1975 Jan-MarVIII 1(75) - VIII 3(75)
1975 Apr-Jun VIII 4(75) - VIII 6(75)
1975 Jul-Sep VIII 7(75) - VIII 9(75)
1975 Oct-Dec VIII 10(75) - VIII 12(75)
1976 Jan-Mar IX 1(76) - IX 3(76)
1976 Apr-Jun IX 4(76) - IX 6(76)
1976 Jul-Sep IX 7(76) - IX 9(76)
1976 Oct-Dec IX 10(76) - IX 12(76)
1977 Jan-MarX 1(77) - X 3(77)
1977 Apr-Jun X 4(77) - X 6(77)
1977 Jul-Sep X 7(77) - X 9(77)
1977 Oct-DecX 10(77) - X 12(77)
1978 Jan-Mar XI 1(78) - XI 3(78)
1978 Apr-Jun XI 4(78) - XI 6(78)
1978 Jul-Sep XI 7(78) - XI 9(78)
1978 Oct-Dec XI 10(78) - XI 12(78)
1979 Jan-Mar XI 1(79) - XI 3(79)
1979 Apr-Jun XI 4(79) - XI 6(79)
1979 Jul-Sep XI 7(79) - XI 9(79)
1979 Oct-DecXI 10(79) - XI 12(79)
Feb Knight Descends On Jones. 1of 4.
Mar Knight Descends On Jones. 2 of 4.
1988 Apr-Jun 3 & 4 of 4.
last of WWN published
ADVENTIST LAYMEN'S FOUNDATION OF CANADA (ALF)
SHORT STUDIES - William H. Grotheer -
End Time Line Re-Surveyed Parts 1 & 2 - Adventist Layman's Foundation
- Legal Documents
Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, The - William H. Grotheer
Hour and the End is Striking at You, The - William H. Grotheer
the Form of a Slave
In Bible Prophecy
Doctrinal Comparisons - Statements of Belief 1872-1980
Paul VI Given Gold Medallion by Adventist Church Leader
Sacred Trust BETRAYED!, The - William H. Grotheer
Seal of God
Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956
SIGN of the END of TIME, The - William H. Grotheer
of the Gentiles Fulfilled, The - A Study in Depth of Luke 21:24
BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
Song of Solomon - Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
Ten Commandments - as Compared in the New International Version & the King James Version & the Hebrew Interlinear
OTHER BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS & ARTICLES:
Various Studies --
Bible As History - Werner Keller
Canons of the Bible, The - Raymond A. Cutts
Daniel and the Revelation - Uriah Smith
Facts of Faith - Christian Edwardson
Individuality in Religion - Alonzo T. Jones
"Is the Bible Inspired or Expired?" - J. J. Williamson
Letters to the Churches - M. L. Andreasen
Place of the Bible In Education, The - Alonzo T. Jones
Sabbath, The - M. L. Andreasen
So Much In Common - WCC/SDA
Which Banner? - Jon A. Vannoy
The MISSION of this site -- is to put the articles from the WWN in a searchable Essay form. 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."
Thank you for visiting. We look forward to you coming back.
WWN 1985 Apr - Jun
1985 Apr -- XVIII -- 4(85) -- CONFUSION OVER MEANING OF SANCTUARY SERVICES CONTINUES -- One Sacrifice - One Atonement? One Sacrifice - Two Atonements? -- In recent months, there has been renewed emphasis within Adventist publications regarding the subject of the sanctuary. The Sabbath School Adult Lesson studies for the Fourth Quarter of 1984, were on "Jesus Our Mediator." The author of the "teaching aids" was Dr. A. V. Wallenkampf, who co-edited The Sanctuary and the Atonement, a publication of the Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference. This research publication contained "Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies" on the subject of the sanctuary. Dr. Wallenkampf also wrote the introduction to this collection of studies. 1
A parallel situation is to be found in the Adventist Review. The editors of the paper, during 1984, formulated "a statement of purpose" which was endorsed by the Editorial board. This purpose declared the Review would not become "the special province ... of any pet theological group." (Jan. 3, 1985, p. 5) The paper, as to be expected, will stand "solidly behind the 27 Fundamental Beliefs [voted at Dallas]" Through the paper they "will elaborate, explain, and defend them." However, aspects of doctrine not spelled out in these statements "may be discussed in the Review." (p. 6) Coming immediately following a whole quarter's lessons on the mediatorial ministry of Christ, an article in the third issue of the 1985 Adventist Review could hardly be considered accidental. Further, it is authored by the assistant editor of the Ministry magazine, Elder Kenneth Wade. Thus this article reflects the editorial thinking of two concept-forming organs of the church whose readers constitute the laity and the ministry.
The study by Wade contained a very non controversial title - "Power in the Blood," and contained certain aspects of the sanctuary teaching which needed to be emphasized. He wrote in comment on a ceremonial error which Moses scored heavily: What seemed an insignificant detail was actually the crux of the ceremony, which made God's sacrificial system different from a hundred heathen systems. When the priest ate the flesh of the sin offering he was to show the folly of the pagan concept that an animal's death could appease God's wrath against sin. He ate the flesh of the offering to teach men and women that they need a human intercessor to bear their sin. (Jan. 17, 1985, pp. 8-9)
This emphasis should direct the attention of any student of the redemption provided by God through Jesus Christ to the work
p 2 -- in the Heavenly sanctuary. It is there the work on behalf of fallen man is made effective because of the intercession of our Great High Priest whether it be forgiveness found in Him, or cleansing through Him. This is Biblically stated in the same experience alluded to in the article, and in the text quoted by Wade - "God hath given you [the priest] to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord." (Lev. 10:17)
Then the assistant editor corrected a long standing error in the Crosier "article" which reflected the research of Hiram Edson, Dr. Hahn, and Crosier himself during the winter following the Great Disappointment. This error upon which certain concepts of the investigative judgment rests was carried over into Patriarchs and Prophets. (p. 354 - The White Estate has supplied an appendix note to bring it in line with the Scriptures.) After discussing the first of the two basic types of sin offerings found in Leviticus 4, Wade wrote: The remainder of Leviticus 4 describes the second type of sin offering, that for the individual members of the congregation. The ceremony in this case was much the same as for the first type of offering, except for two important details: No blood went into the tabernacle, and the priests were to eat the flesh instead of burning it. When they ate it they bore symbolically the iniquity of the sinner. (Ibid. p.9)
important difference between the categories of sin offerings in Leviticus
4, we have failed to sufficiently note as we have studied the work performed
in the second apartment of the Heavenly sanctuary. When the blood was
taken in, corporate, or "national" [Crosier's term] sin was
The corporate aspect of the work of the Day of Atonement was alluded to in the lessons for the Fourth Quarter. In the "teaching aides," Wallenkampf asked "Whose entries are checked in the judgment?" To his own question, he answered: "Apparently the little horn is one whose record is checked in the judgment. (See Daniel 7: 24-26) The little horn primarily represents papal Rome." (p. 133) This concept was left undeveloped in the lessons.
