history

Editorial – The Facts

by
  1. Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who preached, healed and taught in Judea and Galilee in the early part of the first century A.D.
  2. He was opposed by the religious leaders of His day, resulting in His being arrested, condemned and crucified by the Roman government under Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea. Secular historians from the first century A.D. corroborate this.
  3. He arose from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion and made at least ten appearances in public and private after His resurrection.
  4. He ascended to heaven 40 days later (Acts 1:3), but first He had, by the Holy Spirit, given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen (Acts 1:2).

The orders were to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19, 20.

“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.’ ” Mark 16:15.

“[Then] He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’ ” Luke 24:45–47.

“Go to all nations, He bade them. Go to the farthest part of the habitable globe, but know that My presence will be there. Labor in faith and confidence, for the time will never come when I will forsake you.

“The Saviour’s commission to the disciples included all the believers. It includes all believers in Christ to the end of time. It is a fatal mistake to suppose that the work of saving souls depends alone on the ordained minister. All to whom the heavenly inspiration has come are put in trust with the gospel. All who receive the life of Christ are ordained to work for the salvation of their fellow men. For this work the church was established, and all who take upon themselves its sacred vows are thereby pledged to be co-workers with Christ. …

“Whatever one’s calling in life, his first interest should be to win souls for Christ. He may not be able to speak to congregations, but he can work for individuals.” The Desire of Ages, 822.

If you have been baptized as a Christian, are you fulfilling your commission from Jesus Christ?

[Bible texts quoted are New King James Version translation.]

Martin Luther, part III – Luther Stands Firm Before The Council

by

When he nailed his theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg, Luther acted without a plan, a fact that he later admitted. He was acting upon what he believed to be his duty of the moment, without thought that the sound of his hammer would resound throughout Christianity for years to come, toppling the throne of the pontiff that, as of yet, he professed to revere. At the time, Luther’s great concern was that his flock at Wittenberg not be ensnared by Tetzel’s indulgences. Little did he dream that by the action that he was taking he would arouse the opposition that was soon to be manifest.

The theses spread with the rapidity of lightning. A month had not elapsed before they had arrived in Rome and, in as little time, they had been circulated throughout all of Christendom. A response was not lacking. The widespread interest that they aroused greatly increased the fears of the papal authorities, and Luther received a summons to appear in Rome within sixty days to answer the charge of heresy. In spite of the rising storm of opposition, however, Luther was unmoved. Though he stood alone, he was ready to stand on his theses. He had thrown down the gage, and he would not decline the battle. Luther’s friends, fearing greatly for his safety, petitioned the elector to have the case heard in Germany; and a hearing was eventually arranged in Augsburg.

Before Luther’s lodging in Augsburg, the Italian courtier, Urban of Serra Longa, presented himself. He made unbounded professions of friendship for the doctor of Wittenberg and had come, he said, “to give hi a piece of advice before appearing in the presence of De Vio. . . .

“The advice of Urban was expressed in a single word—‘Submit. Surely he [Luther] had not come this long way to break a lance with the cardinal: of course, he had not. He was speaking, he presumed, to a wise man.’

“Luther hinted that the matter was not so plain as his advisor took it to be.

“’Oh,’ continued the Italian, with a profusion of politeness, ‘I understand: you have posted up “Theses,” you have preached sermons, you have sworn oaths; but three syllables, just six letters, will do the business—Revoco.’”

God’s Word Luther’s Only Authority in Matters of Faith

“’If I am convinced out of the sacred Scriptures,’ rejoined Luther, ‘that I have erred, I shall be but too glad to retract.’

“The Italian Urban opened his eyes somewhat widely when he heard the monk appeal to a Book which had long ceased to be read or believed at the metropolis of Christendom. But surely, he thought, Luther will not be so fanatical as to persist in putting the authority of the Bible in opposition to that of the pope; and so the courtier continued.

“’The pope,’ said he, ‘can by a single nod change or suppress articles of faith, and surely you must feel yourself safe when you have the pope on your side, more especially when emolument, position, and life might all lie on your coming to the same conclusion with his Holiness.’ He exhorted him not to lose a moment in tearing down his ‘Theses’ and recalling his oaths.

“Urban of Serra Longa had overshot the mark. Luther found it necessary to tell him yet more plainly that the thing was impossible, unless the cardinal should convince him by arguments drawn from the Word of God that he had taught a false doctrine.” Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. 1, 275, 276.

Three times Luther appeared before the council at Augsburg. As he returned for the third meeting, accompanied by the elector’s councilors, he was immediately surrounded by the Italians, who were present at the conference in great numbers. They crowded around him, eager to obtain a glimpse of the monk who had stirred up such a commotion in Christianity. Luther advanced to present his protest to the cardinal. In this protest, Luther addressed two points on which he had been attacked. The concept that the indulgences were the treasure of the merit of Jesus Christ and of the saints was the first point to which he had objected. Second, Luther showed that no man can be justified before God if he has not faith, a point that he proved with a number of statements from Scripture.

The legate took the declaration from Luther’s hand; and after coldly looking it over, declared, “’You have indulged in useless verbiage; you have penned many idle words; you have replied in a foolish manner to the two articles and have blackened your paper with a great number of passages from Scripture that have no connection with the subject.’ Then, with an air of contempt, De Vio flung Luther’s protest aside; as if it were of no value, . . . he began to exclaim with all his might that Luther ought to retract. The latter was immovable. . . . The cardinal then began a long speech, extracted from the writing of St. Thomas; he again extolled the constitution of Clement VI and persisted in maintaining that by virtue of this constitution it is the very merits of Jesus Christ that are dispensed to the believer by means of indulgences. He thought he had reduced Luther to silence; the latter sometimes interrupted him; but De Vio raved and stormed without intermission and claimed, as on the previous day, the sole right of speaking. . . .

“His [Luther’s] indignation burst out at last; it is his turn to astonish the spectators, who believe him already conquered by the prelate’s volubility. He raises his sonorous voice, seizes upon the cardinal’s favorite subject, and makes him pay dearly for his rashness in venturing to enter into discussion with him. ‘Retract, retract!’ repeated De Vio, pointing to the papal constitution.

Luther Meets De Vio on His Own Ground

“’Well, if it can be proved by this constitution,’ said Luther, ‘that the treasure of indulgences is the very merits of Jesus Christ, I consent to retract, according to your eminence’s good-will and pleasure.’” D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation, book 4, chapter 8.

The Italians, who were not expecting such a response, were in complete astonishment. As for the cardinal, he was beside himself, scarcely believing how completely he had captured his opponent. Exulting in the victory he now thought to be certain, De Vio seized the book which contained the famous constitution and eagerly read the passage. The Italians could not suppress their elation, nor could the elector’s councilors hide their embarrassment. Luther, however, waited for his opponent. “At last, the cardinal read the words: ‘The Lord Jesus Christ has acquired this treasure by His sufferings,’ and Luther stopped him.

‘Most worthy father,’ said he, ‘pray, meditate, and weigh these words carefully: He has acquired. Christ has acquired a treasure by His merits; the merits, therefore, are not the treasure; for, to speak philosophically, the cause and effect are very different matters. . . .’

“De Vio still held the book in his hands, his eyes resting on the fatal passage; he could make no reply. He was caught in the very snare he had laid; and Luther held him thee with a strong hand, to the inexpressible astonishment of the Italian courtiers around him. The legate would have eluded the difficulty, but he had not the means; he had long abandoned the testimony of Scripture and of the fathers. . . . Desirous of concealing his disgrace, the prince of the church suddenly quitted this subject and violently attacked on other articles. Luther, who perceived this skillful maneuver, did not permit him to escape; he tightened and closed on every side the net in which he had taken the cardinal and rendered all escape impossible. ‘Most reverend Father,’ said he, with an ironical, yet very respectful tone, ‘your eminence cannot, however, imagine that w Germans are ignorant of grammar; to be a treasure, and to acquire a treasure, are two very different things.’

“’Retract!’ said De Vio, ‘retract! Or if you do not, I shall send you to Rome to appear before judges commissioned to take cognizance of your affair. . . . Think you that your protectors will stop me? Do you imagine that the pope cares anything for Germany? The pope’s little finger is stronger than all the German princes put together.’” Ibid.

Luther’s only reply was to request that the legate forward his reply to the pope. At these words, the legate in anger said, “Retract, or return no more.”

Without reply, Luther, followed by the elector’s councilors, withdrew. The cardinal and the Italians, remaining alone, looked at one another in confusion.

Though they never met again, messages of friendship from the cardinal were conveyed to Luther. The concern of the Germans for Luther’s safety increased, however, just in proportion to the mildness of the prelate’s language. They greatly feared that the legate was laying plans to seize the Reformer and throw him in prison; but he feared to move and violate the imperial safe-conduct on his own, until he should receive a reply from Rome.’’

Luther, realizing that God had preserved him until that hour, determined not to tempt God. Quickly plans were laid for a secret departure. A horse was provided, and the city magistrate supplied him with a guide. Before daybreak, they slipped through a small gate and as rapidly as possible made their way away from Augsburg. Luther pressed his poor animal to gallop as fast as its strength would allow. He well remembered the supposed flight of Huss and the manner in which he was caught. At the time when Huss was committed to the flames, his adversaries asserted that by his flight he had forfeited the safe-conduct and that they had a right to burn him.

Surprised and angered at the news of Luther’s escape, the legate wrote Frederick, the elector of Saxony, bitterly denouncing Luther and demanding that Frederick send him to Rome or banish him from Saxony.

Though the elector had, as yet, little knowledge of Luther’s doctrine, he was greatly impressed by the force and clearness of his reasoning; and until he should be proved to be in error, Frederick resolved to stand as his protector. He wrote the legate: “’Since Doctor Martin appeared before you at Augsburg, you ought to be satisfied. We did not expect that you would endeavor to make him retract without having convinced him of his errors. None of the learned men in our principality have informed me that Martin’s doctrine is impious, anti-Christian, or heretical.’ The prince refused, moreover, to send Luther to Rome or to expel him from his states.” Ibid., chapter 10.

The darkness seemed to thicken around Luther. Everywhere were ominous signs of a gathering storm. Just when the danger had reached its height, Emperor Maximilian died (January 12, 1519). Negotiations and intrigues were now set on foot for the election of a new emperor. The pope, who favored a particular candidate, found it necessary, in order to obtain his objective to court the favor of the elector Frederick, whose position as regent and whose character for wisdom gave him a potential voice in the electoral college. For the time being, it did not seem prudent to push the issue regarding Luther.

On July 4, 1519, a debate was held between Dr. Eck and Luther at Leipzig, relative to the primacy of the papacy. As the debate proceeded, Eck was constantly and consciously losing ground. Finally, on the second day of the debate, he sought to direct the course of discussion in such a way as to prejudice the audience against Luther, hoping to destroy the effect of his words. Addressing the council, he said, “From primitive times downward it was acknowledged by all good Christians that the Church of Rome holds its primacy of Jesus Christ Himself, and not of man. I must confess, however, that the Bohemians, while obstinately defending their errors, attacked this doctrine. The venerable father must pardon me if I am an enemy of the Bohemians, because they are the enemies of he Church, and if he present discussion has reminded me of these heretics; for . . . according to my weak judgment, . . . the conclusions to which the doctor has come, are all in favor of their errors. It is even affirmed that the Hussites loudly boast of this.” A. T. Jones, Ecclesiastical Empire, 729.

Luther well knew the peril in which Eck had placed him. He replied, “I love not a schism, and I never shall. Since the Bohemians, of their own authority, separated from our unity, they do wrong, even were divine authority decisive in favor of their doctrines; for at the head of all divine authority is charity and the union of the Spirit.” Ibid.

The debate was adjourned for dinner. During the interval, Luther’s conscience began to trouble him for speaking as he did about the Bohemian Christians and he determined to correct the false impression that he had left on the minds of the people.

Luther Rejects the Primacy of the Church

Luther saw the difficulty of his position. He had already repudiated the primacy of the pope and had appealed from the pope to a council. This decision involved the rejection of the Council of Constance, one of the greatest councils of the Church. For him to endorse the attitude of the Christian Bohemians was to declare that a Council had condemned what was, in fact, Christian—in short, of having erred—breaking from himself the last remaining bond of attachment with the papacy; and, doing so, opening all of the floodgates of papal opposition. Yet, in Luther’s mind it was becoming clear that the infallible authority of councils, as well as that of the pope, must be given up and that he must stand on the Word of God alone.

“Accordingly, as soon as the meeting had assembled in the afternoon session, Luther seized the first moment. He arose and, with the decision of conviction in his voice, said: ‘Certain of the tenets of John Huss and the Bohemians are perfectly orthodox. This much is certain. For instance, “That there is only one universal Church,” and again, “That it is not necessary to salvation to believe the Roman Church superior to others.” Whether Wycliffe or Huss said so, I care not. It is the truth.’” Ibid., 730.

Eck had, without realizing it, done both Luther and the Reformation a great service. The blow which he had anticipated would destroy Luther served, instead, to sever the last link in the chain that still bound the Reformer to Rome.

Luther’s statement produced a sensation. Several persons who had until that moment listened to him with favor, began to doubt his orthodoxy. The impression made upon Duke George was never effaced; and from that moment, he viewed the Reformer with an unfavorable eye.

When the Bohemian Christian heard the news of the discussion, they wrote to Luther: “What Huss was formerly in Bohemia, you, O Martin, are now in Saxony. Wherefore pray, and be strong in the Lord.” Ibid., 731.

The choice for emperor fell between two men—Charles I of Spain, and Francis I of France. Charles, who at nineteen was seven years younger than his rival, scattered gold profusely among the electors and princes of Germany to gain the coveted prize. His rival, Francis, was liberal; but he lacked the gold mines of Mexico and Peru which Charles had at his command.

The very power of the two rivals nearly defeated both of them. Encouraged by the pope, who feared the rising power of both monarchs, the electors chose Frederick of Saxony. Frederick, perhaps as an act of weakness when suddenly faced with the fearful challenge meeting a multitude of distractions within the empire and the Moslems on its frontier, declined what the two most powerful sovereigns in Europe were so eager to obtain. On June 28, 1519, the electors again met; the vote was unanimous in favor of Charles. How differently might history have been written had Frederick, the friend of Luther, accepted the imperial crown. Instead, however, it passed to Charles, who was to become the bitter foe of the Reformation.

