1981 Jan-Mar





ABOUT "Watchman, What of the Night?"

WWN 1970s Start online:

1975 Jan-MarVIII 1(75) - VIII 3(75)

1975 Apr-Jun VIII 4(75) - VIII 6(75)

1975 Jul-Sep VIII 7(75) - VIII 9(75)

1975 Oct-Dec VIII 10(75) - VIII 12(75)


1976 Jan-Mar IX 1(76) - IX 3(76)

1976 Apr-Jun IX 4(76) - IX 6(76)

1976 Jul-Sep IX 7(76) - IX 9(76)

1976 Oct-Dec IX 10(76) - IX 12(76)


1977 Jan-MarX 1(77) - X 3(77)

1977 Apr-Jun X 4(77) - X 6(77)

1977 Jul-Sep X 7(77) - X 9(77)

1977 Oct-DecX 10(77) - X 12(77)


1978 Jan-Mar XI 1(78) - XI 3(78)

1978 Apr-Jun XI 4(78) - XI 6(78)

1978 Jul-Sep XI 7(78) - XI 9(78)

1978 Oct-Dec XI 10(78) - XI 12(78)


1979 Jan-Mar XI 1(79) - XI 3(79)

1979 Apr-Jun XI 4(79) - XI 6(79)

1979 Jul-Sep XI 7(79) - XI 9(79)

1979 Oct-DecXI 10(79) - XI 12(79)


WWN 1980s

1980 Jan-Mar

1980 Apr-Jun

1980 Jul-Sep

1980 Oct-Dec


1981 Jan-Mar

1981 Apr-Jun

1981 Jul-Sep

1981 Oct-Dec


1982 Jan-Mar

1982 Apr-Jun

1982 Jul-Sep

1982 Oct-Dec


1983 Jan-Mar

1983 Apr-Jun

1983 Jul-Sep

1983 Oct-Dec


1984 Jan-Mar

1984 Apr-Jun

1984 Jul-Sep

1984 Oct-Dec


1985 Jan-Mar

1985 Apr-Jun

1985 Jul-Sep

1985 Oct-Dec


1986 Jan-Mar

1986 Apr-Jun

1986 Jul-Sep

1986 Oct-Dec


1987 Jan-Mar

1987 Apr-Jun

1987 Jul-Sep

1987 Oct-Dec


1988 Jan-Mar

Feb Knight Descends On Jones. 1of 4.

Mar Knight Descends On Jones. 2 of 4.

1988 Apr-Jun 3 & 4 of 4.

1988 Jul-Sep

1988 Oct-Dec


1989 Jan-Mar

1989 Apr-Jun

1989 Jul-Sep

1989 Oct-Dec


WWN 1990s

1990 Jan-Mar

1990 Apr-Jun

1990 Jul-Sep

1990 Oct-Dec


1991 Jan-Mar

1991 Apr-Jun

1991 Jul-Sep

1991 Oct-Dec


1992 Jan-Mar

1992 Apr-Jun

1992 Jul-Sep

1992 Oct-Dec


1993 Jan-Mar

1993 Apr-Jun

1993 Jul-Sep

1993 Oct-Dec


1994 Jan-Mar

1994 Apr-Jun

1994 Jul-Sep

1994 Oct-Dec


1995 Jan-Mar

1995 Apr-Jun

1995 Jul-Sep

1995 Oct-Dec


1996 Jan-Mar

1996 Apr-Jun

1996 Jul-Sep

1996 Oct-Dec


1997 Jan-Mar

1997 Apr-Jun

1997 Jul-Sep

1997 Oct-Dec


1998 Jan-Mar

1998 Apr-Jun

1998 Jul-Sep

1998 Oct-Dec


1999 Jan-Mar

1999 Apr-Jun

1999 Jul-Sep

1999 Oct-Dec


WWN 2000s

2000 Jan-Mar

2000 Apr-Jun

2000 Jul-Sep

2000 Oct-Dec


2001 Jan-Mar

2001 Apr-Jun

2001 Jul-Sep

2001 Oct-Dec


2002 Jan-Mar

2002 Apr-Jun

2002 Jul-Sep

2002 Oct-Dec


2003 Jan-Mar

2003 Apr-Jun

2003 Jul-Sep

2003 Oct-Dec


2004 Jan-Mar

2004 Apr-Jun

2004 Jul-Sep

2004 Oct-Dec


2005 Jan-Mar

2005 Apr-Jun

2005 Jul-Sep

2005 Oct-Dec


2006 Jan-Mar

2006 Apr-Jun

2006 Jul-Dec

last of WWN published

Site Overview









Publisher of the
"Watchman, What of the Night?" (WWN)... More Info
William H. Grotheer, Editor of Research & Publication for the ALF

- 1970s
- 1980s
- 1990s
- 2000s

SHORT STUDIES - William H. Grotheer -
"Another Comforter", study on the Holy Spirit
1976 a Letter and a Reply: - SDA General Conference warning against WWN.
Further Background Information on Zaire -General Conference pays Government to keep church there.
From a WWN letter to a reader: RE: Lakes of Fire - 2 lakes of fire.
Trademark of the name Seventh-day Adventist [Perez Court Case] - US District Court Case - GC of SDA vs.R. Perez, and others [Franchize of name "SDA" not to be used outside of denominational bounds.]


Interpretative History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, An
- William H. Grotheer

Bible Study Guides
- William H. Grotheer

End Time Line Re-Surveyed Parts 1 & 2 - Adventist Layman's Foundation

Excerpts - Legal Documents
- EEOC vs PPPA - Adventist Laymen's Foundation

Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, The - William H. Grotheer

Hour and the End is Striking at You, The - William H. Grotheer

In the Form of a Slave
- William H. Grotheer

Jerusalem In Bible Prophecy
- William H. Grotheer

Key Doctrinal Comparisons - Statements of Belief 1872-1980
- William H. Grotheer

Pope Paul VI Given Gold Medallion by Adventist Church Leader
- William H. Grotheer

Sacred Trust BETRAYED!, The - William H. Grotheer

Seal of God
 - William H. Grotheer

Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956
 - William H. Grotheer

SIGN of the END of TIME, The - William H. Grotheer

- William H. Grotheer

Times of the Gentiles Fulfilled, The - A Study in Depth of Luke 21:24
- William H. Grotheer

Elder William H. Grotheer



Song of Solomon - Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary

Ten Commandments - as Compared in the New International Version & the King James Version & the Hebrew Interlinear


Additional Various Studies --
"Saving Faith" - Dr. E. J. Waggoner
"What is Man" The Gospel in Creation - "The Gospel in Creation"
"A Convicting Jewish Witness", study on the Godhead - David L. Cooper D.D.

Bible As History - Werner Keller

Canons of the Bible, The - Raymond A. Cutts

Daniel and the Revelation - Uriah Smith

Facts of Faith - Christian Edwardson

Individuality in Religion - Alonzo T. Jones

"Is the Bible Inspired or Expired?" - J. J. Williamson

Letters to the Churches - M. L. Andreasen

Place of the Bible In Education, The - Alonzo T. Jones

Sabbath, The - M. L. Andreasen

Sanctuary Service, The
- M. L. Andreasen

So Much In Common - WCC/SDA

Spiritual Gifts. The Great Controversy, between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and his Angels - Ellen G. White

Under Which Banner? - Jon A. Vannoy


As of 2010, all official sites of ALF in the United States of America were closed. The Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Canada with its website, www.Adventist Alert.com, is now the only official Adventist Layman's Foundation established by Elder Grotheer worldwide.

The MISSION of this site -- to put works of the Foundation online.

Any portion of these works may be reproduced without further permission by adding the credit line - "Reprinted from Adventist Layman's Foundation, AdventistAlert.com, Victoria, BC Canada."

Thank you for visiting. We look forward to you coming back.

Share your thoughts
with us




WWN 1981 Jan - Mar


1981 Jan -- XIV - 1(81 ) -- Coming to Grips With a Problem -- On October 30, 1980, Religious News Service contained a release captioned -


This was evidently picked up from a story appearing on Page One of the Los Angeles Times (Oct. 23, 1980) written by its Religion writer, John Dart. Other clippings coming to this desk indicate that the Associated Press also picked up this report. Thus whether we like it or not, the controversy over Ellen G. White and her writings is no longer a "family affair" but has now become a part of the "town gossip."

The researcher, Elder Walter Rea, who during the time of his research served as -pastor of the Long Beach Seventh-day Adventist Church, is now preparing a manuscript based on his findings. He indicated in the interview given to Mr. Dart that he had not found a major work by Mrs. White which did not use previously Published sources. "The precise extent borrowed in Mrs. White's writings is probably incalculable because of paraphrasing, Rea said. But in White's book on Jesus, The Desire of Ages, Rea has found repeated parallels from six different non-Adventist sources." (LA Times, op. cit., p. 1) The acknowledgment of Rea's assertions reaches into the highest hierarchy of the Church. The president of the General Conference, Neal C. Wilson, commenting on the report of the 19-member committee appointed to hear Elder Rea's evidence, noted - "The initial report from this very competent committee indicates that in her writing Ellen White used sources more extensively than we have heretofore been aware of or recognized." (Adventist Review, March 20, 1980, p. 8)

There is no need to compound sources which indicate that Ellen G. White borrowed either in part or extensively from the works of others. The problem is far deeper and more grave than this, and did not surface in this present exposure. Since the problem has now reached the secular press, the whole of the problem involving the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy needs to be squarely faced. I am not duly troubled over the matter of Ellen White's literary dependence for these reasons:

1)  I do not believe in verbal inspiration, but rather in thought inspiration. This means simply that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the thought of God was conveyed to the human instrumentality and it was left to the human instrument to verbalize that thought in the best language possible. With the limited formal education possessed by Ellen G. White, I can understand her feelings of inadequacy to convey the thought of God, and thus she would seek the best words possible from whatever source could be obtained to convey these inspired concepts.

p 2 -- 2)  Believing as she did and correctly so that "as the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun, so, so far as their teaching is true, do the world's greatest thinkers reflect the rays of the Sun of righteousness," (Ed., p. 14) - it presented no problem to Ellen G. White to use the words of these men to convey the thoughts that God's Spirit gave to her.

