Who Is In Apostasy--The Church--The
Intra-Church Independent Ministries, or Both?
by
David Clayton
Nearly twenty years ago when I was first
exposed to the independent movement within Adventism, one prominent name among
the independents was that of Willard Santee. Santee had made a set of tapes
entitled, "Circle of Apostasy," which documented a damning departure
from biblical and Spirit of Prophecy principles in several facets of
Seventh-day Adventism. For several years Willard Santee made the rounds of the
camp meetings as a popular speaker who relentlessly exposed this
"apostasy" within Adventism.
I was as surprised as anybody else when the news came that brother
Santee had done an abrupt about face, recanted of all he had been teaching, and
had penitently returned to the fold of the mainstream Adventist Church, thus
completing his circle. It was evident that at some point brother Santee had
been in apostasy. The only question was, was it when he had originally left the
SDA church, or was it now that he had returned to it?
Over the years there have been several other turnabouts similar to
Santee's. Most noteworthy in fairly recent times have been those of David Mould
and John Osborne. John Osborne arrived on the scene like Jehu, and almost
overnight became the biggest name and ministry within independent Seventh-day
Adventism. His charges of apostasy against the church were unsparing and a high
percentage of his ministry's time and finances went into documenting the fact
that the SDA Church was in deep apostasy.
When Osborne's financial misdealings brought his ministry to a crisis,
things took a dramatic and unexpected turn. Osborne's loyal supporters watched
in disbelief one day as on live satellite broadcast, Osborne's invited guest
speaker, Willard Santee, preached on the importance of remaining within God's
"true church," the organized SDA church. What followed the sermon was
almost an anticlimax and those who had the stomach for soap operas watched as a
"weeping" John Osborne asked Willard Santee to help to guide him back
to "God's true church" (which he had unsparingly denounced as Babylon
a few months earlier).
David Mould also spent much of his time exposing "apostasy"
within Adventism. That is, until indiscretions in his personal life became
public knowledge which brought his ministry to its knees. Mould was
subsequently rebaptized into the SDA church, and ever since then his voice has
been mute on the subject of denominational apostasy.
All of these cases bring one thing strikingly home: These men either did
not believe the charges of apostasy which they made, or else they later revised
their opinion of what apostasy really means. This is the only way one can
account for the fact that they now find themselves comfortable in an
organization which they previously denounced as being guilty of the greatest
apostasy.
Defining Apostasy
The Webster's New World Dictionary, defines apostasy as being, "an
abandoning of what one has believed in, as a faith, cause, or principles."
This definition bears thinking about. All those who charge the SDA church with
"Apostasy" should carefully consider this definition before making
such a charge. Has the SDA church denied what it once believed?
The failings of Santee, Osborne and Mould compelled them all to
recognize something. They were forced to the realization that you can't charge
a whole church with apostasy merely on the basis of the failings of individual
church members, even if those members are prominent leaders. Men, and even
groups of people will do wrong things, and even people in high places, but this
is not a valid reason for making the charge that the church, as a system, is in
apostasy.
In order to determine if the church is in apostasy we must have access
to two bits of information. One is, a definitive statement of what the church
now holds as its religious faith, and the other, a definitive statement of what
the church held as its religious faith in the past. Comparison of both these
things will help us to determine whether or not there has been a change and
whether or not this has been significant. This is the factor which we must
examine in concluding whether or not there has been apostasy.
Is there any place where the SDA church has plainly declared what its
teachings are? Is there any place where these teachings have been clearly
defined in such a way that it can be plainly understood what the church
believes and teaches as a body?
There is such a place. In its statement of fundamental beliefs the SDA
church has declared the doctrines which it considers fundamental to its
existence. The doctrines which identify and set it apart as a unique entity and
which give it a reason for a separate identity from all other denominations. It
is by this document and this document alone that we can fairly judge whether or
not the SDA church on the whole has gone into corporate apostasy.