It was a year before Charles was to arrive for his coronation, and the regency was continued in the hands of Frederick. During that time, “the little group at Wittenberg busily engaged in laying the foundation of an empire that would long out last that of the man on whose head the diadem of the Caesars was about to be placed.” Wylie, The History of Protestantism, vol. 1, 305.

Luther began reading the writings of John Huss. To his surprise, he found in them the truth of free justification of the sinner. “’We have all,’ he exclaimed, half in wonder, half in joy, ‘Paul, Augustine, and myself, been Hussites without knowing it!’ and he added, with deep seriousness, ‘God will surely visit it upon the world that the truth was preached to it a century ago, and burned!’” Ibid.

It was now that Luther published his famous appeal on the reformation of Christianity to the emperor, the princes, and the people of Germany. It was the most graphic and stirring appeal that had yet issued from his pen. Like a peal of thunder, it rang from side to side of Germany, sounding the deal knell of Roman domination.

Presuming that the new emperor would be just and magnanimous, Luther appealed to Charles, knowing that his cause would triumph regardless of which side Charles might espouse. While he would rather have had its progress peaceful and its arrival at the goal speedy, Luther never doubted the ultimate triumph of truth. The emperor never condescended to reply to the doctor of Wittenberg.

Children’s Story – Armies of the Aliens Put to Flight

by

Through the centuries, God has worked in many ways to preserve His truth and to protect His people. Sometimes, as when He freed Israel from their Egyptian bondage, He worked with signs and wonders; but at other times, He has used very simple means.

For hundreds of years before the Reformation, there were faithful people of God who lived in the Piedmont valleys of northern Italy. These faithful people were known as the Waldenses. They refused to accept the Roman Catholic religion, and this made them special objects of papal hatred. In 1487, Pope Innocent VII issued a decree, or bull, against them, urging that they must be completely destroyed.

Troops came in by the thousands—eighteen thousand regulars from France and Piedmont who were joined by a large number of rabble hoping to become rich by plundering the homes of these faithful people.

Cataneo was the papal legate, or representative, who led this army in its attack on the valley of Angrogna. As the battle proceeded, the enemy began to break through the line of the Waldenses’ defense, behind which were women, the children, and the aged. Seeing their defenders yielding before the attacking enemy, the Waldensian families fell to their knees and with tears began to cry, “Oh, Lord help us! Oh my God, save us!” This cry of distress caused their enemies to laugh. Seeing the praying company on their knees, one of the chiefs in the papal army, known as Black of Mondovi, cried out, “My fellows are coming—they are coming to give you your answer.” He then raised the visor of his helmet to show that he was not afraid of the people whom he had mocked and ridiculed. At that moment, a steel-pointed arrow struck him with such force that it penetrated his skull between his eyes, killing him instantly. His men, seized with panic, fell back in disorder.

Though they had been driven back, the invaders were not defeated. The next day they returned more determined than ever.

It seemed impossible that the Waldensian people could escape this time, but God was watching over them. He said to their enemies, as He had said to a tyrant many years before, “I will put my hook in thy nose, and My bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.” II Kings 19:28.

As the invaders entered the valley, they threaded their way up the narrow pathway that led along the face of a high wall. The path was so narrow that no more than two men could walk side by side. On one side was the mountain wall stretching upwards, and on the other was a deep ravine through the bottom of which a river flowed.

As the papal army advanced, the Waldenses noticed something that the invaders were completely unaware of. High over the mountain top, a small cloud about the size of a man’s hand appeared. The Waldenses watched as the cloud rapidly grew in size and began to descend to the valley below. In a few moments, it completely filled the narrow valley into which the papal army had come, filling it with the darkness of night. The blinded soldiers could neither advance nor retreat. Terrified, they halted, unable to move.

The Waldenses believed that God was working for them. Climbing quickly to the top of the slopes leading to the valley, they tore loose huge stones and rocks and sent them thundering down into the ravine below. The enemy soldiers, unable to move, were crushed where they stood. Some of the Waldenses then boldly entered the narrow valley, their swords in hand, and began attacking the invading papal army from the front. As they did so, a panic seized the papal army; and they began to flee in the darkness. This proved more disastrous to them than the stones. In their struggle to escape, they jostled against one another; and many of them fell to their death in the chasm far below.

This terrible defeat, coming as it had in so unexpected a manner, brought about the deliverance of the valley. After this battle, the Waldenses had peace in their valley for a number of years. The captain who commanded the invading force was named Saguet de Planghere; and the chasm, into which he fell, after all these centuries, is still called Saguet’s hole.

The Reformation history shows that it was by witnessing and suffering and not by fighting, that the light of truth was caused to shine; but in these experiences of deliverance, we see God’s providence in keeping alive a small band of witnesses in the Piedmont valleys until the time that the Reformation should come.

Christian Education and Why the Protestant Churches Fell

by

That church triumphs which breaks the yoke of worldly education, and which develops and practices the principles of Christian education.

“Now, as never before, we need to understand the true science of education. If we fail to understand this we shall never have a place in the kingdom of God.” Christian Educator, July 8, 1897. “The science of true education is the truth. . . . The Third Angel’s Message is truth.” Testimonies, vol. 6, 131. It is taken for granted that all Seventh-day Adventists believe that Christian education and the Third Angel’s Message are the same truth. The two are as inseparable as are a tree’s roots and its trunk and branches.

The object of these studies is to give a better understanding of the reason for the decline and moral fall of the Protestant denominations at the time of the midnight cry in 1844, and to help us as Seventh-day Adventists to avoid their mistakes as we approach the Loud Cry, soon due to the world.

A brief survey of the history of the Protestant denominations shows that their spiritual downfall in 1844 was the result of their failure “to understand the true science of education.” Their failure to understand and to practice Christian education unfitted them to proclaim to the world the message of Christ’s Second Coming. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination was then called into existence to take up the work, which the popular churches had failed to train their missionaries to do. The Protestant denominations could not give the Third Angel’s Message, a reform movement, which is a warning against the beast and his image, because they were still clinging to those doctrines and those principles of education which themselves form the beast and his image.

It is important that young Seventh-day Adventists study seriously the causes of the spiritual decline of these churches in 1844, lest we repeat their history, and be cast aside by the Spirit of God, and thus lose our place in the kingdom. If Seventh-day Adventists succeed where they failed, we must have a system of education which repudiates those principles which in themselves develop the beast and his image.

“Now, all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” I Corinthians 10:11.

Protestantism, born in the sixteenth century, was about to lose its light in Europe. God then prepared a new land, the future United States, as a cradle for the protection and development of those principles, and from this country is to go forth the final world-wide message that heralds the Saviour’s return.

“It was the desire for liberty of conscience that inspired the Pilgrims to brave the perils of the long journey across the sea, to endure hardships and dangers of the wilderness, and, with God’s blessing, to lay on the shores of America the foundation of a mighty nation. . . . “The Bible was held as the foundation of faith, the source of wisdom and the charter of liberty. Its principles were diligently taught in the home, in the school, and in the church, and its fruits were manifest in thrift, intelligence, purity, and temperance. . . . “It was demonstrated that the principles of the Bible are the surest safeguards of national greatness.” The Great Controversy, 292, 296.

These Reformers, on reaching America, renounced the papal doctrines in church and state, but they retained the papal system of education. While the Reformers rejected the creed of Rome, they were not entirely free from her spirit of intolerance. “The English Reformers, while renouncing the doctrines of Romanism, had retained many of its forms.” Some “looked upon them as badges of the slavery from which they had been delivered, and to which they had no disposition to return. . . . Many earnestly desired to return to the purity and simplicity which characterized the primitive church. . . . ‘England was ceasing forever to be a habitable place.’ Some at last determined to seek refuge in Holland. Difficulties, losses, and imprisonment were encountered. . . . In their flight they had left their houses, their goods, and their means of livelihood. . . . But they cheerfully accepted the situation, and lost no time in idleness or repining. . . . ‘They knew they were pilgrims’. . . . In the midst of exile and hardship, their love and faith waxed strong. They trusted the Lord’s promises, and He did not rail them in time of need. His angels were by their side, to encourage and support them. And when God’s hand seemed pointing them across the sea, to a land where they might found for themselves a state, and leave to their children the precious heritage of religious liberty, they went forward, without shrinking, in the path of Providence. . . . The Puritans had joined themselves together by a solemn covenant, as the Lord’s free people, to walk together in all His ways made known or to be made known to them. Here was the true spirit of reform, the vital principle of Protestantism.” The Great Controversy, 289–291.

The educational system of the church, which had driven them from their native home, was one of the most serious errors from which the Puritans failed to break away. Their system of education, while papal in spirit, was, to a certain extent, Protestant in form. The historian writes of the schools of the Puritans in the New World, that their courses were “fitted to the time-sanctioned curriculum of the college. They taught much Latin and Greek, and extended course in mathematics, and were strong generally on the side of the humanities. . . . This was a modeling after Rugby, Eton, and other noted English schools.” Again we read, “The roots of this system were deep in the great ecclesiastical system.” “From his early training,” Dunster, one of the first presidents of Harvard, “patterned the Harvard course largely after that of the English universities.” They so faithfully patterned after the English model—Cambridge University—that they were called by that name, and the historian wrote of Harvard, “In several instances youths in the parent country were sent to the American Cambridge for a finishing education.” Boone, speaking of the courses of study of William and Mary prior to the Revolution, says, “All were of English pattern.” Of Yale, started later, it is said, “The regulations for the most part were those at Harvard, as were also the courses of study.” The younger patterned after the older. It is very natural that Yale should be established after the English papal system, because the founder, Elihu Yale, had spent twenty years in the English schools. “Twenty years he spent in the schools and in special study.” Boone’s Education in the United States, 24–40.

Seventh-day Adventists should not let this fact escape their attention: The three leading schools of the colonies were established by men who had fled from the papal doctrines of the Old World; but these educators, because of their training in these papal schools and their ignorance of the relation between education and religion, unwittingly patterned their institutions after the educational system of the church from which they had withdrawn.

It is surprising that these English Reformers, after sacrificing as they did for a worthy cause, should yet allow a system of education, so unfitted to all their purposes, to be in reality the nurse of their children, from whose bosom these children drew their nourishment. They did not realize that the character and Christian experience of these children depended upon the nature of the food received. Had they grasped the relation of the education of the child to the experience of the same individual in the church, they would not have borrowed this papal system of education, but would have cast it out bodily as too dangerous for tolerance within the limits of Protestantism.

Some facts from educational history will make clear the statement that the system of education in Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, and Rugby was papal, and the New England Reformers, patterning their schools after these models, were planting the papal system of education in America. Laurie says, “Oxford and Cambridge modeled themselves largely after Paris. . . . A large number of masters and their pupils left Paris. . . . Thus the English portion of (Paris) University went to Oxford and Cambridge.” The relation of the University of Paris, the mother of Cambridge and Oxford, to the papacy is thus expressed, “It was because it was the center of theological learning that it received so many privileges from the pope, and was kept in close relation to the Papal See.” Laurie’s Rise and Constitution of Universities, 153, 162, 242.

Luther and Melanchthon, the great sixteenth century Reformers, understood clearly that it was impossible to have a permanent religious reform without Christian education. So they not only gave attention to the doctrines of the papacy, but also developed a strong system of Christian schools. Melanchthon said, “To neglect the young in our schools is just like taking the spring out of the year. They indeed take away the spring from the year who permit the schools to decline, because religion cannot be maintained without them.” “Melanchthon steadily directed his efforts to the advancement of education and the building up of good Christian schools. . . . In the spring of 1525, with Luther’s help, he reorganized the schools of Eisleben and Magdeburg.” He declared, “The cause of true education is the cause of God.” Life of Melanchthon, 81.

“In 1528 Melanchthon drew up the ‘Saxony School Plan,’ which served as the basis of organization for many schools throughout Germany.” This plan dealt with the question of a “multiplicity of studies that were not only unfruitful but even hurtful. . . . The teacher should not burden the children with too many books.” Painter’s History of Education, 152. These Reformers realized that the strength of the papal church lay in its educational system, and they struck a crushing blow at this system and, wounding it, brought the papal church to her knees. The Reformers established a system of Christian schools that made Protestants of the children. This wonderful revolution in education and religion was accomplished in one generation, in the brief space of one man’s life.

To give an idea of the power in that great Christian educational movement, the historian, speaking o several European countries, says: “The nobility of that country studied in Wittenberg—all other colleges of the land were filled with Protestants. . . . Not more than the thirtieth part of the population remained Catholic. . . . They withheld their children, too, from the Catholic schools. The inhabitants of Mainz did not hesitate to send their children to Protestant schools. The Protestant nations extended their vivifying energies to the most remote and most forgotten corners of Europe. What an immense domain had they conquered within the space of forty years. . . . Twenty years had elapsed in Vienna since a single student of the University had taken priests’ orders. . . . About this period the teachers in Germany were all, almost without exception, Protestants. The whole body of the rising generation sat at their feet and imbibed a hatred of the pope with the first rudiments of learning.” Von Ranke’s History of the Popes, 135.

After the death of Luther and Melanchthon, the theologians, into whose hands the work of the Reformation fell, instead of multiplying Christian schools, became absorbed in the mere technicalities of theology, and passed by the greatest work of the age. They sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. When the successors of Luther and Melanchthon failed to continue that constructive work, which centered largely in the education of the youth, who were to be the future missionaries and pillars of the church, internal dissention arose. Their time was spent very largely in criticizing the views of some of their co-laborers who differed with them on some unimportant points of theology. Thus they became destructive instead of constructive. They paid too much attention to doctrines, and spent the most of their energy in preserving orthodoxy. They crystallized their doctrines into a creed; they ceased to develop, and lost the spirit of Christian education, which was the oil for the lamps. Protestantism degenerated into dead orthodoxy, and they broke up into opposing factions. The Protestant church, thus weakened, could not resist the great power of rejuvenated papal education.

