My Vision on SDA’s Consulting the Witch of
Endor
Part 5
The Anatomy of Corporate Responsibility and
The Laodicean Church
“The evidence
given one day, if rejected, may never be repeated.” {RH September 16, 1873, par. 22}
“The angel with the writer's
ink horn is to place a mark upon the foreheads of all who are separated from
sin and sinners, and the destroying angel follows this angel (Letter 12,
1886).” {4BC 1161.5}
“Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as
iniquity and idolatry.” {1T 322.2}
1Sa 15:23 For
rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and
idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also
rejected thee from being king.
2Ch 33:6 And he
caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of
Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments,
and used witchcraft, and
dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the
sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Gal 5:20
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions,
heresies,
In this Part 5 of my vision, my instruction is to continue to portray the serious issue of corporate responsibility for antichrist apostasy, not only as it involves the new movement that has removed God (1SM 204-205), but as it involves even home churches. We are our brother’s keeper, and there are tares (insincere believers (COL p. 70-72) in the home churches that will be shaken out in the time of Jacob’s Trouble. However, OPEN SINNING THORNS will not be tolerated in any valid Home Church, for that would preclude the presence of Christ, which is nessessary to the existence of any valid church militant.
I was shown that it is a serious fact that even in
the home churches, there are tares who are insincere believers. They love to be
where the truth is spoken, but they don’t want to obey it. One of the biggest
tests of the tares is that they don’t like to return to the Lord that which is
His by way of tithes and offerings. They want the truth, but they don’t want to
support it. God says that the laborer is worthy of his/her hire, but they
disagree with the Lord. They often look for and/or construe things to disagree
with, so as to ease their conscience if they have one.
But in the end, they will be judged as robbers of God, and there will be no
robbers in the Kingdom. And the Sunday Law will shake them out of the Home
Churches and/or the new movement wherever they choose to sojourn.
I have been instructed that the following scholarly
treatise on Corporate Responsibility, by Miroslav
Danihel of Andrews University, leaves no excuse for ignorance on this all important issue.https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=theses
Additional
Biblical Teachings on Corporate Responsibility
One can observe from the treatise by Danihel, that professing SDA leaders
are not ignorant of the principle of corporate responsibility. However, when it
comes to disciplinary measures that involve leaders in high positions, there is
a disposition to ignore corporate responsibility as though it did not exist. This
is glaringly exhibited in the case of the formation of the new movement, new
organization, that Satan formed “AMONG’ “WITHIN” the church, because he knew
that Adventists would not join another movement. Thus, Ellen White was so
correct when she said that the greatest dangers are from within.
Satan’s Trojan Horse “AMONG” WITHIN is the New
Movement, New Organization that “removed God.” When God is removed, there is
only one other master—Satan. The Jews felt that they could not fail because
they were God’s “chosen people.” Adventists are prone to this same mistake. God
has shown me that end-time Adventists feel this even more than the Jews did for the reason that they are the end-time church, and they
believe that God NEEDS THEM NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. GOD IS STUCK WITH THEM AND
NEEDS THEM TO DELIVER THE LOUD CRY TO THE WORLD. They believe the church is too
big to fail. This fact has been presented to me in a number
of different visions as being the reason why Adventists are indifferent
to corporate repentance for all the abominations. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
Greatest Dangers
From Within
1887: "We have far more to
fear from within than from without. The hindrances to strength and success are
far greater from the church than from the world." Review and Herald,
March 22, 1887.
Reasons Why Professing SDA Leaders Ignore the Biblical
Principle of Corporate Responsibility
I asked the Angel of the Lord why professing SDA
leaders totally ignore something as serious as the Biblical principle of corporate
responsibility. I was shown the following reasons for this spiritual crime:
1.
The first reason I was shown was:
UNBELIEF. In Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 211, the Holy Spirit gift to
the church indicts the leaders with UNBELIEF. The unbelief involves a total
rejection of the CONDITIONS God has outlined for His people in the Bible and
the Spirit of Prophecy.
2.
Because of unbelief, the leaders came to conclude that God is too
merciful to visit His people in Ezekiel 9 judgment. 5T 211.
3.
Because of unbelief on the part of the leaders, the members of the
church came to have the same laxity toward the conditions that their leaders
exhibit.
4.
I asked my Angel about Ellen White’s statements that the Laodicean
state of the church is the foolish virgin state. I was expressly shown that
when new movement leaders are asked about Ellen White’s statement that Laodicea
is the foolish virgin state of the church, they commonly retort that the church
had often vacillated in and out of the Laodicean LUKEWARM state. That part is
true. That was the pattern before the church became cold apostate in the mid
1950’s, by agreeing with the Evangelicals on their antichrist belief that
Christ’s human nature was/is that of Adam BEFORE the fall. Bible Readings
for the Home Circle was changed by Masons Froom and Anderson. It was this
act that moved the church from being lukewarm Laodicean to COLD ANTICHRIST
APOSTATE. My Angel told me
that this CONSPIRACY with the fallen churches was in direct parallel to
Jeremiah 11:9-15, and constituted antichrist unpardonable sin. This
fully accords with Ellen White’s COUNTERPART STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS:
5.
COUNTERPART: "The Lord commanded one of his ancient servants,
'Pray not thou for this people [Jer. 7:16 and 11:14], neither lift up cry nor
prayer for them neither make intercession to me for I will not hear thee.' The
prophet thus describes the sins which had called forth this fearful
denunciation: 'The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by
their means and my people love to have it so and what will ye do in the end
thereof?' 'From the least of them even unto the greatest of them, every one is given to covetousness and from the prophet even
unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the hurt of
the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no
peace.' The apostles declare that this state of things will find its
COUNTERPART in the last days. Many have a form of godliness, but in their daily
life deny the power thereof. They have ceased to be convicted of their sins or
alarmed at their state. They say in their hearts, 'The church is flourishing.
Peace and spiritual prosperity are within her borders.' The words of the
prophet may well apply to these self-deceivers, 'They have chosen their own
ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will choose their
delusions, and will bring their fears upon them."
E. G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 11-07-82.
6.
The dumb-dog “watchmen” of
Isaiah 56:10-12 and Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 211, never deal with such
powerful, conclusive statements. That is because such statements cannot be made
to agree with their false teaching that the new movement is the Noble ship that
goes through to port heaven.
7.
My angel repeated three times
to me that the Noble Ship that goes through to port heaven is the original
Adventist message foundation and the three angel’s messages of Revelation 14.
The new movement is the once Noble Ship that “sinks to rise no more.” The
dumb-dog “watchmen,” never distinguish between these ships, AND THEY NEVER
MENTION THE “NOBLE SHIP THAT SINKS TO RISE NO MORE.”
8.
Noble Ship #1: "I lately read of a NOBLE SHIP that was plowing its way across
the sea, when at midnight, with a terrific crash, it struck upon a rock; the
passengers were awakened only to see with horror their hopeless condition, and
with the ship they sank to rise no more. The MAN AT THE HELM [VERSUS CHRIST]
had mistaken the beacon light, and hundreds of souls were at a moment's warning
launched into eternity." E.G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2,
128.
9.
Noble Ship #2: "There is no need to doubt, to be fearful that the work will not
succeed. God is at the head of the work, and He will set everything in order.
If matters need adjusting at the head of the work, God will attend to that, and
work to right every wrong. Let us have faith that God is going to carry the
noble ship which bears the people of God safely into port." E.G. White, Selected
Messages, vol. 2, 390.
10. I was shown that the context of the above statement in
regard to God attending to any adjustment needed at the head of the
work, applied BEFORE the once SDA church militant committed antichrist
apostasy in 1955. After 1955, Great Controversy, Chapter 1, is the PREFIGURE (p.
25) of how Jesus ADJUSTED MATTERS AT THE HEAD OF THE WORK AFTER THE JEWS
COMMITTED APOSTASY, AND HOW HE WILL NOW HANDLE THE HEAD OF THE WORK relative to
the new movement that has removed God. 1SM 204-205. I was shown that it is now
IMPOSSIBLE for God to adjust matters at the head of the new movement any other
way than GC, Chapter 1, for the new movement, new organization “removed God,”
in 1955, by THEN beginning to teach the antichrist heresy that Jesus took the
nature of Adam BEFORE the fall.
11.
I recently viewed a video by Walter Veith on Jeremiah, where he applied
it as a POSITIVE typology for Adventists today. He quoted all around Chapters 7
and 11, but omitted Jeremiah 11:9-15 entirely. I was shown that Veith often
applies FAVORABLE ancient typologies of the Hebrews in a Jesuit Preterist
fashion which is entirely OUT OF CONTEXT to Adventists today.
12. I was shown that the correct Biblical typology applicable to the new
movement masquerading as Adventists, is from the time of Jesus’ first advent to
A. D. 70, and the first chapter of The Great Controversy.
13. There is still hope for Adventists to repent on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS,
but not corporately since 1955.
14. I was shown that the final nail in the coffin of the once SDA
church militant, was when it voted in 1980 to adopt the Trinity Doctrine, which
effectively annuls the heavenly Sanctuary/Atonement sacrifice BY ITS TEACHING
THAT THE THREE PERSONS TO THE GODHEAD ARE CO-ETERNAL, when in actuality it was
that sacrifice that produced a THIRD PERSON in the humanity of Christ, which
had no part in the Godhead until the Incarnation Sacrifice. I saw that the thing
Satan hates most after Christ, is the Atonement, giving man another chance.
Thus, he has succeeded in getting the majority of
Christianity to believe UNWITTINGLY in a doctrine that is totally subversive to
the Atonement sacrifice.
15.
The rejection of light in the past, led to a shut-down of additional
light that would have prevented a continuum of apostasy in the church. For
example, in 1950, elders Wieland and Short tried to convince the leaders of the
corporate duty to repent for the church’s position on the rejection of the 1888
message of righteousness by faith. The leaders rejected the call for corporate
repentance for that debacle, and beginning in 1955, the omega of heresy began
and has continued in a hell-bound spiral ever since.
16.
When General Conference President Robert H. Pierson’s term ended in
1979, he delivered a sermon on the new movement statement of 1SM 204-205. He
pleaded with the church to not let that statement come to fruition. He did not
possess the spiritual discernment to KNOW that the church had fulfilled that
statement in 1955. This accords with Isaiah 56:10-12, which applies to ALL the
leaders since that time (1955).
17.
Because of the rejection of corporate repentance, which is the very
message to the Laodicean church, Revelation chapter 3, spiritual discernment to
perceive and curtail the devices of Satan has been totally absent. Thus, the
leaders have blindly plunged from one anchrist,
unpardonable sin to another. I refer to strictly forbidden ecumenical liaison
with Babylon as mentioned three times in Isaiah 8:9-16. In Jeremiah 11:9-15,
when the Israelites conspired/confederated with God’s enemies, God told
Jeremiah not to pray for them, and that if he persisted, God would not hear his
prayers. This connotes unpardonable sin. In verse 15, God asks what His beloved
(bride) has to do in His house (church) since she, the
church had wrought lewdness (forbidden apostasy) with many. And when Israel did
this abomination, she rejoiced; she delighted in her abominations. The current
new movement CELEBRATED, employing the CELEBRATION TACTICS origininating
with Vatican II, which it adopted from apostate Pentecostalism.