Within the framework of the ideas presented by Wade, there is also another aspect which is left undeveloped. Wade clearly stated the specific act of the priest in eating of the sin offering was "to teach men and women that they need a human intercessor to bear their sin." But he dropped the concept there; but the Bible does not. This human intercessor, symbolized by the priest, "had to be taken from among men" and one who was himself "compassed with infirmity." (Heb. 5:1-2) Paul declared of Christ - God "hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." (II Cor. 5:21) The Messiah came into humanity so that He could be taken from among men to appear in the presence of God for us to "make intercession" on our behalf. (Heb. 7:25)
This coming into humanity was a critical point in the 1888 Message. E. J. Waggoner after quoting II Cor. 5:21, commented: This is much stronger than the statement that He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." He was made to be sin. Here is the same mystery as that the Son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 27-28, emphasis his)
This position which was reflected in the 1889 Statement of Beliefs was omitted, and altered in the 1980 formulation at Dallas. Naturally the editors of the Adventist Review, who stand with the 27 Statements formulated at Dallas, would not wish this 1888 concept included in any study on the "Power in the Blood."
last few paragraphs of his article Wade
comes to the subject of the significance of "the Day of Atonement"
- an area so crucial to Adventism. Here the article
p 3 -- "falls apart." Follow closely what is written: Once each year the Day of Atonement brought the symbolism of the daily rituals to its climax. On this day of cleansing and judgment the high priest took the blood of the sin offerings into the most holy place and sprinkled it before God's presence, foreshadowing the laying of "the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6) upon Christ.
Then the high priest brought the blood back out to the holy place and cleansed the altar of incense of the sin that had been laid upon it throughout the year as blood was sprinkled there (see Ex. 30:9, 10; Lev. 16:18, 19) ...
The high priest's entry into the most holy place and the cleansing of the altar of incense carried the beautiful message that God accepts upon Himself all our iniquity. But once the blood that symbolically bore sin into God's throne room has laid those sins on God, it can come again from God's presence and be used to cleanse from sin. (p. 9)
Notice the concepts expressed: 1) The blood taken into the Most Holy Place foreshadowed "the laying of 'the iniquity of us all' upon Christ." It was at the Cross where the iniquity of us all was laid upon Christ. Christ died once for all on Calvary. What is Wade trying to say? Is he suggesting that the services on the Day of Atonement were merely a replay of what Calvary was to be? Is this a way to mitigate the force of the atonement in the Most Holy Place, and indicate that all was completed at the Cross?
2) The entry of the High Priest into the Most Holy Place "carried the beautiful message that God accepts upon Himself all our iniquity." It is true that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. (II Cor. 5:19) The Day of Atonement, however, was something entirely different from this. God was not accepting; He was presiding over a cleansing. Sin is abhorrent to God. He could not accept it; but made provision that He might ever remain just, yet could justify the one who would have faith in Jesus. The penalty for sin only was accepted by God in the God-man, Christ Jesus - never sin! Even in the incarnation, while Jesus took upon Himself our fallen nature, He did not participate in the sinfulness of man. How much more so God - in whose presence the "four living creatures" continuously proclaim - "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Rev. 4:8), to accept upon Himself our sins? The prophet, describes God's attitude toward sin. He wrote - "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, canst not look on iniquity." (Hab. 1:13)
What is needed to clear the air of all the fuzzy and confused thinking being projected in regard to the subject of the sanctuary, and especially the Day of Atonement, is to note carefully certain key symbolic acts connected with the services.
The first mention of the Day of Atonement is in Exodus 30:10, in connection with the Altar of Incense. The atonement was stated as being achieved by "the blood of the sin offering of the atonements." The KJV is expressing the Hebrew very closely in this text. There were two sin offerings presented on the Day of Atonement - a bullock for the high priest and his house (Lev. 16:6); and the Lord's goat (Lev. 16:15-16). The blood of the Lord's goat alone came upon the Altar of Incense to cleanse it from sin. While the Lord's goat is referred to as a "sin offering" no sin was confessed over this goat. The blood of the Lord's goat was a blood symbolically free from all sin. This blood was the blood of the atonement. It did not bring sin into the sanctuary. It cleansed and provided for the removal of sin from the sanctuary.
The word in Exodus 30:10 for atonement is in the plural form as indicated in the KJV. This plural form could indicate one of two things, (or both) - either that there was more than one atonement, or that the services on the tenth day of the seventh month prefigured the supreme atonement, or as our pioneers expressed it in their statement of beliefs - "the great atonement" (1889 Yearbook). It is true that the Levitical outline of the services to be performed in the sanctuary enclosure describes two atonements: - one, resulting from the ministry at the Altar of Burnt Offering for the individual (Lev. 4:31), and the other, taking place on what is called "a day of atonement." (Lev. 23:28)
the antitypical application of these symbolisms, it needs to be kept
p 4 -- in mind that one sacrifice, once for all, provided both the means for the individual atonement, and the blood for the cleansing of the sanctuary on the great antitypical Day of Atonement. In the type, the provision of the animal sacrifices came from two different sources. In the case of the individual, he provided the animal for his sin offering. It stood for him. God permitted "His son" to come and become "us" - God with us (Matt. 1:23) - that by my accepting Him, He would carry the penalty of my sin, and stand for me in the judgment in the presence of God. I am thus complete in Him. (Col. 2:10) The prophet Isaiah broke forth in poetic language and proclaimed - "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." (Isa. 9:6)
On the other hand, the kids of the goats presented alive before the Lord on the Day of Atonement - one of which was to become the Lord's goat - were taken "of the congregation of the children of Israel." (Lev. 16:5) In the imagery of prophecy, it is the Seed of "the woman" - God's people - who will triumph over Satan (Rev. 12). In the message of Hebrews, the Captain of "the many sons" brought to glory, partakes of their "flesh and blood" so that by dying "He might destroy him that had the power of death." (Heb. 2:10, 14) God took one "of the congregation of the children of Israel"and made Him that Captain. Abraham, when called to sacrifice his only son, perceived the deeper meaning, and told Isaac - "God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering." (Gen. 22:8) And God did! Thus the Lord's goat typified God's provision for the cleansing and complete eradication of sin from the universe.
