WWN 1992 Apr - Jun

1992 Apr -- XXV -- 4(92) -- THE "NEW" LAYWORKER -- Wherein does it differ from the "OLD"? -- The first issue of the Protestant Layworker under the direct editorship of Elder David L. Bauer has now been published. It had been anticipated for several months since the interim issue had been published in March. Invariably, when in the field, questions were asked, "Do you know what has happened to the Layworker?" - "When do you think Bauer will get the first issue out?" I had no inside information, except that the content would not reflect the same objective that dominated the Rue editorial policy. Now that the first issue is a matter of public record, evaluation and cornment are in order.

One of the highlights of this first issue was the revelation of the fact that Jon Vannoy is to be the associate editor. His return to the arena of public discussion of the current issues in the Church is, I am sure, welcomed by many. In my contacts with him, I always found him to be concise, to the point, forthright, and honest. You knew where he stood, and even if you might differ with him in some details, you could cornmunicate with him in a profitable give-and-take manner.

It is to be remembered that some fifteen years ago, Vannoy and Dr. Kirby Clendenon as young men conceived and executed the first "Silver Lake" campmeeting. Their vision was so full of promise and hope for the people of God who were concerned over the growing apostasy in the Church. However, it was thwarted through false and ill-advised counsel on organization which permitted fanatics and extremists to "enter in among" the group "not sparing the flock." These cared little for the vision of these young men, seeing only an opportunity to have an audience before which to air their "hobby horses." But the supreme tragedy has been the spiritual loss that followed in the wake of this disaster.

One can only understand the change being made in the editorial policy of the "new" Layworker by noting carefully what was written in the interim issue called the "Special Issue, March, 1991." Under the editorial guidance of Mr. Robert Nelson, president of the board of directors of the Rue Publications, this March, 1991

p 2 -- issue presented side-by-side what Dr. Rue's editorial policy was, and what Bauer's was to be. Selections of Rue's "Favorite Quotes" and a series of quotations from the Layworker from 1971 through 1989 were printed. These quotations were prefaced by a note which read:       This selection was made with the intent to highlight Dr. Rue's long concern for the Layworker function in bringing alternate views to the Seventh-day Adventist Community. (p. 3)

The one selection which best summarizes Dr. Rue's viewpoint was from the July 20, 1988 issue. It read in part:        The Layworker is for the lay people of the church. We hope that it inspires a studious attitude. One reason we print variable views, which to some seem heretical, is to stimulate the readers to think and study and pray for light and guidance. (pp 3, 7)

I do not doubt Dr. Rue's sincerity of purpose, but as in the case of the "Silver Lake" vision of the young men, many perceived of the Layworker as a place to get their name into print and an opportunity to air their wild interpretations of the Bible and the Writings. The end of a sincere objective was confusion.

In the same interim issue, Elder Bauer wrote quoting from the Review (January 19, 1905), "We are to proclaim the message that in 1843 and 1844 brought us out of the other churches." Then he set forth his editorial policy for the "new" Layworker:       We hear considerable about the New Light! But it is the firm conviction of the new editor of the Protestant Layworker that, as stated in the quotation above, "God is not giving us a new message." (p. 4)

The "new" Layworker will not be an open-ended sounding board for any and every new interpretation blowing through the corridors of Adventism as previously, but there will be control exercised over what is printed in the Protestant Layworker. lt appears each issue wll deal chiefly with the message of 1843 and 1844 as the message relates to the present crisis.

In reading through Vol. 1, No. 2 of the Protestant Layworker, I did not find defined for the reader the real purpose in the selection of the name, "Protestant." There can be no question but that the term, Protestant, carries specific connotations. It means for one thing, "ecclesia reformata, sempter reformanda" (the church reformed always undergoing reformation). Further, it is the very essence of Protestantism - "the Bible, and the Bible only" - which separates it from Romanism, and thus places it in the pathway of truth. (GC, p. 448) There was not much evidence of either the meaning, nor the essence of Protestantism to be found in the first issue. Two main articles dominated the issue. The one by David Lin on the Battle of Armageddon, though accurate in conclusion - "We see that the nature of the 'battle of that great day ' is clearly spiritual" - did not conform to the essence of Protestantism. Further, while David Lin's article presented the "new" view of Armageddon, the article on "The Daily" conformed to the "old" view.

Bauer's "confession" was an exception and followed the essence of Protestantism - "the Bible, and the Bible only." For this he is to be commended. What Bauer wrote in "Confession" (p.1) should be carefully studied. He accurately analyzed the symbolism of Revelation 17. (The "woman" - Babylon the GREAT - could include a world-wide ecumenical movement headed by the Papacy since the "spirits of devils" come from the dragon, beast and false prophet.) His assessment of "socialism" in future issues should be considered in the light of the recent Papal encyclical, Centesimus Annus, commemorating the l00th year of Roman Catholic social justice as set forth by Leo XIII in his, Rerum Novarum.

The choice of Bauer to make the issue of "The Daily" his main thrust in the first issue, solely under his editorship, conforms to the policy he announced in the interim issue - a topic dating from the 1843-1844 era. This is hardly "Protestantism." Protestantism in an on-going experience in doctrinal perceptions as well as in spiritual growth and understanding. Ellen G. White in writing of the Pligrim Fathers stated:        When first constrained to separate from the English Church, the Puritans had joined themselves together by a solemn covenant, as the Lord's free people, "to walk together in all His ways made known or to be made known to them." Here is the true spirit of reform, the vital principle of Protestantism. (GC, p. 291)

Then she continued by quoting at length from John Robinson's farewell address to the Pilgrims as they were about to embark for the New World. Three paragraphs are gathered from different historical sources. The last one reads in part:         Remember your promise and covenant with God and with one another, to receive whatever

p 3 -- light and truth shall be made known to you from His written word; but withal, take heed, beseech you, what you receive for truth, and compare it and weigh it with other scriptures of truth before you accept it; for it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such antichristian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once. (ibid., p.292)

While Bauer suggested in his stated purpose for the "new" Layworker that "all true new light will not do away with, nor change our original message," and in this he somewhat echoed the caution of John Robinson; nevertheless, by his choice of "The Daily" - making it a part of the 1843-1844 message - and failing to see that new perceptions of "The Daily" are needed to clear up some of the faulty understandings of the pioneers, he placed a question mark on his publication as to whether it is truly Protestant. This error of judgment in using "The Daily" as his take off subject was due to his acceptance of Robert J. Wieland's questionable assessment of the doctrine's effect on Jones, Waggoner and others. (Vol. 1, No. 2, "An Explanation")

The second problem was Bauer's failure to study all that Ellen G. White wrote or said in regard to "The Daily." The reproduced article sets forth the statement made by Ellen G. White in Early Writings (pp. 74-75) as a "preface" to the author's outlining of the subject. But Ellen White also wrote - "I now [1910] ask that my ministering brethren shall not use my writings in their arguments regarding this question [the "daily"]; for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy." (Selected Messages, bk i, p. 164) On another occasion, Elder A. G. Daniells reported that Ellen G. White told him - "I do not know what that 'daily ' is, whether it is paganism or Christ's ministry." (Spectrum, Vol. 10, #l, p. 35) This leaves no other alternative, except the essence of Protestantism - "the Bible, and the Bible only" - which should be the very basis of the discussion if the "new" Layworker is to be the Protestant Layworker.

We need not delve into all the linguistics involved. This has been done before in previous studies that have appeared in WWN. (XXIII-1(90) and XVIII-8) A simple analysis of what is in the prophecy of Daniel, and an honest valuation of the teachings of Jesus should be sufficient.

There is a close parallel between the line prophecies of Daniel 7 & 8. While Daniel 8 begins with Medo-Persia, and enlarges aspects of the Grecian kingdom, the general succession is Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. In Daniel 7, the "little horn" or the Papacy is pictured as arising in the head of the non-descript beast, and is never separated from it! It ever receives its nourishment from that beast. When "judgment" is rendered on behalf of the "saints" against that horn, the prophetic symbolism is that the "beast" is given to the "burning flame." (7:21-22, 26, 11) The same is also true in Daniel 8. The "little horn" is both paganism and papalism. This "little horn" is "the abomination of desolation." This power is in opposition to what is pictured as "the daily." (8:9-12) Daniel 7 describes what the non-descript beast - pagan Rome - would do. Having "great iron teeth, it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it." (7:7) Nowhere is "the daily" described as doing anything of this nature. How then can it be paganism?

