SINFUL INDEPENDENCE?

by Marshall J. Grosboll

The Cooperative Spirit of Heaven

In the great family of heaven, each one has his own individual personality, each has freedom, yet no one misuses that freedom to act independently, for all are held together by the cords of humility toward self and love toward one another. As the bee extracts the honey and leaves the pollen, so in heaven, each one receives in order to give — each works so as to benefit one another. Thus there is perfect harmony, yet with each maintaining his own identity, uniqueness and function.

Even God does not act independently. In fact, we should say especially God! Everything He does is for the well being of His creatures. In all that He does, He elicits the love and cooperation of those He has created. Consider the creation of Adam. As soon as he was created, God set him to work to assist Him. God asked him to name the animals. How much easier it would have been for God to have named the animals without Adam’s help. When Adam was created God programmed his mind with words and language — but He intentionally left out of his vocabulary the names of the animals so that Adam could unite with Him, as far as possible, in the work He was doing. The Bible says, “We are God’s fellow workers” (1 Corinthians 3: 91).

Then God went far beyond merely having Adam name the animals. He told Adam and Eve that they and their descendants were to continue the work that God had begun of populating the earth. God created just enough people so that they could continue His work. Again, how much easier it would have been for God to simply create, in a moment of time, enough people to populate the earth at the beginning — and they would have all been perfect! No one would have been raised by faulty parents! What a risk God took, and how poorly most people have done in carrying on the procreation work of God by the way they have raised their children. Yet, in spite of failure, God has not taken the responsibility away from the human family. God would rather suffer loss than to act alone without our cooperation. God has gone to more trouble than any other being to elicit our cooperation, calling us “kings and priests” (Revelation 1: 6), rather than to act alone and independent.

As it was on earth with Adam and Eve, so it was in heaven with the angels. God did not create a hierarchy or a dictatorship, but a family. That is why there was a war m heaven. When Satan chose to rebel, God could have simply spoken the word, and Satan would have been banished from the society of heaven. But God did not do that, for the angels were His fellow workers, and even in this crisis situation He did not take the reins into His own hands, but allowed the angels, as far as possible, to decide the issue (Revelation 12: 7).

Even after the war, Satan seems to have been allowed to come back to represent the earth at the councils of heaven. In the book of Job, God presented Job’s fidelity and challenged Satan’s claim to represent the earth. Satan did not represent all the inhabitants of the earth, but evidently the angels allowed him to remain. But that time of tolerance ended at the cross.

I have often contemplated the account by Ellen White where she was shown that, “All the angels that are commissioned to visit the earth hold a golden card, which they present to the angels at the gates of the city as they pass in and out.” —EW, 392~ Why must the an- gels who visit the earth present a golden card at the gate? Before the crucifixion of Christ, the angels continued to allow Satan access on what he considered official business (Job 1), because many still had some sympathy for him. At the cross Satan’s “disguise was torn away. . . . Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts and before them accuse Christ’s brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken 3 .” —DA, 761.

Thus the angels decided that Satan could no longer visit heaven as the representative of earth. Jesus was henceforth to be the only representative of this planet. But how were they to keep him out? They evidently decided to issue golden identification cards to all who were commissioned to visit the earth, which they were to present upon exit and entry. Heaven is a very real place, and the angels have far more to do with the running of the government than most realize. Heaven is not run like a communist hierarchy, or like the totalitarian government of Satan, but as a loving family, each with his own part to act, each with a voice, and each with total faith in the wisdom of the Father.

Today there is a judgment going on in heaven. And why a judgment? Does God need a judgment? Of course not! He knew who would be saved and who would be lost from the very foundation of the earth! (Ephesians 1: 4; Isaiah 46: 10). The reason there is a judgment is because God is not running a hierarchical dictatorship. He has made the beings of heaven His fellow workers, and in order for them to be a practical part of the process, they need a judgment. They do not have all knowledge like God has. They must keep records and review them. God could have decided the eternal destiny of each, with complete accuracy, in a moment of time. But what He could do instantly by Himself takes much longer when He involves the cooperation of the angels. He is willing to expend the extra effort and energy in order to work with His angels rather than apart from them.

What a lesson for parents. How much easier it is, when children are young, for parents to make the beds, do the dishes, fix the food, and change the oil in the car by themselves without the help of the little ones. The “help” the little ones give takes so much more of the parents time! It is so much easier to simply tell a child to go off and play for awhile or to watch TV, while we do the work without him. But that is not the way God works. He says: “I want the cooperation of men and angels, even if it costs more work, trouble, and heartache.”

A Change Takes Place in Heaven

So heaven is built on the principle of cooperation and unity, and thus it had always been throughout all the ceaseless ages of eternity, until one arose to begin his own independent ministry and organization. This was sinful independence for it sought to work apart from God and His plans and organization. Independent ministry and self- supporting work were never a part of God’s original plan. But there was one who came along in a perfect environment, a perfect government, and began his own ministry in competition and opposition to the regular and established ministry of heaven which had been in operation for ages.

When that spirit of independence came to earth, this world entered into the darkness and misery of sin. The first great temptation of man was to be independent. The Bible says, “And the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God does know that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’ (Genesis 3: 4, 5). Thus the serpent tempted Eve with the thought that she would be unwise enough to act independently, knowing good and evil herself, without having to depend upon God for guidance. Multitudes still cling to this lie.

Thus this earth became a part of the independent ministry of Satan, which made things rather confusing on planet earth, because nearly the whole population of earth, with a few exceptions such as Noah, became loyal to Satan’s independent ministry. Now those who remained loyal to God, became themselves independent of the rebellion that persisted on earth. Thus those who were independent with Satan became the establishment, while those who humbly remained loyal to God appeared to be independent. The appearance was the opposite of the reality.

God’s Training for Heaven

God’s plan has always been for humble cooperation. God is trying to teach each one of us the essential character traits of humility and submission. This is the character of heaven. Every experience of life is to instill within us these precious traits of character so that we can fit into that society which Satan forfeited because of his pride and independence. That is why Paul tells us in Romans 13 that we are to learn to be submissive to the civil government and to obey their laws. Ephesians 6: 5, 6 tells us that we are to learn to be submissive to our employers. That is what is fundamentally wrong with labor unions. We can choose where we want to work, and whether we want to continue to work in a certain place, but, while there, we are to “be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh.”

Peter tells us that the younger are to be submissive to the elders, that the elders are to learn the principle of submission also, and are to show themselves thus unto the younger. “Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, ‘for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble’ “ (1 Peter 5: 5, 6). A lot of people don’t like the idea of submission, unless they are the ones who are “on top.” Many husbands revel in Paul’s counsel for wives to “submit to your own husbands,” but they overlook the verse before which says that both husbands and wives are to submit to each other. Ephesians 6 tells us that children are to learn the lesson of submission. God wants everyone to be saved — husbands, children, workers, older people and younger people, and thus he is trying to teach each one the lessons that will allow them to fit within the society of heaven.

The spirit of humble submissiveness will be exemplified in the life and character of the 144,000. The Bible describes them as “the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes” (Revelation 14: 4). There is no spirit of independence here. And yet they appear to be independent to human appearance, for “these are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins.” Women, in the Bible, represents churches and religions, and so the 144,000 are those who are not defiled with false religion and the false religious philosophies that predominate throughout the world. They are independent from man- made tradition, yet the Bible says they are “followers” — followers of the Lamb.

Appearance is not Always the Reality

From the beginning of sin, those who have remained submissive and dependent upon God by “following the Lamb, wherever He goes,” have found themselves out of step and independent from the world. Think of Noah. He was given the warning of the coming flood and he determined to follow the Lamb and to build the ark as God had directed. Yet, the rest of the world remained independent of God and His counsels. The churches and religious leaders counseled and legislated against the project. Only Noah and his family remained submissive to God. How alone and isolated Noah and his family seemed. How aloof from counsel he appeared to be! How independent they were accused of being! And yet they were the only truly non- independent ministry on earth.

Satan scored a major victory in the days of Noah when he succeeded in causing the whole world to join him in his independence. Yet his greatest victory came when he caused the whole church, God’s church, to be- come independent of God and of His counsels. God established His church with the children of Israel, and He led them out of Egypt by the hand of Moses. But the people rebelled against Moses and the leadership of God.

From the very beginning the “church in the wilderness” (Acts 7: 38) showed their independence from the Lord’s direction. Upon the return of the faithless spies: “All the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, and the whole congregation (the Old Testament word for church, see Acts 7: 38), said to them. . . Why has the Lord brought us to this land to fall by the sword, that our wives and children should become victims? Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt. So they said to one another, ‘let us select a leader and return to Egypt’ “( Numbers 14: 2- 4). This was the first great nominating committee of the Hebrew church. They were going to select their own leader instead of the one God had chosen for them.

Caleb and Joshua remonstrated with the people, saying: “Do not rebel against the Lord, nor fear the people of the land, for they are our bread; their protection has departed from them, and the Lord is with us. Do not fear them. And all the congregation said to stone them with stones” (verses 9, 10). Caleb and Joshua, m this instance, became independent of the organized church — they did not accept the leader the church was choosing nor the decisions they were making — and so the church chose to disfellowship them by stoning! (Stoning is the ultimate in disfellowshiping.) Thus those who refused to become independent from God became independent from an independent church. And the penalty for independence from the church was disfellowshipment by stoning.

Now, the question at stake is, who was right — those who remained loyal to the church or those who appeared to be independent and were therefore disfellowshiped? It is easy to give the answer when looking back at the Bible account, but not so easy when faced with the situation.

In the old covenant types, God often revealed His pleasure or displeasure immediately, as a “type” of the future reward and punishment of the new covenant which will be fulfilled at the last judgment (Revelation 22: 12). In this case, the unfaithful leaders “died by the plague before the Lord.” Yet, so entrenched was this spirit of independence and insubordination in the heart of the people, that not even the direct intervention of God seemed to be able to uproot it from their midst — and yet they thought they were just right, the holy people of God!

Moses Accused of Being Independent

Two chapters later in the book of Numbers, this sinful spirit of independence sprang up again in the rebellion of Korah. “Now Korah the son of Izar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses with some of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, representatives of the congregation, men of renown” (Numbers 16: 1, 2).

Like our church, the Israelites had a representative form of government. Today, when representatives of the church come together, we call it a constituency meeting, or a General Conference.

These “representatives of the congregation” were “men of renown,” and Korah was their chosen leader, with Dathan and Abiram his assistants. These leaders of the people “gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, ‘You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourself above the congregation of the Lord? ‘ (Numbers 16: 3).

Moses and Aaron were accused of being independent from the church, and taking too much upon themselves without the approval of the church. After all, it was God’s church that Korah and his associates represented, and the church, they said, was holy, for God had chosen it for Himself. Surely, when the entire church, through their appointed representatives, decides on something, it is as the voice of God to the people! How could Moses and Aaron not come under the authority of the church and the leaders the church had chosen? How could they justify their “independent” ways?

Yet, Moses and Aaron were not independent — again, as in Noah’s situation, they were the only truly non- independent ones within the church. Appearance was again deceptive. The church body had become independent, whereas those accused of being independent were the ones who had remained loyal and true to the government of heaven.

A peripheral reading of this story might lead to a false conclusion. I have heard ministers and leaders liken their ministry to that of Moses, and anyone who is not in harmony with their plans or the plans of the conference, regardless of their reasons or convictions, are likened to Korah, Dathan and Abiram. But, in writing to the leaders of the church, Ellen White warns:

“The question of religious liberty needs to be clearly comprehended by our people in more ways than one. With outstretched arms men are seeking to steady the ark, and the anger of the Lord is kindled against them because they think that their position entitles them to say what the Lord’s servant’s shall do and what they shall not do. They think themselves competent to decide what shall be brought before God’s people, and what shall be repressed. The Lord inquires of them, “Who has required this at your hand? Who has given you the burden of being conscience for My people? By what spirit are you guided and controlled when you seek to restrict their liberty?

I have not chosen you as I chose Moses — as men through whom I can communicate divine instruction to My people. I have not placed the lines of control in your hands. The responsibility that rested on Moses — of voicing the words of God to the people — has never been delegated to you.” —MR, # 1335, Aug. 1, 1895.