Why should one atonement, the daily be carried out in the Court representing the earth, and at the Altar of Burning Offering representing the Cross? Here is where the individual is - the "us." We need a Saviour. We need to see the terribleness of sin. That was provided at, and by the Cross. But why should the "great" atonement - the atonement of atonements - be carried out in Heaven, in the Most Holy Place? This is where sin began, with a covering cherub in the presence of God. (There were two live goats presented before the Lord in the type.) And where sin began, the final scenes in the eradication of sin from the universe are to begin - before the Ancient of days. In the decision of that court trial - pre-Advent judgment or whatever name one wants to use to place it in the framework of time - judgment is handed down in favor of "the Son of man" (Dan. 7:14) and to "the saints of the most High" (Dan. 7:27), those who have remained loyal to God in spite of the pressures of the corporate entities devised by Satan to bring the whole world under his control. #######
1 Wallenkampf in his introduction to The Sanctuary and the Atonement stated: The different facets of the ancient sanctuary service help us understand the different phases of biblical atonement. In the sanctuary service atonement for sin was made by the shedding of the blood of the sacrificial animal, including the disposition of the blood by the officiating priest, but final atonement was made on the day of atonement. All of these facets were a part of atonement. In the same way, theologically speaking, Jesus did make full, complete and perfect atonement for all our sins on the cross, and biblically speaking, in the terminology of the ancient sanctuary service, He continues to make atonement for us today by His present intercession in the heavenly sanctuary. (pp. xiii & xiv; emphasis his)
the conviction of this editor that the "facets" of the atonement
would have been more accurately expressed had the paragraph been written
as follows: The
different facets of the ancient sanctuary service help us understand the
different phases of biblical atonement. In the sanctuary service, atonement
for sin was made after the shedding of the blood of the
There is no way that Jesus could "make full, complete, and perfect atonement for all our sins on the cross," and Him to "continue to make atonement for us today by His present intercession in the heavenly sanctuary." That which is perfect cannot be added to, nor subtracted from. To do so, produces imperfection. God's work is perfect. Jesus' death was a perfect sacrifice. It provided forgiveness for man now as he accepts it; it looked forward to the complete restoration from the results of sin in the final atonement. One sacrifice - two atonements!
p 5 -- PATZER EXPLAINS FOR WILSON -- In the December, 1984, issue of the Thought Paper, we noted that Elder Neal C. Wilson refused to commit the church to the Federal Court case involving the appointment of an U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, either as a friend of the court, or as one of the plaintiffs in the suit filed by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. We suggested that if enough concerned persons wrote, we might obtain an answer as to why Wilson made the decision he did. Some folk did write, and we reproduce in full the answer received from Elder A. J. Patzer, Administrative Assistant to Elder Wilson:
"It is the wish of Elder Neal C. Wilson for me to acknowledge receiving your letter addressed to him.
General Conference Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department vigorously
registered its concern and protest pertaining to the establishment of
diplomatic relations with the Vatican which would lead to an exchange
of ambassadors. Please note the following:
"As far as we know, this is more than any other denomination did.
"Opposing a matter and going to the public and the Government to persuade is appropriate but going to court is a grave matter for the Seventh-day Adventist Church to name and sue the President and the United States Government, this puts our church in an adversary relationship.
"Only in an extreme and critical crisis which would affect the operation of our church and our institutions in carrying forward our work would such consideration be given and entered into if there was substantial church support.
"The problem with critics who send out material do not give the full story which creates misunderstanding."
Comments -- What was done through the newspapers, radio, television, and press conferences, plus visitation to the offices of the senators was commendable. However, it must be clearly understood and Patzer did not name him - the head of the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department of the General Conference is Dr. B. B. Beach. His track record in ecumenical affairs, and in SDA-Catholic contacts hardly coincides with the stand one needed to take in regard to the appointment of an ambassador to the Holy See. It was Dr. Beach, who at Vatican Council II, entered unilaterally into dialogue with representatives of the WCC, which dialogue finally involved the Church. He has been secretary of the Secretaries of the World Confessional Families [Churches] in which the Papacy is also represented. Further, in this capacity, Beach is the one who presented the Seventh-day Adventist Church in symbol to the Antichrist. It makes then a rather hollow sound in press conferences to oppose an ambassador to this same Antichrist. (See So Much in Common, co-authored by Beach, and published initially by the WCC)
Patzer stated that Elder Wilson considered it a grave matter to go to court in which
6 -- a suit is being brought against the president of the United States,
in this instance, a very popular president. In simple language, Wilson
elected not to have a confrontation with the Executive arm of the American
government. If I recall the Bible record correctly, there was a popular
king at the zenith of his power and prestige who had constructed an image
all of gold. What was announced as a dedicatory convocation was turned
into a worship service. Religion and State combined on the plain of Dura.
Three officials in the government of the province of Babylon coming to
the dedication refused to enter into the religious aspects of the program.
It was a grave
Patzer indicated further, that the only reason that the Church would go to court would be if the issue effected "the operation of the church or [its] institutions" - in other words, the organizational structure. Isn't truth worth going to court for? The bottom line is simply preserve the structure - to the cross with the truth. Isn't this the position which Caiaphas took?
Patzer even suggests in his letter that the Church would not go to court even over its institutions unless "there was substantial church support." This is very interesting. Was there church support to defend the church in a long litigation (EEOC vs PPPA) in which the prophetic position of the Church regarding Romanism was thrown to the trash heap of history? Since we no longer have an aversion to Roman Catholicism, what does all the protest through the press sound like? Could we say, stage acting? Our Bibles transliterate the word.
Patzer scores the critics whom he says do not tell the full story. Really, who is keeping the full story, from the laity? We are trying hard to uncover the full story, and Patzer is working equally as hard to keep the cover on. Of course, that is a part of his job description.
SUMMARY REPORT - 4 -- We continue from the February issue, the report from the Complaint filed by Americans United in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS -- "On February 11, 1929, the Lateran Treaty was entered into between the Holy See and the Italian government. This treaty recognized the State of the City of the Vatican. In the Lateran Treaty the Holy See renounced its claims to the territory of the Papal States.
"The State of the City of the Vatican is composed of just 108 acres or about one sixth of a square mile of territory in the city of Rome. The Vatican legal system is based upon the Roman Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law and on the statutes promulgated by the Pope. Some of its day-to-day administrative activities are carried out by the College of Cardinals. Its population is slightly in excess of 1,000. The Vatican is the world headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church and exists to serve as the spiritual and administrative headquarters of the church.
"On December 24, 1939, Pope Pius XII and President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced the exchange of a personal representative between the United States and the Vatican. Myron C. Taylor held the position as ' Personal Representative' of the President under President Roosevelt and President Truman. He continued to serve in this capacity until 1949 when he retired. The appointment, however, of Myron C. Taylor was made without the consent of the Senate and carried with it no appropriation by Congress. No congressional act was thus involved.
"In 1951 President Harry Truman nominated General Mark Clark as Ambassador to the Holy See. Plaintiff Americans United for Separation of Church and State opposed such an appointment. Plaintiff National Association of Evangelicals called on its 8,000 pastors to fight the nomination,
p 7 -- and a multitude of other organizations spoke out against the appointment as a violation of church-state separation. Plaintiff National Council of Churches, by action of its General Board on January 17, 1951, adopted a policy statement opposing the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican; ... A second policy statement was adopted by the General Board of the National Council of Churches on October 31, 1951, ... This latter policy was reaffirmed by the General Assembly, a body of 750 members, on December 12, 1952, and was reaffirmed by the General Board or March 17, 1954, and remains the present policy of the National Council of Churches. A condition of national religious divisiveness was the outgrowth of the presidential appointment. On January 13,1952, President Truman withdrew General Clarks' appointment.
