Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Unadulterated

by

The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart.” Psalms 24:1–4.

God is looking for a pure people. A people who are totally His and who have the pure character of Christ, unmixed and unadulterated by the sins and practices of the world.

“When the character of the Saviour shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim His own.” Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students, 324. The reason Christ has not yet come is because His character has not been reproduced in us. It is still mixed with impurities that should not be there. But when we represent Christ and our homes represent Christ’s home, then He will come to receive us unto Himself. It is time, brethren and sisters, that we take the impurities out of our lives and out of our homes. Shall we do it?

Adulterations

From time to time we hear of government inspectors finding other things in hamburgers besides beef. Some hamburger chain is trying to cut down on its costs and so they find some cheaper substance to mix with their beef. It may be a soy product or it may be a pork product, but whatever it is it should not be there and it is against the law. For when a product is labeled as “hamburger,” that signifies that it is all beef. Any added alteration makes it an adulterated product. This is what the government inspectors call it.

When you add an alteration to what something is supposed to be, it becomes adulterated or an adulteration. The dictionary says adulterate means: “To make impure by mixing in a foreign or inferior substance.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1974.

Thought Question:

If there is not a pattern or standard for a product (if there is no label), can you alter it? Can it become adulterated?

The Home Pattern

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” Ephesians 5:22–26.

“God would have our families symbols of the family in heaven. Let parents and children bear this in mind every day, relating themselves to one another as members of the family of God. Then their lives will be of such a character as to give to the world an object lesson of what families who love God and keep His commandments may be. Christ will be glorified; His peace and grace and love will pervade the family circle like a precious perfume.” Adventist Home, 17.

The family is a symbol of heaven. Can you think of another symbol of heaven that God has given to this earth? Hebrews 8:5 says, “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.” “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Hebrews 9:23.

The sanctuary that Moses built was patterned after the exact same object which the home is patterned after. They are both patterned after and are a symbol of heaven.

Thought Question:

If you made two copies of the same thing, would they resemble each other?

Our families are to be built upon heaven’s plan and this Divine Plan for our families is graphically illustrated in the sanctuary. In fact, as the home is copied after heaven, as illustrated in the sanctuary, the home becomes a miniature sanctuary itself: a place patterned after heaven so closely that it becomes a little heaven on earth where God meets with His children.

God said: “And let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.” Exodus 25:8. “Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?” Psalms 77:13.

“The subject of the sanctuary . . . should be clearly understood by the people of God.…Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill.” The Great Controversy, 488.

God’s way, His Divine pattern, is found in the sanctuary. This is where He meets in a special way with His people. As our homes copy this pattern, they in-turn become miniature sanctuaries and God in-turn meets in a special way with its occupants there.

“From the sacredness which was attached to the earthly sanctuary, Christians may learn how they should regard the place where the Lord meets with His people. . . . The house is the sanctuary for the family.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 491.

Adventists used to be known as the Sabbath and Sanctuary people. The sanctuary was so important that it was the very first thing God presented and enjoined upon us as a people—even before the Sabbath message. We used to preach and preach and preach about the sanctuary, but now it has become almost a dead subject to some members.

Let us look at heaven’s pattern and maybe we will see some alterations that have been added in our families and in our homes.

The Sanctuary

Who was allowed in the different areas of the sanctuary?

Court…………………… Israelites

Holy Place ………………… Priests

Most Holy Place ……. High Priest

It is noteworthy to observe that the further into the sanctuary you go, the more beautiful, luxurious, and holy it becomes and the more exclusive it becomes. The Most Holy place was filled with gold and tapestries and exquisite workmanship which radiated with untold glory.

And what was it that kept other people out of the respective places? The veil. The veil was a curtain that hung in front of each compartment to keep people out who should not be in. The veil, or curtain, that was rent from top to bottom at the time of Christ’s death, signified that there was no more sanctity in the Most Holy Place. Without the veil, there was no sanctity or holiness! The veil kept out what was not supposed to be there. It kept out any added alteration: any adultery. The veil provided the protection that maintained the purity and holiness within.

No Guided Tours

Once upon a time there was a very good king in Judah. The Bible says that “he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” 2 Chronicles 26:4. His name was Uzziah and because he was such a good king the Lord permitted him to reign a very long time and gave him prosperity all around. No king since Solomon had been so prosperous and no king had ruled longer. “He sought God…(and) God made him to prosper.” “And God helped him against the Philistines.…And the Ammonites gave gifts to Uzziah: and his name spread abroad even to the entering in of Egypt; for he strengthened himself exceedingly.” “And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal. And his name spread far abroad; for he was marvelously helped, till he was strong.”
2 Chronicles 26:5, 7, 8, 15.

