Adventist Alert Church History Study

General Note: All the Specials and Commentaries are in the last file of the year. There are 4 files for each year: jm=Jan-Mar; aj=Apr-Jun; js-=Jul-Sep; od=Oct-Dec.

In memory of
Elder William Henry Grotheer, Editor

"Watchman,
What of the Night?" ( WWN) is a thought paper that was published monthly continuously from Jan, 1968 to the end of Dec. 2006 . by the Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Mississippi, Inc.(ALF), with William H. Grotheer as the Editor of Research & Publication.

Due to his failing health, Elder Grotheer requested that ALF of Canada continue publishing thoughts through its website www.AdventistAlet.com which now has developed into frequent Blog Thought articles plus all of the Foundation's historical published works written and audio.

As of 2010, with the official closing of the ALF of USA , The Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Canada with its website www.Adventist Alert.com is the only officially operating ALF branch established by Elder Grotheer worldwide.

We are thankful for the historical legacy that is now available through

The Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Canada, POB 8255,
Victoria, BC V8W 3R9 Canada

The Nov. 1977 issue discusses "What is the "Watchman What of the Night?"

Tax deductible receipts are still given for all gifts as usual.

To Support
Donate

The MISSION of this site -- is to put the articles from the WWN in Essay form to be Browsed and Word Searched by word or subject. It is not our purpose to copy WWN in whole.

