Church

How Do You Know if You Are Listening to Error?

by

We know that the world is rapidly growing worse, and that the apostasy in the church is also rapidly growing worse. These conditions in the world and in the church set up a context of urgency. We have again come to the place where the children of Israel were when the Lord sent a special message to Amos. “Thus He showed me: and, behold, the Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumbline with a plumbline in His hand. And the Lord said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of My people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more.” Amos 7:7, 8.

A plumb line is a string with a weight attached and it is used by builders to make things straight and true vertically. It is an instrument of testing, measuring and judging. This text in Amos pictures the Lord standing on a wall which was made by a plumb line, with a plumb line in His hand.

What is the meaning of this wall? When God called His people out of Egypt, He had sought to teach them obedience by many kinds of miracles, and providential deliverances and even some severe punishments. But the record shows that the majority did what the majority always seem to do. They apostatized.

The Lord put a wall of separation between them and the nations around about them. That wall was made up of the truth of God and it protected them from the things that were evil outside. The stones or building blocks of that wall were: no human sacrifices, no temple prostitution, no paying to the sun god, no burning of children in fire as offerings to the sun god.

However, the people did not like the wall, and they tried to tear it down. “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgat the Lord their God, and served Baalim and the groves.” Judges 3:7. In spite of the Red Sea crossing, in spite of the Jordan miracle, in spite of the falling of the walls of Jericho, in spite of the manna, no matter what God did, the majority always turned their back on Him.

This sad observation is repeated five times in the book of Judges, which covers a history of a few hundred years. A remnant stayed true and faithful, but the majority always turned their back on God. Look at Judges 3:12. “And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord.” Then Judges 6:1. “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord.” A little further on to Judges 10:6. “And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord,” . .. again and again and again.

But in Amos 7:8, the Lord said, “I will not again pass by them any more.” He had punished them and they had repented and He forgave again and again and again and again. Finally He said, “No more.” It is over.

There is an epitaph in 2 Chronicles 36:14–16 which says: “Moreover all the chief of the priests [apostasy usually comes from the top down], and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which He had hallowed in Jerusalem. And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because He had compassion on His people, and on His dwelling place: But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy.” At last there could be no remedy! Jerusalem was destroyed by fire a little later.

The Case of Modern Israel

What can be said about modern Israel then? Again God called a people out of Egypt—out of the darkness of apostasy. He worked many remarkable miracles of deliverance, and He gave some punishments at times. Incredible things were done under the leading of the Lord. But once again the people have demonstrated the principle that the majority will always turn away from God. A remnant will stand true, but the majority will always turn away from God. We cannot escape this unpleasant fact. Are God’s professed people today honoring the prophets that He sends or are they misusing the prophets and speaking against them? I think you can answer that.

For modern day Israel, God also made a wall. This wall was straight and true, there were no false stones in it: no false Sabbath, no false state of the dead, no false infant baptism, no false applications of prophecy. But people are not satisfied with that wall and they are trying to tear it down. They are not taking the last warning message to the world, saying, “Repent and turn away from your sins.” Instead, the popular message is, “Never mind, you do not need to stop sinning. The Lord is too merciful to allow you to be lost.”

All Seventh-day Adventists used to say, “The hour of God’s judgment is come.” But now many are saying, “There is no longer a need for a judgment. The judgment was all done on the cross.” Scripture in no way supports this teaching, which has become so popular among professed Adventists. We will examine several scriptures that readily prove that point. “Because He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained.” Acts 17:31.

“And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.” Acts 24:25.

“In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Romans 2:16. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.” 2 Corinthians 5:10.

“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing in His kingdom.” 2 Timothy 4:1.

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” Hebrews 9:27.

“For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation.” Hebrews 10:26, 27.

“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” Hebrews 13:4.

“So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged.” James 2:12.

“Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick [the living]and the dead.” 1 Peter 4:5. “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment.” 2 Peter 2:9.

“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude 6.

Here are twelve verses in the New Testament which all talk about a judgment that is to come. How then can anyone delude or deceive a Seventh-day Adventist by telling them that the judgment was all finished on the cross? That is a problem and it worries me.

How to Know Error

Some time ago, I presented a sermon in which I read Spirit of Prophecy statements about the danger of listening to error. A lady came to me afterward and said, “I am not sure I would know when I am listening to error.” This made me really sad! Any Seventh-day Adventist who is spending much time with his or her Bible should not have that problem. Let me give you a few examples of errors you are likely to hear, and if you do, I warn you to flee for your life.

On a trip to Texas, Betty and I visited Southwestern Adventist University. We went to see the new men’s dormitory and there we picked up a student newspaper. In that paper there was an article written by a fourth year theology student who, in a few short months would be out ministering to churches. He was the assistant to the chaplain. The headline reads, “IT IS OK TO SIN.” In the opening paragraph he uses a filthy four-letter word. He then goes on to describe his concern in these words: “I read an article in the last “Southwesterner” [this student newspaper] and I perceived or felt its understanding to be that we could not live in sin and still be children of God. This is exactly what I have spent my last four years of ministry fighting against.” [Emphasis supplied.]

The point he wants to prove in this article is that one can live in sin and still be a child of God. Further down there is a line like this, “We are saved even before we are born. [This is reflecting Calvinistic theology.] The whole world was saved at the cross. Jesus not only saved us before we were born, but He has forgiven us of all unrighteousness. His sacrifice was not only for professed Christians, but also for all who ever were or ever will be. He forgave every sin we will ever do at the cross.”

That is a better deal than Tetzel offered in Luther’s time when you had to drop some money in the chest before the soul flew up to heavenly rest. Here there is no charge whatsoever. This deluded young man continued: “He forgave all of your sins that you ever will do before you were even born. If Christ had wanted us to be sinless, He would not have had to die on the cross.” This is an absolute contradiction of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. The Calvinistic wolf has its teeth in the throat of the Bride of Christ.

My next example is worse. So much worse that I cannot print a single line from this article which was published in a student newspaper at Andrews University. This article was written by a professor who uses his entire article to strongly recommend licentious practices to the students of that University, with written details. His article is a manual of how to practice licentious habits. Those habits that the Spirit of God has clearly told us are defiling, debasing and degrading he calls beautiful and recommends that everyone should be practicing them. I do not see how a man with a licentious mind, like this, could be allowed to influence the students on the campus of an Adventist College.

Men want salvation in sin, but it does not work that way. God’s wall is going to stand. God said to Amos, “Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of My people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more.” Amos 7:8. That means that God’s judgment is going to be done once and for all.

My Appeal to Adventist Ministers

In the book The Great Controversy, 654, 655, we have an interesting line. “The minister who has sacrificed truth to gain the favor of men now discerns the character and influence of his teachings. It is apparent that the omniscient eye was following him as he stood in the desk, as he walked the streets, as he mingled with men in the various scenes of life. Every emotion of the soul, every line written, every word uttered, every act that led men to rest in a refuge of falsehood,has been scattering seed; and now, in the wretched, lost souls around him, he beholds the harvest.”

These religious leaders are leading people to perdition while pretending to guide them to the gates of Paradise. Yet we know that this sad state has been predicted in exact detail. “The clergy will put forth almost superhuman efforts to shut away the light lest it should shine upon their flocks. By every means at their command, they will endeavor to suppress the discussion of these vital questions.” The Great Controversy, 607.

They will not let a historic Seventh-day Adventist speak at their pulpit, but they will let a Catholic priest. “They try by every means to suppress the discussion of these vital questions.” Read these words of warning. “The people see that they have been deluded. They accuse one another of having led them to destruction; but all unite in heaping their bitterest condemnation upon the ministers.” The Great Controversy, 655.

I want to appeal to my brethren in the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, who I love very dearly. Please, hear my words! Those of you who are prostituting the pulpits of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, using improperly that which was ordained for a holy use, prostituting it to the devil’s use, please, hear my words! You who are prostituting the classrooms of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, defiling the minds of young people with falsehood and doctrines, listen! You who are prostituting the publications of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and you who are even prostituting the Conference Offices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, using them to support falsehood and error, hear my words!

You may be saying like the people of Israel, “The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil,” so let me do what I want to do. (Zephaniah 1:12.) But God is keeping record and everything is going into His computer and, when God pushes the right button, it is all going to come right back on the screen and you are going to be looking at yourself, telling people that they do not need to stop sinning. You are going to be looking at yourself telling people that the judgment was all done on the cross, while you stand in judgment! May God have mercy! I implore you, my brethren, I plead with you, my brethren, be done with it. Finish it off. Recognize that you cannot win.

There is an old black folk sermon that says, “Young man, young man, your arm is too short to fight with God.” I appeal to any minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who ever reads these words; you cannot fight with God and win.

More Errors to Flee From

To those of you who may ask the question, “How do I know if I am listening to error?” here are some suggestions. Do you hear “It is O.K. to sin”? Scream and run for your life. If you are not hearing any sermons on overcoming, if you are not hearing any sermons on the Sanctuary, but you are hearing the statement made that it was all done on the cross, flee from the wrath to come.

Are you hearing that obedience is legalism? So many people are being accused of legalism because they want to obey the law. What is legalism? Let’s read Paul’s comparison. “For it is written that Abraham had two sons [Isaac and Ishmael], the one by a bondmaid [Hagar], the other by a freewoman [Sarah]. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants.” Galatians 4:22–24.

There you have a very clear Biblical definition of legalism. We must ask the question delicately and chastely. Was the physical action of Abraham that resulted in the birth of Isaac any different from the physical action of Abraham that resulted in the birth of Ishmael? No, the action was the same. Legalism has nothing to do with actions. The actions can be identical, legalistic or not legalistic.

The difference is the attitude of the heart. In the case of Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, Abraham was saying, “I know how to do this. The laws of the country provide for this. It has all been worked out. I do not need the Lord; I can do this by myself.” That is legalism. In the other case Abraham was saying, “This will not work unless the power of the Lord comes into the situation. There is no way this can be done except by the power of the Lord.” That is not legalism.

Fix this fact in your mind. Legalism is not an action. Legalism is an attitude of the heart. So if you say, “I believe I should obey the commandments of the Lord,” and someone tells you, “Oh, you are a legalist,” you just say, “How long have you been on the throne of God? Can anybody other than God read the heart and see what attitude is there?”

Be warned, if you hear many sermons on justification and very few on sanctification; if they tell you from the pulpit that Christ came in the unfallen nature of man; if they tell you that they believe in original sin. By the way, they probably will not use the word “original sin.” They will probably say something like the definition given in The Review and Herald, January 25, 1990, in an article written by a Seventh-day Adventist theologian and professor in one of our colleges. He describes it very succinctly like this. “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.”

According to the Calvinistic theology that this man is following, that little baby is going to hell and he will burn and burn and burn, and never stop burning! That is where they are taking us. May God have mercy!

If your minister is talking a lot about the Eucharist instead of the Lord’s Supper, watch out. If you hear the line that behavior has nothing to do with salvation, beware. Where did that come from? A Calvinistic theologian wrote, “It is an error to think that there is anything that must be done to inherit eternal life. When we bring the message of Scripture, we must be careful not to create the impression that human repentance, faith and obedience contribute in even the smallest way to divine forgiveness.

“We are not saved by anything we do, not even by our decision to believe. As paradoxical as it may seem, imperfect faith is an evidence of our union with Christ. . . We must get rid of all thought about our actions.” Neal Punt, Unconditional Good News, 135–139. How sick can the human mind become? There does not seem to be any limit. And today Adventists are following in the road of Calvinism.

So what can you do? If you are sneered at and asked if you think you are perfect, just take it and look for a city of refuge. Go to a historic campmeeting and look around, get acquainted. You may find someone from your own area that you did not know about who is feeling the same way you are and having the same problem you are having. Historic Adventists have to find each other, and get to know each other, and unite with each other in a way that will bring the harmony and the unity that God calls for without sacrificing any principle of truth. There is a power that will come with unity that cannot be obtained in any other way. We are claiming that promise. May God bless you and strengthen you to stand for the truth.

The Road to Persecution, Part I

by

When I was growing up, my parents used to receive sermon tapes from Elder W.D. Frazee in Wildwood, Georgia. My parents had worked with Elder Frazee in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in evangelistic work before I was born so they were well-acquainted with him and he had visited in our home when my Father was working for Madison Sanitarium and hospital in Madison, Tennessee.

One of the tapes that we listened to from Elder Frazee was entitled “The Road to Persecution.” Back in those days, many things that were written in the Spirit of Prophecy, we understood as only applying to the churches in “Babylon.” But as you will see, decades ago, even most of a century ago, there were leaders in Adventism who foresaw the situation today in Adventism and tried to warn the church of the very things that we are now experiencing. The experience of true and faithful Adventists, who are censured or disfellowshipped by the majority in Seventh-day Adventist churches, was foreseen by godly leaders decades ago as you will see in this article.

The subject which Elder Frazee developed in that sermon is applicable today and is screaming in siren tones to warn us of what we are about to experience in the very near future from Seventh-day Adventists. The major points from that sermon are included in this article.

In those days, we did not perceive (perhaps in the mercy of God) that many of the prophecies about faithful Adventists being persecuted would be fulfilled not only in Babylon, but also in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. But as these prophecies have been in the process of fulfillment, and we read the inspired statements again, we have found over and over that the prophecies were not all directed at Babylon. Some have been given specifically to God’s professed remnant in these last days; for example:

“He [Dr. Kellogg] is working under the advice of the one who talked with Eve. Through this subtle reasoning the future of the cause is imperiled. I shall now have to be far more explicit than I have been in the past. I shall be compelled to make statements that I have not wanted to make, but I must be more explicit in order save the flock of God from deceptive influences.

“Every movement made now is to be carefully guarded, for the forces of Satan have minds under their control, and will strive through them to unsettle faith in the experience of the past, which bears the signature of Heaven. The delusive influences working upon human minds are of a character to unsettle the faith of the people of God in the experience of the past, which has borne the signature of Heaven.

“In His Word the Lord declared what He would do for Israel if they would obey His voice. But the leaders of the people yielded to the temptations of Satan, and God could not give them the blessings He designed them to have, because they did not obey His voice but listened to the voice and policy of Lucifer. This experience will be repeated in the last years of the history of the people of God, who have been established by His grace and power. Men whom He has greatly honored will in the closing scenes of this earth’s history pattern after ancient Israel.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, 378, 379.

“We want to understand the time in which we live. We do not half understand it. We do not half take it in. My heart trembles in me when I think of what a foe we have to meet, and how poorly we are prepared to meet him. The trials of the children of Israel, and their attitude just before the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second coming of Christ—how the enemy sought every occasion to take control of the minds of the Jews, and today he is seeking to blind the minds of God’s servants, that they may not be able to discern the precious truth.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 406.

Compare with this statement the following: “The people whom God had called to be the pillar and ground of the truth had become representatives of Satan.” Desire of Ages, 36.

“Satan’s skill is exercised in devising plans and methods without number to accomplish his purposes. He works to restrict religious liberty and to bring into the religious world a species of slavery. Organizations, institutions, unless kept by the power of God, will work under Satan’s dictation to bring men under the control of men; and fraud and guile will bear the semblance of zeal for truth and for the advancement of the kingdom of God. Whatever in our practice is not as open as the day belongs to the methods of the prince of evil.” Testimonies, vol. 7, 180, 181.

“The work which the church has failed to do in a time of peace and prosperity, she will have to do in a terrible crisis, under most discouraging, forbidding, circumstances. The warnings that worldly conformity has silenced or withheld, must be given under the fiercest opposition from enemies of the faith. And at that time the superficial, conservative class, whose influence has steadily retarded the progress of the work, will renounce the faith, and take their stand with its avowed enemies, toward whom their sympathies have long been tending. These apostates will then manifest the most bitter enmity, doing all in their power to oppress and malign their former brethren, and to excite indignation against them. This day is just before us. The members of the church will individually be tested and proved. They will be placed in circumstances where they will be forced to bear witness for the truth. Many will be called to speak before councils and in courts of justice, perhaps separately and alone.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 463.

We know that persecution is coming because Revelation 13:15–17 says, “He had power to give life unto the Image of the Beast, that the Image of the Beast should both speak and cause that as many as would not worship him, should be killed. And he causeth all both small, and great, rich, and poor, both free, and bond to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell save he that had the mark, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name.”

A great persecution is coming. There will be a boycott against those who will not receive the mark of the Beast or worship the beast or his image. They will not be able to buy or sell and eventually a death decree will be issued against all those who honor all the commandments of God.

Jesus predicted that this persecution would come from organized religion—from those who call themselves God’s people: “These things have I spoken to you that you shall not be offended. They shall put you out of the Synagogues, yes the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he does God service.” This persecution is not going to be carried on simply by pagans or infidels. The men who lead out in this persecution will think that they are doing service for God. How do men come to a point where they can persecute the people of God and think that they are doing Him a service? Is there any possible danger that you and I, or that Seventh-day Adventists or those who claim to be the remnant of God could do such a thing. There most definitely is. But it does not happen in a moment, rather it generally takes a generation or longer. There is a road that leads men to the place where they will finally persecute their former brethren in the name of God. This is the road to persecution.

Revelation 13 speaks about the image to the Beast. We know that the Beast, in Revelation 13, which God warns us is a union of church and state, is the Papacy or Roman Catholicism. She became the greatest persecuting power of all times. And that is why she is pictured there in Revelation as drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

But now the issue that is ahead of us here in the United States, according to Revelation 13, is the issue of making an Image to the Beast or an Image of the Beast—both expressions are used. Now, what is an image anyway? An image, by definition, is a likeness of something else. So, there is to be formed, or should I say there is already being formed before our eyes, a likeness of that Roman power, which was drunken with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And, as the Beast was formed, so the Image is being formed. The likeness is striking. That is one of the great reasons why God, in His providence, gave us this wonderful book The Great Controversy.