It should be noted that Moses was not the elected leader of the Children of Israel — he was never elected by the people. Rather, Moses was the one whom the people rejected (Acts 7: 35).

Moses was a type of Christ (Deuteronomy 18: 15), whom the leaders of the church hated and crucified. He was a prophet, chosen by God. The elected leader whom the people chose was Korah! “And Korah gathered all the congregation (or church) against” Moses and Aaron “at the door of the tabernacle of meeting” (Numbers 16: 19).

Did God recognize Korah’s position simply be- cause the whole church was behind him? Would to God that we, today, would remember the lessons of Korah and seek more for the will and direction of God rather than for position, victory at the polls, or referendum mandates. Will we learn the lesson that no committee or conference or power on earth has the authority to change one precept of truth, as the beast power claims to be able to do? God is seeking the cooperation of His fellow workers on earth, but He has not abdicated the throne, nor will He allow mankind to develop and assume kingly and controlling power over His heritage, which are His purchased possession.

John was Independent of Sanhedrin

When God called John the Baptist, a prophet equal with Moses (Matthew 11: 11), to prepare the way for Jesus’ first coming, leaders like Korah were in charge of the church. Though John was faithful to the church, he did not recognize the authority of these self- appointed leaders, and he fearlessly reproved them for their pride and arrogance. “John had not recognized the authority of the Sanhedrin by seeking their sanction for his work; and he had reproved rulers and people, Pharisees and Sadducees alike.” —DA, 132.

John’s calling and authority did not come from man, but from God, and John the Baptist respected the authority of heaven. The Sanhedrin, the highest human authority in the church, had tried to assume prerogatives and authority that belonged to God alone, thus making themselves independent of God, and John the Baptist did not join in their independence by submitting himself to them. Moreover, he reproved rulers and elders just as well as the common people — he was no respecter of people. Though some would consider that criticism of the leadership, John recognized clearly that sin in one was as bad as sin in another, and public sins that were unrepentant of needed to be publicly reproved.

When John the Baptist “saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them . . . . “bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘we have Abraham as our father, ‘ for I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire’ “ (Matthew 3: 7- 10).

John taught the people not to put full faith in any system, profession of personal piety, or institution — for “every tree which does not bear good fruit” will be “cut down.” Every independent person, congregation, conference, institution, or ministry, however large or small, that becomes independent from God, will be cut down. “God has a church. . . . It is the people who love God and keep His commandments.” —Upward Look, p. 315. God’s church, His people who are totally dependent upon Him and who “follow the lamb wherever He goes” (Revelation 14: 4), will go through to the end, and they will go through unitedly as a body of Christ. Yet it must be understood that the movement is much more than systems, buildings, and legal documents. When the Seventh- day Adventist headquarters at Battle Creek became independent, God burned it down, but the church itself survived, and will ultimately triumph. We want to triumph with it. God is not going to start a new church or a new movement. But the movement must be purified from every element of independence from Him.

The Jews thought that because they could trace their lineage and system back to Abraham, they were secure. But John said that God was not dependent upon them to have a people — He could take the stony hearts of the Gentiles and graft them into the true stock. In commenting upon John’s message, Ellen White elaborates:

“Not by its name, but by its fruit, is the value of a tree determined. If the fruit is worthless, the name (Jew, Israel, Christian, or Seventh- day Adventist) cannot save the tree from destruction. John declared to the Jews that their standing was to be decided by their character and life. Profession was worthless. If their life and character were not in harmony with God’s law, they were not His people.” —DA, 107.

Somehow John did not seem to understand, as the leaders did, that the church (which to them meant the visible structure that was under their control) was going through regardless. “The Jews had misinterpreted God’s promise of eternal favor to Israel: ‘Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is His name: If these ordinances depart from before Me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever. Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord’ (Jeremiah 31: 35- 37). The Jews regarded their natural descent from Abraham as giving them a claim to this promise. But they overlooked the conditions which God had specified.” —DA, 106.

The Jews trusted in the promises of the Bible that they would last forever, as long as the sun and moon existed. They could tauntingly argue with John the Baptist, asking “is the sun still shining, John? You see then, God must not have cast us off, has He?” But they had overlooked the conditions upon which the promises were based. John assuredly warned them that “every tree which does not bear good fruit” will be cut down and “thrown into the fire.” — Even Israel and Jerusalem!

When John warned the church that God could work without them, in their eyes he committed the unpardonable sin. Instead of taking his message to heart and working to purify the church so that the conditions of acceptance with God could be fulfilled, they sought to silence the reprover. To them the church was the structure of buildings and the human leadership in Jerusalem, and that system was as secure in their eyes as the throne of God itself. Yet “from the beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church.” —AA, 11. Never has the Lord, either anciently or today, made His work or His church totally dependent on physical structure. God removed the structure in Jesus’ day, but the true church survived. Throughout the Old Testament

God had promised that “in the place where it was said ‘You are not My people, ‘ there it shall be said to them, ‘You are the sons of the living God’ “ (Hosea 1: 10). As it is today, so it was then, God was not dependent upon the established church to preserve a people. He could raise up children to Abraham from the stony hearts of the Gentiles, for “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3: 29).

John warned that it is “not, by its name, but by its fruit, is the value of a tree determined. If the fruit is worthless, the name cannot save the tree from destruction.” —DA, 107. When God’s people begin to worry about the semantics of their name, seeking to protect the words themselves by crucifying people who use it, as they did Jesus upon the cross, it is a sure sign that they have lost the true significance of the name. The primary purpose of a name is to signify the character within. If Jesus had not called Himself a Jew, the Jewish leaders would not have put Him to death.

It is time again for the message and ministry of John the Baptist to come to God’s heritage in order that we might be prepared for Jesus’ second coming. Today, we are called to do a work similar to that of John the Baptist, and to give the same message in even stronger terms, yet in a spirit of love. “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.” —lT, 321. It is a fearful thing to be a minister and speak smooth and popular messages that please the people. Though they may receive the credentials and tithes of the conference, God does not acknowledge them as His ministers. “ ‘Peace and safety’ is the cry from men who will never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God’s people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. These dumb dogs that would not bark are the ones who feel the just vengeance of an offended God.” —ST. 211.

Jesus, our True Example

Probably the only person in the Bible who talked straighter than John the Baptist, as God’s preachers today are to do, was Jesus. When Jesus met the religious leaders, He did not simply call them poisonous snakes, as John had done, He plainly stated that they were the children of Satan. The Jews had argued with Him that they were assuredly God’s people because they had the official name and the official organization that had been sacredly handed down for centuries (John 8: 39- 41), but Jesus said: “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do” (John 8: 42- 44). You may think you represent God because you have the official name and represent the official organization, but if your life is not in harmony with God’s expressed will, you are most assuredly not His representatives.

When Jesus came, He was viewed from the very beginning as being independent, but of all the people on earth, He was the least independent person who ever lived. He said: “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5: 30). Jesus was the least independent minister who ever lived, as far as His own will was concerned, but He was independent from the church organization on earth because they had become independent of God. He would like to have been united with them, but He could not unite with them and remain dependent on His Father, for the two were not in harmony. As the Bible says: “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3: 3).

Thus, to outward appearances, He manifested what appeared to be an independent attitude. “Under the synagogue teachers the youth were instructed in the countless regulations which as orthodox Israelites they were expected to observe. But Jesus did not interest Himself in these matters. From childhood He acted independently. . . .“ Jesus was viewed as being independent, but what was He independent from? Let us finish the sentence. “From childhood He acted independently of the rabbinical laws. The Scriptures of the Old Testament were His constant study, and the words, ‘Thus saith the Lord, ‘ were ever upon His lips.” —DA, 84.

If one wants to cause trouble, let him ask for the authority from the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy when confronted by the church manual. But that is the kind of trouble Jesus caused. (It was because we did not want our church to become like the Jewish church that we decided not to have a church manual when it was first proposed in 1883, but the decision was reversed in the General Conference of 1931.)

Though Jesus tried, “in every gentle and submissive way . . . to please those with whom He came in contact . . . He would not be influenced by their teaching.” —DA, 85. The priests could not tolerate this spirit of independence in Jesus. “They urged Him to receive the maxims and traditions that had been handed down from the ancient rabbis, but He asked for their authority in Holy Writ. He would hear every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; but He could not obey the inventions of men.” —DA, 85. I can hear them urging Him: “Jesus, don’t you believe that this is God’s church?” “Yes,” He would answer. “Well, don’t you believe that God has guided and directed in this church down through the ages?” “Yes,” He would answer again. “Then you must believe the practices and teachings of this church which have been decided upon and practiced for centuries. You don’t believe that all these rabbis were wrong, do you?” (Notice, it was the “maxims and traditions that had been handed down from ancient rabbis” which they urged upon Jesus.) But Jesus would simply answer, “Where does it teach that in the Bible?”

Even Jesus’ own mother, who was a converted person and a conscientious member of the church, thought Jesus was too independent. “Mary often remonstrated with Jesus, and urged Him to conform to the usages of the rabbis.” —DA, 90. What a trial this must have been for Jesus. All alone Jesus bore His fidelity to truth. He was misunderstood by the best people in church — they could not understand how any sincere, consecrated person could become so independent from the teaching of the much respected rabbis of the past and present, since they had been ordained of God.

For Jesus, there was no inspired manual other than the holy Word of God. But so hierarchical had the church become that they knew of no other way that the church could function other than by man- made rules and authority and a strong, Jerusalem- centered structure. But Jesus elevated truth above structure.

Jesus was viewed as being so independent of the structure that the leaders of the church decided that if He was allowed to continue He would destroy the church — and there is no question that their power structure would have been destroyed. “He who was the foundation of the ritual and economy of Israel would be looked upon as its enemy and destroyer.” —DA, 111. The pious leaders of the church tried to prevent His influence from destroying the church in every way possible. They tried to prove Him wrong. They warned the people against listening to Him. They prevented Him from speaking in the churches. They spread lies and rumors about Him and His ministry. They tried everything to limit His influence (and they were quite successful at this) but nothing seemed to stop Him. Finally, as a last resort, they “regretfully” decided that they must put Him to death. They undoubtedly “hated” to do this, but the church must be preserved — its reputation and name must be protected from such irresponsible people as Barabbas and Jesus.

Jesus and Barabbas, of course, were quite different — one was a murderer and one was a life- giver. But they were both independent, and of the two, Jesus was the most dangerous, because His doctrines and practices fooled the common people. And once the spirit of independence gets started, they figured that there was no way to protect the church. It was inconceivable to them that God could protect and preserve His church if they would purify themselves and call upon Him for His protection — no, if they did not preserve it, the church would be destroyed. It was either Jesus or the church (John 11: 50). Therefore, Jesus must be destroyed so that the church could survive. “If He stands in the way of Israel’s well- being, is it not doing God a service to remove Him? Better that one man perish than that the whole nation be destroyed. . . . In their opinion, He had set aside the priesthood. He had refused to acknowledge the theology of the rabbinical schools. He had exposed the evil practices of the priests and had irreparably hurt their influence. . . . Satan told them that in order to maintain their authority they must put Jesus to death. This counsel they followed. . . . Such was their deception that they were well pleased with themselves. They regarded themselves as patriots who were seeking the nation ‘s salvation.” —DA, 540- 541. Thus Jesus was disfellowshipped and the people who disfellowshipped Him thought they had saved the church from some great independent calamity that was threatening their very existence.

The Basis for True Authority

But though they tried, and verily thought they had succeeded, they could not disfellowship Jesus from the church. Jesus was the church. They merely succeeded in disfellowshipping themselves from the true church. For God “has put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1: 22, 23).

The church is still to be “built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its head. It is not to depend upon man, or be controlled by man. Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction. The Saviour declares, ‘All ye are brethren. ‘ All are exposed to temptations, and are liable to error. Upon no finite being can we depend for guidance. The Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church. Upon this the weakest may depend, and those who think themselves the strongest will prove to be the weakest, unless they make Christ their efficiency. ‘Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm’ (Jeremiah 17: 5).” —DA, 414.

