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)
Feb Knight Descends On Jones. 1of 4.
Mar Knight Descends On Jones. 2 of 4.
1988 Apr-Jun 3 & 4 of 4.
last of WWN published
ADVENTIST LAYMEN'S FOUNDATION OF CANADA (ALF)
SHORT STUDIES - William H. Grotheer -
End Time Line Re-Surveyed Parts 1 & 2 - Adventist Layman's Foundation
- Legal Documents
Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, The - William H. Grotheer
Hour and the End is Striking at You, The - William H. Grotheer
the Form of a Slave
In Bible Prophecy
Doctrinal Comparisons - Statements of Belief 1872-1980
Paul VI Given Gold Medallion by Adventist Church Leader
Sacred Trust BETRAYED!, The - William H. Grotheer
Seal of God
Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956
SIGN of the END of TIME, The - William H. Grotheer
of the Gentiles Fulfilled, The - A Study in Depth of Luke 21:24
BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
Song of Solomon - Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
Ten Commandments - as Compared in the New International Version & the King James Version & the Hebrew Interlinear
OTHER BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS & ARTICLES:
Various Studies --
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
So Much In Common - WCC/SDA
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
WWN 2006 Jul - Dec
Jul-Aug 2006 -- XXXIX - 7(06) -- A Testimony -- Editor's Preface -- We learned of the publication of a book by Dr. A. Leroy Moore, Questions on Doctrine Revisited through a Book Review in Adventist Today. This is the third book which Dr. Moore has written on the issues growing out of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences of the 1950s. Dr. Arthur Patrick, a Research Fellow at Avondale College in Australia was the Reviewer. He writes that "Moore's analyses and proposals deserve close attention, due to their potential to kick-start a fresh conversation about the conflict relating to Questions on Doctrine." As Patrick began his review, he made an interesting observation, "Some Adventist troubles are so painful the church avoids frank analysis of them in its official magazines and journals, thereby making publications like Adventist Today and Spectrum essential." It would be well if Moore's publication did "kick-start a fresh conversation" on the issues growing out of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences. In this issue of WWN we take a look at some of the issues and personalities involved in the controversy. More will follow, the Lord willing. This third Moore publication will also be involved as he suggests new understandings of key doctrinal issues such as the Incarnation and an interpretive methodology such as "poles of truth."
Sooner or later, the issue of the "omega" of apostasy will have to be confronted and its meaning to the individual Adventist discussed. Time is running out, and we are way behind where we ought to be in the discussion of these vital factors.
p 2 -- A Testimony -- On the Morning of April 19, I exited Interstate 40 at Potsville, Arkansas, on the way to meet an early morning dental appointment. I stopped at the road coming down from Crow's mountain, and then immediately again as that road joined US 64. Looking west, there was no traffic approaching, and then east, the only visible traffic was a considerable distance away. I proceeded to cross. The last thing I remember seeing was the front of a car seeming to be about six feet from me coming directly into my door. The next thing I heard were some men saying "Get the saw. We have to saw the door off to get him out of here." I again passed out. The next recollection was being placed on a flat board, and moved to the ambulance. At the hospital I was x-rayed from head to foot. Not a single broken or cracked bone was found. The car was totalled with a bend in the frame at the door where I was sitting. I was kept in the hospital several days and monitored from the nurses' station. It was assumed that I had passed out after the second stop. Everything proved normal. This left me with a decision, as I had chosen the same motto for life as M. L. Andreasen - "I am immortal till my work is done" (Letters to the Churches, #5, p. 78). What then was the work that the Lord had still for me to do?
Returning home and sorting through the mail that had accumulated, I saw the May-June issue of Adventist Today. In it was a book review by Dr. Arthur Patrick, a Research Fellow at Avondale College in Australia. The book is Questions on Doctrine Revisited by Dr. A. Leroy Moore. I had not heard of the book, but from the review by Dr. Patrick I knew that I had to get one, and see what it said. This was graciously and abundantly supplied. While I have not as yet read the whole book, there are enough factors involved to warrant a general survey and comment. This I can only do in a forthright manner, because I was personally involved in the pressure applied by Church administrators connected directly with the SDA-Evangelical Conferences upon those who refused, as did M. L. Andreasen, to accept the compromise and denial of Adventist beliefs on key doctrines and teachings.
From the reading that I have done thus far, it would appear that Moore's objectives are: 1) to blunt what M. L. Andreasen said and wrote by charging him with failure to manifest a Christlike spirit, as well as misquoting; 2) To develop a "'two pole" methodology in the study of truth, which means that to stand on either pole should make you acceptable to a person on the other pole; and 3) a concept of the Incarnation which has Christ with a sinless spiritual nature yet in a fallen physical heredity but ever in perfect union with the Father via the Spirit (p. 64). On this third point he sets forth both Romans and the book of Hebrews as sustaining his concept (pp. 65-67). So far, I have failed to find any inclusion of Paul's declaration in Philippians 2:7 - "Himself He emptied taking the slave form of man" (Greek text) - into Moore's concept of the Incarnation.
Moore recognized the difficulty he would face in attempting to "revisit" Questions on Doctrine. He wrote: Meanwhile, after nearly a half a century of conflict, it is a delicate thing to attempt an objective examination of QOD issues. Not only is complete objectivity impossible to one who deeply cares; but objectivity insures offense to any party who maintains a defensive posture. To the degree I succeed in objectivity, to that degree some will protest as I point out QOD errors; while others will protest my exposure of Andreasen's erroneous charges and self-contradiction. Nor can either appreciate my attempt to understand rather than to judge the
p 3 -- party at fault. However imbalanced or unfair my efforts may seem, I urge such defenders to examine the issues to the end. Their evaluations, suggestions, and corrections will then be appreciated (p. 38).
Having been deeply involved in the conflict over the compromises of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences, and in contact with others who were likewise concerned, such as A. L. Hudson, except for his Brinsmead detour, I shall read carefully Moore's "visitation" to the end. As I have scanned forward reading carefully Chapter 24 (as noted in Patrick's Book Review) there are two individuals who are brought into sharp focus as well as their personal conflict M. L. Andreasen and LeRoy Edwin Froom. For the reader to have adequate data to pursue with me this attempt, I find Dr. Patrick's "Book Review" in the current issue of Adventist Today (Vol. 14:3) a must. He wrote: Revisited is in part spiritual autobiography. Born in 1932, by 1947 Moore was praying his way through The Desire of Ages as an inquiring teenager with an unusual penchant for heavy reading, and this helped prepare his mind to engage with the Adventist-Evangelical discussion of the 1950's. Moore's parents gave him the first name of LeRoy Edwin Froom (1890-1974) with adjusted spelling. Leroy Moore now presents Froom's responsibility for the QOD conflict as perhaps greater than that of Figuhr, R. A. Anderson, and any other Adventist leader (Chapter 24). As pastor, researcher, and author, Moore has struggled long with the issues, incubating his latest book for 11 years, anticipating its publication would be (like his Adventism in Conflict, 1995) from a denominational press. Suddenly, within weeks of the 2005 General Conference session, the book was hurried off an independent press to be available at the quinquennial event.
The processes that hone a book at Pacific Press or Review and Herald would have helped Moore's revisitation, but his work must not be given less attention because AB did the publishing and was paid with borrowed money. Obvious mistakes in Moore's book are within reasonable limits. The volume does lack both a bibliography and an index. However, commendable strengths are apparent: clear language that makes diligent effort to avoid semantic conflict; aversion to conspiracy theories; advocacy for placing "the best possible construction" on the motives of others; research and reflection informed by a lifetime of interaction with the doctrinal problems; and helpful reference to little-known data and studies by others.
Moore's insights as a pastor may be his greatest single strength. QOD was the attempt of Adventist leaders in Washington to respond to written questions from Walter Martin as a foremost Evangelical writer on cults, preparing to write on Seventh-day Adventists. The QOD manuscript, evidently written in the main by Froom, was sent to 250 thought leaders worldwide. Detailed responses in writing were comparatively few, but with one exception they sounded procedural and theological warnings. Did church leaders fail to understand these cautions? Why did they not heed them? Did they wildly keep them secret? Enter Andreasen, Adventism's "Great Dane" who became a whistleblower par excellence, losing his cherished ministerial credentials in the process and regaining them posthumously. Not only have Andreasen's strident epistles been published or quoted since 1958 by independent presses worldwide, they have become a bible for criticism of Adventist leadership that flourishes to this day....