3)   When a person accepts the call of God to be His messenger, God in turn accepts and works with the human inadequacies of that messenger. God does not transform a prophet into a faultless, inerrant, sinless automaton, but condescends to let His message come through the frailty of the human mind, lips and pen. Men themselves limit the choices of God to be an instrument through which He can convey His messages. Remember that Ellen G. White was the third person approached to speak for God to His remnant people. Further, keep in mind that when God wished the message of Righteousness by Faith given to His professed people, He chose two other messengers - A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. (TM, pp. 91, 95) [If one wished a special research project, he should check the echo within the writings of Ellen G. White of the sentiments of both Jones and Waggoner, and compare the time of the writing of each. It might surprise one, what he would find. In my extensive reading from this period, I have sensed this, but was undisturbed, because I realized that Ellen G. White perceived truth as reflected from the Sun of righteousness in those especially revealed to her as messengers of the Lord to His people.]

The reaction of the hierarchy to the Los Angeles Times feature article was not long in coming. Religious News Service on Friday, November 21, 1980, carried another release, this time captioned -
The reason given by Harold Calkins, president of the Southern California Conference, for the revocation of Elder Walter Rea's credentials was "the negative influence of Mr. Rea's conclusions circulated worldwide." Elder Rea in the same release stated it more bluntly - "the basic reason for [my] dismissal was that [I] granted an interview on [my] findings to the Los Angeles Times. They're upset it got out." Interestingly, the matter over Ford also "got out." True it "hit" only the religious press; but when confronted with this "leak," the officials of the Church "emphasized that the church follows a longtime practice of granting its members the right to be heard on any issue affecting the church's teachings. 'The church
has a history of being gentle with its creative people,' commented SDA education executive Richard Hamill." (Christianity Today, Feb. 8, 1980, p. 64)

Regardless of how one feels about Rea's work, there is a message here that we dare not overlook. You can question a basic fundamental pillar of the Church's teachings, such as the sanctuary doctrine, but so long as you give lip service to the writings of Ellen G. White, which Ford did, you can have six months plus leave with pay, and do all the research you wish to sustain your heresy, but let one question the Ellenology created by the hierarchy, and you are in deep, serious trouble. [Let me state at this point, lest I be misunderstood, and misquoted - I believe that God bestowed upon Ellen G. White, the spiritual gift of prophecy, and chose her to be a messenger to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.]

The Adventist Review has also reacted. In the latest issue (Nov. 27, 1980) at the time of this writing, two articles are presented - one an editorial by the

p 3 -- new associate editor, Dr. William G. Johnsson, and the other a modified letter by Dr. Arthur L. White to his children. In the editorial and in the letter, the assertion of Elder Walter Rea regarding the church's claim was challenged. Rea is quoted as saying - "The important thing is that she and the denomination always claimed that she didn't copy and that she wasn't influenced by anyone," (LA Times, Oct. 23, 1980, p. 3) This Drs. Johnsson and White deny. Apparently Elder Arthur L. White needs to have his memory refreshed. He prepared a syllabus for Course S-570 at Andrews University Theological Seminary - Prophetic Guidance in the Advent Movement. Lesson 5 - "Presenting the Prophetic Message" has the following points in its summary:

6.   In describing the visions, Mrs. White used her own words.

MEMORIZE:  "Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation." - Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1867 (p. 15)

8.   She was aided by the Spirit of in choosing fit words:      "I have all faith in God . . . He works at my right hand and at my left. While I am writing out important matter, He is beside me, helping me. He lays out my work for me, and when I am puzzled for a fit word with which to express my thought, He brings it clearly and distinctly to my mind. I feel that every time I ask, even while I am still speaking, He responds, 'Here am I.'" Letter 1-127, 1902 (pp. 15-16)

Having taken this class under Dr. Arthur White at the Seminary in 1965, the emphasis as given in this Syllabus is what was stated to the class. Elder Rea is absolutely correct in his assertion in the Los Angeles Times interview. At no time did Elder White present to the class the W. C. White letter (May 13, 1904) from which he now quotes to prove Eld. Rea's observation wrong. (See Adventist Review, Nov. 27, 1980, p. 7, Footnote #1) Did he not know of the existence of his own father's letter in 1965, or is it now convenient to reveal its contents? Then how does the W. C. White statement square with what Sister White wrote just two years prior? This question has not been answered.

Summarizing the magnitude of our present predicament, Dr. Donald R. McAdams, president of Southwestern Adventist College at Keene, Texas, has written:      The significance of this debate can hardly be overemphasized. Ellen White is so central to the lives of Seventh-day Adventists that her words impinge on practically every area of Adventist teaching and practice both individually and institutionally. Our dress, our diet, what we read and how we spend our leisure time are all influenced greatly by what we believe the Lord revealed to us through His servant, Ellen White. Our interpretation of the Bible, especially the texts which support some of our landmark doctrines, rests on Ellen White. (Spectrum, Vol. 10, #4, p. 40)

We have produced for ourselves an Ellenology as great in magnitude as the Catholics

p 4 -- have created in their Mariology, or should we use the term - Ellenolatry - for our problem, and the term - Mariolatry for the Catholic veneration. This should never have been.

Ellen G. White herself has written:      The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried out in front. God's word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. (Letter 12, 1890)

God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. (SP, IV, p. 413)

In the Word of God is contained everything essential to the perfecting of the man of God. (IHP, p. 133)

At a meeting in the Battle Creek College library in connection with the 1901 General Conference Session, Sister White told the assembled group:      Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now. You will have fresh matter - 0, you will have precious matter; you won't have to be going over and over the same ground, and you will see a world saved. (Spalding-Magan Collection, p. 174)

If this counsel had been followed, was being followed today, many of the most devoted followers of our present Ellenolatry, along with their massive compilations, would be out of business. Tragically, those who will be the most shocked by the reaction they will meet as a result of this unfavorable publicity regarding the writings of Ellen G. White are those who can quote avidly from her writings, but who are illiterate in the Word of God. And while many will wish to blame the liberals in our midst for the present predicament, those devotees of an Ellenolatry will have to take their share of the responsibility. With every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. We are reaping today the reaction to our own folly. Add to this the criminal use made of the writings by the hierarchy of the church to keep the laity in submission to their dictates by quoting Ellen G. White to sustain any project and program - right or wrong - and you have the explanation of the megaton explosive that has been detonated.

Now having written all of this, and noting results which involve most every segment of the Church - the liberals, the conservatives, and the hierarchy, along with the sincere devotees of the Ellenolatry which has been created for them by the Ellen G. White Estate and the Self-supporting Institutional leadership, we need to address ourselves to a more serious problem involving the writings as published under the authority of the Estate. To bring this into sharp focus, note two concrete illustrations.

In Prophets and Kings, p. 605 in the paragraph beginning - "The trying experiences that came to God's people in the days of Esther were not peculiar to that age

p 5 -- alone" - note the sentence:      Some who today are living on the earth will see these words fulfilled.

Keep in mind that this book was published posthumously in 1917. This chapter, as an article appeared in the January 23, 1908 issue of the Review & Herald. The sentence cited above was not in the paragraph or in the article at all, but rather this sentence:      In the near future we shall see these words fulfilled [Rev. 12:17], as the Protestant churches unite with the world and with the papal power against commandment keepers.

Who altered this paragraph, and substituted sentences? Not Sister White - for she was dead! This matter of the manipulation of her writings is far more serious than any literary borrowing.

Let us observe another illustration. In Acts of the Apostles, p. 246 is to be found this sentence:      Listen as he [Paul] makes plain the work of the Redeemer as the great high priest of mankind, - the One who through the sacrifice of His own life was to make atonement for sin once for all, and was then to take up His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

Where did this sentence come from? It is clearly contradictory to the position taken in Ellen G. White's earlier writings, and the endorsement which she indicated the Lord had given in regard to the research of Crosier following the great disappointment in 1844. It is even contradictory to the rest, of the paragraph:      that His death was the antitype of all the sacrificial offerings, and that His ministry in the sanctuary in heaven was the great object that cast its shadow backward and made clear the ministry of the Jewish priesthood.

In the ministry of the Jewish priesthood, the atonement was made by the priest after the offering had been killed by the sinner. And in Hebrews it states that Christ "if he were on earth would not be a priest, seeing there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." (Heb. 8:5) Interestingly, no pre-publication of this article has been found to date so that it can be checked as in the case of the chapter in Prophets and Kings. However, this chapter did appear in the 1883-publication of Sketches from the Life of Paul, pp. 98-109, in which this comparative thought is to be found:      He [Paul] brought his hearers down through the types and shadows of the ceremonial law to Christ, - to His crucifixion, His priesthood, and the sanctuary of His ministry, - the great object that had cast its shadow backward into the Jewish age. He, as the Messiah, was the Antitype of all the sacrificial offerings. (p. 103)

Nowhere is to be found in the 1883 edition the controversial sentence as written in Acts of the Apostles. Again who did this? Who is responsible for introducing

p 6 -- into these later books, sentiments and theology so contradictory to the original and consistent positions to be found in Ellen G. White's earlier writings? And the only place where this clarification can come from is the Ellen G. White Estate! The source of the alteration of her writings needs to be pursued to its ultimate no matter whose historical image becomes tarnished in the process.

