Church

ISSUES: The Pseudo Issues, Section III

by

SECTION THREE: THE PSEUDO ISSUES
Chapter V – The Pseudo Issue Of Attacking The Church
Chapter VI – The Pseudo Issue Of Divisiveness
Chapter VII – The Pseudo Issue Of Personalities
Chapter VIII – The Pseudo Issue Of Alleged Financial Irregularities
Chapter IX – The Pseudo Search For Historic Adventism

by Dr. Ralph Larson

Chapter V – The Pseudo Issue Of Attacking The Church

The fallacy of identifying the small group of officers of the North American Division who wrote Issues as “the church” has been pointed out in Section One. We concede that they are members of the church and leaders in the church, but by no stretch of the imagination can they properly say:

We are the church! Anyone who disagrees with us is rejecting the authority of the church! Anyone who presumes to criticize anything that we do is attacking the church!

From the human standpoint we probably must recognize that if a church leader is criticized for wrong doing, his most effective defense would be to set up a cry that the church is being attacked. This would be calculated to produce an emotional response akin to that produced by the burning of the flag or an attack on motherhood. Thus we find the Issues tract and book liberally sprinkled with phrases like these:

Increasingly critical of (the church), at stake is the integrity of the church, undermine confidence in the church, threaten the viability of the church, threaten to pull the church apart, criticize and tear down the church, fighting the church, etc.

Perhaps the most astonishing of these misleading phrases is in the line that describes the purposes of Hope and Hartland as “gaining control of the church and ‘purifying’ it by purging out those who do not agree with their theology. “— Issues book, page 19. If the reader will pause a moment to reread the paragraph of descriptive phrases above and substitute the word “unauthorized theology” for every use of the word “church,” this will make it a much more accurate statement.

If the emotion arousing purpose of such language as this is successful, it can be counted upon to arouse an unreasoning fury against any persons who would so assault the church of God. But not all Seventh- day Adventists are that unreasoning or unreasonable. Many will reflect that they have not heard or read any such attacks on the church in the presentations of the independent ministries. They have, rather, heard and read many warnings against unauthorized changes in the church’s doctrines, and criticisms, by a few, of wrong doing on the part of certain individuals, but nothing remotely resembling a wholesale condemnation of the church.

Under the date of April 3, 1992, a “study paper” was circulated among the leaders of the North American Division which set forth a rationale for taking strong action against certain independent ministries. Portions of this paper were later incorporated into the Issues tract and book.

The proposed strategy is to (a) represent to the church members that certain independent ministries are “attempting to force (their) view on the church” and are planning “to purge out those who would resist them” NAD Paper, pages 9, 11, 14.

The next step in the proposed strategy is to (b) argue that since force is being used against the church, the church is justified in taking forceful actions against these ministries and those who support them.

Though the charge of “using force” is as false as it is ridiculous, this accusation is a device of deception quite commonly used by those who are trying to persuade people to do something which their consciences do not approve. While pursuing my doctoral studies in the liberal radical educational community of Boston, I attended a seminar in which the dean of a liberal theological seminary used the same technique by stating with emphasis that:

If a man overcharges you for a loaf of bread, that is violence!

The intent of this strategy is obvious. If a man is using violence against you, you are clearly justified in taking strong measures in return. So— go ahead and burn down his store, or take whatever other actions seem appropriate. You may quiet your conscience by accepting the concept that he first “used violence” against you.

But is overcharging for a loaf of bread a valid definition of violence? Not to a careful thinker. And is charging certain persons with apostasy a valid definition of “using force”? If it is, then our church has been “using force” against both Catholic and Protestant churches throughout our entire history in that we have been charging them with apostasy. Are we ready to plead guilty to “using force” against these churches, or would it be better to simply reject in its entirety this false definition of “using force”?

Chapter VI The Pseudo Issue Of Divisiveness

This is a charge that is carefully left undefined. It is apparently desired that church members simply accept the testimony of the leaders of the North American Division that the independent ministries are divisive, and not ask, “Divisive about what?” We are reminded of a passage in The Desire of Ages, page 724:

Again Pilate asked, “What accusation bring ye against this Man?” The priests did not answer his question, but in words that showed their irritation, they said, “If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.” When those composing the Sanhedrin, the first men of the nation, bring to you a man they deem worthy of death, is there need to ask for an accusation against him? They hoped to impress Pilate with a sense of their importance, and thus lead him to accede to their request without going through many preliminaries. They were eager to have their sentence ratified; for they knew that the people who had witnessed Christ’s marvelous works could tell a story very different from the fabrication they themselves were now rehearsing.

The purpose of the Issues writers seems to I be to avoid entering into theological discussions of any kind, yet the charge of divisiveness leads directly to theological realities. Repeatedly the Issues writers affirm that the independents are creating division by urging (forcing) their theological opinions upon the church.

We have already pointed out that it is not our opinions that we are defending, but rather the Bible doctrines that are expressed in the book, Seventh- day Adventists Believe. Thus, we challenge the use of the term “opinions,” but we do not challenge the use of the term “theological.” Theology is what it is all about, or more precisely, unauthorized changes in our theology.

Thus we are led directly to the question, Who is properly chargeable with divisiveness, those who are making the unauthorized changes, or those who are resisting the changes? Surely any fair- minded person would place the responsibility at the door of those who are making the unauthorized changes.

When the Review editor writes that disagreements about the nature of Christ are harmful to the unity of the church and create division, we respond that this is a valid point, but it is 35 years too late. It should have been advanced in 1956 and 1957 when the Review was printing arguments against our historic position on the nature of Christ and the secret writers of

Questions On Doctrine (QOD) were preparing that ill- fated volume for publication. They are the ones who destroyed the unity of the church on this point. We are not.

In our massive research report, The Word Was Made Flesh, we record 1,200 statements by Adventist writers, including many of our most prominent leaders, that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man. Four hundred of them were from the inspired pen of Ellen White. All were published in the one hundred year period 1852- 1952. There was total unity on the subject. In all of our research, we did not find a single dissenting opinion. This perfect unity was shattered in 1957 when the secret writers of QOD foisted upon the unsuspecting church members the Calvinistic doctrine that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. Brazenly they declared that this had always been the belief of our church. Possibly never before in the history of Christianity had so many been misled by so few, and so easily.

The perfect unity that our church had enjoyed for more than a hundred years on this point and on other points that depend on it was destroyed and division was created. And now, in defiance of all logic, fairness and justice, the similarly secret writers of Issues are proposing that the independent ministries are responsible for this division. Can judgment be more unfair than this?

Likewise, the literature of our church before the publishing of QOD abounded with statements, sometimes entire articles, affirming that victorious Christian living through the power of the indwelling Christ is possible for all Christians. This statement appears in the writings of Ellen White more than 4,500 times and it has appeared in our statements of faith as well, including 140 times in Seventh- day Adventists Believe. Yet those who are bringing the doctrines of Calvinism into our church are now teaching and preaching, without authorization, that all Christians must keep on sinning until Jesus comes, at which time He will miraculously fix us so that we will not sin any more. Ellen White has written 48 warnings that nothing of this kind will ever happen.

Nevertheless, the writers of Issues are saying that victorious Christian living is a new standard of Adventism invented by the independent ministries, and are charging us with divisiveness. Yet perhaps this should not surprise us. Ellen White wrote:

When controversy is awakened, the advocates of truth are accredited with causing a disturbance.— ST 10- 17- 95.

Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this, those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious, heretical, or schismatic. Multitudes who are too unbelieving to accept the sure word of prophecy, will receive with unquestioning credulity an accusation against those who dare to reprove fashionable sins. This spirit will increase more and more.— GC 458, 459.

Should divisiveness be charged against those who are resisting unauthorized changes in our church’s theology, or upon those who are making the unauthorized changes? We submit this question to the considered judgment of every fair-minded Seventh- day Adventist, and we reaffirm that this is a pseudo issue.

Chapter VII – The Pseudo Issue Of Personalities

One of the most time tested realities about discussion and debate is that those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man. This has been recognized for so long that it has come down to us with a Latin name: the argument ad hominem (against the man.) It is very disappointing to historic church members when they ask their pastor or even their conference president why wrongful and unauthorized changes are being made in our church’s theology, and they are told in reply that certain independent ministry leaders are not good men. In support of this allegation, barrages of hear- say, innuendo and pure gossip are often presented by those who are expected to preach against such things.

But that is beside the point. Arguments about men can go on forever, but this has nothing to do with the problem of wrongful and unauthorized changes in our church’s theology. To point to an alleged fault in a man, or even to an apparent and discernible fault, does not provide anyone with authority to change a doctrine of our faith.

One of the most regrettable and indefensible of these arguments against the man is the allegation that the historic Adventists are setting themselves up as the standard for others to follow and imitate. (Issues, page 14, et al.) Surely this is the absolute nadir of discussion, the lowest level that argument can possibly reach.

I have been ministering to historic Adventists for nearly half a century and have become personally acquainted with many of the independent ministry leaders. I have never met nor heard of a single person among them who would dream of setting himself or herself up as the standard for anything. They would all with one accord declare that our standard and example is the Lord Jesus Christ, and that no human being should be regarded as our example. This is in sharp contrast to the theological position of the Calvinist, which places great emphasis upon the sacrificial substitution of Christ and minimizes as much as possible His role as our example. Arguments such as this are obviously pseudo issues, and should be recognized as confessions of the abject poverty of a cause.

Chapter VIII – The Pseudo Issue Of Alleged Financial Irregularities

Since this is a variation of the argument against the man, which was discussed in the previous chapter, we need not analyze it at length here. The same principles apply to both. To state the matter simply, if by microscopic examination of the life records of all independent ministry leaders it could be demonstrated that one or all of them had been involved in an apparent financial irregularity of some kind, would this provide authorization for anyone to make changes in the doctrines of the church? To ask the question is to answer it, because the idea is so ridiculous. This is transparently a pseudo issue.

But if the North American Division leaders insist on trying to make it appear as a real issue, then there are several more chapters that will have to be written and published. We will simply list a few of the chapters that would be needed:

  1. A chapter dealing with financial irregularities involving NEMA and the Kettering law suit.

  2. A chapter dealing with the suit against the Lake Union by Lloyds of London.

  3. A chapter dealing with the Davenport scandal.

  4. A chapter dealing with the unnecessary declaration of bankruptcy by the Harris Pine Mills.

  5. A chapter dealing with the Rebok scam.

  6. A chapter dealing with the solicitation of tithe from well- to- do members in certain conferences in North America and the diversion of that tithe to a mission field in Central America, along with an explanation of the means whereby that tithe was channeled through a North American Division office so that the donors could have a tax exemption.

  7. A chapter dealing with the highly irregular arrangements that were set up whereby money could be channeled through the books of a certain Union in order to provide secret salaries to the wives of certain highly placed church leaders.

Much more might be added, but perhaps this is enough to demonstrate our point. I am proposing that it would be better to give our attention to the real issue of wrongful and unauthorized changes in our church’s theology and leave pseudo issues such as this one alone.

Chapter IX – The Pseudo Search For Historic Adventism

Those who are changing the doctrines of our church have endeavored to apply the term “traditional Adventists” to those of us who do not accept their changes. This may be a purposeful ploy. To most Seventh- day Adventists the word “tradition” carries very negative connotations. We have recognized and identified the problem of other churches as following tradition rather than Scripture. So we have preferred to call ourselves “historic Adventists.”

As our published writings have made quite clear, we understand and use the term “historic” to refer to the truths that were held by virtually all Adventists before the book Questions on Doctrine appeared in 1957.

We are not ignorant of our church’s history. We are well aware that the formation of our doctrines was a gradual process, with major principles being established in the early years and further refinements coming later. We are also well aware of the difference between “landmarks” and “pillars” of our faith and the less important items.

But these matters had been sorted out and our theology well refined before 1957, and it is to the common faith of the pre- 1957 era that we have reference when we describe ourselves as “historic Adventists.” Again, this is clearly stated in our writings.

We, therefore, look in wonder at the 18 page search for historic Adventism in the Issues book, pages 35- 53. The chapter requires us to look back to the earliest years of SDA experience for definitions of the term “historic Adventism.” Insofar as the present discussion is concerned, this has little or no relevance. We are talking about pre- 1957, not pre- 1857.

We are further mystified by the selection of material and by the treatment of material.

The Selection of Material. Throughout most of its existence, our church has printed and published to a phenomenal degree. The Archives contain untold thousands of pages of material in which our doctrines were expounded, explained and recommended to the world. The writers of this material did not neglect the two points of faith now under consideration— the nature of Christ and sanctification. As mentioned elsewhere, our leading administrators, editors and other writers went into print 1,200 times during the years 1852- 1952 with statements that our Lord came to earth in the human nature of fallen man, and not a single statement affirming the opposite. Four hundred of these statements were by Ellen White. Her statements expressing our historic view of sanctification total more than 4,500. The statements on that subject by other writers are too numerous to count.

There is no lack of source material. If you want to know what historic Adventism consisted of, especially in regard to the nature of Christ and sanctification, spend just a few months in the Archives. My wife and I have done this and have reported our findings in our two research volumes, The Word Was Made Flesh and Tell of His Power.

The Issues authors have not done this. They have chosen a different approach which we view with astonishment. They have chosen to ignore this enormous mass of historical evidence and look only at the few and unofficial statements of faith that can be found in the 1861,1872 and 1931 historical records.

The first statement to which they direct our attention (1861) was not by the general church but only by the Michigan Conference. It consisted of 30 words:

We the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking the name of Seventh- day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ.— Issues book, page 36.

The Issues writers then lead us to 1872 and a statement composed by Uriah Smith and published in the Review, of which he was editor. Here we find the treatment of evidence no less astonishing than the selection of evidence.

The Treatment of Evidence. We present this as it appears in Issues on page 39 with emphasis supplied and quotation marks to indicate the words of Uriah Smith:

In 1872 Adventists published an anonymous, non- binding statement of beliefs. In the introduction, the unnamed author (Uriah Smith) took great pains to emphasize the unofficial and non- creedal nature of the document: ‘In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is and has been, with great unanimity, held by them. We often find it necessary to meet inquiries on this subject, and sometimes to correct false statements circulated against us, and to remove erroneous impressions which have obtained with those who have not had an opportunity to become acquainted with our faith and practice. Our only object is to meet this necessity.’

The non- binding, non-creedal status of the statement is of special interest. Even more significant, however, is the fact that the statement is distinctly non-Trinitarian. Jesus is described as Creator and Redeemer but is nowhere identified as God or as eternal. He simply is “the Son of the Eternal Father.”

For those who would wish to define “historic Adventism” in terms of specific doctrinal content, the 1872 date presents a real dilemma. To accept what Adventists considered binding at that time would exclude any reference to the nature of Christ or to a particular type of obedience.

We see no dilemma. We consider historic Adventism as pre- 1957. We observe that:

1- The Issues writers in describing this statement acknowledge that it was the work of one man (Uriah Smith) and was published in the Review on his own initiative. It was, therefore, not produced by the “Adventists” speaking by way of a board, a committee or a constituency meeting.

2- Though Uriah Smith may not have been clear on the eternal pre- existence of Christ, he was clear on the human nature of Christ and on sanctification, as shown in his book Looking Unto Jesus (c189 7 ), pages 23 and 30:

In the likeness of sinful flesh, He reached down to the very depths of man’s fallen condition, and became obedient unto death, even the ignominious death of the cross. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh to demonstrate before all parties in the controversy that it was possible for men in the flesh to keep the law. He demonstrated this by keeping it Himself. On our plane of existence, and in our nature, He rendered such obedience to every principle and precept, that the eye of Omniscience itself could find no flaw therein. His whole life was but a transcript of that law, in its spiritual nature, and in its holy, just and good demands. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, by living Himself in the flesh and doing no sin, showing that it was possible for man thus to live.

3— The Issues writers also describe the statement as non- binding, unofficial, non-creedal, non- binding and non-creedal.

Yet in the tenth line following we find this: To accept what Adventists considered binding at that time. . . . So the statement no longer reflects the thinking of Uriah Smith but of “Adventists” and that which was described as non- binding, unofficial, and non-creedal, has suddenly become “what Adventists considered binding.”