Any portion of the thought paper may be reproduced without further permission by adding the credit line - "Reprinted from WWN, Victoria, BC Canada."

~~~~~

TOP

WWN 1988 Jan - Mar

1988 Jan -- XXI - 1(88) -- A MOMENTOUS YEAR FOR ADVENTISM -- The action of the 1986 Annual Council held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, sets the year - 1988 as a crisis year in the Adventist Community. The delegates "voted to hold a special centennial convocation in early November, 1988. The meeting will convene in Minneapolis, site of the historic session." (Adventist Review, Oct. 30,1986, p. 12 ) The report noted further that the hierarchy "initiated the commemoration to affirm the righteousness by faith doctrine and raise the level of awareness among church members."

Besides the reenactment of the 1888 session, study paper on righteousness by faith are planned. These will include discussion of such topics as: "What really happened? What were the key doctrinal issues, personalities, events, and results? How is righteousness by faith involved in specific Adventist doctrines?" In addition to the centennial celebration discussion, the Week of Prayer also scheduled for ear1y November will likewise emphasize the subject of righteousness by faith. (ibid.) Already the tone has been set for the answers to the suggested questions for the study papers. Several books known as "The 1888 Centennial Series" are already off the press. One of these - From 1888 to Apostasy - is a devastating indictment of A. T. Jones. The author, Dr. George R. Knight, is a member of the Church History Department of the Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He is also the author of the book - Myths in Adventism.

p 2 -- Having been alerted that this book was being written and due off the press in late '87, we obtained a copy as qu ickly as possible. The data pages of the two books by Knight differ significantly. For the book - 1888 to Apostasy - "the author assumes full responsibility for the accuracy of all facts as cited in this book." (p. 4) While this may get the hierarchy off the hook for any adverse exposure of the book, this does not clear the Ellen G. White Estate of involvement. Both in supplying documents, and in offering "helpful suggestions regarding content and format," Dr Robert Olson, Secretary of the Estate, is named. (p. 14) Of significance, it is Olson's comments that are reported in the announcement of the action of the 1986 Annual Council setting
the tone and agenda for the 1988 celebration. Neither must it be forgotten that "church leaders initiated the commemoration." It will be seen as we focus attention on his book - 1888 To Apostasy - that Knight is the "hatchet man" for the devastation of A. T. Jones. But while doing this service for the hierarchy, he is assuming full responsibility for the evaluation of
the data supplied to him by the various libraries and archives of the Church. Time alone will tell how great will be his reward for performing this service!

The key to his approach in writing this "biography" of A. T. Jones is discovered in the Preface. There Knight writes - "I have tried never to forget that my primary aim was to write an interpretive biography of the man." (p. 13, emphasis mine) The depth to which he went in seeking to "interpret" A. T. Jones, to his readers, is revealed in this evaluation of the man - "Because Jones frequently did not really believe he was wrong when reproved [by Ellen G. White], his differences with Mrs White festered in the subterranean compartments of his mind." (p. 228, emphasis mine) This is judgment gone wild! How can any one human being read the subconscience of another, let alone motive? And then, Knight is at least removed eighty years from the event being "interpreted"!

This is only one example of the lengths to which this author went in seeking to "kill" A. T. Jones, a man whom he admits was "powerful" and "one of the most fascinating personalities ever to grace a Seventh-day Adventist pulpit." (p. 11)

This book also brings Wieland and Short to their moment of truth. Knight forthrightly deals with the questions of "denominatonal repentance." He writes: Recent years have seen a calll for corporate repentance on the part of the Adventist Church. That is an interesting appeal, since it has a biblical basis. Unfortunately, that base rests upon the corporate nationhood of Israel in the Old Testament. Since the beginning of the gospel era God has worked with individuals rather than nations or groups. People most accept and apply righteousness by faith as individuals. It is not a creedal enactment by the church leaders for members. In the era of the priesthood of every believer, individual commitment and surrender is the only avenue of gospel appeal ... The whole idea of corporate repentance is not very helpful. (p. 64)

The answer to the position taken by Dr. Knight can be found in both the Bible and the Writings. In Jesus' prophecy found in Luke 21:24, it is evident that God was still dealing with nations or Gentiles (same word in the Greek) as corporate entities when He permitted the "signal" which marked the close of their probation. The research of this prophecy by the editor of this Thought Paper, Elder D. K. Short declared "holds water" but Wieland will have no part of it! Then in Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5. pp. 207-209, it clearly states that at the time "when Jesus is about to leave the mercy-seat of the heavenly sanctuary," "the Infinite One" still deals with nations, and thus with groups, as corporate bodies. But Wieland will not touch this chapter from the Writings with "a ten foot pole." It will be interesting to see how Wieland and Short reply to Dr. Knight on this point, for reply they must, or be completely discredited.

It should be obvious in the light of all these factors that 1988 will not only be a momentous year in Adventism, but also a year of crisis in doctrine and historical evaluation. Our work as editors of this publication is cut out for us. Not only will we continue to evaluate the revision of 1888 Re-
Examined, but we will pursue in detail the "interpretive bioraphy" of A. T. Jones written by Dr. Knight, and other pertinent materials as they are released. If you are not a regular reader of "Watchman, What of the Night?" you need to be, so as to have a "front seat" as the drama in Adventism unfolds during 1988. From 1888 to Apostasy by George R. Kniglt can be obtained from Adventist Book Centers.

p 3 -- 1888 RE-EXAMINED EXAMINED -- Part 3 -- Among the charges leveled in the "Second General Conference Report" (1958) reviewing the original edition of the manuscript, 1888 Re-Examined, was the accusation that "there is a consistent pattern throughout the manuscript of using [Spirit of Prophecy] quotations out of their setting and applying them to fit certain pre-conceived conclusions rather than letting the sources speak for themselves." (p. 47) Wieland and Short note this charge in their new edition, and comment that after they had submitted a 70-page reply, the General Conference Appraisal "was withdrawn and no longer became available to the field." (1987 ed., pp. 167-168) The inference is clear - the charges in Appraisal were incorrect! But this is only stating part of the facts. This "Second General Conference Report" was made available to those who wished to study it by A. L. Hudson in his documentary publication for the North Pacific Union Conference Committee captioned - A Warning and Its Reception. It is true that this documentary is now out of print, but it is also true that Wieland has opposed it being reprinted.

A careful comparison between the quotes given above from page 47 of the "Second General Conference Report" and the quotes as it appears in the 1987 edition of 1888 ReExamined reveals a purposeful deletion of a key part of the sentence. Note the part of the charge omitted decries Wieland and Short's deletions because of their attempt to twist the sources to fit their preconceived conclusions. (p. 167) This is clearly stated in the body of the report. It reads: It is to be regretted that in the urgency to find in the Ellen G. White writings, support for conclusions obviously already reached by the authors, that they allowed themselves, perhaps unwittingly, but none the less erroneously, to resort to the use of the E. G. White statements written concerning one situation and to apply them to an entirely different situation. (A Warning and Its Reception, p. 264)

It is not the object of this "examination" to review the accuracy or inaccuracy of the charges regarding the 1950 edition. This was done by Wieland and Short in their 70-page reply. The basic premise of the original manuscript stands. The tragedy is that this charge made concerning the 1950 edition is valid when applied to the 1987 revision of 1888 Re-Examined. The presupposition that Laodicea will repent and that what God had planned for "the faithful city" in 1888 will be carried out without alteration so colors Wieland and Short's thinking that they are unable to rightly evaluate the force of the full context, nor the historical setting in which a testimony was written. A key example can be found in the chapter - "The 'Alpha' and 'Omega' Crises." (p. 133)

The basic premise of this chapter is that rejection of light leads to a darkening of the discernment to detect error. In this the authors are correct. To support this thesis they quote: At the time of the loud cry of the third angel those who have been in any measure blinded by the enemy, who have not fully recovered themselves from the snare of Satan, will be in peril, because it will be difficult to discern the light from heaven, and they will be inclined to accept falsehood. (R&H, Dec. 13, 1892; See p. 133, 1987 edition)

This is an excellent quote to give support to the premise, but it is taken out of context and thus Wieland and Short fail to give a full picture of the tragic results of the rejection of the message of 1888.

Three weeks prior to this article, Ellen White had written: The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth. (Ibid., Nov. 22, 1892)

What were the conditions in 1892 when the "loud cry" had begun? 1) The greater part of God's true people were still in "the churches which constitute Babylon." (GC, p. 390) [In 1892, the SDA membership had not even reached the prophetic 144,000] 2) No landmarks had been removed in the preaching of the 1888 Message. (See C to W&E, p. 30)

But what is the context of the quotes used by Wieland and Short? In the paragraph

p 4 -- immediately prior to the one quoted, it is stated: After the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations, every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation, and minds will be confused by many voices crying, "Lo, here is Christ, Lo, he is there. This is the truth, I have a message from God, he has sent me with great light."

What follows the witness? Note carefully: Then there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to pull down the pillars of our faith.