Other strengths of Moore's tome deserve unpacking. Adventists who live in places distant from the church's archives in Washington often languish for access to primary sources, a reason why at Andrews University overseas students cherish the collections housed in the James White Library. However, because of an intentional decision made at Adventist headquarters in 1972, costly research facilities have been established and maintained in the major geographical regions of the world. It is 35 years since I migrated from pastoral-evangelism via Andrews University to research and teaching focused on Adventist studies; for eight years I was director of the Research Center serving the South Pacific Division. But Moore teaches me important things in his book, even though I thought I had reviewed most of the relevant documentation. The biography of Raymond Cottrell currently being written will likely put in place another important piece of the QOD jigsaw puzzle (pp. 22-23).
Personally, I resent
the attacks made on the memory of M. L. Andreasen, Prince
p 4 -- of Adventist theologians, as well as a man who knew his God.
My mother and I took 22 weekly Bible studies from a retired credentialed Bible Worker, Bertha E. Jorgensen, during the winter and spring of 1931-1932. We were her last converts before she went to her rest. It was not until the camp meeting of that year that we were baptized into the Adventist Church in a lake on the campus of Oak Park Academy. The big meeting tent was pitched on the grounds of the Iowa Sanitarium adjoining the Academy. The speaker for the Sabbath morning worship service was Elder M. L. Andreasen, president of Union College. I remember to this day his words as he announced the message he planned to give - "I want to acquaint you with the Father." That he did because he knew the Father personally.
The year that I enrolled at Union College was the year that Andreasen accepted a call to teach in the Advanced Bible School at Takoma Park. Further contact with him was at Worker's Meetings and Retreats where he was the key speaker, but each occasion only impressed more deeply my first impression of Elder Andreasen when I began my journey in Adventism. The material he presented not only "watered" my soul, but I could adapt some of it in formulating evangelistic messages. One such was "Modern Priestcraft - Prophet versus Priest." The last Worker's Meeting I attended at which Andreasen was the guest speaker was in Indiana during the administration of Elder Arthur Kiesz. It was in the shadow of the coming events which are still plaguing the Church. After Kiesz came Unruh to Indiana.
In this transitional
period of time, the Bible Teacher at Indiana Academy gave me a copy of
A. L. Hudson's Supporting Brief prepared to support a motion to
the forthcoming General Conference session regarding the book, Questions
on Doctrine. It charged that the book contains:
In this Brief, Hudson resurrected the manuscript 1888 Re-Examined which R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short presented to the General Conference in 1950. Back in 1950, I was serving as pastor of the first church in Toronto, Canada. One Sabbath, I invited Henry F. Brown, of the Home Missionary Department of the General Conference, who was visiting in the Toronto area, to speak; he was also our guest for dinner. We had an interesting afternoon visit. He told me of a manuscript which had just been presented to the leadership, and said he would get me a copy. By the time he returned to Washington, it had been placed under "wraps."
In the years that followed, I kept looking for a copy to read, and finally found this contact to obtain a copy. Hudson loaned me his and told me of his contacts with the two men. He had never met them, but that they both were coming to the General Conference session in Cleveland. We agreed to my going to Cleveland to see if they could come to Indiana after the session, and he would fly back to meet them. This was done, and we turned our home into a "motel" while several days of discussion were held in the basement of the Marion, Indiana, Church. Another pastor in the conference joined us as he could. It was agreed that Hudson would start publishing. This he did. Church Triumphant was "born." For the most part, pen names were used. I wrote under "Ben Ezra II" and a doctor who
p 5 -- was concerned adopted the name, "Dr. Luke."
At one of the camp meetings during this time, the Lake Union Conference president, Elder Jere D. Smith, talked to me about Elder M. L. Andreasen. He said he was senile and had to be overlooked. I told him that I was going to take my vacation after camp meeting and that I intended to go to California and check this allegation inasmuch as others had told me the same thing. When I got to California, I called R. R. Bietz, the Union Conference president, and told him of my intention to visit Andreasen and why. His response was "Go and see him; he is not senile." He further told me that he had warned Figuhr that unless they put the brakes on their antagonism toward Andreasen, there would be serious trouble ahead. (When Bietz was beginning his administrative service in the Church, as president of the Texico Conference he held a worker's retreat in the Sandia Mountains near Albuquerque. Andreasen alone was the guest presenter. It was a long remembered spiritual experience.)
I took my brother-in-law along with me for the visit with Andreasen. He was far from senile. It was refreshing just to converse with him. My brother-in-law stepped out for a few minutes. While out, Andreasen asked me about Dal's spiritual condition. When he returned, he said a few words to him and had prayer. As he prayed I was conscious of the presence of the Spirit of God in the room. His prayer went far higher than the proverbial "ceiling!" He was truly a man of God.
Another contrasting experience was to follow in a few years. During the Unruh administration in Indiana, at two consecutive camp meetings there was open confrontation with two men who were involved with QOD - R. Allan Anderson and A. V. Olson. Those experiences would be a "thought paper" in itself. From Indiana I accepted a call to head the Bible and History Department of old Madison College. I became acquainted with some of the departmental staff of the Kentucky-Tennessee Conference. With one of the men I developed a friendly relationship. One day, he came into my office and announced he was going to Washington and while there was going to see Dr. LeRoy Froom. Jokingly, he asked me if there was anything that I wanted him to pick up from Froom. Movement of Destiny had not as yet been published. I suggested to him that if he would salve Froom's ego, he could get about any item he wanted. He brought me back an unpublished three chapter manuscript on "The Tremendous Truth of the Virgin Birth." As an example of its teachings, on page 22, Number 6 of 8 summary paragraphs reads in part : Human part of Christ without sin. --- That should never be forgotten or confused. Originally Christ was Himself Deity. And in the Incarnation that which had always been, was joined in everlasting identification with his newly incorporated humanity ... He who created all things caused a virgin to conceive and thus to bear a son. This creative act was solely to the end that the humanity of Christ might be secured. It therefore follows that whatever part of this unique Christ is wrought by the Holy Spirit it would, in its conception, be as sinless as the Creator who brought it into being (Emphasis his).
Alpha and Omega -- Dr.
Leroy Moore writes that M. L. Andreasen insisted that "'QOD
was the omega of apostasy predicted by Ellen White" (p. 15). One
who was in the midst of the controversy during the decade following the
release of the book, Questions on Doctrine, has no alternative
but to concur with Andreasen. The statements found in the Writings need
careful consideration. In
p 6 -- the Scriptures, the expression, "Alpha and Omega" refers to Deity, both the Almighty (Rev. 1:8) and "the Son of man" (Rev. 1:11). Why Ellen White so chose those words to cover a twofold apostasy that came and would come in the Church, I have never read as to why. I do not know the answer and I do not know of the Estate having discussed the reason for the use by Ellen White.
In 1903, Dr. J. H. Kellogg published a book, The Living Temple, a copy of which was sent to Ellen White which she left unread in her library. Finally, at the insistence of her son, Willie, they read together the preface, the first chapter, and paragraphs from other chapters. From this reading, she would write "Living Temple contains the alpha of these theories. I knew that the omega would follow in a little while and I trembled for our people. I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God" (Special Testimonies, #2, p. 53).
While Andreasen considered QOD the omega of apostasy, Dr. Moore apparently does not, and faults Andreasen for the forthrightness of his response to the apostasy which he perceived to be involved in the compromises with the Evangelicals Barnhouse and Martin. Further, the points at issue cannot be considered "poles of truth." In the context of the statements on the apostasy, Ellen White declared - "We have a truth that admits of no compromise" (ibid., p. 55).
The question as to the omega of apostasy has further implications. Ellen White resisted the influences intended in the publication of Living Temple, and it was not accepted by the Church. However, in the discussion of the "omega" to follow, Ellen White wrote: In the book Living Temple there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given (ibid., p. 50; emphasis supplied).