He was a professional. He was the king. He had rights and privileges which no one questioned. So one day, he decided he wanted a guided tour of the temple. He wanted to see what all was in there. He wanted to take part in its services. The priests, not seeming to understand his profession and authority, tried to dissuade him, but he would not be turned aside from his heart’s desire.

Uzziah took the “censer in his hand to burn incense . . . (and) leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense alter. . . . And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord.” 2 Chronicles 26: 19, 21.

What a severe punishment! And for one who had been so good for so long! But God said there would be no guided tours of the holy sanctuary. Only certain people were to go beyond the veils and anyone else was an added alteration to God’s heavenly plan.

Thought Question:

Why were these curtains covering things up? Why were others not allowed to go in? Was it because there was something bad going on in there? Why was only the High Priest allowed in the Most Holy place? Was there something “dirty” and unholy about the service?

Answer:

No! It was quite the opposite. (There are doors that do cover up things because they are unholy and “dirty” but that is not the case here.) These veils formed a sacred enclosure. Within each enclosure was found a more intimate and personal relationship with God until the high priest himself, alone, stood personally face to face before God.

It was totally holy for the right people, but totally unholy for all others. But remember, the sanctuary is but a symbol of heaven and of heaven’s relationship with us (like the home is).

Each individual can have a sanctuary relationship with God. (See Testimonies, vol. 5, 491.) Each individual can have the same personal relationship with God that the high priest illustrated. Each of us can enjoy all of God’s riches as though they were meant just for us. Each of us can receive the blessing of Christ’s sacrifice as though it was done just for us.

“The relations between God and each soul are as distinct and full as though there were not another soul upon the earth to share His watchcare, not another soul for whom He gave His beloved Son.” Steps to Christ, 100. That is worth memorizing!

And as the sanctuary represents Christ’s plan of government—His love—for us, so our homes and families do the same thing. “Through the… deepest and tenderest earthly ties that human hearts can know, He [God] has sought to reveal Himself to us.” Ibid., 10.

What are the “deepest and tenderest earthly ties that human hearts can know?” Mrs. White says that “The family tie is the closest, the most tender and sacred, of any on earth.” The Ministry of Healing, 356.

As in the sanctuary, so there are certain expressions of love and service that are perfectly proper within the church but which would be improper outside of the church body—such as foot washing. This is represented by the court.

Within the family there is more intimacy and devotion that is sacred and holy—but only as it remains in the family. This is like the Holy Place of the sanctuary.

But it remains for the husband and wife to receive the full glory of intimacy—and only within the veil. Is this exclusiveness because there is something that is unholy about marriage and its ordinances of love and service? No, Paul says:

“Marriage is honourable in all [some religions teach that it is not], and the bed undefiled; but [he quickly adds] whoremongers and adulterers [ones that have added alterations to the marriage—added a person that should not be there] God will judge [as He did Uzziah].” Hebrews 13:4.

Within the Most Holy

Within the Most Holy Place of the family, God would teach us that we are to give our allegiance to only one. We are to be all to God and He will be all to us. And so there is to be only one man for each woman and only one woman for each man. They are to be all to each other. (See Adventist Home, 177; 1 Corinthians 7:3, 4.)

“For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to
his wife: And they twain (2) shall be
one flesh?” Matthew 19:5. (To see how this teaches us about God, read
John 17:21–23.)

Christ said that they twain shall be one. Not they three or they four but they twain. Any third party to this union is an added alteration that is contrary to the pattern (or label). Around this sacred institution God has placed a “sacred circle” to maintain its purity and any third person makes it impure.

Thought Question:

Who all are excluded from this principle? Kings? Professionals? Friends? Parents?

(For further reading, read what Mrs. White says about physicians preserving “those barriers of reserve [the sacred veil] that should exist between men and women” in Counsels on Health, 363–365.)

Around every married couple and around every family God has put a veil, a sacred circle, which must be preserved. “There is a sacred circle around every family which should be preserved. No other one has any right in that sacred circle. The husband and wife should be all to each other. The wife should have no secrets to keep from her husband and let others know, and the husband should have no secrets to keep from his wife to relate to others. The heart of his wife should be the grave for the faults of the husband, and the heart of the husband the grave for his wife’s faults. Never should either party indulge in a joke at the expense of the other’s feelings. Never should either the husband or wife in sport or in any other manner complain of each other to others, for frequently indulging in this foolish and what may seem perfectly harmless joking will end in trial with each other and perhaps estrangement. I have been shown that there should be a sacred shield around every family.

