Letters to the Churches
Part 2 of 2
by M. L. Andreasen
p 51 -- SERIES A - NO. 4 - A RESUME
p 52 -- In the documents and letters I have sent out from time to time concerning what I consider a serious departure from the faith on the part of the leaders, I have adhered strictly to the advice which Christ gives in Matthew 18:15-17. There He says that if differences arise among brethren, "tell him his fault between thee and him alone." If he will not hear, "take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church." This principle I have followed as will appear from the record.
In the month of
May, 1957, there was placed in my hand, providentially I believe, a copy
of the minutes of the White Board
of Trustees for May 1 and 2, 1957, recording a meeting of two brethren
with the Trustees concerning a statement they
had found in Mrs. White's writings regarding the atonement.
They sought counsel in this matter, inasmuch as what they had found did
not harmonize with the new view which the leaders
were advocating. What attitude should these researchers take in view of
Mrs. White's statement?
For a number of months,
even for years, our leaders had been studying with some evangelical ministers
with a view to eventual recognition of the Adventists as an evangelical
Christian body. The studies were concerning the doctrines of the Adventists,
particularly the Atonement, the Investigative judgment, and Christ's work
in the heavenly sanctuary since 1844. These doctrines the evangelicals
had called "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon
in religious history," and had so denominated them in their journal,
Eternity, for September, 1956, reprinting the article in an Extra
under the title, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?"
The evangelical ministers appear to have made a pronounced impression upon the Adventist leaders, so much so that Dr. Barnhouse, one of the participating evangelical ministers, reports that the Adventist leaders "totally repudiated" some of their most important doctrines. It may be best to let Dr. Barnhouse tell the story himself as he re-
p 53 -- ported
it in the Extra named above, for September, 1956. The particular subject
which he discusses is what is called "The Great Disappointment,"
and has reference to the great disappointment of the Adventists in 1844
when they expected the Lord to come. Here is his account:
"On the morning
after the 'Great Disappointment' two men were going through a corn field
in order to avoid the pitiless gaze of their mocking neighbors to whom
they had said an eternal good-bye the day before. To put it in the words
of Hiram Edson (the man in the corn field who first conceived this peculiar
idea), he was overwhelmed with the conviction 'that instead of our High
Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to
come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month at the end of
2,300 days, He for the first time entered on that day the second
apartment of that sanctuary, and that He had work to perform in the Most
Holy before coming to this earth.' It is to my mind, therefore, nothing
more than a human, face-saving idea! It should also be realized that some
uninformed Seventh-day Adventists took this idea and carried it to fantastic,
literalistic extremes. Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventist leaders say,
flatly, that they repudiate all such extremes. This they have said in
no uncertain terms. Further, they do not believe, as some of their earlier
teachers taught, that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary,
but instead that He was still carrying on a second ministering work since
1844. This idea is also totally repudiated. They believe that since His
ascension Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which
He completed on Calvary.
In explanation of
this somewhat involved statement, I append the following explanation,
which may clarify some expressions.
Dr. Barnhouse first reports the well-known incident of Hiram Edson going through the cornfield on the morning after the "Disappointment," and becoming convinced that "instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy . . He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary, and that He had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth." The work He was to do before
p 54 -- coming
to this earth was the completion of the atonement which involved the investigative
judgment. This conception, says Dr. Barnhouse, "is nothing more than
a human, face-saving idea." Than he continues, "Some uninformed
Seventh-day Adventists took this idea and carried it to fantastic, literalistic
extremes." That is, they believed that Christ really did go into
the Most Holy to do a work which had to be done before His coming to this
earth, which involved the investigative judgment and the completion of
the atonement. Dr. Barnhouse reports: "Mr. Martin and I heard the
Adventist leaders say, flatly, that they repudiate all such extremes.
This they have said in no uncertain terms."
If we are to believe
Dr. Barnhouse's statement, then our 1eaders repudiated a doctrine which
we have held sacred from the beginning. This is made clear as Dr. Barnhouse
continues: "Some of their earlier teachers taught that Jesus' atoning
work was not completed on Calvary, but instead that He was still carrying
on a second ministerial work since 1844. This idea is also totally repudiated."
When Dr. Barnhouse says that "some" of our earlier teachers taught "that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary," he must have gotten his information from some of the "uninformed" authors of our new theology; for history records that all our teachers taught this. James White, J. H. Waggoner, Uriah Smith, J. N. Andrews, J. N. Loughborough, C. H. Watson, E. E. Andross, W. H. Branson, Camden Lacey, R. S. Owen, 0. A. Johnson, H. R. Johnson, F. D. Nichols, (until 1955) all stoutly defended the doctrine of Christ's atoning work since 1844, and committed their convictions to writing. As I write this, I have nearly all their books before me. James White, our first General Conference president, when he was elected the first editor of Signs of the Times, wrote in the first issue of that paper an article "to correct false statements circulated against us . . . There are many who call themselves Adventists, who hold views with which we can have no sympathy, some of which, we think, are subversive of the plainest and most important principles set forth in the word of God." The second of the twenty-five articles of faith reads in part as follows: Christ "lived
p 55 -- our
example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended
on high, to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, with
his own blood, he makes atonement for our sins; which atonement, so
far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the
sacrifice, is the vary last portion of his work as priest." These
Fundamental Beliefs, were also printad in a little tract and circulated
by the thousands. It would be interesting if the one who wrote pages 29,
30, 31, 32, in Questions on Doctrine, would furnish us with a list
of writers who held views contrary to those of the authors mentioned above.
I have not found any proof for the incorrect statements found on those
To continue our study of Dr. Barnhouse's report in the Eternity Extra. He has just affirmed that the Adventist leaders have "totally repudiated" the idea that Christ is "still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844," by which he means an atoning work. Instead of this, he says, "they believe that since His ascension Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which He completed on Calvary." This view, however, he does not consider consistent. The Old Testament informs us that the high priest killed the sacrifice in the court outside the tabernacle. But the killing was not the atonement. "It is the blood that maketh atonement." Leviticus 17:11. Therefore the high priest shall "bring his blood within the vail...and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat, and he shall make an atonement for the holy place." Leviticus 16:15, 16. "He goeth in to make an atonement." Verse 17. Dr. Barnhouse argues, that as we base our doctrine of atonement largely on the figure given us in Leviticus, and use that in our teaching on the atonement, we must believe that as the high priest on earth took the blood into the sanctuary and there made atonement, so Christ must do likewise, He must go in to complete the atonement. Else we have an atonement without blood. If we do not take the last step, then we are compelled to believe that the atonement was made in the court and not in the sanctuary, which completely destroys all typology. If this last service with the blood is omitted, then our theory
p 56 -- of the atonement is sadly incomplete, and "is most certainly exegetically untenable, and theological speculation of a highly imaginative order." If Christ does not go in with the blood to complete the atonement, then what we have left "is stale, flat, and unprofitable." He has a good argument.
IS IT TRUE?
When I first read
in the Extra that our leaders had repudiated the doctrine of Christ's
atoning work in the sanctuary since 1844, and had substituted for this
"the application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He
made on the cross," I could not believe it, and did not believe it.
When I was told that even if I read in "the writings of Ellen G.
White, that Christ is making atonement now," I am not to believe
it, I wondered, "What are we coming to?" The atonement was made
1800 years ago, our leaders say Sr. White says the atonement is going
on now. Questions on Doctrine says it was made 1800 years
ago. The Ministry says the atonement on the cross was final. Who
or what am I to believe? To me, to repudiate Christ's ministry in the
second apartment, now, is to repudiate Adventism. That is one of
the foundation pillars of Adventism. If we reject the atonement in the
sanctuary now, we may as well repudiate all Adventism. For this, God's
people are not ready. They will not follow the leaders in apostasy.
At this juncture
it occurred to me that perhaps the Eternity men had regretted what
they had written and had retracted, or would retract, all they had written.
So I wrote to Eternity, asking if they still published the Extra.
They answered that they did. The article being copyrighted, I than asked
for permission to quote them. I received this answer: "We are glad
to give you permission to quote from the article, 'Are Seventh-day Adventists
Christians?' and would appreciate you giving credit to Eternity
when you do this." This letter was dated Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
May 2, 1958, and signed by the editor.
This was twenty months after the article had first appeared in Eternity. If at any time during those twenty months our leaders had protested, if they had made a demurrer,
p 57 -- in honesty the editor would have warned me not to use the material, and not to quote these statements. But the editor did no such thing. He was glad and willing for me to use the material, willing to stand by what the Extra had published, willing for me to quote them. It is fully five years since the discussions began, and three years since the ,Extra was published. For this long time I have been waiting for our men to deny the charges, and rebuke the evangelicals for publishing such defamation of our entire leadarship. But I have heard no protest. On the contrary, I have read several references in our papers to these evangelicals as being fine, Christian gentlemen, which I believe is true. Such man do not tell falsehoods. In the absence of any denial or protest from our men, I have reluctantly drawn my own conclusions. But if our men will make a straightforward declaration that Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin never heard them make such statements as Eternity avers, I will immediately get in contact with the evangelicals and ask them to make apologies for such serious and grave accusations. This matter is too serious to go by default. Thousands of our people have read the Eternity article and are seriously concerned . One of the main pillars of our faith has, according to Eternity, been removed. Shall we stand idly by and permit tha sanctuary to be trodden under foot, and that by its supposed supporters?