What other activity will be taking place? Satan and his angels will be wideawake, and intensely active, working with energy and perseverance through human instrumentalities to bring about his purpose of obliterating from the minds of men the knowledge of God. But while Satan works with his lying wonders, the time will be fulfilled foretold in the Revelation, and the mighty angel that shall lighten the earth with his glory, will proclaim the fall of Babylon, and call upon God's people to forsake her.

[Then the paragraph begins which Wieland and Short quote]

The "loud cry" in this Review article will not be given under the same set of circumstances as the "loud cry" as described in the article written three weeks earlier would have been given. The "loud cry" noted in the warning which Wieland and Short quoted out of context comes "after" the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations. it comes "after" there has been "an attempt to pull down the pillars of our faith." it comes "while" Satan works "his lying wonders." It should be clear that if "the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations," the greater part of God's true people could not still be in Babylon.

The whole of the final scene was to be changed as indicated in this article coming just three weeks after God's original intent had begun to be fulfilled. The light was withdrawn because of the rejection of the Message of 1888 as Wieland and Short well know. But their presuppositions stand in the way of their walking in the light which has now been bestowed. They would rather delete that section of the testimony, thus placing out of context that which they chose to quote. This is not being honest with truth, nor with the light God has been pleased to give.

In the 1987 edition of 1888 Re-Examined, the authors even recognize at the "loud cry" is "increased light." (p. 14) Yet when "increased light" is revealed, they resist in the same way that the leadership resisted the message of 1888. They would believe that had they lived in the days of spiritual forefathers, they would not have done as they did; but they are doing exactly as they did - rejecting light because it does not meet their presuppositions.

Blinded by the Enemy -- The part of the article which is used on p. 133 of the new edition, reveals the experience of the authors themselves. They are unable to discern the light from heaven which God is giving at the present time. They have problems with the contextual preceding paragraph, and thus omitted it. This preceding paragraph states clearly that apostasy - attempting "to tear down the pillars of our faith" - comes after the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations. Only one completely blinded with Laodicea's affliction can deny that between 1950 - the date of Wieland and Short's call of God - and the present, this apostasy has been finalized in official action. The documentation is too extensive to deny it.

In the final chapters of the new edition "From 1950 to 1971" and "From 1971 to 1987 and Beyond" - there is not a single mention, nor a slight reference to, the apostasy which began in the period covered by the first of the two chapters, and which became final in the time covered by the final chapter. Following the 1952 Bible Conference which is noted (pp. 165-167), came the SDA-Evangelical Conferences. Yet clearly, the tragedy of the compromises with truth in the books - Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny - resulting from those conferences came because the warning sent by God in 1950 through Wieland and Short was not heeded.

The first edition of 1888 Re-Examined recognized this possibility and noted the areas wherein this compromise with truth would come. This has been deleted from the new edition, and the "omega" pushed into the future. Note what is written: Whenever the omega does appear, it will very likely claim the support of the Spirit of Prophecy, and "many" undiscerning minds will agree. And it is also possible that some prominent, influential leaders will foster the deception. (1987 edition, p. 144; emphasis theirs)

p 5 -- A no more accurate description could be written of what took place during the SDA-
Evangelica1 Conferences, and the book which resu1ted - Questions on Doctrine. The evidence is clear. The book contains three appendices - 52 pages - of quotes from the Writings which are used to support theapostate contentions in the book along with positions of truth. it is a fearful mingling of truth and error. And what about the "prominent, influential leaders" who would give support to this apostasy? The list is a Who's Who of the General Conference leadership at that time. (See SDA- Evangelical Conferences - facsimile reproduction of documents published by the Adventist Laymen's Foundation)

Elder M. L. Andreasen, one of Adventism's great theologians, perceived the compromise
with the Evangelicals as the "omega" and stood up to meet it. He wrote - "In this crisis we are now in, it would be cowardice for me to fail to come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty." (Letters to the Churches. P. 64) His wife, after his death wrote - "He lived with Sr. White so long and she told him of the 'Omega' and he was to 'meet it, meet it'. He did his best to do just that. ..." DF - "Andreasen", ALF Library)

Yet Wieland and Short would still place the "omega" into the future. The reason is simple. If the "omega" has come - and it has! - they are faced with the fact that corporate Laodicea has passed the limits of God's patience. Their presuppostions will not permit this, and therefore in their self-imposed blindness, they choose to ignore the facts of history. What an accounting will have to be given for the souls thus deceived at the 1888 Message Conferences, and through the distorted new edition of 1888 Re-Examined!

Another Use of 8T:247-251 -- In Part Two of this analysis of the 1987 edition, (XX-12, p. 5), we stated that we had found only two references to this testimony. A review of the book produced a third reference which illustrates the allegation being made that the Writings through deletions are structured to support the presuppositions of the authors rather than letting the Writings speak just as they are written. But the irony of this use is that "off-shoots" are charged with doing the very thing which Wieland and Short have done in the use of this testimony. We shall quote in full context noting the emphasis given by the authors, and then comment. Here is what is written - note the deletions:

The end of the detour is good news. It will bring the church to a true sense of her condition and a genuine repentance, an experience which will be the greatest of its kind in all ages of history:

In the balances of the sanctuary, the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed ... If the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence, "Found wanting."[p. 247] ...

Unless the church, which is now being leavened with her own backsliding, shall repent and be converted, she will eat the fruit of her own doing, untiI she shall abhor herself. When she resists the evil and chooses the good, when she seeks God with all humility,... she will be healed. She will appear in her God-given simplicity and purity, separate from earthly entanglements, showing that the truth has made her free indeed. Then her members will indeed be the chosen of God, His representatives.

When this reformation begins, the spirit of prayer will actuate every believer, and will banish from the church the spirit of discord and strife. ... All will be in harmony with the mind of Christ. (8T:250, 251; emphasis added.),

Off-shoot enthusiasts quote excerpts from this passage in an effort to prove that the church has been rejected by the Lord. In proper context, Ellen White is here predicting an experience of denominational repentance. (1987 edition, p. 134)

Now the key question is simply - Does Ellen White in this reference predict an experience of denominational repentance?

It should be noted first, that the referencing is not even accurate. We have bracketed ( [ ] ) the correct page after the first quoted section. The second deletion covers two and one half pages of testimony, but because the page is not noted, the reader unless he took time to check, would conclude the whole was quoted from pages 250-251. This is simply dishonest scholarship, perhaps unwittingly committed due to "blinders" of self-inflicted deception. It might be said that this was an oversight due to poor editing, but it must be kept in mind that both Wieland and Short have been in editorial work during their church ministry. Thus this excuse is eliminated.

A Review of Facts -- Again let us review the facts concerning

p 6 -- this testimony:

1) This testimony was written within two weeks following the close of the 1903 General Conference Session and is dated, April 21, 1903. This is the time noted as"now" in the Testimony.

2) The second paragraph in this testimony uses verbs in the future tense - "is to be"; and "will" with the third person.

What then is being said by this testimony?

1) The Seventh-day Adventist church as a corporate entity "is to be" weighed "in the balances of the sanctuary." This is not an "if" or "perhaps" statement, but a statement of fact of what was to take place at some point beyond 1903.

2) The basis of judgment was to be - (a) "the privileges and advantages" given to the church; (b) "her spiritual experience"; and (c) how she related to "the work entrusted to her."

3) If the church should fail in these three categories, the verdict would be inevitable - "On her will be pronounced the sentence, 'Found wanting.'"

The next question which demands a correct answer is - What can avert the sentence "Found wanting"?

Here again the testimony is clear. It reads: "Unless the church, which is now being leavened with her own backsliding shall repent and be converted, she will eat the fruit of her own doings, until she shall abhor herself."

What follows this sentence describes what would result should the church repent, which Wieland and Short state is a prediction that she will repent. BUT these men fail to quote the paragraph preceding the condition set forth. The deleted paragraph describes the once "faithful city" as becoming "an harlot", and His Father's house as "a place whence the divine presence and glory have departed!" This testimony, thus leaves unanswered what the verdict of the judgment of the sanctuary was to be. It was to be written in the unfolding of history. But to ignore history is to remain ever a child in understanding.

By quoting "excerpts" different conclusions can be drawn. Wieland and Short charge the "off-shoots" with doing it, but they have fallen into the same pit!

Two questions demand an honest answer:

1) Has the Seventh-day Adventist church as a corporate entity been weighed in the balances of the sanctuary?

2) The basis upon which the verdict will rendered, did the church's record tip the balances against her?

