Church

Why Home Churches – Part III

by

Ellen White tells us that prior to 1888 the church had been looking to man. (Testimonies to Ministers, 91–93.) The message of 1888 was sent to direct the eyes of the church back on Jesus and away from men.

In 1901, Ellen White and other leaders attempted to change the situation in Adventism, and a change was made. In fact the constitution of the General Conference (GC) was re-written at the GC session that year. Under the new constitution there was not to be a president, but instead a committee was to oversee the affairs of the GC, and this committee was to elect a new chairman each year. At the end of that conference, Ellen White said, “The angels of God have been walking up and down here.” God approved of what had been done.

Within a matter of days, Ellen White wrote some strong words about what had happened However, as we have studied before, the new constitution was never put into effect. Two years later, at the 1903 General Conference, the reorganization of the 1901 General Conference was reversed.

From Saint Helena, California, April 21, 1903: “Our position in the world is not what it should be. We are far from where we should have been had our Christian experience been in harmony with the light and the opportunities given us.…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.’” Testimonies, vol. 8, 247.

“One who sees beneath the surface, who reads the hearts of all men, says of those who have had great light: ‘They are not afflicted and astonished because of their moral and spiritual condition.’…The heavenly teacher inquired: ‘What stronger delusion can beguile the mind than the pretense that you are building on the right foundation and that God accepts your works, when in reality you are working out many things according to worldly policy and are sinning against Jehovah?’ Oh, it is a great deception, a fascinating delusion, that takes possession of minds when men who have once known the truth, mistake the form of godliness for the spirit and power thereof.” Ibid., 249.

“Unless there is thorough repentance, unless men humble their hearts by confession and receive the truth as it is in Jesus, they will never enter heaven.…Who can truthfully say: ‘Our gold is tried in the fire; our garments are unspotted by the world.’ I saw our Instructor pointing to the garments of so-called righteousness. Stripping them off, He laid bare the defilement beneath. Then He said to me: ‘Can you not see how they have pretentiously covered up their defilement and rottenness of character? How is the faithful city become an harlot!’” Ibid., 250.

“For this cause there is weakness, and strength is lacking. Unless the church, which is now being leavened with her own backsliding, shall repent and be converted, she will eat the fruit of her own doing until she shall abhor herself.” Ibid.

The Self-Supporting Work

The very next year, 1904, with the approval of the Lord’s Prophet, there was a new development in Adventism—the self-supporting work. I believe, that if we had accepted the 1888 message, and not reversed the 1901 re-organization, we would never have needed the self-supporting work. We would have all been working together in unity and harmony as God intended.

Last month we studied several points about the self-supporting work in the Spirit of Prophecy:

  1. It was authorized by God.
  2. It was not to be owned or controlled by the Conference.
  3. It was not to be broken up or stopped.
  4. It was fully authorized by God, not only for its existence but also to solicit funds from God’s people.
  5. It would be involved in the closing of God’s work. The self-supporting work came into existence because it was impossible for Sutherland and Magan to introduce the needed educational reforms into the schools under the control of the “regular lines.” The home-church movement came into existence for similar reasons.

Apostasy Follows the Rejection of the Message in 1888

There were other consequences to our rejection of the message in 1888. Because the church trusted in man, instead of looking to Jesus, moral confusion resulted and the devil brought in heresies to mislead minds. Ellen White called this the “alpha of apostasy” or the “alpha of deadly heresies,” and it was sweeping through Adventism by 1902. It gained control of most of our leading men, not just physicians but many of our leading ministers, and it is another of the great reasons for the home-church movement.

Ellen White predicted that the alpha of apostasy would soon be followed by the omega, and she said, “I tremble for our people.” (Sermons and Talks, vol. 1, 341.) The alpha was just the beginning of a series of heresies that would end in the omega. They are directly connected and the omega is simply the final outcome of the same apostasy that was at work in the alpha.

In order then, to understand how and what is going to happen with the omega, we must understand what happened during the alpha. Notice carefully the following quotations about the alpha apostasy:

“The experience that was given us at the General Conference held in Battle Creek early in 1901 was of God. Had Doctor Kellogg at that time done thorough work, the terrible experience through which we are now passing would never have been.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 6, 217.

“God has permitted the presentation of this combination of good and evil in ‘Living Temple’ to be made to reveal the danger threatening us. The working that has been so ingeniously carried on, He has permitted in order that certain developments might be made, and that it might be seen what a man can do with human minds when he has obtained their confidence as a physician.” Series B, 242. In other words, if they had accepted what God was trying to do in 1901 they would not have been attacked by the alpha of apostasy.

Characteristics of the Alpha

Let us look now at several points that were involved in the alpha.

  1. It came into existence within the church, not outside the church. It arose among Seventh-day Adventist leaders.
  2. It almost gained control of the church.
  3. It was both atheistic and spiritualistic. “I was instructed to call upon our physicians and ministers to take a firm stand for the truth. We are not to allow atheistic, spiritualistic sentiments to be brought before our youth.” Special Testimonies, No. 7, 38.
  4. It involved a controversy over the nature of God and the nature of the Godhead. “It is something that cannot be treated as a small matter that men who have had so much light, and such clear evidence as to the genuineness of the truth we hold, should become unsettled, and led to accept spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God.” Ibid., 37.
  5. Ellen White said that if these doctrines were followed to their logical conclusion it would sweep away the whole Christian economy. (Evangelism, 601.)
  6. It involved a removal of the foundation pillars of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. “The heavenly messenger turned to those professing to be medical missionaries, and said, ‘How could you allow yourselves to be led blindfold? How could you so misrepresent the name you bear? You have your Bibles. Why have you not reasoned from cause to effect? You have accepted theories that have led you away from the truths that are to stamp their impress upon the characters of all Seventh-day Adventists. Your leader has been moving the foundation timbers one by one and his reasoning would soon leave us with no certain foundation for our faith.’” Special Testimonies, No. 7, 39.
  7. This alpha of apostasy involved a rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy.
  8. Ellen White said that we are not to enter into discussion on these theories. “The more fanciful theories are discussed, the less men will know of God and of the truth that sanctifies the soul.” Ibid., 51. “I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God.” Ibid., 53.
    • That is how Lucifer himself began his downward track. There were some things he wanted to know that he could not know. In the chapter in The Great Controversy, “The Snares of Satan,” Ellen White says that the devil tries to get men to ask questions that God will never answer through all eternity. There are some things that you and I will never know. Are you willing to let God be God? Hasn’t He given us sufficient revelation of Himself so that we can know that He has infinite love and mercy for us and that we can trust Him? But that does not mean that we are going to be able to explain and know everything.
  9. This apostasy led men to “sanctify” sin and make it appear less serious. “The difficulties that have arisen have been very hard to meet, and they are far from being settled yet. One, and another, and still another are presented to me as having been led to accept the pleasing fables that mean the sanctification of sin. Living Temple contains the alpha of a train of heresies.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, 247.

A Time for Silence?

We are living in a day of political correctness, and many are afraid to even preach or teach the Three Angels’ Messages because they fear that they will hurt someone’s feelings. However, compare this common attitude to how God’s prophet told us we are to deal with sin. “…When men standing in the position of leaders and teachers work under the power of spiritualistic ideas and sophistries, shall we keep silent, for fear of injuring their influence while souls are being beguiled? Satan will use every advantage that he can obtain to cause souls to become beclouded and perplexed in regard to the work of the church.” Ibid.

“When men stand out in defiance against the counsel of God, they are warring against God. Is it right for those connected with such ones to treat them as if they were in perfect harmony with them, making no difference between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not? Though they be ministers or medical missionaries, they have dishonored Christ before the forces of the loyal and the disloyal. Open rebuke is necessary, to prevent others from being ensnared. To believe that evil must not be condemned because this would condemn those who practice the evil is to act in favor of falsehood…The enmity that God has put in our hearts against deceptive practices, must be kept alive, because these practices endanger the souls of those who do not hate them.” Ibid.

“All deceptive dealings, all untruthfulness regarding the Father and the Son, by which their characters are presented in a false light, are to be recognized as grievous sins…It should now be clearly understood that we are not really helping those who are determined to do evil, when we show them respect, and keep our words of reproof for those with whom the disaffected one is at enmity. A grave mistake has been and is being made in this matter. Shall the servants of Jehovah, into whose heart He puts enmity against every evil work, be assailed as not being right when they call evil evil, and good good? Those who feel so very peaceable in regard to the works of the men who are spoiling the faith of the people of God, are guided by delusive sentiment. There is to be a constant conflict between good and evil.” Ibid., 26, 27.

“Those who are enlightened by the Holy Spirit’s power are to strive with every power of their being to snatch the prey from the seductive influences of men who refuse to obey the word of God.” Ibid. And this is happening through the home-church movement today.

In the context of the alpha of apostasy Ellen White wrote, “We are to unify but not on the platform of error.” There is to be no union with the alpha or any part of this apostasy. “It will be said that Living Temple has been revised. But the Lord has shown me that the writer has not changed, and that there can be no unity between him and the ministers of the gospel while he continues to cherish his present sentiments. I am bidden to lift my voice in warning to our people, saying, ‘Be not deceived; God is not mocked.’” Selected Messages, Book 1, 199. “I am instructed to say that those who would tear away the foundation that God has laid are not to be accepted as the teachers and leaders of His people.” Battle Creek Letters, 82.

If there was to be no union with the alpha, should there be union with the omega? We have a home-church movement today, because people cannot unify on a platform of error (apostasy). They know that they cannot allow these apostate leaders to teach their children nor is it safe to listen to their preaching.

Another Shaking?

When the apostasy gets bad enough, there comes a separation, or shaking. During the shaking, God’s faithful children will be forced to separate from the apostasy, from the omega, just as they had to separate from the alpha. The alpha began when there was an attempt to unite Adventism with other churches who did not accept the Spirit of Prophecy or keep all the commandments, and there is every indication that the omega will involve the same thing.

In Manuscript 30, 1889, God’s prophet wrote: “I told them a little of how matters had been carried [on] at Minneapolis, and stated the position I had taken, that Pharisaism had been at work leavening the camp here at Battle Creek, and the Seventh-day Adventist Churches were affected; but the Lord had given me a message, and with pen and voice I would work until this leaven was expelled and a new leaven was introduced, which was the grace of Christ. I was confirmed in all I had stated in Minneapolis, that a reformation must go through the churches.” (This reformation involves men taking their eyes off other men and placing them on Jesus, as their example and guide.)

“Reforms must be made, for spiritual weakness and blindness were upon the people who had been blessed with great light and precious opportunities and privileges. As reformers they had come out of the denominational churches, but they now act a part similar to that which the churches acted. We hoped that there would not be the necessity for another coming out. While we will endeavor to keep the ‘unity of the Spirit’ in the bonds of peace, we will not with pen or voice cease to protest against bigotry.” 1888 Materials, 356.

Is there a possibility that there might have to be another coming out? “The Lord is soon to come, and the end of all things is at hand.…I see perplexities on every side. As character develops, men and women will take their position, for varied circumstances brought to bear upon them will cause them to reveal the spirit which prompts them to action. Everyone will reveal the character of the bundle with which he is binding himself. The wheat is being bound up for the heavenly garner. The true people of God are now bound up for the heavenly garner.” 1888 Materials, 995.

During the shaking, we all reveal what is inside. “The true people of God are now pulling apart, and the tares are being bound in bundles ready to burn. Decided positions will be taken. Satan will move upon minds that have been indulged, upon men who have always had their own way, and anything presented to them, in counsel or reproof, to change their objectionable traits of character is considered fault finding, binding them, restraining them, that they cannot have liberty to act themselves. The Lord in great mercy has sent messages of warning to them, but they would not listen to reproof. Like the enemy who rebelled in heaven, they do not like to hear, do not correct the wrong they have done but become accusers, declaring themselves misused and unappreciated. Now is the time of trial, of test, of proving. Those who, like Saul, will persist in having their own way will suffer, as he did, loss of honor and finally the loss of the soul. God has a people, and they will be a tried people, but the people will be humble. They are under the guidance of the Holy One in thought, in word, in deed. Can any of us find a path more pleasant than that in which the Eternal One leads the way? Self must die.”

“Satan will work with his masterly power to separate the soul from God. We hear the different voices sounding from every quarter that our attention shall be taken from the true issue in this time. The end is near and let there not be a confusion of voices to misguide and mislead some astray. To say, ‘Peace, Peace,’ to these souls who have long resisted the voice of the true Shepherd, who have contended long against Omnipotence, is to quiet his conscience to the sleep of death.…Dark hours of trial are before the church because they have not obeyed the warnings and reproofs and counsel of God. What a bewitching power comes upon human minds to do contrary to the oft-repeated will of God, and close the eyes and stop the ears, when Jesus is calling to them to hear His voice. He says, ‘My sheep hear my voice.’…Before the great trouble shall come upon the world such as has never been since there was a nation, those who have faltered and who would ignorantly lead in unsafe paths will reveal this before the real vital test, the last proving comes so that whatsoever they may say will not be regarded as voicing the true Shepherd. The time of our educating will soon be over. We have no time to lose in walking through clouds of doubt and uncertainty because of uncertain voices.” Ibid.

Who are we following? The one and only Guide? Or are we listening to uncertain voices? If we are, they will lead us to the sleep of death. And what is the sleep of death that she refers to? It is when a person, who is living in sin, thinks that he can keep on living in sin because sin has been “sanctified” in his eyes. How very dangerous it is to think that you are saved, when you are really lost. Many will finally realize that they are in this condition, but only when it is too late! It is dangerous to go to a church or to attempt to have any unity or harmony with people who are teaching “uncertain words.”

The home-church movement became necessary because God is getting ready a group of people to be translated, and there must be churches where this is the focus. Every time you go to church you should be learning more about what it takes to be ready for Jesus to come; and what we can do to get the Three Angels’ Messages to the whole world! If your church loses sight of either one of those goals, you are in the wrong church—no matter what name it claims. Do you want to be ready to meet Jesus when He comes? And is it the focus of your life to help others prepare to meet Him also? May God help us to never lose sight of the reasons for our existence.

The Final Atonement, Part I

by

We are engaged in a mighty conflict, and it will become more close and deter mined, as we near the final struggle,” Ellen White warned. “We have a sleepless adversary, and he is constantly at work upon human minds that have not had a personal experience in the teachings of the people of God for the past fifty years.” Selected Messages, Book 2, 102.

Satan knows that if we forget “the way the Lord has led us,” and especially if we should forget “His teaching in our past history,” (Life Sketches, 196,) then it would be easy to introduce heresy into the greatest movement of truth the world has ever known. What did Ellen White mean by “His teaching in our past history?” Before we can proceed with our research and find the correct answer to this question, we must first understand the correct method to follow in our study of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.

The Bible answer to the proper method of study is that “precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.” Isaiah 28:10. Does it not follow that we should use the very same method to interpret passages in the Spirit of Prophecy? Yes, indeed.

“The Spirit of the Lord will be in the instruction, and doubts existing in many minds will be swept away. The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture.” Letter, 73, 1903, Selected Messages, Book 1, 41, 42.

There is one more important aspect that must be remembered in the study of the Spirit of Prophecy — time and place must be considered. “Regarding the testimonies, nothing is ignored, nothing is cast aside,” Ellen White wrote, “but time and place must be considered.” Paulson Collection, 9.

This inspired counsel on how to study the Testimonies is simple.

  1. Do not cast aside any part of the Testimonies.
  2. Compare all that is written on a subject.
  3. Time and place must also be considered.

This is sound and logical advice, is it not?

The Past Fifty Years (1844–1900)

Ellen White warned many times that some in the Church would bring in “new strange doctrines, for something odd and sensational to present to the people.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 41. The safeguard, of course, is to remember “the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” Life Sketches, 196. Not only that, but Ellen White was very specific about what she meant by the phrase, “His teaching in our past history.” Many times she stated, writing at the turn of the century [again keeping in mind time and place] that “the value of the evidences of truth that we have received during the past half century, is above estimate.” Review and Herald, April 19, 1906.

“Study the Bible truths that for fifty years have been calling us out from the world.” Ellen White counseled. Ibid.

In other words, noting time and place (1906) when this testimony was penned, the truth that pioneer Adventists taught from 1844 to the turn of the century was, and still is, the Three Angels’ Messages. The pioneer Seventh-day Adventist message, given this people in the past century, is the true end-time “gospel” to a perishing world. God does not change. His message does not change. Any message that is not in harmony with this “most precious message” is what Ellen White called “strange fire,” what we know today as “new theology.”

Strange Fire

“For all in responsible positions I have a message spoken by the mouth of the Lord,” Ellen White wrote. Testimonies to Ministers, 357. And what was this message from God to the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

“He [those in responsible positions] will represent the sacredness of the work, he will magnify the truth, and will ever present before men and angels the holy perfume of the character of Christ [the law of God]. This is the sacred fire of God’s own kindling. Anything aside from this is strange fire, abhorrent to God, and the more offensive as one’s position in the work involves larger responsibilities.” Ibid.

There are one hundred and fifteen references to the phrase “strange fire” in the writings of Ellen White. We have learned that false doctrine is “strange fire” presented to the Seventh-day Adventist Church by “those in responsible positions.” We will now learn what is the “sacred fire of God.”

The Sacred Fire of God

“When the power of God testifies to what is truth, the truth is to stand forever as the truth.…The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth.…And while the Scriptures are God’s Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.” A Call to the Watchmen, 14.

Notice that, “He [God] Himself has taught us what is truth,” and, “when the power of God testifies to what is truth, the truth is to stand forever as the truth.” Ibid. Could anything be more plain? An application, or interpretation, of Scripture that “moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake.” Ibid. In this statement Ellen White emphasized that it was “the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.” Ibid.

“The past fifty years have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith as we received the great and wonderful evidences that were made certain to us in 1844, after the passing of the time.…Not a word is changed or denied. That which the Holy Spirit testified to as truth after the passing of the time, in our great disappointment, is the solid foundation of truth.…” The Upward Look, 352.

“Not a word is changed or denied,” of the Advent truth for “the past fifty years,” and this truth that was laid down after the great disappointment in 1844 “is the solid foundation of truth.” The emphasis again and again is stated to be the truth that was held by Seventh-day Adventists for “the past fifty years.” Gospel Workers, 1915, 307.

“[The] pillars of truth were revealed, and we accepted the foundation principles that have made us what we are—Seventh-day Adventists, keeping the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus.” Upward Look, 352.

Notice that, “the pillars of truth were revealed,” and pioneer Adventists “accepted the foundation principles” of truth. They were truly the remnant who were “keeping the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus.” Notice Ellen White said “having” the faith of Jesus. They possessed the faith of Jesus. Pioneer Adventists were people of obedience to all of God’s commandments. Their lives were in harmony with the law of God because they possessed faith like Jesus. Thus the apostle Paul said, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” Philippians 4:13. This is righteousness by faith, obedience by faith.

