Christ’s Nature

The New Theology, part 3

by

The basic difference between the two gospels being taught in our church can be traced to the differing definitions of sin, as found in the Word of God and in the theories developed by men. The popular worldly gospel has crept into our church by, what theologians call, the “original sin” dogma. This false gospel teaches that sin is a part of our nature so therefore we are guilty of sin because we were born into this world. Under this false gospel, no one has the freedom to choose to sin or not to sin. This power of “sin guilt” is so great that when one tries to resist sin, in the power of God, it is impossible.

This devilish philosophy teaches that Jesus could not have had our nature, because He would have been guilty of sin at His birth. Furthermore, it teaches that no one can ever overcome sin until Jesus comes the second time and changes their human nature. It is impossible to become perfect, because it is impossible to follow God’s instructions since people were born with the corruption of sin within them.

If you accept this false gospel, the great sanctuary truth, the investigative judgment and the Three Angels’ Messages of Revelation 14, all become insignificant. This New Theology teaches that everything was completed for man’s salvation at the cross, and that all that God now requires of us to be saved is that we receive justification and a covering of our sins. Sanctification, they say, is a slow growth process in one who has no power to overcome sin.

In the light of the truths of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, if you accept this false gospel you will be eternally lost. God is willing to share His divine power with all that ask for it, making it possible for you to overcome sin and enter heaven where there will be no sin.

 

Sin—An Action or Part of the Nature?

 

To get a clear understanding of the differences between these two gospels, we need to see how the Bible defines sin. 1 John 3:4 says, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” Therefore, sin is the breaking of God’s law, which is an action. Since sin is the result of an action, rather than a part of our nature, as taught in the false gospel, we begin to understand the harmony that is expressed by all Bible authors regarding sin.

James says, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” James 4:17. This Scripture states that sin comes by knowledge that brings individuals to the realization of their need to make a decision and use the power of free choice that God has given them.

What brings the knowledge of sin? Paul wrote: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” Romans 7:7–9.

Guilt does not come until there is knowledge of the law, but willful ignorance is no excuse. Jesus taught this in John 15: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both Me and My Father.” John 15:22, 24.

“If light come, and that light is set aside or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before light comes, there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject.” Testimonies, vol. 1, 116.

“None will be condemned for not heeding light and knowledge that they never had.” Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 1145.

For over one hundred years, the Seventh-day Adventist Church consistently taught that sin was the result of the action of choice; that before we become guilty of sin, our mind must consent to the temptation. This teaching does not disregard the fact that we all have a sinful nature, but that this sinful nature can successfully resist temptation when we come to Jesus and experience a rebirth through the re-creating power of Christ working in and through us.

With a clear understanding of this, we can better understand how Jesus was born with the same flesh and blood that you and I possess, yet He never once sinned. He always made the right choice, through the power of the Holy Spirit, by fully surrendering to this divine agent.

Jesus came to this world as Adam was after his fall. He was born with our sinful flesh, but not our sinning flesh. Because of this, He is our great example and if we follow His pattern of success, we, too, may overcome through the divine power which He freely gives to the fully surrendered soul. To substantiate this, I present to you the following quotations:

“Jesus also told them [the angels] that . . . He should take man’s fallen nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs.” Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, 25.

“It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man, that He might be made perfect through suffering, and endure Himself the strength of Satan’s temptations, that He might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted.” Ibid., vol. 4, 115.

“This was the reception the Saviour met as He came to a fallen world . . . And took upon Himself man’s nature that He might save the fallen race. Instead of men glorifying God for the honor He had conferred upon them in thus sending His son in the likeness of sinful flesh, by giving Him a place in their affections, there seemed to be no rest nor safety for the infant Saviour. Jehovah could not trust to the inhabitants of the world His Son, who came into the world that through His divine power He might redeem fallen man.” The Review and Herald, December 24, 1872.

“Through His humiliation and poverty Christ would identify with the weaknesses of the fallen race . . . The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam . . . The King of glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity. He would take man’s fallen nature.” The Review and Herald, February 24, 1874.

“Christ stooped to take upon Himself human nature, that He might reach the fallen race and lift them up . . . [He] partook of our human nature, that He might reach humanity.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 746–747.

“But many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and we cannot overcome as He overcame. But Paul writes, ‘Verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.” The Review and Herald, March 1, 1892.

We see from these quotations that over many years the servant of the Lord was consistent, in her writings, that Christ took upon Himself the nature of Adam after his fall.

 

New Theology and the Antichrist

 

In an article written by J. B. Conley, he shows how the teaching that insists that Christ came in the nature of Adam before his fall is connected to the antichrist. He wrote: “The Scriptures have placed the identity of antichrist beyond either guesswork or confusion. The Bible has clearly named the guilty one. John says that he denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. 2 John 7. Let this be the first mark of antichrist by which his identity will be placed beyond dispute.

“Far from denying the existence of Christ, the text suggests that antichrist teaches that Christ has come but teaches a doctrine about His coming which denies that He has come in the flesh. If the Catholic Church is guilty as the Protestant Reformers claimed her to be, then her teaching concerning the nature of Jesus in His incarnation into this world as a babe will reveal it.

“Let us examine that teaching in the light of the text before us. The Bible teaches that Jesus was born into the world through Mary who was a direct descendent of Adam. By inheritance she partook of Adam’s nature. Adam’s nature was mortal and subject to death as a result of the transgression of God’s will in Eden. His flesh was by nature that of the children of wrath. Mary partook of this nature in all of its aspects. She was a representative of the whole human race and in no way different from others descendent from Adam’s line.

“She was favored among women only because she was the one chosen of God through whom the mystery of godliness was to be made manifest and through whom Jesus was to be brought from heaven where He had been one with the Father in the Godhead to be born into the human family, there to partake of all the temptations to which Adam’s race is subject. This was possible only as He would partake of the nature of Adam’s race. Of this Paul says, ‘For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same;. . . Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.’ Hebrews 2:14–17.

“If further evidence were needed, this same writer supplied it. In 1 Timothy 3:16, he records, ‘Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.’ Here he says is the mystery of godliness. The ability of Jesus to come from heaven, suffer Himself to be manifest in human flesh and yet to live sinlessly. This latter fact antichrist was to deny. He was to deny that Jesus came in a divine manifestation which brought Him in all phases of His nature to partake of the weaknesses of Adam’s race. He would deny that Jesus came in the flesh, the same flesh as that of mortal men.

“On this first count, the denial that Jesus is come in the flesh, the Catholic Church stands convicted of guilt and thus is identified by the marks of antichrist. Through the teaching of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, that she was preserved from all original sin, they in theory provide a different flesh from that of the rest of Adam’s race to be the avenue through which Jesus was incarnated into the plan of salvation.

“To state their teaching with authority it will be best to quote our evidence from Catholic authors. Our first proof will be from the pen of Cardinal Gibbons in his book, Faith of our Fathers, 203, 204. He says, ‘We define that the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her conception was preserved free from the taint of original sin. Unlike the rest of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary was never subject to sin.’

“Cardinal Gibbons has here clearly stated the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary. It is a teaching not taught in the Bible, but which has been introduced by Catholic teachers who claim to have authority even above that of the Scriptures in matters of doctrine. Here I would ask my readers, both Protestant and Catholic, to ponder carefully what this teaching does to the gospel plan. It means that if Mary were born without sin and was preserved from sin for the express purpose of bringing Jesus into the world, then Jesus was born of holy flesh which was different from that of the rest of Adam’s race.

“This means that He did not identify Himself with humanity. It means, too, that Paul was all wrong when he wrote the book of Hebrews in which he declares that Jesus also Himself likewise took part of the same flesh as the rest of Adam’s race and that in all things he was made like unto His brethren. Hebrews 2:14, 17. But above all this, if the Catholic teaching is true, then Jesus—not having come within reach of humanity by partaking of man’s nature—cannot be the one mediator between God and man.

“Nor can we ‘come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.’ Hebrews 4: 16. All this plays conveniently into the hands of the Catholic plan of salvation. It opens wide the door for the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the respective saints who form part of the Papal mediatorial system. And moreover, it places in the hands of the priesthood the power to usurp authority which God in the Scriptures has never delegated to them—that of being controllers of the approaches to the throne of mercy.

“In the Papal claim that Jesus was born of one who had been preserved from every taint of original sin and who, unlike the rest of the children of Adam, was never subject to sin, we find the first antichrist indelibly implanted. The papacy certainly teaches that Jesus did not come in the flesh.” Australian Signs of the Times, May 24, 1948, 46, by J. B. Conley.

This is a most alarming accusation with profound implications for the New Theology that is being preached in Adventism. This is a doctrine of the antichrist that Christ did not come in the flesh. “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” 2 John 7.

