WWN 1994 Oct - Dec

1994 Oct -- XXVII -- 10(94) -- LESSONS FROM 150 YEARS AGO -- There were two Disappointments in 1844: March 21, and October 22. William Miller's original study of the prophecies of the Bible did not provide any exact date for the Second Coming of Christ. He finally narrowed the time of the event to "on or before" and "about the year 1843." Miller wrote:      "I believe that time can be known by all who desire to understand and to be ready for His coming. And I am fully convinced that some time between March 21st, 1843 and March 21st, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation of time, Christ will come, and bring all His saints with Him; and that then He will reward every man as his works shall be." (Signs of the Times, Jan. 25, 1843)

After the Disappointment on March 21, 1844, Miller wished to tone down the enthusiasm connected with time. He did not embrace the new date set - October 22, 1844 - until two weeks before that time.

Miller's study of the prophecies, with a focus on the time for the Second Coming of Christ, was not limited to the study of Daniel 8:14. He developed 15 Proofs from numerous other texts of Scripture to establish his conviction that Christ would come "on or about" the year 1843. (See Appendix III, The End of Historicism, p. 220) The fact is also documented that in the Millerite periodicals from 1840-1843, a total of 123 articles were devoted to the exegesis of these "15 Proofs." Of this number only 34 focused on the prophecy of Daniel 8:14. (ibid, p. 219)

In all of Miller's calculations, he overlooked the fact that there was no Year 0 - 1 B.C. was followed by A.D. 1 - thus arriving at the year 1843 rather than 1844. It also casts doubts on the thoroughness of his "homework." After the

p 2 -- disappointment on March 21, Miller was no longer in control of the Movement, and it passed to the hands of the one who first pointed out his mistake in the calculation of chronology, Samuel Snow.

Snow was joined by George Storrs in a detailed study of various calendars and typology. It was their study leading to the "Seventh Month Movement" which forms the basis of Seventh-day Adventism. Here is where the focus should be centered as we note the 150th Anniversary of the Great Disappointment on October 22, 1844.

While William Miller made the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 one proof of his 15 Proofs, Snow corrected the date to 1844, and by application of horizontal typology added October 22. Because of this, we can conclude that October 22, 1844, was the date arrived at by Samuel Snow, and was connected with William Miller only in a limited way. Tradition has a way of muting the very facts of history.

Reasoning on the basis of typology that the Hebrew festal year was typical of events in prophetic history, and connecting the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 with the typical Day of Atonement, Snow applied "the tenth day of the seventh month" to Daniel 8:14, setting the date, October 22 as the time for its antitypical fulfillment. However, into this picture, Snow introduced another factor. He applied the esehatological parable of Jesus in Matthew 25, to this period. We thus have the terminology, "The Midnight Cry," added to the Adventist vocabulary and applied to the great religious revival that marked the summer of 1844.

Following the Great Disappointment on October 22, 1844, the small band which became the nucleus of the Seventh-day Adventist Church added a vertical dimension to the typology of the Jewish festal imagery. They perceived the earthly priestly ministry to be a type of the Heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ as High Priest over the House of God. Instead of focusing on "the tradition of the elders" in their modification of Adventist history, we need to center our attention on the viability of typology as a hermeneutic, and the meaning of Christ's parable of the Ten Virgins, now 150 years down the pike.

To focus on typology brings to the forefront the Church's teaching on the Sanctuary Doctrine. However, by emphasizing traditional historical concepts - right or wrong - the real issue confronting Adventism is muted. The question, however, must be faced forthrightly - Does the Sanctuary Doctrine have meaning and significance for us today? The answer to this question stands or falls on the validity of typology as a viable method of Biblical interpretation. Then add to this the application of Matthew 25:1-13 to the present hour, and you have more questions than anyone of the ecclesiastical hierarchy wishes to face, as well as many of the leaders of certain "independent" ministries.

In the first study on the "Theology of the Sanctuary," we discussed in detail the question - "Is typology an acceptable hermeneutic?" (WWN, 2(94), pp. 2-4) We found it to be a valid method for Biblical interpretation if we follow closely the limitations placed upon it by the Bible itself. This means simply that the mediation of the priests in the earthly sanctuary were a type and shadow of the Heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ in the tabernacle "which the Lord pitched, and not man." (Heb. 8:5, 1)

In the same issue of WWN, the editorial, "Let's Talk It Over" (pp. 5-7) discussed some of the implications of Matthew 25:1-13. It would seem that this 150th Anniversary year of the Great Disappointment would be an excellent time to square up Jesus' eschatological parable with what has been the on-going history of Adventism. But who has the courage among the hierarchy of the Church to do so? And who among the "independent" ministries is willing to state clearly that The Great Controversy needs to be revised and harmonized with the light given to Ellen G. White following the 1888 revision? Of course, there would arise also that embarrassing question as to why this was not done when the cosmetic revision of the book was made in 1911.

Basic, beyond the revision of The Great Controversy to square it with the additional light given, is the meaning and significance of the light itself. If we hold Ellen G. White to be "the messenger of the Lord" which she claimed to be, then how do we apply the message given in 1896 - "My mind was carried into the future, when the signal will be given, 'Behold the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him."'? (R&H, Feb. 11, 1896)

Further, in 1901, this same "messenger of the Lord" directed attention to Luke 21, in contradistinction to either Matthew 24, or Mark 13, connecting events in the history of Jerusalem to "the scenes which are to take place in the history of this world just prior to the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Letter 10, 1901)

All three writers of the Synoptic Gospels relate events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but only Luke quotes Jesus foretelling an event in connection with the history of Jerusalem which would mark the close of the probationary time for the nations. Should we not then ask, "What do these things mean?" and "How must we rectify our understandings of the end-time events to harmonize with this revelation?"

It was Hugh Latimer, the English Reformer, who declared:      "The Author of holy Scriptures is the Mighty One, the Everlasting - God Himself !...and this Scripture partakes of the might and eternity of its Author....Let us beware of those bypaths of human tradition, filled of stones, brambles, and uprooted trees. Let us follow the straight road of the Word. It does not concern us what the fathers have done, but what they should have done." (Quoted in D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, Vol. V, p. 271; emphasis Latimer's)

Think it through carefully - "It is not what the fathers have done, but what they should have done." This applies equally, whether we are considering the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844, or the General Conference Session of 1888. We need to carefully consider what should have been done, lest we make the same mistake "the fathers" made by not walking in the light given, or else not fully perceiving that light, and seeing "men as trees walking." (Mark. 8:24) Our concern should not be, whether our spiritual forefathers failed to see the light clearly in 1844, but rather, are we seeing "the increasing light" clearly today. Their life's record is closed, ours is not. We should not become so agitated over the rejection of the message given in 1888, and by so focusing, we reject the message for this day. There is still such a thing as PRESENT Truth!

Miller failed to walk in the advancing light which God permitted to shine upon the small band of believers who became the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Church in 1888 failed to walk in the light which God sent through Elders Jones and Waggoner. But the question "is not what the fathers have done, but what they should have done." The answer is clear, they should have walked in the advancing light. But are we making the same mistake today, yet seeking to cover our failure by glorifying "the tombs of the prophets, and garnish[ing] the sepulchres of the righteous"?

p 3 -- "SHARING THE NEWS" -- Sharing the News is a monthly newsletter prepared by The 1888 Message Study Committee [1888 MSC] for its Board of Directors as well as the Advisory Committee Members. The May 17, 1994 issue (Vol. 1, No. 10) was captioned - "EXTRA" - with a note to the Committee Members - "Please Do Not Publish!" This issue wss "a private confidential report" of a special four hour meeting in the office of Elder Robert S. Folkenberg on May 12. The principals, Folkenberg, Wieland and Short, were joined by Calvin Rock, Robert Dale, Gerry Karst, and Angel Rodriguez of the General Conference; George Reid of the Biblical Research Institute; Kenneth Wood of The Ellen G. White Estate; and Gerald Finneman representing the 1888 MSC.

The bottom line of the contention between the GC and the 1888 MSC is "a structural issue," according to Folkenberg. Dale was more direct. "The 1888 Message Study Committee as such is the problem." The Church's hierarchy do not perceive the 1888 MSC as a part of the organization. Wieland and Short, however, do so perceive it. Short emphatically stated - "We are part of the organization. The Charter of the 1888 MSC provides that if dissolved the assets would go to the General Conference."

In his opening remarks, Folkenberg had observed that the 1888 MSC is loyal to the Church and its ganization, does not "take tithe," holds neetings only in church facilities, and "takes a reasonable position." However, what was not mentioned, and what is a known fact to anyone acquainted with the present attitudes in the Community of Adventism, tithe is flowing into the 1888 MSC! There is no reason to put one's head in the sand and deny this fact.

During this four-hour session, Elder R. J. Wieland, who authored this "Extra," recorded himself as stating -         "Some of you brethren have the idea that Donald K. Short and I have initiated this 1888 MSC, organized it, etc., and that is not true. We have not taken the initiative! ... When we finally returned from Africa to retire, [we] were prepared to play shuffleboard. But a little lady who had experienced a spiritual conversion within the General Conference offices through reading the 1950 manuscript [and] had also retired, phoned us [asking], 'Can't we do something? People need to know this message! Would you come and tell us about it?' Thus came the initial 1888 Message Study Conference at Camp Mohaven. All we did was to respond to this invitation; we took no initiative ourselves; we cannot refuse when someone asks us to share the gospel and the truth about it. Thus, the organization of this 1888 MSC is nothing of our doing." (p.2)

This is a flawed statement on several counts. The Camp Mohaven meeting was not the first conference with the objective of getting the 1888 Message to the members of the Church. The first conference was held following the General Conference session in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1958. Conceived by A. L. Hudson, then the first elder of the Baker, Oregon Seventh-day Adventist Church, the discussions took place in the Seventh-day Adventist Church at Marion, Indiana, where this editor was serving as Pastor. One other Indiana Conference pastor joined us. At this conference, Hudson revealed that he planned to start publishing a magazine to meet the need of concerned Adventists over the recent SDA-Evangelical Conferences. He, too, had obtained a copy of 1888 Re-Examined, and was prepared to push its message to the forefront. This he did.

On February 3, 1959, Hudson placed a motion before the Pacific Union Conference Committee with certain allegations and representations. With this motion, he included a series of documents, one of which was 1888 Re-Examined. The whole was published under the title - A Warning and Its Reception. By this means a knowledge of the original document presented to the General Conference by Wieland and Short in 1950 not only became known but was widely circulated. Upon the exhaustion of the first printing, the Adventist Laymen's Foundation printed the material under the same title, but

p 4 -- with an additional letter by Wieland to Short which is very revealing, and significant in point of time.

At the conference in Marion, Indiana, Hudson invited Wieland and Short to write for his new publication, but they demurred. They had no objections to the publication promoting their message. In fact, they encouraged it; but their reaction was, just don't involve us directly, please. Here in this meeting in Folkenberg's office, the same "out" is used. "We didn't intiate the 1888 MSC," but all must know who has dominated the committee, apart from the initiator, who in turn has dominated Wieland.

(Editor's note:    I, too, was invited to write for Hudson's publication. I should have written forthrightly in my own name, but compromised thus avoiding at that time direct confrontation. I used the pen name, "Ben Ezra II" It had significance telling the Church that as the former "Ben Ezra" could not write openly in the Roman Catholic Church, so the same situation had developed in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Another writer used the name, "Dr. Luke.")

There is something more basic in this twice revealed attitude of Wieland and Short. Aside from the fact that these men waited until their full sustentation was assured before "going public" on the message which God gave them for the Church, is the question of how they regarded the stewardship entrusted to them, and the results of that attitude.