“The home circle should be regarded as a sacred place, a symbol of heaven, a mirror in which to reflect ourselves. Friends and acquaintances we may have, but in the home life they are not to meddle. A strong sense of proprietorship should be felt, giving a sense of ease, restfulness, trust.” Adventist Home, 177.

“And they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain; but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Matthew 19:5, 6. God formed the union between man and woman in the garden of Eden. It was one of the two sacred institutions that were established even before sin.

God made man and woman with certain essential characteristics which would draw them together into this circle of love—into partnership—into being one.

God made man to notice (his wife!)

God made woman to be noticed (by her husband!)

It is as this plan is carried out in the home that the two become one. This is sacred and holy within the Most Holy Place of the home. But God made this blending to be carried on between two people, only, and around these two people he has put a sacred veil. Any third party within this enclosure is an added person and is adultery.

Thought Question:

God made man to notice his wife. Would the husband noticing another woman be, in actuality, introducing a third party into the relationship—and therefore committing adultery?

Christ understood this principle (for He had established it). He said: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Matthew 5:28.

Have you ever wondered why Christ did not mention women looking at men, but only men looking at women? This is man’s special problem, not woman’s. When a woman looks at another man, she is hoping that he will notice her.

God put into man the desire to notice his wife and any third party is adultery. (And any “third party” attraction of the husband lessens the attraction he should have for his wife.)

And yet, just as Satan has perverted the Sabbath institution so he has perverted the marriage institution. The seventh commandment is just as rarely kept today as the fourth. But those who go to heaven will be keepers of the commandments; the seventh as well as the fourth.

All around the devil has attractions which lead men to look at and notice other women than their wives. The whole television industry is built upon immorality—upon showing attractive women to catch men’s attention. Immorality is so common today that we take it for granted. But the chosen, peculiar people of God are going to be a pure, unadulterated people; keepers of the seventh commandment. They are likened to virgins. (Revelation 14:4.)

But if any man is going to escape the corruption that is in the world, he is going to have to have a veil in front of his eyes! We will have to be as a people that have ears and hear not and have eyes and see not.

Christ said that if you do not have this veil in front of your eyes, it would be better to cut out your eyes—because that would be the only way that you could be saved.

“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” Matthew 5:29.

The television “eye” in the living room is more precious to many people than would be their own right eye. But most people, if they are ever going to be saved at all, are going to have to cut this eye out from their life—because most of us do not have a good enough veil to block all the “third party” sexuality that comes over the screen. (Plus there are other commandments that are broken on television.)

The beginning of Lucifer’s fall was the desire to invade the sacred veil that enshrouded the Father and the Son. He wanted to be included in their councils and to be a third party into their relationship. We must learn to respect the veil God has put around man and woman before we can be trusted in heaven.

A Woman’s Problem Too

Listen! Do you think this is only a man’s problem. No, it is just as much a woman’s problem but it is in a different area. Because God made man to notice and He made woman to be noticed. The woman’s problem is in seeking to be noticed rather than in noticing!

The man’s veil must be in front of his eyes, but the woman’s veil must be in front of her body and conduct. The woman’s dress and demeanor are her covering veil (not a wedding ring—that does not cover nearly enough).

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands.” 1 Peter 3:1–5.

Notice that after telling women to be subject to their “own husbands” Peter immediately goes into the dress question and into conduct and the “adorning” and “putting on of apparel” and “chaste conversation.” These are a woman’s veil.

And remember, did the veil around the temple say to “come in” or “stay out”? The woman must resist the attentions and attractions of “third party” men or she is allowing a third party into the marriage relation and is also committing adultery.

“Any woman who will allow the addresses of another man than her husband, who will listen to his advances and whose ears will be pleased with the outpouring of lavish words of affection, of adoration, of endearment, is an adulteress and a harlot.” Testimonies to Ministers, 434.

Have you ever wondered why the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy talk so much about woman’s dress and not about man’s? It is for the same reason that the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy talk so much about man’s “eyes” and not about woman’s. They each have their particular veil to keep, in order to preserve the sanctity of the marriage. And the devil has made it equally hard on each of them.

Have you, as a man, ever wondered why women have such a problem with their dress—but do you always guard your eyes? Or do you as a woman ever wonder why men have such a problem with their eyes—and yet, you have not mastered the dress problem?

A woman’s demeanor and dress are her veil. What would you think of someone in the sanctuary taking a pair of scissors and cutting off some of the veil in front of the Most Holy Place? Think about it.

The Home Is a Symbol of Heaven

Let us now remember, that as the sanctuary is a symbol of heaven, so is the home. As in the home there is to be no “third party” in the marriage relation, so there is to be no third party in our relation with God. “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” Exodus 20:3.

