Is There Any Word From God?

“For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth He devise means that His banished be not expelled from Him.” 2 Samuel 14:14. A woman of Tekoah preached this little sermon as a rebuke to the king of Israel.

The Bible story begins when Amnon, the king’s son wronged his half sister, Tamar, who was a full sister to Absalom. Absalom took revenge by killing Amnon then fleeing into exile to avoid revenge being taken upon him. For three years he lived with a foreign king, far from his homeland. For three years he anxiously watched and waited, asking everyone whom he thought might know, “Is there any word from the king?” But the king remained silent. There was no indication that he even cared about Absalom. Finally, the woman of Tekoah, in consultation with Joab, preached this little sermon to the king as a rebuke. Pointing out that his action was unlike the action of the Lord that he professed to love and obey, she reminded him that the merciful God we serve devises means whereby the banished may be restored.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve enjoyed open communication with the Lord. We are told, “The holy pair were not only children under the fatherly care of God but students receiving instruction from the all-wise Creator. They were visited by angels, and were granted communion with their Maker, with no obscuring veil between.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 50. All that changed when sin came in.

Have you ever noticed the way nations relate to other nations in modern diplomacy? When two nations are not getting along, very often they do not communicate directly but talk to each other through a third party. They fear that direct communication would blur the message of condemnation that they are trying to give, and cause people to say, “Well, it must not be all that bad. They are still on speaking terms.” So a means is devised by which communication can go on, but still the testimony, against what is conceived to be evil, remains.

God has used a similar method to bear testimony against the evil of man’s rebellion. God recognized that to communicate directly with man would blur the testimony and cause confusion. Maybe the rebel would say, “Well, I must not be so bad, the Lord is still talking to me.” So the Lord had to break off direct communication, yet He devised a means to continue communication. He chose individuals who were not in rebellion against Him and through them He sent messages to those in rebellion. In this way He communicates to the rebel, but at the same time He declares to the universe His rejection of the evil action of the rebel. We call this Divine Diplomacy.

This special class of people, through whom the Lord communicates, we call prophets. They can declare, “Now the word of the Lord came unto me,” and this gives them a sense of commission that is unlike anything the world has ever seen. We look in amazement at prophets going before their kings and demanding that they come into line. That is certainly not something a common man would do, for it would mean risking his life.

Recall the time when a certain king of Israel asked a prophet what would happen if he went to war. The prophet told him truthfully that he would not come back because the Lord did not approve. The king in fury said, “Take this man and throw him in the prison and keep him there until I come back.” We would expect the man to drop to his knees and plead for mercy, but he did not. He said, “Your majesty, if you come back at all, the Lord has not spoken by me.”

The history of the prophets’ relationship to their kings reveals their steadfast integrity, their unflinching and unyielding demand for righteousness on every level from the highest to the lowest classes of society. There is not any class of men like them in the world, and they produced literature. Some of their messages appear to us in a Book that is unlike any other book in the world—the Bible. We value it because we believe it contains revelations from God.

Theories and Facts

What actually is revelation? To fully answer this question, I first present an example to you. Suppose that you are the king of one of the Hawaiian Islands where a horse has never been seen. Some Europeans arrive and tell you that in Europe there is a large animal called a horse. How are you going to know what a horse is like? One way that you could find out is to call a committee of the most learned men in your kingdom and commission them to collectively study this matter out and report their findings back to you. The only problem is, they have never seen a horse. They only have fragments of information about a horse, and the largest animals they know are sharks and whales. It would not be too surprising, then, if the report they brought back to you is that a horse is something like a whale or a shark. Having never seen a horse, that would be the best they could do.

Another way to learn about a horse would be to send a few thousand dollars to Europe to have a horse shipped to your island. When the horse arrived in Hawaii, your learned men could examine the horse and then draw up their final conclusion. That would be a perfectly appropriate method as long as they did not try to ignore the evidence and force their previous theories on the actual horse!