Is it any wonder then that the servant of the Lord speaks of the Omega apostasy as being startling in its consequences? The New Theology links all of its believers with the antichrist. Dr. Ralph Larson wrote the following: “Since it is common knowledge that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is now being recommended for addition to the theology of the Seventh-day Adventist Church it would appear that a careful examination of that doctrine should be undertaken by all who share a concern for the purity of the Adventist faith. Major changes in our theology would be required by the addition of the doctrine of original sin because of the nature of God, the nature of the incarnate Christ, the nature of man and the nature of salvation itself are all involved in the Augustinian doctrine.

“Significant changes would be required in the cherished doctrine of righteousness by faith. The student may easily verify the close relationship between the concepts of original sin and the doctrine of righteousness by faith by asking advocates of the so-called ‘New Theology’ two questions:

  1. Why do you believe that it is impossible for Christians to stop sinning, even through the power of Christ?
  2. Why do you believe the incarnate Christ had to take the nature of the unfallen Adam rather than a nature like ours?

“The same answer will be given to both questions: Because of original sin. Since the corruption of original sin remains in all believers until they die, it is impossible for them to ever stop sinning, even through the power of Christ. And since the inherited guilt of original sin would have disqualified Christ from becoming the Saviour of the world, He had to be protected from original sin by assuming the nature of the unfallen Adam.” The Word Was Made Flesh, 330, by Dr. Ralph Larson.

We know that God’s true gospel has nothing to do with the antichrist. It assures us that absolute victory over sin is possible through divine power. “Abundant grace has been provided that the believing soul may be kept free from sin; for all heaven, with its limitless resources, has been placed at our command.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 394.

Ellen White explains how this can be done. “Christ is willing to take possession of the soul temple, if we will only let Him. He is represented as knocking at the door of our hearts for admission, but Jesus never forces Himself upon us; He will come in only as an invited guest . . . In order to let Jesus into our hearts, we must stop sinning. The only definition for sin that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law. The law is far reaching in its claims, and we must bring our hearts into harmony with it.’” Signs of the Times, vol. 2, 363.

Likewise Peter tells us to follow the example of Christ. “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.” 1 Peter 2:21, 22.

“Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So it may be with us.” The Desire of Ages, 123.

“Humanity, combined with divinity, does not commit sin.” Ministry of Healing, 180.

We can be perfect in Christ. Christ commanded, ” ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’ Matthew 5:48. This command is a promise.” The Desire of Ages, 311.

“None need fail of attaining, in his sphere, to perfection of Christian character. By the sacrifice of Christ, provision has been made for the believer to receive all things that pertain to life and godliness. God calls upon us to reach the standard of perfection and places before us the example of Christ’s character. In His humanity, perfected by a life of constant resistance of evil, the Saviour showed that through co-operation with divinity, human beings may in this life attain to perfection of character. This is God’s assurance to us that we, too, may obtain complete victory.” The Acts of the Apostles, 531.

And here is another precious thought. “The victory is not won without much earnest prayer, the humbling of self at every step. Our will is not to be forced into cooperation with divine agencies, but it must be voluntarily submitted . . . The will must be placed on the side of God’s will. You are not able, of yourself, to bring your purposes and desires and inclinations into submission to the will of God; but if you are ‘willing to be made willing,’ God will accomplish the work for you.” The Mount of Blessing, 142.

In view of such godly counsel, do not listen to any church leaders who would guide you into a path that leads to the antichrist. Keep your eyes and ears open and be on guard. Do not be surprised to find that this false theology is being promoted by men whom you once honored for their faithfulness to God’s last day message. The day is already here when we must stand alone in faithfulness to the pure gospel or follow the crowds to perdition. The true gospel teaches that:

  1. Men have the power of free choice. God took a risk, with His entire universe, to perfect a freedom of choice. This is why sin was permitted to exist. Forced obedience is worthless, and the gospel of Christ is built upon the foundation of free choice.
  2. Man is not born with the guilt of sin within him. We believe the gospel of Christ that states that sin is the transgression of the law. Not until we have joined our will in active opposition to God’s will, does sin exist in us. It is willful disobedience. The true gospel teaches that sin is our willful choice to exercise our fallen nature in opposition to God’s will.
  3. Christ took the nature of fallen Adam. Since sin is a choice we make, therefore Christ could inherit our fallen nature without becoming a sinner. He could remain sinless because Christ’s choice was always to obey God. Never did He allow His fallen nature to control His choice. At the time of Christ’s birth, man’s condition was not that of sinless Adam, for man had descended to the depths of sin after four thousand years. Christ could become man’s Saviour only by assuming his fallen condition so He could bridge the gap between God and fallen man. Thus He can mediate for us before the Father since He has identified Himself with us in our fallen nature.
  4. God loves to forgive and restore the sinner. The nature of God’s justification, given to the sinner, because of the mediation of Christ, makes it possible for us to stand righteous in the merits of Christ and to be restored to God’s image. But such justification can only take place when the sinner repents. There can be no repentance without conviction of sin, a sorrow for it and a turning away from it.
  5. An individual can be comfortable about Christian perfection, when he is willing to let God work within his heart to overcome sin. This is possible when we trust God’s power to overcome. The gospel of Christ makes it possible for sin to become repulsive so that we will have no desire to disobey God’s will. Perfection does not do away with our sinful nature, but perfection is possible by the subjection of our nature to Christ as He surrendered to His Father. Thus it is possible to have a sinless character with a sinful nature. Such an experience requires agonizing prayer and unquestioning faith in God’s promises.

I have chosen some thoughts to share with you, written by Dennis Preiebe. In this passage, he describes the New Theology, which seems to be an easy path to follow: “It is an escape route from the daily battle with Satan. You can sit back and relax to enjoy your newfound ease because there is no more hassle, no more struggle. All you have to do is just believe, for Jesus did it all for you on the cross. He kept the law for you; there are no more dos or don’ts. Feel the excitement of this glorious freedom, for you do not even have to think about your sins. You can sin until Jesus comes because He has already forgiven you in advance. Come, celebrate! Express your freedom with rock music. Let the drums beat in celebration of your new discovery. Do not even think of obedience as necessary anymore. Forget that you ever heard of a sanctuary in heaven where Jesus is conducting an investigative judgment. Do not pay any attention to that little old lady called Ellen White who pleads for you to be sanctified as a fitness for heaven. Ignore all those passages of Scripture that warn you of a narrow road to heaven and few there be that find it. Keep thinking every moment that you are saved in spite of your unconfessed sins.”

My friend, this is the road to eternal loss. If you follow it, you find in the end only misery and the loss of what you value most—eternal life with Jesus. I must point you to the Saviour of the real gospel of Christ. Look to Jesus as He struggled with human nature just like you and I do every day. Watch Him pray by the hour for the mighty power of God. See Him struggle until His sweat turns to great drops of blood. Hear Him overcome evil with the words, “It is written.” Stand in awe as you see Him die on the cross rather than commit one sin. Follow Him into the heavenly sanctuary as He stands before His Father, and tells how He died for you and your sins and justifies you as though you had never sinned. Watch as He sends the mighty Holy Spirit that you have asked for that you may be sanctified for heaven. Claim the victory that Jesus now offers as you read in Jude 24, “Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy.”

Choose you this day whom you will serve, as Joshua said in Joshua 24:15. Choose the gospel of the New Theology developed by Satan, which will end in death or choose the everlasting gospel of Christ that provides you with Christ’s victory over Satan now and for eternity.

 

Letters to the Churches, The Heavenly Ministration of Christ

by

“Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man’s nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted, as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man’s behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature.” Review and Herald, February 18, 1890.

We were appalled to learn that in some way these evangelical clergymen have had enough influence over our leaders to cause the Voice of Prophecy and Signs of the Times to trim their sails to “avoid charges that have been brought against them by evangelicals.” This is terrifying news. These organs are instruments of God, and it is unbelievable that the leaders should permit any outside influence to affect them. In this great sin against the denomination has been committed that can be blotted out only by deep repentance of the guilty parties, or in lieu of this, that the men concerned, quietly resign from holy office.

Our members are largely unaware of the conditions existing, and every effort is being made to keep them in ignorance. Orders have been issued to keep everything secret, and it will be noted that even at the late General Conference session (1958), no report was given of our leaders’ trafficking with the evangelicals and making alliances with them. Our officials are playing with fire, and the resulting conflagration will fulfill the prediction that the coming Omega “will be of a most startling nature.”

Seven times, I have asked for a hearing, and I have been promised one, but only on condition that I meet privately with certain men and that no record be given me of the proceedings. I have asked for a public hearing, or if it is to be a private one, that a tape recording be made, and that I be given a copy. This has been denied me. As I cannot have such a hearing, I am writing of these messages which contain, and will contain what I would have said at such a hearing. Can the reader surmise the reason why the officers do not want the hearing I ask?