An unpublished manuscript now about three years old - Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians: The Evidence from an Unpublished Manuscript on John Huss - has brought to light some very interesting data. The author, Dr. Donald R. McAdams, president of the Southwest Adventist College, tells of his discovery and the significance of that discovery as follows:       During the summer of 1973, I had the good fortune to spend two months at the White Estate in Washington D. C., in connection with another research project. While there I became aware of several manuscripts which have been accepted as portions of the first draft of Great Controversy. As far as I know none of these manuscripts have ever been transcribed into typescript or even read except for an isolated page, here and there. The longest manuscript, consisting of 64 sheets of full-sized writing paper, with writing filling the front of each sheet and on 11 pages filling some portion of the back, is the original draft in Ellen White's own hand of the half-chapter in Great Controversy dealing with Huss. (pp. iii & iv.)

This research manuscript cannot be released for publication because the White Estate will not give permission for the release of the autograph upon which this research is based. However, Dr. McAdams has summarized his findings. Besides there being evidence of literary dependency for historical detail upon the work of James A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, something else also became apparent. The summary reads:      Study of the Huss manuscript also revealed that Mrs. White's literary assistant at the time, Miss Marion Davis, not only improved Mrs. White's English language usage but also played a very significant role in deleting a large amount of original material dealing with the spiritual significance of events and adding additional material from Wylie. (Spectrum, Vol. 10, #4, p. 34)

What this research revealed should be carefully noted. Not only did the autograph reveal a literary dependence for historical detail, but much of the writing that was verily Ellen G. White in origin was deleted by the literary assistant, and in its place, more from Wylie was substituted. Thus the issue is not that Ellen G. White borrowed to convey inspired thought, but that her writings have been manipulated, and altered by others. This full story needs to be revealed, and the alterations and additions corrected. But who can be trusted to do this task?

How shall one react to this traumatic situation?

1)   Accept the simple Statements of Belief as formulated by our spiritual fathers which in the areas under question stated:
a)   The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of His will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

b) That the Spirit of God was promised to manifest itself in the church through certain gifts, enumerated especially in I Cor. 12 and Eph, 4; that these gifts are not designed to supercede, or to take the place of, the Bible which is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, any more than the Bible can take the place of the Holy Spirit; that, in specifying the various channels of its operation, that Spirit has simply made provision for its own existence and presence with the people of God to the end of time, to lead to an understanding of that word which it had inspired, to convince of sin, and to work a transformation in the heart and life; that those who deny to the Spirit its place and operation, do plainly deny that part of the Bible which assigns to it this work and position. (1889 Yearbook, p. 148, 150)

2)   Know from your Bible the basis for the great fundamentals of the Advent Movement.

3)   Recognize that God did place upon Ellen G. White a spiritual gift - the gift of the Spirit of Prophecy.

4)   Those statements to be found in the writings of Ellen G. White-wherein there appears to be questionable quotes, hold in abeyance until further light can be cast upon them. Keep in mind that history itself' has been distorted and managed to cast a more favorable light upon the workings of "the man of sin."

5)   Those statements which are contrary to the positions of theology taken by. Ellen G. White in her earlier writings, lay aside until it can be determined who and under what circumstances these were inserted into her latter publications.

6)   Remember that "the very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God." (Letter 12, 1890) Then lift up your and rejoice, for your redemption draweth nigh.

Voted, 1. To approve the establishment of an Interchurch Relations Council of up to 20 members.
2. To designate B. B. Beach as the secretary of the Council. (Adventist Review, November 27, 1980)

Is this now the beginning of: the approach to the World Council of Churches, since we have brought our Statement of Beliefs in harmony with their Constitutional requirements?

p 7 -- ANDREASEN'S POSITION CLARIFIED -- In reading the facsimile reproduction of the documents reporting The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956, a brother in Australia was concerned with T. E. Unruh's evaluation of Elder M. L. Andreasen's position. Unruh inferred that prior to his death, Andreasen withdrew his charge that the Church leadership had altered its historic faith. (See Adventist Heritage, Vol. 4, #2, 1977, pp. 44-45) This brother loaned us a copy of a letter he had received from Elder Andreasen. It is reproduced on the next page of this thought paper. You will observe that Elder Andreasen wrote - "No I have not recanted. The denomination is departing from the fundamentals. And I must protest." Knowing personally the integrity of Andreasen, he never altered this conviction regardless of what Unruh wrote, and I also know Unruh personally. One wonders what Andreasen would say, if still alive, in regard to the positions taken in the Consensus Statements voted at Glacier View. (Actual copy of M.L. Andreasen's letter.)

UN-ZONED RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES -- "Two home Bible groups in Los Angeles were ordered to 'cease and desist' by the Department of Building and Safety because the residences where they had been meeting were not zoned for 'church' purposes. Although both groups (of about 20 persons each) volunteered to eliminate their singing and to disperse the few cars that brought them to the residences, the Department said that these concessions were inadequate. The supervisor for the Department further stated that it would be the Department's policy to issue cease and desist orders against any religious meeting in a private home not zoned for church use even if 'just one' nonresident is present. However, city officials said that a house could be used for a beer party because that wouldn't be church related." (Faith for the Family, Oct., 1980, p. 23)

p 8 -- Campus Chronicle    Pacific Union College - Thursday, October 23, 1980 - Volume 57, Number 4

Denominations class attends mass - by Bev Olivier
Elder Wayne Judd, accompanied by 25 students in his American Denominations class, attended St. John the Baptist Church in Napa last Sunday. They attended the service to gain a practical understanding of the Catholic religion.
The director of worship asked for six students to collect the offering and three other students to carry the holy sacraments up to the priest.
"It was interesting to see the very antique ideas presented, yet the mood was very evangelical," said Judd.
"It was particularly interesting to see Adventist young people taking up the offering for the Catholic missions," said Judd. "The Whole spirit was very ecumenical."
Students attending the service commented that the service was people centered, not pulpit centered.
Other students commented that it was a very unfamiliar form of worship to them,but a very friendly atmosphere reigned. They enjoyed the participation of the congregation. One student felt that this participation kept the changing culture involved at all time. This may be what keeps people interested, he observed.
The service included songs, readings, a type of sermon, sacraments. The songs were sung to the music of a guitar, which gave a very modern air to the service.
None of the Adventist students felt out of place. Although many did not know what to expect, they participated in what they could.
"Overall it was a worshipping experience. We did not feel like outsiders," said Judd. The students agreed with the feeling. Judd said, "I sensed that, in part, the service had been directed toward us."
Following the service, Judd and the students went to Wong's Chinese Restaurant in Napa where they discussed their feelings of the experience over their meal.

- It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. - Signs of the Times, Feb. 19, 1894

p 9 --

From M. L. Andreasen,
1921 Academy Place,
Glendale 6, California

(Postmark on envelope: June 8, 1959.)

Dear Brother:
Thank you for your letter. Let me assure you that I am in good health - not a mental case, not senile, not even dead, as has been reported. But I am so busy that I cannot keep up with my correspondence - I am all alone in my work.

No, I have not recanted. The denomination is departing from the fundamentals. And I must protest.

And God still lives so I am of good courage.

Your brother,
(signed) M. L. Andreasen.
--- (1981 Jan) --- End --- TOP

1981 Feb -- XIV - 2(81) -- DO WE HAVE A THIRD CANON OF SCRIPTURE? -- The present controversy within the Church regarding the basic sanctuary doctrine has caused the above question to become very real, and its solution will be very painful, far more acute than its diagnosis. While the controversy has swirled around the head of Dr. Desmond Ford, and he has taken the official "rap" for what he said at the Association of Adventist Forum meeting on the Pacific Union College campus, October 27, 1979, a less charismatic figure, Dr. Raymond Cottrell, whose denominational roots extend through several generations of recognized ministers in the Church, has with the same issue - the basic sanctuary teaching - focused attention on the question as to the canonicity of Ellen G. White. Even the most pronounced devotees of the Ellenology which has developed in the Church cringe at the thought of a Third Testament. But when we quote and give to the writings of Ellen G. White the same authority we give to the Bible, we are in essence stating that we do have a third canon of Scripture.

There is also another factor which needs to be recognized in considering the application of the principle of sola Scriptura. We have a prime example in the history and present experience of Brinsmead. While Brinsmead during his Decade-I teachings used the Spirit of Prophecy as a canon of Scripture, he is now using the writings of Luther with the same force and authority. In other words, we want someone to whom we can appeal apart from the Bible, to sustain our conclusions, and to clothe these conclusions in a robe of authority, while in reality the Bible itself is sufficient authority. If what we set forth to be truth cannot be sustained by the word of God, then no statement from Luther can make it truth. Well did Paul write: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, 0 man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (Rom. 2:1)

Recently there has been published a series of fourteen volumes on the "Makers of the Modern Theological Mind," which includes a brief life sketch and thinking of such men as Barth, Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, Neibuhr, von Rad, and others. Thus the group of men we call the theologians of the Church have their own extra-Scriptura to which they pay homage, and quote as authority. This is aptly illustrated in an article appearing in Evangelica (Dec., 1980). A student from the SDA
Theological Seminary wrote on "The Gospel in Hebrews." To shore up a very weak and questionable position, he placed in parentheses - "Westcott's noted commentary argues cogently on this point." (p. 9)

There is only one authority, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. Through "the scripture of truth" (Dan. 10:21) He not only communicates the principles of holy living

p 2 -- but also through which He reveals the will and purpose of God as set forth in prophecy by the use of symbols and imagery; and the Divine plan of salvation by means of type and shadows which find their reality in the incarnation, death, and priestly ministry of Him who is that living Truth. This should be our study and authority. And this was the authority upon which the Advent Movement was founded, and to which God attested through the means of a "spiritual gift," not another canon of Scripture!

