t have a believer on your hands, you’ve got an unbeliever. And this person is deceiving the church.
Mrs.
White, in my opinion, made false statements.
She misused what she claimed was the prophetic gift she had. I believe this, in certain instances. But if you’re going to try to say that
makes Ellen White the same as the false prophecy prohibited in Exodus and
Deuteronomy, then you have to demonstrate that Ellen White was an unbeliever
and that it was a deliberate and
willful perversion of truth regarding salvation and revelation. That’s a very fine line.
Ron’s Commentary: It is interesting how Martin could not
bring himself to say that Ellen White was a false prophet. He read much of her material and he just
could not bring himself to the point of calling her a false prophet. If he truly believed that Ellen White lied
about the “shut door” incident, then he should have said that she was a false
prophet, for she would have been such if she knowingly, deliberately lied
about that issue. But she did no such
thing, and Martin knew that. End
comment.
Of
course, technically, I would have to say that the person who prophesies in
the name of God and turns out to be wrong, has prophesied falsely. You have to say that. But they want to go further than that. They want to make Mrs. White a biblical
false prophet which means she is not a Christian. I cannot endorse that.
CURRENTS: I don’t think anyone familiar with the
history would deny she felt she was right and felt she had some kind of
mission to fulfill. In that sense I
don’t think anyone would attempt to say she was a false prophet, in the sense
you just described.
MARTIN: I am just talking about people who have
left the denomination and people who are hostile to Adventism generally. They are picking this line up and I am getting
flack on the subject of false prophets.
So I have to be very careful when I talk about a false prophet. We do admit that anyone who says something
in the name of God, and it doesn’t come to pass, is prophesying falsely. But there is a deeper level to this. Is it a person who has fallen into sin and
is a believer, or is it a person who is a total unbeliever? That’s your biblical part - deliberately
attempting to lead people away from God.
CURRENTS: I find among disenchanted Adventists more
of the charge that she was a fraud than that she was a false prophet.
MARTIN: Well, considering that 90% of her writings
allegedly have been tainted by secular or religious sources, even if it was
good material, one does get quite suspicious of her ethics and of her genuine
commitment to truth.
CURRENTS: What about Mrs. White’s view of the
atonement - that it wasn’t completed until 1844? Doesn’t that fall under the category you
are talking about?
MARTIN: The doctrine of the incomplete atonement is
heretical. It was later changed into a
modified Armenian device with the investigative judgment and was nothing more
than a poor face-saving technique - as Dr.
Barnhouse pointed out to Dr. Froom, to his great chagrin. It was just a way out of a nasty situation.
She really bought the idea that this
was the proper interpretation of Hebrews.
She believed it. She was wrong. The people around her were wrong. She thought God had shown this to her
because, I think, she tried to imbue a lot of her statements and doctrines
with the divine seal of authority to get people to pay attention to her. Yes, I think she did that and I think that
was sinful. However, I don’t believe
the intent of Mrs. White, in anything she taught, was to dishonor Christ or
to turn against the gospel as she understood it.
Ron’s Commentary: The Atonement of Christ’s blood spilled for
our sins was complete. But the Atonement by way of pleading that blood on our
behalf and sending the Holy Spirit to those who believe in the efficacy of that
spilled blood is not over until probation closes, and the Sanctuary is
cleansed of all sin. End comment.
CURRENTS: It would seem that the Christian has a lot
of leeway in what he believes; and if there are some mistakes in his
viewpoint, in some things he does....
MARTIN: That doesn’t make him a non-Christian. It makes him a Christian - uninformed,
ignorant, or sinful; but still a redeemed person. Paul says, “Mark has forsaken me; Demetrius
has loved this world.” Does he send
them off to hell? The man in 1
Corinthians 5, did he send them to hell?
No. I therefore think
Christians are capable of terribly stupid acts and statements, even dishonest
and sinful acts. But they are also
capable of repenting. That’s what the
General Conference should be doing right now, repenting. Repenting of these things and saying, “We
just cannot sustain this any longer.
The church is built on Christ, not on Mrs. White or her prophetic
gift, or the revenue generated from her resources.”
CURRENTS: Three Seventh-day Adventist will have to
repent for keeping you from you lunch if we don’t thank you right now and get
out of your hair.