“This principle bears with equal weight upon a question that has long agitated the Christian world — the question of apostolic succession. Descent from Abraham was proved, not by name and lineage, but by likeness of character. So the apostolic succession rests not upon the transmission of ecclesiastical authority, but upon spiritual relationship. A life actuated by the apostles’ spirit, the belief and teaching of the truth they taught — this is the true evidence of apostolic succession. This is what constitutes men the successors of the first teachers of the gospel.” —DA, 467.

Within Christ’s church there is to be no hierarchical, centralized, controlling power that supersedes the headship of Christ. As the messenger of the Lord said, “Battle Creek is not to be the center of God’s work. God alone can fill this place.” —TM, 375. There is a place for order, but it is to be a simple, humble order, always uplifting the primacy of Christ. For “He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence” (Colossians 1: 18).

Thus, as Christ is the head of the body, He is always to “have the preeminence.” Whenever the church assumes preeminence over Christ, or His word, it thereby becomes an idol to the people.

Christ created the structure — it is holy — but it is always to remain subservient to the Word and to Christ as its head. Anything that supersedes God becomes a false God. That’s what the Jews did with their temple. The temple became more important than the truth, or even God’s dear Son. A word of criticism spoken against the temple was worse than a false teaching being taught from its precincts. The final charge brought against Christ was that He spoke against the temple.

In view of this danger of making the system and its leadership a false God, Ellen White has a whole chapter in Testimonies to Ministers entitled, “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me” — She was referring to Battle Creek, its system, and the leadership. She also warns that “the trials of the children of Israel, and their attitude just before the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second coming of Christ — how the enemy sought every occasion to take control for the minds of the Jews, and today he is seeking to blind the minds of God’s servants, that they may not be able to discern the precious truth.” —1SM, 406.

Jesus was rejected by most because He was not sanctioned by the visible church. And those who rejected Him were lost. According to the Spirit of Prophecy, this will likewise be our test.

“To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the lord when champions are few — this will be our test.” — 5T, 136.

The Head of the Church

“And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues” (1 Corinthians 12: 28). God is the One who has promised to place various gifts in the church. When the church is pure, God is the one who calls and ordains through His chosen instrumentalities. He chooses through the official channels when He can, but when he cannot, He will call people directly, as in the case of David and John the Baptist. Never has God turned the entire control of His church over to human instrumentalities.

The Lord wants to direct His heritage and His church far more than we give Him opportunity to do. “If ministers and men in- positions of authority will get out of the way, and let the Holy Sprit move upon the minds of the lay brethren, God will direct them what to do for the honor of his name. Let men have freedom to carry out that which the Holy Spirit indicates. Do not put the shackles upon humble men whom God would use.” —RH, July 9, 1895.

It is not being independent for humble men and women whom God has called to act upon their God given responsibilities. In various places around the world I have been told by laymen that they cannot even give a Bible study without the pastor’s permission. In most places, a laymen is not even permitted to hold a prayer meeting in his own home, if it is called a prayer meeting, without the church’s permission — and if the pastor wants to come in and take control, he assumes that prerogative. Not long ago I was asked to have some meetings in one of the major cities of America. Previous to my coming they had had Ron Spear and Cohn Standish in to speak. This meeting was held in a private hall, and one of the local pastors was in attendance and expressed great appreciation for the meetings. However, the pastor of the largest church in town, where this laymen held office and membership, asked him not to have these meetings. The laymen, however, felt that the Lord wanted these meetings, and as they were not a part of any church function or on church property, and as those who were asked to speak were all ordained Seventh- day Adventist ministers and members in good and regular standing, he felt impressed to quietly go on with the meetings. He had no intention of having a conflict with the pastor, but was simply trying to serve the Lord. Yet, because of his supposed “independence” from the pastor he was duly disciplined by the church by way of official censor and removed from being an elder.

But who was acting independently — the laymen or the pastor? There is no law in the Bible, or even the manual, forbidding people from getting together and reading and studying the Bible together. For the pastor to arbitrarily make these rules is independence indeed! During the Dark Ages it was against the law to hold private meetings, but America guarantees that right — but have we lost it in the church? It is “Satan . . . [who] works to restrict religious liberty, and to bring into the religious world a species of slavery. Organizations, institutions, unless kept by the power of God, will work under Satan’s dictation to bring men under the control of men. . . . His methods are practiced even among Seventh- day Adventists, who claim to have advanced truth.” —TM, 366.

Today if someone tries to raise up a new congregation or hold a meeting for Bible study and prayer, the question asked is: “By whose authority are you holding these meetings?” That was the question that was asked of John the Baptist and Jesus. “Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority’ “( Matthew 21: 23).

“Laws and rules are being made at the centers of the work that will soon be broken into atoms. . . . The Lord does not ask permission of those in responsible positions when He wishes to use certain ones as His agents for the promulgation of truth. . . . Those who know the truth are to be worked by the Holy Spirit, and not themselves to try to work the Spirit. If the cords are drawn much tighter, if the rules are made much finer, if men continue to bind their fellow- laborers closer and closer to the commandments of men, many will be stirred by the Spirit of God to break every shackle, and assert their liberty in Christ Jesus.” —RH, July 23, 1895.

God has appointed leadership to act under Him, but never in His place. There is a place for organization — heaven is a place of order. God’s church, all through the ages, has been a place of order. The Old Testament church was a church of order, and God’s church today is to be just as ordered and orderly as was the Old Testament church. There is a place for leadership, a place for elders, a place for deacons and administrators. But their job description was never intended to be that of being the head of the church or of controlling the church, but rather they were to be the servants of God to the people. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20: 25- 28).

Do you suppose that I, or anyone else, could ever get to the place where we could supersede God’s authority in the church? We could try, but that would be a false, sinful and assumed authority that God and His true people would not recognize anymore than John the Baptist did (DA, 132). Suppose that I had a lot of charisma and a lot of good leadership abilities, and I made a lot of friends and made some good business or political decisions and so began to climb the corporate ladder in the church, until I got to the very top. Could I ever get to the place where I had enough authority to supersede God’s authority? Could I tell someone whom God had called to preach, for example, that God had not called him to preach, as they told John the Baptist and Jesus? I could tell him, but no matter how much authority I might have assumed or think I had, I could never get enough authority to supersede God’s authority. That would be the epitome of independence. But in my blind presumption, I would probably think that the person whom God had called and who was merely fulfilling His God- given mission was being independent because he had not listened to me! —what pride!

“But,” someone might insist, “someone must have that kind of authority in order to maintain order in the church.” That is exactly the claim of the papal church. “It is one of the leading doctrines of Romanism that the pope is the visible head of the universal church of Christ, invested with supreme authority over bishops and pastors in all parts of the world. . . . God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church.” —GC 50, 51.

While God has not given any man the authority to say who cannot preach, when the Holy Spirit has made it plainly evident that God has called him to preach, likewise God has not given any man the authority to say that someone can or should preach whom God has not called. No local church should ever be forced by some higher human authority to allow a conferenceappointed pastor or leader to speak when the congregation and elders feel, based upon Biblical evidence, that God has not called him to speak.

In fact, for men to receive those sent to them from the conference whom God has not sent, causes them to become independent from God along with the pastor, and results in the withdrawal of God’s blessings. “As there are woes for those who preach the truth while they are unsanctified in heart and life, so there are woes for those who receive and maintain the unsanctified in the position which they cannot fill.” —2T, 552. “There are fearful woes for those who preach the truth, but are not sanctified by it, and also for those who consent to receive and maintain the unsanctified to minister to them in word and doctrine.” —lT, 261, 262.

Yet, how many ministers whom God has never recognized are lauded and applauded by men, and how many ministers have been scourged and even put to death who were the chosen instrumentalities of God.

For a central, ruling authority to assume controlling power over the local membership, telling them who will preach to them and who will not preach to them, is to place one’s self in the place of God over the people. God has entrusted to His people certain inalienable rights and obligations, such as the right and the obligation to carefully and prayerfully decide who they will receive and maintain to minister to them. The Bible predicted that there would come a power that would seek to put itself in the place of God. “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 4). That, in a special way refers to the papacy of the Middle Ages, and we can adopt some of the same policies, until we are “following in the track of Romanism.” —TM, 362.

“The high- handed power that has been developed, as though position has made men gods, makes me afraid, and out to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised. this lording it over God’s heritage will create such a disgust of man’s jurisdiction that a state of insubordination will result. . . . The spirit of domination is extending to the presidents of our conferences. . . . They are following in the track of Romanism. . . . Rule, rule, has been their course of action. Satan has had an opportunity to represent himself.” —TM, 361- 363.

These statements from the Spirit of Prophecy were not written to imply that the church does not, or should not, have proper authority. The church is to have a great amount of authority under God. When a point or a decision can be shown from God’s word and from the leading of the Holy Spirit to be from the Lord, the leaders are to have a great deal of authority. Whenever the church utters the utterances of God, it is as the voice of God. But when they become independent of God and assume authority such as the Sanhedrin assumed, then they are no longer the voice of God. It was when the leaders were becoming independent of God, that Ellen White said: “That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be, that is past.” —GCB, 1901, p. 25.

The 1888 Problem

In the papal church, one central power decided who is called and who is not called, what should be preached and what should not be preached, what people could read and what they could not read, what meetings could be held and what could not be held. The church was a controlling element, and it was being controlled by human wisdom, with “the eyes of a man” (Daniel 7: 8). That was the same type of controlling element that ruled the church in Jesus’ day. The people came to worship the system as their lord and master rather than Jesus.

This false gospel of system worship, where the organization became the master rather than the servant, was what Ellen White recognized as the main problem of the General Conference of 1888. In talking about the problems of the church, she related the cause of these problems in the following letter: “This is largely due to the feeling of Elder Butler (the General Conference President) that position gave unlimited authority. . . . God designs that men shall use their minds and consciences for themselves. He never designed that one man should become the shadow of another, and utter only another’s sentiments. But this error has been coming in among us, that a very few are to be mind, conscience, and judgment for all God’s workers. The foundation of Christianity is ‘Christ our Righteousness. ‘ Men are individually responsible to God and must act as God acts upon them, not as another human mind acts upon their mind; for if this method of indirect influence is kept up, souls cannot be impressed and directed by the great I AM. They will, on the other hand, have their experience blended with another, and will be kept under a moral restraint, which allows no freedom of action or of choice. . . . If we would be wise, and use diligently, prayerfully, and thankfully the means whereby light and blessings are to come to His people, then no voice nor power upon earth would have authority over us to say, ‘This shall not be. ‘ “ —1888, 110- 113.

In a letter to Elder Butler, Ellen White related what was shown her in vision: “My guide. . . stretched out his arms toward Dr. Waggoner, and to you, Elder Butler, and said in substance as follows: ‘Neither have all the light upon the law; neither position is perfect.’ —1888, 93. The question was not simply theology — Elder Waggoner and Elder Jones’ positions were not perfect, but God had given them a message, even though still imperfect, to give to the church. But the leadership thought that every message should have to go through them for their approval. These young men from the West — Jones and Waggoner — had no right to work without the permission of the General Conference officers.

“Never, never feel the slightest disturbance be- cause the Lord is raising up youth to lift and carry the heavier burdens, and proclaim the message of truth. It has been at this point that Elder Butler has failed, and he is a deceived man . . . . I hope there will never be the slightest encouragement given to our people to put such wonderful confidence in finite, erring man as has been placed in Elder Butler, for ministers are not as God, and too much reliance has been placed upon Elder Butler in the past. Even the messages and testimonies were made of none effect through the influence of the words and ideas of Elder Butler. This sin has not been repented of by some of our people, and they will have to go over the ground again and again unless they cease from man, and put their whole trust in the living God.” —1888, 975.

There is a place for counsel, and even for warnings against false teachings, to be given by the leadership. But all such counsel and warnings are to be based upon sound biblical principle, not upon hierarchical authority. People are thus to be taught to depend upon the counsels and warnings of the Word, rather than that of man. We are to teach people to respect leaders, but not to depend upon human wisdom and leadership. “When our people in the different places have their special convocations, teach them, for Christ’s sake and for their own soul’s sake, not to make flesh their a~…. To place men where God should be placed does not honor or glorify God. Is the president of the General Conference to be the god of the people? Are the men at Battle Creek to be regarded as infinite in wisdom? When the Lord shall work upon human hearts and human intellects, principles and practices different from this will be set before the people. ‘Cease ye from man’ (Isaiah 2: 22).” —TM, 375, 376.