Rome was Christian in its beginning. There was a church at Rome. Peter was there and Paul was there. Those are facts of church history. However, that very city eventually became the headquarters of that vast persecuting system which filled the earth with blood, in the name of Christ.

How did Rome begin its work and how will that Image be formed today? The Great Controversy, 289, 290 reads, ” The very beginning of the great apostasy was in seeking to supplement the authority of God by that of the church. Rome began by enjoining what God had not forbidden, and she ended by forbidding what He had explicitly enjoined.” Now this is one of those wonderful statements in the Spirit of Prophecy which shine out like a great beacon. Let us ponder these things.

The great apostasy began when men started to supplement the authority of God with that of the church. When Jesus left this world, He gave His church a commission and told them what they were to teach. Matthew 28:18–20 says, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Was that enough? Rome did not think so.

Rome did not begin by taking away from what God had said. Rome began by adding to what God has said was necessary. For example, it took centuries to accomplish the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. First the Christian world remembered the death and resurrection of Christ every year at passover time—we can well understand how those who witnessed this most awesome event of all the ages would especially remember it every passover season, for Jesus died during that time.

The Christians wanted to avoid being associated with the Jews, who the apostles stated were contrary to all men. Thousands and thousands of their heathen neighbors paid particular attention to the first day of the week which bore the name of the sun god. And they noted that Jesus Christ had arisen from the dead on the first day of the week. That was, no doubt, in their mind a happy coincidence. And, it appeared to be good public relations, to take advantage of the honor that was given to the Sun god, on the first day of the week, and connect with it the historical fact that Jesus, the Sun of Righteousness, had risen on the first day of the week, And so, over decades and decades, there gradually came to be a certain honor attached to that first day of the week, and the Christians in some places began to meet on that day every year to celebrate the resurrection.

In fact, by the middle of the second century, the Bishop of Rome decreed that the resurrection should be celebrated not on passover day, but on the Sunday nearest to passover day. And, if Passover day fell on a Sunday, then it was to be celebrated not on that Sunday but on the next Sunday, thus being as much unlike the Jews and as much like the Sun worshippers as possible.

The time soon came when it was decided not to celebrate the resurrection just one Sunday a year but every week. Since there is no commandment for any of this in the Bible, this is “enjoining what God had not forbidden.” But, for hundreds of years, even in churches that met on Sunday, the Sabbath was also kept. But gradually the honor given to Sunday was increased and the honor given to the Sabbath was decreased. Finally, the Roman Catholic church, in the council of Laodicea (over three hundred years after Jesus went back to heaven) dared to come out in the open and officially abolish the observance of the Sabbath and substitute Sunday. Three hundred years. That is a long time, but that is how long it took from when Rome began to enjoin what God had not forbidden, until she ended by forbidding what He had explicitly enjoined. And from then there were still more steps to the point where she began to persecute dissenters who were determined to be true to their conscience. A few martyrdoms occurred before the end of the fourth century, but later tens of thousands were put to death because they chose to obey what Christ had said instead of what the church said. That was the issue.

The setting of these sentences we have been studying from The Great Controversy, 289, 290 is very interesting. They appear in the middle of that book, in the chapter called The Pilgrim Fathers. In the paragraphs around this sentence, Sister White discussed the days of the reformation and the distinction of two types of reformers, those who were willing to come only part way out of Rome and those who felt that they ought to come all the way out of Rome. I encourage you to read the entire chapter.

Now, I want to study with you a little more on the point of adding to or supplementing Divine Authority. Remember, “Rome began by enjoining what God had not forbidden, and she ended by forbidding what He had explicitly enjoined.” In doing this, Rome set herself against the word of God. God foresaw the results of all such things and He told us in advance not to put our feet on this forbidden ground. In Deuteronomy 4:2 we read, “Ye shall not add unto the word that I command you neither shall ye diminish ought from it. That ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I commanded you.” You must not do what? You must not add. What else must you not do? You must not diminish. If you do the first you are bound to do the second.

No one ever added anything to what God said, who did not eventually turn around and cut off something else that God had commanded. Do you know why that is? It is because there is only so much room. There is just four quarts in a gallon, just sixteen ounces in a pound, just twelve inches in a foot, and because there is only so much room there is only room for so much. Whenever you add something that God has not commanded, you crowd out something that He did command. That is the way Rome sank into apostasy.

That is the issue today. Did you know that Jesus did not go to the schools of His time for that reason? In Education, 77 we are told, “The schools of His time with their magnifying of things small and their belittling of things great, He did not seek.” What was the problem? They magnified the little things and, as a result, they had only time to belittle the big things.

Oh, that we might understand the implications of this. Thousands, not only in Babylon but thousands in Adventism, are traveling the road which Rome has traveled before us, and we are so far down the road that persecution already began several years ago. But it is going to get worse, much worse. We will learn even better, before it is over, that we have much more to fear from within than from without and that our worst enemies will come from the same direction that Jesus’ worst enemies came from—God’s professed people. We do well to ponder what road we are traveling before we come to the end of it.

There is a gradual change, which starts with the apparently innocent, and ends up with the image of Satan. It starts by calling evil good. In Isaiah 5: 20-23 we read: “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink. Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!”

Those against whom the wrath of God is announced are those that call evil good and good evil. The two things inevitably are joined together and they come—watch the preciseness of the Scripture— in this order. How did the verse start out? “They call evil good” and then they call “good evil.” I wonder why they would do that. Notice in the 23rd verse it says, “they justify the wicked for reward and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him.” Again it is the same sequence. Here is a bad man but they say he is a good man. And inevitably, when they start in to do that, they are forced to call the good man bad.

That is exactly what happened in Rome. Rome first opened her doors and let in a whole multitude of image worshipping idolaters. But as the inevitable result, they came to the point that they were able to kill the true saints of God. And so it is happening today. “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil.”

Every man who gets so broad minded–watch this point–so tolerant, so kind, and so charitable that he can put his arms around iniquity and fellowship with sinners who defy the law of God, is preparing himself, whether he knows it or not, to come to the place where he can persecute the men that God calls righteous in this world.

This is what is happening in the United States as she prepares to set up an image to the Beast. “As the Protestant churches have been seeking the favor of the world, false charity has blinded their eyes. They do not see but that it is right to believe good of all evil, and as the inevitable result they will finally believe evil of all good.” The Great Controversy, 571. Oh, friends, what a warning against false charity.

What is false charity? Charity, in the sense that it is being used here, means to be tolerant of sin or to tolerate wrongdoing. It is said today that we should not blame the sinner because Jesus said, “he that is without sin among you let him cast the first stone.” Reproof and rebuke of sin is termed criticism and faultfinding. Toleration of sin is excused by saying that we must allow the wheat and the tares to grow together until the harvest. As a result of this type of thinking, there are people in the church, even in leading positions, who have been divorced and remarried without Biblical grounds and who attend social gatherings, fairs, and parades etc. on the Sabbath and buy food on the Sabbath. (Some call it witnessing.) We have people, even leaders in the church, who have deceived church members about business matters or the relations of the church to other churches and the ecumenical movement. A person may break the Sabbath, lie, kill, steal, commit adultery, go with the world and be worldly, but God is merciful, and “we ought to be all things to all men and be kind and be charitable and not be hard on people.” All that sort of talk, with the many variations and adaptation we hear today, is false charity.

The Protestant churches of our time, with their false charity, have opened up the doors and let all kinds of sinners into the church. The drunkard, the profligate, the lawbreaker, the grafter, the politician who gets caught in some great scandal, may be members of the church. Right? Today this type of person may not only be a member of the church, he may be the leader or the president of the church, but everyone thinks that it would be highly uncharitable if he received just discipline for his behavior. He must simply be transferred to some outlying district until people have forgotten the past scandal and then he may even be promoted and the same sins repeated again. Any careful observer has seen this happen in Adventism.

We are living in a time when the scandal of leading clergymen of different churches is frequent news. Today, as I am editing this article, national news is reporting about the leader of a Protestant church who might receive up to five or more years in prison for, what the church leaders say, is the result of some failed business ventures. The reports do not say he has been disfellowshiped however, or even had his credentials taken away for these crimes. It is thought that that would be absolutely uncharitable. The way to get your ministerial credentials taken away or to be disfellowshiped from a church today is to stand up and protest the iniquity and preach and teach the straight testimony and attempt to fulfill the gospel commission. That is happening all over the world today.

False charity blinds the eyes of all churches that allow it and the inevitable result of accepting, as good, that which is evil, is to soon begin believing evil of all good. They will take the very people who stand for truth, who stand for law keeping, who stand for God’s standards, and will make them the mark of the most bitter persecution that this world has seen.

There is no middle ground in this issue. Every soul in this world is either going down the road of false charity and will end up persecuting, or he is going to stand with God against iniquity and end up being among the persecuted. Out of the two there is no middle ground.

continued…

Editorial – Purification of the Church, Part IV

by

What is the objective of the purification of the church?

The objectives are:

  1. that the church reach perfection here (that each church member becomes faultless in character with every impurity destroyed),
  2. perfect unity in the church with no discord,
  3. to keep the church free from false doctrine, as the references below describe.

“No unlikeness to Christ will be permitted in the holy city. The process of gaining perfection of character is to be carried on in this life, that we may be prepared for the future immortal life. It is God’s purpose that His church on earth shall reach perfection. It is essential that His directions be strictly obeyed. The members are to help and strengthen one another. No self-exaltation or accusing or harshness are to be shown in our dealings with one another. . . . We must purify our souls through love and obedience to the truth. We must act like saints toward one another,preparing ourselves, drilling ourselves, to be without fault in character, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, 171.

“God is leading out a people to stand in perfect unity upon the platform of eternal truth. Christ gave Himself to the world that He might ‘purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.’ This refining process is designed to purge the church from all unrighteousness and the spirit of discord and contention.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 17.

“The churches must be guarded, and warned against deception. Christ gave Himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, that He might purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good orks. His church must be kept free from all false doctrine.” SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, 1083.

“The Lord is willing to help us, to strengthen and bless us; but we must pass through the refining rocess until all the impurities in our character are burned away. Every member of the church will be subjected to the furnace, not to consume, but to purify.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 485.

What hinders this work of purification that God is attempting to perform in His church?

The willingness of church members and leaders to tolerate sin in the church:

“Do not think that you show love for one another by allowing that which God condemns. Do not let sin strengthen in the church. God requires His servants to exercise faithful watchcare. But be sure to manifest Christ’s love. Go to the erring one, and pray with him. . . .God would not justify any man to place himself as dictator [over] what others must do when [he] himself needs the converting grace of Christ.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 18, 150.

What means does God use to purify His church?

  1. In addition to the prophetic Word in the Bible, God has given the testimonies of His Spirit to His remnant people as manifested in the messages given to Ellen White by the Holy Spirit.
  2. the “strait testimony,”
  3. trials and suffering,
  4. judgements. “He [Satan] seeks by all the means in his power to shake the confidence of God’s people in the voice of warning and reproof through which God designs to purify the church and prosper His cause.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 211.

“I have been shown that the Lord is reviving the living, pointed testimony, which will develop character and purify the church.” Testimonies, vol. 1, 216. (See also Testimonies, vol. 5, 222.)

“The purification of the people of God cannot be accomplished without their suffering.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 85.

“The Lord will work to purify His church. I tell you in truth, the Lord is about to turn and overturn in the institutions called by His name. Just how soon this refining process will begin, I cannot say, but it will not be long deferred.” Paulson Collection, 415.

What will happen if the “church” is not purified as God is attempting to do?

“The Lord Jesus will always have a chosen people to serve Him. When the Jewish people rejected Christ, the Prince of life, He took from them the kingdom of God and gave it unto the Gentiles. God will continue to work on this principle with every branch of His work. When a church proves unfaithful to the work of the Lord, whatever their position may be, however high and sacred their calling, the Lord can no longer work with them. Others are then chosen to bear important responsibilities. But, if these in turn do not purify their lives from every wrong action, if they do not establish pure and holy principles in all their borders, then the Lord will grievously afflict and humble them and, unless they repent, will remove them from their place and make them a reproach.” Upward Look, 131.

The Three Mother Churches

by

In this article, we are going to study the three mother churches. If you are a member of a Christian church, one of these three mother churches is, no doubt, your spiritual mother. By the end of this study, you should be able to identify whose child you are.

Babylon—The Mother of Harlots

Revelation 17 tells about the first mother church we will study. Notice the characteristics of this mother church. “Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, ‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and the abominations of theearth.” Revelation 17:1–5.

In Bible prophecy, a woman represents a church. (See Jeremiah 6:2; Isaiah 51:15; 2 Corinthians 11:2.) There are whole books of the Bible, such as the Song of Solomon, that are written with this symbolism. In the book of Hosea, and in Ezekiel 23, an unfaithful church is represented as a harlot.

What is spiritual harlotry or adultery? Let me give an example to help us understand. When you get married, a part of your marriage vow is not only that you will cling to your husband or wife, but also that you will forsake all others. What if you do not forsake all others? Then, you commit adultery. It is this simple; if you have only one husband, then it is holy. But, if you have two or three husbands or two or three wives, then it is not holy any more. It is wicked!

When you become part of the church, part of God’s family, you claim to be joined to one husband—Christ. (See 2 Corinthians 11:2.) If you are “espoused to one husband,” and then you take your affection and you pour it out on people, places or things of this world, what have you done? We can read about it in Ezekiel 23:35, 38. “Therefore thus says the Lord God. ‘Because you have forgotten Me and cast Me behind your back, therefore you shall bear the penalty of your lewdness and your harlotry.’ The Lord also said to me, ‘Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Then declare to them their abominations. For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. They have committed adultery with their idols, and even sacrificed their sons whom they bore to Me, passing them through the fire to devour them. Moreover they have done this to Me: They have defiled My sanctuary on the same day and profaned My Sabbaths.’”

When you become part of God’s family, you have one Husband and you are to be faithful to Him. You are to obey Him and keep His commandments. But if you disobey His commandments, then you have forsaken Him for others.

Consider again the woman, which we see in Revelation 17. She is a harlot church, or a church that teaches people to break God’s commandments. (In fact, they break God’s commandments as a part of their religion.) We read in Revelation 18:2, that this same apostate power has “become the prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!” The devil is there, and through that system he teaches men to break the commandments. And if you stay there, if you are a part of Babylon, you will sin just by being part of the system. Revelation 18:4 says, “ ‘Come out of her, My people, lest you share in her sins and lest you receive of her plagues.’” If you stay in Babylon, you are going to share in her sins and then you are also going to partake of her plagues.

A Worldwide Persecuting power

This system of Babylon, described in Revelation, is a worldwide phenomenon. It is not something that just takes place off in an obscure corner of the world. We read in Revelation 18:3, “for all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.” All the nations of the world are involved.

“The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of the bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery, all nations were deceived. And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.” Revelation 18:23, 24.

I remember about thirty years ago, when I first read this and tried to understand what verse 24 meant when it said that Babylon was guilty for the blood of all the saints. However, as I studied, I found that this was not the first time God has made this pronouncement. Jesus told the Jewish leaders: “Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Barechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” Matthew 23:34, 35.

Here Jesus told the Jews that they would have to give an account for all the righteous blood that is shed upon the earth. How can that be explained? Because they rejected the Messiah. Do you realize that if the Jews had accepted Jesus, all of world history would have been different? (For an interesting study, take these verses in Matthew 23 and read what Ellen White says about them. It is very ominous for Seventh-day Adventists. What happened to the Jews could happen to Adventism if the devil’s plan is followed.)

Just as the Jews will be held accountable for the blood of all the righteous in their day, so God will judge Babylon as guilty for all of the blood of the saints. A careful look at history, behind the scenes, shows the truth of this statement. Very few people really know very much about the true facts of history. But, someday, the curtain will be removed, and it all will be distinctly seen as God has clearly recorded it for every eye to behold when the harlot is judged.

Another proof that Babylon is a worldwide power, is the fact that the Bible says, in Revelation 13:8, that every single person in the world, whose name is not written in the Book of Life, will worship this power for a short time. However, eventually, they will all unite to destroy her when they find out the truth that they are lost. Because God does not desire any to be lost, His message to each person is “Come out.” Those who do not answer this call will meet the same fate as the devil and all of his angels. And so God, in His mercy, wants you to be saved and says, “Come out!”

Have you ever tried to think through what this means when God says, “Come out”? Does coming out of Babylon involve mostly where your body is? Or is it more involved with where your mind is? Does it involve more what church book your name is written on? Or does it involve more where your heart is? Coming out of Babylon is much more involved than some people think. It is much more than just what church book your name is on and where your body is. It has to do with where your mind and your heart are dwelling.

When God called Lot and his family to come out of Sodom, Lot’s wife got her body out but she never got her heart out. Have you ever asked yourself the question, Am I totally out of Babylon? Or am I like Lot’s wife? My body is out of Babylon, but my heart is still there.

From Milk to Solid Food

What we have just studied is an elementary principle of the Bible. But we cannot always feed on the milk if we are going to grow up fully into Christ, and so I want to study, in the rest of this article, some deeper Bible principles which are necessary in order for us to understand the last two mother churches.

We have looked, so far, at the first mother church, Babylon, or the harlot church. The other two mother churches we find described in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In Galatians 1:1, Paul makes it very clear that he is addressing his letter to the churches in Galatia. As Paul wrote this letter, he was in great agony of heart, because the churches were in a state of apostasy as the result of false teachers who had come in among them. Where did these false teachers came from? Did they come from Babylon, the center of the devil’s operation? No. They came from Jerusalem—the General Conference, or the world headquarters for the apostolic church.