The success of the Reformers had been due to their control of the young people through their educational system. The papal schools were almost forsaken during the activity of Luther and Melanchthon. But when these Reformers died and their successors became more interested in abstract theology than in Christian education, and spent their time, energy, and the money of the church in preaching and writing on abstract theology, the papal school system, recovering itself, rose to a life and death struggle with the Protestant church. The papacy realized that the existence of the papal church itself depended upon a victory over Protestant schools. We are surprised at the skill and tact the papal educators used in their attack, and the rapidity with which they gained the victory. This experience should be an object lesson forever to Seventh-day Adventists.

A Christian School Animated by the Papal Spirit. —The eyes of the successors of Luther and Melanchthon were blinded. They did not understand “the true science of education.” They did not see its importance, and grasp the dependence of character upon education. “The true object of education is to restore the image of God in the soul.” Christian Educator, 63. Satan took advantage of this blindness to cause some of their own educators, like wolves in sheep’s clothing, to prey on the lambs. Chief among these was John Sturm, who, by these blind Reformers, was supposed to be a good Protestant. Sturm introduced practically the entire papal system of education into the Protestant schools of Strasbourg. And because he pretended to be a Protestant, the successors of Luther looked with favor upon his whole educational scheme. He was regarded by the so-called Reformers as the greatest educator of his time, and his school became so popular among Protestants that it was taken as their model for the Protestant schools of Germany, and its influence extended to England, and thence to America.” “No one who is acquainted with the education given at our principal classical schools—Eton, Winchester, and Westminster—forty years ago, can fail to see that their curriculum was formed in a great degree on Sturm’s model.” The historian says that it was Sturm’s ambition “to produce Greece and Rome in the midst of modern Christian civilization.” Painter’s History of Education. 163.

The educational wolf, dressed in Christian fleece, made great inroads on the lambs of the flock, and made possible a papal victory. Most dangerous of all enemies in a church is a school of its own, Christian in profession, with “teachers and managers who are only half converted;” who are accustomed to popular methods; who “concede some things and make half reforms, . . . preferring to work according to their own ideas,” (Testimonies, vol. 6, 141) who, step by step, advance toward worldly education, leading innocent lambs with them. In the day of judgment it will be easier for that man who has been cold and an avowed enemy to a reform movement than for that one who professes to be a shepherd, but who has been a wolf in sheep’s clothing, who deceives the lambs until they are unable to save themselves. It is the devil’s master stroke for the overthrow of God’s work in the world, and there is no influence harder to counteract. No other form of evil is so strongly denounced. “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth.” Revelation 3:15, 16.

Sturm’s school stood as a half-way mark between the Christian schools of Luther and Melanchthon and the papal schools round about him. It offered a mixture of medieval, classical literature with a thin slice of Scripture, sandwiched in for effect, and flavored with the doctrines of the church. Its course of study was impractical; its methods of instruction mechanical; memory work was exalted; its government was arbitrary and empirical. “A dead knowledge of words took the place of a living knowledge of things. . . . The pupils were obligated to learn, but they were not educated to see and hear, to think and prove, and were not led to a true independence and personal perfection. The teachers found their function in teaching the prescribed text, not in harmoniously developing the young human being according to the laws of nature.” Painter’s History of Education, 156.

Macaulay, speaking of this system of education, adds: “They promised what was impracticable; they despised what was practicable. They filled the world with long words and long beards, and they left it as ignorant and as wicked as they found it.” Macaulay’s Bacon, 379.

Jesuit Schools—This study should make it clear that the Protestant teachers weakened and unfitted the Protestant denominations for the attack made by the papacy through the counter system of education introduced by Loyola, founder of the order of Jesuits. Before this, the Catholic Church realized its helplessness to withstand the great movement of Protestantism, inaugurated by thousands of missionaries trained in the Christian schools of Luther and Melanchthon. Noting the return of the Protestant church to the dead orthodoxy under the inefficient leadership of Luther’s successors, the papacy recognized the vulnerable point in Protestantism.

The Order of Jesuits found its special mission in combating the Reformation. As the most effective means of arresting the progress of Protestantism, it aimed at controlling education. “It developed an immense educational activity” in Protestant countries, “and earned for its schools a great reputation. . . . More than any other agency it stayed the progress of the Reformation, and it even succeeded in winning back territory already conquered by Protestantism. . . . It worked chiefly through its schools, of which it established and controlled large numbers. Every member of the order became a competent and practical teacher.” Painter’s History of Education, 166.

The following methods of teaching are characteristic of Jesuit schools: “The memory was cultivated as a means of keeping down free activity of thought and clearness of judgment.” In the place of self-government “their method of discipline was a system of mutual distrust, espionage, and informing. Implicit obedience relieved the pupils from all responsibility as to the moral justification of their deeds.” Rosencranz’s Philosophy of Education, 270.

“The Jesuits made much of emulation. He who knows how to excite emulation has found the most powerful auxiliary in his teaching. Nothing will be more honorable than to outstrip a fellow student, and nothing more dishonorable than to be outstripped. Prized will be distributed to the best pupils with the greatest solemnity. . . . It sought showy results with which to dazzle the world; a well-rounded development was nothing. . . . The Jesuits did not aim at developing all the faculties of their pupils, but merely the receptive and reproductive facilities.” When a student “could make a brilliant display from the sources of a well-stored memory, he had reached the highest points to which the Jesuits sought to lead him.” Originality and independence of mind, love of truth for its own sake, the power of reflecting and forming correct judgments were not merely neglected, they were suppressed in the Jesuit system.” Painter’s History of Education, 172, 173. “The Jesuit system of education was remarkably successful, and for nearly a century, all the foremost men of Christendom came from Jesuit schools.” Rosencranz, 272.

Success of Jesuit Schools. —Concerning the success of the Jesuit educational system in overcoming the careless and indifferent Protestants, we read: “They carried their point.” They shadowed the Protestant schools and like a parasite, sucked from them their life. “Their labors were above all, devoted to the universities. Protestants called back their children from distant schools and put them under the care of the Jesuits. The Jesuits occupied the professors’ chairs. . . . They conquered the Germans on their own soil, in their very home, and wrested from them a part of their native land.” Macaulay’s Von Ranke, vol. 4, 134–139.

This conquest rapidly went on through nearly all European countries. They conquered England by taking the English youth to Rome and educating them in Jesuit schools, and sending them back as missionaries and teachers to their native land. And thus they were established in the schools of England. The Jesuits overran the New World also, becoming thoroughly established, and have been employing their characteristic methods here every since. Here, as elsewhere, their only purpose is “to obtain the sole direction of education, so that by getting the young into their hands they can fashion them after their own pattern.” Footprints of the Jesuits, 419.

“Within fifty years from the day Luther burned the Bull of Leo before the gates of Wittenberg, Protestantism gained its highest ascendancy, an ascendancy which it soon lost, and which it has never regained.” Macaulay’s Von Ranke.

“How was it that Protestantism did so much, yet did no more? How was it that the church of Rome, having lost a large part of Europe, not only ceased to lose, but actually regained nearly half of what she had lost? This is certainly a most curious and important question.” We have already had the answer, but it is well stated thus by Macaulay, who understood the part played by the Jesuit schools founded by Loyola: “Such was the celebrated Ignatius Loyola, who, in the great reaction, bore the same part which Luther bore in the great Protestant movement. It was at the feet of that Jesuit that the youth of higher and middle classes were brought up from childhood to manhood, from the first rudiments to the courses of rhetoric and philosophy. . . . The great order went forth conquering and to conquer. . . . Their first object was to drive no person out of the pale of the church.”

Heresy Hunting Defeats the Protestant Cause.—Macaulay thus gives the causes for this defeat of Protestantism and the success of the papacy: “The war between Luther and Leo was a war between firm faith and unbelief; between zeal and apathy; between energy and indolence; between seriousness and frivolity; between a pure morality and vice. Very different was the war which degenerate Protestantism had to wage against regenerate Catholicism,” made possible by the Jesuit educational system. “The Reformers had contracted some of the corruptions which had been justly censured in the Church of Rome. They had become lukewarm and worldly. Their great, old leaders had been borne to the grave and had left no successors. . . . Everywhere on the Protestant side we see languor; everywhere on the Catholic side we see ardor and devotion. Almost the whole zeal of the Protestants was directed against each other. Within the Catholic Church there were no serious disputes on points of doctrine. . . . On the other hand, the force which ought to have fought the battle of the Reformation was exhausted in civil conflict.”

The papacy learned a bitter lesson in dealing with heretics. Since the Reformation, she conserves her strength by setting them to work. Macaulay says: “Rome thoroughly understands what no other church has ever understood—how to deal with enthusiasts. . . . The Catholic Church neither submits to enthusiasm nor prescribes it, but uses it. . . . She accordingly enlists him (the enthusiast) in her services. . . . For a man thus minded there is within the pale of the establishment (Orthodox Protestant churches) no place. He has been at no college; . . . and he is told that if he remains in the communion of the church, he must do so as a hearer, and that, if he is resolved to be a teacher, he must begin by being a schismatic (a heretic). His choice is soon made; he harangues on Tower Hill or in Smithfield. A congregation is formed, and in a few weeks the (Protestant) church has lost forever a hundred families.”

The papacy was wiser than the Protestants in dealing with those who become somewhat irregular in their views. She spent little time in church trials. She directed their efforts, instead of attempting to force them from the church. “The ignorant enthusiast whom the English church makes. . . . a most dangerous enemy, the Catholic Church makes a companion. She bids him nurse his beard, covers him with a gown and hood of course dark stuff, ties a rope around his waist, and send him forth to teach in her name. He costs her nothing. He takes not a ducat away from the regular clergy. He lives by the alms of those who respect his spiritual character and are grateful for his instructions. . . . All this influence is employed to strengthen the church. . . . In this way the church of Rome unites in herself all the strength of the establishment (organization) and all the strength of dissent. . . . Place Ignatius Loyola at Oxford. He is certain to become the head of a formidable succession. Place John Wesley at Rome. He is certain to be the first general of a new society devoted to the interest and honor of the church.” Macaulay’s Von Ranke.

The Church of Rome, since its rejuvenation, is literally alive with determined, enthusiastic, zealous soldiers who know nothing but to live, to be spent, and to die for the church. She is determined to conquer and bring back humiliated, broken down, and completely subjugated, the Protestant denominations. She has everywhere, through her Jesuit teachers, editors, and public officials, men at work to fashion public sentiment, to capture the important and controlling positions of government, and most of all, to obtain control, through her teachers, of the minds of Protestant children and youth. She values that eternal principle, and makes use of it, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” Let me teach a child until he is twelve years old, say the Catholics, and he will always remain a Catholic. We can now better comprehend why those English Reformers did not understand the character and the danger of the school system in vogue at Cambridge, Oxford, Eton, and Westminster, and unwittingly planted this system of education upon the shores of their new home and in every one of their Christian schools. They ignorantly fostered it and scattered it, and their successors, like the successors of Luther and Melanchthon, became so infected with the spirit of Rome that by 1844 the Protestant churches were morally like their mother.

In this we have been tracing the roots which bore the tree of education in the United States. While Harvard, the first school in New England, at first “was little more than a training school for ministers,” and “the Bible was systematically studied,” yet it is plain to any student of Harvard’s course of study that, aside from Bible teaching, its curriculum was modeled after Eton, Rugby, and other noted English schools which were all based on Sturm’s system. Yale, William and Mary, and other institutions of the United States are modeled after this same system. Behold Protestant America training her children in schools which were modeled after Sturm’s papal schools.

The secret of the rejection of the Protestant denominations in 1844 is contained in the educational history just given. We see that, while they clung to the forms of Protestantism, their educational system continually instilled into the student the life of the papacy. This produced a form of Protestantism imbued with the papal spirit. This spells Babylon. Should not our students seriously question the character of the educational system that they are under, lest they find themselves in the company of those five foolish virgins who are rejected in the time of the Loud Cry, just as the great Christian churches were rejected at the time of the Midnight Cry, because they failed to understand the “true science of education?” “They did not come into the line of true education,” and they rejected the message.

Certain divine ideas of reform in civil government were received from God by some men in this country during the days of the wounding of the papacy. These men dared teach and practice these truths. They fostered true principles of civil government to such an extent that the Third Angel’s Message could be delivered under its shelter. But the papal system of education, as operated by Protestant churches, was a constant menace to this civil reform, because the churches would not break away from the medieval, classical course with the granting of degrees and honors—without which it is difficult for aristocracy and imperialism in either church or state to thrive. But in spite of the failure of the churches to break away from this system, the civil reformers repudiated all crowns, titles, and honors that would have perpetuated European aristocracy and imperialism. The churches, because they still clung to the papal educational system, became responsible, not only for the spirit of the papacy within themselves, but also for the return of imperialism now so plainly manifesting itself in our government, and especially noticeable in such tendencies toward centralization as the trusts, monopolies, and unions.

The year 1844 was one of the most critical periods in the history of the church since the days of the apostles. Toward that year the hand of prophecy had been pointing for ages. All heaven was interested in what was about to happen. Angels worked with intense interest for those who claimed to be followers of the Christ to prepare them to accept the message then due to the world. But the history quoted above shows that the Protestant denominations clung to the system of education borrowed from the papacy, which wholly unfitted them either to receive or give the message. Consequently, it was impossible for them to train men to proclaim it.

The world was approaching the great Day of Atonement n the heavenly sanctuary, the year 1844. Prior to this date, history records a most remarkable Christian educational movement and religious awakening. The popular churches were rapidly approaching their crucial test. And God knew it was impossible for them to acceptably carry the closing message unless they should “come into the line of true education”—unless they had a clear understanding of “the true science of education.” These words were applicable to them: “Now as never before we need to understand the true science of education. If we fail to understand this, we shall never have a place in the kingdom of God.”