As one reads through the over 1800 pages of The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials and the book Testimonies to Ministers, he cannot help but be impressed with both the seriousness and the present prevalence of corporate independence. This was the chief problem in 1888, and it seems that it was never corrected. Supposedly a correction came in 1901, but two years later Ellen White commented: ‘The result of the last General Conference (1901) has been the greatest, the most terrible sorrow of my life. No change was made. The spirit that should have been brought into the whole work as the result of that meeting was not brought m because men did not receive the testimonies of the Spirit of God.” —MR, #1016, 3- 4 (Letter 17, January 14, 1903). It was in 1901 itself that she said: “We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel.” —EV, 696.

Two Kinds of Kings

Kings are independent. That is why the messenger of the Lord associated independence with kingly power. In 1901 Ellen White warned our leaders against independence, insubordination, and rebellion. At the same time she told how this had come into the church — through the exercise of “kingly power,” so that God’s rulership was replaced by human kingship. In her opening address to the delegates of the 1901 General Conference, Ellen White repeatedly stated that we were being governed by “kingly power.” (See Ellen White’s speech in Spaulding and Magan, 162- 174.)

But there are two kinds of kings, both of which lead to independence from the Lord. First, there are those kings who have enough charisma and influence to get followers. We call them the successful kings. There are also those kings that cannot get anyone to follow them, but they are, nevertheless, going to do whatever they want to anyone, as a king without any subjects, independent of the Lord.

Some might wrongly suppose that because there are bad leaders, that gives them the right to become independent and do whatever they want to do. If they do this, they are no better off than the “bad” leaders they are critical of. God has not called anyone to be independent or to act independently. God has called us all to be servants of one another, and to draw together in true unity and love. God is not calling for separationism, but for a purifying of the church, where all can work together in true harmony for the finishing of the gospel. It is true that truth must be paramount, but wherever truth and the salvation of souls are not at stake, we are to do everything we can to live peaceably with all men and to work together in unity and harmony. We are to consider others first and self last. The true following of the principles of God will not lead to disunity, but to the true unity that was manifested at Pentecost, where all “were with one accord in one place” (Acts 2: 1).

God has a church, and it is the Seventh- day Adventist church. This is the church of prophecy and providence, and only God can start a church — it is to be built upon Him, not upon any human founder (Ephesians 2: 20). True, God’s remnant church is described as “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” in the Laodicean message of Revelation 3, but it is still God’s church. Leaders and members may not always exemplify God’s character, and for this reason we are still on earth. Whole congregations, institutions, or even conferences may apostatize — the organization itself may become so independent of God that He cannot use them any more, just as happened with Israel — nevertheless God will always have true and faithful Seventh- day Adventist people, registered on the books of heaven (Hebrews 12: 22, 23), who will constitute His church and who will go through victorious to the end. God wants every conference, institution, and congregation to triumph with them, if they will be purified of every sin.

Although we should strive to live peaceable with all men, nevertheless, when God sends His message to purify the church of sin and selfishness, it will cause a reaction. “Just as long as God has a church, He will have those who will cry aloud and spare not, who will be His instruments to reprove selfishness and sins, and will not shun to declare the whole counsel of God, whether men will hear or forbear. I saw that individuals would rise up against the plain testimonies. ft does not suit their natural feelings. They would choose to have smooth things spoken unto them, and have peace cried in their ears. . . . The shaking must soon take place to purify the church.” —2SG, 284.

The Lord is calling for individuals today to do the work of Elijah and John the Baptist, in all humility. But there are many who rise up to give a message on their own charge, without a commission from the Lord. There are many who would seek to steady the ark of God, as Uzzah did, with their own human wisdom and might. How can a person know whether he has been called of God or is simply motivated by feelings of importance?

Those who are truly called of God must be faithful, humble servants, not seeking for notice or first place. Moreover, whenever God calls for an individual to be His instrument, He always lays the burden upon more than simply he himself. Even when Jesus began His ministry, though He was not recognized or acknowledge by the church leadership, He was nevertheless acknowledged by John the Baptist and by the Holy Spirit at His baptism. David was anointed by Samuel. The disciples were called by Jesus. Paul received a vision and was set aside by the church at Antioch. Timothy was called by Paul. Daniel and Joseph were set apart by a series of circumstances and providence called forth by the Lord — but both had been faithful in the little things of life before being called to positions of prominence.

A Day and Age of Independence

As never before, a spirit of independence from the Lord afflicts our church, just as it did the Jewish church in the days of Korah and again in the days of John the Baptist (see lSM, 406). We are living in a day and age of independence. When I was pastoring, I was talking to one of my conference presidents about the local Adventist hospital. It had become so large that it was only able to fill a small percentage of its staff with Adventist help, yet they were building it still larger. In conversation one day I kindly pointed out that the Spirit of Prophecy counsels against building large hospitals and staffing them with those not of our faith. His response was that those counsels don’t apply to today. In our educational work, in our administrative work, in our educational work, in our medical work, it seems that self- rule and independence has become the rule of the day. God’s counsels, they reason, don’t apply any more. “Times have changed. These words strengthen their unbelief.” —5T, 211.

I was talking to a union president not long ago. He brought up the subject of tithing, and accused another ministry, that we at Steps to Life work with and support, of being a “thief’ because they accept tithe. They don’t solicit it, but when it comes in they accept it and apply it toward ministerial work. “Why,” I asked, “are they a thief? Who have they stolen from?”

The response was that all the tithe should go through the organization, because it is the storehouse. But I asked: “What then about Quiet Hour, Voice of Prophecy, and Amazing Facts, all of which accept tithe and always have? Are they thieves also?”

This was indeed hard to answer. He would not suggest that other ministries were stealing, but he still maintained that the ministry he was opposed to was stealing the tithe, even though this particular ministry is doing nothing different than most of our accepted ministries always have! The problem was that the ministry he was opposed to was preaching the straight testimony and that was what he was really opposed to — the tithe was only a smoke screen. Nevertheless I pursued the issue.

“What about Ellen White’s example and counsel,” I asked. She paid her tithe directly to various ministers and women Bible workers who were not being paid by the conference. Moreover, she accepted other people’s tithe who gave it to her and who did not want it to go to the conference. “Was she a thief?”

“Well,” he wanted to know, “do you base your beliefs on the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy?” “I thought they were the same,” I replied. But he then informed me that Ellen White did not understand tithing. So I asked him whether he understood the biblical principles of tithing better than Ellen White did.

He responded: “Yes I do. I understand tithing better than Ellen White.” I thought I had misunderstood, so I asked him again just to make sure I had heard right, and I received the same assurance that he understood this principle better than Ellen White. I asked him for his biblical references for his understanding, but he could produce none!

It is interesting that when the Colorado Conference president in 1905 tried to set up his will as the governing rule, stating that all tithe should come into the conference treasury rather than being sent directly to people who were not on the conference payroll, Ellen White warned him that if he agitated this question she would have to make known to others what she did with her tithe. In referring to disagreements with the management of the tithe by the conference, she said in Testimonies, vol. 9, page 249 that we should make our complaints known but that we should not withhold our tithe. However, in the case of apostasy and false teaching by the ministry, and in the case of the conference neglecting or refusing to support those whom the Lord had called and chosen, Ellen White made it crystal clear that it was not only the privilege but the duty of herself and others to send their tithe directly to where they thought it would do the most good (see lT 261, 262; 2T 552; Spaulding and Magan, 117, 215). Moreover, she stated that those who simply trusted the conference to expend their means, without taking responsibility themselves as to the outcome of the money God had made them stewards of, would not be held “guiltless” before the Lord for their stewardship 1888, pp. 1443, 1444. Some have formed such strong opinions and policies that they know more than the Spirit of Prophecy in these and other kindred areas.

Today, prideful independence from the Lord and His counsels has become the rule of the day.

Two Kinds of Independent Ministries

As there have always been, so today there are two kinds of independent ministries. As we read about Jesus: “From childhood He acted independently of the rabbinical laws.” —DA, 84. John the Baptist had an independent ministry from the Sanhedrin -DA, 132. Elijah and Paul had independent ministries. Madison Sanitarium and school was ordained by the Lord, with direct counsel from the messenger of the Lord, that they were to become an independent institution from the General Conference. God has always had independent ministries.

Many of these ministries have been unappreciated. When Elder A. T. Jones was not allowed to speak in Battle Creek in 1891, Ellen White said that “We will secure a hall in the city and the words God has given Bro. Jones to speak the people shall have them.” —1888, pp. 847, 848. Jesus spoke by the seashore, Wesley in the fields, and William Miller in tents. Today, while people like Desmond Ford are allowed to speak in our largest churches, many who have been faithful ministers for years are obliged to speak in rented halls be- cause of the straight message they bear. It may be, if the message is barred from the churches, that God will use the independent ministries to help finish the work where the official church has failed.

And so there is a healthy, God ordained place for independent ministries. God has never tied His hands to any set counsel of men, but has always had the privilege of choosing whom and how He desires. God has always used independent ministries. And yet there is sinful independence today also, as there always has been. Any independence that puts human wisdom and authority above God’s wisdom and authority, making man independent of God, is sinful independence. This was what Eve was tempted to do. Whenever a Christian hospital rejects, either openly or in practice, the counsels of the Lord, it has become an independent ministry. Whenever a church school or union college or university accepts the standards of the world in the place of the standards of the Lord, it has become an independent ministry. Whenever a conference or a church receives the counsels of psychologists and philosophers, or from religious institutions that do not keep the Sabbath, as Ahaziah did when he sought the god of Ekron (2 Kings 1: 2), rejecting the plain counsel of the Lord, it has become an independent ministry. Whenever a ministry that is designated an independent ministry because they are not under the conference structure, departs from the teachings and practices of the Lord, it has become independent in the wrong way. May the Lord save us from sinful independence.

A Reformation Needed

It is time to humble our hearts before the Lord so that He can send upon us the true revival and reformation that was displayed at Pentecost, where unity was achieved through the believing of truth, through humility toward self, and love toward one another; where the full gospel was preached in all its purity and power; where the principles of the government of heaven were followed, with Christ as the true head of the church and all its members were fellow servants.

Kingly power in the hands of religious rulers will never save or exalt the church. Unity through centralization will never exalt Christ. Blindly following religious teachers will not save a single soul. But humble cooperation, where every member is a fellow worker with Christ (1 Corinthians 3: 9), organized together in a body according to the call of God, and where dependence is placed first and foremost upon the revealed will of God, will bring the long- soughtfor blessings of the latter rain and the soon return of Jesus Christ. This is that primitive godliness that will be revealed among God’s people before the final visitation of God’s judgments upon the earth -GC, 464.

Scripture texts are from the New King James

Books titles by Ellen White are abbreviated as follows:

  • 1888 = Ellen G. White 1888 Materials
  • AA = Acts of the Apostles
  • DA = Desire of Ages
  • EW = Early Writings
  • EV = Evangelism
  • GC = Great Controversy
  • GCB = General Conference Bulletin
  • MR = Manuscript Release
  • RH = Review and Herald Magazine
  • 2SG = Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2.
  • IT, 2T, etc. are Testimonies to the Church, volumes I, 2, etc.
  • TM = Testimonies to Ministers

Emphasis are generally supplied

ISSUES: Part II SECTION TWO “The Church”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Spiritual Nature of the Church
The promises
Israel (Abraham’s seed)
The apostasy in Christendom
When reformation of the church was impossible
Can you tell the difference between the true church and the professed- only church?
Two true churches? (the invisible church)
The professed church and the true church
Who are God’s denominated people?
Questions and answers

To be a Christian is not merely to take the name of Christ, but to have the mind of Christ, to submit to the will of God in all things. Many who profess to be Christians have yet to learn this great lesson. Many know little of what it is to deny self for Christ’s sake. They do not study how they can best glorify God and advance His cause. But it is self, self, how can it be gratified? Such religion is worthless. In the day of God those who possess it will be weighed in the balance and found wanting. TMK 174

ISSUES: Part Two SECTION TWO “The Church”

Dr. John J. Grosboll

The church is one of the things of God, the most precious thing on earth in His sight. It has been established and purchased at an infinite cost to heaven. What is it about the church that makes it so precious? Although no human can give a complete answer to this question, a very imperfect and partial answer could be as follows. When the great controversy was inaugurated in heaven, God and His government were challenged with the following justification:

  1. First of all, Lucifer claimed that God’s law was unnecessary for angels, and second, he claimed that created beings could not perfectly keep the law. Lucifer wanted a change in God’s law that would allow him to be part of the Godhead or like God (this would require a change in the first commandment and a change in the spiritual meaning of the rest of the commandments).
  2. Lucifer claimed that Christ had privileges that he should have also. God did not at all consent to this demand.
  3. Lucifer claimed that he wanted to obtain more freedom and liberty and that the principles of God’s government did not work perfectly and could be improved upon. Although Lucifer attempted to gain God’s condemnation by the entire universe of creatures created by God’s own hand, the nature of the charges made it impossible for God to vindicate His character or government as God because the charges which were accepted by about one third of the angels were not only against God, His government and His law, but they claimed that created beings could not keep His law and that His law resulted in a condition of life for created beings that was inferior to that life which could be enjoyed if the law were changed.