This can mean only one thing. There would be a split somewhere along the line between those who received the warning, and those who did not. It is not a matter of polarity, it is simply the matter of "the righteousness of Christ, which is pure unadulterated truth" (TM, p. 65). It was not an accident that at the very time QOD was being promoted by Church leadership, A. L. Hudson was moved by the Spirit to revive the manuscript by Wieland and Short, 1888 Re-Examined, as well as publish Andreasen's, Letters to the Churches. If we had received the righteousness of Christ, we would have been able to discern the error in QOD and the two issues - 1888 and QOD coming at the same time would have served as a warning to help us identify the "omega" of apostasy.
This raises some other questions which must be squarely faced. For the Church to accept the compromises with the Evangelicals, which were worked out by a few men seeking to speak for the whole body, brings the Church to "the balances of the sanctuary." This warning is also primarily confined to the Writings as is the alpha and omega of apostasy. Let us carefully note: In the balances of the sanctuary, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence, "Found Wanting." By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged.(Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 247)
This is not a "Perhaps" statement. "Is to be" is positive; as is also "She will be judged." Again comes the issue - Do we
p 7 -- believe that God has given a gift to help guide us through the perils of earth's final days, and that the identification of the omega of apostasy clearly indicates that that time has been reached. Do we then need to revisit QOD to condemn a man whose close relationship with God could lead him to discern the Omega? God Forbid!
In 1905 Ellen White would write prophetically: One thing it is certain is soon to be realized, - the great apostasy, which is developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will continue to do so until the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout. We are to hold fast the first principles of our denominated faith, and go forward from strength to increased faith. Ever we are to keep the faith that has been substantiated by the Holy Spirit of God from the earlier events of our experience until the present time. We need now larger breadth, and deeper, more earnest, unwavering faith in the leadings of the Holy Spirit. If we needed the manifest proof of the Holy Spirit's power to confirm truth in the beginning, after the passing of the time, we need today all the evidence in the confirmation of the truth, when souls are departing from the faith and giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. There must not be any languishing of soul now. (Special Testimonies # 7, pp. 56, 57).
Comments: The cover art work and design by David and Laura Schwimmer is most intriguing. Central is a small rural church with its front doors open wide, and a couple with their two children entering. Their clothing is simple and plain, indicating a family of average means. Leaving the church is a well-dressed man carrying what I perceive to be a Bible. It is obvious that the artists intended for their work to speak - one picture worth a thousand words! Over the whole picture is placed a large question mark. In one's mind after carefully considering the design are question marks. If the Bible is the book the man exiting the church is carrying, why is he leaving? It is not a "back door" exit, but an exit through the doors the others are entering - the front door! It is an excellent design because it speaks to the title of the book - Questions on Doctrine Revisited. The answers are not yet all in, and may never be this side of the Second Coming of our Lord.
p 8 -
track of truth
Moore: "Conflict will give way to helpful discussion when, with Paul and Ellen White, we unite both poles of truth and honor the attempts of others to do so, even if expressed differently." (p. 69)
Is it "two poles of truth" or "truth and error"? How did Andreasen perceive it? Was he right or wrong in his perceptions? --- (2006 Jul-Aug) ---End --- TOP
Sep-Oct 2006 -- Moore Indicts M. L. Andreasen Posthumously -- Editor's Preface -- While it was a good thing to attempt to "revisit" Questions on Doctrine as Dr. Leroy Moore has done, it does not heal the breach in Adventism by introducing new and controversial concepts in the doctrinal area of the Incarnation, much less a personal attack on the late M. L. Andreasen, especially so, when the charge is so weak and questionable. In this issue of WWN we will discuss his indictment of Andreasen, and leave for another issue a discussion of the doctrinal concept of the Incarnation as suggested by Moore, as well as his dual pole concept of relating truth and error itself.
The sentence which forms the basis of the indictment was rewritten in summary form from the original by Andreasen. Its meaning was not altered but reflected the same concept which Froom had expressed with the other Adventist conferees in their conversations with Barnhouse and Martin. . Further, neither did M. E. Kern, first president of the SDA Theological Seminary and friend of Andreasen, nor did R. R. Figuhr, president of the General Conference and antagonist of Andreasen question Andreasen's summarized use of Froom's sentence from the Ministry magazine. I am unaware that Dr. Moore's degree is in English grammar, which would give him authority to question how Andreasen summarized Froom's sentence as a direct quote. We will let each reader make his own decision as he analyzes the documentation presented.
p 2 -- Moore Indicts M. L. Andreasen Posthumously -- Chapter XIV of Moore's publication, Questions on Doctrine Revisited is captioned, "Andreasen Misrepresents Froom's Sentence." He charges that Andreasen so alters what Froom wrote in the Ministry (Feb. 1957) as to misrepresent what Froom actually taught and believed. The sentence in question is a part of the full paragraph which reads: But this should be most carefully noted: Christ's atoning death on Calvary provided redemption potentially for all mankind. That is, Christ died provisionally for every sinner in all the world, that the efficacy of His death might embrace all men in its sweep throughout all human history. That is the tremendous scope of the sacrificial act of the cross - a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man's sin. (p. 10, Froom's emphasis)
Let us also observe in full context the sentence which Andreasen is charged with altering. He wrote in Letters to the Churches #3, p. 35, quoting Froom, that the atonement "is not, on the one hand, limited just to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. On the other hand, neither is it confined to the ministry of our heavenly High Priest in the sanctuary above, on the antitypical day of atonement, - or hour of God's judgment, - as some of our forefathers first erroneously thought and wrote. Instead, as attested by the Spirit of Prophecy, it clearly embraces both - one aspect being incomplete without the other, and each being the indispensable complement of the other" (Ministry, Feb., 1957, p. 9). To this Andreasen added, "That is, both the death on the cross and Christ's ministry in the second apartment are necessary to atonement. With this, we are in full agreement. The death was a necessary part of the atonement. The one is incomplete without the other." (p. 36) Then comes the sentence: "'This point should be noted, for a few sentences further on the author will say that the death on the cross is complete in itself; to quote: 'The sacrificial act of the cross (is) a complete, perfect and final atonement for man's sin.' (page 10) After having first said that the sacrificial death was incomplete, he now says it is complete, perfect and final. He does not consider the death merely as a partial atonement, but a Calmat and perfect and final one. With this we disagree. The two statements are irreconcilable."
Andreasen did not alter what Froom wrote as charged by Moore. He did summarize it, using a colon (" : ") and left it saying what Froom said in the Ministry. Moore admits that others involved at the time, M. E. Kern and R. R. Figuhr did not challenge Andreasen's usage as "misquoting" Froom. (p. 136) I am sure that Kern who served as Secretary of the General Conference and who became the first president of the SDA Theological Seminary, understood English grammar well enough that he would have caught Andreasen's misuse had there been such. Froom was merely stating the position as given in QOD. We do well to note what QOD stated on the Atonement inasmuch as it is being "revisited."
With full emphasis, it was written: Adventists do not hold any theory of a dual atonement. "Christ hath redeemed us" (Gal 3:13) "once for all" (Heb. 10:10). (p. 390)
Under the caption, "Redemption Absolute by the Victory of Christ," the authors of QOD unequivocally indicate their position: How glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is also our representative at the court of heaven! This becomes all the more meaningful when we
p 3 -- realize that Jesus our Surety entered the "holy places," and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. And now as our High Priest He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice to us (p. 381).
The authors of QOD go even further. They seek to interpret the writings to fit their new evangelical positions. They advised: When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature - even in the writings of Ellen G. White - that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests (pp. 354-55).
In his new publication, Moore goes to great lengths to sustain an assumption that Froom by using "a" complete, perfect, and final atonement, and even though omitting the word, "sacrificial" is not inferring that the cross is the final atonement as charged by Andreasen (See Questions on Doctrine Revisited QODR, p. 137). But I find in reading Andreasen's quotation in Letters to the Churches he likewise uses the same indefinite article "a." Whatever Andreasen quoted and interpreted is the same concept that the Evangelical conferees understood the Adventist representatives to say in conference. In Eternity (Sept. 1956, p. 44), Barnhouse's official publication, he wrote that he and Mr. Martin heard "the Adventists leaders" repudiate "all such extremes" such as a final atonement "in the second apartment of (the heavenly) sanctuary." He added - "This they have said in no uncertain terms." It must be added that Froom's position in the sentence quoted by Andreasen from the article in Ministry is no different than the position set forth in QOD as noted above. If taken all together the evidence sustains the justification for Andreasen's conviction that the SDA-Evangelical Conferences and the publication which followed, QOD, were evidences of the "Omega" of apostasy which had been predicted.