We shall now return to the two men who entered the White vault in May, 1957, to counsel with the White Trustees. They had finished their research work, and reported to the board that they had found "indications" that Sr. White taught that "the atoning work of Christ is now (1880) in progress in the heavenly sanctuary." This discovery was a death-blow to their new theology. It was evidently impossible to believe that the work of atonement was completed on the cross and was final, and also to teach that it was still in progress in heaven. Both statements could not be true. However, the denomination had already committed itself on this point, and had in l957 published in tha Ministry that the great act on
p 58 -- the
cross was "a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man's sin."
Ministry, February, 1957. The article said that this is now "the
Adventist understanding of the atonemont, confirmed, and illuminated and
clarified by the Spirit of Prophecy." Ibid. This statement
has never been retracted, or modified, or changed, and neither the writer
nor editor has been reproved. It stands.
In view of the situation,
what were the researchers to do? They were faced with the statement of
Mrs. White's, that the atonement is now in progress in heaven. They were
face to face with the other statement of the leaders that the atonement
was made and finished on the cross. They must accept one or the other.
They chose to go with the leaders.
But what about Sister
White's statements, for there are many of them? It was clear that in some
way her influence must be weakened and her statements watered down. But
that was a delicate piece of work; and whatever was to be done had to
be done in secret. If it were found out in time, the plan would not succeed.
If, however, they could work in secret, and work rapidly, that matter
would be a "fait accompli" - done before any one found out about
It was at this time
that a copy of the White minutes were handed me. I shall now present the
minutes, so that all may see for themselves what was done.
Minutes, as of May 1, 1957, page 1483.
"At this juncture in our work, Elders X and Y were invited to join the Trustees in discussing further a matter that had been given study in January. Elder X and his group who have been studying with certain ministers have become acutely aware of E. G. White statements which indicate that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary. In one statement in Fundamentals of Christian Education, the word "sacrifice" is used. To non-Adventists, unfamiliar with our understanding of the sanctuary question, references to a continuation of the atoning work of Christ, are difficult to grasp, and it was suggested to the Trustees that some footnotes or Appendix notes might appear in certain of the E. G. White books clarifying very largely in the words of Ellen 'White our understanding of the various phases of the atoning work of Christ. It was felt by the brethren who joined the Trustees in the discussion that this is a matter which will come prominently to the front in the near future, and that we would do well to move forward with the preparation and inclusion of such notes in future printings of
p 59 -- the E. G. White's writings. The matter was discussed carefully and earnestly, but at the time that the meeting broke up to accommodate other committees, no action was taken."
Meeting, May 2. page 1488.
E. G. White Statements on the Atoning Work of Christ "The meeting of the Trustees held May 1 closed with no action taken on the question which was discussed at length - suitable footnotes or explanations regarding the E. G. White statements on the atoning work of Christ which indicate a continuing work at the present time in heaven. Inasmuch as the Chairman of our board will be away from Washington for the next four months, and the involvements in this question are such that it must have the most careful consideration and counsel, "It was VOTED, That we defer consideration until a later time of the matters that were brought to our attention by Elders X and Y involving the E. G. White statements concerning the continuing atoning work of Christ."
After the chairman
of the board had returned from his four month's trip, the matter was further
discussed, and it was decided not to grant the request. This action is
worthy of commendation, but the praise is somewhat dimmed by the fact
that it took eight months to come to this decision, and that they did
not arrive at this conclusion until the plan had become known.
This report stunned
me. How did anyone dare to suggest inclusions in Sister White's writings
to bolster the new view? I pondered long, and prayed much. Did I have
any responsibility in this matter? If I did, it would be my duty to speak
to one man, and one only. As the transgression was not against me but
against the church and our most holy faith, it was my duty to speak to
our highest officer. This I did.
In my letter of February
27, 1957, 1 had voiced my fear of publishing the proposed book, Questions
on Doctrine, as it had been prepared altogether too hurriedly and
after only a short time of study. Books of this kind cannot be written
on short notice and should be prepared by men who have given a life-time
of study to the subject and spent years in research of the Testimonies.
March 7, 1957, 1 received this answer: "I notice your observation: 'I fear greatly for the contents of the book that is being published setting forth our belief.' I do not
p 60 -- believe, Brothar Andreasen, that you need to fear for what will appaar in the book. It is being carefully gone over by a group of capable men in whom we have the utmost confidence. I feel quite confident you will be happy with the results."
In my answer of March 11, I again expressed my fear of the contents of the book. Referring to an article that appeared in the Ministry, February, 1957, I said: "if the committee agrees with his published views, I must most earnestly protest. For the views are most certainly not Adventist doctrine, but views derived from a superficial study of certain portions of the writings of Sr. White, and do not represent the general teachings." I finished with these words:
"I hereby lodge my protest against the publication at this time of any doctrine of the atonement, and wish my protest to be duly recorded. I can but feel that some of the brethren have been led into the present predicament by a desire to be like the nations around us (churches)and that we will yet rue the day when we began making concessions because of pressure from outside sources."
Receiving no answer, I wrote again May 10, 1957:
"I trust that you get the idea that I am in earnest. I have the utmost confidence in you. In my more than sixty years of official connection with the denomination, one of my chief aims has been to inspire confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy. The last two years I have spoken on the subject 204 times. I have felt that our people needed help, and I have tried to help them. I am heartbroken of what the future seems to hold unless God helps us. May the Lord give you both wisdom and courage to do what the situation demands."
After I had come into possession of the confidential minutes of the White Estate board, I followed Christ's instruction to "speak to him alone," and sent four letters to our chief officer. January 26, 1957, I received this answer:
"I am certain
we can trust the brethren of the White Estate to move cautiously in this
direction and not to take positions that might be embarrassing in the
future. Certainly, Brother Andreasen, there is no intention here whatever
to tamper with the writings of Sister White. We value them most highly.
"Referring to the book on Questions and Answers, let me assure you here, too, that this is not the work of the brethren whose names you mention. It is true that they did certain original work, but it was taken out of their hands and is the product of a large group of men rather than a few."
p 61 -- July 4, 1957, I answered. Here is part of this answwr:
"I fear the day may come when this matter will become known to the people. It will shake the faith of the whole denomination. Of course, some will rejoice that at last Sr. White has been disposed of. Others will weep and cry to the Lord for consolation, 'Spare thy people, and give not thine heritage to reproach.' And when we are caught in our own net, will the churches of the world gloat? Please, brother, see to it that the proposed book is not published. It will be fatal. . If there is no atoning work now going on in the sanctuary above, then the denomination may as well admit their mistake openly and fairly, and abide by the consequences. Let us throw Sr. White aside, and no longer hypocritically defend her writings, but behind the scenes edit them and still claim that they are her work. . I close with an expression of high regard for you. You have an almost overwhelming task before you, facing the greatest apostasy the church has ever faced."
September 18, 1957, I received this communication.
considered the matter to which you referred closed.
"I do not
believe that you have the right to use the board minutes of the White
Estate as you have done. The minutes are confidential and not intended
for public use. I hope the time will never come when we take the position
that men are to be condemned and disciplined because they come before
properly constituted church boards to discuss questions that they may
have pertaining to the work and belief of the church."
September 27, 1957,
you for your letter of September 18, wherein you state that 'the matter
to which you refer is closed.' I called for an investigation. This you
denied. You have condoned the men involved, and you have also said 1 had
no right to use the information which has come to me, and then you closed
the door. May I explain that the only way I have used my information is
to inform you, and no one else. What else could 1 do? You state
that if such information had come to you, you would not have used it.
Quite an admission. I consider the present instance the greatest apostasy
that has ever occurred in this denomination, and this you would have kept
under cover! And now you have closed the door. ...I do not believe, Brother
Figuhr, that you have considered the seriousness of the situation. Our
people will not stand for any tampering with, or attempt to tamper with
the Testimonies. It will give them an uneasy feeling that all is not well
"Read again my letter of September 12. You can save the situation, but only as you are willing to open up the matter. You are about to ruin the denomination. I am praying for you."
p 62 -- activities."
Three days later
I received this additional word: "This will place you in plain opposition
to your church, and will undoubtedly bring up the matter of your relationship
to the church. In view of all this, the officers, as I have previously
written, earnestly ask you to cease your activities."
Up till this time
there had been no suggestion of a hearirig. I was simply ordered to cease
my activity, and the implied threat that if I did not do this, "it
will undoubtedly bring up the matter of your relationship to the church."