What the Protestant churches faced in the year 1844, we Seventh-day Adventists are facing today. We shall see how the Protestant denominations opposed the principles of Christian education and thus failed to train their young people to give the Midnight Cry. Seventh-day Adventist young people, thousands of whom are in the schools of the world, cannot afford to repeat this failure. The moral fall of the popular churches causing that mighty cry, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, ” would never have been, had they been true to the principles of Christian education. If individual Seventh-day Adventists approach the Loud Cry with the same experience that the Protestants approached the Midnight Cry, they likewise will be foolish virgins to whom the door is closed. The virgins in Christ’s parable all had lamps, the doctrines; but they lacked a love of truth which lights up these doctrines, “The science of true education is the truth, which is to be so deeply impressed on the soul that it cannot be obliterated by the error that everywhere abounds. The Third Angel’s Message is truth, and light, and power.” Testimonies, vol. 6, 131. Is not Christian education, then, the light to the doctrines? Papal education fails to light up those lamps, for it is darkness.

Surely it is a serious time for our young Seventh-day Adventists—a time when every teacher in the land, when every student and prospective mission worker in the church, should look the situation squarely in the face and should determine his attitude toward the principles of Christian education. For “before we can carry the message of present truth in all its fullness to other countries, we must first break every yoke.” The Madison School, 30. “Now as never before we need to understand the true science of education. If we fail to understand this, we shall never have a place in the kingdom of God.” We are dealing with a life-and-death question.

Good Men Good Church

by

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” Revelation 3:14-17 (KJV)

How could a people or a church ever become so blind that they are actually naked and think they are clothed? It is because they have learned to depend upon their own works and their own righteousness rather than the righteousness of Christ. And, though they think they are clothed, their own righteousness cannot clothe them.

It is a situation similar to the one Jesus spoke of in Luke 18:10-14. “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector [or publican]. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner!’” Today, Pharisees are looked down upon; but back in Jesus’ day, they were respected. Publicans, on the other hand, were the worst of people in the eyes of the Jews. They did not respect God’s church, and the Jews considered them to be collaborating with the Romans. Yet Jesus said, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other, for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

I have often studied with sadness the history of Saul. Here was a man who was chosen and ordained of God. He knew that he had been ordained by God to lead his church. When he went out to fight God’s battles, God fought for him. But when God told him to destroy the Amalekites, he failed to do as he was told. He reasoned, “Let’s take these animals and show our appreciation and gratitude for God. Instead of just killing them and wasting them, we will sacrifice them to God.” Look, however at God’s assessment of what had taken place. “So Samuel said, ‘when you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the LORD anoint you king over Israel? Now the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the LORD? And Saul said to Samuel, ‘But I obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.’ So Samuel said: ‘Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubborness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.’” 1 Samuel 15:17-23

Saul thought he was so good, but he was blind. He thought he was clothed with righteousness, but he was absolutely naked. It says in verse 23, “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.” It is a solemn reality that whom God ordains for service, He can remove; and what He has ordained for service He can also remove. God ordained the children of Israel to be His people. Of them, He said, “Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): if those ordinances depart from before ME, says the LORD, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever.” Jeremiah 31:35, 36. Even if the sun, moon, and stars should be removed, Israel would not be removed from being His people.

The children of Israel reasoned in Jesus’ day, “We are God’s people’ nothing can change that. The tide is still coming in; there are still the sun, moon, and stars.” But somehow they forgot that what God establishes, He can also remove. Though God had established Saul, he also removed Him. As with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, though God appointed them, He also removed them. Thus it was with the leadership in Jesus’ day, and thus it is today. When men begin to think that they are good because of position or works, they are absolutely blind. There is not a position or work in which we can engage that can make any one of us good. If there is any goodness in it, it is the goodness of Jesus that comes by faith in Him. But men have come to the place where they believe that they can break the Sabbath and be held guiltless. They believe that they can lie and bear false charges as the scribes and Pharisees did against Jesus in His day in order to preserve the system because it is for a good purpose, and somehow still be guiltless.

Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were in the holy service of God. They had come out of Egypt and gone through the Red Sea; they had eaten manna and drunk the water from the rock. More than that, some of these leaders, possibly even Korah, Dathan, and Abiram themselves, had gone up on Mt. Sinai with Moses. God chose them, through Moses, to be representatives for Him. Moses, on the other hand, was not a representative of leadership; he was a prophet. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, since they were elected and had all of the evidence of God’s leading, came to the place where they became good in their own eyes. They thought that they were “rich and had need of nothing and knew not that they were miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” They came to the place where they thought that they could do things that God had never given them permission to do.

In A.D. 364, the Council of Nicea declared that the sanctity of the Sabbath had been changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week. They did not do this by God’s authority but by church authority and church decree. They did so because they were leaders of God’s church.

It has interested me how people study the Bible and seem to twist everything to their own wishes. That was taking place in Ellen White’s day in the 1890s. The leadership was likening themselves to Moses, and anyone who did not go along with them was like Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. You see, in 1888, God had chosen Jones and Waggoner and others to give the message of Christ our righteousness; but the leaders said, “Listen, this message did not go through us. What right do these people have to preach? They are not ordained by us; they have not come through our authority. We are the leaders of God’s church.” Do you know what Ellen White says about that? They were actuated by the same spirit that inspired Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.” 1888 Materials, 1067. This is just one place where she says that the leaders were likened to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.

I have been shocked by the way committees of the church today can somehow come to believe that they have been vested with authority to disregard God’s commandments and laws. When we suppose that we can overlook all of God’s counsels on competitive sports and introduce intercollegiate sports into our schools, are we not committing the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? Are we not coming to the place where we think that we can go against God’s counsels and make our own decisions? When we follow the practices and policies of the world instead of those laid down in the Word of God, are we not committing the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? When Ellen White says that God will not even hear the prayer of those who go to court against a brother, and we go to court against our brethren, which the Bible strictly prohibits and condemns, are we not committing the same sin as Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? When the church fights the very ministries that God has called into existence, are we not committing the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? That is the sin of the papacy; and, dear friend, it is becoming the sin of the church today. It is the sin of anyone who decides that they are so good that they do not need to follow God exactly; they can make their own decisions in life.

In Jesus’ day, the church of God had been sending some of their promising young men to the universities of Greece, especially down to Alexandria, Egypt. Of course, they remained members of God’s true church; but they learned and brought into it the Greek philosophy, which is the basis of higher education.

The Greeks had come the place where they believed that the way to be truly educated was to reject everything until it has been proved. When you incorporate that philosophy with the Word of God, it is disastrous because the word of God must be studied by faith and not by doubt. I talked with an educator at one of our colleges, an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister, teaching according to the principles of Greek philosophy. He was asking people how they could know that God had really created the world in seven days. I asked him, “How can you instill this doubt into students’ minds?” He said, “I believe that the way we are educated is to doubt everything. That is the way we learn. This is true faith.” He said, “Faith is when you doubt so much that you come to doubt your doubts and that is faith.”

When this system of doubt is applied to the Word of God, it destroys faith. You cannot study God’s Word except by faith.

In Jesus’ day, the Jew who was not educated was looked down upon as being a heathen because everyone was supposed to have a Christian education; that was a duty of a Jewish parent. The educational system, however, had been taken over by a group of liberals called the Sadducees. They rejected much that was in the Old Testament although they claimed to be true followers of God. What could not be proved, they reasoned away.

You know, it is interesting that there is not a record of a single Sadducee being converted or accepting Jesus as his Saviour. It is a deadly disease, this liberal philosophy that causes people to doubt the Word of God and put human reason and human logic above the Word. But in reaction to the Sadducees came a group of conservative people who said, “We do not believe in this liberal philosophy that puts logic above the Word. We believe the Word simply because God says it.” They were called the Pharisees; but sadly, they became so conservative that they began to look at themselves as good people because they were doing everything the Bible said. As time went on, they began to confuse conservatism with structuralism and to place more and more faith in a structure and in a system rather than in God. They began to worship the church instead of God. In fact, the church was so sacred and so important that if anyone suggested that the church would be destroyed or said that the temple would be destroyed, as Jesus said it would be, that person was worthy of death and they sought to kill him because he was blaspheming God. Any criticism of the structure became criticism of God in their minds, so they killed the person who said that the church would be destroyed.

Do you know what is interesting? The Pharisees were the ones who became the most bitter enemies of Jesus, much more so than the Sadducees. In their minds, anything that did not go through the structure was wrong and was not of God.

The Elijah message was the message that John the Baptist had to bring to the people in his day. (See Matthew 3:7-10). It is interesting that this same message that was to prepare a people before Jesus’ first coming is the same message that is to be brought back to the church today before Jesus’ second coming. Ellen White says, “In this fearful time, just before Christ is to come the second time, God’s faithful preachers will have to bear a still more pointed testimony than was borne by John the Baptist. A responsible, important work is before them; and those who speak smooth things, God will not acknowledge as His shepherds. A fearful woe is upon them.” Testimonies, vol. 1, 321

As Saul so sadly learned, what God ordains, He can also remove. John the Baptist told the people of his day that God could raise up children to make a church out of the stones, and God did it. He took the stony hearts of the Gentiles and fashioned them into the true church of Israel in the New Testament. Paul says in Galatians 3, Ephesians 2, and Romans 2, that the Gentiles had now become the true church of Israel. The church survived, but it was made up of different people. John the Baptist said “Do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father [we are the church]’….Even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree [not just the trees in John the Baptist’s day but every tree from Saul’s day until Jesus’ second coming] which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

The truth will go through; the movement will go through; God’s true Seventh-day Adventist people, the movement that He has ordained for these last days, is going through. God promised it would go through. This is the last church, but the church is more than a structure. The structure is only an aspect of the church. God can raise up children to this church from the stones.

God says that every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down. In Jesus’ day, the church had become so structuralized that God could not reach it through the system. God had to send John the Baptist as an independent minister, independent of the system. When Jesus came down, He also came as an independent minister. He was never sanctioned or ordained by the church. The church never laid their hands upon Him, and they did not recognize Him.

It is interesting to note that even among those who were in independent ministry, pride and self-sufficiency often came in. We find it in Peter and John. They, thankfully, eventually overcame. But this became the spirit of Judas; and Jesus Himself was betrayed by someone from the independent ministry, from the self-supporting work, even from His own group.

Jesus said that the prevailing problem with the church in the last days would be the problem that has been with the church in all ages—self-righteousness. That is what has brought in all of the errors of the Christian church. It is that righteousness that makes a person so righteous that they no longer need to obey God and they can decide for themselves what is right or wrong. That was the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden. “God knows that in the day you eat this fruit, that you will be so wise and so good that you will know yourself what you should do and what you should not do.” Self-righteousness, the fig leaves of self-righteousness.

God has a message to the church today. It is called the Elijah message—the Laodicean message. It is a message of love. God says, “I love you too much to let you go. If you will accept Me as your Lord and Saviour, if you will simply come and follow Me, I will give you righteousness; you will not have to earn it. I will give it to you as a free gift, and then you can obey Me because you love Me. I will give you the power to obey every precept from a heart of love.” You will no longer try to find out how little you can do to get to heaven. No! You will have salvation because God has given it to you, and you will be doing everything you can do because you love Him. None of if will earn you a place in heaven; that was earned on the cross of Calvary two thousand years ago. Praise the Lord! But it is a gift to the obedient.

The End

Reformers and the Church

by

In Matthew 16:13, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. This is an important question because a correct understanding can make all the difference between eternal life and eternal death. “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘blessed are you, Simon BarJonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.’” Now in verse 18 there is a play on words that does not come through in the English translation, so I would like to insert the Greek words. “’And I also say to you that you are [petros] Peter, and on this [petra] rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’” Matthew 16:18, 19. This is tremendous authority –not just earthly authority that has to do with eternal life.

Before we examine this question of church authority, let us look first of all at the text that says, “you are petros.” The word petros, which in Latin is the same as Peter, means a stone, while a petra is a very large boulder or rock.

On what rock is the church built? Let us allow Peter to give us his understanding of what Christ meant by the statement He made to him. “Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.’ Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone,’ and ‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.’ They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” 1 Peter is talking about Jesus Christ as the Chief Cornerstone.

This agrees with the apostle Paul, who said, “Now therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:19-22

All through the Scriptures you will find that Jesus is described as that supernatural, living Rock in which His children hide and find security, stability, safety, and salvation. Jesus spoke of Himself as the Cornerstone when He said, “And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” Matthew 21:44

In Matthew 18:19, it appears that the keys were given to Peter, though, as we look in other Scriptures, it is evident that they were given to the rest of the apostles and to the entire church. (See John 20:21-23.) It was by the misuse of Jesus’ statement to Peter that the bishops of Rome attained authority over the nations of Europe during the Dark Ages. They said, “We have received apostolic authority from Peter. We have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and we can shut you out and send you to hell, or we can give you eternal life.” When Bible-believing Christians dissented, before they were burned at the stake they were clothed with robes and miters on which there were painted demons, snakes, and devils. The church authorities would say, “Not only are you going to die, but we are consigning you to hell; and you are going to burn there forever.”

Before Jesus conferred authority on His apostles, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (See Ibid.) This is also clear from Jesus’ statement to Peter when He said, “for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Only people who are filled with the Holy Spirit have the divine authority of the church.

The question of apostolic succession has agitated the minds in the Christian world for hundreds of years. Who are the successors of the apostles? The way to understand this is to ask a question that was commonly asked in Christ’s day. Who is the true church? Who are Abraham’s seed?
This is a question that agitated the minds of the Jews a good deal. The Jews told Jesus that they were Abraham’s descendants. (See John 8:33.) They believed that they were saved; but Jesus said, “You don’t live like Abraham, You’re not working the works of Abraham. Therefore, you really are not Abraham’s seed.” He denied that they were Abraham’s seed because they did not have a character like Abraham.

The Bible says that we are going to be judged according to our works. That is the same as saying that we are going to be judged according to our character. Historic Seventh-day Adventists still believe that judgment is on the basis of your works—your character. This is why Ellen White said that the day of God would be a day of bitter disappointment to most of the Christian world because they make a profession, but they do not have a character that goes along with it. In the day of judgment, they are going to find out that their profession is worthless unless their character coincides with the profession. (See Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, 970.)