Turning to the words of Jesus, we find that He told the disciples on the Mount of Olives:      When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) (Matt. 24:15)

Now all of us know from history that the forces which surrounded Jerusalem were the legions of Pagan Rome. Jesus did not say, "When ye see the daily spoken of by Daniel the prophet, then flee the City." He said "the abomination of desolation," thus confirming the symbolism of Daniel 8, that the "little horn" is both pagan and papal Rome. The "daily" is something else; it is not paganism. It would be well to study A. T. Jones' Biblical discussion of the question. (See p. 5) It is not Jones who went astray but Wieland who has not kept pace with advancing light. After all, to be a Protestant means simply as Ellen White herself recommended, to take "the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrine." (GC, p. 595) We seriously recommend this excellent counsel to the editors of the "new" Protestant Layworker. May every future issue reflect this commitment - "the true spirit of reform, the vital principle of Protestantism." (GC, p. 291)

" In order to receive new light there must be an open mind.
Private preconceived opinions or prejudice
must not cloud the perception. "
Rue, Layworker, Oct. 15, 1989

p 4 -- ARE YOU A PROTESTANT? -- "By the 'religion of Protestants,' I do not understand the doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melanchthon, or the Confession of Augsburg or Geneva, or the Catechism of Heidelberg, or the Articles of the Church of England, no, nor the harmony of Protestant confessions, but that wherein they all agree, and to which they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of their faith and actions; that is, the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants! Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion, but as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. I for my part, after a long and (as I verily believe and hope) impartial search of 'the true way to eternal happiness,' do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only."   Works of William Chillinworth, Vol. II, pp. 409 - 411; Quoted in Source Book, p. 427 (1940 edition)

ARE YOU ROMAN CATHOLIC? -- "Like two sacred streams flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God, the precious gems of revealed truth. "Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, TRADITION is to us more clear and safe."   Joseph Faa Di Bruno, Catholic Belief, p. 45

STATEMENTS FROM THE GREAT CONTROVERSY-- With the exception of one, the following statements are taken from the chapter, "The Scriptures a Safeguard."

So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true, that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures. (p. 593)
None but those who have fortified the mind with the truths of the Bible will stand through the last great conflict. (pp. 593-594)
The apostle Paul declared, looking down to the last days, "The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine." That time has fully come. ...
But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. (pp. 594-595)
lt is the first and highest duty of every rational being to learn from the Scriptures what is truth, and then walk in the light, and encourage others to follow his example. We should day by day study the Bible diligently, weighing every thought, and comparing scripture with scripture. (p. 598)
An understanding of Bible truth depends not so much on the power of intellect brought to the search as on the singleness of purpose, the earnest longing after righteousness. (p. 599)
We need to humble ourselves before the Lord, with fasting and prayer, and to meditate much upon His word, especially upon the scenes of the judgment. (p. 501)
When the testing time shall come, those who have made God's word their rule of life will be revealed. (p. 682)
Are the people of God now so firmly established upon His word that they would not yield to the evidence of their senses? Would they, in such a crisis, cling to the Bible, and the Bible only? (p. 625)

p 5 -- A. T. JONES on "THE DAILY" -- In Daniel 8 the expression "little horn" covers the whole of Rome in both its phases, just as is shown in the closing expressions concerning the "little horn" in Daniel 7; as it is shown also by the expressions "the abomination of desolation" and "the transgression of desolation," being applied to Rome in both of its phases (Dan. 9:26, 27; Matt. 24:15; Dan. 11:31; 12:11; 8:11, 13); and as is confirmed by the teaching and history of latter Rome itself. It is all one, except only that all that is stated of the former Rome is true and intensified in the latter Rome. ...

In Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31; and 12:11, it will be noticed that the word "sacrifice" is in every case supplied. And it is wholly supplied; for in its place in the original there is no word at all. In the original the only word that stands in this place, is the word tamid, that is here translated "daily;" and in these places the expression "daily" does not refer to the daily sacrifice any more than it refers to the whole daily ministry or continual service of the sanctuary, which the sacrifice was only a part. The word tamid in itself signifies "continuous or continual," "constant," "stable," "sure," "constantly," "evermore." Only such words as these express the thought of the original word, which, in the text under consideration, is translated "daily." In Numbers 28 and 29 alone, the word is used seventeen times, referring to the continual service of the sanctuary.

And it is this continual service of Christ, the true High Priest, "who continueth ever," and "who is consecrated forevermore" in "an unchangeable priesthood" - it is this continual service of our great High Priest, which the man of sin, the Papacy, has taken away. It is this sanctuary and the true tabernacle in which this true High Priest exercises His continual ministry that has been cast down by "the transgression of desolation." It is this ministry and this sanctuary that the "man of sin" has taken away from the church and shut away from the world, and has cast down to the ground and stamped upon; and in place of which it has set up itself "the abomination that maketh desolate." What the former Rome did physically to the visible or earthly sanctuary, which was "the figure of the true" (Dan. 9:26, 27; Matt. 24:15), that the latter Rome has done spiritually to the invisible or heavenly sanctuary that is itself the "true." Dan. 11:31; 12:11; 8:11, 13.

[It can be] shown that in the apostasy, the bishops, presbyters, deacons, and the eucharist, were made to succeed the high priest, priests, Levites and sacrifices of the Levitical system. Now by the very evidence of the Scriptures, it is certain that, in the order of God, it was Christ and His ministry and sanctuary in heaven, and this alone, that in truth was the object of the Levitical system, and that is truly the Christian succession to that system. Therefore when in and by the apostasy, the system of bishops as high priests, presbyters as priests, deacons as Levites, and the Supper as a sacrifice, was insinuated as the Christian succession to the Levitical system, this of itself was nothing less than to put this false system of the apostasy in the place of the true, completely to shut out the true, and, finally, to cast it down to the ground and stamp upon it.

And this is how it is that this great Christian truth of the true priesthood, ministry, and sanctuary of Christ is not known to the Christian world today. The "man of sin" has taken it away, and cast it down to the ground, and stamped upon it. The "mystery of iniquity" has hid this great truth from the church and the world during all of these ages, in which the man of sin has held place in the world, and has passed it off as God, and its iniquitous host as the church of God.

And yet, even the "man of sin," the "mystery of iniquity," itself bears witness to the necessity of such a service in the church in behalf of sins. For though the "man of sin," the "mystery of iniquity," has taken away the true priesthood, ministry, and sanctuary of Christ, and has cast these down to the ground to be stamped upon, and has completely hid them from the eyes of the Christian world; yet she did not utterly throw way the idea. No, she threw away the true, and cast down the true to the ground; but retaining the idea, in the place of the true she built up in her realm an utterly false structure.

In the place of Christ, the true and divine High Priest of God's own appointment in heaven, she has substituted a human, sinful, and sinning priesthood on earth. In the place of the continual, heavenly ministry of Christ in His true priesthood upon His true sacrifice, she has substituted only an interval ministry of a human, earthly, sinful, and sinning priesthood in the once-a-day "daily sacrifice of the mass." And in the place of the sanctuary and the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man, she has substituted her own meeting-places of wood and stone, to which she applies the term, "sanctuary." Thus instead of the one continual High Priest, the one continual ministry, and the one continual sanctuary in heaven, which God has ordained, and which is the only true, she has devised out of her own heart and substituted for the only true, many high priests, many ministries, many sacrifices, and many sanctuaries, on earth, which in every possible relation are only human and utterly false.

And it can never take away sin. No earthly ministry, no earthly sacrifice, or service, in any earthly sanctuary, can ever take away sin. In the book of Hebrews, we have seen that even the priesthood, the ministry, the sacrifice, and the service in the earthly sanctuary - the very service which the Lord Himself ordained on earth - never took away sin. The inspired record is that they never did take away sin, and that they never could take away sin. It is only the priesthood and the ministry of Christ that can take away sin. And this is a priesthood and a ministry in heaven, and of a sanctuary that is in heaven....

