|
XXX - 9(97) “Watchman, what of the night?” "The hour has come,
the hour is striking and striking at you, The Second Angel’s Message Page 2
"Honoreth not the Son,
honoreth not the Father" Page 4
Let’s Talk It Over Page 7 Editor's Preface In this issue we discuss three different topics, each of vital concern
in the community of Adventism. The first, seeks to clarify the "fall of
Babylon" as given in the Second Angel's Message of Revelation 14. Unless
we can place ourselves in the mind-set of those who lived at the time following
the Great Disappointment, we can never clarify the Second Angel's Message as
required linguistically by the text. John used the Greek past tense to express
the message as it was revealed to him. This meant simply that when the message
would be proclaimed Babylon had already fallen. However, this could not occur
until the first message, announcing the hour of God's judgment, which was also
stated in the past tense, had been fulfilled. This hour being October 22, 1844
means simply that these messages both came after that date. In the article, we
discuss only the Second Message. Presently in the community of Adventism there is agitation over the
doctrine of the Godhead. Darren Lambert, who is assistant to the editor,
discusses a facet of this issue. If we do not honor the Son, we do not honor
the Father. The Jews clearly understood that when Jesus declared Himself the
Son of God, He was claiming equality with God. One aspect of God is that He is
eternal. Unless the Son is likewise eternal, He is not equal with God, and thus
as the Jews of old, we do not honor the Son; and therefore, do not honor the
Father. Old heresies which were introduced into the early Apostolic Church in
the form of Gnosticism are again plaguing the Community of Adventism. This new
Gnosticism, or neo-Gnosticism needs to be clearly discerned by those who want
truth pure and unadulterated. We discussed it thoroughly at our annual
fellowship, and will be addressing this in future issues of WWN. Last month, after having written correctly in this preface the correct
title of an article used by permission. I inadvertently captioned it wrongly.
The admonition is still, "Spare the Rod . . . " and spoil the child, not, "Spare the Child . . ." Page 2 The Second Angel's Message And there followed another angel,
saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made
all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." (Rev. 14:8) The first two verbs of this verse - "followed" and
"fallen" (repeated) are in the Greek past (aorist) tense, indicating
a prior action. In others words, the first angel preceded this second angel;
likewise, Babylon fell prior to the giving of this message. It announces what
has taken place. The third verb, "has made drink" is in the perfect
tense, indicating completed action. We have traditionally placed the fulfilment of
this message as coming during the summer of 1844. This was to be expected
inasmuch as those who so believed, also believed that Christ was to come
October 22, 1844; thus all prophetic events would have to had been fulfilled by
that date. However, time continued, and thus the prophecy of Revelation can
take its proper sequence governed by the language John used to relate the
events revealed to him. Even the First Angel's Message, also stated in the
Greek past (aorist) tense, indicates that when it sounded, the hour of God's
judgment had commenced. Based on the premise that Babylon fell because of its rejection of the
First Angel's Message, what was rejected by the religious community which was
either unique or basic to the first message? Dr. Kai Arasola, President of the Finland Finnish Conference, wrote his dissertation
for a doctoral degree from the Department of Theology at Uppsala University on
Millerism, and which is published under the title of The End of Historicism. In his research, Arasola listed the
characteristics of "historicism," some of which are: The endorsement of the year/day theory and a
preoccupation with prophetic time periods. Continuous historical application of various
apocalyptic symbols and calibrating of all prophecies with history. The identification of the Papacy as the little
horn/antichrist At the foundation of this method, its distiuguishing feature, was the creation of a coherent
system of independent synchronizations between prophecies. Arasola observes that "the rationale" for this system of
interpretation was to be found in a "biblicist
concept of inspiration" which "believed that all parts of the Bible
had equal value and that the Bible contained a mystical network of prophecies
to be unfolded and harmonized by rational processes. It was the biblicist view of the Bible which empowered
historicism." (p. 29) This is the method used by Miller. He set forth fourteen rules by which
to study the Bible. By the use of these rules, it was Miller's belief that none
need "err far from the truth." But all of these rules, "whether
they mention prophecy or not, are relevant within the frame work of continuous
historical interpretation of prophecy. Several among Miller's hermeneutical
precepts encourage Scriptural analogy. The idea of the Bible being its own
expositor was the backbone of historicism from its beginning." (pp. 53-54) With the tools that historicism provided, William Miller exploited the
Bible to produce a time for the parousia
[Second Advent]. When the expectation ended in a disappointment, it was not
only an end of a great revival but also that of a popular method of
exegesis." "Millerism is a watershed in the history of prophetic exegesis.