While you are catching your breath, we will move on to the next problem. Throughout their discussion, the Issues writers place great emphasis on the alleged absence from the three statements (1861, 1872, 1931) of any reference to our historic view of the nature of Christ and the doctrine of sanctification. But when we examine those statements in the appendices of

Issues, this is what we find:

1861
. . . covenanting to keep the commandments of God.— Issues book, page 36.

1872
That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race. . . . That the new birth comprises the entire change necessary to fit us for the kingdom of God, and consists of two parts: first, a moral change, wrought by conversion and a Christian life. . . . That as all have violated the law of God, and cannot of themselves render obedience to His just requirements, we are dependent on Christ, first for justification from our past offenses, and, secondly, for9race whereby to render acceptable obedience to his holy law in time to come.— lbid. 437, 439.

1931
While retaining His divine nature He took upon Himself the nature of the human family. . . .

By accepting Christ, man is reconciled to God, justified by His blood for the sins of the past, and saved from the power of sin by his indwelling life. Thus the gospel becomes “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” This experience is wrought by the divine agency of the Holy Spirit, who convinces of sin and leads to the Sin- Bearer, inducting the believer into the new covenant relationship, where the law of God is written on his heart, and through the enabling power conformity to the divine precepts.— lbid. 444.

The end is not yet. The Issues writers have woven through all of their presentation a very strong emphasis upon the doctrines of church authority, Christian unity, and tithes and offerings. We have taken note of this emphasis in our section on side issues.

Then, turning their attention to the alleged faults of historic Adventists, they argue strenuously that if a doctrine is not specifically mentioned in the 1872 statement it is therefore nonbinding, but rather optional, and different views and practices on those points are not subject to challenge.

We ask. Where in the 1872 statement do we find a reference to the three doctrines that are the basis for their planned disciplinary actions— the doctrines of authority, unity, and tithe? Answer: nowhere. There is not a word in the 1872 statement about any of these three doctrines. Therefore, by their own argument, the Issues writers have pronounced judgment against themselves for preparing to apply church discipline to us.

We rest our case. Section Four: Credibility Credibility is a crucial factor in all church administration. The church is not able to levy taxes on its members like the government does and collect them by force, applying stiff fines and even prison sentences for failure to pay. The vast financial structure of our church and its institutions, involving total annual budgets that doubtless run into billions of dollars, must of necessity rest upon a foundation of confidence, trust, credibility. Let this confidence and trust be lost, let this credibility be destroyed, and the church will struggle in vain to collect money from its members.

How important, then, that wise statesmanship be exercised in all decision making and in the conducting of all church affairs. The question that urgently needs to be considered at every step of the way is, How will this affect the church’s credibility? Openness, accuracy, fairness, justice and truthfulness are the vital elements that will enhance credibility. The absence of any of them, in whole or in part, will do enormous damage to the church’s credibility and thus to the church’s financial structure. financial structure.

We would like to suggest that the expensive publication of the Issues tract and the 467 page book has done nothing to enhance the church’s credibility. The many responses that are reaching us indicate that it may have a severely damaging effect. As briefly as possible we will list some potential problems.

The next section: The Credibility Crisis

ISSUES: The Side Issues, Section II

by

SECTION TWO: THE SIDE ISSUES
Chapter II – The Side Issue Of Church Authority
Chapter III – The Side Issue Of Christian Unity
Chapter IV – The Side Issue Of Tithes And Offerings

by Dr. Ralph Larson

While awaiting the time for an appointment with the Union presidents of the North American Division, I heard one of the presidents address the others in this manner:

We must find some way to stop Ron Spear, but we can’t do it with theology because there is nothing wrong with his theology.

Two questions occurred to me. If there is nothing wrong with Spear’s theology, why should he be stopped? And if theological questions must be avoided, what methods will be used to stop him?

The first question remains open, but it seems that the second question is now being answered. The Issues tract and book both carefully avoid the real issue of unjustified and unauthorized changes in our church’s theology. After listing five of the alleged changes on page 5 of the tract, the writers continue:

It is not the purpose of this statement to provide a theological rebuttal to the views held by the members of Hope International.

Therein lies the tragedy. The concerns of the historic church members are theological in nature, and they need to be dealt with on the theological level. No other means can be substituted with effective results. Yet that is what is happening. Attempts are being made to advance the side issues of church authority and Christian unity while ignoring the real issue of unauthorized changes in our church’s theology. As admitted by the Union president, there is nothing wrong with our theology. And he is not alone in this opinion. The president of the Pacific Union wrote to me on May 1, 1990:

I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding it necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching.

And on November 16,1988, Elder Charles Bradford, president of the North American Division, wrote to me:

. . . my views on the nature of Christ are almost identical with some that you and others have expressed. I have preached them at large camp meetings around the world.

When a few persons have criticized my writings, I have responded by asking, “Have I said or written anything that is not true? If so, point it out and I will make an immediate correction.” But nothing has been pointed out. The idea seems to be that even if it is true, I should not have written it. I have difficulty with this concept.

The real issue is unauthorized changes in our church’s theology. But since the Issues writers have chosen to place their emphasis on side issues, we will have to consider them.

Chapter II – The Side Issue Of Church Authority

Has God given authority to the church? Of course. Is this authority supported by the Scriptures? Undoubtedly. Is it supported by the Spirit of Prophecy? Beyond question, it is.

No one is questioning the principle of church authority. But can a valid doctrine of church authority be based upon a false theology? Who would answer “Yes” to that question? How could any person, any group of persons, or any church have authority from the God of truth to teach or enforce doctrines that are not true?

False doctrines have no authority, nor can they ever have. A false doctrine, apostasy, cannot apply to itself any promise of God, nor can apostasy claim for itself any right or privilege that God has given to the true church. Let us remember that the church of God is described in Scripture as “the pillar and ground of truth” I Timothy 3: 15.

To describe a church that teaches untruth as a true church is manifestly ridiculous. Our church has been greatly blessed and honored by God because it has steadfastly taught the truth of God, in spite of strong opposition from the world and from other churches. But now, in an eagerness to have acceptance from the world and the worldly churches, some among us are turning from the truth and are embracing doctrines that are not true. Thus, the church is in peril and is in danger of losing the blessing and the power of God.

Contrary to the allegations in Issues, the Historic Adventists are not saying that the church is in apostasy. They are saying that there is apostasy in the church, and that the apostasy is spreading rapidly with no apparent opposition from most church leaders. And to the degree that church leaders condone or support false doctrines, to that degree they lose their authority. When a church member asks, “Why are the doctrines of the church being changed?” it will not suffice to give him a stern lecture on church authority, nor will denials of the changes be effective when the church member is observing the changes in his own house of worship. When truth goes down, authority goes down with it.

It is not possible for church authority to be the central issue in the present discussion. Fullness of truth brings fullness of authority. Therefore, let our leaders set the church’s theology in order and questions of authority will quickly disappear. Our doctrinal book states:

No one has any independent authority apart from Christ and His word.—. SDAs Believe, page 146. And Ellen White writes:

“Whatever the church does that is in accordance with the directions given in God’s word will be ratified in heaven.”— 7T 263.

“The church. . . must say about sin what God says about it. She must deal with it as God directs, and her action is ratified in heaven.”— DA 806.

This brings us immediately and specifically to the heart of the present problem. In ever widening circles within our church, its spokesmen are emphatically not saying about sin what God says about it. They are saying instead that it will be necessary for us to keep on sinning until Jesus comes, at which time He will miraculously fix us so that we will not sin any more. This is a concept which is forcefully rejected in the Scriptures (Revelation 22: 11- 12), and against which we find more than 40 strong warnings in the Spirit of Prophecy.

When the disciples of Jesus were summoned to appear before the Sanhedrin, they went gladly, anticipating an opportunity to express their convictions about Jesus. They found, however, that the Sanhedrin proposed one question only, Do you submit to our authority? Result— the church was split. When Martin Luther and his companions were summoned to appear before the emperor, they also went gladly, hoping for a discussion of the principles of truth. But they were confronted with the same question, Do you submit to our authority? Result— the church was split.

Today we find ourselves caught up in a similar situation, and we may well reflect about the past. Will our leaders respond to our expressions of concern about unauthorized changes in our church’s theology, or will they simply demand submission to their authority, putting authority above the truth? The question is fraught with great and eternal results. May God save His church.

Chapter III – The Side Issue Of Christian Unity

The same principles that apply to the side issue of authority are also applicable here. The Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy are unmistakably clear in exalting the importance of Christian unity. But Christian unity, like church authority, must be built upon the foundation of truth.

We all believe that unity in the church is precious. It is priceless. Unity was the great burden of the last recorded prayer of Jesus for His disciples (John 17). Unity was what made possible the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Unity was one of the major factors that gave power to the Seventh- day Adventist Church as it emerged from the Millerite Movement.

What is the basis of this precious unity? Paul calls it “the unity of the faith” Ephesians 4: 13. He further describes it as “speaking the truth in love,” verse 15, and indicates that those who have this unity of the faith will not be “carried about with every wind of doctrine” verse 14.

Ellen White describes the search for unity in 1844: We would come together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one In faith and doctrine, for we knew that Christ is not divided.— TM 24. (All emphasis supplied.)

Their prayers were answered. They did become one in faith and doctrine, and they bestowed that legacy of unity upon us. Our church has enjoyed a phenomenal degree of unity throughout most of its history. We who have spent years in soul- winning work have found it an enormous advantage to be able to tell our converts they were uniting with a world- wide church that had a oneness in faith and doctrine over all the earth.

But notice how God has warned us through His messenger that unity must be based upon faith and doctrine:

Christ calls for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating, ennobling truth and false, misleading doctrines. … I urge our brethren to unify upon a true, scriptural basis.— l SM 175. We are to unify, but not on a platform of error.—. Series B, “Freedom in Christ” 47. Our church has not unified upon a platform of error, but upon a platform of truth. Our doctrines have been the foundation of our unity, but if wrong doctrines are introduced, causing the foundation of truth to crumble, we will struggle in vain to preserve our unity. The wise man does not build his house upon the sand.

At various times in the history of Christianity, there have arisen tensions between Christians who had differing views of what constitutes sound doctrines. Instead of meeting this problem on the theological level, church officials have sometimes tried to resolve it on the basis of church authority. This has never been and never will be successful. Ecclesiology must be derived from theology. Theology cannot be derived from ecclesiology, lest it degenerate into ecclesiolatry.

Chapter IV – The Side Issue Of Tithes And Offerings

Again we note that the returning of tithes and offerings to the Lord is the sacred duty of every Christian. God has commanded us to bring the tithe into the storehouse. But only the storehouse of truth can be the storehouse of tithe.

We doubt that anyone would seriously argue that God requires church members to pay tithes and offerings to support the teaching of soul- destroying false doctrines. Let the questions about false doctrines be properly dealt with and the tithe problem will disappear.

It is unfortunate that attempts have been made to show that Ellen White taught that the tithe should only be paid through regular church channels, regardless of the circumstances. These endeavors do not bear up well under investigation. (See booklet The Tithe Problem— Who Is Responsible? available from Steps to Life bookstore.)

In summation of the section, let us point out that neither authority nor unity nor tithe paying can stand alone or upon the foundation of a false theology. None of them can be first and the truth second. Truth must be first and church authority second. Truth must be first and Christian unity second. Truth must be first and tithe paying second. The real issue in our church is truth in conflict with untruth, unauthorized changes in our church’s theology.

The next section: The Pseudo Issues

ISSUES: The Real Issue, Section I

by

Issues 1: The Real Issues, the Side Issues, and the Pseudo IssuesISSUES: The Real Issue, the Side Issues, and the Pseudo Issues

by Dr. Ralph Larson

Many will stand in our pulpits with the torch of false prophecy in their hands, kindled from the hellish torch of Satan. – Testimonies to Ministers 409

It is natural for the wrongdoer to hold the messengers of God responsible for the calamities that come as the sure result of a departure from the way of righteousness. Those who place themselves in Satan’s power are unable to see things as God sees them. When the mirror of truth is held up before them, they become indignant at the thought of receiving reproof. Blinded by sin, they refuse to repent; they feel that God’s servants have turned against them and are worthy of severest censure.

Standing in conscious innocence before Ahab, Elijah makes no attempt to excuse himself or to flatter the king . . . . He has no apology to offer. Indignant, and jealous for the honor of God, he casts back the imputation of Ahab, fearlessly declaring to the king that it is his sins, and the sins of his fathers, that have brought upon Israel this terrible calamity. “I have not troubled Israel,” Elijah boldly asserts, “but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim” – Prophets and Kings, 139,140 ISSUES: The Real Issue the Side Issues

A response to the recent attack against “certain private organizations” by the officers and the Union presidents of the North American Division.

Does The church have a cancer?

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SECTION ONE: THE REAL ISSUE
Chapter I – The Real Issue Of Unjustified And Unauthorized Changes In Our Church’s Theology
SECTION TWO: THE SIDE ISSUES
SECTION THREE: THE PSEUDO ISSUES
SECTION FOUR: CREDIBILITY
SECTION FIVE: INQUISITION

INTRODUCTION

The Adventist Review of November 5, 1992, contained a sixteen- page, tract style insert titled “Issues: The Seventh- day Adventist Church and Certain Private Organizations.” It is described as an abbreviated and adapted version of a larger book with a similar title. Both the tract and the 467 page book are apparently being published for the purpose of preparing church member’s minds for the mass disfellowshipping of thousands of church members who have been protesting against unauthorized and unjustified changes in our church’s theology.

It is alleged that these “dissident” members are a cancer in the body of the church that must be cut out.

To have an informal church operating within the regular church is like having active cancer cells in a healthy body. A person diagnosed as having cancer has three options:

  1. deny there is a cancer and refuse to recognize the progressive sickness in the body;
  2. recognize that there is cancer, ignore medical treatment, and pray that God will work a miracle of healing;
  3. recognize that the cancer must be gotten rid of, have it medically treated, and, if possible, have it cut out.— Issues book, page 19.

With this awesome introduction we are ushered into the era of what appears to be an Inquisition of no small proportions.

I have written about The Great Adventist Apostasy in an attempt to alert both church members and church leaders that totally unauthorized and unjustified changes are being made in our church’s theology, and that those changes are being effected through our educational system and our church pulpits.—( See articles by Ralph Larson in Our Firm Foundation, January through December, 1991.)

When so warned and challenged, church leaders may respond in either of two ways. They may conduct careful investigations in order to determine whether the charges are valid and take appropriate corrective action as needed. Or they may decide to simply “stonewall” the charges, close ranks, assume a defensive attitude, and try to silence the voices of those who are sounding the alarm and calling for reform.

Tragically, the North American Division leaders seem to have chosen the latter course, and it appears that The Great Adventist Apostasy is to be followed by The Great Adventist Inquisition.

But will this Inquisition succeed in silencing the voices of those church members who are appealing for loyalty and adherence to the principles of our historic faith, or will it have the opposite effect? Perhaps we would do well to look back at similar situations as recorded in the pages of church history.

SECTION ONE: THE REAL ISSUE Chapter I

The Real Issue Of Unjustified And Unauthorized Changes In Our Church’s Theology

The doctrines of our church are being changed, and this is the real issue. This is the reason for the existence of the “certain private organizations” that are being attacked; and it is the reason that these private organizations are receiving such widespread support from church members who view the changes with alarm, wondering why church leaders seem to be doing little or nothing to interfere with the changes.

The changes are wrongful for two reasons. First, they are unofficial and unauthorized, having never been voted by the General Conference in session. Second, the changes have no valid basis in Scripture but are false doctrines drawn from the Calvinistic segment of Babylon where they have been held for centuries. Our pioneers met them and rejected them, as did virtually all of our church leaders, until we started sending our young people to the educational institutions of Babylon to receive their advanced degrees.

The unauthorized doctrinal changes are being effected through our educational system and our church pulpits. Instead of presenting them to a General Conference in session as a proper procedure would have required, the proponents of these changes have simply started teaching them in our schools. As a result, there is not a Seventh- day Adventist higher educational institution in North America today which is free from the false doctrines of Calvinism.

Graduates of these institutions are now taking their places in the pulpits of our churches, in the administrative offices of our conferences and in the editorial offices of the Adventist Review and Ministry. Notable exceptions to date are the Sabbath School quarterlies of the last few years which have presented lessons in harmony with our historic faith.