The crisis over the Spirit of Prophecy did not come to the fore because of the research of Elder Walter Rea indicating that Ellen G. White practiced "literary borrowing" to express truth which she believed the Lord gave to her. The hard core reality came when Dr. Raymond Cottrell, after presenting his research on Daniel 8:14, indicated that there was no way to maintain the validity of the Adventist sanctuary teaching except to base it on the inspiration of Ellen G. White. He suggested that as the New Testament writers reinterpreted the Old Testament, even so we have in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy a reinterpretation of both the Old and New Testaments. Here are his own words:     The eschatology of Daniel 8 is consonant with all other Old Testament eschatology, particularly that of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. A study of Old Testament eschatology as a whole clarifies, and is essential to, an understanding of Daniel's eschatology. We must realize, however, that Israel's withdrawal from the covenant relationship at the cross rendered the fulfillment of the eschatological predictions of Daniel moot, and that - like everything else related to God's covenant with Israel - reinterpretation by a later writer was necessary to reactivate the predictions and to ascertain their fullfillment within the new historical setting with the church as the covenant people and chosen instrument of the divine purpose. For example, Christ and the New Testament writers envisioned His return and the fulfillment of the eschatological predictions of Daniel within their own generation. Also, Christ, Paul, and John provide reinterpretation of Daniel for New Testament times, and Ellen White provides a continuing reinterpretation appropriate for our time. (Spectrum, Vol. 10, #4, p. 20)

(Lest I be identified with the teachings set forth above by Cottrell, and lest the reader become confused with his assertions, I must interject at this point the following explanation:   Cottrell in the above quotes is arriving at his theological conclusions based on an hermeneutic (an interpretation of Scripture) foreign to historic Adventist thought, and thus to sustain the resultant heretical conclusions, he introduces the idea that we must consider the writing of Ellen G. White as a new interpretation of Scripture, hence a third canon. This method of interpretation known, ironically, as "the historical method" was first used in a major Adventist work when the Bible Commentary series were published in the 1950's with Cottrell as one of its editors. We shall discuss the import of this in another section of this paper.)

A quick survey of our Statements of Belief on the subject of "The Spirit of Prophecy" (WWN - XIII-10, p. 3) reveals that not until the General Conference Session of 1950, when the 1931 Statement was formally ratified did the name of Ellen G. White appear as the one through whom the gift of prophecy was manifested in the Church. In fact it did not originally appear in the 1931 Statement but was added

p 3 -- at that Session. While the reason for this is perhaps a different matter, the fact that it had not occurred before is saying something. Our spiritual forefathers did not consider the writings of Ellen G. White as a third canon of Scripture, but a manifestation of "Spiritual Gifts." They did not seek to limit God to one gift, nor the manifestation of that one gift to just one person.

In a discourse which Ellen G. White gave at Battle Creek, October 2, 1904, she stated - "I do not claim to be a prophetess." As a result some stumbled over this statement, and asked, "Why is this?" To their question she replied:      I have had no claims to make, only that I am instructed that I am
the Lords messenger
; that He called me in my youth to be His messenger, to receive His word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord Jesus. (SM, bk. i, p. 32. Emphasis theirs.)

In the light of this we dare not forget that when the Message of 1888 was given to this Church, Ellen G. White referred to these men as "His messengers," (TM, p. 95) and that the message which they bore was "sent" by the Lord in His great mercy. (Ibid., p. 91) She as the Lord's messenger stood with these who were also "His" messengers. This fact dare not be overlooked.

The events of 1950, and the official action taken prepared the way for the stand adopted at Dallas in 1980 which established the E. G. White writings as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth." (WWN, XIII-10, p. 4, 1980 Voted) We are now on record in such a way that there exists little difference between our understanding and use of the Spirit of Prophecy, and the use made by the Mormons of Joseph Smith, or the Christian Scientists of Mary Baker Eddy. In other words is "the source of truth" the Bible and the Bible only, or is it "the Bible and something else"? To the Mormons, it is the Bible plus Joseph Smith; to the Christian Scientists, it is the Bible plus Mary Baker Eddy; and to the Seventh-day Adventist it is the Bible ---- you must finish the sentence as it relates to your own thinking, and in your answer you categorize yourself. As W. W. Prescott wrote - "It is one thing to accept and repeat as a formula the familiar words, 'The Bible, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants,' but it is another thing to apply this principle in practice." (R&H, Dec. 16, 1909, p. 4)

What is the solution? Back to the Bible with a clear understanding of the doctrine of "Spiritual Gifts" as taught there. Our founding fathers who first formulated our Statement of Beliefs stated clearly "that those who deny to the Spirit its place and operation do plainly deny that part of the Bible which assigns to it this work and position." (WWN, XIII-10, p. 3, 89 Yearbook) Part of the work of the Holy Spirit was to divide the gifts God provided "to each man, just as He determines." (I Cor. 12:11 NIV) And the operation of that "gift" is also to be as the Spirit determines. The Spirit gives and the Spirit controls.

There is to be in the Church, spiritual gifts, among which is the gift of prophecy. The relationship between these gifts and the Bible is also clearly distinguished in our original Statement of Beliefs. The formulators wrote - "These gifts are not designed to supercede, or to take the place of, the Bible, which is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, any more than the Bible can take the place of the Holy Spirit." (op. cit., 89 Yearbook.) To perceive this delicate balance between the two, one must go to the Scriptures.

p 4 -- First let us consider the Canon of the Old Testament. Interestingly, the Old Testament was composed of three divisions - The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. In the Jewish mind these three divisions had different authoritative values. To Christ, the authority and the unity of the Old Testament rested on the fact that all the Scriptures testified of the work and mission He was to
accomplish as the Messiah. To the Jews, Jesus stated - "Ye search the Scriptures ... and these are they which bear witness of Me." (John 5:39 ARV) To the two despondent travelers to Emmaus, Jesus "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, ... expounded unto them in all the writings the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27 Gr.) To the Apostles, Jesus declared "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me." (Luke 24,:44) {Psalms was the first book of the third division of the Hebrew Old Testament.} "Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." (ver. 45) It must be noted that Jesus in calling their attention to the Old Testament Canon as a revelation of Himself, did not open their minds to a "reinterpretation" of the Old Testament, but to an understanding of it. The truth was already there - "the Spirit of Christ" had already testified through the Old Testament instruments - but that truth had been buried in a maze of human speculation. They needed not to "reinterpret" it, but to "understand" it! Interpretations which had been given to it were in error, while a true understanding of it would bring forth truth in its purity.

Besides the prophets whose writings are included in the canon of the Old Testament, there are other prophets mentioned - Gad (I Sam. 22:5); Iddo (II Chron. 13:22); Nathan (I Kings 1:22); and then there was Elijah honored with translation. These all served a Divine purpose as "messengers" of the Lord.

As to the New Testament Canon, its primary thrust is the same as the Old - a testimony of Jesus - not what He was to do, but what He did, and would continue to do as High Priest over the House of God. It likewise has divisions, and the first division is the Gospels. What is interesting is the fact that in this first division is placed a book, written not by a prophet, nor an apostle, but by a convert, who made no claim to inspiration. Luke's Gospel was primarily a research document, yet it carries the force as a part of the Word of God, and is so quoted. Likewise the lone book of history in the New Testament, written by the same author following the same methodology. Its force, and acceptance is based upon accuracy of detail, and truthfulness of its statements. There be no doubt that the Holy Spirit guided in the selection of material and composition. This should tell us something about "inspiration." It is in the Acts of the Apostles that we find recorded practical application of the working of "spiritual gifts" in the Apostolic Church.

In the book of Acts, various gifts are noted as possessed by different individuals who performed various ministries in the early Church. Stephen was a man "full of faith." (Acts 6:5, 8; 1 Cor. 12:9) Philip, a fellow Deacon, manifest "signs and great miracles." (Acts 8:13, margin; I Cor. 12:10) In the Church at Antioch were "certain prophets and teachers." (Acts. 13:1) To this group was entrusted the implementation of the decision of the Holy Spirit to "separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (ver. 2) And this was done without a concurring committee action from Jerusalem. A common experience was noted for both Peter and Paul - they were "filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 4:8; 13:9) There were also prophetesses - the four daughters of Philip.

p 5 -- (Acts 21:9) Then there was Agabus the prophet.