Therefore, by the plain word of the Lord, it is plain that the priesthood, the ministry, the sacrifice, and the sanctuary which the Papacy has set up and operates on earth can never take away sin; but, instead, only perpetuates sin, is a fraud, an imposture, and the very "transgression' and "abomination of desolation" in the most holy place.   The Consecrated Way, pp. 95-103 (all emphasis his)

p 6 -- LET'S TALK lT OVER -- We each need to determine for ourselves whether we are Protestant or Catholic. The answer can be quickly determined by our attitude toward and our use of the Writings of Ellen G. White. Let us create an hypothetical situation. In recent months, say you, as many are doing, had been distributing widely the paperback, Great Controversy. By chance, one who received the book from you, some weeks later recognizes you as you are shopping in a Mall. He approaches you, and asks, "Aren't you the one who gave me a Great Controversy a few weeks ago? I want to ask you a question." You assent, and he asks you about Spiritism, and "demands a plain ' Thus saith the Lord' " in support of your answer, as he had read he ought to do. (GC, p. 595) Do you, unable to answer from the Bible, resort to telling him that there are two sacred streams flowing from Paradise, the Bible AND the Spirit of Prophecy, and though these two streams are because of their divine origin of equal sacredness, you find the latter clearer and more readily understood?

Or, do you know your Bible so that you could readily give the inquirer the Bible answer he was seeking, and because of this was able to open the way for a series of Bible studies? Then in this series of Bible studies, you could point out to him that the Bible teaches the doctrine of spiritual gifts which God has provided for the edification of His people. You would point him to Ephesians 4:8,11 where various gifts are listed - apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers. But all of these must be checked by the Bible. Whether one is given the gift of administrative ability (apostles) - and God has used administrators to lead His people; one of the greatest being Moses - or a prophet (prophete - speaking forth for God), or an evangelist, or a teaching pastor, all are in the same grouping according to the Bible, each possessing the gift of the Holy Spirit. Each must be accorded his proper place, and not one above another, unless one perecives the list in Ephesians as noting the "pecking" order. If so, administrators rank above prophets.The Biblical doctrine of spiritual gifts sustains the primacy of the Bible, and thus one, believing and accepting that doctrine as taught in the Bible, is truly a Protestant.

As an evangelist, I recall an experience I had. It was back in the "golden years" of Adventist evangelism, when the message was being given by many throughout the United States as well as overseas. Such names as Detamore, Shuler, the Venden Brothers, and B. R. Spears were names in Adventism through which many heard and accepted the truth. I was holding a tent meeting in Borger, Texas. From the first night, a family attended along with the wife's sister and daughter. From visiting, we learned that each night they went home and checked what they had heard with a book they had purchased some years previously, Bible Readings. Then came the presentation of the Sabbath question. That night on the way home, they said to themselves, "This is one topic that is not in that book." They had not seen it. When they returned on the next meeting night, they said to me, "We know more than you do about the Sabbath, we know who changed it." They had read ahead! Needless to say, they accepted the truth, including the doctrine of spiritual gifts.

Whether it be pastor, prophet, or evangelist, all messages must conform to the Word of God as contained in the Bible, not the Bible conforming to the pastor, prophet, or evangelist. That which does not must be discarded, even administrative authority which does not conform to the Word. A true Protestant is a continuous reformer advancing in the light which proceeds from the Word, refusing to be bound by any authority, practice, revelation or teaching that does not first conform to the Bible, and he remains ever a Protestant. He does not after accepting the truth become a Roman Catholic with two streams flowing from Paradise.

FOR YOUR HEALTH -- Jesus said, "I am come that they (His people) might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly," (John 10:10) Jesus offers us abundant life and health. Just as eternal life cannot be left to chance, good health cannot be left to chance. "We cannot be too often reminded that health does not depend on chance. It is obedience to law." (MH, p. 128) The "right arm" of the three angels' message is HEALTH REFORM, not just diet reform. While diet is very important, it is only 1/8th of the program. In addition to diet, pure air, sunlight, rest, abstemiousness, exercise, the abundant use of water, and most importantly, trust in divine power, are necessary for optimal health. How

p 7 -- many of us strain at a gnat in our diet, only to neglect one, two, or perhaps all the other laws of health. Should we not in this late hour come into line?

The above was taken from "Old Paths " a new publication sponsored by the Smyrna Gospel Ministries.


EXCERPTS - MANUSCRIPT 36, 1890 -- No work of man can merit for him the pardoning love of God, but the love of God pervading the soul will lead him to do those things which were always required of God and that he should do with pleasure. He has done only that which duty ever required of him. ...

On the one hand, religionists generally have divorced the law and the gospel, while we have, on the other hand, almost done the same from another standpoint. We have not held up before the people the righteousness of Christ and the full significance of His great plan of redemption. We have left out Christ and His matchless love, brought in theories and reasonings, and preached argumentive discourses. ...

I ask, How can I present this matter as it is? The Lord Jesus imparts all of the powers, all the grace, all the penitence, all the incclination, all the pardon of sins, in presenting His righteousness for men to grasp by living faith - which is also the gift of God. If you would gather together everything that is good and holy and noble and lovely in man, and then present the subject to the angels of God as acting a part in the salvation of the human soul or in merit, the proposition would be rejected as treason. --- (1992 Apr) --- End --- TOP

1992 May -- XXV -- 5(92) -- THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL -- Let's Talk it Over -- In this issue, we discuss several topics involved in the "gospel of God," either directly or indirectly. An analysis of one section of the first AnchorPoint essay noting the heresy being taught by the editor of the Adventist Review is be found on page 7. The first study of a series on the Doctrine of God begins on page 5. The study briefly outlines the history of that doctrine as taught in the Seventh-day Adventist Church from 1865 to the present formulation in the Dallas Statement of Beliefs which reflects the Roman Catholic teaching.

The paper produced by the Biblical Research Institute - "An Appeal for Church Unity" (p. 4) - was noted by Elder D. K. Short in his recent publication, "Made Like Unto His Brethren." However, Short affirms that to declare, as the BRI paper indicated, that the basic doctrine of the human nature Christ assumed in humanity was omitted from the 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief "is emphatically not true." (p. 36) But he gives no documentation to prove his assertion about the Statements, but appeals rather to the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... . The fact is, that the book has never been voted by General Conference in session as the "norm" for Adventist teaching, while the 27 Statements have been so voted. Also the book teaches as "the orthodox view," the position of the Anglican clergyman, Henry Melvill. (pp. 47, 7)

By this substitution of documentation for his conclusion, Short was able to sidestep the issue of what the abandonment of the "gospel of God" by the Church means. Neither he nor Wieland can bring themselves to face up to the force of the message of the True Witness to the Laodiceans - "Because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee of my mouth." (Rev. 3:16)

While checking out the early editions of Uriah Smith's Thoughts on Revelation for the historical data on the Doctrine of God, I decided to see what Smith had to say about Revelation 3:16. I knew that Wieland swears by this book in certain of his concepts of prophetic understanding of symbols found in the books of Daniel and Revelation. In both the 1865 and 1897 editions, Uriah Smith made the same comment on the sentence - "I will spue thee out of my mouth." He wrote:   " Here the figure is still further carried out, and the rejection of the lukewarm expressed by the nauseating effects of tepid water. And this denotes a final rejection, and utter separation from his church." (p. 402, 1897 edition)

The 1888 Message was and still is a most precious message. But it is sad when this message is being encumbered with so many additional concepts which were never in the original message, and some of these very questionable. In reality, it is no longer the 1888 Message, but rather the Wieland-Short Message, and then not even the message which God asked them to give in 1950.

A recent issue of the paper published by the 1888 Message Study Committee (Vol. 8, #2, pp. a, d) contains a list of "churches" being set up by those harmonizing with the Committee in various parts of the United States, Canada, and South Africa. There is nothing wrong with such "home churches," for the Bible plainly teaches this. But why does the Committee continue to parade itself as fully in accord with "our beloved Seventh-day Adventist Church" and yet sponsor these separate enclaves? This is pure deception. How can such a deceptive stance rightly represent the righteousness of Christ, which is pure and unadulterated truth?

THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL -- The gospel cannot be bypassed, ignored or separated from the proclamation of the Three Angels' Messages. Revelation 14:6 serves as a preface to the messages that all three angels bear to the inhabitants of the earth. It is the "age-long (aionion) gospel." Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines its use in Revelation 14:6 as "a gospel whose subject matter is eternal, i.e. the saving purpose of God adopted from eternity." (p. 20)

In connection with this age-long gospel, God indicated certain specific truths to be proclaimed, and these become "present truth" for this time. In the Three Angels' Messages, God has incorporated a message concerning Himself   (First Angel); concerning the nations   (Second Angel); and concerning the individual   (Third Angel). It dare not be overlooked that the three messages conform to the three phases of the ministration of the High Priest on the Day of Atonements; first, in the Most Holy in the presence of God; secondly in the Holy Place, where was recorded the confession of corporate guilt; and thirdly, in the Court, where at the Altar individual confession was made. But all must relate to the age-long gospel adopted from Eternity and revealed in time.