There was no suggestion of a hearing, I was simply ordered to stop my
activity. I would be condemned without recourse. The threat that my name
would come up for consideration could mean anything. There was no question
raised as to the justice of my complaint. I was condemned already; the
only question was what my punishment would be.
This brought to mind
what had been published in the Eternity Extra, that our men had
"explained to Mr. Martin that they (the Adventists) had among their
number certain members of their "lunatic fringe even as there are
similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity."
In contrast to this lunatic fringe they had a "sane leadership,"
meaning themselves. I do not know how our leaders conducted themselves
while with the evangelicals, but they left the impression upon these men
that "the majority group of sane leadership (which) is determined
to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from
that of the responsible leadership of the denomination." Eternity
Extra, September, 1956, page 2.
Let the reader ponder
this. We have a sane leadership according to their own estimation. We
have also a lunatic fringe of wild-eyed irresponsibles. This sane leadership
is determined to put the brakes on "any members who seek to hold
views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination."
1 could not believe this when I first read it. Here I was, for fifty years an honored member of the church, having held responsible positions. But if I dared hold "views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the
p 63 -- denomination,"
I became a member of the "wild-eyed irresponsibles" who constituted
the "lunatic fringe" of the denomination; and without a hearing
I was ordered to cease my activity or feel the "brakes" applied.
If I did not now have the documents before me, I would have difficulty
in believing that any "sane leadership" would attempt to stifle
criticism and make threats against any members who seek to hold views
divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the church. Had it
come to this? Rome went but little further.
Some will object
that this is only what the evangelicals say of our leaders. The fact remains
that our men have never protested against these accusations. My own case
makes clear that without any trial or hearing I was to be brought before
the tribunal, not for a hearing, but to be condemned without a hearing
by the men who had appointed themselves as judges. It is to be had in
mind that this was before the General Conference of 1958, before the new
theology had been officially accepted, and before the denomination had
an opportunity to express itself on the subject. All public criticism
must cease. If I did not cease, it will "undoubtedly bring up the
matter of your relationship to the church." This was an ultimatum.
How did I react to
this? As any man would. Here was a usurpation of authority. I wrote that
I was a man of peace, and that I could be reasoned with, but not threatened.
I felt, and I now feel, that this denomination is facing the apostasy
foretold long ago, that our leaders are following the exact procedure
which the Spirit of prophecy outlined they would follow, and that I have
a duty which I must not shirk. I regret very much that our leaders by
their actions have made it possible for our enemies to bring deserved
reproach to God's cause. In my early letters I mentioned again and again
that our enemies would sooner or later discover our weakness and make
capital of it. I pleaded with our leaders to make amends for what had
bean done; but without results. We are now reaping what we have sown.
p 64 -- but
one that would be recorded and of which I would get a copy. In this I
have failed. I shall give the documented reasons for my failure to get
a recorded hearing.
I have been asked
what I expect to accomplish. I have received hundreds of letters pledging
support if I will only do certain things. I answer very few letters, as
it is physically impossible for me to enter into correspondence. I have
received many offers of advice and direction, but I don't want to involve
others. I have had all manner of motives attributed to me, some good people
apparently failing to understand that to attribute motives is judging.
Also, it seems impossible for some to understand that doctrine in itself
is important enough to furnish motive to protest. In this crisis we are
now in, it would be cowardice for me to fail to come up to the help of
the Lord against the mighty.
I have had three
delegations come to me to plead with me to do something "practical."
In effect they said. "We are with you, but you are not going at the
matter in a practical way. The moment we take our stand with you, we may,
and probably will, lose our position. (They were ministers.) If you had
something to offer us, if you would start another movement which we could
join, we would go with you. But to be left stranded without any prospect,
is unrealistic. You will never get anywhere unless you have something
To that I answer that I am a Seventh-day Adventist, that I am not interested in starting any movement, and that I do not care for the support of any who hold such views. They are not the kind of material that will stand in the coming crisis.
I am a Seventh-day Adventist, rejoicing in the truth. Right and truth will triumph in the end. I am hoping that as the truth of the present situation becomes known, there will be men and women who will protest and exert influence enough to effect certain changes in our organization that will ensure men in holy office that are faithful to the truth once delivered to the saints.
I end this with hearty greeting to all. My next letter on the matter of a hearing should be an interesting one.
p 65 -- Till then, may the dear Lord be with you. (Signed, M. L. Andreasen)
p 66 -- blank - TOP
p 67 -- SERIES A - No. 5 -- WHY NOT A HEARING? - INHERITED PASSIONS
p 68 -- In a previous letter I have related how in the month of May, 1957, 1 came into possession of some official minutes of the White Board of Trustees - supposed to be secret - which revealed an attempt to tamper with the Testimonies by having inserted in some of the volumes notes and explanations that would make it appear that Sr. White was in harmony with, or at least not opposed to, the new theology advocated in the Ministry and the book Questions on Doctrine. I was dumfounded when I read this official document, and doubly perplexed when I learned that this plan had the sanction of the leadership, and was approved procedure. This would mean that men could freely attempt to have insertions made in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy that would vitiate or change the intended meaning of what Sr. White had written. What assurance could we then have that the books being published were the unadulterated teachings of the author, and that they were not "remedied and corrected" as were other books, according to the account in the Eternity Extra of September, 1956?
While I felt uneasy at what the men had attempted to do, my real concern was the realization that this had been approved by the administration, and was henceforth to be accepted policy. Men could now go to the White Board, and with its approval, have inserted explanations and notes secretly and privately before any one would find out what was happening. And they could do this with the assurance that if any one learned of this and revealed what was being done, the administration would deal with such and threaten them unless they ceased their "activity."
In my case, I was told that the minutes were confidential, that I had no right to have them or even read them. Though I had quoted directly and correctly from the official minutes, I was told, "You are doing all this upon hearsay and upon confidential minutes which you have no right even to read." Letter, December, 1957. While the men wished to insert "notes," "explanations," "appendix notes," "foot notes," "suitable notes," "in future printings of the E. G. White writings," (note that all these statements are in the
p 69 -- plural)
the chairman minimized the matter by declaring in a letter of September
20, 1957 that all it involved was a "cross reference inserted at
the bottom of a certain page;" that is, one cross reference,
at the bottom of one page, in one of Sr. White's books.
This is altogether at variance with the official record. How can this
discrepancy be explained?
My first thought
and hope was that I would be called to account immediately, and be asked
to prove my charges or retract them; that an impartial group of men would
be asked to conduct a hearing. But in this I was disappointed.
The first reaction to my "activity" came in a letter of December 16, 1957. There I was told: "The question of your activity was discussed by the officers of the General Conference and they deeply deplore what you are doing. They therefore request you to cease your present activities."
Before I had an opportunity to answer, I received the following on December 19:
to repeat what I wrote you before, that men have a perfect right to go
to boards, including the White Estate group, and make their suggestions
without the fear of being disciplined or dealt with as heretics. When
we recall that you are doing all this upon hearsay, and upon confidential
minutes which you had no right even to read, it certainly impresses one
as not the Adventist way of doing things. You were not present at this
board meeting, and all you know about it is hearsay and the brief notes
recorded by the secretary of that meeting... Now for you to go forward
and broadcast a matter like this, certainly puts you in an unenviable
light. If you do this, we shall have to do some broadcasting, too. This
will again place you in plain opposition to your church, and will undoubtedly
bring up the matter of your relationship to the church. In view of all
this, the Officers as I have previously written, earnestly ask you to
cease your activities."
As will be noted, there was no suggestion of a hearing to ascertain the truth or falsity of my charges. I was simply asked to cease my "activities," or else . . .
How did I react to this? As any man would under threat. I answered that I was a man of peace, that I could be reasoned with, but not threatened. I asked them to go ahead with their plans. I was ready for whatever might come.
What would come? I did not know what was meant by
p 70 -- considering my "relationship to the church." It might mean anything. I know what impression they had left upon Dr. Barnhouse if any should object to their usurped authourity. Here is what he recorded:
"The position of the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination." Eternity Extra, September 1, 1956.
It seems unfortunate
that our leaders should have left such an impression upon the evangelicals.
This statement has now been in print three years. The attention of our
leaders has been called to it and requests made that they disavow any
such intention. But they have made no such disavowal or protest, and our
people have somewhat reluctantly come to the conclusion that Mr. Barnhouse
is correct in his extimate of our leaders. Add to this what Mr. Martin
reports the leaders told him, that "they (the Adventists) have among
their number certain members of their 'lunitic fringe' even as there are
similar 'wild-eyed irresponsibiles' in every field of fundamental Christianity."
This is what our leaders told the evangelicals in discussing the important
topic of the nature of Christ while in the flesh. These statements I consider
an insult. It shows the contempt our leaders have for those who disagree
with them. I think these statements are ample ground for impeachment.