Moore, in his current
publication, emphasizes that we are to "put the best possible construction"
(QODR, p. 108), on an opponent's position which in this situation
- QOD - is error and apostasy! The problem, however, is aggravated
in the publication of QOD. Not only does it repudiate basic truth
committed in sacred trust to the Church, but it also was given in a deceptive
manner to the Evangelical conferees: words were added to the original
answers given the Evangelicals when published for the Adventist constituents.
All of these factors added together reveal the depth of the apostasy.
There is only one bright spot. It is being "revisited"! I hope
that it will be a candid revisitation, and not one "sugar-coated"
to make it more palatable. The following basic questions will also need
to be "revisited:"
p 4 -- The Bible & the Dual Atonement -- in the book of Hebrews, Paul tells us that the priests of the sanctuary, which Moses erected in the wilderness under instruction from God, served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things" (8:5). In the daily and yearly services conducted in this sanctuary using the typological hermeneutic suggested by this verse, we find the biblical basis for a dual atonement.
In Leviticus 4 are outlined the daily services to be performed in case the high priest, congregation, the ruler, or the common person sinned through ignorance. For the last three of the above named categories the conclusion reads: The priest shall make an atonement for them/him and it shall be forgiven them/him. (Verses 20, 26, 31, 35)
It is clearly an atonement which resulted in forgiveness, with a ritual which could be performed by either the common or high priest, the variance being in the disposition of the blood.
In Leviticus 16 is outlined the ritual for the final atonement which was to result in cleansing. The text reads: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month... shall the high priest make an atonement for you to cleanse you, that ye may be clean of all your sins before the Lord. (vers. 29-30)
The Scriptures do teach a dual atonement as set forth in the typical services of the Hebrew sanctuary. It is also true that the Great Disappointment of October 22., 1844, produced some serious study with regard to the sanctuary ritual and the atonements. One such study was done by 0. R. L. Crosier, and published in the 1850 Advent Review. Of this study by Crosier, James White in 1853 commented: "'The article on the sanctuary by 0. R. L. Crosier, is excellent. The subject of the Sanctuary should be carefully examined, as it lies at the foundation of our faith and hope." (Note the use of the word, "foundation.")
In this article Crosier recognized the dual nature of the atonement of the typical services of the Hebrew sanctuary. He wrote: The atonement is the great idea of the Law, as well as of the gospel; and as the design of that Law was to teach us that of the Gospel, it is very important to be understood. The atonement, which the priests made for the people in connection with their daily ministration, was different from that made on the tenth day of the seventh month. In making the former, they went no further than in the Holy (Place); but to make the latter they entered the Holy of Holies - the former was made for individual cases, the latter for the whole nation of Israel collectively - the former was made for the forgiveness of sins, the latter for blotting them out - the former could be made at any time, the latter only on the tenth day of the seventh month. Hence the former may be called the daily atonement and the latter the yearly, or the former the individual, and the latter the national atonement. (See Facsimiles of the Two Earliest SDA Periodicals, p. 42)
Because it was being taught that the atonement was made and finished at Calvary, Crosier devotes some comments to that position: Now it must be clear to everyone that if the antitype of the yearly service began at the first Advent, the antitype of the daily had been previously fulfilled; and as the atonement for forgiveness was a part of that daily service, they are involved in the conclusion that there has been no forgiveness of sins under the Gospel Dispensation. Such a theory is wholly at war with the entire genius of the Gospel Dispensation and stands rebuked, not only by Moses and Paul, but by the teaching and works of our Saviour and His commission to
p 5 -- His apostles, by their subsequent teaching and the history of the Christian church (ibid., p. 45).
To those who held the position that the atonement was finalized at the cross, Crosier directed the comment - "Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests." He then gave five propositions based in Scripture which make this position unsustainable, and concluded: Therefore, He did not begin the work of making the (national or yearly) atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered His heavenly Sanctuary for us. (Ibid)
Some of the early writers in Adventism denied any atonement at Calvary not understanding Crosier's position of which Ellen White had written: I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew (sic.) me in vision, more than a year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the sanctuary; and that it was His will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint. (A Word to the "Little Flock", p. 12)
Keep in mind that James White stated that the subject of the sanctuary lies at the "foundation" of our faith and hope. Ellen White indicated that "Heaven" considered Crosier's study, "the true light." Crosier's article clearly teaches a "dual atonement," which he called the "individual" or daily atonement and a "national" or yearly atonement. In the article in Ministry (February, 1957), it would first appear that Froom was so stating, and Andreasen wrote in his Letters to the Churches, "With this, we are in full agreement." Then Froom switched, taking the position that the cross is the final atonement for man's sin. This brought the article into harmony with QOD, but it left Froom in an "irreconcilable" position as charged by Andreasen. Andreasen did not misrepresent Froom in altering the sentence structure; that both Kern and Figuhr well knew. It seems that now Moore cannot comprehend a simple summary statement constructed from the original wording. Does his antagonism for Andreasen give him a mental block? Of course he will deny "antagonism!"
The Last Generation -- Moore captions chapter XXV of his book - "The Final Generation Perfection: 'Behold Your God"' and prefaces it with a paragraph by Julius Nam, Professor of Religion at Pacific Union College. It reads: The cornerstone of Andreasen's theology was his last generation theology which taught that there will arise a generation of God's people in the end-time who will overcome sin completely and demonstrate to the universe that it is possible to live a sinless life. This theology served as the background for Andreasen's insistence on reserving the wording "the final atonement" to the investigative judgment era - a special time in the history of redemption when the final blotting of sin was to take place and the last generation would arise.
To this Moore adds - "This was also the nerve of Andreasen's nature of Christ defense" and then continues to quote Nam: "If Christ's human nature was in any way different from that of an ordinary human being and if the cross finished the work of atonement, Andreasen's last generation theology would become superfluous and irrelevant and his theological legacy as well as what he saw as the theological heritage of Adventist pioneers would crumble. Thus, for Andreasen, his reaction to Questions on Doctrine went much beyond doctrinal
p 6 -- discussions; it was a monumental struggle for the survival of the Adventist movement." (p. 256)
This is true, and is also the basis for Andreasen's seeing in what was taking place the omega of apostasy.
First, we must determine whether Andreasen had a valid Scriptural basis for a final generation perfection? The answer is, Yes! To the small remnant who remained steadfast after the Great Disappointment and saw the light of the "Final Atonement," God committed the giving of the Three Angels' Messages. The final result of these messages is described as a demonstration - "Here are they which keep (not "are trying to keep") the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." They ultimately stand with the Lamb on Mt. Zion having His Father's name in their foreheads. They are without fault before the Throne; in their mouths is nothing false (yeudoV). They do not succumb to the omega of apostasy!
As Moore comes to the end of his book, he comments on the restoration of the love relations broken with God by Adam and Eve and writes that the restoration of those love relations "will never take place so long as our focus is upon becoming sinless." (p. 276) This position seems at variance with the following: We are to exert every energy of the soul in the work of overcoming and to look to Jesus for strength to do what we cannot do of ourselves. No sin can be tolerated in those who shall walk with Christ in white. The filthy garments are to be removed, and Christ's robe of righteousness is to be placed upon us. By repentance and faith we are enabled to render obedience to all the commandments of God, and are found without blame before Him. (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 472)
Next comes Appendix A in which Moore seeks to set forth his "Flesh vs. Spirit Theme" as found in Romans and relates it first to a new Incarnation position which he is promoting. Failing to exegete correctly Paul's introductory verses, he goes to Romans 4, and makes some interesting observations concerning Abraham: Chapter 4:1 questions what Abraham our father according to the flesh (kata sarka) has found. Even he had to have righteousness imputed to him "apart from works" (4:1-6). While he fathered Arabic tribes by natural procreation, he became the father of Isaac, progenitor of Israel, not by his futile, natural efforts but by faith in God's covenant promise.