Now if you profess to be Seventh-day Adventist, you profess that you are a member of that church that is mentioned in Revelation 12:17 “who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus.” You profess to be a part of that group of people that it talks about in Revelation 14:12 where it says, “Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” That is what you profess; but if you do not keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus, if you do not have the testimony of Jesus, what good is your profession going to do? It will do no good.

Where did the concept come from that the church is the congregation of goodly men only? It came from the New Testament. Wherever you have a group of people who are filled with the Holy Spirit and are living godly, righteous lives, when they meet together and assemble and worship, that is a church. The Reformers all taught this concept; the Waldenses believed it. By the way, if they had not believed it, they could not have had a church. There would not have been a Reformation. They could not have remained true unless they understood who the church was. That time is coming again. It is right upon us. If you do not understand who the church is, the pressure will be so great that you will not be able to remain faithful and true.

The Bible teaches that it is character that counts. Now do not misunderstand; you do not earn salvation. Salvation is a gift; but let me tell you, it is a conditional gift. If you do not have the character qualification, you are not going to receive the gift. The apostles Paul, Peter, James, and John are all clear about that.

This concept was clearly understood by the great Protestant Reformers. One of the early leaders of the church, Claude of Turin, said, “Know thou that he only is apostolic who is the keeper and guardian of the apostle’s doctrine, and not he who boasts himself to be seated in the chair of the apostle, and in the meantime doth not acquit himself of the charge of the apostle.” J.A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, vol. 1, 22

There was a remnant of the apostolic church in the land of Italy known as the Waldenses. They were terribly persecuted; and if you read such books as Martyrs Mirror, you will find that one of the main issues in the understanding of the Waldenses was the issue of who and what the church is. The Waldenses believed that they were the spiritual descendants of the apostles, and, therefore, they were the church. They were a perpetual reminder of what the church used to be; and as long as they were around, they testified to how far professed Christendom had departed from the original faith. For this reason they were bitterly persecuted.

You see, the battle of the Reformation had largely to do with the vital issue of who and what the church is. As long as people were afraid that there was someone who could say, “I am going to shut the kingdom of heaven against you and send you to hell,” there could be no Reformation.
On one occasion Tyndale was in a debate with a Roman Catholic by the name of More. During this debate, More said: “We must not examine the teaching of the church by Scripture, but understand Scripture by means of what the church says.”

Tyndale: “What! Does the air give light to the sun? Or the sun to the air? Is the church before the gospel or the gospel before the church? [Now notice his reasoning] Is not the father older than the son? God begat us with His own will, with the word of truth. James 1:18. If he who begets is before him who is begotten, the word is before the church. Or to speak more correctly, before the congregation.”

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

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

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

Tyndale: “The pope teaches us to trust in holy words for salvation, as penance, saints, merits, and friars codes. Now he that has no faith to be saved through Christ is not of Christ’s church.”

Calvin went through a period of great struggle and doubt in his mind over this issue. “The doubts by which his soul was now shaken, drew in strength with each renewed discussion. What shall he do? Shall he forsake the Church? That seems to him like casting himself into the gulf of perdition. And yet can the Church save him? There is a new light breaking in upon him, in which her dogmas are melting away; the ground beneath him is sinking. To what shall he cling?….

“’There can be no church,’ we hear Calvin saying to himself, ‘where the truth is not.’…

“In fine, Calvin concluded that the term ‘Church’ could not make the society that monopolised the term really ‘the Church.’ Highsounding titles and lofty assumptions could give neither unity nor authority; these could come form the Truth alone; and so he abandoned ‘the Church’ that he might enter the Church—the Church of the Bible.” J.A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, vol. 2, 152, 154

Of John Knox, the Scottish Reformer, it is said, “Knox’s idea of a Church was, in brief, a divinely originated, a divinely enfranchised, and a divinely governed society. Its members were all those who made profession of the Gospel; its law was the Bible, and its King was Christ.” Ibid., vol. 3, 496

Taussan was a Danish Reformer. He drew up a confession which became the confession of the Protestants in Denmark. In this confession it was declared that the Holy Scriptures were to be the only rule of faith, “and the satisfaction of Christ in our room the only foundation of eternal life. It defined the Church to be the communion of the faithful, and it denied the power of any man to cast any one out of that Church, unless such shall have first cut himself off from the communion of the faithful by impenitence and sin.” Ibid., vol. 2, 42

The church is where Christ is. There can be no church without the presence of the deity. “Where Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ’s church, for the presence of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church.” The Upward Look, 315. The church is where the Holy Spirit is. It is where Jesus is, who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” John 14:6. That is the spiritual building of the church. Now if I leave the truth, what have I done? I have left the church.

For many years Romanists have accused the Protestants of heresy and of separation from the true church; but Ellen White says in The Great Controversy, 51, that this accusation applies rather to themselves because they are the ones who laid down the banner of Christ and departed from the faith that was once delivered to the saints. And when you depart from the faith, when you leave the truth, you have left the church. The church stays right there with the truth because the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” The Great Controversy, 376. It was when Calvin began to understand this that it set his mind free. “‘There can be no church,’ we hear Calvin saying to himself, ‘where the truth is not.’… In fine, Calvin concluded that the term ‘Church could not make the society that monopolised the term really ‘the Church.’ High-sounding titles and lofty assumptions could give neither unity nor authority; these could come from the Truth alone.” J.A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, vol. 2, 154. What is it that gives unity and authority? It is the truth; and if you leave the truth, you have no authority.

It is time for Historic Adventists to wake up to the reality that our profession must coincide with our character or our profession is worthless. (See The Desire of Ages, 107.)

Have you heard somebody say, “Well, the church is going through”? Well, I believe that. In fact, I believe that the church has always gone through. I believe that the church went through in Samuel’s time. Most of the professed people did not go with it. I believe the church went through in Jeremiah’s time and Daniel’s time, and I believe the church went through in the time of Jesus and the apostles. Who was the church in the time of Jesus?

Let me ask you a question. When Jesus came down to this world, do you think that He was here in the flesh? Of course He was. The church is His mystical body. He was the head of it then, and He is the head of it now. So who was the church when Jesus was here? It is very simple, friends; it was the people who followed Jesus. That is who it was, and that is still who it is.

 

A church is not just bricks and mortar or corporations or theology. A church is people who are filled with the Holy Spirit; and as a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit, they are spoken of in the Bible as living stones, stones that emit light all around. Jesus said, “You are the light of the world.” Mathew 5:14

The Jews of Christ’s day called themselves the true church. Jesus said, “If you do not believe that I am the One, you are going to die in your sins.” That is about the most terrible thing that could happen to anyone. If you are a Christian, death is just a moment of silence and darkness. That is not the problem. But if you die in your sins, death will be forever. One of our greatest dangers is that we will be deceived, thinking that we are part of the church because we make a profession but not having a character to back it up. Unless we live the life, we are lost. The time is coming when every eternal destiny will be fixed. May the prayer of each one of our hearts be, “Lord Jesus, help me to have a character that will coincide with my profession.”

The End

The Eternal Weight of Glory

by

To be prepared for the time into which we are entering, every treasured moment that we can spend with our Lord, we need to spend in drinking in the wonders of His love, His peace, His grace, and His goodness. Whatever may be the circumstances of the Christian, however dark and mysterious may be the ways of providence, however great the deprivation and suffering, he may look away from them all to the unseen and the eternal. The things of the present time are not considered worth mentioning when compared with the eternal weight of glory that awaits him when the warfare will be over. These very afflictions are God’s workmen ordained for the perfection of Christian character.

Paul says, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” 2 Corinthians 4:17, 18

We have been blessed in America with the most amazing political experiment in the history of mankind, outside of the theocracy of Israel when it was obedient to God. Our constitution was established for a free people who believed in the Creator and who believed that men had certain inalienable rights granted them by the Creator, rights that no government can interfere with. What an outgrowth of the principles of the gospel! We have been so blessed by God.

When, however, an apostate Protestantism loses its understanding of the gospel and unites with the papacy, there will be a persecution like no other time in the history of humanity. Just as Jesus sought to prepare His disciples for His crucifixion, I believe that we need to face the reality of what lies ahead for us. When we realize the gravity of the hour in which we are living, it will make us sensitive to the urgency of treasuring up in our soul every ray of light and every experience of love and joy with our Saviour and our Redeemer. If, in viewing it, we keep it in perspective with the superior reality of the eternal weight of glory, we may know that whatever happens to us in this world, if we are faithful, the day will come when we will walk through those pearly gates and will cast our crowns at Jesus’ feet. We will walk by the river of life and see that crystal stream that flows out from the throne of God. We will see the trunk of the tree of life on either side of the river with its branches arching over the river of the water of life. The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

What will it be like to experience the reality of worshiping in the actual presence of God and to live in a world of fadeless day, where there is no night? The light of the moon is as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun is seven times brighter than it is at noon time now. It is a world of incredible light. And, despite the fact that we have no merit coming to ourselves and that all of the works we have done have been done through His name, Jesus will honor us for them.

When a storm hits in the physical world, if you have not made preparation before hand, you are in trouble. We live in an area of the mountains where there are flash floods. One year while there was still snow on the ground, several inches of rain fell in a half-hour period of time up in the Black Hills. In some of the canyons, a torrent of water thirty feet high came rushing down. The dam broke and a flood of water, in which 272 people lost their lives, came down Rapid Creek. You have to be prepared for the storm when it hits. That is why we, as a people, must be treasuring this experience of the eternal weight of glory. If we will bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, the Holy Spirit will be given to us without measure.

There are many, many people who are going to lose their salvation because they have not learned to think correctly. There are some fundamental principles that we need to understand at this time in which we live. At the very origin of our thinking process, there must be the Word of God. The human heart must be fully in harmony with Christ and His gospel in order to understand some other very important things. If the character of Christ is not understood because our thoughts have not been brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, there are going to be a lot of misconceptions about other dimensions of human life.

One of those dimensions is the area of the nature of the church. Have you noticed that there are differing views and understandings about the church? I have a very interesting book by Reinhold Seeberg, a Lutheran scholar, who discusses Luther’s understanding of the church. It had come to the point in Luther’s day where the papacy was so controlling the minds of the people that they were like the Jews in Jesus’ day. They were afraid to even discuss certain things. You did not dare lift your head and acknowledge that you believed in the teachings of John Huss, who was burned at the stake. It was only after Luther had spent some time studying the Word of God that he finally said, “We have all been Hussites and we never even knew it.”

That Word led Luther to reexamine the whole idea of the nature of the church; and do you know what he found? He discovered the same truth that John Grosboll has been preaching for some time. He found that the foundational, non-negotiable element of the church is that inner union of a heart that believes in faith in Jesus Christ. IT is those who have this experience of salvation who make up the body of Christ. As Luther searched, he realized that, yes, there is a visible dimension to this church, but any legitimate, visible demonstration or exhibition of the church rests upon that non-negotiable foundation of the invisible union of the heart with Christ. It was the understanding that the church is made up of those who are united with Him, who are one with Him, that enabled him to break with Rome. It was because of this clear understanding that the Protestant Reformation was born.

Luther understood that a visible entity, calling itself the church but which was not grounded in this heart union with Christ, was a fraud. He went on to say that the thing which marks the true visible church is the preaching of the pure doctrine of the gospel. If false doctrine is preached, that is not the true church. This is a wonderful concept and one that we need to be anchored in.

Today we find that people are in a state of flux. The shaking is going on and it is shaking the entire movement. Those who have broken free from the human bonds in the glorious liberty of the sons of God have been advancing steadily, but they must understand that they must be solidly grounded in the Word of God so that the thought processes are correct. This has led to a division and separation from those who were content with Laodicea, satisfied with the structure.

Incidentally, I began doing a little research. Though I have not investigated this thing in depth, I found that the Roman Catholic Church talks about both a visible and an invisible church. I have a whole section on my shelves of the papal encyclicals for the last several hundred years, and I pulled down the encyclicals written by Pope Pius XII, who was the pope who signed the concordat with Hitler’s Germany. Pope Pius XII used the term “invisible” church. I found that the concept of the papacy is this: The visible head of the church on earth, which is the pope, controls the mystical body of Christ, which is the invisible dimension of the church. Whereas the Reformers said, No, Christ is the head of the church. It is the invisible union with Him that determines whether or not a person is a believer and a church member. Out of that group of believers, out of that body arises the visible church where the pure preaching of the pure doctrine of the gospel takes place and the correct administration of the sacraments.

People are confused today. What do you do with a structure that is not preaching the pure principles of the gospel, that is no longer preaching victory over sin? What do you do with a structure that teaches that one goes on in sin right up to the second coming of Christ, that it is impossible to obey? What do you do with the structure?

If you had been living in the time of Jesus, what would have been your reaction? You have listened to the leaders say, “This Man is a deceiver. He is motivated by Beelzebub. Pay no attention to Him. If you listen to Him and go along with Him, you will be thrown out of the synagogue.” Would you have had that vision of the eternal weight of glory and seen in Christ the character of the Messiah as described in the Old Testament and longed to possess it?

Before there can be an understanding of the nature of the church, there must be a deep personal experience of submission to the Word of God. Once we are thinking correctly, with our thinking founded on the Word of God, allowing nothing to divert us from submission to that Word, we are prepared to be stable and reliable in our commitment.

Do you want to be a theologian? Martin Luther said that there are three things that make a theologian. First you must have oratio. This refers to reading the Word aloud, as this makes a deeper impression upon the mind. Then you must have meditatio. You must meditate on the Word; that is when you digest the food of the Word. As Ellen White said, it is not enough to just read the letter of the Word, but the Word must be applied by the Holy Spirit. Then there must be anfechtung, a German word which refers to the application of the Word to the heart and all of the inner turmoil and struggle that take place when it runs into conflict with all of the natural tendencies as it is applied to the life. Luther said that the heart smarts under the application of the Word, but it is when the word of God is actually applied to the human heart that we really begin to have a correct theology.