Again, about the pillars of our faith, Ellen White stated, “And while the Scriptures are God’s Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake.” A Call to the Watchmen, 14.

Old Landmarks and Pillars of Adventism

What are the “pillars” and “old landmarks” of truth? According to the Spirit of Prophecy, there are really only three pillars of Adventism. Notice carefully the description of these three pillars, also known as the old landmarks.

“The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God’s people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels’ messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, “The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.”

  1. One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God.
  2. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God’s law.
  3. The non-immortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks.…” Counsels to Writers and Editors, 30, 31.

The Sanctuary, the Foundation Pillar of Adventism

The first “pillar” or “landmark” that Satan would attack is the foundation pillar of the Advent movement. This landmark is the First Angel’s Message, the message that the remnant people were commissioned to give to a perishing world. The sanctuary truth is the one doctrine held only by Seventh-day Adventists. For Satan to attack the second pillar, the Sabbath truth, or the third pillar, the state of man in death, would be too obvious for alert Seventh-day Adventists. Satan must be more clever than to attack the obvious. If Satan attacked the sanctuary truth outright, by stating “there is no sanctuary in heaven,” the Advent people would detect the deception immediately. Too many testimonies had been written against that kind of an assault upon this foundation pillar of Adventism.

A Most Subtle Deception

History reveals that Satan would shrewdly concentrate his assault on the most important “phase” of the sanctuary truth. Satan would cleverly attack, and try to negate, the “final atonement” and the “blotting out of sins” work of Jesus Christ, our heavenly High Priest. Satan would introduce into the Seventh-day Adventist Church the false concept held by the fallen churches of Babylon, that the atonement was final, completed and finished on the cross. This false concept would lead the people to feel secure in their sins. This most subtle deception would at the same time do away with the truth of the 1844 message—that the final atonement is being completed in heaven by our High Priest, Jesus Christ, the true Lamb of God.

To complete his masterful deception, Satan, after establishing the erroneous “complete and final atonement on the cross” concept, would then introduce into the Seventh-day Adventist Church a false concept of the human nature Christ assumed while in the flesh. This second false concept would give the people a false “assurance” and lead them to believe that Christ is their substitute only. This deception would lead the people to accept the false doctrine of “free grace” held by all so-called “contemporary Christians.” This would be Satan’s most cunning and subtle deception, for it would lead the people to be lost in their sins! This overwhelming deception the Spirit of Prophecy describes as “the Omega of apostasy.”

“The Omega would follow in a little while,” Ellen White warned. “I tremble for our people.” Sermons and Talks, 341.

Jesus warned that in the last days Satan’s battle strategy against the remnant people of God would be so deceptive that “if it were possible, it should deceive the very elect.” Matthew 24:24b. Thus Paul stated, “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light, therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.” 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15a.

Ellen White cautioned, “One will arise and still another with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit.…We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith.” A Call to the Watchmen, 14.

How can we know what is truth? How can we identify heresy in these last days? How can we avoid being deceived by our cunning adversary?

“When the power of God testifies to what is truth, the truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions, contrary to the light God has given, are to be entertained.” Ibid.

A Safeguard and A Bulwark Against Heresy

“A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat and repeat till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard bearers who have fallen in death, are to speak through the reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time.” Ibid.

Notice the words, “I am instructed.” The instruction came directly from heaven. The instruction from heaven was that “voices are to be heard.” Whose voices are to be heard? “The standard bearers [pioneer Adventists] who have fallen in death, are to speak through the reprinting of their writings.” Not only that, but, “They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time.”

So that is the key, the doctrinal rock we should hold on to — the truth in our past history! “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” Life Sketches, 196. This statement was published in 1915. We must go back to the beginning of the Advent movement, the first “fifty years” of our past history, to discover what was the truth that was endorsed by “the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.” A Call to the Watchmen, 14. Then we must compare any new teaching, any “new theology,” to the teachings of pioneer Seventh-day Adventists from 1844 to the turn of the century.

“The doctrine of the Sanctuary was enunciated soon after the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844,” Leroy Froom wrote. “The earliest declaration of this doctrine was the published statement written out by O. R. L. Crosier — but representing the joint studies of Hiram Edson, Crosier, and Dr. F. B. Hawn — which studies took place in Port Gibson and neighboring Canandaigua, New York, in the week or months following the crisis in October.” Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, 111, 112.

“Published first in 1845 in the local Adventist paper, The Day-Dawn, in Canandaigua,” Froom continued, “it appeared in fuller form in The Day-Star Extra of February 7, 1846, printed in Cincinnati, Ohio.” Ibid., 112

Froom went on to state that, “Concerning the published results of these studies, Ellen Harmon White wrote this statement in a letter to Eli Curtis, dated April 21, 1847, and published the same year in one of our earliest pieces of denominational literature, A Word to the Little Flock.” Ibid., 111. Froom then quoted the statement of Ellen White. However, Froom omitted an important part of the Ellen White endorsement of the article by adding ellipses at the end of the first sentence as follows:

“The Lord shewed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary…; and that it was His will, that Brother C, should write out the view which he gave us in The Day Star Extra, February 7, 1846.” Ibid.

What was left out by the ellipses in Froom’s quotation? Here is the statement as written without the ellipses: “The Lord shewed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the sanctuary, et cetera; and that it was His [God’s] will that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in The Day Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that Extra to every saint.” A Word to the Little Flock, 12.

Froom purposely left out the “et cetera,” that Ellen White had written. Why? Was it because the “et cetera,” implied that Crosier had published the complete truth on all aspects of the Sanctuary truth, especially the “final atonement” phase of the Sanctuary truth? Notice Ellen White stated that, “The Lord shewed me in vision,” and that “Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the sanctuary, et cetera and that it was His [God’s] will that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in The Day Star Extra.” Ibid. Unquestionably a solid endorsement from the Lord through the Spirit of Prophecy of O. R. L. Crosier’s The Day Star Extra, article. If Leroy Froom, contemporary historian of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, could not agree with all the aspects of truth in Crosier’s article, then he also could not agree with the Spirit of Prophecy which endorsed the article. We will show that most contemporary Adventist historians, writers and scholars are also out of harmony with pioneer Seventh-day Adventists and with the Spirit of Prophecy on the teaching of the “Final Atonement” phase of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

Crosier’s Message

What had Crosier written that Froom and contemporary Adventist leadership could not agree with? It was Crosiers’ “final atonement” emphasis—that the atonement was not finished and completed on the cross, but that, as our High Priest, Christ is now making the “final atonement” in the heavenly Sanctuary.

While doing research for this manuscript, the author placed a call to the James White Memorial Library at Andrews University to purchase a photocopy of Crosier’s original article as it appeared in The Day Star Extra, February 7, 1846. The photocopy of the article arrived, minus the “atonement” portion of the article! Another letter was mailed, with the required funds, requesting that the full article be sent, including the “atonement” portion of Crosier’s Day-Star, Extra article. As of this writing two years have passed, and no further correspondence has been received. Is there something that the corporate Seventh-day Adventist Church is trying to hide? Thanks to the faithful work of Adventist laymen, the complete article was published on the Adventist Pioneer Library CD-ROM disk. (Adventist Pioneer Library, P. O. Box 1844, Loma Linda, CA 92354-0380, usa). Here, then, is the complete “atonement” portion of Crosier’s article in full. This is the true position on the “final atonement” phase of the heavenly Sanctuary as it was endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy: “But again, they say the atonement is made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired, so men have taught us, and so the churches and world believes; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests,” Crosier suggested. He then explained the “Final Atonement” phase of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary in the following six areas:

  1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest. Who officiated on Calvary? Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.
  2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim. (Leviticus 4:1–4, 13–15), after that the priest took the blood and made the atonement. (Leviticus 4:5–12, 16–21.)
  3. Christ was the appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing anything on earth after His resurrection which could be called the atonement.
  4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.
  5. He could not, according to Hebrews 8:4, make the atonement while on earth, “If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest.” The Levitical was the earthly priesthood, the Divine, the heavenly.
  6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, until after His ascension when, by His own blood, He entered His heavenly Sanctuary for us.

“Let us examine a few texts that appear to speak of the atonement as past,” Crosier continued. ‘By whom we have now received the atonement [margin, reconciliation].’ (Romans 5:11.) This passage clearly shows a present possession of the atonement at the time the apostle wrote, but it by no means proves that the entire atonement was then in the past.

When the Savior was about to be taken up from His apostles, He “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father,” which came on the day of Pentecost when they were all “filled with the Holy Ghost.” Luke 24:47; Acts 2:4. Christ had entered His Father’s house, the Sanctuary, as High Priest, and began His intercession for His people by “praying the Father” for “another Comforter,” “and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,” He shed it down upon His waiting apostles. John 14:16; Acts 2:33. Then, in compliance with their commission, Peter, at the third of the day began to preach, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Acts 2:39. This word remission signifies forgiveness, pardon or more literally sending of sins. Now, put by the side of this text, another on this point from his discourse at the ninth hour of the same day. Acts 3:18, “Repent ye therefore; and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.”

Here he exhorts to repentance and conversion (turning away from sin), for what purpose? “That your sins may be [future] blotted out.” Every one can see that the blotting out of sins does not take place at repentance and conversion; but follows, and must, of necessity, be preceded by them. Repentance, conversion, and baptism had become imperative duties in the present tense; and when performed, those doing them “washed away,” (Acts 22:16) remitted, or sent away from them, their sins, and of course are forgiven and have “received the atonement.” Romans 5:11. But they had not received it entirely at that time, because their sins were not yet blotted out. How far then had they advanced in the reconciling process? Just so far as the individual under the law had when he had confessed his sin, brought his victim to the door of the tabernacle, laid his hand upon it and slain it, and the priest had with its blood entered the Holy and sprinkled it before the veil and upon the alter and thus made an atonement for him, and he was forgiven. Only that was the type and this the reality. That prepared for the cleansing of the great Day of Atonement, this for the blotting out of sins “when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, and He shall send Jesus.” Acts 3:19, 20. Hence, “by whom we have now received the atonement” (Romans 5:11) is the same as by whom we have received the forgiveness of sin. At this point the man is “made free from sin.” Romans 6:22.

The Lamb on Calvary’s cross is our victim slain; “Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant” (Hebrews 12:24), in the heavens, is our intercessing High Priest, making atonement with His own blood by and with which He entered there. The essence of the process is the same as in the “shadow.” First, convinced of sin; second, repentance and confession; third, present the Divine sacrifice bleeding. This done in faith and sincerity, we can do no more, no more is required.

“In the heavenly Sanctuary our High Priest, with His own blood, makes the atonement, and we are forgiven,” Crosier concluded. He then quoted 1 Peter 2:24; “‘Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree.’” (See also Matthew 8:17; Isaiah 53:4–12.)

“His body is the ‘one sacrifice’ for repenting mortals, to which their sins are imparted and through whose blood, in the hands of the living, active Priest, they are conveyed to the heavenly Sanctuary. That was offered, ‘once for all,’ ‘on the tree;’ and all who would avail themselves of its merits must, through faith, there receive it as theirs, bleeding at the hands of sinful mortals like themselves.”

“After thus obtaining the atonement of forgiveness we must ‘maintain good works,’ not the ‘deeds of the law;’ but ‘being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness,’ This work we will understand to be peculiar to the Gospel Dispensation.” Owen R. L. Crosier, The Day Star Extra, February 7, 1846.

The Position of the Pioneers

This article makes it clear that pioneer Adventists did not believe in a “completed and final atonement on the cross.” Indeed, the “Fundamental Principles of Beliefs” written by James White and published in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook [1874–1914] stated almost the very words of Crosier on the final atonement. Note carefully the statement by James White: “That there is one Lord Jesus Christ…that He…died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only Mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, with His own blood, He makes the atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven.” James White, 1874 Fundamental Principles, op. sit. The Living Witness, “Significant Articles From the Signs of the Times,” 1874–1959, Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1959.

Did Ellen White agree with this “Fundamental Principles” statement on the final atonement? In one of Ellen White’s earliest visions she was shown the concept of the sanctuary truth symbolized by the First Angel’s Message:

“I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son.…Before the throne I saw the Advent people—the church and the world. I saw two companies, one bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the other stood uninterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then He would look to His Father, and appear to be pleading with Him. A light would come from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light. Many came out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not cherish the light, and it moved off from them. Some cherished it, and went and bowed down with the little praying company. This company all received the light and rejoiced in it, and their countenances shone with its glory.” Early Writings, 54, 55.

Ellen White stated that only a “few would receive this great light” and that only a few would join with “the little praying company.” God’s true people are always a small company. (See Luke 12:32; Mat-thew 7:14.) Indeed, did not Jesus say, “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Matthew 24:37. What was the most important fact about the days of Noah?

“When once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” 1 Peter 3:20b.

Christ and the Father Enter the Most Holy In 1844

Evangelical Christians and contemporary Adventists state that Christ entered the most holy place at His ascension. This teaching is heresy and is not the teaching of pioneer Adventists. Note carefully the following statement from the Spirit of Prophecy:

“I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son,” Ellen White began. “I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him.” Early Writings, 54.

I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and most of those who were bowed down arose with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness.…Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father.…Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest, and pray, “My Father, give us Thy Spirit.” Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light, power, and much love, joy, and peace.” Early Writings, 55.

There are five important facts that must be acknowledged in this vision given Ellen White. Note carefully the time-frame of the vision.

  1. The time of the vision was at the “End of the 2300 Days.” The end of the 2300 days was October 22, 1844.
  2. In vision Ellen White saw God the Father arise from His throne in the holy place, or first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and move into the holy of holies, “within the veil,” and sit down. (See Daniel 7:9, 10.) God the Father moved “through the Veil” into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844.
  3. Jesus also arose from His throne in the holy place, or first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 and “stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat.” (See Daniel 7:13.) There Ellen White saw Jesus our great High Priest, “standing before the Father.”
  4. Those who by faith entered the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary with the Father and the Son received “light, power, and much love, joy, and peace.”
  5. Ellen White did not see even “one ray of light” pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He had arisen and entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. Further, she stated that the people who did not enter the holy of holies by faith “were left in perfect darkness.” Mark this point well. The fallen churches of Babylon have not one ray of light and are in total darkness! “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20. Do the Sunday-keeping churches believe in the Law and the Sabbath? No, there is no light in them. “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Proverbs 28:9.

“I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, ‘Father, give us Thy Spirit.’ Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy, and peace. Satan’s object was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive God’s children.” Early Writings, 56.

Again, pioneer Adventist doctrine points out that the Sunday-keeping churches became Babylon because they refused to follow by faith the Father and Son into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844! They refused the First Angel’s Message! There are two other important facts that must be acknowledged in this early vision given to Ellen White.

  1. Satan appeared to be by the throne in the first apartment, or holy place, “trying to carry on the work of God.”
  2. Satan breathes upon the fallen churches of Babylon “an unholy influence,” and in this unholy influence there is “light and much power.” We see this unholy influence and false power in the erroneous faith healing and counterfeit joy and peace of the contemporary Evangelical and Pentecostal churches. We also see this “unholy influence” and false “joy and peace” in the “Celebration” movement within the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church. Only a delay of the Lord’s coming will reveal the acceptance of “tongue-speaking” and “divine healing” in public services of apostate churches.

The Two Locations of God’s Throne

Was God the Father’s throne in the holy place, the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, at the ascension of Christ, and the years prior to 1844? Did pioneer Adventists believe in a “moving throne?” Was Ellen White correct about the location of God’s throne prior to 1844 when she saw in vision the Father and the Son move from the holy place, the first apartment, through the Veil, into the holiest, or second apartment in 1844? The answer to these three questions is an absolute, indisputable, definite yes!

To be continued…

The Need for Certainty, Part I

by

Bible prophecy is very clear that a short time before Jesus returns again, there is going to be a time of trouble such as has never been since there was a nation. And God’s people will not be meeting together in churches during that time. Some will be in prisons, some will be in caves, some will be in dungeons, some will be in dens, some will be in forests or in the rocks of the mountains. But when you are in situations like that, you will know that Jesus is coming very soon, and if you have faith, it will be one of the most exciting times of your life. The question is will you have faith?

Some years ago I became acquainted with a man who had gone as a self-supporting missionary to Mexico in 1956. That country is almost entirely Roman Catholic in religion. However, he was a Protestant missionary, and as he became acquainted with people and studied the Bible with them, many in that part of the country became Protestant. He told me when he went to Mexico there were only about fifteen thousand Protestants in the whole area, and now there are almost three hundred thousand.

The same thing happened in Guatemala. Approximately thirty percent of the Guatemalan people are now Protestants. For many years, I have seen evidence that millions of former Roman Catholic people, from around the world, have become Protestant. However, sometimes a Protestant becomes a Roman Catholic. A book was recently published describing the experiences of eleven Protestants who became Roman Catholic. I was interested in finding out what these individuals were looking for and what they found, so I read a review of this book.

What is Mankind Searching For?

First, I discovered that these people were completely confused concerning the biblical meaning of who and what is the church. What does the Bible say that the church really is? There are a lot of Protestants today who do not know, and if you do not know who and what the church is, you might become a Roman Catholic some day.

In this book, I discovered that there was something for which all of these people were searching. When they became Roman Catholics they thought that they had found it. They were searching for certainty. They wanted to know for sure that they knew the truth. Do you know for sure that you know the truth? Unless you know that your beliefs are the truth, one of these days you are not going to believe what you believe now. You are going to be swept off your feet by the pressure that is going to come in the last days. It is important to know for sure that you know the truth. We are living in an age when many well-educated people do not seem to know anything for certain.

Several years ago I was attending a meeting in Dallas, Texas. It was not a religious meeting. It was a convention where nutritionists and dieticians were meeting with people from the public school system in Dallas. A public school educator asked these experts in nutrition and diet the following question: “I would like to know what you know for sure about nutrition.” I was very interested in the answer that they gave him. They said, in essence, “We do not know anything for sure.” And I thought to myself, “Well if these people do not know anything for sure, why should I go to them for counsel and advice?”

A minister recently spoke to a physician who had attended a medical meeting. At this meeting reports were given concerning new advances and discoveries in the field of medical science. One lecturing physician said, “Now we know statistically, from looking at the past, that approximately half of what I just told you will be proved, in the future, to be wrong.” He said, “The trouble is, I do not know which half it is.” That is a nice way to say that you are terribly uncertain about what you are thinking and about what you are doing.

Several years ago I spoke to a physician at a rehabilitation program where we were trying to help people who had heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure. He told me about how he was trained to treat these problems when he was a young physician back in the 1940s. He treated his own mother for high blood pressure, and he told me, “I know now, that what I told my mother to do for high blood pressure was exactly the wrong thing to do, but I did not know it then.”

