1992 Jan -- XXV -- 1(92) -- A SYMPOSIUM REPORT -- Editor's Note -- The following report was written by Pastor Richard Sutton of the independent congregation of Seventh-day Adventists meeting in Nora Springs, Iowa. In this report, he explains why the symposium was called, who was invited to come and take part, also noting their reaction to the invitation. This report should cause every sincere and concerned Seventh-day Adventist to pause and consider where he is placing his emphasis in these last final days of human history.

Originally, the plan of sponsoring a symposium began to take shape last September. Some of the members of the Nora Springs, Iowa, congregation had informally expressed a desire to contact a number of prominent independent and/or self supporting ministries with the view of bringing them together at one place to discuss important issues within the Adventist Community.

For some time, we had been receiving literature, audio and video tapes from the following:

Elder Wm. H. Grotheer	Pastor John Marcussen	Pastor John Osborne	Terry Ross
John Grosboll	Hope International	Hartland Institute	Bob Trefz
Bill Springfellow	David Mould

In addition, some of us have listened and spoken in person to quite a few of the brethren associated with these ministries. In fact, we had sponsored, or helped to sponsor some of the meetings we had attended.

lt had become increasingly clear that our congregation was not the only group of Seventh-day Adventists deeply concerned by the deepening apostasy within the corporate denominational Church. We had associated with brethren from other parts of Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin at these meetings who represented themselves to be likewise saddened and perplexed over the crisis among our people.

lt also became apparent to us that not all of these ministries were speaking with the same voice. The trumpet was being given an uncertain sound. All recognized problems; all recognized that something was amiss; but there was confusion as to what should be done about it. Therefore, we at Nora Springs were strongly convinced that the issues of "the status of

p 2 -- God's people at this time" were not being presented in their true light. So trying to be a part of the solution, rather than just an addition to the problem, we invited the ten ministries (or their representatives) to our church in Nora Springs to discuss the following vital topics:
1.  History of Apostasy in the SDA Church - past and present
2.  The Final Atonement
3.  Sunday Laws
4.  Use of the Spirit of Prophecy
5.  Jesus' End-time Prophecy
6.  Conclusion: "Common Message" to proclaim

The date for the Symposium was set for November 9, 1991. The invitations were mailed out on October 4, with an R.S.V.P. for October 21, 1991, and a corresponding general invitation was sent to concerned Seventh-day Adventists in the area. Two of the invited speakers replied in writing before the October 21 deadline - Elder Grotheer representing the Adventist Laymen's Foundation, and David Mould who turned down the invitation with no explanation.

Terry Ross replied by telephone before October 21 representing himself and John Osborne. Terry informed me that he didn't go anywhere unless money was sent to cover his expenses stating that anyone who wanted to hear his message would willingly pay for the privilege.

Meanwhile at a meeting in Le Center, Minnesota, members of our congregation had the opportunity to personally invite Bob Trefz on October 12. He also declined stating he had a "thought paper" to get ready and place in the mails. There was NO REPLY from the others before the deadline.

After October 21, we took it upon ourselves to contact the remaining ministries who had not replied. John Grosboll's secretary, answering the Steps to Life telephone, stated that John had a wedding to perform and would be unable to attend. An individual contacted at Concerned Publications informed us that Bill Stringfellow was in Florida.

Dr. Colin Standish finally responded by letter stating he was booked up until September, 1992, and would be unable to attend. However, at a mini-campmeeting held this past Fall in our area which we were asked to help arrange, Hal Mayer from Hartland was present. He at that time responded to an invitation for a meeting in Wisconsin with only three weeks notice. We did not specifically request Dr. Colin Standish's presence, only that Hartland be represented.

Jan Marcussen's telephone wasn't answered and in his November newsletter, he wrote he would be at a "Campmeeting," November 7-9. (We have not heard from him yet, even though he had been a guest speaker at our church a few weeks prior to our sending out the invitation!)

Vemon Sparks of Hope International left a message on my telephone answering machine indicating that he would not be able to come. Approximately one week later, a letter was received stating - "I left a message on your answering machine that Hope International would not be represented at your upcoming seminar. Our Executive committee felt that your expectation of all getting together to formulate a 'common voice' is unrealistic. We believe that the Holy Spirit will lead isolated voices to speak with one voice without human vote being taken or legislation."

On November 4, we sent a second letter to professedly concerned Seventh-day Adventists in the area informing them that the "Symposium" was still on. It was held as scheduled, and a video was made of the presentations and the discussions.

Considering the absolute importance of the topics on the agenda for discussion and the times in which we are living, as a congregation, we were not only disappointed; and we cannot but question the sincerity of the independent ministries and the professedly concerned area Adventists who failed to attend.

The Holy Spirit was in charge of this meeting and the topics were well covered by Elder Grotheer representing the Adventist Laymen's Foundation, and Elder Tevis speaking for the Nora Springs Church. We appreciate the fact that Elder Grotheer sees the importance of these issues and we thank him for his participation.

Apparently "some have eyes to see, and see not; and ears to hear, but understand not." Richard Sutton

An Ancient Hebrew Prayer

From the conscience that shrinks from new truth,
from the laziness that is content with half truth,
from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
0 God of truth deliver us.

p 3 -- OBSERVATIONS -- Before any comments on the responses of those who were invited to take part in the Symposium that was held in the independent Nora Springs Seventh-day Adventist Church, careful consideration needs to be given to the gravity of the topics selected by the Church for discussion. This dare not be ignored, nor should it have been ignored by those invited to take part. Rather, it should have been the prime factor in the decision of each one invited whether to attend, or not to attend.

