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 1981 Jul - Sep
1981 July -- XIV -- 7(81) -- Adventist Editor Lies to Readers -- In the May 14, 1981, issue of the Adventist Review, the associate editor, Wm. G. Johnsson, began a series of editorials on "What the Sanctuary Doctrine Means Today." In the very first article, he presents an assumption which is contrary to fact, and history. He wrote: The Church in General Conference Session, meeting in Dallas last April, reaffirmed its confidence in this historic doctrine of the sanctuary as it voted the 27 statements of fundamental belief. In August, 1980, the doctrine received further confirmation and elaboration in the consensus statement "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary," voted by the members of the Sanctuary Review Committee at Glacier View, Colorado. Thus the Adventist Church of the late twentieth century expresses its continuity with the beliefs of the pioneers. (p. 13)
Two documents are here cited, but no documentation is presented from either to prove his assumption that the Church reaffirmed its confidence in the "historic doctrine of the sanctuary," or that these statements express "continuity with the beliefs of the pioneers." Either Dr. Johnsson doesn't know what the pioneers taught, which is doubtful, or else he is seeking to allay the thinking of concerned Adventists that the Church has in deed departed from the historic faith of the pioneers. This latter possibility is wherein the deception lies, for his concluding sentence of the first editorial reads - "In continuity with the pioneers but in the light of our times, we hope to make the doctrine our own." Truth is timeless; that which seeks to accommodate to the times, is compromise and heresy.
Before analyzing the two documents referred to by Dr. Johnsson to support his attempted covert deception of his readers, we shall first note just what the pioneers stated was their belief in regard to the sanctuary, and the ministry of Christ therein.
the 1889 Yearbook, the official statement of beliefs, 1
in its second article, declared: II.
That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father,
the one by whom he created all things, and by whom they do consist;
that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption
of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men, full of grace and truth,
lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification,
ascended on high to be
p 2 -- our on mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, through the merits of his shed blood, he secures the pardon and forgiveness of the sins of all those who penitently come to him; and as the closing portion of his work as priest, before he takes his throne as king, he will make the great atonement for the sins of all such; and their sins will then be blotted out (Acts 3:19) and borne away from the sanctuary, as shown in the service of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven.
To this statement, an explanatory footnote which is worthy of careful thought was given, which read: Some thoughtless persons accuse us of rejecting the atonement of Christ entirely, because we dissent from the view that the atonement was made upon the cross, as is generally held. But we do nothing of the kind; we only take issue as to the time when the atonement is to be made. We object to the view that the atonement was made upon the cross, because it is utterly contrary to the type, which placed the atonement at the end of the yearly sanctuary service, not at the beginning, and because it inevitably leads to one of two great errors. Thus, Christ on the cross bore the sins of all the world. John said, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away [margin, beareth] the sin of the world!" John 1: 29. Peter tells us when he thus bore the sins of the world: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." I Peter 2:24. Paul says that "he died for all." II Cor. 5:14-15. That which Christ did upon the cross, therefore, was done indiscriminately and unconditionally for all the world; and if this was the atonement, then the sins of all the world have been atoned for, and all will be saved. This is Universalism in full blossom. But all men will not be saved; hence the sins of all were not atoned for upon the cross; and if Christ's work there was the atonement, then his work was partial, not universal, as the scriptures above quoted assert, and he atoned for only a favored few who were elected to be saved, and passed by all others who were predestinated to damnation. This would establish the doctrine of election and predestination in its most ultra form, -- an error equally unscriptural and objectionable with the former. We avoid both these errors, and find ourselves in harmony with the Mosaic type, and with all the declarations of the Scriptures, when we take the position that what Christ did upon the cross was to provide a divine sacrifice for the world, sufficient to save all, and offered it to every one who will accept it; that he then, through the merits of his offering, acts as the mediator with the Father till time shall end, securing the forgiveness of sins for all who seek him for it; and that as the last service of his priesthood, he will blot out the sins of all who have repented and been converted (Acts 3:19), the atonement not being completed till this work of blotting out of sin is done. Thus Christ atones, not for the sins of the whole world, to save all, not for a favored few only, elected from all eternity to be saved, but for those who, as free moral agents, have voluntarily sought from him the forgiveness of sin
p 3 -- and everlasting life. And all for whom the atonement is made, will be forever saved in his kingdom. This view in no way detracts from the merit of Christ's offering, nor from the value and glory of his atoning work for men. While on this line, we are not driven into Universalism on the one hand, nor into election and reprobation on the other. (Emphasis his)
Further, Article X, speaking particularly of the sanctuary, stated: That the sanctuary of the new covenant is the tabernacle of God in heaven, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8 and onward, and of which our Lord, as great high priest, is minister; that this sanctuary is the antitype of the Mosaic tabernacle, and that the priestly work of our Lord, connected therewith, is the antitype of the work of the Jewish priests of the former dispensation; that this, and not the earth, is the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the two thousand and three hundred days, what is termed its cleansing being in this case, as in the type, simply the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, to finish the round of service connected therewith, by making the atonement and removing from the sanctuary the sins which had been transferred to it be means of the ministration in the first apartment; and that this work in the antitype, beginning in 1844, consists in actually blotting out the sins of believers, and occupies a brief but indefinite space of time, at the conclusion of which the work of mercy for the world will be finished, and the second advent of Christ will take place.
Finally, Article XXI speaks of the "investigative judgment." It reads: That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, synchronizing with the time of the proclamation of the third message (Rev. 14:9, 10), is a time of investigative judgment, first, with reference to the dead, and secondly, at the close of probation, with reference to the living, to determine who of the myriads now sleeping in the dust of the earth are worthy of a part in the first resurrection, and who of its living multitudes are worthy of translation, - points which must be determined before the Lord appears.
Before comparing the position of the pioneers with the two documents cited by Dr. Johnsson, let us summarize just what the 1889 Statement of Beliefs declared to be the position of the pioneers on the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and how they looked upon the sanctuary itself. There are seven main points to the doctrine of the sanctuary as understood by the pioneers:
1) Christ's death on the Cross was declared to be "our sacrifice." (They did not apply the term "sacrificial atonement" to the Cross in any statement of their fundamental beliefs.)
Christ is declared to have ascended "on high to be our mediator
in the sanctuary in heaven, where,
through the merits
of his shed blood, he secures
the pardon and forgiveness of the sins of all who penitently come to
p 4 -- 3) The closing portion of Christ's work is to make "the great atonement for the sins of all" who have accepted Him as Saviour, and "their sins will then be blotted out and borne away from the sanctuary." This position was declared to be based on "the service of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven."
4) The sanctuary of the new covenant is the tabernacle of God in heaven "of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8 and onward, and of which our Lord, as great high priest, is minister."
5) This heavenly sanctuary "is the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the two thousand and three hundred days, and what is termed its cleansing" is "simply the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place" to make atonement and remove from the sanctuary "the sins which have been transferred to it by the ministration in the first apartment."
6) The second apartment ministry of Christ began in 1844.
7) This time of "the cleansing of the sanctuary" parallels the time of the proclamation of the third angel's message of Revelation 14, and is termed "a time of investigative judgment."
The 1980 Statement of Beliefs -- The first document cited by Dr. Johnsson in his editorial was the Statement of Beliefs voted at the 1980 General Conference Session in Dallas, Texas. Number 9 on "The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ" reads: In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God has provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God's triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow. (Adventist Review, May 1, 1980, p. 25)
Number 23 in the Dallas Statement on "Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary" states: 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 the ascension. In 1844, at the end of the 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,
p 5 -- typified by 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 intelligencies who among the dead are asleep in Jesus 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 d probation before the Second Advent. (Ibid. p. 27)
Before considering the Glacier View Consensus Document, we should note the contrast between the present statement of beliefs, and the position of our pioneers. The Church is now on record as believing that Christ's life, suffering, death, and resurrection is "the only means of atonement for human sin." This is called a "Perfect atonement." Now nothing can be added to something already perfect - it is completed and final. 2 Lest someone say that I am reading into this concept something not intended, I would remind all, of the arguments used by Adventist evangelists in regard to the Law of God. The Law of God is declared to be "perfect." (Ps. 19:7) Therefore, nothing can be added to it, nor taken from it without destroying its perfection. This same line of reasoning is being applied in regard to the declaration concerning the atonement in the Dallas statement of beliefs. This is not the historic teaching of the pioneers who declared the Cross to be but the "sacrifice," and that Christ ascended to heaven, where, He secured through the merits of His shed blood forgiveness and pardon. This was the beginning of the atonement which would be finalized in "the great atonement."