The incidents in which Agabus was involved in the ongoing history of the early Church are most instructive. To the Church at Antioch, Agabus brought a message "that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world." (Acts 11:28 NIV) He proved to be a true prophet for it says it "came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar." (See Deut 18:22; Jer. 28:9) On the basis of this counsel, the Church responded with a welfare ministry. Basic salvation was not involved; but there was a response because of the saving work in the life of each member of the Church. (Acts 11:29-30) Agabus again appears in the history of Acts at the close of Paul's Third Missionary Tour. He comes with a special message to Paul - who had, or would author fourteen books of the New Testament Canon prior to the close of his life's work. (Acts 21:10-11) Knowing Agabus to be a true prophet, those who were of Paul's company, and those who were of Caesarea urged Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. (verse 12) But Paul did not heed this counsel. He went up to Jerusalem. His public ministry was cut short. He suffered much both at the hands of his own people, as well as "the results of envy and jealousy cherished" by his professed fellow believers. (Sketches from the Life of Paul, p. 231) All of this could have been avoided had Paul heeded the warning of the prophetic voice. Yet the Lord did not forsake him. "The Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul." (Acts 23: 11) Does this experience give license to ignore the voice of one who possesses the gift of prophecy? Absolutely not, but it does tell us that one's relationship to the Lord is not based on one's reaction to counsel coming through one possessed of a spiritual gift. It harmonizes with the supreme message of the book of Acts - "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Herein, lies our problem. The Bible "is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation" through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (See II Tim. 3:15) And if sufficient, then nothing need be added to provide for man a relationship with his Lord and Saviour. Why then, spiritual gifts? For counsel, for guidance, for remedial help to meet immediate situations in the present world in which we find ourselves. Interestingly, the Statement of Beliefs recommended by the 1979 Annual Council, but which was never presented to the General Conference delegates in session at Dallas in 1980, reflected this position portrayed in the book of Acts. It read:      As the Lord's messenger (Ellen G. White) provided guidance to the church, instruction in the Scriptures, and counsel for spiritual growth. Her writings uplift the Scriptures as the standard of faith and practice, and function as a continuing source of divine counsel. (Adventist Review, Feb. 21, 1980, p. 9)

It must never be forgotten that "spiritual gifts"are not, and never have been a test of fellowship - a test of one's relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ but one's relationship to Jesus Christ is the great test for eternal fellowship in the age to come.

(Messages to Young People, p. 260)

p 6 -- CONFLICTING BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS -- Hermeneutics is defined as "the study of the methodological principles of interpretation." This simply stated means a study of the methods used to understand the Sacred Scriptures. In the present controversy in the Church over the doctrine of the sanctuary and the prophecies of Daniel, two methods of interpretation are in direct conflict. The one method used during the first one hundred years of the Advent Movement has been dubbed "the proof text method." An antagonist of this method - Raymond F. Cottrell - has defined it in these words:       The proof text method of Bible study consists essentially of a study of the Bible in translation (English for instance), of reliance on the analogy of Scripture on the verbal level with little if any attention to context, of giving, at best, inadequate attention to the historical setting of a statement or message and what it meant to the people of its own time, and of permitting subjective preconceptions to control conclusions arrived at deductively. (Spectrum, Vol. 11, #2, p. 18)

What is Cottrell saying those who use the "proof text method" do?
1)   They use a Bible translation, such as the KJV.
2)   They ignore, or at least give little attention to the context, or historical setting of the text.
3)   They do not consider the meaning of the reference to the people to whom it was first written or spoken.
4)   They go to the Bible with preconceived ideas, and seek support of those ideas from selected Bible verses.

Is Cottrell suggesting that the Adventist pioneers were a group of uneducated men with biased and prejudiced concepts because of their experience arising out of the Great Disappointment, and to sustain these concepts they sought supportive Bible references using a method of Biblical interpretation no longer valid?

The other method called "the historical method" is defined thus:      By contrast, the historical method consists of a study of the Bible in its original languages, of accepting the literary context of every statement and message as normative for its meaning, of determining what the messages of the Bible meant to the various reading audiences to whom they were originally addressed, in terms of the intention of the inspired writer and the Holy Spirit, of accepting that original meaning as a guide to an accurate understanding of the import for us today, and of reasoning inductively, arriving at conclusions on the basis of the evidence. (Ibid.)

Reduced to common terms, the student using this method -
1)   Studies the Bible in the original languages.
2)   Accepts the literary context as the basis for determining the meaning of the verse or verses under consideration.
3)   Seeks to find the intent of the Holy Spirit and inspired writer by noting what that passage meant to those who first heard it.
4)   Permits what is determined to be the original understanding to guide

p 7 -- in how the reference is to be understood by us who are living today.
5)   Draws conclusions on the basis of this evidence regardless of where it leads.

Based on these interpretations, Cottrell draws this conclusion:      Use of the historical method by the decided majority of our Bible scholars, and of the proof text method by most non-scholars, has been responsible for practically every theological difference of opinion over the past 40 years, including that posed by Ford. The traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9 were formulated by the proof text method. Prior to about 1940, a very few Adventists - among them A. F. Ballenger, W. W. Prescott, L. R. Conradi, and W. W. Fletcher - had begun to use some element of the historical method; it was this that made them aware of some of the problems of exegesis of our traditional interpretation, and precipitated their individual crisis. (Ibid.)

(In other words, the apostates, or near apostates, were the "good guys" while those who have held to the faith committed to their trust were really the "bad guys." Such are the imaginations of those who have drunk deeply at the broken theological cisterns of this world.)

As we seek to weigh these two methods one against the other, let us not be confused over the names given to each. The "historical method" is not the method which was used in determining the doctrines of the Advent Movement, but rather a method borrowed from the theological seminaries of Babylon the great. The name - "proof text method" - is a name chosen to describe what could be better called a summary approach to the study of the Bible. In other words, what does the Bible say, for example, about the Second Coming of Christ? To find the answer to this question, one assembles those texts which speak of Christ's second return, and then formulates what these references teach into a doctrine. This is in reality a very sound approach, the same type of method used by a scientist in a laboratory - assembling the data, and then drawing the conclusion.

While it is true that one who has not been schooled in Biblical languages must rely on a translation for his study, there are now available several literal interlinear renderings of the Greek and Hebrew texts which can be used in Bible study. While this approach may not be completely satisfactory, a true understanding of the Bible can be arrived at.

All of this really begs the question underlying the whole contention. The real issue is how was the Bible given, and for what purpose. Were the men who wrote the various books of the Bible groping to find God, or were the men who wrote selected by God in His endeavor to reveal Himself to men? While the prophets did speak to the people of their own time, and spoke to the existing conditions, was this the limit of their revelations? Is it justifiable as Cottrell has done to classify the eschatology of Daniel with the eschatology of the other Old Testament prophets, and state that Daniel's message was primarily to the generation in which the book was written? (See quotes from Cottrell on p. 2) The book of Daniel was unique, and within its contents is the definite specification by the angel Gabriel that the messages were for the "time of the end." (Dan. 8:17; 12:4)

p 8 -- Once the time sequence of God's purposes are determined based on the revelations given to the prophet Daniel, then the eschatological passages of the other Old Testament books can be fitted into this framework. The same applies to the book of Revelation, which gathers the fragmentary concepts of the Old, and unveils the purposes of God in the events which "must come to pass." (1:1)

We are going to have to determine in our thinking whether the Bible is one book or sixty-six books. Does the Bible reveal one God, or sixty-six gods? Is there one Plan of Redemption or sixty-six plans? To adopt a method of Biblical interpretation which permits a book to be understood in such a way that it contradicts all that God has given prior to, or after, is to use a method which questions the very revelation of God as given in the Bible - a God "with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1:17) This has been done and is being done in regard to Daniel and Hebrews. God's way is revealed in the sanctuary. (Ps. 77:13) The book of Hebrews states emphatically - "For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them [ancient Israel]." (Heb. 4:2) Then to teach the book of Hebrews in such a way that it contradicts the plain and simple lessons of the type which God Himself patterned is a travesty on truth.

The fallacy of the so-called "historical method" is revealed in the way the book of Daniel is interpreted. {This should not be confused with the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation.} The "little horn" of Daniel, the abomination of desolation, is interpreted to be the work of Antiochus Epiphanes, because the Jews to whom it was first given so interpreted it, and so stated by Josephus. (SDA Bible Dictionary, p. 243) But Christ plainly declared that the abomination of desolation in relationship to the temple services was still future in His day. (Matt. 24:15) Am I, therefore, going to use an interpretation of the prophecy as perceived by Josephus, or one that conforms to the pronouncement of the Lord Jesus Christ? I choose to be a follower of Him who is the source of truth, not Josephus! The so-called "historical method" of Bible interpretation is a denial of God's overruling design in revelation, and that He chose to reveal that design at different times and in a fragmentary manner. (Heb. 1:1) It further denies that there is a "present truth" for a given generation which needs to be discovered from previous revelations and proclaimed. The adoption of such a hermeneutic from the cesspool of Babylon is striking at the very foundations of the Advent Movement. May God help us!

p 9 --

2 :: AUSTRALASIAN RECORD: July 14,1980


The Messenger, April 11, 1980

Dr. Beach addressing a few words of welcome and appreciation to the Archbishop. Left to right: Mrs. A. H. Medforth, Dr. B. B. Beach, Mrs. W. R. L. Scragg, Pastor Scragg, and Archbishop Runcie. The table wine was strictly non-alcoholic.
ON FEBRUARY 18, Adventists hosted a dinner in honour of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Robert Runcie. The reception was organised by Dr. B. B. Beach, secretary of the Northern Europe-West Africa Division, who was a friend of the Archbishop while he was the bishop of St. Albans. During the farewell dinner, the Archbishop expressed appreciation of his relations and contacts with Seventh-day Adventists in St. Albans. Among those present for the evening, together with their wives, were Pastor W. R. L. Scragg, president of the Northern Europe-West Africa Division, Pastor E. H. Foster, president of the British Union Conference, Pastor P. Sundquist, departmental director of the Northern Europe-West Africa Division, the Bishop of Hertford, the Vicar of St. Peter's and Dr. S. Reid, secretary of the South England Conference.

RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE               - 19 -              TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1980


By Religious News Service (4-29-80)

DALLAS (RNS) -- A longtime observer of ecumenism warned fellow Seventh-day Adventists at the church's 53rd World Congress here that moves in that direction often signal a decline in church membership and evangelism.