When we have this experience of practical godliness, we are then prepared to understand the nature of the church. Only then are we prepared to do evangelism, to bring people to a knowledge of truth. If your theology is not right, if your experience is not right, how can you be an evangelist? You may launch out on an evangelistic project, but if there is not the inner correct thinking and understanding of bringing every thought into obedience to Christ, it may all collapse around you in ruins. The Jews crucified Christ because they had not learned to think in submission to the Word of God. They expected a different kind of Messiah, and they rejected Him because He did not meet their presuppositions, their preconditions as to what they believed the Messiah should be. In nailing Him to the cross of Calvary, the Jewish nation broke the bond of the theocracy with God.

What an awesome lesson about not digging deep enough. They did not dig deep enough in the Old Testament. They did not have the depth to understand what He was doing on the Sabbath day; therefore, they considered that He was a Sabbathbreaker. The whole book of Hebrews was written by Paul because of the misconception of the Hebrew people regarding the sanctuary and their failure, therefore, to realize that the sanctuary services on this earth were terminated and they had begun in heaven. Incidentally, because of incorrect thinking, virtually the whole Christian world have failed to correctly understand the book of Hebrews.

The Jews failed in not going deep enough to understand the kingdom, and John had to bring them a knowledge of the kingdom.

Jeremiah was sent by God to go to the very steps of the temple and tell the people that unless they started obeying God, they were going to go into captivity. (See Jeremiah 7.) He told them that to say that they had the structure as their security was a lying word.

The heathen had a perversion of the truth; but those who did inquire into the Hebrew economy, who wanted to know truth at all cost and were willing to dig deeply, came to an understanding of the knowledge of the truth, like the Magi who came to worship Jesus. At the end of time, the whole world will be shaken by the Sabbath/Sunday issue. The Sabbath will reveal those who have made their supreme allegiance to God, to his truth, to His kingdom, to all that is encompassed in the Word of God. And those who are prepared to go with man, to go with the flow of humanity in a direction that is alien to the Word of God, will accept the mark of the beast, the sign of submission to human authority over and against the authority of God.

So the whole world is going to be tested on whether or not it has gone deep enough in its experience with God. Our movement today of historic Adventism is being tested. Every individual is being tested. Ultimately, every individual in this world will be tested. Have they gone down deep and fastened themselves, riveted themselves to the Eternal Rock. Ellen White said that, “when the love of Jesus is abiding in the soul, many who are now but withered branches will become as the cedars of Lebanon ‘whose root is by the great water.’ The cedar is noted for the firmness of its roots. Not content to cling to the earth with a few weak fibers, it thrusts its rootlets, like a sturdy wedge, into the cloven rock, and reaches down deeper and deeper for strongholds to grasp.” Review and Herald, June 20, 1882

How is it with your life? Are the tendrils of the roots of your life going down into Christ? Down into the crevices of the Rock Christ Jesus, anchoring themselves? You know, rock climbers have to find ways of wedging their fingers and toes into the rock. They wedge pitons into the rock, and their life is suspended by such things. How is it with you and the Rock of Ages? Are you content with “a few weak fibers” like the palm trees that go over when the hurricanes come through; or are you like a cedar of Lebanon that has its rootlets going down like a sturdy wedge into the cloven rock, reaching down deeper and deeper for strongholds to grasp? How deep are you?

What a goodly cedar might not every follower of Christ become if he were but rooted and grounded in the truth, firmly united to the Eternal Rock. Yes, humanity is having to come to grips with how it is thinking. How deeply are you being anchored?

The End

Reformation in England

by

Descending on England like soft dew and advancing noiselessly as the light of the rising sun, the Word of God, given to the common people by Tyndale, began to work, laying the foundation for the Reformation. While there were many martyrs who would yet lay down their lives before England would fully accept the reformed faith, there were signs that popular feeling was turning against the old faith. From time to time there was destruction of public symbols. Many of the crucifixes that stood along the roadways were pulled down. Images of saints were found destroyed. Though there were a few arrests made and the perpetrators of the act hanged, in most cases they remained unknown.

As the years passed and Catherine gave Henry VIII no sons, the kings affection for his queen began to wane.

Cardinal Wolsey, archenemy of the Protestant faith, had twice been promised the Roman tiara by Charles V, the emperor and nephew of Catherine. Twice Charles broke his promise and Wolsey saw another become pope in his place. A man as proud and powerful as Wolsey could scarcely pardon such an affront. A plan to avenge himself began to form in Wolsey’s mind, though it might convulse all of Europe in the process.

The cardinal knew that Henry had harbored secret doubts about the lawfulness of his marriage to Catherine and that the king was less favorably disposed towards her than he had been in the early years of their marriage. Taking advantage of the king’s intense fear of having no heir to the throne and the apparent hopelessness of obtaining one by Catherine, Wolsey saw the means of breaking the alliance between Henry and Spain and at the same time humiliating the emperor by having removed his aunt in disgrace from being the queen. In all of his planning, Wolsey did not see that his scheme would result in his own downfall and the fall of popedom in England.

Going to the king in private, he pointed out to him that the salvation of his soul and the welfare of his kingdom were in jeopardy. Three days later, he again approached the king and told him: “Most mighty prince, you cannot like Herod, have your brother’s wife. Submit the matter to proper judges.” Wylie, The History of Protestantism, vol. 3, 375. The fact that Charles V had previously objected to an alliance with Princess Mary, the daughter of Catherine, on the grounds that she was the issue of a forbidden marriage helped to influence the king; and the pope was approached and asked for his blessing in granting Henry a divorce. The divorce would not have cost Clement VII so much as a second thought, had it not been that he greatly feared the emperor, Charles V, whose armies surrounded him.

Wolsey, made it clear to Clement and his cardinals that if the divorce were not granted, England was lost to the papacy. The fact that Charles’ armies were at that minute in retreat before the French armies gave courage to Clement, and he allowed himself to be persuaded that Charles was as good as driven out of Italy. On June 8, 1528, the pope issued a commission empowering his nuncio Campeggio and Wolsey to declare the marriage between Henry and Catherine null and void. A few days later he signed a decretal by which he himself annulled the marriage. This document he entrusted to Campeggio, instructing him to travel by slow stages, delaying as long as possible his arrival in England. If the emperor were finally beaten, the decretal was to be made public and acted upon; but should Charles recover, it was to be burned.

At last, to the great joy of the king, Campeggio arrived in England with the bull dissolving the marriage. His conscience at rest, the way was opened for Henry to contract another marriage. And so, while the newly acquired Scriptures were separating England from the bondage of the papacy, the papal decretal was serving to bind the realm even more tightly. “But like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, God’s purposes know no haste and no delay.” Desire of Ages, 31

Eight months passed before Campeggio opened his commission to consider the propriety of Henry’s proposed divorce of Catherine. On the way to England he had been overtaken with messengers from the pope with new instructions. The tide of war had changed and the armies of the emperor had triumphed. Campeggio’s instructions, therefore, were to try to persuade Catherine to enter a nunnery. Should he fail in this, he was not to decide the case but to refer it back to Rome.

Campeggio approached Catherine, but she refused to cooperate. He was left with the unhappy task of trying to convince Henry to abandon his plans for a divorce. The king became irate and asked if this was how the pope kept his word, repaying his faithful service of the past. Campeggio responded by showing the king the bull annulling the marriage, but nothing the king could say could prevail upon the legate to part with it.

After a series of delays, on June 18, 1529, a commission was opened and both the king and queen were cited to appear. The hearings lasted for about a month. It was believed by everyone that on July 23 a verdict would be announced. On the appointed day, the hall was crowded. The king himself slipped into a gallery adjoining the hall so that unobserved he might watch the proceedings. Slowly Campeggio arose. The silence grew intense. The moment was great; the fate of the papacy in England was at stake. Speaking, the nuncio adjourned the hearings until the 1st of October. The words fell on the crowded room with a stunning effect, but none were more shocked than was Henry. Clearly he saw that he was being played for a fool by the pope and that Clement cared nothing for his welfare or for the peace of his kingdom.

Of the two men who had incurred his anger—Clement and Wolsey—Wolsey was the first to feel the king’s wrath. The cardinal’s fall from favor was quickly apparent to the courtiers who were not slow to hasten to the king with additional proofs of Wolsey’s willingness to sacrifice England for the papacy. There was scarcely a nobleman at court whom Wolsey had not offended; and wherever he looked, he saw only hostility. The prospects abroad were no better for he had used both Charles the emperor and Francis, king of France, for his own purposes, plunging Europe into war. Rarely has a career climbed to such splendid heights, to end so quickly in such utter defeat.

The king was completely disgusted. Two years had been worse than wasted in dealing with Clement, for which he now had nothing to show. Charles and Clement were now fast friends, and Henry was left without a single ally on the Continent. More than that, he had been bitterly humiliated at home. The realization came to him that he had but two courses to choose from. He must either abandon the idea of a divorce or withdraw his case from the jurisdiction of Rome. The first he would not do, but the second was a course that required much consideration.

“In the annals of human history the growth of nations, the rise and fall of empires, appear as dependent on the will and prowess of man. The shaping of events seems, to a great degree, to be determined by his power, ambition, or caprice. But in the Word of God the curtain is drawn aside, and we behold, behind, above, and through all the play and counterplay of human interests and power and passions, the agencies of the all-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will.” Education, 173

Just as with the stars, an overruling hand of Providence brings men upon the stage of action at just the time they are needed to fulfill His divine purpose. Just as the most ardent foe of Protestantism was removed from the stage, two more men, each destined to play an important part in the events that were to shape the future of the nation, made their entrance.

The king, on his way to London from Grafton where he had retired to escape the vexations of mind that had resulted from the duplicity of the pope stopped to enjoy a chase in the forest. As there were too many courtiers to all be entertained in the abbey, two of his servants were entertained in the house of a citizen named Cressy. At the evening meal, they unexpectedly met a former acquaintance, Thomas Cranmer.

Cranmer, born in 1489 near Nottingham, was then a professor at Cambridge. As the teachings of Luther were stirring much controversy in England just then, Cranmer set himself to know the truth of the matter. Setting aside all other material, Cranmer was determined to know the truth from the Bible. After three years of study, without commentaries or the assistance of other humans, the darkness of scholasticism which had until now obscured his vision, cleared; and for the first time, he saw the beauty of the plan of salvation.

His two friends, knowing his eminence as a scholar and theologian, directed the conversation so as to draw from him an opinion as to the matter of the royal divorce. Speaking frankly, little dreaming that his comments would be heard outside of the room in which he spoke them, he asked, “Why go to Rome? Why take so long a road when by a shorter you may arrive at a more certain conclusion?” His friends inquired as to what approach he spoke of, and he replied: “The Scriptures. If God has made this marriage sinful, the pope cannot make it lawful.” His friends asked how one might know what the Scriptures said on this point, and the doctor replied: “Ask the universities; they will return a sounder verdict than the pope.” Wylie, The History of Protestantism, vol. 3, 392

Two days later, the words of Cranmer were related to the king. On an earlier occasion he had approached the universities, but the question he had asked was not that which Cranmer proposed. Earlier he had asked both Oxford and Cambridge what they thought of his marriage, but Cranmer was suggesting that they tell him what the Bible said of the marriage. In this proposal, Henry thought that he saw a possible solution to his dilemma, little realizing that in doing so he was accepting the formal, fundamental principle of Protestantism—appealing the case from the pope to God, from the Church to the Scriptures. Cranmer was immediately summoned to court and commanded to begin gathering the opinions of the scholars as to what the Bible taught about his marriage. Clement VII had summoned the king of England to his bar; but instead, Henry would summon the pope to the tribunal of God’s Word.

At this point, we must introduce a second man who was to play a significant role in the emancipation of England from the Roman yoke. Thomas Cromwell, after returning to England as a military adventure, became connected with Wolsey, whom he served faithfully. In Wolsey’s overthrow, which was largely the result of Wolsey’s subservience to the pope, he saw a new course set for himself. Going to Henry, with great courage and clearness, he pointed out to the king the great humiliation and embarrassment that both he and his kingdom had suffered because of their dependency on the pope. Who was the pope, he asked, that he should be monarch of England? And, who were the priests, that they should be above the law? He pointed out that for Henry to submit his case to an Italian court was to be but half a king. He raised the question as to why the king should not declare himself head of the church in his own realm. If the king were to declare himself head of the church, it would put the clergy on the same level with all the rest of his subjects. As things then stood, the clergy did, indeed, swear allegiance to the king, but they then took a second oath to the pope that virtually annulled the first and made them more the pope’s subjects than the king’s.

During the few minutes that Henry listened to these courageous words, a revolution took place in his thinking. Fixing his eyes on the speaker, he asked him if he could prove the things he had said. Anticipating such a question, Cromwell pulled from his pocket a copy of the oath every bishop was required to take. This was enough for Henry. As he listened with mingled astonishment and delight, a new future seemed to be opening to Henry.

In the days and weeks that followed, sweeping changes were instituted. The laws were changed, making the clergy amenable to the laws of the land, curbing to a large extent the abuses that had existed. An end was made to many of the payments to Rome, by which an enormous amount of wealth had been drained from the country. The law was repealed by which heretics might be burned on the sentence and by the authority of the bishop, and without writ from the king. Though this did not fully abolish the stake as a punishment for heresy, it was restricted to a less arbitrary, possibly more merciful tribunal.

It was foreseen that the new policy might eventually lead to the nation being placed under interdict; but this threat had lost much of the terrors it once had, even though it might yet cause considerable inconvenience. In order to help avoid a crisis should this take place, a law was passed that the English bishops were to have power to consecrate new bishops without license from the pope. It was forbidden from that time on for the archbishop or bishops to be nominated or confirmed by the pope.

Henry found himself in the position of fighting Rome on the one hand and Lutheranism on the other. Many crimes stained Henry’s hands, and he has been severely blamed by both Protestants and Catholics. When however, Henry’s record is compared with that of his contemporaries, Francis I and Charles V, he contrasts very favorably. Though at times cruel, he did not spill nearly as much blood as did Charles V; and he was never guilty of some of the barbarities practiced in both France and Spain. In giving to England the Bible, breaking the chains of foreign tyranny, and in destroying the monastic system, though he did these things form very mixed motives, Henry’s policies laid the groundwork for making England a Protestant nation and foremost among the nations of Europe.