Nowhere in the Dallas statement is Christ presented as making "the great atonement" as our pioneers taught. He is rather presented "as making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross." This concept is found nowhere in any previous statement of beliefs issued by the Church, not even in the 1931 Statement which was the first revision of the original position. The first appearance of this concept in Adventist literature was in the book, Questions on Doctrine, pp. 354-355, 381. This book as is known was the result of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956, those tragic conferences which began the wholesale adulteration of our historic faith. As for 1844, the Dallas declaration has Christ entering "the second and last phase of His atoning ministry." Our pioneers differentiated between the holy and the most holy places of the heavenly sanctuary. The term - phases - as applied to Christ's ministry in the sanctuary above did appear first in the 1931 Statement, and has been used ever since.
pioneers taught that the work of the great atonement, "beginning
consists in actually blotting out the sins of believers." (See
p. 3) This concept is omitted in the Dallas beliefs, referring to "the
heavenly things" as "purified with the perfect sacrifice of
the blood of Jesus." (See above.) From this point on the Dallas
statement does in thought parallel closely the
p 6 -- 1889 Statement of Beliefs, Article XXI. Thus no one who wishes to be strictly honest with the facts can conclude that the Statement of Beliefs voted at Dallas, "reaffirmed" the "historic doctrine of the sanctuary" as taught by "the pioneers" of this Movement. It just doesn't!
The Glacier View Document -- In considering the Glacier View Consensus Statement on "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary," there are several facts which must be kept in mind. One, while voted by the Sanctuary Review Committee, which had been appointed by the President of the General Conference in consultation with his advisors, and which included a wide range of theologians and administrators from the world field, this Statement does not have the force, nor authority of a Statement of Beliefs voted by a General Conference in session. Two, it is a "consensus" statement, or to put it in simple language, a compromise statement. And three, it is declared to be "an elaboration of the Dallas statement" by its own formulators. (Ministry, Oct. 1980, p. 16) We have already documented the fact that the Dallas statement does not reaffirm the historic doctrine of the sanctuary as taught by our pioneers. More elaboration of heresy does not produce truth.
The first section of the document reviews "The Significance of the Doctrine," and in so doing states how our founding fathers viewed this teaching - as a "key" which unlocked "the mystery of the disappointment of 1844" and which "opened to view a complete system of truth." The second section on "The Sources of Our Understanding" lists the books of the Bible in which certain aspects of this doctrine are taught - Leviticus, Hebrews, Daniel, and Revelation. Then it states - "The writings of Ellen White also contain much material dealing with Christ in the heavenly sanctuary." This is all true, but in what the Committee states the Bible teaches on this doctrine, the compromise and deviation begin to appear. The following sections of the document contain statements to which both those who wish to maintain the historic position of the Church in some form can point, and those who would seek to reinterpret the sanctuary doctrine can agree with. This is substantiated by two facts.
1) Dr. Desmond Ford's position in regard to this Consensus Statement. It states: I am greatly encouraged by the consensus statement, "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary," and the honest, frank acknowledgments it makes. In harmony with its essence, as I understand it, I can gladly teach and preach such to the same extent as the majority of my fellow teachers present at Glacier View. (Letter to Parmenter, President of the Australasian Division, Aug. 26, 1980, Ministry op. cit., p. 11)
An Open Letter sent to Elder Neal Wilson by Concerned Pastors and Scholars
at Andrews University Seminary and Graduate School. This letter written
in defense of Dr. Ford listed five reasons why the action of the hierarchy
against Dr. Ford was improper. Two of these are pertinent to the questions
under discussion in this thought paper. They are as follows:
7 -- concerns.
For instance, they concede: a) The book of Hebrews
pictures Christ going "within the veil," i.e., into the Most
Holy Place (not the holy place) at His ascension to be our intercessor.
The book of Hebrews does not teach a two-apartment or two-phase ministry.
neither the Statement of Beliefs as voted at Dallas nor the Consensus
Documents voted at Glacier View, reaffirms the historic doctrine of
the sanctuary as held by the pioneers. The associate editor's assertion
in the Adventist Review that they do, is simply, to put it in
plain language - a lie!
What, then, is his objective in writing these editorials on what the sanctuary means today? On this point he is honest enough to tell you. He does not intend to "develop the pioneer's understanding of it." He suggests building on this base, but present "what the sanctuary teaching means to us" in 1980's. To those who might fear any "updating," he argues, "But really we have no choice." Then he writes: These remarks hold true for all doctrine. Each generation, receiving truths from the pioneers, must find them anew for themselves. That is why the task of theology is never done; the foundations remain from age to age, but their application and personal appropriation have to be discovered fresh in each time and place. (Adventist Review, May 14, 1981, p. 13)
This statement is a subtle, potent mixture of truth in the context of error.
is eternal, even as God is eternal. It is not a matter of adapting truth
to the times; it is a matter of surrendering the human soul to the truth.
When we do not wish to accept truth because it is not ecumenical, and
we might appear as "cultish," or a member of a "sect"
- it is then that we seek to adjust truth so that it can become acceptable,
and we can be freed from the "scaffold." But when in my inmost
soul, I desire truth - pure and unadulterated, even the righteousness
of Christ (TM, p. 65) I do not have to restate it, but can accept
it as the truth as it is in Jesus, yes, even in the same language as
others before me, who also received it as the truth in Jesus. It is
the carnal heart that wishes acceptability with his fellow peers in
the theology of the world which wants to
p 8 -- update the truth once committed to the saints. But he who like Paul is willing to glory only in the Cross, has no problem with the historic doctrine of the sanctuary as understood by our pioneers. It needs no updating; it needs only renewed proclamation based on the same Bible texts which our pioneers used, and using only the same Biblical hermeneutics used by them.
1 Some have maintained that the Church did not have an official Statement of Beliefs prior to the authorized 1931 Statement which was affirmed at the 1950 General Conference Session. The Editorial Committee for Questions on Doctrine used this hedge, stating - "No statement of Seventh-day Adventist belief can be considered official unless it is adopted by the General Conference in quadrennial session, when accredited delegates from the whole world field are present." (p. 9) But this criterion is of recent origin. Our spiritual fathers strongly affirmed that "Seventh-day Adventists have no creed but the Bible," but they were equally as positive in asserting that they held "to certain well-defined points of faith." (1889 Yearbook, p. 147) By placing these "well-defined points of faith " in the Yearbook, they gave them official status. The Yearbook was authorized by the General Conference Committee at its 21st Session in 1882. An announcement of its issuance stated that it "contains the statistics of our denomination, the proceedings of our General Conference, T. and M. [Tract and Missionary] Society, and other associations, the financial condition of our institutions, our General and State Conference constitutions." (SDA Encyclopedia, 1976 edition, p. 1336) How more official could any Church document be? Into this book, in 1889, they placed the "Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists." This statement of belief, unchanged appeared in the Yearbook for the following years, 1905-1914. From 1895 - 1903 no Yearbook was issued, it being during those years, replaced by the General Conference Bulletins.
Adult Sabbath School Lessons for the Second Quarter, 1981, contains
On the cross Jesus cried, "It is finished." Before Him was
the tomb, the resurrection, the ascension, His priestly ministry, the
second coming, the millennium, the executive judgment, and the new creation.
It is obvious therefore that the sacrificial atonement for the sin of
the race was "finished." There would thereafter remain no
more sacrifice for sin. (See Heb. 10:26) (p. 57)
FLASH! The General Conference has authorized the placing of seat-belts
in all pews of all SDA Churches. The Curia on the Sligo had just received
a divine revelation that God intends to use the pews for the grandstand
around the Sea of Glass.
p 9 -- The Case of the Russian "Robin Hood" -- An urgent appeal of a world campaign to free a Russian "Robin Hood" held in prison since July 1980 reached the West recently.
Rostislav Galetsky, a leading pastor of the True and Free Seventh Day Adventist Church, eluded the KGB for five years. While his wife lived in the central Russian town of Voronezh, he flitted invisibly round the country, comforting the oppressed, issuing samizdat reports of arrests and searches, and appearing in Moscow to speak at press conferences for foreign journalists. Each time the KGB arrived too late: he had slipped away to his next assignment.