God is all sufficient. He wants to be all to us (as the wife and husband are to be to each other. (Adventist Home, 177.) God wants us to have an exclusive relationship with Him only. No courting with the devil. No enticing glances. No attracting. No lust.

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6:24. It is time to break away from our besetting sins and become wholly married to God. Then He will come back and claim us as His own.

The Lord is waiting to reproduce His character in us and to reproduce His home in ours; to establish His sanctuary in our midst. “And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, [they will have sanctified homes], when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.” Ezekiel 37:28. When the sanctuary is reproduced in our homes and in our church, then Christ “will come to claim His own.”

The Birth of an Image, Part I

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guard Against Consolidating and Centralizing the Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cleansing Fire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellen White’s Concern About the 1901 General Conference

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

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

A New Constitution

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

No General Conference President

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

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

Union Conferences

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

The New General Conference Executive Committee

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

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

Current Objection To the 1901 Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be concluded next month

Are You a Living Stone?

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Words From the Reformers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apostolic Succession

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

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

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

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

Worthless Profession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyndale Debates More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Struggle of Separation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial – The Infallible Guide, Part I

by

Informed Seventh-day Adventists do not claim infallibility for inspired writings in the strictest sense of the word: “We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 37.

“The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, In logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.” Ibid., 21.

“Some look to us gravely and say, ‘Don’t you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?’ This is all probable . . . All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth.” Ibid., 16.

Notice that in the above statement Ellen White is talking about mistakes in the Bible. We do not possess one autograph of one book of the Bible and, as she indicated, mistakes have occurred in the copying process. We know this because when we compare various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they do not all agree word for word. This is true for the received text, (Textus Receptus) the majority text, and all other ancient textual families of the scriptures. Both in the Bible and the writings of Ellen White grammatical mistakes were made in the writing. This is evident in the Greek New Testament and in the Spirit of Prophecy.

Concerning the Spirit of Prophecy writings given through Ellen White, she wrote, “In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible.” Ibid., 37.

Historic Adventists know that the writings of Ellen White were inspired in the same way and to the same extent (prophetic inspiration is an either-or situation) as the Bible, but infallibility in the strictest sense of the word is not claimed for either.

In addition to grammatical mistakes, Ellen White gives us the following insight into mistakes in the Bible. “I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another.” Early Writings, 220, 221.

Even though there are many mistakes, in every translation, which do indeed affect a person’s theological beliefs. And it is for this very reason that we, like William Miller use concordances to check our understanding of the text. We still know that in a larger sense the Bible is infallible, namely it is an infallible guide to eternal life. Not one person will be able to claim in the day of judgment that he attempted to live by every word in the Bible and was lost in consequence. We must compare Scripture with Scripture and follow the weight of evidence, even when we cannot explain every text on a subject.

How to be sure that you will be saved:

“It [the Bible] is an infallible guide under all circumstances, even to the end of the journey of life. Take it as the man of your counsel, the rule of your daily life.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 264.

“They [young people] are infatuated with the subject of courtship and marriage, and their principal burden is to have their own way. In this, the most important period of their lives, they need an unerring counselor, and infallible guide. This they will find in the word of God. Unless they are diligent students of that word, they will make grave mistakes.” Review and Herald, January 26, 1886.

“Christ will be to you an infallible guide if you will choose Him before your own blind judgment. . . . If you had trusted to the True Counselor instead of to your own judgment, you would ever have been guided out of your perplexities in your business transactions.” Testimonies, vol. 3, 457.

The following testimonies have application to the quibbling over the Ellen White writings that we see today, which was exactly what was being done to the Bible in her day:

“The testimony is conveyed through the imperfect expression of human language; yet it is the testimony of God.” Review and Herald, September 30, 1906.

“Brethren, cling to your Bible, as it reads, and stop your criticisms in regard to its validity, and obey the Word, and not one of you will be lost.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 18.

Bible Study Guides – “Marvelous Are Thy Works”

by

August 28, 1999 – September 3, 1999

MEMORY VERSE: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” Job 38:4.

STUDY HELP: Job 38–41.

INTRODUCTION

“God’s handiwork in nature is not God Himself in nature. The things of nature are an expression of God’s character and power; but we are not to regard nature as God. The artistic skill of human beings produces very beautiful workmanship, things that delight the eye, and these things reveal to us something of the thought of the designer; but the thing made is not the maker. It is not the work, but the workman, that is counted worthy of honor. So while nature is an expression of God’s thought, it is not nature, but the God of nature, that is to be exalted.” Ministry of Healing, 413.

