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