The appeal is signed by his Church's governing council and calls for the release of 39 church members in all and of other jailed Soviet Christians. "We are deeply convinced," the council writes, "that only an intensified campaign by the world community to defend these unjustly persecuted Christians can produce a breakthrough in our struggle for our legal rights, in freeing the prisoners of conscience and in achieving genuine freedom of belief."
Galetsky, now aged 32, became well known in Moscow in 1977-78 when he gave an interview to the New York Times and publicly supported leading dissidents who had been arrested. In February 1978, he spoke out on behalf of Alexander Ginsburg at a press conference and as a result was strongly attacked in the government paper, Izvestia.
Following the arrest of Adventist Church head Vladimir Shelkov, Galetsky's role grew still more in importance. Shelkov died in January 1980 in a Siberian camp, aged 84.
The True and Free Seventh Day Adventist Church is not officially recognized by the Soviet state. Since breaking away from its parent body, the official Adventist Church, in the 1920's, it has refused to submit to the extensive controls which the authorities try to impose on all religious communities. The True and Free Adventists argue - along with other unofficial churches - that these controls violate a basic principle of the Soviet Constitution which decrees the separation of church and state.
The official Adventists have been tolerated in recent years, while since early 1978 the KGB has been waging a strong campaign against the unofficial wing. "In the last two years," the appeal says, "more than 200 police searches have been carried out in Adventists' homes, involving confiscation of purely religious and human rights literature, and 39 people have been imprisoned."
Even before this campaign, which has been conducted in a dozen localities from Tashkent in Central Asia to Riga on the Baltic, Galetsky was evading the police to avoid arrest.
"As a true and conscientious pastor the appeal says, "he helped persecuted believers with sensitivity and compassion. By his active pastoral witness and participation in the human rights struggle, publicizing acts of violence and persecution by the state atheists against innocent believers, Galetsky incurred the special hatred of the KGB." Eventually he was caught in Moscow, where he is being held in Batyrki prison on charges of circulation of deliberately false fabrications and slandering the Soviet State and social order. The Right To Believe No 1, 1981, p. 1
Note: - It was in 1977 that Elder Alf Lohne of the General Conference visited Russia, including Tashkent, to prepare the way for the recognized "state visit" of Elder R. H. Pierson. Elder Lohne in the Review (July 14, 1977, p. 4) noted "there were many believers" in the Tashkent district, but Elder Pierson never visited there. Was it merely coincidental that the preliminary and official visit of the Takoma Park based hierarchy paralleled the beginning of the "strong campaign against" the True and Free Seventh-day Adventists in Russia?
As soon as we can find out, we will let you know how you can help in "a world campaign to free" Elder Galetsky.
p 10 -- INDEFINITE LEAVE FOR LITERATURE EVANGELIST -- On May 21, 1981, Mr. Barry George, Publishing Director of the Oklahoma Conference, and Mr. Ralph Sellers, Assistant Publishing Director of the Southwestern Union, came unexpectedly, and unannounced to the home of Brother and Sister Ray Cutts of Oklahoma City. These directors indicated they had been checking the church records, and discovered that the Cutts had not paid any tithe for three months. However, just one month prior to this - April 27 Sister Joy Cutts received a letter from Mr. George commending her on the fine job she had done for a certain "ladies meeting." In this letter, George wrote: "Tell Ray I said Hi, and that I appreciate him too. God is truly blessing him in his sales in his district. We are truly happy to have you both here in Oklahoma. You have really helped our program here."
The Cutts indicated surprise that these men had access to confidential church records - this should tell all the laity something - and stated that they had made out their tithe checks but had been holding them questioning whether to pay them to the conference because of the misuse of funds by the Church. [Reports are available of the involvement of local conferences in unsecured loans to the Davenport Financial enterprises, plus reliable reports that the General Conference still have approximately 140 Million dollars in the Wall Street stock market.] The Cutts are convinced had they turned their tithe checks over to these men, they would have received warm hand shakes, and words of encouragement to keep up the good work they were doing in sales.
However, these Directors began attacking the beliefs of historic Adventism. The Cutts showed them Andreasen's Letters to the Churches, and the Documentary on the SDA-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956. These men replied that even if true, because they criticized the hierarchy of the Church, they were of the devil. Other documents showing the departure of the Church from its historic position were also shown to these men, but they had no answer. As a result, they advised Brother Cutts to request an indefinite leave of absence. He was assured by these representatives of the Church's hierarchy that should he become a "modern Seventh-day Adventist," he would be welcomed back into the literature ministry.
In response to this Brother Cutts on May 22, 1981 wrote to HHES the following: On May 21/81 you came to my house and requested that I ask for a leave of absence indefinitely from the Oklahoma Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. This came, you said, because you required me to be a 100% Modern Seventh-day Adventist and to support the church in this context. In all conscience I must be a traditional Seventh-day Adventist following faithfully in the footsteps of our Seventh-day Adventist forefathers.
As of the date of this writing, Brother Cutts is owed by HHES the sum of $1,310. 76, which has not been paid, even though the law of the State of Oklahoma forbids the withholding of any such funds due. (All supporting documents upon which the above article is based is before us as we write.) --- (1981 Jul) --- End --- TOP
1981 Aug -- XIV -- 8(81) -- OMEGA PLEADS CASE FOR HIERARCHY -- Adventist Review Editor Writes Foreword -- The new book - Omega - written by a practicing attorney in Bakersfield, California, can best, be understood when viewed as the summation before the jury by the counsel for the defense. It is always the objective of a good lawyer to place his client in the best possible light if it is a criminal case, or to secure for his client the best possible decision if it is a civil case. In such a summation, a lawyer is not bound by the same rules that govern direct questioning, or cross examination. Then all rumor, or hearsay is ruled as inadmissible evidence. But not so in a summation before the jury. Here innuendo to influence the emotional reaction of the jurors can be suggested. This device is used by Lewis Walton in his book - Omega. When referring to "dissidents" and "able minds" who came to be associated with John Harvey Kellogg he suggested "it was rumored" they were financed from "the rich cash flow in the sanitarium." (pp. 15, 39) Yet this brilliant defense counsel - he "graduated first in his class from the University of San Diego Law School" (Back Cover) - in summing up the objective evidence states - "As 1902 waned, the expensive sanitarium construction was threatening a full-blown financial crisis." (p. 26) The time of the "rumored" "cash flow" was in 1905, just three years later. In just three years had a serious financial crisis been so resolved that money was flowing freely to buy "gifted men, trained in theology or medicine" (Jones and Waggoner), and an Adventist "song writer" ( Belden )? Such are some of the legal techniques used by lawyers to secure a favorable decision from the jury. These devices Walton uses to the fullest extent in behalf of his client. But you are the jury before whom he is making his summation. How will you be influenced?
But who is Walton's client? In the book, Omega, he uses such expressions as "the organized church" (p. 29); "an ark of safety called the Seventh-day Adventist Church" ( p . 76); and "loyalty to the organized church" (p. 80), as suggestive that the jury and his client are one and the same person. But remember this is a book published at a time when the hierarchy in Washington are on the defensive. It carries a foreword by the Editor of the official organ of the hierarchy, the Adventist Review. (Pp. 6-7) It was edited by the wife of one of the associate editors of that organ. (p. 2) Thus the term - church - as used by Walton, must be understood as defined by his client.
Pierson, former president of the General Conference, while still in office, declared under oath: "I am Robert H. Pierson, an ordained minister of the gospel, and president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which is the Seventh-day Adventist Church,. . ." (EEOC vs PPPA, US District Court, Northern California, CIV #742025 CBP) In the same case, Elder Neal C. Wilson in a sworn affidavit affirmed that it is "necessary for the Church to establish its authority in the community of believers." (Ibid, Affidavit, p . 6) Thus one can readily see that the "organized church" which Walton is representing before the "jury" is not "the community of believers" but rather the hierarchy - "the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists." He is seeking to establish unequivocally the authority of the General Conference in "the community of believers," and in so doing, much is left unstated. Such a biased presentation should send shock waves through the entire jury - you the laity.
where in the book - Omega - are the names of Desmond Ford, or
Walter Rea mentioned, but as one reads, it becomes very transparent
that the objective of the book is to
mitigate the force of
p 2 -- the schism developing because of Ford, and to blunt the effect of the forth coming release of Rea's book - The White Lie. 1 Attorney Walton even suggests that the best procedure to follow in either case is to take the avenue pursued by Ellen G. White in her relationship to Dr. Kellogg - not to even have a conversation with him. (Omega, p. 75) All who question the authority or position of the hierarchy are classed with Canright, Kellogg, Ballenger, and Conradi, whether they believe the true faith committed by God to the Advent Movement or not. This makes little difference to Walton - it is loyalty to organization that must be of paramount concern. This is papalism operating under a guise which purports to sustain the spiritual heritage received from our fathers.