In all my contacts with these men over the years, and there have been many, it is my conviction that they have never fully grasped the concept that God sent them to the Church with a message as verily as He sent Jones and Waggoner in 1888. Because of this, they could not bring themselves to lay their future on the line. However, it is my conviction that had they been willing to work closely with Hudson, the deepening apostasy and turmoil which has taken the Church captive might have been averted. They might have seen their heart's desire of the Church turned around before it faced the judgment of the sanctuary (8T:249). As it was, Hudson joined forces with Robert Brinsmead, and Brinsmead obtained the 1888 material of Wieland and Short. The reproduction of this material by Brinsmead greatly troubled Elder Wieland. On one occasion while both he and I were at the Seminary during the school year of 1964-65, Brinsmead came to Berrien Springs for some meetings. Wieland asked me to accompany him to see Brinsmead. At this confrontation, Wieland emphatically told Brinsmead that he had no permission to publish any of his writings.

If men are called of God to be His "messengers, they have a direct responsibility to give that message, and not seek to hide behind someone else to do it for them, or to run interference for them. The Scripture is clear that when Moses sought to avoid his call, and requested that the Lord use someone else, "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses." (Ex. 4:14) Further by waiting for another to open up the way, the possibility becomes a reality for the enemy to select his own advocate, and thus misdirect the thrust which God intends should be realized. Wieland indicated at the recent committee meeting in Silver Spring that Short and he were willing to come back to America in retirement and play "shuffleboard." He must have said this facetiously for this is unbelievable. The tragedy of this whole situation is "the little lady" who supposedly singlehandedly sponsored the conference at Camp Mohaven.

There are two factors here that need to be clarified. To have been converted by the reading of 1888 Re-Examined is one thing; to have been convicted of the correctness of the position taken in the document is vastly different. My contacts with this "little lady" have not led me to believe that she evidenced in her life the righteousness of Christ. She has been deceptive and not above prevarication. Her style reflects worldly techniques of communication. If I have correct information, she was an employee in the Department of Communications of the General Conference at the time that Department became involved in the acquisition of a medallion to symbolize the Church. Designed by a Roman Catholic who introduced Catholic symbolism into the layout, it was produced in gold, silver and bronze medallions. One of the gold medallions was ultimately given as a symbol of the Seventh-day Adventist Church into the hands of Pope Paul VI. This is not saying that "the little lady" was in any way responsibile for this medallion, but it is suggesting that one working in that department would be influenced by the methods employed in communication by that Department, in other words, managed and edited news releases. God's method in setting forth the righteousness of Christ is "pure, unadulterated truth." (TM, 65)

The second factor is the time element. The Church at the beginning of the 1980s was not the Church which began the 1950s. The thirty years saw a changed Church doctrinally. The doctrinal change struck at the very heart of the message of righteousness by faith. This Wieland has either refused to perceive, or else has been blinded by advisors so that he cannot see it. Two cannot walk together unless they be agreed.

Out of this meeting a committee was formed for the objective of creating a dialogue between the 1888 MSC and the General Conference. Anyone reading the names on the committee appointed who has any insight at all can be impressed only with its futility. This is not saying that some statement will not be forthcoming, or that a compromise will not be reached by which the objectives of the General Conference will be realized. For example, to this committee was appointed George Knight, the author of From 1888 to Apostasy, an attack on A. T. Jones. In your mind try and reconcile Knight's position on Jones, and the position of the 1888 MSC. What can dialogue do?

It is evident from this report that the objective of the General Conference is either to absorb the 1888 MSC, or to so alter its thrust that it will be an acceptable adjunct to the Church such as Amazing Facts or Quiet Hour. However, there are some basic factors which differentiate the 1888 MSC from the two above named organizations. Only time will tell the outcome.

p 6 -- LET'S TALK IT OVER -- There are a number of things which we should talk over. Time has not stopped while we focused our attention on a Theology of the Sanctuary which harmonizes with the revelation of Scripture.

There was published earlier this year a book by Dr. Roy Adams of the editorial staff of the Adventist Review - The Nature of Christ. In this book he made a vicious attack on Wieland and Short, declaring them to be in the same "continuum" with Jim Jones and David Koresh. (p. 110) While we may differ with Wieland and Short on method and approach, and believe they have been deceived by false advisors, one dare not overlook the fact that these men gave the greater part of their lives in devoted mission service to Africa. During his ministry what has Adams been doing? From his dissertation at Andrews - The Sanctuary Doctrine - through his editorship of the Canadian Union Messenger, and now with the Adventist Review, he has done little else but vomit out heresy. Now, to so viciously attack Wieland and Short, men to whom he cannot even hold a candle, is nothing short of journalistic cannibalism.

In this same book, he exhumes M. L. Andreasen and villifies him, citing a document alleged to be a confession by Andreasen. He quotes the late Arthur White of terming it a "death-bed confession." He holds up for ridicule Andreasen writing out his feelings and convictions in "Letters to God." (p. 53) Such attacks are unacceptable journalism and reveal a hatred akin to that manifested by Lucifer toward Michael. On the back cover of the book were endorsements by George Knight, William H. Shea, Raoul Dederen and Robert S. Folkenberg. Folkenberg, at the meeting in Silver Spring on May 12, expressed regret that his name was associated with this book, and declared that if       "reprinted, [it] must be rewritten."        But more than this is required before justice is done. Adams must be removed from the editorial staff of the Adventist Review!

Also early in 1994, the publishers of SDA Press Release (Feb. 26) called for the resignations of Jack Blanco, who had been appointed to the Ellen G. White Memorial Chair at Southern College, as well as the other professors in the Religion Department which would include Dr. Norman Gulley. The president of the College, D. Don Sahly, was also included in the resignation demand. The Board of Trustees of the College responded in a March report to the constitueny. One item in the report should cause an individal devoted to truth to take a second look, and do some serious thinking. Dr. Jack Blanco gave an affirmation as an appointee to the Ellen G. White Chair. He wrote:      "I affirm my faith in the fundamental teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as stated by the General Conference in the Church Manual."

Here is a serious flaw of commitment. If the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are based on the perceptions of the General Conference, and not the Bible, the Church is in apostasy. One may affirm that the General Conference has stated in the Church Manual its beliefs in harmony with the Bible. This, however, is open to serious question. Does Blanco really know this, or does he personally hold differing perceptions from the General Conference in certain doctrinal areas; but to occupy the Chair, must acknowledge the authority of the General Conference in the matter of doctrine?

As Blanco continued his confession of        "faith,"        he declares that       "it is from the Scriptures that I understand the value of the gifts of the Spirit that God has bestowed upon the Church, including the gift of prophecy. This gift - the call to prophetic office - I firmly believe was manifested in the life and work of Ellen G. White, not as an addition to Scripture but as a derived, authoritative source to lead men and woman back to the Word of God as the norm of all morality and faith."

Blanco's omission of a phrase makes one wonder if indeed he really subscribes to what he affirmed in the first paragraph noted above. The Church Manual adds to "authoritative source" the words, "of truth," and declares it to be "a continuing" source as well. (p. 40, 1981 ed.) This makes the Writings an addition to the Scripture, but Blanco distances himself from that concept by stating, - "not as an addition to Scripture."

Then we might also question, does a "gift" create an office? Along with the "gift" of prophecy are the gifts of apostles, evangelists, pastor-teacher. Does this make the one having the gift of evangelism, holding the "office" of an evangelist? There can be no doubt that in this area of perception, we have created for us a problem in

p 7 -- relating the Writings of Ellen G. White and the Scriptures.

Blanco has written instead of an affirmation of faith, a position statement trying to say, "yes" and "no" at the same time. It is pure, unadulterated duplicity. Somebody really should resign, the one making the statement, or the ones creating an intellectual environment which creates such a stance? Perhaps all, as was suggested.

PERES ON JERUSALEM -- Israel's Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres indicated that Israel was "open to proposals" on determining the status of the Moslem and Christian holy places in Jerusalem. In June, Maroccan King Hassan had "remarked that only God can have sovereignty over Jerusalem's holy places." This concept has intrigued Israeli officials.

Peres told reporters:      "If we reached an agreement with the Vatican on conducting their religious affairs, I am sure we can reach an agreement with other religions. I have said Jerusalem is closed politically and open religiously. This means it will remain unified, and only as Israel's capital, not two capitals. It will remain under Israeli sovereignty." The Jerusalem Post (Int. ed., p. 2) July 23, 1994. --- (1994 Oct) --- End --- TOP

1994 Nov -- XXVII -- 11(94) -- THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST REFORM MOVEMENT -- Its History, Teachings and Organization -- Out of experiences connected with World War I, a major splinter group developed from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. European in origin, it has, since its inception date in 1925, become world-wide with much success in Latin America. Progress has been slow in North America for various reasons, but with the confusion which presently dominates the "mother" Church of Adventism, this Reform group has been able to attract adherents. Concerned conservative Seventh-day Adventists have given them a second look.

The Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, with headquarters in Roanoke, Virginia, publish as their General Church paper, the Reformation Herald, which is issued quarterly. They also produce a pleasing Sabbath School Lesson booklet structured very much like the Seventh-day Adventist quarterlies used to be, using a question and answer format, with notes almost exclusively being quotations from the Writings.

The first issue of the Reformation Herald for 1994 was a special edition defining "the Remnant Church" which they perceive themselves to be. The editorial extended an open hand "to earnest believers seeking fellowship with those of like precious faith." The editor noted that "many sincere sheep who actually believe so similarly to the way we do have never really taken the time to learn more about the SDA Reform Movement or its beliefs." Then he pled to all such to "dig deeply in the study of present truth," and to all who had been receiving their literature to "'Come and see." Do not just rely on hearsay, see for yourselves." (p.4)

This article concei'ning the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement will be based on personal contacts with leaders and ministers of the Movement extending over two decades, correspondence, and their own publication, Principles of Faith and Church Order, known as the "Green Book."

First, in discussing this Movement, we should note its origin and what happened. What caused its existence? Was an attempt made toward unification, and with what

p 2 -- success?

World War I placed many Seventh-day Adventists in Europe in a very difficult situation. Were they to bear arms, and what about Sabbath observance in the Imperial army of the German Kaiser? Elder L.R. Conradi was vice president of the General Conference for Europe, and president of the Legal Association of the German Conferences. He made no attempt to secure consideration for conscientious objectors or for release from Sabbath duty but assured the Imperial government that Adventist men would be loyal soldiers of the Fatherland. This action produced hardship and trial, to put it mildly, for those who could not in good faith bear arms or violate the Sabbath. It produced division in the European Church, for the East German Union included the Balkan countries as well.

After the War, a delegation of the separated brethren came to the 1924 General Conference to seek a redress of their grievances and a unification of the Church in Europe. The General Conference was in turmoil over whether A. G. Daniells would again succeed himself, or whether a new president would be elected. The politics of the session were such that the delegation was not even given a hearing. They returned to Europe and in 1925 at Gotha, Germany, organized themselves, adopting a statement of beliefs known as the "Gotha Statement" and referred to as the "Green Book."

My first contacts with the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement was through Elder John Nicolici, whose father had been a long time respected voice in that Church. The contact with Nicolici came through Elder David Bauer with whom he was closely associated and still is. Nicolici introduced me to the leadership of the Reform Movement on the West Coast at Sacramento, one of their headquarters at the time, the other being at Blackwood, New Jersey. I had an extensive visit and discussion with the leaders there including their long time editor, Elder A. Balbach.

In visiting their eastern headquarters in New Jersey, I was welcomed, and spoke to the group in their chapel. I stayed with Brother Benjamin Burek and his family who made me feel very much at home. I still, when meeting him since then, have a deep brotherly regard for him. I might add that in all my contacts save one with the leadership and ministers of the Reform Church I have found them to be open and forthright in their approach to issues discussed. This is more than I can say of contacts and discussions with the "brethren" of the "mother" Church. On a more recent trip to the East Coast, I spent the Sabbath in Roanoke and visited their new headquarters church and offices. In the afternoon we discussed various issues facing Adventists, including doctrinal beliefs. A goodly representation of their General Conference officers were present and joined in the discussion. It was a very pleasant Sabbath from my viewpoint.