Uncertain Times

Today, we are living in a time of uncertainty. The theory today is proven wrong tomorrow. As people see one theory after another proven wrong, they soon do not have certainty about anything, or confidence in anything. They know what looks like certainty today will be proved wrong tomorrow. So today, as in no other time, people have a need to know something for certain.

Do you know anything for sure? Are you absolutely sure that what you know is infallibly so? How important is it to know something for sure? Revelation 13:15–17 says, “He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

Here is predicted a time, in the very near future, when, if you do not worship the beast or have the mark of the beast, you will be told that you cannot buy groceries. Perhaps you say, “No problem, if it is that tough I will just accept whatever it is. I will just accept the mark of the beast or worship the beast or whatever I have to do. I have to eat.” That is your choice. If that is what you want to do, you can. But if you accept the mark of the beast, or worship the beast, notice what is going to happen to you. “Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.’ Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 14:9–12. Notice, you can accept the mark of the beast so you can buy and sell, if you want to do so, but if you do, God says that you are going to receive the wrath of God.

The world that we live in today is approaching the most stupendous crisis of world history, and this is what the crisis is going to be about. You must either receive the wrath of men, who are telling you that you cannot buy or sell, or you are going to receive the wrath of God, who says, “I am going to put you in hellfire if you do this.” It is going to be one way or the other. You are going to have to decide which you are going to endure. When this time comes, is it going to be important for you to know for sure what you believe? Are you going to risk your life with threatened imprisonment and death, unable to buy or sell? Are you going to risk all of that for something of which you are unsure? Why no! No one risks their life for something that they are unsure of. You had better find out for sure what you believe. Is there certainty, something that you can know absolutely for sure, that is infallible, and cannot be proved false? There is!

Is the Church of God Infallible?

Millions and millions of Christians believe that the thing that is infallible in the world, the thing that can bring certainty to people, is the church. They believe the organized church, or its leaders, to be infallible. They quote Matthew 16:18 where Jesus said to Peter, “on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Have you studied this out in the Bible? According to the Bible, is the church, any church, infallible? Absolutely not!

How long has God had a church? In Acts 7:38 we read, “This is He who was in the congregation [the church] in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us.” So God had a church in the wilderness with the Children of Israel when He gave them His law from Mount Sinai. God had a church, and that church was the church of the Old Covenant, the church in the Old Testament. It was the Jewish Church, the Children of Israel, and it was their mission to take the gospel to all the nations of the world. God told them in Isaiah 49, “You are to be a light to the nations, a light to the Gentiles.” And there were some Gentiles that became part
of the church. They even became the progenitors of the Messiah. Have you read, in your Bibles, the story of Ruth? She was not an Israelite by lineal descent. She was a Moabite woman, but she became a part of the Israelite Church and became part of Israel.

Then there is the story of Rahab. And there are the stories of many others in Old Testament times, like Naaman, who became part of God’s people. But as we read the story of God’s church in the Old Testament, was God’s Old Testament Church infallible? No, they went into apostasy over and over again. A large part of the Old Testament deals with their apostasy. Daniel talks about this very problem, and he says in Daniel 9:11, “Yes, all Israel has transgressed Your law, and has departed so as not to obey Your voice; therefore the curse and the oath written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against Him.”

Jesus commented on their apostasy in Matthew 23:31–35. “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 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 Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”

Was the church in Old Testament times infallible? Oh no, they killed the prophets Jesus said. In fact, Jesus said to them, “Show me which one of the prophets you did not try to kill. Show me one.” Who was it that instigated the crucifixion of our Lord and Saviour? It was God’s chosen people, His church. It was not the Romans, because Pilate was not in favor of it. The Romans just did what the church coerced them into doing. The church was responsible for the crucifixion of the Lord.

Infallible Apostles?

Some may think that New Testament times would be different, because Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church. Well, was the New Testament Church infallible or not? Let us look at the church at Corinth. Paul writes in I Corinthians 3:1, 3: “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. For you are still carnal.” They were in apostasy. Galatians 3:1 tells us just how bad the church in Galatia was. “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?” Does that sound like an infallible church? No! The church in New Testament times went into apostasy too. The church was not infallible and the leaders of the church were not infallible.

Acts 21:18 talks about the apostles and leaders of the apostolic church. In this instance they were not infallible, they made a dreadful mistake that resulted in the imprisonment of the apostle Paul. Acts 21:18 says, “On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.” These were all the elders of the General Conference Church, the Apostolic Church, and you can read in that chapter about what they did there. The decision they made was a mistake and resulted in the apostle Paul going to prison. They were not infallible.

A Great Apostasy

After the time of the apostles, not only was the church not infallible, but Paul and Peter predicted that a great apostasy would develop within the church itself. In Acts 20:28–30 Paul addresses the church leaders in Ephesus, “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves.”…Here Paul says that among the bishops, the elders of the apostolic church in Ephesus, this apostasy was to come. He says, “I know that after my departure also among yourselves, men will rise up speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.” He is predicting that right in the heart of the Christian church, among the leadership of the Christian church, a great apostasy is going to develop.

Paul knew that the Second Coming of Christ was not going to happen right away; something else was going to have to happen first. He wrote, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day [the Second Coming of Christ] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4. Paul says that a man of sin is going to come, and he is going to come into the temple of God (the church); he is going to be a leader of the church, and he is going to show that he, himself, is God.

All the early Christian fathers read this text. Chrysostrum, one of the early Christian fathers living about the fourth century, was a bishop in Constantinople. When he read this passage he taught the people in Constantinople that the antichrist power was going to rise up right in the church, and it was going to arise from the leadership in the church. That is what the early Christian fathers taught.

The book of Revelation clearly shows that the church is not infallible. The church could go into apostasy. Revelation 2:18–26 talks about a church in Thyatira and the Lord says to this church, “You have allowed Jezebel to come right into your church and to deceive people right in the church.”

It is very clear all through the New Testament that all the apostles taught the infallibility of the church. The theologians were not infallible (Galatians 1), the church councils were not infallible (Acts 21:18), the leaders of the church, the bishops, were not infallible (Acts 20), even the apostles were not infallible. Paul wrote, “Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.… But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?’” Galatians 2:11–14. So, Peter himself was not infallible. That is what the New Testament teaches. Peter made a very serious mistake and the apostle Paul had to rebuke him in public.

To be continued…

Conviction vs. Preference

by

In early October, I received a phone call from one of our attorneys. He asked me to set aside a full day on my calendar the following week so he and I could deal with some very important issues in my case. He instructed me to tell my secretary not to allow any calls or any interruptions, as we would be working from nine o’clock until five o’clock. He informed me that he wanted no excuses, and since I have to follow his directions in everything concerning the lawsuit and the court, unless it goes against God, I agreed.

When I asked why he needed the whole day, he requested that I come to his office and pick up some tapes. “After you have listened to them, then you will know what this is about,” he told me.

He gave me five tapes. He said it was my homework. Beside my studies, my work and my visiting, I was to listen to these five tapes. We made an appointment for the following week, which would be a week before the trial, and I left with the tapes.

On the day of our meeting he arrived promptly and instructed me to help him bring in several boxes that he had in his truck. We carried seven boxes of documents into the office that he had been preparing for my trial.

“This is what I have been doing for six months,” he stated. “I want you to see that we have been doing our homework. However, if we are going to nail this case in our favor, the rest will depend on you.”

You know, I want the Lord’s will to be done. That is how simple it is. I feel this is the Lord’s cause, not my own, even though it has caused me a great deal of stress. I know if I am not depending wholly on the Lord, we will be nothing. We will be destroyed. But now, my attorney tells me that the outcome of the case will also depend on how I present myself in this trial.

We went into my office where we were to spend the whole day, and he sat down facing me across the table, looked me in the eye, and said, “Now, I want you to answer several questions for me.

  1. Is the Seventh-day Adventist faith, to you, a preference or a conviction?
  2. As a minister, is the name Seventh-day Adventist a preference or a conviction?
  3. Is the preaching, that you have been doing all this time since you have been in the Adventist Church, a preference or a conviction?”

I did not know where these questions were going, so right there in my office he gave me a little workshop on how the American Constitution works, or how the Supreme Court sees religious matters here in this country today.

“So far, he said, “I know what you have been preaching and what you believe and what the prophet says.” [When he says “What the prophet says” you know who he was talking about? Ellen G. White]. He said, “I know that the Prophet has been saying that every principle of the constitution is going to be destroyed in this country, and we might be seeing that happen very soon, but so far, the Supreme Court of the United States respects an individual’s religious convictions. So far, in this land of North America, the Supreme Court still holds respect for religious convictions.”

I believe this man is going to be a converted Seventh-day Adventist, sooner, maybe than we think. He has already read The Great Controversy. He asked for the Spirit of Prophecy books. He is reading Testimonies for the Church. And he has told me on more than one occasion that he can identify so well with my case because he belongs to, what the mother Jewish Church would call, an offshoot group. He preaches to that offshoot Jewish group every week.

He went on to explain to me the difference between a preference and a conviction. Every true man of God, every faithful man or woman of God since Abel, [the first man to die because he stood for the truth], took their religion as a conviction. Every one of them!

Look at Noah. It took a man of conviction to preach the message that he was preaching in his day. Especially when the whole world was against him. It took a man of religious convictions, not a man who took his religious experience as a preference.

You see, even the Supreme Court of this nation knows that a preference can be changed. If you have been taking your religion as a preference, or religious belief as a preference, that means that, in some given circumstances, you can change, you can compromise. But when you have a conviction, there is no compromise. There is no change. There is no giving up. When you have a conviction, you are willing to die. That is conviction! A conviction, according to the law of this land, is respected because you are willing to put your life into that conviction. If you are not willing to go that far, then you are taking your religious belief as a preference, not a conviction.

While my attorney was telling me all of this, I began to understand just a little, why Sister White said the majority will forsake us, and forsake the faith. Because Satan has already been trapping many of our brethren into compromising, or preaching a smooth message in place of the message that God has given us, just for the sake of peace, love and comfort.

In Daniel 3:1 it says, “Nebuchadnezzar, the king, made an image of gold.” Every Seventh-day Adventist is familiar with that image of gold. And every time we talk about it, or read about it, or hear about that image, what comes to our minds? The image of the beast that is to be formed in the last days.

We, as historic Seventh-day Adventists, believe that we are living precisely in that time. The Lord has been raising up men and women who are going to finish this work in righteousness in a short time! So we believe we are living in that time when the image of the beast is being formed. The only thing missing is to make the enforcement, to see the oven, the fire there in front of us.

When I read this story, I become more convinced that if we do not have a true conviction of our religious belief, then we are going to give up. We are going to give up because Satan knows our weak point, and he is going to work hard on that point; whether it be appetite, worldliness, or sins that have been cherished in our lives. We have to pray to the Lord to show us what our weak point is, because Satan knows it and he is going to work hard on that.

We see in the Story in Daniel 3:6 that the order went out, “and whoso fall not down and worshipeth shall in the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” Even the enemies of these three faithful Hebrews, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, knew their religious beliefs and principles. That tells me that they were not afraid to expose their religious belief. They were not hiding. They did not say, “Well, we can bow down here, because God knows what is really in our hearts, and He knows we really only worship Him.”

My Jewish attorney revealed to me something of the Jewish mentality. Back in the days of the Inquisition when the Roman Catholic came to the Jew and said, “Are you a Roman Catholic?” The Jews reasoned in their minds this way; “If I say no, they are going to kill me. They are going to burn me. But if I say, yes, the Lord God will forgive me on the Day of Atonement.” That is their mentality. Once every year they can ask God for forgiveness for all of their sins and be forgiven, even if they have renounced Him. That means that they have no convictions.

But these three faithful, godly men, they were not afraid. They lived their faith openly before their enemies, and they did not try to conceal their faith. I can identify with that.

The day came, and when it did, these three men did not know that God was going to deliver them. Perhaps the king thought he could scare them a little bit so maybe they would start shaking and come back and say, “You know what? We have changed; we are going to make a reformation in our beliefs. We are going to see if we can give up a little for the sake of unity. It looks like we are the only ones in the whole Kingdom that are causing trouble. So since we know the Lord loves us, we will kneel down.” But they did not say that, did they? “Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.’” [Daniel 3:16, 17]. What an example of conviction we find here. “We don’t need time to think it over, O King! We can answer you right now!” They would say the same thing to the Pope if they were living today!

That is the kind of conviction that is needed in the ranks of God’s people today. A true conviction of our religious beliefs, a conviction that can only come through the Holy Spirit. So far, I am tempted to think that we have been taking our religious experience as a preference. I have heard brethren of mine say, “Look, I like to go to this big church. To me I feel so good with my family there. You should see how we clap and rejoice. We do not have to worry about this persecution thing that you have been preaching about. We feel so happy!” This is preference, not conviction.

I have been in several countries where this same kind of thing is taking place. Many Adventist churches in North America are starting to have Sunday worship. “It is a good way to witness to our Catholic brethren,” they say. They use a little quote from Sister White that says we have to be careful, not to defile the Sunday law when it comes. But she also said that we should not give the slightest appearance that we are worshipping that day [Sunday]. You see how Satan is already working in our people’s minds?

But in Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego we do not see this kind of a wavering. Instead of waiting, trying to deceive the king into thinking that they might need some time to think about it, they said, “Do you know what, king? We are not careful to answer you. Right now we can answer to you. “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace.” Daniel 3:17.

King, you go ahead and do it! But our God can deliver us. “But even if our God does not deliver us, we are not going to worship the image.” [Daniel 3:18]. That is true conviction. That is a million dollar verse! They were not sure God would deliver them, but even if He did not, they were so convicted of their beliefs that they were not going to serve the king or his gods in any way!

Are we ready for these things? If we are not ready to say, “O King, we will not serve thy gods,” very soon it might be too late. We need to search our souls to discover what Babylonian gods we are still serving today.

In these last days we also have seen a king in the earth being raised up for many years, like every other king of this earth. We see the image, but we also see a faithful group of men and women, similar to these three Hebrew men, who are going to be standing up for the truth, whether God delivers them or not.

“Christ is coming the second time, with power unto salvation. To prepare human beings for this event, He has sent the First, Second, and Third Angels’ Messages. These angels represent those who receive the truth, and with power open the gospel to the world.” Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, 978, 979. They do not just receive the truth, they are not going to hide this truth among themselves, but they are going to make the truth a part of them. So much a part of them that nobody is ever going to hide it under any circumstances, even up to death if it is possible.

Revelation 14:6 says, “I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven.” Now we read that the angel represents those who receive and proclaim those three angels’ messages. Is that not true? So this angel was flying in the midst of heaven. Why flying? Because one of the things that we see here is the speed with which the work was going to be carried on.

This angel is flying in the midst of heaven. Why in the “midst” of heaven. I see, brothers and sisters, the Bible telling us not only the speed with which the work will go forward, but also the experience of those men and women who are going to be involved in that work. Their experience is not going to be an earthly, or worldly experience, it is going to be a heavenly experience.

In vision, Sister White was looking for God’s people all over the earth. She could not see them. But the angel said, “No, look above.” This will be the experience of the people who have a true conviction of their religious beliefs in their hearts, an experience that God has for us today.

I see one thing in prophecy; I see that when these nations will unite and establish the Sunday law, trouble is going to come. That is what we see in prophecy. We are seeing strange things going on.

In The Great Controversy, there is a chapter called “The Final Warning,” Please allow me to review a few things from this chapter with you.

“Heretofore those who presented the truths of the Third Angel’s Message have often been regarded as mere alarmists. Their predictions that religious intolerance would gain control of the United States, that church and state would unite to persecute those who keep the commandments of God, have been pronounced groundless and absurd. It has been confidently declared that this land could never become other than what it has been—the defender of religious freedom. But as the question of enforcing Sunday observance is widely agitated, the event so long doubted and disbelieved is seen to be approaching, and the Third Angel’s Message will produce an influence which it could not have had before.” The Great Controversy, 605, 606.

When the Sunday law is widely agitated, then we are going to see how a wise God has raised up the Seventh-day Adventist people, and why it is so important to keep in the mind of the people of every generation, this issue of Sunday observance being enforced.

“God has sent His servants to rebuke sin, both in the world and in the church. But the people desire smooth things spoken to them.…As the controversy extends into new fields, and the minds of the people are called to God’s downtrodden law, Satan is astir. The power attending the message will only madden those who oppose it.” Ibid. 608

Oh yes, every time we put one of our ads in the paper, we get many, many letters, mad, even cursing us. But brothers and sisters, just because we do not want those people to get mad, are we are going to hide the message, the truth? No!

God gives a special truth for the people in an emergency. Who dare refuse to publish it? God has been giving this message, the last message that mankind is going to have before His coming. The Three Angels’ Message, while Satan has been making us believe that, instead of asking for the power of the Holy Spirit to finish this work, we can just entertain ourselves in the ecumenical movement, in Celebration and so on. I sometimes think we are more willing to identify ourselves with the Roman Catholic Church than God’s people.

“The Lord gives a special truth for the people in an emergency. Who dare refuse to publish it? He commands His servants to present the last invitation of mercy to the world. They cannot remain silent, except at the peril of their souls” Ibid, 609.

Yet Satan has made us believe that if we preach this message we do not have love, instead we have hate. He twists everything around. But we must speak the truth, not fearing the consequences. Mrs. White writes, “Christ’s ambassadors have nothing to do with consequences. They must perform their duty and leave results with God. Ibid., 609, 610.

One of the dear men from the General Conference told me, “Oh, but you do not understand. That book, The Great Controversy, was written for the last century, not for now.”

You mean those truths were relevant for the 1800s, but not now? So now God has changed? He will create a new book, The Great Controversy for Today? No!

The Papacy, the beast, and Satan’s agents are all getting angry, but God is able to deliver us. Recently I went to a Seventh-day Adventist Church, and I noticed that the board outside was blank. When I asked why they did not have the name of the church on the board, the brother bowed his head. He said, “We had a sign there identifying our church as a Seventh-day Adventist Church, but since we heard about your lawsuit, we had to take it down.” I felt like I was living in the dark ages when people were hiding from the Roman Catholics! When people who revealed the conviction of their faith would be burned at the stake. That is how far our institution has gone in playing God. People are afraid, just like the Protestants were afraid of the Roman Catholic Church. I tell you this so you can see how far we have gone in this business of suing and threatening.

The Papacy is no longer hiding their plans. In the October 28 Florida Catholic, it says that they are going to meet with about twenty religious leaders at the Vatican at the end of the year. They are making plans! They are uniting. If Satan’s people are getting together, uniting, should not God’s people be united? This is of great importance! God’s people must press together, as Sister White says. The messages of Revelation 14 were given because the principles of the churches have become corrupted. Revelation 18 explains the condition that they are in. The whole world is guilty of receiving the mark of the beast. But— the prophet sees a company who are not worshipping the beast and who are not receiving the mark in their foreheads or in their hands. “Here is the patience of the saints,” he declares, “here are those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17.