Consider a theory that some of the best brains in our world adhered to before men had ever walked on the moon. They recognized the Law of Gravity in the world and in the universe. They believed that the degree of the pull of gravity was related to the size of the planet. The larger the planet, the stronger the pull; the smaller the planet, the less the pull. Since the moon is so much smaller than the earth, they reasoned that there would be very little gravitational pull there, which would mean that the surface of the moon might be extremely soft. Gravity would not have pulled it in as hard as it is here on earth and a man landing on the moon might sink in to his waist or even to his neck.

Finally, the day came when a man landed a spacecraft on the moon and stepped out onto its surface for the first time—and he only sunk in about two inches. There was not that much dust. What if the scientists had said, “We will not accept that; we know that the surface of the moon is soft”? That would have been ridiculous! Instead, they corrected their theory when the facts were in. They could not force their theory on the moon!

All of the examples I have given you are leading to a very crucial concept: there is nothing wrong with speculative thinking, but it should always be corrected by the observable data!

Man’s Theories about Revelation

As we come back to our basic question, What is revelation?, we discover that man has a very strong tendency to set up a theory about revelation and force it on the Bible instead of letting the Bible tell them what revelation is! Here are just a few of the many examples I could give you.

People theorize that if there is such a thing as revelation, if there is a Book in existence which contains information revealed by the God of the universe, certainly it would have just one heavenly literary style throughout that whole Book. But, when we look at the Book, it is not like that. There are sections of it that are purely historical in style. Sections of it are dramatical in style, like the book of Job. Others are poetical, like the Psalms, and others are apocalyptic, like Daniel and Revelation. What should we do with these facts? Will we let the facts correct our theory? Or are we determined to hold to our theory no matter what?

Another very common way that many have reasoned is that if there is something in the world called revelation, if God has spoken to man, then certainly that message would come from God in the highest language and with the most perfect vocabulary known to man. However, as men studied the New Testament, written in Greek, they saw a great difference between the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek of the classical writers. At the same time archeologists were finding written materials in the Greek language. There were contracts, deeds, instructions, bills of lading, and receipts. They finally found that the truth of the matter was that the language of the Greek New Testament was the simple everyday language of the common people. The idea that the Greek of the New Testament must be an especially elevated form of Greek had to be laid aside.

Some people had real trouble with that. They reasoned that it would be impossible that God could pass by the beautiful language of high Greek for the common language spoken on the street. It was a jolt to them. But that is exactly what God did, and we had better allow our theories be corrected by the facts.

Men speculate that if the Bible is a revelation from God then every description of a single incident should be exactly like every other description. But this is not true at all. We look at the Gospel records of the life of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and they are not contradictory, but they are different. They apparently reflect the different interests of the writer.

A study of the gospel of Mark shows that he wrote for the non-Jewish reader. His gospel contains many explanations telling why the Jews had certain customs or explaining a word that had a particular meaning for the Jews. Matthew, on the other hand, obviously wrote for the Jew and he often notes how prophecies, well known to Jews, had been fulfilled. Luke was the careful historian trying to set everything in the context of the events around it. He often says, it was in such and such a year of a certain ruler, it was such and such a time, or in such and such a place. John had a very different emphasis. He was the theologian. In his gospel, he spends very little time on locations, but he spends a lot of time on the theological meanings of what Jesus said. All of the gospels are true and contain important lessons for us, but they do not provide identical accounts. Here again we have to let our theory be corrected by the facts.

Some would argue that if the Bible is from God, it should be so legally precise that it is impossible to misunderstand it. But God, we discover, is not interested in forcing anyone to believe. He sets before us enough evidence that we can believe if we choose to, and with that He is finished. He will not try to force anyone. So we do not find the Bible to be legally precise. In order to be sure we have the right picture, we must compare many verses, one with another.

More of Men’s Theories

According to men’s theories, if the Bible is a divinely inspired book, we should not find any records of evil. But we find that the Bible records, in frank and honest detail, the sins of David and the apostasy and betrayal of Peter and other things that are painful for us to read. So we have to let that correct our theory again.