Our people are long-suf
A SHORT MEETING
The only meeting I have ever had with our leaders was one day in February, 1958, when two officers asked me to meet with them for the few minutes they had to spare between sessions of their business meetings. The chief thing seemed to be their desire to know if I intended to continue my "activity." I told them I would. A remark was made as to why I had not asked for a hearing. It had never occurred to me that I should ask for a hearing. I expected to be summon-
p 71 -- ed, But thinking it over, the next day I wrote:
"I did not know that you wanted me to come to Washington for a hearing or discussion as you never mentioned such a thing. If that is your desire, I am ready to come.. . I have only one request, that the hearing be public, or that a stenographer be present, and that I receive a copy of the minutes." Letter, February 5, 1957.
In response to this I received this, dated February10, inviting me to come, saying:
"In compliance with your wish, the brethren see no objection whatever in recording our conversation. It is suggested that a tape-recording would likely be the most practical way of doing this."
This was satisfactory to me. I noted, however, that nothing was said of my receiving a copy of the minutes. But perhaps, I thought, this was taken for granted, as I had made this a condition, and they had accepted my proposition. But I felt uneasy. If I should write for further confirmation it might appear that I was questioning their sincerity. But when by February 21, 1 had received no further word, I wrote:
"Whether by oversight or intent, you did not answer my request that I be given a copy of the minutes. This is necessary; for in any discussion of what is said or not said, it will be my word against that of twelve. I cannot afford to put myself in that position. This is the condition upon which I come."
To this I received a reply dated February 27:
"In the matter of record, I think I indicated in my letter of February 10 that the brethren had in mind recording on tape the proceedings of the meeting. This would provide a full record of what is said and done. We assume that such a complete record would be agreeable to you."
I had asked for a
copy of the minutes, and this letter assured me that a tape recording
would be made which would "provide a full record of what is said
and done." It was assumed "that such a complete record would
be agreeable to you." It would be. At last I was assured that a full
and complete record would be made, and that according to their own suggestion
it would be tape-recorded. I could ask for no more.
But having read Questions on Doctrine carefully, I had noticed that certain things would be said on one page, and a few pages further on this would be ignored. I had made note of certain double-tongued expressions, and it gave me a
P 72 -- sense of uncertainty. I could not avoid the conviction that some of these expressions were used for the purpose of confusion and were intended to mislead.
I therefore reread the letters I had written, and also those I had received, especially the portions dealing with my request for a copy of the minutes. I found that nowhere had my request been acknowledged, but the issue had been avoided. This made me wonder. Had there throughout been a studied purpose not to give me a copy of the minutes, while the letters were so worded as to give the impression that I would get a copy? The evidence seemed to substantiate my suspicion. To make sure of my ground, I wrote on March 4 that I wanted absolute assurance, plainly stated, that I would get a "full and complete copy of the minutes" such as had been mentioned. I closed by saying: "On this point I must have absolute assurance."
As by March 12 I had received no answer, I wrote again, "I am still waiting for definite word that not only will a tape recording be made, but that I will get a copy. As I stated in my first letter, this is a necessary condition."
March 18 this answer came:
"You have referred to a desire to have minutes kept, and also a copy of the minutes. In discussing this with the officers, it occurs to the brethren that we do this,which would seem fair to all concerned: a secretary be appointed from the group to write out the conclusions we arrive at, and these be submitted to the whole group for approval, after which each will be given a copy. We believe, Brother Andreasen, that this suggestion will be agreeable to you."
This was a wholly new and entirely different suggestion. After I had been told in the February 27th letter, that a tape-recording would be made, a "full" record of "what was said and done," and hope expressed that such "a complete record would be agreeable " to me, I was now presented with a new and previously unheard of proposal, a complete face-about. There would be no stenographer, no tape-recording, no minutes at all, but one of the men would write down the conclusions arrived at. And that was supposed to be agreeable to me! It certainly was not agreeable to me. It was a complete breach of faith. It was like substituting Leah
P 73 -- for Rachel, a dishonarable transaction. I felt as did Jacob that I had been beguiled. Three weeks earlier, I had been promised "a complete copy" of the minutes which it was hoped would be agreeable to me. Now I was offered a copy of the conclusions, which it was also hoped would be agreeable to me.
This March 18 letter
reveals the fact that it was never the intention to give me a copy
of the minutes, and yet they had played me along, thinking I would accept
their suggestion, coming to a hearing or discussion, and having no record
whatever of the discussion, but only of the conclusions. In the
dark ages heretics were taken and convicted in secret. There was no habeas
corpus act in existence then. And now the officers suggested an unrecorded
session, where only a few would be present and no record of any kind be
made! I consider this an immoral suggestion. Of what were they afraid?
Moreover, before coming to such a hearing the condition was made "that
you agree, in submitting your case to the General Conference committee,
to abide by the decision of the committee." (Letter of May 13, 1958.)
This clearly reveals the intent of the committee. A hearing is to be held,
a secret hearing, and a discussion entered into, but before the hearing
or discussion is held, I am to agree to accept their conclusion and verdict.
Under these conditions, how could they help winning their case?
It appears that the officers had in mind appointing themselves accusers, jurors, judges, and executors. In a case involving points of doctrine where of necessity there must be discussion to arrive at sound conclusions, a neutral committee of men not directly involved in the controversy must hear the case. No judge ever hears a case where he is personally interested. He refuses to sit on a case where he is even remotely concerned. But our officers appoint themselves to hear the case and act as arbiters in a dispute involving points of theology, with powers to act, and ask that one side agree beforehand to accept whatever decision might be made. This, of course, is tantamount to accept the dictum of men elevated as administrators, executives, promoters, financiers, organizers and counsellors to have jurisdiction
P 74 -- over
doctrine, for which work they are not educated. I have heard every one
of them say, "I am no theologian."
March 26, 1958, I
answered the letter which stated that there would be no record of any
kind, but that I would get a copy of the conclusions. I did not
need this. I knew beforehand what they would be, for I had already been
judged and threatened. I had purposely been kept in ignorance of the intent
not to give me a copy of the minutes, but to try me secretly. Apparently
it was the intention to keep the matter from becoming known, and if I
agreed beforehand to accept their conclusions, I could be accused of breaking
my promise if I made any further comment. If I could be induced to come
to Washington under these conditions, I surely would be "sunk."
With the whole case in mind, with the repeated evasions of my request
for a copy of the minutes, I felt I had been deceived and ended my letter
by saying, "Your broken promise cancels the agreement." My faith
in men had been severely shaken.
April 3 I received
an answer stating that my letter "had been received and its content
presented to the officers." There was no mention whatever of my statement,"Your
broken promise cancels the agreement," the most important part. Also,
this statement was not read to the officers, for a month later I received
a letter saying, "Through others I have learned that you feel
we have broken our promise to you." This perversion of my words has
gone out to the field, who would naturally believe that I had written
to others and not to the person concerned. I don't do that kind
In this same letter of April 3, the writer states:
"It is true, as you state, that a tape recording was suggested at first, without a promise, however, of giving you a copy. Since making this suggestion, we have thought further about the matter and believe that such recording would not be a wise plan to follow. . . A tape recording of every little remark would not be fair to the participants. In such discussions it is not uncommon for earnest men to make a slip which they later regret and correct. Mortal man is subject to such errors; but why preserve them? The sincere purpose of the meeting would be to arrive at conclusions together. . . As I look over your letters, this would appear to be in accord with your original suggestion."
P 75 -- This
makes clear several matters. It admits that a tape-recording was suggested
at first. It also makes clear that it was never the intention of giving
me a copy, though the letters were written to hide this fact. It also
states that the officers changed their mind and decided that it would
not be a wise plan to record anything, as it "would not be
fair to the participants," a most astounding reason, and revealing
a most decided weakness. And then the last untrue statement: "As
I look over your letters, this would appear to be in accord with your
Greater untruth was
never uttered. I challenge the writer who says he looked over my letters
to find any place where I say or intimate any such thing. And yet, this
impression has gone to the field from Washington. Never suspecting that
Washington would tell anything but the absolute truth, the men in the
field who were admonished to "hold the line," naturally would
believe that this was my "original
WHY THIS SUDDEN CHANGE?
There must have
been some weighty reasons why it was suddenly decided not to have any
record at all, after it was first decided to have a complete and full
record "of all that was said and done?" The records of the 1888
crisis, the Alpha of apostasy, have largely disappeared, and the existing
records are safely hidden and not available. We do not want a like situation
in the time of the Omega. Let there
I do not know why the change came about. I can only surmise. It was understood that my "activity" would be considered as well as my relationship to the church. The brethren also suggested that perhaps I had some matters also that should be discussed. I had. I made a list of these subjects. Here it is:
p 76 --
Froom's articles, particularly those in the Februay number of the Ministry,
1957, downgrading Mrs. White.
2. The vault
visits of Elders Anderson and Reed in regard to having insertions made
in the writings of Mrs. White, and the general policies now prevailing.
3. A list of the topics discussed with the evangelicals which had taken "hundreds of hours," and the main conclusions reached.