"In 1970 President Richard Nixon named Henry Cabot Lodge as his personal representative to Pope Paul VI. The appointment did not require or receive senatorial approval or congressional funding. At this time there was a substantial amount of opposition from Protestant organizations and again religious discord followed the action of the President. Personal representatives have been appointed by Presidents since that time until the recent appointment.
"In March of 1981, President Reagan appointed William A. Wilson to serve as the President's representative to Pope John Paul II. Mr. Wilson served in this capacity until his appointment, while the Holy See maintained Archbishop Pio Laghi, the Apostolic Delegate to the US Catholic Church, as its unofficial diplomatic representative in Washington." To be Continued
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' " - C. S. Lewis
"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." - Proverbs 14:12 & 16:25 (Twice for emphasis)
1985 May-- XVIII - 5(85) -- ANNUAL COUNCIL ACTION -- Deletion from Church Manual -- A little publicized action was taken at the 1984 Annual Council, which met at Takoma Park, October 9-18. A committee charged with harmonization of the Statement of Beliefs voted at Dallas in 1980, and the Baptismal Certificate made a recommendation which involved more than merely harmonizing the two instruments. It involved a revision of the Church Manual. The Annual Council accepted the report of the Harmonization Committee to delete Chapter 18, Appendix, Outline of Doctrinal Beliefs. (Adventist Review, Dec. 20, 1984, p. 17, col. 4)
This deleted "Outline of Doctrinal Beliefs" had also been voted at Dallas in 1980 as an action of the General Conference in session. At the Fifth Business Session, April 20, it was "Voted, To amend the section Doctrinal Instruction for Baptismal Candidates, CM [Church Manual] 54-61, as follows:" (Ibid., April 21, p. 20) The formulation of a statement of doctrines which formed the basis of this "Doctrinal Instruction" is what has now been deleted. This doctrinal formulation was preceded by the following "voted" preface: This summary of doctrinal beliefs is especially prepared for the instruction of candidates for baptism. Every candidate should thoroughly familiarize himself with the teachings contained in this outline and with the duties enjoined upon believers, demonstrating by practice his willing acceptance of all the doctrines taught by Seventh-day Adventists and the principles of conduct which are an outward expression of these teachings, for it is "by their fruits ye shall know them."
Prospective members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, before baptism or acceptance on profession of faith, should be carefully instructed from the Scriptures in the fundamental beliefs of the church as presented in chapter 2 (pp. 31-46) of this Manual. [The Dallas Statement of Beliefs] In order to assist evangelists, pastors, and others in giving such instruction and making it Scripture-based and practical, a specially prepared outline appears as an appendix on pages 288-294 of this Manual and in the Manual for Ministers. (Ibid., Pp. 20-21; Church Manual, pp. 60-61)
When this action, and the outline of the doctrines which follow the preface were voted, the discussion on the Fundamental Statement of Beliefs had not taken place. In fact a question was raised over this point. Number 15 of the Doctrinal Instruction regarding the family had brought some questions to the floor. The following exchange took place: GOTTFRIED OOSTERWAL: It might be a point of order, but I would like to phrase it in a form of a question. Point number 15, as well as all the other points, deals with fundamental beliefs of the Adventist Church. Does this discussion preclude the one on fundamental beliefs at a later session?
G. R. THOMPSON: No, the present Church Manual includes our fundamental beliefs. It also includes doctrinal instruction for baptismal candidates, and it lists things for which one can be disfellowshiped. These are all separate, so this discussion does not preclude the one to follow on fundamental beliefs.
p 2 -- GOTTFRIED OOSTERWAL: Then I would like to make a suggestion that at this session we bring these three into harmony with one another. The statement of fundamental beliefs, which includes a statement on marriage, differs radically from this statement. We have three dissimilar statements, leading to the confusion. I wish that we could harmonize all into one fundamental statement of beliefs.
G. R. THOMPSON: It has been suggested that the fundamental beliefs be organized in numerical order. It has been tried, but the best we can recommend to you is that it cannot be put together, because the fundamental beliefs need to be separate. We feel that instruction to candidates must set the ideal before them, but sometimes there must be small differences. The fundamental teaching is the same. While the fundamental-belief statement may be good for its purpose, it does not necessarily fit into the actual needs of doctrinal instruction. Now that's how the Church Manual Committee felt in this particular case. (Adventist Review, April 22, 1980, p. 22)
Here is the crux of the whole problem - there were as Dr. Oosterwal suggested, some radical differences between the two statements. 1 Besides the differences in the one on Marriage and the Family, which created the discussion quoted above, the statements on the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary were not harmonious. What was voted at Dallas in regard to Christ's High Priestly ministry reads: There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified in the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have a part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who, among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Adventist Review, May 1,1980, p. 27)
However, the candidates for admission into the church were to be instructed in harmony with historical Adventism. It read: Upon His ascension Christ began His ministry as high priest in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, which sanctuary is the antitype of the earthly tabernacle of the former dispensation. As in the type, a work of investigative judgment began as Christ entered the second phase of His ministry, in the Most Holy Place, foreshadowed in the earthly service by the Day of Atonement. This work of the investigative judgment in the heavenly sanctuary began in 1844, at the close of the 2300 years, and will end with the close of probation. (Church Manual, p. 289. This has now been deleted!)
Other interesting comparisons can be shown. The word - trinity - wasn't placed in the Doctrinal Instruction, neither the language taken from the Constitution of the World Council of Churches on the nature of God and the Church. The statement in the Instruction regarding the prophetic gift is more in harmony with the position taken by the pioneers of this Movement, and does not set up a third Testament of Scripture as does the Fundamental Beliefs as voted at Dallas. 2
taking the action deleting the Doctrinal Instruction as voted by the 1980
General Conference (How can the Annual Council alter an action of a General
Conference in session, if they believe that such sessions are "the
voice of God"?), the Annual Council voted a further recommendation
of the Harmonization Committee. This action read: VOTED,
To accept the report of the Fundamental Beliefs and Baptismal Certificate
Harmonization Committee as follows:
p 3 -- "In His Steps," and to include in it the Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs as a basis for the teaching guide. Each point should be expanded as necessary, but should follow the same sequence and numbering as the Fundamental Beliefs. ... This proposed baptismal teaching guide, "In His Steps," will be the official adult baptismal teaching guide for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. [Numbers 2 & 3 are subject to final approval by the 1985 Annual Council] (Adventist Review, Dec. 20, 1984, p. 17)
We now have only one statement of beliefs for the Seventh-day Adventist Church - the apostate statement voted at Dallas in 1980. During this interim between the 1980 General Conference Session, and the 1984 Annual Council, we had a very interesting situation - a duplicity. In presenting the proposed Fundamental Statement of Beliefs to the delegates at Dallas in 1980, Elder Neal C. Wilson stated: There are a great many individuals, for instance, who write to the General Conference Ministerial Association requesting a simple statement of our fundamental beliefs. We would like to feel that when such a statement is sent to those who are theologically educated or who are proficient in stating Biblical truth simply, they will understand not what they see but rather what we see and what we believe. It is one thing for me to apply a certain set of values and theological-doctrinal principles to a statement and find that it all fits together. Someone else reading the same statement might not perceive the same truth. (Ibid., April 23, 1980, p. 9)
Just before the final vote was taken on the 1980 Statement of Beliefs, Spangler of the Ministerial Department stated what he perceived the need to be in adopting this apostate statement. He said: "I do appreciate this document, because we need to clarify our beliefs in order to send them to the numbers of non-Adventist clergy who are constantly asking us for an authoritative statement of our beliefs. I hope, Brother Chairman, that this will be voted today. We must not fail to do this. We are embarrassed to send the Statement of Beliefs we have now because it contains many loopholes and some things are omitted. (Ibid., May 1, 1980, p. 21)
Clearly the objective for the 1980 Statement of Beliefs was to have a document to present to the theologians of "Babylon" and to have a Doctrinal Instruction outline for prospective baptismal candidates which in the main paralleled our historic beliefs.