18.
Because of the lack of the Holy Spirit inspired discernment due to the
above abominations, the church finally adopted the antichrist Trinity Doctrine
in 1980, at its World General Conference Session. Just as in the Alpha heresy,
the Trinity Doctrine renders the Sanctuary/Atonement GONE, while the
ministering brethren looked on, BUT DID NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND. They did not
possess the spiritual discernment to enable them to understand. Isa. 56:10-12,
because of their past UNBELIEF, 5T 211.
19.
Ellen White made a prophetic statement that the leaders would REFUSE
THE CONDITIONS, so that God’s promises are not fulfilled to them, so they NEVER
REPENT for the abomination of the Trinity Doctrine. A prolepsis statement goes
into the future and comments on it as though the even had already been
fulfilled, to wit:
proʊˈlɛpsɪsShow
Spelled[proh-lep-sis] Show
IPA
noun, plural pro·lep·ses -sizShow
Spelled[-seez] Show
IPA.
1. Rhetoric
. the
anticipation of possible objections in order to answer them in advance.
2. the
assigning of a person, event, etc., to a period earlier than the actual one; the
representation of something in the future as if it already existed or had
occurred; prochronism.
3. the
use of a descriptive word in
anticipation of its becoming applicable.
4. a
fundamental conception or assumption in Epicureanism or Stoicism arising
spontaneously in the mind without conscious reflection; thought provoked by
sense perception.
5. Pathology
. the
return of an attack of a periodic disease or of a paroxysm before the expected
time or at progressively shorter intervals.
PROLEPSIS PROPHETIC STATEMENT:
Here is the Spirit of Prophecy
prophesied prolepsis statement regarding the final fate of that once
Noble Ship. This is a major LYNCHPIN to my warning message. Can you explain it
away? Are you a passenger on this once NOBLE SHIP, that is about to sink to
rise no more? NOTICE WHO SEPARATES FROM
WHOM:
"Jesus sends HIS PEOPLE a message of warning
to prepare them for his coming. To the prophet John was made known the closing
work in the great plan of man's redemption. He beheld an angel flying 'in the
midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that
dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and
people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him for the hour
of his Judgment is come and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the
sea, and the fountains of waters [Rev. 14:6, 7.].
The angel represented in
prophecy as
delivering this message, symbolizes a class of
faithful men, who, obedient to the promptings of God's Spirit and the
teachings of his word, proclaim this warning to the inhabitants of earth. This message was not to be committed to the religious
leaders of the people. They had failed to preserve their connection with God,
and had REFUSED THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN therefore they WERE NOT of the
number described by the apostle Paul: 'But ye, brethren, are not in darkness,
that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light,
and the children of the day we are not of the night nor of darkness' [1 Thess.
5:4, 5].
The watchmen upon the walls of Zion should be the first to catch
the tidings of the Saviour's advent, the first to lift their voices to proclaim
him near, the first to warn the people to prepare for his coming. But they were
at ease, dreaming of peace and safety, while the people were asleep in their
sins. Jesus saw HIS CHURCH, like the barren fig-tree, covered with
pretentious leaves, yet destitute of precious fruit. There was a boastful
observance of the forms of religion, while the spirit of true humility,
penitence and faith--which alone could render the service acceptable to
God--was lacking. Instead of the graces of the Spirit, there were manifested
pride, formalism, vainglory, selfishness, oppression. A BACKSLIDING
CHURCH
closed their eyes to the signs of the times. God did nor forsake them, or suffer his faithfulness to fail but they departed from him,
and SEPARATED THEMSELVES from his love. As they REFUSED TO COMPLY
WITH THE CONDITIONS, his promises were NOT FULFILLED to them." E.G. White, The
Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, pp. 199-200 [The 1884 edition of The Great
Controversy, 199, 200].
Note
these important delineations in the above statement:
·
Ellen
White is addressing HIS PEOPLE.
·
Ellen
White is addressing those to whom God committed the EVERLASTING GOSPEL of
Revelation 14.
·
Ellen
White is defining the angel represented in prophecy as symbolizing a class of
faithful men.
·
Ellen
White is saying emphatically that the final Loud Cry message is delivered NOT
BY THE LEADERS OF THE SDA CHURCH, but by a class of faithful men, because
the leaders had failed to preserve their connection with God and had refused
light from heaven!
·
Ellen
White is addressing "watchmen upon the walls of Zion," NOT FALLEN
BABYLON!
·
Twice
Ellen White mentions HIS CHURCH, NOT FALLEN BABYLON.
·
It is the MEMBERS of
said church that SEPARATE FROM GOD, AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO SEPARATE FROM
THEM OR BE CORPORATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR APOSTASY.
·
The above reasons
are why there is another coming out of a faithful remnant FROM APOSTATE
JERUSALEM AS WELL AS FALLEN BABYLON.
·
Isa 37:31 And the remnant that is escaped of the house
of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward:
·
Isa 37:32 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a
remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts
shall do this.
Ellen White is addressing a
BACKSLIDING CHURCH whose leaders and laity alike failed and rejected light
from heaven and who refused to comply with the conditions so that God's
promises are not fulfilled to them. Consider the following commentary on the
1884 Great Controversy that the above statement is quoted from:
“Consider for a few moments the
chapter in the first edition of Great Controversy, Volume IV, published
by Pacific Press in 1884. In Chapter XXVII, ‘The Snares of Satan,’ you find
that about four pages in the latter part of the chapter were omitted from the
later editions of Great Controversy. These four pages are to be found in
Testimonies to Ministers, pages 472 to 475. The information contained in these
four pages is very valuable to Seventh-day Adventists and was very
appropriately included in the first edition of Great Controversy, Volume IV,
which when it was published was like the other volumes considered to be A
MESSAGE ESPECIALLY TO SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, and to [all] Christian people
sympathizing with them in beliefs and aims.” W. C. White, Selected Messages,
Appendix C, pp. 452, 453.
Sanctuary Gone Atonement Gone
-- "In a representation which passed before me, I saw a certain work being
done by medical missionary workers. Our ministering brethren were looking on, watching what was being done,
but they did not seem to understand. The foundation of our faith, which was established by so
much prayer, such earnest searching of the Scriptures, was being taken down,
pillar by pillar. Our faith was to have nothing to rest upon--the sanctuary was
gone, the atonement was gone." E.G. White,
The
Upward Look,
152.
The Alpha heresy
rendered the Sanctuary/Atonement GONE, via an antichrist teaching on the
Godhead in Kellogg’s pantheism, taught that every living thing has the Holy Spirit
of God within it. Thus, man did not need the SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT in order to
receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit, because he already had it innately from
birth.
A similar antiChrist
Omega heresy involving the Godhead, accrued in 1980, when the General
Conference voted in the Trinity Doctrine, Rome’s Central Doctrine. How did/does
that doctrine affect the Godhead—the Sanctuary/Atonement? The Trinity Doctrine
teaches that the three persons to the Godhead are co-ETERNAL. At the
Incarnation of the Son of God into a human person, at the Atonement Sacrifice,
the human personality of Christ was divested from His Divine Holy Spirit
HIMSELF person, to become an INDEPENDENT PERSON, a THIRD PERSON to the Godhead,
where there-to-fore, there was only the Father and the Son and their ONE ETERNAL
HOLY SPIRIT which constitutes their essence.
And that is all we know of their NATURE AS FAR AS THEIR ESSENCE AND
SUBSTANCE IS CONCERNED.
The humanity of the Son of God
did not exist BEFORE His incarnation into the womb of Mary. So how could His
humanity PERSON be co-ETERNAL with His former Holy Spirit Person HIMSELF?
"Cumbered
with humanity Christ could not be in every place personally, therefore it was altogether
for their advantage that He should leave them to go to His Father and send the
Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of
humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all
places by His Holy Spirit.” E.G. White,
(Manuscript Releases Volume 14 (No’s 1081-1135) MR No.1084.
At the
Incarnation of the Son of God, THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF of the Son, was divested
of the personality of humanity and INDEPENDENT THEREOF. The humanity of the Son
of God is Jesus. The Holy Spirit HIMSELF Son of God was divested of the
personality of humanity and INDEPENDENT THEREOF. To the personality of the
Son’s humanity THAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE AT THE INCARNATION, made a THIRD PERSON
that IS NOT CO-ETERNAL with the Father and the former Holy Spirit Himself,
which was the pre-Incarnation state of the Son of God.
When
the Trinity Doctrine says that ALL THREE PERSONS to the Godhead are CO-ETERNAL,
that infers that THERE WAS NO INCARNATION, because it was the Incarnation that
produced the INDEPENDENT HUMAN PERSON JESUS CHRIST, another THIRD PERSON to the
Godhead. In this manner, the Trinity Doctrine renders the SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT
AS GONE, because it teaches there were THREE PERSONS ETERNALLY BEFORE THE
INCARNATION.
Satan
hates the Atonement, because it was that SACRIFICE OF SACRIFICES that gave man
another chance. So if Satan can get man to believe in
a spurious, antichrist doctrine that totally obfuscates the Atonement, he has
won the Great Controversy. But not all men will believe his spurious antichrist
Trinity Doctrine, which is totally subversive to the SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT by
teaching that there are THREE CO-ETERNAL PERSONS without the
SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT INCARNATION SACRIFICE which produced a THIRD PERSON in the
humanity of Christ. In other words, the humanity of Christ DID NOT EXIST PRIOR
TO HIS INCARNATION, SO HOW COULD THAT HUMAN PERSON BE CO-ETERNAL with the
Godhead?
Christ
became FULLY MAN as well as RETAINING HIS FULLY HOLY SPIRIT DIVINE PERSON. The
Trinity Doctrine also teaches that Christ did not come in the flesh of our
sinful human nature, as the Bible attests. That is another facet that makes it
an antichrist doctrine. Why? Because if
Christ did not come in our flesh, our sinful flesh, He could be no example for
us. He would have been like Adam BEFORE the fall, and that IS NOT the case.
The
Bible says that those who don’t believe Christ came in the flesh are
antichrist. The “catch” is that Rome believes Christ came in immaculate flesh,
SINLESS FLESH, rather than SINFUL FLESH. Immaculate flesh would be like Adam’s
flesh BEFORE the fall. Sinful flesh is like Adam’s flesh AFTER the fall. So all who don’t believe that Christ came in the FLESH, EVEN
SINFUL FLESH, are antichrist. Again, Rome believes that Christ came in the
flesh, 2 John 1:7, but Rome DOES NOT believe that Christ came in sinful flesh
and that is what makes Rome antichrist.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it
is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are
there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he
that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the
Father and the Son.