Compare, for example, the following clear affirmation of the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin (defined as inherited guilt) in the Review with the equally clear rejection of that same doctrine in a Sabbath School quarterly:

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.— Norman Gulley, Adventist Review, January 25, 1990, page 13. Some have taught that every human being shares the guilt for Adam’s sin, as though each of us had committed that sin ourselves. Adventists reject this unscriptural teaching.— Sabbath School Quarterly, second quarter, 1990, page 42.

Here we see Adventism and Calvinism competing with each other in two of our church’s publications. Calvinistic theology offers solutions to the horrible teaching expressed in the

Review by its doctrines of predestination and/ or infant baptism. The Review offers no solution at all but simply leaves us to the awful conclusion that all children who die in infancy must be burned to death in the fires that will consume the earth. If time and space permitted, we could fill a fair- sized book with descriptions of similar outbreaks of tension between the two theologies that are competing with each other in the Adventist Church today. In Australia, suggestions have been sent to ministers from conference offices advising them as to the best methods of sustaining the doctrines of Calvinism in opposition to the doctrines of Adventism presented in the quarterlies. In England, where they print quarterlies, they simply make changes in favor of the Calvinistic doctrines. (I have samples in my files.)

I am grateful to the writers of the Issues tract and book for presenting quotations from my writings which list five major changes in our doctrines that are now taking place in various places and to varying degrees. No doubt the Holy Spirit will use this information to alert church members to their danger, but since some readers of this paper may not have seen the Issues, I will here briefly list the five doctrines:

  1. The doctrine that we receive weakness from Adam, but not guilt, now being replaced by the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin defined as inherited guilt.
  2. The doctrine that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man, now being replaced by the Calvinistic doctrine that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.
  3. The doctrine of righteousness by faith, now being replaced by the Calvinistic doctrine of unrighteousness by presumption, salvation in sin.
  4. The doctrine of the sanctuary, now being either denied or replaced by vague uncertainties.
  5. Belief in the Spirit of Prophecy, now being denied because it supports all of the Adventist doctrines listed above and firmly rejects the Calvinistic doctrines.

While I do appreciate the printing of quotations from my writings in Issues, I would have been even more grateful if it had been pointed out that I was comparing our present situation with the following Spirit of Prophecy quotations:

“Before the last developments of the work of apostasy, there will be a confusion of faith. . . . one truth after another will be corrupted.”— ST 5- 28- 94.

“God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, separating the chaff from the wheat.”— 5T 707.

These unauthorized doctrinal changes, these heresies, are the real issue. We are most emphatically not defending or propagating our personal views, as the Issues writers insist more than 20 times. To repeatedly represent to the church membership that the contest is between the personal opinions or interpretations of the “dissidents” and “the church” is reprehensible and sets up a doubly false proposition.

We are defending the theological positions that are set forth in every statement of faith that our organization has ever published (denials notwithstanding) and that are most fully and clearly stated in the 1988 publication, Seventh- day Adventists Believe. In that volume, our position on righteousness by faith is affirmed not less that 140 times, and our position on the human nature of Christ is stated like this:

He took the nature of man in its fallen state, bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness.— page 49.

These are obviously not the personal views or interpretations of the “dissidents,” much less a “new standard of Adventism” as alleged in the Issues book, page 14. And how shall we understand the bald assertions that our views do not even appear in the book SDAs Believe? (See Issues book, pages 13, 49, 241,242.) I have pointed out that we are being confronted with a doubly false proposition that the issue is between our personal opinions and “the church.” Just as we have firmly denied that we are defending our personal opinions, we must with equal firmness deny that the writers and promoters of the Issues tract and book are “the church.” They are a very small group of persons within the church. We must remember that more than nine tenths of our membership live outside of the North American Division, and that the unauthorized changes in our doctrines have scarcely been heard of in most of the countries that we call mission fields. They are beginning to make their appearance there through the influence of the more recent graduates of our educational institutions, but they have as yet hardly touched the lives of the vast majority of the membership.

To a lesser degree the same principle even applies to the North American Division. The ethnic groups in North America are comparatively untouched by the doctrinal changes, as are many of our local Hispanic members, although it is moving in on the Hispanics very rapidly.

The vast majority of our world- wide membership is certainly not involved in the publication of the Issues, nor in the doctrinal controversy that it represents. In view of this reality, for those who prepared the tract and the book to refer to themselves as “the church” is wildly inaccurate and not a little presumptuous. Let us remember the definition of the church that is given to us by Ellen White:

God has a church. It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment, neither is it the various denominations; it is the people who love God and keep His commandments.— UL 315.

Settle it in your mind forever, my friend and fellow believer. The real issue is unjustified and unauthorized changes in the doctrines of our church, doctrines that have been made clear to us and sealed as to their truthfulness by the Holy Spirit of God. This, of course, gives rise to a question in our minds. Why are the North American Division leaders so reluctant to discuss the real issue? Why do they prefer to emphasize side issues and pseudo issues? We will consider this question in the next chapter.

The Word From Heaven

by
by

In this article I would like to share with you some memories. Memories that go back twenty years, to when, as far as I was concerned, the whole historic Adventist movement began.

At that time I received an assignment from the brethren that I found very difficult to understand. It just did not make any kind of sense to me. Throughout all of my forty years of ministry for the Lord in the Adventist Church, my main interest has always been the soul winning work. I sympathize with Elder W. A. Spicer, one of the early pioneer Presidents of our General Conference, who used to say, “In this work there is only one thing that is worthwhile, and that is bringing a soul to Jesus Christ. All of the rest is just muss and fuss and bother.”

That is how I have always felt. So, when I was pastoring a church, I kept evangelism going as much as I could. When I was teaching in college, I did the same thing. And when I was teaching in the Theological Seminary, I did the same thing. I also spent fifteen years in full time evangelism, which was the cream of my years of life.

In 1977, in the fall of the year, I was conducting an evangelistic experiment in another Conference that I fully believed was going to revolutionize the whole picture of evangelistic work among Seventh-day Adventists. During this time I began to get calls from leaders in the conference and they told me, “We want you to go to the Campus Hill Church, in Loma Linda, and be the senior pastor there.” I said, “Why? That church is an institutional church with no new territory for evangelism whatsoever. It is surrounded by other churches.” I just could not make sense of it. I turned down the offer three times. But finally, when the Union Conference President pressed me, I decided I had better be a good soldier and start obeying orders. But I still kept wondering why?

Watching Prophecy Be Fulfilled

When I began pastoring the Campus Hill Church, I ran into something that I had never seen before in my whole life as a Seventh-day Adventist, even though, as an evangelist and as a Ministerial Secretary, I had come in close contact with many churches. The congregation was divided over theological issues and the tensions were severe. One could walk around on Sabbath morning and go into the different Sabbath School classes and hear two different theologies being presented on any Sabbath morning. I was absolutely dumbfounded. I had never seen anything like it, and never dreamed that anything like it existed in Adventism. I had to dig in and figure out what it was all about.

At that time, I did not realize that I was watching a fulfillment of prophecy. Later, however, I discovered that Ellen White had written about exactly what I saw happening in Loma Linda. She said in Selected Messages, vol. 2, 114: “Divisions will come in the church. Two parties will be developed.”

I saw the two parties being developed in the Loma Linda Campus Hill Seventh-day Adventist Church, and since then I have seen the division spread throughout our churches all over the country. It is no longer in isolated places; it is throughout Adventism. Who are these two parties? The first group was made up of people who were very thoroughly convinced that the message they had been taught when they joined the church, the message they had been taught when they went to Seventh-day Adventist academies, colleges and seminaries, was true. There was nothing wrong with the message they had learned to love and they had no intention of changing it for another gospel.

The other group was insisting that we change traditional, Biblical Adventist theology into something called New Theology. Actually their “new theology” is very old. Just like many of the doctrines that are promoted as “new light,” New Theology dates back a long, long time to errors the Reformers made and even earlier.

For example, a few years back we started hearing a great deal about a new morality in the world. When you took the curtains off and looked at it, you could see that this was something that began in Sodom and Gomorrah a long, long time ago.

And progressive theology is not much different. It is really regressive. I read with a strange mixture of feelings, recently, a prediction made by the president of a Seventh-day Adventist College in our country, in which he said something like this: “We have theological minds among us who are going to bring us into vistas of truth that the apostles could not even dream of.” I thought for a moment, “Man you have me on the edge of my seat. Show it to me!” Then I thought, “Oh, come on, relax, Larson. When the curtains are parted, it will have originated in Sodom and Gomorrah or back in some ancient time.” That is the way it always works.

When I came to Loma Linda and I found the New Theology apostasy, that is now a tide flowing through all Adventism, it was in its beginning there. The question I faced was, “What shall I do?” I did not feel as though I had any choice. As an evangelist, I had been defending the Seventh-day Adventist faith for years and years and I was not about to change—unless God showed me some good reason why I should—and He did not!

Consequently, I took a public stand against this apostasy and for a little while I felt all alone. However, I soon began to find out that there were people all over the country who shared my feelings. They, too, were astonished at what was happening around them. One by one, people scattered across this nation began to sound the cry, “This is terrible! I am going to do something about this if I can.”

After a while I became acquainted with Ron Spear in Washington and then with Doctors Russell and Colon Standish. We soon learned that the apostasy was really creeping through the whole ranks of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. And people all around the country were beginning to rise up and say, “I do not know what I can do, but I am going to try to do something.”

In a short time there was a Hope International Ministry, which is now putting out a hundred million pages of truth filled literature every year as a part of their worldwide work. There was a Steps to Life Ministry which sends out thousands of videos, magazines, tapes and books. There was a Remnant Publications, which has published hundreds of thousands of Spirit of Prophecy books for use worldwide. And there was a little tiny Cherrystone Press out in Cherry Valley, CA, which was my own ministry, publishing scholarly books.

In these ministries, and many others, there have been an innumerable number of cities of refuge started. Cities of refuge that are needed because of the warnings we have against listening to and receiving error.

The Danger of Error

I want to share with you in these pages several inspired statements about error, and the danger that exists for all who go to listen to it. Consider carefully these inspired messages for God’s people: “Error is falsehood and deception. Those who partake of it must suffer in consequence.” The Upward Look, 125.

“Error is never harmless. It never sanctifies but always leaves confusion and dissention. It is always dangerous.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, 47.

“There is in error and unbelief that which bewilders and bewitches the mind.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 46.

“I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings . . . God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go; for unless He sends us to those meetings where error is forced home by the power of the will, He will not keep us. The angels cease their watchful care over us, and we are left to the buffetings of the enemy, to be darkened and weakened by him.” Early Writings, 124, 125.

If anyone challenges you about using this statement from Early Writings, which was written quite a while ago, just remind them that Bible writers, including Jesus Himself, when a question was placed before them, gave principles of truth to answer issues which were much bigger than the individual question they were being asked.

When the Pharisees brought Jesus a coin in the temple and said, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or no?” Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:17, 21. No theologian of any faith has ever argued that those words apply only to taxes. All theologians hold that those words apply to all relationships between a Christian and the state. Similarly, when Ellen White says, “Where error is being preached we have no business going,” it applies to all times and all circumstances.

Inspired messages such as these have been the mandate that has required many faithful Adventists, in order to be faithful to God’s Word, to leave the conference churches and begin attending homechurches.

Do You Know the Issues at Stake?

How many historic Adventists are there now? After twenty years, there are thousands and thousands of those who have seen the issues at stake. But there are tens of thousands of those who do not yet comprehend what is going on.

In the Adventist Church today there are three kinds of people. On the one side, at the extreme end of the scale, there is a small group of Seventh-day Adventists who know exactly what they are doing. They are trying to change our faith from Adventism to Calvinism. At the other end there is another small group that knows exactly what they are doing. They are trying to defend the faith so it will not be changed from Adventism into Calvinism. In between there is a larger group who do not know what the score is. They have not figured out the enormous issues at stake yet. That is why we are trying to help them understand what is happening.

There is a line in The Great Controversy, 640, that makes me tremble when I read it, because it is so applicable to our time and our situation. It says, “Religious teachers have led souls to perdition while professing to guide them to the gates of Paradise.” [All emphasis supplied.] Throughout the Biblical story and throughout the history of the modern church from Christ to this day, apostasy in churches has usually begun with the leadership and come down to the common people, especially through schools and institutions of higher education.

Those who today are standing for the truth against the wave of error that is sweeping through Adventism are being treated just as God’s people of all ages have been treated when they stand firm for the truth. Sister White wrote: “Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition. ‘Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.’ John 3:20. As men see that they cannot maintain their position by the Scriptures, many determine to maintain it at all hazards, and with a malicious spirit they assail the character and motives of those who stand in defense of unpopular truth. It is the same policy which has been pursued in all ages. Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this, those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious, heretical, or schismatic . . . This spirit will increase more and more.” The Great Controversy, 458, 459.

On the same page she poses this question, “In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall we conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims?” Her answer is a most emphatic NO! We must keep pressing on, giving the straight truth no matter the odds. And this is what we have done. They have not been able to frighten us—although they have tried very hard. Despite all of the things that were intended to frighten us away from our defense of the historic faith, we are still hanging on.

The Unity Problem

However, there is another problem, which many historic Adventists have been increasingly concerned about as the years have passed by, and that is the lack of unity among the historic Adventists. It is easy to understand why we have this problem when you realize that this movement did not start with all of us gathering for a big council meeting before going out to do our job. This was a grass roots movement. People came forward to do the work in different places, without the knowledge that there were others involved in the same work and who shared the same burden to defend our faith. So, the way things began did not contribute to unity.

Then, of course, the devil wants to keep us apart. He tries to work hard on his policy of divide and conquer—which he practices with skill. Consider thoughtfully these inspired statements: “Unity is the strength of the church. Satan knows this, and he employs his whole force to bring in dissension. He desires to see a lack of harmony among the members of the church of God.”Selected Messages, vol. 2, 159. “The unity of the church is the convincing evidence that God has sent Jesus into the world as its Redeemer. This is an argument which worldlings cannot controvert. Therefore Satan is constantly working to prevent this union and harmony, that unbelievers, by witnessing backsliding, dissension, and strife among professed Christians, may become disgusted with religion and be confirmed in their impenitence. God is dishonored by those who profess the truth while they are at variance and enmity with one another.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 619.

And there is something that has contributed to our lack of unity. We were very sensitive about the accusation that we were trying to start a second church to compete with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That was not a true accusation. It never has been and it never will be. It is not our purpose or intention to try to start a second church. However, because we were all so sensitive on this subject, many of us hesitated to join ourselves in united, organized ways.

Nevertheless, these reasons for our disunity in no way diminish the fact that God has called us to unity. “Press together, press together,” is what the angel said. (See Selected Messages, vol. 2, 374.)

This has been a concern to many of us. We have been praying, thinking and studying about it for years. There have been many conversations and very many prayers sent heavenward asking the Lord what we should do. Finally, all of this bore its fruit. In a meeting in February, 1998, in Florida, a group of more than twenty ministry leaders spent three days together. It was a heavenly sitting together. We wept together. We prayed together. We studied together. We confessed our sins together and we vowed we were going to find some way to mold this movement into unity like it ought to be—still without violating the principles we stand for.

One of the first things we had to settle was, Are those who charge us with divisiveness correct when they say that we are destroying the unity of the church and that we should just come back and unite with them? Is their argument correct?

When we studied this together, these are the types of inspired instructions that we found: “I am instructed to say to our people, unify, unify. But we are not to unify with those who are departing from the faith.” Selected Messages, vol. 3, 412.

“Christ calls for unity but He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating and ennobling truth and false misleading doctrines. He calls sin and impenitence by the right name. He does not gloss over wrong doing with a coat of untempered mortar. I urge our brethren to unify upon a true scriptural basis.” Notebook Leaflets, vol. 2, 164.

“The Lord calls upon us to unify in harmony with Bible truth.” The Upward Look, 149.

“Harmony and cooperation must be maintained without compromising one principle of truth.”Counsels to Writers and Editors, 79.

“We are to unify but not on a platform of error.” Battle Creek Letters, 111.

So that question was very quickly and easily settled in our discussion. Are those in the conference correct when they say, “It does not make any difference which way we go, what we teach or what we do not teach. You must stay together with us.”? No, that is pure falsehood. We are to have unity, but not with those who are teaching error.