"I think we can almost establish an ecumenical law," said Dr. Bert B. Beach, the secretary for the church's Northern Europe-West Africa Division. "The more a church is declining in membership, the
more it tends to be ecumenical."

"And I think we can then establish another law saying that the more ecumenical a church becomes, the more it tends to become stationary in its evangelistic advance. It tends to concentrate on socio-political issues."

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples, saying, The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do ye not after their works: for they say and do not." (Matt. 23:1-3)

p 10 -- This news article from the Student paper of Canadian Union College was written from a press release supplied by the Kinship group to all editors of Adventist College newspapers. (It is not known how many Student Editors used it as in the case of CUC of Canada. ) This news item and release cast new light on the involvement of the General Conference in the Kinship Kampmeeting. Note the titles of the subjects presented - "It's OK to Be Gay," and "Ethics for Gay Christians." Can a "Gay" be a Christian any more than one who practices adultery? Then notice that the youth were invited to make contact with the president of the Adventist Gays. And this type of a news article was permitted by the leadership of a major SDA College - a place where the youth are suppose to find a "haven of refuge." What next?

AURORA -- Canadian Union College -- November 15, 1980

Adventist Church officials meet with kinship -- by C. Roberts
Sacramento, Calif. Seventh-day Adventist gays from throughout the United States together with six official representatives of the Adventist church attended the first "kampmeeting" held for gay Adventists this August in Payson, Arizona.

The week-long conference was sponsored by SDA Kinship, the international organization of lesbian and gay Seventh-day Advents and their friends.

Workshop topics for the Kinship Kampmeeting included, "It's OK to be Gay," "Ethics for Gay Christians," "Relationships," and "Being Gay and SDA." In one workshop, a group told the church officials of their personal struggles to accept their sexuality in the light of traditional Adventist teachings. In another workshop, the seminary professors discussed their interpretation of seven biblical texts pertaining to homosexuality.

Also during the meetings the board of directors for Kinship was enlarged from five to sixteen, reflecting the growth of Kinship. Vern Schlenker Jr. of Sacramento, California, was elected president. Ron Lawson, New York, was elected to serve as special liason to the Adventist church administration.

Dr. Larry Geraty, professor of archeology and Old Testament at Andrews University and Josephine Benton, Rockville, Md., first woman minister of an Adventist congregation, were asked to serve as chaplains for Kinship.

More information on Kinship can be obtained from Vern Schlenker Jr., P.O. Box 4768, San Francisco, California 94101.

NOTE: on Article on page 9 - Let the reader keep in mind that Dr. B. B. Beach is now the head of the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department of the General Conference. Further at the recent Annual Council (1980) he was elected Secretary of the newly formed Interchurch Relations Council. You cannot go two different ways at the same time. Somebody is talking out of both sides of their mouth. -- (1981 Feb) ---End---- TOP

1981 Mar -- XIV 3(81) -- The Heart of the Problem -- In the emotionally charged atmosphere surrounding the controversy in the Church regarding the work and ministry of Ellen G. White, the real issue - basic doctrinal teaching - is being kept in the background. Elder Walter Rea's much publicized research holds the foreground of attention with non-definitive answers coming from the Ellen G. White Estate which allege - "Borrowing does not dilute her claims to inspiration because originality is not a test of one's inspiration." (Newsweek, Jan. 19, 1981, p. 72) The hard-core issues involving the E. G. White writings - such as the manipulation of her writings, and doctrinal conflicts within the writings themselves - have not been addressed, but are rather being avoided. Far more serious than this emotionally charged situation is the issue involving Dr. Desmond Ford. The leadership of the Church in taking action against him have made it appear that they took a bold and decided stand in behalf of the truth involving historic doctrinal positions which are the foundation of our faith. This simply is not true, and the laity are being deceived.

We can talk, write, discuss all we want to about the investigative judgment, and the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844, but unless we come face to face with the heart of the problem, we have solved nothing. The heart of the problem is simply - Was Christ's death on the Cross a completed atonement? If it was, then all of the basic Adventist doctrine becomes null and void, because the Seventh-day Adventist concept of the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary is based on the earthly type which teaches that not until after the sacrifice was completed could the atonement begin. Furthermore, the type also teaches that while there was a daily atonement involving the first apartment, there was a final atonement involving the second apartment. Now, I repeat, that all of this becomes an empty shell if we hold to and maintain that the Atonement to which all of these types pointed was completed on the Cross. This is the issue which Dr. Desmond Ford is presenting in all the coverage he is receiving in both the religious and secular press. In the release in Christianity Today (Oct. 10, 1980, p. 76) one of the assistant editors wrote:      The reason Ford has grown so popular among some Adventists is that he is throwing all of that [the investigative judgment and the blotting out of sins] out the window, telling Adventists they can indeed be happy and sure of salvation because Christ finished his, work on the Cross, where their sins were forgiven and the eternal punishment due them erased.

Now in the secular press, Ford is quoted as stating that the basic Adventist sanctuary teaching is an "aberrant gospel." [Aberrant = deviate and erroneous] And

p 2 -- what is his reason? Note carefully:      Ford contends that Mrs. White's notion of a "judgment" phase in Christ's redemption violates the orthodox Christian doctrine that Jesus' atonement for sin was completed with his death on the cross. "I am not a disloyal Adventist," he says. "I just believe the aberrant gospel should be pruned away.'' (Newsweek, op.cit.)

Tragically, the Adventist leadership is on record as believing the same thing Ford believes in regard to the Atonement. This doctrine that Jesus completed the atonement on the Cross was specifically stated as Seventh-day Adventist belief to the Evangelical conferees in the Adventist-Evangelical dialogue back in 1955-1956. Elder T. E. Unruh, chairman of the conferences, has written:      We affirmed our belief in the eternal and complete deity of Christ, in his sinless life in the incarnation, in his atoning death on the cross, once for all and all-sufficient, in his literal resurrection, and in his priestly ministry before the Father, applying the benefits of the completed atonement on the cross. (Adventist Heritage, Vol. 4, #2, 1977, p. 38)

One has only to look at this report in Adventist Heritage to see the pictures of the Adventist leadership involved in this affirmation of belief, - LeRoy E. Froom, R. Allen Anderson, W. E. Read, and R. R. Figuhr - besides the names of the members of the collaborating committees which read like a Who's Who of the then General Conference hierarchy. (Ibid., p. 41) If these men were not disloyal in affirming that the atonement was completed on the Cross, then neither is Ford now for so affirming. The only difference is that Ford has carried to the ultimate conclusion the affirmation made at the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences. To this day, as far as I have any knowledge, there has been no action taken repudiating the denial of faith by the men themselves, or their successors. Neither has there been any action to defrock them. To defrock a man who has carried to its ultimate conclusion the repudiation of basic Adventist doctrine by previous leaders of the Church, without defrocking these first apostates is a mere sham, and an attempt to perpetrate upon the laity a gross deception. In fact, one of the ringleaders in the Conferences with the Evangelicals, R. Allen Anderson, has written of his present intentions, stating:      I expect to be in Australia during the months of March and April [1981] and have been invited by the Division leaders and the new president of Avondale to give a lectureship on preaching which I am planning to call "Up to Date Preaching of the Apocalyptic Prophecies." They haven't been having much of that in the classrooms of Avondale College for many years. (From a Letter signed by R. A. Anderson)

Unless properly perceived, this will be hailed as a great breakthrough in Australia by the older retired "concerned" clergy and will be accepted as an indication that the Church is again returning to its historic teachings, when in reality the cancerous core of the deadly heresy which is at the heart of the problem still remains, and one of its chief advocates will be at center stage at Avondale. Well did Andreasen write in the midst of the battle over the conferences with the Evangelicals - "I have not recanted. The denomination is departing from the fundamentals, and I must protest." (See Andreasen Letter, WWN, Jan., 1981, p. 9)

p 3 -- But this is not all. The deception which is still being practiced on the laity with regards to the doctrine of the Atonement was practiced from the very beginning in reporting the Conferences. The result of these conferences for the Seventh-day Adventist was the book - Questions on Doctrine. Prior to its release to the Church, copies of what was being written and set in type were given to
Walter R. Martin, one of the Evangelical conferees. He published paragraphs from this pre-publication edition in an article - "What Seventh-day Adventists Really Believe." (Eternity, Nov. 1956) Then when the book was released to the Church, there were simple alterations to make it palatable to the laity so they would not detect the sellout of our belief in regard to the doctrine of the Atonement. Here are the columns side by side as given by Martin, and as found in Questions on Doctrine: [Underscored words in the quotes from QOD indicate the added and altered words.]

(Martin's Copy)

But with the passage of years the earlier diversity of view on certain doctrines gradually gave way to unity of view. Clear and sound positions were then taken by the great majority on such doctrines as the Godhead, the deity and eternal preexistence of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Clear-cut views were established on righteousness by faith, the true relationship of law and grace, and on the death of Christ as the complete atonement for sin. ...