4. A detailed list of the books "remedied and corrected" at the recommendation of Mr. Martin, and a further list of books yet to be remedied.
5. The $3,000 law suit.
6. Proselytization. What was agreed to?
7. The meaning
of "putting the brakes on" and "lunatic fringe" and
8. The new
university and the languishing foreign fields.
9. "Exchange monies."
10. A complete audit by a responsible firm of public accountants.
This list I did not
send to Washington, for I well knew that it would be a matter of months
to compass such a program. I suggested only a few subjects, and of course,
I did know what the results would be. But, curiously enough, at just this
time the brethren decided that it would not be wise to have any recording
made. Under the circumstances I agree with their decision. The pusillanimous
reason given for not having a record made - that the brethren might make
remarks of which they later would repent - is simply inane. But let there
be no misunderstanding. An accounting will yet have to be made.
To top it all comes this in the April 3 letter: "You never asked for a hearing." I will let the reader decide this question for himself. I answered: "Make no mistake on that point. I not only want a hearing, but such a hearing must be held if this sorry matter is ever to be settled. You say that vou wonder if I am really sincere in wanting a hearing. Yes, I want a hearing. I demand one. Not a secret hearing. An open one, or else with a full and complete record of all that is
p 77 -- said
and done. This has been my desire from the beginning. No star chamber
My last communication
to headquarters was dated June 28, 1958. 1 asked if it was still the determination
to give me a hearing with a tape-recording for me. A secretary ananswered:
"With reference to a tape~recording of the meeting, I am instructed
to say that our correspondence reveals no promise of a tape recording
for you. If desired, one can be made, but it will be kept in this office
for a permanent record as previously stated."
This leaves me free. I have exhausted all means of corresponding with the men I should address. I can now speak to the church, as Christ said might be done if other means fail. This I shall do. But I still hold myself ready to come to a hearing or trial, properly conducted and properly recorded. Let the light in.
On page 383 of the
book Questions on Doctrine occurs the statement that Christ "was
exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural
descendants of Adam."
This is not a quotation from the Spirit of Prophecy. It is a new doctrine that has never appeared in any Statement of Belief of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, and is in direct conflict with our former statements of doctrine. It has not been "adopted by the General Conference in quadrennial session when accredited delegates from the whole field are present," as Questions on Doctrine says must be done if it is to be official. See page 9. It is therefore not approved or accepted doctrine.
There are two statements in the Testimonies which tire referred to as proving that Christ was exempt from inherited passions. The first says that Christ "is our example in all things. He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions." Testimonies, V. 2, p. 202. The other states, "He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing
p 78 -- the
passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities,
tempted in all points even as we are." Ibid. p. 509. Both
of these statements mention passions, neither mentions pollutions. The
word exempt is not found.
Does Sr. White's statement that Christ did not have or possess passions mean that He was exempt from them? No, for not to have passions is not equivalent to being exempt from them. They are two entirely different concepts. Exempt is defined "to free or excuse from some burdensome obligation; to take out, deliver, set free as from a rule which others must observe, which binds others; to be immune from."
Was Christ excused
from "'a rule which others must observe, which binds others?"
No, "God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to (not
exempt from) the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's
peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child
of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss."
Desire of Ages, p. 49. "While He was a child, He thought and
spoke as a child, but no trace of sin marred the image of God within Him.
Yet He was not exempt from temptation. He,was subject to (not exempt from)
all the conflicts which we have to meet." Ibid. p. 71. "God
spared not His own Son." Romans 8:32. "No child of humanity
will ever be called to live a holy life amid so fierce a conflict with
temptation as was our Savior." Desire of Ages, p. 71. "It
was necessary for Him to be constantly on guard to preserve His purity."
Ibid. A man may not have cancer, but does that mean that
he is immune from it, exempt from it? Not at all. Next year
he may be afflicted with it. Sr. White does not say that Christ was exempt
from passions. She says He did not have passions, did not possess
passions, not that He was immune from them.
Why did Christ not have passions? Because "the soul must purpose the sinful act before passion can dominate over reason, or iniquity triumph over conscience." Testimonies, V. 5, p. 177. And Christ did not purpose any sinful act. Not for a moment was there in Him a sinful propensity. He was pure, holy, undefiled. But this did not mean that He was exempt from temptation or sin. "He could have sinned, He could
p 79 -- have fallen." Bible Commentary, V. 5, p. 1128. 1 am still puzzled how any one can make Sr. White say that Christ was exempt, when she says just the opposite, and does not use the word exempt.
IS TEMPTATION SIN?
Temptation is not
sin; but it may become so if we yield to it. "When impure thoughts
are chershed, they need not be expressed in word or act to consummate
the sin and bring the soul into condemnation." Testimonies, V.
4, p. 623. "An impure thought tolerated, an unholy desire
cherished, and the soul is contaminated . . . Every unholy thought must
be instantly repelled." Testimonies, V. 5, p. 177.
Satan tempts us to
get us to sin. God uses controlled temptation to strengthen us
and teach us to resist. Satan tempted Adam in the garden; ha tempted Abraham
and all the prophets; he tempted Christ; he tempts all men, but God will
"'not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able." 1 Corinthians
"Christ was a free moral agent who could have sinned had He so desired. He was at liberty to yield to Satan's temptations and work at cross purposes with God. If this were not so, if it had not been possible for Him to fall, He could not have been tempted in all points as the human family is tempted." Youths' Instructor, October 26, 1899.
THE GREAT LAW OF HEREDITY
Questions on Doctrine
says, page 383, that Christ was "exempt from the inherited passions
and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam." Every
child that is born into this world, inherits varying traits from his ancestors.
Did Christ likewise inherit such traits? Or was He exempt? Here is the
"Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity." Desire of Ages, p. 48. "What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors." Ibid. Some of these ancestors were good people; some were not so good; some were bad; some were very bad. There were thieves, murderers, adulterers, deceivers, among them. He had the same ancestors that all of us
p 80 -- have.
"He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations."
Ibid. "Jesus acceipted humanity when the race had been
weakened by four thousand years of sin." Ibid.
In view of these
and many other statements, how can any say that He was exempt?
Far from being exempt or reluctantly submitting to these conditions,
He accepted them. Twice this is stated in the quotations here made.
He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity, and
with such heredity He came to share our sorrows and temptations."
The choice of the
devout Adventist is therefore between Questions on Doctrine and
Desire of Ages, between falsehood and truth. "God permitted
His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity.
He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul,
to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk
of failure and eternal loss." Desire of Ages, p, 49. "Christ
knew that the enemy would come to every human being to take advantage
of hereditary weakness . . . and by passing over the ground which
man must travel, our Lord has prepared the way for us to overcome."
Desire of Ages, p. 122, 123. "Upon Him who had laid off His
glory, and accepted the weakness of humanity, the redemption of
the world must rest." Ibid. p. 11.
Few, even of our ministers, know anything of what Sr. White calls the great law of heredity. Yet this is the law which made the incarnation effective and made Christ a real man, like one of us in all things. That Christ should be like one of us in all things, Paul considered a moral necessity on the part of' God, and makes bold so to state. Says he: "In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people; for in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." Hebrews 2:17,18. Behoved here means "ought to," a moral duty devolving upon God.
The great law of heredity was decreed by God to make salvation possible, and is one of the elemental laws that
p 81 -- has never been abrogated. Take that law away, and we have no Savior that can be of help or example to us. Graciously Christ "accepted" this law, and thus made salvation possible. To teach that Christ was exempt from this law negates Christianity and makes the incarnation a pious hoax. May God deliver Seventh-day Adventists from such teaching and teachers!
I have not touched
upon the subject of pollution, though it is mentioned in Questions
on Doctrine in connection with passions. Christ was subject to the
great law of heredity, but that has nothing to do with pollution. Impure
thoughts tolerated, unholy desires cherished, evil passions indulged in,
will issue in contamination, pollution, and downright sin. but Christ
was not affected by any of this. He "received no defilement;"
"Jesus, coming to dwell in humanity, received no pollution."
Desire of Ages, p. 266.
Passion and pollution
are two different things, and should not be placed together as they are
in Questions on Doctrine. Passion can generally be equated with
temptation, and as such is not sin. An impure thought may come unbidden
even on a sacred occasion, but it will not defile; it is not sin, unless
it is dwelt upon and tolerated. An unholy desire may suddenly flash to
mind at Satan's instigation; but it is not sin unless it is cherished.
The law of heredity
applies to passions and not to pollutions. If pollution is hereditary,
then Christ would have been polluted when He came to this world and could
not therefore be "that holy thing." Luke 1:35. Even the children
of an unbelieving husband are called holy, a statement that should be
a comfort to the wives of such husbands. 1 Corinthians 7:14. As Adventists,
however, we do not believe in original sin.