However, that does not lessen our obligation to seek for unity with those who are standing on the platform of eternal truth. We have been given many divine commands on this point:

“Unity of thought, unity of prayer, unity of action is essential.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, 165.

“He [Christ] calls for unity and unity we must have.” The Upward Look, 141. This is not just good advice. This is a command from the Lord Himself. We must unify!

“In unity there is a life, a power, that can be obtained in no other way. There will be a vast power in the church when the energies of the members are united under the control of the Spirit. Then will God be able to work mightily through His people for the conversion of sinners.”Testimonies, vol. 7, 236.

“The Lord is greatly dishonored when disunion exists among His people.” Testimonies, vol. 8, 174.

“Union brings strength, disunion weakness. Those who refuse to work in harmony greatly dishonor God.” The Southern Watchman, February 2, 1904.

“The world is looking on with gratification at the disunion among Christians. Infidelity is well pleased. God calls for a change among His people.” Review and Herald, December 30, 1902.

“Let us not think that our churches can enjoy God’s blessing while in a state of disunion.” Upward Look, 172.

“The Spirit of God will not abide where there is disunion and contention among believers in the truth.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 221.

After studying these solemn warnings, we had no choice. We must do something about the disunion that exists among us. We resolved that things must be changed drastically, dramatically, fully and completely because God has commanded it and we must do it.

After much study and prayer, we chose to endeavor to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:3.) While recognizing our differences of opinions on various points we also recognized that the Lord wanted to lead us to a higher level that would finally result in perfect unity of faith as expressed in the following paragraph: “It is the same to-day as it was in the days of Christ. As the disciples were brought together, each with different faults, some inherited or cultivated tendency to evil, so in our church relations we find men and women whose characters are defective; not one of us is perfect. But in Christ, and through Christ, we are to dwell in the family of God, learning to become one in faith, in doctrine, in spirit, that at last we may be received into our eternal habitation. We shall have our tests, our grievances, our differences of opinion; but if Christ is abiding in the heart of each, there can be no dissension. The love of Christ will lead to love of one another, and the lessons of the Master will harmonize all differences, bringing us into unity, till we shall be of one mind and one judgment. Strife for supremacy will cease, and no one will be disposed to glory over another, but we shall esteem others better than ourselves, and so be built up into a spiritual temple for the Lord.” Signs of the Times, April 20, 1891.

This spiritual temple, which can only be completed with love and unity (while at the same time refusing to unite with error of any kind), must be finished before Jesus comes. We recognize that much more work needs to be done before God’s spiritual temple is completed and ready for Jesus to come, but we are completely dedicated to cooperating with the Holy Spirit for the finishing of this task.

This experience of perfect unity must take place in every institution and in every church. If it does not, then some of the people in these institutions or churches will be purged out by the fan of God, as the chaff is sifted from the wheat. We are in “the days of purification of the church.”

Testimonies, vol. 5, 80. Is it not time that every Adventist in the world should fast and pray that we may be purified and brought into the experience described in Ephesians 4—the experience of unity, not only in spirit, but in faith, so that we are not purged out by the trials that are thickening around God’s people?

May you be one of the people described in the next sentence: “God will have a people pure and true. In the mighty sifting soon to take place we shall be better able to measure the strength of Israel. The signs reveal that the time is near when the Lord will manifest that His fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor.” Ibid.

Report on the Lawsuit Against Raphael Perez

by
by

It is with regret and sadness that we share this report regarding the lawsuit filed by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists against Raphael Perez and the Eternal Gospel Church of Laymen Seventh-day Adventists.

Brother Perez was asked by the Southeastern Conference to start a Spanish speaking church in July of 1990. With the approval of the Southeastern Conference, he and the church began a radio ministry for the Spanish speaking people, broadcasting from the West Palm Beach area. Eventually the broadcast was being aired on five radio stations.

Taking seriously the counsel in Evangelism, 129, Raphael and the Eternal Gospel church told the conference administration that they would like to start putting advertisements in newspapers. The first one they started with was a tract which they received from the Florida Conference Adventist Book Center entitled “The Law of God” which they thought would especially appeal to the Jewish segment of the population. They bought a full page of advertising space in the Palm Beach Post, in 1991, to spread the message of this tract about the importance of God’s law.

In a matter of time, complaints started coming, and Pastor Perez was asked by his conference president to discontinue the radio program “because it was going outside his district.” He was also told to stop the newspaper ads. It seemed evident that the Lord was blessing with responses to the broadcast and the ads, and Pastor Perez felt that he must continue to spread the warning message for a lost world to all who would listen or read. Eventually, as conflict over these evangelistic outreach efforts developed, the Eternal Gospel Church was disowned by the conference and Pastor Perez was disfellowshipped from the conference. However, he and the group of Seventh-day Adventist believers in the Eternal Gospel church continued to expand their efforts as the Lord provided the way.

Through the next few years, the Eternal Gospel Church of Laymen Seventh-day Adventists arranged for ads in major newspapers across the nation. In 1993, the text of “Earth’s Final Warning” was placed in a full page ad in the Fort Lauderdale “The Sun Sentinel.” In 1995, an ad was placed in the “New York Daily News.” This brought some vocal reaction from the prominent Roman Catholic, Cardinal O’Conner and also from a General Conference representative who called the “New York Daily News.” As a result the “New York Daily News” defaulted on the contract for a second ad.

In 1998, ads were placed in the “Washington Times,” “The Miami Herald,” and “The Los Angeles Times.” Ads have also been placed in all the major Spanish newspapers of the nation. Following the appearance of an ad, on September 11, in the “Washington Times,” a Cardinal Hickey wrote an article of protest which was published in the newspaper. In it he called for the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church to make a public apology for the “unconscionable attack” upon the pope and the Catholic church. About the same time, the “Washington Times” was contacted and threatened with a lawsuit for their publication of the advertisement. Pastor Perez had previously received messages from Kermit Netteburg, and eventually from Vincent Ramik, the Roman Catholic attorney who had previously been hired by the General Conference in trademark lawsuit issues, threatening him with court action if he did not quit using the name Seventh-day Adventist.

Finally, on December 3, 1998, Pastor Perez and the Eternal Gospel Church of Laymen Seventh-day Adventists were served with a summons to answer to charges filed by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. These charges included unfair competition, and trademark infringement. It is also charged that Pastor Perez and the other members of the church have caused “damage and injury” to the General Conference that is “irreparable,” and further that the use of the term “Seventh-day Adventist” by Pastor Perez, “has caused and/or is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception” producing “irreparable damage and harm.”

The General Conference in this lawsuit, civil action case #98-2940 in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, seeks a court order enforcing that “all their owners, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them” be “restrained pendente lite [while the lawsuit is in progress] and permanently” from using the words “Seventh-day Adventist” and “SDA” or any other words that are similar in connection with their activities. In addition, the General Conference asks the court to order Pastor Perez and the Eternal Gospel Church to forthwith “cease all advertising which includes” the use of the words “Seventh-day Adventist,” “SDA,” and their equivalents in Spanish. The General Conference desires that the court instruct Pastor Perez and his fellow Seventh-day Adventist believers to “deliver up to the Clerk of this court for destruction all signs, advertisements, stationary, and all other materials in the possession or under the control of Defendants” that have the words “Seventh-day Adventist” and “SDA.” The lawsuit also requests payment for “damages suffered by the Plaintiff and for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the General Conference action to take this case to court, and any other further amount for which the court will make provision.

With the help of Max Corbett, a Seventh-day Adventist attorney in Texas, Pastor Perez returned a response to the court on January 19, 1999. In this response the Defendants admit to using the name Seventh-day Adventist, but deny that it is causing damage to the General Conference or that the General Conference even has the right to trademark the name. The Defendants have not engaged in the alleged unfair competition, nor in deceptive and unfair trade practices. They further state that the name Seventh-day Adventist is the name of a faith, and as such is an article of faith, and faith and belief cannot be trademarked. The freedom to use the name Seventh-day Adventist, as an expression of faith, is a fundamental right, and falls under the freedom of religion protected by the Unites States Constitution.

The Defendants also point out that there are a number of organizations and groups outside the General Conference that use the name “Seventh-day Adventist” and that to allow any of them to use the name to the exclusion of the others is to favor some to the exclusion of others which is a violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Defendants state that the lawsuit is actually a case of “malicious prosecution,” and that in reality the Defendants are doing what every Seventh-day Adventist should be doing, namely warning the world about coming chaos to the cities and the enforcement of the national Sunday law—the mark of the beast. In addition to asking the court to make the General Conference pay the costs of conducting the lawsuit, they ask the court to declare that the trademark registration is null and void, and unenforceable.

Pastor Perez asked if the General Conference would be willing to work out a settlement outside of court, and the General Conference responded with a settlement proposal dated January 19, 1999. In it Pastor Perez and the rest of the group were to discontinue all use of the name “Seventh-day Adventist,” “SDA,” and “Adventist,” especially on church signs, in advertisements and publications, church activities, Sabbath services or schedules, pamphlets, magazines, stationary, envelopes, faxes, telephone calls or audio materials, etc. The settlement also required that Pastor Perez was to keep all the terms of the agreement confidential (emphasis and underlining in the original). He was to further agree that if in the future he was found by the court to be guilty of using the name in any of the ways that were forbidden he would agree to pay all court costs, attorney’s fees, and “damages.” This settlement was to be binding upon Pastor Perez, all his associates, successors, and assigns.

Even as the General Conference lawsuit was getting under way, an ad was published on January 25, 1999, in the “St. Louis Post Dispatch” when the pope was making his appearance in St. Louis. A man who had been waiting, for 7 to 8 hours, to see the pope bought a newspaper while he was waiting and in the course of looking through it he came to the advertisement with “Earth’s Final Warning.” He read that the pope was the antichrist, and that the Catholic church had changed the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday. He went to the phone, called the number given at the end of the advertisement, and exclaimed that he had just found out that he had been waiting for eight hours to see the antichrist. He requested more information and literature that was offered.

As can often happen to those who endeavor to stand firmly for the standards of God’s Word, Pastor Perez has been viewed as being “against” the church, although he has publicly offered $1000 to anyone furnishing evidence that he has ever called the church Babylon, or encouraged people to leave the church. People have told him, “You don’t want to work with the conference.” He has responded that he would be happy to work with the conference. He has even stated that he would be willing to stop the radio broadcasts and newspaper advertisements if it can be clearly shown that the Lord wants these stopped. But it would be wrong to stop these things just because man says to stop, when the Lord clearly instructed us to go and preach to all nations and give the last warning message of mercy and impending judgments to the world.

Sometimes, it also happens that General Conference officials will state that they are not filing a lawsuit, only an injunction. An injunction, by definition, is a court order prohibiting or requiring certain actions. A lawsuit, by definition, is a case brought before a court for settlement. An injunction, is a particular kind of lawsuit. It would be a little like pointing to an oak tree and saying: “This is not a tree, it is an oak.” The issue here is whether the court is being sought to carry out and enforce an action.

LETTERS URGENTLY NEEDED

Do not be like the people of Meroz who brought upon themselves the curse of God for doing nothing in an emergency. (See Testimonies, vol. 3, 281.) If you want the Third Angel’s Message to be publicly proclaimed without reprisal, we earnestly ask that you write a letter as soon as possible to Pastor Raphael Perez.

Your letters of support and those of many others are urgently needed. They may be used in court by the lawyers who will be representing the defendants. These letters are part of an Amicus Curiae brief which refers to friends of the court who want to file evidence for use in the case (in this situation on behalf of the defendant). These letters should state reasons why a ruling against the defendants would also be against many others who subscribe to the Seventh-day Adventist faith. All of the letters need to be written in a calm and Christlike way, but should clearly express the concerns which we have. Statements from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy supporting the concerns which you express are appropriate. We have included some examples of such statements with this report. These letters should be forwarded to Pastor Raphael Perez at the following address:

Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventists
P.O. Box 15138
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
Phone: 561-688-2150
Fax: 561-688-0470

The following are points to be considered when you compose your letter.

  1. This lawsuit is civil action case #98-2940 in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida.
  2. The author of the letter holds beliefs like those of the defendants in this lawsuit.
  3. Those who share this faith believe that it is our duty to God and our fellow human beings to give the last warning of mercy to the inhabitants of this earth as Pastor Perez and his co-defendants have been actively engaged in doing.
  4. When communicating our faith, Pastor Perez, and all of us who share his faith, should be free from the threat of prosecution.
  5. The name Seventh-day Adventist is a statement of faith and is not the sole property of a group claiming that title. The name was given by God Himself to His last day people.
    “We are Seventh-day Adventists. Are we ashamed of our name? We answer, ‘No, no! We are not. It is the name the Lord has given us. It points out the truth that is to be the test of the churches.’ ” Selected Messages, Book 2, 384.
  6. Those who hold to the historic beliefs of Seventh-day Adventism should not be forced to forfeit the name that represents our beliefs. The use of a name that expresses our faith is a fundamental right and is protected by freedom of religion as outlined in the first amendment of the United States Constitution.
  7. The actions of the Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventists do not constitute competition or trademark infringement as the sharing of our faith and the last warning message of mercy to the world is not a competitive or profit making venture.
  8. Those who believe and practice the historic tenets of the Seventh-day Adventist faith will not feel damaged or injured by the proclamation of those beliefs to the public. We do not believe that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist has suffered any damage or injury by the actions of the Eternal Gospel Church.
  9. This lawsuit is actually a case of “malicious prosecution” of those who are doing what every faithful Seventh-day Adventist should be doing. As such, those who brought the case should bare the costs of conducting the case.
  10. Since the name Seventh-day Adventist is used by many groups and organizations that work outside the General Conference, to allow some to freely use the name while forbidding others is to favor some to the exclusion of others.
  11. The trademark registration of the name Seventh-day Adventist should be declared by the court to be null, void and unenforceable.

You can also send a copy of your letter to the General Conference President. You may use information from this report as a basis for your thoughts. It would also be appropriate to point out that this action is totally contrary to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. As Seventh-day Adventists, we feel that a great injustice is being done to fellow believers, and that God is being dishonored and brought to open shame by this action on the part of the General Conference. We urgently request that this case be dropped as soon as possible. The address for the General Conference President is:

General Conference President
General Conference of SDA
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Springs, MD 20904
Phone: 301-680-6090
Fax: 301-680-6464

Thank you for your prayers and help.

Statements About Lawsuits from the Pen of Inspiration:

“These men cast aside the counsel God has given, and do the very things He has bidden them not to do. They show that they have chosen the world as their judge, and in heaven their names are registered as one with unbelievers. Christ is crucified afresh, and put to open shame. Let these men know that God does not hear their prayers. They insult His holy name, and He will leave them to the buffetings of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sin.” Selected Messages, Book 3, 299.

“God will deal with the unworthy church member who defrauds his brother or the cause of God; the Christian need not contend for his rights. God will deal with the one who violates these rights. ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.’ Romans 12:19. An account is kept of all these matters, and for all the Lord declares that He will avenge. He will bring every work into judgment.” Ibid., 300.

“I have written largely in regard to Christians who believe the truth placing their cases in courts of law to obtain redress. In doing this, they are biting and devouring one another in every sense of the word, ‘to be consumed one of another.’ They cast aside the inspired counsel God has given, and in the face of the message He gives they do the very thing He has told them not to do. Such men may as well stop praying to God, for He will not hear their prayers. They insult Jehovah, and He will leave them to become the subjects of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sins.” Ibid., 302.

“I call upon you in the name of Christ to withdraw the suit that you have begun and never bring another into court. God forbids you thus to dishonor His name. You have had great light and many opportunities, and you cannot afford to unite with worldlings and follow their methods. Remember that the Lord will treat you according to the stand that you take in this life. . . .

“I tell you solemnly that if you take the action which you now purpose to take, you will never recover from the result of it. If you open before the world the wrongs that you suppose your brethren have done you, there will be some things that will have to be said on the other side. I have a caution to give you.

“In regard to the case of those who shared large responsibilities with you in the Review and Herald, and who have turned to be enemies of the work, you will not wish to hear the verdict that shall be passed upon them when the judgment shall sit and the books shall be opened, and every man shall be judged according to the things written in the books. I want to save you from following a course that would link you up with those who have linked themselves up with fallen angels, to do all the harm they possibly can to those who love God, and who, under great difficulty, are striving to proclaim present truth to the world.” Ibid., 304–305.