In Galatians 4:8–16, Paul describes the apostasy these false teachers from Jerusalem had led the Galatians into. “But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. [Some people try to use verse 10 against Seventh-day Adventists, but we do not qualify. We do not observe days, we only observe the seventh day Sabbath. Nor do we observe months or seasons or years in Historic Adventism.] I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. Brethren, I urge you to become like me, for I became like you. You have not injured me at all. You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. What then was the blessing you enjoyed? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”

The very ones who Paul describes as leading the Galatians back to the “beggarly elements,” were teachers that came from the world headquarters of the apostolic church. The situation was so serious that Ellen White says the apostle Paul had to stand alone in opposition to the twelve disciples of Jesus—the twelve that were with Jesus when He walked among men. Paul even had to openly rebuke Peter because he was Judaizing. (See Galatians 2:11–14; The Acts of the Apostles, 199, 120.)

Can you imagine what a difficult situation it must have been for the Galatians, when leaders from Jerusalem, with the support of the disciples, began teaching that they had to keep the ceremonial law. Many must have thought, “These men must be right because they come from the disciples, the very men who walked and talked with Jesus. The apostle Paul, he must be speaking a dangerous doctrine!”

The situation was still more complicated because Paul was not dealing with the Jews here, he was dealing with Christians from the church at Jerusalem who were still keeping the ceremonial law, even though it had met its complete fulfillment in the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul continued: “They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them. But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always, and not only when I am present with you. My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you. I would like to be present with you now and to change my tone; for I have doubts about you.” Galatians 4:17–20.

The Bondwomen and the Free

Now, notice his arguments starting in Verse 21: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” Galatians 4:21–25.

So Hagar, it clearly says, is a mother, for she is still in bondage with her children. So, who then does Paul use to represent the third mother church? “But the Jerusalem above is free. Which is the mother of us all. For it is written: Rejoice, O barren, you who do not bear! Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what does the Scripture say, Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased.” Galatians 4:26–31; 5:1–6, 11.

“As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast of your flesh. But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.” Galatians 6:12–15.

Let us consider what Paul was facing. Here were these false teachers coming from Jerusalem. But they were not Jews, they were Christians who were speaking the sentiments of the disciples, and they were teaching that the ceremonial law still had to be kept. Why did they believe it still needed to be kept? Ellen White is very specific that they kept the ceremonial law, not so much because they believed in it any more, but because they wanted to avoid persecution. (Have you ever heard anyone say, “It is not time yet to distribute The Great Controversy”? That reflects the same kind of thinking as these early Christians had.)

Children in Bondage

Paul repeats over and over again that Hagar, this mother church, is in bondage with all of her children. What does he mean that they are in bondage? They are in bondage to sin. That is the main difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, a person had to come every year to the Most Holy Place for the Day of Atonement. Why did they have to come every year? Because they had not quit sinning. If you quit sinning, Paul says in Hebrews 10, then you would not have to come anymore.

In the New Covenant there is no Day of Atonement year after year after year. There is just one Day of Atonement period at the end of the world. Why, because a way has been opened that men do not need to keep sinning and confessing and sinning and confessing.

Did you notice that the people who are in Hagar’s church, who have the Old Covenant experience, want to avoid persecution so they are keeping the ceremonial law. But who are they actually persecuting in the process? Notice it says in Galatians 4:29, “He who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the spirit. Even so it is now.” Who were they persecuting? They were persecuting the true church. They professed to be the true church, but Hagar was their mother. They were still in the Old Covenant experience and they still had a yoke of bondage.

What is the yoke of bondage? The yoke of bondage is the law that you cannot keep. Theologians have tried to explain it by saying that the Jews made so many regulations that the people could not keep the law. (And that is true.) Other theologians have looked at the yoke of bondage and have said, “Well, the yoke of bondage is this ceremonial law.” However, when you look at the bottom line, all the evidence points to one thing: The yoke of bondage is a law that you cannot keep. But when you come to Jesus, friend, you are set free and then you can keep this law—the Ten Commandments. You are free. You have been made free and you do not have to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

There is another identifying mark that differentiates between the two mother churches. One is born according to the flesh and the other is born according to the promise or according to the Spirit. All throughout Paul’s writings these two antithesis are presented. For example, Galatians 5:16–18. “I say then: Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”

The Children of Promise

We have now looked at Hagar, the second mother church, let us now turn our attention to the third mother church represented by Sarah and by the New Jerusalem. Here are the identifying marks. (You can find all of these right in the book of Galatians.)

This church is born free. The first time we are born, we are all born in sin, and thus sons of the devil. 1 John 3:8. However, Jesus told Nicodemus, If you want to go to the kingdom of heaven, you must be born again. And when you are born again, you are born free, your are born in the Spirit, not according to the flesh. This church is born free, that is, they are born again.

The headquarters of this church is in heaven, it is not in this world. It is not in Jerusalem, not in Takoma Park, not in Hagarstown. It is in heaven. That is what Paul says in Galatians 4:26: “But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

The children of the promise do not have an Old Covenant experience, they have a New Covenant experience. In the Old Covenant the conscience is never purged from sins, so you must keep coming back to the Sanctuary every year and have another Day of Atonement, but in the New Covenant you overcome sin and receive the victory over it.

In heaven, Jesus will not be serving as a Mediator or as your High Priest through all of eternity. No, that will all be over because all who go there will have overcome sin and will have no need of a Mediator anymore. In fact, God’s children, that live in this world during the time of trouble, are not going to have a Mediator. They will not need one because they will have overcome all sin. (See The Great Controversy, 425.)

These are the children of the promise, and their future is wonderful. But what will happen to Hagar’s spiritual children? They will be cast out and will not inherit the New Covenant promises. (See Galatians 4:30.) This is very serious. If Hagar is your mother, you are not going to heaven unless you receive the adoption of sons. You would be just as lost as if you were in Babylon.

Stand Up!

What was Paul’s instruction to the Galatian churches who were being brought into bondage? “Stand up in the freedom in which Christ has made you free.” And who were these people? They were just little independent churches scattered all over Asia and Europe. And they must have thought, “But we are just tiny groups and we do not have all the experience that the leaders back in Jerusalem have.” But Paul said, “Stand up! You are free and you must not allow these false teachers to lead you back into bondage again.”

I want to tell you, people have lost freedom in Adventism today. When I was a boy in Adventism, anyone was encouraged to go anywhere they could and start up a church. Now they want to close all the little churches down. They are afraid of anyone starting a church, because they are afraid it might not be under their control. What has happened to people’s thinking? Do you recognize that when people start to talk like that and think like that, they are not part of the church whose headquarters is in the New Jerusalem? Through Christ all are free, and all have been given the commission to take the gospel to every nation, kindred, tribe and people.

The apostle Paul knew that. He said, “We have hope of righteousness.” We expectantly wait for it. What is this righteousness? It is not a righteousness which you work out through certain religious rituals or political games. It is righteousness by faith—a faith that works through love. That is what counts in the sight of God.

What counts in your church, friend? Is it the equivalent of circumcision, religious rituals and political games, or is it faith that works by love? If your mother is the New Jerusalem, it is faith that works by love.

And what will we do if we are filled with this faith that works by love? Paul says, “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh…But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the [condemnation] of the law.” Galatians 5:16, 18. If you are walking in the Spirit, overcoming the lusts of the flesh, you will also be bearing the fruits of the Spirit which Paul describes in Galatians 5:22, 23. You will become a new creation.

Who is the Israel of God? The Israel of God is not the children of Hagar who are in bondage to sin. I am not out to judge who is a member of what church but the fruit indicates that the great majority of Seventh-day Adventists, today, are children of Hagar, not Sarah. They are professors of Christianity, but everything in their system is down here in this world. They are in bondage. They have an Old Covenant experience. And not only that, they are persecuting the people who are seeking the New Covenant experience. They disfellowship them and get them out of their way. By the way, if you are persecuting people that do not think like you do on theology, that is absolute proof that your mother is Hagar. Anytime any person or any group of people decides they can disfellowship someone for non-Biblical reasons or stone them or take them to court or put them in jail or beat them up (all of those things have happened), that group of people does not belong to the New Jerusalem church. Hagar is their mother.

But the people, whose mother is the New Jerusalem, are born free. Their headquarters is not down here in this world. They have leaders and are organized, but their headquarters is not really down here. Their headquarters is in heaven. They are children of the promise. They stand in freedom and they hope for righteousness from the Holy Spirit that the Lord will give to them. They live by faith that works through love.

Who is your mother? Is she over in Babylon? Or does she dwell in earthly Jerusalem? Or have you been born free? Are you walking according to the Spirit? Are you a child of the promise? Are you receiving a righteousness that is not woven in any earthly loom? Are you operating on the principle of faith that works by love? Are you manifesting the fruits of the Spirit? Are you a new creation? I invite you to ask the Lord to work out this miracle in your life.

Holy Flesh & Celebration Music, Part II

by

Haskell’s Eye Witness Report

Steven N. Haskell and Elder A. J. Breed were sent by the General Conference to investigate what was going on in the Indiana Conference. They were also to be guest speakers at the 1900 Indiana camp meeting.

“The camp meeting at which this experience took place was held in Muncie, Indiana, while Ellen White was on board ship returning to the United States,” Arthur White wrote. “When James Edson White journeyed to the West Coast to greet his mother, he handed her a letter from Elder Haskell in which he described some of the things that had taken place.” The Early Elmshaven Years, 101, 102.

Haskell had written a second letter to Ellen White describing in more detail the teachings of the Holy Flesh advocates. This second Letter Haskell mailed from Battle Creek, Michigan, the same day he handed Letter #1 to Edson White to deliver to his mother in person. This document is known as the Haskell Letter #2, September 25, 1900.

Arthur White did not refer to the second Haskell letter in his narration of the history of the Holy Flesh Movement. Why? Could it have been because the second letter revealed what the Holy Flesh advocates really taught about the human nature Christ assumed while in the flesh? This second Haskell letter proves that the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church is now teaching the same false doctrine on the human nature of Christ as it was taught by the Holy Flesh advocates!

The Erroneous Holy Flesh Teaching of the Human Nature Of Christ

The Holy Flesh advocates taught that Jesus came to earth in a nature like that which Adam possessed before the fall in the Garden of Eden. Note carefully Haskell’s clear eye-witness description of this false teaching in his second letter to Ellen White.

“When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned,” Haskell wrote, “notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.” Haskell Letter #2.

“Their point of theology in this particular respect seems to be this,” Haskell continued. “They believe that Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell; so He [Christ] took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden, and thus humanity was holy, and this is the humanity which Christ had; and now, they say, the particular time has come for us to become holy in that sense, and then we will have ‘translation faith’ and never die.” Ibid.

Notice the two important points in the above statements. Haskell stated that:

“When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.” This problem still exists today. When anyone states that “Christ was born in fallen humanity,” he or she is accused of believing that Christ sinned.

The Holy Flesh advocates “believe that Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell; so He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden, and thus humanity was holy, and this is the humanity which Christ had.”

Ellen White had just returned from several years in Australia, and as she came ashore, the Haskell Letter #1 was handed to her in person by her son, James Edson White. Haskell’s Letter #2, arrived in the mail a few days later. Ellen White confronted the false teaching of the Holy Flesh Movement with dispatch. At the close of the 1901 General Conference session, on Wednesday morning, April 17, Ellen White arose and presented a testimony directly to the General Conference. R. S. Donnell, President of the Indiana Conference, and S. S. Davis, the Conference evangelist, who had led out in the false teachings, were present at this meeting.

Ellen White stated in part: “Instruction has been given me in regard to the late experience of brethren in Indiana and the teaching they have given to the churches. Through this experience and teaching the enemy has been working to lead souls astray.” General Conference Bulletin, 1901, 419–422: Selected Messages, Book 2, 31–35.

At the early morning workers’ meeting the following day, Elder R. S. Donnell, Indiana Conference President, confessed that he was wrong. (See “Confession, Donnell,” General Conference Bulletin, vol. IV, Extra No. 18, April 23, 1901, 422.)

Following the General Conference session in 1901, a local Conference session was convened in Indianapolis, Indiana, May 3–5, 1901, to elect new officers. Attending this conference business meeting were Elders A. G. Daniells, W. W. Prescott, A. T. Jones, P. T. Magan, and W. C. White. Ellen White also attended this meeting and addressed the delegates. At the close of her address Ellen White stated: “When I am gone from here, none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth. There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.” G. A. Roberts, The Holy Fanaticism, Ellen G. White Estate, Document File #190.

Notice that Ellen White warned that “none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth.” And further that, “There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.” Not a thread of truth in any point of the Holy Flesh doctrine. Not in their “celebration” type of music—not in their pre-fall of Adam human nature of Jesus Christ doctrine. Yet the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church is vigorously promoting both “celebration” music worship services, and the pre-fall nature of Christ, (as used by the Holy Flesh advocate)!

“Listen to the music, to the language, called higher education,” Ellen White counseled. “But what does God declare it?—The Mystery of Iniquity.” (An Appeal for Missions, 11.)

False Concept of Christ’s Human Nature

As noted above, S. N. Haskell, in a second letter, wrote to Ellen White that leaders of the Holy Flesh Movement in Indiana were teaching the false doctrine that Christ came to earth in the human nature of Adam before he fell in the garden of Eden. Ellen White stated that “none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth.” Why? Because, “There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.” White Estate Document, File #190. According to this statement, if one was to teach that Christ came to earth in the human nature of Adam before he fell in the garden of Eden, he would be teaching a doctrine held by the Holy Flesh Movement! Or if one was to teach the “celebration” music concepts in worship, they would also be teaching a doctrine held by the Holy Flesh Movement. If she were alive today, what would Ellen White say about the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church teaching both Holy Flesh concepts on music and the human nature of Christ?

Holy Flesh False Doctrines Taught Today

“He [Christ] was like Adam before his fall,” Leroy Edwin Froom wrote, “who was similarly without any inherent sinful ‘propensities.’ ” L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 428.

“He [Christ] was perfect in His humanity, but He was none the less God, and His conception in His incarnation was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit so that He did not partake of the fallen sinful nature of other men,” Dr. E. Schuyler English, noted Evangelical leader wrote. (Froom, op. sit., Dr. E. Schuyler English, editor Our Hope, MD, 469.) In his reply letter to Dr. English, Froom stated, “That, we in turn assured him, is precisely what we [Seventh-day Adventists] likewise believe.” Ibid., 470.

“Although born in the flesh, He was nevertheless God, and was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam.” Questions on Doctrine, 383.

“Jesus was not like you and me when He was here upon earth, for He was never a sinner,” Donald Reynolds wrote. “He came to this earth as Adam before Adam fell.” Donald G. Reynolds, “Adam and Evil”, Review and Herald, July 1, 1965.

The Church is now officially teaching a cardinal doctrine held by the Holy Flesh Movement in direct opposition to the Spirit of Prophecy which stated clearly that, “When I am gone from here, none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth,” for, “there is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.”

Falsifying History To Sustain A Doctrinal Position

In 1958, Arthur White, then chairman of the Ellen G. White Estate, wrote a Compiler’s Note in Selected Messages, book 2. The Note is found on page 31, before the chapter titled, “The Holy Flesh Doctrine.” The statement in the Compiler’s Note that “during Christ’s agony in Gethsemane He obtained holy flesh comparable to that possessed by Adam before his fall,” is erroneous. The correct teaching of the Holy Flesh advocates was that “Christ came to earth [when He was born] in the nature of Adam before he fell in the Garden of Eden.”

“They [Holy Flesh advocates] believe that Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell,” Haskell had written to Ellen White, “so He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden.” Haskell Letter #2.

The deception can be very subtle and confusing. An easy way to separate the confusion is to think of, 1) “the Garden of Eden,” versus, 2) “the Garden of Gethsemane.” The Garden of Eden was before man fell—the Garden of Gethsemane was after man fell.

Arthur White’s Historical Source For the Compiler’s Note

Arthur White’s source for the position in the Compiler’s Note was taken from a letter written by Burton Wade. The letter was dated January 12, 1962, and addressed to Arthur White. Wade had “attended the camp meeting held in Muncie, Indiana, in September of 1900.” Although Burton Wade was 86 years old at the writing of this letter, and was recalling an event that took place 62 years prior, he claimed to have a vivid and clear memory of that camp meeting. Wade stated that the Holy Flesh advocates “believed that, when Christ suffered in Gethsemane, he obtained ‘Holy Flesh’ such as Adam had in the beginning before the fall.”

“This position is a bit at variance with those of G. A. Roberts and S. N. Haskell,” Kenneth Wood wrote, “but how do we know which of these men was capable of making a definitive theological statement?” Kenneth Wood Letter, to William Grotheer, dated at Takoma Park, Maryland, March 13, 1968.

Think for a moment, dear reader, about Kenneth Wood’s question, “but how do we know which of these men was capable of making a definitive theological statement?” Three men gave eyewitness accounts of what the Holy Flesh advocates were teaching on the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. Let us consider the relative theological background of each of these three men carefully.