No aspect of any "present truth" can be given apart from the gospel. Basically, that is what 1888 was and is all about. Present truth in 1844 and onward meant an emphasis on "worship Him who made." Perceived in the light of the Law contained in the Ark of the Covenant, and coupled with the fact of the judgment, the message was given concerning the Sabbath with emphasis on keeping the commandments of God. In fact the law was preached until its exponents were as dry as the hills of Gilboa which had neither dew nor ram. (R&H, March 11, 1890) A legalistic proclamation produced legalists in thought and conduct. 1888 was a

p 2 --   call to make the gospel - the saving purpose of God adopted from eternity - central in the presentation of the present truth enunciated in the Three Angels' Messages.

The purpose of God was clearly defined in the first promise made in Eden. The Lord God declared - "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Gen. 3:15) The Seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head. This promise and its fulfiliment is symbolized in Revelation 12. There Michael, the "man-child" - the seed of the woman - God's Messiah ("His Christ") - conquered the dragon, "that old serpent." Resulting from this triumphant warfare was heard "a loud voice" proclaiming, "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ." (verse 10)

This "Seed" is described as "a son, a male." (Greek Text, ver. 5) There are three words in the Greek for man:   1)   anthropos, man in a generic sense; mankind (Jesus was "the Son of man");   2)   aner, an adult male, or a husband,   3)   arsen, the male sex. It is this last word that is used in Revelation 12 to describe the "Seed of the woman." The Messiah did not come into humanity bereft of the sexual powers and desires that drive human beings. He was not born a eunuch, neither did He make Himself a eunuch. After thirty-three years of human existence, He could thank God that He had been given power over "all flesh" (John 17:2), thus authoring "eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him." (Heb. 5:7-9) Here is the true role model to present to this sex driven generation, the Male Child of Nazareth, who remained unpolluted by His environment. I would remind you, in passing, that to "obey" Jesus Christ means much more than a list of "do's" and "don'ts," an outward conformity to a life-style dictated by human jurists.

Paul clearly defined the "Gospel of God," the "power of God unto salvation," the "redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 1:16; 3:24) He wrote:      The gospel of God ... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Rom. 1:1, 3-4)

The "Gospel of God" is two-fold in regard to Jesus Christ. In the flesh, He was of "the seed of David." In character, He was "the spirit of holiness."

We could dwell at length, and with profit, on the nature which Christ assumed in the incarnation. We shall consider only two texts. First, Romans 8:3:       For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh."

The weakness of any religion based on regulations, be they human or divine, is the flesh - sinful flesh dictating to a mind that is carnally oriented. But Christ took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, and condemned sin in that flesh.

The second text is Philippians 2:6-7. Speaking of Christ, it reads:       Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. (ARV)

Here it is clearly affirmed that even as Jesus existed in "the form of God," so likewise, having divested ("emptied") Himself of that form, He took in its place, "the form of a servant" - "the slave form of man." Now it should be clear to all who can read that "the slave-form of man" which Christ took was not the nature with which Adam was endowed at his creation, but rather that nature which resulted from his voluntary choice to accept the servitude of sin. We say plainly - Jesus took upon Himself man's fallen nature with all that that means and implies. Yet He did no sin; He condemned sin in the flesh.

We need to become aware of the fact that at the very beginning of the proclamation of the Three Angels' Messages, the doctrine of the incarnation was catapulted into prominence as an issue by the Papacy. In 1854, the Roman Catholic Papacy, ever at war with the true gospel, proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It declared:          " We define that the blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin. (Faith of Our Fathers, p.171, 88th Edition)

This removal of Jesus from touching mankind at the point of greatest need, prepared the way for the exaltation of Mary as co-mediatrix with

p 3 --    Jesus, and which is today playing an ever expanding role in the final deception of the whole world. Clearly, the doctrine of the incarnation is a key issue in the present theological conflict.

In 1848, Ellen White was given a vision of the great controversy. Ten years later this vision was repeated with specific instruction. The report in Life Sketches reads:       In the Vision at Lovett's Grove (1858), most of the matter which I had seen ten years before concerning the great controversy of the ages between Christ and Satan, was repeated, and I was instructed to write it out." (p. 162)

This she began to do. The first volume was Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1. In this recital of events shown to her, she wrote what Jesus told the angels in announcing the activating of the plan of redemption. He said that He would take "man's fallen nature, and His strength would not even equal theirs." (p. 25) Then she was shown Satan's rejoicing over this factor which the plan of redemption would have on Jesus, and boasted to "his angels that when Jesus should take fallen man's nature, he would overpower Him." (p. 27)

With this clear definitive confirmation of the fact that the Biblical doctrine of the incarnation would be a part of the great controversy, there is no way that it can be separated from the giving of the Three Angels' Messages which are based in the "age-long gospel." It is a fundamental concept of the "Gospel of God," a part of the power of God unto salvation, a revelation of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Thus from the very beginnings of the Advent Movement, the battle was joined over this teaching.

When in 1888, God sent Jones and Waggoner with the message of righteousness by faith, the Biblical doctrine of the incarnation was emphasized by these messengers both in their books and presentations at General Conference sessions. Waggoner wrote in 1892:       A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man, in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden; and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 26-27; emphasis his)

Here Waggoner uses the very verse wherein Paul defines the Gospel of God!

In 1895, Jones in commenting on John 1:14 - "The Word was made flesh" - asked, "Now what kind of flesh is it?" In his answer, he stated:         What kind of flesh alone is it that this world knows? - Just such flesh as you and I have. This world does not know any other flesh of man, and has not known any other since the necessity of Christ's coming was created. Therefore, as this world knows only such flesh as we have, as it is now, it is certainly true that when "the Word was made flesh," He was made just such flesh as ours is. lt cannot be otherwise. (1895 GC Bulletin, p. 232)

The doctrine of the incarnation became a point of controversy during the short period of the Holy Flesh Movement. In the last months of 1900, a running editorial battle ensued between A. T. Jones as editor of the Review, and R. S. Donnell, president of the Indiana Conference writing in the conference paper, Indiana Reporter. Jones captioned his editorials, "The Faith of Jesus," while Donnell bluntly asked the question, "Did Christ Come to This World in sinful Flesh?" Donnell's position can be summarized by his comment:        In order to save man, Christ must enter humanity, and because all were sinners, and not a body could be found that was suitable, what had to be done? A body had to be made for the occasion. And so we read in Hebrews 10:5, "A body hast Thou prepared Me." (What I Taught in Indiana, Article Three, p. 9)

The implication of this point was not lost on E. J. Waggoner. The evening before Ellen G. White read her statement to the 1901 General Conference session bringing an end to the Holy Flesh Movement, Waggoner was asked to speak. He spoke to two questions that had been handed to him, one of which read - "Was that holy thing which was born of the virgin Mary born in sinful flesh, and did that flesh have the same evil tendencies to contend with that ours does? To this Waggoner answered:         Did you ever hear of the Roman Catholic

p 4 --   doctrine of the immaculate conception? And do you know what it is? Some of you possibly have supposed in hearing it, that it meant that Jesus Christ was born sinless. That is not the Catholic dogma at all. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born sinless. Why? - - Ostensibly to magnify Jesus; really the work of the devil to put a wide gulf between Jesus the Saviour of men, and the men whom He came to save, so that one could not pass over to the other. That is all.

We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not. There are a great many that have got the marks yet, ...

Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary? Mind you, in Him was no sin, but the mystery of God manifest in the flesh, the marvel of the ages, the wonder of the angels, that thing which even now they desire to understand, and which they can form no just idea of, only as they are taught it by the church, is the perfect manifestation of the life of God in its spotless purity in the midst of sinful flesh. 0, that is a marvel, is it not? (1901 GC Bulletin, p. 404)

In the controversy generated by the Holy Flesh Movement, the men whom God sent with the 1888 Message didn't fail to see the distinction in the great controversy between the Dogma of Rome and the Biblical teaching on the incarnation. Why should we?

Coming now to more recent times in Seventh-day Adventist Church history, we find that the doctrine of the incarnation was one of the two key doctrines which were compromised in the SDA-Evangelical Conferences. Verification of this fact is documented in Andreasen's Letters to the Churches. This peerless Adventist theologian was aghast at the assertion in the book, Questions on Doctrine resulting from the conferences, which read:      Although born in the flesh, He [Jesus] was nevertheless God, and was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam. (p. 383)

Andreasen well knew that the term, "exempt," was a term used by Gibbons in explaining the dogma of the immaculate conception - "She [Mary] alone was exempt from the original taint." (Faith of Our Fathers, op.cit.)