Isaac's birth by divine, biological intervention became a type of the virgin birth (4:17-22). [The verses cited do not sustain the conclusion drawn.]
It is evident from the biblical record that Abraham was not the one who was sterile (Gen. 25), but rather Sarah. It is of further interest to note the record that the birth of Isaac came after it was impossible for Sarah to have children even if she had not been sterile. That fact is emphasized in Gen. 16:1-2; 17:17; 18:11. His birth was by Divine intervention. Paul uses this experience to illustrate righteousness by faith. Sarah begat Isaac because God gave Sarah new organs for conception and birthing. It must be considered; the question must be asked: Will there be Divine intervention to produce a sinless generation? Does the greatness of the Divine Sacrifice merit such an intervention?
There is pictured the process of complete cleansing in Zechariah 3, so much so that the recipients of heaven's cleansing are "men wondered at" (ver. 8). After all, the final atonement is about cleansing, not forgiveness. The men described have their "filthy garments" removed and a change of raiment given. It is by Divine decree - "I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment." (ver. 4) Concerning this chapter is this thought-provoking
p 7 -- comment - "Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in the closing up of the great day of atonement" (p. 472, emphasis supplied). Andreasen may not have been as far-a-field as Moore and others would like to place him. Perhaps it is Moore and Knight who are far-a-field from truth!
What Did Crosier Believe as Revealed In His Article In the Day Star, Extra of 1846? - From the documentation given in the first part of this issue of WWN, it is clear that Crosier believed in a Dual Atonement, one which he called the "Individual Atonement" and the other a "National Atonement." He challenged those who supported a completed and full atonement at the cross with a series of questions which could not be answered and such a position sustained. What then was his first "atonement" concept and upon what did it rest? He wrote: It should be distinctly remembered that the priest did not begin his duties till he obtained the blood of the victim, and that they were all performed in the court (the enclosure of the Sanctuary), and that the atonement thus made was only for the forgiveness of sins. These points are expressly taught in this chapter (Lev. 4) and the following one on the trespass offering. Here is an atonement to make which the priests only entered the Holy, and to make it they could enter that apartment "always" or "daily." But into the second [the Holy of Holies] went the High Priest alone once every year not without blood which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people" Heb. ix, 7 (emphasis his). (The Advent Review, September, 1850, p. 43)
Crosier's position placed the first atonement beginning upon Christ's ascension and enthronement upon the Throne of Grace at the right hand of God. He noted that Peter preaching on the Day of Pentecost called for those hearing "To repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins" Acts ii, 38. But Crosier also observed that Peter spoke of a future "blotting out" of sins - the final atonement - beyond this initial atonement which gave forgiveness (Acts iii, 19). --- (2006 Sep-Oct) ---End --- TOP
Nov 2006 -- The Incarnation Revisited -- Editor's Preface -- The objective of each issue of "Watchman, What of the Night?" is to stimulate in-depth thought on a Biblical topic or doctrine. True, we challenge positions which we believe to be wrong and contrary to the historic teachings of the Church. In the current issue will be found certain concepts which we hope will stimulate some thinking in regard to the Incarnation as related to the subject of the Godhead. We are aware of the position of the Church as well as statements in the Writings which suggest a Tri-theistic position. Concepts stated in Genesis and Revelation and in the Shema of Israel, with connecting verses from Isaiah and Zechariah as well as Luke and Paul's view of the Incarnation, call for more study and thought about God as a Duality. We are then left with "the Spirit and the bride" (Rev. 22:17) to factor into the picture. "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness." (I Tim. 3:16) (Another 3:16 verse to study thoughtfully with John 3:16).
p 2 -- The Incarnation Revisited -- The doctrine of the Incarnation was one of the key doctrines discussed and compromised at the Seventh-day Adventist-Evangelical Conferences held during 1955-1956. Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, the key Evangelical conferee, wrote at the conclusion of the meetings in Eternity magazine of which he was editor, that the majority Adventist position on the nature of Christ "while in the flesh" has always been held "to be sinless, holy, and perfect despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the Church at large. They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their 'lunatic fringe' even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity" (p. 6, September 1956).
However, in regard to the doctrine of the Incarnation the change in thinking cannot be charged solely to the conferences, but was already beginning to appear in church publications in the prior decade.
Froom emphasized in Movement of the Destiny that -- Cognizance must also be taken of the correction, in 1949, of a definite error appearing in a note on the nature of Christ during the Incarnation. For years it had appeared, unchallenged, in the standard Bible Readings for the Home Circle. It was in the section on "A Sinless Life." Apparently it was first written by W. A. Colcord, in 1914. It likewise involved one of those questions upon which there had been variance of view through the years. Colcord had declared that during his incarnate earthly life Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature" (p. 174) ...
In 1949, Prof. D. E. Rebok, then president of our Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, when it was still in Washington D.C. was requested by the Review and Herald to revise Bible Readings for the Home Circle. Coming upon the unfortunate note on page 174, in the study of the "Sinless Life," he recognized that this was not true, but in eliminating the note he found that some still held with Colcord in his position (pp. 427-428).
And the reason is a matter of record: In 1932, Francis D. Nichol, then the associate editor of the Review and Herald wrote a book, Answers to Objections, in which he discussed various objections to the teachings of Adventist belief, but nothing in this first edition discussed the Incarnation. In 1952, within the shadows of the Conferences of 1955-1956, the book, Answers to Objections, was revised with a foreword by W. H. Branson, then president of the General Conference. Section V: Sanctuary and Atonement, was enlarged to include a detailed discussion of the Incarnation under "'Objection 94." Nichol quoted from p. 49 of The Desire of Ages and wrote: This is Adventist belief and we hold this belief because it agrees with revelation and reason. Note the following:
He cited certain references from the Pauline Epistles - Romans 8:3: Hebrews 2:14-7 - and made comment. (These references we will note later). He then wrote that "in holding this view of Christ" (coming in the likeness of sinful flesh) "Seventh-day Adventist agree essentially with the view expressed by various devout theologians through the years." Nichol quoted a number of them (pp. 394-396). He closed his discussion of the Incarnation with a note addressed to Adventist writers and speakers, which was passed unheeded by the Adventist conferees as well as others since. Observe it carefully:
A word of counsel
to some of our Adventist writers and speakers may be in order here. The
Let us never forget that a Scriptural mystery is always most safely stated in the language of Scripture. Hence, when we must move amid the mists of divine mystery we do well to stay within the protecting bounds of quotation marks. We need not move beyond in order to secure from that mystery its saving, sanctifying power. And staying thus within those bounds, we best protect the mystery from the ridicule of skeptics, the Adventist name from the attacks of critics and ourselves from being lost in the mist (p. 397).
As Nichol observes, the issue of the incarnation involves Calvinism. In the 1955-1956 Conferences, the Adventist conferees were facing men who saw "the Scriptures through Calvanistic eyes." What then was the real motive of the Adventist Conferees in seeking to harmonize Adventist teaching with that of the Evangelicals? Acceptance by men? And this regardless of the truth committed to our trust? Had we forgotten that "we have a truth that admits of no compromise? Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth?" (Special Testimonies, #7, p. 40). This does not suggest two poles to truth, and viewing error in as favorable a light as possible! In "revisiting" the conferences, and their fruitage, QOD, Leroy Moore introduces his personal conception of the Incarnation which places the doctrine of the incarnation once again on the "front burner" of the agitation within Adventism. One is handicapped in analyzing Moore's current book as it does not have an index and introduces concepts as controversial as any introduced in the original edition of QOD, such as, ""two poles of truth" for each major doctrine discussed. He sets forth what he calls "paradoxical principles," which "cure both compromise and a judgmental spirit" (p. 37), yet throughout the book, there are continual and vicious attacks on Andreasen. Two of those who place their "imprimatur" on Moore's current book (back cover eulogy) co-authored with John Reeve, a third Andrews University professor, a book on the Trinity. Paul and Luke, companions in travel, define the birth of Christ differently. No doubt, Moore would use this difference in language as evidence of "poles of truth" instead of nothing what Gabriel revealed about God. Luke reported that the angel Gabriel told Mary (perhaps from a personal interview with her) "the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee" (1:35), while Paul states that Christ "emptied Himself" (Phil 2:7, ARV).