“ASK NOW THE BEASTS, AND THEY SHALL TEACH THEE”

  1. What can we learn from studying the animals, birds and fish? Job 12:7–10.

NOTE: “Since He [Jesus] gained knowledge as we may do, His intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures shows how diligently His early years were given to the study of God’s word. And spread out before Him was the great library of God’s created works. He who had made all things studied the lessons which His own hand had written in earth and sea and sky. Apart from the unholy ways of the world, He gathered stores of scientific knowledge from nature. He studied the life of plants and animals, and the life of man.” Desire of Ages, 70.

  1. What valuable practical lessons can be learned from God’s creatures? Proverbs 6:6–8; 30:24–28.

NOTE: “We are not merely to tell the child about these creatures of God. The animals themselves are to be his teachers. The ants teach lessons of patient industry, of perseverance in surmounting obstacles, of providence for the future. And the birds are teachers of the sweet lesson of trust. Our heavenly Father provides for them; but they must gather the food, they must build their nests and rear their young. Every moment they are exposed to enemies that seek to destroy them. Yet how cheerily they go about their work! how full of joy are their little songs!” Education, 117, 118.

“WHEN I LAID THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH”

  1. How did God describe the design that went into the creation of the earth? Job 38:4–6.

NOTE: “In the beginning, God was revealed in all the works of creation. It was Christ that spread the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth. It was His hand that hung the worlds in space, and fashioned the flowers of the field. ‘His strength setteth fast the mountains.’ ‘The sea is His, and He made it.’ Psalms 65:6; 95:5. It was He that filled the earth with beauty, and the air with song. And upon all things in earth, and air, and sky, He wrote the message of the Father’s love. Now sin has marred God’s perfect work, yet that handwriting remains. Even now all created things declare the glory of His excellence. There is nothing, save the selfish heart of man, that lives unto itself. No bird that cleaves the air, no animal that moves upon the ground, but ministers to some other life. There is no leaf of the forest, or lowly blade of grass, but has its ministry. Every tree and shrub and leaf pours forth that element of life without which neither man nor animal could live; and man and animal, in turn, minister to the life of tree and shrub and leaf. The flowers breathe fragrance and unfold their beauty in blessing to the world. The sun sheds its light to gladden a thousand worlds. The ocean, itself the source of all our springs and fountains, receives the streams from every land, but takes to give. The mists ascending from its bosom fall in showers to water the earth, that it may bring forth and bud.” Desire of Ages, 20.

  1. What response did the psalmist make to the wisdom of the Lord in creation? Psalm 136:1–9.

NOTE: “After God had made the world in six days, He rested and sanctified and blessed the day upon which He rested from all His work which He had created and made. He set apart that special day for man to rest from his labor, that, as he should look upon the earth beneath and the heavens above, he might reflect that God made all these in six days and rested upon the seventh; and that, as he should behold the tangible proofs of God’s infinite wisdom, his heart might be filled with love and reverence for his Maker.” Testimonies, vol. 2, 582.

“WHAT IS MAN THAT THOU ART MINDFUL OF HIM?”

  1. When David considered the splendor of the heavens, the work of the Creator, how did he think of mankind in comparison? Psalm 8:3–4.

NOTE: “Christ pointed to the birds flying in the heavens, to the flowers of the field, and bade His hearers consider these objects of God’s creation. ‘Are not ye of much more value than they?’ He said. Matthew 6:26, R.V. The measure of divine attention bestowed on any object is proportionate to its rank in the scale of being. The little brown sparrow is watched over by Providence. The flowers of the field, the grass that carpets the earth, share the notice and care of our heavenly Father. The great Master Artist has taken thought for the lilies, making them so beautiful that they outshine the glory of Solomon. How much more does He care for man, who is the image and glory of God. He longs to see His children reveal a character after His similitude. As the sunbeam imparts to the flowers their varied and delicate tints, so does God impart to the soul the beauty of His own character.” Desire of Ages, 313.

  1. How important are the nations of earth in comparison with God? Isaiah 40: 15–17, 22–23.

NOTE: “‘What is man,’ the psalmist inquires, ‘that Thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that Thou visitest him?’ ‘Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; behold, He taketh up the isles as a very little thing.’ Thus, Isaiah declares, God regards the inhabitants of this world, not excepting those who stand at the head of the nobility of the earth, those who have acquired the greatest learning, those to whose lot has fallen great riches and much honour. Notwithstanding the insignificance of this world in comparison with the whole universe, Christ volunteered to take upon Himself the nature of humanity, and to bear on His divine soul the sins of mankind, in order that He might redeem the fallen race and enable them to gain life eternal. Laying aside His kingly crown and royal robe, He left His high command in the heavenly courts, clothed His divinity with humanity, and entered the world as a helpless babe. For our sakes He became poor, that through His poverty we might be made rich.” Signs of the Times, January 14, 1903.