I am a Seventh-day Adventist, and I love this message that I have preached for so long. I grieve deeply as I see the foundation pillars being destroyed, the blessed truths that have made us what we are, abandoned.

According to the minutes of the Board of Trustees at the White Estate, it was on the first day of May, 1957, when two men, members of the committee which had been appointed to write the book which came to be known as Questions on Doctrine, were invited by the board to meet with them to discuss a question that had received some consideration at a meeting the previous January. It concerned statements made by Mrs. White in regard to the atonement now in progress in the sanctuary above. This conception did not agree with the conclusions reached by the leaders of the denomination in counsel with the evangelicals.

At these conferences with the evangelicals, they objected to our teaching on the Investigative Judgment which Dr. Barnhouse characterized as “the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history.”

Dr. Barnhouse reported that he and Mr. Martin heard the Adventist leaders say flatly, that they repudiated all such extremes. This they said in no uncertain terms. Some of their earlier teachers taught that Jesus’ atoning work was not completed on Calvary, but instead that He had been carrying on a second ministerial work since 1844. The Adventist leaders also stated that they did not believe this teaching.

About the time when the two men first visited the vault, a series of articles appeared in the Ministry, which claimed to be “the Adventist understanding of atonement, confirmed and illuminated and clarified by the Spirit of Prophecy.” In the February issue, 1957, the statement occurs that the “sacrificial act on the cross (is) a complete, perfect and final atonement for man’s sin.” This pronouncement is in harmony with the belief of our leaders as Dr. Barnhouse quoted them. It is also in harmony with a statement signed by a chief officer in a personal letter: “You cannot, Brother Andreasen, take away from us this precious teaching that Jesus made a complete and all-sufficient atoning sacrifice from the cross. . . . This we shall ever hold fast, and continue to proclaim it, even as our dear venerated forefathers in the faith.

It would interesting if the writer would produce proof of his assertion. The truth is that our forefathers believed and proclaimed no such thing. They did not believe that the work on the cross was complete and all sufficient. They did believe that a ransom was there paid, and that this was all-sufficient; but the final atonement awaited Christ’s entrance into the most holy in 1844. This the Adventists have always taught and believed, and this is the old and established doctrine, which our venerated forefathers believed and proclaimed. They could not teach that the atonement on the cross was final, complete and all sufficient, and yet believe that another atonement, also final, occurred in 1844. Such would be absurd and meaningless. Paying the penalty for our sins was, indeed, a vital and necessary part of God’s plan for our salvation, but it was by no means all. It was, as it were, placing in the bank of heaven, a sum sufficient and in every way adequate for any contingency, and which could be drawn on by and for each individual as needed. This payment was “the precious blood of Christ, as of the lamb, without blemish and without spot.” I Peter 1:19. In his death on the cross, Jesus “paid it all;” but the precious treasure becomes efficacious for us only as Christ draws upon it for us, and this must await the coming into the world of each individual; hence, the atonement must continue as long as people are born. Hear this:

“There is an inexhaustible fund of perfect obedience accruing from His obedience. How is it, that such an infinite treasure is not appropriated? In heaven, the merits of Christ, His self-denial and self-sacrifice, are treasured up as incense, to be offered up with the prayers of His people.” General Conference Bulletin, vol. 3, 101, 102, Fourth Quarter, 1899.

Note the phrases: “inexhaustible fund,” “infinite treasure,” “merits of Christ.” This fund was deposited at the cross, but not “used up” there. It is “treasured up” and offered up with the prayers of God’s people. And especially since 1844 is this fund drawn on heavily as God’s people advance to holiness; but it is not exhausted, there is sufficient and to spare. Here again, “He, who through His own atonement, provided for them an infinite fund of moral power, will not fail to employ this power in their behalf. He will impute to them His own righteousness. . . . There is an inexhaustible fund of perfect obedience accruing from His obedience. . . as sincere, humble prayers are sent to the throne of God, Christ mingles with them the merits of His own life of perfect obedience. Our prayers are made fragrant by this incense. Christ has pledged Himself to intercede in our behalf and the Father always hears His Son.” Ibid.

When we pray, this very year of 1959, Christ intercedes for us and mingles with our prayers “the merits of His own life of perfect obedience. Our prayers are made fragrant by this incense . . . and the Father always hears His Son.”

Contrast this with the statement in Questions on Doctrine, 381: “(Jesus) appeared in the presence of God for us. . . . But it was not with the hope of attaining something for us at that time or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross.” [Emphasis his.] Note the picture: Christ appears in the presence of God for us. He pleads, but He gets nothing. For 1800 years He pleads, and gets nothing. Does He not know that He already has it? Will no one inform Him that it is useless to plead? He Himself has “no hope” of getting anything now or at any future time, and yet He pleads, and keeps on pleading? What a sight for the angels! And this is representative of Adventist teaching! This is the book that has the approval of Adventist leaders and is sent out to the world to show what we believe. May God forgive us.

Thank God this is not Adventist doctrine! Hear this from Sister White, as quoted above: “Christ has pledged Himself to intercede in our behalf and the Father always hears His Son.” This is Christianity and the other is not!

Shall we remain silent under such conditions? Asks Sister White.

“For the past 50 years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us . . . especially concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. . . . Do you wonder that when I see the beginning of a work that would remove some of the pillars of our faith, I have something to say? I must obey the command, ‘Meet it.’” Series B, No. 2, 58.

Again: “The enemy of souls that has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church would be discarded. The fundamental truths that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. . . . Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement.” Ibid., 54, 55.

“Shall we keep silent for fear of hurting their feelings? . . . Shall we keep silent for fear of injuring their influence while souls are being beguiled?. . . My message is: No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth.” [Emphasis ours.] Ibid., 9, 15.

Ellen White makes definite pronouncements in regard to the atoning work of Christ now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary. For example, “At the termination of the 2300 days, in 1844, Christ entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, to perform the closing work of atonement, preparatory to His coming.” The Great Controversy, 422. “Christ had only completed one part of His work as our Intercessor to enter upon another portion of the work, and He still pleaded His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners.” Ibid., 429. At “the opening of the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844, (as) Christ entered there to perform the closing work of the atonement, they saw that He was now officiating before the ark of God, pleading His blood in behalf of sinners.” Ibid., 433.

“Christ is represented as continually standing at the altar, momentarily offering up the sacrifice for the sins of the world. . . . A Mediator is essential because of the continual commission of sin. . . . Jesus presents the oblation offered for every offense and every shortcoming of the sinner.” Manuscript 50, 1900.

These statements are definite. It was at the end of the 2300 days, in 1844, that Christ entered the most holy “to perform the closing work of the atonement.” He had ONLY COMPLETED ONE PART OF HIS WORK as our Intercessor” in the first apartment. Now He “enters upon another portion of the work.” He pleads “His blood before the Father.” He is “continually standing at the altar.” This is necessary “because of the continual commission of sin.” “Jesus presents the oblation for every offense and every shortcoming of the sinner.” This argues a continuing, present atonement. He offers up “momentarily.” “Jesus presents the oblation offered for every offense.” “He ever liveth to make intercession for them..” Hebrews 7:25.

It is presumed that when the two men stated that they had “become acutely aware of E. G. White statements which indicated that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the sanctuary,” that they had read the quotations here given and perhaps others. In view of this knowledge, what did they suggest should be done? Would they change their former erroneous opinions and harmonize with the plain words of the Spirit of Prophecy? No, on the contrary, they “suggested to the trustees that some footnotes or Appendix notes might appear in certain of the E. G. White books clarifying very largely on the words of Ellen White, our understanding of the various phases of the atoning work of Christ.” Minutes 1483.

The claim which Questions on Doctrine makes, that she means what she does not say, effectively destroys the force of all she has every written. If we have to consult an inspired interpreter from Washington before knowing what she means, we might better discard the Testimonies altogether. May God save His people. [Months later when the vote was taken by the White Estate Board, the request mentioned above was not granted.]

The men who visited the vault on May 1, stated clearly that they had discovered that Mrs. White taught plainly “that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary.” On the other hand, the Ministry of February, 1957, stated the very opposite. It said that the “sacrificial act on the cross (is) a complete, perfect and final atonement for men’s sins.” Questions on Doctrine attempts to reconcile these opposing views by stating that whether one “hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature—even in the writings of Ellen G. White—that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application,” etc., 354, 355. It is clear that if the atonement on the cross was final, there cannot be a later atonement also final. When we therefore, for one hundred years, have preached that the day of atonement began in 1844, we were wrong. It ended 1800 years before. The hundreds of books we have published; the more than a million copies of Bible Readings we have sold; the millions of handbills we have distributed saying that it was “court week in heaven,” were all false doctrine; the Bible instruction we have given the children and the young ministry and which they have imbibed as Bible truth, is a fable. Uriah Smith, Loughborough, Andrews, Andross, Watson, Daniells, Branson, Johnson, Lacey, Spicer, Haskell, Gilbert, and a host of others stand convicted of having taught false doctrine; and the whole denomination whose chief contribution to Christianity is the sanctuary doctrine and Christ’s ministry, must now confess that we were all wrong, and that we have no message to the world for these last days. In other words, we are a deceived and deceiving people. The fact that we may have been honest does not alter the fact that we have given a false message. Take away from us the sanctuary question, the Investigative Judgment, the message of the 2300 days, Christ’s work in the most holy, and we have no right to exist as a denominated people, as God’s messengers to a doomed world. If the Spirit of Prophecy has led us astray these many years, let us throw it away.