May the Lord give us the faith of Jesus. Then this whole problem of unity among ministries and God’s people is going to be a problem of the past. Satan has been uniting his army already. It is going to be only a small company that will be willing, with conviction in their heart, to follow the Light wherever it takes them.

The Final Atonement, Part II

by

The Father’s throne was in the holy place, or first apartment, of the heavenly sanctuary until 1844, at which time the Father moved into the most holy place, or second apartment, of the heavenly sanctuary and was seated. (See Daniel 7:9,10.) This concept was Biblical and was confirmed by the Spirit of Prophecy. (See Early Writings, 54, 55.)

Some theologians of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have propagated erroneous concepts regarding the place and the work of God, the Father, and of Jesus, our Mediator.

Elmer Ellsworth Andross

E.E. Andross was the first Seventh-day Adventist to publish the erroneous concept that God’s throne has always been located in the most holy place, and that “at His ascension” Christ entered the most holy place to appear before the Father to be confirmed. Then He returned to the holy place, or first apartment, of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the “first phase” of His heavenly ministry. (See E. E. Andross, A More Excellent Ministry, Pacific Press Publishing Association, Mountain View, CA., 1912.)

The concept that Christ entered the most holy place and then returned to the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary was never taught by early Adventists, nor was it ever confirmed by the Spirit of Prophecy. Where in the world did E. E. Andross get the idea for such an erroneous concept?

Andross Influenced By Ballenger

E.E. Andross was associated in England with A. F. Ballenger, an Adventist minister who taught erroneous concepts on the sanctuary doctrine. Ellen White opposed all the erroneous concepts presented by Ballenger. Arthur White wrote, “Associated with him [Elder A. F. Ballenger] in the work in Britain were such men as Elder E. W. Farnsworth and E. E. Andross.” Arthur White, EGW: The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 1900-1905, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1981, 405, 406.

“In his 1911 talks at the Oakland Camp meeting, Elder Andross carefully traces through various texts and were employed by Ballenger in support of his views…” Arthur White wrote. Ibid.

Ellen White did not confirm the erroneous concept that Christ entered the most holy, or second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, at the time of His ascension to appear before the Father to be confirmed. Nor did she confirm that He then returned to the holy, or first apartment, to perform the first phase of His heavenly ministry. (See Ibid.) Although this erroneous concept cannot be found in the Bible, or the Spirit of Prophecy, it is promoted by some contemporary Seventh-day Adventist theologians.

Roy Adams Praises Ballenger’s Erroneous Concept

Roy Adams, current assistant editor of the Adventist Review, supports this erroneous concept. “Ballenger’s stress on…Christ’s entry into the most holy place at His ascension may be retained,” Roy Adams stated, “and shown to be compatible with the notion of an anti-typical day of atonement commencing in 1844.” Roy Adams, The Sanctuary Doctrine, “Andrews University Doctrinal Dissertation Series,” Berrien Springs, MI., 255.

Ballenger’s erroneous concept of Christ’s entry into the most holy place at His ascension “may be retained,” according to Roy Adams. Moreover, Roy Adams believes that Ballenger’s erroneous concept can be “shown to be compatible with the notion of an anti-typical day of atonement commencing in 1844.” Ibid. This is liberal “new theology” Adventism in its most subtle and deceptive form. This is what prompted Ellen White to warn, “Omega would follow in a little while. I tremble for our people.” Sermons and Talks, vol. 1, 341.

The Work Of Jesus In the Most Holy Of the Heavenly Sanctuary

At the end of the 2,300 days [years], Jesus came before the Father to serve as our High Priest. Daniel saw this great event in vision.

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man [Jesus] came with the clouds of heaven,” Daniel wrote, “and came to the Ancient of days [the Father], and they brought him near before him.” Daniel 7:13.

It was at that time that Jesus was given His kingdom. This event was the marriage of the Lamb. Pioneer Adventists’ saw the fulfillment of this prophecy in the parable of the ten virgins (See Matthew 25:1-13) and the “midnight cry” given in the summer of 1844. “And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.” Matthew 25:6.

“And there was given him [Jesus] dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him,” Daniel wrote, “his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:14.

At this time “the judgement was set, and the books were opened.” Daniel 7:10. “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” Revelation 11:18.

Pioneer Adventists saw that the work of Jesus, our High Priest, in the heavenly sanctuary consisted not only of judgement but in the blotting out of sins. In the blotting out of sins, Jesus is making the final atonement.

Pioneer Adventist Writers On the Final Atonement

What about other pioneer Adventists? Was O. R. L. Crosier the only one who believed the final atonement is finished in heaven by our High Priest? No, indeed! Notice carefully a few statements from the most acknowledged pioneer Adventists.

“The Final Atonement” and “The Blotting Out Of Sins”

“By many, the idea of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary will be treated with scorn, ‘because’ say they, ‘there is nothing in Heaven to be cleansed,’” Andrews began. “Such overlook the fact that the holy of holies, where God manifested His glory, and which no one but the High Priest could enter, was, according to the law, to be cleansed, because the sins of the people were borne into it by the blood of sinoffering.” Leviticus 16. James N. Andrews, The Sanctuary and Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, Battle Creek, MI., 1872, 90.

“And they overlook the fact that Paul plainly testifies that the heavenly sanctuary must be cleansed for the same reason. Hebrews 9:23, 24. (See also Colossians 1:20.) Andrews continued. “It was unclean in this sense only: the sins of men had been borne into it through the blood of sin offering, and they must be removed.” Then Andrews added, “This fact can be grasped by every mind.” Ibid., 91.

“The work of cleansing the sanctuary changes the ministration from the holy place to the holiest of all. Leviticus 16; Hebrews 9:6, 7; Revelation 11:19,” Andrews continued. “As the ministration in the holy place of the temple in heaven began immediately after the end of the typical system, at the close of the sixty-nine and a half weeks (See Daniel 9:27), so the ministration in the holiest of all, in the heavenly sanctuary, begins with the termination of the 2300 days.” Ibid., 91.

“Then our High Priest enters the holiest to cleanse the sanctuary,” Andrews concluded. “The termination of this great period marks the commencement of the ministration of the Lord Jesus in the holiest of all.” Ibid.

“This work, as presented in the type, we have already seen was for a two-fold purpose, viz.: [1] the forgiveness of iniquity, [2] and the cleansing of the sanctuary,” Andrews stated. “And this great work our Lord accomplishes with His own blood; whether by the actual presentation of it, or by virtue of its merits, we need not stop to inquire.” Ibid.

“No one can fail to perceive that this event, the cleansing of the sanctuary, is one of infinite importance,” Andrews wrote. “This accomplishes the great work of the Messiah in the tabernacle in heaven, and renders it complete.” Ibid.

Notice, that Andrews concedes that the work of final atonement and cleansing of our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary “renders it complete.” This is done in heaven, not at the cross.

“The work of cleansing the sanctuary is succeeded by the act of placing the sins, thus removed, upon the head of the scape-goat, to be borne away forever from the sanctuary,” Andrews concludes. “The work of our High Priest for the sins of the world will then be completed, and He will be ready to appear `without sin unto salvation.’” Ibid., 92.

Notice that Andrews states that, “The work of our High Priest for the sins of the world will then be completed.” Ibid. Is this statement in harmony with Crosier?

Yes, indeed. “In the heavenly Sanctuary, our High Priest, with His own blood, makes the atonement and we are for-given,” Crosier stated. Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846.

Is this statement by Andrews in harmony with Ellen White? Yes, again.

“His [Christ’s] work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” Manuscript 69, 1912, 13.

Contemporary SDA Opposing Position

Are these statements by Andrews, Crosier, and Ellen White in harmony with contemporary Seventh-day Adventist doctrine? No, they are not! “When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature—even in the writings of Ellen G. White—that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross.” Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 354.

Satan’s conspiracy against the Advent truth is so subtle, so deceptive, that, without constant study by the Christian, detection is almost impossible. Did not Jesus warn that “if it were possible it should deceive the very elect?” Matthew 24:24. Notice very, very, carefully the two opposing statements below, the truth as stated by Ellen White, followed by the error as stated by the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church:

Ellen White’s Statement

“When Christ, the Mediator, burst the bands of the tomb, and ascended on high to minister for man, [1] He first entered the holy place, where, by virtue of His own sacrifice, He made an offering for the sins of men. With intercession and pleading He presented before God the prayers and repentance and faith of His people, purified by the incense of His own merits. [2] He next entered the Most Holy Place [in 1844], to make an atonement for the sins of the people, and cleanse the sanctuary. His work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, 54.

Erroneous Contemporary Adventist Church Statement

“This becomes all the more meaningful when we realize that Jesus, our surety, entered the “holy places” and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. [emphasis theirs]And now, as our High Priest, He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice.” Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 381.

Notice, Ellen White states that Jesus “entered the holy place, where…He made an offering for the sins of men.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, 54. The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church says, “No.” They admit that Jesus did enter the “holy places” and appeared in the presence of God for us. “But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time.” Representative Group of the Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 381.

Ellen White says, “He next entered the most holy place, to make an atonement for the sins of the people, and cleanse the sanctuary.” And, “His work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, 54. The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church says, “No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross.” Representative Group of the Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 381.

“The sins of those who have obtained pardon through the great sin-offering, are, at the close of our Lord’s work in the holy places, blotted out (Acts 3:19),” J. N. Andrews concluded, “and being then transferred to the scape-goat, are borne away from the sanctuary and host forever, and rest upon the head of their author, the devil.” J. N. Andrews.

James N. Andrews then endorsed the writings of O. R. L. Crosier: “The following valuable remarks on this important point are from the pen of O. R. L. Crosier, written in 1846.” Ibid. Bates

“First, then to be perfect in time it must begin on the 10th day of the 7th month, and no where else,” Bates stated. “Then please look back to the 10th of the 7th month, 1844, where all the virgins were out looking for the Bridegroom, or as in the type, waiting for Jesus our great High Priest, to finish the atonement for the sanctuary and ourselves, and bless us by his glorious appearing.” Joseph Bates, Eighth Way Mark, “Bridegroom Come,” 101.

“Then we say at the commencement of this second type, the symbol of our trial, was where the Bridegroom came, and commenced the cleansing of the sanctuary,” Bates concluded. “When God speaks and shakes earth and heaven, Joel says Jerusalem will be holy, the sanctuary will be complete, the atonement finished; for God will then be the hope of his people.” Ibid., 102.

Stephen N. Haskell

“In Acts 3:19 we read: ‘Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.’ Then your sins are blotted out when the times of refreshing come. We are, today, in the time of the blotting out of our sins. We are now looking for the times of refreshing, and the outpouring of the Spirit. The Lord teaches knowledge to those who are weaned, and those who study the Word have the refreshing. The refreshing is the outpouring of the Spirit of God in the time of the blotting out of sins, and that is where we are now.” Stephen N. Haskell, “Preparation For Reception Of the Holy Spirit,” 1909 General Conference Daily Bulletin, May 20, 1909, 106. [Address given at 9:15am Thursday, May 20, and Friday, May 21, 1909].

Alonzo Trevor Jones

“We are also in the time of the utter blotting out of all sins that have ever been against us,” A. T. Jones wrote. “And the blotting out of sins is exactly this thing of the cleansing of the sanctuary; it is the finishing of all transgression in our lives; it is the making an end of all sins in our character; it is the bringing in of the very righteousness of God, which is, by faith of Jesus Christ, to abide alone everlastingly.

Therefore now as never before we are to repent and be converted that our sins may be blotted out,” Jones concluded, “that an utter end shall be made of them forever in our lives and everlasting righteousness brought in.” A. T. Jones, “The Times of Refreshing,” The Consecrated Way To Christian
Perfection, 124.

J.N. Loughborough

Loughborough writes, “Still later Elder [J. H.] Waggoner wrote a third pamphlet of about the same size, entitled, The Atonement in the Light of Reason and Revelation. About the year 1884 this was revised and enlarged to a volume of some 400 pages. It is a clear and concise treatise upon the subject indicated by its title.” J. N. Loughborough, Great Second Advent Movement, 334. [Note: J. H. Waggoner was the father of E. J. Waggoner.]

E.J. Waggoner

“The blotting out of sin is the erasing of it from the nature, the being of man. . ., the erasing of sin is the blotting of it from our natures, so that we shall know it no more.” E. J. Waggoner, Review and Herald, September 30, 1902.

“`The worshipers once purged’—actually purged by the blood of Christ—have ‘no more conscience of sin,’ because the way of sin is gone from them…,” This is the work of Christ in the true sanctuary which the Lord pitched, and not man,—the sanctuary not made with hands, but brought into existence by the thought of God.” Ibid.

Joseph Harvey Waggoner

“And yet another question has been raised, on which some minds have been perplexed. If the blotting out of sins is done in the closing work of the priest, when the sanctuary is cleansed, that is to say, in the Judgment, then the sins of all the saints must stand on record till that time. Now it has been shown (See Chapter Three) that justification by faith and salvation are not identical; the former is a fact of experience at the present time, while the latter is contingent on ‘patient continuance in well-doing’ on the part of the justified one. As was remarked, ‘justification by faith is not a final procedure; it does not take the place of the Judgment, nor render the Judgment unnecessary. It looks to something beyond itself to be accomplished in the future.’” Joseph Harvey Waggoner, “The Judgement,” The Atonement, 226. James White

“How natural, then, the conclusion, that as the Jewish priests ministered daily in connection with the holy place of the sanctuary, and on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the close of their yearly round of service, the high priest entered the most holy place to make atonement for the cleansing of the sanctuary; so Christ ministered in connection with the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary from the time of His ascension to the ending of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, when, on the tenth day of the seventh month of that year, he entered the most holy place of the heavenly tabernacle to make a special atonement for the blotting out of the sins of His people, or, which is the same thing, for the cleansing of the sanctuary. The typical sanctuary was cleansed from the sins of the people with the offering of blood. The nature of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary may be learned from the type. By virtue of His own blood, Christ entered the most holy to make a special atonement for the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle. James White, “The Sanctuary,” Bible Adventism, 185, 186.

The doctrine of a “final atonement in heaven” is stated by James White in several places. Three other references are, Life Incidents, 192, 193; Life Sketches, 111; and Our Faith and Hope, 175, 176.

Pioneer Adventists taught the “final atonement” completed in heaven in perfect harmony with the Day-Star, Extra as written by O. R. L. Crosier. Many other examples could be presented. This position was one of the “foundation” truths that was endorsed by the Spirit of God at the beginning of the Advent movement.

“A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was plainly marked out before me,” Ellen White wrote, “and I gave my brethren and sisters the instruction that the Lord had given me.” “Establishing the Foundation of Our Faith,” Manuscript 135, 1903, 3.

Ellen White On the Final Atonement

The Spirit of Prophecy teaches that the “atonement” was not completed on the cross, as the fallen churches of Babylon and the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church now teach. Although there are many more examples, the following are seven clear statements by Ellen White that the “atonement” was not completed and finished on the cross, but is finalized in the heavenly Sanctuary.

Early Statement – 1852

“As Jesus died on Calvary, He cried, ‘It is finished,’ and the veil of the temple was rent in twain, from the top to the bottom. This was to show that the services of the earthly sanctuary were forever finished, and that God would no more meet with the priests in their earthly temple, to accept their sacrifices. The blood of Jesus was then shed, which was to be offered by Himself in the heavenly sanctuary. As the priest entered the most holy once a year to cleanse the earthly sanctuary, so Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly, at the end of the 2300 days (Daniel 8,) in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation, and thus to cleanse the sanctuary.” Early Writings, 253, 1852.

Later Statement, 1912

“When Christ, the Mediator, burst the bands of the tomb, and ascended on high to minister for man, He first entered the holy place, where, by virtue of His own sacrifice, He made an offering for the sins of men. With intercession and pleading He presented before God the prayers and repentance and faith of His people, purified by the incense of His own merits. He next entered the Most Holy Place [in 1844], to make an atonement for the sins of the people, and cleanse the sanctuary. His work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, 54.

Notice the dates of these two statements, 1852 and 1912. After sixty years the Spirit of Prophecy was yet consistent with the original message of the “final atonement” completed in heaven.

“As in the final atonement, the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven,” Ellen White wrote, “no more to be remembered or come into mind, so in the type they were borne away into the wilderness, forever separated from the congregation.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 358.

“As He [Christ] repeated these words He pointed to the heavenly sanctuary. The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living.” Early Writings, 254. “Jesus makes an atonement for those who died, not receiving the light upon God’s commandments, who sinned ignorantly.” Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, 162, 163.

“The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement,” Ellen White stated, “so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 357.

“In the typical service, only those who had come before God with confession and repentance, and whose sins, through the blood of the sin offering, were transferred to the sanctuary, had a part in the service of the Day of Atonement. So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment, the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God. . ..” The Great Controversy, 480. (See also, The Faith I Live By, 210.)

“In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement—the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 358.

This teaching of the final atonement in heaven, the blotting out of sins, was the true message of the First Angel, the “Present Truth” as taught and believed by pioneer Seventh-day Adventists and endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy. Are these statements by Ellen White in harmony with the Day-Star, Extra article written by O. R. L. Crosier? Indeed they are!

To be Continued…

An Open Letter to our Constituents

by

We recently received some startling information which shows, despite denials, how the General Conference is connected with the ecumenical movement today. This information came to us from one of our constituents who found it on the Internet. The General Conference may not be publishing it, but others certainly are. We are reprinting it for you, because we feel that every Seventh-day Adventist needs to be informed on the end-time issues involving their church.

Before disclosing this information, we would like to share some quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy. These are taken from Testimonies, vol. 5, 211, 212 and 214.

“The abominations for which the faithful ones were sighing and crying were all that could be discerned by finite eyes, but by far the worst sins, those which provoked the jealousy of the pure and holy God, were unrevealed.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 211.

“No superiority of rank, dignity, or worldly wisdom, no position in sacred office, will preserve men from sacrificing principle when left to their own deceitful hearts. Those who have been regarded as worthy and righteous prove to be ring-leaders in apostasy and examples in indifference and in the abuse of God’s mercies. Their wicked course He will tolerate no longer, and in His wrath He deals with them without mercy. It is with reluctance that the Lord withdraws His presence from those who have been blessed with great light and who have felt the power of the word in ministering to others. They were once His faithful servants, favored with His presence and guidance; but they departed from Him and led others into error, and therefore are brought under the divine displeasure.” Ibid., 212.

“However high any minister may have stood in the favor of God, if he neglects to follow out the light given him of God, if he refuses to be taught as a little child, he will go into darkness and satanic delusions and will lead others in the same path.” Ibid., 214.