Elder Stephen N. Haskell

Elder Stephen N. Haskell was a well-known Seventh-day Adventist pioneer and writer. Four of his most famous works were, The Cross and Its Shadow, The Seer of Patmos, Daniel the Prophet, and, Haskell’s Handbook (a doctrinal study guide for the layman, published in 1919). Ellen White cited Haskell for his stand on truth in 1888. (Ellen G. White, Ms. 15, 1888, See Through Crisis to Victory, 301). He had been sent to the Indiana Conference to investigate the teaching of the Holy Flesh advocates by the General Conference and was a speaker at the 1900 camp meeting at Muncie, Indiana. Haskell was 67 years old at the time. Burton Wade was a young man of 24 years. Haskell wrote his account two days after the Muncie camp meeting. Burton Wade wrote his letter, recalling the event, 62 years later, and he was 86 years old at the writing of his letter. At this conference, Haskell had discussed doctrinal concepts directly with the leaders of the Holy Flesh Movement. Two days after returning to Battle Creek, Haskell wrote two letters to Ellen White reporting the teachings of the Holy Flesh advocates. One letter he mailed, the other he gave to Edson White, who was passing through Battle Creek on his way to meet Ellen White at the docking of the ship from Australia. Again, both Letter #1 and #2 are on file at the Ellen G. White Estate, of which Kenneth Wood was a trustee.

Elder G. A. Roberts

Elder G. A. Roberts, who later served as President of the Inter-American Division (1936–1941), was also an eyewitness of the Holy Flesh Movement. He had attended their meetings at Indianapolis. Roberts was also a close friend of R. S. Donnell, one of the leaders of the Holy Flesh Movement. Twenty-three years later he wrote his observations of the experience. About the position held by the Holy Flesh advocates on the doctrine of the Incarnation he stated in part: “It was taught that Jesus had holy flesh, and that those who followed Him through this garden experience would likewise have holy flesh; that the text, ‘A body hast thou prepared me,’ showed that Christ had a specially prepared holy body. The Scripture, Hebrews 2:7–14, was used to prove that Christ was born with flesh like ‘my brethren’ and ‘the church’ would have after they had passed through the garden experience.” G. A. Roberts, The Holy Flesh Fanaticism, June, 1923, Document File #190.

Notice that Roberts stated the Holy Flesh advocates believed that:

  • “Jesus had holy flesh”
  • “Christ had a specially prepared holy body” when He came to earth
  • “Christ was born with flesh like My brethren,”
  • “the church would have after they had passed through the garden experience.”

This statement clearly shows that the Holy Flesh advocates believed that Jesus came to earth in the nature of Adam before the fall, and that the Church would obtain this same flesh after passing through the “Garden of Gethsemane” experience. Then they would no longer sin and would be fit for translation.

Burton Wade

Burton Wade, the person who Kenneth Wood and other Seventh-day Adventist leadership depended on for their historical source, was a lay member from Denver, Indiana. In order for Kenneth Wood and the Adventist leadership to accept Wade’s testimony, they had to cast aside the testimony of the three reliable General Conference men, S. N. Haskell, A. J. Breed, and the testimony of G. A. Roberts. Haskell, Breed, and Roberts all agree. Burton Wade gave a different account. It will be left with the reader to decide which of these four men were capable of making “a definitive theological statement.”

Jesse Dunn, an older man who also lived at Denver, Indiana, and was the State Agent at the time, “understood the doctrine as taught by the Holy Flesh advocates in harmony with Haskell and Roberts.” William A. Grotheer, The Holy Flesh Movement, 59. Why did the compilers of the book Selected Messages, Book 2, choose the testimony of Burton Wade over Jesse Dunn, the other eyewitness from Indiana? More important, why did they choose Wade’s testimony over S. N. Haskell and A. J. Breed, the two men sent by the General Conference to investigate the teachings of the Holy Flesh advocates? Why did they ignore the testimony of G. A. Roberts, another reliable General Conference eyewitness?

Startling Discrepancy In Source Dates

The Burton Wade letter was stated to be the source for the Compiler’s Note in Selected Messages, Book 2. However, the book was copyrighted in 1958 and the Wade letter was dated 1962, four years after the book Selected Messages, Book 2, was published!.

“What then is the source of the Compiler’s Note?” Grotheer asked. “Or worse yet, perish the thought, were the first two paragraphs of the Wade letter `planted’ to give substantiation to the basic error in the Compiler’s Note?” William Grotheer, Letter to Kenneth Wood, dated at Florence, Mississippi, March 15, 1968. Grotheer stated further that, “Unless other proof can be offered to the source of the note, this last idea needs to be investigated further, for it would then have validity.”

The Compiler’s Note in the book Selected Messages, Book 2, was published in 1958. The Evangelical Conferences with Dr. Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin took place two years prior in 1955–56. It was at these Evangelical Conferences that concessions were made on the “Atonement” and the “Human Nature of Christ.” The book Questions On Doctrine, in which these concessions were stated, was published the previous year in 1957.

The Objective Of the Compiler’s Note

Why does the leadership of the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church aspire to teach that the Holy Flesh advocates believed that Christ obtained the nature of the pre-fall Adam “during His agony in Gethsemane”—rather then “Christ obtained Adam’s unfallen nature when He came to earth”? Is it that the leadership now teaches that “Christ obtained Adam’s unfallen nature when He came to earth,” the very same false doctrine as the Holy Flesh advocates taught?

If the Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders accepted Haskell’s and Roberts’ testimony, they would have to concede that they are now teaching a doctrine held by the Holy Flesh advocates. Then the Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership would have to explain why they are teaching a doctrine in direct opposition to the Spirit of Prophecy. They would have to negate the statement by Ellen White that: “There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric,” and again, “when I am gone from here, none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth.” Is it not curious that the Church leadership cannot see the truth on this point as both the G. A. Roberts’ document and the Haskell letters are in the files of the Ellen G. White Estate and are available for research?

In a letter to William Grotheer, Arthur White stated that to him the teaching of the Holy Flesh advocates on the human nature of Christ was, “a matter of little importance.” He added further that, “Except as there may be lessons in the experience for us today, it is not a matter of great interest or consequence to the church now.” Arthur L. White, Letter to William H. Grotheer, dated at Takoma Park, Washington D. C., December 13, 1968.

This, of course, is not true. Thirty years after Arthur White made this statement, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is divided in a debate over the human nature Christ assumed while in the flesh and the “celebration” music style of worship now prevalent throughout Adventism. Both of these false concepts were first advocated by the Holy Flesh movement. There are tremendous lessons for the Church today in relation to the Holy Flesh Movement of Indiana.

“We have nothing to fear for the future,” Ellen White counseled, “except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” Life Sketches, 196.

In his letter, Arthur White admitted that the truth on this matter could not be determined “without thorough, painstaking research (which seemed uncalled for in this case)” because only a brief historical note was being written. Ibid., White Letter, December 13, 1968. This statement reveals that historical inserts to the writings of Ellen G. White were made, “Without thorough, painstaking research.”

After Arthur White’s attention had been directed to the Haskell statement he admitted that, “Elder Haskell saw it differently than I have reported.” White observed further that, “The Wade testimony is interesting. I felt it was corroborative.” But what was it corroborative to? It was corroborative to the position White had presented in the Compilers Note! As an after thought, White admitted that the Wade letter “is not conclusive because of the time lapse (62 years).” He concludes the paragraph by stating, “One is led to say, ‘So what?’ ” Ibid.

So what? The Wade letter was written in 1962, four years after the Compiler’s Note was published in Selected Messages, book. 2, in 1958. How could Arthur White use the information in the Burton Wade letter, written four years after the Compiler’s Note was written?

In his letter, Arthur White promised to restudy the issue “and if I am convinced that the note does not correctly represent the facts, I shall request the Board of Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate to approve a rewording which we will ask the publishers to place in the next printing of the book.” Ibid. The book has been reprinted since this letter was written by Arthur White in 1968. Over 30 years have passed, and the Compiler’s Note remains unchanged.

Still Ignoring the Haskell Letter #2

In 1983, fifteen years after his letter to William Grotheer, Arthur L. White wrote a six volume set of books on the life of Ellen White. In volume 5, The Early Elmshaven Years, 1900–1905, pages 100-107, White covered the history of the Holy Flesh Movement of Indiana. On pages 101 and 102, White quoted from the Haskell Letter #1. Although for the past fifteen years he was aware of, and had access to, the Haskell Letter #2 in the Ellen G. White Estate Document Files, White still chose to ignore this second Haskell Letter. Why? It seems very probable to this author that it was because the second Haskell letter was theologically opposed to the present Seventh-day Adventist position on the human nature of Christ, and to the Compiler’s Note that White had written in Selected Messages, Book 2.

Today, in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we see not only the very same false doctrine of Christ’s human nature as taught by the Holy Flesh advocates, but also the very same “celebration music” services of the Holy Flesh advocates in many Seventh-day Adventist Churches. It is past time that we consider the seriousness of this matter and where it is leading us.

Note: If you would like more information about the danger of the Celebration movement in Adventism today, call Steps to Life and order our booklet titled No Time to Celebrate. Available in English and Spanish for $1.00 per booklet. Call for bulk prices.

The Road to Persecution, Part II

by

Editor’s Note: Last month we looked at the road which the Roman power traveled to persecution, which began when she added to what God had commanded and ended with her commanding what God had not, and persecuting those who would not agree with her.

We also studied what the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy say the sure results will be for anyone who calls good evil and evil good, even for Adventists. This month we will consider how we should respond to these solemn truths.

Tearing Down the Wall

In Ezekiel 13, the prophet deals with breaking down, or the making of a gap, in the wall of the law of God. The result is that a terrible flood of sin pours into the church. God is calling for people who will be restorers of the breach. In Isaiah 58, God’s people are pictured as Sabbath keepers who restore that breach in the law. But, Ezekiel 13 deals with the false prophets of Israel that follow their own spirit, and are compared to desert foxes, who, when driven from one hole, come up in another. These leaders do not fill in the gaps in the wall, verse five says they have not “made up the hedge, for the house of Israel to stand in the battle of the day of the Lord.” (In other words, those who follow this plan will be unprepared when the last crisis breaks.)

Notice, especially, God’s message on this in verse 19 and 22. “And will you pollute Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to My people that hear your lies?” What are these false prophets doing? They turn the criminal out and let him go free, but the good men they put to death. They are too charitable to allow any criminal to receive the death penalty, even if he has killed or tortured his victims, but they are willing to put in jail the very ones that uphold the law of God. How is that for crooked thinking? Does it sound like what is happening today? Are there those who are very determined that criminals should not receive the death penalty, who, prophecy foretells, will eventually make a death decree against those who keep the law of God? Read Revelation 13:15.

Ezekiel 13:22 says, “Because with lies you have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life.” There we have it. Every influence that leads to toleration of evil in the church eventually leads inevitably down the road to persecution of the righteous.

False Love Leads to Hatred

Do you know who it was that crucified Jesus? Did the Roman governor, Pilate, sign Christ’s death warrant? No, it was the leaders of the professed people of God that committed this terrible atrocity against the Son of God. And remember, it was in the name of God that the martyrs were put to death in the dark ages, and it will be in the name of God that commandment keepers, in the last days, will be boycotted and put under a death decree.

How does this come about? It comes about through the road of false charity. “Ministers of the gospel sometimes do great harm by allowing their forbearance toward the erring to degenerate into toleration of sins and even participation in them. Thus they are led to excuse and palliate that which God condemns, and after a time they become so blinded as to commend the very ones whom God commands them to reprove. He who has blunted his spiritual perceptions by sinful leniency toward those whom God condemns, will erelong commit a greater sin by severity and harshness toward those whom God approves.” Acts of the Apostles, 504. [All emphasis supplied.]

We must face the issue squarely. Do you think this warning is needed only in Roman Catholicism? Do you think it is needed only in the large Protestant churches? Or might it be possible that Adventists could be in danger on this question? Is there a liberalizing element among us that desires to make us more acceptable to other churches and to the world? Is there a false charity that manifests itself by calling reproof and rebuke of sin criticism and faultfinding, thereby clothing the servants of God, who are commanded to do this work, in filthy garments? (See Testimonies, vol. 1, 321.) Are there some who allow socially acceptable sins to come into the church unrebuked and undisciplined so that the church becomes polluted and even drunk with the wine of Babylon? (One of the central features of the wine of Babylon is allowing sin into the church and the doctrine that you can be saved while you are still sinning.)

Has not a false charity, a liberalizing element, which has attempted to make the church more acceptable to the professed Christian world, come into Adventism? Was not this the very reason that was given for the development of the evangelical conferences and the publishing of the book Questions on Doctrine? A positive answer to the previous question cannot be denied because this writer has heard the answer given in public from the lips of Elder R. A. Anderson himself, and the answer is yes.

Have there not been many instances when, instead of dealing with crimes or unethical behavior, in ministers or other workers in the denomination, we have simply moved the offenders to another conference or institution and allowed the evil to appear there? What has happened to the New Testament teaching that before sin is forgiven and the person restored to work or office in the church the sin must be confessed to the parties wronged, forsaken and restitution made, as far as possible? Have we come to a time when the standards among God’s professed people are not even as high as in some worldly organizations?

Whether it be in Rome, fifteen hundred years ago, or in the professed Protestants of our time, or even among professed Adventists, every influence of false charity, every effort that works to widen the door so that the sins of the world can come into the professed church, leads us down the road to persecution. This road leads its travelers to becoming a part of a persecuting movement.

Who Will Someday Oppose the Loud Cry?

In the Review and Herald Extra, December 23, 1890, the servant of the Lord spoke of the loud cry when the power of the last movement will bring a great multitude into the church, while, at the same time, many will be losing their way. (Editorial comments on the following statement by Ellen White are in brackets.) “There is to be in the churches a wonderful manifestation of the power of God, but it will not move upon those who have not humbled themselves before the Lord, and opened the door of the heart by confession and repentance. [If I have done something wrong I must repent and confess my wrong to those I have injured. And if I have injured the whole church then I must confess to the whole church. If I do not, even if I am retained in the work in a different area, I will not receive the latter rain or have a part in the Loud Cry. There is no statute of limitations in God’s law. Whenever it comes to my knowledge that I have committed a wrong, no matter how long ago, I am to repent and confess that wrong to the appropriate individuals and make restitution, as far as possible, if I am really serious about salvation.]

“In the manifestation of that power which lightens the earth with the glory of God, they will see only something which, in their blindness, they think dangerous, something which will arouse their fears, and they will brace themselves to resist it. Because the Lord does not work according to their ideas and expectations, they will oppose the work. ‘Why,’ they say, ‘should not we know the Spirit of God, when we have been in the work so many years?’—Because they did not respond to the warnings, the entreaties of the messages of God, but persistently said, ‘I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.’ [Why did they not respond to the warnings and entreaties of the messages of God? Because they called these warnings criticism and faultfinding and instead of yielding to the divine influence they called it the influence of the adversary. They referred to those bringing the message as fanatics, offshoots, extremists and legalists, and in so doing, braced themselves against the message of God until there was no further way to reach their heart and spirit.]

“Talent, long experience, will not make men channels of light, unless they place themselves under the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness, and are called, and chosen, and prepared by the endowment of the Holy Spirit. When men who handle sacred things [Notice that the people who reject the loud cry in this paragraph are described as ministers of talent and long experience.] will humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, the Lord will lift them up. He will make them men of discernment—men rich in the grace of His Spirit. Their strong, selfish traits of character, their stubbornness, will be seen in the light shining from the Light of the world. ‘I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.’ ”

Do you see the danger you and I are in? We may have been in this church for many years. We may have preached this message. We may have brought many into the truth. But if we allow the false charity of the Beast and his Image to get into our hearts, eventually we shall follow the Beast and his Image in resisting and opposing the very message of God which demands a cleaning up of the church, and a restoring of His straight testimony and the high standard. Which side will we be on in this closing conflict? Will we be with those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus or will we be with the Beast and his Image?

War Rather Than Compromise

Hebrews 1:9, speaking of Jesus, says, “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.” There is no such thing as really loving righteousness, without hating lawlessness. One can not be a child of God and a friend of the Devil. There is no such thing as working with God to cleanse the church from every lawless deed and at the same time sympathizing with elements that weaken the influence of the church in dealing with evil, until sin is tolerated in the church without protest. Those who do this will eventually embrace that which they once hated, because they chose to tolerate it in the interest of love (false charity) and unity.

It is better to stand alone and have war than to purchase peace by compromising and tolerating lawlessness. This is the exact decision that the Waldenses had to make. “After a long and severe conflict, the faithful few decided to dissolve all union with the apostate church if she still refused to free herself from falsehood and idolatry. They saw that separation was an absolute necessity if they would obey the word of God. They dared not tolerate errors fatal to their own souls, and set an example which would imperil the faith of their children and children’s children. To secure peace and unity they were ready to make any concession consistent with fidelity to God; but they felt that even peace would be too dearly purchased at the sacrifice of principle. If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war.

“Well would it be for the church and the world if the principles that actuated those steadfast souls were revived in the hearts of God’s professed people.” The Great Controversy, 45, 46.

We must be on the side of exalting the law of God as the standard and not allowing open sin to remain in the church unrebuked and undisciplined. If the church that you are attending will not tolerate the rebuke of sin, and the majority is determined to allow sin in the church, your marching orders are contained in the above statement. (Notice that this statement is written especially for Seventh-day Adventists.)

Wisdom From Leaders of the Past

Elder Wilcox, former Review editor, writing in the Review and Herald, June 26, 1947, gives Adventists the following warning: “Some today…fail to point out in their personal labor besetting sins which if not overcome, will shut men and women out of the kingdom of God. There is a failure to bear a strong and decided testimony against the attendance of the movies and theaters, skating rinks, and ice carnivals, against the desecration of the Sabbath, against robbery of God in tithes and offerings, against worldly and immodest dress, against the violation of health principles, against the growing divorce evil of severing the marriage relation for trivial causes, when the Bible permits it for but one reason; against the marriage of young men and women with unbelievers, a union that is strongly condemned in Scripture, against the seductive influence of fictional magazines and books, and equal sinful practice of listening to much that comes over the radio.”

He then asks, “Will not men and women who are fully converted forsake these sinful practices. They should indeed. But many do not recognize the true character of these evils and therefore need instruction regarding them.”