First, we shall observe Moore's position on the Incarnation, with comment, then focus on the New Testament, observing mostly Pauline references before commenting on the Godhead insight suggested in the difference of statements by Luke and Paul.
Moore, in defining his position on the Incarnation wrote: Thankfully, an increasing number now emphasize a sinless spiritual human nature from his incarnate birth, such as is true of no other human, and a sinful biological inheritance (pp. 208-209).p 4 -- This is saying either that Jesus Christ in His humanity had a dual human nature, one sinless and the other sinful; or that He looked like a man - " "in the likeness of men" [Phil 2:7], yet had in essence the nature of Adam before the Fall.
In "revisiting" the Incarnation it seems that in our past discussion of the doctrine we have overlooked a factor suggested in the Writings: There is light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundations of the world were laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible (Review, April 5, 1906).
Factored into the incarnation, it means simply that as a pre-existent Being, Jesus Christ entered humanity - "Son of God" and "Son of Man" - both of which He was not, except by decree [Ps. 2:7] and a mysterious human generation. He came as a babe without a human father but from a daughter of Eve, the first to sin.
The preface to John's Gospel emphasized the great mystery of Godliness -"God was manifest in the flesh" [I Tim. 3:16]. "In (the) beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and Divine was the Word. The same was in beginning with God. All things through him came into being... and the Word flesh became and tabernacled among us" [1:1-3, 14 lit.].
We need to pause and consider the concepts stated in these verses: 1) He who became Jesus Christ was with God from the very beginning - "the same was in beginning with God." In writing this, John chose the Greek imperfect of the verb, "to be" (hn - was) which denotes continuous action in past time. 2) All things came into existence thorough Him and apart from Him nothing came to be. Does this include the incarnation? Paul wrote that in the incarnation, He "emptied Himself" (Phil. 2:7 RSV). 3) He ceased to be in the "'form" of God - "spirit" (John 4:24), and came to be in the "form" of man - "flesh" (John 1:14). Other references of the New Testament emphasize the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the nature of the ""flesh" He assumed in becoming man.
Paul declared plainly that He who existed "in the form of God, counted not being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped" but "'took upon him the form of a slave (donloV) [Phil. 2:6-7]. Here it is clearly stated what Jesus assumed, but did not become. He took upon himself the "flesh of sin" (sarkoV 'amartiaV). He did not sin in that flesh rather He condemned sin in that flesh [Rom. 8:3].
The word translated "form," (morfh) "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (See The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament by Moulton & Milligan, art. morphe'.) In the same scripture (verse 8) "in fashion (schma) as a man," is the contrasting Greek word, "schema," denoting the external appearance.
Paul was equally as clear as to the nature of the flesh of sin the Word took. He wrote that the "gospel of God" concerned "His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
As Paul continues to discuss "the gospel of God" concerning Jesus Christ committed to his trust, he reiterates the humanity assumed, and the glory that was His by divine right. In Romans 8:3, he declared that God sent His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin
p 5 -- (Greek), not "sinful flesh." It could sin, there were risks. It had sinned in Adam, but in Christ Jesus, the second Adam that which had sinned and was weakened by four thousand years of sin, sinned not!
In Romans 9, Paul speaks of his own ancestral inheritance, the Israelites, the fathers, by whom "as concerning the flesh Christ come, who is overall, God, blessed forever". One has only to observe the genealogical record found in both Luke and Matthew to understand "'the flesh," of the "'fathers" He accepted upon Himself from the womb of Mary. Yet He was and is God over all, blessed forever. That transition from the form of God to the form of a slave which we designate the Incarnation remains an unexplainable mystery to the human mind.
The other reference cited was Hebrews 2:14-17. It reads: For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same... he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.
There have been and are those in Adventism who interpret those verses as teaching that Christ took a sanctified human nature (verse 11) in assuming humanity. Such was the thinking of those who led the "'Holy Flesh" movement in Indiana at the turn of the last century. This teaching appeared again following the SDA-Evangelical conferences as an alternate position to the two concepts in conflict: Whether Christ took the pre-Fall or post-Fall nature of Adam. Thomas A. Davis advocated it in his book, Was Jesus Really Like Us? (ch. 3) Ron Spear likewise took the same position in his booklet, Waymarks of Adventism (p. 39). It was worded that Christ came "born, born-again." Now in this current revisit by Moore, both he and one who placed his approval on the back cover, Dr. Woodrow Whidden, want to get away from the pre-Fall and post-Fall terms. This is understandable. The two terms are not different poles of truth. They are antagonistic each to the other. QOD holds to the pre-Fall, while Andreasen maintained the historic post-Fall position of Adventism. Moore devoted Appendix C to the question, asking "Can we get away from pre-and post - fall terms?"
The Trinity -- The doctrine of the Trinity is noted in the original QOD , but there is little questioning by the Evangelicals. One question was asked - "Do you believe in the Trinity?" - and the Adventists responded by presenting the 1931 statement which had been placed in the Church's Yearbook. It read: That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption.
Dr. Moore in revisiting QOD emphasizes the Trinity in relationship to the Atonement. The Section is captioned: Godhead = Key to Three-Fold Atonement
The first paragraph reads: The three persons of the godhead illustrate how a full and complete atonement on the cross can be followed by yet another full and complete atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. God is one yet the one god exists in three whole and complete persons whose united suffering is visualized in the one who hung on the cross. Only hours before surrendering himself to the mob, Jesus informed Philip, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." He could also have
p 6 -- said, "He that hath seen me that seen the Spirit." For as One the Three eternally unite in every endeavor - including all three phases of a single, multi-faceted, eternal atonement (p. 154).
Between the first publication of QOD, in 1957 and the current "'revisit" by Dr. Moore, there has been much agitation concerning the doctrine of the trinity by several independent ministries. A revisit of key scriptural references pertaining to the godhead seems to be in order now that Dr. Moore has connected the trinity to the atonement, and two who placed their imprimatur on his book have themselves with a third professor at Andrews University published a book, The Trinity.
First, let us observe what conclusion can be drawn by placing side by side Paul and Luke's understanding of the Incarnation. Luke quotes Gabriel as telling Mary that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her, but Paul declared that Jesus Christ emptied himself in accepting the form of a servant. Jesus Christ who declared himself to be the truth said that he would pray the Father to give them another Comforter even the Spirit of truth and that in so doing he would not leave them "comfortless," but rather He would fulfill his promise, "I will come to you." This revelation of God is in the gospel whose introductory format parallels Genesis. Genesis 1:1 reads - "In beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth."
This is further emphasized in their stated objective - "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." The question to be asked is - What is the image that God created? Was one of the Elohim, female? No. the emphasis in the creation of Eve for Adam is that they shall be one flesh. This oneness in duality is the whole theme of Genesis 1 - Elohim, (plural subject) bara (singular verb). It is the image seen in the creation of man. "'They (two) shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24).
This perception of God is the same as is expressed in the shema of Israel - "Hear, 0 Israel: the Lord thy Gods in one Lord." In the text the word which I have translated "Gods"(Heb. shown) is plural, not singular. (See Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon by B. Davidson. He grammatically analyzed it as a masculine plural noun with a plural suffix.
This duality is also found in Isaiah 44:6. The verse reads: Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me (us) there is (are) no Gods (Elohim).
The Duality emphasis is carried over into the last book of the Bible: Rev. 1:8 - "I am alpha (first) and omega (last), the beginning and the ending, saith the lord, which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty.
Rev. 1: 10-17 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:... and I turned to see the voice that spoke to me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks, and in the mist of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man.... And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me... I am he that liveth, and was dead. And behold I am alive forevermore, Amen.
Revelation 22:12-13 - Behold I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
One other text in the Old Testament emphasizes the duality of the godhead - Zech. 6: 12-13:p 7 -- Thus speaketh the lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place (John 1:46) and he shall build the temple of the Lord (John 2:1.9): Even he shall build the temple of the lord; and he bear his glory (John 1:14), and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne (Heb. 5:6): and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. (Heb.)