“FEARFULLY AND WONDERFULLY MADE”

  1. How did David describe his wonder at the complexity of the human body? Psalm 139: 14–16.

NOTE: “We are God’s workmanship, and His word declares that we are ‘fearfully and wonderfully made.’ He has prepared this living habitation for the mind; it is ‘curiously wrought,’ a temple which the Lord Himself has fitted up for the indwelling of His Holy Spirit. The mind controls the whole man. All our actions, good or bad, have their source in the mind. It is the mind that worships God, and allies us to heavenly beings. Yet many spend all their lives without becoming intelligent in regard to the casket that contains this treasure. All the physical organs are the servants of the mind, and the nerves are the messengers that transmit its orders to every part of the body, guiding the motions of the living machinery. Exercise is an important aid to physical development. It quickens the circulation of the blood, and gives tone to the system. If the muscles are allowed to remain unused, it will soon be apparent that the blood does not sufficiently nourish them. Instead of increasing in size and strength, they will lose their firmness and elasticity, and become soft and weak. Inactivity is not the law the Lord has established in the human body. The harmonious action of all the parts,—brain, bone, and muscle,—is necessary to the full and healthful development of the entire human organism.” Special Testimonies on Education, 33.

  1. How is the principle behind man’s creation expressed? Genesis 1:26.

NOTE: “The true object of education is to restore the image of God in the soul. The first and most precious knowledge is the knowledge of Christ; and wise parents will keep this fact ever before the minds of their children. Should a limb be broken or fractured, parents will try every means that love or wisdom can suggest to restore the affected member to comeliness and soundness. This is right; it is their duty. But the Lord requires that still greater tact, patience, and persevering effort be employed to remedy blemishes of the soul. That father is unworthy of the name who is not to his children a Christian teacher, ruler, and friend, binding them to his heart by the strong ties of sanctified love—a love which has its foundation in duty faithfully performed.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 322.

“THE STORK IN THE HEAVENS”

  1. How does God contrast the behavior of God’s creatures with the behavior of His people? Isaiah 1:3; Jeremiah 8.

NOTE: “What wonderful truths fell from the lips of Christ when He called His disciples to consider the fowls of the air and the flowers of the field, which obey the orders of God’s will. These come to us as lessons of admonition and reproof, for our ingratitude and lack of faith. Gifted with higher, nobler powers than the lower orders of creation, man has nevertheless chosen to disobey his Creator.” Special Testimonies Series B, 229.

  1. What lessons of simple trust can be learned from the things of creation? Matthew 6:25–34.

NOTE: “Can you not trust in your heavenly Father? Can you not rest upon His gracious promise? ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.’ Precious promise! Can we not rely upon it? Can we not have implicit trust, knowing that He is faithful who hath promised? I entreat you to let your trembling faith again grasp the promises of God. Bear your whole weight upon them with unwavering faith; for they will not, they cannot, fail.” Testimonies, vol.2, 497.

“HIS WAYS PAST FINDING OUT”

  1. How did Paul express the impossibility of fathoming the wisdom of God? Romans 11:33.

NOTE: “We can never by searching find out God. He does not lay open His plans to prying, inquisitive minds. We must not attempt to lift with presumptuous hand the curtain behind which He veils His majesty. The apostle exclaims: ‘How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!’ It is a proof of His mercy that there is the hiding of His power, that He is enshrouded in the awful clouds of mystery and obscurity; for to lift the curtain that conceals the divine presence is death. No mortal mind can penetrate the secrecy in which the Mighty One dwells and works. We can comprehend no more of His dealings with us and the motives that actuate Him than He sees fit to reveal. He orders everything in righteousness, and we are not to be dissatisfied and distrustful, but to bow in reverent submission. He will reveal to us as much of His purposes as it is for our good to know; and beyond that we must trust the hand that is omnipotent, the heart that is full of love.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 301, 302.

  1. How did David express his thoughts about the ways of God? Psalm 36:5–9.

NOTE: “Men had received their talents from God, and every gem of thought by which they had been esteemed worthy of the attention of scholars and thinkers, belongs not to them, but to the God of all wisdom, whom they did not acknowledge. Through tradition, through false education, these men are exalted as the world’s educators; but in going to them students are in danger of accepting the vile with the precious; for superstition, specious reasoning, and error are mingled with portions of true philosophy and instruction. This mingling makes a potion that is poisonous to the soul,—destructive of faith in the God of all truth. Those who have a thirst for knowledge need not go to these polluted fountains; for they are invited to come to the fountain of life and drink freely. Through searching the word of God, they may find the hidden treasure of truth that has long been buried beneath the rubbish of error, human tradition, and opinions of men.” Christian Education, 102, 103.