Lest the position of "Watchman, What of the Night?" be misunderstood, let it be clearly stated that we hold no brief for Ford's theology which seeks to destroy the very foundation of the Advent Movement, which movement rests on the hermeneutic which sees in the ancient sanctuary service a type of the heavenly ministry of our Great High Priest. (See - "This We Believe," WWN, XIII, 12) As for the place and authority of the writings of Ellen G. White, Dr. Fred Veltman, General Conference appointed Director of the Ellen G. White Life of Christ Research Project has stated our position very succinctly when he gave his personal testimony in a "Report to PREXAD" on Rea's book. He wrote: In my ministry I have stressed the fundamental authority of Scripture in harmony with the pre-Dallas statements of Adventist beliefs. It is well known by most of those in this committee that I take Scripture over Ellen G. White, and judge her writings by Scripture. This is not done to by-pass Ellen G. White. This is in harmony with what she herself has clearly stated and with what the church has taught. (p. 24, Emphasis ours)
When we come to a discussion of the Alpha and Omega, we are discussing a subject which lies wholly within the province and scope of the Spirit of Prophecy. It is the descriptive terminology which Ellen G. White applied to a single incident in our past history, and to an overwhelming apostasy which in her day was still future. This needs to be clearly understood, for herein Walton makes his first attempt to mislead "the jury." Elena G. White wrote - "In the book, Living Temple, there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given." (Special Testimonies, Series B, #2, p. 50)
The context of this statement places the alpha and the omega to follow - as a doctrinal apostasy. In the paragraph previous to this sentence, she wrote, "We must firmly refuse to be drawn away from the platform of eternal truth, which since 1844 has stood the test." In the paragraph itself, she declares there is no need to "investigate doctrine and points of difference" which do not harmonize with the eternal platform of truth. This doctrinal apostasy which Ellen G. White termed the "alpha" involved only the book - Living Temple - not Canright, nor Ballenger, as Walton seeks to do in his summation before "the jury." Not a single statement in the Spirit of Prophecy where the term - alpha - is found referring to the Kellogg incident, is applied to any other aspect than the doctrinal deviations and where such deviations would lead. To mingle the doctrinal heresy with the organizational controversy which took place at the turn of the Century is to confuse the mind of "the jury" so as to deceive.
A "BLUE BOOK" -- Let us now turn our attention to a specific charge made by Walton which he associates with the rumor referred to in the first paragraph - remember not admissible evidence! He writes: Some of these dissidents - financed, it was rumored, from the rich cash flow in the sanitarium - would begin to put together a book denouncing Mrs. White as a fraud. (p. 15)
What is the background story of this "book" to which Walton alludes? Dr. D. R. McAdams, President of Southwestern Adventist College, has given the origin of this book in his yet unpublished research - Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians: The Evidence from an Unpublished Manuscript on John Huss. (This manuscript is unpublished because of the White Estate's unwillingness to release the evidence upon which McAdams' manuscript rests.)
Dr. Charles E. Stewart, a physician on the staff of the Battle Creek Sanitarium in response to a Testimony which Sister White wrote dated, March 30, 1906, 2 penned a long letter to her. This letter was shown to Dr. Kellogg. His response was: "Dr. Stewart, that is a very smart document, but anybody reading that would say that Sister White must be a very mean, contemptible kind a woman. Don't you see they would?" [Stewart replied] "Well, yes, I think they would." "Now," I said, "you want
p 3 -- to be very careful you don't ever print that and if you ever let that get out of your hands at all, you should certainly add a statement to it that you believe Mrs. White was a woman God had inspired and led, and that these things were only flaws that you have found, but that the main effect and tenor of her life had been wonderfully good and helpful, that she had stood for principles that were straight and right, and that her work had been a good work, and that you believe in that thing. But," I said, "You ought never to publish such a thing, such a thing should never be circulated..." ("An Authentic Interview ..." p. 28)
But it did get out. Who let it out? - Elder A. G. Daniells himself. Daniells obtained a copy from Elder Willie White, and publically talked about it at the dedication of the Washington Sanitarium. This caused a number of people to approach Dr. Stewart asking about the letter. The result was that someone obtaining a copy caused a "blue book" to be published. The preface contained the following information: The major portion of this pamphlet was sent May 8, 1907, to W. C. White with the following request: "I am sending this to you so that you can give it personally to your mother if you think best. I do not wish to burden her with these things, but since she has said that the Lord wished them sent and that He would help her to answer them, I shall leave the responsibility and results with her."
The author of this letter informs us that he has written three letters on this subject to W. C. White, but nearly five months have elapsed and he has not even received the courtesy of a reply. However, the registration properly signed was returned.
We have no means of knowing whether or not Mrs. White received the letters, but we do know that Elder A. G. Daniells was duly informed about them and that he took occasion in a public meeting to severely criticize the author for doing exactly what Mrs. White wrote in the name of the Lord asking him to do....
The undue and unwise publicity given this matter has created such a demand for the letter that the author has been entreated by many to publish it, but he has steadfastly refused to do so, maintaining that he never intended that it should be made public only in so far as those who were desirous of knowing his views with reference to the matter, they would be allowed to read it. In this we have reason to believe he kept his promise to the letter. In this connection we wish to state that neither the author nor any person or persons connected with the Battle Creek Sanitarium are responsible for the appearance of this letter in print.
Naturally, a lawyer in his summation before "the jury" would not give this side of the story which damages his client's case.
HARVEY J. KELLOGG -- Within the book - Omega - there is a strange emphasis. Dr. Kellogg is painted as a scheming manipulator grasping for power and control. (pp. 14, 31) A specific idea of Kellogg's is mentioned - "It was the proposition that every church-affiliated sanitarium in America, wherever located, be tied completely to the control of Battle Creek." (p. 14) But we are not told of the Regional Systems - such as the Sunbelt System - of hospital control which is operating within the Church. Kellogg is scored for rebuilding the Battle Creek Sanitarium as a mammoth institution, instead of working toward the construction of "a number of smaller institutions." (Pp. 19-20) Yet Walton makes no attempt to associate such counsel with present day policies of the hierarchy in regard to large medical facilities.
Kellogg is portrayed as having a personal vendetta against W. C. White, referring to him as "Weeping Willie." ( p. 59) But Walton does not tell "the jury" that while Kellogg was away finishing his medical studies in New York, his fiancée, Mary Kelsey, responded to a call to go to the West Coast to work in the newly opened Pacific Press. While there arrangements were made for her to marry, Willie who had also gone there with his parents, James and Ellen White. As Schwarz states in his book, Harvey J. Kellogg, "from that time on relationships between the doctor and Willie White were never quite as cordial as before." (p. 149)
Walton's presentation of his case against Kellogg, he links Elders Jones
and Waggoner in such a way that the whole of the 1888 Message is called
into question. Weigh carefully the impact of these words on the casual
reader: "John Kellogg had been helped through medical school financially
by the Whites: now he turned on his old friends [Elder White was dead
and no documentation is given to
p 4 -- support this assertion] with cutting attacks. A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, who had raveled and preached with Ellen White, forsook old associations in favor of the new theology." (p. 65) No account is taken of the Wieland and Short research on "Why Did Jones and Waggoner Apostatize?" (See 1888 Re-Examined, Chapter 9) No differentiation is made between Jones' final position on truth, and Waggoner's refutation. Where can it be shown that Jones repudiated the truth he preached in 1888 and onward? In fact, if one really wants a possible explanation of the close affinity and concern on the part Jones for Kellogg, an Ellen G. White testimony gives an interesting insight. She stated that "after the meeting at Minneapolis, Dr. Kellogg was a converted man, and we all knew it." (Schwarz, op. Cit., p. 174) How would Kellogg feel towards the ones who brought him "to the foot of the cross"? Would there not be an empathy - right or wrong - between men who had been, and who were being made to feel overbearing hierarchial authority?