There is another factor or problem, however, one wants to look at it. Adam was an adult when confronted with the choice he made. Christ entered the world as a baby. Was he kept by the power of God from sinning until he, too, faced life as an adult? It is also of interest to take into consideration where each of the gospels begins its record. Mark's states "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God," - and begins his narrative with the proclamation of John the Baptist. Matthew begins with a genealogy tracing Jesus' earthly ancestry from Abraham and David, and then sets the record in bookkeeping format: Here is the prophecy; here is the fulfillment. A few brief episodes are given , and Jesus Christ enters the scene at the time of his baptism. Luke gives the largest number of experiences from his pre-adulthood, even citing an experience showing that he was not like other children. John reaches back into eternity, and declares that Jesus as the Word was with God from the very beginning. While no sinful act is recorded, no explanation is given in any of the gospels as to why and how he could live above sin. Neither is there found any charge on the part of the devil that Christ was given an advantage. --- End ---
Dec 2006 -- "The Redemption ... that is in Christ Jesus" Romans 3:24. -- Editor's Preface -- The Three Angels' Messages of Revelation 14 is the basis of Adventism. I know of no other religious body or Movement proclaiming them. These messages are found in the book which God gave to Jesus Christ to show to His followers what must take place. One of those "musts" will be 144,000 people who will be keeping "the commandments of God" (14:12). They are declared to be "holy ones" ('agiwn). Not since Jesus Christ lived a man among men has such been seen. He realized such an experience clothed in the garb of fallen humanity. Can He reproduce such a life in those who come by faith to Him? Can He "save to the uttermost"? (Heb. 7:25). This is what His "unchangeable priesthood" is all about (ver. 24). This is why the sanctuary and all prophecies pertaining to it are important to Adventism. None can be set aside as of little consequence. We may not as yet understand all the light and truth that God has for us. We may have many things yet to learn, as well as things to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Let us not try to crawl up on the infallible Throne and pronounce judgment against that which God has entrusted to us. Let us proclaim the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. To do so will require the faith of Jesus.
"Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." Jude 24-25
p 2 -- "The Redemption ... that is in Christ Jesus" Romans 3:24. -- After declaring that "all - both Jew and Gentile - have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," Paul sets forth "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:23-24). It is the ultimate objective of God in justification by faith. It is the establishment of the law by faith (3:31).
In the book of Revelation we are told that there is to be that final display of this justification. The "third angel" declares, "Here they are!" - those who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." How will it be accomplished? Paul answers that question in Romans 4, because in Romans 5, he declares - "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through" the redemption that is in "'our Lord Jesus Christ" (5:1). That accomplishment was illustrated in the experience of Abraham and Sarah in the conception and birth of Isaac.
It needs to be kept in mind that it was not Abraham who was sterile, but Sarah. He had fathered Ishmael (Gen. 16:16). Six more sons would be born to him after the death of Sarah (Gen. 25:1-2). Sarah had reached the time of life wherein it was stated that it ceased to be with her "after the manner of women" (Gen. 18:11), and was still childless. Yet the Lord told Abraham within the hearing of Sarah, "I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life, and lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son" (ver. 10). To this Sarah laughed. Jehovah's response was a simple question as applicable now as then: "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" (ver. 14). Justification through faith that will fulfill the prophecy of Revelation 14:12 is just as dependent upon the creative power of God as was the birth of Isaac. It is the final display of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. It should be observed and kept in mind: that the Lord said - "I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life" (18:10)., and again - "At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son" (18:14). The "time of life" with Sarah required the exercise of the same re-creative power of God upon her for her to conceive and bear Isaac as the creative act of Jesus in causing the man born blind to see (John 9). Both were the "redemption that is in Christ Jesus." This is the example that Paul chose to use to illustrate the realization of justification by faith. He wrote of Abraham: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that what He had promised, He was also able to perform (Rom. 4:20-21).
What has God promised in earth's final hour? I will make a man more precious than fine gold: even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir (Isaiah. 13:12).
Not only does God take the responsibility for the accomplishment of the objective, but He also defined the era of time when it will be accomplished: Behold the day of the Lord cometh.... For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine (13:9-10).
Then He will "make
a man more precious than gold." This is to be followed by "
the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger"
(13:13; Rev. 15:1). The period of time indicated - the Dark Day in 1780
to the close of probation - parallels the time of the cleansing of the
p 3 -- It gives meaning and significance to the message committed in sacred trust to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (see Testimony for the Church, Vol. 9, p. 19). Another Old Testament prophecy - Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel - "applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in the closing up of the great day of atonement" (5T:472; emphasis supplied). Careful consideration needs to be given to this vision. Joshua, the High Priest, was the spiritual "icon" of the nation, yet he was clothed "with filthy garments" (3:3). Well had Isaiah declared that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (64:6). "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10) was the premise upon which Paul was building his theology of justification by faith and its realization. The realization as given in the vision to Zechariah was twofold: 1) There is not only a taking away of the ""filthy garments;" but 2) there was to be a clothing with a "'change of raiment" (3:14). By Whom this exchange is accomplished, is emphasized. While the instruction is given to those who stood before Him to take the filthy garments from Joshua, the Angel of the Lord of hosts declared, "'Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment" (3:4). The emphasis is the same as in the birth of Isaac. God will work through a new creative act! "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation" (ktisiV, II Cor. 5:17). There is a "mystery" that has been hid from ages and generations but now is made manifest to his saints, which is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27). The one point in time to which the whole of the final conflict and victory points is the period of the cleansing of the sanctuary, as indicated in Isaiah 13:9-13, and to which the vision of Zechariah 3 points with "'peculiar" force "in the closing up of the great day of atonement" according to the Writings. This involves Daniel 8:14, and 1844 cannot be set aside as of no significance for it will climax in the full, and final display of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus!
Before us now are a number of factors which are central in Adventism. The display of a group of people which keep the commandments of God is connected with the faith of Jesus and the "everlasting gospel" as well as the hour of His "judgment" (Rev. 14:6-7). Further, this group is numbered as 144,000 (14:1-5). Besides keeping the "commandments of God," they are without fault before the throne of God with no "guile" (jeudoV falsehood) in their mouths (14:5). Their doctrine is pure; it is "the truth (as it is) in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21). Could it be that those who are designated as the 144,000 in Revelation 14 are called "men of wonder" by Zechariah (3:8, Heb. Margin) and symbolized by the gold of Ophir in Isaiah? (13:12)?
We need to ask some questions about the judgment. To these, we shall now direct our attention.
Should we read Rev. 14:6 - "The hour of His judgment" as in the KJV, or "the hour of the judgment of Him ('h 'wra thV krisewV autou) is come" as the Greek text permits?
Why were the heavenly Hosts summoned to appear before the Ancient of days and what was the purpose of the Son of man coming also? (Dan. 7:10-13; Rev. 5:11-12). It was from among the Heavenly host that rebellion first arose.
Here enters an insight from the book of Hebrews. Man was created to be but a "little while inferior to the angels" (bracu ti para aggeloV - Heb. 2:7, margin). The same Greek words are applied to Christ in regard to His incarnate experience (verse 9). Now comes the hour when
p 4 -- God designs to carry out His original intent. Can He do so, and "affliction" not arise a second time? The books are opened. The record of every man's failure is clearly penned. The angels have kept an accurate record (See Eccl. 5:6). Before the Throne now stands a "Lamb as it has been slain" (Rev. 5:6). Has He paid sufficiently for man's digressions? It would seem that the vision of John in Rev. 5:6-13 is but an enlargement of Daniel 7:9-10; 13-14 and an answer to the question, has Jesus made a sufficient sacrifice? It would seem, however, that there is a condition placed by the Heavenly Host upon the exaltation of man. Each one so elevated must accept the Lamb as Lord and Master of his life. There appears another book - "the Lamb's Book of Life" in which is recorded only names those of the redeemed. . "Deeds" and "books" are associated together as are also "names" and a single book. To these verses can be added a suggested association found in the Writings: Says the prophet Daniel, "The judgment was set, and the books were opened." The revelator, describing the same scene, adds, "Another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" (The Great Controversy, p. 480).