According to our theory, the Bible should be systematically organized. Everything should be in proper chronological order, but this is not true either. Take, for example, the book of Jeremiah. When you read it, it looks as though Baruch, Jeremiah’s secretary, collected all of the masses of Jeremiah’s writings and just bound them together in a book, without any attempt at all to put them in proper chronological order.

In the New Testament, even the parables are not recorded in the same order in the different gospels. If you tried to figure out which one came first, you would not find it easy. Ellen White suggests that the narrative of what Jesus said and what He did was called back to the authors minds by certain circumstances and so the different events of Christ’s ministry and the lessons He taught, do not always appear in chronological order in the different gospels.

We theorize that if the Bible truly is the word of God, certainly it must be entirely original. It does not seem logical that in it there would appear anything a man had copied from another man. But that does not check out either. When you look at your Bible, you find that there is clear evidence that there was some copying done.

If you begin with 2 Peter 2:4 and compare it with Jude 6, and read about the next ten verses in each chapter, you will conclude that someone did some copying. Either Peter had Jude’s epistle before him as he wrote or Jude had Peter’s epistle before him as he wrote. Matthew also must have had the book of Mark before him as he was writing, and Luke must have had both Matthew and Mark before him as he was writing. Some scholars tell us that ninety-five percent of the book of Mark is copied word for word into Matthew and Luke.

In the book of Genesis there is a strong indication that earlier records were incorporated into Scripture. Genesis chapter 1 through chapter 2 verse 3, covers the story of creation. There we see a record of the days of creation and exactly what happened on every day, including the seventh. And then, verse 4 starts in with another new story of creation. It begins, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” What is then recorded is not contradictory to the first account, any more than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are contradictory, but it is different.

Look at that word “generation” in verse four. In the past scholars believed that writing was unknown in the ancient world. Some skeptics insisted that we know Moses could not have written Genesis because writing was not being done in Moses’ time. However, the archaeologists have corrected our understanding and we now know there was a great deal of writing being done long, long before Moses was born. In the days of Abraham they even kept little clay tablets with Bills of Sale and Title Deeds to their property. So certainly writing was not uncommon.

Archaeologists have discovered genealogical tablets called the towledah. These little tablets would have all the names of one’s ancestors, so it was the towledah of that man or family. And towledah is the word used in Genesis 2:4, translated “generations.” There is strong indication here that when Moses wrote the book of Genesis he incorporated some pre-existing records into his own record of the early history of our earth. We believe that the Holy Spirit would not have let him include them if they had been faulty. But they were accurate records and so Moses simply copied them right into his own record.

We could go on and compare Kings and Chronicles and add many more illustrations, but the evidence is already conclusive and leads to one point—we must correct our theories by the facts revealed in the Word of God. We must let the Bible tell us what revelation is and not force our theories upon the Bible.

God’s Penmen Not His Pen

Another theory that is commonly held by many sincere Christians is that if God spoke to a man by His Holy Spirit, then certainly the man merely copied the words spoken to him. But that does not check out, either. I learned something about this with an experience of my own.

There was a time when I feel that the Lord talked to me directly. It happened when I was pleading with the Lord for guidance in an important decision that had to immediately be made about an evangelistic series. I began to quote to the Lord one of His own Scriptures which said, “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God.” I said, “Lord, You have to tell me what to do. You have to give me a sign. I have to decide this quickly.” And the Lord responded. I did not hear a voice, but my mind was instantly illuminated with a complete thought, like a flash. I cannot quote it to you as quickly as it came, because I have to report it to you in words and the words take time. But the message came in a thousandth of a second. “What are you doing reading to Me a promise of wisdom while you ask Me for a sign? A sign is not wisdom.” That hit me so hard that I stopped praying. I said, “I guess that is right.” And so, I sat down on my chair and I said, “What would wisdom do?” Then I laid out a little plan, I tried it and it worked. It was a miraculous thing.

I cherish the memory of the few times in my experience that I believe the Lord spoke to me directly. I cannot tell you by what method it was done, but it was immediate and the whole message was there in my mind.