SPIRIT OF PROPHECY CRISIS -- The book - Omega - suggests that in the time of the "alpha" apostasy, there were two main issues: "Thus the issues, according to Mrs. White were two: belief in the Spirit of Prophecy and support for the ministry of the organized church." ( p. 33) The reference upon which Walton bases his conclusion doesn't say just what he says it says. Elena G. White stated that at the Battle Creek College, the youth would be "leavened by misrepresentations and falsehoods regarding the testimonies, and the work and character of the ministers of God." (Special Test., Series B, #2, p. 22) The word - support - as used by Walton could infer much more than stated in Series B in the light of her counsel on the flow of means.
Let us first consider the attitude toward the Spirit of Prophecy. The picture is left in the mind of the reader that all those who were associated with Kellogg were against the testimonies, while those connected with "the organized church" were accepting Ellen G. White as infallibly inspired. Again Walton in his appeal to "the jury" is overlooking all the documentary evidence available to the contrary so as to obtain a favorable decision for his "client" - the General Conference - who having boxed themselves in by the adoption of a new position at the Dallas Session on the writings of Ellen G. White must come face to face with the forthcoming book by Walter Rea. Thus they are hanging on the horns of a dilemma, and Walton is trying his best to get them off.
Since Elder A. T. Jones is accused by Walton as joining the attack on Sister White (See Section above), let us bring his own statements to light on this accusation. In a pamphlet entitled - The Final Word and A Confession - Jones cites a letter sent to him dated, Dec. 18, 1905, written by "a brother, who, I repeat, moves today  in General Conference circles, and has the confidence of the General Conference administration." (This would include A. G. Daniells) This brother wrote: You know that the Testimonies of Sister White are from the Lord. You know, too, how to distinguish between men's manipulation of these Testimonies, and what these Testimonies themselves actually teach. (p. 24)
After noting two more statements from men who enjoyed the favor of Daniells, he quotes from a sermon delivered in the Battle Creek Tabernacle, Sabbath, May 19, 1906, by a member of the General Conference with A. G. Daniells present. This man said 1) "There never was a prophet whose every word was inspiration." And 2) "There is hardly an instance of a prophet that does not make mistakes." Then he adds: Now when these brethren hold the very views regarding the Testimonies which I have found myself compelled to accept, why must I be cast out and condemned as hardly worthy of even the recognition of a brother, while they occupy positions of trust and high responsibilities; and are held in full confidence by the General Conference administration.? (Pp. 25-26)
What was the position of A. T. Jones? He wrote after citing an address given by Ellen G. White in the Battle Creek College Library, April 1, 1901, (See Spalding & Magan Collection, pp. 162-174) as the source of his position: When the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy are given to bring us to the Bible and then we study these writings to know only what is in them, and not by them to know what is in the Bible, we frustrate the purpose of these writings, and do, in effect make these a second Bible and thus do certainly make them an addition to the Bible. And when we thus use them, instead of using the Bible, we do put them in the place of the Bible. And there is no question at all but that many people have done and are doing
p 5 -- just this thing.'' (pp. 4-5)
In regards to Daniells, Walton presents him as seeking advice and counsel from Ellen G. White, albeit through Willie White. (p. 42) He is pictured as unquestioning in his acceptance of the Testimonies sent forth. No where has Walton presented a single letter or testimony that he did not accept and follow. And there are such testimonies. (See Spalding and Magan Collection, "The Regular Lines," p. 174) The book - Omega - sees the relationship between "messenger" and "president" as one of unity in contending with the forces arrayed against them. Such language as "toward summer both Daniells and Ellen White were jolted" - and - "whether A. G. Daniells and Ellen White liked it or not" (pp. 31, 64) - were used to convey this unanimity. However, within four years of her death, Daniells at the 1919 Bible Conference emphatically stated his assessment of the inspiration of Ellen White. And he gave this evaluation in the context of "the controversy at Battle Creek." From a transcript of that Conference, we read: I am sure there has been advocated an idea of infallibility in Sister White and verbal inspiration in the Testimonies that has led people to expect too much and to make too great claims, and so we have gotten into difficulty.
Now I have studied it these years since I was thrown into the controversy at Battle Creek, I have endeavored to ascertain the truth and then be true to the truth. I do not know how to do except that way. It will never help me, or help the people, to make a false claim to evade some trouble. I know we have difficulties here, but let us dispose of some of the main things first. Brethren, are we going to evade difficulties or help out the difficulties by taking a false position? Well, then let us take an honest, true position, and reach our end somehow, because I never will put up a false claim to evade something that will come up a little later on. That is not honest and it is not Christian, and so I take my stand there.
In Australia I saw The Desire of the Ages being made up, and I saw the rewriting of chapters, some of them written over and over again. I saw that, and when I talked with Sister Davis about it, I tell you I had to square up to this thing and begin to settle things about the spirit of prophecy. If these false positions had never been taken, the thing would be much plainer than it is today. What was charged as plagiarism would all have been simplified, and I believe men would have been saved to the cause if from the start we had understood this thing as it should have been. With those false views held, we face difficulties in straightening up. We will not meet those difficulties by resorting to a false claim....
There is no use of our claiming anything more on the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies, because she never claimed it, and James White 3 never claimed it, and W. C. White never claimed it; and all the persons who helped to prepare those Testimonies knew they were not verbally inspired. I will say no more along that line....
Now on infallibility. I suppose Sister White used Paul's text, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels," as much as any other scripture. She used to repeat that often, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels," with the idea that she was a poor, feeble woman, a messenger of the Lord trying to do her duty and meet the mind of God in this work. When you take the position that she was not infallible, and that her writings were not verbally inspired, isn't there a chance for the manifestation of the human? If there isn't, then what is infallibility? And should we be surprised when we know that the instrument was fallible, and that the general truths, as she says, were revealed, then aren't we prepared to see mistakes? (Spectrum, Vol. 10, #1, pp. 50-51)
the letter Jones received in 1905 from one who moved "in General
Conference circles," and with the admissions of Daniel's f our
years after the death of Ellen G. White, you "the jury" should
be sensing something of what is now taking place. Daniells knew while
still in Australia what was
6 -- Today we see the whole situation again being re-lived. The
Spirit of Prophecy is again being "manipulated" to serve the
ends of the hierarchy in Washington; the Editorship of the Adventist
Review has become the "cutting edge" in this thrust to
rewrite history and distort truth. You can no
Dr. Fred Veltman, who served as head of the Religion
Department of PUC during the time that, Dr. Desmond Ford taught there,
and who is now Director of a special Ellen G. White Research Project
created by General Conference action submitted a report to PREXAD, an
advisory group to the President of the General Conference. In this report,
Dr. Veltman, after reading the manuscript for the book, - The White
Lie - wrote: 3)
I do firmly believe that Walter's [Rea] tapes, his public presentations,
and his book will have a tremendous negative effect in the lives of
our church members. Walter had the advantage of coming to grip with
the problem in stages and even so it was shattering to him. What will
happen when the church member gets the whole load in one sitting?
2 The following is the testimony which prompted Dr. Charles Stewart's letter which became the "Blue Book." - "Recently in the visions of the night I stood in a large company of people. There were present Dr. Kellogg, Elders Jones, Tenny, and Taylor, Dr. Paulson, Elder Sadler, Judge Arthur, and many of their associates. I was directed by the Lord to request them, and any others who had perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the testimonies that I have borne, to specify what their objections and criticisms are. The Lord will help me to answer these objections, and make plain that which seems intricate. Let those who are troubled now place upon paper a statement of the difficulties that perplex their minds, and let us see if we cannot throw some light upon the matter that will relieve their perplexities... Let it be all written out, and submitted to those who desire to remove the perplexities. I ask that the leaders in the medical work at Battle Creek, and those who have been associated with them in gathering criticism and objections to the testimonies that I have borne, shall open to me the things that they have been opening to others." (Quoted in the McAdams' Research, op. cit.)