APOSTASY -- That there is apostasy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not questioned by a single individual or organization which was invited. The videos produced, the mini-campmeetings conducted, the articles written all say the same thing on this point. But the question that needs to be studied in regard to the apostasy in the Church is - Is the Church in apostasy, or is it merely that apostasy has taken place in the Church? One may say that this is a fine line, but it is this very line that Dr. Roger W. Coon drew in his pamphlet on Tithe which was distributed as an insert in the Adventist Review (Nov. 7, 1991). To the question, "Should I pay tithe to a church if I believe it is in apostasy?" Coon wrote:      There is a fine line - but significant distinction - between "a church in apostasy" and "apostasy in the church." (p. 3)

Coon well knows that one does not pay tithe to a "church in apostasy." But if the condition of the Church is only that it has apostasy in it, then one does continue to support the Church, and does so from inside in cooperation with its leadership! Thus every "independent ministry" must decide which is the true situation. If the Church is in apostasy, and one is removed from the Church because of his conduct, or attacks on the Church, then he doesn't make arrangements for, nor accepts invitations to place, his name on a "safe" membership list in some church far removed from his operations. This is duplicity in its most despicable form.

This number one topic on the Symposium agenda struck at the very heart of the existence of each and every one of the "independent" ministries, and is the number one reason why each one invited should have cleared their schedules to be present. "Ducking out" by some excuse is contemptible when the eternity of concerned Adventists is involved. Men whom assume leadership but who are unable to perceive the gravity of the very first topic are "blind guides" who continue to put out the eye-sight of God's professed people.

FINAL ATONEMENT -- This is present truth! lt is based in the sanctuary truth committed to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If one still believes that the atonement was not completed on the cross as the leading independent ministries profess to believe, and that Christ is now ministering as High Priest in the most holy place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, then in these final days of human history, what should be the center of our focus? Should it not be to understand the meaning of the type where the High Priest came to the Court with the mingled blood of the bullock and the Lord's goat to expiate "the uncleaness of the children of Israel"? (Lev. 16:19) Does not the type dictate that the attitude of God's professed people should be that of "soul affliction" at this present time, and if not, they will be "cut off" as if they themselves were apostates? (Lev. 23:29). Have we forgotten the counsel which states - "the class who do not feel grieved over their own spiritual declension, nor mourn over the sins of others, will be left without the seal of God." (5T:211) The continual recitation of apostasy by which to keep a steady flow of tithes and offerings into the coffers to support an "ego" trip is not "mourning" over the sins of others; it is merely using the cry of apostasy to cover their "own spiritual declension."

Can we actually believe, no matter how it may titillate our ears, that a recitation of "New Age" roots, or a tirade on the Celebration type of service, or a review of the hypnotic methods being introduced to control people - and any number of sins of the "brethren" will bring a people to the place where there will be "soul affliction"? This failure to perceive the final atonement as the present truth for this time, and substituting for it a continuous recitation of the apostasy in the Church has produced a pharisaical Laodiceanism unmatched by the Church itself in its Laodicean state. The ones who are looking at the continuous flow of videos and attending "campmeetings" where the apostasy in the Church is the main menu are developing a smug complacency thanking God that they are not like their former brethren who are now attending a celebration type of service and being manipulated by mind controlling techniques. These concerned souls are for the most part unmindful that the same

p 4 -- psychological techniques that are being decried, are the same techniques being used on them by the very "voices" who are decrying their use. Consider the "electronic" letters being sent out, their exaggerations, manipulation of facts, and the fanciful projects proposed. Those practicing these deceptive techniques, for the most part, do not even know the first thing about the final atonement, and the meaning of "soul affliction." For one sure thing, "soul affliction" is not bragging about how many "deep pockets" one gets his hand into, nor the using of the "Celebration" theme to influence God's concerned people to send in tithes so that one can cause his and his wife's payroll checks to reach the $50,000 per annum figure.

There is a place for the revelation of facts concerning the apostasy in the Church which has led to a Church in apostasy. But such a revelation must be dealt with from an historic perspective, instead of using the end results in a "leaf plucking" exhibit for an "ego" trip. Well did Paul write - "When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God." (Heb. 5:12)

Another factor concerning the final atonement must be considered. Dr.Desmond Ford introduced a theology which completely sets aside the basic sanctuary truths which were committed to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Because of the compromises with the Evangelicals in 1955-56, the Church has succumbed to the inroads of Ford's theology. Why was this devastating heresy permitted to plague God's people? This question has been given little consideration. The Messenger of the Lord warned the Church that        "God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat." (5T:707)        What brought about a condition that God permitted such a drastic introduction of heresy as is represented in Ford's teachings? This we are also told:          Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word ... But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative, and seek to avoid discussion (ibid., pp. 706-707)

If there ever was a time to discuss the final atonement, it is now, but it will take some deep searching of the Bible with prayer. Biblical answers will need to be provided to offset Ford's theology. Neither Spear nor Standish can stand up to Ford. They do not have Bible answers, and so respond only with cliches. They represent, a fossilized theology, as a firm foundation instead of heeding the counsel of God's Messenger to advance "the knowledge of truth." We need to keep in mind the counsel:     "Upon every individual who has the light of present truth devolves the duty of developing that truth on a higher scale than it has hitherto been done." (Ms. 27, 1897)        But neither Spear nor Standish have done this, and they excuse themselves from attending a Symposium to even discuss what studies should be initiated to advance such a vital subject as the final atonement. God's concerned people have fallen upon hard times with blind guides seeking to lead them.