We come now to the present. In a position paper prepared by the Biblical Research Institute [BRI] August, 1989, making "An Appeal for Church Unity," this "think-tank" of Adventis scholarship wrote:        "But while apastasy always takes its toll, one af the heavy pressures an the remnant church today is the divisive effect of some segments of the church, who, however, profess dedicatian to Christ and the finishing of the mission of the church. These members hold certain positions an the human nature of Christ, the nature af sin, and the doctrine of righteousness by faith in an end-time setting. Since the Adventist people as a whole do not share these views, the former feel that the church has apostatized from the faith of the pioneers. Some would even suggest that the organized church is no longer fulfilling the role of the remnant church as specified in prophecy.

"In some respects the present situation is similar to the experience af the early church and the Jerusalem Council. The world church af Seventh-day Adventists has agreed an 27 fundamental beliefs, summarization of basic biblical teachings, and seeks to rally the membership to the Saviour and this core of Bible truths. The specific topics alluded to above are not a part af these summarizations. The world church has never viewed these subjects as essential to salvatian nor to the mission of the remnant church. The Scriptures do not make these subjects central; the data is sparse; and there are sharp differences of view with devoted Christians on both sides." (p. 5)

Consider carefully the last three sentences of this statement in the light of the doctrines specified in the first quoted paragraph. The doctrines listed were:
1)   "The human nature of Christ"
2)   "The nature of sin"
3)   "Righteousness by faithin an end-time setting." (In other words, the final atonement)

Now consider the three sentences and what they are saying:
1)   "The specific topics alluded to above are not a part of these summarizations," in other words, the "27 fundamental beliefs."  ~~  This is absolutely true. They were omitted!
2)   "The world church has never viewed these

p 5 --   subjects as essential to salvation nor to the mission of the remnant church.  ~~  This is absolutely false. (The documentation was given in WWN, 3(92)
3)   The Scriptures do not make these subjects central; the data is sparse; and there are sharp differences of view with devoted Christians on both sides.   ~~ This is a mixture of truth and error.   It is true, there are "sharp differences of view" even as there is a marked contrast between Christ and Satan. One cannot harmonize the dogma of Rome with the Word of God. But to say the Bible does not make these subjects central is a tragic error. From the first promise in the Garden of Eden to the prophetic picture in Revelation, it is the "Seed" of the woman which is revealed and defined. This "Man-child" was caught up unto God and His throne, there to be the One mediator between God and man, the Man, Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25; Rev. 12:10) Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh, and that flesh was the slave form of man. (1 Tim. 3:16; Phil. 2:7 Gr.)

The implications of what these conclusions of the BRI means goes far beyond the mere recitation of the facts. The gospel of God has been clearly defined by Paul. lt concerns the manifestation of Jesus Christ who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. This "gospel" is declared to be "the power of God unto salvation." To remove this "gospel" from the Three Angels' Messages is to leave the message powerless, and devoid of salvation. The mere recitation of the truths of these messages - the hour of judgment, the fall of Babylon, the worship of and mark of the beast - can save no one. In Jesus Christ, and in Him alone is to be found redemption. The action of the Church in 1980, in adopting the 27 Fundamentals of Belief was to divorce the Church from the Gospel of God, the very foundation of the trust committed to the Church. (Testimonies, Vol. 9, p. 19) It has now become a gospel-less Church. Well did the messenger of the Lord write of the Church - "The glory of the Lord had departed from Israel; although many still continued the forms of religion, His power and presence were lacking." (5T:210)

There is a second part to the "Gospel of God" and it is no less important than the first part. Jesus Christ is declared to be "the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." (Rom. 1:4) The true Christ is not the "christ" of the crucifix; we serve a risen Saviour! He is not in the world today. He is at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, and He has sent forth the Holy Spirit to be the paraclete, the Advocate of truth, to guide us into all truth.

"Delivered for our offences," Jesus our Lord "was raised for our justification. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God" through Him. (Rom. 4:25-5:1) This peace with God means that we are no longer at enmity with Him, but rather at-one, an atonement, an at-one-ment. We are to consider the High Priest of our profession. What He began by coming to earth as a man who could die, He has now returned to Heaven to cornplete as the Son of God. Begotten first in the flesh, begotten a second time from the dead, He was called to be "a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedec." In this dual role of Son of man and Son of God, He became the Author of eternal salvation. This is the Gospel of God, the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

The sanctuary of the Heavens is the very center of the redemptive work for man. There God has placed a Man, Christ Jesus, who ever lives to make intercession for all who come to Him. And this Man is able to save to the uttermost. The pivotal point centers in the incarnation, and the nature that Christ assumed in that incarnation. Had He not come as a man, there could have been no cross. Had He not condemned sin in the flesh, there would have been no resurrection. Had there been no resurrection, there would now be no Intercessor at the Throne of God for us!

To summarize, the import and meaning of the Gospel of God, I review certain Biblical revelation:
1)    It was the "Man-child" - a child possessed of the same drives that possess every child of Adam - who was caught up unto God and His throne. His destiny was to rule all nations with a rod of iron, but first He ruled the flesh of nations with an iron rod - He was the Son of mankind.
2)    At the throne of God, this "Man-child" ministers His blood for the victors of earth overcome the dragon "by the blood of the lamb." (Rev. 12:11)

Consider thoughtfully, the following verses. Note the emphasized words.       "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. ["thus securing an eternal redemption" - RSV] For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:12-14)
"But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:7)
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day Star arise in your hearts." (II Peter 1:19)

The light of prophecy comes from the Throne through Jesus Christ. (Rev. 1:1) It is an integral part of the whole picture, and its revelations become "present truth" to a given generation. The Three Angels' Messages are linked forever with the "age-long" Gospel of God,      "for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." (Rom. 1:17)

p 6 -- THE DOCTRINE OF GOD -- Part 1 of 3 -- Editor's Note:     While on the West Coast in January meeting an appointment, I learned that a large study group of concerned Adventists had been split over the Doctrine of God as promoted by Fred Allabach and Caleb Alonso. We decided to write a position paper on the teaching. Then we received a telephone call telling us that rumormongers in the field were scattering the report that we believed the Holy Spirit to be merely an influence. We were further informed that a voluminous writer steeped in Roman Catholic theology clothed in Adventist vocabulary was also writing on the subject. We, therefore, decided that instead of delaying till a position paper could be formulated, we would proceed with a series of articles on the Doctrine of God or the Godhead.

The doctrine of God that teaches the "Blessed Trinity" is a Roman Catholic teaching. "The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the Church." (Handbook for Today's Catholic, p. 12) What is this doctrine of Catholicism simply stated? In a recognized catechism, the question is asked, "What do we mean by the Blessed Trinity?" The answer is given - "By the Blessed Trinity we mean one and the same God in three divine Persons." (New Baltimore Catechism, NO. 3, Rev. Ed., 1949, p. 20) However, "not until the council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three co-equal Persons formally ratified." (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 88)

The history of the Seventh-day Adventist teaching on the doctrine of God has been varied and progressively Roman Catholic in concept. In the 1865 edition of Thoughts on the Book of Revelation, Uriah Smith, commenting on the True Witness (Rev. 3:14) as being "the beginning of the creation of God," wrote - "Not the beginner, but the beginning, of the creation, the first created being, dating his existence far back before any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God." (p. 59) In the 1897 edition of the same book, combined with Thoughts on Daniel, Smith modified his position, indicating that "the Son came into existence in a different manner" than the rest of the creation of God. (p. 400) In the same year, Smith authored a book, Looking Unto Jesus, in which he wrote:           God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could be, - a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentialiy eternity, - appeared the Word." (p. 10)

This is essentially the position taken by E. J. Waggoner in his book, Christ and His Righteousness. He wrote in 1892:          There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father, but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it was practically without beginning. (pp. 21-22)

In 1930, the General Conference Committee authorized the chair [Elder C. H. Watson] to appoint a committee to prepare a new Statement of Beliefs for the Yearbook (Movement of Destiny, pp. 410-411). This was the first statement to include the word, "Trinity" in connection with the Doctrine of God. In 1980, the Dallas session adopted the same credal statement upon which the Roman Catholic Church bases its doctrine of the "Blessed Trinity." The 27 Statements of Fundamental Beliefs on this doctrine reads:      There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity in three co-eternal Persons. (No. 2)

[The above historical data does not reflect the theological thinking of the editor. To be continued]

p 7 --   "AnchorPoint" -- Part 1 -- One of the associate editors of the Adventist Review announced in the March 5, 1992 issue, that the editorial staff "is convinced the time is here for a new emphasis on those eternal biblical verities that have made us what we are - the fundamental teachings of the church." (p. 4) This series of essays will continue until 1994, the 150th anniversary of the Advent Movement.