Of this matter of pollution there is much to say. But as the problem we are facing deals only with passions, we shall not discuss pollutions further. On occasion I may have more to say about passions, for I consider the statement in Questions on Doctrine deadly heresy, destructive of the atonement.
p 82 -- My next letter will be the last one in this series. But if the reader will consult the list of ten subjects which I have enumerated elsewhere in this letter, he will see that there is yet much to be done. And that list is not exhaustive. However, I shall give time for what I have said to sink in, for large bodies move slowly, and it takes time for the leaven to "leaven the whole lump." But the leaven is working, and in due time expected results will come. But I am in no haste. Time is with truth, and truth will make its way, and is not dependent on any human instrument. I get many encouraging letters, and am thankful for them, and only sorry that I must leave most of them unanswered. One rather prominent man from Washington wrote me of the confusion existing there, and stated: "We are watching events, and when the time comes, we will be ready to act. Personally, I do not believe that the time is quite ripe, but nearly so. We are with you, and you can depend on us."
I am glad to report that my health is good, and that I am enjoying life to the limit. It is wonderful to live in such a time as this. "I am immortal till my work is done." That may be tomorrow, but if so, I am satisfied and ready.
Greetings to all my friends with 1 Thessalonians 5:25. - TOP
p 83 -- SERIES A - NO. 6 - THE ATONEMENT
p 84 --The serious student of the atonement is likely to be perplexed when he consults the Spirit of Prophecy to find two sets of apparently contradictory statements in regard to the atonement. He will find that when Christ "offered Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people." Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899. He will find that the Father bowed before the cross "in recognition of its perfection. 'It is enough,' He said, 'the atonement is complete:'" Review and Herald, September 24, 1901.
But in Great Controversy
he will find this: "At the conclusion of the 2300 days, in 1844,
Christ entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, to perform
the closing work of the atonement." p. 422. In Patriarchs
and Prophets, p. 357, I read that sins will "stand on record
in the sanctuary until the final atonement." (in 1844) Page
358 states that in "the final atonement the sins of the truly
penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven." Earlv
Writings, page 253, says that "Jesus entered the most holy of
the heavenly at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, to make the final
The first set of statements says that the atonement was made on the cross; the other says that the final atonement was made 1800 years later. I have found seven statements that the atonement was made on the cross; I have twenty-two statements that the final atonement was made in heaven. Both of these figures are doubtless incomplete; for there may be others that have escaped my attention. It is evident, however, that I may not accept one set of statements and reject the other if I wish to arrive at truth. The question therefore is which statements are true? Which are false? Or, are both true? If so, how can they be harmonized?
I was perplexed when in the February number of the Ministry, 1957, I found the statement that "the sacrificial act of the cross (was) a complete, perfect, and final atonement." This was in distinct contradiction to Mrs. White's
p 85 -- pronouncement that the final atonement began in 1844. I thought that this might be a misprint, and wrote to Washington calling attention to the matter, but found it was not a misprint but an official and approved statement. If we still hold the Spirit of Prophecy as of authority, we therefore have two contradictory beliefs: the final atonement was made at the cross; the final atonement began in 1844.
DEFINITION OF ATONEMENT
listened to several discussions of the meaning of the Hebrew word "kaphar,"
which is the word used in the original for atonement, but have received
little help. The best definition I have found is a short explanatory phrase
in Patriarchs and Prophets,p. 358, which simply states that the
atonement, "the great work of Christ, or blotting out of sin,
was represented by the services on the day of atonement."
definition is in harmony with Leviticus 16:30 which says that "the
priest shall make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye
may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." Atonement is here
equated with being "clean from all your sins." As sin
was the cause of separation between God and man, the removing of sin would
again unite God and man. And this would be at-one-ment.
did not need any atonement, for He and the Father were always one. John
10:30. Christ prayed for His disciples "that they may all be one,
as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in
us." John 17:21
definition of atonement as consisting of three words--at-one-ment--
is by some considered obsolete, but it nevertheless represents vital truth.
Mrs. White thus uses it. Says she: "unless they accept the atonement
provided for them in the remedial sacrifice of Jesus Christ who is our
atonement at-one-ment, with God." Mss. 122, 1901.
God's plan is that in "the fulness of time he might gather together in one all things in Christ." Ephesians 1:10., When this is done, the family of heaven and the family of earth are one." Desire of Ages, p. 835. Then "one pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation." Great Contro-
p 86 -- versy, p. 678. At last the atonement is complete.
TWO PHASES OF THE ATONEMENT
Much confusion in regard to the atonement arises from a neglect to recognize the two divisions of the atonement. Note what is said of John the Baptist, "He did not distinguish clearly the two phases of Christ's work - as a suffering sacrifice, and a conquering king." Desire of Ages, PP. 136,137. The book Questions on Doctrine makes the same mistake. It does not distinguish clearly; in fact it does not distinguish at all; it does not seem to know of the two phases; hence the confusion.
First Phase -- The
first phase of Christ's atonement was that of a suffering sacrifice. This
began before the world was, included the incarnation, Christ's life on
earth, the temptation in the wilderness, Gethsemane, Golgotha, and ended
when God's voice called Christ from the "stony prison house of death."
The fifty third chapter of Isaiah is a vivid picture of this.
Satan had overcome Adam in the garden of Eden, and in a snort time nearly the whole world had come under his sway. At the time of Noah there were only eight souls who entered the ark. Satan claimed to be prince of this world, and no one had challenged him.
But God did not recognize Satan's claim to dominion, and when Christ came to earth, the Father "gave the world into the hands of the Son, that through His mediatorial work He may completely vindicate the holiness and the binding claims of every precept of the divine law." Bible Echo, January, 1887. This was a challenge to Satan's claim, and thus began in earnest the great controversy between Christ and Satan.
"Christ took the place of fallen Adam. With the sins of the world laid upon Him, He would go over the ground where Adam stumbled." Review and Herald, February 24, 1874. "Jesus volunteered to meet the highest claims of the law." Ibid., September 2, 1890. "Christ made Himself responsible for every man and woman on earth." Ibid,, February 27, 1900.
p 87 -- As Satan claimed ownership of the earth, it was necessary for Christ to overcome Satan before He could take posession of His kingdom. Satan knew this, and hence made an attempt to kill Christ as soon as He was born. However, as a contest between Satan and a helpless child in a manger, would not be fair, God frustrated this.
The first real encounter between Christ and Satan took place in the wilderness. After forty days of fasting Christ was weak and emaciated, at death's door. At this time Satan made his attack. But Christ resisted, even "unto b1ood," and Satan was compelled to retire defeated. But he did not give up. Throughout Christ's ministry, Satan dogged His footsteps, and made every moment a hard battle.
Gethsemane -- The climax of Christ's struggle with Satan, came in the garden of Gethsemane. Hitherto Christ had been upheld by the knowledge of the approval of the Father. But now He "was overpowered by the terrible fear that God was removing His presence from Him." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, P. 95. If God should forsake Him, could He still resist Satan and die rather than yield? "Three times His humanity shrank from the last, crowning sacrifice . . . The fate of humanity trembled in the balance." Ibid., p. 99. "As the Father's presence was withdrawn, they saw Him sorrowful with a bitterness of sorrow exceeding that of the last struggle with death." Desire of Ages, p. 759. "He fell dying to the ground," but with His last ounce of strength murmured, 'If this cup may not pass from me except I drink it, Thy will be done . . . 'A heavenly peace rested upon His bloodstained face. He had borne that which no human being could ever bear; He had tasted the sufferings of death for every man." Desire of Ages, p. 694. In His death, He was victor.
"When Christ said, 'It is finished,' God responded, 'It is finished, the human race shall have another trial.' the redemption price is paid, and Satan fell like lightning from heaven." Mss. 11, 1897.
"As the Father beheld the cross He was satisfied. He said, It is enough, the offering is complete." Signs of the Times, September 30, 1899. It was necessary, however, that
p 88 -- there should be given the world a stern manifestation of the wrath of God, and so, "in the grave Christ was the captive of divine justice."M.V.F. February 24, 1898. It must be abundantly attested that Christ's death was real, so He must "remain in the grave the allotted period of time." Review and Herald, April 26, 1898. When the time was expired, a "messenger was sent to relieve the Son of God from the debt for which He had become responsible, and for which He had made full atonement." Mss, 94, 1897.
"In the intercessory
prayer of Jesus with His Father, He claimed that He had fulfilled the
conditions which made it obligatory upon the Father to fulfill His part
of the contract made in heaven with regard to fallen man. He prayed, "I
have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do." Mrs. White then
makes this explanation, "That is, He had wrought out a righteous
character on earth as an example for men to follow." Spirit of
Prophecy, Vol. 3, p. 260.
between the Father and the Son made in heaven, included the following:
1. The Son was to work out a "righteous character on earth
as an example for man to follow." 2. Not only was Christ to
work out such a character, but He was to demonstrate that man also could
do this; and thus man would become "more precious than fine gold,
even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir." 3. If Christ thus
could present man as a new creature in Christ Jesus, then God was to "receive
repentant and obedient men, and would love them even as He loves His Son."