We have, in our possession, documentation for all of these statements.

Brothers and Sisters, surely our Lord must weep as He sees this wonderful movement that He called forth, clasping hands across the abyss. Pray, as you have never prayed before, that the Lord will grant spiritual eyesight to the blind. The end of all things is at hand, are we preparing to meet our Lord? Only those who are ‘sighing and crying’ over the apostasy will be saved. We need men of God who will stand in the breach and defend the honor of the Lord. Will you be one of them?

May God help us, is my prayer.

Barbara Bender, Managing Editor

The first document is entitled “Ecumenical Links, Church and Ecumenical Organizations.” It lists those churches that are affiliated with the World Council of Churches. We quote, “Christian World Communions. International organizations of churches of the same tradition or confession have been formed since the middle of the 19th century. Since 1957 there have been annual informal gatherings of the secretaries of such organizations; and it is from among the bodies represented at these meetings that this list is taken, although not all of them would define themselves as ‘Christian World Communions.’” [Emphasis supplied]. The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is listed here, as part of the “Christian World Communions!” This group works closely with the WCC.

The second document is entitled “World Council of Churches, Faith and Order, Towards a Common Date for Easter.” This document was compiled through the WCC which comprise approximately ten “participants,” including B. B. Beach and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. This document promotes Sunday worship! Item 3 says, “Besides the work already done on baptism, eucharist and ministry, the churches need to address the renewal of preaching, the recovery of the meaning of Sunday and the search for a common celebration of Pascha as ecumenical theological concerns. This last is especially urgent, since an agreement on a common date for Easter—even an interim agreement—awaits further ecumenical developments.” [Emphasis supplied]. Item 16, “This consultation also recommends that the churches now undertake a period of study and reflection towards the goal of establishing as soon as possible a common date for Easter/Pascha along the lines set forth above. In the year 2001 the paschal calculations now in use by our churches will coincide. Together, Christians will begin a new century, a new millennium, with new opportunities to witness to the resurrection of Christ and to proclaim their joy in his victory over sin, suffering and death. The unity that will be reflected as Christians celebrate Easter/Pascha on the same date will be for many a sign of hope and of witness to the world. This celebration of Easter/Pascha on the same date should not be the exception but the rule.” [Emphasis supplied]. Every Historic Seventh-day Adventist should be aware of this paper so they can share it with conference supporters.

The third document is entitled “Seventh-day Adventists Should Not be Treated as a Sect,” and is dated Geneva, 4 June 1998. This is a final report on four years worth of conversations between the Lutheran World Federation and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This report says, in part, “…both partners recommend the mutual recognition of ‘the basic Christian commitment’ of each other’s faith communions. Both sides are urged in their public teaching and theological education to present the other faith communion’s view of church authority ‘truthfully and unpolemically’ and in a manner which corresponds to their self-understanding. …Although the four-year series of conversations is concluded, Lutherans and Adventists should ‘meet in occasional bilateral consultations.’ The theological foundations and the spiritual dimension of our observance of the day of rest ‘with particular reference to modern society,’ is a possible topic for next year.” [Emphasis supplied]. “The Lutheran/Seventh-day Adventist series of conversations began four years ago in November 1994 in Darmstadt, Germany….The fourth concluding meeting in Cartigny was co-chaired by the Adventist representative, Dr. Bert B. Beach (USA), and the Lutheran representative, the Oslo dean, Ole Chr. Kvarme. One of the highlights of this year’s consultation was the visit of President Robert S. Folkenberg of the Adventist General Conference headquartered in Maryland, USA, and of LWF General Secretary Ishmael Noko.”

The fourth and final document is called “Syrian Orthodox Leader for Cooperation with Adventists,” and is dated August 4, 1998. This document promotes unity between the Seventh-day Adventist and the Syrian Orthodox Churches. It reads, “Silver Spring, Maryland, USA (ANN/APD) Metropolitan Gregorios Youhanna Ibrahim (Aleppo) of the Syrian Orthodox Church welcomed the opportunity for greater cooperation with the Seventh-day Adventist Church during a visit to the Adventist World Church Headquarters on July 2. …Responding for the Adventist Church, Gerry Karst, assistant to the president, welcomed the group from Syria, which also included Reverend Fayiz Hunain of the Presbyterian Church in Syria, as well as Razic Syriani, youth director for the Middle East Council of Churches, and Dr. Mekhael Asaad, head of the Ephraim dispensary in Aleppo. ‘We have looked forward to this meeting for a long time,’ said Karst, who previously worked in the Middle East. ‘We hope this friendship will grow as we are brothers in Christ.’ The group has visited Adventist institutions in California, Michigan, and Florida.”

Ironically, we have also received a document written by Nicolaus Gomes da Silva, bishop of the vicariate, rector of the holy Syrian Orthodox Churches [Does that name sound familiar? It is the same church the General Conference has just been hosting in Maryland, California, Michigan, and Florida.] of Antioquia in Brazil, who has the authority as a member of the association of the Catholic-Apostolic-Orthodox Churches of the West, inviting delegates to an extraordinary Synod and Council to study the “Dies Domini” letter recently written by the Pope. Just to highlight a few items in this document, Bishop da Silva states:

Item 1. “The keeping of any other day, by any other religion, without the full knowledge of the Holy Father, the Pope, cannot be tolerated…

Item 3. “We cannot tolerate Jews, Sabbathkeepers, Adventists, or any other sects which do not keep the Day of the Lord, Sunday…

Item 4. “We cannot tolerate those who do not seek to understand or accept the precepts as ordained by the Holy Father, the Pope, in regards to the day of the Lord’s resurrection, Sunday…

Item 6. “We cannot tolerate any observer of another day except the holy Sunday…

Item 7. “We cannot tolerate the transgressors of the day of the Lord, Sunday, who will receive judicial penalties through the Justice of the Court, to stop and restrain the liberty of conscience of those who are disobedient and who are agitators against the law imposed by Rome…

Item 8. “Because we do not tolerate these transgressors, we will request the United States (UN), to severely punish the disobedient, who have since 1844 converted to their fold our Catholic People.…They have also attempted throughout the whole world to contradict the Holy Father, the Pope, with their spurious doctrines, like the observance of the Sabbath day and non-Immortality of the soul, the two principle pillars of their heresies.

Item 9. “Because we will not tolerate these transgressors, we will beg the authorities in the USA, to systematically dispossess these transgressors of their publishing houses, their orphanages, their hospitals, their schools, and this with the utmost expediency.” [all emphasis supplied].

The Ship

by

Seventh-day Adventists have always had a great appreciation for the books of Daniel and Revelation. This is because these books are books of prophecy. It is prophecy that established us as a people. It gives meaning and understanding to us concerning end-time events. Those times, when they come, will bring the world into crisis and then to an end. We have studied and studied these books until the pages have become worn. We have interpreted and re-interpreted them until it seems that nothing new could come. But in our study of these books we have, to a great extent, neglected other books, which have great prophetic relevance to us also.

One of the books to which I am referring is the book of Acts. Have you ever thought of the book of Acts as a prophetic book, which deals with end time events? Normally, we do not see this book as apocalyptic. We only see it as the history of the early Christian church. We see it recording the acts of the elders, deacons, and apostles, showing the events of how the early church got under way through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I would like to take you on a journey through a passage of Scripture, which I believe has prophetic significance. I hope by doing this, it will help you to read the book of Acts with a greater degree of interest in the future.

It is the normal understanding that as we look at a book of prophecy, that as we get closer to the end of that book, the more relevant it is to us, as far as the time is concerned. The closer we come to the end of the book of Revelation, for instance, the closer we come to the end of time and its importance to us as a people. I believe the same is true of the book of Acts. With this in mind, we want to look at the next to the last chapter, Acts 27.

Paul’s Arrest and Arraignment

The setting for this chapter centers on Paul’s arrest and arraignment before Agrippa. It is here that we have Agrippa’s famous statement, after listening to what Paul had to say, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Paul’s response was, “I would to God, that not only you, but everybody who has heard me today would be like me, except for these chains with which I am bound.” Acts 26:28, 29.

But no one was interested. Life had too much to offer. Why should they restrict themselves by becoming Christians? No, they would continue on just like they had before. But they had to deal with Paul. What are we going to do with this man? He has not committed any offense worthy of death. He has not killed anyone. He has not violated any law that we know of, and if he hadn’t appealed to Caesar, we could have set him free. (See Acts 26:31, 32.)

I will have to confess, at this point, that I do not understand everything that God does. But there is one thing that I do understand, and that is that God is working to save as many souls for the Kingdom as possible. And many times, the route that God takes is not the route that man would take to accomplish the same thing.

Here is Paul, at one time a criminal to the Kingdom of heaven, but now he is a converted man, one whose only desire is to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. And it seems, as a result of that service, that he has been arrested and charged with crimes that some have deemed worthy of death.

This is the way God works many times. Whatever trial we go through, however, He has promised to be with us. Jesus said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” Hebrews 13:5. This was no easy occasion for Paul, but God was with him. Paul was a double prisoner. He was a prisoner of the state and a prisoner of Jesus Christ.

The reason that this event took place was so that Paul would have an opportunity to stand before the emperor of the world and confess his faith in Christ. Paul had appealed to Caesar, and it was to Caesar he would go. And so, preparations were made for the trip. Paul, along with a couple of hundred others, would make their way to Rome.

On a Ship Heading for Rome

We see in Acts 27:1, 2 that Paul is beginning his journey…on a ship taking the gospel to Rome, there to testify before the emperor of the world. As you read through this chapter, you will find some words that have been used to hold Seventh-day Adventists in bondage, which, if they are rightly understood, will free us to be and to do what God would have us to do. “Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, ‘Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.’” Acts 27:31. It is this concept that has been distorted and turned on its ear and made to say what it does not mean.

We have taken this idea of the “Ship” and applied it to the denomination, and made it out to mean that unless we stay with the denominational churches, we can never make it through. But the truth of the matter is, that the “Ship” is not the church. I hope before we are through with this article, we will be able to see this concept, and also understand what the “Ship” is.

We want to go back and look at chapter 27 now. We want to take it apart in such a way as to understand what it is saying to those of us who are living in these last days. We’ll begin with Acts 27:2. Here we are told that Paul and his fellow prisoners boarded a ship of Adramyttium. This ship was just a regular ship, which was known for its stability and its serviceability for plying the seas, carrying cargo safely to its destination. It was dependable. It had a crew who was used to all kinds of travel, experienced seafaring men, the crew had wisdom, and when the going got tough they pulled into port so that the ship, crew, and cargo were kept safe.

There were at least three on this boat who had a mission for the Lord. There was Paul, Aristarchus, and Luke. Even though Luke does not mention his own name, he is writing in the first person, so we know that he was there recording these events.

Mark it down. Any time you are traveling for the Lord, the contrary winds are going to be blowing. Have you found this to be true in your own life? The Bible says that the winds blow. Satan does not want them to arrive safely, but the boat is sound. It is a solid, seaworthy vessel. Nothing is mentioned about leaks or problems which would cause them difficulties, and so they finally arrive at Myra, a city of Lycia.

They could not go any further at that time because the wind was blowing contrary to them. They had not yet arrived at their home port. I hope you are following me here, because there are things in this narrative, which should be speaking to us.

Changing Ships in the Midst of the Journey

Now Julius, the centurion who was in charge of the prisoners, had a decision to make. He could wait to complete his journey, which might mean spending the winter in Myra, or he could catch another ship and continue on. Here is where the story begins to take on meaning for us. They left the ship that was safe and sound, the ship that would have carried them to the destination of their journey without any difficulty. They left it and they boarded another ship. Now notice, the centurion was in charge. This centurion was an agent of Rome, and he made the decision to put everyone on board another ship. It was a ship from Alexandria. (See Acts 27:6–10.)

I do not know if this has any meaning for you or not, but let me give you some background. Alexandria was a metropolis of great learning. Alexandria had universities of higher education; a place where those of a simpler education could go and become introduced to greater depths of philosophy and theories of knowledge and critical study; a place where you could learn how to question what you had been taught as truth. It was Alexandria and its universities that prepared the way for the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah at His first coming. This happened after the Babylonian captivity. The Jewish nation had learned its lesson relative to the worshipping of false gods and idols. They had been chastised so hard during this time away from their homeland, that they would never be caught again doing that which would call for such punishment. They became so repulsed by the Gentiles and their worship of false gods, that they would not even go over and tell their neighbors about the soon coming Messiah. It finally came to the place where, if they had the shadow of the unclean [Gentile] fall across them during certain times of purification, they believed themselves to be unclean.

The Church Divided

As time went on, there were various parties that developed within the church. One group was very conservative…fundamental in their beliefs. They were known as the Pharisees. They had their problems, to be sure, but it was the Pharisees who preserved what truth the church of that day had. They rejected all attempts to introduce the new theology that was running rampant in those times.

As time drew near to the birth of Jesus, there was great persecution of the Pharisees. A persecution so great, that many of them were not only kicked out of their church offices and their memberships taken away, but many of them paid the ultimate price with their lives, because they believed in standing up for the truth as they understood it.

The other main party in the church at that time was the Sadducees. This group developed about the same time as the Pharisees. They were theologically similar, but they had some very major differences. The Sadducees came into being because those who were leading out in the Jewish denomination of that day felt that the membership, and those who they were trying to win to the faith, could be better served by an educated clergy. As a result of the vote of the committee, certain ones were chosen to go to Egypt, to Alexandria, to receive the benefits of higher education. They went, and they got what they went after, and what they learned they brought back to the nation of Judah and taught to others.

First of all, they learned liberal philosophies. Where the Pharisees were fundamental, the Sadducees were liberal. They learned, what today is called higher criticism, and this led them to reject most of the Scripture. The only books they accepted were the five books of Moses.

The Sadducees had no problem being of the world. The Pharisees were called separatists. They did not believe in being of the world. They knew we had to be in the world, but not get involved in all the trappings which came with it, so, they opted for traditions instead. It was here
that they ran head long into the teachings of Jesus.

The Sadducees loved the world and all that it had to offer them. They became involved in the politics of the day. They loved to rule. They had given up most of those characteristics which made them stand out from the rest of the Jews.

If you looked at a Pharisee, you could tell that he was a Jew. With the Sadducees it was a different story. They not only wanted to be in the world, but they wanted to look like the world and be everything that the world wanted them to be. They did not want to be too peculiar. Not being peculiar called for them to give up certain fundamental doctrines for the newer theology. This meant that they would no longer believe in the resurrection of the dead. They did not believe in angels or devils, or the punishment of those who were sinners. They were progressive and modernist in their thinking.

The Sadducees were the ones who held the ruling positions in the headquarters building of the Sanhedrin when Jesus began His ministry. It was a Sadducee who stood up during the discussion about what to do with Jesus and said it is better that one man die, than the whole nation perish. The Sadducees were thoroughly soaked in their new theology which they had obtained from Alexandria, down in Egypt.

Under the Direction of Rome, They Changed Ships

We are looking at Acts 27 as prophetic instruction to us in these last days just before Jesus comes again. They had changed ships here, under the direction of the leader of Rome. They boarded a ship from Alexandria, and after they had gotten under way, Luke records for us what was going on. “Now, when much time was spent and when much sailing was not dangerous because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished them and said unto them, ‘Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage.…not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives.’”

Acts 27:9, 10. This is a very significant verse. Paul goes to those who are in charge and he is, we notice, very respectful. He addresses them as “Sirs.” We have taken a boat that is going to cause us damage. We are not going to come out of this thing without loss. Three things were going to be damaged. The cargo of the ship, the ship itself, and the lives of those on board.

Now, it is at this point that we need to ask, “What is the Ship?” Many have tried to convince us that the “Ship” is the denomination. If we stay with the denomination, we are going to sail right into the harbor without a scratch. Just stay with the “Ship.”

I would like to suggest to you that the “Ship” is not the denomination at all, but the “Ship” is the truth of God! Jesus is the captain of this “Ship,” and truth is what carries us along. Let me share some quotations with you which I hope will clarify this issue.

“God’s people must give to the world a representation of the character of God, in Jesus Christ. The Christian churches are fast losing their knowledge of God. His character has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. But a message has come from God which must be proclaimed. The trumpet must give a certain sound. ‘I, Jesus, have sent Mine angel to proclaim these things to the churches.’ The truth, the revelation which Jesus gave to John, must be sounded forth everywhere. ‘Lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him; Behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him. He shall feed His flock like a Shepherd: He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.’” Signs of the Times, December 23, 1897.

“The only way in which men will be able to stand firm in the conflict, is to be rooted and grounded in Christ. They must receive the truth as it is in Jesus. And it is only as the truth is presented thus, that it can meet the wants of the soul. The preaching of Christ crucified, Christ our righteousness, is what satisfies the soul’s hunger.” General Conference Daily Bulletin, January 28, 1893.

The truth as it is in Jesus, is what carries us along in our experience of life as we go through this world. This is the only thing that makes any sense at all. We are not to depend upon anything here in this world to carry us through the various experiences of trial and torment as we go through life—it is only Jesus. We can depend upon the truth as it is in Jesus. It is with this in mind, that this next quotation can be understood.

“There is no need to doubt, to be fearful that the work will not succeed. God is at the head of the work, and He will set everything in order…” [Who is at the head of the work? God is!] “If matters need adjusting at the head of the work, God will attend to that, and work to right every wrong. Let us have faith that God is going to carry the noble ship which bears the people of God safely into port.” The Review and Herald, September 20, 1892.

The Noble “Ship” is the Truth!

The “noble ship,” which bears the people, is the truth! Nothing else can carry us into safe port, but the truth, and when we say that the “Ship” is the denomination, we have missed the whole point of what is being said. Denominations fail—the truth never fails. Men can disappoint us, but the truth never will. God will see to it. We need to get our thinking readjusted.

When we give up the words and counsels of inspiration we are going to get into trouble fast. I would like to suggest right here, that if this man from Rome had listened to Paul, they would not have had the problem that they did. (See Acts 27:11.) Even the truth, distorted as it may be, is going to run into winds designed to destroy it, and everyone who might be connected with it. Never forget that Paul is being held captive here. He is on board, but he is a prisoner bound, as it were, in chains. Unable to counsel, unable to reason, unable to take any kind of command over what is going on, the only thing left to do was to let the wind drive the ship.

Did Paul know what was going to happen? Of course he did. He told them that they would experience damage. They had changed from a sturdy ship to a ship from Alexandria. They had taken the word of Rome over the counsel of the prophet, and as they began to run into opposition because of this, they started throwing the tackling of the ship overboard. They are frantic to find a way to get out of the mess that they are in, and they do not know how. They are plunged into darkness. There is no light. They cannot tell what is going on. Theological darkness is a terrible experience to go through, but here they were, right in the midst of it all, and the situation was so bad that they thought, “This is it!” (See Acts 27:16-20.) All hope that they would be saved was taken away.