I tell people that experience in different words from time to time, words calculated to reach the understanding of the person I am talking to. I do not think that does any violence at all to the experience. It was not given to me in words that I either heard or saw.

Ellen White tells us that the writers of the Bible had to do something like that. “The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. . . . 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., 20, 21. (See also Selected Messages, vol. 1, 20–48.)

I have listened with great interest to many earnest and sincere scholars in the university classroom, as they struggled desperately to describe how God speaks to a man in revelation. They could not do it. I cannot do it either. But Ellen White reminds us that we see the same thing in revelation that we see in the incarnation. No man can tell precisely how humanity and divinity are blended in Jesus Christ. No man can tell precisely how humanity and divinity are blended in the Word of God. It is beyond the human understanding. This is probably a subject we will be studying through the ages of eternity.

She goes on: “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expression but on the man himself. . . . The words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will, thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God.” Ibid. And then summing it up, she says, “I take the Bible just as it is, the inspired Word. I believe its utterances in the entire Bible.” Ibid., 17.

The Bible can be compared to a tall man bending down to talk to a child, then getting down on one knee so that his eyes are level with the child’s and trying to communicate with him. It is God stooping down to communicate with us in language that we can understand. Human language is not adequate to fully contain the thought of God, but God devised a means to communicate the truths vital to our salvation in a way that we mortals could understand.

God Calls Us Back

David devised means whereby Absalom could be brought back. But notice the difference. David did not act until he was urged. God devised the means long before there was a need. He was ready with His plan that His banished would not be expelled and that those separated from Him by sin would not be hopelessly separated. He devised a means to bring them back, to restore them.

David’s restoration of Absalom was not complete. He told Joab to bring him back to Jerusalem and let him live in his own house free, but not to let him see his face. That is not like God. Remember in the story of the Prodigal Son, the father saw his prodigal son returning and he did not say, “Well, I see my son is coming back. Send one of the servants to take him to the servants quarters and we will send some clothing down there. But see to it that he does not come to this house.” Oh, no, Jesus describes the father, himself, going out to meet him. He wraps his arms around him and draws him close to his heart of love. Then he commands that a robe be brought to cover his filthy rags and he calls everyone to celebrate his restoration so that all will know that his restoration is complete. The son is restored as fully and completely as if he had never sinned. That is the way the Lord works. His ways are much higher than the ways of men.

How thankful we are that God devised means for rebellious mankind. It is as if the rope tying man’s boat to the dock is cut and man is on the boat drifting ever farther and farther away from God. But God was not content to sit in silence in His palace, like David did, and say, “That is too bad. It is not My problem.” God made it His problem. He devised a means and because He did, we have His Book in our hands.

This precious, invaluable Book is the greatest treasure we can have because it comes from God. I suggest that we lay aside all of our preconceived theories and let this Book tell us what revelation is and does and what it does not do. Let us thank God that He devised the means so that everywhere man may go, there is always this Book waiting for him. Whenever man in his exile asks, “Is there any word from the King?” the answer is always “Yes, there is a word from the Lord.” You can turn to it anytime, anywhere and discover that the Lord is waiting to welcome you home.

“Come, every soul by sin oppressed.

There’s mercy with the Lord,

And He will surely give you rest,

By trusting in His Word.”

That Word is always there. There is always a word from the Lord saying, “Come home and be forgiven. Be as fully restored as if you had never sinned.”

Holy Flesh & Celebration Music, Part II

Haskell’s Eye Witness Report

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

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

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

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

The Erroneous Holy Flesh Teaching of the Human Nature Of Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False Concept of Christ’s Human Nature

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

Holy Flesh False Doctrines Taught Today

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

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

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

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

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

Falsifying History To Sustain A Doctrinal Position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elder Stephen N. Haskell

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

Elder G. A. Roberts

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

Notice that Roberts stated the Holy Flesh advocates believed that:

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

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

Burton Wade

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

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

Startling Discrepancy In Source Dates

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

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

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

The Objective Of the Compiler’s Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still Ignoring the Haskell Letter #2

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

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

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

The Road to Persecution, Part II

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

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

Tearing Down the Wall

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

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

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

False Love Leads to Hatred

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Will Someday Oppose the Loud Cry?