A Startling Change
As early as 1872 Seventh-day Adventists published a statement outlining
carefully the doctrines which were held by them "with great
unanimity." This statement was re-published without any significant
alterations in 1889 1905, and 1907-1914.. However by 1931 when the statement
was once again published, a sudden and dramatic change had taken place in the
beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. The statement dealing with the doctrine of
God had undergone a "most startling change."
The original Statement, published in 1872,1889, 1905, and 1907-1914
(while Ellen White was still alive), read as follows:
The Godhead
1. That there is one God, a personal,
spiritual Being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and
eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy;
unchangeable, and everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit.
Psalm 139:7
2. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, and
Son of the Eternal Father, the One by whom God created all things, and by whom
they do consist....
The 1931 revised statement was much different. It now referred to God as
a Trinity, rather than as an individual. It stated:
"That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a
personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in
wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through
whom all things were created ... the third person of the Godhead, the great
regenerating power in the work of redemption. Matt 28:19. That Jesus Christ is
very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. While
retaining His divine nature, He took upon Himself the nature of the human
family ...."
What is most interesting about this change is the fact that it was not
made by the same generation of people. In other words it was not made as a
result of people who believed one thing studying and revising their opinions.
It was a change which was implemented by a new generation of Seventh-day
Adventists in total contradiction to the beliefs of the previous generation,
and against the wishes of many of those who were still alive from that previous
generation. Russell Holt, former associate editor of the Signs of The Times,
describes the change in this way:
1900-1930. This period saw the death of most of those pioneers who had
championed and held the anti-Trinitarian position. Their places were being
taken by men who were changing their thinking, or had never opposed the
doctrine. The trinity began to be published, until by 1931 it had triumphed and
become the standard denominational position. Isolated stalwarts remained who
refused to yield, but the outcome had been decided. (Russell Holt - The
Doctrine of The Trinity in The Seventh-Day Adventist Denomination: Its
Rejection and Acceptance)
Let us look again at the definition of apostasy. It is "an
abandoning of what one has believed in, as a faith, cause, or principles."
It would be hard to find another example which fits this definition of apostasy
as perfectly as does this change in Adventism from the concept of one God and
His Son, to the concept of the Trinitarian, or Triune God. This is the only
definitive change in the doctrines of Seventh-day Adventism which has taken
place from the time that Adventists first published a statement of beliefs in
1872 unto the present time.
Many of the Independent Ministries, referring to themselves as
"historic" Seventh day Adventists, claim that the SDA church is in
apostasy. They accuse the church of having changed its position on "The
Nature of Christ," "The authority of Ellen White," "The timing
and nature of the atonement," standards of dress, health reform etc.
Interestingly, however, none of these ministries can point to a definitive
statement by the SDA church in which it has officially changed its position on
any of these doctrines from the time of the early Seventh-day Adventists until
today. There is only one doctrine which has been changed officially and it is
the doctrine concerning God. This change has been such a drastic one and of
such a revolutionary nature that it led George Knight, an SDA historian to
write:
"Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to
join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination's
Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to agree to
belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the trinity."- Ministry,
October 1993 p.10
Therefore any charge of apostasy against the SDA church can only be
valid if it focuses on the issue of the change in the SDA position on the
doctrine of God. All other accusations can only be aimed at individual
indiscretions, or apostasy of a localized nature. It is this realization which
has caused many former "reformers" to find their way back to the
"mother" church. It is this realization that the charges of apostasy
really cannot be substantiated unless the focus is placed on the Godhead. In
the Issues, book put out by the General Conference this fact was thrown into
the teeth of the "Historic Adventists."
"If one wishes, however, to claim additional content from that era
[the early Adventist era] and make that content binding in our day ... the
question is: Would one be willing to accept all the content from that earlier
era? Are the modern defenders of so called historic Adventism really prepared
to return to a non-Trinitarian position?"
Not surprisingly, none of the so-called "historic" Seventh-day
Adventists responded to the challenge put out by the church in the book,
Issues.
ARE THE CHICKENS COMING HOME TO
ROOST?
We can expect in the future to see more and more "historic
Adventists" returning to the fold of the mainstream SDA church, as they
come to realize that they really have no real ground on which to accuse the SDA
church of apostasy. Not unless they recognize the only real ground for the
charge of apostasy, which is the departure from the church's original position
on the doctrine of the godhead.