In a recent issue of the Reformation Herald, a current doctrinal concept on the Godhead which is being pressed by certain "independent" ministries was addressed. I found that in responding to certain positions taken, and I hold no brief for the "independent" ministries' positions, that there was a reluctance on the part of the associate editor to come to terms with what she had written. I hope that this attitude does not signal a move "to pull into their shell" and block out forthright exchange on current issues.

The Reform Movement does face two major problems in dealing with the present agitation within the Community of Adventism. The first problem surfaced early-on in a discussion with Elder Balbach at the time of the first contact in Sacramento. The Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement believes strongly that they are the true successors of the Advent Movement which began in 1844, in other words, they are the Remnant Church. My question to Balbach was simply, that if this is the case, then why does their Gotha Statement not reflect the positions set forth in the 1872, 1889, and 1914 Statement of Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. His reply was that they did not have access to these statements when they formulated the Gotha Statement in 1925. This is no doubt true, but they have them now! Still there has been no correlation attempted.

There is a reason. Elder John Nicolici gave me some insight into the why. The European Reform Movement has split into two movements: the German Reform Movement, and the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement. They are at loggerheads with each other, and both affirm the Gotha Statement. For one to alter even the dotting of the "i", or the crossing of the "t" of this statement would give the other a basis to charge the one making any change with heresy. Thus they are boxed into a corner.

The second major problem is the educational program for their ministers and theologians, if they have any of the latter. From my

p 3 -- observation and contacts, their ministry is trained in only one discipline - the Writings of Ellen G. White. As laudable as this may be, they are in so doing, rejecting her own counsel. I have attended one of their campmeetings at which the then president of their General Conference spoke. At the Sabbath worship hour, one brother placed a large stack of E. G. White books on the pulpit. For the sermon, the District leader read verses from the Bible, with the President following each text read with paragraphs from the E. G. White books with very little, if any comment. This is not preaching the Word as demanded by ordination. (II Tim. 4:2) This one-time experience, which I had, may not reflect the regular format for the main Sabbath service at their campmeetings.

The Gotha Statement is more than just a confession of the principles of faith, but also sets forth their Church Order. It is divided into three parts:    I)     Principles of Faith;    II)     The Church Order; and    III)     Organization of the Denomination. It regulates every phase of the member's personal life as well as detailing church order from the local church through the various conferences to the General Conference. The statement makes the General Conference the final arbiter of what constitutes truth. (p.29)

In noting the first section of the Gotha Statement, there are doctrinal questions which need clarification. The first three statements define the Reform Movement's perception of the Godhead. There is but "one God" and Jesus Christ "is the living Son of God ... one in nature with the Father." While the Holy Spirit is declared to be "the representative of Christ upon the earth," He is defined as "a power from the Father and the Son, and is active also through human beings." (p. 3; emphasis supplied)

In an article in the Reformation Herald (XXXIV, #3, pp. 8-11), referred to above, the Associate Editor, Barbara Monteiro, modifies the Gotha Statement, setting forth Christ as not only the Son of God, but as One "with God from all eternity." The Holy Spirit is declared to be a "Person," and she seeks to mute the word, "power" as used in the Gotha Statement by arplying the word to all Three Persons of the Godhead, as "infinite, omniscient dignitaries or powers."

In regard to the Doctrine of the Incarnation, the Gotha Statement is written so that you can believe either one of two ways as to the nature of the humanity which Christ took upon Himself. The Statement reads that       "He was born as a human being on this earth at Bethlehem in Judea, of the virgin Mary, conceived by the Spirit of God."        It must be remembered that Adam was a "human being" both before and after he sinned. Merely to say that Christ became "a human being" in the incarnation does not define the human nature He accepted. It is true that in conversation with the leadership of the Reform Movement, they state they believe that Christ accepted the fallen nature of Adam. However, even in the article written by the Associate Editor, this issue is sidestepped, and declared to be a mystery "beyond our finite comprehension." While it is true that the "how" of the incarnation does remain "a mystery" as we use the term mystery, the nature He accepted is clearly defined in the Word of God. He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," taking upon Himself "the slave form of man." (Rom. 1:3; Phil. 2:7)

The most difficult sections of the Gotha Statement to understand as to why the language as used was adopted are sections       "9. Grace and the Means of Grace,"        and       "11. Baptism."        Section 9 declares that "we can only have the benefits of redeeming grace if we shun sin through the power of Christ, united with our will. ... We believe that God has provided several means to draw sinners to Himself and give them the promised redemption through the grace of Christ." These means are listed as the Word of God, the Church of God, the Washing of Feet, and the Lord's Supper. In Section 11, one reads - "Baptism is administered only once, while the other means of grace like feet washing, Lord's supper, and prayer are repeated in the life of faith."

It would seem that the proverbial German order - the cart before the horse - is stated in Section 9: "shun sin so you can receive the grace of God." I cannot shun sin without the grace of God having operated in my life through the working of the Spirit of God. The grace of God that bringeth salvation comes first, the shunning of sin is an on going experience. (Titus 2:11-12)

The very language used, and the "means" set forth in both sections 9 and 11, echo Roman Catholicism. One wonders if the movement was infiltrated from its inception. Note the following teachings and wordings from a Roman Catholic Catechism:
"What is grace?
"Grace is a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us through the merits of Jesus Christ for our

p 4 -- salvation. Grace is something real, just as the soul is real. It is not merely the absence of sin but rather a spiritual quality infused by God into the soul.

"What are the principle ways of obtaining grace?
"The principle ways of obtaining grace are prayer and the sacraments, especially the Holy
Eucharist. The sacraments of Baptism and Penance were instituted chiefly to give grace to those who do not possess it; the other sacraments to increase it in those who are already in the state of grace." (New Baltimore Cathechism, No. 3, 1949 edition, pp.61, 64)

Since when has the adoption of Roman Catholic doctrine, clothing it in the language of Adventism, made it truth?

Even in the sections of the Gotha Statement on Church Order one finds a modification of Catholic teaching. The Church is defined as       "several believers in the three-fold angels' message, who are led by an ordained church elder (or church chairman), a deacon, treasurer, and secretary." (p.19)        The concept of a church as a congregation of believers under ordained authority is Roman Catholic. While the SDA Reform organization is a modification of this concept, nevertheless it falls short of the Protestant perception expressed by Melancthon -        "There is no other church than the assembly of those who have the word of God, and who are purified by it."        Actually in function, the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement approaches the same hierarchical structure as operates in the "mother" church from which it sprang.

It is only natural for a concerned Seventh-day Adventist, who has become disenchanted with the way the "mother" Church is going, to cast about for fellowship and a "church" home. It is difficult to walk "alone." However, when we are searching and seeking for fellowship with "those of like precious faith," we need to be sure that it is indeed of "like faith" and not a substitute as questionable as that with which we have become concerned.

It would be a step in the right direction if the SDA Reform Movement would seek to engage in a meaningful dialogue with others concerning questionable features of their Gotha Statement with a view of finding and embracing truth, pure and unadulterated, which is defined as "the righteousness of Christ." (TM, p. 65) Perhaps this is expecting too much of a group which seems solidified in their perceptions of what constitutes truth. It is difficult at times to remember the counsel -       "The truth is advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light." (R&H, March 25, 1890)

This past week (August 19) we received in the mails some materials from another editor. Enclosed was a yellow clipping -"Truth's Champions." It was a quote from Cosmic Conflict. p. 146. What is quoted is very apropos:      "There are many at the present day thus clinging to the customs and traditions of their fathers. When the Lord sends them additional light, they refuse to accept it because, not having been granted to their fathers, it is not received by them.

"We are not placed where our fathers were; consequently our duties and responsibilities are not looking to the example of our fathers to determine our duty instead of searching the word of truth for ourselves.

"Our repsonsibility is greater than was that of our ancestors. We are accountable for the light which they received and which was handed down as an inheritance for us, and we are accountable for the additional light which is now shining upon us from the Word of God."

Our problem is that we cannot modify and bring into line our inheritance from tradition with the light which deeper study of the Word reveals. We box ourselves in by closed statements of belief, instead of being open to the ever increasing light of truth which is to shine upon the pathway of the just. (Prov. 4:18)

LET'S TALK IT OVER -- In discussing the SDA Reform Movement, we noted an article in the Reformation Herald written by the Associate Editor on the Doctrine of the Godhead. While one may question the ultimate conelusions drawn by the editor, this subject is coming to the fore in the Community of Adventism. Especially is it being emphasized by various "independent" voices.

While the divisive nature of the discussion is to be abhored, nevertheless this doctrine cannot be ignored in the light of the ecumencial thrust which is using this doctrine as the basis for a visible church unity on a world-wide scale. The

p 5 -- doctrine of the Trinity was defined in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (A.D. 381). This creed, expressed in an abbreviated form in the Constitution of the World Council of Churches, is made the basis for membership in that body. It is now being used by the Faith and Order Commission to achieve its stated objective "to call the churches to the goal of visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship."

To further this objective the Commission has published Faith and Order Paper No. 153, under
the title Confessing One Faith. The preface is written by Jean-Marie Tillard OP, who is the Moderator of the Apostolic Faith Steering Group. This says volumes. The Roman Catholic Church considers basic to their whole doctrinal structure, the doctrine of the Trinity, as they express it, based upon this Creed. While the Roman Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC, nevertheless the "Moderator" of this steering committee toward the objective of visible church unity is a Roman Catholic cleric.

The preface by Tillard was written in 1990, and in this preface, he noted -        "In view of the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order to be held in 1993, the present ecumencial document should play a significant role in the discussions and have an impact on this great ecumenical event."         This Conference was held in Santiago de Compostela1 Spain, in Roman Catholic facilities. On the last day of the conference, Jean Tillard in his address suggested without specifying a date, that consideration be given to       "a gathering of all the major church leaders [of] the churches - perhaps in Jerusalem - simply to sing the creed together. That would be a wonderful expression of the degree of unity already present and of its origin,"        he concluded. (One World, Oct. 1993, p. 15)

The issue of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is central today in Adventism. Why? The statement from the WCC Constitution based on this creed was written into the 1980 Statement of Beliefs formulated at Dallas, Texas. We can no longer relegate a discussion of the Doctrine of God to a "back burner" neither can we regale ourselves in speculative theories presently being projected by "independent voices."

While the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not a "voting" member of the WCC, it does have a representative voice on the Faith and Order Commission. This commission began its trek toward a more visible unity in the issuance of the Lima Document on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry in 1982. All churches were invited to give their reaction to this Statement. The Seventh-day Adventist Church responded, and expressed disagreement with parts of it. The same opportunity is being afforded in regard to the Confession of One Faith. Inamsuch as the Church's Statement of Beliefs reflects the Nicene Creed of 381, its response should make interesting reading. ---(1994 Nov) ---End--- TOP

1994Dec -- XXVII -- 12(94) -- "TAKE HEED TO YOURSELVES ..." -- IN THIS ISSUE: -- The year 1994 is rapidly drawing to a close as well as time. There are some loose ends of items discussed during the year that need to be tied up. This we hope to do in this issue of WWN.

During the Fall months, Darren and Terrie Lambert, on study leave from Australia, have been reading collections of old letters written by J. S. Washburn, W. W. Prescott, W. C. White, M. L. Andreasen, J. H. Kellogg, and others, as well as some letters written by R. J. Wieland around 1950. The sense of feeling which these letters convey is more poignant than the summaries of history which historians distil from a mass of data. We hope to share at least one in this issue of WWN.