After Lucifer was expelled from heaven, he determined to be revenged upon God by causing the fall of our first parents, Adam and Eve, which he succeeded in doing. When Adam and Eve fell, they lost their former righteousness and purity of character. They were transgressors of the first commandment and spiritually they had broken every commandment in God’s law (Romans 7: 14). Satan claimed that either Adam and Eve would have to die with all the other transgressors of God’s law (including himself) or God would have to allow him and all the other fallen angels back into heaven if Adam and Eve were forgiven. God said to the devil, “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise your head and you will bruise his heel” Genesis 3: 15.

SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THE CHURCH

Here in Genesis 3: 15, immediately after the fall, God announces the establishment of His church as His people. All people in the world can claim Eve as their mother according to the flesh, but God was here speaking only of those who would be, not just the fleshly descendants of Eve, but her spiritual descendants— those who would demonstrate by the character that they would develop that God was their Father and the devil their adversary.

Immediately after the fall of man, the spiritual nature of the church is revealed. There would be descendants of Eve that would be the seed of the devil— his spiritual children— and there would be enmity between these descendants of Eve according to the flesh and the descendants of Eve who were not only her fleshly but her spiritual children. Immediately after the fall, God makes it plain that ONLY the spiritual descendants of Eve are His people, His church. Those who are only her descendants according to the flesh, or who make a profession of being His children but develop characters like Satan, are the seed of the serpent and are not God’s children or part of His church at all. “There must be open and avowed enmity between the church and the serpent, between her seed and his seed” ST 8/ 26/ 89.

THE PROMISES

From this time on, often the church was again likened to a woman or sometimes the seed of the woman. This promise in Genesis 3: 15 was passed down for twenty generations. In the twentieth generation, the promise was renewed and more explicitly stated to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, and 17. God’s covenant renewed with Abraham included the following provisions: (1) The sign or token that one had entered into this covenant was the rite of circumcision (Genesis 17: 10- 14). (2) For everyone who entered into this covenant, God promises to be their God (Genesis 17: 7, 8). (3) God promised that everyone who was part of this covenant would “inherit the land in which you are a stranger” (Genesis 17: 8). Some have thought that this refers only to the land of Palestine, but Abraham understood it to refer not only to Palestine but to an eternal inheritance in the earth made new at the end of time (Hebrews 11: 8- 10). The righteous are strangers in this earth (Hebrews 11: 13- 16; 1 Peter 1: 1), but they will inherit the earth (Psalm 37). (4) To be part of the covenant you must be part of Abraham’s seed because the covenant was made only to Abraham and his seed (Genesis 17: 7). (5) The covenant was not made with the fleshly descendants of Abraham but only with those who were his spiritual seed. We know for sure that this was a condition of the covenant from the beginning because Ishmael was of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh and was circumcised— he received the token or symbol of being part of the covenant (Genesis 17: 25), yet Ishmael was never part of the covenant! (see Romans 9) This is absolute proof that to be part of the covenant or testament you must be the spiritual seed of Abraham, not just the literal seed. In fact, you could be part of the spiritual seed of Abraham and thereby be part of the covenant even if you were not of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. The experience of Rahab the harlot in Jericho and of Ruth the Moabitess who became one of the progenitors of Christ demonstrates this fact— neither were of the physical seed of Abraham, but they both became part of his spiritual seed, so much so, that Ruth was chosen to be an ancestor of the Christ who was to come from the seed of Abraham.

ISRAEL (ABRAHAM’S SEED)

This covenant or testament of promise was renewed with Isaac and Jacob. After the night of Jacob’s trouble, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel, which means “a prince with God,” and this became the official name of God’s people in this world forever. (This is not the only official name of God’s people today, however.) From this time on, one of the most common names for God’s church is “Israel.” In describing the victory of the saints at the end of the time of trouble, Ellen White calls them the Israel of God (EW 285).

However, many in ancient times and today are confused because they think that whenever the Bible talks about Israel it is talking about God’s true church. This assumption is often not true.

The human mind was originally created to operate in harmony and within the parameters of the Ten Commandments. Almost all learning from babyhood is based on the assumption that what is heard or what is seen is the truth. Without an observance of the ninth commandment, no order or learning can take place. But sin deceived (Romans 7: 11) and people who were the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh did not develop a character of faith and love like Abraham. They were his descendants according to the flesh, but they were not his spiritual descendants; they were not God’s children. Therefore an element of confusion was initiated which has continued to the present day: people who professed to be the children of Abraham, Israelites, God’s people, part of His church, were not the spiritual children of Abraham at all; spiritually they were not Israelites but they were called Israel; they professed to be part of Israel; they professed the same religion and were called Israelites (and they were Israelites according to the flesh). They were Israel by profession but not in reality. This is one of the awful results of sin— you cannot determine reality by a person’s profession or word.

Even a casual reading of the Old Testament reveals that many who were Israelites according to the flesh were not God’s people (some of them were called by the Old Testament writers the sons of Belial, that is, the devil); whereas those who are really part of His church are His people. Notice how explicitly the Bible writer states it: “They are not all Israel who are of Israel” Romans 9: 6. Those who are of Israel are those who profess to be God’s people, those who profess to be the Israel of God; but not all of these are really Israel; not all of them are really God’s people; not all of them are really part of the church. Today as then there are many who are “of Israel.” They have received the rite of baptism; they have professed to be God’s people; they are accounted by men to be God’s people, His church; they are numbered with God’s people and joined to them, but they are not really part of the church at all— they are only “pretended believers,” they are “false brethren” (COL). A false brother is not a true brother, but all those who are really part of the church are true brethren.

Until this basic fact is understood, much confusion will exist in the mind of a student of the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy. In the Bible “different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea” 1SM 20. If the word Israel or the word church is always interpreted to mean the same thing, then explicit contradictions are found in the inspired writings; but a real contradiction is impossible because ‘‘ all truth. . . . is consistent with itself in all its manifestations PP 114. No lie is of the truth (1 John 2: 21).

It is a common practice when an apparent contradiction occurs in inspired writings for students to make philosophical models to explain these contradictions. Because those who are part of the true church by profession and those who are part of the true church in character (reality) as well as profession have not been the same group for thousands of years and the prophets are using the imperfect language of men (1SM 20) in prophetic writings, both groups are often called simply “the church.”

In the Bible the word law is another example of the imperfectness of human speech. Sometimes the Bible writer uses the word law when talking about the Ten Commandments. At other times the same word without qualifiers is used to describe the ceremonial law or the same word is used to describe the first five books of Moses which were called the law in the Hebrew Bible. And still other times the word law is used to describe the effect of sin on a person or persons. In each case, the context of the verse must be examined to determine what law is being talked about.

This multiple use of the word law has been a prolific field for misunderstanding in which Seventh- day Adventists have had to learn how to explain the different ways that the word is used and that the moral law of Ten Commandments has never been and never can be changed. If a person is candidly looking for evidence, the different ways that the word law is used can be demonstrated from the text itself so that there is no real contradiction, even though from the first casual reading there had seemed to be. The same is true for the word church.

Until it is understood that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel,” the Old Testament prophets cannot be properly understood because when they use the word Israel, sometimes they are talking about the real or true Israel of God, His true church, and sometimes they are talking about Israel according to the flesh, those who profess to be Israel but are not all Israel. A knowledge of this fact explains many apparent contradictions in the Old Testament. For example, compare the following apparently direct contradictions: “I have forsaken My house, I have left My heritage”; Jeremiah 12: 7 (see also Deuteronomy 31: 17; Isaiah 2: 6; Jeremiah 7: 29; 2 Chronicles 15: 2; 24: 20) and “For Israel is not forsaken nor Judah by his God, the Lord of hosts, though their land was filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel ” Jeremiah 51: 5 (see also Deuteronomy 31: 6, 8). How do you explain this apparently direct contradiction? An examination of all similar passages reveals the answer. The professed Israel, or Israel according to the flesh, the professed church of that day was forsaken and left by God (Ezekiel describes it graphically in the first chapters of his book.) because they had forsaken Him; but the true Israel of God never has been and never will be forsaken (Hebrews 13: 6). Those who will never be forsaken are the spiritual seed 01 Abraham— those who seek God and put their trust in Him (Psalm 9: 10), those who are righteous, the saints (Psalm 37: 25,28). Because God’s professed people forsook Him, He forsook them; but even though the land (that actually belonged only to His true people) was filled with the sin of His professed people, His true people were not forsaken and never will be.

But in Bible times as today people often base their life on what they can see and not on the spiritual reality of a godly character. Most of the tribes of the children of Israel were “lost” as a result of the Assyrian captivity and have not since that time had a distinct visible identity. Of the Israelites who remained, the majority were of the tribe of Judah and the name for God’s true people became the Jews instead of Israel (which they still were).

Most of the Jews eventually put their trust in the outward church organization instead of developing a godly character. They became so confused their thinking that they thought the outward manifestations or symbols of true religion were the essence itself. They could not tell the difference between the professed church and the true church. They could not distinguish the form from the substance. They could not tell the difference between profession and spiritual reality. This is always the result of spiritual blindness. (Jesus said that the Jews were spiritually blind— John 9 and Matthew 15.) This is one of the main reason for the confusion today about who and what the church is— Laodicea is spiritually blind.

One of the results of this misperception is that religious faith and trust is placed in church organizations, creeds and outward forms of religion. When trust is placed in the creature instead of the Creator, instead of fearing God (Revelation 14: 6) men fear other men. This fear of men is amply documented in the gospels which speak often about the fear of the Jews (see John 7; 9; 12).

Also, whenever spiritual blindness has occurred, the emphasis in religion is always upon the physical— circumcision of the flesh, baptism with water, the attainment of various human goals and objectives; but it does no good to keep the symbols if the spiritual reality that is symbolized is lost. Circumcision represented the cutting away of sin from the life (Deuteronomy 30: 6); baptism represents the washing away of sin from the life and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It does no good to observe the symbol if the spiritual reality is not experienced.

When Jesus was here, the Jews believed they were the true church because they were the seed of Abraham. They forgot that the promises were given only to the spiritual seed. They forgot that without a spiritual similarity to Abraham, a genealogy showing your fleshly connection to him was useless. When John the Baptist said, “And do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father, ‘ ‘ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones” Matthew 3: 9, he was assaulting their most treasured religious beliefs. They believed that, because they were Abraham’s descendants, they were members of the true church, the true people of God. John the Baptist told them not to think that a fleshly connection to Abraham guaranteed this. “John declared to the Jews that their standing before God was to be decided by their character and life. Profession was worthless. If their life and character were not in harmony with God’s law, they were not His people” DA 107. (All emphasis supplied) It was true that to become Abraham’s seed was to have everlasting life, but the Jews thought it was the literal seed that counted and John the Baptist said that this counted for nothing— profession counted for nothing. It was character that counted and God could raise up from the stones (Gentiles— people spiritually dead) people who would have the character of Abraham and therefore be in the most literal sense Abraham’s spiritual children. John the Baptist said that it was character likeness or spiritual relationship to Abraham that counted, not an outward relationship of profession (or of the flesh).