SPIRIT OF PROPHECY -- Here is another key subject that dare not be ignored. While the questions raised do not impugn upon the fact that the gift of the Spirit of prophecy was manifest in the life and ministry of Ellen G. White as far as the various "independent" ministries are concerned, it does become a question for these "ministries" as to where they place this gift in relationship to the Bible. There is the extreme position taken by Spear and Standish which states - "The acceptance of the prophetic gift in the ministry of Sister White is essential not only to the preparation of God's people for the eternal kingdom, but also to the acceptance of the Scriptures as inspired." (Our Firm Foundation, April, 1989, p. 15) This definitely needs to be discussed in an open symposium for such a position is not only directly contradictory to what Ellen G. White wrote about "the perfecting of the man of God," but also breathes the very essence of Roman Catholic teaching in regard to the inspiration of the Bible, except it is stated in Adventist nomenclature.

In the 1884 Great Controversy (p. 413) is found a prophetic statement of God's intent and purpose for the final hours of human history. She wrote that while the world does not want "Bible truth," -
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

p 5 -- of all reforms.

"Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ' Thus saith the Lord' in its support." (ibid.) Just because we acknowledge the presence of the prophetic gift in the ministry of Ellen G. White does not abrogate the primacy of the Scriptures. In fact, at another time when the Church was in crisis - 1901 - and Ellen White was being quoted to sustain this, and to sustain that, she herself spoke very plainly to the ministers on this very point. She said in no uncertain terms:   Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the element of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more that "Sister White said" - "Sister White said this," and "Sister White said that," and "Sister White said the other thing." But say, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel," and then do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what He says. (p. 167)

But don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. lt is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now. You will have fresh matter; you won't be going over and over the same ground, and you will see a world saved. (p. 174, Verbatim report of remarks by Mrs. E. G. White, at a meeting held in Battle Creek College Library, April 1, at the General Conference of 1901; Spalding and Magan's Collection)

This is good counsel now, and needs to be practiced by those voices in the "independent" ministries" who are seeking to be leaders of God's concerned people. But this is not what is being done by more than 95% of those "voices." And the reason is simple - most of the "voices" do not know their Bibles, and cannot defend the positions they are advocating from the Bible. The Church at Nora Springs, Iowa, is to be commended for having placed this topic on the agenda for discussion at the Symposium. The tragedy is that those invited did not clear their schedules so as to be present when such a crucial topic was to be considered. This tragedy is compounded when concerned Adventists let such ministries get away with less than a Bible-centered proclamation. If every concerned Adventist would say, give us the Bible, or no support, most of the "voices" would be silenced.

In advocating a return to the Bible, and from it, a plain "Thus saith the Lord," I am not suggesting the digging up of old "evangelistic sermons" which were given back in the "golden years" of Adventist evangelism and presenting them as "present truth." (Some are doing so in what Bible they are preaching; I have a whole notebook full of such out-lines) Those old sermons did contain "timeless truths" and such truth needs to be kept before God's people in review. But where is the deep Bible study which marked the pioneers of this message, and must mark the search for understanding of Christ's final work in the Heavenly Sanctuary? A mere compilation of "quotes" from the Writings with a few personal connecting sentences between does not meet the criterion of the counsel of the Lord's Messenger to get fresh food from the Bible for His people.

JESUS' END TIME PROPHECY -- Not too much needs to be said in regard to this prophecy of Jesus found in Luke 21. The Messenger of the Lord told us that Jesus in Luke 21 connected events which were to occur in the history of Jerusalem with the "scenes that 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." (CtoW&E, pp. 23-24) The one event in the history of Jerusalem that Christ foretold which is not recorded in the other two synoptic gospels is in regard to "the times of the Gentiles," or nations - corporate bodies. The details of this prophecy with documentation is to be found in the published manuscript - The Hour and the End.

What needs to be realized is that when the Messianic prophecy concerning the coming "Prophet" was given to Moses, God also said that He would put words into the mouth of that Prophet, and that whosoever would "not hearken unto My words which He shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." (Deut 18:18-19) We can no more today disregard this prophecy of Jesus in Luke 21:24, than the early Christians could ignore the prophecy concerning the Roman armies to surround the city as they did in A.D. 66. But everyone of those invited to the symposium, and who did not come, are doing so. This should tell God's concerned people something!

A COMMON VOICE -- This was not an unreasonable expectation to be placed on the agenda of the Symposium for discussion. There was no suggestion of coersion, or legislation in the letter of invitation sent to each of the invited "independent ministries." Is God divided? Does He speak out of both sides of His mouth? Does the Spirit of truth teach one thing to one man, and a different thing to another? Absolutely not! The multitude of "voices" on the periphery of Adventism today, each with his own personal message, indicates not the Spirit of the Lord, but rather the spirits of devils. Christ's High Priestly prayer was for unity of witness, not a divisive and deceptive witness. To seek to contribute to this prayer of Jesus Christ was the objective of the concerned Adventists at Nora Springs, Iowa. Now look at the list of those invited and note carefully who did not respond and their excuses. You have some answers if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

p 6 -- LET'S TALK lT OVER -- The ground covered in this issue leaves only one topic to talk over, and that is - Excuses. But why were there excuses? No one who really believes in fundamental Adventism can deny that the subjects chosen for dlscussion by the Church in Nora Springs, Iowa, were of the utmost importance and fraught with eternal consequences. In fact, they were so important, that each one invited to take part in the Symposium should have either cleared his schedule, or sent a knowledgeable representative to sit in for hirn. If one's position on anyone of the topics listed on the agenda could not bear the scrutiny of one's peers, then what justification does one have to present himself as a spokesman for truth? Genuine truth can bear investigation, and loses nothing in open discussion. The refusal to come or to be represented at this Symposium speaks in words loud and clear. Those refusing to come either do not have a clear perception of the subjects on the agenda, and thus do not wish to have their ignorance exposed; or they know their position is flawed, and are not willing to have those flaws revealed. In either case, they are playing the role of a hypocrite - professing to be trustworthy guides to concerned Seventh-day Adventists when they are not.

lt is possible that in one or two cases of those invited that they did have commitments which prevented them from accepting the invitation; but they could have acknowledged the gravity of the topics on the agenda and expressed their desire to the leadership of the Nora Springs Church to take part in such a discussion and requested that another time be set up for such a dlscussion. But for the most part, the responses were just plain cop-outs.