The pastor of the Fletcher, North Carolina, Seventh-day Adventist Church scheduled for the month of January a series of "controversial" speakers - Morris Venden, Martin Weber, George R. Knight, and R.J. Wieland. During the question period following his presentation, Wieland responded to a question, and his answer bothered Edward J. Benson who was present. This brother went to Elder D. K. Short and asked him why the answer. Short's response only compounded the problem. (See p. 3)

There is more to be written on the data regarding the status of Jerusalem, as the drama of Papal intrigue unfolds.

We plan for this issue documented information in all of these areas.

One month prior to the moving by Israel of its government from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the Vatican lodged with the President of the UN Security Council a text, from the June 30th issue of L'Osservatore Romano, on "the position of the Holy See concerning Jerusalem and all the holy Places." The Charge d'Affairs for the Vatican asked that this text be circulated as a Security Council document. It was! - Document S/14032.

In the "Basic Law" which established Jerusalem as the "seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, and the Government and the Supreme Court," there was enacted the stipulation that "the Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings in regard to those places."

Document S/14032, thirty days earlier bluntly rejected this position stating that "the Jerusalem question cannot be reduced to mere 'free access for all to the holy places.'" It called for "an 'appropriate juridical safeguard' that does not derive from the will of only one of the parties interested." This left Israel and the Vatican at loggerheads. Yet in the Vaticanization Plan proposed by the present government of Israel, there will be only one power controlling the "old" City of Jerusalem, and that will be the "Holy See" - the Pope.

During the decade that followed these statements of position by both the Vatican and Israel, there had to be some behind the scenes diplomacy which resulted in the formulation of the plan that has been revealed. One would suspect that most of this dialogue was done after the Likud

p 2 -- government was replaced by the Labor government with Peres as the Foreign Minister.

There were certain propelling forces which moved Israel. "World Jewish leaders have for years urged the 73 year-old Polish pope to establish [diplomatic] ties and visit Israel to help dispel the notion by some Arabs that Israel was a passing entity." (The Buffalo [NY] News, Dec. 29, 1993) The Papacy was adamant and demanded concessions which included a Palestinian State for the PLO, and a special status for Jerusalem.

The November, 1989 U.S. Catholic Bishops' statement on the Middle East either presumed or assumed an outcome of the Arab-Jewish conflict - "the internationalization of Jerusalem." This concerned, Steven Windmueller, a Jewish leader, interviewed by the National Catholic Register (August 17, 1990). Yet in the rapid moving drama of the "peace negotiations," this very prospect is on the drawing board. Moreover one cannot read The Jerusalem Post and The Jewish Press without sensing that the Rabin government is actually now a minority government with support dwindling with each concession made under the guise of peace for Israel. There seems to be no way to reverse this process to the return of Israel to its pre-1967 borders. The only new factor is the emergence of the papacy into the equation of the Middle East.

The Bible reveals the sinister forces at work in the Middle East. They are "the spirits of devils" gathering "the kings of the earth" for the war of the great day of God Almighty to a place caIled in the Hebrew tongue, Har-Magedon. We have been most reluctant to recognize what Jesus noted as the specific event which would mark the closing of "the times of the nations" and the giving of those "nations" into the hands of Satan to work his will - Jerusalem once again under the jurisdiction of Israel. This did occur in 1967; it was emphatically declared in 1980. The last power which prophecy indicates would be involved with Jerusalem before the close of all human probation is the "he" of Daniel 11:45, which is "the king" of verse 36. This is the papacy. We see this final act in the drama of human history now taking place. Michael shall soon stand up.

In the fast moving drama of closing events, we need to keep our eyes focused on "the unrolling of the scroll." It is futile to date even the year when all human probation will close based on the calculations of time, jubilees or whatever criteria is used. "When probation ends, it will come suddenly, unexpectedly - at a time when we are least expecting it." (Ms. 95, 1906)

On January 28, 1901, Ellen White wrote a letter to Dr. J. H. Kellogg. The last three paragraphs called attention to what she termed God's "object lesson." She asked a question -       "If the world will not heed, will not the people of God take heed?"        This object lesson was based on Luke 21. She wrote:       "In the twenty-first chapter of Luke, Christ foretold what was to come upon Jerusalem; and with it He connected the scenes which were to take place in the history of this world just prior to the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Ms. Release #1102, p. 149)

What is of interest about this statement is the fact that she noted Luke, not Matthew nor Mark. The only event prophesied in Luke, not found in either Matthew or Mark is the event which would signal the close of the probationary time for the nations. Then she followed with these words:        "Mark the words: ' Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkeness, and the cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."' (verses 34-36)

Ask yourself, what is a "snare"? The obvious? Never! One has only to carefully read the final verses of Luke 21 from verse 24, to see the obvious progression of thought leading to the final admonition. (Keep in mind that in the Greek text, there is only one word for the two words, "Gentiles" and "nations." It is best to read "nations" in each use of the word, ethne)

The signal of Luke 21:24 - Jerusalem once more in Israeli control, marks the time of the beginning of the "distress of nations" upon "the earth." Fear grips "men's hearts" as the "things ... on the earth" begin to take place. But when "these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." (ver. 28) However, "when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." (ver. 31) "This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." This is followed by the warning of Luke 21:34-36. Isn't it time to take heed?

p 3 -- R. J. WIELAND ANSWERS A QUESTION -- On January 29, 1994, Elder R. J. Wieland spoke in the Fletcher, North Carolina Seventh-day Adventist Church, the last of four "controversial" speakers which the pastor had arranged to speak during the month of January. At 4 p.m. Question and Answer service, the pastor read a written question, which had been handed in, to Wieland. [Wieland will not take questions direct from the floor] This question asked - "When will you four men - Wieland, Venden, Knight, Weber - get together to study and be in harmony over this precious message?" To this question, Wieland replied - "I wasn't aware we were not in harmony." (Taped Recording - Side B - "True or False, Gospel or Heresy: Easy to be Saved; Hard to be Lost?")

Listening was a resident of Fletcher. What Wieland answered disturbed him greatly. He went to see Elder D. K. Short, who resides in the area and asked him - "Why that answer?" Brother Benson's sworn statement follows:

On January 28-30, 1994, R. J. Wieland concluded a month long week-end series of meetings on "Righteousness by Faith" in the Fletcher SDA church. The other week-ends were conducted by Martin Weber, George Knight, and Morris Venden. During the question and answer period the question was asked of Elder Wieland, "How is your message different from Morris Venden?" to which he (Wieland) answered: "I was not aware that there is a difference." I asked Elder D. K. Short at his home the following week, "Why that answer?" to which he replied: "He (Wieland) just did not want to start a war."

Edward J. Benson State of North Carolina County of Henderson On this 4th day of September, 1994, personally appeared before me, the said named, Edward J. Benson, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged that he executed the same and being duly sworn by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing instrument are true. My commission expires February 11, 1997 (Signed) Sandra Jo Sanders Notary Public

In reading this deceptive answer given by Wieland to the question asked, and then Short's explanation as to why given, my mind raced back to another defender of "Righteousness by faith" - Martin Luther. When urged to defend his cause with

p 4 -- moderation by Spalatin, Luther replied -  "Too much folly is displeasing to men, but too much discretion is displeasing to God. The gospel cannot be defended without tumult and without scandal. The word of God is a sword, a war, a ruin, a stumbling-block, a destruction, a poison."  (D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation, Vol. II, p. 83) On another occasion, when Spalatin urged him to propose peace, Luther answered - "Why should you imagine that Christ will advance his cause by peace? Did He not fight with His own blood, and all the martyrs after Him?" (ibid., p. 84)

When we advance speculative theories about how easy it is to be saved and hard it is to be lost, concepts that Jones and Waggoner never projected as "messengers" of the Lord, we soon forget that "the righteousness of Christ...is pure unadulterated truth." (TM, p. 65) He who was the very embodiment of truth plainly stated - "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I am not come to send peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34) The compromising timorous reply of Wieland nullifies all that he seeks to say regarding a forthright revelation of Christ's righteousness.

Both Wieland and Short know what Venden teaches. They are very much aware of the position of George Knight on A. T. Jones. Then to say, "I wasn't aware we were not in harmony," is just plain lying! To justify such falsifying with the excuse that he didn't want to start a war is to reveal how far these men are actually from true righteousness by faith revealed in the life of Jesus.

In 1950, they didn't want to start a war, and went back to Africa. In 1958, they didn't want to start a war, and declined to write for A. L. Hudson's proposed publication. As 1988 approached, they didn't want to start a war, and re-wrote their original manuscript - 1888 Re-Examined. This new edition compromised the truth to the extent that C. Mervyn Maxwell could comment concerning the new edition -       "Mercifully, no mention is made of 'corporate repentance' and very little of the 'sinful nature of Christ,' terms that have been a stumbling block to many erstwhile Wieland and Short admirers." (Ministry, Feb., 1988, p. 63)

It is time for both Wieland and Short to re-study a little biography - the lives of Paul and Luther, men to whom God committed the message of "Righteousness by faith," as He did to them in 1950.

LET'S TALK IT OVER -- While gathered together in the Annual Fellowship meeting in August, those present representing the groups which prepared a "Statements of Belief" the first of this year, believed that the cause of truth could be served by preparing Position Papers on key doctrines which either are or are becoming major issues in the Adventist Community. The first doctrine chosen was that of "Spiritual Gifts" to be followed by one on the "Trinity."

During the first full weekend in October, the Nora Springs, Iowa, Remnant Seventh Day Adventist Church was host to the first such study conference. A paper was prepared, and is ready for distribution and critique.

First, why was the topic of "Spiritual Gifts" chosen to be a basis for the first position paper? In contacts with various "independent" ministries, it was perceived that the position of those calling themselves "historic" Adventists did not coincide with the position of the pioneer Adventist leaders. Was there a Biblical basis for departing from the original position? Or was this hue and cry about "historic" Adventism deception to beguile concerned Adventists?

In our study, as we sought to evaluate all the data available, we faced some questions which still remain open. The answers must be found in further study. For example, Paul in his general Epistle to the Church at Ephesus, lists as the first gift, "apostles." (Eph. 4:11). Are there still to be apostles, or has the office merely changed names?

Early on in church history there developed a contention between the "bishops" of the Church, and the pneumatikoi, "men of the Spirit." Yet to the "elders" of the church at Ephesus, Paul declared that "the Holy Spirit" had made them "overseers." (Acts. 20:17, 28)

There are two listings in Paul's writings in regard to "spiritual gifts" which were "set in the church."(Eph. 4:11; I Cor. 12:28) Are these to be considered vertically with descending authority, or horizontally with all of equal authority? This question was left open, but the implications of each possible answer were explored.

Then as the paper states - "No position paper on Spiritual Gifts would be complete for a Seventh-day Adventist unless we addressed the role of Ellen G. White in relationship to the Community of Adventism" - we discussed her work and mission. Knowing that she stated, "I am not a prophet," we noted the why given, and in what capacity she was to serve according to divine directive. We asked, "How then has Ellen G. White become an inspired, infallible interpreter of Scripture?" This we forthrightly answered, leaving certain other questions involved open.

All in all, this concise position paper should challenge the thinking of every sincerely concerned Seventh-day Adventist. To say that it is the final word would be to overlook the humanity of the group formulating it. It is available for study. Send $1.00 to cover postage and handling to P. 0. Box 69, Ozone, AR 72854 if you desire a copy.

p 5 -- "KELLOGG REVISITED" -- The above title was the caption on an editorial in the Adventist Review, October 13, 1994. Written by the Editor-in-chief, Dr. William G. Johnsson, the article on John Harvey Kellogg was an assessment of the man in the light of an up-coming Hollywood movie - "The Road to WelIville." After enumerating the accomplishments of the man - doctor, surgeon, educator, administrator and inventor - Johnsson pictures how Kellogg is characterized by T. Coraghessan Boyle, the author of the book about to be Hollywoodized.