These questions Wieland and Short have not addressed in their 1987 revision, but have ignored facts of history which cast light on these questions. Because of this, they are unable to arrive at truth and must, therefore, "excerpt" the testimonies to conform to their presuppositions.

Observations -- This much discussed testimony - 8T:247-251 indicates that in 1903, the Church entered into a "backsliding" experience which was a "leavening" process. Note again the exact wording - "Unless the church, which is now being leavened with its own backsliding,..." The backsliding in 1903 was not the rejection of the 1888 Message per se. It was the fruitage in the life of the corporate church because of the rejection of the message in the lives of those who exercised authority in the church.

It is concerning the experience at the 1903 General Conference session that repentance was called for by Ellen White - a repentance if genuine, would require a reorganization of the very structure of the church in full harmony with the call given in 1901 at that time Ellen White stated - "What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and build upon a different principle." (1901 GC Bulletin, p. 25)

This facet of our history must be considered in any true examination of the 1888 Message. There was also a third aspect at the 1888 General Conference Session in which A. T. Jones took the lead, and that was the question of true religious liberty. All these aspects have been thrust to the forefront by the publication of From 1888 to Apostasy. This reveals the nakedness of Wieland and Short's revised edition of 1888 Re-Examined as they have attempted to skirt around these other parts of the 1888 Message which do not fit so well into their presuppositions.

"Absolutely nothing which does not bear the test of truth will be triumphant in the Judgement."
(1888 Re-Examined, 1950 ed., p. 2; omitted in the 1987 ed)

p 7 -- CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS -- Lesson # 11 -- Acceptance with God

Question	Answer
1. Has God bought us?	1 Cor. 6:19, 20
2. What was the price that God paid to purchase us?	Acts 20:28 1 Peter 1:18, 19
3. Why did God give His Son for us?	Titus 2:14 Galatians 1:4
4. For whom did God give His Son?	John 3:16
5. Did Christ die for any certain group of people?	Romans 5:6-8 (See note 1)
6. Is Christ satisfied with the purchase that He made on the cross of Calvary?	Isaiah 53:11 Hebrews 12:2 Phil. 2:6-8
7. Did Jesus know what He was getting when He purchased man?	John 2:24. 25 (See note 2)
8. Will Christ accept us?	John 6:37
9. What has God given to us?	I John 5:11, 12
10. Can we know that God accepts us and gives us eternal life?	1 John 5:13 John 6:47
11. What do we need in order to make this a reality?	Hebrews 11:1 (See note 3)
12. How do we become children of God?	Galatians 3:26
13. How do we obtain this faith?	Romans 10:17
14. To those who believe in Christ, what privilege is given to them?	John 1:12 (See note 4)
15. Why have these precious promises been given to us?	2 Peter 1:4

NOTES --

1. Christ died for but one group: sinners! Since the Bible teaches that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," then Christ died for every man, woman, and child ever born. This is why in John 3:16 it is stated that the Father so loved the world that He gave His only Son for it.

2. "He (Christ) made the purchase with His eyes open, and He knew the exact value of that which He bought. He is not at all disappointed when you come to Him and He finds that you are worthless. You have not to worry over the question of worth; if He, with His perfect knowledge of the case, was satisfied to make the bargin, you should be the last one to complain." (Christ Our Righteousness, pp. 75, 76)

3. "If you should hear God say with an audible voice that you are His child, you would consider that sufficient witness. Well, when God speaks in His word, it is the same as though He spoke with an audible voice." (Ibid., p. 79)

4. The Greek word for "Power" in verse 12 is exousia (ex-oo-seel-ah). This word means power in the sense of abi 1 i ty, or privilege. With this understanding the text could be translated: "But as many as received him, to them he gave the right - the delegated authority - to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.--- (1988 Jan) --- End --- TOP

1988 Feb -- XXI - 2(88) -- 1888 RE-EXAMINED EXAMINED -- Part 4 -- A Canadian reader of "Watchman, What of the Night?" wrote a few weeks ago telling of questions she had asked Wieland and Short. The letter reads in part: I asked these men, when they held meetings at the Huntington Park Church in California, "Why didn't you do what God asked you to do?" That letter to Beach tells their position! (See WWN, XX-12, p. 6) Can you imagine men going to W. R. Beach for advice when God tells them to do a certain thing? And then about thirty years later decide to do what God told them to do years before!!!? Why do they think they can do the job they were told to do long ago! (Foss and Foy knew better than to try. They had refused also. That is why God chose EGW!)

Another reader writes from the West Coast: There is a Western Region 1888 Message Conference in session now up in the Camp above Loma Linda. It started Thursday evening and will close Sunday. I am not attending and neither is ----- .

Yes, Elder Wieland has either changed his view about corporate repentance, or he did not make clear what he meant during the early years of his writing and speaking.

Elder Snyman said that all the speakers had met and discussed improving their communication so they would be understood. He felt that many people didn't interpret their message correctly.

These two letters though different in emphasis strike at the heart of the problem. It is a matter of record that Wieland and Short did not carry out God's call to them in 1950, but permitted the message God gave to them to be kept in a great degree from the people. It is also true that they have not chosen to do what

p 2 -- Foss and Foy did after they refused to carry out God's call back in the 1844 era. But the tragedy is that now when they seek to carry out the mandate God gave them in 1950, they are altering the message so as to make it acceptable to the hierarchy. Besides this, they continue to refuse to face up to the facts which are a matter of historical record since 1950.

A contoversial issue - denominational, or corporate repentance - seems now to have become more controversial due to faulty communication of concepts. Are Wieland and Short defining it in the same way they did in 1950, or are they making it mean something different? There can be no question but that the "brethren" in 1950 clearly understood from the original manuscript what Wieland and Short were saying. They were being called upon in their official capacity and not merely as individuals to repent of the rejection of the message God sent in 1888 through two other "messengers." This we have documented in Part Two of this series. (See [1987] XX-12, p. 3, col. 2) We also noted in this documentation that two of the statements upon which the leadership of the church based their conclusions were either modified, or deleted in the 1987 edition of 1888 Re-Examined.

However, as late as 1986, Wieland, writing in his widely distributed book - "As Many As I Love"- declared: We have seen that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is in a unique sense Laodicea. It follows that the "angel of the church of the Laodiceans" is primarily the responsible leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist church on all levels, each segment appropriately responsible. "' These things, saith He that.holdeth the seven stars in His right hand.' These words are spoken to the teachers in the church - those entrusted by God with weighty resonsibilities." (Acts of the Apostles, p. 586) They are "those whom God has appointed to bear responsibilities of leadership" in the church, "those in the offices that God has appointed for the leadership of His people." (Ibid., p. 164)

In the next paragraph, Wieland makes it abundantly clear what the "nuts and bolts" are of denominational or corporate repentance. He writes: " The Laodicean message shows that Christ respects church organization. He intends that the 'angel of the church' shall repent first, and then minister that repentance to the worldwide church. The Laodicean message is evidence that this is His plan." (pp. 59-60)

Basically, then, as late as 1986, there was no change in what Wieland held and taught as to the meaning of corporate repentance. It was the leadership in their capacity as leaders who were to make repentance for the mistakes their predecessors had made, and this repentance was to be ministered to the members of the church body. This is the concept the leaders of the Church in 1950 understood Wieland and Short to hold, as well as those involved in writing the "Appraisal" to their manuscript in 1958. What now has become the problem?

Between the two paragraphs quoted above from "As Many As I Love", there is a very revealing one sentence confession to truth on Wieland's part. It reads - "If they [the leadership of the Church] refuse Christ's call, church organization must eventually disintergrate." What would such an event do to Wieland's concept that Laodicea will go through?! Any possibility of this happening must create horrors among the 1888 Message Committee.

Of course Wieland has proposed a solution. In this 1986 publication, he asks a question - "Suppose the leadership fails, or rejects the Lord's appeal? Israel's history demonstrates that 'the people' can intervene and demand repentance; see Jeremiah 26." This is simply repentance on demand which we have discussed in a previous Thought Paper. (See [1986] XIX-12) Thus the present emphasis on denominational repentance could well be an attempt to stir up the people to demand of the leadership corporate repentance, rather than an altering of the basic 1950 perception. In other words, just anything except admitting that Laodicea has been "spued out" as indicated in the prophecy. But beneath this reluctance to follow truth to its ultimate end - the cross - there are some other basic concepts resulting from the fact that Wieland and Short did not pursue God's call in 1950.

p 3 -- A simple fact which is sometimes overlooked is that when God calls a messenger, or messengers, He does not give them the full revelation of the message He wants given at the time He gives the initial call. There is a progressive revelation of that message. This was evident in the Message of 1888. Though called the 1888 Message, it was deep. It was deepened and broadened in the years following 1888 by both Jones and Waggoner. The denial of this principle at work in God's revelation through chosen messengers is basic in Knight's thesis as found in the book - From 1888 to Apostasy. He charges that the doctrinal issues involving "the divinity of Christ, the human nature of Christ" and the idea of "'sinless living'" were not topics to be found in the 1888 Message but rather read back into the message as a result of "subsequent developments in Jones and Waggoner's treatment of riqhteousness by faith." (p. 37) Factually, this is, to some extent true. However, this cannot deny the fact that these topics became a part of the ongoing revelation given to both Waggoner and Jones as by the Holy Spirit they were led into deeper understandings of the Word. As light given is proclaimed, more light is given. Wieland and Short would not deny this basic premise as Knight does. What then happened in their case?