On January 28, 1547, Henry VIII died, and Edward VI ascended the throne at ten years of age. During his reign, Protestantism prospered; but six short years later, when Edward died at the age of sixteen, Mary, the daughter of Catherine, became the ruling monarch of England. Without losing a day, she proceeded to undo all that had been accomplished under the reigns of her father and brother, and the night again closed around the Reformation.

 

Tyndale

by

The reformation was the result of two significant factors, a revival of learning and the return of the Word of God. While the Bible was the principle cause of the Reformation, without learning, it could not, by itself, have caused the great changes of the Reformation. Without the benefit of learning, the work that Wycliffe began in England would not have had the lasting affect it did. It would have been much like the brief bursts of light that had from time to time shone forth in earlier times; they shone for a little time, only to be crushed out by the darkness that everywhere prevailed. Times, however, were changing, and a new era was beginning.

After the death of Wycliffe, his followers traveled from one end of England to the other, spreading the gospel. Townspeople crowded around preachers of truth, and many of the nobility accepted the new teaching; some even of the royal family believed. For a time it appeared that England would accept the reformed faith.

The favorable reception with which the gospel was received encouraged Wycliffe’s followers to advance even further. Placards aimed at the priests and friars, and the abuses they defended, were placed on the walls of some of the cathedrals. In 1395, the friends of the gospel petitioned Parliament for general reforms. Then, not fully understanding the true nature of government and the truth which they were teaching, they asked Parliament to abolish celibacy and various other errors of Rome. Emboldened by early successes and the absence of the king in Ireland, they fastened their Twelve Conclusions on the gate of St. Paul’s and Westminster Abbey.

When Arundel, archbishop of York, and Baybrooke, bishop of London, had read these propositions, they quickly found their way to the king and urged him to return. On his return to London, he forbade the Parliament to take up the propositions the Wycliffites had petitioned them to consider. He then summoned before him the most influential supporters of the reformed movement and threatened them with death if they persisted in defending their opinions.

Richard had scarcely withdrawn his hand from the gospel when, as the historian says, God withdrew his hand from Richard. (See D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, book 17, chapter 9.) His cousin, Henry of Hertford, son of the famous Duke of Lancaster, who had been banished from England, suddenly returned from the Continent. Having gathered all the malcontents in England around him, he was acknowledged as king. Unhappy, Richard was deposed and confined to Pontefract castle where he soon died.

Sadly, Henry chose to become the protector of the church, exercising his power and influence to conciliate the clergy. Under his reign, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, England’s first martyrs were burned at the stake in Smithfield.

A foremost leader among the followers of Wycliffe was Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, a man highly in favor with the king. Lord Cobham caused many copies of Wycliffe’s writings to be made and circulated through the dioceses of Canterbury, Rochester, London, and Hertford. Cobham attended the preaching of the gospel ministers, and if anyone attempted to interrupt them, he threatened them with his sword.

In 1413, Henry V followed his father to the throne of England, and the clergy were not slow to denounce Cobham to him. On September 23, 1413, an ecclesiastical court tried Lord Cobham, sentencing him to death. One night he escaped from the tower where he awaited execution and made his way to Wales. He remained there until he was again arrested in 1417 and returned to London where he was burned alive.

England was to pass through more years of suffering before the gospel truth would shine forth in the soft light of tolerance. For the next few years, the humble followers of Wycliffe suffered severe persecution.

About the end of the fifteenth century, the learning that was taking place in Florence, Italy, began to make its way to England. Caxton imported printing from Germany, and the dawn began to break more fully over England.

While learning was reviving, a new dynasty succeeded to the throne; Henry Tudor became king. His mother, Countess of Richmond, was known for her piety. Among her closest friends was Montjoy, who, along with his wife, were the governor and governess of the king’s children. Montjoy had met Erasmus in Paris and now invited him to visit England. Erasmus, who was the greatest scholar of his time, was fearful of catching the plague that was then ravaging the Continent, and he gladly accepted the invitation.

One day while visiting the Montjoy home, Erasmus, was introduced to young prince Henry. The young prince could ride his horse with great skill and hurl a javelin further than any of his companions. Besides these skills, he had a taste for music and could perform on several instruments. The king had taken great care to see that his young son should not come behind in any area of learning. It was his intention that the young prince would one day become the archbishop of Canterbury. Erasmus, appreciating Henry’s aptitude, did his best to share his learning with him.

About this time, King Henry VII asked the hand of Catherine of Argone for his oldest son. Catherine was the daughter of Ferdinand, the king of Spain, and was the richest princess in Europe. The marriage of the Catholic Catherine to Arthur, however, was an ill-fated marriage that was to have a long lasting effect.

A short time after the marriage, in the early part of 1502, prince Arthur died. It soon become evident that Catherine would not become a mother, and young Henry was declared to be heir to the crown.

A difficult question now surfaced. Henry VII had received from Spain a dowry of two hundred gold ducats as a dowry for Catherine. With her husband dead, having left her without a son, the question was raised as to whether Henry VII would be obliged to return the dowry. Besides this misfortune, there was the very distinct possibility that such a rich heiress might marry a rival of England. To prevent this from taking place, Henry decided to unite her with his second son, and heir apparent to the throne. There were, however, serious objections raised. Warham, the primate, pointed out that according to Scripture, it was not proper for a man to marry his brother’s wife. (See Leviticus 20:21.)

As a solution to this dilemma, a special dispensation was sought from the pope. In December, 1503, Julius II granted a bull declaring that for the sake of preserving union between the Catholic princes, Catherine was authorized to marry the brother of her first husband. The two parties were engaged, though the marriage was delayed because of the youth of the Prince of Wales.

Soon after the engagement, the king, who had earlier lost his queen, became sick. Wondering if all of these things were judgements from God, he began to have second thoughts about the proposed marriage. Many people were still unhappy about the idea of the young prince marrying his brother’s wife and questioned the right of the pope to authorize something forbidden by God. Young Henry, learning of his father’s change of mind and taking advantage of the popular feeling that was running high, declared he would never make Catherine his wife.

On May 9, 1509, Henry VII died and the Prince of Wales became Henry VIII. Seven weeks later he married Catherine. Only eighteen years of age, and with an insatiable desire for pleasure, Henry engaged himself in one grand round of amusement.

During the Middle Ages, the orders of the church had come above the law. A member of a religious order could commit any crime but could be tried only by the church. Parliament, seeking to correct this abuse and to check the growing power of the church, in 1513 passed a law that any ecclesiastic accused of theft or murder should be tried before a secular tribunal. Exceptions, however were made in favor of bishops, priests, and deacons. In doing so, they had actually exempted nearly all clergy of the church. This however, did not satisfy the church, and Cardinal Wolsey, accompanied by a long train of priests and prelates, attained an audience with the king. With hands uplifted, Wolsey protested that it was a violation of God’s laws for a church clerk to be tried. Henry, distinctly seeing that to put the clergy above the law was to put them over the throne, replied that it was by the will of God that the kings who reigned in England were kings. Furthermore, the kings of England in time past had recognized no superior, other than God. He therefore, affirmed the right of the crown above that of the church.

The Reformation in England, to a greater extent than in the rest of Europe, was the result of the Bible. While there could have been no Reformation without God’s Word, unlike much of the rest of Europe, England had no great individuals to compare with Luther in Germany or Zwingli in Switzerland. Men of the stature of Calvin did not appear in England during the Reformation period, but the Bible was widely circulated. That which was largely responsible for the light in England was the Word—the invisible power of the invisible God.

Erasmus left England and returned to the Continent where he completed his work on the Greek New Testament. When he published his finished work, he little realized the impact it would have on the world. When some of his friends questioned the wisdom of the work he had set himself to accomplish, he replied: “‘If the ship of the church is to be saved from being swallowed up by the tempest, there is only one anchor that can save it: it is the heavenly Word, which issuing from the Father, lives, speaks, and works still in the gospel’….Erasmus, like Caiaphas, prophesied without being aware of it.” Ibid., book 18, chapter 1

The clergy were horrified. They pointed to some passages where the differences were most glaring and accused Erasmus of trying to place himself above Saint Jerome in seeking to correct the Latin Vulgate. “Look here! This book calls upon men to repent, instead of requiring them, as the Vulgate does, to do penance! (Matthew 4:17)” Ibid.

On none of his works had Erasmus worked so carefully. He had compared all of the best manuscripts. He had corrected many obscurities and errors found in the Vulgate and had even placed in his version a list of the errors he had found. Nothing else went as far to prepare the way for the Reformation as the Bible being restored in its purity.

As the time for the dawning of the Reformation approached, Providence worked to prepare the way for the coming day. In 1484, about a year after the birth of Luther and about the time Zwingli first saw the light, William Tyndale was born to the southwest of Gloucester. At a very early age he attended Oxford, where Erasmus had many friends. Here he was introduced to the Greek New Testament, which profoundly affected his life. He later went to Cambridge but left there in 1519.

The spiritual revival that was beginning to gain ground in England because of the introduction of the Greek New Testament filled the clergy with apprehension. They were not in such a position of strength as to dare attack the universities, so they turned their attention to the more humble Christians.

Tyndale, after leaving Oxford and Cambridge, obtained employment as a tutor for the children of Lord and Lady Walsh. Sir John Walsh had made a fine showing in the tournaments of the court and by this means had gained the favor of the king. Many men of note and learning as well as church dignitaries, found a welcome at their home.

Behind their mansion was a small chapel where Tyndale would preach on Sundays. Tydale explained the Scriptures so clearly that his hearers felt as though they were listening to the apostles themselves. Soon, however, the small church became too small for the interest that was aroused, and Tyndale began to preach from place to place. No sooner would he leave one place than the priests would follow him, seeking to undo all that he had done, threatening to expel from the church anyone who dared listen to him. When Tyndale returned, finding the field laid waste by the enemy, he exclaimed; “‘What is to be done? While I am sowing in one place, the enemy ravages the field I have just left. I cannot be everywhere. Oh! If Christians possessed the Holy Scriptures in their own tongue, they could of themselves withstand these sophists. Without the Bible it is impossible to establish the laity in the truth.’” Ibid., chapter 4. From that point on, Tyndale began to dream of giving the Bible to England in the common language of the people.

The first triumph of the truth was in the home of Lord and Lady Walsh. As Sir John and his wife began to accept the gospel, they became disgusted with the priests. The clergy were not so often invited to Sodbury, and when they did come, they no longer met with the same welcome. Soon they could think of nothing but how they might drive Tyndale from the diocese.

A storm was beginning to build. A formal complaint was filed, but a judicial inquiry into Tyndale’s conduct presented some serious problems. The king’s champion-at-arms was a patron of Tyndale’s and Sir Anthony Poyntz, Lady Walsh’s brother, was sheriff of the county. It was, therefore, decided that the most prudent thing that could be done would be to call a general conference of the clergy. Tyndale obeyed the summons to appear, but recognizing what was planned for him, sought the strength and help that could come from God alone.

Before the assembled church dignitaries, when his turn came to speak, Tyndale, in a calm and Christian manner, administered the chancellor a severe reprimand. This so exasperated the chancellor that he gave way to his passion, treating Tyndale as though he were a dog, whereupon Tyndale, required of him that he produce witnesses to support the charges. Not one of those assembled dared to come forward. Tyndale was, therefore, allowed to return quietly to Sodbury.

When the priests saw that their plot to silence the Reformer had failed, they commissioned one of the celebrated members of the clergy to undertake the task of converting Tyndale. The Reformer answered his opponent so well from the Greek Testament that the latter was left speechless. He then exclaimed: “‘Well then! It were better to be without God’s laws than the pope’s.’ Tyndale, who did not expect so plain and blasphemous a confession, made answer: ‘And I defy the pope and all his laws!’ and then, as if unable to keep his secret, he added: ‘If God spares my life, I will take care that a ploughboy shall know more of the Scriptures than you do.’” Ibid.

For some time, the position of Lord and Lady Walsh had been as a barrier protecting the Reformer from the malice of his enemies, but the enmity of the clergy was so great that Tyndale realized they would stop at nothing to interrupt his work of translating the Scriptures. Sorrowfully, he bade his host and hostess farewell and left to search for a safer retreat from which to pursue his work.

Tyndale made his way to London where he hoped to gain the patronage of Tonstall, the bishop of London. Tonstall, who was a learned man, was a friend of letters and the gospel. For a time, he had managed to walk a thin line between the two sides. Though learned, Tonstall lacked courage; and when forced to choose between the ignorant and bigoted priests and learning, clerical interests prevailed and he refused Tyndale employment. Greatly disappointed, Tyndale turned away.

Among those who had heard Tyndale speak was a rich merchant named Humphrey Monmouth. Monmouth invited the poor man to come live with him, and for the next year Tyndale pursued his work of translation in Monmouth’s home. Soon, however, persecution broke out in England and Tyndale, foreseeing an interruption to his work, left England.

From London, the Reformer made his way to Hamburg, and eventually to Cologne, France, where he continued his work. At last he took his prepared manuscripts to a printer and the actual printing was begun. Before the work had progressed far, Tyndale’s secret became known to the clergy and he was forced to flee, taking with him his precious manuscripts.

About the close of the year 1525, the first English New Testaments made their way across the Channel to England, hidden among the cargo of five different merchants. In spite of the strict vigilance exercised by the English authorities, the Bibles were successfully brought into the country. Thus, the Word of God, first given to the learned by Erasmus in 1517, Tyndale gave to the common people in 1526.

It was not Tyndale’s edition alone that was entering England. A Dutch house, knowing the desire for the Bible, printed an edition of 5,000 of Tyndale’s translation and sent them to England. These were soon sold and two more editions followed. Tyndale was able to follow these with a new and more accurate edition. This edition was printed in a smaller and more portable form, filling the clergy with great dismay. They quickly found that in endeavoring to prevent the circulation of the Bible, they were attempting a work that was beyond their ability to accomplish. The foundation of the reformed church was being laid in England by the diffusion of the Scriptures.

Tyndale was eventually betrayed into the hands of his enemies. After having suffered many months of imprisonment, he witnessed for his faith by a martyr’s death. Just before he died, his last prayer was that God might open the eyes of the king of England.