Recipe – Millet Supreme

by

Place in Mini-Crock Pot:

1 cup millet

1 teaspoon salt

4 cups water

Let cook overnight. In the morning stir well and add:

½ cup chopped nuts

½ cup date rolls or pieces.

Stir well and cook another thirty minutes. Serve as a delicious and nutritious breakfast cereal. Left over may be molded, sliced and baked. Delicious, topped with Fruit Sauce.

Food For Life – Supplying the Place of Meat

by

The place of meat should be supplied with wholesome foods that are inexpensive. In this matter very much depends on the cook. With care and skill, dishes may be prepared that will be both nutritious and appetizing, and will, to a great degree, take the place of flesh food.

“In all cases educate the conscience, enlist the will, supply good, wholesome food, and the change will be readily made, and the demand for flesh will soon cease.

“Is it not time that all should aim to dispense with flesh foods? How can those who are seeking to become pure, refined, and holy, that they may have the companionship of heavenly angels, continue to use as food anything that has so harmful an effect on soul and body? How can they take the life of God’s creatures that they may consume the flesh as a luxury? Let them, rather, return to the wholesome and delicious food given to man in the beginning, and themselves practice, and teach their children to practice, mercy toward the dumb creatures that God has made and has placed under our dominion.

“Not all who profess to believe in dietetic reform are really reformers. With many persons the reform consists merely in discarding certain unwholesome foods. They do not understand clearly the principles of health, and their tables, still loaded with harmful dainties, are far from being an example of Christian temperance and moderation.

“Another class, in their desire to set a right example, go to the opposite extreme. Some are unable to obtain the most desirable foods, and, instead of using such things as would best supply the lack, they adopt an impoverished diet. Their food does not supply the elements needed to make good blood. Their health suffers, their usefulness is impaired, and their example tells against, rather than in favor of, reform in diet.

“Others think that since health requires a simple diet, there need be little care in the selection or the preparation of food. Some restrict themselves to a very meager diet, not having sufficient variety to supply the needs of the system, and they suffer in consequence.

“Those who have but a partial understanding of the principles of reform are often the most rigid, not only in carrying out their views themselves, but in urging them on their families and their neighbors. The effect of their mistaken reforms, as seen in their own ill-health, and their efforts to force their views upon others, give many a false idea of dietetic reform, and lead them to reject it altogether.

“Those who understand the laws of health and who are governed by principle, will shun the extremes, both of indulgence and of restriction. Their diet is chosen, not for the mere gratification of appetite, but for the upbuilding of the body. They seek to preserve every power in the best condition for highest service to God and man. The appetite is under the control of reason and conscience, and they are rewarded with health of body and mind. While they do not urge their views offensively upon others, their example is a testimony in favor of right principles. These persons have a wide influence for good.” The Ministry of Healing, 317–319.

Children’s Story – God Can Make An Overpass

by

It was 1989. Our daughter, Rose, was ready for her first year in college. She had decided to attend Hartland. But how was she going to get there? My husband and son were busy with farming and could not get away. So that left me to drive her the twenty-two hours across country and then return alone.

I had never driven that far alone and knowing that conditions in our world are not getting better, a woman driving alone, so far, did not seem like a wise idea. So I started praying. Seeing that there was no other way, I found assurance in my Lord that He would travel with me. By the time we were ready to go I had full confidence that God would see me through.

Our trip to the school went smoothly. My weekend stay was delightful. Early Monday morning, I was up and headed on my way home. You can be sure I spent a lot of time in prayer and thinking of my Lord and His promises. We had a precious day of communion.

By 9:00 p.m. I was in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was past the time that I should retire for the night, but I was so anxious to get home. While driving through the city, I suddenly saw a Motel 6. “That is where I want to spend the night,” I said to myself. The big sign read, “Take the next exit and turn left.” So I did exactly as the sign had directed, or so I thought.

Suddenly, I was lost! There were no street lights, no signs, no street names, only darkness. There were men and boys walking on the edge of the road; there were dimly lit, poorly kept houses, and everything looked dangerous and frightening. I was about to panic. I certainly was not going to roll down my window and ask directions from anyone as to how to get back on the freeway or how to find Motel 6.

As soon as panic seized me, I said to myself, “God has taken care of me thus far on my journey. He will not forsake me now.” Then I began to ask God to show me how to get back on the freeway. When I would come to an intersection, I would say, “Lord, I do not know which way to go. Please turn my steering wheel the right way.” Well, He must have done just that, because it ended up that every single turn was the right one. For I soon found myself on an overpass, looking down at the freeway that I had just come off of, moments before.