Thus our representative on the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC could say "See our Statement of Beliefs contains the very confession demanded for fellowship. We even borrowed the very wording from your Constitution." The leadership of the Church could say to Walter Martin - "Look, here is the very wording from the book, Questions on Doctrine. We have not gone back on our compromises at the SDA-Evangelical Conferences. And to the laity, they could point to the outline of Doctrinal Instruction and say "We still believe in historical Adventism." But apparently this duplicity was not working well, and so now at the Annual Council, the leadership has decided to come down on one side only - the side of apostasy! ########
2 Other comparisons between the Voted Statement of Beliefs at Dallas, and the Outline of Doctrinal Beliefs voted at the same session are also very interesting:
the action of the 1984 Annual Council deleted from the Church Manual
the "Outline of Doctrinal Beliefs," they made provision for
the General Conference Ministerial Association to revise "In His
Steps." The instruction is clearly stated - This booklet is "to
include in it the Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs as a basis for the
teaching guide." Further, each of the Twenty-seven points "should
be expanded as necessary." Here is the place to watch. Will the expanded
comments worked out by the Ministerial Association actually reflect what
the Fundamental Statement says, or will it be expanded in such a way so
as to deceive the laity into believing that the Statement voted at Dallas
conforms to historic Adventism? Thus they could have their Statement to
show to the theologians, and inquirers from "Babylon," and at
the same time an "expanded version" to quiet the concerns of
a disturbed laity. It appears to be a planned "by-pass" to keep
intact, and maintain the status quo. After the approval of "In His
Steps" by the 1985 Annual Council, this work of the Ministerial Department
is to become "the official adult baptismal teaching guide for the
Seventh-day Adventist Church." (See pp. 2-3) Will there be a General
Conference "in session" approval of this booklet? An open question!
p 6 --MILLIONS IN THE STOCK MARKET -- At the 1984 Annual Council, the delegates received an auditing firm's report on the financial statements of the General Conference for the year ending December 31, 1983. This report revealed that the General Conference received in Tithe Funds for 1983 a total of $78,869,416.32, as their portion of the tithes received worldwide. Of this amount $16,137,637.64 was used in GC Office Operating, and $39,115,000.00 was appropriated to overseas work. (p. 7) Accumulated tithe funds have been invested. These investments totaled in 1983 - $16,009,449.36 of which $20,905.95 were in Savings and Loan Associations, while $15,908,209.22 was listed as "Commercial Paper. " (p. 9)
"Resources available to the General Conference from sources other than tithe are accounted for within the Specific Purpose Fund. " (p. 16) The total current assets of this fund (1983) stand at $77,465,880.77. From this fund the General Conference has advanced to the Unions the sum of $3,372, 731.16 noted as "Davenport Matter Loans." The explanatory note reads - "Funds advanced to unions to be repaid as cash flow permits. Interest payable quarterly at the average of short-term interest rates in effect during the quarter." (p. 18)
There are three funds listed in the report which involve action on either the international or national securities exchange (stock markets) - The Investment Fund, the Income Fund, and the International Fund. The Investment Fund has one third of a total sum of $116,222,057.84 in common stock or $38,266,035.72. (Pp. 43-44) While carried on the books at the $116 million figure, the actual value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities is given as $109,321,627.69. The Income Fund has 28% in common stock which cost $7,816, 219.49, and presently valued on the Summary sheet at $9,980,650.87. (p. 64) The International Fund has in common stocks a total of $10,654,627.65 with a "current value" of $10,670,710.00. This small gain in "current value" could be wiped out by a single investment held in the International Fund. There are 220,000 shares in the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank which cost $387,755.04, but which now are valued at $198,000.00. (p. 83)
In connection with each of these funds, there is a note on Administrative Services which reads - "In accordance with denominational policy, the General Conference Tithe Fund absorbs personnel and other administrative cost pertaining [to the said fund.]" (Pp. 57, 74, 85)
Another note of interest by the Auditors reads - "The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has been named as a codefendant in certain litigation - which seeks compensatory and punitive damages which, in the event plaintiffs were to prevail, could be material to the financial position of the Tithe Fund. The ultimate outcome of the lawsuits cannot presently be determined and no provision for any liability that may result has been made in the financial statements."(p.5) The litigation cited are the Proctor Case which involves alleged violation of federal anti-trust laws; the Davenport Case, besides certain possible cases with the banks which had loaned money to Davenport, plus the Trustee in Bankruptcy. Certain cases arising from the Bankruptcy scandal were settled in 1983 for about $500,000. (Pp. 104-105) Another case has been filed this year. (See next article)
Besides the totals on the common stock noted above, the Church has $38 Million in the Bond Market of the Investment and Income accounts. (Pp. 43, 64)
SUIT FILED AGAINST CHURCH IN FEDERAL COURT -- On January 22, 1985, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, legal counsel for Reid Granke filed a Complaint against the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and its corporation, the Upper Columbia Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, Richard Fearing [President of the North Pacific Union], W. D. Blehm [President of the Pacific Union], Wayne Massingell, James Hoppe, Harvey Sauder, and James Davis, besides unnamed enterprises noted a XYZ 1-10; ABC Corporations 1-10; and John/Jane Does 1-25.