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this
is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and
even now already is it in the world.
2Jo 1:7 For many
deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Rom 8:3 For what
the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his
own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
The Alpha heresy involved the personality of God and Christ, so the
Omega heresy must involve that as well, even though there are many other
apostasy factors present.
An Impersonal God Who Made No
Atonement
The Alpha heresy made Christ an impersonal God who made no INCARNATION
ATONEMENT SACRIFICE that produced a third person, AND
PROVIDED FOR THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF THE SON OF GOD AS A GIFT FOR
OVERCOMING ALL KNOWN SIN. How? Why? Because Kellogg’s pantheism taught that the
Holy Spirit was already an intrinsic part of every living thing. So that would
preclude the necessity of the Incarnation/Atonement sacrifice which made the
gift of the Son’s HOLY SPIRIT possible.
The Omega heresy makes Christ an impersonal God who existed
CO-ETERNALLY with the shared Holy Spirit of the Son and the Father. If the
humanity of Christ existed CO-ETERNALLY with His Holy Spirit HIMSELF and the
Father, there was no sanctuary atonement sacrifice, because IT WAS THE
INCARNATION SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT SACRIFICE, that produced ANOTHER PERSON in the
humanity of Christ come in sinful flesh, making THREE PERSONS IN ALL:
1.
The Eternal Father.
2.
The Eternal Holy Spirit of the Eternal Son of God.
3.
The NON-ETERNAL Christ, come in sinful flesh via His Incarnation
sacrifice, making a THIRD NON-ETERNAL PERSON TO THE GODHEAD.
All the above
should help us better appreciate why Mrs. White "was called upon to
rebuke those who were presenting the doctrine of an impersonal God pervading
all nature." p.293. She was called upon to rebuke those who presented
pantheistic sentiments, who were teaching that the power we see manifested in
nature is a mere impersonal essence. This impersonal essence, they call it, God!
The result is that there is no personal God, no personal Christ. This teaching sweeps away the
whole Christian economy! Pantheists are actually
atheists! They do not believe in a personal God, a living God, who, by
His Spirit, is moving in all things according to His will. What they do is
"deify" nature. Therefore, to them, nature is God. The universe is
God. But "Nature is not God, nor was it ever God." 1 S.M.293.
"The spiritualistic
theories regarding the personality of God [the Godhead], followed to their
logical conclusion, sweep
away the whole Christian economy. They estimate as nothing the light
that Christ came from heaven to give John to give to His people. They teach
that the scenes just before us are not of sufficient
importance to be given special attention. They make of no effect the truth of
heavenly origin, and rob the people of God of their
past experience, giving them instead a false science." E.G. White, Selected
Messages, Bk.1, p. 204.
The
Trinity Doctrine is nothing more than a heretical, man-made, spiritualistic
theory that teaches that there was no heavenly Sanctuary Incarnation Atonement
Sacrifice, because it was that specific sacrifice that gave rise to a THIRD
PERSON, and if the three persons are CO-ETERNAL, there was Incarnation
Atonement sacrifice, because it was that sacrifice which produced a THIRD
PERSON in the form of the human personality of Christ—the humanity of Christ in
human, sinful flesh.
If
Christ Jesus did not come as a result of the Heavenly Sanctuary Incarnation
Sacrifice, in sinful flesh, He is not a personal God who made a sacrifice to
become human FOREVER, taking the death which WAS ours, that we might have the
life that WAS HIS—His eternal life.
"He
(Christ) suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life
which WAS His." Desire of Ages, p. 25 1 Cor. 11:24-265, cf. John
6:53, 54, Titus 3:5, 6.
SDA AntiChrist
Teachings to the World Since the Early 1950’s
Since
1952, the following statements have been taught to the world through Ministry
magazine, the SDA magazine for ministers of other faiths. Another way the same
teaching has been taught is by saying that Christ did not come and make an
atonement for man, so man has no example in Christ Jesus, for overcoming sin.
This latter teaching is implied in the Trinity Doctrine which teaches there are
three CO-ETERNAL persons to the Godhead. Clearly, by that teaching none of them
DIED if they are all co-ETERNAL, so the Son was not Incarnated because it was
His Incarnation into humanity that produced ANOTHER NON-ETERNAL PERSON TO THE
GODHEAD.
"Christ did
indeed partake of our nature, our human nature with all its physical
limitations, but not of our carnal nature with all its lustful corruptions.
"His was not a
corrupt, carnal nature. When He took upon Him sinless human nature. He did not
cease to be God, for He was God manifest in the flesh! "Roy A. Anderson,
"Human. Not Carnal." Ministry magazine, September 1956.
"He was indeed a
man, but withal He was God manifested in the flesh. True, He took our human
nature, that is, our physical form, but He did not possess our sinful
propensities." R. A. Anderson, "God With
Us." Ministry. April, 1957.
"When God became man He partook of the same moral nature that Adam possessed
before the fall. Adam was created holy, and so was Christ. for He became the
second Adam. "R. A. Anderson. "Human. Not Carnal." ibid.
"When the
incarnate God broke into human history and became one with the race. it is our
understanding that He possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam
was created in Eden. "R. A. Anderson. "God with Us, " ibid,
"When God became man He partook of the same moral nature that Adam possessed
before the fall. Adam was created holy, and so was Christ. for He became the
second Adam. "R. A. Anderson. "Human. Not Carnal." ibid.
"When the
incarnate God broke into human history and became one with the race. it is our
understanding that He possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam
was created in Eden. "R. A. Anderson. "God with Us, " ibid
From its earliest days, the Seventh-day Adventist
Church has taught that, when God partook of humanity, He took, not the perfect,
sinless nature of man before the fall, but the fallen, sinful, offending,
weakened, degenerated nature of man after the fall of Adam.
The inclinations and
tendencies to sin that are in fallen man's flesh were in His flesh; but that,
by complete dependence upon His Father, His mind held its integrity and never
by a shadow of a thought responded to the weakness or sinful cravings of the
flesh.
This view of Christ's
human nature in no way denied or contradicted the Church's stand on the
complete Deity and absolute sinlessness of Jesus Christ.
As late as 1949, this
was the accepted teaching of the Church as presented in denominationally
published lesson quarterlies, books, and periodicals.
But, during the
fifteen-year period between 1940 and 1955, the words, "sinful" and
"fallen," with reference to Christ's human nature were largely eliminated
from denominationally published materials.
Since 1952, phrases
such as "sinless human nature," "nature of Adam before the
fall," and "human nature defiled" have taken the place of the
former terminology. These phrases are interpreted to mean that the human nature
of Christ was "sinful," "fallen," or
"degenerated," only in the sense of weakness and frailty of the
physical organism. It is said that these weaknesses and frailties of the
physical organism were not innately and intrinsically a part of Christ's human
body but were borne vicariously.
Let us now consider,
in more detail, the history of the changeover in the doctrine of the human
nature of Christ in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
This great truth about
the human nature of Christ was shared by the pioneer writers in the Advent
movement. Here are a few examples, penned by some of the leading men in our
church:
"[Jesus] was made
in all things like unto those whom He came to save. .
In all points He was made like His brethren. . And
what the Law could not do, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh to do . . By His life He has shown that sin in the flesh is
condemned, and He has destroyed it, for in Him the body of sin is destroyed . . He has taken away this sinful nature, taken it
upon Himself that we might be delivered from !t."
E. J. Waggoner. General Conference Bulletin, 1891.
"The garment was
woven in Jesus, in the same flesh that you and I have, for He took part of the
same flesh and blood that we have. . In my flesh; it
was my flesh that He had, It was your flesh that He had, .
The Lord Jesus Christ, who came and stood where I stand, in the flesh in which
I live," A. T. Jones, General Conference-Bulletin 1893
"Christ came the
first time, clothed with humanity, taking not upon Himself the nature of
angels, but the seed of Abraham, that He might be made, like ourselves, subject
to temptation, pain, and death, that by His connection with humanity He might
sympathize with His fallen creatures," S, H. Haskell. Bible Echo, March
15, 1889.
"Very few of us
realize how nearly the Divine nature approached the human in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth. More properly speaking, it is impossible for us even to
conceive of the infinite condescension that was necessary in order that the Son
of God, the associate of the Father, should appear in mortal flesh and
participate in human experiences, with all their trials and weaknesses. . But 'He was tempted in all points like as we are': consequently He must have partaken of our nature. Should any
think this expression too strong, let them read verse 16 of Hebrews 2: 'For
verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but. He took on Him the seed of
Abraham' . . His faultless life under those
circumstances becomes a constant reprover of our sins as well as an
encouragement to our weakness." G. C. Tenney, editorial, Bible Echo, April
15, 1889.
"By partaking of
our nature, His human arm encircles the fallen race." Stephen Haskell,
Bible Echo, February 15, 1892.
"He took upon Him
sinful flesh to suffer and die for guilty man. "A. W. Semmens, Bible Echo,
April 15, 1892.
"But if He
[Christ] comes no nearer to us than in sinless nature, that is a long way off . . It is true He is holy; He is altogether holy. But
His holiness is not that kind that makes Him afraid to be in company with
people who are not holy, for fear He will get His holiness spoiled." A. T.
Jones, General Conference Bulletin, 1895.
"The second Adam
came not at the point where the first Adam stood when he failed, but at the
point at which mankind stood at the end of four thousand years of degeneracy.
"A. T. Jones, Review, February 18, 1896.
"So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is
that Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh
in which we sin; flesh, however, in which He did not sin. But He bore our sins
in that flesh of sin. And what flesh could He take but the flesh of the time?
Not only that, but it was the very flesh He designed to take; because, you see,
the problem was to help man out of the difficulty into which he had fallen, and
man is a free moral agent. He must be helped as a free moral agent. Christ's
work must be, not to destroy him, not to create a new race, but...to recreate
man, to.. restore him in the image of God." W. W.
Prescott, Bible Echo, January 6, 1896.
In the section, just
below, we will quote more extensively from that sermon by W. W. Prescott.
"He did not come to this world and take
upon Himself Adam's condition, but He stepped down lower, to meet man as he is,
weakened by sin, polluted in his own iniquity. " Stephen Haskell, Signs,
April 2, 1896.
"Infinitely
superior in every respect to Boaz, yet He stooped to marry the lost race.
" E. Farnsworth, Signs, May 6, 1897.
"[Waggoner:] We
begin with the ninth verse:
'We see Jesus.' Where
are we looking?
"[Voice:] To man
in his fallen state.
"[Waggoner:] Yes,
our gaze is directed to man's first dominion; as we look, we see him fail, and
still looking, we see Jesus taking man's fallen condition. " E. J.
Waggoner, General Conference Bulletin, 1897.
"He brought
divinity from the courts of glory into fallen humanity. "S. N. Haskell,
Signs, January 17, 1900.
And that this is
likeness to man as He is in His flesh, sinful nature, and not as He was in His
original [heavenly] sinless nature, is made certain by the Word: 'We see Jesus
who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death.'