Already there are significant indications that some of the bigger names
around in Independent Adventism may be retracing their steps back to the mother
church in the very near future.
Ominous Signs
The General Conference administrative committee (ADCOM), in early 1998,
established an ad hoc committee to interview the leadership of Hope
International, publishers of Our Firm Foundation, and two other private groups,
Hartland Institute, headquartered in the United States, and Remnant Ministries,
based in Australia.
The committee developed a 20-question instrument that was the basis of
their inquiry and appraisal. The leaders of Hope International and its
associated groups accepted the committee's invitation to answer the questions.
They met with the General Conference-appointed group on two occasions for a
total of three and one-half days. Below are some of the problems which the GC
Committee found with the position of these ministries.
Excerpts from GC Committee Report
"... the emphasis on revival and reformation we found in the
message of Hope International, Hartland Institute, and Remnant Ministries
(hereafter referred to as Hope International and associates) is welcomed.
Further, we observed in conversations with Hope International and associates
that they affirmed agreement on many of the major elements of the Seventh-day
Adventist faith.
However, the method they have used to express their concern has resulted
in what is perceived by many to be a spirit of constant criticism directed
against the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is the body of Christ, the
remnant church. The effect of this methodology is the discouraging portrayal of
the church as steeped in a state of apostasy. After studying their materials
and meeting with their leaders, we have some serious concerns with respect to
the nature and purpose of Hope International and associates.
Areas of Serious Concern
1. Charge of Apostasy Against the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
2c. Rewriting of the Baptismal Vow. A baptismal vow was put together by
Colin Standish using the 1932 Church Manual and other sources. An examination
of this baptismal vow reveals that it is significantly different from what is
found in the current Church Manual as approved by the world church. Among the
differences are the following:
(1) A new fundamental belief added as a requirement for joining the church:
that "Jesus took upon Himself our fallen nature." Such a statement
has never been part of the Seventh-day Adventist baptismal vow or of official
statements of fundamental beliefs...
(2) The vow dealing with tithing does not identify the church as the
repository of tithe, as does the official baptismal vow.
3. Supporting Dissident Movements Hope International and associates have
supported, and continue to support, dissident movements who turn against the
Seventh-day Adventist Church and its organization.
4. Selectively Using Ellen G. White Writings
Conclusion
The accumulative effect of the above information results in the
perception of many church members that Hope International and associates are
offshoot organizations. They have not taken the decisive step of officially
separating themselves from the Seventh-day Adventist organization, and they
claim that they never will. However, by rejecting the authority of the world
church in session when their interpretation of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy
differs from that of the church, they have set their authority above that of
the world church and operate in a manner that is consistent with offshoot
movements.
An Appeal
We appeal, in all sincerity and Christian love, to Hope International
and associates to hear the counsel of the church they claim to love. It is time
for the spirit of condemnation and rebellion to be set aside, allowing the
reconciling blood of Christ to bring unity among His people.
If Hope International and associates cannot bring themselves into
harmony with the body of the world church, clearly evidenced within 12 months,
the Seventh-day Adventist Church may need to consider whether there exists a
"persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or
to submit to the order and discipline of the church" (Church Manual, p.
169)."
Recent developments
There is evidence that the not so subtle threat by the General
Conference has had its effect. Most of us have heard of the GC lawsuit brought
against Pastor Rafael Perez and the Eternal Gospel church in Miami, for using
the name "Seventh-day Adventist." Before and during the trial, Pastor
Perez received strong support from the Standish brothers and most of the
independent ministries which expressed deep shock and grief at the continuing
"apostasy" of the church in calling upon the arm of the state to
enforce its institutions. This trial was no secret event, but received
widespread coverage both in the public media as well as in the publications of
the various ministries.
Since that time however, some events have occurred which seem to be
highly significant in light of the veiled threat issued to "Hope
International and associates," by the General Conference.