Position of James White as stated in the Review and Herald, October
3, 1854, in an article entitled - "GIFTS OF THE GOSPEL CHURCH"
gifts of the Spirit should all have their proper places. The Bible is
an everlasting rock. It is our rule and practice. In it the man of God
is ' thoroughly furnished unto all good works.' If every member of the
church of Christ was holy, harmless, and separate from sinners, and
searched the Holy Scriptures diligently and with much prayer for duty,
with the aid of the Holy Spirit, we think they would be able to learn
their whole duty in 'all good works.' Thus ' the man of God may be perfect.'
But as the reverse exists, and ever has existed, God in much mercy has
pitied the weakness of His people, and has set the gifts in the gospel
church to correct our errors, and to lead us to His living Word. Paul
says that they are for the 'perfecting of the saints,' ' till we all
come; in the unity of the faith.' The extreme necessity of the church
in its imperfect state is God's opportunity to manifest the Spirit.
Christian is therefore in duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect
rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the
Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for
his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his
duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does,
he places the gifts in the wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous
position. The Word should be in front, the eye of the church should
be placed upon it, as the rule to walk by, and the fountain of wisdom,
from which to learn duty in 'all good works.' But if a portion of the
church err from the truths of the Bible, and become weak and sickly
and the flock become scattered, so that it seems
p 7 -- necessary for God to employ the gifts of the Spirit to correct, revive, and heal the erring we should let Him work. Yea, more, we should pray for him to work, and plead earnestly that He would work by the Spirit's power, and bring the scattered sheep to His fold. Praise the Lord, He will work. Amen." (Review and Herald of April 21, 1851)
We wrote the above article on the gifts of the gospel church four years since. It was published in the first volume of the Review. One object in republishing it is that our readers may see for themselves what our position has ever been on this subject, that they may be better prepared to dispose of the statements of those who seek to injure us.
The position that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the rule of faith and duty, does not shut out the gifts which God set in the church. To reject them is shutting out that part of the Bible which presents them. We say, Let us have the whole Bible, and let that, and that alone, be our rule of faith and duty. Place the gifts where they belong, and all is harmony. (Review and Herald, October 3, 1854) --- (1981 Aug) --- End --- TOP
1981 Sep -- XIV -- 9(81) -- THE DEADLY PERIL OF "FUTURISM" -- OMEGA Adopts Jesuitical Tactics -- Prophecy played an important part in the Reformation. Many of the Reformers perceived clearly that the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation pointed squarely at the Papacy as the Antichrist. The preaching of the prophetic word was so effective that the Papacy bestirred itself, and through the Jesuit Ribera presented a counter system of interpretation which removed the onus from the pope. The antichrist - so this new system taught - would be a man who would appear at the end of the age. The 1260 Days were not symbolic time, but literal, and would be actually, - three and one half years. "Although Ribera launched the Futuristic system of interpretation, it was popularized and made to register by the astute Cardinal Bellarmine, with his effective phrasings and polemical power." (Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 493) It must "ever be remembered that the heart of Bellarmine's thesis - which was both clever and plausible, though deceptive - was simply this: (1) Antichrist is an individual Jew, and not an apostate Christian system. (2) Therefore the length of his exploits must harmonize with the life period of one man three and a half literal years, and not 1260 years." (Ibid., p. 498, Emphasis his)
launching the prophetic counter attack against the position of the Reformers,
there was not only an attempt to place the actual fulfillment of prophecy
into the future - removed from the then present - but also a very subtle
suggestion that the antichrist could not be a system, but a single man
attempting to destroy the established faith. In fact, Ribera in his
500-page Commentary on Revelation, when faced with the 17th and 18th
Chapters, admits the woman "to be not only pagan Rome but also
Christian Rome after a future falling away from the Pope ... Therefore
in Revelation 18
Walton places the Omega as still future. He writes: We have heard the warning that something even more dangerous would come someday. For that reason it is vitally important that we analyze what happened earlier and seek to recognize the signals that may herald the approach of the last great apostasy. (p. 77)
The omega: a mysterious danger that waits for the church at the end of time. Ellen White saw it and "trembled for our people." (p. 86)
By so doing, Walton has removed the onus of apostasy from 1950 to the present. But not only this, we are to look for this terrible apostasy as something which will come from "individuals" who seek to destroy the Advent faith; and not from the organized hierarchial system which has been the force behind all of the apostasy since 1950. In other words, the "pope" never becomes apostate, only those who leave the "pope."
sketchily quotes (p. 52) as descriptive of what would have been had
the alpha succeeded, these words from Ellen G. White: The
enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation
was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists,
p 2 -- and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand, as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath, of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of this new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure. (Special Testimonies, Series B, #2, pp. 54-55)
But Walton fails to emphasize those equally as true words regarding the omega - "The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given. (Ibid., p. 50.)
Thus the "omega" received will be marked by the telltale signs that would have been evident had the "alpha" succeeded, namely, "giving up doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith;" - "our religion would be changed;" - "a new organization would be established;" and "books of a new order would be written." This is not future, but present - and no wonder Ellen G. White trembled for the people she loved - though unseen to her - when they would be encouraged with Jesuitical cunning to look for a future "omega" when such an apostasy had already engulfed them.
Walton has ably shown (p. 25) that in The Living Temple, which contained the "alpha" of deadly heresies, Kellogg taught that God's sanctuary was in the human body, and this teaching as presented in book, would lead to the conclusion that the message of 1844 was irrelevant and meaningless. But there are other avenues to the same end, and the enemy failing in one approach had another doctrinal deviation available to accomplish the same ends. To teach that the atonement of Christ was completed on the Cross leads to the same conclusion. If completed, what need have we for the final atonement? And this teaching that Christ obtained everything for us on the Cross was written into a book which was of a "new order," Questions on Doctrine. Here is its teaching: How glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is also our representative at the court of heaven! This becomes all the more meaningful when we realize that Jesus our surety entered the "holy places," and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. ( p. 381 Emphasis theirs)
Further: Only Christ, the Creator, the one only God-man, could make a substitutionary atonement for man's transgressions. And this Christ did completely, perfectly, and once for all, on Golgotha. (p. 400)
doesn't take a learned theologian to recognize that if the "atonement"
was made "completely" and "once for all" on the
Cross, that there is no further atonement to be made in 1844, and thus
the significance of 1844 vanishes. In the May, 1981, issue of WWN,
we called attention to the fact "the Editor of the Adventist
Review is on record as having written that the book - Questions
on Doctrine - 'in no way changes our fundamental beliefs. In fact,
it probably sets them forth more clearly than any publication that has
been issued from our presses in many a year.'" (Letter dated, Feb.
28, 1968) In the same issue, we further quoted from a letter Walter
Martin had recently written which stated - "When the book , Questions
on Doctrine was published, it was stated that it represented historic
Adventism as understood by the leaders of church at
that time." (Letter to W. L. Santee, Dec. 9, 1980) A
falling away had already occurred! All of this places Kenneth H. Wood,
Editor of the Adventist Review, in the same position as Harvey
J. Kellogg, the only difference being that Kellogg wrote a book, while
Wood is only affirming a book written, both of which teach doctrine
which nullifies the Adventist teaching on the sanctuary. It is only
natural then for Wood to grasp the opportunity to write the "Foreword"
to the book - Omega - which places the "omega" into
the future, and thus by adopting the deadly peril of futurism, Wood
seeks to clear himself of having sanctioned the real beginning of the
p 3 -- This book was of a "new order" - published by a denominational publishing house - Review and Herald Publishing Association - but with its "Introduction" signed only by "The Editorial Committee" - no name or names published as its authors but with an anonymous notation - "Prepared by a Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers, and Editors." Yet, and note carefully, this book declared - "This volume can be viewed as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." (p. 9) Interestingly, while The Living Temple was not published by the denominational press in Battle Creek, the book, Questions on Doctrine was. Ellen G. White had said the omega "will be received."
Not only is Questions on Doctrine a "new order" of publication in the above noted areas, but it is also "old" in that it is exactly like The Living Temple in two aspects. 1) Dr. Kellogg maintained that his views were really no different from those expressed by Mrs. White in the chapter 'God in Nature' in her book Education. (John Harvey Kellogg, Richard Schwarz, p. 185) The writers of Questions on Doctrine placed three Appendixes of over 50 pages with nothing but "quotes" from Ellen G. White in an attempt to sustain the "new theology."