At the 1950 General Conference Session, God gave these two young missionaries to Africa a "Spirit of discernment" so they could accurately evaluate what they saw and heard. They perceived the true doctrinal message of 1888 in contrast to the Protestant doctrine of righteousness by faith they were hearing. God sent them with the only possible solution for the Church - corporate repentance. After writing out their message, and sensing the reaction of the "brethren," they turned from the direct call of God to the call of men, and returned to mission service in Africa promising a "vow of perpetual silence" in a letter to the Secretary of the General Conference. (See [1987] XX-12, p. 6) [A call to mission service though through men can be considered a Divine call through His church; but a direct call from God takes the precedence.] As a result God has given them no further light on the full scope of the 1888 Message. In fact, Wieland has been in the front ranks of those who have opposed the practical application of the Message. It is also a fact, that a speaker at the 1888 Message Conference at Andrews University in 1986 was just as denigrating of Jones as Knight in his book.

It is imperative to note that Wieland and Short in their call in 1950 for corporate repentance based this call on the statement found Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 250. They prefaced this quote - and it is in the final "Recapitulation" of their whole research - with these words - "The following prophecy has been fulfilled, and awaits only its realization by the church." The prophecy is then quoted - Just one sentence: Unless the church, which is now being leavened 'with her own backslidding, shall repent and be converted, she will eat the fruit of her own doings, until she shall abhor herself. (See 1888 Re-Examined, p. 203, 1950 edition'j,

What Wieland and Short did not see in 1950 - and which God could not disclose to them because of their rejection of His call - was that the "backslidding" with which the church was then being leavened was organizational apostasy. As we have noted previously, this testimony was written within two weeks of the 1903 General Conference Session which turned back the organizational progress of the 1901 Session. The fact that in the new edition of 1888 Re-Examined, the call for corporate repentance is not associated with this prophetic testimony, indicates they now perceive its context, but wish to ignore its import. In the new edition, they have even gone so far as to deny that a corporate repentance involves the reorganizational principles Ellen White called for in 1901. They write: The solution to our problem does not consist in destroying or changing the mechanical system of our constitutional organization, but in finding repentance and reconciliation with Christ within it. (p. 206)

In other words, the very actions of the General Conference which caused the Lord's messenger in 1903 to declare that the church was "being leavened with her own backsliding," Wieland and Short now state that these need not be altered to achieve repentance. They seek to infer that any "weaknesses or error in organization" would be rectified overnight if repentance were forthcoming. Have they been so inflicted with Laodicean blindness themselves that they cannot see how the corporate body through its actions at the 1985 Session so completely locked themselves in that such an "almost overnight" rectification would be impossible. Are they totally unaware of what Magan said about the 1903 Constitution? Are there to be no fruits observable in the corporate repentance called for by Wieland?

What needs to be done is to candidly and honestly - free from Laodicean blindness and presuppositions based on faulty exegesis explore the facts of history from 1950 to the present to see what God did to offset the failure of Wieland and Short to carry through God's call to them in 1950. This we shall do next.

p 4 -- KNIGHT DESCENDS ON JONES -- Part 1 -- Editor's Note -- In the lead article for XXI-1 - "1988 A Momentous Year for Adventism" -we called the readers attention to the first book of the 1888 Centennial Series being published by the Church. This book - From 1888 to Apostasy - written by Dr. George R. Knight of Andrews University is a devastating attack on A. T. Jones, one of the "messengers" God sent to the Church in 1888. The following article will be the first of a series on the philosophy and concepts woven into this ''interpretive" biography by Knight.

In his attempt to denigrate A. T.Jones, Dr. George R. Knight has pictured him as man who believed - "Truth does not have two sides." (From 1888 to Apostasy, p. 94) Jones was "a man who saw things in terms of black and white." (Ibid.) This supposed weakness of Jones, Knight emphasizes. He writes of him as one who "saw everything in terms of total black or total white." (p. 118) Again, "For Jones, every issue was black or white, right or wrong." (p. 131) In other words, Jones was not like one retired Vice President of the General Conference who told a young beginning worker to keep in mind that no issue he would face in his church work would be all black or white; every issue would be gray. It is understandable why Jones had problems with the "brethren" of his day, if they, too, embraced this concept of church administration. This accounts for many of the problems which plague Adventism today. The refusal to recongize that truth has but one side, and that moral issues, and principles where the cause of God is concerned have no gray areas has led to apostasy in doctrine, and to compromise in standards of righteous living.

This evaluation of Jones by which Knight seeks to diminish his continuing influence on Adventist thinking in regard to the message of righteousness by faith explains why the true message of 1888 is abhorred and rejected by so many. Ellen G. White defined the righteousness of Christ as "pure, unadulterated truth." (TM, p. 65) Now "pure, unadulterated truth" does not have two sides neither is it gray.

This concept of a clear distinction between truth and error is plainly set forth in another message of the series sent to the Battle Creek Church in 1896. She wrote: The eternal God has drawn a line of distinction between the saints and the sinners, the converted and the unconverted. The two classes do not blend into each other imperceptibly, like the colors of the rainbow. They are as distinct as midday and midnight. (Ibid., p. 87)

The difference between midday and midnight is not twilight! Admittedly, this comparison between the saints and the sinners is used in connection with life-styles. But when one accepts the position that it is not important what one believes "doctrinally," or one can do what he wants to do - it is a matter of individuality - there remains only a small step to a full compromise with the world whether in thinking or acting.

Furthermore it is also admitted that holding correct doctrine in a theoretical manner only, does not insure a truly vital experience in Christ. On the other hand, holding an incorrect and false doctrine breaks the connection with heaven. The Scripture is plain on this point. It reads - "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." (II John 9)

Knight in his "interpretive" biography of A. T. Jones, while stating that "basic doctrine is important," holds that contention concerning it was the cause why the leadership of the church did not accept the message in 1888 sent by God through the two messengers, A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. Of course, Jones gets the blame because he did not believe that truth had two sides. Knight's evaluation is written with emphasis:

The meaning of 1888 is to learn its central lessons and to start living the caring Christian life now. The meaning of 1888 is to face forward, not backward. The meaning of 1888 is the call for Adventists to put away their theological disputes as being all-important, and to treat each other like Christians even though they disagree. Only then will they be in a position to testify convincingly that they have Christ's message for a dying world. (p. 71)

p 5 -- This is the basis of ecumenical fellowship. While Knight makes application to "theological disputes" within the Adventist community, it is but a step to adopting the same attitude to other professing Christians who hold different view from us. It comes down to a very basic issue - Does it matter what we believe? Is there but one side to truth, or does truth have two sides? Are there really no black and white areas; is everything just gray? Simply stated, are we to have an "open-ended theology" just to keep the machinery of orqanization functioning in a semblance of unity? Is this the unity for which Christ prayed, or is true unity based only in truth, pure and unadulterated?

Paul told Timothy plainly - Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee. (I Tim. 4:16)

He also warned him - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. (4:1)

The advocacy that it doesn't really matter what one believes in regard to the incarnation, for example, as does Knight in his book (p. 150), and as does the Editor of the Adventist Review (July 2, 1987, p. 4, col. 2-3) is as much a "doctrine of the devil" as is the teaching that Sunday is the Sabbath of the Lord God.

In the light of the philosophy advocated in this "interpretive" biography, one cries out - "Give me Jones's philosophy that truth has but one side, and that there are black and white areas in the issues that confront the Church today - one is of God, and the other is of the devil." Nowhere in the life of Christ do I find that He perceived doctrine or one's life-style as having gray areas.
He declared - "I am the way, the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) There is no other way; no two sides to truth! And because Jones believed and maintained this is why God could choose and use him to be one of His "messengers" in 1888! [End of part 1 of 4]

CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS -- Lesson # 12 -- Faith

Question	Answer
1. What is faith declared to be?	Heb. 11:1
2. How necessary is faith?	Heb.11:6 (See note 1)
3. What is the basis of faith?	Romans 10:17
4. How are the just to live?	Romans 1:17 (See note 2)
5. By what principle is genuine faith actuated?	Gal. 5:6
6. What is the character of any act not performed in faith?	Romans 14:23
7. Are there any to whom God has not given faith?	Romans 12:3