There should have been no question about the brethren who arranged the Symposium. They are solidly grounded in the truth, and above all courteous Christians. I was their Sabbath guest speaker one time previous to the calling of the Symposium, as had been some of the others invited. lt is true they ask questions both in open discussion and in private conversation. Some of the questions become very penetrating at times. But if I cannot give a forthright answer from the Word of God, then I should stay away if I do not wish to be exposed - and evidently that is what most of those invited did.

All of us have deadlines to meet. Each month, I have to ready the issues of WWN. I know it is work when there is limited help, although good help. With this issue we begin our 25th year of continuous publication. We set as our deadline for mailing each issue the 15th of the preceding month. November 9, the date for the Symposium came right at the time the schedule intensifies. I had just returned the week before from a series of appointments in the East, and the correspondence had accumulated. But what justifiable explanation could I give the readers of WWN for absenting myself in view of the importance of the agenda topics?

The non-response most difficult to understand is the failure to reply in any way on the part of Jan Marcussen. He had been a guest speaker at Nora Springs a little over a month previous to the November date. He even made a video of some of the leaders of the Church answering his questions. He expressed great interest in their program as an alternative to the apostasy in the regular Church. If one's "hobby horse" leaves one destitute of the most elementary of Christian virtues - common courtesy - what genuine value is there in one's promotion of that "hobby horse"? Such a voice is only "as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal."

The most questionable response came from Vemon Sparks of Hope International speaking for the "Executive committee." Some years back a friend gave me a card which we have placed above our Library door. lt reads - "God so loved the world that He didn't send a committee." It is true that there is "safety" in "the multitude of counsellors." (Prov. 11:14) But God also asks the question - "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2) This "Executive committee" concluded that to aim at a "common voice" was "unrealistic." Do not the Scriptures picture the Spirit and the bride speaking with one voice? (Rev. 22:17) Did Jesus pray in vain His prayer in John 17?

The real capsheaf of the committee action read - "We believe that the Holy Spirit will lead isolated voices to speak with one voice." Now Hope International promotes the belief in the primacy of the Writings rather than the primacy of the Scriptures. (See section on Spirit of Prophecy in "Observations," p. 4, col. 2) Accepting their premise momentarily, then we ask why are they taking a position contrary to the revelation given in the Writings? Hope International emphasizes the apostasy in the regular Church, and plays on it to justify their existence and the monetary soliciting. The Writings do confirm that "there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to pull down the pillars of our faith." (R&H, Dec. 3, 1892) In other words, apostasy was foretold, and it has come to pass. But at the time of this apostasy, the same prophetic testimony reads - "Every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation, and minds will be confused by many voices crying,..."This is the truth, I have a message from God, He has sent me with great light.'" In the hour of apostasy, who will be leading the many "isolated voices" to speak? The Holy Spirit, or the "power of evil"? Dare I attribute by "Executive committee" vote the working of the power of evil to the working of the Holy Spirit? And those who do so, are they safe guides? Then a final question: Is Hope International so insecure in their Biblical teaching, and their understanding of the Writings that they dared not send a representative to the Symposium? Isn't it time for God's concerned people to take note as to how shakey the so-called "firm foundation" really is? One's hope dare not be based on anything other than Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life.

Even though the congregation at Nora Springs was disappointed in the response they received, they have performed a service for God beyond human estimate in opening before the eyes of those concerned people of God who wish to see, the sham of the profession of some of the "voices" on the periphery of Adventism today.

Alistair Cooke in the Financial Times, London --       I do not remember a time when Americans have complained more - in a tone close to despair - about the visible and seemingly unhealable wounds in American society. Crime rates are regularly beyond those of all but the worst previous years. Drugs are a pestilence afflicting all classes and every age. Public education in America has been setting easy and dithering standards. . . .The feeling is epidemic that daily life, in every sort of community, is getting more squalid, expensive, and dangerous.

So what is the likely outcome? There appears to be three possibilities: the second American civil war, triggered by ethnic and regional uprisings; the arrival of a populist dictator (under the banner of liberty); an emergency return to the benevolent form of national socialism created by Franklin Roosevelt in the first New Deal. At the obvious risk of being wrong three times (and I hope I shall be), these seem to me to be the real possibilities if the social dangers, deprivations and frustrations cannot be placated by the present political system and become too much for most Americans to bear. Quoted in World Press Review, Dec. 1991, p. 41. --- (1992 Jan ) --- End --- TOP

1992 Feb -- XXV -- 2(92) -- THE PERTH DECLARATION - AN APPEAL or - A DECLARATION OF WAR? -- "The Perth Declaration, drafted and voted by the General Conference's Annual Council in Perth, Australia, in early October [of last year] has become one of the most significant appeals by church leaders in recent years." So read a report on the North American Division's year-end meeting for 1991. (Adventist Review [AR], Dec. 5, 1991, p. 6) One dare not overlook the force of this declaration coming as it did by action of the Annual Council in session. The actions of the Annual Council between sessions of General Conference carry the same authority as the actions of the General Conference itself. (ibid., July 7, 1985, p. 8 )