The Alpha and the Omega of Apostasy, Part I

by
by

If we desire to climb the last part of the road to heaven, we must learn our lesson from history. This is not only true for the part of history recorded in the Bible (see 1 Corinthians 10:11) and the Great Controversy (see the Preface of that book), but it is especially for the history of Adventism. It was in this context that Ellen White talked about the Alpha and Omega of apostasy. She wrote, “We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature.” Selected Messages, vol.1, 197.

As we will see, in the following statement, the most startling nature of the omega apostasy consists in the extent of the crisis. While the alpha of apostasy stands for the beginning and was to be limited to a certain local area, the omega of apostasy would develop to a most startling degree until the end. “One thing it is certain is soon to be realized,—the great apostasy, which is developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will continue to do so until the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout.” The New York Indicator, February 7, 1906.

If we want to know what course is to be followed in the days of the omega apostasy we have to heed the counsels and instructions given by Ellen White during the alpha crisis. We have to learn from history in order not to repeat the mistakes made in the past. “It is presented to me that in our experience we have been and are meeting this very condition of things.” Battle Creek Letters, 124.

In the alpha crisis we find a description of the future (or already existing) condition and experience of the Adventist people. Ellen White tells us: “Past history will be repeated; old controversies will arouse to new life, and peril will beset God’s people on every side.” Testimonies to Ministers, 116. “We have nothing to fear for the future except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us.” Testimonies to Ministers, 31.

How Did the Alpha Develop?

In the center of the alpha-crisis was one man, John Harvey Kellogg, an Adventist physician. Under his leadership, Battle Creek Sanitarium received worldwide fame at the turn of the century. But in the late 1890s, his zeal and energy were more and more mixed with a new idea—that God, not being personal, was in every living thing; in every flower, in every tree, in every morsel of bread. What Kellogg believed to be “new light” forced the prophet of God, even before 1881, to give him a warning message. “Those theories are wrong. I have met them before.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, 278, 279.

Since he was married to a Seventh Day Baptist, Kellogg came in contact with a Seventh Day Baptist minister named Lewis. This man held pantheistic views as well. In Kellogg’s mind the pantheistic ideas were brought to maturity, so that, in 1897, he talked about this topic publicly for the first time. Others like Waggoner and Kress came to the same conviction and joined him in preaching this at the General Conference, of 1899, in South Lancaster, Massachusetts.

One month before that conference, Ellen White had written and sent warning letters from Australia, which arrived just at the right time. But sadly enough, these warnings were not heeded. Pantheistic ideas continued to be spread over the land. They were taught, in Battle Creek, in both the College and Sanitarium

Ellen White had to send warning after warning. On February 18, 1902 the Battle Creek Sanitarium burned to the ground. To finance the new sanitarium, Kellogg was asked to write a book, the royalties of which were to be taken for the new sanitarium building. The book Kellogg wrote was entitled “The Living Temple.” The finished manuscript was full of his erroneous ideas that had their origin in spiritualistic, pantheistic philosophy. Many discussions followed. Ellen White wrote about this book.

“In the book ‘Living Temple’ there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 200.

Despite the reproofs from God’s prophet, Kellogg was determined to print his book in the way he wrote it. So he gave a printing order to the Review and Herald Publishing Company, which they accepted. But God Himself interfered. After the printing patterns were finished and the book was ready to be printed, the publishing house, on December 31, 1902, caught fire and burned to the ground. This did not happen unexpectedly, but was mentioned by the prophet of the Lord more than one year before. (See Testimonies, vol. 8, 91.) The sword of fire had fallen and all knew that God had spoken.

In spite of all this, Kellogg was not prepared to change his mind, and stubbornly went to another publishing house to get his book printed. He then took efforts to ensure that his book was widely circulated among Adventists and non-Adventists. So the pantheistic tares grew and became a danger for the whole work. Ellen White summed up the situation with these words: “Battle Creek has been the seat of rebellion among a people to whom the Lord has given great light and special opportunities.” Paulson Collection, 71.

What is the Omega?

  • In the context of the alpha crisis, Ellen White describes a vision about the soon coming omega apostasy among Adventists. “The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 204, 205.
    A reformation inspired by the devil was to take place, and it would consist “in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith.”

What are the pillars of our Adventist faith? They are as follows:

  • The nature of Christ
  • The sanctuary service
  • The spirit of prophecy
  • The Three Angels’ Messages (exposing the papacy, Babylon, ecumenism, explaining the Sabbath-Sunday-question, exalting the law of God, etc.)
  • The state of the dead and the exposure of spiritualism

What Happened to the Pillars of Our Faith?

In the 1950s a movement began which was to bring heavy consequences with it for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Every possible effort was taken by men in leading positions in the General Conference to keep Adventists from being called a “sect” by evangelical Christians. The issue came to a head when Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor of the journal “Eternity,” and Walter R. Martin, evangelical theologian, wanted to write a book about Seventh-day Adventists proclaiming that they were a non-Christian “sect.”

For this purpose they met with Adventist leaders to discuss the doctrines of Adventism, by which Barnhouse and Martin were convinced Adventists would be unmasked as a non-Christian sect. The central topic was the final atonement service of Jesus, in the second apartment of the sanctuary, during the judgment when He would blot out the sins of the truly penitent. Another topic was the nature of Christ.

When the Adventist leaders were confronted with quotations from our books, they soon realized that their declarations would not be enough to convince Barnhouse and Martin that the SDA Church was not a sect, but a Christian church. So they decided to publish a new book on Adventist doctrines. That book was Questions on Doctrine (1957), and it marked the beginning of the effort to remove the pillars of our faith.

About the first pillar, the nature of Christ, they wrote: “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. . .” Questions on Doctrine, 383; [All emphasis supplied.]

As God’s end time people that are sanctifying themselves to be as pure in character as Jesus was during His life on earth (1 John 3:3), it is of saving importance to believe that Jesus could remain sinless with the same (sinful) flesh we have. Of what use is a savior that reveals that unfallen flesh could resist sin? We need a Savior who shows us that it is possible to live a perfect life (Hebrews 2:14, 17), in our sinful nature. And that is what Jesus did. He left us the example that sinful man does not sin when his will is surrendered entirely to God. Paul tells us of “God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . ” Romans 8:3. He who does not testify to this, reveals the spirit of Antichrist. (1 John 4:2, 3.)

A second pillar that was removed is the Spirit of Prophecy. Barnhouse wrote in his article “Are SDAs Christians?” what he was told by Adventist leaders about the prophetic gift of Ellen White. “The Adventist leadership proclaims that the writings of Ellen G. White . . . are not a parity with Scripture. . . . They admit her writings are not infallible . . . Her writings incidentally are not a test of fellowship in the SDA church.”
Ellen White was shown: “The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 48. We see that the last crisis—the Omega—has already begun.

A third pillar that has been taken away is the sanctuary doctrine. Barnhouse wrote: “Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventist leaders say, flatly, that they repudiate all such extremes [that is the teaching that Jesus went into the most holy place on October 22, 1844, to make an atonement before His Second Coming]. This they have said in no uncertain terms.”

The rejection of this important doctrine has been confirmed in the book Questions on Doctrine. On page 381 it states: “Jesus . . . entered the ‘holy places,’ and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross.” (See also 354, 355; emphasis in the original.)

If Jesus completed the atonement at the cross, the question arises, what is Jesus doing up in heaven now that could be so important? If everything was done at the cross, then there is no closing atonement, no investigative judgment and no blotting out of sin. The result of such a theology is the idea that we never can become perfect. And if no one can overcome all sin, why should keeping the commandments be so important? Wouldn’t it then be just as easy to be saved as a Sunday-keeper as a keeper of the Sabbath? Also the Three Angels’ Messages would mainly consist of the message that Jesus has done everything for you. It is easy to see that here lies the cause for many of the wrongs and sins in the Adventist Church.

Are the fallacies presented in Questions on Doctrine still believed by mainstream Adventism today? Walter Martin gives the answer to this question in his book The Kingdom of the Cults. “On April 29, 1983, W. Richard Lesher, vice-president of the General Conference, responded in a personal letter. His reply read in part: ‘You ask first if Seventh-day Adventists still stand behind the answers given to your questions in Questions on Doctrine as they did in 1957. The answer is yes.’ ” For this reason we find in later books, like 27 Fundamental Doctrines of SDA’s, the same false doctrines presented.

In Germany’s ministerial seminaries, the doctrines that make us Seventh-day Adventists are denied without shame. One instructor stated: “I believe that in 1844 nothing happened, neither in heaven nor on earth.” U. Worschech of Marienhoehe’s Ministerial Seminary, as copied during his class “Sanctuary Service.” On another occasion the same instructor said, “We have to Ford-develop our theology on the sanctuary.” U. Worschech on the occasion of Desmond Ford’s visit at the AWA meeting, October 24-26, 1986.

That is the exact fulfillment of Ellen White’s prophecies concerning the omega-crisis and truly describes the present situation: “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.” The Upward Look, 152. [Emphasis supplied.]

The Omega and the Three Angels’ Messages

If the atonement being done in the most holy place is taken away, the whole foundation of the Three Angels’ Messages has to collapse, too, because these angels point directly to Jesus’ work of redemption in the most holy place. (See Early Writings, 256.) Ellen White says: “I was shown three steps—the First, Second, and Third Angels’ Messages. Said my accompanying angel, ‘Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received.’ I was again brought down through these messages, and saw how dearly the people of God had purchased their experience. It had been obtained through much suffering and severe conflict. God had led them along step by step, until He had placed them upon a solid, immovable platform. I saw individuals approach the platform and examine the foundation. Some with rejoicing immediately stepped upon it. Others commenced to find fault with the foundation. They wished improvements made, and then the platform would be more perfect, and the people much happier. Some stepped off the platform to examine it and declared it to be laid wrong. But I saw that nearly all stood firm upon the platform and exhorted those who had stepped off to cease their complaints; for God was the Master Builder, and they were fighting against Him.” Early Writings 258, 259. [Emphasis supplied.]

When we go out doing missionary work and distributing pamphlets that contain the Three Angels’ Messages, how often do we hear professed Seventh-day Adventists say something like this? “It is not good missionary work to be putting the beast, his mark and his image to the front. It’s just not the right method. It’s too hard.”

Even though they claim only to reject the form or the method, it is obvious that they fear our message could be made known publicly. The public unmasking of popery as the whore and the professed Protestant churches as daughters of whoredom, makes them uncomfortable, lest these churches denounce the Adventists as a sect. They fear that the result would be to raise opposition and to lower the acceptance and influence of Adventism, and they are afraid that it might finally bring about persecution.

People start finding faults with the platform, complain about it and wish to have improvements made. (See Early Writings, 258.) They claim, maybe not explicitly in their words, but by their deeds, that the foundation was built the wrong way. These are not just the feelings of a few Adventist individuals, but this is a policy which is penetrating the whole SDA-organization, as can be shown by the following example.

The former General Conference President, Neal Wilson, said in the Pacific Union Recorder: “Our work is not to denounce the Roman Catholic Church.” February 18, 1985. That sounds good, but what does he really mean? In a civil court case, Wilson said, “Although it is true that there was a period, in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, when the denomination took a distinctly anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term ‘hierarchy’ was used in a pejorative sense to refer to the papal form of church governance, that attitude on the church’s part was nothing more than a manifestation of widespread anti-popery attitude among conservative Protestant denominations in the early part of this century and the latter part of the last, and which has now been consigned to the historical trash heap so far as the SDA Church is concerned.” EEOC vs PPPA and GC, Civil Case #74-2025 CBR, 1975. [All emphasis supplied.]

How can it come to pass that the leader of a denomination that was called by God to warn of the efforts of popery, could “consign” that message “to the historical trash heap”? How can he reject God’s holy trust so decidedly? Neal Wilson had to bear witness of his faith in the courtroom in times of peace, but he betrayed it. The astonishing thing is that this statement, apparently, did not cause widespread indignation. One gets much more the impression that the president just formulated an accepted point of view among Seventh-day Adventists.

Ellen White describes this attitude in the following words: “The opinion is gaining ground, that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which has been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery, and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed.” The Great Controversy, 563. [Emphasis supplied.]

If now, in times of peace, we deny our faith that openly, what will happen in the future when laws are made against God’s commandment-keeping people? “If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and [if] in the land of peace, [wherein] thou trustedst, [they wearied thee], then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?” Jeremiah 12:5.

To be continued next month . . .

The Road to the Inquisition

by
by

{{“We should be very cautious lest we take the first steps in this road that leads to the Inquisition.”}}

Solemn events are unfolding around us, both in the world and in God’s professed church. As we see the Bible prophecies being fulfilled in catastrophic world events and political movements, we also see the fulfillment of solemn warnings given to God’s last day people by God’s prophet.

The prophet Isaiah predicted that in the last days God’s chosen people would rebel against Him, and turn their ears away from hearing the Law. They will say to the prophets, who are sent to them, “Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.” Isaiah 30:10, 11.

We must ask ourselves the serious question, Have we in Adventism turned aside from hearing the words of God’s prophet? Have we turned from following God’s Holy Law to follow the commands of another leader?

In this article we will trace the steps of the apostasy, in Adventism, in order to understand how we arrived at the place we now occupy in the Historic Adventist movement. We will also consider where this path is leading and what the sure results will be (according to inspiration) unless a complete change is made.

The Road to the Inquisition

Throughout history Satan and his associates have used a consistent series of methods to destroy those who do not agree with them or will not submit to their authority. Speaking of these steps in Signs of the Times, May 26, 1890, Ellen White wrote, “The papal authorities first ridiculed the reformers, and when this did not quench the spirit of investigation, they placed them behind prison walls, loaded them with chains, and when this did not silence them or make them recant, they finally brought them to the fagot and the sword.” But, you might ask, How does this affect us today? God’s prophet continued: “We should be very cautious lest we take the first steps in this road that leads to the Inquisition.”

Although we may not have seen open, physical persecution, are there other ways that one can lead down the road to the inquisition? Consider carefully another quotation where Ellen White outlines how an inquisition has been set up even among God’s professed people. “An inquisition has been set up among those who should be free from all overbearing. God calls for the extinction of this satanic devising. The love of Christ in the heart forbids all oppression . . . But for years, some, even among those who claim to believe present truth, have acted in an oppressive manner, cherishing in the heart that fearful, hateful thing which has led them to exclude their brethren from their fellowship and their councils, because they supposed them wanting in some respects, as though the Lord has made them judges of character.” Review and Herald, January 7, 1902. [All emphasis supplied.]

Has Adventism begun down the road to the inquisition? We will begin our investigation with the General Conference Session in 1888.

The 1888 General Conference

The issues surrounding the 1888 General Conference have been widely discussed through Adventist circles, but the central issue, which Ellen White labored hardest to combat, has received little attention. That overruling problem was the kingly power that existed among the Adventist leadership at that time, which had led to a restriction of God’s work. In the 1888 Materials, Ellen White wrote about this problem many times. The following is a brief sample:

“Over and over again men have said, ‘The voice of the conference is the voice of God; therefore everything must be referred to the conference. The conference must permit or restrict in the various lines of work.’ As the matter has been presented to me, there is a narrow compass, and within this narrow compass, all the entrances to which are locked, are those who would like to exercise kingly power. But the work carried on all over the field demands an entirely different course of action. There is need of the laying of a foundation different from the foundation which has been laid in the past.

“We have heard much about everything moving in the regular lines. When we see that the ‘regular lines’ are purified and refined, that they bear the mold of the God of heaven, then it will be time to endorse these lines. But when we see that message after message given by God has been received and accepted, yet no change has been made, we know that new power must be brought into the regular lines.” 1888 Materials, 1727, 1728.

“The spirit of domination is extending to the presidents of our conferences. If a man is sanguine of his own powers and seeks to exercise dominion over his brethren, feeling that he is invested with authority to make his will the ruling power, the best and only safe course is to remove him, lest great harm be done and he lose his own soul and imperil the souls of others . . . A man’s position does not make him one jot or tittle greater in the sight of God; it is character alone that God values.” Ibid., 1445.