Evidently Pastor Perez and his group put an ad in the Toronto Tribune
and had a small group handing out pamphlets in Toronto during the recently held
General Conference session. The advertisements were apparently openly critical
of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Hope International have responded to
Pastor Perez's actions by canceling Pastor Perez's speaking appointments at
their campmeetings as the following letter from Hope reveals.
Email from Hope International:
Dear Brother Rafael,
This is just to let you know that the withdrawal of the invitation to
the Angelus Oaks and Angwin camp meetings remains. There are some of the board
members who are feeling uncomfortable about the Toronto ad also and so until we
all have time to evaluate and digest the situation with prayer and guidance
from above I feel it would be better to avoid any possible conflict it could
cause for Hope's ministry.
Please know that you have my love and prayers. It is my desire that the
pain of this court process will not cloud your message or your vision of a
finished 3 Angels message to the world.
I am sorry my brother to send you this news but I pray that you will
understand.
God Be With You,
Harry Hansen
The following quotation, taken from a recent issue of the Remnant
Herald, the paper published by Dr. Russell Standish also reveals the
displeasure of "Hope International and associates" at the activities
of Pastor Perez in Toronto.
"In fairness we must report that in Toronto during the General
Conference Session one self-supporting worker took the opportunity to place an
advertisement in a newspaper which exposed some of the distressing matters
within our church. Colin and I, without our knowledge, were accurately quoted
in that article. Our words, as quoted, were from material presented only within
the church and that is where we intended it to be confined. Colin, on behalf of
himself and myself, did personally express his disappointment that this material
was spread to the world, for we dare not despoil the one object of Christ's
regard, even if the organizational leaders do denigrate us.
Let us in self-supporting work never move outside the bounds of
inspiration and let us ever present an example of the highest level of
conformity to divine counsel. Only thus can God bless us, whether we are
privileged to serve Him in self-supporting work or in the organized work."
The truth is that, as we have stated before, neither Hope International
nor any of the Independent Ministries really have any ground for accusing the
Church of apostasy, as long as they continue to be in agreement with the Church
in the act of rejecting the position of the pioneers on the question of the
Godhead. They are all in the same boat in apostasy and the other issues being
agitated by the independent ministries are quibbles compared to this issue.
Those other issues may be reason for concern and agitation, but are not enough
of a reason for reasonable people to separate from the mother church. This is
why we would not be surprised if Hope International and company make their way
back home to "mother" in the near future.
Addendum by Ron Beaulieu
The above observations made by David Clayton are right on target. It
will be the Omega Heresy involving the Godhead, "...speculation in regard
to the personality of God and where His presence is, and
"...spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God, followed to
their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy."
It is pure speculation when the Trinity doctrine ASSUMES that the Holy
Spirit existed as a third, distinct person from eternity, rather than becoming
a third person in becoming the Son's successor at the time of His Incarnation.
There is not one Scripture reference that proves that the Holy Spirit existed
as a separate person from eternity. The Holy Spirit was and is the one eternal
Spirit of God and His Son, but it was not a third person until Christ laid
aside His first life at His first death (Incarnation) as a regenerating gift
for us. It was then that the Holy Spirit, His essence, became His successor:
“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.
The Impartation of the Holy
Spirit is the Impartation of the Life of Christ
"The Holy Spirit is the breath of spiritual life in the soul. The
impartation of the Spirit is the impartation of the life of Christ. It imbues
the receiver with the attributes of Christ. Only those who are thus taught of
God, those who possess the inward working of the Spirit, and in whose life the
Christ-life is manifested, are to stand as representative men, to minister in
behalf of the church." Desire of Ages, 805. In the Alpha of Apostasy,
Kellogg dealt in "...that which is nought bu speculation in regard to the
personality of God and where His presence is. No one on this earth has a right
to speculate on this question. The more fanciful theories are discussed, the
less men will know of God and of the truth that sanctifies the soul." E.G.
White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, 202.
"The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God,
followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy.
They estimate as nothing the light that Chris 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 [The Everlasting Covenant and thereby The Everlasting
Gospel], and rob the people of God of their past experience, giving them
instead a false science." E.G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, 204.