While the Declaration was phrased in such language as "We reaffirm," "We believe," and "We appeal," it is understood to be a declaration of war on the right and on the left. Elder Folkenberg told the NAD committee that in face of the steadily strengthening attacks on the church, "we don't have the option of silence anymore. We've lost that one. And both extremes, left and right need our attention." (AR, Dec. 5, 1991, p. 6) However the Perth Declaration focused the primary attack on the right, noting this group as presenting themselves "as defenders of the authentic Adventist faith, the correctors of others, often elevating to importance issues not agreed upon by the body as vital."

lt is the paragraph of reaffirmation which raises the most questions, and becomes a new concise summary of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. In discussing the "Separationist movements," both on the right and on the left, the Editor-in-chief of the Adventist Review uses the phrase - "our core beliefs" in his response to the Perth Decelaration. (AR, Dec. 5, 1991, p. 4) The Declaration itself states that "we reaffirm confidence ... in the fundamental truths that bind us together as a people. Among these are ..." A careful analysis of these selected "fundamental truths," these "core beliefs," needs to be made.

p 2 -- The reaffirmation reads:
1)   We believe "in Christ, the Lord of Creation, in His mighty acts as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2."       -- Do not even the Evangelicals so believe?
2)   We believe "in His atoning death at Calvary that made possible our salvation and final restoration to eternal life."      -- Do not even the Evangelicals so believe?
3)   "We rejoice in full assurance of our salvation as a gift from God, and in victory over temptation and sin by His overcoming power."       -- Do not even the Evangelicals so believe?
4)   "We accept the Scriptures as our teacher and final auttiority, and respond to His limitless love in grateful obedience."       -- Do not the Evangelicals profess the same?

Wherein do we differ from Evagelicals in these "core beliefs" as stated in the Perth Declaration?

This is in no wise to be construed that these "core beliefs" are not for the most part, statements of truth. BUT where is the "unique message" which in the next paragraph of the Perth Statement declares that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was to bear to the world?

As if as an afterthought, the reaffirmation paragraph declares last - "We affirm as well our confidence in His leading through the Spirit of Prophecy." But does this reaffirmation adopted by the Annual Council show that "confidence"? Hardly! Ellen G. White has carefully defined the historic fundamentals. During the 1888 debate wherein some declared the "precious gems of truth" coming through the Lord's chosen "messengers" to be a removal of "the old landmarks," she declared that those who were making the charges knew not what those landmarks were. She then defined them as:   1)   "The temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God."   2)   "The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment."   3)   "The non-immortality of the wicked." She indicated that the events of 1844 opened to the Advent believer's "astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having a decided relation to God's people on earth," and the all-encompassing Three Angels' Messages. (Manuscript, 13, 1889)

Now where in the paragraph of reaffirmation in the selected "core beliefs" is the sanctuary truth set forth - the cleansing of the sanctuary and the final atonement? Where is the Sabbath reaffirmed, even though this is no longer unique to Seventh-day Adventists. Where is the guard against the inroads of Spiritism - "the non-immortality of the wicked" - reaffirmed? The bottom line is simply that this is not a reaffirmation to the truth committed to the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the beginning, but rather a reaffirmation to the compromises made with the Evangelicals in 1955-56. The Annual Council in the Perth Declaration did not affirm what was denied in 1955-56, but affirms only those teachings as examples of Adventist "fundamentals" which harmonize with the Evangelical teachings. So whether the leadership want to admit it or not, the Perth Declaration still locks the Church in apostasy.

GRAHAM IN MOSCOW -- Christianity Today captioned a report in their "News" section - "Graham School Bridges Soviet Church Divisions." lt read:   Nearly 5,000 pastors, lay preachers, and other church workers came from across 11 time zones of the Soviet Union to attend a Billy Graham School of Evangelism conducted last month in Moscow. lt was the largest such school the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has ever sponsored. And for the Soviets, according to local denominational leaders, it was the most representative gathering of Soviet Christians ever held. The five day conference brought together Baptists, Pentecostals, Seventh-day Adventists, Methodists, and members of other denominations, "registered" (government sanctioned) and "unregistered" alike. (August 19, 1991, p. 40; emphasis supplied)

p 3 -- PRESENT TRUTH -- It was Peter who wrote - "Be established in the present truth." (II Peter 1:12) For the Apostolic Church, the fulness of time had come, and Jesus had been sent forth, made of a woman. (Gal. 4:4) He had been delivered for our offenses and had been raised for our justification. (Rom. 4:25) The proclamation of this glorious provision was "the present truth" of the Early Church. It is still truth. Jesus ever lives to make intercession for us. (Heb. 7:25)

While truth is eternal because its source is the Eternal One, there comes, however, to every period of time a truth particularly apropos for that time. For that generation it is "the present truth." Around that truth clusters the significance of all other truth adapted to the need of God's people. For example, consider the parable of the Ten Virgins. We are not living in the time, when they - as a unit - "went forth to meet the bridegroom," but rather in the hour when the slumbering virgins awakened to the midnight call - "Behold the bridegroom, be ye going out to a meeting of him." (Matt. 25:6, Greek) Five responded; five went to buy oil." There was a separation; it was decision time for the Ten Virgins.

What then is "the present truth" for this hour? Once that can be determined, then the issues which are presently dividing the Adventist Community can be clarified. The roots of the Adventist people are in the 1844 Movement. "The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to [the] astonished eyes [of the believers] the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having a decided relation to God's people opon the earth." (Ms. 13, 1889) From this revelation of truth, there was developed "a doctrine never known in theological history until the second half of the nineteenth century and which is a doctrine held exclusively by the Seventh-day Adventists." (Barnhouse, Eternity, Sept., 1956) This doctrine is known as "the investigative judgment," or is presently referred to as "the pre-Advent judgment." These names obscure the real doctrine. The real truth of pure historic Adventist theology involves the cleansing of the sanctuary and the "decided" relationship of that cleansing to God's people on earth. The final atonement is "the present truth" for this hour.