“Now I want to say, God has not put any kingly power in our ranks to control this or that branch of the work. The work has been greatly restricted by the efforts to control it in every line . . . Let me tell you, if your heart is in the work, and you have faith in God, you need not depend upon the sanction of any minister or any people; if you go right to work in the name of the Lord, in a humble way doing what you can to teach the truth, God will vindicate you.” Ibid., 1746.

What were the results of this kingly power? The first was that the work of spreading the Three Angels’ Messages was hindered, and because of this, Ellen White began to give her support to various independent workers and organizations. The foremost of these was Madison College established by E. A. Sutherland and Percy Magan, in 1908.

The Madison School

For years, Sutherland and Magan had worked in Adventist educational institutes. In 1897 they were both serving at Battle Creek College. Under the conviction that the church had not followed the divine plan for education, as set forth in the counsel of Ellen White, they began attempting to make reforms in that institution. They met stiff opposition, and finally they decided to move the college away from Battle Creek to Berrien Springs, where the new college was called Emmanuel Missionary College. Unfortunately, they still faced severe opposition as they tried to follow the divine plan, so, in 1904, they both resigned and made plans to open a self-supporting school in the South. Under the direction of the Lord, Ellen White helped Sutherland and Magan find the property for the new school, Madison College. She also gave direction for the planning of the school and served as a charter member of the board (the only college board one which she ever served ).

All was not easy for the new self-supporting school. Sutherland and Magan faced opposition (although often not open) from the leaders in the conference, and they received no financial support from the denomination. Despite all of this, Ellen White still counseled them to remain independent from the conference. She wrote: “When my advice was asked in reference to the Madison school, I said, Remain as you are. There is danger in binding every working agency under the dictation of the conference. The Lord did not design that this should be. The circumstances were such that the burden bearers in the Madison school could not bind up their work with the conference. I knew their situation, and when many of the leading men in our conferences ignored them, because they did not place their school under conference dictation, I was shown that they would not be helped by making themselves amenable to the conference. They had better remain as led by God, amenable to Him, to work out His plans. But this matter need not be blazed abroad.” Manuscript Releases vol. 8, 203–204.

God knew that if the school was under conference direction, the work of spreading the Three Angels’ Messages would be slowed, just as it had been in the older schools that had been established. Sister White wrote: “I have been shown that in our educational work we are not to follow the methods that have been adopted in our older established schools. There is among us too much clinging to old customs, and because of this we are far behind where we should be in the development of the Third Angel’s Message.” Special Testimonies 11,29.

So, we have seen that because of the problems with kingly power and the unwillingness of the Adventist leadership, in Ellen White’s day, to receive her inspired counsel, the Lord had to raise up independent organizations to train workers and spread the Three Angels’ Messages. And, very often, these independent workers were shunned, or their work was hindered because they wanted to follow the divine counsel. Kingly power wants to crush out individuality and freedom to act upon the dictates of your own conscience. This is what the conference did not like.

Has there been a reformation among the Seventh-day Adventist leadership? Or does the same problem of kingly power, which existed in the last century, still exist today? Have advances down the road to the inquisition been made? We do not have to look very far to discover the answers. Notice what happened to the people in the Hungarian General Conference, during the 1960s and 70s, and you decide if you think the problem has been solved or if it has gotten worse.

The Hungarian Crisis

In 1957, the Hungarian Union of Seventh-day Adventists joined the Council of Free Churches, a Hungarian inter-church ecumenical federation. This was done voluntarily and without any governmental coercion. (The Council of Free Churches is the Hungarian branch of the World Council of Churches, which is pushing for a national Sunday Law among other ecumenical goals.)

The knowledge that their own churches were involved in such an activity was very distressing to the faithful Adventist people in Hungary. Faithful Adventists could not keep silent when they saw such apostasy. Did they have a right to be concerned about the Hungarian Union being a part of the World Council of Churches? Notice carefully these words from the pen of inspiration which the faithful Hungarians used to defend their course of action: “The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine. To secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed—however important they might be from a Bible standpoint—must necessarily be waived. Charles Beecher, in a sermon in the year 1846, declared that the ministry of ‘the evangelical Protestant denominations’ is ‘not only formed all the way up under a tremendous pressure of merely human fear, but they live, and move, and breathe in a state of things radically corrupt, and appealing every hour to every baser element of their nature to hush up the truth, and bow the knee to the power of apostasy. Was not this the way things went with Rome? Are we not living her life over again? And what do we see just ahead? Another general council! A world’s convention! Evangelical alliance, and universal creed!’ When this shall be gained, then, in the effort to secure complete uniformity, it will be only a step to the resort to force.” Great Controversy, 444, 445.

What are the results of an ecumenical movement? This inspired warning tells us that the sure results will be persecution for God’s true people. For, it will be through ecumenism that Protestant America will form an image to the Roman hierarchy, and civil penalties for the faithful will inevitably result.

How did the Adventist leadership respond to this apostasy by the Hungarian Union? In a sermon, Neal Wilson, the President of the General Conference at that time, replied to the faithful Seventh-day Adventists who were protesting this union with the Council of Free Churches. In regard to those who had joined the CFC he stated: “They did something which seemed good in their eyes. To try to cooperate, to receive those benefits and privileges which they are entitled to by this. If we were to talk over this question today, and if they would ask us whether to enter or not, we would advise them not to enter. Not because it is wrong, or because it would be a denial of what God said . . . Not because we violate our teaching by this, and not because the Union would be committing apostasy by joining the Council of Free Churches. We do not believe this. Never think of it in this way. But because our opinion is that it would be wiser to do so.” The Hungarian Union Apostasy, Pilgrim’s Tractbooks, page 63. [All emphasis supplied.]
Was it apostasy for Adventism to join with the fallen daughters of Babylon in an ecumenical bond, in light of the clear testimony of God’s inspired word? The answer is a resounding Yes! “It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy.” Signs of the Times, February 19, 1894.

The faithful Hungarian brethren pleaded with the Hungarian Union to withdraw from the Council of Free Churches, but they would not. As a result, whole churches that persistently protested this union were disbanded. Those who chose to stay a part of the Conference, in order to restore their membership, had to sign a declaration which stated that they were wrong and that they would remain loyal to the General Conference and accept all church policies. Twelve hundred faithful Hungarian Adventists would not sign the declaration, and all 1200 were disfellowshiped. Twenty-six ministers and Bible workers were discharged for protesting the ecumenical involvement, and five church buildings were shut down and the doors barred to keep the faithful Adventists from gathering there. And at one church, in Budapest, guards were stationed around the church to make sure none of those who had been disfellowshipped could use the building.

Open Apostasy in Russia

About the same time as the Hungarian Crisis, a similar situation occurred in Communist Russia. The issues that the faithful Adventists in Russia faced at this time were that the Conference was 1) promoting SDA children attending school on Sabbath, 2) working to stop evangelism in Russia and 3) allowing the pastors to read fictional books from the pulpit on Sabbath morning.

The faithful Seventh-day Adventists began to write letters to the General Conference about the issue sending their children to school on the Sabbath. Their reply was that they could not find a Biblical reason for them not to be attending schools on the Sabbath. (See The Kulakov File, 49.)

Kulakov, a self-appointed leader, was a strong supporter of all of the apostasy which the faithful Adventists were standing up against. When these faithful ones went to the General Conference for help, with reports of what Kulakov was promoting, not only did they not receive any help, but Kulakov received the support of the GC.

With the backing of the General Conference, Kulakov went to the civil authorities, and with their help, forced the faithful Adventists out of their long established churches. He and his followers then became the registered church in Russia. This then made the faithful Adventists an illegal organization, no longer recognized by the state as legitimate, and this forced them to go underground and hold their worship services in secret.

Do you see the progression down the road to the inquisition? Not only were the members disfellowshipped by the church without Biblical grounds, but the conference did nothing to stop Kulakov from using the civil authorities to disband faithful Adventist churches. This action is directly contrary to God’s express word. In Acts of the Apostles, 305–306, we read: “Christians should not appeal to civil tribunals to settle differences that may arise among church members. Such differences should be settled among themselves, or by the church, in harmony with Christ’s instruction . . .

“It was apostasy that led the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and this prepared the way for the development of the papacy—the beast. Said Paul: ‘There’shall ‘come a falling away, . . . and that man of sin be revealed.’ 2 Thessalonians 2:3. So apostasy in the church will prepare the way for the image to the beast.” Great Controversy, 443–444.

It was apostasy for the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and it is apostasy when Adventists seek the aid of the civil government today. So, we must ask ourselves, what is the underlying issue that leads men to seek the aid of civil governments to prosecute their brethren? The fundamental issue is the unregenerate heart which seeks to control others. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

When church leaders begin down the road of kingly power, and they wish to control the minds of their brethren, they become progressively more willing use whatever methods they can find to accomplish their purpose. They may start with ridicule, evil-speaking and withholding support, then they may disfellowship the dissenting members, and if that is not successful they may turn to civil authority to meet their end.

All this happened twenty or more years ago in the Adventist Church. Has there been a change since then? Sadly, the answer is no. There has been no reformation among the leadership of the Adventist Church. There is still the same desire to control the work. And many more people, who have been unwilling to submit to the Conference and go along with the apostasy, have been disfellowshiped or have been forced to leave their churches. As this article is being published, the General Conference is using the strong arm of the court to stop the work of a faithful minister (who has been working tirelessly to spread the Three Angels’ Messages), because he uses the name “Seventh-day Adventist.”

A Faithful Adventist Sued

Raphael Perez was a Conference pastor who was preaching the Three Angels’ Messages on radio stations in Florida. When he would not stop presenting the messages, as the Conference demanded, his ministerial license was revoked. Since that time, Raphael’s ministry has expanded to more radio stations and he now puts full-page advertisements in large city newspapers around the United States, giving the final warning message with clarity and power. The suit he is now facing threatens to destroy his ministry and make it financially impossible for him to continue giving the Three Angels’ Messages.

What exactly is the charge in the suit against Pastor Raphael Perez? In his court summons the Conference reveals their true purpose. “[Eternal Gospel has embarrassed the SDA church by his hateful denunciations of the Catholic church.]

The Conference is embarrassed by the clear presentation of the message we have been commanded to give to the world! They have shown this over and over again in recent years. Just this past January, when the Pope visited St. Louis, a number of Historic Adventist groups were there to pass out literature which exposed the Beast and the Mark of the Beast. The conference made a public apology for these “fringe groups” as they called them.

The statement posted on the Adventist Today webb page said, “The recent visit of Pope John Paul II and his message of hope, plea for high moral standards, end to racism, abortion, assisted suicide and the death penalty emphasized issues that need to be at the forefront of thought.

“Unfortunately, in conjunction with the Papal visit, offshoot groups claiming association with the Seventh-day Adventist Church have coordinated negative media campaigns which misrepresent the care, compassion and respect we have for people of all faiths . . .

“As Seventh-day Adventist Christians, we would like to apologize for any and all communications that have advocated discrimination, hatred and unwarranted persecution of members of the Roman Catholic Church . . .

“Kermit Netteburg, communication director for the Adventist Church in North America [said] ‘The public needs to be aware that fringe groups are using the Adventist Church’s name, and not identify the official Church with these ads.’ ”

What a sad day we have come to when the professed people of God no longer call sin by its right name, or call people to come out of Babylon, but instead give medallions to the Pope, complement him for the “good” he has done and participate in his masses.

Has Rome changed? Or does God still require that we expose her iniquity? “The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants [professed Adventists] are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High.” Great Controversy, 571

It is not time to join hands with Rome. It is time to give the message with clearly that “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” Revelation 14:8. God’s prophet said, “Time is short. The First, Second, and Third Angel’s Messages are the messages to be given to the world. We hear not literally the voice of the three angels, but these angels in Revelation represent a people who will be upon the earth and give these messages . . . With pen and voice we are to proclaim that very message to the world, not in a tame, indistinct whisper.” 1888 Materials, 926.

Dear friends, the time that remains for this world is very short! Right now we must take advantage of every opportunity to present the last warning message to a dying world, for soon it will be forever too late. Let us each surrender ourselves fully to the Lord so that He can change our hearts, so hardened by sin, and make us fit vessels to do His work. For without Him we can do nothing. We must ask ourselves the question, “Which side am I on? Have I taken the first steps that lead down the road to the Inquisition?” Remember, in the final conflict there will be only two groups, the faithful who will be persecuted and those who will be persecuting. May God help us to be among the faithful.

Editorial – Purification of the Church, Part III

by
by

Question: How does the work of purification begin in the church?

[Emphasis supplied]

“Let the churches who claim to believe the truth, who are advocating the law of God, keep that law and depart from all iniquity. Let the individual members of the church resist the temptations to practice evils and indulge in sin. Let the church commence the work of purification before God by repentance, humiliation, deep heart searching, for we are in the antitypical day of atonement—solemn hour fraught with eternal results.” Selected Messages, Book 2, 378.

Question: What is the church to be purified from?

“The Church is in great need of purification. There are sins that are unrepented of and unconfessed. The poison of sin must be cleansed from the Church. Many have been so deceived, their principles so corrupted, that they have no pleasure in the word of God, and it has no power over their lives. God will test character. In the day of final judgment, when every man shall be judged according to the deeds done in the body, nothing will seem to have existence but character and the law of God. Man will be stripped of everything but the character he has formed. All will be seen to be either righteous or unrighteous.” Review and Herald, February 12, 1901.

Question: When is this purification to take place, and what will happen to church members if this work of purification is delayed?

“Many are asleep, and what can be said to arouse them from their carnal slumber? The Lord would have His church purified, before His judgments shall fall more signally upon the world. [Malachi 3 and 4 quoted.]

“I am instructed to urge upon our people most earnestly the necessity of religion in the home. Among the members of the household there is ever to be a kind, thoughtful consideration. Morning and evening let all hearts be united in reverent worship. At the season of evening worship, let every member of the family search well his own heart. Let every wrong that has been committed be made right. If, during the day, one has wronged another, or spoken unkindly, let the transgressor seek pardon of the one he has injured. Often grievances are cherished in the mind, and misunderstandings and heartaches are created that need not be. If the one who is suspected of wrong be given an opportunity, he might be able to make explanations that would bring relief to other members of the family. [Hebrews 12 is quoted, showing that the purification of the church and the shaking are one and the same.

“The Lord will show His loving favor to those who will keep His commandments. The Word, the living Word, received and obeyed, will be a savor of life unto life. The reception of the truth will regenerate and cleanse the sinful soul. This work of individual purification of character can not be safely delayed. Let our brethren and sisters take hold diligently of this work, co-operating with Him. . .

“Put away all deception. Let no one idolize his own opinions. Take your position decidedly to be fully consecrated to truth and righteousness. Christ is ready to receive all who will come to Him. Exercise a firm faith in all the promises of God. With confession and prayer, take your stand to be wholly the Lord’s henceforth and forever.

“To my ministering brethren I would say, Unite in a work of humbling your souls before God. Some have lost their first love, and need a new experience. Be determined that you will not yield to the enemy. Be patient toward all men, remembering that Christ has died for them. Improve every capability for the Lord’s work, and labor faithfully, untiringly, to save souls. Seek to arouse the churches by your own zeal.

“We all have a part to act in the Lord’s great plan for His work in the earth. We shall all have something to do, though it may be in jots and tittles, as opportunities present themselves. If these warnings are not heeded, if diligent work is not made to overcome and put away defects of character, God will soon have finished the work of judgment, and many will be found wanting. Shall we now, at once, cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God? We can not afford to delay this work of confession and humbling of soul, that our offerings may be acceptable unto God.” Review and Herald, November 8, 1906.

The Alpha & the Omega of Apostasy, Part II

by
by

Editor’s Note: Last month we looked in detail at the Alpha of apostasy, as Ellen White described it in her day, and also at the inspired predictions of what the Omega apostasy would be like. This month we will look at how these predictions are being fulfilled in our day.

Babylon, the Ecumenical Movement and the Three Angels’ Messages

Among Adventists, the clear understanding of the term “Babylon” is diminishing more and more and is giving way to confusion. A conference leader told me years ago that “Babylon is in us.” My question, of how would it be possible under these circumstances to follow the call to leave Babylon, remained without an answer. Some other definitions, from Adventist publications, are that Babylon is the “wickedness of my city,” “evil influences” and to “attempt to gain salvation through one’s own works.” Adventist Review, December 31, 1992; Signs of the Times, June 1992; Adventist Review, December 31, 1992.