Jesus stated this truth in even stronger language “‘ I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father and you do what you have seen with your father. They answered and said to Him, ‘Abraham is our father. ‘ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were Abraham’ children, you would do the works of Abraham. Bu now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did no do this. You do the deeds of your father. ‘ Then the said to Him, ‘We were not born of fornication; w have one Father— God. ‘ Jesus said to them, ‘I God were your Father, you would love Me, for proceeded forth and came from God; nor have come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” ‘ John 8: 37- 44.

Jesus acknowledged that they were the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, but He denied that they were the children of promise. He denied that they were Abraham’s spiritual seed; He denied that they were part of the church, rather Jesus said plainly that they were of the synagogue of Satan. Jesus here made it plain that it was spiritual or character likeness that counted.

“The Pharisees had declared themselves the children of Abraham. Jesus told them that this claim could be established only by doing the works of Abraham. The true children of Abraham would live, as he did, a life of obedience to God. They would not try to kill One who was speaking the truth that was given Him from God. In plotting against Christ, the rabbis were not doing the works of Abraham. A mere lineal descent from Abraham was of no value.

Without a spiritual connection with Him, which would be manifested in possessing the same spirit, and doing the same works, they were not His children” DA 466, 467.

The Jews believed that the professed church professed Israel (Israel according to the flesh), was the true church; but Jesus said that they were not truly the children of Abraham but rather the children of the devil— they were not the true church at all, but of the synagogue of Satan, the devil’s children. They were the professed church of God. the professed people of God, the professed true church, but not the true church at all in reality. In a time of apostasy, the professed church and the true church is not the same at all.

This same battle over the definition of the true church— that the professed or outward church is not the same as the true church— had to be fought by the apostles and is discussed in detail in the New Testament, not only in the gospels but in the epistles and other New Testament books.

The theology of the Jews taught that the professed church was the true church. The theology of the apostles taught that the true church could only be defined by spiritual relationship and not on profession alone.

The Jews thought that the fleshly seed of Abraham or the professed church was the true church, but the apostles taught that only the spiritual seed was truly the church (Romans 4: 13- 17; 9: 8; Galatians 3: 7).

The Jews thought that the visible, outward relationship was what counted, but the apostles taught that it was the inward, vital relationship that counted (Romans 2: 28, 29).

The Jews professed to be the true church of God. If you could not tell the difference between the professed church and the true church, you would not have become a member of the apostolic church at Pentecost.

THE APOSTASY IN CHRISTENDOM

However, in Christendom something very similar happened to what had formerly happened in Judaism. Part of the great apostasy in Christianity, was the teaching which has affected Christendom to the present day that “Christianity consists in the mere profession of the name pertaining not to the essential character, nor implying any material change in the general conduct” Great Empires of Bible Prophecy, A. T. Jones, 471.

A person calling himself a Christian, professing to be a Christian but not living a Christlike life, is a fraud; he is a Christian in name but not in character. He is not really a true Christian but a professed Christian only. Likewise a church professing to be Christian but breaking God’s law, teaching others to break God’s law or saying that it cannot be kept, is a Christian church in name only, not in reality. It is not a true Christian church at all. As apostasy comes into a church, the whole church is of professed Christians; but within the professed church is a usually much smaller number of true Christians whose character is in harmony with their profession. A true Christian may not have character perfection yet and may be making many mistakes, but he will be loyal to the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus or spirit of prophecy and will not seek any excuse to explain away disobedience.

Professing Christians became confused again between the profession and the reality. A philosophy was developed which has enslaved billions of human beings right up to the present day. Seventh- day Adventists are not exempt from this slavery. Again the confusion had to do with the identification of the true church just as in the days of John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles. The philosophy which has enslaved so many could be summarized like this:

Christians were taught and believed that you could only have eternal life if you belonged to the “visible church.” They believed that this was the professed Christian organization who claimed to have received apostolic authority directly from a line of uninterrupted bishops all the way back to Peter and that these bishops had the keys to the kingdom of heaven and could send a person to heaven or hell. People believed that if these bishops or their appointed subordinates cut one off from their church organization (excommunication and mass excommunications called interdicts), that one would lose eternal life and go to everlasting burnings.

WHEN REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH WAS IMPOSSIBLE

As in the time of Christ, people were confused between profession and real spiritual relationship. Eternal life is only for those who are a part of the body of Christ, but who is part of the body of Christ? It is spiritual relationship and not merely visible profession that makes one a part of the church or the body of Christ (see Ephesians 5: 25- 32).

There has only been one church since the beginning of time. The apostolic church was not a new church, and the Seventh- day Adventist Church is not a new church founded in the nineteenth century. The Adventist Church is but the remnant of the church that has existed since the beginning of time (see Revelation 12 and the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles).

The keys to the kingdom of heaven— the power to bind and loose— is given to all Christians (see 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 18: 15- 20), but a person is not a Christian unless he is Christlike in character (see 1 John 3). In other words, it is impossible for any person or group of persons who do not have a Christlike character to actually cast a person out of the true church. In the Dark Ages there never could be revival or reformation until the fear of man was broken. Many Roman Catholics abhorred the apostasy which had engulfed the Christian world and they wrote and preached about the need of revival and reformation, but reformation was impossible. Every time revival and reformation started, the church threatened excommunication.

Revival and reformation could never come until the fear of man was overcome. In Jesus’ time you had to overcome your fear of man to follow Jesus. In the Dark Ages and in the time of the Reformers you had to overcome your “fear of man” to follow truth (see John 14: 6). It was impossible for the Reformation to succeed as long as people thought they would lose eternal life if the church excommunicated them. Until men understood who and what the church was according to the New Testament, there could be no reformation. People could see that the men who were operating the church were wicked, but they said the church is holy! Those who were following the doctrines and teachings of the church were evil, but they said the church was righteous!

Again, as in the days of Christ, men had mistaken profession for character, the symbols for the substance, the forms and rituals for the reality. Again mankind had to learn that if the character does not conform to the profession, all the professions in the world are worse than meaningless because, if our character does not conform to our profession, we are living a lie. The devil’s most successful agents are men and women who profess to be Christians but are unlike Christ in character.

Who has apostolic authority? The doctrine of apostolic succession teaches that Christ gave to the apostle Peter apostolic authority and this apostolic authority was passed down in succession to each later bishop of Rome (the pope). Ellen White comments on this “question that has long agitated the Christian world,— the question of apostolic succession. Descent from Abraham was proved, not by name and lineage, but by likeness of character. So the apostolic succession rests not upon the transmission of ecclesiastical authority, but upon spiritual relationship.

A life actuated by the apostles’ spirit, the belief and teaching of the truth they taught, this is the true evidence of apostolic succession. This is what constitutes men the successors of the first teachers of the gospel” DA 467.

This is especially applicable in the present day when such an ado is being made about who has authority to baptize, preach, write, or ordain or to call himself a Seventh- day Adventist, a Seventh- day Adventist minister or a Seventh- day Adventist Church. A real or true Seventh-day Adventist minister (an historic Seventh- day Adventist) will teach and preach the Seventh-day Adventist message that God raised up the second advent movement to proclaim to the world— Revelation 14: 6- 12. A person who claims to be a Seventh- day Adventist minister who is not preaching this message is not really a Seventh- day Adventist minister, no matter what credentials he has; and a person who is preaching the historic Adventist message is a Seventh-day Adventist minister, whether he has received credentials or not. The way some reason today would have kept them from hearing John the Baptist and Jesus and, for sure, the apostle Paul.

I wonder, have we learned and retained the lesson the apostles had to learn about the identity of the true church? Have we learned and retained the lesson the Reformers had to learn about who the church is? Is there any chance that in these last days the devil has forgotten errors which he has used so successfully in the time of Christ and since that time to cause the loss of countless millions of human beings?

CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TRUE CHURCH AND THE PROFESSED- ONLY CHURCH?

In the days of Jesus and the apostles, unless you could tell the difference between the real true church and the professed true church you would never have been a Christian. The Jewish church professed to be the true church of God all the days of the apostle Paul (see Sketches from the Life of Paul, 226). In a time of apostasy, unless you can tell the difference, you will not be able to make proper decisions about what church to be a part of.

The Jews believed that the true church was professed Israel, but the apostles taught that the true church was spiritual Israel only (see Romans 9: 6- 8).

You become a member of God’s professed people when you are baptized with water, but you only become a member of God’s true people when you are baptized with the Holy Spirit—” By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” 1 Corinthians 12: 13. Baptism with water is a symbol of baptism with the Holy Spirit and after the ratification of the New Covenant, if a person does not receive the Holy Spirit at his baptism (Acts 2: 38), his baptism is only a form.

You are in reality part of the church only when you partake of the life of Christ; and the person who partakes of the devil’s program of living— any kind of living in known sin— is not a member of the body of Christ (the church) no matter what his profession is (1 Corinthians 10: 15- 21).

Being part of the true church involves a vital union with Christ, but a person can be a part of the professed church with only a superficial or professed union with Christ (Ephesians 5: 32; John 12: 40- 42).

To really be a member of the true remnant church, you must keep the commandments and have the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 12: 17 and 19: 10); but you may profess to be a member, and outwardly be a member in a time of apostasy, and not live according to the spirit of prophecy or keep God’s commandments.

There could be no sixteenth century reformation until men understood who the true church really was because as long as they thought that they would burn in hell- fire if the church excommunicated them, fear of men would prevent any lasting reformation.

Disfellowshipping is occurring again today and a lasting revival and reformation cannot occur until men and women have no fear of what men can do. Whole churches are being disbanded. We must face reality. Whole conferences and even divisions could be lost. Even the General Conference could be lost in the battle before the final victory of God’s saints. Actually, all of these entities will be lost and destroyed if there is not true repentance, confession of wrong and restitution, and a determination to stand on the solid platform where the church militant stands (UL 152). If you are not prepared for such an eventuality, you simply are not prepared for what is very rapidly developing among God’s professed people today (see None Dare Call It Apostasy). Many who are professed “Christians” are actually part of the synagogue of Satan— Revelation 2: 9— they are not really part of the body of Christ, or the church, at all. This can be true of people in all churches, including the Seventh- day Adventist Church.

“The trials of the Children of Israel, and their attitude just before the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second coming of Christ” 1SM 406.

TWO TRUE CHURCHES? (THE INVISIBLE CHURCH)

In attempting to create a philosophical model which will explain the apparent contradictions in inspired writings, many inventions have been developed. One of the oldest of these is the theory of two true churches. The Bible teaches that there is only one true church (Ephesians 4: 4). This is true for both time and space. Ellen White concurs with this Biblical teaching as you would expect (see the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles) . There has only been one true church since the beginning of time and there is only one true church in all the universe. Ellen White says that the church in heaven and the church on earth are one (ST 6/ 6/ 95; 6T 366) and also that from the beginning of time faithful souls have constituted the church (AA 11; OHC 172).

There have not been two or three or six churches since the beginning. The church in Old Testament times, in the days of the apostles, and today are not separate churches even though they might be called by different names to designate the time or place being spoken of. They are each a part of the one church that has been since the beginning. This one church has always gone through and it will always go through. The true church went through in Jesus’ day, but very few of the professed church went through with it. The same was true in the time of the midnight cry and the same will be true at the end.

In the Dark Ages the theory of two true churches was developed. The theory went like this, “There is an invisible church and Christ is the head of that and there is a visible church and the pope is the head of that.” Concerning this theory John Wycliffe said that if the church had two heads, it was a monster. All the Protestant Reformers said that the church had only one head and that head was Christ (Ephesians 1: 22, 23).

The concept that there are two true churches, a visible church and an invisible church, is heresy and is not acknowledged by any inspired writer. This false teaching forms the foundation of an entire theological structure which may seem very logical but is not based on inspired writings. This theory was part of the confusion of the Dark Ages and, unfortunately, many have imbibed this ancient heresy and brought it into their experience today. This theory and all the theology built on it will end in disaster. It results in a totally distorted concept of who the church is. Anytime anyone starts talking about the “invisible church,” a red flag should wave in your mind and the bells should start ringing in your head that you are being taught heresy. Not once does Ellen White ever talk about an invisible church.