2) The second parallel between The Living Temple and Questions on Doctrine is the mingling of truth with error. In Kellogg's book is a section on "Sons of God." In it is stated the following truth: From the earliest ages the thought has existed in the human mind, that man is not a mere product of the earth, as modern philosophers would have us believe, but a son of God. The earliest traditions of the Greeks and Romans, as well as of other nations, have recognized the fact that man is the "offspring" (Acts 17:28) of a divine parent, that he is the son of God, and bound by kinship to his Progenitor, - made "in the image of God." Gen. 1:27. The image has become debased by sin, disease, and degeneracy, yet, even in its worst state, sill represents something of those divine attributes which lift the human race so immeasurably above the highest representatives of the animal kingdom.
This doctrine was clearly taught by Paul in his famous sermon delivered from Mars' Hill, at Athens, of which we have a record in Acts 17:22-29. "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands ... For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." Acts 17:24, 28. (The Living Temple, p. 34)
To illustrate this concept, Kellogg tells of the testimony of a "shabbily dressed colored boy" who declared - "Some people are proud of their lineage, - I am proud of mine; I am the son of a King; I am a brother of Jesus Christ." (p. 35) The Kellogg goes to his next section - titled from the Bible - "Not Far from Every One of Us," and wrote heretically in comment on this quotes from Paul: Let us accept this as a literal, physiological fact, as a scientific truth which is attested by myriads of witnesses in the natural world about us, as well as by the word of God. Scientific men have ceased the attempt to prove man to be a mere product of physical forces, but they recognize in his existence, and in every function of his body the presence of an infinite Intelligence, working, controlling, creating, for man's good. God dwells in man. He is the life of man. He is the servant of man. (Ibid.)
M. L. Andreasen in his analysis of Questions on Doctrine notes a similar mixture of truth and heresy. He wrote: But having read Questions on Doctrine carefully, I noticed that certain things would be said on one page, and a few pages further on this would be ignored. I had made note of certain double-tongued expressions, and it gave me a sense of uncertainty. I could not avoid the conviction that some of these expressions were used for the purpose of confusion and were intended to mislead. (Letters to the Churches, Series A, #5, pp. 4-5)
One has only to check Questions on Doctrine, p. 381, (Quoted, p. 2, col. 2) where it is stated that Christ appeared in the presence of God upon His ascension but did not "hope" to obtain anything for His people because "He had already obtained it for us on the cross." And this was placed in italics by the authors! Then a page further one can read: Christ became our surety, and He Himself fulfilled all that the everlasting covenant required. As the "last Adam," He has become one of Adam's race. And as our surety, He not only bore our sins and carried our sorrows on Calvary, but from the throne of
p 4 -- grace dispenses His blessings and intercedes on our behalf. (Pp. 382-383)
How can such double-talk" be reconciled? Is the heavenly ministry of Christ a hopeless intercession?
In the time of the "alpha," one book was published, and it by the Providence of God was not issued from the Battle Creek press of the Church. (Omega, pp. 26-27, 29-30) Ellen G. White had declared if the "alpha" should succeed, "books" - plural - of a new order would have been written. But the "alpha" was thwarted. However, what was not done in the "alpha""will be received" in the time of the "omega." (Spec. Test. B p.50) We have noted in the above paragraphs the first book of the "omega" and the parallels between it and The Living Temple. Questions on Doctrine was followed by another book which confirmed the same heresies which it taught. Movement of Destiny like Questions on Doctrine was published by the denominational press in Washington DC, and its author, Leroy E. Froom, was the key writer of Questions on Doctrine, though at the time, this fact was not known. (See Adventist Heritage, Vol. 4, #2, 1977, p. 38) Movement of Destiny carried the imprimatur of the then president of the General Conference, Pierson, and the nihil obstat (a good word) of the now president of the same conference, who served as "Chairman of the Guiding Committee" for the book. (p.16) According to Froom himself "sixty of the most competent denominational scholars of a dozen specialties" assisted in reviewing copy for the book. (Letter dated April 17, 1971)
Movement of Destiny presented the same doctrine which by logical conclusion leads to the annulment of our basic teaching regarding the ministry of Christ in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, thus discarding the events of 1844 and onward as an irrelevance unsuited to new light - it being merely a way station on Adventism's road toward maturity. Froom proclaimed - "Atoning 'Act' Completed on Calvary's Cross." (p. 500) The writings of Ellen G. White were used profusely - sentences and phrases connected at Froom's design throughout the doctrinal presentation of this concept. He wrote: Referring to it [the Cross] as the "great atonement," Ellen White declares, "The seal of heaven was fixed to Christ's atonement. His sacrifice is in every way satisfactory." It is "sufficient" and "efficacious" and "complete." (p. 501, Emphasis his)
Then he concludes "The transaction of the Cross then, is indisputably the Act of the Atonement." The full force of Froom's emphasis is subtly projected. Note his use of the "great atonement." It is in quotes - no reference given. Observe now where this phrase is to be found. The "Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists" reads: II. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, that He took on Him the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that He ..." died our sacrifice, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, through the merits of His shed blood, He secures pardon and forgiveness. . . and as the closing portion of His work as priest, . . He will make the great atonement.(1889 Yearbook, p. 147)
Froom in his book, deliberately places in contradiction the historic teaching of the Church, and seeks to quote Ellen G. White in support of this deviation of the sanctuary teaching which leads to the annulment of the significance of 1844.
Not only this, Froom's book is filled with misrepresentation of what was really taught by Waggoner during the 1888 messages. In fact, Froom has Waggoner teaching exactly opposite to what he taught in regard to the incarnation. (Movement of Destiny, p. 197) In our research manuscript on the Incarnation (An Interpretive History of the Doctrine ... pp. 85-87) we compare what Froom said Waggoner wrote, and quote exactly what Waggoner did write. This fact alone should cause anyone to tremble for unsuspecting readers who have been taught blind loyalty to anyone and to anything bearing the official imprimatur.
The book Movement of Destiny - carries historical inaccuracies. Froom writes concerning A. G. Daniells - "He was elected president of the General Conference in 1901." (p. 393) This is absolutely contrary to fact. For a book which was supposedly read carefully by some sixty scholars of the Church and for this error to pass uncorrected, one is forced to conclude that the history of 1901-1903 is being "covered" for the purpose of the author's objectives. There was no president of the General Conference from 1901-1903. The reasons for this and what ensued must be understood to understand the present. No cover-up is admissible!
Questions on Doctrine, and Movement of Destiny - of a
new order have been written, and published by the Church's presses with
the full approval of the hierarchy of the Church. The "omega"
has come; the laity have been deceived by its ministers in high places.
It is so much "better," in
p 5 -- fact, it is necessary to adopt the Jesuitical tactics, and place the fulfillment of the "omega" into the future - away from the immediate past, so as to maintain the authority and power of the hierarchy over "the community of believers." And this the book - Omega - is designed to accomplish!
(We shall discuss other "marks" of the "omega" in future issues of "Watchman, What of the Night?" as time and space permit.)
ANOTHER ASPECT OF "FUTURISM" -- Not alone from the hierarchy are we being led into Jesuitical "futurism," but some professing a firm belief in historic Adventism are teaching a form of "futurism" which can lead only to fanaticism. To understand the force of this new danger, we must note what happened with many who experienced the 1844 disappointment. The situation is described in The Incredible Cover-up by Dave MacPherson. He wrote: Prophetic writers calculating the dates to be found in the book of Daniel, usually determined that the tribulation started with the edict of Justinian in A.D. 533. The French Revolution of 1793 came 1260 years after that date ... When the nineteenth century finally arrived there was talk that the year 1823 would be one of special significance, since it would occur 1290 years after the Justinian edict.
Early in the 1800s a strong reaction to post-millennialism set in, in the form of a movement which greatly emphasized the return of Christ. We would call it a prophetic revival! British newspapers and journals gave a lot of space to the discussion of prophecy, Bible conferences stressing prophetic subjects soon appeared; and the imminent return of Christ was the topic of the day.