Here in Germany, “Babylon” is a hot topic. The reason for this is the membership of both of the Adventist German unions in the ACK (confederacy of Christian Churches), the national ecumenical council. This membership was brought about secretly, and the people were only informed afterwards. Discussions were forbidden.

To cover themselves, the Adventist leadership, here in Germany, has tried to show that our historic definition of “Babylon” cannot be true. R. Nickel, a high-ranking minister, said this about the Adventist’s membership in the ACK, in a sermon at the Adventist theological seminary of Friedensau. “In the classic exegesis of our denomination “Babylon” means the following: the mother whore of Revelation or the Roman Catholic Church. Her corrupted daughters are the fallen Protestant organizations of the different churches of Protestant faith. . . . The question is, Is what was once valid and present truth still valid? I want to come back to the discussion about the ACK, because here it can be shown: If the Protestant churches are truly a part of Babylon, how can one possibly unite with them and obtain membership in the ACK? If we would take the classic interpretation seriously, all of us would have to be against the ACK.” R. Nickel in a sermon held in Friedensau on November 2, 1996.

It is a fact that (nearly) all the ministers and leaders are in favor of an ACK membership. The logical conclusion therefore is that we cannot hold to the historic interpretation of “Babylon” and at the same time be a member in the ecumenical alliance. (See Luke 16:13; 2 Corinthians 6:14.) The content of the Three Angels’ Messages is opposed directly to the ecumenical movement, because we are warned explicitly of the image to the beast. The proclamation of this message is contrary to the rules of ecumenism, because no church is allowed to proselytize members of other churches. How then is it possible to proclaim, “Come out of her, my people!” if one is a member of that alliance?

Of one thing we can be assured: neither Catholics nor Protestants accepted Adventists as a member in the ecumenical ACK without a prior confirmation from them that the historic understanding of the Three Angels’ Messages had been rejected. And that is precisely what happened. In the ACK meeting, where the recommendation was given to accept the SDA Church as a member, the Adventist representatives were asked directly whether the historic interpretation of the Three Angels’ Messages was still valid.

The protocol documents of the ACK meeting, on June 3 and 4, 1992, in Arnoldshain gives this report. “On request of the Roman-Catholic representative, Dr. H.J. Urban, it was asked concretely, whether the traditional Adventist interpretation of Revelation 13, to identify the beast as being popery, which was equaled with the Antichrist, was still held as true. The answer to that question was that this was a case of tradition which dated back to the Reformation and doubtlessly would still exist, but that they were for the most part cured of institutionally identifying the office of the pope with the Antichrist. Rather it is held that the Antichrist is characteristics, which possibly could also be found in the Adventist denomination. Therefore the traditional critique of Revelation 13 could, in principle, also be directed against the Seventh-Day-Adventist Church. This explanation satisfied the Catholic side. After that the leadership of the ACK decided to recommend the application of the Adventists approvingly to the united members to be voted upon.” 54 Fragen, Document 3, 3. [Emphasis supplied.]

The president of the Northern German Union, Mr. Rupp, also denied our God-given message in his letters to the president of the ACK, Bishop Held, and in his personal communication with him. Babylon was only identified as a condition of things that could also be found in the SDA church. Bishop Held obviously interpreted the opinions in the union president’s letters as not a mistake, as can be seen in his answer:

“Dear Mr. Rupp. . . . Above the views are explicitly confirmed that you—as speaking at least for the leadership of the SDA Church—told us that SDA’s no longer believe that ‘in the historical development of the religious-political power of popery is seen the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies. (Daniel 7, Revelation 13 and 17.)’ ” Document 1. [Emphasis supplied.]

K. Schwarz, a high-ranking official of a Protestant Church in Germany writes: “For the guest-membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the ACK, it is understood that . . . the tensions you mentioned [the Adventist belief that the pope is the antichrist] . . . no longer exist as a part of SDA doctrines.” (In Kobialka, M. 1994. Ecumenical Movement and World Government, 100.)

The leaders of the SDA Church have always said that the affiliation with the ecumenical movement is a wonderful occasion to witness for our faith. They say that in that way the Advent Message can be given much more effectively to other churches. What a mockery and hypocrisy! Membership in the ecumenical movement is a betrayal of our message and means crucifying Christ anew. (“I saw that as the Jews crucified Jesus, so the nominal churches have crucified these messages.” Early Writings, 261.)

There are many inspired instructions concerning alliances with unbelievers or believers of a different faith. I just want to point you to two quotations from the pen of Ellen White: “The wicked are being bound up in bundles, bound up in trusts, in unions, in confederacies. Let us have nothing to do with these organizations. God is our Ruler, our Governor, and He calls us to come out from the world and be separate.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 4, 87.

“Let the watchmen on the walls of Zion not join with those who are making of none effect the truth as it is in Christ. Let them not join the confederacy of infidelity, popery, and Protestantism.” Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol.4, 1141.

We should realize what the ACK really is and how the pope sees this ecumenical entity. While visiting Germany, Pope John Paul II declared in Paderborn on June 22, 1996: “Good ecumenical connections have been formed to the churches in this country. They work actively together with the ecumenical committees, especially in the ‘Alliance of Christian Churches in Germany’ (ACK). By that, some helpful suggestions for the formation of church community came to Germany. . . . The unity we aim for has to grow step by step. . . . Therefore, it is our duty to reduce barriers and to seek for a greater amount of communion, trusting firmly that the Lord will lead us to that glorious day when full unity of faith is accomplished and we are able to celebrate harmoniously the holy Eucharist of the Lord together.” Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls, 126, Bonn 6/1996, 22ff.

What are Adventists looking for in the ACK? Do they want to celebrate the Eucharist together with the Catholics? The Omega is already here. May the Lord help us to see it and to act accordingly.

What is to be Done?

How do we need to respond to this situation? Many Adventists are confused and do not know what to do. It seems as if no one expected the vast dimensions of apostasy, although Sister White wrote: “The omega will be of a most startling nature.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 197. As Adventists we have heard about the soon coming test and talked about it ourselves, but now it is present and only a few are aware of it.

The question of how we are to deal with the Omega crisis is answered clearly in the inspired writings concerning the Alpha crisis. In the Omega crisis the same principles have to be applied, for history is repeating itself.

What advice did Ellen White give during the Alpha crisis? Here is one example:

“Elder and Mrs. Farnsworth have been requested to spend some time in Battle Creek, laboring for the church. I encourage them to do so, and shall counsel them how to labor. It will be well for Elder Farnsworth and Elder A. T. Jones to stand shoulder to shoulder preaching the Word in the tabernacle for a time, and giving the trumpet a certain sound. There are in Battle Creek souls who need bracing up. Many will gladly hear and distinguish the note of warning. But Elder Farnsworth should not remain in Battle Creek long. I write these things to you, because it is important that they should be understood. God would have men of talent who will not deviate from the principles of righteousness to stand in defense of the truth in the tabernacle at Battle Creek. One man should not be stationed in Battle Creek for a long time. After he has faithfully proclaimed the truth for a time, he should leave to labor elsewhere, and some one else be appointed who will give the trumpet a certain sound.” Paulson Collection, 108.

In this testimony the inspired pen gives us an exact description of our duty in both the Alpha and the Omega crisis. Two aspects are explicitly emphasized. On the one hand we are called to give the trumpet a certain sound to warn our brothers and sisters. On the other hand we are warned not to expose ourselves to the influence of apostasy for too long.

The first aspect, giving the trumpet a certain sound, should be our first step if we are part of a church infected with apostasy. Over and over again Ellen White called for decided action during the Alpha crisis. Here are some quotations:

“I was shown a platform, braced by solid timbers—the truths of the Word of God. Someone high in responsibility in the medical work was directing this man and that man to loosen the timbers supporting this platform. Then I heard a voice saying, ‘Where are the watchmen that ought to be standing on the walls of Zion? Are they asleep? This foundation was built by the Master Worker, and will stand storm and tempest. Will they permit this man to present doctrines that deny the past experience of the people of God? The time has come to take decided action.’ ” Selected Messages, Book 1, 204.

“The battle is on. . . . Where are His watchmen? Are they standing on the high tower, giving the danger signal, or are they allowing the peril to pass unheeded?” Ibid., 194.

“Will the men in our institutions keep silent, allowing insidious fallacies to be promulgated to the ruin of souls? . . . Is it not time that we asked ourselves, Shall we allow the adversary to lead us to give up the work of proclaiming the truth?” Ibid., 195.

“Vigilant action is called for. Indifference and sloth will result in the loss of personal religion and of heaven.” Ibid.

“If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God.” Testimonies, vol. 3, 281.

To help us really understand the horrible danger of this emergency we are in, God gave Ellen White a vision of an iceberg. “One night a scene was clearly presented before me. A vessel was upon the waters, in a heavy fog. Suddenly the lookout cried, ‘Iceberg just ahead!’ There, towering high above the ship, was a gigantic iceberg. An authoritative voice cried out, ‘Meet it!’ There was not a moment’s hesitation. It was a time for instant action. The engineer put on full steam, and the man at the wheel steered the ship straight into the iceberg. With a crash she struck the ice. There was a fearful shock, and the iceberg broke into many pieces, falling with a noise like thunder to the deck.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 205.

“I am instructed to speak plainly. ‘Meet it,’ is the word spoken to me. ‘Meet it firmly, and without delay.’ . . . In the book ‘Living Temple’ there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given. . . . I have an intense longing to see them standing free in the Lord. I pray that they may have courage to stand firm for the truth as it is in Jesus, holding fast the beginning of their confidence unto the end.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 200.

“They have seen wrong transactions and heard wrong words spoken, and seen wrong principles followed, and have not spoken in reproof, for fear that they would be repulsed. I call upon those who have been connected with these binding influences to break the yoke to which they have long submitted, and stand as free men in Christ. Nothing but a determined effort will break the spell that is upon them.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 197.

How possibly can a call to decided action be more urgent? Everyone who perceives the apostasy has the duty to protest against it without compromise. If there ever was a time to sit and keep silent and to listen to an erroneous sermon up to the end (which I doubt), so that the pernicious error can be addressed to the whole congregation, that time is over. It is not enough just to talk to the minister afterwards, privately, when error has made its way to the minds of the people.

“Let every man now arouse, and work as he has opportunity. Let him speak words in season and out of season, and look to Christ for encouragement and strength in welldoing. . . . My message to you is: No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth. Unmask the pretentious sophistries which, if received, will lead ministers and physicians and medical missionary workers to ignore the truth. Every one is now to stand on his guard. God calls upon men and women to take their stand under the blood-stained banner of Prince Emmanuel. I have been instructed to warn our people; for many are in danger of receiving theories and sophistries that undermine the foundation pillars of the faith.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 195, 196.

Save Our Youth

Ellen White many times warned that the young people should not be sent to the college in Battle Creek. She feared for the Adventist youth because of the pernicious influence prevailing there. “Those who have crowded into Battle Creek, and are being held there, see and hear many things that tend to weaken their faith, and engender unbelief.” Paulson Collection, 109.

But what about our colleges and seminaries today? Is the condition any better than it was then in Battle Creek? I do not have that much information about the condition of Adventist schools in the U.S., but I know something about the German seminaries. In these schools, the historical Adventist sanctuary teaching is rejected, Bible criticism is taught, the seven-day-creation period and the expectation of the imminent second coming of Christ are denied, etc. These things are well documented and confirmed by students of the German seminary.

What is the professed purpose of such a school? It is to pass on the truth of our faith to the next generation? But, if the school imparts error to the students today, the ministers of tomorrow will impart these errors to their churches. In this manner the truth is torn down and the people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

This situation is very dangerous, especially for our young people. What is the condition of the Adventist youth today? I remember one night, when my wife and I had a season of prayer in which she prayed for the Adventist friends she had during her youth. Thinking about them, my wife sat down and cried and cried and could not stop. Very few of her old friends were still in the truth. Almost all had gone into the world; some as members of the SDA church, others having completely rejected their profession.

But is that surprising to anyone? What are the young people doing when they gather together on Sabbath afternoon? I have seen it so often: after an obligatory short devotion (if at all) they begin to play basketball, table tennis or whatever. Once I met a minister who gathered the young people of his church for a night session to watch videos. They watched movies with sex and crime scenes till morning.

I wonder how many Adventists think that they have fulfilled all their duty when they trust their children to ministers and Sabbath schools for religious education. How few consider how their children are effected by the influence of the church they go to every Sabbath?! Even in the Alpha crisis Ellen White warned over and over again that we should not expose ourselves to such a faith-destroying influence. That applies in a special way to the moldable youth. She wrote: “I would say, be careful what moves are made. It is not God’s design that our youth should be called to Battle Creek.” Battle Creek Letters, 4.

“We protest in the name of the Lord God of Israel, against the calling of our youth into a place to which the Lord declared they should not go.” Battle Creek Letters, 4, 5.

“The light given me by the Lord—that our youth should not collect in Battle Creek to receive their education—has in no particular been changed. The fact that the Sanitarium has been rebuilt in Battle Creek does not change the light. All that in the past made Battle Creek a place unsuitable for our youth exists today, so far as influence is concerned.” Battle Creek Letters, 4.

When the faithful Elder Haskell and his wife received a call to come to Battle Creek, Ellen White counseled: “That you should receive an invitation to go to Battle Creek, and give Bible lessons to the nurses and medical students, is not a surprise to me. I have been instructed that an effort would be made to obtain your names as teachers to the nurses at Battle Creek, so that the managers of the Sanitarium can say to our people that Elder and Mrs. Haskell are to give a course of lessons to the Battle Creek Sanitarium nurses, and use this as a means of decoying to Battle Creek those who otherwise would heed the cautions about going there for their education.” Paulson Collection, 108.

Some say that Ellen White’s calls to leave Battle Creek were given only to prevent centralization at that place. But this is only part of the truth. The following statement to Brother and Sister Haskell may sound incredible to many easy-loving souls: “There is a little hope in one direction: Take the young men and women, and place them where they will come as little in contact with our churches as possible, that the low grade of piety which is current in this day shall not leaven their ideas of what it means to be a Christian.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 12, 333.

If your protest against the apostasy is unheeded you have the choice: either you stay and tolerate the apostasy or you leave and save yourself and your family from these influences. The influence you allow to affect your soul will decide your eternal destiny. “Every one will reveal the character of the bundle with which he is binding himself.” 1888 Materials, 995. Ellen White brings this point home to us: “‘Out of Battle Creek’ is my message.” Paulson Collection, 111.

Application and Conclusion

Some might say: “In my church there is no pantheism being taught. I cannot apply these statements to my local situation.” Maybe you are right. Praise God for every local church that is still standing on the fundamental truths of the Three Angels’ Messages. There are still some of them, but their number decreases day by day. Remember, however, when you are evaluating your church, that pantheism alone is not the topic of the Omega crisis, it embodies many more principles. Ask yourself the question, How do they treat the Spirit of Prophecy? Is it upheld as the inspired and infallible word of God given to us through His last time prophet? How did the church leaders react when you tried to correct them? Did they understand and repent?

“Of those who are constantly working to undermine faith in the message God is sending to His people, I am instructed to say, ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate.’” Review and Herald, July 23, 1908.

Is your church part of an ecumenical organization? How did the men in responsible positions react when you stood up to protest against it? Did they understand and repent?

Maybe you can agree with me on being separated from the ecumenical movement, but not on being separated from professed Adventists who approve and uphold an ecumenical membership. You would do well to consider the example of faithful Nehemiah. “When those who are uniting with the world, yet claiming great purity, plead for union with those who have ever been the opposers of the cause of truth, we should fear and shun them as decidedly as did Nehemiah.” Prophets and Kings, 660.

Is strange fire offered in your church in the form of theater performances, worldly or charismatic music? Does your minister use NLP or anything similar? How did your church react as you protested against it? Did they understand and repent?

“As the men of Israel witnessed the corrupt course of the priests, they thought it safer for their families not to come up to the appointed place of worship. Many went from Shiloh with their peace disturbed, their indignation aroused, until they at last determined to offer their sacrifices themselves, concluding that this would be fully as acceptable to God, as to sanction in any manner the abominations practiced in the sanctuary.” Signs of the Times, December 1, 1881.