Some of the allegations read as follows: Defendants Does I through 25 as trust committee members accepted finders fees from Davenport in consideration for voting for loan approval." (p. 6)
"After voting approval for the making of loans to Davenport, and in consideration thereof, defendants Does 1 through 25 as members of the trust committee personally loaned to Davenport money on which they received interest of twenty to eighty percent in violation of state usury laws." (p. 6)
"Defendants Does 1 through 25 as trust committee members accepted first deeds of trust on the real estate as alleged security for the loans but agreed and conspired with the other defendants that said deeds would not be recorded thereby permitting Davenport to sell or encumber the property to others and thereby foreclose the trusts from recouping some part, or all or more than all of, their investment upon the sale or other type disposal of the real estate." (Pp. 6-7)
addition to defendants involvement in nationwide Davenport loans as aforesaid,
Defendants engaged in a scheme of permitting certain church members to
make sham gifts of real estate, including nursing homes, to defendant
church. By the terms of a 'working agreement' husband and wife church
members 'donated' certain nursing homes including but not limited to Parkside
Manor, Crestview Nursing Home, Hawthorne House, and Cashmere Nursing Home
in the State of Washington to defendants. The appraised value of the property
as of the date of the 'gift' less any encumbrances against the property,
on the date of the 'gift' was then deducted as a charitable contribution
by the donors in computing their state and local income taxes. However,
said 'gifts' were not gifts at all but an exchange of real property whereby
the 'donors' were relieved from responsibility for mortgages on the real
estate, cost of repairs and alterations, and received all of the benefits
of the income and profits from their property, tax free. The defendants
participated in this tax scheme with the 'donors' by allowing
p 7 -- 'donors' to accumulate tax free income in addition to receipt of the property itself at the 'donors' death." (p. 8)
as early as 1966 and continuing to the date hereof, the defendants, each
of them: (1)
Have received an income from a pattern of racketeering activity and have
used and invested such income to acquire interests in, establish and operate
an enterprise engaged in and affecting interstate commerce (hereinafter
the ' Racketeering Enterprise');
"For the purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme defraud, or attempting to do so, defendants Fearing, Massingell, Hoppe, Sauder, Davis and Blehm utilized or caused to be utilized the United States mail and facilities and interstate commerce on two or more occasions thereby violated 18 U.S.C. [U. S. Codes, Numbers cited]" (p.12)
The basis for Granke's Complaint is given as "Wrongful Discharge" with attendant "Emotional Distress." The allegation reads: "As the plaintiff began to discover the aforesaid wrong doings of defendants concerning the Davenport loans and the nursing home 'gifts', he began to call them to the attention of others in defendants' hierarchies and to take steps to try to extract church funds from the Davenport investments and nursing home transactions; and was instructed by defendants not to deal with those matters and the files concerning the Davenport loans and nursing home 'gifts' were removed from him.
"When plaintiff persisted in making known his concern and disapproval of the Davenport transactions and nursing home 'gifts', defendants wrongfully discharged plaintiff from his position as trust officer, secretary, and treasurer with the purpose of harming plaintiff in his business, property, and reputation in order to prevent plaintiff from further discovering and revealing the aforesaid wrong doings of defendants." (p. 14) --- (1985 May) ---End---- TOP
1985 Jun -- XVIII - 6(85) -- THE POWER OF TRUTH -- Essential for the Perfecting of the Saints -- Truth is an attribute of God. In the song of Moses, God is described as "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He." (Deut 32:4) And when that Song is sung again, the victors over the beast and his image proclaim - "Great marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, Thou King of saints." (Rev. 15:3) From truth springs forth the ways of God; and because in Him is the embodiment of truth, there is no iniquity. The incident of sin was over the issue of truth. Jesus could say of him who once shared with Him the presence of God - "He abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him." (John 8:44) To be in God's presence is to be in the presence of truth. (On earth to be in the presence of truth is to be in the atmosphere of the Spirit of truth.) Of those who are prophetically designated as the 144,000, it is written - "In their mouth was found no guile (pseudos -a lie) for they are without fault before the throne of God." (Rev. 14:5) . Having overcome the father of lies (John 8:44), they are returned to the presence of the Father of truth.
relationship between truth and the victors in earth's final struggle with
the powers arrayed under deception and falsehood is not merely accidental.
"The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more
and more unto the perfect day." (Prov. 4:18) The closer we approach
"Truth is sacred, divine. It is stronger and more powerful than anything else in the formation of a character after the likeness of Christ. In it there is fulness of joy. When it [truth] is cherished in the heart the love of Christ is preferred to the love of any human being. This is Christianity. This is the love of God in the soul. Thus pure unadulterated truth occupies the citadel of the being. ...
"When the truth as it is in Jesus molds our character it will be truth indeed. ... It will elevate our aspirations, enabling us to reach the perfect standard of holiness." (IHP, p. 140)
Those who would reflect the image of Jesus fully must be found in the truth as it is in Jesus. Perfection of character cannot be divorced from the understanding of truth. The perceptions of truth by the final generation of mankind - those who
p 2 -- are victors - will exceed the perceptions of any previous generation. This is not saying that previous generations did not have truth, only that their perceptions of truth were not perfected. Christ, the embodiment of all truth (John 1:14; 14:6), was not comprehended even by His own disciples, let alone the multitudes. He said to His disciples in the upper room - "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth." (John 14:16-17) Then on the way to Gethsemane, Jesus emphasized the fact that when "He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13) This guidance into all truth by the Holy Spirit was to extend to the close of human history, ever unfolding greater and deeper perceptions of truth. The "light and knowledge" - truth - bestowed in the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost is not to cease until the "greater light" of the latter rain is perceived by the people of God. (See TM, p. 507)
As God was laying the groundwork for the finishing of His work in the earth, He brought to His people a message in 1888 which has been defined in various ways - "Righteousness by Faith" - "A most precious message ... to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour" - "Christ, our righteousness." But the underlying objective of this message was to be the giving of the Third Angel's Message "with a loud voice." (TM, pp. 91-92) What we failed to realize is what this message of Christ's righteousness really means. The righteousness of Christ is "pure unadulterated truth." (TM, p. 65)
Those who proclaim the Third Angel's Message speak forth against the "beast and his image" and warn against receiving "a mark" in the forehead or in the hand. (Rev. 14:9) In reality, it is the proclamation of truth in contrast with error, deceptions and lies, resulting from the energizing by Satan of "the man of sin" - the beast. (See II Thess. 2:9, Fenton's Translation) 1
Truth cannot be separated from doctrine, or teaching. Jesus declared - "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) Those who heard these words understood their force, and declared they had never been in bondage to any man. (ver. 33) Paul in Romans, associated correct doctrine with the freedom truth brings from the bondage of sin. He wrote - "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." (Rom. 6:17-18 NKJV) In writing to Timothy, Paul instructed - "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 Tm. 4:16) Truth - pure and unadulterated - embodied in correct doctrine or teaching is to stand in stark contrast to the errors and deceptions of the forces of him who abode not in the truth, but became the father of lies.
From the very dawn of human history comes the explicit warning as to how the enemy of truth will work. He will not deceive through a tree of error, or of evil, but by a tree of mixed truth and error, good and evil. We must never forget that the Scripture clearly states that the Cherubims guarded only "to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen. 3:24) The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was never guarded, and came forth from the garden as the devil 's prime tool in his subjugation of the children of men.
how the enemy is using this tree through which he was so successful in
perverting our first mother, we must understand what God guarded and what
He permitted to come from the Garden of Eden. The tree of life as a quantity
of life was kept from our first parents. It is clearly stated - "God
said, ... Now lest he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life
and live forever." (Gen. 3:22) But the tree of life as a quality
of life, God has never withheld from man. "The word truth, 'It is
written,' is the gospel we are to preach. No flaming sword is placed
before this tree of life." (6T:19) In fact, one of the Cherubims
- Gabriel - came to Daniel to show him "that which is noted in the
scripture of truth." (Dan. 10:21) "Satan
has wrought with deceiving power, bringing in a multiplicity of errors
that obscure the truth. Error cannot stand alone, and would soon become
extinct if it did not fasten itself like a parasite upon
p 3 -- the tree of truth. Error draws its life from the truth of God. The traditions of men, like floating germs, attach themselves to the truth of God, and men regard them as a part of the truth. Through false doctrines, Satan gains a foothold, and captivates the minds of men, causing them to hold to theories that have no foundation in truth." (Ev. p. 589)
Here is revealed how the enemy works today through a tree of truth and error, which he has substituted for the tree of the garden by which he was so successful. He mingles his sophistry with the truth of God. He cares not how much truth one may have, just so it gets mingled with some of his error. The results will be the same as with Eve - her children will think that the parasitical growth is something to be desired to make one wise, and will partake of its fruit.