But no! Halt! God has not led us astray. We have not told cunningly devised fables. We have a message that will stand the test and confound the undermining theories that are finding their way in among us. In this instance, it is not the people that have gone astray except as they have followed the leaders. It is time that there be a turn-about.

It is now more than four years ago that the apostasy began to be plainly evident. Since that time there has been a deliberate attempt to weaken the faith in the Spirit of Prophecy, as it is clear that as long as the people revere the gift among us, they cannot be led far astray. The time for action has come. The time to open up the dark corners has arrived. There must no longer by any secret agreements, no compact with other denominations who hate the law and the Sabbath, who ridicule our most holy faith. We must no longer hobnob with enemies of the truth, no more promise that we will not proselytize. We must not tolerate leadership which condones tampering with the writings entrusted to us, and stigmatizes us as belonging to the lunatic fringe, those who dare disagree with them. We must no longer remain silent. To they tents, Oh Israel!

The World Class Straw Man, part 2

by

In the previous issue, we drew attention to the astonishing distortion of Seventh-day Adventist history that is being attempted in the recent publication, The Nature of Christ, by Roy Adams, associate editor of the Review. In this volume, we who are trying to cling to the historic faith of our church in regard to the human nature of Christ and in regard to the doctrine of sanctification are charged with many faults. It is represented that we are neither following the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy nor yet the mainstream of historic Adventist theological opinion. It is alleged that we are rather following the individual and erroneous thinking of A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, as amplified and promoted by M. L. Andreason.

In our last article, we presented part of the mass of historical evidence that negates this incredible fantasy and described it as a “world-class straw man.” We promised that in this article we would examine some of the bundles of straw that were used in the erection of the structure.

The Reviling Straw Bundle

Adams represents himself as attempting to write with no ill will toward those whom he accuses. Was this attempt successful? Let the reader decide. He applies the following terms to us, either directly or indirectly:

Sour, festering, self-appointed, infected with the virus of judgmentalism and suspicion, disease, martyr complex, seasoned controversialists, spirit of accusation, outraged, aghast, scandalized, pathetic, self-confessed expert, misguided, wrong-headed, steeped in their cherish position, impenetrable to any theological logic, irresponsible, almost dishonest, deluded self-appointed prophets, turn-coats, charlatans, and scoundrels.

He applies the following descriptive terms to our reasoning:

Mumblings, innuendoes, broken faith with the church, specious theology, perfectionistic agitation, petty, picayune, disgusting, speciousness, repetitive, exasperating, subtle spin, overblown, vacuousness, subtle legalism, anger, irritation, anger to new heights, radical articulation, fuss, ingenious theological gymnastics, willfulness, mischief, dishonesty, far-fetched explanations, artificial and contrived, totally fabricated, thoughtlessly, narrow, shallow, facile admonitions, simplistic pietism, shrill, provincial, manipulate, like Jim Jones and David Koresh, dogmatism, trap of perfectionistic legalism, frustration, heated, quoted piously, specious reasoning, vehement, inordinate insistence, maliciously accusing, sharpened tongues, navel-gazing, and self-flagellation.

Can you feel the warm Christian love in this language? For some reason, I cannot. But should this surprise us? By no means. We have been forewarned:

“Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls. They become the most bitter enemies of their former brethren. When Sabbath-keepers are brought before courts to answer for their faith, these apostates are the most efficient agents of Satan to misrepresent and accuse them, and by false reports and insinuations to stir up the rulers against them.” The Great Controversy, 608.

We are not yet seeing the entire fulfillment of this prediction, but it is certainly coming into view, both in Adam’s book and in the tragic Issues book, which he applauds. This is a foretaste of what we must be prepared to endure in the last days.

We are reminded of Christ’s warning against reviling others, in Matthew 5:22, and of His own example in refusing to bring a railing accusation against Satan himself (Jude 9). We remember also that Adams repeatedly refers to Andreason and the Historic Adventists of our time as persons who are intensely angry. We ask, where in our writings can there be found language that can be remotely compared to the venom of Adams’ irritation?

And why? What is our crime? Simply that we wish to cling to the purity of our historic faith. For this we must needs be buried under an avalanche of personal abuse and false accusation, which reaches its climax on page 106 of Adams’ book:

“Human society cannot move forward unless people are prepared to leave the past behind. Wherever a people or a society finds this impossible, there is bloodshed and backwardness. Look at the Middle East today. Look at Northern Ireland. Look at Yugoslavia. Look at Sudan. Yet this is what people like Wieland and Short wish on us.”

The sheer enormity of this viciously false accusation makes comment unnecessary, but it may be taken as a sampling of what we can expect from false brethren in the future. We note, in passing, the great difference between Adams’ thinking about the past and the thinking of Ellen White when she wrote: “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” Selected Messages, Book 3, 162.

The Casuistry Straw Bundle

The word casuistry may be simply defined as subtle and evasive reasoning, deception by degrees. It is a technique that is used to avoid the resistance that might be aroused by more bold and direct deception. In his attempt to make it appear that M. L. Andreason was a disciple of Jones and Waggoner, Adams encounters a problem. The writings of Andreason do not support such a theory. Adams inadvertently reveals this in the following ingenious statement:

“Why M. L. Andreason did not more openly flaunt his connection with these two luminaries is not quite clear to me.” (Translation: Adams found no support for his theory in Andreason’s writings.)

But the lack of evidence did not deter him. He continued to enlarge on his theory by alleging that there is a fundamental theological similarity between the position of Jones and Waggoner regarding sanctification and the position of Andreason. What he does not tell his readers is that there is a much stronger similarity between Andreason’s views and those of Ellen White, as well as other church leaders.

Adams next endeavors to show that Andreason got his concept of the “final generation” who will stand without a Mediator in the last days, not from Ellen White, who originated the idea, but from some unidentified persons who, after World War I, were speculating bout the nearness of Christ’s return. The result is a classic demonstration of casuistry, making it appear that evidence exists where in fact it does not exist. Notice the carefully leading and manipulative statement on page 39:

(Andreason) “did not participate in these deceptions”

“He despised the fantastic speculations”

“Their manifest failure must have impressed him”

“leading him to articulate a theological reason for their delay”

“Andreason’s theology developed against the background of those controversies and was shaped by them.” [All emphasis supplied.]

This is an insult to the reader’s intelligence. It could be argued with equal logic that Adams’ theology was shaped by the thinking of Wieland and Short. Adams would undoubtedly pronounce that kind of reasoning utterly nonsensical—and so do we. And are we to suppose that Andreason had never read Ellen White’s description of that “final generation” in her well known The Great Controversy, 613–634; in Patriarchs and Prophets, 195–203; and in Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, 467–476? This would be rather peculiar in view of Adams’ own characterization of Andreason as a “self-confessed expert” on the writings of Ellen White.

Continuing his attempt to separate Andreason from the Spirit of Prophecy, Adams alleges that on the matter of character perfection, Andreason “followed in Ballenger’s footsteps.” He thus attempts to discredit Andreason by linking him with a man who later apostatized. We who knew Andreason would consider it preposterous to describe him as following in any man’s footsteps. But in any case, Ellen White’s views on this point, written and published at least 4500 times, were essentially the same as Ballenger’s before his apostasy, as well as Andreason’s and the other leaders of the church. Then to paint us with the same brush, Adams adds that the views of the Historical Adventists of our time on this subject are “virtually identical to that held by Andreason and Ballenger.” This has all the logical strength of an argument that because Ballenger believed in God and in the Second Coming of Christ, we who now believe those doctrines are followers of Ballenger.

Having used this casuistry to condition his reader’s minds, Adams then proceeds to openly picture Andreason as dishonest. (Pages 52, 53.) I had heard Adams make this charge against Andreason in a public meeting and wondered what could be its basis, since I had known Andreason as a man of sterling character and strict integrity. I am astonished at Adams’ “evidence.” It consists of nothing more than Andreason’s understanding of Ellen White’s use of the word passions, and is presented as if she only used the word in one way. In our The Word Was Made Flesh, we provide a seven-page word study of Ellen White’s uses of the terms “passions” and “propensities” (which Adams dismisses with a sneer.)