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

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

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

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

War Rather Than Compromise

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

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

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

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

Wisdom From Leaders of the Past

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Longer Brethren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial – Second Chance

“Now the Word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time.” Jonah 3:1

Jonah had been the runaway prophet. He dreaded so much doing what God had told him to do that he decided to go west to Tarshish instead of east to Ninevah. This decision got him in deep trouble. On the first recorded submarine trip he prayed to the God of heaven. He said later, “my prayer went to you into your holy temple.” Jonah 2:7. The voyage seemed like an eternity, he said, “the earth with its bars was behind me forever.” Jonah 2:6. But in that living grave God heard him. Jonah said, “out of the belly of sheol I cried, You heard my voice.” Jonah 2:2.

Have not many other people had an experience like Jonah. For various reasons the way that God marked out for them to travel seemed too difficult, too painful, too distasteful, too dangerous or just plain ruinous and the human spirit shrank from what God said to do. We thought that we could not possibly do exactly as God directed. “Times have changed”(Testimonies, vol. 5, 211) and so, instead of going east, we went west to escape the disagreeable duty and find greater peace and happiness in a way that we deemed better than the one God had pointed out for us.

We still claimed of course that we “fear the Lord, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land.” (Jonah 1:9) and we still profess to be His people even after we had purchased our ticket to go opposite the direction that He has directed. If God should deal with us like we are prone to deal with each other we would all perish. But we serve a God who specializes in giving second chances to disobedient, runaway disciples. First, of course, we have to go through our own deep trouble—going opposite to God’s express instructions in any line always results in consequences, in trials and suffering even though we are forgiven when we repent and confess our sins. Sometimes we must, because of our own previous course of action, be cast into deep trouble, into stormy waters, until it seems that there is no hope and that both God and man have forsaken us and we say with Jonah, “I have been cast out of Your sight.” Jonah 2:4. But if we keep praying and surrendering our lives to the Lord we will find that, “Salvation is of the Lord.” Jonah 2:9.

When He sees that it is time, He can remove us from the furnace of trouble. “The refining furnace is to remove the dross. When the Refiner sees His image reflected in you perfectly, He will remove you from the furnace. You will not be left to be consumed or to endure the fiery ordeal any longer than is necessary for your purification. But it is necessary for you, in order to reflect the divine image, to submit to the process the Refiner chooses for you, that you may be cleansed, purified, and every spot and blemish removed—not even a wrinkle left in your Christian character.” Our High Calling, 312.

“I saw that the enemy would either contend for the usefulness or the life of the godly, and will try to mar their peace as long as they live in this world. But his power is limited. He may cause the furnace to be heated, but Jesus and angels will watch the trusting Christian, that nothing may be consumed but the dross. The fire kindled by Satan, can have no power to destroy or hurt the true metal. It is important to close every door possible, against the entrance of Satan. It is the privilege of every family to so live that Satan cannot take advantage of anything they may say or do, to tear each other down. Every member of the family should bear in mind that all have just as much as they can do to resist our wily foe, and with earnest prayers and unyielding faith, they must rely upon the merits of the blood of Christ, and claim His saving strength. The powers of darkness gather about the soul and shut Jesus from our sight, and at times we can only wait in sorrow and amazement until the cloud passes over. These seasons are sometimes terrible. Hope seems to fail, and despair seizes upon us. In these dreadful hours we must learn to trust, to depend on the sole merits of the atonement, and in all our helpless unworthiness cast ourselves upon the merits of the crucified and risen Savior. We shall never perish while we do this—never! . . .We are too quickly discouraged, and earnestly cry for the trial to be removed from us, when we should plead for patience to endure, and grace to overcome.” Review and Herald, April 22, 1862.