In the 1955-1956 SDA-Evangelical Conferences, the leadership of the Church denied the final atonement. Ford's brutal attack in 1979 zeroed in on this concept. In the Perth Decelaration, the Church in session did not reaffirm that which was denied in 1955-1956. On the periphery of Adventism are those "voices" who while seeking to affirm the historical teaching of the sanctuary truth, are merely mouthing cliches of a fossilized theology. It is time to reaffirm our faith in that teaching which is so uniquely Seventh-day Adventist, but do so in the framework of a restudy of the Bible as to what the type is really telling us. The earthly priests of the Divinely ordered type "served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." (Heb. 8:5)

Merely a casual mental review of the typical service on the Day of Atonement tells us that the ministry of that day was not confined wholly and solely to the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary, but involved a special ministry for "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" at the Altar in the court. (Lev. 16:19) To this fact, we have not given due consideration. Further, we have not considered the meaning and significance of the fact that in this cleansing, the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled. (16:18)

We have been so engrossed - those who will even study the sanctuary truth - with the meanings to be derived from a study of the furniture and compartments of the sanctuary that we have failed to perceive the magnitude and significance of the contrast between the earthly and the heavenly. How do you compare a ten cubit cubical with the Heavenly Holy of Holies wherein are assembled, when the judgment is set, the unnumbered hosts of angels? (Daniel 7:10) And why are they there at the commencement of the judgment? To defend their record keeping? Did they not abide in the truth when it was decision time among the angels? (See John 8:44)

Consider another question. When the books are opened, will the Heavenly Court have to call into review the decision of Jesus on the Cross in regard to the thief who confessed Him, Lord? Or will the words of Jesus concerning those who hear and believe, apply? (John 5:24) Do these questions, to which we have given little thought, if considered, nullify the unique sanctuary truth committed in sacred trust to this people? Absolutely not! But it will require study which is more than surface thinking and the cliches of a fossilized theology. The same openness with which our founding fathers approached the teachings of William Miller, confirming some, discarding others, will need to characterize our research.

The Word must be permitted to speak. The

p 4 -- result will be "the present truth" for this hour. We must understand what the final atonement in its last aspects means in regard to the removal of the uncleanness of the children of Israel. This means a careful review of both Leviticus chapters four and sixteen. To stimulate study of the salient points involved, we now list some key factors of the services in which the priests "served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."

LEVITICUS 4 -- The mediation in the daily services in which the confession of sin was made involved only sins of ignorance - "if a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord." (4:2) Paul used this fact in setting forth Jesus Christ to the assembled synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia. He declared:    Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts. 13:38-39)

Since "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins," nor could those "sacrifices...make the comers thereunto perfect" (Heb. 10:4, 1), it should be obvious that the thrust of those services was to reveal the nature and objective of the Heavenly. What do we learn therefore?

1)   Even though done in ignorance, there was a record made that needed to be cleared. When convicted of the sin, a formula for confession and atonement was available. Thus from the very start of the study of the sin offerings, it should be obvious that the blood of the sin offering did not transfer sin to the sanctuary, but rather was a confirmation of the sin, and the acceptance of the means provided for forgiveness.

2)   There were four categories of "sinners."   a)   The sin of "the anointed priest" so as to bring, "guilt upon the people" (4:3 NKJV);   b)   A sin committed by "the whole congregation" (4:13);   c)   The sin of a ruler (4:22). This included the priests as individuals. (See Numbers 3:32; the Hebrew word for "chief" is translated "ruler" in Lev. 4:22);   d)   The "common people" (4:27). The first two categories involved corporate guilt, while the last two were individual.

3)   For the corporate guilt, the High Priest mediated the sacrifice. (4:3-4, 16) For the individual confession, the common priest rninistered. (4:25, 30, 34)

4)   Only in the ministration of corporate guilt and confession was the blood taken into the sanctuary. There it was sprinkled seven times "before the vail" separating the holy from the most holy place. lt was "recorded" on the horns of the Altar of Burnt Incense. The balance of the blood was poured at "the bottom of the altar of burnt offering" in the court. (4:16-18)

5)   The blood of the sacrifice for the individual, be he a ruler or an individual of the congregation, was "recorded" on the horns of the Altar in the court, and the balance of the blood poured at the bottom of the Altar. (4:25, 30) At no time was it ever carried into the sanctuary. The law of the sin offering required that the common priest eat of the sin offering in the court. (6:25-26)