The evidence makes it clear that Ellen White did not always use these terms in the same sense or with the same identical meaning. Consider:

“He had all the strength of passion of humanity.” In Heavenly Places, 155.

“. . . not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature.” Testimonies, vol. 2, 509.

This is in accordance with her own recognition that:

“Different meanings are expressed y the same word. There is not one word for each distinct idea.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 20.

In our word study, we record 28 uses of the word passions by Ellen White and draw conclusions that are in harmony with the evidence. We will refer the reader to The Word Was Made Flesh for details, but will here simply state that we regard Adams’ accusation against Andreason as grossly unfair, far beyond the boundaries of responsible scholarship, and altogether unchristian. I find it mind-boggling that Adams, who professes to have suffered great personal distress over Andreason’s alleged dishonesty, applauds the Issues book with its manifold misrepresentations.

Continuing in this unpraiseworthy work, Adams paints Andreason as a “self-confessed expert” on Ellen White’s writings (page 52) and tells us that Andreason “claims to be an authority on her writings.” (Page 67.) Such braggadocio would be impossible to harmonize with the modest and unpretentious character of Andreason, as we knew him. We therefore, sought for the basis of these accusations and were amazed to find that it was nothing more than this line from a letter Andreason had written to Elder Figuhr:

“In my more than sixty years of official connection with the denomination, one of my chief aims has been to inspire confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy. The last two hears I have spoken on the subject 204 times.” (Page 52.)

What kind of a mentality would construe this earnest and innocent statement to be boastful self-exaltation? And what kind of a mentality would refer to Andreason’s legitimate concerns about the discussions between Walter Martin and some of our leaders like this:

“Almost certainly one reason for Andreason’s reaction was that he had not been consulted.” Page 45.

To complete his hatchet job on the character of a great and good man, Adams purports to have found a deathbed confession of wrongdoing by Andreason. The document, however, is undated and unsigned. No committee of scholars and no court of law would tolerate it as evidence for a single moment. But it was apparently good enough for Adams’ work of character assassination.
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.” Isaiah 5:20.

The Sneer Straw Bundle

Since reference has been made to our 365 page research report, The Word Was Made Flesh, we will here mention our mystification at Adams’ failure to deal with the evidence there presented. We found and recorded 1200 statements published by our church leaders during the one hundred years 1852–1952 that Christ came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man. Four hundred of them were from the inspired pen of Ellen White. This is manifestly the evidence that Adams has to overthrow in order to maintain his position. But instead of addressing this material as a scholar should, he by-passed it and selected a modest thirty page tract by Joe Crews as his target.

How does he deal with the mass of evidence presented in The Word Was Made Flesh? Only by sneers. Here are the nine sneers that he directs at our fully and carefully documented research:

  • “. . . startling allegation . . . patently unfounded.” Page 20.

 

  • “. . . claims on its title page . . .” page 21

 

  • “. . . counters again and again. . .” page 22

 

  • “. . . assumption. . .” page 26

 

  • “. . . ingenious theological gymnastics. . .” page 53

 

  • “. . . labored, forced, and unconvincing. . .” page 69

 

  • “. . . gone to great lengths. . .” page 72

 

  • “. . . far-fetched . . . ingenious . . . totally fabricated. . .” page 72

 

Not a shred of evidence is offered in support of any of these sneers. May we respectfully suggest that it will take more than sneers to overthrow the 1200 statements that are brought together in our research report?

The Breathtaking Straw Bundle

We come now to the two most astounding propositions that Adams puts forth in his rewriting our history. They are so bold and brazen as to be utterly breath taking. In the first, he soberly assures us that the Christological problem that we have been grappling with since 1957 is actually imaginary. Here are his words:

 

  • “I don’t run into many Adventists defending a prelapsarian position.

 

  • “And in all the samplings I’ve done in preparation for this book, I’ve not seen a single instance in which one of our concerned or disaffected brethren has managed to produce a direct prelapsarian statement from a contemporary Adventist author.” Page 27.

 

  • May we respectfully recommend the following sources:

 

  • Ministry, September, 1956

 

  • Questions on Doctrine, page 650

 

  • Movement of Destiny, L. E. Froom, page 497

 

  • Christ Our Substitute, Norman Gulley

 

  • The Man Who is God, Edward Heppenstall

 

  • Perfect in Christ, Helmut Ott

 

We find it difficult to understand why Adams, with his position of advantage at the heart of our work, would have trouble laying his hand on any of these sources, not to mention materials published in the Review. But if that proposition is astonishing, the next is stunning:

“We believe—and have always believed—that Christ did take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen human beings.” Page 27.

When you have recovered your breath, you may have some questions. Why, then, was Andreason so bitterly denounced and so ruthlessly dealt with? Why was the opposite view affirmed in Questions on Doctrine? Why is this not being taught at our seminary and in our colleges? Why is it so difficult to find a pastor who believes it? And why does Adams’ own book vilify those who believe it?

Here is a suggestion. Show that statement to your pastor, your conference president, or your college Bible teacher. Watch his reaction, and draw your own conclusions. Someone is wildly out of touch with reality. In our final article, we will examine some specific differences between Adams and the Spirit of Prophecy. Meanwhile, let us remember the words of James Russell Lowell:

“Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ‘tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.”

The World Class Straw Man, part 1

by

The “straw-man” technique has been very widely used in recent years by those who are laboring to introduce Calvinistic doctrines into our Seventh-day Adventist faith, but never on such a grand scale as in the recent publication, The Nature Of Christ, by Roy Adams, associate editor of the Review.

We pause to explain that in dialogue and debate, the straw-man technique is used like this: First, you misstate and misrepresent the position of your opponent, thus setting up and artificial “straw man” of your own creating. Second, you vigorously attack your misrepresentation, your straw man, and shoot it to pieces. The hoped for result is that the listeners to or readers of your attack will conclude that you have demolished the position of your opponent, when in fact you have only demolished your own misrepresentation, your artificial straw man. It must be conceded that his is an effective debating technique, but its use creates troubling ethical questions in many minds.

Previous Examples

It was the straw-man technique that was being used, for example, when the anonymous writers of the huge Issues book, which Adams endorses, alleged that:

We Historic Adventists are attacking the church, when we are actually attacking apostasy in the church;

We are setting ourselves up as examples, when we are actually setting up Jesus as the example;

We are defending our personal opinions, when we are actually defending the historic faith of our church as set forth in all of its published statements of faith, and in the new SDAs Believe, etc.

But these straw men are only dwarfs of pygmies by comparison with the world-class straw man that is being set before us in the recent volume by Adams, which requires nothing less than a rearrangement of the realities of our history, a replacement of facts with fantasies.

The Roots Question

Adams directs our attention to the two major theological issues that are troubling our church today regarding the nature of Christ and character perfection. He then poses the question, Where did these problems originate? The theses of his book is that their roots are found in the teachings of A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner in the 1890s, were learned from them and urged upon the church by M.L. Andreason, and were foisted upon the modern church by Robert Wieland. This places a newer and richer meaning upon the phrase “simplistic reasoning.” Here are his words, as found on the first page of a chapter entitled “Examining the Roots, the Legacy of Jones and Waggoner:”

“My thesis throughout is that the theology of these three men [Jones, Waggoner, and Andreason] has provided the spawning ground for the position on righteousness by faith and perfection held by certain Adventists today….

“Without a doubt, the roots of the present agitation go all the way back to Jones and Waggoner.” —page 29
And again on page 37:

“The perfectionist agitation within the Seventh-day Adventist Church today had its genesis in the post-1888 teachings of A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner. In this chapter I wish to show that the linkage of sanctification, perfection, and Christ’s nature that has become dominant among certain groups is a direct legacy of M.L. Andreason’s theology.”

To those who know that God’s chosen Messenger to the Adventist people, Ellen White, published far more material on these subjects than any or all of these men ever did, these are indeed bold and breath-taking assertions. Were the teachings of Jones and Waggoner actually the roots, the origin, of the doctrine that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man and the doctrine that character perfection through God’s power is possible? Had the church members no previous acquaintance with these teachings? Can evidence be produced that they held other or opposite views? The answer to all of these questions is No.

The Evidence

Let the evidence speak. Jones and Waggoner set forth their views on these subjects primarily during the ten year period of 1891-1901. Ellen White had been vigorously promoting the same doctrines for well over thirty years, since 1858. By the end of the year 1898, she had gone into print regarding the nature of Christ a total of 141 times. (The publications, the dates, and the statements are all recorded in our research volume, The Word Was Made Flesh.)

Had all of these publishing endeavors failed of their purpose? Did they all escape the attention of the Adventist people? The journals in which she wrote were primarily the Review and the Signs, to which were added her own books. Did these journals and books have no circulation among the Adventist people? and were they unknown to Jones and Waggoner?