Spirit of Proiphecy, Vol. 3, p. 260; Desire of Ages, 790.
Christ had "fulfilled one phase of His priesthood by dying on the cross. He is now fulfilling another phase by pleading before the Father the case of repenting, believing sinners, presenting to God the offerings of His people." Mss. 42, 1901. "In His incarnation He had reached the prescribed limit as a sacrifice, but not as a redeemer." Mss. 111, 1897. On Golgotha He was the victim, the sacrifice. That was as far as He could go as a sacrifice. But now His work as redeemer began. "When Christ cried 'It is finished,' God's unseen hand rent the strong fabric which composed the veil of the temple from top to bottom. The way into the
p 89 -- holiest of all was made manifest." Ibid.
With the cross the first phase of Christ's work as the "suffering sacrifice" ended. He had gone the "perscribed limit" as a sacrifice. He had finished His work "thus far." And now, with the Father's approval of the sacrifice, He was empowered to be the Savior of mankind. At the ensuing coronation forty days later He was given all power in heaven and earth, and officially installed as High Priest.
The Second Phase -- "After His ascension our Savior began His work as High Priest...In harmony with the typical service He began His in the holy place, and at the termination of the prophetic days in 1844...He entered the most holy to perform the last division of His solemn work, to cleanse the sanctuary." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, pp. 265, 266. On the same page, 266, Sr. White repeats, apparently for emphasis, "at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, into the presence of God, to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to his coming." The reader cannot fail to note how clearly and emphatically this is stated. John the Baptist "did not distinguish clearly the two phases of Christ's work, as a suffering sacrifice and a conquering king." Desire of Ages, pp. 136, 137. Our theologians are making the same mistake today and are inexcusable. They have light which John did not have.
In studying this part of the atonement, we are entering a f'ield that is distinctly Adventist, and in which we differ from all other denominations. This is our unique contribution to religion and theology, that which "has made us a separate people, and has given character and power to our work." Counsels to Editors and Writers, p. 54. In the same place she warns us against making "void the truths of the atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doct.rines which we have held sacred since the third angel's message was first given."
This is vital counsel, and written for this very time when efforts are being made by some among us to have others
p 90 -- believe that we are like the churches about us, an evangelical body and not a sect. Paul, in his day, had the same heresy to meet. He was accused of being a "pestilent fellow," a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Acts 24:5. In his answer before Felix, Paul confessed that after the "way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our Fathers believing all things which are according to the law and which are written in the prophets." Acts 24:14. R. V. In those days men spoke sneeringly of the true church as a sect, as men do now. Paul was not disturbed by this. We have no record that he attempted to have the church of the living God recognized as an evangelical body by men who trampled the law of God in the dust. On the contrary, whatever they might call him and his "sect," he confessed that he believed "all things which are written in the law and the prophets." Verse 14.
The religious journal, Christianity Today, states in the March 3, 1958 issue., that "the Adventists today are contending vigorously that they are truly evangelical. They appear to want to be so regarded." Mentioning the book, Questions on Doctrine, it says that this "is the Adventist answer to the question whether it ought to be thought of as a sect or a fellow evangelical denomination." It states further that "the book" is published in an effort to convince the religious world that we are evangelical and one of them.
This is a most interesting and dangerous situation. As one official who was not in favor of what was being done stated to me: "We are being sold down the river." What a sight for heaven and earth! The church of the living God which has been given the commission to preach the gospel to every creature under heaven and call men to come out of Babylon, is now standing at the door of these churches asking permission to enter and become one of them. How are the mighty fallen! Had their plan succeeded, we might now be a member of some evangelical association and not a distinctive Seventh-day Adventist church any more, in secrecy "sold down the river." This is more than apostasy. This is giving up Adventism. It is the rape of a whole people. It is denying God's leading in the past. It is the fulfillment of what the Spirit of Prophecy said years ago:
p 91 -- "The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted an error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced . . . Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement." Series B. No. 2, pp. 54, 55.
"Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. We have before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature." Ibid. p. 16.
"When men standing in the position of leaders and teachers work under the power of spiritualistic ideas and sophistries, shall we keep silent for fear of injuring their influence, while souls are being beguiled? . . . Those who feel so very peaceable in regard to the works of the men who are spoiling the faith of the people of God, are guided by a delusive sentiment." Ibid, pp. 9, 11.
"Renewed energy is now needed. Vigilant action is called for. Indifference and sloth will result in the loss of personal religion and of heaven. . . My message to you is: No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth. We must firmly refuse to be drawn away from the platform of eternal truth, which since 1844 has stood the test." Ibid. pp. 14, 15, 50.
"I hesitated and delayed about the sending out of that which the Spirit of the Lord impelled me to write. I did not want to be compelled to present the misleading influence of these sophistries. But in the providence of God, the errors that have been coming in must be met." Ibid. p. 55.
"What influence is it that would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhanded, powerful way to tear down the foundation of our faith - the foundation that was laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the word and by revelation? Upon this foundation we have been building the past fifty years. Do you wonder that when I see the beginnining of a work that would remove some of the pillars of our faith, I have something to say'? I must obey the command, "Meet it." Ibid. p. 58.
p 92 -- All this was written to meet the apostasy in the alpha period. We are now in the omega period which Sr. White said would come, and which would be of a "startling nature," And the words are even more applicable now than then. Is the reader one of "those who feel so very peaceable in regard to the works of the men who are spoiling the faith of the people of God?" Ibid. p. 11. "Shall we keep silent for fear of injuring their influence, while souls are being beguiled?" Ibid. p. 9. It is time to stand up and be counted. There are times when I have been tempted to think that I stood alone as did Elijah. But God told him that there were 7000 others. There are more than that now, thank God. They need to reveal themselves - and they are doing it. Most heartening are the letters I am receiving. It is with deep regret that I find I am unable to enter into extended correspondence. I am overwhelmed with work.
Christ's death on the cross corresponds to the moment when on the day of atonument the high priest had just killed the Lord's goat in the court. The death of the goat was necessary, for without its blood there could be no atonement. But the death in and of itself was not the atonement, though it was the first and necessary step. Sr. White speaks of the "atonement commenced on earth." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, p. 261. Says Scripture: "It is the blood that maketh atonement." Leviticus 17:11. And, of course, there could be no blood until after the death had taken place. Without a blood ministration the people would be in the same position as those who on the passover slew the lamb but failed to place the blood on the door posts. "When I see the blood," said God, "I will pass over you." Exodus 12: 13. The death was useless without the ministration of the blood. It was the blood that counted.
It is the blood that is to be applied, not "an act," "a great act," "a sacrificial act," "an atoning act," "the act of the cross," "the benefits of the act of the cross," "the benefits of the atonement," all of which expressions are used in Questions on Doctrine, but any reference to the blood
p 93 -- is carefully avoided. It is not an act of any kind that is to be applied. It is the blood. Yet in all the 100 pages in the book dealing with the atonement, not once is the blood spoken of as being applied, or ministered. Can this be merely an oversight, or is it intended? Are we teaching a bloodless atonement? Elder Nichols states the Adventist position correctly when he says, "We believe that Christ's work of atonement was begun rather than completed on Calvary." Answers to Objections, p. 408. This was published in 1952. We shall be interested to see what the new edition will say. Many are waiting to find out what they are to believe on this important question.
Here are some expressions from the Spirit of Prophecy in regard to blood atonement:
"Jesus was clothed with priestly garments. He gazed in pity on the remnant, and with a voice of deep pity cried, 'My blood, Father; My blood; My blood; My blood.'" Early Writings, p. 38,
"He appears in the presence of God as our great High Priest, ready to accept the repentance, and to answer the prayers of His people, and, through the merits of His own righteousness, to present them to the Father. He raises His wounded hands to God, and claims their bloodbought pardon. I have graven them on the palms of my hands, He pleads. Those memorial wounds of my humiliation and anguish secure to my church the best gifts of omnipotence." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol 3, pp. 261, 262."The ark that enshrines the tables of the law is covered with the mercy seat, before which Christ pleads His blood in the sinner's behalf." Great Controversy, p. 415.
"When in the typical service the high priest left the holy place on the day of atonement, He went in before God to present the blood of the sin-offering, in behalf of all Israel who truly repented of their sins. So Christ had only completed one part of his work as our intercessor, to enter upon another portion of the work, and He still pleaded his blood before the Father in behalf of sinners." Ibid. p. 429.
Christ is "now officiating before the ark of God, pleading his blood in behalf of sinners." Ibid. P-433.
p 94 -- "Christ, the great high priest, pleading His blood before the Father in the sinner's behalf, bears upon His heart the name of every repentant, believing soul. Patriarchs and Prophets .. 351.
"As Christ at His ascension appeared in the presence of God to plead His blood in behalf of penitent believers, so the priest in the daily ministration sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice in the holy place in the sinner's behalf." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357.