6)   The result of the mediation in three of the categories - one corporate, and the two individual - was that "the priest shall make an atonement for them [or hirn], and it shall be forgiven them [or him]." (4:20, 26, 31, 35) Only in the case where the sin of the high Priest brought guilt upon the people is this statement omitted.

~~~~~

These details pertaining to the sin offerings of the daily services do permit some immediate observations:
1)   The Altar in the Court was the center for the daily services. From the sacrifices offered thereon all blood flowed which effected the atonement resulting in forgiveness. It syrnbolized the earth - Calvary - where the great Sacrifice of God was made. (See Rev. 11:2)

2)   The daily service resulted in an atonement. This sets forth the fact that an atonement was made at the Cross. Christ ministered as a common priest while on earth extending forgiveness to all who sought it, and then gave His life for the remission of sins. (Luke 5:24; 23:42-43; Rom. 4:25)

3)   As the common priest ate of the offering, offered "for sin" (Lev. 6:26), so Christ partook of our "flesh and blood" being made to be "sin for us" (Heb. 2:14; II Cor. 5:21). He "offered Himself" for us, "Himself the priest, Himself the victim" (Heb. 9:14) Then He was called to be High Priest forever after the Order of Melchisedec. (Heb. 5:9-10)

We turn now to the details of the work of the high priest as he served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.

p 5 -- LEVITICUS 16 -- In studying this chapter, there are certain linguistic details that must be kept in mind. What we refer to in our Adventist nomenclature as "the most holy place" is noted in this chapter as simply, "the holy" with the word "place" supplied by the translators (Lev. 16:2). The part of the sanctuary which we term, "the holy place" is noted as "the tabernacle." (16:16,17) The court is referred to as "the altar that is before the Lord." (16:18)

Further, it needs to be kept in mind that the services described in this chapter took place on the 10th day of the 7th month. In Leviticus 23, this day is designated as "the day of atonements" - plural in the Hebrew (23:27, 28). Whether the plural is used because of the various cleansings described as taking place on this day, or whether it is an example of the Hebrew usage of the majestic plural to note the contrast between an atonement involved with the daily services resulting in forgiveness and the atonement of this day which resulted in a cleansing, needs careful study. Our spiritual forefathers evidently perceived the latter understanding, as they designated in the 1914 Yearbook Statement of Beliefs, the services of this day as "the atonement."

Since the high priest on this day, as he with the common priests in the daily services, "served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things," the details given in this chapter require thoughtful analysis:
1)   In performing his duties on this day, the high priest was clothed fully in linen from his head to his ankles. These garments were noted as "holy garments." (16:4)

2)   On this day, Aaron entered three times into the most holy place: once with incense, once with the blood of the bullock, and finally with the blood of the Lord's goat. (16:12-15)

3)   The offering of the bullock is noted as "the sin offering for himself, and for his house." (16:6,11) It needs to be kept in mind that the texts do not say, "for his sons" who served as "common priests" and who ate of the sin offerings of the individuals, thus identifying with their sins. Further, no hands were laid on the bullock in confession. Aaron ministered that day as a type of Christ our High Priest. The "house" concept is made a part of Paul's introduction of Christ as the High Priest of our profession. (See Heb. 3:1-6)

4)   There was a movement on that day in the ministry of the high priest. The cleansing was done in three steps, or stages, first the most holy, then the holy, and finally in the court at the altar there.

5)   The first cleansing was deemed necessary "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." (16:16) Yet in the cleansing of the altar in the court, where the registry of their confessions had been made, only the uncleanness is noted as the final act before the scapegoat is brought into the ceremony. (16:19-21) The record of sins is first considered as the books are opened. That which lies at the root of our sins - our uncleanness - is the last to be cleansed.

6)   In this final cleansing, the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat are mingled. (16:18)

Since we are not living in the time when "the judgment was set and the books were opened" (Dan. 7:10), but over 100 years past that date, we must be near to, or in the time pictured in the service when the central focus of the Heavenly Ministry of Christ is on that which was typified by the ministration at the altar in the court. Therefore, all of these typical factors must be clearly perceived, and then related to aspects of Christ's High Priestly ministry as revealed in other references of the Bible. The resultant revelation would be "the present truth" for this hour.

OTHER REFERENCES -- EZEKIEL 9 -- "The Visions of God" given to Ezekiel (Chapters 8-11) when cast into a last day setting project a relationship with the last phase of the final atonement. The eschatological significance of certain prophecies of Ezekiel have been recognized by other than Adventist commentators. (Bible Commentary on the Old Testament, "Book of Ezekiel," pp. 305-306) Ellen G. White was specific in relating Chapter 9 to the final ministry of the Heavenly Sanctuary. (5T:207-208)

In the typical services of the Day of Atonement, the last act of cleansing centered in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering, or Brazen Altar. The focus of Ezekiel 9 is likewise at the Brazen Altar. (9:2) The One commanded to do the sealing was "clothed with linen" even as the high priest was clothed on the Day of Atonement.

In Ezekiel 10, the work of "the man clothed in linen" is enlarged. He is commanded to take

p 6 -- "coals of fire" from between the cherubim and scatter them over Jerusalem. (10:2, 6-7) Some interpret these "coals of fire" as symbols of judgment. However, "the man clothed with linen" was never commanded to destroy, but only to seal. (9:4-6) The cleansing by coals of fire find a parallel in Isaiah's experience who having received "a live coal...from off the altar" was told, "Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine inquity is taken away, and thy sin purged." (Isa. 6:6-7) John the Baptist defined one of the objectives of Christ's mission to be a baptism "with fire." (Luke 3:16)

DANIEL 7 -- The enlarged scope and significance that is given by the typical service of the Day of Atonement, when the movement of the high priest on that day is considered, helps one better to comprehend the part of the prophecy of Daniel 7 which relates to the time when "the judgment was set, and the books were opened."

In the sequence of Chapter 7, Daniel is brought in vision to the time of the "little horn" which was to reign for "a time, and times, and a dividing of time." (7:8, 25) This brings us to A.D. 1798. Then Daniel beholds "till" the Ancient of days sat in judgment. This judgment - "the cleansing of the sanctuary" - would begin in 1844. (8:14)