Not exactly. In the year 1895, when Jones made his major presentation on the subject of the nature of Christ at a General Conference session, he quoted the following lines from an as yet unpublished manuscript of Ellen White’s The Desire of Ages. (What does his possession of this manuscript indicate about his relation to her beliefs?)

“In order to carry out the great work of redemption, the Redeemer must take the place of fallen man….

“When Adam was assailed by the tempter, he was without the taint of sin. He stood before God in the strength of perfect manhood, all the organs and faculties of his being fully developed and harmoniously balanced; and he was surrounded with things of beauty, and communed daily with holy angels. What a contrast to this perfect being did the second Adam present, as He entered the desolate wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and deterioration in moral worth; and in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he stood. He assumed human nature, bearing the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He humiliated Himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that He might sympathize with man and rescue him from the degradation into which sin had plunged him….

“Christ took humanity with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man with the possibility of yielding to temptation, and He relied upon divine power to keep Him.”
(There are six other places in The Desire of Ages where Ellen White testifies to her belief about the human nature of Christ. See pages 25, 112, 117, 174, and 311.)
The simple fact is that Jones and Waggoner, like virtually all of our church leaders, had been guided in their thinking about the two doctrines of the nature of Christ and character perfection by God’s special messenger, Ellen White. This is clearly attested by two evidences that are a matter of record and can be easily verified by anyone who cares to visit the archives. These two evidences are, 1.) Ellen White published profusely her convictions that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man and that character perfection, by the power of God, is possible; and, 2.) our other church leaders accepted these doctrines as correct and responded by publishing articles and books of their own which echoed her testimonies, and not infrequently quoted from them.

By the end of the year 1898, other church leaders had published their own views on the nature of Christ, not different from hers, a total of 76 times. (See The Word Was Made Flesh.) This number does not include statements from Jones and Waggoner. It does include statements from such other church leaders as James White, Uriah Smith, Stephen Haskell, W.W. Prescott, J.H. Waggoner, M.C. Wilcox, R.A. Underwood, Alton Farnsworth, Elgin Farnsworth, W.H. Glenn, J.E. Evans, William Covert, J.H. Durland, G.C. Tenney, G.E. Fifield, and others. These writers did not mute their messages. The total includes nine editorials and five front page editorials.
Are we to believe that all of these writers, some of whom published before Jones and Waggoner, found the roots of their beliefs in the teachings of Jones and Waggoner? And what of Ellen White? Were their teachings the roots of her beliefs? Or was it actually the other way around, that they all, including Jones and Waggoner, drew their inspiration from the writings of God’s messenger?

And let us not overlook the fact that while Jones and Waggoner were co-editors of the Signs of the Times (1885-1891), they published in that journal three statements by Ellen White that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of fallen man. In the years 1890-91, Waggoner, as sole editor of the Review (1887-91), published eleven such statements in that journal.

The Mainstream

Jones and Waggoner, far from being innovators or teachers of new doctrines, were actually standing firmly in the mainstream of Seventh-day Adventists theology regarding the nature of Christ and character perfection. Their teachings were emphatically not the root of those doctrines; they were rather the fruit.

In the years following 1901, other church leaders united with Ellen White in propaganda these doctrines with ever increasing emphasis and clarity. In our The Word Was Made Flesh, we document 1200 statements on the nature of Christ that were published by our church leaders between the years 1852 and 1952, 400 of them by Ellen White. During that same period, until her death in 1915, Ellen White published 4500 statements regarding character perfection. (See Tell of His Power.)

A Host of Witnesses

This leads us directly to the other proposition in the structure of straw erected by Adams. Was M.L. Andreason a person who accepted strange and new doctrines from Jones and Waggoner and urged them upon the church, or was he only one among a host of witnesses to generally accepted truths? The number of names presented in the previous paragraph should answer that question. We would only add enough names to the previously supplied list to demonstrate that those whose voices joined with the voice of Andreason were among Adventism’s first line of leadership.

In regard to the nature of Christ, we have documented statements by General Conference presidents Daniells, Watson, Branson, and McElhany; vice-presidents Underwood, Farnsworth, Slade, and Turner; local conference presidents Farnsworth and Evans; Signs and Review editors and associate editors M.C. Wilcox, G.C. Tenney, W.H. Glenn, Uriah Smith, F.D. Nicholl, Oscar Tait, Alonzo Baker, C.M. Snow, and F.M. Wilcox; the first president of our theological seminary M.E. Kern; seminary teacher L.E. Froom; college president W.E. Howell; other teachers and leaders including T.M. French, Merlin Neff, L.C. Wilcox, Meade Macguire, C.L. Bond, and J.E. Fulton; and many, many others. Statements in regard to the generally accepted truth of character perfection are simply too numerous to collate or count.
To view the question from its other side, in the massive research project that we engaged in and reported on in our The Word Was Made Flesh, we did not find a single evidence that any of our leaders or believers held a different view from the mainstream on either the nature of Christ or character perfection until the mid 1900s—not one. And let it be remembered that we made it our goal to examine every article or book that had been published in the English language during the period 1852-1952. We had no CD rom, we examined every page. On the basis of what we saw on those pages, we view the announced purpose of George Knight, whose work Adams applauds, to prove that before the 1920s our people held Calvinistic views of the gospel as utterly preposterous.

Simplistic Reasoning

So in the construction of his world-class straw man, Adams has apparently arbitrarily selected two persons, Jones and Waggoner, from among a large group of Adventist thought leaders, including Ellen White, and assigned to them the responsibility for creating doctrinal attitudes that were actually shared by them all and had been witnessed to by some of them before Jones and Waggoner came along. In similar fashion he selected M.L. Andreason from among an even larger group and assigned to him the responsibility for propagating views that were, in fact, shared and earnestly taught by them all. To cap the strange structure, he has then looked at the Historical Adventists of our time and selected from among them an individual minister named Robert Wieland who holds to certain views about corporate personality and corporate repentance that very few among the Historic Adventists share with him, and has set him forth as the type of and spokesman for us all.

The Technique

This is the traditional first step in the use of the straw-man technique, the use of misstatement and misrepresentation in order to set up an artificial straw man which is alleged to be the position of your opponents. The second step is to vigorously attack the straw man of your own creating in the hope that observers will believe that you have demolished the position of your opponents, whereas you have actually only demolished you own artificial straw man.

Adams faithfully follows the formula and devotes many pages to arguing against the ideas of Jones, Waggoner, Andreason, and Wieland. But what does this have to do with us? Really, nothing. Our faith is not fastened to the thinking of any of these men. Our faith is firmly anchored in the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy, and we may rest secure in the confidence that these bulwarks will never be overthrown.

In our next article, we will examine some of the individual and specific straw bundles that are used by Adams in the construction of his world-class straw man.

The End

The Poverty of a Cause

by

Can the cause of Calvinistic theology, on the issue of Christ’s human nature, and the introduction of these Calvinistic doctrines into our Seventh-day Adventist faith be defended with valid biblical and/or Spirit of Prophecy evidence?

That the answer is “No” seems to be apparent even to the supporters of the Calvinistic cause. That is why they have repeatedly refused to enter into any theological discussion with those of us who are standing in defense of our spiritual heritage, our historic faith.

Our hundreds of personal appeals have been ignored. The mass of evidence that we have set forth has brought no response. The attitude of “Let’s close ranks and stonewall it” has prevailed among the Calvinists.

The defense of the Calvinistic doctrines, rather than depending on biblical or Spirit of Prophecy evidence, has generally consisted of two basic strategies: (1) personal attacks against the defenders of our historic faith, which range from the superficial to the wildly inaccurate and irresponsible, and (2) an incredibly perverse distortion of the doctrine of church authority, whereby it is maintained that it is a violation of church order for a church member to protest against the introduction of false doctrines into our faith. Thus it had been until the recent Review broke ranks.

THE REVIEW BREAKS RANKS

In a series of editorials that appeared on July 8 and 22 and on August 12, 19, and 26, 1993, the senior editor of the Review stepped out from behind the “Let’s stonewall it” position and ventured to make a defense of Calvinism. He chose to defend the Calvinistic doctrine that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam as opposed to the historic Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man, as attested to by 400 statements by Ellen White and 800 statements by other church leaders, all published before 1957.

We greet this venture with mingled sadness and satisfaction. While it can only bring sadness to our hearts when we see the Review openly advocating error, we nevertheless rejoice that an opportunity is now given to concerned church members to evaluate the evidence that is being offered to support the cause of Calvinism. We believe that such an evaluation, when compared with the evidence being presented in defense of our historic position, can only bring positive results and will clearly reveal the abject poverty of the Calvinistic cause.

THE USE OF BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

The Review editor introduces his treatment of the scriptural evidence with this question and answer: “But what does the Bible indicate concerning His nature—was it pre-fall or post-fall? The Scriptures don’t give a specific answer….”