The concept of God keeping records of names and deeds in books appears early in biblical revelation. At the time of the worship of the golden calf when Israel first camped at Mt. Sinai, we find this request of Moses as he pleaded for Israel's forgiveness- And if thou wilt forgive their sin -- ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written (Ex. 32:32).
The Old Testament closes with the revelation of "a book of remembrance" which God caused to be "written before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name" (Mal. 3:16).
The book of Daniel indicates that when the Judgment is set, "the books were opened" (7:10), but it is not until the judgment of the great white throne (Rev. 20:12) that those who are "dead" (in trespasses and sin) are judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their "works" (20:13). John, however, introduces another book - the Book of Life (20:12) of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (13:8). It is a book of names. No eulogies are recorded of man's righteousnesses. Only the redemption that is in Christ Jesus has supplied the merits of redeeming grace.
No human alive today has seen a perfect human being. There is recorded the solitary life of One only who has lived in human flesh perfectly, and that was the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet God has indicated that there will be those who will keep His commandments and reveal the faith of Jesus (Rev. 14:12). He has left on record the experience of Abraham and Sarah. Paul, in his great epistle to the Romans was inspired to pick that record as the illustration of how the realization will come about. It indicated that Abraham "staggered not at the promise; but was strong in faith" (4:20). Never mind that Abraham stumbled around for more than twenty plus years over the promises of God. We have been stumbling around for more than a century over the acceptance of the message of righteousness by faith. We have not even dared to suggest what God will have to do with and to us for His righteousness to be perfected in us. I have not either. I can do no boasting. Would that He could be able to say to each of us - "Great is thy faith: be it unto thee as thou wilt" (Matt. 15:28).
p 5 -- Warnings - Give Heed! -- "So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures." - Great Controversy, p. 593
"Every position of truth taken by our people will bear the criticism of the greatest minds; the highest of the world's great men will be brought in contact with truth, and therefore every position we take should be critically examined and tested by the Scriptures." - Letter 6, 1886
"The track of truth lies close beside the tract of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error. - R&H, Oct. 22, 1903
"Well would it be for the church and the world if the principles that actuated those steadfast souls (early Christians) were revived in the hearts of God's professed people. There is an alarming indifference in regard to the doctrines which are the pillars of the Christian faith. The opinion is gaining ground that, after all, these are not of vital importance. This degeneracy is strengthening the hands of the agents of Satan, so that false theories and fatal delusions which the faithful in ages past imperiled their lives to resist and expose, are now regarded with favor by thousands who claim to be followers of Christ." - The Great Controversy, p. 46
"Satan has wrought with deceiving power, bringing in a multiplicity of errors that obscure the truth. Error cannot stand alone, and would soon become extinct if it did not fasten itself like a parasite upon the tree of truth. Error draws its life from the truth of God. The traditions of men, like floating germs, attach themselves to the truth of God, and men regard them as a part of the truth. Through false doctrines, Satan gains a foothold, and captivates the minds of men, causing them to hold theories that have no foundation in truth. Men boldly teach for doctrines the commandments of men; and as traditions pass on from age to age, they acquire a power over the human mind. But age does not make error truth, neither does its burdensome weight cause the plant of truth to become a parasite. The tree of truth bears its own genuine fruit, showing its true origin and nature. The parasite of error also bears it own fruit, and makes manifest that its character is diverse from the plant of heavenly origin." - R&H, October 22, 1895
These quotations serve as a preface to a documented manuscript, The Masterpiece of Deception, written in Australia under the pen name, "Swift Messenger." It contains twelve brief chapters, and four appendices. It was written in response to a request the author had received from Robert J. Wieland. Wieland's request read: Dear Brother: You liken the doctrine of the trinity to something like "deviltry." I do not question what you say, but I have requests from people who ask what is there in the doctrine of the trinity that is so devilish, so spiritually lethal to genuine Christian experience. Could you articulate some reasons that would help me to reply to others.
This the "'Swift Messenger" has done. Copies may be obtained by writing to the ALF of Australia., 1745 Cape Otway Rd., Wurdi-Boluc, VIC 3241. The cost is $5.00 postpaid.
Appendix C is addressed to "Brother S., Brother C and Brother C" He writes: Coming down to the last generation of time (Luke 21:32) and within a whisker of the pronouncement of the Fourth Angel of Rev. 18, I am much concerned with ignorance of the finer details of truth, the avoidance of textual evidence (which rightly convinces me to avoid
p 6 -- the
Trinity) but in the same breath does nothing to avoid forms of ecumenical
MONOTHEISM.... Your form of Monotheism has you all:
Signing "30" -- Next year - 2007 - will mark the 73rd year since I preached my first sermon. It was an early Sunday morning,, and I went to visit the Jorgensens, in whose home we had met for Sabbath school and worship. Yes, the Conference recognized "home churches" at that time. Actually, we were called a "company" rather than a "'church." I am sure that the Iowa Conference had more "companies" and Sabbath schools than "churches" in 1934. The Jorgensens had retired from Petosky, Michigan, where they were pastoring. She was a credentialed Bible Worker, and had given my mother and me Bible Studies in 1932.
That particular Sunday morning, Elder Jorgensen told me to go to the pump organ, and see the picture they had received in the mail. It was of a young man they knew in Michigan who was graduating from Emanuel Missionary College. He told me that the young man had preached his first sermon when he was 14. 1 didn't stay long that morning, but hurried home and told my mother about the young man, stating, I could "beat" (not the best motivation in the world) that record. I would not be 14 till October of that year. Mother was delighted to hear my resolve as she had dedicated me to the Lord before I was born.
In August, I asked Elder Jorgensen if I could speak. He set the following Sabbath. The text I used was Amos 4:12 - "prepare to meet thy God, 0 Israel." The pulpit was the dining room table. In 15 minutes I had said all that I could say. But Elder Jorgensen asked me to prepare another sermon which I did. I have been preaching ever since except for the educational time out - four years at Union, and a year (twenty years) later at Andrews University.
Before going to Union, I was preaching every other Sabbath for the Ames Company, which met in the basement of the city band shell, and at Perry on the alternate Sabbaths. They met in a home. The 13th Sabbath I hitchhiked on Friday to Knoxville, and spoke in their church which had a pulpit, which they prized, from which Ellen White had spoken. I enjoyed fellowship with the Reins brothers, Dale and Don, who were my age.
From Union, I accepted a call to the Texico Conference, and arrived in New Mexico to join in an evangelistic effort being conducted in an unentered rural area near the then conference office at Clovis. The meetings were held in the high school auditorium. The other rural congregations, Baptist and Methodists, closed their Sunday services during our meetings. Sunday morning, I was assigned the "Trial by Jury" format to present the change of the Sabbath. The one in charge of the meetings spent the Sabbath rounding up a "jury" of nine.
During the years following, it was conference - evangelism; pastoring, which included the First Church in Toronto, Canada, and while there a confrontation over the Lord's Day Act of Canada. (See Bible Students' Source Book, Commentary Reference Series, Vol. 9, p. 978, 1962)
p 7 -- My last official work for the Church directly, was serving as head of the Bible and History department at old Madison College just before its doors were closed. Following the year at Andrews University, I asked for and received a "leave of absence." Having served on conference committees I was aware of how ministers were "dissected" on occasion, so I requested a statement from the Union Conference from which was I credentialed. Signed by the Union President, H. H. Schmidt, it read: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: -- This is to establish the fact that Wm. H. Grotheer left the employ of old Madison College and the Southern Union Conference strictly on his own, June 1, 1965. He was in good and regular standing as a denominational worker when he took this voluntary leave of absence.
Forty years have passed. During this time I have served as Editor of Publications and Research for the Adventist Laymen's Foundation. A change of pace is required. Instead of trying to continue to publish "Watchman, What of the Night?" as a bimonthly publication we shall plan to place a "thought for the month" or briefly discuss an important religious news item on the two websites. (See the next column as how to locate them.)
"Watchman, What of the Night?" was published monthly
by the Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Mississippi, Inc., P. 0. Box 69,
Ozone, AR 72854, USA.