Therefore, as man is since he became subject to death; this is what we see
Jesus to be, in His place, as man." A. T. Jones, Consecrated Way to
Christian Perfection.
"Moreover, the fact
that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of sinful
man; that is, the flesh which He assumed and all the weaknesses and sinful
tendencies to which fallen nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He
'was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.' " E. J. Waggoner,
Christ and His Righteousness, 27.
Many, many more
examples could be cited! (Later in this present book, we will document the
change that later occurred in Bible Readings.)
On Sunday
evening, October 31, 1895, W. W. Prescott preached a powerful sermon on the
nature of Christ, at the Armadale camp meeting, in Victoria, Australia. It
contained 25 statements, that Christ took our nature in His birth and life on
this planet. 1\vice in that sermon, Prescott stated that Christ did not take
the unfallen nature of Adam.
Ellen White was
present and heard that sermon; and, in eight manuscripts and letters, soon
after expressed grateful appreciation for that lecture (MS 19,23,47, and 52,
1895; and Letter 25,32,83, and 84, 1895). It was only a couple months later
that she wrote that letter to W. L. H. Baker, which we will discuss shortly,
reproving him for teaching that Christ had sinned.
Prescott's sermon was
printed in the January 6 and 13, 1896, issues of the Bible Echo (our Australian
journal). Here are portions of that History of the Changeover sermon. You will
see why she valued it so highly:
"That through
death, being made subject to death, 'taking upon Him the flesh of sin, He
might, by His dying, destroy him that had the power of death [Heb. 2: 16,
quoted] . . So you see that
what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the
same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, flesh, however, in
which He did not sin, but He bore our sins in that flesh of sin. Do not set
this point aside. .
"God made man a
little lower than the angels, but man fell much lower
by his sin. Now he is far separated from God; but he is to be brought back
again. Jesus Christ came for that work: and in order to do it, He came, not
where man was before he fell, but where man was after he fell.
. Jesus Christ comes right down to where he is, and
meets him there. He takes his flesh and becomes a brother to him. Jesus Christ
is a brother to us in the flesh; He was born into the family.
.
"He came and took
the flesh of sin that this family had brought upon itself by sin, and wrought
out salvation for them, condemning sin in the flesh. .
To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and
takes the very flesh now borne by humanity; He comes in sinful flesh, and takes
the case where Adam tried it and failed. .
"Christ came, and
after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed
Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh
in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrously glad that it is
so. It follows at once that by birth, by being born into the same family, Jesus
Christ is my brother in the flesh, 'for which cause He
is not ashamed to call them brethren' (Heb. 2: 11). He has come into the
family, identified Himself with the family, is both father of the family and
brother of the family. As father of the family, He stands for the family. He
came to redeem the family, condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with
flesh of sin. . " 'For there is one God, and one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Tim. 2:5). There is a
man in heaven now, the man Christ Jesus, bearing our human nature; but it is no
longer a flesh of sin; it is glorified. Having come here and lived in a flesh
of sin, He died; and in that He died, He died unto sin; and in that He lives,
He lives unto God. When He died, He freed Himself from the flesh of sin, and He
was raised glorified. . Jesus Christ, our own brother,
the man Christ Jesus, is in heaven, living to make intercession for us
"This union of
the divine and the human has brought Jesus Christ very near to us. There is not
one too low down for Christ to be there with him. He identified Himself
completely with this human family. . One version
reads, 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My little
brothers, ye have done it unto Me.' Christ looks upon everyone
of the human family as His. When humanity suffers, he suffers. He is humanity;
He has joined Himself to this family. .
Jesus Christ thus
united Himself with the human family, that He might be with us by being in us,
just as God was with Him by being in Him. The very purpose of His work was that
He might be in us, and that, as He represented the Father, so the children, the
Father, and the Elder Brother might be united in Him. .
" 'Lo, I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the world' (Matt. 28:20). By being in us, He is
with us alway, and that this might be possible, that He might be in us, He came
and took our flesh. This also is the way in which the holiness of Jesus works.
He had a holiness that enabled Him to come and dwell in sinful flesh, and help sinful flesh by His presence in it; and that
is what He did, so that when He was raised from the dead, He was glorified. His
purpose was that having purified sinful flesh by His indwelling presence, He
might now come and purify sinful flesh in us, and
glorify us. He 'shall change our Vile body. that it may be fashioned like unto
His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue
all things unto Himself' (Phil. 3:21) . .
"Let us enter
into the experience that God has given Jesus Christ to us to dwell in our
sinful flesh, to work out in our sinful flesh what He worked out when He was
here. He came and lived here that we might through Him reflect the image of
God. This is the very heart of Christianity . .
"By following
where He leads, we shall know what Christian experience is, and what it is to
dwell in the light of His presence. I tell you, this is a wondrous truth. Human
language cannot put more into human thought or language than is said in these
words: 'The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,' This is our salvation. . Nothing short of it will meet what we have
to meet, the world, the flesh, and the devil. But He that is for us is
mightier than he that is against us. Let us have in our daily lives Jesus Christ,
'the Word' that 'became flesh,' "W. W. Prescott, Sermon given October 31,
1895; printed in Bible Echo, January 6, 13, 1896.
"Therefore, just
as certainly as we see Jesus lower than the angels, unto the suffering of
death, so certainly it is by this demonstration that, as man, Jesus took the
nature of man as he is since death entered: and not the nature of man as he was
before He became subject to death." A. T. Jones, General Conference
Bulletin, 1895.
E. J. Waggoner wrote,
"Here is the same mystery as that the Son of God should die. 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. "E. J. Waggoner. Christ and His Righteousness. 27-28 (1890).
"When sin
entered, death came; so when man sinned, death came
upon him. God stayed with him; therefore, in that He stayed with man. although
man had sinned, God took upon Himself sinful flesh. And so
He took upon Himself death, for death had passed upon all the world.
"General Conference Bulletin, "Studies in the Book of Hebrews"
(Series by E. J. Waggoner. No. 4. Lincoln. Nebraska, 1897), 45. "Christ
taking fallen, sinful humanity upon
"The fact that He
came in fallen humanity is an evidence of God's presence and His presence to
give life." Op. cit., 46.
Here are a few
examples:
"Over a period of
years this view of Christ's human nature continued to reach the
majority of church members through the medium of the Sabbath School
Lesson quarterlies. Sample quotations are given below.
"Many hold that from the nature of Christ it was impossible for
Satan's temptations to weaken or overthrow Him. Then Christ could not have been
placed in Adam's position. to go over the ground where Adam stumbled and fell;
He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If man has in
any sense a more trying conflict to endure than had Christ. then Christ is not
able to succor him when tempted. Christ took humanity with all its liabilities.
He took the nature of man, capable of yielding to temptation; and. with the
same aid that man may obtain, He withstood the temptations of Satan and
conquered the same as we may conquer . . He assumed
human nature. being the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. It is not true
that humanity has trials to bear which the Son of God has not experience."
International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Spirit of Sacrifice" a
special testimony (Senior Division, No. 41, Third Quarter. 1905, Oakland:
Pacific Press Publishing Association), 89.
Jesus was God acting
in sinful flesh on behalf of the sinner. He made Himself one with humanity.
"International Sabbath School Quarterly. "Baptism and Temptation of
Jesus, " Senior Division, No. 56, Second Quarter, 1909, Pacific Press, 20.
"By assuming
sinful flesh, and voluntarily making Himself dependent upon His Father to keep
Him from sin while He was in the world, Jesus not only set the example for all
Christians, but also made it possible for Him to minister for sinful flesh the
gift of His own Spirit and the power for obedience to the will of God.
"International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Incarnation and the
Priesthood" (Senior Division, No. 71, First Quarter. 1913. Pacific Press).
15.
"That Son took
the flesh of sinful man, and overcame where man failed, overthrew sin in the
flesh. . "International Sabbath School Quarterly,
"The Flesh and the Spirit" (Senior Division, No. 75. First Quarter,
1914, Pacific Press), 16.
"Christ assumed,
not the original unfallen, but our fallen humanity. In this second experiment.
He stood not precisely where Adam before Him had, but as has already been said,
with intense odds against Him. ."International Sabbath School Quarterly. "The
Purpose of the Incarnation" (Senior Division. No.103. First Quarter.
1921), 248-249.
As the Son of man, He
accepted the limitations and conditions of our common humanity."
International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Last Adam" (Senior
Division. No.105. Third Quarter. 1921. Pacific Press). 3.
"Christ took upon
Himself the infirmities and sins of the flesh. . but
to every sin He died, every lust He crucified, every selfish desire He denied
Himself—and all for our sakes." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The
Godly Life" (Senior Division, No. 112, Second Quarter, 1923, Pacific
Press), 22.
In 1924, Southern
Publishing Association published a book by our evangelist, Carlyle B. Haynes,
in which (on pages 80, 83) he unequivocally states that as a people we believe
and teach that Christ took sinful. fallen flesh. He points out that there
really was no need for Christ to come at all unless He was to take such flesh.
Through the efforts of
colporteur evangelists, this Seventh-day Adventist teaching regarding Christ's
human nature entered thousands of non-Adventist homes tucked between the covers
of Bible Readings for the Home Circle. This book, under the heading, A Sinless
Life," contained the following note:
.. 'In His humanity
Christ partook of our sinful. fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like
unto His brethren,' was not 'in all points tempted like as we are,' did not
overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and
perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. .
On His human side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the
Spirit." Bible Readings For the Home, Review and
Herald, 174 (1942).
It was apparently with
a similar view of Christ's sinful flesh but sinless life that L. A. Wilcox
wrote in the Signs of the Times in 1927: He came where I was, He stood in my
place. In His veins was the incubus of a tainted heredity like a caged lion
ever seeking to break forth and destroy. For four thousand years the race had
been deteriorating in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth:
and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of humanity at its worst."
Llewellen Wilcox, Signs of the Times, March, 1927.
"In every
temptation that assails, it is strength to know that just such a temptation in
all its overwhelming force attacked Him in unexpected times and ways; and that,
with equal tendencies toward evil, in spite of bad blood and inherited
meanness, by the same power to which I have access, He conquered." Ibid.
Like A. T. Jones and others, even while expressing this view of Christ's
humanity, Elder Wilcox believed in the perfect sinlessness of Jesus Christ.
(See Walter R. Martin, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1960],8687.
" 'Seventh-day
Adventists teach that, like all mankind, Christ was born with a 'sinful
nature.' " This plainly indicates 'that His heart, too, was 'deceitful
above all things and desperately wicked.' In harmony with this, they also teach
'that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour
that He came into the world at the risk of failure and eternal loss,' But the
Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'He knew no sin,' and that
He would 'not fail nor be discouraged,' "Frances D. Nichol, Answers to Objections,
Review and Herald, 1952,389.