[This interview was conducted by Douglas Hackleman.]
The
three questions [referred to in the interview] that Walter Martin asked the
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists are:
1.
Why is the book Seventh-day Adventist’s Answer Questions on Doctrine
2.
Does the Seventh-day Adventist church still hold to the answers it
3.
Do you regard the interpretations of the Bible by Ellen G. White to be
[This
question was left unanswered.]
1.
Why is the book Seventh-day Adventist’s
Answer Questions on Doctrine no longer available?
2.
Does the Seventh-day Adventist church still hold to the answers it gave in
that book to the doctrinal questions non-Adventists have posed?
Currents
queried General Conference officers and discovered that Neal
When
Lesher’s office was contacted (26 August 1983), Lesher was out of town; but
his associate, Frank Holbrook, answered the two questions posed above.
In
answer to the first question, Holbrook said that Questions on Doctrine “went out of print for the same reason that
any book goes out of print; there was no call for it.” He added the astonishing statistic - and
repeated it - that there had been four copies of Questions on Doctrine printed for every North American Division
member! When asked where they all
were, he said, “in libraries.”
Told
of Holbrook’s answer, retired General Conference Ministerial Association
secretary and former Ministry Magazine
editor R. Allan Anderson found it preposterous.
Responding
to the second question from Martin regarding our present faithfulness to the
answers given back in 1957, Holbrook said vaguely, “We answered him
consistent with our 27-point Statement
of Fundamental Beliefs.”
Holbrook
would not elaborate on answer number two; but he did say that Questions on Doctrine was, in a sense,
passe; that it had outlived its usefulness; and that a special volume (number
eleven) of the SDA Bible Commentary series
was being prepared to deal with various doctrinal issues (such as the nature
of Christ). Fortunately or
unfortunately, the new book will not be published for several years.
[Adventist Currents, October 1983]
After
several years of slow-moving preparation, an eleventh volume of the SDA Bible Commentary series slated for
unveiling at the 1990 General Conference quinquennial session has been
canceled. The project, begun in 1983
as a joint venture between the Biblical
Research Institute and the Review
and Herald Publishing Association, was to be a comprehensive and official
elaboration of fundamental SDA beliefs.
Spokesmen
for both the BRI and the Review
cite as a reason for cancellation the inability of many of the thirty-four
authors to complete their contributions to the volume in a timely way. One spokesman, when asked about the quality
of the articles that had been submitted, asked that the question not be asked.
One
of the difficulties faced by those in charge of the project was that of
finding qualified writers who were willing to write mere descriptions of
Adventist doctrine as it had evolved during the last half of the nineteenth
century. No creative reunderstandings,
applications, or even apologetics were solicited. But most theologians are loathe to think of
their discipline as static.
One
of the reasons for a commentary volume on Adventist beliefs was the void that
has been left by the longstanding refusal to reprint Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. Questions on Doctrine, of course, had a
controversial history and its tendentiously evangelical interpretations of
SDA doctrine made it anathema to those Adventists who believe in victory life
and the fallen human nature of Christ.
Nevertheless BRI associate secretary Frank Holbrook told Currents,
“I’m comfortable with Questions on
Doctrine,” and added that he personally would be willing to have it
reprinted.
In
the meantime, the Ministerial
Association is preparing a guide to Adventist doctrine, entitled Adventist Believe, to be published by
the Review & Herald Publishing
Association in late 1988. The book
will also serve as a supplement to those
Even
though the Ministerial Association is a General Conference entity, and in
spite of the fact the Adventists
Believe will be published by the Review
& Herald, because it will not be voted by a General Conference annual
council action, it will not be “official.”
This means that if a great argument should occur over some point or
points in the book, GC spokesmen will be able to deny that it represents the
“official” church position. Church
officials would have something like what Oliver North in another context
referred to as “plausible deniability.”
Some
Adventist theologians are pleased with the news that the church’s theology
will continue to meander somewhat pluralistically, languishing for an
“official” volume that articulates its fundamental beliefs - believing that
the church is better off without it because
they know that on several substantive doctrinal points, Adventists simply are
not agreed.
[Adventist Currents, April,
1988]
[Editorial pieces written by Douglas Hackleman.]