Here Elder Wilcox is dealing with the idea, which some well meaning people advance in the church, that all you need to do is preach Christ and pay no attention to the details of life. And he is hitting that right where it ought to be hit, laying the axe at the root of the tree. “Our church members should be earnestly and kindly warned of these influences, destructive to vital and living Christian experience. For lack of restraint, testimony which should be borne by some of our church leaders, these evils are increasing in our midst. Will not God hold us as His representatives responsible for failure in these matters? He surely will.”

Also applicable to our study is the address which Elder J. L. McElhany, former President of the General Conference, gave to Adventist educational leaders. He stated: “Would the pioneers know this movement if they should awaken. To me this is a very important question. Oh, some may say, ‘they were a lot of old fogies, they were out of date, they were entirely behind the times. Today’s standards have changed.’ This is a favorite expression with some, but I do not believe it. Too many of our young people today are being led into worldly conformity by some leaders who are themselves adhering to forms of worldly amusements. My friends I wish our young people could be kept away from all the beach parties, and nudity parades, and moving picture shows, and other questionable places where they ought not to go, but where they are sometimes led by their leaders.” Review and Herald, October 14, 1937.

What was the General Conference president talking about? Was he talking about what he saw going on, or merely a ghost that he was shooting at? Most of us can easily answer from our own experience. The godly are heart-burdened and greatly grieved as they see church standards lowered and the world coming in like a flood through a hole in the dyke. What side are you standing on? Are you protesting lawlessness? Are you openly in opposition (a true protestant) to “All acts of injustice that tend to shorten life; the spirit of hatred and revenge, or the indulgence of any passion that leads to injurious acts toward others, or causes us even to wish them harm (for ‘whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer’); a selfish neglect of caring for the needy or suffering; all self-indulgence or unnecessary deprivation or excessive labor that tends to injure health?” (Patriarchs and Prophets, 308.) Are you openly opposed not only to sensual thoughts and desires, but to any practice that tends to excite them? (Ibid.) Are you openly opposed to “every attempt to advantage yourself by the ignorance, weakness, or misfortune of another?” Ibid., 309. Do you abhor all intent to deceive, such as intentional overstatements, every hint or insinuation calculated to convey an erroneous or exaggerated impression and even the statement of facts in such a manner as to mislead? Will you tolerate without protest efforts to injure your neighbor’s reputation by misrepresentation or evil surmising, by slander or tale bearing or by the suppression of truth? (Ibid.) Has selfishness become abhorrent to you? Are you against it in any guise? Or are you willing to tolerate it and eventually call it good and finally disfellowship and persecute those who refuse to go along with it?

Do you see that we are on the road to persecution and we are so far down the road that persecution against the faithful started, in Adventism, years ago. We are all on the road to persecution. The only difference is that some of us are going to be among those persecuted for standing faithful and true to the principles of righteousness and truth vouchsafed to us by God Himself through the writings of the prophets and apostles. The others, by first seeking to supplement the authority of God with that of the church, and by enjoining what God has not forbidden, are now forbidding what He has explicitly enjoined and are at the place right now where they are ready to persecute their former brethren. The solemn truth is that there are only two groups. One is getting ready to be the persecuted and the rest are getting ready to be the persecutors. There is no third group. We must ask ourselves, which of these two groups are we in?

No Longer Brethren

When persecution takes place, the people who are persecuting you are not your brethren anymore. You may be attending the same church for a little while longer. You may have the same name and claim to believe the same doctrines. You may have attended the same schools. You may even have worked together in evangelism in the past, but you are no longer brethren for two reasons.

It is the followers, the disciples of Christ who are called brethren in Scripture (Matthew 23:8) and Christ never fights Himself. Christ in one person will never, even once, fight Christ in another person. When persecution takes place, a spiritual war is occurring and at least one side has to be motivated either by the natural carnal heart, which is by nature destined to wrath, or by the devil or his angels. When people were taken to the basement of the church and put on the rack, their tormentors were not their brethren. Since they were not the brethren, it should be more than obvious that they were not serving the same Lord and therefore they were not really members of the same church, no matter what the profession was.

Concerning the “elect church” (Desire of Ages, 680), Jesus said that He was their divine Lord and Master. (John 13:14–17.) Therefore, the two groups are not part of the same church, are not really brethren (although they may be so in name) and are not both going to be saved. “There [outside the Holy City at the end of the millenium] are papist priests and prelates, who claimed to be Christ’s ambassadors, yet employed the rack, the dungeon, and the stake to control the consciences of His people.… Christ identifies His interest with that of His suffering people; and they feel the force of His own words: ‘Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.’ Matthew 25:40.” The Great Controversy, 668.

It is impossible to be a disciple, one of the brothers of Christ (Hebrews 2:11) and a disciple of Satan at the same time. “With what amazement do angels hear men judging and condemning their brethren, causing them most cruel suffering of body and mind, and claiming that they do it under the sanction of God? Instead of being under the leadership of Christ, they are following the leadership of Satan. Paul at one time pursued this course, actually believing that he was doing God service; but Jesus spoke to him, and told him that in persecuting His saints he was persecuting Him. All persecution, all force employed to compel conscience, is after Satan’s own order; and those who carry out these designs are his agents to execute his hellish purpose. In following Satan’s cruel proposals, in becoming his agents, men become the enemies of God and His church.” Review and Herald, January 10, 1893. (It is time to discard shibboleths and think clearly. If you do not know who your brethren are or are not, your chances of falling in time of test are greatly increased. This has proven true in the past and will prove true in the future.)

From the Review and Herald of May 8, 1958, Elder Dickson declares: “We see dangerous trends resulting from a diminished spiritual emphasis in much of our service in all levels of the movement. The spiritual possessions that distinguished the Apostolic life of the early church and the pioneers of our faith have leaped from us to a very alarming degree. . . .There seems to be a fear of standing alone if necessary, in speaking forth against evils that are apparent. This fear of man and his power to demote and retaliate must be dismissed from among us. The domination of man must give way to the domination of God’s Holy Spirit.”

Are you standing true to the testimonies of the Holy Spirit, fearing not the face of man? Will you be one of those who stands for truth and righteousness even if the heavens seem to fall? Will you be true even if you are disfellowshipped, your reputation destroyed and you are finally persecuted, perhaps imprisoned or put to death by God’s professed people?

Rome began by adding much that God had never commanded, and she ended by forbidding obedience to God’s commandments. Rome began by introducing worldly trends under the plea of making it easier for the heathen to accept Christianity, and she ended by persecuting the very people, within the church, that stood up against that worldliness. Rome began with false charity by closing her eyes to sin in a plea for broad mindedness and brotherly love toward even the lawbreakers, and she ended up where? Showing brotherly love? No, certainly not!

Think of the crusades against the Waldensees and the Albigenses. Think of those thousands of armed troops who entered their villages with swords and spears and cut down men, women and children, until streams ran red with blood. Think of those who in inhuman cruelty hurled mothers and infants together over the cliffs to be dashed on the rocks below. How did that cruel persecution begin? With so called love and charity that would let sin linger on in the church.

Sin is a terrible thing. It is like the serpent, which when chilled may not seem to be very dangerous. But take that poisonous snake into your bosom, warm it with your loving interest, and it will turn and bite you. And so it is when sin is allowed into the church. Little do we realize what we are asking for when we allow the standards of God to be dragged down by the worldly element. Little do we realize what is ahead. Oh, that God may stir our hearts.

I urge you to a renewed study of the book The Great Controversy. May I urge a renewed study of how Rome began, and how these principles are working in the great religious movements of our day. And, may I urge that in our own Christian experience, we will pray that God will so completely purge us from this false charity that we will hate sin as God hates it, and love righteousness as God loves it.

A very important point we must remember when we study this subject is that we must never confuse the sinner with the sin. Jesus, while He hated sin, was always ready to forgive, and welcome the repentant sinner. The Prodigal son was welcomed home, but I want to tell you something, he did not bring his whisky and his harlots home with him. And the church of Christ is loving enough, and charitable enough to forgive the worst sinner, if he will come to Jesus and experience repentance, make confession to the wronged parties, forsake sin and make restitution as far as possible. In other words, He must receive cleansing from his sins by the blood of Christ and have his heart purified by the Holy Spirit so that the guilt and enslaving power of his sinful life is in the past. The gate of heaven is narrow, too narrow to admit one cherished sin remaining in the heart. (See Our High Calling, 38.)

Let us pray for ourselves that we will be purged from sin. Let us pray that God will bless in holding back the flood of persecution that is about to sweep over this world. Let us pray that God will bless the Second Advent movement—God’s remnant in these latter days—the apple of His eye. Let us pray that God will sustain those who are enduring the present shaking time, who are giving the trumpet a certain sound, reproving and rebuking lawlessness even though it is costing them their jobs and they are threatened with hostile legal actions, fines and imprisonment from so-called “brethren” in “the church.” Let us pray that God’s true watchmen will continue to seek to uplift the standard to the level of the divine blueprint. And let us pray that He will bless us all with that love for righteousness and that hatred for lawlessness which will identify us, in the judgment, as belonging to Christ, not just in name, but in a character of righteousness and holiness.

God’s Sacred Treasure

by

In 1 Kings 17, an enlightening story is recorded from the life of Elijah. The story took place during the time when the land of Israel was under the curse of God and was not receiving any rain or dew because of their rebellion against the God of heaven.

At the beginning of this three and a half year period, when it did not rain, the Lord sent Elijah to hide by the Brook Cherith to escape the grasp of King Ahab who was seeking for him all over the land. However, eventually, the brook dried up, and God gave Elijah further instructions. Notice: “And it happened after a while that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land. Then the word of the Lord came to him, Saying, ‘Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and dwell there. See, I have commanded a widow there to provide for you.’ ” 1 Kings 17: 7–9.

Elijah was sent out of the land of Israel to one of the most wicked areas of the world. There in Zarephath, Elijah met the widow who was out gathering sticks to make a final meal for herself and her son. Despite her desperate situation, this widow shared what little she had with the prophet, and as a result wonderful things happened. The Bible records: “So she went away and did according to the word of Elijah; and she and he and her household ate for many days. The bin of flour was not used up, nor did the jar of oil run dry, according to the word of the Lord which He spoke by Elijah.” 1 Kings 17:15, 16.

And this was not the only blessing she received from the Lord because she willingly gave her all. The story is later told of how her only son died. In her great distress she went to the prophet Elijah and he cried to the Lord and said, “ ‘O, Lord my God, have You also brought tragedy on the widow with whom I lodge, by killing her son?’…Then the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived. And Elijah took the child and brought him down from the upper room into the house, and gave him to his mother. And Elijah said, ‘See your son lives.’ Then the woman said to Elijah, ‘Now by this I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is the truth.’ ” 1 Kings 17:20–24.

Notice, God sent His prophet to a woman who was very poor; so poor that she was at the point of starvation. When she granted Elijah’s request for a meal, she showed confidence in the man of God that had come and asked a favor of her. Before she received a favor from God, she had to demonstrate her faith.

Isn’t it interesting that God chose to send His servant to such a poor household to be sustained during this difficult time? I am sure there were plenty of rich people close by who had houses and servants and silver and gold, but God ordained that His servant should be sustained by a poor widow woman. It is an amazing thing, but over and over again I have seen the Lord’s work sustained by the widows and the orphans. Why is this? Is it because God needs the resources of the widows and orphans? No. The money is not important to the Lord. It is the motive of the giver that is important in His eyes.

Ellen White wrote about this in Testimonies, vol. 3, 382: “God could have reached His object in saving sinners without the aid of man. He knew that man could not be happy without acting a part in the great work in which he would be cultivating self-denial and benevolence. That man might not lose the blessed results of benevolence, our Redeemer formed the plan of enlisting him as His co-worker.” God could finish the work without any of our help, but it is His desire that we learn the lesson of benevolence and self-denial so He gives us the blessing of assisting with His work.

“Every good thing of earth was placed here by the bountiful hand of God as an expression of His love to man. The poor are His, and the cause of religion is His. He has placed means in the hands of men, that His divine gifts may flow through human channels in doing the work appointed us in saving our fellow men. Everyone has His appointed work in the great field; and yet none should receive the idea that God is dependent upon man. He could speak the word and every son of poverty would be made rich. In a moment of time He could heal the human race of all their diseases. He might dispense with ministers altogether and make angels the ambassadors of His truth. He might have written the truth upon the firmament, or imprinted it upon the leaves of the trees and upon the flowers of the field; or He might with an audible voice have proclaimed it from heaven. But the all wise God did not choose any of these ways. He knew that man must have something to do in order that life might be a blessing to him. The gold and silver are the Lord’s, and He could rain them from heaven if He chose; but instead of this He has made man His steward, entrusting him with means, not to be hoarded, but to be used in benefiting others. He thus makes man the medium through which to distribute His blessings on earth. God planned the system of beneficence in order that man might become, like his Creator, benevolent and unselfish in character, and finally be a partaker with Him of the eternal, glorious reward.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 472, 473.

In all of God’s dealings with His creatures, His purpose is our sanctification, the development of our characters that we might become like Him in character—unselfish and benevolent. It is His desire that our constant impulse will be to do something to bless someone else. And if we follow His instructions, with humble faith and obedience, the result will be the perfection of our characters. The problem is that so often we are haphazard or lackadaisical and do not follow God’s instructions exactly. Then we do not reap the benefits that He desires to bestow on us.

The Tithing Plan

God has given implicit instructions in regard to our stewardship of both time and money. The fourth commandment deals with time and the tithing plan, taught throughout the Old and New Testaments, giving us instruction about our money.

Tithe is first mentioned in regard to Abraham in Genesis 14. Here the Bible records that Abraham “gave him [Melchizedek] a tithe of all.” So it is clear that Abraham understood the tithing plan.

In Genesis 28 we read concerning the experience of Jacob: “Then Jacob made a vow, saying, ‘If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God. And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.’ ” Genesis 28:20–22. Jacob also understood the tithing plan.

The Lord gave Moses very explicit instructions about the use of the tithe. He said, “Behold I have given the children of Levi all the tithes in Israel as an inheritance in return for the work which they perform, the work of the tabernacle of meeting.” Numbers 18:21.

Because the Levities were faithful to God during the golden-calf apostasy, the Lord gave them a special blessing—the responsibility of the care of the sanctuary. Instead of giving them an inheritance of property, in the Promised Land, the Lord instructed that they should be sustained by the tithe.

Paul wrote about this in 1 Corinthians 9:13–14: “Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.”

The apostle taught that just as the Levites, in the Old Covenant, received the tithes for the work that they did in the sanctuary, those who preach the gospel, in the New Covenant, are to live of the gospel (from the tithe). The Bible clearly tells us how and for what purposes the tithe is to be spent. Through God’s special messenger for the last days the Lord sent even more explicit instructions about where the tithe is and is not to be used. We will look at several important passages.

“The Lord has specified: the tenth of all your possessions is Mine; your gifts and offerings are to be brought into the treasury, to be used to advance My cause, to send the living preacher to open the Scriptures to those who sit in darkness.” The Youth’s Instructor, August 26, 1897.

“ And He says to us, ‘A portion of the money I have enabled you to gain is Mine. Put it into the treasury in tithes, in gifts and offerings, that there may be meat in Mine house,—that there may be something to sustain those who carry the gospel of My grace to the world.’ ” The Review and Herald, May 9, 1893.

“Instruction has been given me that there is a withholding of the tithe that should be faithfully brought into the Lord’s Treasury, for the support of the ministers and missionaries who are opening the Scriptures to the people and working from house to house.” The Review and Herald, April 20, 1905.

“The people today are to remember that the house of worship is God’s property and that it is to be scrupulously cared for. But the funds for this work are not to come from the tithe. The tithe is to be used for one purpose—to sustain the ministers whom the Lord has appointed to do His work.” Echoes from the Field, June 21, 1905.

Ellen White made it clear that these ministers, or workers, could be men or women. When there were some who insisted that minister’s wives should not be paid even though they were working just as effectively as their husbands, she gave this strong rebuke. “There are ministers’ wives…who have been devoted, earnest, whole soul workers, giving Bible readings and praying with families, helping along by personal efforts just as successfully as their husbands. These women give their whole time, and are told that they receive nothing for their labors because their husbands receive their wages. I tell them to go forward and all such decisions shall be reversed.

“The Word says, ‘The laborer is worthy of his hire.’ When any such decision as this is made, I will in the name of the Lord, protest. I will feel it my duty to create a fund from my tithe money, to pay these women who are accomplishing just as essential work as the ministers are doing, and this tithe I will reserve for work in the same line as that of the ministers, hunting for souls, fishing for souls. I know that the faithful women should be paid wages proportionate to the pay received by ministers. They carry the burden of souls, and should not be treated unjustly. These sisters are giving their time to educating those newly come to the faith, and hire their own work done, and pay those who work for them. All these things must be adjusted and set in order, and justice be done to all.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, 360.

Why We Lack Ministers

Ellen White warned that a great mistake is made when the tithe is withdrawn from the object for which it is to be used and she described the results that have followed. “There is a lack of ministers because ministers have not been encouraged. Some ministers who have been sent to foreign lands, to enter fields never before worked, have been given the instruction, ‘You must sustain yourselves. We have not the means with which to support you.’ This ought not to be if the tithe, with gifts and offerings, was brought into the treasury. When a man enters the ministry, he is to be paid from the tithe enough to sustain his family. He is not to feel that he is a beggar.…The tithe is sacred, reserved by God for Himself. It is to be brought into His treasury to be used to sustain the gospel laborers in their work.

“The tithe is to be used for the support of the ministry. The opening of new fields requires more ministerial efficiency than we now have and there must be means in the treasury.” Echoes from the Field, June 21, 1905.