Answering the question - "What was he - crackpot or genius'?" - Johnsson closes his editorial comment by writing - "I prefer to stick with the facts." This is right, but in the 150th anniversary year for Adventism's disappointment, should we not assess all the facts in connection with John Harvey Kellogg and his relationship to the Adventist Church? Does what happened to Kellogg, and has happened to others, and is still happening, tell us something as to why the Lord has not been able to bless the Church as He would like to have done? Could it also supply us with some answers as to the present fragmentation in Adventism today?

The letter below - note the date, 1922 - was the year of the end of the reign of A. G. Daniells as president of the General Conference. The biographical sketch of John Harvey Kellogg in Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia closes with the information that upon Kellogg's request "the General Conference Executive Committee held its Autumn Council in the Battle Creek Sanitarium in the years 1926, 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1941." The next and final sentence reads - "He passed away in his Battle Creek home, Dec. 14, 1943, without having returned to the church." (p. 723) This is in direct contrast with the attitude expressed in the 1922 letter.

The Battle Creek Sanitarium Battle Creek Michigan SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE J. H. KELLOGG. M. D. May 29,1922. Dear Sir: - I have yours of May 18, expressing a desire that I should send you the documents sent me by Mrs. White. I have no idea where these documents are and, if I did I do not think I should send them to you as I desire that the world shall forget my association with the S. D. A. people and all their doings as quickly as possible. Sincerely yours, (signed) John Harvey Kellogg

p 6 -- All of this and Kellogg's final legal suit with the Church in 1942 points up some very poignant questions involving the relationship between A. G. Daniells and John Harvey Kellogg; the question of the book, Living Temple, and its teachings; and the influence of W. C. White on his mother in regard to the book.

The conflict begins in 1901. No provision was made in the new General Conference Constitution adopted that year for the office of president. The General Conference Committee of 25 was to be chaired by a rotating chairman. Midway between sessions, Daniells knowing of this intent quickly called together available members in the office without notice to the full committee, and had himself re-appointed chairman for the balance of the time till the 1903 session. J. H. Kellogg was a member of that committee. If you had been in his place, and had read the report of the action, what confidence would you have in A. G. Daniells?

The book - The Living Temple - finally became the center of the crisis and was declared to be the presentation of "the alpha of deadly heresies." (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, p. 50) Few today really know what the book is all about, for few have ever seen a copy. I recall, after learning about the existence of the book, of obtaining a copy on loan from a history professor at Andrews University. To my surprise, the major portion of the 568 page book, involved physiology, anatomy and principles of health and hygiene. The first fifty pages contained philisophical concepts which were subject to question, and even in these it was difficult to discern "the deadly heresies." When I returned the book to Dr. Vande Vere, I commented on this point, and he remarked that unless one knew what Ellen White had written about the book, a casual reader would not see the error charged to it.

At the time of publication in 1903, those who favored a wide circulation for the book, declared, "It contains the very sentiments that Sister White has been teaching." (ibid, p. 52) In fact Kellogg himself maintained that the views expressed in his book were in harmony with Ellen White's chapter, "God in Nature" found in Education. (John Harvey Kellogg, M. D., p. 185) On this point, I have personally, on several occasions, conducted an experiment with different audiences in discussing this issue. I compiled a series of quotations from Education and Living Temple, and asked those listening, as I read, to indicate from which book they were taken. At no time did anyone actually identify the quotations correctly. After reading portions of Living Temple with W. C. White, Ellen White herself noted this possibility. She wrote:      "There may be in this book expressions and sentiments that are in harmony with my writings. And there may be in my writings many statements which, taken from their connection, and interpreted according to the mind of the writer of "Living Temple," (sic) would seem to be in harmony with the teachings of this book. This may give apparent support to the assertion that the sentiments in "Living Temple" (sic) are in harmony with my writings." (White, op cit, p. 53)

Into every issue, there come personality factors which must be added into the equation before final judgment can be rendered on events of history, or lessons drawn. W. C. White was closely allied with Daniells, at least as long as Ellen White lived. This did not contribute to any better understanding between Kellogg and Daniells, but was rather a negative factor. There was no love lost between W. C. and Kellogg. W. C. White married Kellogg's fiancee Mary Kelsey, while he was away finishing his Medical work. As a result the relationships between Kellogg and White "were never quite as cordial as before." (Schwarz, op cit, p. 149)

No doubt Kellogg himself had his personality problems. He measured as an adult, only five feet, four inches tall. "Always conscious of his short stature, he may well have felt a psychological need to demonstrate his abilities through directing and dominating others." (ibid, p. 137) We today would say that Kellogg had "the little man" syndrome. Add to this two other ingredients and you have a volatile mix. Kellogg as an administrator, speaker, doctor, educator, stood head and shoulders above most, if not all, his contemporaries in the Church. This produced "professional" jealousy and fear. These things must be understood so as to see why the various attempts on the part of different individuals to bring reconciliation between Kellogg and the Church leaders failed.

There are lessons that can be learned from this episode in Adventist Church history if we are willing to learn. How does administration relate to individuality? Are we to look upon a conference working force as a ball team, and if one does not play ball with the team captain (president), he is off the team? Or do we see in the working force, individuals whom God has called to His work, and as an undershepherd seek to place that individual where his talents and calling best serve the cause of God? Tragically

p 7 -- in Adventism, there have been those, who like Daniells, perceived of themselves as "monarchic bishops," and have related to men called of God as mere hirelings of the conference. In the day of judgment, many adminstrators will have a fearful accounting to meet.

It should be of interest in evaluating the history of the Kellogg era in Adventism that at the height of the crisis, A. T. Jones, who sided with Kellogg, wrote, Individuality In Religion. Though this book emphasized religious liberty from the world viewpoint, there were sections which called for religious liberty within the Church. This over the years has been strangely lacking in Adventist administration. At present we are willing to exercise "religious liberty" (pluralism) in the teaching and publishing of heresy in the Church, but still have problems with "individuality" in religion.

Returning now to the reproduced letter written by Kellogg in 1922, and his action after that date, one fact dare not be overlooked. Kellogg could not be reconciled to the Daniells type of church administration, but he was not alienated in thought from his former brethren. However, when the opportunity was given for them to fellowship with Kellogg once again, they did not know how to relate to Kellogg. They could partake of his hospitality, but they could not find the way to the heart of the man, a fellow for whom Christ died. How far from the cross do men wander, and yet believe themselves to be a "voice" of God to their fellow men.

To the Editor: -- We have just finished the pamphlet, "Jerusalem in Bible Prophecy," for morning devotions and I suppose it was the clearest explanation I have ever read in my fifteen years as a Seventh-day Adventist on the ministration of the sanctuary.

The section on Jerusalem was fantastic as I have just finished reading Hershel Shanks book, The City of David.     AZ

In the Catskill area of New York State which is a largely populated Jewish area, they are hanging signs up saying "Messiah is coming." Everything is coming together for the reception of Satan as Christ. What a time to be alive! Praise God, it won't be long now.      NY

" Ye are all children of light, and the children of the day:
we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
Therefore let us not sleep, as do others;
but let us watch and be sober. "
I Thess. 5:5-6

--- (1994 Dec) --- End --- TOP

1994 -- Special -- Part 1 -- A CRITIQE of JACK SEQUERA'S BOOK "BEYOND BELIEF" --

Letter from Ellen G. White
Napier, New Zealand
April 9, 1893

Brother A. T. Jones:

I was attending a meeting, and a large congregation were present. In my dream you were presenting the subject of faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing that there were no conditions. The matter was presented in that light that I knew minds would be confused, and would not receive the correct impression in reference to faith and works, and I decided to write to you. You state this matter too strongly. There are conditions to our receiving justification and sanctification, and the righteousness of Christ. I know your meaning, but you leave a wrong impression upon many minds. While good works will not save even one soul, yet it is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works. God saves us under a law, that we must ask if we would receive, seek if we would find, and knock if we would have the door opened unto us.

Christ offers Himself as willing to save unto the uttermost all who come unto Him. He invites all to come to Him. "Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out." You look in reality upon these subjects as I do, yet you make these subjects, through your expressions, confusing to minds. After you have expressed your mind radically in regard to works, when questions are asked you upon this very subject, [since] it is not [organized] in very clear lines in your own mind, you cannot define the correct principles to other minds, and you are yourself unable to make your statements harmonize with your own principles and faith. ...

Then when you say there are no conditions, and some expressions are made quite broad, you burden the minds, and some cannot see consistency in your expressions. They cannot see how they can harmonize these expressions with the plain statements of the Word of God. Please guard these points. These strong assertions in regard to works, never make our position any stronger, for there are many who will consider you an extremist, and will lose the rich lessons upon the very subjects they need to know. ...

My brother, it is hard for the mind to comprehend this point, and do not confuse any mind with ideas that will not harmonize with the Word. Please do consider that under the teaching of Christ many of the disciples were lamentably ignorant; but when the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised, came upon them and made the vacillating Peter the champion of faith, what a transformation in his character! But do not lay one pebble, for a soul that is weak in the faith to stumble over, in overwrought presentations or expressions. Be ever consistent, calm, deep, and solid. Do not go to any extreme in anything, but keep your feet on solid rock. 0 precious, precious Saviour. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me; and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him."

This is the true test - the doing of the words of Christ. And it is the evidence of the human agent's love to Jesus, and he that doeth His will giveth to the world the practical evidence of the fruit he manifests in obedience, in purity, and in holiness of character. -- Letter 4, 1893 (Emphasis mine)

BACKGROUND -- Elder Jack Sequeira, the author of Beyond Belief, was brought to the knowledge of the Advent Message by Elder R. J. Wieland during Wieland's minstry in Kenya. Thus Sequeira not only had as his tutor, in the doctrine of righteousness by faith, one of the two outstanding exponents of the teaching in Adventism today, but he himself has done considerable study and research in the area as is indicated in this book.

While Elder R. S. Folkenberg was still president of the Carolina Conference, at the suggestion of Elder Ben Wheeler, a minister in the conference, and a returned missionary from Africa, he invited Elder Jack Sequeira to give a series of studies at a campmeeting. It was in listening to these studies that Folkenberg says he was converted. Apparently, an excellent rapport developed between these two men. The end result, with Folkenberg now in the presidency of the General Conference, Sequeira has a wide range of influence. For a number of years, Sequeira was a featured speaker at the 1888 Message Conference and Seminars promoted by Wieland and Short in connection with the 1888 Message Study Committee. At present he is no longer doing so. The whys and wherefores of this change are not relevant to this critique.

This book has created a firestorm of opposition among the section of "independent" ministries headed by Spear and Standish; so much so, that Wieland and Short have found it necessary to defend the very message of 1888 itself. In a "Special Report" (Nov-Dec, 1993), five pages of questions and answers were given to the objections voiced by these men. One of the most telling answers to these charges is the documentation of the fact that Standish is teaching Roman Catholic doctrine in his concepts of righteousness by faith. Further, the l888

p 2 -- Message Study Committee has shown that both Spear and Standish suggest the disregarding of certain statements made by Paul in Romans. In other words, throw the Bible out, if "we, the brethren of experience," cannot understand it in regards to righteousness by faith. Well did Ellen White write about the "lamentably ignorant" persons Jones needed to take into consideration when presenting the message God gave in 1888. (See Letter to Jones) The situation has not changed today.

Dr. Colin Standish berates the book as "the most deceptive book put out in years." He said, "Books like Hot Potatoes are full of error which is readily apparent, but they are crude compared to this." He called it "Satan's masterpiece of deception," in his closing prayer. (October 8, 1993, Paradise, CA) From a telephone conversation yesterday (January 25), I learned that at a recent meeting at Hope International, Sequeira and his book were dissected at their "spiritual" feast.