At a dissident campmeeting, I used the above quotation and asked the question - How can we free ourselves from the parasitical growth - and a minister present responded rather audibly - "Cut down the tree." This Freudian slip revealed the natural heart of all of us. We really do not want truth anymore than our spiritual forefathers desired the Message of 1888 - "pure unadulterated truth." We do not appreciate truth any more today than the Jews appreciated Him, who was the embodiment of truth. We prefer to shout - "Crucify it! Cut it down!" Sure it takes much more work - -deep study - to become a "tree surgeon" and remove the parasite. But this is what is needed and demanded in this final hour of deception and crisis.
A point so often overlooked is when Jesus responded to the question asked by His disciples on the Mount of Olives - "What shall be the sign of Thy coming and the end of the world?" - His first admonition was - "Take heed that no man deceive you." (Matt. 24:4; Mark 13:5; Luke 21:8) Two nights later, Jesus prayed, as the great High Priest to be, "Sanctify them through Thy truth, Thy word is truth." (John 17:17) Herein is the power of the Word to preserve - to sanctify, set apart - from deception. "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4:12)
This word sharper than a two-edged sword, is the symbol used to describe that which proceeds from the mouth of Jesus, whether walking in the midst of the golden candlesticks, or coming as King of kings to smite the nations. (Rev. 1:16; 19:15) It is this word of truth - pure and unadulterated - that must be proclaimed prior to His coming if a people are to be prepared for translation. Otherwise, they will be cut down with the sword of His mouth at His coming. Slain now, or slain, later that is the choice!
figure of speech is changed in speaking to the Laodiceans. They are admonished
to cover the shame of their nakedness with "white raiment."
(Rev. 3:18) Elsewhere the admonition is, when facing the enemy in conflict,
to have our loins "girt about with truth." (Eph. 6:14) This
of decades ago a story was making the rounds on the evangelistic circuit;
whether in substance, true or not for it varied from locale to locale,
nevertheless it illustrated a point. An evangelist was preaching in a
small community in the hills of old North Georgia. His topic
p 4 -- noted how the enemy seeks to mingle error with truth to deceive; but truth to be effective must be pure and unadulterated. Now we are going to get down to the specifics about the mingling of error with the truth.
Christ has an objective for His church. That objective was so strong that He died in its behalf. Paul expresses it this way - "Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5:25b-27) The means for this accomplishment is the "word"' of truth. Jesus had told the disciples - "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15:3) His word was truth, even as He is the truth. To the end that the church corporately might be the agency whereby the members individually might ultimately be holy and without blemish, "the church of the living God" was and is to be "the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3:15)
The facts are and cannot be denied, that since the compromises made at the SDA-Evangelical Conferences in 1955-1956, and on through the adoption of the apostate Statement of Beliefs at Dallas, Texas, in 1980, the truth has been so altered until today the Beliefs held by the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church are a mixture of truth and error, and constitute fruit from the "tree of the knowledge,of good and evil." This cannot produce a church without spot, or wrinkle, nor can it contribute to the realization of a people who are holy and without fault. (The same Greek word is used in Eph. 5:27 for "blemish" as is used in Rev. 14:5 for "fault.")
Many realizing this situation have drawn apart into small groups, who in turn have organized annual gatherings (campmeetings and retreats) for the purpose of realizing the objective which Christ has for His people, the church. But alas, here too, the enemy has wonderfully succeeded in mixing error with truth, and the laity so long schooled in merely listening without checking, or questioning are in as confused state as the main body itself. The goal is as far from realization among the dissident fellowships as in the regular organized assemblies. The simple fact is that you cannot mingle error with truth, and expect to have a truth that cleanses and produces the character of God. God is a God of truth - pure and unadulterated while the enemy abode not in the truth. This enemy told lies, promoted falsehoods and half truths. Those who do likewise are ministers of unrighteousness.
God is not, never will be, a part of a program that mixes error with truth. Yet tragically, many profess to see great light in such a mixture. They are like Eve, who in her delusion thought the fruit of the forbidden tree was something to make one wise; partook not only herself, but gave also to Adam to eat. Now let me be specific - "meddlin'" - if you wish to call it that. A reader of The Layworker wrote: "I do not see Dr. Hauser's view even with the best Spirit of Prophecy quotes. You have to have very deep spiritual insight besides; and that is all I wish to say about anyone's views at this point.
"All I know is, the end is coming fast and we are not beyond being surprised as SDA's - 7BC (Probation closes when least expected)."
reader's point was well made, but the editor made a comment. It read:
too question some of Hauser's, Smith's, Wheeling's, Waggerby's and Wolf's
views. I wish they had not
when does truth contain flaws? Pure and unadulterated truth has none,
and will no more be appreciated as the truth as it was in Jesus - flawless
- was appreciated in His day. To be enchanted by a mixture of factual
material, misinterpreted and misapplied, from which are spun concepts
of a questionable nature and which strike at the very basis of truth committed
to the trust of the Advent Movement is tragic enough, but then to publish
and promote such enchantment is repeating the calamity of Eden all over
p 5 -- not all of our endeavors be to present truth - pure and unadulterated - so as to promote the return to Eden?
Some may respond - Did not the Great Second Advent Movement, spearheaded by William Miller, contain a major flaw in regard to the sanctuary? Most assuredly it did - and while tasting sweet produced a very bitter experience. Furthermore, because of this, the command was given - "Thou must prophesy again." (Rev. 10:11) Have we not learned our lesson? Are we to have only continual disappointment? That which is given again must be pure and unadulterated.
is what 1888 was all about! God wanted a people who would have truth -
There is no hope that this situation will change. Right up to the end there will be those who will hawk their "remedial concoctions" - formulated mixtures by which the unwary will be deceived. There will be those who will partake of these "mixtures" and give to others that they might partake. Only eternity will reveal the loss thus sustained. Changing the figure to the imagery of 1888 - then, it will be too late to realize that instead of a garment woven in the loom of Heaven the righteousness of Christ, truth pure and unadulterated - they had put on a robe into which had been woven the theories of men - flaws, errors, and human calculations.