Does that say anything to us? Are we going to have an easy time of it? Are we going to sail into the harbor standing on the deck, with clowns and balloons and the band playing? I do not think that we will!

Paul begins to give them some counsel. No one is going to die, but the “ship,” the truth, is going to be broken up. I will not comment about that right now, but we will see how this works out as we continue. (See Acts:27:21, 22.)

Now they begin to listen to the prophet. We will see that counsel was the only thing which saved their lives. But when some of them saw the change in things, they wanted to abandon ship. These were not the ones in Paul’s party. They were not part of an offshoot, as such. Inspiration tells us that they were the heathen soldiers of Rome. They did not have any better wisdom than to leave. Paul tells the centurion about this, and says, “Except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saved.” Acts 27:30, 31.

Here is an important point to remember. God does not save heathens just because they follow the counsel of the prophet. Every person must have a personal relationship with Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. Truth, in and of itself, does not save. It is blessed by the Holy Spirit through the born again experience. Nicodemus had the truth. He was a Pharisee, but Jesus told him he had to be born again.

Staying With the “Ship”

To just stay with the ship was not enough. Sister White tells us that if these sailors had left the ship, it was certain death for them. They could not have survived the raging sea and the rocks where they would have ended up. Paul, wanting them all to be saved from death, said what he did. Staying with the ship was important. This was designed by God for giving them one last opportunity to see His wonderful grace. But seeing it still meant that they had to make their own decisions, not corporately, but individually!

In 1904, when the Alpha of apostasy was raging, Ellen White went to bed one night and God gave her a vision. She tells it this way, “A vessel was upon the waters in a heavy fog. Suddenly the lookout cried, ‘Iceberg just ahead!’ There towering high above the ship was a gigantic iceberg.
An authoritative voice cried out, ‘Meet it!’ There was not a moments hesitation.…The engineer put on full steam, and the man at the wheel steered the ship straight into the iceberg.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 205-208.

Under normal circumstances, if you tried that, you would go down for sure, but not with God. She says that the ship hit that iceberg with a tremendous crash, and it split the iceberg in such a way that ice thundered down upon the deck of the ship. The ship rebounded from the contact and was trembling like a living creature. It was damaged, but there were no lives lost, and it went right on through and kept on its course. Ibid.

The Iceberg of Error

Do you know what the iceberg represents? It represents error. What did the ship represent? The ship represents the truth. This comes through as you read the whole story. The ship had to meet error. The truth came into collision with error. Did the ship suffer some damage? Yes, it did, but she said that it survived. The “Ship” is the truth.

Paul and his shipmates’ problems were not over yet. It would take everyone at this point in time, working together, to pull this thing off. God makes it very plain, through inspiration, that the heathen will be used of God to further His cause, and here is another instance of it. They had been fasting, not eating anything, and now the time had come to take on some nourishment for what was just ahead. I believe this is prophetic. I believe we will experience this same thing before Jesus comes.

The Alexandrian ship had to lighten its load. That which had been taken on board, believing that it would be so profitable, now had to be abandoned, thrown overboard. The only way for truth to survive as truth, is to throw out all error. Cast it overboard, and then pray for God’s help.

I want to point out something else here. They began to cast out the ship’s load during the hours of darkness. That is when the search for truth seems to become the greatest. It is when it is the darkest. But even though they lightened the ship, they were still in a great deal of trouble. The darkness was beginning to give itself over to the light of day. Still, no one knew if they would be saved, even with all of the effort that had been put forth. (See Acts 27:33–38.) There comes a time when we have to take the words of the prophet, that we will make it through, by sheer faith. Pull the anchors, hoist the mainsail, and head for shore. (See Acts 27:39–40.)

This is going to be one of the most severe tests we ever endure at the time of the end. The Bible says that the just shall live by faith. It is not going to be because we have a clear picture before us. No! We are going to have to live by faith, because God said it.

The Broken “Ship” of Truth—A LifeSaver

And so, they hoist the sail and head for land. But notice what happens in Acts 27: 41–44. The ship runs aground. The truth is going to have to go through some terrible times. It is not going to go down to the bottom of the sea, but it will suffer some damage. The truth has already suffered damage. The only thing that went down to the bottom was the cargo and tackle. The ship, even though it was broken up, still served as a lifesaver to those who were willing to cling to it and who could not swim on their own.

What would have happened if no one listened to Paul, if his words fell on deaf ears? Evidently he made such an impression on the centurion, that this man from Rome was compelled, against the provision of the law, not to kill his prisoners. He spared their lives, and they all escaped to the safety of land. (See Acts 27:42–44.)

As we read this story, which I feel is prophetic, there is certainly enough here for us to make some intelligent decisions.

The “Ship” is not the denomination. The “Ship” is not even the people. The “Ship” is the truth of God, and it is this noble truth of God, which carries the people of God safely into port. The truth, as it is in Jesus, is the only thing, dear people, to which we need cling; we must cling, as we enter the raging seas of these last days. My prayer is that we will have the strength to cling to him in all things.

Which Church is Going Through? Part I

by

The following statement appeared in the Review and Herald almost one-hundred years before my brother was dismissed from employment with the Kansas-Nebraska Conference; “A revival of true godliness among us is the greatest and most urgent of all our needs.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, March 22, 1887.

In Christ’s day, the disciples (all of the church leaders) were out in a little boat. Think how dangerous it was for the Lord to allow all of the church leaders to get in a little boat and set out to sea. If they drowned, that would be it. Some of us would never have allowed that to happen. They got out there in the middle of the sea, and the devil tried to destroy them all by sending a big storm. Jesus came walking out on the sea. They thought it was a spirit, and they cried out in fear. Jesus said, “Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.” Matthew 14:27. You see, if Jesus is near, you do not need to be afraid, no matter what you are going through. If you are going through a storm in the sea, in your life, in your marriage, on your job, or wherever you are, if Jesus is close and you are looking to Him and trusting in Him, you do not need to be afraid. He knows how to work out every problem that you have.

Our Greatest Need

We need deliverance from fear; we need to know our Bible better, but of all the things we need, Sister White says that “a revival of true godliness among us is the greatest and most urgent of all our needs.”

In life, some things are more urgent than others. This is true in our spiritual life as well. There are some things we have a great need for; they are very urgent and we need them right now! Our greatest need is a “revival of true godliness.” If this is our greatest need, and if it is our most urgent need, should we not try to figure out how it is going to happen? Yes, we should. In fact, it says in Mrs. White’s statement, “To seek this should be our first work.” Ibid.

My brother, Marshall, and I talked about this many times. If this is what we need the most, and if it should be our first work, what do we need to do so it can happen? That is what caused Marshall to be dismissed from employment with the Kansas–Nebraska Conference. He was trying to figure out how to make this revival happen in the church.

Who Needs It?

Notice a little two-letter word in the first sentence. “A revival of true godliness among us is the greatest and most urgent of all our needs.” There is a little word there in the center, spelled u s. It is not talking about the United States: it is talking about us. “A revival of true godliness among us is the greatest and most urgent of all our needs.” Who is the us? This statement was written in the Review and Herald in 1887. That is a church paper. To which group does it belong? The Seventh-day Adventist Church. This paper has been in publication since the 1850s, and Mrs. White’s statement was printed in that paper, an official organ of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If it says “A revival of true godliness among us is the greatest and most urgent of all our needs.…To seek this should be our first work,” to whom does the term “us” refer? It refers to Seventh-day Adventists. So, the greatest need of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, (not just the home churches or the worldwide historic Adventist movement, but every person, anywhere in the world, who professes to be a Seventh-day Adventist, including the conference churches, all the institutions, the General Conference—everyone) is “a revival of true godliness.”

What is It?

The question, “What is godliness?” is something that you need to understand. Read 1 Peter 1:1–25 very carefully and you will understand what godliness (Godlikeness) is. More important, however, is the question How does this godliness come about? It does not do you any good to know what needs to happen, unless you understand how it is supposed to happen. How is this revival of true godliness supposed to happen in the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

One of the big questions that people are asking today is, “Will the Seventh-day Adventist denomination (or structure) go through to glory?” It is interesting to note that there are a number of different answers being given to that question. Within the last year or so, there have been an increasing number of people who have given a resounding “No, the Seventh-day Adventist Church structure is not going through to glory, because it is Babylon, and it is just waiting to be destroyed.” A lot of people are preaching that today.

There are other people who believe similarly, but they say “The structure is not Babylon yet, but it is on the verge of becoming Babylon. We are not sure that the actual decree that it is Babylon has been pronounced.”

The issue of some people believing the church is Babylon must be addressed,
because there are people all over the world who are saying that it is. We have an obligation to help other people find the meaning of the times in which we live and how to get ready for the future. That is why we hold Prophecy Seminars. That is why each one of us needs to be praying and asking ourselves, “To whom do I have a moral obligation to share what is going to happen?”

Newborn Babes

There is an interesting passage in Isaiah which says, “Whom will He (that is the Lord) teach knowledge? And whom will He make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts?” Isaiah 28:9. That is, those who are spiritual babies? The Bible talks about spiritual babies as being people who have just accepted the Christian faith. Peter addressed people who had just accepted the Christian faith and he says, “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby.” 1 Peter 2:2.

If you were in trouble in your financial life, business life, or marriage, would you go to a baby to ask advice? No. But people do this spiritually all the time. People who have been Christians for two or three years feel that they know enough about Christianity that they can teach others. The apostle Paul gave some of the strongest rebukes in Scripture about this very thing. In fact, he told Timothy, “You do not ordain a new convert as an elder or a deacon until they have had time to become rooted and grounded in the faith.” (See 1 Timothy 3:6, 10.) You do not go to a baby Christian to find answers to your problems. They are babies. We all love babies, and we want them to grow, but we do not go to a baby to get answers to a hard problem. The same is true spiritually.

Infanthood

After a baby is three years old, would he then be able to help you solve your problems? No, he is still a baby! Yet people will do this spiritually. A three- year-old Christian knows enough to teach people who are not born into Christ yet, and can witness to them. If they have only known Christ for a month, they can share what they have learned about Jesus. But friend, if you are trying to find out who, when, and what is Babylon, you do not go to a three-year-old Christian. “Those just weaned from milk? those just drawn from the breasts? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept.” Isaiah 28:9, 10. You must compare Scripture with Scripture.

Have you ever met someone who knows two or three verses of Scripture, and they try to prove Bible doctrine by these few verses? I was in an interdenominational jail ministry where a man from another church said, “We know this because it says,”…and he quoted one verse of Scripture. In the verse of Scripture he quoted, the comma was in the wrong place. If you put the comma in the wrong place, it makes the meaning totally opposite of what is really being said. This man thought he knew something on the basis of one verse of Scripture. When people have a belief, and they only have one or two verses of Scripture to prove it, that is a sign of infanthood. They are not off the milk yet. Scripture says; “Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.” Isaiah 28:10. If you want to know what the truth is about any spiritual subject, you need to know what all the inspired writings say on that subject.

Let us look at another principle. “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” 1 John 2:21. What does it mean that “no lie is of the truth?” “All truth, whether in nature or in revelation, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 114.

You can look up all the texts about Babylon in the Bible, or all of the passages in the Spirit of Prophecy, and if you know the truth, you will be able to see that they all agree. If they do not all agree, there is something wrong with what you believe; you have not studied it thoroughly. The truth is always consistent with itself; “no lie is of the truth.” If two things are the truth, they will not contradict each other.

Is the structure Babylon?

There are people today who, when trying to answer the question as to whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church structure is going to go through to glory, respond that they think we are in the same position that Israel was in just before the crucifixion.

Jesus was entering Jerusalem, and He paused on the crest of the hill.… “When the fast westering sun should pass from sight in the heavens, Jerusalem’s day of grace would be ended.” The Desire of Ages, 578. It was not yet too late. Right at that time, they could have turned around; they could have accepted the Messiah. The door was still open for them to do it, but they would not. Some people believe that our church structure is in that situation now. It is just about over; it is just about too late, but there is still time to turn around.

Saved From Sin

I meet people who wonder whether they have committed the unpardonable sin. They look at their past and at their many sins, and ask, “What shall I do?” Let me tell you something; the worse sinner you are, the more you need Jesus. He came into this world to save sinners. If you are a sinner, you qualify for salvation. Paul said, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” 1 Timothy 1:15. Think this through for just a moment. When Jesus saves someone, He saves them from their sins. (See Matthew 1:20, 21.) Isn’t that the most wonderful news there is? No matter how many times you have sinned, Jesus has come here to this world to save you from that sin. Jesus does not save you so that you can keep on sinning, because you are not saved if you keep on sinning.

If your besetting sin is beating your wife, Jesus does not save you so you can go on beating your wife. He wants to save you from that, so that you do not do it anymore. You see, if this person is saved from beating his wife, he is not saved if he continues beating his wife. The person who has a problem with alcohol, is not saved from alcohol if he is still drinking. Jesus came to save you from your sins. That you can be saved while you are still living a life of sin is the gospel of the antichrist. That gospel has taken a hold over much of the Christian world today. There are actually people who are killing other people; yet, because they go and confess to their priest, they believe that they are saved. Friend, you are not saved while you are living in sin. No one will be taken to heaven while they are living in sin down here. Sin has to be in the past. The Bible tells us that Jesus justifies us, or forgives us, from sins that are past. (See Romans 3:25, 26.)

What is the day of grace all about? What is salvation all about? It is about having sins taken away. Jesus’ salvation from sin involves two things. First, Jesus delivers us from guilt. Secondly, He delivers us from the power of sin in our lives. Because of sinful habits, sin has power in our lives, and Jesus is going to deliver us from that power. That is what salvation is about; what revival is about; what primitive godliness is about; what our greatest and most urgent need is, and it should be our first work to seek for a revival of true godliness. Godliness is holy living, living according to God’s law, instead of transgressing it.

We have looked at two positions dealing with “us.” We know this refers to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and our greatest need is for true godliness. One position is that this does not apply to us anymore because the Seventh-day Adventist Church structure is now Babylon; it is going to be destroyed. The other position is that we are like the children of Israel just before the crucifixion of Jesus. They could have turned around, but their irrevocable sentence was about to be pronounced.

Going Through to Glory

However, the traditional, or the most common, belief among the majority of Seventh-day Adventists today, is not that the denomination will be cast aside as was the Jewish nation, but that the Seventh-day Adventist Church will go through to glory; and if it will go through to glory, you had better stay with it. Let me tell you friend, we had better find out what is true, and we better find out from the Bible.

A few years ago, not by my choice, the local Seventh-day Adventist conference church, of which I was a member, disfellowshipped me. So I am no longer part of that structure. After that happened, a friend wrote me a letter and indicated, point blank, that I was not part of the church anymore. If that is so, I need to do something about it right away, because I want to go to heaven. I do not want to have a false hope and think that I am going to heaven and have the Lord come and say, “John, you are not part of the bride of Christ. You are not part of the church of Christ, you will have to stay here.” We really need to understand the answer to this question. If we do not, if we have the wrong answer, it could involve our eternal destruction, because when Jesus comes back to this earth again, He is coming to take His bride home, and His bride is the church. (See Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, 277.) If you are alive when Jesus comes, and you are not part of His bride, you are lost. You need to know whether you are part of it or not, and if you are not part of it, you need to become part of it right away.

The people who believe that the Adventist Church structure will not be cast aside, as was the Jewish church, but will go through to glory, are not naive enough to believe that every member of the church will be part of that triumphant body. They generally explain it with the parable of the wheat and the tares. They say, “We know that there is a lot of apostasy and corruption in the church now, but before Jesus comes, He is going to remove it. That is encouraging, but how is that going to happen?

Some people say the church is just about to become Babylon, and some people say it already is. Some people say the structure is going through to glory, and the Lord is going to clear the apostates out while the true and faithful remain.

Who Do You Say the Church Is?

Has it crossed your mind, as we have looked over these different positions, that if you are going to find the truth, it might be of vital importance for you to know who and what the church is? You see, these different teachings are based on different definitions of who and what the church is, and the conclusion a person comes to is based on who and what he thinks the church actually is.

Let me ask you a few simple questions.

  1. Do you think that God knows who the church is? I am not asking this irreverently, but I want you to think it through. Do you believe that God knows who the church is?
  2. If God knows who the church is, do you suppose that any time He wanted to, He could tell one of His prophets who the church is?
  3. If a prophet came to you and told you who the church is, would you believe them?

That is a hard question. For almost forty years I have noticed that when prophets come and tell people who and what the church is, they do not believe it. There are sermons (not only spoken, but in print) where people have read some of the plainest definitions in the Spirit of Prophecy, (the writings of Ellen White) about who and what the church is. Then they explain it all away.

The question is, what does the prophet actually say, not what do I think it means. That is not what counts. Do we not tell people that in our Prophecy Seminars? Of course! We say, “Don’t believe anything I say unless you can find it in the Bible.” That is a valid position to take. Is it enough if a prophet says this is what it is? Somehow, with this subject, it is not. We have such a deep prejudice that most people will not accept it. They have another definition, and they say, “Well, there are balancing statements.” Red is red. “Oh no it is not; there are balancing statements.” It is another way of saying that there are other statements that contradict it.

1 John 2:21 says, “No lie is of the truth.” If it is all true, does it all have to agree? Yes, and there could never be a balancing statement that would contradict the truth. When the Lord says, “This is the way it is,” you do not say, “Oh no Lord, there has to be a balancing statement.”

God Said It—That Should be Enough

“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 opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical 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. Before accepting any doctrine or precept we should demand a plain, ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support. The Great Controversy, 595.

Every time I read that statement, it sounds so reasonable to me. If I am a Christian, and I profess to be serving the Lord, and He has all knowledge, if that is whom I serve, and if He tells me something, that should be enough evidence. Right? It seems so reasonable.

In the inspired writings [either the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy], are there plain definition statements about who and what the church is? Yes, there are.

John Knox was talking to the Queen of Scots. She asked him how she was to know whom to believe? Should she believe him or should she believe the Catholics? John Knox said that the Bible meant one thing and the Catholics said the Bible meant something else, how was she to know whom to believe? John Knox told her to believe God, who speaks plainly. Go to plain evidence and take the plain statements. That is the Protestant position.

Line Upon Line

I cannot explain every verse in the Bible, and I have been studying it for years. So I will not take a verse of Scripture that I cannot explain and say, “This is the basis of my faith.” Look for the plain statements all the way through. ‘Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.’ I do not know why these statements are not accepted, but they are not. Here is a plain statement that defines who and what the church is. Just one sentence—”From the beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth.” Acts of the Apostles, 10. Does that sound to you like a plain definition of who and what the church is? In other words, the church is the people.