In recent weeks, I have received numerous calls from the West Coast, and from the heartland asking what I thought of the book, Beyond Belief. I had not as yet read it. One friend who called asked if I had the book. To my negative response, he said he had an extra copy which he would send to me. He did for which I am grateful, and I have since read it with multiple color marking pens at hand.

The Book -- First, let me note that it will be impossible to cover all aspects of this book in this brief critique. From the reading of the book, there is clear evidence, that Elder Sequeira did a vast amount of study in preparing this book. Some of his insights into the Word are thought provoking. There is much thought to challenge the reader, and much to upset a surface reader. There are areas which I feel he has not thought through sufficiently so as to state his point clearly. Perhaps he does not at this juncture in his own experience know the full answer and how to relate the parts to the whole, as is the case with many of us. It also struck me that due to this fact, there appeared statements which an antagonist could use as contradictory. Certain key thoughts are left undeveloped which added study could enlarge.

Now, there is no question in my mind that this book does contain errors, but hardly as many errors as his accusers in their writings, and publications which I have read and tapes to which I have listened. To deny the basic concepts on imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness as given by Elder Sequeira in this book is to mark the whole of their "independent" ministries as a deception. If one does not have straight the gospel, and is teaching another gospel than that which Paul taught, he is under an anathema. (Gal. 1:8) Instead of cursing and condemning the book, it would be far better to take time and study carefully some of the advanced thoughts which Sequeira has introduced. If proved from the Bible to be error, then discard it; but if truth, then make the necessary adjustment in one's own thinking and teachings.

This brings us to the preface. Sequeira is very forthright. He tells the reader in advance - "This book presents the plan of salvation in a new light," and asks the reader "to put aside all preconceived ideas." (p. 7) If ever a group of so-called leaders needed to put aside all preconceived ideas, it is the very ones who are leading such a storm of opposition to this book. Ellen White clearly stated that "the truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light." (R&H March 25, 1890) The date of this counsel indicates that she had in mind the truth of 1888. Obviously, those opposed to this message today haven't even reached 1888 in their thinking, or experience. How then can they perceive anything beyond that point? This is really the subtle error in the hue and cry today to join the "Historic Adventist Movement." They are refusing to walk in the advancing light of truth.

The second major point in his preface declares - "I believe the Bible teaches that God actually and unconditionally saved all humanity at the cross so that we are justified and reconciled to God by that act." (p. 8) The word, "unconditionally," bothered me, as do some other words which he uses, such as "finished." (p. 30) It was at this point that my mind recalled the letter to A. T. Jones in Notebook Leaflets which we have quoted on page 1. "There are conditions ..." We must believe. This is declared to be "the work" which God requires. (John 6:29) Further, only to those who "receive" Jesus is the "authority" granted "to become the sons of God." (John 1:12) Scripturally, God made provision, without reservations on His part, in the gift of Jesus for the salvation of all who accept (receive) and believe. He gave His Son to the fallen race. Sequeira so teaches in the book  -    "To be experienced, this gift [of grace] must be received." (p. 56)       That is a condition! Is he as Jones not expressing himself clearly? This is the problem which I faced periodically in the book as

p 3 -- I read it. Does this negate the major thrust of the book? Hardly, for anyone wrestling with truth of divine origin knows the struggle to express that truth in adequate words to convey the thought accurately. The antagonists in their surface writing for surface readers cannot appreciate this point.

Now let us move to the heart and core of the firestorm - Romans 5. Romans 5:12 reads - "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."       Does this last clause mean that all have sinned as did Adam, or does it mean that all have sinned in Adam? The conclusion drawn has "important implications" as Sequeira admits. He draws the conclusion that "'all have sinned' in Adam" (p. 52). Then he lists among his reasons the following:

1)     "The only explanation for the fact that death is universal is that all sinned 'in Adam."' (Ibid.)      Death is universal not because of our sinning in Adam, but because we sin as a result of our inheritance from Adam of a fallen nature. There is a distinct difference. Adam sinned actively
not because he had a fallen nature and could not help himself. With that sin was guilt. Thus to
sin in Adam is to receive the transmission of the guilt of that original sin. However, every child
of Adam was born, even as was Seth, in the likeness and image of Adam. (Gen. 5:3) In this fallen nature, no one can keep from sinning, no matter how hard he himself may try. This is well stated:       "The result of eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist." (Education, p. 29)        Therefore, men sin, not "after the similitude of Adam's transgression," and death reigns universally.

2)     "Grammatically, the Greek verb sinned in verse 12 is in the aorist tense."      This is true; the Greek past tense is used. But it is also used in        Romans 3:23 - "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."             Is this saying likewise that all have sinned in Adam and come short of the glory of God? That is doubtful. Paul does not say per se even in Romans 5, that "by one man's disobedience, many die," but rather "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." (5: 19) As sinners, they die.

For all to sin in Adam means simply for one to come in man's fallen nature makes him a sinner without even sinning. Yet Sequeira does not believe this. (p. 42) He teaches in the book that Christ took upon Himself the fallen nature of Adam at the Incarnation. He insists -       "We must not teach that in Adam all humanity also inherits his guilt. This is the heresy of 'original sin' introduced by Augustine and adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. Guilt, in a legal sense, always includes personal volition or responsibility, and God does not hold us personally responsible for something in which we had no choice." (p. 54; emphasis his)

Does the fact that Sequeira errs in his interpretation of Romans 5:12 nullify his analysis of the Two Adams motif which is clearly taught in both Romans 5, and I Corinthians 15? Is it not true that "the death sentence pronounced on Adam when he sinned was the second death - eternal death"? Is it also not true that "it is this death - the second death - that has passed to all mankind 'in Adam"'? (ibid.) Paul plainly states that the first Adam "is the figure of Him to come." (Rom. 5:14) It is equally clear that not one of us contributed one iota to "the holy history of lesus Christ." He lived a victorious life. Have we not taught that when we accept Him as our Saviour, His life is accounted to us instead of our life of sin? We are freed from the "in Adam" state to enter the "in Christ" state. Does not the Bible teach "there is salvation in none other"? (Acts 4:12) Why do we then continue to believe that we must contribute something to our salvation?

Those who had the opportunity to become acquainted with Elders Wieland and Short when they came home at various times on furlough from the mission field, can testify to the fact that the presentation of the Cross was a key part of their message. I recall to this day, when pastoring the Adventist Church in Marion, Indiana, having Wieland as a guest speaker one Sabbath. He spoke on the cross as revealed in Matt. 16:13-25. I took careful notes, and prepared a sermon of my own from those notes. Elder Short also gave some deep insights of sin in relationship to the Cross at a conference several of us had at the time. He showed clearly that sin is the will to kill God. These concepts coupled with the (agape) love of God form a major portion of the book, Beyond Belief. When that love is perceived works follow, not for merit but in devotion.

There is a section in the book that requires more study, and perhaps even better elucidation. One chapter is captioned "Spirit, Soul, and Body." (pp. 143-154) In this chapter, Sequeira defines the "spirit" as the "component" formed by

p 4 -- God to be "His point of contact with us - His dwelling place in us." (p. 144) He prefaces this concept with John 4:24 - "God is a spirit." To conclude that it "was primarily this aspect of our being - the spirit - that He had in mind" when He made us in His likeness comes perilously close to the concept of a "spark of divinity" in man. This needs to be re-thought and re-phrased. The "spirit" could well refer to the individual "identity" by which through the soul the character is revealed. "Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator, - individuality, power to think and to do." (Education, p. 17) "God is spirit" is similar in grammatical force to "God is love." (I John 4:8) In contrast to the essence of God being "spirit," man is "flesh." "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." (I Cor. 12:50) That is why it was necessary for Christ to become one flesh with us that we might become one spirit with him. (See DA, p. 388) To have this accomplished, we must choose to be "in Christ" so that the Holy Spirit may be "in us" renewing our very "identity." "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation." (II Cor, 5:17 NKJV) This "new creation" is not of the flesh, but of the "spirit." (Eph. 4:23-24; Col. 3:10)

In this same chapter, Sequeira teaches that "we come into the world without the indwelling Spirit of God. ..." (p. 144) Then three pages beyond, he writes - "However, Christ was born of the Spirit from His very conception. So from the very beginning of His life on earth, Christ's mind, or soul, was under the full control of the Holy Spirit, who dwelt in His human spirit." (p. 147) This is nothing more than the same teaching that the "Holy Flesh" men of Indiana taught as their position on the Incarnation. I have often wondered how R. J. Wieland could attend that unity meeting at Hartland in 1986 and sit there and say nothing at the presentation by Thomas Davis on the Incarnation. This position of Sequeira casts some light on the question. Dr. Ralph Larson declined to attend because he did not want to clash publically with Davis who was presenting this same "holy flesh" teaching at the conference. Yet Sequeira writes emphatically, "Even God Himself, great as His power is, will not transform the flesh into something that is pleasing to Him." He does not believe in "holy flesh," for he says, "The flesh belongs to the realm of Satan, and God had condemned all that belongs to that realm to destruction." (p. 149)

Two chapters are devoted to "Law and Grace." (# 16 & # 17) Having emphasized through the first part of the book, the agape love of God, Sequeira seemed to have missed a cardinal point of his primary thrust in the whole book. If I have read him correctly, those "in Adam" are sinners continuing in sin, while those "in Christ are declared righteous (justified) and through cooperation with the Holy Spirit receive imparted righteousness (sanctification). If this is his position, why did he not in discussing the Law, note that the Law was not made for a righteous man, in other words one "in Christ," but rather for one "in Adam"? (I Tim. 1:9-11) This fact, Paul declared to be a part of "the glorious gospel of the blessed God," which had been committed to his trust. (v. 11) Then what law governs those "in Christ"? Jesus stated it plainly - "Thou shalt love (agapao) the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love (agapao) thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matt. 22:37-40) The same love which motivated God to provide "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," must be our response to Him and to one another. But who can love as He loved? Only as "the love (agape) of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us." (Rom. 5:5) Who, then can really keep the commandments? Only he who has surrendered his heart to the Holy Spirit. Away with that boasting which lifts the works of men to the status of merit. "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith." (Rom. 3:27) "God forbid that I should glory (Gr. boast - kauchasthai) save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." (Gal. 6:14)

There are several other points which could be discussed, such as, what cross am I to bear, His or my own? No man can bear His cross and accept the second death, as Christ did, and return. Jesus said, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me." (Matt. 16:24) Then on another point, am I crucified in Him, or with Him (KJV)? In the Greek text of Galatians 2:20, "Christ" is in the dative case, and the verb "crucified" is in the perfect passive tense, which denotes the present state resultant from past action. Then whose action?