In a most unusual way, that prayer was answered. In 1538, Henry VIII signed an order appointing that a copy of the Bible was to be placed in every parish church, available for all to read. That edition become known as the Coverdale Bible, but it was largely the work of Tyndale. Within two years the edition was sold out and another one was printed. How different things were than they had been but two years before when anyone who had a Bible could only read it in secret, where none might see him.

Though Tyndale did not live to see the event, the weapons he prepared enabled others to carry forward the standard of truth, changing for all time the course of history.

The End

Children in Whom is No Blemish

by

“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it….And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge.” Daniel 1:1, 3, 4

As I read these verses in Daniel chapter 1, I noticed the statement, “children in whom was no blemish.” The statement made me think of the description of the people in 1 Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.” In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, he depicts this church that Christ loves, “and gave Himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians 5:25-27

“The life of Daniel is an inspired illustration of what constitutes a sanctified character. It represents a lesson for all, and especially for the young. A strict compliance with the requirements of God is beneficial to the health of body and mind. In order to reach the highest standard of moral and intellectual attainments, it is necessary to seek wisdom and strength from God and to observe strict temperance in all the habits of life.” Sanctified Life, 23

Sanctification is obedience to the commandment of God. “True sanctification is harmony with God, oneness with Him in character. It is received through obedience to those principles that are the transcript of His character.” Testimonies, vol. 6, 350. It is God’s desired purpose to implant in humanity Christ’s nature, His character. This is the life and character we see in Daniel. Not only was he obedient to the moral law of God, the Ten Commandments, but he was obedient also to the laws of health. “In the experience of Daniel and his companions, we have an instance of the triumph of principle over temptation to indulge the appetite. It shows us that through religious principle young men may triumph over the lusts of the flesh and remain true to God’s requirements, even though it cost them a great sacrifice.” Sanctified Life, 23

When Daniel was instructed that he must eat the king’s provisions of meat and wine for three years, he purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s dainties. Melzar, the eunuch in charge of Daniel, tried to persuade him by saying, “I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? Then shall he make me endanger my head to the king.” Daniel 1:10

Melzar was deceived into believing that meat and an abundance of food is necessary for good health and that a simple diet, a vegetarian diet, will result in poor health and physical weakness. Similarly, today, the majority of the people living in the U.S. have been deceived by the beautiful poster hanging on our school room walls displaying the “Four Basic Food Groups.” Meat and dairy products occupy two of the four food groups, thus emphasizing that in order to have good health, we must include in our diets six to eight servings daily of foods that contain high amounts of saturated fat, cholesterol, disease, and environmental contaminants. Animal products and rich dainties are eaten regularly by Americans, and look at the results. Obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, colon problems, and diabetes have plagued our country in epidemic proportions. Not only adults by young children also are suffering from obesity, acne, rotting teeth, and high cholesterol at very young ages, because of lack of exercise and poor dietary habits. Today, my friends, there is the same temptation facing God’s people in regard to diet as was faced by Daniel in Babylon; it is called the Standard American Diet. The first letter of each of the three words Standard American Diet reveals its quality—SAD.

It is sad to see fast food restaurants like McDonalds, Burger King, and Carl’s Jr. in nearly every city in America, feeding the people the diet of Babylon. Donuts and coffee, junk food, ice cream, and animal flesh are the staple of the American diet. Is it any wonder why over half of Americans are considered clinically obese?

Paul warned his brethren in Romans 12:1, 2, concerning the condition in which they were to keep their bodies. “I beseech you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” In these two verses there are three points on which I would like to elaborate: First, is it possible to “present our bodies a living sacrifice unto God”? The Bible says, “this is our reasonable service.” Second, Paul not only pleads with us to do this, but also warns us not to be conformed to the world. Beloved, have you considered that being conformed to the world includes our eating and looking like the world, not only in our dress, but also by our physical appearance? Third, Paul admonishes us to be renewing our minds that we may prove, or demonstrate, God’s acceptable and perfect will to mankind. Oh, friends, as those who claim to be God’s remnant church, we need to know that “a close sympathy exists between the physical and the moral nature. The standard of virtue is elevated or degraded by the physical habits. Excessive eating of the best food will produce a morbid condition of the moral feelings. And if the food is not the most healthful, the effects will be still more injurious. Wrong habits of eating and drinking lead to errors in thought and action. Indulgence of appetite and spiritual powers.” Counsels on Diet and Foods, 62

Paul understood the close sympathy between the physical, the mental, and the moral nature. The Spirit of Prophecy gives us a most solemn declaration on page 63 of the same book. “It is impossible for you to increase in spiritual strength while your appetites and passions are not under perfect control….The brain nerve energy is benumbed and almost paralyzed by overeating.” My dear Adventist friends, please stand up and take notice. “The brain nerves which communicate with the entire system are the only medium through which heaven can communicate to man and affect his inmost life.” Testimonies, vol. 2, 347

In order to have a clear mind, there must be good circulation of the blood. The blood carries nutrients and oxygen to all of our body tissues and organs; and when we eat a high fat diet, the blood becomes thick and the circulation is impaired. A high fat, high cholesterol diet and lack of exercise are two of the contributors to heart disease, the number one killer in America. In fact, in 1987, C. Everett Coop, the Surgeon General of the United States, announced publicly that of the 2.1 million people who die in this country every year, 1.5 million are dying from diet related disease. Also, on July 1, 1992, The American Heart Association declared, “Lack of exercise is a major health risk factor for heart disease, ranking it with smoking, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. A poor diet and lack of exercise will affect your circulation. If your circulation is not good, your brain will be affected—and the mind is the only organ by which heaven communicates with man.

As we return to the story of Daniel, we read, “Daniel’s clearness of mind and firmness of purpose, his strength of intellect in acquiring knowledge, were due in a great degree to the plainness of his diet in connection with his life of prayer.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 515, 516. “The plainness of his diet” consisted of “pulse” and “water.” He refused flesh foods and wisely chose a vegetarian diet and pure water. Interestingly, this is the diet that John the Baptist ate in his preparation for the immense trials ahead. He ate locust and honey and drank the pure water of the hills. Both of these men of God, in preparing for the tests ahead, ate, in their most natural state, the simple foods…provided—quite the contrast to the rich diet of Nebuchadnezzar. Both of these men followed the diet instructions that God had sent through their parents, a diet that Harvard Medical School reported on in April 22, 1991, saying that eating red meat daily increases colon cancer risk and men eating low-fat high fiber diets, much less red meat, and more vegetables, were 33-50% less likely to get polyps than men on high fat, low fiber diets. Science is fast coming of age. Research is pointing clearly and consistently to a vegetarian diet being the best for men today.

Daniel, in his determination to remain faithful to the laws of health, requested a ten day trial of only pulse and water. He was granted his request, and while Daniel and his companions ate of the simple diet, others of the young men ate of the king’s dainties. He strictly followed principle rather than the demands of a powerful earthly potentate. By Daniel’s obedience to the laws of God, which included the laws of his being, he was a fitting example of “children in whom was no blemish.”

In the Old Testament sanctuary service, the sinner could bring a lamb as his offering, a lamb without blemish. In Deuteronomy 15:21, we read, “And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the Lord thy God.” The sacrifice had to be flawless or it was rejected. After all, the sacrificial lamb was to represent “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” 1 Peter 1:19

Is it possible to present our bodies to God, holy, acceptable, and without blemish? This was a question that I pondered for some time. I was familiar with 1 Corinthians 15:53, which says that when Christ shall come “this corruptible must put on incorruption.” How then could I, with poor eyesight and a bad back, present myself to God a living sacrifice without blemish? My physical imperfections will most likely be with me until my change comes. As I prayed and searched for an answer to this dilemma, God revealed it to me. I found the answer in the following passages from the Spirit of Prophecy: “In the ancient Jewish service it was required that every sacrifice would be without blemish. In the text we are told to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, unto God, which is our reasonable service. We are God’s workmanship….There are many who are educated in the sciences, and are familiar with the theory of the truth, who do not understand the laws that govern their own being. God has given us faculties and talents; and it is our duty, as his sons and daughters, to make the best of use of them. If we weaken these powers of mind or body by wrong habits of indulgence of appetite, it will be impossible for us to honor God as we should.” Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, 15

“God requires the body to be rendered a living sacrifice to Him, not a dead or dying sacrifice….All should be very careful to preserve the body in the best condition of health, that they may render to God perfect service.” Counsels on Diet and Foods, 21

“Our first duty, one of which we owe to God, to ourselves, and to our fellow men, is to obey the laws of God, which include the laws of health.” Ibid. In fact, if “I violate the laws God has established in my being, I am to repent and reform, and place myself in the most favorable condition.” Medical Ministry, 230. And finally, “sanctification is not merely a theory, an emotion, or a form of words, but a living, active principle, entering into the everyday life. It requires that our habits of eating, drinking, and dressing be such as to secure the preservation of physical, mental, and moral health, that we may present to the Lord our bodies—not an offering corrupted by wrong habits but—‘a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God.’” Counsels on Health, 67

Here was my answer. My duty to God, in presenting myself without blemish, is to keep my body in the very best condition as possible and to obey the laws of health! Ellen White writes, “Christ looks at the spirit, and when he sees us carrying our burden with faith, his perfect holiness atones for our shortcomings. When we do our best, he becomes our righteousness. It takes every ray of light that God sends to us to make us the light of the world.” Letter 33, 1889. Jesus atones for my shortcomings and becomes my righteousness as I do my best; that is, by the grace of God, I live up to all the light that he has revealed to me. Beloved, are you obeying the laws of your being: Are you exercising regularly and eating a diet that is to be of the most simple kind? Are you obeying the light that our Lord has so graciously given to us on health reform—modern manna from heaven? We claim to be God’s remnant church; and as the Jews were to have an advantage because to them were committed the oracles of God, we, the Seventh-day Adventist people, have been entrusted with these oracles again. They not only contain the light on the Ten Commandments, but also the light on the laws of health. “It is a duty to know how to preserve the body in the very best condition of health, and it is a sacred duty to live up to the light which God has graciously given. It we close our eyes to the light for fear we shall see our wrongs, which we are unwilling to forsake, our sins are not lessened but increased. If light is turned from in one case, it will be disregarded in another. It is just as much a sin to violate the laws of our being as to break one of the Ten Commandments, for we cannot love the Lord with all our heart, mind, and soul, and strength while we are loving our appetites, our tastes, a great deal better then we love the Lord.” Testimonies, vol. 2, 70. My friends, this is our reasonable service.

It is interesting to note that the words reasonable service can also be translated from the original Greek, “religious worship.” Also, it is no coincidence that sanctuary language is used in Romans 12. To present ourselves to God a living sacrifice, to keep our bodies in the very best condition, is part of our religious worship to him. Remember, health reform is one branch of the word to fit and prepare a people for the coming of the Lord. As Daniel obeyed the health laws, he experienced greater physical stamina and an increased power of endurance. As he obeyed the laws of health, he was blessed with wisdom and understanding. His mind received the renewing and God could then fill Daniel’s undefiled temple with the fullness of His Spirit. It was then that the obedient, self-sacrificing man of God was blessed with the gifts of the spirit—visions and dreams.

Friends, are we loving our appetites a great deal more than we love the Lord? Are we spending as much time praying and studying as we are eating and drinking? Are we practicing the eight laws of health that we can be fit vessels undefiled and filled with the holy Spirit to demonstrate to a dark world all the light that God has entrusted to us? Are we accepting with readiness the light that God has blessed us with on health, or are we compromising with the diet and lifestyle of Babylon? Are we waiting for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the latter rain, while we present to God our bodies as an unacceptable, blemished sacrifice?

What if Daniel and his companions had made a compromise with those heathen officers and had yielded to the pressure of the occasion by eating and drinking as was customary with the Babylonians? That single instance of departure from principle would have weakened their sense of right and their abhorrence of wrong. Indulgence of appetite would probably have involved the sacrifice of physical vigor, clearness of intellect, and spiritual power. One wrong step would probably have led to others, until, their connection with Heaven being severed, they would have been swept away by temptation.” Sanctified Life, 23

Friends, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of obedience to the laws of health. Again and again, I am finding statements from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that the physical, mental, and spiritual are interrelated, and many times in this order. If the physical body is not being kept in the best condition, the mind cannot be renewed and the spiritual discernment becomes impossible. As in the paragraph above, notice the order of events: “physical vigor, clearness of intellect, and spiritual power.”

In Daniel 1, the experience of Daniel and his three friends, in strictly following the laws of health passed their first test; and the four young men were thus fitted for the extreme trials ahead. In Daniel 3, their second test included the command to bow down to the image of gold or to be tossed into the fiery furnace. The third test is recorded in Daniel 6, where a firm decree was established, “that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.” Daniel 6:7. Did Daniel compromise with the demands of the Babylonian leaders? Brothers and sisters will you stand when you are commanded to worship the mark of the beast or be killed? Will you obey the dictates of man when you are commanded to forsake the law of our God, the Sabbath? Our obedience to the laws of health will determine whether we will obey God or man! Remember, this was the first test for Daniel, not the last. The words of the prophet are clear, “the controlling power of appetite will prove the ruin of thousands, when, if they had conquered on this point, they would have had moral power to gain the victory over every other temptation of Satan.” Counsels on Diet and Foods, 59. “The reason why many of us will fall in the time of trouble is because of laxity in temperance and indulgence of appetite….Nine tenths of the wickedness among the children of today is caused by intemperance in eating and drinking. Adam and Eve lost Eden through the indulgence of appetite, and we can only regain it by the denial of the same.” Temperance, 150

The life of Daniel, a man in whom was no blemish, is on record for our admonition to whom the end of the world is come. By beholding Daniel, I realize the full potential that we may become in Christ—a people without blemish, a people who “stand without fault before the throne of God.” I know that I will not be eight feet tall if I am alive when the Lord comes; but this I do know, that “our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and if we fail to do all we can to place the body in the very best condition of health, we are robbing God of the honor due to Him frosm the beings He has created.” Medical Ministry, 295

Beloved, may our prayer be that by the grace of God we may “come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Ephesians 4:13. May our prayer be that we will be this church, “the children in whom was no blemish.”

The End