We are living in strange times. Now, probably more than any previous time in Adventism, this plain instruction is being overlooked and people are spending their tithe for all sorts of projects. And the result is that people that are trained to do Bible work cannot engage in the work full time because they do not receive enough to support their families. Many times I have seen qualified gospel workers spending their days working as computer technicians, nurses or carpenters in order to feed and clothe their families and then trying to work for the Lord in the time that remains. At the same time, we receive calls from people all over the country who are seeking for historic Adventist ministers and Bible workers to serve in their churches. The truth is that there are almost no historic Adventist ministers and the reason can be summarized as follows:

The leaders in the revival and reformation movement in Adventism have often refused to organize home churches. And when the home churches were organized, they were not organized into sisterhoods of churches that could help each other. As a result, only those churches large enough to support a pastor of their own could have pastors at all.

Now, if congregational church government is all you have, and that is all that Seventh-day Adventists had at one time, that, of course, is better than total disorganization, but we have never taught congregational church government. We have always believed in full New Testament church organization where the local churches work together for the common good of the cause of God. And we must face the facts squarely. The work of revival and reformation in Adventism is years behind where it could be if all historic Adventist believers would cease the rebellion against New Testament church organization and learn how to work together to plan more organized outreach and distribution of tithe in harmony with inspired counsel. We have to recognize the sad fact that God’s work is lame because of a lack of New Testament church organization.

Of course, the Lord is able to finish His work whether the work is lame or not. We read in Micah 4:6, 7: “‘In that day,’ says the Lord, ‘I will assemble the lame, I will gather the outcast and those whom I have afflicted; I will make the lame a remnant, and the outcast a strong nation; so the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion from now on, even forever.’”

The Lord is able to gather those that are lame, those that are outcasts and have been disfellowshiped from their local churches, into a mighty army to finish His work. The Lord is not dependent on you or me to finish His work. His work will go forward. But the problem is, if we do not follow divine instruction, we will not reap the blessings that God wants us to have. The Lord does not want us to work in a haphazard way. The Lord wants us to come into working order.

The Need for Human Workers

We can spend millions of dollars for all kinds of good projects—radio, television, literature—and I believe in all of these projects, but we will never finish the work with those means alone. The work can only be finished by human workers. That is the way God has ordained it. All of these other methods only plant the seeds, and then human reapers are necessary to gather in the harvest.

A farmer would never spend thousands of dollars to plant a crop which he had no way to harvest. Yet that is what is done in God’s work all the time. People spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to plant seeds when there is no provision to send workers to reap the harvest. And then people wonder why there is so little harvest. One of the reasons is because the tithe is not being used to train and hire reapers to go out and reap the harvest.

Ellen White wrote, “The tithe is the Lord’s, and those who meddle with it will be punished with the loss of their heavenly treasure unless they repent. Let the work no longer be hedged up because the tithe has been diverted into various channels other than the one to which the Lord has said it should go.…The opening of new fields requires more ministerial efficiency than we now have, and there must be means in the treasury.” Echoes from the Field, June 21, 1905.

“The light which the Lord has given me on this subject, is that the means in the treasury for the support of the ministers in the different fields is not to be used for any other purpose.” Special Testimonies for Ministers and Workers, 18. (See also Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, 193.)

A Blessing or a Curse

God is able to bless His people when they obey Him, but when they disobey they are under His curse. In the Old Testament, the Lord told His people that they were under a curse because they were not returning the tithe. Notice what it says in Malachi the third chapter. “Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house.”

God has a specific purpose for the tithe. Hundreds and thousands of laborers are needed, and God has provided for their support if men will simply listen to the divine instructions. “The Lord regards the tithe as His own, to be used for a certain purpose.…” It “should be used only, to sustain the ministers in new fields as well as in other places.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 193.

“Let none feel at liberty to retain their tithe to use according to their own judgment. They are not to use it for themselves in any emergency nor to apply it as they see fit, even in what they may regard as the Lord’s work.” Testimonies, vol. 9, 247.

We are not to use the tithe haphazardly or just decide we are going to use it on some missionary project that we see fit. We are to look and see what the divine instruction is and follow it.

We must be careful that we do not use the tithe simply for things like church expense. Ellen White gave much counsel on this. She wrote, “The writers supposed that they were authorized to use the tithe-money in meeting the expenses of the church, as these expenses were quite heavy. From that which has been shown me, the tithe is not to be withdrawn from the treasury. Every penny of this money is the Lord’s own sacred treasure to be appropriated for a special use.” Special Testimonies for Ministers and Workers, Number 10, 12.

“I have been shown case after case where men are working in the ministry, who are just as deserving of their wages as those who are employed in the publishing houses, are left without sufficient means to support their families.…Let not those to whom are entrusted responsibilities, allow the treasury that God has appointed to sustain the ministers in the field, to be robbed to supply the expenses incurred in keeping in order and making comfortable the house of God..” Special Testimony to the Oakland and Battle Creek Churches, 11.

A Solemn Warning

In another place this startling warning is given.

“When the Lord’s portion which He has reserved as His own in tithes and offerings is used for common purposes while the church is displaying a love of self-indulgence and selfish gratification, the Lord will not, cannot bless churches and will withdraw His spirit from all who serve themselves and dishonor God.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, 185.

This is one of the most frightful statements in the Spirit of Prophecy about the tithe question. If we take the tithe and we misappropriate it, God will not and He cannot bless our churches and He will withdraw His spirit from them.

Is there any use in even having a church if you do not have God’s spirit there? Of course not, “for the presence of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church.” Upward Look, 315. Do you realize, then, just how important it is that tithe be used for its divinely intended purpose?

“Those who have used the tithe money to supply the common necessities of the house of God, have taken the money that should go to sustain ministers in doing His work, in preparing the way for Christ’s second appearing. Just as surely as you do this work, you misapply the resources which God has told you to retain in His treasure house, that it may be full to be used in His service. This work is something of which all who have taken a part in should be ashamed. They have used their influence to withdraw from God’s treasury a fund that is consecrated to a sacred purpose. From those who do this, the blessing of the Lord will be removed.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 183. This is a serious matter. Tithe is sacred and we are not to take it and appropriate it to whatever project we deem best. Tithe is to be used to support the gospel ministry.

There is a desperate need among historic Adventists today for the churches to work together so that the tithe is used to enable gospel laborers to go forward. Because of a lack of New Testament organization, people do not know where to send their tithe, so they send it to this ministry or that ministry or it goes to this or that good project, but it is not distributed to the gospel workers in the field, as we are told, in the Spirit of Prophecy, that it should be. A reform must be made before the end of time. We cannot go into the kingdom the way we are right now because we are not in harmony with divine counsel in regard to tithes and offerings.

There is going to be a people who will follow God’s instruction. Maybe it will be just the poor people like the widow of Zarephath. But there is going to be a people that are going to listen to what God says and determine to follow it exactly, and they will receive a priceless blessing from the Lord. But God is not going to use people to finish His work that are taking His tithe and using it to sue the brethren or for all kinds of projects that He has not ordained. It is time for a reform. The question is, How is it going to be with you when the world closes up? Will you be under God’s blessing or under His curse? Part of that depends on how you spend your money and what you do with God’s tithe.

The Birth of an Image, Part I

by

The thirty-fourth session of the General Conference convened at Battle Creek, Michigan, April 2 through April 23, 1901. This was an important General Conference session because it involved not only a major reorganization of the Church, but it was the first General Conference Ellen White had attended in 10 years.

“A feeling of exhilaration and excitement filled the air on Tuesday morning, April 2, as workers and church members began to assemble in the Battle Creek Tabernacle a little before nine o’clock,” Arthur White wrote. “This would be the largest General Conference session ever held.” Arthur L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 70.

There were 267 delegates at the 1901 General Conference session. The Church at that time had a membership of about 75,000: four-fifths of which were in the United States. The organization of the Church in 1901 consisted of only local Conferences and a General Conference. The “General Conference had remained unchanged from 1863 to 1901.” Ibid. It was time for a change, for a reorganization of the Church structure. Shortly after the “most precious message” was given to the Church by Waggoner and Jones in 1888, Ellen White stated that there was a wrong principle of power at the head of the Church and that this principle needed to be changed.

“For years the church has been looking to man and expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of eternal life are centered,” Ellen White wrote. “Therefore God gave to His servants [Waggoner and Jones] a testimony that presented the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the Third Angel’s Message in clear, distinct lines.” Letter to O. A. Olsen, dated at Hobart, Tasmania, May 1, 1895; 1888 Materials, 1338.

“The result of this has been in various ways. The sacred character of the cause of God is no longer realized at the center of the work. The voice from Battle Creek, which has been regarded as authority in counseling how the work should be done, is no longer the voice of God; but it is the voice of—whom? From whence does it come, and where is its vital power? This state of things is maintained by men who should have been disconnected from the work long ago. These men do not scruple to quote the word of God as their authority, but the god who is leading them is a false god.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, 185, 186. [Emphasis supplied.]

“As the institutional interests in Battle Creek grew, businessmen were drawn in to head them, and a strong center developed,” Arthur White wrote. “A General Conference Executive Committee, beginning with three members in 1863, some twenty years later was increased to five.” Arthur L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 71.

There were seven members on the General Conference Committee in 1887. Two more members were added in 1889, and two more in 1893. By the opening of the 1901 General Conference session the Executive Committee numbered thirteen. The last two had been added at the 1899 General Conference session. (See Ibid.)

Although the Church had grown in size, the number of leading men at headquarters had not kept pace with the growth. A small group of men controlled the Church at Battle Creek. The 1901 delegation was to move forward with the establishment of Union Conferences between the local State Conferences and the General Conference.

Guard Against Consolidating and Centralizing the Work

“Beginning with 1889 certain measures were strongly promoted to consolidate and centralize various features of the denominational work,” Arthur White wrote. “This would begin with the publishing interests and then reach out to the educational and medical lines.” Ibid., 72.

Although some wished to consolidate and centralize the work of the denomination, the counsel from Ellen White was against centralization. Testimony after testimony was given against centralization.

“It is not the purpose of God to centralize in this way, bringing all the interests of one branch of the work under the management of a comparatively few men,” Ellen White wrote. “In His great purpose of advancing the cause of truth in the earth, He designs that every part of His work shall blend with every other part.” Spalding and Magan Collection, 404.

“The workers are to draw together in the Spirit of Christ,” Ellen White concluded. “In their diversity, they are to preserve unity. . . . The work of direction is to be left with the great Manager, while obedience to the work of the Lord is to be the aim of His workers.” Ibid., 404.

Notice that their unity was to be in their “diversity.” No one was to rule over the other. Their unity was in Christ and the truth. Christ, not man, is the Head, “the great Manager,” of the work and the Church.

Not only were Adventists counseled not to centralize the work, it was also not God’s plan that the Advent people should centralize their homes in one place. The plan was to spread out, to take the Advent truth to all the world.

“It is not the Lord’s plan to centralize largely in any one place,” Ellen White counseled. “The time has passed when there should be any binding about of the work and confining it to a few places.” The Publishing Ministry, 146.

In 1901, the Review and Herald publishing house at Battle Creek was in dire need of a complete overhaul. The Press was involved in commercial printing and because of this policy the publishing and sale of message-filled books suffered during this period. The policy was that any material would be published that would bring a profit to the Review and Herald Publishing house.

“This included fiction, Wild West stories, Roman Catholic books, and works on sex and hypnosis,” Arthur White wrote. “When cautioned, men in positions of management at the Review office declared that they were printers and not censors.” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 72.

The Adventist structure is in the very same situation today. The new Seventh-day Adventist publishing house in Russia is required by the State to publish the religious books of other denominations. Like the Review and Herald Publishing house in the 1890s, this includes, Roman Catholic books, Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and even works of spiritualism! Not only that, but this new publishing house in Russia had to have the endorsement of Billy Graham before the Soviet government would permit the General Conference to build the publishing house. The Soviet government would also retain 51 percent of the publishing house; thus the Soviet government would have final control in any dispute.

The Cleansing Fire

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked,” the apostle Paul warned, “for whatsoever a man [or church] soweth, that shall he also reap.” Galatians 6:7. Is it any wonder that on December 30, 1902, the Lord sent His angels to torch the main building of the Review and Herald publishing plant.

“Before the fire came which swept away the Review and Herald factory, I was in distress for many days. I was in distress while the council was in session, laboring to get the right matter before the meeting, hoping, if it were a possible thing, to call our brethren to repentance, and avert calamity. It seemed to me that it was almost a life and death question. It was then that I saw the representation of danger,—a sword of fire turning this way and that way. I was in an agony of distress. The next news was that the Review and Herald building had been burned by fire, but that not one life had been lost. In this the Lord spoke mercy with judgment. The mercy of God was mingled with judgment to spare the lives of the workers, that they might do the work which they had neglected to do, and which it seemed impossible to make them see and understand.” General Conference Bulletin, April 6, 1903.

Have times changed? Will the Lord still visit His people again in judgement?

“And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem [the Church] with candles, and punish the men that are settled on their lees: that say in their heart, The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil.” Zephaniah 1:12.

“He who presides over His church and the destinies of nations is carrying forward the last work to be accomplished for this world. To His angels He gives the commission to execute His judgments.” Testimonies to Ministers, 431.

“Let the ministers awake, let them take in the situation,” Ellen White warned. “The work of judgment begins at the sanctuary.” Ibid.

“Notwithstanding the condition of things at the publishing house, a suggestion had been made to bring still more of our work to the Review Office, still more power into Battle Creek,” Ellen White continued. “This greatly alarmed me, and when the fire came, I breathed easier than I had for a long time.” General Conference Bulletin, April 6, 1903.

“We were thankful that no lives were lost,” Ellen White stated. “There was a large loss of property. Again and again the Lord had shown me that for every dollar that was accumulated by unjust means, there would be ten times as much lost.” Ibid.

Ellen White’s Concern About the 1901 General Conference

The delegates gathered at the 1901 General Conference session with apprehension. They sensed that something important would happen at this session. Ellen White would be present at this General Conference for the first time in ten years .

“All were profoundly thankful that Ellen White was to be there, and she carried a heavy burden for the meeting,” Arthur White wrote. “It was this conference with its challenges and its opportunities that had in a large part led Ellen White to close up her work in Australia and hasten back to the United States.” Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 73.

A New Constitution

At the 1901 General Conference session, a new constitution was voted by the delegates. The two most important changes in this constitution from the previous constitution was as follows:

No General Conference President

The first action established a twenty-five man General Conference Committee instead of a thirteen man committee. The constitution abolished the office of a General Conference President, and established in its place the office of a General Conference “chairman.”

Another important aspect was that no officer of the General Conference committee was to serve more than two years. This would do away with one man at the head of the Church. This was a major move away from the form of government retained by the Papacy for over six hundred years when in 533 a.d., Justinian, the Roman emperor, decreed that the Bishop of Rome was supreme over all other Bishops of the Church.

Union Conferences

The second important change established Union Conferences. The Church prior to 1901 had only local State Conferences and a General Conference. This was still not perfect, but would decentralize ecclesiastical authority to a great degree. Under Article #2 it was stated that, “The object of this Conference shall be to unify and to extend to all parts of the world, the work of promulgating the everlasting gospel.” General Conference Bulletin, vol. IV, First Quarter, April 22, 1901. Extra No. 17, 378.

The New General Conference Executive Committee

Article #4, titled, “Executive Committee,” Section 1, stated in part: The Executive Committee of this Conference shall be twenty-five in number, and shall have power to organize itself by choosing a chairman, secretary, treasurer, and auditor, whose duties shall be such as usually pertain to their respective offices. It shall also have the power to appoint all necessary agents and committees for the conduct of its work.” Ibid.

The election of officers and the time they would serve was stated under Section #2: “The Executive Committee shall be elected at the regular sessions of the Conference, and shall hold office for the term of two years, or until their successors are elected, and appear to enter upon their duties.” Ibid.

Current Objection To the 1901 Constitution

Term-limits have never been popular by those holding office. This is true, not only in church offices, but also in the political debates of the day. In his history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Arthur White objected to this form of church government. He believed that the 1901 Constitution was “weak” on the point of a General Conference chairman versus a General Conference President, and the idea of term limits for those holding office. He wrote: “But there was one weakness in the new constitution that did not show up clearly when it was adopted,” Arthur White wrote. “It was to cause considerable concern in the months that followed. This related to the election of the officers of the General Conference.” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 95.

This “weakness” however, was the opinion of Arthur White. Obviously, it was not the opinion of the duly authorized delegates of the 1901 General Conference session who voted the constitution into law. Neither was it the opinion of Ellen White who was present at that General Conference session.

“I was never more astonished in my life than at the turn things have taken at this meeting. This is not our work. God has brought it about. Instruction regarding this was presented to me, but until the sum was worked out at this meeting, I could not comprehend this instruction. God’s angels have been walking up and down in this congregation. I want every one of you to remember this, and I want you to remember also that God has said that He will heal the wounds of His people.” General Conference Bulletin, April 25, 1901.

“According to the new constitution, the delegates attending a General Conference session were empowered to elect the General Conference Committee; this committee in turn was to organize itself, electing its own officers,” Arthur White wrote. “It was recognized at the time that this could mean that a man might be chairman for only one year.” Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 95.

Notice that Arthur White’s real objection to the 1901 Constitution centered on the part that “a man might be chairman for only one year,” and that a new chairman would be elected each year thereafter. This is still the objection of leadership today.

“Undoubtedly this provision came about as an overreaction to the desire to get away from any ‘kingly power’ (Letter 49, 1903),” Arthur White observed, “a point that was pushed hard by Elder A. T. Jones, a member of the committee on organization.” Ibid.