In part, the author
replied that the "distinguishing mark of fallen mankind (that is, a
deceitful heart or mind) is not necessarily involved in the possession of a
human nature that is capable of sin" (op. cit., 392). He cites as an
example, Adam, who as a human being was capable of sin but who did not sin
until he exercised his will in the wrong direction.
"In other words,
Adventists believe that Christ, the 'last Adam,' possessed on His human side, a
nature like that of the 'first man Adam,' a nature free from every defiling
taint of sin, but capable of responding to sin, and that nature was handicapped
by the debilitating effects of four thousand years of sin's inroads on man's
body and nervous system and environment," Ibid.. 393.
In 1950, Southern
Publishing Association printed the book, Drama of the Ages. Authored by the General
Conference president, William Branson, this book was distributed and sold all
over the English-speaking world. On page 70 of this missionary book, Branson
wrote that Christ "had taken upon Himself the nature of fallen man."
STEP ONE: THE CHANGE IN BIBLE READINGS
On page 174 of the
1915 edition of Bible Readings, a note was added to the chapter, A Sinless
Life." which clearly stated that Christ took our nature.
But in the late 1940s,
the decision was made to revise Bible Readings. On pages 143-144 of the 1949
edition, that note was changed to a different one which downplayed the idea
that Christ took our nature. It questioned "how far that 'likeness' (to
sinful flesh) goes."
So, in this new
edition the statement, which had circulated with the book for thirty years, was
omitted because "it was recognized as being out of harmony with our true
position" (Roy A. Anderson. "Human- Not Carnal"; The Ministry,
September. 14, 1946). It was replaced by the following statement:
"Jesus Christ is both
Son of God and Son of man. As a member of the human family 'it behoved Him to
be made like unto His brethren' in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Just how far
that 'likeness' goes is a mystery of the incarnation which men have never been
able to solve. . "Bible Readings (Washington,
D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1949). 143.
In that same September
1956, Ministry magazine article. Anderson discussed the revision in Bible Readings, and gave the reason why the change had been
made—because non-Adventists did not like it!
"In fact, this
particular point in Adventist theology had drawn severe censure from many
outstanding Biblical scholars both inside and outside our ranks. "Ibid.
R. A. Anderson went on
to state that the idea that on His human side Christ partook of man's sinful,
fallen nature was eliminated because it did not represent our "true
position" (see Ministry. September 1956. 12-14).
Although that
statement had first appeared in Bible Readings in 1915. we have observed that
it correctly represented our "true position," held down through the
years from the time of our earliest pioneers. In addition, the terms
"sinful nature" and "fallen nature" were repeatedly in the
writings of Ellen G. White.
(For your information,
in our own edition of Bible Readings, initially released in the late 1980s, we
included that 1915 note in the chapter. "A Sinless Life." This
happens to be the lowest-cost Bible Readings available anywhere. And is also
the first Bible Readings in history to include a Scripture Index—which the book
has always obviously needed. The main print size is also slightly larger than
the $50 colporteur edition!)
STEP
TWO: THE EVANGELICAL CONFERENCES
As Walter Martin and
Donald Barnhouse later wrote in Evangelical magazines. the conferences (many of
which were held at our General Conference building in Washington. D.C.) began
when Martin, a Baptist writer, approached our leaders and told them he was
going to write an in-depth book, exposing the doctrinal errors of our denomination.
As he later wrote,
they entered into a series of discussions with him
that lasted two years, during which they vigorously denied that the Adventist
denomination still held to earlier doctrines which the Evangelicals did not
like. It was obvious that the men on the other side of the table were
determined to gain acceptance by Protestants!
"There were
eighteen conferences, lasting one to three days and usually with three sessions
a day. These were held periodically, in Washington, D.C., Reading [Pa.]. Philadelphia,
and New York City over a period of eighteen months.," L. E. Froom,
Movement of Destiny. 477.
The two men in charge
of what became a doctrinal sellout were Leroy Edwin Froom and Roy Allen
Anderson. Martin would come to the meetings with questions to be answered; and.
in collaboration with Anderson. Froom would write those answers. Anderson's key
work was keeping Reuben Figuhr, the General Conference president, contented
with the progress of the conferences.
Froom later described
the first conference: "The first conference with Martin and Cannon [Dr.
George Cannon. Greek professor at a college in the Hudson Valley of New York],
followed by others, took place in an available office at our General Conference
headquarters, in Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. Martin came armed with a
formidable list of definitely hostile and slanted questions, most of them drawn
from well-known critics of Seventh-day Adventists among them the inevitable
Canright, on down to the late defector, E. B. Jones." Op. cit, 479.
The outcome of the
Evangelical Conferences and the book which, in agreement with Martin, the
Review published radically altered church doctrine for all time to come.
That book, Seventh-day
Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (commonly referred to as Questions on
Doctrine), undermined our historic teaching on the atonement, the nature of
Christ, and several other points.
"On a [Martin's]
second visit [to the General Conference], he was presented with scores of pages
of detailed theological answers to his questions. Immediately it was perceived
that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which
had been previously attributed to them. .
"He pointed out
to them that in their bookstore adjoining the building [The ABC on Carroll
Avenue] in which these meetings were taking place, a certain volume published
by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary
to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that
Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of
the General conference officers, that this situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected.
"This same
procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh which the majority of the denomination has always held to be
sinless. holy, and perfect despite the fact that
certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary
views completely repugnant to the church at large. They further explained to
Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their 'lunatic
fringe' even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of
fundamental Christianity. This action of the Seventh-day Adventists was
indicative of similar steps that were taken subsequently." Donald Grey
Barnhouse, Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians? A New Look at Seventh-day
Adventists, Eternity magazine. September. 1956.
Barnhouse had founded
Eternity magazine, which had proven to be a very successful interdenominational
publishing venture. His organization had sponsored Martin's talks with the
Adventists. In September 1956, this (in their own words) "bombshell
article" came off the presses. Fortunately for our leaders, few of our
people ever heard about it. Both Barnhouse and Martin wrote articles in it,
exposing the Adventist doctrinal sellout, and promising that the Adventists
planned to publish a book, which would discuss their new doctrinal positions.
In the above quoted
statement, you will note that our leaders used a confusion of terms to get
their point across. They told Martin that our people always believed Christ was
sinless, which is true. But they said it in such a way that Martin believed
they said that Christ had a sinless nature. Martin, who had a powerful mind,
was a fast reader, had something of a photographic memory, and had scanned
through many of our books, including those by Ellen White.
Our men assured him
that statements about a "sinful nature" or "fallen nature"
would henceforth not be found in our new publications.
And this was done. In
the years since the mid-1950s, "sinful nature" has seldom if ever
appeared in our journals and new books. At the same time, terms such as Adam's
nature" and "sinless nature" have appeared more frequently.
STEP
THREE: THE MINISTRY MAGAZINE ARTICLES
As head of the
Ministerial Association, R. A. Anderson was editor-in-chief of Ministry
magazine, which is published for our ministers and workers, worldwide.
In 1956 and 1957. a
series of articles, intended to soften the blow for the changeover, were
released. Here are some examples:
"Christ did
indeed partake of our nature, our human nature with all its physical
limitations, but not of our carnal nature with all its lustful corruptions.
"His was not a
corrupt, carnal nature. When He took upon Him sinless human nature. He did not
cease to be God, for He was God manifest in the flesh! "Roy A. Anderson,
"Human. Not Carnal." Ministry magazine, September 1956.
"He was indeed a
man, but withal He was God manifested in the flesh. True, He took our human
nature, that is, our physical form, but He did not possess our sinful
propensities." R. A. Anderson, "God With
Us." Ministry. April, 1957.
"When God became man He partook of the same moral nature that Adam possessed
before the fall. Adam was created holy, and so was Christ. for He became the
second Adam. "R. A. Anderson. "Human. Not Carnal." ibid.
"When the incarnate
God broke into human history and became one with the race. it is our
understanding that He possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam
was created in Eden. "R. A. Anderson. "God with Us, " ibid,
These quotations,
illustrating a comparatively recent emphasis upon the perfection and
"sinlessness" of Christ's human nature, present a striking contrast
to earlier statements on this subject. For example, the Sabbath School lesson
for May 17, 1913, entitled, "God Manifest in the Flesh," quoted a
Roman Catholic statement; and, then, stated unequivocally that it was erroneous:
"God the Son. by
assuming this perfect human nature, which He took from the blessed virgin. was
born in the flesh , "Catholic Belief, 208.
"Thus by shutting Christ away from the same flesh and blood
which we have (compare Heb. 2: 14), modern Babylon really denies the vital
truth of Christianity. although pretending to teach it. Such is the mystery of
iniquity," International Sabbath School Quarterly, "God Manifested in
the Flesh" (Senior Division, No. 72, Second Quarter, Oakland: Pacific
Press Publishing Association, 1913), 26.
"By its dogma
concerning the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, the Roman Catholic
Church gives to the Son of God in the incarnation a 'perfect human nature: and
thereby separates Him from those He came to save.
"This denial of
the perfect union of Christ with sinful flesh opens the way for a series of
subsidiary mediators whose duty it is to bring the sinner into saving touch
with Christ." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The
Incarnation and the Priesthood" (Senior Division. No. 71, First Quarter,
Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1913), 14.
The belief that Christ
had the "sinless" human nature of Adam before the fall rather than
the "sinful" nature of fallen man is clearly expressed in an article
in a Ministry magazine article, entitled, "The Immaculate Christ. "
"Before Adam
fell, he was pure and clean, without taint of sin. He possessed human nature,
undefiled, as God created it. When Jesus, 'the second man: 'the last Adam' (1
Cor. 15:4547), came. in addition to His divine nature. He also possessed human
nature. undefiled, as God originally created it." Eamest W. Cox. "The
Immaculate Christ," Ministry, December, 1957. 10,
From 1955 to 1958, the
present writer attended our Seminary which at that time was next door to the
General Conference building. where many of the Evangelical Conferences were
held. We were beginning to hear hints of the doctrinal changeover in the
classes; and, outside of class, students were quietly discussing the matter.
When the
"bombshell" Eternity article came out. as well as the 1956 and 1957
Ministry magazine articles, everyone—students and faculty were quietly sending
for copies, The present writer argued many times with
Edward Heppenstall in various classes over some of these changes, but to no
avail.
STEP
FOUR: QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Leroy Edwin Froom
(18901974) was held in the highest respect at the General Conference. As their
in-house theologian and church historian, he had produced the 4-volume Faith of
Our Fathers and the 2-volume Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers. During and
following the Evangelical Conferences, which on the Adventist side Froom led
out in, Walter Martin also viewed him with the highest respect. especially
since it was obvious that Froom, the pivotal Adventist leader in the talks,
went out of his way to doctor our teachings so they would be received by the
Evangelicals.
As part of the
agreement. Martin's forthcoming book, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists,
exonerating us as "Christians," was to be released at the same time
as a book published by the Review, titled Seventh-day Adventists Answer
Questions on Doctrine.