Questions on Doctrine: a Theological “Sting?”
Loud
and bitter reaction to Questions on
Doctrine came from those who felt that in it “the truth” had been sold
for a mess of pottage - favor with the evangelicals. Milian Lauritz Andreason (1876-1962), long
retired seminary professor, published his anguished “Letters to the Churches” and lost his credentials. According to R.A. Anderson, Andreason
phoned Donald Barnhouse long-distance for 58 minutes to tell him the General
Conference had apostatized and that he, Andreason, would have Figuhr
impeached.
Although
we cannot reproduce any of that conversation, the transcript of another
long-distance call suffered by Barnhouse indicates that other Adventists
shared Andreason’s sense of betrayal.
The call from Al Hudson of Baker,
BARNHOUSE: That Christ had, that He was the
God-man. Adam was a created being
subject to fall. Jesus Christ was the
God-man, not subject to fall.
BARNHOUSE: Of course.
They have taken it so strongly, and it is their book [Questions on Doctrine]. We hold, they say, with the church of all
the centuries that Jesus Christ was the eternal sinless Son of God, etc., etc.
...If
you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal, sinless Son of God, that
He could not have sinned - and goodness, we have eighteen quotations from
Mrs. White saying the same thing - eighteen quotations from Ellen White
stating exactly this position, and denying what you are telling me...
BARNHOUSE: One quotation.
BARNHOUSE: No.
BARNHOUSE: Oh yes we do. Look, Froom and the rest of them say that
Walter Martin knows more about Seventh-day Adventists than any [seminary]
professor in
BARNHOUSE: That’s too much, you know. She was running off at the mouth, and the
Holy Spirit certainly was not doing it.
BARNHOUSE: Look, I know these men are intelligent
enough to know that she was a fallible human being, and that she said so
herself... Do you believe that she was in error ever?
BARNHOUSE: In her writing. Do you believe that in some of her writing
that you have to point to certain sentences and say, “Boy, she sure pulled a
booper[sic]! That’s for the
birds! It is not true!”
BARNHOUSE: You haven’t?
BARNHOUSE: Oh, brother, are you a dupe. You are not as honest as the people at
BARNHOUSE: Yes.
BARNHOUSE: Of course he does. Everyone
of these men have said this to me.
Every man. Every man. They believe
that she was raised up of God to be a great blessing, and that the Spirit of
Prophecy was upon her, but they all agree that she wrote error in some places.
BARNHOUSE: They believe that God came upon her in a
special way and for a message to His people at a special time.
BARNHOUSE: Of course not. Certainly not. They’re intelligent men, and they are Christians...
She was a good woman who was greatly blessed and greatly mistaken, frequently.
BARNHOUSE: Of course they don’t.
BARNHOUSE: None of them do.
Ron’s Commentary: If SDA leaders do not believe that Ellen
White was a true prophet, then they should not say that the SDA church has
the gift of prophecy. End comment.
Two
decades later these same issues continue to imperil the unity of our
fellowship. Dissent over Christ’s
All-atoning Sacrifice, the Sabbath School lesson quarterly for the first
quarter of 1983, indicates that Adventists remain especially divided over the
nature of Christ.
The
eruption of SDA doctrinal volcanoes fueled by Walter Rea and Desmond Ford and
the inadequate responses of official Adventist publications to those
challenges have not been lost on Walter Martin. Martin closed a presentation assessing the
Adventist situation to a gathering of evangelicals in Napa,
“This
is the conclusion of the whole matter.
We dare not accept any authority - any authority - that in its role becomes
the supreme interpreter and arbiter of Scripture. We dare not. If Adventism embraces this, they are no
longer Protestant. They have accepted
historic Catholic theology, and Mrs. White becomes the infallible female
pope...
“What
Christ calls us to is healing - not healing by ignoring the truth... healing
in the life of regenerate Adventists.
If this is done then I believe God will give them blessings they have
never had in their entire history...
“Our role as non-Adventist is to be empathetic,
prayerful, and insistent that Scripture and Scripture alone be the basis of
our fellowship as well as our salvation... God give us the grace as
Christians to care enough to labor for it and the Adventists who see it to
know that because of Jesus Christ, we care.”
[Standard
disclaimer: this post is for informational purposes only. -jeb]