“Oh, thank you Lord. But, oh no, I’m going the wrong direction. How do I get back onto I-40 West?” I was totally turned around and it seemed that I was going the opposite direction of where I needed to go.

Then, when I reached the end of the overpass, I looked up and there before me was a freeway sign, “I-40 West.” Praise the Lord! Oh, I just thanked Him over and over again! I made a left turn which was the only way I could go and was soon on my way out of town. I decided I was not going to stop until I could see a motel that was right along the freeway with a very obvious exit and entrance. I asked the Lord to help me stay awake until such a place could be found.

I drove another 30-40 miles before I found a motel right on the freeway. I was settled in for the night by 10:00 p.m. and able to call my husband and son, to let them know where I was and that I was safe. Thanks be to God!

This spring, my husband and I drove to Hartland together to see our daughter who is on the staff of Young Disciple. On our way back home, we were going through Little Rock about the same time of night. I pointed out the Motel 6 to my husband and the sign which said, “Take next exit and turn left.” Then I said, “Let’s look for the overpass where I came back onto the freeway.” So we started looking. Soon we were out of the city. I suddenly realized, there was no overpass. I exclaimed to my husband, “Honey, God must have made a special overpass. There was no overpass on I-40, west of Motel 6!” Chills went up and down my spine. What an awesome God we serve. He can do anything He needs to do in order to deliver His children out of trouble. If He can open the Red Sea for over six million people, making an overpass for one person is just a little thing!

The song, “Somebody Bigger than You and I” has even more meaning to me now. My favorite phrases are,

“He lights the way when the road is long,

Keeps you company;

With love to guide you, He walks beside you,

Just like He walks with me.

When I am weary, filled with despair,

Who gives me courage to go on from there,

And who gives me faith that will never die?

Somebody bigger than you and I.”

Do we ever have need to fear as we prepare for heaven? Let us not forget how God is able to deliver us out of all our troubles. Psalms 34:17.

The Birth of an Image, Part II

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Might Have Been

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

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

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

Debate Over A New Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

The Minority Report

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

Actual Words Of the Minority Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Majority Committee Report was signed by ten men:

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

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

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

Percy T. Magan Speaks

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

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

E.J. Waggoner Speaks

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

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

Waggoner Defines the Concept of Who and What Is the Church

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

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

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

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

Percy T. Magan Speaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Constitution Voted and Ratified

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

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

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

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

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

Daniells’ Later Confession

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

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

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

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

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

Testimony Given Immediately Following the 1903 General Conference

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

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

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

Inspired Statements Regarding Men Physicians Attending Women Patients

by

“There should be in our sanitariums lady physicians who understand well their profession, and who can attend women at the time of childbirth. Light has been given me that women instead of men should take the responsibility in such cases. I was directed to the Bible plan, in which at such times women acted the part of the physician. This plan should be carried out by us; for it is the Lord’s plan.

“Again and again light has been given me that women should be chosen and educated for this line of work. Now the time has come when we should face the matter clearly. More women should be educated for this work, and thus a door of temptation may be closed. We should allow no unnecessary temptation to be placed in the way of physicians and nurses, or the people for whom they minister.” Medical Ministry, 61.

“Women should be educated and trained to act skillfully as midwives and physicians to their sex. This is the Lord’s plan. Let us educate ladies to become intelligent in the work of treating the diseases of their sex. We ought to have a school where women can be educated by women physicians to do the best possible work in treating the diseases of women. Among us as a people the medical work should stand at its highest.” Testimonies, vol. 9, 176.

“When women who are sick are treated and cared for by women, a door through which Satan tries to enter is closed against him. Many cases have been presented to me where Satan has entered through this door to ruin families. Let him not obtain any advantage upon any point. I wish all understood this matter.” Medical Ministry, 140.

“We are living in a time when the world is represented as Noah’s time, and as in the time of Sodom. . . . The light given me of the Lord regarding this matter is that as far as possible lady physicians should care for lady patients, and gentlemen physicians have the care of gentlemen patients. Every physician should respect the delicacy of the patients. Any unnecessary exposure of ladies before male physicians is wrong. Its influence is detrimental.” Counsels on Health, 363.

“Delicate treatments should not be given by male physicians to women in our institutions. [Notice that this is an unqualified statement—it should not be done.] Never [for any other reason] should a lady patient be alone with a gentleman physician, either for special examination or for treatment. Let the physicians be faithful in preserving delicacy and modesty under all circumstances.” Counsels on Health, 364.