All of this has made it desirable and necessary for us to declare our position afresh upon the great fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement or implication that Christ, the second Person of the Godhead, was not One with the Father from all eternity, and that His sacrifice on the Cross was not a full and complete atonement. The present belief of Seventh-day Adventists on these great truths is clear and emphatic.
(Eternity, Nov., 1956)


But with the passage of years the earlier diversity of view on certain doctrines gradually gave way to unity of view. Clear and sound positions were then taken by the great majority on such doctrines as the Godhead, the deity and eternal preexistence of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Clear-cut views were established on righteousness by faith, the true relationship of law and grace, and on the death of Christ as the complete sacrificial atonement for sin. (P. 30)

All of this has made it desirable and necessary for us to declare our position anew upon the great fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement or implication that Christ, the second Person of the Godhead, was not One with the Father from all eternity, and that His death on the Cross was not a full and complete sacrificial atonement. The present belief of Seventh-day Adventists on these great truths is clear and emphatic. (P. 31)

["Sacrificial atonement" could mean "sacrifice of the atonement." This would agree with the statement - "Christ's sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition of the atonement had been fulfilled." AA, p. 29. But it could also mean as in the text to Martin - "His sacrifice on the Cross was a full and complete atonement." It should be kept in mind that Unruh states that the Evangelicals "helped us to express our beliefs in terms more easily understood by theologians of other communions." (Adventist Heritage, op. cit., p. 40) There was no question in the minds of the Evangelical conferees what the Adventists meant by their use of words. Barnhouse wrote - "They believe that since His ascension Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which He completed on Calvary." (Eternity, Sept., 1956)]

p 4 -- When the 1955-1956 apostasy is clearly understood, it will be seen that the present attacks of the hierarchy on Ford, Cottrell, and others is just so much stage acting to lead the laity to believe the leaders in Washington are really defending the historic faith of Adventism. The only way that the historic faith committed to the trust of the Church can be clearly defended is to officially and publicaly repudiate the surrender to the Evangelicals at the 1955-1956 Conferences, and to affirm once again that the death of Christ on the Cross was but the sacrifice, and that upon His entrance into the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, He began His atoning ministry that would finally be consummated on the antitypical Day of Atonement, when Christ would complete His ministry in the second apartment of that sanctuary. [You may obtain a copy of all the source articles on these Evangelical Conferences. Then you can make your own comparison. See Order Form]

Judged by the Gospel 1 -- This is the title of a book recently published which seeks to eradicate the Advent Movement, and all that it has stood for. Turning to the Word of God - for this is the basis upon which this book is supposedly founded, sola Scriptura I fail to find a single reference in any Concordance which suggests that I or anyone else will be judged by the Gospel. Rather, I find that I will be "judged by the law of liberty." (James 2:12) "The word" which Jesus has spoken will "judge [me] in the last day." (John 12:48) God has "appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained." (Acts 17:31) To this Man, He has committed "authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man." (John 5:27)

Since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23); since I am carnal, sold under sin (Rom. 7:14); and since "the carnal mind is enmity against God" not being subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be (Rom. 8:7); the Gospel is the good news of God's provision for deliverance, and how He plans to deal with the whole sin question. The supreme confrontation of God with sin was in and through the earthly life of Jesus Christ who came in our nature, and defeated the enemy. This Paul declared to be the Gospel, which he was called to preach. He wrote - "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, ... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." (Rom. 1:1, 3-4) To merely declare the Gospel to be "concerning .. Jesus Christ our Lord," and to ignore the specific aspects of His Lordship - His power - is to proclaim another gospel.

Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." He identified Himself with our fallen nature, and conquered in that nature, bringing it into subjection to the will of God. He could pray after thirty-three plus years in the nature of the seed of David - "Thou hast given Him power over all flesh." (John 17:2) The Gospel is the assurance that as Christ was raised from the dead though He had taken upon Himself the seed of David according to the flesh, and had become sin for us - so also the same power "shall quicken [our] mortal bodies

p 5 -- by His Spirit" which is to dwell in us. (Rom. 8:11)

The Gospel is not merely the proclamation of an historical event in which all things find their fulfillment. Paul plainly teaches that "as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law ... in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom. 2:12, 16)   2   Paul's proclamation - Gospel - included a day of Judgment - not one which had come and met fulfillment already, but one which was to come. Standing before Felix, "he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come." (Acts 24:25) Paul did not stop at righteousness but included in the gospel which he preached - temperance - and a judgment to come! To the Advent Movement was committed "the everlasting gospel." (Rev. 14:6) The words translated, "everlasting gospel" are defined in Thayer's Lexicon as "a gospel whose subject-matter is eternal, in other words the saving purpose of God adopted from eternity." This age-long Gospel included the proclamation of the fact "the hour of His judgment is come." (Verse 7) We are also to fear God, and glorify Him (I Cor. 10:31); and "worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Ex. 20:8-11)

While the "saving purpose of God adopted from eternity" - the Gospel - was most clearly revealed when "the time [was] fulfilled" as foreordained by God, and He sent Jesus Christ into the world to both live and preach the Gospel (Mark 1:15; Gal. 4:4); nevertheless, the Scriptures witness to its age-long revelation. The book of Hebrews plainly states that the Gospel being proclaimed in that hour was the same Gospel which had been proclaimed to their fathers through Moses who "was faithful in all his house." (Heb. 4:2; 3:5) The revelation of the Gospel in the Old Testament - though shadowy, and by type only, having no virtue to "make the comers thereunto perfect" - was through the sanctuary service. God patterned the sanctuary, outlined its services, adapting it to the limitations of earth and the dimensional concepts of men. Yet through these earthly representations, He set forth "the way, the truth" which was revealed to man fully when "the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us," and who was to enter as "a minister of the true tabernacle" in the heaven of heavens. To set forth as "gospel" an interpretation of the New Testament revelation which mitigates and contradicts "the saving purpose of God" as revealed in the God-patterned outline to be found in the Old Testament is to impeach the wisdom of God as a true Educator.

The Gospel is not just an earthly innovation for the salvation of men. It is cosmic in its aspect. In the prophetic portrayal of "war in heaven," the victory of the Cross by which the "old serpent" was cast out, is proclaimed as the coming of "salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ." (Rev. 12:7-10) Because of this, those that dwell in heaven were to rejoice. Sin did not begin on this earth, neither is the final judgment on sin to be pronounced on this earth, but from "the Temple of heaven, from the Throne." (Rev. 16:17) When this proclamation is made, "the ark of His testament" becomes very visible. (Rev. 11:19) As mercy and truth met together in the Most Holy Place of the typical sanctuary; as mercy and truth blended together in the fulness of the Life made flesh, so mercy and truth will remain united when the final decree is issued from the Throne - "It is done." To this eternal union the Gospel - "the saving purpose of God" - witnesses. "For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth ... for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from, faith to faith." (Rom. 1:16-17) In each redeemed soul will be revealed the mercy of God, and the truth as it is in Jesus.

p 6 -- To proclaim another gospel, and declare that men, and organizations are to be judged by that gospel, is to preach another gospel, and Paul declares that all who do so are to be anathema. (Gal. 1:9 Gr.)

l   Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel - A Review of Adventism, 1980.

2   The Greek word for "day" - hmera - occurs approximately 383x in the New Testament depending which Greek text is used. Of these 383x, it occurs with the article 107x. In a number of these instances, the article is demanded by the rules of grammar when used with the pronouns, this and that. Other times, when used with the article, it is clearly identified with a specific day as indicated in the text itself, such as, "the day of the Lord," or "the day of temptation." However, there are two instances in the New Testament, in which the expression - "the day" - stands alone. One is Romans 2:16, and the other Hebrews 10:25. The NIV translates the words in Hebrews 10:25 as "the Day." In the Hebrew mind, there was only one - "the Day" - and that was the Day of Atonement, Yoma. Likewise, this same usage in Romans 2:16 could apply to the same great day. The Gospel which Paul preached not only included the Cross, but also the final mediation of that sacrifice during the great antitypical Day of Atonement.

The Right Hand Doesn't Know What the Left Hand Writes -- In the Special Sanctuary Issue of the Ministry (Oct., 1980) one page was devoted to the listing of available study materials on the question of the Sanctuary. The Biblical Research Institute offered a set of six Glacier View papers, while the Ellen G. White Estate offered a set of their own on the same subject, giving historical background material.

Among the White Estate papers was one entitled - At the General Conference of 1905. This brochure is a portion of two chapters from the forthcoming biography of Ellen G. White, by her grandson and former secretary of the Estate, Dr. Arthur L. White. It deals primarily with the Ballenger question. Of real interest is the statement by Elder E. W. Farnsworth who has left on record a summary of Ballenger's views as he presented them "at a meeting of the British Union Conference held in London in early 1905." (p. 5) Here is Farnsworth's summation:      Brother Ballenger ... has been studying the subject of the sanctuary a good deal lately, and he comes to the conclusion that the atonement was made when Christ was crucified and that when He ascended He went immediately into the most holy place and that His ministry has been carried on there ever since.
He takes such texts as Hebrews 6:19 and compares them with twenty-five or thirty expressions of the same character in the old Testament where he claims that in every instance the term "within the veil" signifies within the Most Holy Place. He says the outer veil or door of the tabernacle is never called the veil of the tabernacle, only once and then by implication (Hebrews 9:3), and doesn't think that one instance should be so construed as to practically overthrow the rest. (p. 6)

p 7 -- It should be of special interest to observe that Ballenger's final conclusions were based on his primary premise "that the atonement was made when Christ was crucified." This was the basis of the apostasy involved in the Adventist-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956; it is the root of the Ford apostasy. From such a position it is a simple step to conclude that Christ upon His ascension went directly into the Most Holy place - into the presence of God - a phrase considered to be synonymous with the Most Holy place. If so, what need is there for any final ministry involving Daniel 8:14, 1844? The whole sanctuary teaching based on Old Testament type is thus obliterated.