Some may say that they have many objections that I have not yet answered. I will. I have checked a hundred or so objections out, and every one can be answered from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy in plain English. But the biggest question is, can you simply believe what God says? Does God have authority in your life? Jesus is looking for the same thing today as He was looking for in the Garden of Eden. He just wanted to know one thing from Adam and Eve and it was this, “Can I trust you?” That was it. The word trust, the word faith, the word faithful, the word believe, in the Greek it is all the same word. So who are the faithful souls? They are the people that believe, who have made a commitment to the Lord. You may have all kinds of sin in your life, but Jesus came to save sinners, so you qualify.

Are You Really Part of the Church?

Have you made the commitment? Are you really part of the church, or are you just going to church? Jesus is looking for people on whom He can depend, and there is no question that He is going to find them. The question is, am I going to be one of them? When things happen that you cannot explain, and it seems like other people have let you down, maybe people in your family, maybe people in your church, can Jesus still depend on you? The angels are keeping a record to see who is trying to follow Jesus.

“Those who keep God’s commandments, those who live, not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, compose the church of the living God.” Manuscript Release, vol. 1, 296. God knows who His church is, and He tells us it is the faithful souls, the ones who do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of His mouth. These are the people who compose His church.

When Jesus comes, what is going to matter is not whether I have my name on a book down here, but whether He will recognize me as being part of His own. Jesus is coming to get a bride. He is coming to get a people that He knows belong to Him. Do you belong to him? You can know you belong to Him for He says, ‘You know it if you live by every word that proceeds out of My mouth.’

To be continued…

Contending For the Faith

by

The trial of Raphael Perez vs. the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists began March 13, 2000, and involves a lawsuit against Pastor Perez for illegally using the trademarked name, Seventh-day Adventist. This court case has attracted worldwide attention and is of vital interest to all who cherish their religious freedom!

Opening Statements

Both sides presented opening statements on Tuesday, March 14, 2000.

The prosecution (or the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists) contends that Pastor Perez and his organization are an offshoot church. They labeled him a “hate group” and claimed he was a breakaway church trying to use the mother church’s name.

Robert Pershes, attorney for the defense, claimed that the name “Seventh-day Adventist” is a generic term describing a belief system, a religion. He stated that the trademark law was being used in a religious context here, when it was intended to be used commercially. He stated if you are a believer in Seventh-day Adventism, and you believe in the writings of Ellen G. White as a prophet, and if that prophet said that the name Seventh-day Adventist was given to us by God, you believe it. At this point there were several “Amens” from the spectators. The judge admonished the spectators that this was a courtroom, not a church, and further comments would cause him to clear the courtroom of spectators.

The Prosecution

Witnesses for the Prosecution were then called.

George Reid, current director of Biblical research for the General Conference, was first. He stated his educational background as such: He received his BA from Lincoln Ministerial School, and his Masters of Divinity from Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary.

Mr. Reid, who, at one time, served as head of the Religion Department at Southwest Adventist University in Keene, Texas was questioned as an expert witness on the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1860. It was his testimony that one must be a member of the General Conference to be a Seventh-day Adventist, “based on the understanding of unity.”

Attorney, Robert Nixon, stated Seventh-day Adventist does not refer to someone who believes in Seventh-day Adventism, but consists of Seventh-day Adventists in good and regular standing. They need to have membership in the Seventh-day Adventist organization.

The Survey

Harry O’Neill, researcher with Roper Worldwide, was paid $29,000 to conduct a telephone survey which took place between June 24 and July 2, 1999. The survey included a random selection of 1200 telephone numbers, (2% were Adventists) and asked the following questions:

  1. Have you ever heard or seen the term Seventh-day Adventist?
  2. What type or organization, if any, comes to mind when you hear Seventh-day Adventist?
  3. Do you associate the term Seventh-day Adventist with anything else? If so, what?

Responses to questions 2 and 3 were combined when presenting the final outcome.

70% of the 1200 respondents (or 840) had heard of Seventh-day Adventists.

44% of the 1200 respondents (or 528) responded that they thought of a church, a group, or a church organization.

56% of the 1200 respondents (or 672) responded that they thought of a religious group.

The Defense attorney objected to question number two of this survey as being leading. The fact that they used the word, “organization,” in their question, tainted the respondent’s answers, he claimed.

Dr. Standish for the Defense

The defense began their presentation by calling Dr. Colin Standish to the stand. Dr. Standish did a good job of defending our faith, and the judge, James Lawrence King, soon developed a good rapport with him. About fifteen minutes into Dr. Standish’s testimony, the judge asked the defense attorney to stand aside. The judge then began to question Colin directly about self-supporting work, the history of it, the name Seventh-day Adventist, and other things. The judge basically did all of the questioning for the defense with this witness.

After questioning Dr. Standish, the judge chastised the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for bringing this issue to trial, and quoted 1 Corinthians 6, about bringing your brethren to trial. The judge quickly recognized this to be a religious liberty issue and stated that it should never have been brought into his courtroom. He instructed both sides to get together and see if they could work out an agreement and let him know the following day. When the prosecution tried to present and label Pastor Perez and his group as a “hate group,” Judge King threw that out as not being relevant to this trial. He stated that he was only concerned with the trademark issue.

No Agreement

The prosecution and the defense attorneys, along with the General Conference men and Pastor Perez, sat down together and attempted to come to an agreement as they had been instructed by the Judge. Pastor Perez stated that he would be happy to put a disclaimer under the name Seventh-day Adventist, stating that he was not affiliated with the General Conference. This was not good enough for them. They wanted the work stopped, and Pastor Perez could not agree to that.

The trial was to continue as scheduled.

The courtroom was filled to capacity, with the court personnel having to bring in additional chairs to accommodate the crowd. In spite of the fact that there are dozens of “Conference Churches” in the area, there were no attendants from the “conference church” other than those who were there to give testimony.

The Defense Argues

Two of the main points that were drilled home by the witnesses for the defense were these:

  1. The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has consistently removed the name “Seventh-day Adventist” from its magazines, buildings, schools, and hospitals.
  2. Since we believe that Ellen G. White was a prophet, and the prophet states that this name was a God-given name denoting a people and their belief, we cannot give it up.

Witnesses for the Defense:

David Zic, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement testified to the necessity of using the name as it identifies them. He stated that a church consists of faithful believers, not the buildings.

Also testifying for the defense were John Nicolici, Dr. Russell Standish, Pastor John Grosboll, and one or two others.

Pastor Grosboll testified that, in order to keep peace, we would be happy to change our name if we could. But, since this name was given to us by God, Himself we cannot, dare not change it to appease man.

In a small anteroom off to the side of the courtroom, the pastors gathered to intercede in prayer as each and every defense witness was called. It was not unusual for the judge to gain admittance to the courtroom using this route, and he would walk through the room while the pastors were gathered in prayer. Especially was Raphael Perez’ name lifted before the Father’s throne.

Obey God Rather than Man

Raphael Perez was extensively examined and cross-examined for over an hour. When asked if his newspaper ads started after the Southeastern Conference had told him he could not use the name, Seventh-day Adventist, Raphael stated that he did not need authorization from human beings to use a name given by God. It is not a matter of waiting for permission—permission has already been established by God, and we are to obey God rather than man. (Acts 5:29.)

Many attempts were made to trip Pastor Perez up in his testimony, but God worked with him in a mighty way to keep him focused and to give him understanding of the English language, that he might not only understand, but that his reply might be clearly understood. He firmly defended the faith.

The Prophet Speaks

Please note the following quotations. Two from the Spirit of Prophecy and one from Scripture:

“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. Unbelievers have a right to expect that those who profess to be keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, will do more than any other class to promote and honor, by their consistent lives, by their godly example and their active influence, the cause which they represent. But how often have the professed advocates of the truth proved the greatest obstacle to its advancement! The unbelief indulged, the doubts expressed, the darkness cherished, encourage the presence of evil angels, and open the way for the accomplishment of Satan’s devices.”Selected Messages, Book 1, 122. (1887.)

“This action, of appealing to human courts, never before entered into by Seventh-day Adventists, has now been done. God has permitted this that you who have been deceived may understand what power is controlling those who have had entrusted to them great responsibilities.” Selected Messages, Book 3, 302.

“Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, ‘That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, ‘My lord delayeth his coming’ and shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 24:46-50.

Heartbreaking Verdict

Sadly, despite the promising outlook, Judge James Lawrence King rendered a verdict in favor of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. We must pray that the Lord might strengthen and sustain Raphael and his little church, as they plan their appeal to a higher court. We know that God is still in control, and that in the end His name will be uplifted, honored, and vindicated. We must also pray for each other. There are others out there who are also targeted by the General Conference. The following is a list of groups who have already had suits started against them by the General Conference:

  • Word of Faith Congregational Seventh-day Church

3505 Pulaski Pike
Huntsville, AL 35810

  • United Seventh-day Adventist Church

128 9th Street, N.W.
Mason City, IA 50401

  • The Ten Commandments Universal Saturday Seventh-day Adventist Temple

1509 Ray Road, Apt. #301
Hyattsville, MD 20782

  • Seventh-day Adventist

Congregational Church
Kona Hawaii

  • Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International, Inc.

PO Box 3840
Los Angeles, CA 90078

  • Trinidad Church of Seventh-day Adventist

1201 Staples Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002

  • Tabernacle Seventh-day Adventist Church

3600 Martin Luther King Blvd., S.E.
Mason City, IA 50401

  • Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventist

5419 Southern Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33415

The Inquisition has begun!

(Emphasis the author’s.)

Silver and Marik Betrayed

by

The Merikay McLeod Silver Case

Due to her writing capabilities, Merikay McLeod, author of the book, “Now,” was offered a position as Assistant Book Editor at Pacific Press. She was just a young woman, not yet out of college, and she was flattered that the brethren were impressed with her work. During the interview, when she inquired as to her salary, no dollar amount was mentioned, so she assumed she would be making about $600 a month, which is what the woman she was replacing had been making.

She described her feelings when starting work at Pacific Press: “I have a good ‘family’ feeling when I walk into chapel. These people are my people, my family, since their God is already my own…This is where I am supposed to be.”

Throughout the first week, various employees stopped by her office to introduce themselves, and to compliment her on her story, “Now.” She felt welcome and admired.

Confrontation

During the second week of her employment she was informed that the hiring committee was concerned over her lack of having a college degree. Although disappointed over this upset so early in her employment, Merikay stated that she “hates controversy and confrontation. I don’t want to start having to defend myself.” She still had not been told what her salary would be, and was concerned due to her living costs. When she was called in for a meeting, she assumed it would be to discuss her lack of a degree. Instead, she was questioned in regard to her beliefs.

After working at The Press for a month she received her first paycheck – $400. She was devastated. This was not enough money to even make ends meet. When she confronted her supervisor, she was told that this is how they had worked out the “hiring problem.” Since she had not finished college, the Committee had decided to give her the title “Editorial Assistant,” instead of Assistant Book Editor—justifying the lower wage.

To help make ends meet, and at her husband’s urging, Merikay submitted a collection of her own short stories to pacific press for publication. After changing the title, the book publishing committee decided to print the book.

Merikay was relieved. She enjoyed her work and was making friends, one of whom was Lorna Tobler, secretary to Lawrence Maxwell.

While still pursuing an acceptable salary, Merikay was told that Pacific Press had a wage system based on need. “The Church’s institutions take care of their workers,” she was told. “It’s a family centered concept.” So, in an effort to improve her financial position, Merikay returned to school to get her degree. Although Press workers were routinely released from work to complete degree requirements, Merikay put in a full eight-hour day and continued with her schooling. She decided she would not ask for a raise until she had her degree.

Discovery

At the copy machine one day, she saw a male worker copying his W2 form. They were both shocked to find that he made 40% more than she did, even though they were both doing the same work. Even though the “law” requires equal pay for equal work and sex discrimination is illegal, Merikay felt she should wait until she had her degree before asking for a raise. However, she then wondered if her work was acceptable, and confronted her supervisor. She told him she learned of the pay difference and wondered if it was because her work was not satisfactory. She was told, “Our system is called ‘Head of Household’…we believe a family’s main wage-earner should receive more because of his added burdens. Merikay was mollified.

A short time later, Merikay’s husband, lost his job. She was sure she now qualified for “Head of Household” pay since she was now the sole wage earner. About this time, a pamphlet came down from the General Conference basically stating, “on the basis of need determined by marital status, dependents and financial responsibility, an additional amount of money may be paid to employees without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, national origin or color.” According to the General Conference, Merikay qualified! She was thrilled!

While discussing this with her supervisor, he offered to write a letter to his boss praising Merikay’s work and asking that “a liberal, conciliatory attitude” be taken in this case so Merikay would not become discouraged.

Check Your Rights

Merikay’s husband asked her to see Joan Bradford, an attorney he had heard lecture a few months earlier, just as a precaution. When Merikay told the attorney the situation at Pacific Press, Joan Bradford stated that “the system is illegal,” and asked if Merikay wanted to sue? No, Merikay only wanted to know if she was within her legal rights to ask for “Head of Household” pay. Joan assured her that she was. The Pacific Press “Head of Household” system is illegal,” Joan stated, and Merikay had the right to ask for equal pay.

As moral support, a fellow male employee agreed to go to the boss with Merikay. The boss responded that this male employee had an advanced degree and six years of editing experience. Merikay countered with the fact that she had ten years professional writing experience. “If we do something for you—then the women in the bindery will want something too,” the boss replied.

The fellow employee attempted to defend Merikay by stating that when he got married he got a big raise in pay, plus his wife was covered by company insurance. He also stated that men in the book department who have not even finished high school are making big salaries. Merikay was simply asking for the same pay and benefits that a married man in her position would get. The boss said, basically, “Merikay’s having a dependent (her out of work husband) is not our problem.”

The Light Dawns

The light began to dawn. Merikay now realized that no woman in the institution was getting “Head of Household” pay, whether divorced with children, widowed, or retired missionary women taking care of a sick spouse. Nothing was resolved, and Merikay decided to write a follow-up letter to the boss, and wait to see what happened.

She realized something was very wrong at the Press. “Head of Household” really meant “male.” A lot of women (100-150 female workers) were supporting children, invalid husbands or parents; none of which were receiving “Head of Household” status.

Merikay received a message that if she would just humble herself and agree to forget what had happened, she would get more money; but if she took a hard line, she would get nothing at all. Merikay went to Joan Bradford and expressed her fears. Joan offered to write a letter to the Press in which she would offer to help legalize their employment practices.

In 1972, Joan sent a letter to Merikay’s boss, pointing out the illegalities of Pacific Press’ practices and offering to help them out. The attorney also stated; “In view of the fact that you have so far failed to make any responsive communication to Mrs. Silver in regard to these matters—we are notifying you that all future communication to Mrs. Silver regarding her rights to equal employment benefits are to be made through this office.”

Merikay was accused of not being loyal, and Lorna Tobler informed her that she was told, “Merikay will never, never, never get equal pay.”

The Press did not respond to the attorney’s letter until July. Then it was through an attorney. They claimed they were not breaking the law, there was no sex discrimination—Now or ever! Joan Bradford wanted Merikay to file an official complaint with the EEOC. Merikay was stunned! The Press was denying the truth! Did they not want to obey the law?

Letters flew back and forth between Joan Bradford and the attorney for Pacific Press, but there was no word from the Press, themselves. Letters were sent to the chief executives of Pacific Press. There was still no response.

Lorna photocopied all pay scale records and gave them to Merikay’s attorney. The basic wage scale was the same, except men got higher promotions than the women did. However, if women would be allowed to go into those jobs, they would have received the same basic wage, but the rent allowance was sex related. All married men got $1.00 per hour rent allowance. Single men received $.75 per hour, and women earned $.30 per hour.

Lorna received a letter of reprimand for her part in counseling “younger workers to contact attorneys.”

Merikay wrote a letter to her boss showing many Spirit of Prophecy quotes to substantiate her position. (MS 47, 1898; MS 142, 1903; Gospel Workers 452-453 (1915). In response, she received an executive letter of rebuke: “I don’t think there is a single statement on that sheet which would give anyone the impression that women should have the same wages as men, although I am not opposed to the idea. We should be careful that we don’t make the Spirit of Prophecy say something that was not intended.”

The chairman of the board came to town but refused to see Merikay if her attorney was present at the meeting. He did, however, see Lorna and claimed Pacific Press would obey the law and tell the truth. Lorna met with the General Conference President and the chairman of the board. They both assured her the General Conference wanted to do what was right. However, the chairman of the board asked Lorna to go easy on the brethren. He asked for patience and understanding. He said, “If we don’t ease up, if we insist on pursuing this thing, the brethren will burn us at the stake.”

Out of the blue, Lorna Tobler’s husband received a “call” to Germany. However, they decided Lorna would not go with him immediately—she would stay and help fight Merikay’s battle.

Someone filed a complaint with the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. Everyone thought it was Merikay, but it was not. Her supervisor chastised her—”I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if you, single-handedly, kicked off the time of trouble!” he yelled.

In November 1972, Merikay and Lorna filed an official complaint with the EEOC. In December 1972, Guy Guerrero, Department of Labor investigator arrived at the Press. After completing his investigation, he told Merikay, “Yes” he had found discrimination, and that it should all be taken care of shortly after the first of the year.

When Merikay received her January pay envelope, her check was the same, but there was $1,000 shown in the total-to-date column. She was puzzled by this, and called Guy Guerrero for an explanation. He told her it was the back pay Pacific Press owed her, and that they would cut her a check in a few days. Merikay explained there was an error. Her co-worker earned $11,000 a year while she earned $6,676.41. Guy Guerrero came to Merikay’s office—solemn faced he admited he never thought they (the Press) would lie to him. “Don’t cash any checks,” he instructed her, then left her office to confront the boss with copies of the W2 forms showing the discrepancies. He was dismissed from the office, and the statement was made, “The next time the Press sees you, it will be in court!” Guerrero began the process to sue Pacific Press.

Through this incident, Merikay realized that the Press would not do what was right because it was right, would not obey the law, because it was the law, nor would they treat their employee’s right because it was the moral thing to do. If the Press would work with her to correct the inequities, the government’s suit would automatically disappear, but they would not. She felt she had but three options. Either she could stay and leave things just as they were, which was unthinkable; file suit herself, or quit her job and find other work, which would not be hard with her talent. But what about all the other women, the ones who could not quit? Those who were afraid to speak up for themselves? The ones who could not find another job so easily? She was hurt and confused. She wrote, “All the love, all the idealism, all the pride I’ve had in my church and its institutions bubbles to the surface, only to be snuffed by the reality I’ve experienced.” Her days filled with confusion over what she should do, she finally decided that she “must file suit.” Eight months after asking for “Head of Household,” she filed suit in January 1973. The Press received notice of this filing in March.

The news traveled quickly, and Merikay received flowers from three women working at the General Conference headquarters in Washington D.C.—”Right on! Fight the good fight!” the card said.