We have failed to consider the import of the events to take place after 1844 as revealed to Daniel. He wrote - "I beheld then because of the great words which the horn spake." (7:11) We have placed "the great words" as being fulfilled during the 1260 years of the medieval supremacy of the Papacy. But a careful reading of the text (7:25 KJV) indicates that the word, "great" is supplied, and the "great words" from Heaven's viewpoint follow the date, 1844. lt is after this revelation - and other details which are given concerning the end of the "beast" which nurtures "the little horn" - that Daniel sees the Son of man coming to the Ancient of Days to receive "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom." (7:13-14) All of these factors have not been duly considered in our study of the final atonement. (In an upcoming issue of WWN, we will give consideration to this)

REVELATION 14:6-12 -- The steps, stages, or agenda in the mediation of the cleansing on the Day of Atonement were three-fold: - First in the Most Holy, that which pertained to God and the record of the sins of the people; next, in the tabernacle where was registered corporate confession; and finally, in the Court at the Altar which carried the record of the confession of the individual. It is interesting to note that the Three Angels in their messages follow the same three steps. First, there is the message, "the hour of [God'sJ judgment is come," then, "Babylon," a corporate body, is fallen, and finally, "If any man" - individual. To this parallel, study needs to be given.

IN CONCLUSION -- How tragic, in these final hours of human history, the Church to which was committed the sanctuary truth in sacred trust, did not reaffirm its commitment to that truth at Perth. Equally as tragic, are those "voices" which profess to be committed to the sanctuary truth but are merely uttering their time-worn cliches and shibboleths instead of getting down to the meat of the Word of God and feeding the people as "faithful and wise" servants ought to be doing. (Matt. 24:45) Well did the Lord say through Ezekiel - "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?" (34:2)

LET'S TALK IT OVER -- In the typical service on the Day of Atonement, there was one condition which we too often overlook. It reads:      There shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy." (Lev. 16:17)

Paul expressed it very concisely when he wrote to Timothy that there is but "one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. (I.2:5) The high priest alone in the type effected the cleansing of the sanctuary, and the people of Israel. He offered "the bullock" for himself, but he did so as a type of Christ "who gave himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from the present evil world." (Gal. 1:4) He offered the blood of the Lord's goat - that goat which was taken from the congregation of Israel (Lev. 16:5), symbolizing Him who would be raised "from among their brethren" (Deut. 18:18), and became the Lord's sacrifice." (Gen. 22:8) Not a single individual in the camp of Israel could make a contribution to their cleansing on that day.

There were only two requirements made of the people assembled before the court of the tabernacle on the Day of Atonement: -   1)   No work of any kind, and   2)   Soul affliction. A failure to observe either meant to "be cut off from among his people" by the Lord Himself. (Lev. 23:29-30)

Consider the matter of "no work." All the other annual feast days prohibited only "servile work." (Lev. 23:8, 25, 35-36) This one annual day - the Day of Atonements - carried the same prohibition as was placed on the Sabbath - "in it thou shalt not do any work." (Ex. 20:10) And interestingly, when Paul asks the "holy brethren" to consider the High Priest of their profession (Heb. 3:1), he introduced the Sabbath and gave its true meaning and significance. He wrote:     There remaineth therefore a rest [keeping of a sabbath - margin] to the people of God. For he that is entered into His rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His. (Heb. 4:9-10)

The word, "rest," in verse 10 is the same root word as is used in Matt. 11:28-30. It is the soul rest provided by Jesus. To enter into that rest is to cease from dependence on our own righteousnesses. We cannot provide forgiveness for ourselves, neither can we effect the atonement from our uncleanness. To attempt it, is

p 7 -- to face being cut-off from the spiritual commonwealth of Israel. We cannot seem to realize that instead of a program of faith plus works, it is having a faith that works. We overcome the enemy "by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of [our] testimony," and we are willing to lay our lives on the line. (Rev.12:11) Why can I not accept the single condition which Jesus placed on doing a work acceptable to God - "believe on Him whom He hath sent" (John 6:29); and then believe that that One can truly mediate the atonement for my uncleanness? To even think that I can divest myself of the forces of my fallen nature through rules and regulations is Laodiceanism compounded.

Then there is the matter of "soul affliction." It, too, if not done will be cause for being cut-off. Hand wringing over the Church in apostasy is not soul affliction. Decrying the symptoms does not cure the disease. It may be that I may have the same disease, and in my Laodicean folly not sense it. We need to ask ourselves - all of us - the question:  "Am I so involved in exposing the apostasy in the Church that I am gullible to the deceptions being mixed with truth by the "many voices" sounding in the community of Adventism today? Whether the deceptions come from within the Church, or from the "voices" sounding on the periphery, all deception is basically the foundation of apostasy. To think that I can separate truth from error without the Spirit of discernment which comes from God alone, is to deceive myself. With the winds of doctrine blowing at gale force through the Adventist Community, one needs to be before God in soul affliction as he never was before. "So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true, that It will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures. By their testimony every statement is to be tested." (GC, p. 593)

May God have mercy on our self-confidence, and our misdirected devotion. May we be driven to our knees because we have been warned that the diabolical working of the enemy transforms his agents into "ministers of righteousness." (II Cor. 11:15) May we through soul affliction be "so firmly established upon His word" that we will not yield to the evidence of our perverted senses. May we in the crisis that now engulfs us "cling to the Bible, and the Bible only." (GC, p. 625) --- (1992 Feb) --- End --- TOP

1992 Mar -- XXV -- 3(92) -- THE "TITHE" INSERT BY COON -- In the November 7, 1991, issue of the Adventist Review, there was inserted a pamphlet - Tithe - written by Dr. Roger W. Coon of the Ellen G. White Estate. The sub-title was "Ellen G. White's counsel and practice." In the first issue of WWN for 1992, we noted this pamphlet, and commented briefly on one of the key points of Coon's argument. However, a more thorough analysis of his position on this point needs to be presented.