8. Who gives to every man "the measure of faith?"	Heb. 12 :2
For an illustration of faith please read Matt. 8:5-10
9. What did the Centurion want done?	Matt. 8:6
10. Who did the Centurion want to do it?	Matt. 8:6
11. Did the Centurion feel that Jesus needed to come in person?	Matt. 8:8, 9
12. What did the Centurion expect would heal the servant?	Matt. 8:8
13. What did Jesus say the Centurion had?	Matt. 8:10

p 6 -- NOTES --
1. "The knowledge of what the Scripture means when urging upon us the necessity of cultivating faith, is more essential than any other knowledge that can be acquired." (Ellen G. White - R&H, Oct. 18, 1898)

2. "This statement is the summing up of what the apostle has to say about the gospel. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but only ' to every one that believeth;' in it the righteousness of God is revealed. The righteousness of God is the perfect law of God, which is but the transcript of his own righteous will. All unrighteousness is sin, or the transgression of the law. The gospel is God's remedy for sin; its work, therefore, must be to bring men into harmony with the law, - to cause the workings of the righteous law to be manifested in their lives. But this is wholly a work of faith, - the righteousness of God is revealed from ' faith to faith,' - faith in the beginning, and faith to the end, - as it is written, ' The just shall live by faith.'

"This is true in all ages since the fall of man, and will be true until the saints of God have his name in their foreheads, and see him as he is." (E. J. Waggoner ST, March 25, 1889 - As quoted from Lessons on Faith, p. 9)

"The Heavens Declare ... and Night unto Night Sheweth ..." -- Just as Moses prayed in Exodus 33:18, "I beseech thee, show me thy glory," I prayed this morning that in a special way God would show me some of His glory. it didn't take long for God to answer that prayer. When I stepped out my door to walk the kilometer from our house to the library I felt the cool of the early morning that told me the sky was without cloud cover. As I looked up I was given a display of the heavens such as I had never seen in my life. Star upon star was to be seen, the great cloud of the Milky Way was visible, Venus shone out with brightness, but what attracted my attention the most was the great band Orion. The stars in Orion twinkled with a brilliance tha had never seen before. As I looked, my mind went back to the statement in Early Writings, "The atmosphere parted and rolled back; then we could look up through the open space in Orion, whence came the voice of God. The holy city will come down through that open space." (page 41) 1 also thought of the words of David who said, "When I consider thy heavens, the works of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalm 8:3, 4)

As I walked on I asked for God to show some more of His glory to me. God did not delay. While walking along the path in the woods I heard a rustling in the brush beside me. Turning my flashlight in that direction I saw two armadillos gently walking. As the light fell upon them, the one closest to me stopped with one front leg in the air and remained motionless. The second stopped and stood upon its hind legs. My thoughts went back to the story of creation that we had read to the children the night before.

As I neared the library I prayed for God to show me some more of His glory. About 50 meters from the library, the still small voice said, "Be still and know that I am God." As I listened to the sounds of the night I could hear small animals in the brush, insects making their sounds, and I realized that
this morning God truly had shown me His glory. (Written Sept. 1987)

p7-- ARE WE SEEKING TO RE-WRITE HISTORY? -- In the Adventist Review (Oct. 8, 1987 , p. 8) , an article written by Ellen G. White was reprinted from the Review and Herald of Oct. 12, 1905. It was listed as a "Devotional." A picture of Ellen G. White (See Exhibit #1) appeared at the too of the first column with the notation - "With Ellen G. White's encouragement at the 1903 GC session, the church reorganized."

The facts are that the 1903 GC session was held in Oakland, California. The picture shows Ellen G. White speaking in the Battle Creek Tabernacle Church at the time of the 1901 GC session. (See Exhibit #2, Christ's Last Legion, p. 28)

Exhibit #1 -- With Ellen White's encouragement at the 1903 GC session, the church reorganized.

Exhibit #2 -- Mrs. Ellen G. White addressing the history-making General Conference Session in the Battle Creek Tabernacle. 1901.

Same picture used in BOTH Exhibits.

We wrote a letter to the Editor which said in part: Just one question - Was the dating of the picture in the October 8, 1987 issue of the Adventist Review an attempt at manipulation of history, or ignorance? Either way it was inexcusable. ...

If you would truly want to give an honest report on "organization" tell the whole story - 1901, 1903, and what Dr. P. T. Magan had to say about the 1903 Constition. (Dated, Oct. 11, 1987)

To date (January 5, 1988), we have not seen in the Review, a correction. (We have looked but we may have overlooked it. Nevertheless the issue remains.) What took place in 1903 and how did Ellen G. White really respond?

First, we must know what Ellen G. White called for in 1901. She stated in unequivocal language: That these men [the leadership in Battle Creek] should stand in a sacred place, to be the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be, - that is past. What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build upon a different principle. (1901 GC Bulletin, p. 25)

The call was for "reorganization" not for no organization. It did not call for the tearing down of the "foundation" but to "begin at the foundation" and build on a new principle. This should cause the anarchists on the West Coast to pause and do some rethinking.

In 1901, the Conference session produced a beginning. They kept organization, but adopted an entirely new Constitution with no General Conference president, but rather what was intended to be a rotating chairman of an enlarged committee. In 1903, this was all reversed.

P. T. Magan, who was a member of the 1903 Committee on Plans and Constitution, signed a minority report in opposition to the setting aside of the 1901 Constitution. He told the delegates why. He said: It may be stated there is nothing in this new constitution which is not abundantly safeguarded by the provisions of it; but I want to say to you that any man who has ever read Neander's History of the Christian Church, Mosheim's, or any of the other great church historians, - any man who has ever read those histories can come to no other conclusion but that the principles which are to be brought in through this proposed constitution, and in the way they are brought in, are the same principles, and introduced in precisely the same way, as they were hundreds of years ago when the Papacy was made.

Further: This whole house must recognize this, before we are through with this discussion, that the proposed new constitution .... in principle, as far as the head of the work is concerned, it goes back precisely where we were before the reformatory steps of two years ago. (1903 GC Bulletin, p. 150)

In two weeks, Ellen G. White would write that in this act - the "proposed constitution" was voted - the Church was "being leavened with her own backsliding." (Test. Vol. 8, p. 250) Yet the Editors of the Adventist Review would want you to believe that Ellen G. White approved the introduction of papal principles into the organization of the Church. How desperate have deceivers of God's professed people become that they would seek to re-write history! Or, is it the "blind" leading "blind Laodiceans"?

"Absolutely nothing which does not bear the test of truth will be triumphant in the Judgement."
(1888 Re-Examined, 1950 ed., p. 2; omitted in the 1987 ed)
--- (1988 Feb) ---End---- TOP

1988 Mar -- XXI 3(88) -- 1888 CENTENNIAL ISSUE OF REVIEW -- EDITORS CONTINUE TO RE-WRITE HISTORY -- The first issue of the Adventist Review for 1988 was devoted to "Christ Our Righteousness" and called the Centennial Edition. Some of the articles were little more than a "social gospel" which could be found in any "Christian" activist journal. Another article sought to cover a projection of self behind a facade of grace. The first article written by the Editor himself admitted the truthfulness of the evaluation that the 1888 General Conference was "one of the saddest chapters in the history of the believers in present truth." He also confessed that "God brought a message to His people at Minneapolis" and that "most of the delegates rejected it." (Jan. 7, 1988, p. 2)

Dr. Johnsson then procedes to tell what. he perceives the 1888 message to be without once quoting the messengers through whom God gave the message. He does point out "two misunderstandings of the message of Christ's righteousness" with clarity and illustration from the history of the 1888 period. One is that some, like those who rejected the message in 1888, still teach and believe "that we can, or need to, add to Christ's merits." (p. 3) The second misunderstanding is "that the gospel leaves us the same as it found us." (Ibid.)

At the 1888 conference session, not only was there theological discussion, but also the issue of religious liberty was prominent. A. T. Jones gave "several lectures upon the relationship between religion and the civil power." (Civil Government and Religion, p. 3) Whether by design, or by mere coincidence, this Centennial Edition of the Review devotes the entire "Focus on North America" to articles on current religious liberty issues. (pp. 22-27)

The historical overview of the1888 message was "excerpted and adapted" from the book by Knight - From 1888 to Apostasy. This adaptation began the attempt at re-writing history. It is considered to be "wrong-headed" to believe that the men through whom "God brought a message to His people" were "somehow inspired." Knight would have the reader believe that "the imprimatur" of Ellen G. White gave Jones and Waggoner their credentials. (p. 4) This downplay of Jones and Waggoner is continued through a series of blocks at the bottom of each page of the section devoted to the 1888 message. Jones and Waggoner are pictured with the notation that they were "eloquent proponents of righteousness by faith in Christ." (p. 5) The next page shows a picture of Martin Luther with the comment that he "rediscovered the good news of salvation by grace through faith." (p. 6) The implication is clear Jones and Waggoner were merely the proponents in 1888 of the message Luther rediscovered.