Arthur White suggested that the idea of a new General Conference chairman elected each year, “Undoubtedly…came about as an overreaction to the desire to get away from any ‘kingly power.’” Then he gives reference to a testimony from Ellen White, Letter 49, dated 1903, which was not written until two years later. If indeed there was overreaction to the “kingly power” stated in Ellen White’s testimony, then how could the delegates of 1901 overreact to a testimony that had not been given, indeed, that would not be written for two more years?

Notice also that once again Seventh-day Adventist historians, in their desire to alter history, try to attribute the responsibility or blame for an action they see as false on the shoulders of one man. Arthur White used this method when he stated that it was A. T. Jones who “pushed hard” for the idea of a new General Conference chairman elected each year, rather than a continual office of chairman that would keep one man in the office for years. Indeed, if it was A. T. Jones’ urging that caused the 267 delegates to see the wisdom that no one man should be the head of the church, and if his urging helped the delegates to vote it into the new Constitution of 1901, then A. T. Jones should be commended, not condemned. Did not Ellen White state that, “This is not our work. God has brought it about.” Are we not true Protestants? Do we still believe in a country without a king, and a church without a Pope? Are we like Israel of old, continually demanding a visible king over the Church?

“While this arrangement would clearly reduce the possibility of anyone exercising kingly power, it also greatly undercut responsible leadership,” Arthur White lamented. “It went too far, for it took out of the hands of the delegates attending the General Conference session the vital responsibility of electing the leaders of the church and instead placed this responsibility in the hands of the General Conference Executive Committee of twenty-five.” White added further that the new Constitution was “too unwieldy,” and, “There was no church leader with a mandate from the church as represented by its delegates.” Ibid.

The new Constitution did not take “out of the hands of the delegates attending the General Conference session the vital responsibility of electing the leaders of the church,” as Arthur White stated. The delegates elected the twenty-five members of the General Conference Committee. The twenty-five man Committee then chose their own “chairman,” this person to be replaced each year. Arthur White lamented the fact that the General Conference delegates could not choose who was to be the chairman of the General Conference Committee, and that this “chairman” could not serve for long periods of time. Of course, this thinking would only reestablish the old Constitution which provided for a permanent President of the General Conference.

Arthur White admitted that “this arrangement would clearly reduce the possibility of anyone exercising kingly power,” but he believed that the new Constitution “was too unwieldy.” Unfortunately, White then argued for a one-man ruler of the Church. He stated that with this new Constitution, “There was no church leader with a mandate.” That was the idea of the new Constitution, was it not? There was to be no one man at the head of the Church with a mandate from God or man. This would be establishing a Pope, an image of the Papacy!

“That some of the delegates attending the session of 1901 were not clear on this point is evidenced in the insistence that the Committee elect the chairman and announce their decision before that session closed,” White wrote. “A. G. Daniells was chosen as chairman of the General Conference Committee.” Ibid. White added further that, “He was the leader of the church and nearly all the delegates were pleased, but they did not discern at this point how he would be crippled in his work, having no tenure and no mandate.” Ibid.

Arthur White was correct in stating that Daniells was to have no “tenure or mandate.” It was the twenty-five man Executive Committee that was to have a “tenure” and a “mandate” to oversee the work. The chairman was merely to preside over the conference session. Daniells was never to be the leader of the Church; Jesus Christ is the leader of the Church. He was merely the chairman of the General Conference Committee, not the Pope of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

As stated before, the chairman was to hold this office for one year, after which a new chairman would be elected the following year. However, history reveals that Daniells assumed himself President of the General Conference and wrote a new constitution that was voted into law two years later at the 1903 General Conference session. This “new” 1903 Constitution officially established Daniells in the office of President of the General Conference, which office he held for over twenty years!

“He [Daniells] assumed the presidency of the General Conference in 1901 at a difficult period in the history of the church,” the SDA Encyclopedia states. “In 1922 he relinquished the presidency of the General Conference and held the post of secretary for four years.” Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Second Revised Edition, 1995.

“To take the position that Ellen White’s urging that there be no kings meant, as interpreted by A. T. Jones, that the church should have no General Conference president was unjustified,” Arthur White wrote. “At no time had the messages from her called for the abolition of the office of president of the General Conference; rather her messages recognized such an office in the organization of the church.” Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 95. To substantiate this claim, Arthur White directed the reader to Testimonies to Ministers, 95, 96. Again, this testimony rebuking “kingly power” was written two years after the 1901 Constitution was voted!

“An earlier statement indicated that she understood that the work devolving upon the president of the General Conference was too large for one man to carry and that others should stand by his side to assist (Testimonies to Ministers, 342, 343),” Arthur White wrote. “She did condemn the exercise of kingly power.” Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 95, 96.

Arthur White tried to establish that A. T. Jones was the only one of the 267 delegates who believed that there should be “no kings,” no General Conference president. The 1901 General Conference Bulletin states that the Constitution was “voted unanimously” by the 267 delegates. A. T. Jones did not vote the new Constitution in by himself!

White stated that the idea that “the church should have no General Conference president was unjustified,” and that at no time had Ellen White “called for the abolition of the office of president of the General Conference.” Arthur White tried to establish that Ellen White endorsed the idea of a General Conference president by quoting an “earlier” statement. (Testimonies to Ministers, 342, 343). He stated that in this earlier statement Ellen White “recognized such an office in the organization of the church.”

Just because Ellen White recognized that there was a General Conference president at an earlier time, does not prove that she endorsed the idea. Indeed, she did state that “the president of the General Conference was too large for one man to carry and that others should stand by his side to assist.” This would have been true also of a General Conference chairman. Ellen White did acknowledge the office of president while it existed, but when the office was abolished at the 1901 General Conference session she stated, “This is not our work. God has brought it about.”

“The weakness, which soon became very apparent, was corrected at the next session of the General Conference,” Arthur White concluded, “the session of 1903.” Ibid.

We must now examine the 1903 General Conference Bulletin for ourselves to find out what was “corrected” at the next session of the General Conference.

To be concluded next month

Are You a Living Stone?

by

Some of the most misunderstood verses in all of the New Testament are found in Matthew 16. In this chapter Jesus asks His disciples who He is and Peter, answering Him, in verse 16, said: “ ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (Petra) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:16–19.

The word “petros” that is translated Peter, means a stone. “And on this Petra (a very large boulder or rock) I will build My church.” On what Rock is the church built? Peter knew the Rock upon which the church was built. He wrote: “Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, ‘Behold I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame. Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” 1 Peter 2:4–8. Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone upon which the church is built. (To see that this authority was given to the whole church, and not Peter alone, see also Ephesians 2:19–22; Matthew 21:44.)

Even though we clearly understand who the rock is, Christ’s command in Matthew 16 has still been difficult for many to understand. Jesus told Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19. Here Jesus gave the Christian church enormous authority—authority which involves eternal life. (See also Matthew 18:18; John 20:19–23.)

I believe that the reason we have had such a difficult time understanding this verse is because we have not paid careful attention to who and what constitutes Christ’s church. We are in big trouble if we do not know who and what the church is, because the church has the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

It was by means of these Scriptures that the Bishops of Rome attained authority over the then-known world, during the Dark Ages. Dissidents, Bible-believing Christians, were tortured or burned at the stake. Robes and miters, with pictures of demons, snakes and devils painted on them, were placed upon them. Then the bishops would say, “Not only are you going to die, but we are consigning you to hell and you will burn forever.” By means of these Scripture texts, peasants, kings and nations submitted to the Roman authority.

However, many have failed to realize that this authority, which Christ conveyed upon the Christian church, has three big qualifications.

  1. The people that have the authority must have received the Holy Spirit. (See John 20.)
  2. They must have been taught of God. (See Matthew 16.)
  3. And they must follow the principles of gospel order. (See Matthew 18.)

Words From the Reformers

To help us better understand these qualifications, I will share with you what the reformers taught about the church to whom Christ gave this solemn authority.

John Knox, a Scottish reformer, said that the church was “a divinely originated, a divinely enfranchised and a divinely governed society. Its members were all those who made profession of the gospel; its law was the Bible, and its king was Christ.” The History of Protestantism, vol.2, 496, by J. A. Wylie.

Jesus Christ established the church and is the head of it. Olaf Petri (Paterson), a Protestant reformer in the Land of Sweden, said that the church was the body of Christ, and that believers were the members of that body. The question was whether the Pope and Prelates had the power to cast out of the church those that were its living members and in whose hearts dwelt the Holy Spirit, by faith. This he simply denied. “To God alone it belonged to save the believing, and to condemn the unbelieving. The Bishops could neither give nor take away the Holy Ghost. They could not change those who were the sons of God into sons of Gehenna. The power conferred in the eighteenth chapter of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, he maintained, was simply declaratory; what the minister had power to do, was to announce the solace or loosing of the gospel to the penitent, and its correction or cutting off to the impenitent. He who persists in his impenitence is excommunicated, not by man, but by the Word of God, which shows him to be bound in his sin ’til he repent. The power of binding and loosing was, moreover, given to the church, and not by any individual man, or body of men. Ministers exercise, he argued, their office for the church, and in the name of the church; and without the church’s consent and approval, expressed or implied, they have no power of loosing or binding any one. Much less, he maintained, was this power of excommunication secular; it was simply a power of doing, by the Church and for the Church, the necessary work of purging out notorious offenders from the body of the faithful.” Ibid., vol. 2, 18, 20.

The New Testament teaches clearly that the church is the body of Christ. (See Ephesians 1:22, 23; Colossians 1:18, 24 and 1 Corinthians 12.)

Petris main argument was that those that have the Holy Spirit make up the church. This is revealed in Ephesians 2:22. Baptism by water is a symbol of being baptized by the Holy Spirit. A person is only playing church if the Holy Spirit does not baptize him. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Petri saw that this issue of who had the authority to cast anyone out of the church, required an understanding of what constitutes the church. The church does have divine authority to bind and loose, but the question is, “Who is the church that has that authority?”

Taussan, a reformer in Denmark, drew up a confession which became the confession of the Protestants in Denmark. “It declared Holy Scripture to be the only rule of faith, and the satisfaction of Christ in our room the only foundation of eternal life. It defined the church to be the communion of the faithful, and it denied the power of any man to cast anyone out of that church, unless such shall have first cut himself off from the communion of the faithful by impenitence and sin. It affirmed that the worship of God did not consist in canticles, masses, vigils, edifices, shaven crowns, cowls, and anointings, but in the adoring of God in Spirit and in truth: that ‘the true mass of Christ is the commemoration of His sufferings and death, in which His body is eaten and His blood is drunk in certain pledge that through His name we obtain forgiveness of sins.’ It goes on to condemn masses for the living and the dead, indulgences, auricular confession, and all similar practices. It declares all true believers to be priests in Christ, who had offered Himself to the Father a living and acceptable sacrifice. It declares the head of the church to be Christ, than whom there is no other, whether on earth or in heaven, and of this head all believers are members.” Ibid., 42, 43.

Apostolic Succession

There was a remnant of the apostolic church in Italy called the Waldenses. They were terribly persecuted. One of the main issues with the Waldenses was who is the church? The Waldenses said that they were the Church, the spiritual descendents of the apostles, because they followed the pure teachings of the disciples. For this they were martyred and massacred by the millions. The Waldenses were a perpetual monument of what the church used to be and, as long as they maintained their purity, they were a living witness to testify against how far professed Christendom had departed from the original faith.

One of the early leaders of these people, around 820 A.D., was a godly man by the name of Claude of Turin. Ellen White speaks of him as a devout man who held back the tide of apostasy for a time. Regarding the church, Claude maintained “that there is but one Sovereign in the Church, and He is not on earth…Know thou that He only is apostolic who is the Keeper and Guardian of the apostles’ doctrine and not he who boasts himself to be seated in the chair of the apostle, and in the meantime doth not acquit himself of the charge of the apostle.” Ibid., vol. 1, 21, 22.

The question of apostolic succession has agitated minds in the Christian world for hundreds of years. Some boast, “Our church goes all the way back to the apostles and your church just started at such-and-such time.” Who really are the successors of the apostles? The way to understand this is to ask the question that was commonly asked in Christ’s day— “Who is the true church? Who are Abraham’s seed?”

The Jews told Jesus that they had never been in bondage, because they were Abraham’s descendents. (See John 8:33.) They said, “We are the true church and we are going to have eternal life.” They believed that the Gentiles had no hope of salvation because they were not Abraham’s seed. However, Christ attempted to enlighten their minds. He said, “ ‘I know that you are Abraham’s descendents, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.’ They answered and said to Him, ‘Abraham is our father.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.’ ” John 8:37–39. That is, you would have a character like Abraham.

Worthless Profession

Our characters are formed by our habits (or our works) day by day. And all throughout the Bible, it is clearly taught that we will be judged according to our works, or our characters. (See Revelation 20; Matthew 17:27, 28). Ellen White said that the day of judgment would be a day of bitter disappointment to most of the Christian world, because they make a profession but they do not have a character that matches that profession. A profession is worthless unless the character coincides with it.

If you profess to be a Seventh-day Adventist, you profess to be a member of the church mentioned in Revelation 12:17 that keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus. However, if you do not keep the commandments of God, nor have the faith of Jesus, your profession is worthless!

Notice how Jesus drove this point home to the Jewish leaders. “‘But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. You do the deeds of your father.’ Then they said to Him, ‘We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.’” John 8:40–44.

These people professed to be the true church, but actually, Christ said, they were of the devil. They were representatives of Satan. (See The Desire of Ages, 36.)

How do you tell who the spiritual successors of the apostles are? The descendents of the apostles are those that teach the same thing the apostles taught and are filled with the same Spirit. (See The Desire of Ages, 466, 467.)

Profession is worthless unless you show, by your life, that you follow the doctrine you profess. Claude maintained in the ninth century, “Know thou that he only is apostolic who is the keeper and guardian of the apostles’ doctrine.”

The evangelicals during the time of the Reformation said that the church is not the clergy, it is the congregation of godly men. What is usually called the church is merely the old synagogue. The true church is the assembly of the just. In other words, as Ellen White said, “From the beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth.” The Acts of the Apostles, 11.

Nowhere in the Spirit of Prophecy does Ellen White say that the church is both the faithful and the unfaithful. It is the faithful only. If you are unfaithful and make a profession, your name may be on a church book but you are not part of the church. Your profession is false. The Jews made a profession, but their characters proved that they were the children of the devil. It is character that counts.

Wherever a group of people is filled with the Holy Spirit, living godly, righteous lives and meeting together in an assembly to worship, there is the church. The reformers all understood this, and it gave them the strength to stand before the Bishops who condemned them to eternal hell fire, and confess, “I know my Redeemer liveth!”

One of these faithful believers wrote, “If two or three cobblers or weavers, elect of God, meet together in the name of the Lord, they form a true church of God.”

Fryth, a leading reformer, in England, who was burned at the stake in the sixteenth century said, “‘I understand the church of God in a wide sense. It contains all those whom we regard as members of Christ. It is a net thrown into the sea.’ This principle, sown at that time as a seed in the English Reformation, was one day to cover the world with missionaries.” The Reformation in England, vol. 2, 126, by J.H. Merle d’Aubigne.

Another true and faithful believer, named Bennett, had this experience. “For a whole week, not only the Bishop, but all the priests and friars of the city, visited Bennett night and day. But they tried in vain to prove to him that the Roman church was the true one. ‘God has given me grace to be of a better church,’ he said.—‘Do you not know that ours is built upon Saint Peter?’—‘The church that is built upon a man,’ he replied, ‘is the devil’s church and not God’s.’” Ibid., vol.1, 465.

Tyndale Debates More

Another famous reformer was William Tyndale, a scholar that translated the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into English. On one occasion Tyndale was in a debate with Thomas More, a Roman Catholic. Their discussion went like this:

“More: We must not examine the teaching of the church by Scripture, but understand Scripture by means of what the church says.

“Tyndale: What! Does the air give light to the sun, or the sun to the air? Is the church before the gospel, or the gospel before the church? Is not the father older than the son? God begat us with His own will, with the word of truth. (James 1:18.) If He who begeteth is before him who is begotten, the word is before the church, or, to speak more correctly, before the congregation.

“More: Why do you say congregation and not church?

“Tyndale: Because by that word church, you understand nothing but a multitude of shaven, shorn and oiled, which we now call the spirituality or clergy; while the word of right is common unto all the congregation of them that believe in Christ.

“More: The church is the Pope and his sect of followers.

“Tyndale: The Pope teaches us to trust in holy works for salvation, as penance, saints’ merits and fryer’s coats. Now, he that hath no faith to be saved through Christ, is not of Christ’s church.” Ibid., 395.

The reformer said that wherever the word is faithfully preached and the sacraments purely administered, there is the church. Rome said, Wherever there is a line of sacramentally ordained men, there and only there, is the church.

The Struggle of Separation

For many of the reformers, who grew up believing this distorted view of the church, the realization of the apostasy and the decision of what they must do in response came only with great difficulty. Calvin, the great Swiss reformer faced a terrible struggle. “The doubts by which his soul was now shaken grew in strength with each renewed discussion. What shall he do? Shall he forsake the church? That seems to him like casting himself into the gulf of perdition. And yet, can the church save him? There is a new light breaking in upon him in which her dogmas are melting away. The ground beneath him is sinking. ‘There can be no church,’ we hear Calvin say to himself, ‘where the truth is not.’” History of Protestantism, vol. 2, 152.

Do you believe that? Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15: “But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Leaving the truth, is leaving the church. For many years Romanists have accused Protestants of heresy and of separation from the true church. But Ellen White says, “This accusation applies rather to themselves. They are the ones who laid down the banner of Christ and departed from the ‘faith that was once delivered unto the saints.’ Jude 3.” The Great Controversy, 51.