The first "AnchorPoint" appeared in the same issue, written by the editor-in-chief, Dr. Wm. G. Johnsson. It concerned "Jesus, Center of All Our Hopes." The closing section of the article was on "How Adventists Understand Jesus." (pp. 10-11) He wrote:    Adventist faith makes the following affirmations:   (1)   Jesus was fully God;   (2)   Jesus was fully human; ... (emphasis supplied)

The 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief, though omitting the Biblical and pioneer position on the nature Christ assumed in the incarnation, still doesn't proclaim the heresy of the Editor of the Adventist Review. The Dallas statement reads - "Forever truly God, He became truly man, Jesus the Christ." A little thought would reveal that if Jesus was "fully man, He was a sinner; and if "fully God," He could not have died. AnchorPoint's anchor in its first article is leaving the Church adrift, and without chart or compass. --- (1992 May) --- End --- TOP

1992 Jun -- XXV 6-92 -- UNITED STATES -- CONSECRATED TO IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY AT FATIMA -- ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST ACTED ON DIRECT REQUEST FROM PRESIDENT REAGAN IN 1985! -- Near Fatima, Portugal, at a spot called Cova da Iria on May 13, 1917, three peasant children, a brother, sister, and cousin reported that the "virgin Mary" appeared to them telling them that she had an important message for all nations, and all men and women. She informed them that after coming on the 13th of each succeeding month, she would come on October 13, and by the power of God perform a miracle to confirm the validity and importance of her message. Not only was the day and month specified, but the very hour was given - "midday."

News of this prophesied appearance was sufficiently spread so that on October 13, 1917, a large crowd of people gathered at the spot. The night of October 12, torrential rains covered the area of Fatima, and a driving rain beneath a cloudbound sky continued on the morning of the l3th. The group that gathered at Cova da Iria stood in several inches of water. At noon, the voice of Lucia, one of the three children, commanded, "Look up at the sun!" The rain suddenly stopped, the clouds broke asunder, and the sun appeared. The sun was not the unbearably bright sun at which you cannot stare lest you damage your eyes. It was rather a fast-spinning pinwheel turning on its own axis casting off beams of colored lights. It maneuvered among the clouds as if in a dance, and then without warning plunged earthward causing fear and panic among the watchers. Its heat was felt as it neared the earth. When the fear of the people reached its peak, the sun ascended back into the sky, and appeared as the normal sun at midday, but the ground was dry and

p 2 --dusty. The heavy rain soaked clothes of the people were also dry, light and warm.

On May 13, 1981, the day that sixty-four years before, the three children at Fatima had received their first visit from "Mary," an attempt was made on the life of John Paul II. August of that year the Pope was convalescing in Policlinico. He was thoroughly convinced that "Mary," the Lady of Fatima, had intervened and saved him from death. He fell into a mode of prayer to "Mary," and in this mood of total trust in Mary, he had his only known supernatural vision of things to come. What those on-the-spot saw at Fatima in 1917, John Paul "saw in the luminous skies of Latio above the Seven Hills of Rome."

Into this picture - the appearance of "Mary" at Fatima in 1917, and John Paul II's worship of Mary - must be injected the three messages which "Mary" supposedly gave the children. The first two are well known. The first message was general in nature indicating that the whole of society was in a path of sin, and multitudes were heading for eternal punishment in Hell. The second predicted the outbreak of World War II, and called on the Pope and bishops of the Roman Church to consecrate Russia to her. She warned, that if not so done, Russia would spread evil and error throughout the world which would cost many lives. The third message was kept as an official Vatican secret. In 1944, it was written out by the sole survivor of the trio, now a Carmelite nun, sealed in an envelope, and was not supposed to be opened until 1960. lt was put in a box and placed on the mantelpiece in the Pope's private apartment to be opened by the reigning pope in 1960.

The pope in 1960 was John XXIII. He considered it irrelevant to his pontificate. Paul VI declined to do anything about lt. At first, John Paul II took the same attitude. By this time in 1978, the nature of the third Fatima message was known:    1)     a physical chastisement upon the nations,     2)     a spiritual chastisement on the Roman Church which would consist of a breakdown of rigid Catholic faith and practice, and     3)    a reiteration of the call for Russia to be consecrated to Mary. The chastisement on the nations was because of the wickedness and abandonment of God's laws. But the process could be averted if the reigning pope in 1960 would publish the text and consecrate Russia to Mary. John XXIII did neither even though at the Vatican II Council he had a ready made opportunity to do so. However, resulting from the vision while he was convalescing in 1981, John Paul II decided to move in regard to the third message.

"On March 25, 1984, the world's bishops joined Pope John Paul II, and at his request in a collegial consecration" of Russia, called for "the Virgin Mary's help in combating a host of contemporary threats to human life, ranging from nuclear war to 'sins against life from its very beginning.' [abortion]" (Eastern Oklahoma Catholic, Sept. 8, 1991, p. 15) In 1985, Robert J. Cox, founder of the Fatima Family Apostolate, at the request of former President Ronald Reagan went to Fatima, Portugal, "and there consecrated the United States to the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (ibid.) Today a letter is on display at Cox's parish, St. Mary of Mercy, in Alexandria, SD, from President Reagan verifying this requested consecration.

The same month that the Pope and bishops of the Roman Church consecrated Russia to Mary, Mikhail Gorbachev became second in command in the Soviet government. The next year, he became top Soviet leader. While Cox acknowledges that Gorbachev's economic and government restructuring policies "opened the doors" to the fall of communism, he believes that the main reason for the change is that the Russian leader was " 'used by the Blessed Mother to fulfill her promise that eventually after much sorrow and persecution' Russia would be converted and world peace would begin." (ibid.; emphasis supplied)

Gorbachev has himself responded describing his own relationship to the Vatican which preceded the present upheaval in Europe. In a column prepared for Western newspapers, he wrote:       I have carried on an intensive correspondence with Pope John Paul II since we met at the Vatican in December, 1989. And I think ours will be an ongoing dialogue....
I cannot help but say that we share a desire to move forward and complete what we began together. ...

lt is very difficult to describe the relationship which took shape between the Pope and myself because the intuitive personal element is always of great importance in such relationships. Simply put, when I was with him, I realized that the Pope had also played a role in what we came to call the new political thinking. ...

What I have always held in high esteem about the Pope's thinking and ideas is their spiritual content, their striving to foster the development of a new world civilization. (The Toronto Star, March 9, 1992, p. A1)

This article which he had written, Gorbachev asked La Stampa to deliver the text personally

p 3 -- to the Pope "as a token of [his] esteem and as a measure of [his] friendship." He appended his signature at the bottom of the article. The Pope responded to the Press giving his reaction to Gorbachev's comments. He indicated that this article confirms what he had always perceived Gorbachev to be, "a man of integrity." The Pope picked up on the assessment of their relationship as having "the intuitive, personal element." He said, "It is true; there was something instinctive between us, as if we have already known each other. And I know why that was, our meeting was prepared by Providence." This he re-emphasized by adding, concerning Gorbachev:      He does not profess to be a believer, but with me I recall he spoke of the great importance of prayer and of the inner side of man's life. I truly believe that our meeting was prepared by Providence.