p 2 -- There is also an attempt to build up W. C. White. A sample of "the notes" which he kept of the discussions over "the law in Galatians," and the "horns" of Daniel 7 is pictured. (p. 11) Then a picture is shown of W. C. White and his first wife - Mary Kelsey, who had been J. H. Kellogg's fiancee - with the observation that W. C. White "became acting president of the General Conference for about six months until 0. A. Olsen, whom the delegates had elected, could leave his work in Europe." (p. 15) This is the closest W. C. ever got to the presidency of the General Conference, and can shed some light on his 180 degree turn around between 1901 and 1903, and the influence he had on Daniells. If he couldn't be "king" he would be "king-maker" and influence his mother in her judgments toward men in developments after 1901. This "human" factor has not been considered in the re-write of history in the "interpretive" biography of Jones.

Did Jones and Waggoner merely operate under the "imprimatur" of Ellen G. White? Or did God give them a message? Was the message which Jones and Waggoner gave at the 1888 session and after, only a review of the rediscovery of Luther? Or was it '' present truth" for God's professed people.

First, the standing of Jones and Waggoner before God: Ellen G. White wrote in 1896 to the Battle Creek Church referring to tne work of Jones and Waggoner - "God gave to His messengers just what the people needed." Then she asked the question - "How long will you hate and despise the messengers of God's righteousness?" (See TM, pp. 95, 96) How did Ellen White understand the term, "messenger"? Here is her own testimony concerning her understanding of the work she was called to do. In a communication from St. Helena, California, dated Nov. 17, 1903, she wrote: From the year 1846 until the present time, I have received messages from the Lord, and have communicated them to His people. This is my work - to give to the people the light that God gives me. I am commissioned to receive and communicate His messages. I am not to appear before the people as holding any other position than that of a messenger with a message." (Quoted in The Final Word and Confession, p. 10)

A "messenger" then is one commissioned with a message - light from God - to be given to His people. Understanding her role, she assigned to Jones and Waggoner the same role noting them as "the messengersof God's righteousness." Why then should we seek to re-write history, and present them as merely "eloquent proponents" of the message "rediscovered" by Martin Luther?

ANOTHER CENTENNIAL --The Adventist Community is not the only group celebrating a centennial in 1988. The Lord's Day Alliance of the United States is celebrating its 100th birthday this year. Organized in 1888 at the time some of the strongest agitation for a National Sunday Law faced Sabbath keepers, it is "still well and alive" and still promoting Sunday legislation.

In the latest issue of Sunday, the official magazine of the American Alliance, there is revealed how closely the leadership of the organization is associated with the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. Thomas A. Donnellan, Archbishop of Atlanta, died in October. Sunday reprints an article from The Atlanta Constitution. Then the Editor, Dr. James P. Wesberry, who is also Executive Director of the Alliance adds this revealing note. It reads: Archbishop Donnellan was a real friend of the Lord's Day Alliance of the United States. He extended royal hospitality to the entire board several times, addressed us and prayed for and with us. He supported The Alliance generously and graciously. His friendship was an inspiration to all of us. We count it a privilege to have knelt by his side, held his hand, and prayed for him while he was at St. Joseph's Hospital in Atlanta before his death. (Vol. LXXV, #4, p. 13)

It is the same Dr. Wesberry for whom Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi made provision to speak at a forum in the Chapel of the Adventist Theological Seminary and to whom the students and faculty gave a standing ovation following his address. (The Sabbath Sentinel April, 1979, p. 19)

In Sunday (Vol. LXXIV, #4) an article lauded an audience with the Pope by Wesberry and several others of the Alliance. The Pope was presented with a citation which read:

The Lord's Day Alliance
of the United States
expresses appreciation to
His Holiness
Pope John Paul, II
for his outstanding service in preserving
The Lord's Day
throughout the world

He was also given a book - The Lord's Day which Wesberry had written. (p. 9)

In recent years not only have Adventists had contact with the Lord's Day Alliance through Bacchiocchi, but the Bible Sabbath Association through its officers have also been guests of the Alliance. It is a sad day when those who profess to uphold the Sabbath of the Lord God seek to fellowship with those who seek to legislate an institution of both paganism and the papacy. Did not Paul ask - What concord hath Christ with Belial? (II Cor. 6:15)

p 3 -- KNIGHT DESCENDS ON JONES -- Part 2 -- One critique of the book - From 1888 to Apostasy accuses Knight of using a "cut and paste methodology " in arriving at his conclusions concerning Jones. (Laymen Ministry News, #134, p.13) This accusation more aptly applies to the new edition of 1888 Re-Examined with its deletions and out-of-context use of the Writings. Knight's use of references and conclusions drawn from them is much more illusive. A reader can, if he really wants to know the truth, check the "cut and paste" approach of Wieland and Short, but there is little, if any, opportunity to check the references used by Knight. Let us illustrate by an example. Knight wrote: Mrs. White interwove her counsel to Jones regarding the 1899 General Conference Session with her critique of his exuberant and forceful tactics in reforming the Review office. She firmly rebuked him both for his extreme view on the royalties issue and for his pushy ways. 46 (P. 174)

There is not a single quotation mark in this whole paragraph, yet it is footnoted - "46". This footnote reads: 46 EGW to ATJ, April 28, May 1, Aug. 14, 1899; ATJ to EGW, July 6, 1899; W. C. Sisley to EGW, Apr. 13, 1899. (p. 273)

Very few readers have access to this series of correspondence which passed between A. T. Jones and Ellen G. White, and from Sisley to Ellen G. White. The question is simply, - If we had this correspondence to read, would we draw the same conclusion Knight drew? This method is used throughout the entire book. In some instances, a word, phrase, or even a whole paragraph is placed in quotes, but rarely in full context so that a student can check the conclusions drawn. This covert methodology lends itself well to the objective Knight had in writing the book. He "tried never to forget that [his] primary aim was to write an interpretive biography of" Jones. (p. 13) The reader is not given the tools to evaluate that interpretation; he is expected to accept it by faith in a man.

ANOTHER TECHNIQUE USED -- When first reading the book, we discovered certain words and phrases which prefaced conclusions without sufficient documentation. We had promised that we would list these words and phrases as found in the book. We discovered them to be too numerous, and thus space consuming to justify such a listing. However, we will cite some specific examples. In the first chapter - "Young Man Jones" - Knight uses the word, "undoubtedly," four times. Now the word itself by dictionary definition means - "genuine, undisputed." Apart from one use of the word, the conclusions drawn are purely interpretive, and could be questioned. In the same chapter, Jones is accused as having "ulterior motives" (19); that his estimates of his own possibilities "appear to be quite inflated" (p. 20); and that a certain contact "seems to be more than coincidental" in its influence upon Jones' later experiences (p. 21).

In the chapter - "The Nature of Christ" this same type of approach is used. Knight even professes to be able to read the mind of the devil as he writes that "undoubtedly" the devil is thrilled over a certain state of affairs. (p. 113) In the heart of the chapter, he writes - "It is reasonable to believe" (p. 134); "it seems safer to infer" (p. 134); "That appears to be the position Ellen White held" (p. 143); A "typology certainly seems" to fit (p. 144); "It may well prove to be the answer" (p. 144); "it is quite probable" (p.144); "it is highly probable" (p. 146); and "It appears that" (p. 147). Such use of language in discussing a key subject such as the nature Christ assumed in the incarnaton is not justifiable scholarship, but rather adds to the question mark on the whole book.

WAS JONES ALL BAD? -- Jones is pictured as extreme, controversial, unbalanced, pompous, egotistical, harsh, confrontational, abrasive, excitable, sharp, combative, and pushy to use a few of the

p 4 -- descriptive words found in this interpretive biography. However, Knight in reporting historical data undermines his own evalauation of Jones, and reveals the truth about "The Case of A. T. Jones."

Senator H. W. Blair of New Hampshire was chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor during the years of 1888 and 1889. He introduced two National Sunday bills, and a Constitutional Ammendment to "Christianize" the nation's public school system. The hearings on these bills were conducted before this committee with Blair in the chair. All were defeated and in this defeat, A. T. Jones played a major role. Yet Blair speaking in 1909 at the twenty-first celebration of the introduction of his Sunday bill could describe Jones as "a man whom I shall always respect on account of his great ability and evident sincerity with which he presented his views to the committee." (p. 76)

Another experience is recorded. The Church leaders thought Jones needed to broaden his world persepctive, and so he was sent to Europe. During his tour of the area which took him even down into Turkey, he "spent three days with Count Pagengouth on the isle of Capri. Jones gave the Count Bible studies. Pagengouth, who had once traveled all the way to England just to hear D. L. Moody preach, stated that in 20 years he had 'never been so blessed in Bible study.'" (pp. 161-162) He made Jones a generous offer. Hosler, president of the Adventist work in Central Europe, had accompanied Jones, and wrote of this experience to the Foreign Mission Board of the General Conference. Who among the personnel at headquarters had the charisma or the ability to do what Jones had done either before the U.S. Senate Committee or in studying with a Count?

Part of the answer to "The Case of A. T. Jones" can be stated simply as professional jealousy on the part of his peers. Thus to denegrate Jones by using the language of his colleagues in the ministry, even including W. C. White, is to project questionable evaluation. Jealousy has been described in the Scriptures as "cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals o fire, which hath a most vehement flame." (Song of Solomon 8:6) To interpret a man - faulty, yes, as all humanity is and has been - by the evaluations of jealous contemporaries is to build a case on cruel prejudice. This is hardly worthy of scholarship one would expect from the Church History Department of the Theological Seminary, but rather the work of an hired assassin of the hierarchy.