The Press offered to settle for $10,000 for Merikay, which would have to be split with her attorney. No other women were to receive anything; no money, no promise of equal pay, no opportunity to move up through the ranks to higher positions. Merikay could not accept. Twice they came close to a settlement, but the Press refused to accept monitoring of potential settlements by anyone other than the Press or General Conference appointees. They were still denying, through their attorney, any wrongdoing.

The boss called a meeting of all the women employees. Attorney Bradford wrote a letter to Don McNeil, attorney for Pacific Press, stating that she was shocked and dismayed to learn that management had, without notifying her, called a meeting of certain employees, at which time management would, without attorney’s present, discuss employment policies with female employees. This was in direct contradiction to management’s agreement with her that they would meet with her, provide her with personnel records and attempt to set up employment guidelines before meeting with the women. “I regard management’s calling of the April 17 meeting to be another demonstration of the Press’ pattern of expressing superficially its desire to conform with the law, while at the same time, preserving its own authoritarian position over its female employees—instructing them without allowing them to receive information of appropriate employment practices from anyone other than their own employer.”… “I view these tactics by the Press to be another form of intimidation and coercion of its female employees…”

Merikay continued to receive letters of support from women (and some men) in all branches of the denominational work, while at the same time she had to sit through countless morning worship services while the men of the Press tore her to pieces in veiled words. Management was flexing their muscle through the morning worship period. A well-known editor spoke for an hour about modern Judas’s who sell the Lord’s work to the goat for a few pieces of silver.

Because of the many rumors circulating around the Press, Merikay decided to call a meeting of all of the women employees to explain her side. She and Lorna rented a building less than a mile from the Press office in which to hold this meeting. The day of the meeting, the Press executives, and their Attorney, Don McNeil had a Rah! Rah! session for worship, in which the women were urged to “divorce” themselves from the Class Action Suit by signing a form. Of course, they were assured that they were not being “told” to sign; they were simply being given the opportunity. That evening 50 women showed up at Merikay’s meeting.

The Press management ignored Joan Bradford’s request for information. They post-poned meetings with her and did not cooperate. Joan finally went to the Press offices and spent the day reviewing records, books, and files.

Finally, a new manager was brought into the Press. Shortly thereafter, in October 1973, Management sent Lorna Tobler a letter stating that they had agreed that she was to be terminated with two weeks severance pay so that she could join her husband in Germany. Lorna responded, “this action would certainly be viewed by the law as a reprisal.” Five days later the Press officially “clarified” the use of the word ‘terminated’—stating that they only meant she was free to go if she chose. However, the new boss visited Lorna, and a clear threat was made. Either she moved to Germany immediately or “something terribly serious will happen.”

In December, a letter from the General Conference, was sent to all SDA publishing houses instructing them not to accept articles or manuscripts written by Merikay, “because of her tendency to ignore Christian counsel,” and Lorna received a very strong letter from the German Conference stating that she must come to Germany immediately.

In January 1974, Lorna met with the Board Chairman. She showed him the letter she had received and asked if that meant her husband would lose his job.

“Well, those are some of the hazards,” he replied.

“That sounds to me like some little game or something,” Lorna stated.

He replied, “It’s not a little game, it’s a big game!”

The stress was beginning to cause Merikay to have migraine headaches, but the barrage continued. The Adventist Review published an article on the authority of the church, and her attorney, Joan Bradford, had back surgery. The rumor went about the Press offices that Joan had been struck down with cancer by ‘the Lord.’

In February 1974, an official of the General Conference came to see Merikay. He set aside the whole day for her, he stated, and she realized that this was an impressive gesture. After general “getting to know you” chitchat, he asked Merikay what she thought of the new boss. He then stated that he had the utmost confidence in the men in leadership at the Press. He asked her how negotiations were going, and Merikay informed him there were no negotiations.

“You know, Merikay,” he stated, “you aren’t shooting blanks in this. The main thing that bothers me about all of this is that I don’t think the government has any right coming into our publishing house and telling us what to do. Well, what can we do to end this thing?”

Merikay replied; “Talk, negotiate. Do what is right and lawful. I do not know what is so all-fired difficult about doing what is right.”

He opened the letter Merikay sent him and pointed to various items, asking what he could do about each of them. As they talked he took notes. Merikay was thrilled! He was the first leader who had actually listened to her. However, in March 1974, he urged Merikay to find a compromise.

In an April 1974, Settlement conference, the new boss refused to talk. He simply sat with his arms folded. Later a fellow employee told Merikay that her supervisor was laying the groundwork to fire her. “Be sure to keep a diary so you can document the things he says.”

The new boss read a letter in chapel, which was addressed to all the women employees of the Press. If the Silver lawsuit went to court, every woman’s name and how she voted on the Class Action Suit would be revealed.” One hundred ten women withdrew from the Class Action Suit. Sixty did not respond—which was counted as a “yes” we want to withdraw vote. Seventy-seven women now remained in the Class Action Suit.

EEOC Files Suit

The EEOC filed a preliminary injunction suit against the Press for harassing Merikay and Lorna.

The Press got a new attorney. They argued that they did not discriminate. “We’re a religious organization and as such do not have to answer to the government for our activities. The First Amendment protects us.” They also came up with a new argument. “The Press is the church and all workers are, in reality, ministers of the church. Matters of church government and administration are beyond the purview of Civil Authorities.” Press attorney, Dungan, argued that “church policy forbids members to use the court system to sue a church institution for any reason, let alone to determine intra-church, intra-family disputes. By continuing her suit, Merikay has put herself at variance with the church and has become a prime candidate for early disfellowshipping.”

In December 1974, the trial hearing began. The opening brief by the Press attorney included the following statements:

“Only members of the church who are in good standing are eligible for employment in the SDA church…”

“Determination by proper church tribunals respecting ecclesiastical matters…are accepted as binding. What the church cannot tolerate is for members to bring church disputes into civil courts.”

“Those who work for the Seventh-day Adventist church respond to a religious vocation in exactly the same sense as does a cloistered nun.”

“The church claims exemption from all civil laws in all of its religious institutions.”

In February 1975, the General Conference Committee recommended that the Press terminate Merikay and that she be disfellowshiped from the church. Action was also initiated to have Lorna disfellowshipped. A friend informed Merikay that a General Conference official was trying to get her fired and disfellowshipped. Her attorney instructed her to take some days off immediately so she would not be available to receive the termination notice. Merikay took a vacation. Her attorney also instructed her to leave her home, because the Press was going to try to serve notice to her there. Joan Bradford filed for a Temporary Restraining Order and the judge upheld the Order. Both Merikay and Lorna returned to work the following Tuesday.

In March 1975, a motion was made to the Board of Mountain View Church to have Lorna disfellowshipped.

The Trial Begins:

The Pacific Press attorney stated, “The Pacific Press Publishing Association is owned and operated by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which is the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

Many people in the courtroom gasp! But the vice president nodded in assent.

A friend of Merikay’s leaned over and told her, “The General Conference is not the church!”

The Vice President of the General Conference testified: “The General Conference is the highest authority in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” He claimed “when we join the church we agree to give up our individual rights for the good of the whole…When we are no longer in harmony with those principles…one is considered to be at variance with the church.”

Merikay was stunned by the testimony of these leaders of the church. “There is no truth or integrity in this room full of church men,” she stated.

On May 29, 1975, Merikay was fired, and in July, Judge Renfrew decertified the suit since Merikay was no longer employed by the Press.

One year later, May 1976, the 9th Court of Appeals reversed the decision, and two years later, April 1978, Merikay Silver settled out of court for $60,000; half of which went to her attorney. The very next month, the EEOC took Pacific Press to court.

Five years later, in February 1983, Lorna Tobler received $77,000, and in October 1983, the court ordered Pacific Press to deposit $600,000 to an account to be disbursed in non-traceable checks to Pacific Press women employees.

Sadly, Merikay reported, “The spirit of Christ and the spirit of the church are contradictory.”

The John Marik Case

In 1984, John Marik, a lay-pastor, received a letter from an attorney for the General Conference, regarding his use of the name Seventh-day Adventist Congregational Church. In this letter, John Marik was asked if he could furnish the General Conference with information on this offshoot group, showing the “offensive usage of Seventh-day Adventist.” Apparently this letter was sent to Pastor Marik by mistake, since John Marik was asked to report on his own church (as an offshoot group.)

Cease and Desist

A short time later John Marik received another letter in which the attorney corrected himself for having sent the previous letter. He stated the General Conference would be “moving to enforce our trademark registration…and will ask you and your congregation to agree to cease using the term Seventh-day Adventist in the name of your church.”

The President of the Hawaii Conference of Seventh-day Adventists wrote Pastor Marik asking him and his eleven member church to cease using the name Seventh-day Adventist.

In 1985, John Marik received a letter from another General Conference attorney which stated in part, “therefore, assuming that your use of ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ was done without intent to create confusion, even though such confusion is manifested by your use of Seventh-day Adventist, particularly as in your church name, we trust that upon receipt of this letter you will immediately cease and desist from utilizing the expression or any names or expressions equivalent… We consider your use of ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ to be an infringement of the SDA Church’s trademark/service mark rights, and also to constitute unfair competition and false designation of origin.”

Marik’s Reply

John Marik replied, “We are sorry that this situation has been such a cause of distress; that was certainly not our motives. We have had no intention or desire—neither do we now have—to confuse, mislead, or deceive anyone in regards to our congregational church and its reason for existing independently of the denominational church. We, just as you, are concerned about the prospect of people being confused. We do not at all want or wish that any Seventh-day Adventist visitor, who is from some other place and not knowledgeable of the difference, to be tricked or deceived into attending our church—being unaware of the fact that we are not associated with the denomination.

“We understand very well that our name and existence as an independent body of Seventh-day Adventists has been, is, and probably will continue to be an offense to the Denomination. This is not our desire, but this unfortunately, is the way it is. We also do not, in the least, feel that we are in the wrong! And this is the reason why: Our faith and beliefs are those of a Seventh-day Adventist as is described in the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White (who we also hold to be an inspired prophet of God). If we were to call ourselves by some other name, wouldn’t the general Christian community question our reason for not expressing what we really believe, wouldn’t that be concealing our true identity, and wouldn’t that give just cause for our Sunday-keeping brethren to consider our honesty in what we verily believe and who we truthfully claim to be?

“We do not apologize for our convictions in regard to the counsel that God has given us as a people who are honoring the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the decalogue, and who very much long for and believe in the near advent of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Hence the name, “seventh-day” + “adventist.” We believe, and very much so, that the name “Seventh-day Adventist” is not a denomination name—it is a name or term which describes a particular Christian faith or body of beliefs. We also are convicted, even against our own judgment, that this name is especially approved and ordained by God as testified to in the inspired counsel given to Ellen G. White (Testimonies to the Church, vol. 2, page 223, 224.) And contrary to our judgment, we have yielded to what we solemnly believe to be in harmony with the revealed will of God. We have sought to obey His counsel on this matter, and by His grace we must continue to do so; and this can be our only reply to our brethren of the Denomination.”

“Please consider our faith and conviction in this matter. We ask that you please read the inspired testimony mentioned above. Do we not have the liberty and the freedom to conscientiously follow what we, just as many other Seventh-day Adventists, believe to be the truth? Just because we are not under the authority of the Denomination, does that mean we have no right to live the message as given to those who wish to honor God’s commandments and anticipate His soon second advent, does that imply that we can’t seriously take to heart the counsel given in the writings of Ellen G. White?

Plea for Understanding

“…We would ask that you please be understanding; for these convictions involve our faith, beliefs, and conscientious study of the Word of God.…We, along with others, are rather amazed at the intentions of the Denomination toward our little self-sustaining church. Not too long ago, we would never have considered that the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination could resort to such things as this—to appeal to a secular court of law to force others to conform to their wishes! Dear brothers and fellow Adventists, this is the very thing true Seventh-day Adventists have stood against for years! These are the tactics the enemy will use against every conscientious Sabbath-keeper. Where is the great principle of religious liberty? What should the SDA department of Religious Liberty say about this kind of action? Moreover, what does God say about it?

“…Another thing which we find strange, is the idea of the church and its message being a business. Since when has that come to be? Is the church of God in business with the competition such that it needs a protected trade name? …Surely God will prosper His faithful people; if they are wronged He will make it right. Why can we not let God decide what is right? If we of the congregational Adventists are in the wrong and you of the denominational Adventists are in the right, then will God not reprove us and uphold you? We have ample testimony of God’s dealings pertaining to this.

“…We would like to have a friendly relationship with the Denomination. We realize that there is a tremendous work for all of God’s people to do; each has a sphere of influence which is special; certain souls will be won to Christ by certain individuals; and likewise certain people will be reached for Christ by certain churches.

“…We want peace if it is possible to be secured without having to compromise our convictions and conscientious understanding in regards to God’s testimony. We do not know what farther course you may pursue in this matter; but we are standing on the clear counsel of God.”

The reply to this letter of appeal was that the matter was put in the hands of the General Conference law office or legal counsel.

A General Conference attorney wrote to Marik, “We would recommend and will favorably consider your using, for example, the name ‘Seventh-day Congregational Church.’”

In 1987, John Marik wrote a pastoral letter explaining their position in regard to this lawsuit, and the General Conference attorneys submitted a formal, legal complaint. A court order was given, and a Scheduling Conference was set for July 1987.

In April 1987, John Marik sent a letter to friends telling them that he had just been informed that the General Conference had filed suit against him. He then wrote a
4-page letter to the General Conference giving Bible and Spirit of Prophecy reasons why they could not do as they had been asked.

Several years ago, after the Merikay Silver case, the General Conference set down a new ruling that if anyone initiated a lawsuit against the General Conference, or any church entity; he was subject to being disfellowshipped. Since the leadership at the General Conference is involved with suing local Adventist believers, should they not then be subject to their own laws and suffer the penalty of being disfellow-shipped?

Some of the complaints against John Marik were:

  1. “Defendants’ conduct of selecting and commercially using the Seventh-day Adventist name for defendants’ services and goods in direct competition with the Plaintiff was done willfully, wantonly, and maliciously for the purpose of unjustly enriching themselves and injuring Plaintiffs good will and trade identity rights…
    Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendant…from using, promoting, or in any way displaying any name or mark which includes the term Seventh-day Adventist, or any term that is confusingly similar to ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ or is a colorable imitation thereof…”
  2. That each of them deliver up to Plaintiff for destruction, all labels, signs, prints, advertising materials, and other literature…bearing the term Seventh-day Adventist and all plates, molds, matrices and other means of making same.”

John Marik argued that the phrase Seventh-day Adventist described a system or set of Bible-based Christian beliefs, doctrines, and standards. One was a Seventh-day Adventist because of what he believed, not what organization he belonged to.

If each local church was not duly incorporated, then losing a lawsuit might strip every member of their property.

John Marik did not go into court with an attorney, and because of this, the General Conference submitted a paper to the court requesting no court trial be held, but that the court proceed directly to issue judgment. In July 1987, a hearing was held in the Judge’s office. Since John Marik, nor his church members had obtained legal counsel , a “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike” was submitted. Since John Marik did not object before or during the hearing, it was accepted by the judge and became official—no trial would be held, only a court judgment that would be based on the legal papers the judge received. Therefore, without realizing it, John Marik had just waived his right to trial.

In a lawsuit, whenever either party files a legal paper with the court, they are required by law to send a copy of that paper to the other party in the suit. The second party must then sign and date that they have received it. It is called a “Certificate of Service.” This certificate is then attached to the legal paper and filed with the court. In this case, John Marik claimed that he had not received this action paper, before or after the hearing. The General Conference claimed they sent it, and they filled out the “Certificate of Service” to guarantee this fact to the court. All the while, John Marik and his membership were praying for guidance and awaiting a chance to defend their faith at a trial that would never happen.

In August 1987, the group prepared a paper stating why they could not give up the name Seventh-day Adventist, and submitted it to the judge, and in September he filed a paper with the court declaring that the group would prefer not to enter into litigation with the General Conference.

An Order granting Motion on Judgment for Pleadings, given by the court, accepted the Motion that had been submitted by the General Conference attorneys, and in December 1987, the Federal Court handed down a verdict prohibiting the defendants from using the name Seventh-day Adventist and enjoined them to remove the sign from their church and hand over to Federal Agents all of their personal books, magazines, and other property with the name Seventh-day Adventist on it. The Federal Judge handed down his decision. There would be no trial.

A major position paper was submitted to the court by Max Corbett, now acting attorney for John Marik’s group. He requested that the Judgment be set aside, or dismissed, with the possibility of having a new trial. The small group submitted a paper explaining that they considered the December 8 court Order invalid “because of lack of jurisdiction” in religious matters, while the General Conference submitted a paper asking that the court decision be carried out immediately. The defendants must comply or be visited with civil penalties.

Attorneys for the General Conference requested that the court order the group to explain why they should not be considered in contempt of court for not complying with the judge’s decision, and requested that the hearing be held speedily. The court granted a date in February 1988.

In February 1988, John Marik’s attorney, Max Corbett, appeared in court and reminded the General Conference attorney about this problem of their stifling an open court hearing. This judge observed that the first judge may have made a wrong decision—but he felt duty-bound to uphold it. He counseled the General Conference to seek to come to a mutual agreement out of court to avoid the jailing of someone who believed the same thing the General Conference believed.

For the next two months papers continued to be filed by both sides of the suit, and in May 1988, the Federal District Court of Hawaii entered an Order for John Marik’s arrest, and a $500 a day penalty for every day of non-compliance. The Bench Warrant stated Mr. Marik, once jailed, was not to be released until the fine was paid and the books and related possessions bearing the name Seventh-day Adventist had been seized. This request was not for what they printed—but for what they possessed. It included:

  1. Adventist song books
  2. All Spirit of Prophecy books
  3. Back issues of denominational journals, and many more.
  4. Possible out of print books or papers dating back to 1800s.

All would be confiscated by the government agents and destroyed at the General Conference request.

The Southwestern Union Record, May 13, 1988 stated, “The church does not sue the offending organization for the purpose of obtaining damages or punitive judgments.” Yet the General Conference requested the judge “for an accounting to be determined, the damages that Plaintiff has suffered and the profits that were derived as a consequence of defendants acts as aforesaid; for an award of the damages suffered by Plaintiff and the profits derived by the defendants, as determined by the accounting, and that the award of profits be trebled (or 3 times as much) all pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1117 and other applicable Law. For costs of suit herein.”

John Marik was subsequently arrested, and lost everything. Later he was a fugitive running from place to place, kept in hiding.

There are many others that the General Conference has pursued; Raphael Perez is just the latest. It is not needful for us to be prophets to understand motives; the actions speak for themselves without further comment.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Sources:

  • Betrayal, by Merikay McLeod
  • The John Marik Case, by Vance Ferrell