Will we learn our lessons from the past? Will we recognize the time of our visitation? Will we act upon right principles? May the Lord help us in this most crucial hour when our eternal destiny, and that of our families, is being decided.

Holy Flesh and Celebration Music, Part I

by
by

In 1898, Satan, through a false teaching known as the “Holy Flesh Movement” in Indiana, made an unsuccessful attempt to introduce a false Christ and a “Pentecostal” or “Celebration” type of worship into the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Elder S. S. Davis, Indiana Conference evangelist, developed these strange new teachings, never before known among Seventh-day Adventists. Elder R. S. Donnell, President of the Indiana Conference, along with a majority of the ministry of the Conference, was swept away by the erroneous teachings. The advocates of this strange new phenomena believed the movement was the outpouring of the “Latter Rain,” and the teachings swept through the Indiana Conference with the speed of a prairie fire.

It is interesting to note that “Pentecostal” type of worship, and Pentecostal denominations as we know them today, had their beginnings in the skid row, clapboard, store-front churches of Los Angeles at the turn of the century. This erroneous type of “Pentecostal” worship was introduced into the Seventh-day Adventist Church at precisely the very same hour in history!

Ellen White was in Australia at the time and knew nothing of the development of this erroneous form of worship in Indiana. The General Conference sent Elder Stephen N. Haskell to investigate the new movement. He reported to Ellen White in two letters. (Note: These two letters will be referred to as Haskell Letter #1 and Haskell, Letter #2. Both letters are on file at the Ellen G. White Estate and are available for research).

“To describe it, I hardly know what to say,” Haskell wrote to Ellen White. “It is beyond all description. I have never seen any company held with a firmer grasp by a certain number of the leading ministers, than they are held in Indiana.” Letter #1, S. N. Haskell to Ellen G. White, Sept. 25, 1900. [Emphasis in all quotations is supplied.]

Notice that the Conference leaders of this erroneous movement in Indiana used crowd-control to deceive the people. One should always be aware that control of the masses is one of Satan’s most effective tools to “deceive the very elect.” Matthew 24:24.

In her reply to Haskell, Ellen White recalled the improper use of music, in worship, in fanatical movements of the past. “I bore my testimony, declaring that these fanatical movements, this din and noise, were inspired by the spirit of Satan, who was working miracles to deceive if possible the very elect.” Letter 132, 1900, 5–8, October 10, 1900; Released December 10, 1971.

Notice that Ellen White called the Holy Flesh deception a “din and noise,” and that this din and noise was “inspired by the spirit of Satan.” One of the outstanding features of this deception was a “Celebration” type of worship and music, utilizing a full band with drums. But that was not all. Along with the erroneous style of worship was taught dangerous heretical doctrines.

The Doctrine of the Holy Flesh Movement

The central doctrine of the Holy Flesh advocates was (1) that Jesus was born with Holy Flesh—with a human nature like that which Adam possessed in the Garden of Eden before the fall. (2)Jesus passed through an experience in the Garden of Gethsemane and those who followed Him through this experience would have holy flesh like Jesus had (and which Adam possessed before the fall), and this experience would fit the individual for translation. (3) After this experience the individual would then possess flesh like Jesus had and therefore would no longer sin. (4) After passing through this Garden of Gethsemane they experience the Holy Flesh. (The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 108.)

“Brother R. S. Donnell is president, and they have an experience in getting the people ready for translation,” Stephen N. Haskell wrote to Ellen White. “They call it the ‘cleansing message.’ Others call it the ‘holy flesh.’” Haskell Letter #1, September 25, 1900.

Individuals who did not pass through this “Garden Experience” were considered “adopted sons,” and therefore did not possess translation faith. These individuals would have to pass through the grave and “go to heaven by the underground railway.” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 108.

“Attempting to gain this Garden experience that would give them holy flesh, the people gathered in meetings in which there were long prayers, strange, loud, instrumental music, and excited ,extended, hysterical preaching,” Arthur White wrote. “They were led to seek an experience of physical demonstration. Bass drums and the tambourines aided in this.” Ibid., 101. [Emphasis supplied.]

Notice the three important elements of this erroneous type of worship. (1) “Long prayers.” (2)”Extended, hysterical preaching.” (3) “Strange, loud, instrumental music,” and the fact that “bass drums and the tambourines” aided in the deception. These three elements are absolute essentials to elevate the emotions of any church gathering. In the “holy flesh” meetings, in Indiana, some of the people would reach a state of hysteria and pass out on the floor. Monitors would carry these individuals to the front “where a dozen or more people would gather around and shout, ‘Glory to God!’ while others prayed or sang.” Ibid. When they regained consciousness they were said to have “holy flesh” and were then considered fit for translation.

The Holy Flesh Movement and Celebration Music

In their meetings, the Holy Flesh leaders used loud instrumental music and hysterical preaching to elevate the emotions of the people to a frenzy until a state of delirium existed. This method of crowd control was developed more fully the following year in the Pentecostal tongues-speaking movement in the clapboard storefront, skid-row churches of Los Angeles. This form of satanic worship progressed into “false healing,” “false speaking in tongues,” “handling of snakes in worship,” and other satanic delusions. In the past ninety-eight years, the phenomena has grown to worldwide proportions in the so-called “Full Gospel” Pentecostal churches of today. Is it not curious that this satanic delusion was first developed among Seventh-day Adventists? Satan’s clever movements can be detected if the Christian is wide-awake, studying his or her Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. The Seventh-day Adventist Christian should never forget “how the Lord has led us, and His teaching, in our past history.” Life Sketches, 196.

“As the conference president stood speaking one evening,” Arthur White wrote, “he held his arms outstretched toward the congregation, and later reported that he had felt great power coursing down his arms and passing through his fingers out to the people.” Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 101.

“There is a great power that goes with the movement that is on foot there,” Haskell wrote to Ellen White. “It would almost bring anybody within its scope, if they are at all conscientious, and sit and listen with the least degree of favor, because of the music that is brought to play in the ceremony.” Haskell Letter #1.

Please notice, dear Adventist friend, that in this “celebration” type of worship “there is a great power,” and that power is in the music! Pioneer Adventist, Stephen Haskell, said that if one would “listen with the least degree of favor,” they would be swept away with the deception “because of the music that is brought to play in the ceremony!”

“They have an organ, one bass viol, three fiddles, two flutes, three tambourines, three horns, and a big bass drum, and perhaps other instruments which I have not mentioned,” Haskell observed. “They are as much trained in their musical line as any Salvation Army choir that you ever heard.” Ibid.

“In fact, their revival effort is simply a complete copy of the Salvation Army method,” Haskell added, “and when they get on a high key, you cannot hear a word from the congregation in their singing, nor hear anything, unless it be shrieks of those who are half insane. I do not think I overdraw it at all.” Ibid.

“Those things which have been in the past will be in the future,” Ellen White warned. “Satan will make music a snare by the way in which it is conducted. God calls upon His people, who have the light before them in the Word and in the Testimonies, to read and consider, and to take heed.” Selected Messages, Book 2, 38.

Loud Music the Prerequisite for Speaking In Tongues

“A bedlam of noise shocks the senses and perverts that which if conducted aright might be a blessing,” Ellen White wrote. “The powers of satanic agencies blend with the din and noise to have a carnival, and this is termed the Holy Spirit’s working.” Ibid.

All historians of contemporary music know that Rock’ n Roll developed in the 1950s and had its roots in black and Pentecostal gospel music. Indeed, in the NBC television production of the early career of Elvis Presley, one complete episode portrayed how Elvis developed his music from the Pentecostal church services he attended with his mother and father as a young lad.

In this episode, Elvis was appearing on his first Grand Ole’ Opry country music show. The crowd was not responding to his rendition of a beautiful ballad. Elvis was “bombing”, as the entertainment industry would describe the incident. In his mind’s eye Elvis was taken back to the Pentecostal church he attended as a lad and was impressed by the audience’s response to the wild gyrations of the minister at the service. He could clearly see the reaction of the people to the minister’s loud preaching and crowd-control methods. Presley immediately broke into a black Rhythm and Blues tune and began to imitate the gyrations of the Pentecostal minister he had observed. At that precise moment the legend of Elvis Presley was born. The cameras focused in on his mother and girl friend standing at the side of the auditorium. The camera neatly captured the expression of astonishment on their faces. Their stunned expression revealed that they too realized there was a power, a supernatural force at work that neither they nor Elvis could ever reverse. This supernatural, demonic, musical influence eventually killed Elvis Presley, and it will destroy an individual or group, denomination or church, who dare to embrace this dangerous last-day delusion of Satan!

In the 1960s, this form of music developed into small “electronic” Rock bands of four or more members. First, there was the “Beatles” of England. Soon other groups followed, such as the “Animals,” the “Rolling Stones,” and many more too numerous to mention. This Satanic music developed into what was termed “acid” music because of the drug LSD that was advocated by the musicians of the era. Later, homosexual groups appeared, such as “Alice Cooper,” and “Kiss.” Then Satan really revealed himself in the “Satan Rock” of the 1970s.

In the 1970s this satanic form of music made its entrance into the major Christian denominations of America—and even into the Roman Catholic Church! The two motion picture productions, Jesus Christ Superstar, and Godspell, will suffice as proof enough to substantiate this claim. These two blasphemous movies were accepted totally by major denominations around the world as a tool to reach the youth for Christ. These movie productions were even accepted in some Seventh-day Adventist circles—at least the music was accepted as tools to reach the youth in Sabbath Schools around the English-speaking divisions of the Church. A true Christian who has seen either of these two blasphemous productions can come away with nothing less than complete disgust.

Is it not curious that the phenomena of “speaking in tongues” came to these major denominations immediately after the lively Rock and Country gospel music was introduced into their church worship services? Another proof of this theory is that contemporary Christian Rock music did not make an entrance into the Church of Christ denomination. Why? Because the Church of Christ does not believe in the use of instrumental music in the worship service. Therefore, the phenomena of speaking in tongues did not make an entrance into that denomination!

“Fanaticism, false excitement, false talking in tongues, and noisy exercises have been considered gifts which God has placed in the church. Some have been deceived here. The fruits of all this have not been good. ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits.’ Fanaticism and noise have been considered special evidences of faith. Some are not satisfied with a meeting unless they have a powerful and happy time. They work for this and get up an excitement of feeling. But the influence of such meetings is not beneficial. When the happy flight of feeling is gone they sink lower than before the meeting because their happiness did not come from the right source.” Last Day Events, 159, 160. [Emphasis supplied.]

Notice that Ellen White states that this kind of music has “been considered gifts which God has placed in the church,” but, “the fruits of all this have not been good.” She added further “the influence of such meetings is not beneficial.” Why? It was “because their happiness did not come from the right source.”

“The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with such a confusion of noise and multitude of sounds as passed before me last January,” Ellen White stated. “Satan works amid the din and confusion of such music, which, properly conducted, would be a praise and glory to God. He makes its effect like the poison sting of the serpent.” Selected Messages, Book 2, 37.

The subtitle of this article in Selected Messages is, “Music Is Made a Snare.” A publisher’s note states; “These comments were made in connection with the ‘Holy Flesh’ movement at the Indiana Camp Meeting of 1899. For further details, See Selected Messages, Book 2, 31–39.” [Sub-title and Publisher’s Note omitted in later editions.]

History of the Past to be Repeated

“Those things which have been in the past will be in the future,” Ellen White warned. Why will these things be repeated? Because “the itching desire to originate something new results in strange doctrines.” Ibid., 38.

“Last January the Lord showed me that erroneous theories and methods would be brought into our camp meetings, and that the history of the past would be repeated. I felt greatly distressed. I was instructed to say that at these demonstrations demons in the form of men are present, working with all the ingenuity that Satan can employ to make the truth disgusting to sensible people; that the enemy was trying to arrange matters so that the camp meetings, which have been the means of bringing the truth of the Third Angel’s Message before multitudes, should lose their force and influence.” Ibid., 37.

Notice that Ellen White was “instructed to say” by a heavenly being that “demons in the form of men are present, working with all the ingenuity that Satan can employ to make the truth disgusting to sensible people.” At these contemporary Seventh-day Adventist “celebration” worship services “demons in the form of men are present.” Dear Adventist friend, beware!

History Repeated Just Before the Close of Probation

“The things you have described as taking place in Indiana, the Lord has shown me would take place just before the close of probation,” Ellen White wrote to Stephen Haskell. “Every uncouth thing will be demonstrated.” Last Day Events, 159.

Notice that this satanic phenomena “would take place just before the close of probation” in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and that “every uncouth thing will be demonstrated.” All the practices of the Holy Flesh Movement will be, and are being, repeated in the Church “just before the close of probation.” (For further study see, Last Day Events, 159,160; Maranatha, 226; Selected Messages, Book 2, 36–39; The Voice in Speech and Song, 417, 418; Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, 107–109; The Early Elmshaven Years, 100–107.)

“And while those who are devoted to these sciences laud them to the heavens because of the great and good works which they affirm are wrought by them, they little know what a power for evil they are cherishing; but it is a power which will yet work with all signs and lying wonders—with all deceivableness of unrighteousness,” Ellen White concluded. “Mark the influence of these sciences, dear reader, for the conflict between Christ and Satan is not yet ended.” Selected Messages, Book 2, 352.

Those who love the new “celebration” style of worship “laud them to the heavens.” Why? “Because of the great and good works . . . they affirm are wrought by them.” However, “they little know what a power for evil they are cherishing.” Ellen White warned that this type of celebration worship “is a power which will yet work with all signs and lying wonders—with all deceivableness “There will be shouting, with drums, music, and dancing,” Ellen White warned. “The senses of rational beings will become so confused that they cannot be trusted to make right decisions.” Last Day Events, 159. In the book Maranatha, article, “Drums, Dancing and Noise,” page 234, the sentence is added: “And this is called the moving of the Holy Spirit.”

Notice also that in this testimony Ellen White states that, “There will be.” Not possibly, or maybe, but there will be! What will there be? “Shouting, with drums, music and dancing,” and, “the senses of rational beings will become so confused that they cannot be trusted to make right decisions.” Will this happen overnight? No, Satan never works that way. He is not stupid. It will come with portions of the above introduced a little at a time. Holy dancing will probably be the last part to be accepted by “rational beings” who “cannot be trusted to make right decisions.” Today we already have the drums and the music in celebration worship services in liberal Seventh-day Adventist churches across America. Next will probably be the shouting, false speaking in tongues and false healings, then the holy dancing.

Mark this point carefully, dear reader. There are two major differences between this final hour deception of Satan, and the deception he introduced to Seventh-day Adventists in the Holy Flesh Movement of 1900. Added to the instrumentation of the “holy band” of the Holy Flesh Movement of 1900, would be the essential 1990s instrumentation of contemporary Rock’ n Roll music. (1)Electric amplified guitar; (2) electric amplified bass, (3) electric amplified keyboards, (4) a full set of drums, not just a “bass drum.” The key word here is “amplified.” If the reader observes this combination of electric instrumentation in any church worship service—beware!

Remember that Ellen White warned that, (1) “Satan will make music a snare by the way in which it is conducted.” (2) The music would be loud, “a bedlam of noise.” (3) “God calls upon His people…to take heed.” Ibid., 38.

False Manifestations of the Holy Spirit

“The Holy Spirit never reveals itself in such methods, in such a bedlam of noise,” Ellen White counseled. “This is an invention of Satan to cover up his ingenious methods for making of none effect the pure, sincere, elevating, ennobling, sanctifying truth for this time.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, 107. “No encouragement should be given to this kind of worship.” Ibid., 108.

“Brother and Sister Haskell, we must put on every piece of the armor, and having done all, stand firm,” Ellen White counseled. “We are set as a defense for the gospel, and we must compose a part of the Lord’s grand army for aggressive warfare.” Selected Messages, Book 2, 38.”By the Lord’s faithful ambassadors the truth must be presented in clear-cut lines,” Ellen White continued. “Much of that which today is called testing truth is twaddle which leads to a resistance of the Holy Spirit.” Ibid.

“Much is being said regarding the impartation of the Holy Spirit, and by some this is being so interpreted that it is an injury to the churches,” Ellen White wrote to Haskell. “Eternal life is the receiving of the living elements in the Scriptures and doing the will of God.” Ibid., 38, 39.