It is true that part of the true church is presently invisible to us, but it is not a separate entity or church. Ellen White says that the church on earth and the church in heaven are one and we cannot presently see the church in heaven while the church on earth is visible to us, but inspired writers never speak of a separate entity or church called the invisible church. Such an entity does not exist. Like the Virgin Mary, an entire theology has been built up over an assumption which is none- existent. When the foundation of a theology is based on a false assumption, no matter how logical the system is, it is entirely false.

Many Protestant theology students have been surprised to find out how logical Roman Catholic theology is. But even though it is logical, it is still false because it is built on a false foundation— the assumption that the Roman bishop is by divine right the head over all the churches in the world and that the decrees of the church supersede the Bible. In the same way, all the theology built on the theory of two true churches, a visible and an invisible church, will someday be seen to have caused the loss of a multitude of souls because it is built on a false foundation. One of the most common ways that this man- made theory is used to cause the loss of souls is to define the visible church as a certain church organization and then take inspired statements concerning the true church and use them to influence people to be faithful to that church organization no matter how deep in apostasy or sin it becomes. This sly tactic caused the loss of millions of souls during the Dark Ages and the devil has not forgotten it.

The net effect of creating two true churches and designating them the visible and the invisible church is to enable a person to ignore some of the plainest statements in inspired writings about who and what the church is. One of the most common ways that this man- made theory is used to cause the loss of souls is to pre- define the inspired statements about the true church to refer to a non- entity, the invisible church, and then simply sweep aside all the inspired statements that explicitly define who and what the church is. The most clear, simple, convincing and explicit definition statements in inspired writings are simply made of none- effect by this theory. But the statements still say the same thing and they will still have to be faced in the judgment if at no other time. It is not honest to take the clear statements of inspiration and simply sweep them aside and arbitrarily relegate them to something that really does not exist— the invisible church. Once this heresy has really taken hold of a person’s mind you cannot touch them with any evidence from inspired writings— as soon as you read a definition statement about the church, they immediately decide in their mind that the statement is talking about the invisible church (which term Ellen White never uses) and then refer to a quotation in which the word church is used in a different way to prove their position. It is very similar to talking to a Church of Christ member about the Sabbath and the law. The clearest statements in Scripture are swept aside with the theological system they have developed and then texts talking about the ceremonial law are used to prove that you are in error.

For example, in at least five places in the Ellen White writings you will find a statement similar to the following: “All down through the history of the world, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth” OHC 172 (see also AA 11; RH 12/ 4/ 1900). This is not just a sentence in which the word church appears, as are many of the statements used by those teaching the heresy of the invisible church. This is a definition statement of who and what the church is. But those who believe in the false doctrine of two true churches, a visible and an invisible church, sweep away this plain inspired definition of who and what the church is and make it of none effect by saying that it refers to the nonentity that they have concocted in their imagination— the invisible church. They make the plain inspired Word of God of none effect by their tradition— their man- made doctrine of the invisible church.

Notice that this statement is not talking about the church triumphant. It is talking about the church down through the history of the world or, as is stated in Acts of the Apostles on page 11, the church that has existed from the beginning. I

Incidentally, what does the word constitute mean? Synonyms would be the words compose , comprise, form, and make up. If you insert any of these simple words into the definition statement of Ellen White as to who and what the church is, you will see how plain inspiration is in defining who and what the church is. In the Appendix of this booklet there are listed numerous inspired definitions of the church; but if this was the only definition you had, you would have enough to know the truth for sure— you would never need to be mixed up because truth is always consistent with itself in all its manifestations (PP 113) and you can be sure that Ellen White, being an inspired prophet of the Lord, will never say anything in any other context that will contradict her plain definition statements about who and what the church is. If you are really a sincere seeker for truth, you will interpret all difficult texts that you may not understand in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy by the clear definition statements that are unmistakable. You would not, for example, use the details of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as a definition statement about the state of the dead. In the same way, when the word church is used by Ellen White or a bible writer to describe many different entities in place or time, you will not take these statements as definition statements.

This is basic Protestant theology. Notice how John Knox explained this principle: “Said Mary: ‘Ye interpret the Scriptures in one manner, and they [the Roman Catholic teachers] interpret in another; whom shall I believe, and who shall be judge?” ‘

“‘ Ye shall believe God, that plainly speaketh in His word, ‘ answered the Reformer; ‘and farther than the word teaches you, ye neither shall believe the one nor the other. The word of God is plain in itself: and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, which is never contrary to Himself, explains the same more clearly in other places, so that there can remain no doubt but unto such as obstinately remain ignorant” ‘ GC 251.

But many people take some of the plainest statements in inspired writings about who and what the church is and make them of no effect because of their man- made doctrine about an entity that does not exist— the invisible church. This false teaching is often explained like this: All the statements in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy stating exactly who and what the church is are swept aside by saying that they are talking about the invisible church (the non- entity), and that all those in spiritual Babylon who are God’s true children, all in the apostate world who are His true children, compose this non- entity of the invisible church as well as the true and faithful Seventh- day Adventists. But then they say that there is a second true church, the visible Seventh- day Adventist Church or the church militant, which is obviously composed of wheat and tares. Since this is confusing to many people, we should ask the question: What is the church militant, which is often referred to as the visible church and sometimes as the organized church?

Before answering this question from inspired writings, it can be pointed out what the church militant is NOT. Never does Ellen White define the church militant as being a certain church organization. This is important to understand because many are reading into Ellen White statements their own preconceived opinions just as the Jews did with inspired statements in the time of Christ.

One of the most prominent definitions of the church militant in the Ellen White writings is that it is God’s living church (TM 45). The living church has the following characteristics:

  1. It is a working church (RH 11/ 6/ 88).
  2. It has a high standard of holiness (9MR 185, 186).
  3. Each member of a living church is “individually a habitation of God through the Spirit.., that the Lord Jesus Christ may dwell in his innermost being, ennobling and sanctifying his human nature by His divine attributes” IHP 283.
  4. This living church was not founded in 1844 or 1863, it “through the ages has been building in accordance with the divine pattern, with materials that have been likened to ‘gold, silver, precious stones, ‘ ‘polished after the similitude of a palace. ‘ 1 Corinthians 3: 12; Psalm 144: 12. Of this spiritual temple Christ is ‘the chief Cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. ‘ Ephesians 2: 20, 21” PK 36, 37.
  5. It will be “practicing the word” (1888 Materials, 1532).
  6. “We have a work to do if we would be a living church. Individually and as a whole we are to tread sin under our feet. Our habits, our conversation, our daily life, must be placed on the Lord’s side. We must intercede and wrestle with a covenant- keeping God in behalf of His watchmen, that souls may be won to the Saviour” 12MR 102.

The above quotations do not exhaust the Ellen White descriptions of what a living church is but they do make it evident that not every professed Seventh- day Adventist is part of the church militant because the church militant is a living church (FLB 305).

Second, the church militant is fighting and wrestling against temptations and is fighting severe battles with the spiritual forces of evil. It is wrestling “against the confederacy of evil” (FLB 305). It is in a severe conflict and this conflict will become more bitter and fierce until the end. If we do not individually take part in the battle, we are not really part of the church militant and will never be part of the church triumphant. Notice the following graphic descriptions of this fact:

“The Christian life is a constant warfare. The church militant is not the church triumphant. Paul says, ‘We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ‘ We must meet human beings of power and influence who are on Satan’s side of the controversy” Peter’s Counsel to Parents, 23.

“The church militant is not in this world the church triumphant. From generation to generation, the enemy has been marshaling his forces against God. His enmity against the law of God has increased as time has passed. And his followers are at enmity with any one who has moral courage to depart from evil, and bear witness to the truth” RH 7/ 26/ 1898.

“The Church militant is not the Church triumphant. Unless the people of God wage a valiant warfare against every species of sin, they will never pass through the portals of the holy city. And we shall have no second trial” RH 12/ 31/ 1901.

“Christians are engaged in a warfare. The church militant is not the church triumphant. The followers of Christ, marching toward Zion, must fight at every step…. He [Satan] has claimed this world. Declaring that no human- being can keep the law of God’s kingdom, he claims all men as his subjects” ST 6/ 10/ 03.

“The Lord desires us to be victorious over the powers of darkness. He is willing to save to the uttermost all who come to Him. It is through Him that ~we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. ‘ Through Him we have access to heaven’s treasure- house— His Word, the Holy Scriptures. From this treasure- house we are to draw the weapons of our warfare— the weapons so effectively used by our Saviour. With the sword of truth— ‘it is written’— He vanquished the foe. Armed with this sword, and protected by the shield of faith, we, the church militant, shall be able to stand unmoved by Satan’s assaults. Continuing to resist the enemy, we shall constantly gain strength, and finally become the church triumphant” ST 6/ 10/ 03.

Third, the church militant does not sustain (condone) those who are carnally minded although carnally minded people will be found within her borders (RH 1/ 16/ 94). We will see how this occurs shortly.

Fourth, the church militant is composed of erring men and women and is not yet perfect (as the church triumphant will be) and it will be necessary not only to exercise mercy toward the erring but also by this practice we will be preparing to become part of the church triumphant (ST 1/ 4/ 1883).

So who is the church militant? The church militant is the living church of God that has all the above identifying characteristics. Obviously, not every professed Seventh- day Adventist is part of the church militant— the church militant is by definition that church who is fighting the spiritual forces of darkness in this world; and those who are not taking part in the war, who are spiritually dead while they have a name that they are living, cannot be part of the church militant in reality. They are simply part of the professed church or/ people of God. This is a term used frequently by Ellen White and she often draws a sharp distinction between the professed church and the true church. In times of persecution, the professed people of God and His true people become almost the same thing, but, in times of liberty, the same is not true.

THE PROFESSED CHURCH AND THE TRUE CHURCH

We have seen that in Old Testament times there was only one true Israel of God, but we saw that this true Israel of God was a remnant of a much larger group that Paul calls Israel according the flesh. Paul made it very clear that “they are not all Israel [the true people of God] who are of Israel [the professed people of God]” Romans 9: 6. The same was true during New Testament times. We saw that the Jews were the professed true church of God all during the time of the apostle Paul’s ministry. But the true church of God were those, both Jews and Gentiles, who had not only the profession but the spiritual relationship to the True Vine, the ones who were in reality the spiritual seed of the woman. So there was a difference between the professed church in both Old Testament and New Testament times.

Was this true during the Dark Ages also? Indeed it was: “For many centuries, first through paganism and then through the Papacy, Satan exerted his powers to blot from the earth God’s faithful witnesses. Both heathen and papists were actuated by the same dragon spirit. They differed only in that the Romish apostate, making a pretense of serving God, was the more dangerous and cruel foe. Through the agency of Romanism, Satan took the world captive. The professed church of God was swept into the ranks of this delusion, and for more than a thousand years the true people of God suffered under the dragon’s ire” ST 2/ 8/ 1910. What is this inspired statement saying? Who was the professed true church of God during the Dark Ages? It was those churches that had been swept into the Roman apostasy and were no longer part of spiritual Israel but had become part of spiritual Babylon. In plain English, the professed true church of God during the Dark Ages was the Romanist or Roman Catholic Church. But was that giant professed true church the true people of God, His true church, the spiritual seed of the woman (Genesis 3: 15)? No, they were trying to destroy the true church. In plain language, the professed true church was attempting to destroy the real or true church. Obviously, the professed true church and the real or true church was not the same.

Would the same be true today during the time of the end? “Oh, no,” someone might say, “the cycles have to stop in the last days; God’s professed true people today are finally the true church in reality” (even though this has never once been completely the case in nearly 6,000 years!). The professed church will never be the same as the one true church until the very end (see Word to the Little Flock, 12). There is only one true church, not two; and this one true church is defined in Appendix #1.

The professed Seventh- day Adventist Church is composed of all those who have made a profession of faith in all the doctrines of the Bible, including Revelation 14: 6- 12, and have been baptized by water. If they experience what they profess, they are really modern Israel, the spiritual seed of the woman (Revelation 12: 17). If they do not experience what they profess, if their character is not in harmony with their profession, they are only Israel according to the flesh— the professed people of God but not such in reality.