Other issues in the book could be discussed, for example, the question of the "church" and the conflicting concepts of Paul and James. There are areas introduced in Beyond Belief which needs to be studied much more thoroughly.

p 5 -- SEQUEIRA WRITES: -- "Scripture teaches that Christ actually did assume our condemned sinful nature as we know it. But He totally defeated ' the law of sin and death' that resided in that sinful human nature and then executed it on the cross. Had Christ consented, even by a thought, to the sinful desires of that nature which He assumed, then He would have become a sinner in need of a saviour Himself. That is why, in dealing with the human nature of Christ, we must be exceedingly careful not to drag His mind or His choice into sin or to say that He 'had' a sinful nature." (p. 44)

What is wrong with this? -- "Before the Fall, Adam surely knew nothing about the first death. Therefore, the death sentence pronounced on Adam when he sinned was the second death - eternal death. It was goodbye to life forever. Had there been no 'lamb slain from the foundation of the world.' Adam would have forfeited his life forever the day he sinned, and mankind would have died eternally in him. It is this death - the second death - that has passed to all mankind ' in Adam.' In Adam the whole human race belongs legally on death row. It is only in Christ that we can pass from eternal death to eternal life." (p. 54)

What is wrong with this? -- "All of us by creation are ' in Adam.' This is the hopeless situation we inherit by birth into the human race. Hence we are ' by nature the children of wrath.' But the good news is that God has given us a new identity and history ' in Christ.' This is His supreme gift to humanity. Our position ' in Adam' is by birth. Our position ' in Christ' is by faith. What God has done for the whole human race in Christ is given as a ' free gift,' something we do not deserve. That is why the gift is referred to as grace or unmerited favor. To be experienced, this gift must be received, and it is made effective by faith alone." (p. 56)

What is wrong with this? -- "According to I Corinthians 15:21-23, 45-49, there have been only two heads of the human race - Adam and Christ, who is the ' last Adam'. The destiny of the entire human race rests upon these two. Adam is the prototype of unredeemed humanity; Christ is the prototype of those who are ' in Him,' and what is true of Christ is true also of those who are ' in Him.' Adam's situation after the Fall is the situation of all the unredeemed. That which Christ realized for all mankind will be the situation of the redeemed. 'As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."' (p. 60)

What is wrong with this? -- "At the cross, Satan was given full control of Christ to do with Him as he pleased. Satan's hidden desire, cherished in secret so long, could come into the open in no other way. Now the entire universe would be able to see what sin really is and what it will end up doing if it has the opportunity. Sin is rebellion against God and His law of self-sacrificing love. If allowed to have its own way, sin will actually murder God in its hatred of Him." (p. 69)

What is wrong with this? -- "Christ's death on the cross was 'unto sin.' This simply means that as our substitute and representative He experienced on the cross the 'second death,' the eternal death that the Bible describes as 'the wages of sin.' As Hebrews 2:9 puts it, He 'by the grace of God should taste death for every man.'

The Scripture promises that those who have accepted by faith their position in Christ, and who will be raised in the first resurrection, will escape the second death....Why do these avoid the second death? It is because Christ, their Sin Bearer, has already 'tasted' the second death for them. On the cross, Christ actually experienced the second death on behalf of fallen humanity. It was this that constituted the supreme sacrifice." (p. 75)

What is wrong with this? -- "Under no circumstances will God enter into partnership with the flesh (our concern for self). The flesh belongs to Satan, and therefore must be crucified. When we give up all confidence in the flesh and live by faith alone, then God can produce godliness - genuine righteousness - in us. And He will do so. God did not give us His only-begotten Son so that we could copy Him, but that we could receive Him.

"Our lives will become pleasing to God only if we completely surrender ourselves to Him who so loved us and gave Himself for us. God is not looking at us to see how good we are or how hard we are trying to keep His law. There is only one thing that God looks for in each of us

p 6 -- · how much of His Son Jesus does He see in us?" (pp. 97-98)     

[" We are not to be anxious about what Christ and God think about us, but about what God thinks of Christ, our Substitute. Ye are accepted in the Beloved. The Lord shows, to the repenting, believing one, that Christ accepts the surrender of the soul, to be molded and fashioned after His likeness." SM, bk ii, pp. 32-33]

What is wrong with this? -- "When a person accepts the gospel and is united by faith to Christ, immediately all that Christ has prepared and provided as humanity's substitute is made effective for that person. The history of Christ now becomes lawfully the history of the believer because he is in Christ by faith. God looks at such a person as being perfect in obedience, justice, and nature, since all three were obtained for him in the holy history of Christ.

"Such a person is no longer under condemnation; he has passed from death to life. God looks at the justified believer as if he has met all the demands necessary to qualify for heaven and eternal life. Justification, then, is the work of a moment - a heart response to what Christ has already accomplished.

"Sanctification, by contrast, is an hourly, daily experience that continues throughout the lifetime of the believer who continues to walk by faith. The gospel not only freely gives us the righteousness of Christ in order to deliver us from the condemnation of the law; it gives us the righteousness of Christ as a personal experience so that we can reflect His character.

"Anyone, therefore, who stops with justification and makes it the entire gospel experience has received only half of the good news. God did not send His Son merely to legally deliver us from sin so that He could declare us righteous. He sent His Son in order to also set us free from sin and restore His image in us. This work of restoration includes sanctification, and it, too, is part and parcel of the good news of the gospel." (p. 102; emphasis his)

What is wrong with this? -- Note: These are selections from only 102 pages of the 188 page book.

LET'S TALK IT OVER -- Just as I was contemplating whether to add to this first "extra" issue of WWN for 1994, an editorial comment, the telephone rang. When I picked up the receiver, the voice said, "Have you read that book yet?" I replied in the affirmative and told him that I had just finished a critique of the same, but I wasn't sure he would be happy with what I had written. "Oh," he said, "you agreed with some of what was written." I added, "And disagreed with some." His response - "I was talking to Kenneth Wood the other day, and he took the same position, some of it good, some of it not so good." The conversation quickly ended. I was a bit amused because I never thought I would find myself in the same corner with Kenneth Wood, at least not in this life.

Shouldn't a book be either all good, and if not, isn't it too bad to be read? I, for one, have inveighed in times past against a number of books and articles which are modern day trees of the knowledge of good and evil. I will no doubt do so again in the future. But why make an exception to this book? For at least two reasons, one being, that the message of 1888 is so desperately needed in all of its fullness, that something needs to jar the concerned people of God in order to get them to study their Bibles so they can understand just what is involved in "the hope of righteousness by faith." (Gal. 5:5) The book, Beyond Belief, is Bible-based, and our answers should show plainly from that Word wherein Sequeira has erred.

Another reason is the caliber of those who are opposing so vehemently this book. These men are going up and down the country fanning their egos, and bragging about the number of "deep pockets" they are getting their hands into, yet know little of what righteousness by faith is. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. One of these "voices" speaks on John 3 about the night conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. He states that no one can be born of the Spirit, unless he is keeping the commandments of God, citing, out of context, Acts 5:32. This is a form of Roman Catholic teaching. Who wants to be identified with such teaching and/or teachers? So if Sequeira's book is a mixed theology, do two wrongs make one right? What we need is the genuine article - the righteousness of Christ, which is pure unadulterated truth. Hopefully, the discussion that is being aroused over Beyond Belief will cause sincere hearts to study to see

p 7 -- what is truth. But so long as we look to man, and expect much from man, we will not realize this objective.

In this morning's mail, I received a letter written to Elder Wieland by a man with questionable literary ethics. In this letter he cites the communication Ellen White sent to A. T. Jones which we quote in part in this special issue of WWN. He emphasized the fact that Ellen White told Jones that there were conditions to salvation quoting from a section which we omitted due to space. We had already quoted that counsel, and saw no reason to repeat the same. However, this antagonist sought to portray a gulf between Ellen White and A. T. Jones on the subject of righteousness by faith. He garbled what Ellen White said - "You look in reality upon these subjects as I do." This misuse of the prophetic gift is appalling. I would hope that this controversy would cause those sincerely wanting the truth to either study for themselves, or in small groups, from the Bible just what God has done in Jesus Christ, and in turn, by faith, will do in us.

In gleaning an overall picture of the book, Beyond Belief, I sensed that had Sequeira presented more of the sanctuary truth especially in the light of the ministry of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, his case concerning the fact that we can contribute nothing to that which Christ has already obtained and is now obtaining for us, would have been strengthened. Ours is to humble ourselves before Him, and cease to trust in our own works, lest we be cut off.

On the other side, there has been added by Elder R. J. Wieland to the 1888 messages of Jones and Waggoner much which was not in the original presentations. This has both plus and minus points. Minus if that which has been added detracts from the message, and plus if that which has been studied is an on-going revelation of truth. I fear there is some of both in the present 1888 Message Study Committee's outreach.

This is a time for study, and not a time to cheer for our particular "man" in the arena of public discussion and debate. Let us at least in this present conflict learn one lesson from the 1888 Message - "Cease ye from man whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?" (Isa. 2:22) --- (1994 Special -- Part 1 -- A CRITIQE of JACK SEQUERA'S BOOK "BEYOND BELIEF") --- End --- TOP

1994 Special -- Part 2 -- FINAL RAPID MOVEMENTS -- In the 1992 July issue of WWN, we wrote:      "What is interesting is that 13 years elapsed between 1967 and 1980 when the transfer of the government from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was finalized and the declaration was made that Jerusalem united was the capital of Israel. If - and note, I write, ' if' - God is using the same cycle of time for the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 11:45 in relationship to the completion in Luke 21:24, then we stand indeed on the very borders of the close of all human probation. For when an 'alien' power plants ' the tabernacles of his palace in the glorious holy mountain,' Michael stands up. (Dan. 12:1)" (p. 7)

Thirteen years from 1980 brings one to 1993. As the year passed, the only major activity between Israel and the Vatican, was the news that an exchange of diplomatic recognition between the two governments was in the offing. An accord was finally signed as the year ended. Given little publicity was the revelation in an Italian newspaper, La Stampa, three days before Rabin and Arafat met in Washington to sign the Declaration of Principles, of a plan which called "for the extra-territoriality of the Old City and the airport at Atarot, which would become a world-wide meeting center."

The "Vaticanization Plan" offers "the sovereignty of Jerusalem's Old City to the Vatican. Jerusalem is to stay the capital of Israel but, the Old City will be administered by the Vatican." Other parts of the plan claim "Jerusalem is to become the second Vatican of the world with all three major religions represented under the authority of the Vatican."

The above data is summarized in an editorial appearing in The Jewish Press, September 2, 1994. (See article p. 2, "The Selling of Jerusalem")

The design of the Vatican for Jerusalem has been known for some time. One month before the Knesset passed a Basic Law making Jerusalem the captial of all Israel, the Vatican placed a letter before the President of the Security Council of the UN and asked that it be circulated as a document of that Council. This document - S/ 14032 - called for a "corpus separatum" for Jerusalem and the surrounding area, in other words, a "territorial internationalization" of the city. The Vaticanization Plan prepared by Peres incorporates this concept.

In 1984, as the Catholic Jubilee Year of Redemption was closing, Pope John Paul II issued an Apostolic Letter, "Redemptionis Anno," which focused on his desire for Jerusalem. He wrote:      
"Jerusalem stands out as a symbol of coming together, of union, and of universal peace for the human family."

Speaking of the peace he envisioned, he continued:      "I think of and long for the day on which we all shall be so ' taught of God' (John 6:45) that we shall listen to his message of peace and reconciliation. I think of the day on which Jews, Christians and Muslims will greet each other in the city of Jerusalem with the same greeting of peace with which Christ greeted the disciples after the resurrection: ' Peace be with you.' (John 20:19)"

The Pope closed his letter with a very significant comment about this peace:      "This peace proclaimed by Jesus Christ in the name of the Father who is in heaven thus makes Jerusalem the living sign of the great ideal of unity, of brotherhood and of agreement among peoples according to the illuminating words of the Book of Isaiah: ' Many peoples shall come and say: 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths' (Isa. 2:3)."

The objective of the Pope for Jerusalem, "as a symbol of coming together, of union," making Jerusalem "the living sign of the great ideal of unity, of brotherhood and of agreement among peoples," is echoed in the Peres Plan calling for "the Old City and the airport at Atarot" to become a "world-wide meeting center."

However, in the choice of Isaiah 2:3 to express his objective, the Pope cited a prophecy that needs careful consideration in the light of developing events. Satan is to appear as Christ, and what better place to make his appearance than Jerusalem to claim "the throne of his father David." All "three" great monotheistic religions envisioned in this union would accept him as Christ. Out of Jerusalem would "go forth the law." But "the Law" has already gone forth from Mt. Sinai. What then would be proclaimed?

p 2 -- The Selling of Jerusalem -- When PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat spoke in Johannesburg, some time ago, he inadvertently revealed the existence of a letter sent from Foreign Minister Peres to the Norwegian Foreign Minister. That letter was sent in October of 1993. It committed Israel to respect the PLO governing institutions in Jerusalem.