We ask, “Are these scriptures not specific?”

  • Romans 1:3: “Made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
  • Hebrews 2:11: “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren.”
  • Hebrews 2:14: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same….”
  • Hebrews 2:16: “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.”
  • Hebrews 2:17: “Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren….”

In order to weaken the force of Hebrews 2:16, the Review editor states, without documentation, that the words, “He took on Him the seed of Abraham,” should be translated, “He concerns Himself with, or helps, Abraham’s descendants.”

  • Not in my Greek New Testament, which presents both of the words took in this verse in the form of the Greek word lambano (using English letters).
  • Not in my first Greek Grammar (Davis) which gives the meaning of lambano as “take, receive.”
  • Not in my second Greek Grammar (Dana and Mantey) which also gives the meaning of lambano as “take, receive.” Not in my Strong’s Concordance which gives the meaning of lambano as “take, get hold of, seize, obtain, etc.”
  • Not in my Young’s Concordance, which gives the meaning of lambano as “accept, attain, have, hold, obtain, receive, take, take upon oneself, etc.”
  • Not in my Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which says of lambano: “The original etymological meaning is ‘to grasp’ or ‘to seize.’”
  • Not according to Ellen White, in whose writings we find passages like this:

“The Redeemer of the world might have come attended by ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands of angels; but instead of this He clothed His divinity with humanity, made Himself of no reputation, took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, For verily he took not on HIm the nature of angels but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.” Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, December 15, 1957. [All emphasis supplied]

Please examine this statement carefully and notice the three scriptural passages that Ellen White links together. Philippians 2:7: “Made Himself of no reputation, took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made [Romans 8:3] in the likeness of sinful flesh. [Hebrews 2:16] For verily He took on Him the seed of Abraham.”

We direct your attention to this because the Review editor labors strenuously (forty-four lines in article three) to convince us that these three scriptural passages cannot be properly associated together. His disagreement with the Spirit of Prophecy here is total and complete. The disagreement is lent added emphasis by Ellen White’s other usages of Romans 8:3. “God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

In her twenty-eight usages of Paul’s expression, “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” we find fifteen equivalencies in which she equates “likeness of sinful flesh” with expressions of her own. These expressions include “our nature” four times; “human nature” three times; “nature of man” twice; “in all things (points) like His brethren” three times. Her emphasis in all of these passages using the words “in the likeness of sinful flesh” is on similarity, not dissimilarity.

Next, we observe six non-equivalencies in which the emphasis is on contrast rather than similarity. In these statements we read that the “likeness of sinful flesh” made Him different from the angels (three times) and different from the unfallen Adam (twice). Then there is an interesting passage in which she contrasts “flesh” with “sinful flesh”:

“He took our infirmities. He was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Letter 106, 1896

Finally, among these twenty-eight usages of Paul’s words “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” we find two extremely powerful inclusive equivalencies in which Paul’s words are equated with more than one of her own expressions. In the Signs of the Times, February 20, 1893, Ellen White wrote:

“He was to take upon Himself our nature …He had taken upon Himself the nature of man…made in the likeness of sinful flesh…one with the fallen race.”

Notice carefully the inclusive equivalencies: Our nature equals human nature equals likeness of sinful flesh equals one with the fallen race. Surely these statements should remove all doubt and satisfy all questions as to what Ellen White intended us to understand from her usage of Paul’s words, “in the likeness of sinful flesh.”

At this point, someone is likely to say, “But I was taught that Ellen White’s role was strictly pastoral, that she was not a theologian and that she has no authority in doctrinal matters. I was taught that she only approved of the various points of our faith after they had been studied out by others.”

Many of us were taught that. It took me a while to discover that there was not a word of truth in that teaching. Space does not permit us to deal fully with the problem in this article. We will address it later. Meanwhile, we may gain an impression of the monstrous misrepresentation which characterizes that teaching by comparing Selected Messages, bk. 1, 206, 207, with L.E. Froom’s Movement of Destiny, 110.

THE USE OF SPIRIT OF PROPHECY EVIDENCE

In an unpraiseworthy attempt to make it appear that Ellen White’s writings are “apparently contradictory” and that “In Ellen White’s writing we seem to find two opposing lines of thought,” the Review editor sets forth this quotation in his fourth article:

“He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory.” Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, 924

Taken by itself, this sentence could mean either that Christ overcame in human nature as contrasted with divine nature, which He never used to deliver Himself from temptation, or in unfallen human nature as contrasted with fallen human nature. But notice what happens when we read the sentence in its context as it appeared in the original source, The Youth’s Instructor, April 25, 1901:

“When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan’s kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour’s Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power. This is the privilege of all. In proportion to our faith will be our victory.” The Youth’s Instructor, April 25, 1901

Surely it is apparent that Ellen White is here contrasting human nature with divine nature, rather than contrasting two different aspects of human nature. It would be useless to argue that to overcome in the nature of the unfallen Adam is the privilege of all.

It is certainly not my privilege to meet the enemy of my soul in the unfallen nature of Adam. Is it yours? Or do we not all have to face Satan in our fallen human natures and learn that “in proportion to our faith will be our victory”?

Confronted with such a glaring abuse of evidence as this, some readers will no doubt feel that the discussion need proceed no further. But in order to be systematic, we will consider the Review editor’s other uses of Ellen White’s writings in which, unfortunately there is no noticeable improvement.

THE BAKER LETTER

The two longest Spirit of Prophecy quotations used by the Review editor in articles one and four are credited to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 1128.

The original source is a lengthy personal letter that Ellen White, who was in Australia, wrote to an apparently discouraged young minister in Tasmania, Elder W.L.H. Baker. The Review editor introduces his excerpts from this letter with the words, “Ellen White cautions us.”

Actually, this was not a general message addressed to us. It was a personal and private letter directed to an individual minister who had a particular problem which we do not have. What was his problem? We may learn about it by observing that in her letter Ellen White told Baker ten times that Christ never sinned.

She also warned him against spending too much time reading the writings of the church fathers and against presenting Christ to the people as one “altogether human, such an one as ourselves.”

There were some church fathers who advocated a doctrine of the Incarnation called Adoptionism. This was a concept that Christ, though perhaps born of a virgin, was not born as the Son of God but was altogether human, such an one as ourselves. At the climax of His spiritual progress, He was adopted to be the Son of God. Before His adoption He could have sinned, and most probably did, according to this teaching. We discuss the Baker letter in detail in our book The Word Was Made Flesh.

Here we will simply point out the problems:

The letter was written in 1895-96, a two year period in which more than 250 public statements that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of fallen man had been made by our church leaders. Nineteen of these statements had been published by Ellen White herself, and she had written strong approval of some statements made by others. Why would she then rebuke Baker for believing the same things? She rather rebuked him for carrying the idea too far and losing sight of the fact that Jesus never sinned.

Ellen White appealed in Testimonies, vol. 5, 696, that if we wanted to know what she believed, we should read her published works. Although she lived and published profusely for twenty years after writing the Baker letter, she never published it. It remained in her files sixty-two years until in 1957 the writers of Questions on Doctrine used it to offset Ellen White’s 400 statements that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man!

The Baker letter contains no statement that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, but it contains statements that are interpreted to mean that. Then these interpretations are set forth as evidence that Ellen White contradicted herself.

“Altogether human” and “Divine-Human” are opposite poles in meaning. There could be no divine nature in a Christ who is “altogether human, such an one as ourselves.”

THE SECOND ADAM

Ellen White referred to Christ as “the second Adam” quite frequently. Need we be uncertain as to what she meant by this?

No, indeed. In 1874 she wrote four articles in the Review and Herald in which she presented a detailed comparison of the temptations of Christ with the temptations of Adam and referred to Christ as “the second Adam.” (See Review and Herald, 1874, issues of February 24, March3, July 28 and August 4.) From these articles we glean the following lines:

“Through His humiliation and poverty Christ would identify Himself with the weaknesses of the fallen race….The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam….The King of Glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity! He would place His feet in Adam’s steps. He would take man’s fallen nature.”

“The Son of God humbled Himself and took man’s nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden….In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him….”

“The humanity of Christ reached to the very depths of human wretchedness, and identified itself with the weaknesses and necessities of fallen man.”

We remind the reader that it is within this immediate context that Ellen White refers to Christ as the second Adam. And of course, all of this is within the larger context of her 400 statements that witness to the same truth. Against this background we must evaluate the Review editor’s argument that by referring to Christ as the second Adam, she was indicating that He came in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, something she absolutely never says.

This is another example of how Calvinism places an alien interpretation of Ellen White’s words. Then this interpretation is set forth as an evidence that she makes apparently contradictory statements and that her writings contain two opposing lines of thought. The disagreements are not between Ellen White and herself. They are between Ellen White and her Calvinistic interpreters.