The year-day theory was still popular with many folk, but began to lose followers after events failed to transpire at the predicted times. It was gradually replaced with what became known as the "futuristic" interpretation. Futurists of the first three decades of the last century held that Antichrist would be a world ruler at the end of the age who would persecute all true Christians during the great tribulation. (p. 26)
Because the disappointed believers did not follow "by faith" their Lord as He moved His ministry to second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, they jettisoned the year-day principle of prophetic interpretation, and adopted in its place "futurism." Now what difference is it in principle to say in our hearts - "My Lord delayeth His coming" - the events of the past are so far removed from us, we have no present contemporary prophetic fulfillment upon which to base our hope - and while admitting that the 2300 days were fulfilled in 1844, we teach that these same time prophecies will have a literal fulfillment in the future? And this fallacy is being projected by some who profess by various publications that they are kindred spirits with those who hold to the fundamental, historic faith of Adventism. They even publish documents such as Think Straight About the Incarnation, and Letters to the Churches to give credibility to their heresies. But somewhere down the line, these "futurists" - Jesuits in sheep's clothing - will have to set a date when these "literal time" prophecies will begin to be fulfilled. Thus the time-setting which followed 1844 will again be repeated with all of its sorry fanaticism. But in the meantime precious souls are being being beguiled under these false presentations.
COMIC STRIP PROFESSOR KEYNOTES GOSPEL CONGRESS -- According to a widely circulated announcement heralding the anticipated "Gospel Congress" sponsored by Good News Unlimited, Dr. Smuts vanRooyen, formerly on the staff of Andrews University was to deliver the Opening Address, July 23, 1981. This is the same vanRooyen, who at the Graduation weekend at Union College, this year, told the graduates that what spinach was to Popeye, the Cross was to Jesus.
When we reduce the sacred - the glory of the Cross - to the level of the vulgar and the profane, there is no limit to where we will go in our theology. When our theological perceptions are geared to the mentality level of the comic strips, we can glibly tell the religious press - "'I believe Christ made all the provision necessary for salvation in AD 31' at his death on the cross, and thus salvation for believers is certain." (Christianity Today, June 12, 1981, p. 35)
is being revealed by the roster of scheduled speakers for the Gospel
Congress is most interesting. Among the announced speakers is the Editor
p 6 -- Christianity Today, Kenneth Kantzer. During the last year, it became very noticeable that Evangelical Adventists were getting considerable press coverage in the journal. Even an editorial appealing to the Adventist Church hierarchy to accept the new theology was written. (CT, October 24, 1980, p. 13) Now the Editor addresses the first such Congress. But there is another very interesting fact. Christianity Today is celebrating its 25th Anniversary. (CT, July 17, 1981 issue) Conceived as a brainchild by Billy Graham, it has had phenomenal growth and acceptance. But when we consider 25 years ago - 1981 minus 25 - we arrive at 1956, the year which closed the Seventh-day Adventist-Evangelical Conferences. The following year - 1957 - the book, Questions on Doctrine was published. Now 25 years later the "birds" come home to roost. Yet the hierarchy are not willing to admit that the "omega" began 25 years ago, but with Jesuitical cunning seek to place it still in the future - applying it to the "birds" which are swooping in for a landing.
A LETTER TO NEAL C. WILSON --
July 19, 1981
Neal C. Wilson, President
Dear Elder Wilson;
In the Adventist Review (July 16, 1981, p. 21) is a report of your recent visit to Russia, where you visited key centers of Adventist adherents including Moscow. We were previously informed by Elder Bradford that it was the intention of the hierarchy of the Church to organize a new Division of the World Church which would encompass the Soviet Union. Whether this did materialize was not mentioned in the report - "Inside Washington."
The question that I am interested in is simply this - Did you while in Russia make contact with the Soviet government leaders on behalf of Rostislav Galetsky of the True and Free Seventh-day Adventists? Perhaps you are aware of the urgent appeal being made for a world campaign to free this man of God. Did you join your voice in this appeal?
Perhaps if you did not make contact with the leaders of the atheistic State, and this would be understandable for what concord hath Christ with Belial, did you endeavor to visit this stalwart maintainer of the true faith in the prison where he is being held? You know that Jesus said - "I was in prison, and ye came to Me." While we extol a prison ministry for those who are incarcerated because of their crimes, Jesus is speaking of those who are there because of their faith. I ask again, did you attempt to visit Jesus in the person of this true and free Seventh-day Adventist, or did you spend your time with those who have sold themselves to the regulations of state atheism?
Looking forward to your reply, I remain,
ECUMENICITY -- GC Hosts Prayer Breakfast -- The General Conference hosted a prayer breakfast in the Campus Center at Columbia Union College, May 7, 1981. Greetings were received from President Reagan, Neal C. Wilson, and the Mayors of both Takoma Park, and the District of Columbia. - Prayers following an address by Congressman Don Clausen included among others, Dr. Sal Crisculo of Our Lady of Sorrows Church in Takoma Park. (Adventist Review, May 21, 1981, p. 24)
Conducts a Lenten Prayer Breakfast -- Pastor Burton Santee of the Leavenworth, Kansas, Seventh-day Adventist Church conducted a Lenten prayer breakfast as a part of his activities with the Ministerial Alliance. After so doing, the Alliance expressed a desire "to participate in a traditional Adventist Church service." It was held in the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church. (Mid-America Adventist Outlook, June 10, 1981, p. 7)
p 7 -- NOTES AND COMMENTS -- Silver Lake West IV -- September 10-13, at the same camping area as on previous years. Guest speakers this year will include Elder Willard Santee, and Brother John J. Adam, a director on the Board of the Adventist Layman Council, and coeditor of the SDA Press Release.
Davenport Bankruptcy -- The Los Angeles Times of July 25, 1981, carried an article about the Petition for Bankruptcy filed by Donald J. Davenport, M. D. The feature article was headlined - "Massive Church Fund Loss Feared." The subheading read - "Adventist Investor's Petition for Bankruptcy Raises Alarm." This was stating it rather mildly - the news pushed the panic button in Takoma Park. The first article is to be followed by a second as the staff writers have uncovered more information. Following the Los Angeles Times release, similar stories appeared in leading newspapers across the nation. While we will be giving more detailed information in subsequent issues of "Watchman, What of the Night?" - we wish merely to note for you certain reactions of the hierarchy when questioned by the staff writers. The President of the North American Division, Charles E. Bradford, stated that the funds loaned to Davenport were "'surplus' monies not needed for day-to-day operations of the church." With the estimate of funds loaned to Davenport ranging as high as 60 million dollars by some sources, this should give the laity some idea of the "surplus" funds. It is a bit ludicrous to be calling for contributions for the maintenance of the church's operations here and overseas with these monies laying around, tempting the "stewards"(?) to gamble with them. Keep in mind that Davenport did not come before the various committees of the conferences and union with a gun demanding these funds - they were freely lent to him with approval and upon the recommendation of the hierarchy - though perhaps at the lower levels, such as, the "bishops" and "archbishop's." Bradford assured the staff writers that none of the money lent to Davenport came from the General Conference, but he did not tell how much money the General Conference still has in the Wall Street stock market. Surely one of these days, the laity will wake up to the fact that the storehouse of Malachi 3:10 is no longer the treasury of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and that the divine "Instructor" really did know what He was talking about when He asked the question - "How is the faithful city become a harlot?" (8T:250) Each needs to ask himself, or herself - "Am I still 'funding' the harlot?"
Issue -- The editors of the Adventist Review have
published a special issue as "an expansion" of the Statement
of Beliefs voted at the General Conference Session in Dallas. As you
read what they wrote, be sure you have before you a copy of the voted
"beliefs." (Gen. Conf. Bulletin #9, May 1, 1980, PP
23-27) In certain key areas which we have thus far studied, what the
editors wrote and what was voted do not say the same thing. It would
appear that the editors are trying to rewrite the voted Statement to
make it more palatable to the rank and file of the membership who have
become concerned with what was voted. We shall have more to say in
Next Issue -- We will produce for our readers a document written by "A source within the denomination, name withheld" comparing the facts of the legal cases in which the Church was involved during the previous decade, and how the hierarchy sought to deceive the laity through the pages of the Adventist Review. We do this solely to alert the laity as to what they can expect today in the report of the Davenport Bankruptcy case as it is given to the Church through the same official organ. The only additional feature in the present "cover up" will be the official organs of the Union Conferences, and such has already began to appear, as evidenced in the Pacific Union Record, July 27, 1981, in the column - "We're Glad You Asked." --- (1981 Sep) ---