When Questions on
Doctrine was released in 1957, Roy Anderson, who was extremely influential,
arranged for thousands of free copies to be mailed to every Christian college
and seminary in the world. Multiplied thousands of free copies were also mailed
to various denominational headquarters, leaders, and local pastors. The cost of
all this (Questions on Doctrine was a full-size, cloth-bound book) was immense,
For many more details, see the author's documentary on
the Evangelical Conferences,
"Many thousands
of copies have been placed with clergymen and theology teachers not of our
faith in a few instances thousands in a single conference. And they have had
their wholesome effect. Its total circulation by 1970 had exceeded 138,OOO."L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 489.
In Questions on
Doctrine, Froom (the author of the book) very skillfully explained away the
fact that Ellen White used the words, "sinful," "fallen,"
and "deteriorated" human nature" in referring to Christ:
"It could hardly
be construed, however, from the record of either Isaiah or Matthew, that Jesus
was diseased or that He experienced frailties to which our fallen human nature
is heir. But He did bear all this. Could it not be that He bore this
vicariously also, just as He bore the sins of the whole world?
"These
weaknesses, frailties, infirmities. failings are things which we, with our
sinful, fallen natures, have to bear. To us they are
natural, inherent; but when He bore them, He took them not as something
innately His, but He bore them as our substitute. He bore them in His perfect,
sinless nature. Again, we remark, Christ bore all this vicariously, just as
vicariously He bore the iniquities of us all.
"It is in this
sense that all should understand the writings of Ellen G. White when she refers
occasionally to sinful, fallen, and deteriorated human nature." Op. cit.. 59-60..
Froom here puts words
in the mouth of Ellen White, trying to make her say that Christ did not take
our nature, but that He only took it "vicariously" as our
"substitute." The dictionary defines vicarious as "experienced
or enjoyed by imaginary sharing in the experience of another."
Anyone acquainted with
L. E. Froom's writings knew he was a master of vocabulary. Here is a companion
statement in that book:
':All that Jesus took, all
that He bore, whether the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases
and frailties of our human nature all was taken and borne vicariously. Just as
bearing vicariously the sins of the whole world did not taint His perfect,
sinless soul, neither did bearing the diseases and frailties of our fallen
nature taint Him in the slightest degree with the corrupting influences of
sin." Op. cit.. 61-62.
The following passage
from the book clearly teaches the error that Christ took an immaculate nature
rather than the nature you and I inherit:
"Although born in
the flesh. He was nevertheless God. and was exempt from the inherited passions
and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam. He was 'without
sin,' not only in His outward conduct, but in His very nature. [He was] sinless
in His life and in His nature," Op. cit.. 383.
Of course, we all
believe that Christ never sinned. But, in the above passage, Froom says that
Christ inherited none of the negative factors which we inherit.
From the beginning,
the two books (Martin's and ours) were to be released simultaneously, and to be
sold in each other's bookstores. But this did not happen. After ours was
released, extensive revisions were on Martin's book; it was not published until
three years later ( 1960). Because it contained so
many attacks on Adventists, our ABCs refused to carry it.
STEP
FIVE: FROOM'S MOVEMENT OF DESTINY
As Leroy Edwin Froom
neared the end of his life, he wrote a book reviewing doctrinal changes in our
denomination. In view of the very serious changes which have occurred, the
book, Movement of Destiny, could well have been called "Destiny of a
Movement."
Published in 1971 (Froom
died in 1974, at the age of 84), the book uses the same wordy style found in
Questions on Doctrine and his Faith of our Fathers books.
The first chapter of
Movement of Destiny is remarkable in the way it hints at so much. Froom was
obviously quite pleased with his central role, and he wanted the reader to
recognize the pivotal nature of his activities. He said he could not write the
book until enough people had died off. The book culminated in a defense of the
Evangelical Conferences, the "grand results" they produced.
Froom said he was
thankful that all his research resulted in opportunities to lecture before
various Protestant and Catholic groups; so they could
recognize that we were, indeed, Christians, sharing similar beliefs.
"The church groups
included Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Reformed,
Congregationist, United Brethren, and even Pentecostal and Unitarian faiths as
well as an organization of converted Roman Catholic priests. So
I write from personal knowledge, for I spoke to each of these groups.
"Universities
such as Marburg (Germany), Rutgers (N.J.), and Pittsburg (Pa.) extended unusual
invitations, with gratifying results from the presentation opportunities, with
question periods. And following these came various dialogues with Roman
Catholic student priests but groups and individual which were highly fruitful
and refreshingly frank. In one instance the contact was with thirty-eight
student priests-in-training for the Catholic University of America, in
Washington, D.C.an hour for presentation, and an hour for questions. Out of
this, smaller follow-up groups of five to eight. Later, I was privileged to
address a class of graduate students at the same 'Catholic .':
on the same theme. "L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 466.
Elsewhere in the book,
Froom says that Martin initially complained about four heretical notions; and
Froom set to work to clarify these: "According to Martin, the four leading
charges commonly brought against Adventism, dealt with in his article [in a Protestant
journal], were: "( 1) that the atonement of Christ was not completed upon
the cross; (2) that salvation is the result of grace plus the works of the law;
(3) that the Lord Jesus Christ was not a created being, not from all eternity;
(4) and that He partook of man's sinful fallen nature at the incarnation.'
"Op. cit., 473.
It is true that a few
of our 19th century writers advocated Arianism (point 3, above), but the other
positions are solid Adventism! Yet Froom set to work to change our historic beliefs
on each and every one of them.
He succeeded so well,
that Martin later wrote, in an Evangelical journal, as quoted below by Froom in
his book:
"Since there is
no conceivable doctrinal ground, in the light of verifiable evidence where the
fundamental tenets of the historic Gospel are concerned for refusing that
outstretched hand. I for one encourage the extension of our hand which will
usher in an new era of understanding and spiritual
growth among the Church which is Christ's body. "Walter Martin, quoted in
L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny. 475.
Froom's book, Movement
of Destiny. gave added respectability to the doctrinal changes. in the eyes of
many of our church leaders and pastors. Yet he chopped up and twisted Spirit of
Prophecy quotations, in order to support his contention that Ellen White agreed
with his version of the human nature of Christ. Here is a sample:
" 'The reader has
now observed that the paragraph [in Movement of Destiny] opens with a title
line: 'Took Sinless Nature of Adam before Fall. ' This heading is followed by
nineteen statements purporting to support its conclusion. Within each statement
is a tiny quotation fragment from Ellen White.
" 'But as Ellen
White wrote these quotations, not a single one of them says that Christ took
the nature of Adam before the fall, and some of them say exactly the opposite! . . Three fragments are all taken from the same paragraph
in Ellen White's writings. . [which] opens with the
unequivocal statement that Christ took the fallen nature of man!' "Ralph
Larson, Documentary Fraud, FF-26. p. 2, now in Doctrinal History Tractbook.
So much for the
scholarship of Dr. Froom.
STEP SIX: JOHNSSON AND THE REVIEW
When, in the
early 1980s, William Johnsson began as editor-in-chief of the Adventist Review,
major changeovers began to occur in our denominational paper.
Among other changes,
articles began appearing which recommended erroneous doctrines and lowered
standards. Photographs and drawings were printed which would never have been
seen in the Review in earlier decades.
Among the changes
which occurred were articles advocating the pre-fall nature of Christ. One
example of this was an article in the June 30, 1983, issue, authored by Norman
Gulley.
Gulley stated that
"the church has never taken a stand for or against one or the other"
of the two positions on the human nature of Christ. You will recall, earlier in
this present book, we quoted Morris Venden's statement in Insight. that the
fallen nature of Christ concept dovetailed with that of the idea that sin was
transgression of the law, and that we can overcome sin in our lives now. Venden
said that he believed that sin is only a broken relationship with God.
In his Review article,
Gulley took this same position, saying that the definition of sin "is not
so much a breaking of the law as it is a broken relationship that leads to
lawbreaking."
Thus both men switch cause
and effect. The Bible says that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John
3:4). That is the cause. The Bible also says that the effect of sin is the
broken relationship.
"But your
iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear. "Isaiah
59:2.
It is bad enough that
doctrinal errors are printed in the pages of "the good old Review."
But, to make matters worse, no articles advocating the truth were printed!
STEP
SEVEN: THE 1983 GULLEY QUARTERLY AND BOOK
The senior Sabbath
School Quarterly for the First Quarter of 1983 was entitled Christ's
All-atoning Sacrifice. The lesson-help book which accompanied it bore the name,
Christ Our Substitute.
Both were written by
Norman R. Gulley, a religion teacher at Southern College (now Southern
University), in Collegedale, Tennessee.
In
an attempt to placate both sides while insidiously instilling error, Gulley taught
that Christ had Adam's pre-fall nature, combined with our post-fall physical
infirmities.
"Christ took the
spiritual nature of man before the fall, and the physical nature of man after
the fall. "N. R. Gulley, Christ Our Substitute, 33.
If that is true, then
He did not really take our nature. Repeatedly, the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy
said that Christ took our nature, and that it was a "fallen" nature;
yet, in that nature, He resisted temptation and sin. When the nature of Christ
is referred to in Scripture, it is moral issues which are dwelt upon, not
physical flaws.
Then Gulley uses
another new theology argument: If Christ had really taken our nature, He would
have fallen into sin, since it is impossible for mankind to stop sinning even
with God's help!
"He [Christ] had
to identify Himself with us as far as His saving mission made it necessary. But
He could not go beyond the requirements of His mission or He would have needed
a Saviour Himself, and therefore His mission would have been a failure."
Op. cit, 38.
The idea here was to
"somehow save us," without Himself being caught by Satan.
Of course, the truth
is that, if it is impossible to stop sinning, even with God's help, then the
law of God cannot be kept and Satan is right in the
great controversy after all!
In support of his
position, Gulley quotes a long (long!) list of pagans (Ovid, Euripides, Senaeca, Epictetus, etc.), Catholics (Augustine,
Methodius, etc.), and Protestants (Hort, Moule, Barth, Barclay, Schweitzer,
etc. (see pages 4851).
Then Gulley uses still
another "proof," that Christ could only save us by not taking our
nature; he says that Christ lived 2,000 years before our time, and human nature
then would not have been adequate to save us today!
"If Jesus lived
four thousand years after Adam, we live two thousand years farther down the
line. Surely we have a much harder time than Jesus." Op. cit. 52.
Can you imagine such
trite being printed on the presses of the Review & Herald and sold through
Adventist bookstores as truth!
Gulley caps his
arguments for error, by declaring that we have Original Sin and Christ did not!
"In fact, we do
not have to do anything wrong to become sinners. We are born that way. But
Jesus was born sinless." Op. cit. 53.
Original Sin is the
error invented by the licentious "Saint" Augustine. He was so vile,
that, by his own admission, he could not stop living with women he was not
married to. So he devised the "Original Sin"
teaching, to explain why he could still go to heaven. (Because he taught strict
submission to Rome, the Vatican later made him a saint.)