~~~~~ G. Burnside
95 Browns Road
WAHROONGA
N.S.W 2076

2. 7. 87

In 1946, I was in the U.S.A. and the General Conference asked me to take meetings at various Camps. I roomed at two camps - New Jersey and East Pennsylvania - with Pastor Meade MacGuire and we chatted much about the old days. He had known A. T. Jones. Pastor MacGuire spoke highly of Jones, especially of his knowledge of Church history. His big concern was the trends in S. D. A. Organization. Jones opposed A. G. Daniells (the Gen. Conf. president) on church organization as Jones felt it was drifting Romeward. Finally Daniells broke Jones, with the result that Jones finally left the church.

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

Pastor MacGuire said that Pastor Daniells did all he could to rectify things, but as he was then out of the presidency no one paid much attention to him.

This is the account as I recall it.

Signed,
(Received from Orion Publications, Australia)

"In Jesus Christ alone is the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man; and in Jesus Christ we find the brotherhood of man only when we find Christ the Brother of every man." A. T. Jones

[End of part 2 of 4]

p 5 -- 1888 RE-EXAMINED EXAMINED -- Part 5 -- It was not a mere afterthought which caused A. L. Hudson to caption the collection of documents which he presented to the Executive Committee of the North Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists - A Warning and Its Reception. This collection contained the original ition of 1888 Re-Examined. This 1950 edition contained three chapters - 10, 11, 12 - which outlined and documented a warning to the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of the consequences which would result from a continued rejection of the 1888 Message, and a refusal to repent as called for by the messenger of the Lord.

In the new 1987 edition, these three chapters have been condensed into one. The predictions with the warning of the first edition have been advanced to the present - some thirty seven years - without a single paragraph considering the fulfillment of the predictions made in 1950 during these thirty seven years!

Chapter 11 of the 1950 edition - "Predictions of Infatuation with a False Christ" - begins with the objective clearly spelled out. It reads: This chapter of this essay will investigate: (1) Mrs White's predictions that the apostasy of the modern popular churches will lead to a confusion of a false Christ for the true; (2) the grave danger of our becoming involved ourselves in the prevailing general confusion through a failure to recognize our true Lord and Christ in the message of 1888. (p. 138)

In support of these propositions, Wieland and Short quote from Series B - In his work on this earth, Christ saw how, by a disregard of the injunctions of God in regard to righteousness and true doctrines, evil would be almost indistinguishable from good. (#2, p. 7)

The conclusion was then drawn - If it is true that the false Christ will appear through misrepresentation before he appears through impersonation, it follows that it will be through false doctrines that he will make his most subtle appeals. (1950 ed., p. 147)

This same concept is echoed in the 1987 edition: In consequence of our 1888 misconception of the true Christ, this false christ will find a way to worm himself in through misrepresentation by false doctrines and concepts long before he takes the final step of physical impersonation. (p. 151, emphasis mine)

Even though we are standing on the very borders of the "impersonation", the "false doctrines and concepts" which have taken place in the "long" time indicated, have been left undiscussed in the new edition. No assessment of the present status of the Church before God can be made without a complete evaluation of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-56; and the events in our history from 1967-1980 including the Statement of Beliefs voted at Dallas, Texas, in 1980. A refusal to candidly face up to these events of what is now history makes sheer hypocrisy of their position that through "false doctrines and concepts" Satan enters the precincts of the "temple" of the true Christ.

We need not document the history in this brief analysis in detail. It is available in documents and facsimiles prepared by the Foundation. They are the manuscripts - SDA-Evangelical Conferences 1955-1956, Steps to Rome, History of Our Statements of Belief, and The Times of the Gentiles Fulfilled. For now well over twenty years - most of that long time - we have been calling the attention each month of those who have ears to hear, and eyes to read, to the conditions existing in the Church through the Thought Paper - "Watchman, What of the Night?"

One series of events which served as a prelude to the apostasy needs to be reiterated. In 1950, God called Wieland and Short and sent them to the Church leadership with a call to corporate repentance. That call was set aside, and in this Wieland and Short acquiesced. Two years later, Elder W. H. Branson, then General Conference president, called a Bible Conference at the close of which he avered that the message of 1888 had been preached with "greater power" than

p 6 -- at any prior time. Yet within three years the hierarchy of the Church compromised the "sacred trust" committed to the Church during the SDA-Evangelical conferences.

To meet the apostasy, God raised up a man - M. L. Andreasen. Others blended their voices with his. But God did not call Wieland and Short back from Africa to do it. To run now with a message without being called to do so, except by the agitation of human beings; and in so doing ignore all the evidences of God's voice in history between the time once called of God, and the self instituted call is to place one's eternal interests in jeopardy and to become a decoy of the enemy to decieve others.

The problem in 1950 and the solution to the problem was clear, and Wieland and Short did perceive it. At the close of the original Chapter 11, they wrote: Where is the Rock, that we may fall upon it, and be broken? Self will not find it until the offence of the Cross is restored to the third angel's message in verity." (p. 149, emphasis theirs)

It is the search for the Cross that is not only the problem with the individual church member as well as the hierarchy, but also Wieland's present problem in the presupposition maintained in the new edition. The need for the Cross as an answer to the problem is verbalized in the new edition, true; but the actual spelling of it out in the light of history, NO!

The Cross was never planted in old Jerusalem, but on a hill outside of the city. To Hebrew Christians of Paul's day who had difficulty with separating from the rites, ceremonies, and concepts of Judaism, the counsel was given - "Let us go out unto Him (Jesus) without the camp, bearing His reproach. For we have here no continuing city, but we seek one to come." (Heb. 13:13-14) This reproach, this offence of the Cross, neither Wieland nor Short are willing to accept. One cannot expect others to accept the "verity" of the Third Angel's Message until they see those who profess to preach it, doing it!

The Jewish Christains for whom the book of Hebrews was written refused to accept the facts as written in their Church history from 31 A.D. to 34 A.D., thus they could not comprehend the meaning of the Cross. The ignoring of history today leads to the same end - the rejection of the offence of the Cross. Would to God that all who are professing to be engaged in the final warning to God's people could comprehend in simple faith the following words - But ye are come unto mount Sion, and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. (Heb. 12:22-24)

The facts of history shout at us that the Jerusalem which now is, is in bondage with her children, but the Jerusalem which is above is free through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and has become the mother of us all. (See Gal. 4:25-26) The whole question - the whole issue between 1950 and 1987, between 1888 Re-Examined, first edition, and 1888 Re-Examined, revised edition, is,who is your mother? Which is of righteousness by faith, and which is of works, the old covenant, symbolized in Hagar?

"Absolutely nothing which does not bear the test of truth will be triumphant in the Judgement."
(1888 Re-Examined, 1950 ed., p. 2; omitted in the 1987 ed)

p 7 -- CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS -- Lesson # 13 -- Living by Faith

Question	Answer
1. How are the just to live?	Romans 1:17
2. Has this been true in all ages?	Hebrews 11
3. In whom only should we have faith?	Acts 4:12
4. Should man put confidence in the flesh?	Phil. 3:3-10
5. Where is our confidence and in whom can we rejoice?	1 John 5:14 Phil. 5:4
6. To whom are all the promises of final happiness given?	Rev. 3: 21 (See note 1)
7. What will those who overcome inherit?	Rev. 21:7 (,See note 2)
8. How may we gain victories?	1 John 5: 4
9. Where was Paul's strength?	Gal. 2:20
10. In whom may we make our boast?	Psalm 34:2
11. In what only did Paul glory?	Gal. 6:14
12. If Christ is living in the heart, is it proper to say that continual victories may be gained?	1 Cor. 15:57 Phil. 4:13 (See note 3)
13. "By___ the wallsof Jericho fell down."	Heb. 11:30
14. Why was the story of Jericho recorded?	Rom. 15:4
15. Whom do we battle against?	Eph. 6:12 (See note 4)

NOTES --
1. See also Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12.

2. "The inheriting is not the overcoming; that is only the reward for overcoming. The overcoming is now; the victories to be gained are victories over the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and the pride of life, victories over self and selfish indulgences ... Some folks look with dread upon the thought of having to wage a continual warfare with self and wordly lusts. That is because they do not as yet know anything about the joy of victory; they have experienced only defeat. But it isn't so doleful a thing to battle constantly, when there is continual victory." (E. J. Waggoner - ST, March 25, 1889 - As quoted from Lessons on Faith)

3. "John says that he that is born of God overcomes the world, through faith. Faith lays hold of the arm of God, and his mighty power does the work." (Ibid.)

4. "Victories which have been gained by faith in God over visible foes in the flesh, are placed on record to show us what faith will accomplish in our conflict with the rulers of the darkness of this world." (Ibid.) ---(1988 Mar) ---End---- TOP 2002