The Pope continued his remarks by noting that "perestroika" has as one of its meanings, "conversion." He stressed that the "upheaval which took place and is in progress" has "a spiritual element - an inner change." (ibid., in a special to The Star," p. A4)

There can be no question but there is a spiritual element in all that has and is taking place. Those walking in the light proceeding from the Throne of God can see clearly via the light of prophecy, the working of "the spirits of devils" as they go forth to gather the nations and the leaders of earth to the final confrontation with God Almighty. Ever since John XXIII first opened the envelope in 1960, the cardinal principle of Vatican foreign policy has been to "foment devotion to Mary as Our Lady of Fatima." (Keys of This Blood, p. 633) The apparition at Fatima has been viewed in the light of Revelation 12 - a "Woman Clothed with the Sun, and giving birth to a Son who will rule the Nations with a scepter of iron." (ibid., p. 48)

Since the Pope believed that his life had been preserved because of Mary, and on the very day of the feast of Our Lady of Fatima, he perceived himself in a "divine" role of dealing with Russia as indicated in the messages given to the children at Fatima. Time magazine has reported that in the first meeting between himself and President Reagan in 1982, the two agreed to what has been called, "The Holy Alliance." (Feb. 24, 1992) Richard Allen, Reagan's first National Security Advisor, declared of the Alliance - "This was one of the great secret alliances of all time." The report in Time indicates that "The key [Reagan] Administration players were all devout Roman Catholics." (p. 31) The article clearly indicates that the American Foreign Policy during the Reagan years was directed by Rome through high placed Roman Catholics devoted as much to the Vatican as to the interests of the United States.

Following the release in Time magazine, the Vatican and the Pope went on record denying any "anti-communist plotting." (Eastern Oklahoma Catholic, March 8, 1992, p. 1) They tried to cover themselves with the use of such words as "formal understanding" and the "whole conception (of the article) seems mistaken." The problem is that the journalist, Carl Berstein, has an excellent "track record." He with fellow Washington Post reporter, Bob Woodward, broke the Watergate story.

The emphasis by Rome that "the world will recognize in due time that the defeat of communism came at the intercession of the Mother of Jesus" (Time, Dec. 30, 1991), dare not be overlooked. The sainted doctor of the Roman Church, Alphonsus Maria deLigouri, in his work, The Glories of Mary, wrote:        All graces are dispensed by Mary, and all who are saved are saved only by the means of this Divine Mother, [therefore] it is a necessary consequence that the salvation of all depends upon preaching Mary, and exciting all to confidence in her intercession. lt is well known that it was thus that St. Bernadine of Sienna sanctified Italy, and that St. Dominic converted so many provinces. (p. 8)

Even as in 1854, the promulgation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception set the stage for the doctrine of the incarnation to be a key issue in the final struggle between truth and error, so with the Dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven, promulgated in 1950, has set the stage for the final deception to be accomplished through Spiritism. The parallels of historical events starting in and around 1950 cannot be overlooked with impunity. The World Council of Churches was placed in operation in 1948. The Jewish State of Israel was formed the same year, and events in the history of Jerusalem since 1948 have served as warning signals as to the import of what we are now seeing happen on the world scene. The call for denominational repentance to the Adventist Church was made in 1950. The sad history that has followed in its rejection can be viewed in the deliberate intertwining of its fortunes with the Evangelicals, the WCC, Roman Catholicism, and Spiritism. It

p 4 -- has deprived the Church of that uniqueness which God designed should characterize the sacred trust committed to the Church in the giving of the Three Angels' Messages. (9T:19)

To make the most of the changes taking place in Europe, John Paul II convened a synod of Catholic bishops on Europe from November 28 to December 14, 1991. To this synod were invited "fraternal delegates" from other major religions on the Continent. While assessments may vary, "no matter how one judges the gathering, there was a strong sense that it came at the kairos moment for Europe." (One World, March, 1992, p. 6) This synod was brought together to formulate an evangelistic thrust for all of Europe. Here is where the first problem arose. A number of Eastern Orthodox Churches declined the invitation to be present. The patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church indicated that to attend "would give a misleading impressions of actual relations between Moscow and Rome." (ibid.) This evaluation may well point up the fact that even though both Gorbachev and Yeltsin have invited the Pope to visit Moscow, John Paul's response was - "There is still work to be done on this trip before it can take place." (The Toronto Star, op. cit.)

Another factor which surfaced in the "New Evangelism" theme of the synod was the fact "there are now 20 million Muslims on the continent" of Europe. This is also a factor which has now entered the pluralistic nature of the United States, and was not present 100 years ago when some outlines of end-time events were drawn up. However, in the light of the thrust of Mariolatry, it is noted that the Koran praises the faith and chastity of Mary.

The synod of Catholic bishops issued a final declaration which stated that "those who wish to participate as Christians in building a new Europe should know the social doctrines of the [Roman] church, including the tenet that the church, though it favors a 'correctly understood' democracy, can never be linked to a particular political system." (One World, op. cit., p. 7)

One speaker summarized the enclave well when he said:        Europe has been renewed through the intercession of our Lady. The new Europe is being reborn by God's hand through the heart of Mary. That is what brings us together here. (ibid., p. 8)

To put the whole picture into proper perspective one must review certain events which preceeded the present unleashing of the power of Spiritism in the form of Mariolatry. First, there was the visit of John Paul II to the United States, and his reception in the White House by then President Jimmy Carter. RNS reporting the significance of this event, noted that this "was the first time not only that a pope visited the White House but the first time any pope called on a government leader anywhere." (Oct. 8, 1979 p.1) Time magazine caught the significance of the event in a photograph of the two leaders in a "handclasp" on the North Lawn of the White House. Over the photo was the caption - "In brilliant sunlight on the North Lawn, a President welcomes a Pope to the White House for the first time. (Oct. 15, 1979, p. 14) [See The Hour and the End, Exhibit #6] Carter's remarks to the Pontiff were - "I welcome you to the White House the symbolic home of all our people. On behalf of every American of every faith I also welcome you into the nation's heart." (RNS,.) op. cit. At this public welcome were dignitaries from Congress, the Cabinet, the judiciary and other public arenas - a veritable ranking of "the rulers of the land...on the side of the man of sin." A reception followed, at the conclusion of which, "the pope surprised the audience by saying, 'the pope wants to bless you - with the permission of the president of the United States."' (RNS, ibid.)

In 1980, Reagan was elected to succeed Carter in the White House. Time magazine reports that Reagan set as one of his earliest goals as president the recognition of "the Vatican as a state" and to "make them an ally." (Feb. 24, 1992, p. 31) The attainment of this goal, and how it was accomplished with an assist from Billy Graham is now a matter of history. The present unfolding of the secret activities and actions of the Reagan Administration only confirm the significance of what has taken place.

Into this series of events, God registered His judgment on them by permitting a prophecy of Jesus to reach its complete fulfillment. Jesus had declared on the Mount of Olives, during the last week of His earthly life "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the nations, until the times of the nations be fulfilled. (Luke 21:24; "Gentiles" and "nations" same word in the Greek) On July 30, 1980, the Knesset of Israel confirmed the position that "Jerusalem united in its entirety is the capital of Israel." Jerusalem, instead of Tel Aviv, became "the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court." The "times of the nations" was fulfilled. If the fulfillment of this prophecy means anything, it means that God has removed His restraint and guidance over the nations, and Satan has now full liberty to work his will. The Bible is clear as to what that will is - the gathering of the nations and their leaders to the battle of the great day of God Almighty. (Rev. 16:14)

Tragically, too many of God's professed people are still envisioning the present in the light of how the final events would have taken place 100 years ago had the Church responded differently to its "Kadesh-barnea" than ancient Israel did. Now over a decade from God's warning "signal" (R&H, Feb. 11, 1896), with the results of the working of Satan breaking upon us as an overwhelming surprise, we still continue in our Laodicean blindness. How much longer will it take us to see that the woman of Revelation 17 is now portraying herself as "the woman clothed in the sun"? God in prophecy tells us one thing; Satan through the "virgin Mary" is telling us another thing. Soon, very soon, "she" will introduce her "son" to the world. Only those heeding "the sure word of prophecy" found in the Bible will be safe. (II Peter 1:19)

p 5 -- "AnchorPoints" -- Part 2 -- Editor's Note: It was not our intention to comment on each "AnchorPoint" developed in the Adventist Review when we noted the heresy in the first article by Dr. Johnsson. lt is still not our intention to do so. However, when two articles, one following the other, discuss the two main doctrines of Adventism which were compromised in the SDA - Evangelical Conferences, and discuss them in harmony with that compromised position, we have no alternative but to alert sincerely concerned members of the Adventist Community.

A common approach marks the first two discussions of "AnchorPoints." Both are discussed behind a facade of being Christ-centered, and in theory, they are. The first article by Dr. Johnsson was captioned - "Jesus - Center of All Our Hopes." The second is titled, "Heaven on Our Side" by Martin Weber, an associate editor of Ministry. But herein is the first danger. To fail to present Christ as He is set forth in the Bible, is to present a false Christ. Our doctrine of Christ determines the Christ in whom we believe, the One in whom we place our hope.