Thank God, the elect will not be deceived - few though they be. However, to be among the "elect" each individual "must know that [he] knows what is truth." (TM, p. 119) Then the sophistry of error will not look like something to be desired to make one wise. Neither will thousands of dollars be spent flying these venders of a mixture of error and truth from place to place thus cooperating with the devil's objective to deceive if possible the very elect. (On the rough draft, I typed "air" for "error" - a slip, but very much in line with Hosea 12:1.)
Further, if some really want to reverse this trend - either inside or outside of the organizational structure, and see a proclamation - a loud cry - of truth unmixed with error, then there needs to be some Bible Conferences arranged, where in-depth study can and will be given so as to free the tree of truth from the parasitical growth of error. Our pioneers tried it - perhaps it is not too late for it to be tried again.
So that the individual can have a basis to know for himself what is truth, we offer the following suggestion: During the years of our evangelistic ministry, we developed a series of 13-14 simple Bible studies - all Bible -on the basic truths of the Advent Message. These we used as studies for what was called - "The Wednesday Night Bible Class" - during the Evangelistic series. They were used on other occasions to instruct candidates for baptism. They were also used in personal home Bible studies - and worked! Souls made decisions for truth. . Finally, when called to head the Bible Department at old Madison College, these studies formed the basis of the Class in Personal Evangelism. Now I am not saying that these studies answer all the various speculations rampant in Adventism today especially in the dissident community.
They do hold to the historic teaching of Adventism in regard to the Incarnation and the Sanctuary. But while they may not give all the answers to all the winds of doctrine blowing at gale force through Adventism today, they will give the fundamental teachings by which some of the varied winds can be tested, and rejected when found not to accord with basic truth.
We.- are willing to rework these studies, and improve them for publication and distribution, if there is sufficient interest in such a project. This work, however, will not go forward to the extent needed, unless those in the field write and tell us that they would like such a set of studies to learn for themselves "what is truth." In addition to this, we shall continue to address from time to time some of the issues arising, as we have been doing, seeking to expose "the wind" on which many an Ephraimite is "feeding" these days. We would pray that such would be "translated" to one of the other tribes, and
p 6 -- not be numbered among "the lost tribes" of Israel. (Hosea 12:1; See Rev. 7:5-8) ###
1 -- This outlaw's arrival will be accompanied by the energy of Satan with all powers and signs, and terrors of falsehood. (II Thess. 2:9, Ferrar Fenton)
are many in our churches who know little
SUMMARY REPORT - 5 -- We continue from the April issue, the report from the Complaint filed by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State seeking to set aside the appointment of the Ambassador to the Holy See.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS -- (Continued) -- "In the early part of 1983 a legislative measure 'providing for the establishment of the United States diplomatic relations with the Vatican' was introduced-in the Senate by Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana as S. 1757 and in the House of Representatives by the late Rep. Clement J. Zablocki of Wisconsin as H.J. Res 316. No public hearing was held on these legislative items. Senator Lugar then, on September 22, 1983, introduced legislation in the form of an amendment to the 1984 State Department Authorization Bill as Amendment No. 2189 which read as follows: On page 24, line 20, Immediately following sec. 121, insert the following new section:
"The United States diplomatic relations with the Vatican
"'Sec. 122. In order to provide for the establishment of United States diplomatic relations with the Vatican. The Act entitled 'an Act Making Appropriations for Consular and Diplomatice Expenses of the Government for the year ending thirtieth June, 1868, ...,' is ammended by repealing the following sentence (14 Stat. 413): 'And no money hereby or otherwise appropriated shall be paid for the support of an American legation at Rome, from and after the thirtieth day of June, 1860-7.'"
" The legislation was approved by the House-Senate Conference Committee and by the full House and Senate and subsequently signed into law by the President as Pub. L. No. 98-164 on November 22, 1983.
"Following the bill's approval the State Department began consulting with representatives of the Holy See on the question of closer relations. On January 10, 1984, the White House and the Holy See announced the establishment of full diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level. The formal announcement issued by the United States Department of State reads as follows: The United States of America and the Holy See, in the desire to further promote the existing mutual friendly relations, have decided by common agreement to establish diplomatic relations between them at the level of embassy on the part of the United States of America, and nunciature on the part of the Holy See, as of today, January 10, 1984.
"The term 'Holy See' is an ecclesiastical one and has been defined in the New Catholic Encyclopedia as follows: HOLY SEE, a term designating Rome as the bishopric of the pope.. The word is derived from the Latin sedes, which denotes the seat or residence of the bishop: this is because the bishop's office is symbolized by the chair in which he presides over his people. The word see is accordingly applied to all bishoprics, although it was first used of the Churches founded by the Apostles. They would be known further as apostolic or holy sees, in as much as it was the function of the apostles to mediate Christ's holiness to their flocks. As the titles pope and apostolic see came to be used especially of the bishop of Rome and his see, so too the title holy see was restricted to Rome. In canonical and diplomatic language it now refers to Rome as the bishopric of the pope and to his Curia, the Roman Congregations, tribunals, and offices.
February 2, 1984, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing
on the nomination of William A. Wilson as Ambassador to the Holy See.
Since no hearing had been held previously concerning
p 7 -- Congress' earlier repeal of the prohibition against funding such a diplomatic mission, the Committee on Foreign Relations permitted testimony to be given, not only concerning the appointment of William A. Wilson as Ambassador to the Holy See, but also with reference to the appointment of any ambassador to the Holy See. Statements of opposition were submitted on behalf of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the National Council of Churches of Christ, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Included in the statements of Dr. James T. Draper, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, were copies of resolutions opposing the appointment of the United States Ambassador to the Vatican by the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, Kentucky Baptist Convention, Louisiana Baptist Convention, Baptist Convention of Maryland, Mississippi Baptist Convention, Missouri Baptist Convention, Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board, and Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission. In addition, twenty Southern Baptist national agencies voted their unanimous opposition to this matter, and all fifteen living former presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, as well as the then President of the Southern Baptist Convention, signed a letter protesting the action and sent it to President Reagan. -- To be Continued
FROM INDIA -- "The Union leaders of the Burma Union of Seventh-day Adventists have enrolled themselves as members of the Burma Christian Council, which is a branch of the World Council of Churches. So we can say that many of the so called Adventists are members of the W.C.C."
COURT'S MODERATION OVER -- "A University of Chicago legal scholar says in a study that the US Supreme Court has shifted from a long period of moderation to a new era of viewing the Constitution ' through the eyes of mainstream America.'
"Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the university, bases his conclusions on a detailed analysis of the court's decisions during its last term. In Stone's view the Court adopted 'agressive majoritarianism,' supporting the ascendancy of America's majority.
"Stone says the court 'seeks to restore to the majority its right to assert its will, even in those areas in which minority interests are most seriously threatened. It is insensitive, or at least unempathetic, to those in need of protection.'
"In the Pawtucket, R.I., Nativity Scene case, Stone says the court 'expressly abandoned the principle that the 1st Amendment erects a wall of separation between church and state.'" - Chicago Tribune, 4/9/85 --- (1985 Jun) --- End ----