The Trinity doctrine denies that the Holy Spirit is the former life of
Christ that He laid aside at His Incarnation in heaven for us. This was
absolutely necessary to satisfy the everlasting death signified by the
Everlasting Covenant in payment (atonement) for sin. It was entirely necessary
that the Son die forever, for the penalty for sin was and is everlasting death,
not 3 days in the tomb. Christ died forever to His first estate of Being which
He had before His Incarnation. This occurred on the Cross, when He commended His
Spirit to the Father for the last time. Christ first commended His Spirit to
the Father at His Incarnation in heaven, as His last will and testament. That
Spirit descended upon Him again at His baptism. It was commended back to the
Father for the last time just before Christ died on the cross. Before this
final commending of His Spirit to the Father, Christ could have returned to His
first estate of Being, His Holy Spirit state, and refused to atone for sin.
The Great Shaking Issue
The Godhead, involving the identification of the true God and what He
did for us by way of the Atonement, is the great shaking issue of the Omega. It
involves the worst abomination man could imbibe; that of attributing the Holy
Spirit of the Son, which He sacrificed forever to atone for our sins, to
another third person separate from the Son. This is what the Trinity doctrine
does. All who embrace the trinity doctrine have returned to the iniquities of
their forefathers, Jeremiah 11:9-15. The iniquity of all iniquities is the
trinity doctrine, which misidentifies the Testator of the Everlasting Covenant,
attributing it to another person other than the first life Being of Christ,
which He sacrificed forever, as an Atonement for sin, and as a regenerating agency
to return us to the image of God.
"The Spirit was given as a regenerating agency, and without this
the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail." E.G. White, Review
and Herald, May 19, 1904, The Promise of the Spirit, pr. 3.
No "third person" could fulfill the Testator Covenant between
the Son and the Father. Only the Son could give His life FOREVER, in
satisfaction of the Everlasting Testator Covenant. The Testator agreement
demands the death of the Testator, and three days in the tomb does not meet
that requirement. The Testator covenant requires that the Testator die, and the
Testator was the Son in His Divinity. Since Divinity cannot die per say, the
Son had to die to His first estate of Being, His first life form and take on
forever the life form of a servant; a life form of divinity united with
humanity.
Hbr 9:16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the
death of the testator.
Hbr 9:17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it
is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Holy Spirit is another eternal
person eternally distinct from Christ. It teaches that the humanity of Christ
died and that the humanity death made the Atonement. Both teachings preclude
the Atonement. Both preclude the type manifested in the Sanctuary service. It
is true that the humanity of Christ died, but it is also true that Christ died
to His Holy Spirit person FOREVER at His Incarnation first death. This is the
death that satisfied the Atonement, and it was finalized on the cross when He
commended that Holy Spirit former life back to the Father FOREVER just before
He died.
Since both the church and the Intra-church operating Independent
Ministries subscribe to the Trinity heresy, they both are in the worst apostasy
possible. They both imbibe and require baptismal vows affirming a doctrine that
denies the Atonement and the Sanctuary Message. They both affirm a doctrine
that effectualy "removes God," Selected Messages, vol. 1, 205, and
Jeremiah 11:9-15.
"What hat my beloved (bride--church) to do in mine house
(Sanctuary--church), seeing she (the professing church) hath wrought lewdness
with many (fallen churches and Rome by adopting their iniquitous Trinity
doctrine and ecumenically fraternizing with them) and the holy flesh (God) is
passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest [celebrates]."
Jeremiah 11:15.
Verse 10 mentions how they have "... turned bqack to the iniquities
of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words: and they went after other
gods to serve them..." The professing SDA church has turned back to the
iniquitous doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine contrived by the early
"church fathers" in forbidden ecumenical councils. This is serious
beyond the comprehension of the dumb dog watchmen of Isaiah 56:10-12, and
beyond the understanding of the ministering brethren who are looking on but do
not seem to understand, The Upward Look, p. 152. The Sanctuary is GONE. The
Atonement is GONE, and the ministering brethren do not seem to understand.
Ron B.
|