Regarding this position taken by Ballenger - and by implication all others who have adopted the same premise since then - Ellen G. White, who at 78 years of age traveled across country by train to attend the 1905 General Conference Session, recorded in her journal on May 20 these words:      Our Brother Ballenger is presenting theories that cannot be substantiated by the Word of God. It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and the Testimonies that God has been giving us for the past half century. (Ms. 59, 1905)(p. 7)

In the same journal she also wrote - "Let us cling to the established truth of the sanctuary." (Ibid., p. 8)

Among the Glacier View papers released by the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference is one by Elder A. P. Salom - "Exegesis of Selected Passages of Hebrews 8 & 9." [A. P. Salom attended the Glacier View meeting as a delegate from the Australian Division. (Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, p. 10) The 1976 Yearbook lists him as one of the ordained ministers of the North South Wales Conference. A learned paper appearing in the Andrews University Seminary Studies (January, 1967) notes Elder Salom as being from Walla Walla College. Digressing from the exegesis of Hebrews 8 & 9, Elder Salom devotes three pages to Hebrews 6:19-20 - the text used by Ballenger. He writes - "For Adventists, the crucial phrase in this passage is to esoteron tou katapetasmatos ('the inner shrine behind the curtain' RSV)" (p. 17) Then he cites nine references where a corresponding word in the Hebrew text refers to the curtain between the two apartments of the sanctuary; and three references where another Hebrew word is used to denote the same. After having quoted with approval various writers to indicate that the veil of Hebrew 6:19 is referring to the veil before the Most Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, Salom concluded:      As significant as it is to establish the meaning of "the curtain" in Hebrews 6:19, it is more important to see what this verse says about Christ. The first thing to note is that Christ "has gone" (eiselthen) behind the veil into the presence of God and that He ministers as "high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." (p. 19)

Salom uses the very same techniques as Ballenger, and arrives at the same identical conclusions. In "Additional Note A," Salom again comments on Hebrew 6:19. He writes:      Thus Christ is located as ministering as high priest in the very presence of God (to prosopo tou theou, 9:24) from the time when He

p 8 -- commenced His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. This is shown more explicitly by the connections between Hebrews 9:24 -26 and 6:19-20. In 9:24 "Christ has entered" (eiselthen) into the heavenly sanctuary, "now to appear in the presence of God for us." In 6:19, 20 Jesus "has gone (eiselthen) into the inner shrine behind the curtain ... having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." [He is here using an interpretive text - RSV - and not the Greek text.] It can be concluded from this comparison that "in the presence of God" means the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. (p. 24)

Assumed premises without regard to definitive statements appearing in the book of Hebrews, can only lead to false conclusions. 1 Yet this is sent forth as basic truth from the Research Institute of the General Conference.

Thus from Washington - the Curia on the Sligo - comes confusion compounded from one agency of the hierarchy comes the history of Ballenger; from another the release of the Glacier View documents which teach the same things that Ballenger taught. Ballenger was dropped from the ministry, and disfellowshipped; Salom is retained as a minister in good and regular standing in the Australian Division; while Ford teaching the same thing is defrocked. Yet the leadership would have the laity believe they are standing four-square for the historic sanctuary truth, when in reality the right hand doesn't even know what the left hand is writing. In psychic phenomena, when a human being can write two different messages at the same time - one with the right hand, and the other with the left, we conclude that that individual is possessed. Is there such a phenomenon as "institutional possession"? I read:      Organizations, institutions, unless kept by the power of God, will work under Satan's dictation to bring men under the control of men; and fraud and guile will bear the semblance of zeal for truth and for the advancement of the kingdom of God. (7T:180-181)

1  Within the book of Hebrews are to be found definitive statements as to the meaning and force which the writer attaches to these words and phrases. To ignore these is to arrive at false conclusions. In Hebrews, it is plainly set forth that the veil between the two apartments of the sanctuary is called "the second veil." (Heb. 9:3) Thus unless stated "second veil" when the term "veil" is used as in Hebrew 6:19, one to be honest in his own thinking must conclude it to refer to the entrance into the first apartment. The Altar prefigured the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, and that was located in the Court. Thus Christ leaving the "court" would pass within the tabernacle through the first veil.
Another definitive statement is to be found in Hebrews 9:2 the first apartment is designated as 'Agia (Hagia); while the second apartment is called, 'Agia 'Agiwn (Hagia Hagion) in verse 3. To then teach that the other places in Hebrews where the word Hagia is to be found refers to the second apartment is to ignore the writer's own definition of terms. All of this juggling of word meanings is resultant from the first false premise that the atonement was completed on the Cross. Begin with the simple message of the God-patterned type

p 9 -- which teaches that the sacrifice was made before the priest began his work of atonement, and accept the definitions within the book of Hebrews as the basis for understanding the book, and there is no confusion, but rather the establishment of the sanctuary truth as held by and taught in historic Adventism.
Furthermore. Paul, after describing the second apartment (Heb. 9:4-5) assures his hearers that "we" cannot now consider its significance. Then in Hebrews 10:25, he speaks of the Day of Atonement as still future. (See Footnote #2, p. 6) He is talking in the "now" time as far as his hearers were concerned, leaving the meaning and lessons of the services of the Day of Atonement to the time when God would choose to make it "present truth." (For a previous analysis of the use of the terms in the book of Hebrews, see WWN, May, 1980, pp. 5-10)

UNAVAILABLE WHY? -- In the Adventist Review (Sept. 4, 1980, p. 5) a list of special research papers prepared by different scholars of the Church for the Sanctuary Review Committee was given. It was not a complete list, and evidently was not so intended, as the list given was introduced by the clause - "Among these were." However, as this list is checked with the papers made available for all to read who wish to do so (Ministry, October, 1980, p. 23), there are five notable omissions - papers by Bert Haloviak ("Pioneers, Pantheists, and Progressives: A. F. Ballenger and Divergent Paths to the Sanctuary"); Raymond F. Cottrell ("A Hermeneutic for Daniel 8:14"); Alfred S. Jorgensen ("A Report of the Salient Teachings of W. W. Fletcher and Administrative Actions Taken by the Australian Union Conference in Dealing With Him"); and two by Beatrice Neall ("The Contextual Problem of Daniel 8:13's 'Transgression That Makes Desolate'" and "An Attempt to Harmonize Daniel with Leviticus on the Cleansing of the Sanctuary").

Evangelica (December, 1980), the new Ford orientated theological publication, also notes this inconsistency, but fails to list the two papers by Professor Neall of Union College, citing only three from the list - those by Haloviak, Cottrell, and Jorgensen. This hardly helps the credibility of a new journal seeking "to promote the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ within the Adventist Community." Perhaps its editors believe that the sufficiency of Christ will cover their apparent deliberate omission of part of the truth. How can the editors of Evangelica charge the hierarchy with "suppression" when they, too, are suppressing facts? (p. 44) Could it be - and I haven't been able to obtain the Neall papers - that the conclusions reached in these papers do not coincide with the theological viewpoint emphasized in Evangelica? But then also, is the question - Why didn't the Ministry list these two papers as available among the Glacier View documents? A member of the editorial staff of the Ministry indicated to the editors of Evangelica that Dr. Richard Lesher of the Biblical Research Institute in consultation with Elder Neal Wilson made the decision as to which papers would be made available for public distribution. Evangelica indicated that Lesher refused comment when contacted on this point ibid.

In Spectrum (Vol. 11, #2, p. 75) two other documents of "source material" and current historical data are noted as being given to the Sanctuary Review Committee prior to the Glacier View meeting, which are not listed as available. One by Wadie Farag contains relative material Xeroxed from Bible Dictionaries,

p 10 -- the Talmud, the Bible, and Ellen G. White concerning the time element in the prophecies of Daniel. The other by Dr. Raymond F. Cottrell is a report of two polls of Adventist scholars taken in 1958 and 1980 concerning Daniel 8:14, and Hebrews 9.

Among the "spruced" documents, one of special interest is the report:by Elder A. S. Jorgensen, field secretary of the Australasian Division regarding the W. W. Fletcher case. A Critique of this paper is to be found in Evengalica (Oct., 1980, p. 29) Jorgensen is quoted as follows:      Having argued that the Atonement was completed on the Cross, Fletcher had perforce to challenge the distinctively Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the antitypical Day of Atonement, involving the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, and especially the concept of the investigative judgment of the righteous. For what point is there in the latter if all sin - as it relates to the believer - was judged at the Cross and cancelled by the blood! (p. 15)

Then Jorgensen draws the conclusion - so reports Evengalica that the doctrines of a completed atonement on Calvary and "the investigative judgment" are mutually exclusive.

Here again is the heart of the problem. Here is the basis of the new book by Brinsmead. Here is the teaching of the books, Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny. Here is where Adventism comes to the Crossroads. Again, how can the hierarchy condemn Ford, Fletcher, and Ballenger, when they themselves believe, teach, and approve the heart of the theology of these men? [Perhaps, it might be of interest for a number to write Elder Neal Wilson, asking why these various documents - and name them - are being kept from you the concerned laity. Please share with us the answers you receive.]

OF INTEREST -- The Hewitt Report (Posted Dec. 11, 1980) prepared by Dr. Raymond Moore and Staff tells of the findings of a Seminary professor at Andrews University. "Entering seminary students are averaging poorly on a test that determines their decisiveness, their maleness, etc., in which a score of one (1) would be gross macho independence and ten (10) would be extreme femininity, indecisiveness, etc. The Seminary freshman average is above 8.0. This may help understand why so many of our young ministers are uncertain when the Fords and Reas come around.

"What is the suggested therapy for this problem? Crude physical labor. This was determined on the 16PF (Personality Factor) Test by IPAT. In a society which is more and more peer dependent ... and more unisexual and often homosexual, this IPAT result is revealing." (Emphasis theirs) --- (1981 Mar) ---End----