The second "AnchorPoint" article is discussing the "Pre-Advent Judgment." Along with the article is published #23 of the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church. (AR, March 26, 1992, p. 9) This fundamental belief does read in part concerning "the Pre-Advent Judgment":       In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, [Jesus] entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. lt is a work of investigative judgment which is a part of the ultimate disposition of sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.

This means that the typical services of the Day of Atonement as described in Leviticus 16 tell what is taking place today in the presence of God, and what must be our attitude here on earth toward that ministry. But nowhere in the entire article by Weber is Leviticus 16 discussed or even mentioned. How can a true perspective of the "pre-Advent Judgment" be given and the typical service of the Day of Atonement be omitted? The answer is frankly, they cannot!

There are certain challenges in the article which are worthy of notice. Weber admits that if "the sanctuary and the judgment" are done away with, the "Biblical mandate" for the Church's existence is undermined. This is true. But the undermining can be accomplished in different ways - outright denial, or omission of key factors as Weber has done. Weber points out - and correctly - that "few Adventists are able to defend this doctrine from the Bible alone." He writes:        "When confronted with honest, probing questions about 1844, they quickly drop their Bibles and resort to the writings of Ellen G. White."

"Thank God tor the prophetic gift given to our church. But let's not abuse it. If we take our prophet seriously, we will accept her admonition to make the Bible our only rule of faith and doctrine. Everything we present as testing truth must be provable from the Scriptures. Otherwise, we make ourselves seem like a nonbiblical cult."

Herein, Martin Weber has made a valid and tragic observation. This tragedy is compounded by the fact that this cultic mentality is displayed by most of the "voices" involved in the "independent ministries." Leaders of these ministries - Spear, Standish, Grosboll and Ferrell - are unable to meet the challenge of Ford to the doctrine of the pre-Advent Judgment by the Bible alone. This ought not to be.

Another vital point raised by Weber put in proper perspective the record of "sins" in the sanctuary. Although he did not allude directly to the daily services, wherein the sinner made confession and placed his whole dependence upon the "substitute," he did note that it is this record of forgiveness, finger printed on the horns of the altars of the sanctuary in the type, which is kept by God. [The "altars" of Jer. 17:1 were Judah's altars of idol worship, and thus by sacrificing on them, they engraved their sins. See verse 2. The application of this verse to the sanctuary was a Brinsmead error]

It is on this note of forgiveness alone that the article by Weber ends. But the Day of Atonement in type was more than the forgiveness resulting from the atonement of the daily services, it was a mediation that brought cleansing. While the High Priest alone affected the cleansing, the worshipers were commanded to "afflict" their souls. (Lev. 23:27) If they did not, they were cut off from among the people - they were lost! (23:29) While the final atonement is not based on our "character attainments" - we have no power to cleanse ourselves - the intercession of Jesus based on His merits, gives to the one who afflicts his soul, victory over the "evil one." (Rev. 12:11)

It is not the "cheap grace" nor a false "assurance" wherein we rest because of a

p 6 -- misapplication of the "passover" experience, but we are rather to trust in the mediation of Christ in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary with its results for and in us. It, too, is grace, a cleansing grace, rather than a forgiving grace - a grace that realizes in each afflicted soul, righteousness and holiness. (Rev. 22:11)

"Divine grace is needed at the beginning, divine grace at each step of advance, and divine grace alone can complete the work." (TM, p. 508) But unless there is advance, there is no work to be completed. If we wait until "Christ comes in the clouds of heaven" for the realization of the work of the Final Atonement, as is suggested by Martin Weber, we will have waited too long. So again in the second "AnchorPoint" article, the original faith committed in the sacred trust has been betrayed.

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD -- Part 2 of 3 -- Our Bibles open with the words, "In the beginning God..."The word, God, is in the plural form, Elohim. The use of the plural in referring to God is called by Hebrew linguists - "a plural of majesty," or "the majestic plural." This is taken by some to mean that the word, Elohim, when used of God is not intended as a true plural. The fact is noted that this plural noun is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular. However, this hardly holds for the use of Elohim in the rest of Genesis 1 "where...the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found." (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, p. 44) When the design for man was revealed, it was the Elohim who said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (1:26) Further, the plural form, Elohim, occurs only in Hebrew, and in no other Semitic language which languages express Pagan cultures. (ibid.) This makes the revelation of God in Genesis unique.

Of interest is the fact that one man represented the "image" and "likeness" of the Elohim. Again, when sin entered, the text reads - "And said Jehovah God (Elohim), Behold the man has become as one of us." (3:22)

The Shema of Israel reads - "Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart..." (Deut. 6:4-5) A translation designating the singular and plural would read - "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah (singular), our Gods (plural) [is] One Jehovah (singular). You shall love Jehovah (singular) your God (plural) with all your heart..." What is the force of ONE (echad) Jehovah? When a strictly singular sense is emphasized, the word is yachid as in Genesis 22:2 - "Take now thy son, thine only son, Isaac." Echad on the other hand as used in Genesis 2:24 - "and they shall be one flesh" - conveys the sense of oneness in duality.

In Isaiah, we read:    Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts, I am the first, and the last, and beside me there is no God (Elohim) (44:6)

This duality is carried forward into the New Testament. In the book of Revelation, this concept found in Isaiah is attributed to both the Almighty and Jesus Christ. (1:8; 22:13)

Zechariah in his Messianic description of "The BRANCH" quotes "the Lord of hosts" as saying that "the counsel of peace" was between "the Two of Them." (6:13, Heb) This raises the question as to the relationship existing between the Elohim.

In the announcement of the birth of Jesus, it was stated by the angel Gabriel that "God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David." (Luke 1:32) David was promised that to his son who was to build the temple, God would be "his father" and that he would be his "son." (II Sam. 7:14) Likewise, "the Man whose name is The BRANCH," who was to build "the temple of the Lord," and who was to "be a priest upon His throne" (Zech. 6:12-13), that Man whom "the Lord of hosts" designates as "my fellow" (13:7) is the One to whom God said, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee;" and "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son." (Heb. 1:5-6) This was by decree. (Ps. 2:7)

In the Messianic promise which declares that "unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given," is defined the eternal association of the Two between Whom was the "counsel of peace." The Child, the Son, was "the Father of eternity" ('abi-'ad) Isa. 9:6. Jesus in His conflict with the Jews defined Himself as the I AM - the self-existent One, I am; the ever existent One, I AM. (John 8:58)    To Be Continued

p 7 -- LET'S TALK lT OVER --   Martin Weber in his articcle on the Pre-Advent Judgment speaks of the "1844 Judgment" as having become "a scorching hot potato in some circles of the Adventist Church." (AR, March 26, 1992, p. 8) There is no question the sanctuary teaching has caused a fissure to develop in the Adventist Church. Some have concurred in Barnhouse's assessment of the doctrine as "stale, flat, and unprofitable!" Notable among those denying the sanctuary truth has been Ford who though still a member of the Church has been defrocked. Even a few of the "many voices" on the periphery of Adventism reject the teaching, for examples, Dr. James Wang and Charles Wheeling.

Admittedly, there are questions. For now almost 150 years we have been teaching that the omniscient God has meticulously gone over the records of the dead to determine who will be saved and who will be lost. Have not the angels kept accurate records? Has God been unable to create a "computer" which would close each day's record with the current balance on each life? Does the commitment of Jesus to the confessing thief need to be reviewed in the judgment? Do these questions call for the abandonment of the sanctuary teaching which is a major stone in the foundation of the sacred trust committed to the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Absolutely not! What is the solution?

Our spiritual forefathers when confronted with the Great Disappointment of 1844, and perceiving the light from the Throne of God, did not deny, nor abandon all for which William Miller stood. Rather, they corrected that which was error - that the sanctuary was this earth - and kept that which was truth. This is the same attitude which should mark the study of the sanctuary truth today. In other words, we need to clean up our doctrine without denying its basic Biblical tenets. We need to face up to Leviticus 16 with some deeper study without ignoring it as Weber did. We need to get our heads out of the sand and make some hard decisions which the leading "voices" on the periphery refuse to do. Instead of making the structure and furniture of the earthly type the "hobby horse" of our study, we need to take seriously what the book of Hebrews states - the priests "served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." (Heb. 8:5) This requires a perceptive in-depth review of the daily and yearly services as outlined in Leviticus, chapters four and sixteen. --- (1992 Jun) --- End --- TOP       ©Copyright 2002