You become part of the professed church when you are baptized with water, but you are not actually part of the body of Christ unless you have been baptized with the Holy Spirit, which is one of the things baptism with water represents. Paul says that we become part of the body of Christ (the church) when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12: 13). You are part of the professed remnant church when, having been baptized with water, you profess to keep all the commandments of God and live according to the Spirit of Prophecy as revealed in the writings of Ellen White (Revelation 12: 17; 19: 10; Joel 2: 28- 32); but you are recognized in heaven as part of the true church when you actually do what you profess.

We are not to accept into fellowship in the professed church anyone who is living in open sin and all such that are already members are to be disfellowshipped (see 1 Corinthians 5; 2 John). This does not mean that there are no tares (A tare is someone who is living a righteous life on the outside, that is, he is not living in open sin, but his heart is not right— see COL 70- 74.) in the borders of the professed church of God. There will be tares until the angels separate them from the wheat. (It appears that we have been in this separation process now for several years— it is most commonly referred to by Ellen White as the shaking and is called a terrible ordeal.)

This shaking and sifting process continues until the end. Until the very end there will always be a difference between the professed and the true church or people of God. Following are a few Ellen White statements which contrast the professed church and the true church as we near the end. It is important to understand the difference because, just as in the Dark Ages, the professed Seventh- day Adventist Church can turn on and attempt to destroy the true Seventh-day Adventist Church (see the clear inspired definitions of the true Seventh- day Adventist Church in Appendix #1).

“The true people of God, who have the spirit of the work of the Lord and the salvation of souls at heart, will ever view sin it its real, sinful character. They will always be on the side of faithful and plain dealing with sins which easily beset the people of God. Especially in the closing work for the church, in the sealing time of the one hundred and forty- four thousand, who are to stand without fault before the throne of God, will they feel most deeply the wrongs of God’s professed people” RH 6/ 8/ 86 (parallel statements in 3T 266 and RH 9/ 23/ 1873).

“You think, that those who worship before the saint’s feet, (Rev. 3: 9), will at last be saved. Here I must differ with you; for God shew me that this class were professed Adventists, who had fallen away, and ‘crucified to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. ‘ And in the ‘hour of temptation, ‘ which is yet to come, to show out every one’s true character, they will know that they are forever lost; and overwhelmed with anguish of spirit, they will bow at the saint’s feet” Word to the Little Flock, 12. In Maranatha on page 287, these professed Adventists are called the synagogue of Satan.

In Christ’s day, most of the Jews, the professed people of God, were actually the synagogue of Satan, as Jesus made clear in John 8: 44. A professed church becomes part of the synagogue of Satan when it becomes involved in deliberate disobedience to God’s law: “Christ speaks of the church over which Satan presides as the synagogue of Satan. Its members are the children of disobedience. They are those who choose to sin, who labor to make void the holy law of God. It is Satan’s work to mingle evil with good, and to remove the distinction between good and evil. Christ would have a church that labors to separate the evil from the good, whose members will not willingly tolerate wrong- doing, but will expel it from the heart and life” RH 12/ 4/ 00.

“All that is not in accordance with the known and expressed will of God, is at enmity with God, and has its origin in the synagogue of Satan. The will of God is expressed in his law, and sin is the transgression of the law. Those who disregard the commandments of God, and teach for doctrines the commandments of men, are working in Satan’s line, and are in harmony with the great leader of apostasy” ST 6/ 11/ 94.

“It should be noted that this is not the same as saying that a church or group has past the borders of probation. After a professed church has begun following Satan by practicing disobedience, the Lord sends messengers to them to turn them from this disobedience and bring them back into harmony with the law of God and the testimony of Jesus. If the reproofs and rebukes of God are listened to, a revival and reformation can happen and the lost sheep of the house of Israel can be reclaimed. If nobody will listen to messages of warning, then the last resort God has is to send judgments and finally mercy makes her last plea” (DA 587).

WHO ARE GOD’S DENOMINATED PEOPLE?

It is often assumed that God’s distinct denominated people must be a certain Seventh-day Adventist organization, etc., but we must let inspiration tell us who God’s distinct denominated people are. Again we will find that inspiration defines God’s distinct denominated people today in spiritual terms and if we do not have the spiritual characteristics, we are not really God’s distinct denominated people no matter what organization we are a member of.

  • The identifying mark that makes you part of God’s denominated people is keeping God’s commandments:

“As I was considering this matter in the night season, it seemed as if One stood up in the midst of us and pointed us back to the Israelites as an illustration of a distinct people, denominated of God. That which made them denominational was the observance of God’s commandments. In the twelfth to the eighteenth verses of the thirty- first chapter of Exodus their distinguishing sign is mentioned. ‘Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep, ‘ the Lord declared, ‘for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.. . . It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever” ‘ 19MR 38.

  • We are Seventh- day Adventists because we keep the Sabbath and look for the second advent:

“We are Seventh- day Adventists. This is a fitting name, for we keep the seventh-day Sabbath, and look for the second advent of our Lord in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. Even with respect to the name indicating some of the peculiar points of faith distinguishing us from other Christians, we are denominational. In keeping the Sabbath that God declares should be kept holy as a sign between Himself and His people, we show to the world that we are His peculiar, chosen people— a people whom He has denominated” 19MR 40.

  • When you decide to serve God, you are denominational: Mrs. E. G. White: “When you come to the point where you decide to serve God, you are denominational.

You should not link up with men who have no faith, men who although acquainted with the truth for many years, refuse to obey its teachings. Such men are not to have a voice in your council- meetings. Even if they were very rich, I would not bind myself to them by a single thread. I would not seek their advice in regard to the business transactions and other matters connected with the management of the institution. The time has come when we must find our bearings. We must come to our senses, and know where we are standing. We are on the very borders of the eternal world. We cannot tell what may happen next” 19MR 52.

  • Those who keep the Sabbath are God’s denominated people and we are to cherish this denominational distinction:

“Do not these words point us out as God’s denominated people? and do they not declare to us that so long as time shall last, we are to cherish the sacred, denominational distinction placed on us? The children of Israel were to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations ‘for a perpetual covenant. ‘ The Sabbath has lost none of its meaning. It is still the sign between God and his people, and it will be so forever” RH 8/ 4/ 04.

  • We are not to hide our name: “In the name of the Lord we are to identify ourselves as Seventh-day Adventists” BCL 52. “The reasons why we are denominated people of God are to be repeated and repeated. Deuteronomy 4: 1- 13; 5: 1- 33.— Ms 175, 1905. (Diary, July 10, 1905.)” 8MR 427.

There has been an attempt to slander God’s true people. God’s true people, His true church, are those who keep the commandments of God and obey the Spirit of Prophecy (see UL 315). But there has been an attempt to say that anyone who is not under the authority of a certain Seventh- day Adventist organization is not a part of God’s true people or true church. Conscientious Seventh- day Adventist ministers have been asked by a conference or union or the General Conference to do something that they could not do with a clear conscience. For being faithful to their conscientious convictions, they have been fired or disfellowshipped or in some other way forcefully separated from the organized structure, the professed Seventh- day Adventist Church, the professed true church of God of the last days. Then the message goes out far and near that these persons have separated from the church, that they are working independent of the church. In some cases the charge is made that they are not part of God’s denominated people anymore, that they are not Seventh- day Adventists, when the truth is that the professed Seventh- day Adventist Church cast them out with force. This has not only been done with individuals but with entire churches and even larger groups! This underhanded work is misleading because many Seventh- day Adventists do not yet know who the true church really is— they think that it is a certain church organization, but it is rather the people who love God and keep His commandments (UL 315). In many cases around the world, the true and faithful have been disfellowshipped; but these are still the only true church and those who have disfellowshipped them thereby give the whole universe evidence that they are on the opposite side of the great controversy from God’s true and faithful people— His true church. They thereby show that they are part of the synagogue of Satan just as the Jews were in Christ’s day. They are not part of the true church at all: “We can see from this scripture [Revelation 12: 17] that it is not the true church of God that makes war with those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. It is the people who make void the law, who place themselves on the side of the dragon, and persecute those who vindicate God’s precepts” ST 4/ 22/ 1889.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question: Who and what is a Seventh- day Adventist church?
Answer:
A Seventh- day Adventist church is a congregation of Seventh- day Adventist believers who are organized as a local church body. To tell if a professed Seventh- day Adventist church is a truly historic Seventh- day Adventist local church, you should find out if they believe the historic Adventist beliefs as listed in Appendix #3.

Question: Could you give me more quotations where Ellen White draws a distinction between the true church and the professed church?
Answer:
Yes, see Appendix #2.

Question: What is an historic Seventh- day Adventist?
Answer:
An historic Seventh- day Adventist is a person who professes to believe all the historic Seventh- day Adventist beliefs (briefly listed in appendix #4) and does not believe the “new theology.” Hallmarks of the new theology are the following concepts:

  1. A person cannot have complete and perfect victory over sin in this life,
  2. rejection of the significance of 1844 and the investigative judgment and the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary being the antitype of the Jewish sanctuary,
  3. rejection of the writings of Ellen White as those of a true prophet of God and authoritative,
  4. salvation (and the gospel) is by justification alone and
  5. substitution of the authority of the church (church manual) in place of the supreme authority of the Bible. If a person believes any one of the five above, he is not an historic Adventist.

Question: Who is modern Israel?
Answer:
“I was shown that those who are trying to obey God and purify their souls through obedience to the truth are God’s chosen people, His modern Israel” 2T 109.

Question: Could you give many Ellen White definition statements of the church to back up your thesis?
Answer:
Yes, see Appendix #1.

Question: Doesn’t the Spirit of Prophecy say that God’s people today are destined to triumph?
Answer:
The truth is soon to triumph and only those who stay with the truth will triumph with it:

“The church of God, hated and persecuted by the world, are educated and disciplined in the school of Christ. They walk in narrow paths on earth; they are purified in the furnace of affliction. They follow Christ through sore conflicts; they endure self- denial and experience bitter disappointments; but their painful experience teaches them the guilt and woe of sin, and they look upon it with abhorrence. Being partakers of Christ’s sufferings, they are destined to be partakers of His glory. In holy vision the prophet saw the triumph of the people of God. He says, ‘I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory, . . . stand on the sea of glass, having the hams of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints. ‘ ‘These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple: and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. ‘ Revelation 15: 2, 3; 7: 14, 15” MB 31. “The truth is soon to triumph gloriously and all who now choose to be laborers together with God will triumph with it” 9T 135.

Question: Who is really a church member? (Who is really a Seventh- day Adventist?)
Answer:
(1) You become a member of the professed church when you are baptized with water; but you are not a member of the true church, the actual body of Christ, unless you are baptized with the Holy Spirit. According to 1 Corinthians 12: 13, we do not become a member of the true church— the body of Christ— until we are baptized by the Holy Spirit. (2) When your name is voted in by a local church body after your baptism with water, then your name is added to the church book on earth and you are a member of a local professed church. Usually, within this body, some are professed only, but some are both professed and members of the true church— the church of the Firstborn and the names of the members of the church of the First- born are registered in heaven (Hebrews 12: 23). “God . . . . draws the dividing line between those who bear his name by profession, and those whose character shows them to be his children” ST 6/ 30/ 1881.

Special Note: In this small booklet only the definition issue of the church has been addressed. Several other serious and slanderous charges are being leveled against ministries attempting to help complete the gospel commission in the world. These will be addressed later if the Lord wills. One issue is the charge of separation; another is the charge of criticism; another is the charges concerning church authority and church organization; and still another issue is the definition of Babylon. All these must be addressed because: “When man assails his fellow men, and presents in a ridiculous light those whom God has appointed to do work for him, we would not be doing justice to the accusers, or to those who are misled by their accusations should we keep silent, leaving the people to think that their brethren and sisters, in whom they have had confidence, are no longer worthy of their love and fellowship. This work, arising in our very midst, and resembling the work of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, is an offence to God, and should be met. And on every point the accusers should be called upon to bring their proof. Every charge should be carefully investigated” 3SM 348.

Appendixes –>