STEP
EIGHT: THE BOOK, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BELIEVE
The book, Questions on
Doctrine, went out of print in 1980. In March 1983. Walter Martin gave a
lecture at Napa, California. in which he announced that he had written letters
to our leaders in Takoma Park, threatening to negatively revise his book, The
Truth about Seventh-day Adventists, if we did not reprint Questions on Doctrine
or issue a new book, to take its place, which also had the same doctrinal
changes. Martin was very blunt and forceful about this. The present writer
reprinted sizeable portions of that lecture, and also
noted this:
" 'He [Martin]
said that if Seventh-day Adventists continued to believe they are 'the remnant
church,' that Christ did not have a sinless nature. and that the atonement was
not finished at the cross. . they will be classed with
the cults. "[He said] that Reuben Figuhr and the Holy Spirit had
transformed the church. . they will have so much to
lose if they do not take the correct position. as stated in Questions on
Doctrine.
" '[He said,] 'We
must fight for our Seventh day Adventist brethren, that the church will take
the right position. Questions on Doctrine has been suppressed, and now voices
are teaching heresy which the church originally repudiated. This must be
remedied. Adventism is answerable to the authority of the Word of God, not to
those who would perpetuate heresy' . .
" 'He stated that
he had submitted a list of questions to the General Conference, to be answered
by the hierarchy, and not the 'lunatic fringe,' so that he will know what information
to put in his forthcoming book and tapes,' "The Beginning of the End, Part
18, and Doctrinal History Tractbook.
The brethren at world
headquarters set to work to please Martin; and, in 1988, a new Adventist
doctrinal book. entitled Seventh-day Adventists Believe, rolled off the presses,
It is highly
unfortunate that we have had only two official doctrinal books in our history
and both were written to please Walter Martin and the evangelicals!
Chapter 4, in this new
doctrinal book, dealt with the human nature of Christ. A strong attempt was
made to please all sides, but the erroneous view was still stated.
This is
understandable, since its primary author was Norman Gulley, who wrote the
infamous 1983 Gulley Quarterly and the accompanying book. Christ Our
Substitute, By his own admission, he believes in a
pre-fall nature of Christ.
"Jesus Christ
took upon Himself our nature with all its liabilities, but He was free from
hereditary corruption. "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 49/1:4 (page 49,
column 1, paragraph 4).
"He possessed the
essential characteristics of human nature," Op. cit., 46/1:3.
"Christ's
humanity was not Adamic humanity, that is. the humanity of Adam before the
fall, nor fallen humanity; that is. in every respect the humanity of Adam after
the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the
fallen, It was not the fallen, because it had never
descended into moral impurity. It was. therefore. most literally our humanity,
but without sin," Op. cit., 47/1:4-47/ 2:0.
The above statement
cleverly sidesteps the key issue in the nature of Christ
controversy. It does this by equating "fallen nature" with actual
sinning.
Two pages later,
another clever statement is made. which says that Christ took our
"fallen" nature but then denies that He did:
"The Bible
portrays Jesus' humanity as sinless. His birth was supernatural He was
conceived by the Holy Spirit. As a newborn baby He was described as 'that Holy
One,' He took the nature of man in its fallen state [that is. He took our
fallen nature], bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness [that is,
He did not take our fallen nature]. He was one with the human
race, except in sin. "Op. cit., 49/ 1:1-2.
The new theology can be
subtle in the extreme. They will not come out and say the truth about the human
nature of Christ, but they fear to pronounce the error. They talk about the
actions of Jesus as though they were the nature of Jesus.
The November 5, 1992,
issue of Adventist Review contained a 16-page booklet, entitled Issues: The
Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries.
Within a few months, a
full-sized purple-cover book, with the same title, was printed and widely sold.
(We will here refer to it simply as Issues.)
Having changed our
doctrinal beliefs nearly 30 years before, during the Evangelical Conferences,
leadership now asked that those pleading for a return to historic beliefs
should be tolerant. The reason given was that the denomination has never
decided what it believes on those points!
"In other words,
be tolerant on those points that the church has left open. "Issues, 16.
"Neither has the church ever 'formally' adopted a position on perfection
and the precise nature of human obedience." Issues, 47. "One side
stresses Jesus' role as our sinless substitute, arguing that His nature was
like Adam's before the fall. The other stresses Jesus' role as our example,
arguing that He came in the 'likeness of sinful flesh' with a nature like
Adam's after the fall..
"But the
significant point for the discussion here is: Adventists have never 'formally'
adopted a position on the question of just how Jesus' nature compared with
Adam's and with ours. Neither has the church ever 'formally' adopted a position
on perfection and the precise nature of human obedience," Op. cit., 46-47.
"[The independent
group] holds certain views on the human nature of Christ, the nature of sin,
and sanctification, These issues have never been settled among Christians, much
less among Seventh-day Adventists. .
"There is no way
that the SDA Church can work with such an independent group. if it cannot lay
aside these positions that they have made so central to their work and mission.
"Over-specificity
in the content of faith [ie., consistently adhering to our historic beliefs]
and a rigid church structure [i.e.. asking that only
beliefs and not errors be presented to our people] reduce the possibility for
healthy dissent and for creative innovation." Op. cit..
45. "[The church should] resist any attempt by one segment of the church
to impose its views on the rest."Op. cit.. 50.
Yet, at the same time,
only erroneous portrayals of these controverted doctrines are presented in our
denominational papers and at camp meetings.
As to what these
disputed teachings might be, the full-size Issues book made very clear. The
book reproved Independent Ministries for teaching the truth about the nature of
Christ, the continuing atonement, etc. And the book did more; it boldly
proclaimed error as orthodox! What have we come to, when our leaders dare to do
this?
On pages 114-130 we
find the only explanatory in-depth doctrinal studies in the entire book,
Issues. It is a reprint form of what our leaders considered to be a landmark
series of doctrinal studies printed the year before in the Adventist Review.
Since they consider it
important, and since it is the single doctrinal series in Issues, it deserves
our careful attention. And when we do so, we find it is almost entirely focused
on denying one special doctrine: the great truth that Christ took our nature.
Why is this done? Because
they realize that this is the foundation upon which all the others are built:
the nature of sin, the nature of man, the nature of the atonement, and the
nature of salvation,
This series,
consisting of six articles originally printed in the Review between January 18
to February 22, 1990, was reprinted in Issues.
Part I,
entitled "Pressing Together," is an appeal for all sides to unite in
one position doctrinally.
"A meeting of
minds on this question can bring us together as a church." Norman Gulley,
"Pressing Together," Adventist Review, January 18, 1990, 8-10;
reprinted in Issues, 114.
Part 2 is on
the nature of sin. It teaches Augustine's Original Sin heresy, and defines the
nature of sin as being separation from God, Gulley states our historic position
on the nature of man, in regard to sin:
"Early Adventists
considered the first death as being a result of Adam's sin, and the second
death the result of personal sin. In other words, the first death is merely the
consequence of not the penalty for Adam's sin." Norman Gulley, "In
Every Way but One, " Review, January 25, 1990, quoted in Issues, 117.
Then Gulley goes on to
expound Augustine's horrible theory: that everyone is born an evil criminal, to
be condemned to hellfire because of something he did not do:
"Are infants
sinners at birth because of their inheritance from Adam?". . We are born sinful and subject to death prior to
lawbreaking. If a baby dies a few hours or days after birth, it is still
subject to the second death the condemnation death even though it has never
broken any commandment." Op. cit.. 117-118.
In the above passage,
Gulley says that what we inherit at birth will cause us to burn in hellfire.
That is not true! It is what we think, speak, and do that results in sin.
"It is the
disobedience of Adam that constitutes a person a sinner, and not merely his own
acts of sin (disobedience)." Op. cit., 118 [parenthesis his).
But God's Word says it
differently:
"Our only
definition of sin is that given in the Word of God; it is 'the transgression of
the law: "Great Controversy, 493.
Gulley's concept,
which is Augustine's Original Sin theory, is cited as the basis for the theory that
Christ could not have taken our nature. Instead, Christ is said to have had an
alternate type of immaculate conception.
"So if every man is born a sinner (i.e.., a fallen being,
separated from God needing salvation) as the result of Adam's sin, how then
could Christ enter the race through a human mother and yet be sinless? The
immaculate conception of Catholicism sidesteps this question by making Mary
unaffected by Adam's sin. Rather than this immaculate conception. it is the
miraculous conception:' Op. cit., 119 [italics his].
As do most new
theologians, Gulley plays with words in order to confuse. What he is obviously
saying, in the above paragraph, is that the Catholic teaching is that Christ's
mother had an immaculate conception, whereas Gulley is teaching that Christ had
His own immaculate conception. Of course, the end result
would be the same: Both Gulley and Rome teach that Christ had an immaculate
conception [i.e., He had a sinless nature].
Both concepts are
based on the same error: Christ could not be born with our nature,
but had to be different than us. As Gulley explains it:
"He
[Christ] did not have 'sinful flesh.' Thus He neither
was a sinner by nature nor a sinner by acts. He was a total Substitute."
Ibid.
Thus, by the early
1990s, we find this totally erroneous, Catholic-based article featured in the
Adventist Review and, later, in the book, Issues. But, through it all, not one
article was printed on denominational presses, advocating the other, the true
side that Christ took our very nature; and, in it, He overcame the devil and
now gives us power to do the same.
Gulley is quite
unashamed that he is teaching Original Sin in this article, for he uses those
words several times.
In Part 3 in the
Review series, also reprinted in Issues, Gulley began by reiterating the
conclusion of his previous article.
"Thus far we have
seen that His unique sinless human nature made it possible for Him to be our
substitute. We shall see that the same unique nature qualified Him to be our
example." Norman Gulley, ':Jesus Our
Example," Review, February 1,1990,19, quoted in Issues, 120.
In this article,
Gulley attempts to show that Christ could still be our example, even though He
was not like us; that is, did not take our nature. One cannot but wonder how
Gulley intends to do that. Here is the strange logic he uses:
"Clearly Jesus
did not have a sinful nature; He had no sinful passions or any taint of sin. By
contrast, all the rest of us are born into the world with these liabilities. On
the surface, at least, this looks like a huge advantage for Christ, and calls
into question His ability to be our example. "Ibid.
First, Gulley explains
that Christ did not come into this world to overcome in our place, but in
unfallen Adam's place! How is that for original thinking!
"Satan had
charged God with Adam's sin. . The Creator became a
created being. Jesus came as the second Adam sinless, to show that Satan's
charge was false. Adam need not have sinned. Like Adam, He had nothing sinful
within to respond to Satan's temptations, but He could be tempted from an
appeal to use His sinless passions and drives in an unlawful way. He withstood
the tempter." Op. cit., 120-121.