The church stays with the truth because the church is the pillar of the truth. When Calvin began to understand that, it set his mind free. “‘There can be no church,’ we hear Calvin saying to himself, ‘where the truth is not.’…If I shall come back to the truth, as contained in the Scriptures, will I not come back to the church? and will I not be joined to the holy company of prophets and apostles, of saints and martyrs? . . . In fine, Calvin concluded that the term ‘Church’ could not make the society that monopolized the term really ‘the Church.’ High sounding titles and lofty assumptions could give neither unity nor authority; these could come from the Truth alone; and so he abandoned ‘the Church’ that he might enter the Church—the Church of the Bible.” The History of Protestantism, vol. 2, 154.

We are living so near the end that it is time for us, as historic Adventists, to wake up to reality and not be deceived by pretension and profession. Our profession must coincide with our character. Unless our lives are in harmony with God’s law, we are not His people and our profession is worthless.

God’s church is going through as it always has in the past. The church went through in Samuel’s time, however, most of the professed people did not go along with it! The church went through in Jeremiah’s and Daniel’s time. And the church went through in the time of Jesus and the apostles; although the leaders of the professed church were not really a part of God’s church.

Latimer, another Protestant reformer, who was burned at the stake, wrote concerning the church: “Lively stones are needed to build up the temple of God.” The Reformation in England, vol. 2, 42. A church is not just bricks and mortar or corporations or theology. It is people who, as a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit, are spoken of in the Bible as living stones that emit light all around.

Jesus said, “You are the light of the world.” Do you want to be part of that light? Our greatest danger is that we will be deceived, thinking we are part of the light, because we make a profession, but we do not have a character to back it up. What will we do if we come to the Day of Judgment and have only a profession without having the wedding garment on? I cannot think of a more terrible moment, for then it will be all over and each person’s eternal destiny will be forever fixed. It will be too late to change.

But today, my dear reader, it is not too late. Jesus invites you to become a part of His body. He wants you to become a living stone built into that beautiful building of His church. Is eternal life worth everything to you? The decision is yours.

The Birth of an Image, Part II

by

The 1903 General Conference session convened in Oakland, California, on March 27, 1903. This would be the most important point in the reorganization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for at this General Conference a “new” constitution would be voted that would forever establish one man at the head of the Church!

The Chairman, Elder Arthur G. Daniells, called the thirty-fifth General Conference session to order at two-thirty, Friday afternoon, March 27, 1903. One hundred and thirty four delegates were seated at this 1903 session. (General Conference Bulletin, 1903, 1.)

“Since the last meeting of the General Conference we have organized twelve union conferences and twenty-three local conferences,” Daniells stated. “Most of these local conferences are within the territory of the union conferences.” Ibid.

It should be noted that the 134 delegates seated at this 1903 session were 133 short of the 267 delegates seated at the 1901 General Conference session. This was a curious aspect of the 1903 session. The membership of the Church was now larger than it had been two years earlier, but the number of delegates was smaller! Why?

Arthur G. Daniells, General Conference chairman, was about to introduce still another Constitution, which he had written, a Constitution that would establish him in the office of General Conference President. “The business of the conference proper began Monday morning at nine-thirty,” Arthur White stated. “After a roll call of the delegates, the chairman, Elder Daniells, gave his address.…” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol.5, 243. [All emphasis supplied unless otherwise stated.]

Notice that in this statement Arthur White admits that A.G. Daniells was “the chairman,” and not the president of the General Conference. Why was Daniells still the “chairman” after two years, when the delegates, two years prior in 1901, had voted that the office of chairman was to continue only one year?

On Monday morning, Ellen White spoke to the delegates instead of the regular business meeting. She had received a vision the night before and wished to convey the message to the church leadership. She stated in part: “Today God is watching His people. We should seek to find out what He means when He sweeps away our sanitarium and our publishing house. Let us not move along as if there were nothing wrong.…God wants us to come to our senses, He wants us to seek for the meaning of the calamities that have overtaken us, that we may not tread in the footsteps of Israel, and say, ‘The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord are we,’ when we are not this at all.” General Conference Bulletin, 1903, 31.

What Might Have Been

In her morning talk, Ellen White made reference to a vision she was given in regard to the past 1901 General Conference session: “The Lord has shown me what might have been had the work been done that ought to have been done. In the night season I was present in a meeting where brother was confessing to brother. Those present fell upon one another’s necks, and made heart-broken confessions. The Spirit and power of God were revealed. No one seemed too proud to bow before God in humility and contrition. Those who led in this work were the ones who had not before had the courage to confess their sins.” Ibid.

“This might have been,” Ellen White continued. “All this the Lord was waiting to do for His people. All heaven was waiting to be gracious.” Ibid.

(The complete vision Ellen White referred to is found in Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, 104–106, under the title, “What Might Have Been.” The testimony was sent to the Battle Creek Church from St. Helena, California, January 5, 1903.)

Debate Over A New Constitution

“The second major debate of the 1903 General Conference session, which came toward the end of the meeting, was centered upon the new constitution, specifically the provision for the election of a president.” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 256. This was a major step backward! Two years prior, the 267 delegates had voted unanimously that there would be no president of the General Conference, but merely a new chairman to be elected each year. Now the proposed “new” Constitution would reinstate the office of president of the General Conference. “But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us.” I Samuel 8:6a.

“Two reports were filed with the session from the Committee on Plans and Constitution,” Arthur White wrote. “The majority report supported the new constitution, which would provide for the leading officers of the General Conference to be chosen by the delegates, thus giving them a mandate from the church.” Ibid.

In this “new” Constitution, Arthur White referred to the “leading officers,” but the central issue was the provision for a new General Conference President, and it was this new General Conference President who would be given “a mandate from the church.” Arthur White had stated before that A. G. Daniells, the General Conference “chairman,” did not have a mandate from the church. Today, in political circles of the United States Congress we hear much about “mandates,” and “term-limits.” The political leaders and church leaders indeed claim a “mandate” from the people that would give them complete authority to enact what they think the people should have. But what does God say about this worldly policy in the church? “Vengeance will be executed,” Ellen White warned, “against those who sit in the gates deciding what the people should have.” Manuscript 15, 1886.

Obviously, political and church leaders want a “mandate” of authority. However, neither political nor church leaders want “term-limits.” Why is this? Because “term-limits” would put them out of power and out of office in a relatively short period of time.

“Christ foresaw that the undue assumption of authority indulged by the scribes and Pharisees would not cease with the dispersion of the Jews. He had a prophetic view of the work of exalting human authority to rule the conscience, which has been so terrible a curse to the church in all ages. And His fearful denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and His warnings to the people not to follow these blind leaders, were placed on record as an admonition to future generations.” The Great Controversy, 596.

The Minority Report

“The minority report, signed by three men [E. J. Waggoner, David Paulson, and P. T. Magan] largely connected with institutional interests, claimed that the proposed new constitution would reverse the reformatory steps taken at the General Conference of 1901.” Arthur White wrote, “These men argued that the constitution of 1901, which provided that the General Conference Committee could choose its officers, should not be ‘annihilated’ without giving it a fair trial.” These men on the minority committee did indeed argue that “the constitution of 1901…should not be ‘annihilated’ without giving it a fair trial.” However, the 1903 General Conference Bulletin reveals that “these three men” did not object to the new plan that the delegates at large should elect the General Conference committee members. What they did object to was the establishment of a permanent General Conference “President,” instead of a temporary General Conference Chairman. They also objected to the fact that the 1901 Constitution had only been tested for two years.

Actual Words Of the Minority Report

“The minority of your Committee on Plans and Constitution beg leave to submit that the Constitution proposed by the majority of the Committee appears to us to be so subversive of the principles of organization given to us at the General Conferences of 1897 and 1901 that we can not possibly subscribe to it.

“The proposed new Constitution reverses the reformatory steps that were taken, and the principles which were given and adopted as the principles of reorganization, in the General Conferences of 1897 and 1901, and embodied in the present Constitution; and this before that Constitution or the organization according to it, has ever had adequate trial.

“We therefore recommend that the Constitution of 1901 be given a fair trial before it be annihilated.” General Conference Bulletin, 1903, 146, 147.

Notice that the major contention of the Minority Committee was that the first constitutional revision in the history of the church, that had been voted two years prior in 1901 by 267 delegates, had not been in effect long enough for a just evaluation.

The “new” Constitution proposed by the majority of the committee reinstated the office of “President” of the General Conference. The new president would serve as chairman of the Executive Committee, and would continue in office for years. (A. G. Daniells, who was elected president at this 1903 General Conference, served as president for over twenty years). The Majority Committee Report on this point was as follows:

“Article iv—Executive Committee, Section 1. At each session the Conference shall elect an Executive Committee for the carrying forward of its work between the sessions.

“The Executive Committee shall consist of the president, two vice‑presidents, the presidents of Union Conferences, the superintendents of organized Union Missions, and twelve other persons, among whom there shall be representatives of all the leading departments of conference work, including the publishing, medical, educational, Sabbath‑School, and religious liberty.

“Article ii—Executive Committee, Section 1. During the intervals between sessions of the Conference, the Executive Committee shall have full administrative power, and shall fill for the current term any vacancies that may occur in its offices, boards, committees, or agents, by death, resignation, or otherwise, except in cases where other provisions for filling such vacancies shall be made by vote of the General Conference.

“Section 2. Any five members of the Executive Committee, including the president or vice‑president, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of such business as is in harmony with the general plans outlined by the Committee, but the concurrence of four members shall be necessary to pass any measure before the Committee.

“Section 3. Meetings of the Executive Committee may be called at any time or place, by the president or vice‑president, or upon the written request of any five members of the Committee.” Ibid.

The Majority Committee Report was signed by ten men:

H.W. Cottrell, E. T. Russell, C. W. Flaiz, W. C. White, W. T. Knox, E. H. Gates, G. E. Langdon, C. N. Woodward, Smith Sharp, S. B. Horton

The next action was that W. T. Knox made a motion for the “adoption of the majority report.” D. E Lindsey seconded the motion. (See Ibid.)

“Now, if it is the wish of the delegates, this report may be read through entirely; or, if you desire, it can be taken up one section or article at a time,” said the Chairman, H. W. Cottrell. “If this be the mind of the delegates, the secretary may read the first article.” Ibid., 147.

Percy T. Magan Speaks

“The congregation will all see that the minority report deals only with certain general vital principles, which we believe are transgressed in the proposed new constitution,” P. T. Magan stated, “and therefore, in order that that matter may be brought before the house, as it is the vital thing in the consideration of the whole subject, I move that the report of the minority be substituted now for consideration in place of the report of the majority.” Ibid. E. J. Waggoner seconded the motion.

The motion for the minority position was put, and was lost!

E.J. Waggoner Speaks

“My dissent from the report of the majority of the committee is on two lines,” Waggoner stated. “I will give those two lines as briefly and concisely as possible, and dispassionately.”

“The first objection I have to the report is that it is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the principles of organization as set forth in the Bible,” Waggoner continued, “and as, up to the present time, adhered to in the main by this body. This being so, I regard the [majority] report as revolutionary and inconsistent.” Ibid.

Waggoner Defines the Concept of Who and What Is the Church

“I think we are all agreed in this, that the church, the local body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, in any place, is the unit of organization and the standard,” Waggoner stated. “Thus in any company of believers, wherever they may be, in whatever city, we have there the epitome of the whole body of believers throughout the world.”

“Now the movement, although I am sure unconscious and unintentional on the part of the brethren, toward the adoption of this [majority] report does essentially lie in the line of the adoption of a creed,” Waggoner continued, “and that, although the churches of the world and the people of the world regard as essential to organization, we who know the Scriptures and know the falling away that came in the early days and has been perpetuated until this present time, —we know is essentially disorganization.”

“The Bible organization is opposed to the exaltation of any person over others,” Waggoner said. “Now the question will arise and be presented to me: ‘Why, then, do you sign this report, which recommends that we maintain the present constitution?’”

“I am not inconsistent,” Waggoner concluded. “My second objection is to this constitution itself, which, in some of its particulars, I regard as the worst constitution ever devised among Seventh-day Adventists.” Ibid.

Percy T. Magan Speaks

“As a member of the minority of the Committee on Plans, and as a man, if I had not been on the Committee on Plans at all, I am conscientiously opposed to the proposed new constitution,” Magan stated. “I have always felt that the hardest place that any man could be put in this life is to have to stand conscientiously opposed to what the majority of his brethren believe to be right.” Ibid., 150.

“To me it has always appeared to be a much easier thing to stand in a position of opposition to the world, and even to have to face a court of justice in the world, for your faith, than to have to face your brethren for your faith,” Magan continued. “And therefore I shall say today, as briefly and modestly as I know how, what I have to say.” Ibid., 159.

“The minority report expresses in a word the feelings which actuated the minority in making the report, because we believe that the constitution proposed by the majority of the committee appears to us to be so subversive of the principles of organization given to us at the General Conferences of 1897 and 1901,” Magan continued. “Those principles were given to us by the Spirit of God. In my judgment, and in the judgment of the minority of the committee, this constitution is absolutely subversive of those principles.” Ibid., 150.

“It may be stated there is nothing in this new constitution which is not abundantly safeguarded by the provisions of it,” Magan concluded, “but I want to say to you that any man who has ever read ‘Neander’s History of the Christian Church,’ Mosheim’s, or any of the other of the great church historians,—any man who has ever read those histories can come to no other conclusion but that the principles which are to be brought in through this proposed constitution, and in the way in which they are brought in, are the same principles, and introduced in precisely the same way, as they were hundreds of years ago when the Papacy was made.”

“Further,” Magan emphasized, “this whole house must recognize this, before we are through with this discussion, that the proposed new constitution, whatever improvements may be claimed for it, whatever advantages it may be stated that it contains, that, in principle, as far as the head of the work is concerned, it goes back precisely where we were before the reformatory steps of two years ago.” Ibid.

“Ellen White did not enter into the debate on the question of the constitution,” Arthur White wrote. “W. C. White spoke strongly in support of the changes proposed, as did some of the other respected leaders, such as Loughborough and Butler.”

“The opinions of learned men…the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastic councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith,” Ellen White wrote. “God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms.” The Great Controversy, 595.

The New Constitution Voted and Ratified

That very evening, April 9, 1903, the vote was taken. The new Constitution was ratified. The minority report was rejected. The plea by P. T. Magan that the principles of the new Constitution, “are the same principles, and introduced in precisely the same way, as they were hundreds of years ago when the Papacy was made,” was also ignored. At that very hour, an image to the Papacy was established in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. For ninety five years that image has prospered and increased until institutions of the SDA Church are merging with those of the Roman Catholic Church.

“The matter was not settled quickly,” Arthur White stated. “A vote with a three‑fourths majority was needed.” One hundred and eight delegates were present. Eighty-five voted for the new Constitution, “carrying the action by a majority of four.” Early Elmshaven Years, 257. How sad that an image to the Papacy was carried by a slim margin of only four votes.

“When men who profess to serve God ignore His parental character, and depart from honor and righteousness in dealing with their fellow‑men, Satan exults, for he has inspired them with his attributes,” Ellen White stated. “They are following in the track of Romanism.” 1888 Materials, 1435.

“We have far more to fear from within than from without. The hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church itself than from the world.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 122.

Notice that Ellen White did not say, “We have more to fear from within.” What she said was that we have “far” more to fear from within than from without. How sad it is that “the hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church itself than from the world.”

Daniells’ Later Confession

“In 1946, I was in the U.S.A. and the General Conference asked me to take meetings at various Camps,” George Burnside, noted Australian SDA evangelist stated . “I roomed at two camps—New Jersey and East Pennsylvania—with Pastor Meade MacGuire and we chatted much about the old days.”

“He had known A. T. Jones,” Burnside continued. “Pastor MacGuire spoke highly of Jones, especially of his knowledge of Church history.”

“His [Jones’] big concern was the trends in SDA organization,” Burnside recalled. “Jones opposed A. G. Daniells (then Gen. Conference president) on church organization as Jones felt it was drifting Romeward. Finally Daniells broke Jones, with the result that Jones finally left the church.”

“Years later, Daniells and Pastor MacGuire were attending Camps in California. They were returning to Washington D. C. by train. Pastor MacGuire said Pastor Daniells was sitting looking out of the carriage window thinking. He [Daniells] looked up and said, ‘You know, Meade, I believe Jones was right and I was wrong.’ He was referring to the question of organization.

“Pastor MacGuire said that Pastor Daniells did all he could to rectify things, but as he was then out of the presidency no one paid much attention to him,” Burnside concluded. “This is the account as I recall it.” The document was dated February 7, 1987, and signed, George Burnside, Wahroonga, N. S. W. Australia.

Testimony Given Immediately Following the 1903 General Conference

“Ellen White returned home to Elmshaven from the [1903] session some time between April 10 and 12,” Arthur White wrote. “Of the significant and far-reaching events in the early summer of 1903 she wrote: ‘My strength was severely taxed while at the conference, but the Lord sustained me through the meeting, and by His blessing, I am recovering from the strain.…’” The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 259.

One week after returning home from the 1903 General Conference session, Ellen White wrote the following testimony dated at St. Helena, California, April 21, 1903: “In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence: ‘Found want­ing.’ By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged.” Testimonies, vol. 8, 247.

How does the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1999 measure up to “the privile­ges and advantages that she has had”? How does the corporate church measure up to “her spiritual experience”? How does the church measure up to “the advantages that Christ…has bestowed on her”? How does the church measure up to “the blessings conferred” upon her? Has the SDA Church been faithful to the truth that would “qualify her to do the work entrusted to her”? And the most important questions of all—Has the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church already been judged? And if so, has she been found wanting?