"The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it was to stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357.
And with all these statements before him, not once does the author of Questions on Doctrine mention the blood as being applied or ministered.
THE FINAL ATONEMENT
"The Father ratified the covenant made with Christ, that He would receive repentant and obedient men, and would love them even as He loves His Son." This, as stated above, was on the condition that "Christ was to complete His work and fulfill His pledge to make a man more precious than fine gold, even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir." Desire of Ages, p. 790. "This Christ guarantees." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, p. 250.
When Christ says in His high priestly prayer,"I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do," (John 17:4) Sr. White comments: "He had wrought out a righteous character on earth as an example for man to follow." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, p. 260.
In working out this righteous character, Christ demonstrated that it could be done. But could others do the same? That needed to be demonstrated also. Christ had guaranteed it could. It was now for Christ to make good His pledge.
Character is not created. It is made; it is developed; it is built through manifold tests and temptations and trials. God at first gives a light test, then a little stronger, and
p 95 -- still a little stronger. Little by little resistance to temptations grows stronger, and after a while certain temptations cease to be temptations. A man may have a great struggle with tobacco; but at last he is victorious, and his victory may be so complete that tobacco is a temptation no longer.
ideally, it should be with every temptation. Holiness is not attained
in a day. "Redemption is that process by which the soul is
trained for heaven." Desire of Ages, p. 330. A man may gain
victories every day, but still may not have attained. Even Paul had to
admit that he had not "already attained, either were already perfect."
But undaunted he exclaims, "I follow after that I may apprehend that
for which also I am apprehended of Jesus Christ." Philippians 3:12.
Christ had pledged to make man "finer than gold," even the golden wedge of Ophir. In this work man must not be a submissive instrument only; he must take an active part. Note these quotations:
"The ransom of the human race was appointed to give man another trial." Mss. 14, 1898. "The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race, to give man another trial." Signs of the Times, April 26, 1899. God "looked upon the victim expiring on the cross and said, 'It is finished; the human race shall have another trial.'" Youth's Instructor, June 21, 1900. "That the transgressor might have another trial . . . the eternal Son of God interposed Himself to bear the punishment of transgression." Review and Herald, February 8, 1898. "He suffered in our stead that men could have another test and trial." Special Instruction Relating to the Review and Herald Office, p. 28. "As Jesus was accepted as our substitute and surety, every one of us will be accepted if we stand the test and trial for ourselves." Review and Herald, June 10, 1890. "The Savior overcame to show man how he may overcome. " "Man must work with his human power, aided by the divine power of Christ, to resist and to conquer at any cost to himself. In short, he must overcome as Christ overcame . . . Man must do his part; he must be victor on his own account, through the strength and grace that Christ gives him." Testimonies, Vol. 4, p. 32, 33.
Christ had pledged to make men overcomers; He had "guaranteed" this. It was no easy task; but the work of atonement was not finished until and unless He did it. And so
p 96 -- Christ persevered till His task should be done. Out of the last generation, out of the weakest of the weak, Christ selects a group with which to make the demonstration that man can overcome as Christ overcame. In the 144,000 Christ will stand justified and glorified. They prove that it is possible for man to live a life pleasing to God under all conditions, and that men can at last stand "in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor." Great Controversy, p. 614. The testimony is given them, "they have stood without an intercessor through the final outpouring of God's judgements." Great Controversy, p. 649. "They are the chosen ones, joint heirs with Christ in the great firm of heaven. They overcame as He overcame." Mss. November 28, 1897. To us comes the invitation, "Now, while our High Priest is making atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ." Great Controversy, p. 623.
In his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul presents us with a mystery. Says he, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Ephesians 5: 31, 32. Marriage fitly represents the union between Christ and the church, effected by the atonement. In harmony with this picture of a marriage, the public announcement is made at the close of probation: "The marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife has made herself ready. . . And to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in linen, clean and white; for the linen is the righteousness of the saints." Revelation 19:8. As husband and wife are one, so now are Christ and the church. The at-one-ment, the true atonement, the final atonement, the complete atonement, has been made. "The family of heaven and the family of earth are one." Desire of Ages, p. 835.
Practically all Adventists have read the last few chapters in Great Controversy, which describe the fearful
p 97 -- struggle through which God's people will pass before the end. As Christ was tried to the utmost in the temptation in the wilderness and in the garden of Gethsemane, so the 144,000 will likewise be tried. They will apparently be left to perish, as their prayers remain unanswered as were Christ's in Gethsemane when His petitions were denied. But their faith will not fail. With Job they exclaim, ''Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him." Job 13:15.
The final demonstration of what God can do in humanity is made in the last generation who bears all the infirmities and weaknesses which the race has acquired through six thousand years of sin and transgression. In the words of Sr. White they bore "the results of the working of the great law of heredity," Desire of Ages, p. 48. The weakest of mankind are to be subjected to the strongest of Satan's temptations, that the power of God might be abundantly shown. "It was an hour of fearful, terrible agony to the saints. Day and night they cried unto God for deliverance. To outward appearance, there was no possibility of their escape." Early Writings, p. 283.
According to the new theology which our leaders have accepted and are now teaching, the 144,000 will be subjected to a temptation immeasurably stronger than any Christ ever experienced. For while the last generation will bear the weaknesses and passions of their forefathers, they claim that Christ was exempt from all these. Christ, we are told, did not inherit any of the passions "that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam." Questions on Doctrine, p. 383. He was therefore functioning on a higher and altogether different level from men who have to battle with inherited passions and hence He does not know and has not experienced the real power of sin. But this is not the kind of savior I need. I need One who has been "tempted in all points like as we are." Hebrews 4:15. The "substitute christ" which our leaders present to us, I must reject and do reject. Thank God, "we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points like as we are, yet without sin." Ibid.
INDICTMENT AGAINST GOD
p 98 -- But more than even this is involved in the new theology; it places an indictment against God as the author of a scheme to deceive both men and Satan. Herre is the situation:
Satan has consistently maintained that God is unjust in requiring men to obey His law, which he claims is impossible. God has maintained that it can be done, and to substantiate His claim offered to send His Son to this world to prove His contention. The Son did come and kept the law and challenged men to convince Him of sin. He was found to be sinless, holy and without blame. He proved that the law could be kept, and God stood vindicated; and His requirement that men keep His commandments, was found to be just. God had won, and Satan was defeated.
But there was a hitch in this; for Satan claimed that God had not played fair; He had favored His Son, had "exempted" Him from the results of the working of the great law of heredity to which all other men were subject; He had exempted Christ "from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam." Questions on Doctrine, p. 383. He had not exempted mankind in general, but Christ only. That, of course, invalidated Christ's work on earth. He was no longer one of us who had demonstrated the power of God to keep men from sinning. He was a deceiver whom God had given preferred treatment and was not afflicted with inherited passions as men are.
Satan had little difficulty in having men accept this view; the Catholic church accepted it; in due time, the evangelics gave their consent; and in 1956 the leaders of the Adventist church also adopted this view. It was the matter of "exemption" that caused Peter to take Christ aside and say, "Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee," which so raised the wrath of Christ that He told Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan." Matthew 16:22, 23. Christ did not want to be exempt. He told Peter, "Thou savourest not the things that be of God." So some today savour not the
p 99 -- things of God. They think it merely a matter of semantics. God pity such and open their eyes to the things that be of God. With the surrender of the Adventist leaders to the monstrous doctrine of an "exempt" Christ, Satan's last opposition has surrendered. We pray again, may God save His people.
I have been asked what I expect to accomplish. I am not out to "win" any argument. I am a Seventh-day Adventist minister whose work is to preach the truth and combat error. The Bible is mostly a record of the protest of God's witnesses against the prevailing sins of the church, and also of their apparent failure. Practically all protesters sealed their testimony with their blood, and the church went on until God intervened. All Paul hoped was that he might "save some." 1 Corinthians 9:22. Practically all the apostles died martyrs, and Christ they hanged on a tree. It took forty years before the destruction came. But when God interveried He did thorough work.
This denomination needs to go back to the instruction given in 1888, which was scorned. We need a reform in organization that will not permit a few men to direct every move made anywhere in the world. We need a reform that will not permit a few men to handle finances as is now being done. We need a reform that will not permit men to spend millions on institutions not authorized by the vote of the constituency, while mission fields are suffering for want of the barest necessities. We need a change in the emphasis that is given to promotion, finances and statistics. We need to restore the Sabbath School to its rightful place in the work of God. We need to put a stop to the entertainments and suppers that are creeping in under the guise of raising money for good purposes. We need to put a stop to the weekly announcements in church that are merely disguised advertisements. This list could be greatly enlarged.
But all these, while important, are after all only minor things. We need a reformation and revival most of all. If our leaders will not lead in this, "then shall there en-
p 100 -- largement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place." Esther 4:14. I am of good cheer, praying for the peace of Israel.
(Signed M. L. Andreasen)
End of Book. - TOP -