Against this background, we must evaluate the Review editor’s use of Ellen White references to the unfathomable mystery of the Incarnation as an indication that we cannot be sure what human nature Christ came in. Her 400 statements that He came to earth in the human nature of fallen man would permit no such conclusion.

The Review editor, having set forth alien interpretations of certain Ellen White statements as evidence that she spoke on both sides of the issue, then adds, “We could list many more statements in support of each side” (article four).

Here he greatly overreaches himself. We have no choice but to firmly challenge this statement and advise our readers that the Review editor can do no such thing. May I here present a quotation from page 273-274 of our research volume, The Word Was Made Flesh:

“Untold numbers of Seventh-day Adventists just cannot believe that a mistake was made by the authors of Questions on Doctrine, et. al., and they feel confident that somewhere there must be a statement by Ellen White that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.

“Very well. I hereby offer a reward of $1,000.00 to the first person who will find that quotation and deliver it to me.”

This offer was kept open for a period of one year after the book was published. Though thousands of gift copies were sent at considerable expense to our church leaders and theologians, there was not a single response from any of them to my offer. If the Review editor knew of many such statements, why did he not accept the challenge and claim this reward? The question could have been settled seven years ago! Is it now becoming clear why the Calvinists have tried to avoid theological discussions? Perhaps the reasons will appear even more clearly as we consider the Review editor’s methodology.

PROBLEMS OF METHODOLOGY

The Review editor ascribes to himself a somewhat neutral position, affirming that it is not his purpose “to try to prove that one side is ‘right and the other ‘wrong.’” But by the end of the series, he has clearly aligned himself with the Calvinistic doctrines and has employed a methodology which we cannot accept.

Perjorative terms. In contrast to those who hold the Calvinistic view of the nature of Christ, those who hold to the historic SDA view are characterized by these words and phrases:

  • Have made it a matter of controversy
  • A more insistent group
  • The most vocal advocates
  • The outspoken proponents
  • They feel so angry with church leaders
  • The most vociferous advocates
  • They force a sinful nature on Christ
  • They are possibly driven by pride and legalism
  • Wanting to contribute to their own salvation

Space limitations preclude a point by point refutation of these personal thrusts, but we will here state that they are all inaccurate, prejudicial and inflammatory. They are yet another demonstration of the time-tested principle of discussion seen so often in Calvinistic writings called the argument ad hominem (against the man), that those who have evidence will present their evidence, while those who do not have evidence will attack the man. Thus, personal thrusts of this kind should be recognized as indications of the poverty of a cause.

INCORRECT ACCUSATIONS

Twice the Review editor indicates that we who are clinging to the historical SDA position regarding the human nature of Christ are accusing those who disagree with us on this point to be guilty of apostasy. I have not yet met or heard of a person who assumes any such attitude. Those historic Adventists with whom I am acquainted are convinced that persons who hold a wrong doctrine of Christ are very likely to continue in a wrong direction, embracing false doctrines of justification, sanctification, original sin, the sanctuary, and the Spirit of Prophecy. They point to present conditions in the church which strongly support this opinion, but they do not apply the term apostasy to the opposing view on the nature of Christ in itself.

Neither do the historic Adventists believe that Christ was just like us or exactly like us, as the Review editor alleges. The editor creates confusion by skipping back and forth between references to Christ and references to the human nature of Christ. Historic Adventists have never proposed that Christ, who has a Divine-Human nature, is like ourselves, who have only human natures. Actually they have not even proposed that the human nature of Christ is just or exactly like ours. They rather follow the Scriptures, the Spirit of Prophecy, and not a few eminent scholars who say that His human nature was like ours in all points except sin.

The historic SDA’s have never proposed or even hinted that the church should return to the Arian view of Christ (that He was a created being) once held by a few of our pioneers. The question of the human nature of Christ has no relation whatever to Arianism. To state or imply that our use of the word historic commits us to Arianism is about as logical as to insist that it commits us to observing the Sunday Sabbath, as all of our pioneers did before they learned about the true Sabbath.

The Calvinists first tried to fasten on us the term traditional Adventists, knowing full well how offensive the idea of following tradition is to most Adventist people. When we defeated their purpose by identifying ourselves as “historic Adventists,” they then shifted to the new “guilty by association” tactic of trying to identify us with Arianism. Guilt by association is a weak argument at best, but when the implied association is without any basis in fact, guilt by association is no argument at all.

QUESIONS AND ANSWERS

In his fourth article, the Review editor poses a question:

Did Ellen White favor the prelapsarian or the postlapsarian view?”

We might expect that a reference to the fact that she wrote 400 statements supporting the postlapsarian view, and not a single statement supporting the prelapsarian view (remember the $1,000.00 offer?) would provide a satisfactory answer to this question. But instead of this, the editor answers an altogether different question, which has not been asked. Here is his answer: “In her thousands of comments about Jesus’ humanity, she nowhere calls this matter one of the pillars of the Adventist faith.”

We observe:

This provides no answer whatever to the question that was posted. It is an adroit sidestep.

While it is true that Ellen White does not describe the humanity of Jesus as a pillar of our faith, it is equally true that she did not so describe His virgin birth, His incarnation, His resurrection or His second coming. Are we to conclude that these truths are therefore so insignificant and unimportant that divisions of thought regarding them should not be a matter of concern? Suppose some of our members openly denied any or all of these truths. Would we yet consider them faithful Seventh-day Adventists?

If Ellen White’s 400 statements that Christ came in the human nature of fallen man do not satisfy us, what is the real problem? Would we be satisfied with 4,000 or 40,000? Hardly. The problem is not with the evidence. It is with our stubborn, unbelieving hearts. Confronted with a similar problem, Jesus said that some persons would not believe though one rose from the dead. What a horrible condition to be in! May God deliver us!

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO US?

To summarize: We have found that the Review editor’s five articles in defense of the Calvinistic doctrine that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam do not bear up well under investigation. The writer has employed rejection of Spirit of Prophecy evidence, accusing Ellen White of contradicting herself, using a Spirit of Prophecy quotation in total violation of its context, withholding Spirit of Prophecy evidence from his readers, and representing a subject about which Ellen White and our pioneers had no doubts at all so if it were so mysterious that we can hardly hope to understand it.

This mystery technique has a long history, from the fall of Lucifer to the present:

“Everything that was simple he [Satan] shrouded in mystery, and by artful perversion cast doubt upon the plainest statements of Jehovah.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 41

“These [Jewish] teachers spoke with uncertainty, interpreting the Scriptures to mean one thing, and then another. This left the people in great confusion.” Review and Herald, March 5, 1901

“The same thing is done today. The Word of God is made to appear mysterious and obscure in order to excuse transgression of His law.” Christ’s Object Lessons, 39

We will find it helpful, when confronted with challenges about mysteries, to distinguish between the what and the how. We can know what Jesus did, in coming from heaven to be born of a virgin and to take the human nature of fallen man. These truths are clearly stated and can easily be understood and embraced. This is not to say that we can explain how He did it, nor is any such explanation necessary. Confusion occurs when we lose sight of the distinction between the what and the how.

When to the above list of grievous problems are added the personal thrusts, the judgment of motives, and the inaccurate accusations, all wrapped in words of praise to Jesus, the picture is depressing indeed. We regret the necessity of placing before our readers such a somber picture of present conditions at the Review.

We regret even more the necessity of pointing out that these Review articles do not differ in any significant degree from the other defenses of this Calvinistic doctrine that have been attempted since its first recommendation to us in the book Questions on Doctrine in 1957.

In our book, The Word Was Made Flesh, a 365 page research report, we have set forth the fully documented evidence which demonstrates conclusively that the statement about the human nature of Christ in QOD is a methodological monstrosity and an historical fraud. And it appeared to establish a pattern that has been followed by most, if not all, of the defenders of Calvinism from 1957, until now.

And in imitation of teachers of error in all ages, leading Calvinistic Adventists have now launched a massive campaign to thrust out of the church those who wish to be true to our historic faith.

We would identify the first major move in that campaign as the publication of the Issues book by the officers of the North American Division. The second move may well be the Review articles that we have just examined. The third appears to be looming up before us in the proposed changes in our church organization, completely contrary to the counsels of the Lord, that will place greater power in the hands of fewer men and will give to conference committees the authority to disfellowship members from local churches! (See Vance Ferrell’s Pilgrims’ Rest, October, 1993.)

Should this alarm us? Not at all. It should cause us to look up and to lift up our heads, for our redemption draweth nigh. But it should alert us to the fact that we are now entering a very dangerous phase of our pilgrimage. We must proceed with our guidebooks—the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy—always close at hand. We cannot afford to place blind confidence in any human being or in any human organization. We must be prepared to stand alone and to suffer for our faith, if necessary.

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

“Come, My people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.” Isaiah 26:20

The End