In other words, Christ
did not come to be our "substitute," but unfallen Adam's
"substitute"! Such foolish logic is all the more
remarkable, in view of the fact that Gulley's key phrase, which in 1983 he used
as the title of his book, is "Christ Our Substitute." But, following
Gulley's logic, Christ is not our substitute! Christ is only unfallen Adam's
substitute.
Even worse is Gulley's
effort to twist the charges of Satan against God as only concerning the fall of
Adam!
Following this, Gulley
declares that the immaculately born Christ, with His pre-fall nature, is our
example, because He kept the law. Obviously, his statement is pointless. How
would Christ's sinless obedience, wrought out in a nature which supposedly
cannot sin, be an example to us in natures which can? And this Gulley admits:
"Because His
humanity was sinless, Jesus could not experience the inner sinful urgings of
sinful humans. But it was necessary that He, as our example, experience an
equivalency in intensity while remaining a sinless human. "Op. cit., 121.
Gulley then claims
that Christ reached "the lowest depths" and suffered as we do at one
time in His life: during the last part of the 40day fast in the wilderness!
According to Gulley, at that one time, and no other, Christ suffered as we do.
But Scripture says it
differently: (1) Christ took our nature, the nature of Abraham's descendants;
(2) and in our nature was tempted "in all points like as we"; (3) yet
without ever yielding to sin; (4) so we can come to Him for help in every time
of need (Heb. 2:10-18; 4:15-16).
In these words, Gulley
describes the one time Christ suffered
"equivalent" to us:
"To be hungry was
not a sin; it was a proper desire. But through a 40-day intensification, His
gnawing hunger became equivalent to the worst sinful drives ever experienced by
humans. "Ibid.
"The human became
so emaciated and stressed out, through a nearly six-week fast, that His
consuming passion to eat became equivalent to sinful passions of men." Op.
cit., 122.
Second, Gulley uses
the shop-worn argument History of the Changeover that. throughout His earthly
life. the only real temptation He faced was to use His divine power to help
Himself! What kind of useful example is that to us? None at
all.
"He had received
honor in the heavenly courts. and was familiar with absolute power. It was as
difficult for Him to keep the level of humanity as it is for men to rise above
the low level of their depraved natures. and be partakers of the divine
nature." Op. cit.. 122.
"Can we
understand His supreme struggle? Never! But we must try to grasp its depths. He
had exercised absolute power from eternity! This power He had by nature; it was
inherent. If we grumble about our inheritance by nature. think of His. If we
say we have habits that bind us. think of His a habit
with eternal use back of it! Can you get any greater urge than that? Our
habits, measured by His, are but drops of water compared to a shore-less sea.
He knows the human struggle in temptations because His were infinitely greater.
and precisely because of His unique divine nature rather than from an identical
human nature." Ibid.
Gulley summarizes the
terrible "weight" that was on Christ:
"What an
inexplicable intensification this staggering load brought to the agonizing
struggle of the emaciated One! In view of this unparalleled experience, can
anyone question the genuineness of His example? No! His temptations were
infinitely harder than man's!" Ibid.
In Part 4 of
this Review series, Gulley once again reiterates that Christ had a sinless
nature. "Sin. whether in His nature or in act. would have disqualified Him
from being our substitute. For He would have needed a substitute Himself."
Norman Gulley, "Jesus Our Substitute," Review, February 8. 1990.8; in
Issues. 123.
The primary objective of
this entire series of articles has been to prove that Christ had a sinless
human nature. He recognizes it to be the foundation stone. under-girding the
entire plan of salvation.
Yet, shrewdly. Gulley,
speaking directly to those who maintain the other (the Scriptural) view,
declares that they should not be concerned about what nature Christ had, It really does not matter.
"Nowhere do
inspired sources make the birth of Christ as prominent as His death. . Should not those who are preoccupied with His birth take
pause and look beyond to the cross?" Ibid.
But. having
said that, Gulley himself keeps coming back to the nature of Christ.
"Some believe that
Jesus had to be exactly like us in fallen nature in order to span the gulf
gouged out by sin. Yet even that identity has a qualification for none other
comes into the world 'born of God: "Ibid.
Gulley next twists the
meaning of Romans 8:3.
"Just as that
brazen serpent only looked like a serpent. so the
sinless Jesus only took the 'likeness of sinful flesh: "Op. cit.,
124 [italics his].
Yet both the Bible and
Spirit of Prophecy clearly support the position that Christ took our nature; He
did not just make-believe take it. Jesus was not a mirage while in the flesh!
He was a real flesh-and-blood man. He became like us, is what God's Word says.
The final two
articles in this doctrinal series mention the error of "the finished work
at the cross; but, in general, they are more inspirational than doctrinal.
The evidence
presented in this study indicates that, from its earliest years until the late
1940s, the Seventh-day Adventist Church: (1) has always upheld the Deity of God
in human flesh fully God and fully man, (2) has always been in close agreement
in regard to the sinlessness of Christ, and (3) has consistently taught that
Christ was in every sense sinless.
Under threats and
strong duress from Walter Martin. from 1954 to 1957. our leaders agreed to make
definite changes. These changes were printed in the first official doctrinal
book in our history.
The 1960s and 1970s
constituted a time of adaptation to the changes. The work of retraining our
pastors in retreats went on quietly. Our future leaders were being initiated
into new teachings in the colleges.
During the 1980s as
the apostasy grew, strong pleas for patience and toleration for other views
were frequently heard.
During the 1990s,
those advocating the errors about sin, the nature of Christ, the atonement. and
salvation were solidly in control; and there is intolerance for those pleading
for a return to historic beliefs.
Only God can change
the situation, and He will do it when it becomes illegal to be a Sabbath
keeper. Then the faithful, gathered in little companies here and there, will go
out and preach the identifying truth of Revelation 14:6-12 (the Third Angel's
Message) everywhere. May we be faithful to the end. Obedience by faith, in
Christ, to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy is what we need today. May we not
forsake our post of duty. In His strength, we can remain true to the end.
The End
The Spirit of
Prophecy Warned That The Dangers From WITHIN are More Serious Than From WITHOUT
Ellen White warned that the dangers from within
were to be greater than from without. But the people continue to worship their
leaders rather than heed the Word of God, even with the example of Israel!
It was the same with ancient Israel:
“But
the dangers from without were not so serious as the dangers from within.
By their apostasy and rebellion the people who should
have been light bearers among the nations were inviting the judgments of God.
Many of the evils of the northern kingdom, which had been denounced by Hosea
and Amos, were fast corrupting Judah. In their desire for gain, men were adding
house to house and field to field. See Isaiah 5:8. Justice was perverted, and
no pity was shown the poor. God declared, “The spoil of the poor is in your
houses.” Isaiah 3:14. Even magistrates turned a deaf ear to the cries of the
poor, the widows, and the fatherless.” See Isaiah 10:1, 2. {SS 162.3}
“But the dangers
from without, overwhelming though they seemed, were not so serious as the
dangers from within.
It was the perversity of his people that brought to the Lord’s servant the
greatest perplexity and the deepest depression. By their apostasy and rebellion
those who should have been standing as light bearers among the nations, were
inviting the judgments of God. Many of the evils which were hastening the swift
destruction of the northern kingdom, and which had recently been denounced in
unmistakable terms by Hosea and Amos, were fast corrupting the kingdom of
Judah.” {RH March 4, 1915, par. 8}
Ellen White prophesied that the leaders would
betray sacred trust by proving unfaithful to the work of the Lord, and she said
what happens then:
"Here
we see that the church the Lord's sanctuary was the first to feel the stroke of
the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the
spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust. They had taken the
position that we need not look for miracles and the marked manifestation of
God's power as in former days. Times have changed. These words strengthen their
unbelief, and they say: The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil. He
is too merciful to visit His people in judgment. Thus "Peace and
safety" is the cry from men who will never again lift up
their voice like a trumpet to show God's people their transgressions and the
house of Jacob their sins. These dumb dogs that would not bark are the ones who
feel the just vengeance of an offended God. Men, maidens, and little children
all perish together." E.G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol.
5, p. 211.
“The Lord Jesus will always have a chosen people to
serve Him. When the Jewish people rejected Christ, the Prince of life. He took
from them the kingdom of God and gave it unto the Gentiles. God will continue
to work on this principle with every branch of His work. When a church proves unfaithful
to the work of the Lord, whatever their position may be, however high and
sacred their calling, the Lord can no longer work with them. Others are then chosen to bear
important responsibilities. But, if these in turn do not purify their
lives from every wrong action, if they do not establish pure and holy
principles in all their borders, then the Lord will grievously afflict and
humble them and, unless they repent, will remove them from their place and make
them a reproach.
God is not
'worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing' (Acts 17:25).” E. G. White, The Upward Look, 131.
From the beginning of this vision, I have recounted
many and serious betrayals of sacred trust. Ellen White clearly stated that
when a CHURCH proves unfaithful to the work of the Lord, WHATEVER THEIR
POSITION MAY BE, HOWEVER HIGH AND SACRED THEIR CALLING, (LIKE BEING A “CHOSEN
PEOPLE”), God can no longer work with them. OTHERS ARE THEN CHOSEN.
Most of God’s once “CHOSEN” people, DON’T
BELIEVE THE ABOVE STATEMENTS. They believe God needs them and is stuck with
them NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO! They believe the once CHURCH IS TOO BIG TO FAIL,
just as the Jews believed concerning their Temple.
I was shown that it should not be the stretch it is
for God’s second “chosen people” to believe they could and have failed, when
His first “chosen people” failed. My Angel repeated Ellen White’s statements on
Ezekiel 9 three times, and commented that this should
be conclusive evidence to God’s second “chosen people,” that they will receive
the same fate as God’s first chosen people.
When Ellen White says in The Great Controversy,
p. 25, that the destruction of A.D. 70 was a PREFIGURE of the terrors of the
last great day, and then says in Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 211, that they
BEGIN at HIS SANCTUARY, HIS CHURCH, THE HOUSE OF JACOB, this should leave NO
PARTICLE OF A DOUBT in the minds of any person with any modicum of spiritual
discernment, but alas, dumb-dog “watchmen” and their patron members, do not
possess the spiritual discernment necessary to see the CURRENT DAY TYPOLOGY
PARALLEL with God’s first “chosen people.”
I asked my angel this specific question: “Why can’t
men as intelligent as Walter Veith, Andrew Henriques, and Vance Ferrell, see
this clear as crystal typology?” And the reply, stated three times: Isaiah
56:10-12. No additional comment is necessary except to say that men of the very
same “apparent” mental ability, responded exactly the same
way in the TYPE of the Jewish experience. The Scribes and the Pharisees were
very capable men, but were naked and blind to certain
spiritual truths that were understood by the prophets who warned them. So it is today. Nothing under the sun has changed.
I have been shown previously that the men I speak
of, like an audience, and that true reformers don’t get large audiences. These men
like a large audience for their sermons and/or their wares that they sell. But,
as in the case of D.M. Canright, this type of mindset
will reap a terrible harvest, both to these men and all who follow their lead.
In the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
R. William Beaulieu