When Peres was asked about that letter, he flatly denied its existence. In fact, Police Minister Moshe Shachal, who was asked by the Knesset if such a letter existed, flatly denied the charge. Then he literally went off the wall when he later found out that such a letter actually existed.

When Peres was pressed for a confirmation or denial, he declared, "If you are insinuating that we would ever divide Jerusalem, then that's an ugly slander!"

Adding insult to injury, it has further been claimed that Peres also sent a letter to Pope John Paul II. In that letter it is alleged that Peres outlined his plans for changing Jerusalem. According to Mark Halter, a close friend of Peres, who was the one who delivered the letter to the Pope, "Peres offered to hand over sovereignty of Jerusalem's Old City to the Vatican. Jerusalem is to stay the capital of Israel but, the Old City will be administered by the Vatican."

Halter further explained, "According to the letter, the city would have an Israeli mayor and a Palestinian mayor both under the control of the Vatican." Halter claimed the program was originally submitted to the Vatican by Peres two years ago, just before the Oslo talks began.

The PLO was shown the Vaticanization Plan just before the signing of the Declaration of Principles. At that time Arafat agreed not to oppose the plan. Arafat had also consulted a number of influential Palestinians who were delighted with the plan.

The plan called for the extra-territoriality of the Old City and the airport at Atarot, which would become a world-wide meeting center. The Italian newspaper La Stampa on September 10, 1993, published the plan, three days before Rabin met Arafat in Washington. After the Italian newspaper published the story, Peres ordered the Foreign Ministry workers to deny that such a program existed. Today, we are told, Foreign Ministry employees are not issuing denials and are privately confirming the existence of such a plan.

Further details of the plan claim Jerusalem is to become the second Vatican of the World with all three major religions represented under the authority of the Vatican. A Palestinian state is to emerge in confederation with Jordan. Its religious capital is to be Jerusalem but its administrative capital would be situated elsewhere, possibly Nablus.

A member of the Foreign Ministry claims the plan is a good one because Israel's ties to the Catholic world will lead to trade, tourism and prosperity. Further Peres believes with a strong governing authority, future disputes between Arabs and Israelis will be easily resolved.

Despite all this information that has been made public, the Israeli government continues to deny that the future of Jerusalem is being negotiated.

Editorial
Jewish Press, Sept. 2, 1994
Via Fax

" While all the world is plunged in darkness
there will be light in every dwelling of the saints.
They will catch the first light of His second appearing. "
(COL, pp. 420-21)

p 3 -- JOHN PAUL II and ARAFAT -- According to the Editorial in The Jewish Press, Arafat was shown the Vaticanization Plan for Jerusalem just before signing the Declaration of Principles. He agreed not to oppose the plan and shared the information with a number of influential Palestinians who were in turn delighted with it. There are reasons for Arafat's cooperation with this plan.

Following a private meeting which Arafat had with Pope John Paul II, now more than a decade ago, he told the Pope the time would come when he would accompany the pope into Jerusalem and the pope "would receive a Palestinian welcome even equal to the one that he had received in Poland in 1979." Since that time "John Paul has maintained his personal links with Yasser Arafat." He "sees Arafat assuming the role of elder statesman in the Middle East affairs." The Holy See has favored a plan for the creation of "a homeland for the PL0" in connection with Jordan involving the West Bank and Gaza. This has been a factor which has delayed Vatican recognition of Israel and the establishment of diplomatic ties. The present peace process plus the Peres plan for Jerusalem has removed this factor.

The expectation of Arafat playing the role of "elder statesman" in Middle East affairs was prefaced with the condition - "provided he physically survives." The Vatican has been instrumental in seeing that Arafat has so survived. When Assad of Syria decided to remove Arafat from the Middle East cockpit, and bottled him up in the Lebanese port of Tripoli, it was papal intervention which saved his life. The papacy requested the Greek government "to make available five transport ships," and "helped persuade the French government to provide a naval armada." When the Israeli government brought in gunboats to shell Tripoli and prevent Arafat's escape, President Reagan was approached to enter the picture. He did, and Israel withdrew its gunboats thus permitting Arafat to be evacuated to Tunesia.

Revealing the covert diplomatic maneuvering which the Vatican had engaged in during 1983 in behalf of the PLO, L'Osservatore Romano (Dec. 22, 1983) published with the full approval of John Paul a commentary in which Arafat was lauded "as an able and open-minded politician" even though admitting that he left Tripoli "with a new humiliation." Arafat has little choice but to accept the plan. The Vatican is orchestrating the whole Middle East peace process with its own personal objectives for Jerusalem as the chief priority. Behind the moves of the papacy is the inspiration of the one who designs to "sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north." (Isa. 14:13)

(All direct quotes and the source for the data in the above article are from The Year of Armageddon published by Granada Ltd., London, 1984)

"INTO A PLACE CALLED ..." -- Not only does John Paul II envision Jerusalem as "a symbol of coming together, of union, and of universal peace for the human family," the Peres' Vaticanization Plan for Jerusalem envisions "the Old City and the airport at Atarot" as "a world-wide meeting center." The revelation which God gave to Jesus to give unto "His servants" unveils the sinister workings behind the present diplomatic maneuvering in the Middle East. The "spirits of devils" are gathering "the kings of the earth and of the whole world ... to the battle of that great day of God Almighty." These spirits gather them together "into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon." (Rev. 16:14, 16)

To place these verses in their proper setting so as to understand their import, one must carefully note the structure of Revelation 16. In the outline of the Seven Last Plagues, in every case, there is a reason given for the plague. This reason is based on what man did in probationary time with only one exception, the cause for the third plague. For example, the first plague is to be "a noisome and grievous sore" upon men who worshiped the image of the beast and received his mark. This mark was received during probationary time. (16:2)

The sixth plague is "upon the great river Euphrates." (16:12) The why is given in verses 13-14, 16. These verses will be fulfilled in probationary time. In The Great Controversy, verses 13 & 14 are represented as being fulfilled "in the last remnant of time." (See pp. 561-562) Verse 16 which defines the place of the gathering coincides with the intent of Lucifer as revealed in Isaiah 14:13. In analyzing the word, Har-Magedon, the actual transliteration from the Greek, one must then find the corresponding designation in the Hebrew. This is Har-Mo'ed, "mount of the congregation," the same as is used

p 4 -- in Isaiah 14:13 in noting Lucifer's objectives. The new "tower of Babel" instead of being erected on the plain in the land of Shinar is now to be erected on "the mount of the congregation" and is prophetically defined as "Babylon the great," the last attempt by man for universal unity.
In our continued blind attempt to structure the end-time events according to traditional perceptions, we have failed to note the new Roman Catholic approach. True Rome never changes her objectives, but she does alter her policy in attaining those objectives. We have not given due consideration to what Archbishop Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity stated at a press conference in connection with the Seventh Assembly of the WCC in Canberra in 1991. He spoke of        "the diversity that one would look for in eventual unity of the Churches."         He said,        "We are not working towards uniformity among the Churches of the world. We are working towards the unity in faith and in communion." (The Catholic Leader, Feb. 24, 1991, p. 3; emphasis his).

The "communion" aspect for unity involves the eucharist. Cassidy judged that sharing the eucharist is the "ultimate sign and seal" of church unity. (EPS 91.02.74) The "faith" aspect involves the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 in regard to the Trinity. This objective is being spearheaded by the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC. The moderator of this Apostolic Faith Steering Group is Jean-Marie Tillard O.P., cleric of the Roman Church. The goal is visible church unity. On the last day of the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order held in Santiago de Compostela, Spain, Tillard in his address suggested, without giving a date, that consideration be given to        "a gathering of all the major leaders in the churches - perhaps in Jerusalem - simply to sing the creed together. That would be a wonderful expression of the degree of unity already present and its origin," he concluded. (One World, October. 1993, p. 15)

Add to this two Roman Catholic concepts and one can see the focus of the present movement among nations:    1)     "While John Paul plays a more direct role in Vatican diplomacy than any of his recent predecessors, Holy See initiatives remain part of a system established over 400 years ago. Then as now, papal politics embody the truism that Church and State can never be entirely separate, in the sense that either side wishes to or can ignore the other." (The Year of Armageddon, p. 5)        And    2)     John Paul II        "insists that men have no reliable hope of creating a viable geopolitical system unless it is on the basis of Roman Catholic Christianity." (Keys of this Blood, p.492)

(Those desirous of seeing the linguistics behind the relationship between "Har-Magedon" and "Mount of the Congregation" (Har-Mo'ed) may send to the Foundation office for a copy. Please include a self-addressed stamped envelope and $1.00 for postage.)

DANIEL 11:45 -- Into this picture enters the prophecy of Daniel 11:45. The importance of understanding the meaning of this prophecy is the fact that when this verse is fulfilled in either one of its two parts or both:    1)     the planting of "the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain," and/or    2)     his coming "to his end" and none helping, Michael stands up. (Dan. 12:1) All human probation closes.

In the past several decades Daniel 11:45 has been interpreted as a symbolic prophecy by some and by others as a literal prophecy with varied interpretations regarding who is the "he," and speculation as to whom the kings of the north and south might refer. Uriah Smith in his monumental work - Thoughts on the Prophecies of Daniel - introduces Daniel 11 by noting: -"We now enter upon a prophecy of future events, clothed not in figures and symbols, as in the visions of chapters 2, 7, and 8, but mostly given in plain language." (p. 222, 1897 edition; emphasis supplied)

In regard to the kings of the north and the south, Smith states a very vital principle of interpretation:       "Whatever changes might occur [in time due to wars and revolutions], the first divisions of the empire must determine the names which these portions of territory should ever afterward bear, or we have no standard by which to test the application of the prophecy; that is, whatever power at any time should occupy the territory which at first constituted the kingdom of the north, that power, so long as it occupied that territory, would be the king of the north; and whatever power should occupy that which at first constituted the kingdom of the south, that power would be the king of the south." (ibid., pp. 224-225; emphasis his)

p 5 -- Using this principle today, the powers resident in both territories of what were once the kings of the north and the south are Islamic.

For a detailed and documented identification of the "he" with "the king" of Daniel 11:36, we suggest a research article on these verses in The Ministry, March, 1954, pp. 22-27. Copies of this article may be obtained from the Foundation office. ($1.00 postpaid)

OUR POSITION -- In the lightning Seven-Day War of 1967, the Israeli armies recaptured Jerusalem. When we awakened to the significance of this event, we recognized that before our very eyes, a prophecy of Jesus recorded in Luke 21:24 had been fulfilled as verily as our spiritual forefathers saw the fulfillment of the other prophecies which Jesus gave in the same prophetic discourse such as the Dark Day, and the Falling of the Stars. (Matt. 24:29)

We recognized that the word translated, "Gentiles," can also be translated, "nations." This prophecy clearly indicated that the probationary "times of the nations," as corporate bodies, were being closed. We perceived also that "church" organizations were considered as "nations" in the Scriptures. (See Isa. 26:2; Eph. 2:12-13). This fact gave significance to the prophecy in Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 8, p. 247.

In 1980 when Israel moved its capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and declared that a Jerusalem united was the capital of Israel, we saw the complete fulfillment of this prophecy of Jesus.

With this evidence, we were left with only one conclusion. The nations of earth had been given into the hands of Satan to work his designs to muster of the "kings of earth" to a place called in the Hebrew, Har-Magedon. In the decade that has followed 1980, there has been seen the collapse of the Russian Communistic Empire, leaving only one remaining super power, and a papacy intent on not only world religious leadership, but also political dominance as well. The final last prophecies concerning the objectives of the papacy as given to Daniel (11:45) are on the verge of fulfillment as ravealed in the plans for the future status of Jerusalem. Indeed the curtain is about to be lifted, and the rapid movements of the end-time consummated. --- (1994 Special -- Part 2 -- FINAL RAPID MOVEMENTS) --- End --- TOP        2002