Soon after Millerism, historicism was replaced by Darbyan
futurism or the more scholarly preterism. Few outside the churches that stem
from Millerism ventured to continue using the historical method of interpreting
prophecies." (Back Cover) It should be pointed out in passing that "Darbyan
futurism" is a Protestant futuristic interpretation of the prophecies, a
methodology which had its origins in the Roman Catholic counter reformation
interpretations of the Jesuit Ribera. Regarding the Great Disappointment, October 22, 1844, Dr. Arasola makes
a very telling comment: As the morning of October 23 dawned it was again
true that "the hour knoweth no man." Millerism came to an end. As it
died it gave birth to Adventism." (p. 17) We believe that to the Seventh-day Adventist Church was committed the
trust of the Three Angels' Messages. It was this movement that corrected the
error of Millerism in regard to the "sanctuary;" but who held as
valid the interpretation of Daniel 8:14 relating to the time period which would
mark the "hour" when His judgment began. In so doing, they held to
the historistic method for the interpretation of prophecy. Further, the sabbatarian Adventists were considered by Miller as
"illegitimate children." (p.19) Why? Because they also continued to
hold as valid the exegesis of "the seventh month movement." And it is
"the seventh-month movement" which was "the real exegetical
watershed that marked the end of historicism and made futurism and preterism
attractive." (ibid.) Arasola
could conclude that "Seventh-day Adventists owe their hermeneutic and
emphasis in particular to the seventh-month movement." (p. 20) After the first disappointment in the Spring of 1844, Miller wanted to
tone down the emphasis on time, and simply cling to the concept that the parousia was imminent. However, his
supporters would not buy this generalizing of prophecy. He Page 3 lost control of the movement, and it passed to other hands. George
Storrs and Samuel Snow entered the picture. Snow corrected the time line of
Miller showing the error of calculation because there was no year Zero. This
brought the end of the 2300 Day prophecy to the fall of 1844. Applying the
dating of the Jewish Day of Atonement - the tenth day of the seventh month -
the exact date, October 22, was determined. Miller objected to this specific
date until a fortnight before the actual time. By introducing the timing of the
events of the Jewish festal year into the understanding of the prophecy of
Daniel, a new element of interpretation was united with the historicist
methodology of prophetic interpretation, that of typology. Arasola comments on this new element. He writes: Typology has a background distinct from that of
general historicism. The Christian church has from its beginnings seen many Old
Testament images and passages as types and prophecies of Jesus Christ. As one
looks back further one finds a pattern in the writings of the Old Testament.
The prophets were the first to use typology. As Israel was facing national
disasters "they looked for a new David, a new Exodus, a new covenant, a
new City of God: the old became a type of the new and important as pointing
forward to it" This pattern was taken up by the NT writers who saw the Old
Testament as a prefiguration of the Christ-event
(pp.161-162) This understanding of typology presupposes the unchanging nature of God,
as well as the conviction that the past acts of God will be repeated on a
greater scale than in the past. Such a conviction was a part of the first
Christian faith. Typology in the New Testament is two dimensional - horizontal and
vertical. The horizontal dimension was used by Snow. The date for the annual
Day of Atonement - the tenth day of the seventh month - was a type of the day
of the cleansing of the sanctuary in reality. A Biblical example of the use of
horizontal typology is found in I Corinthians 10, where Paul regards events of
the Exodus experience of Israel as symbols reflected in the Christian
experience. An example of the vertical dimension is the book of Hebrews. The
priests served unto the example and shadow of the heavenly reality. (8:5) "During the period of Protestant orthodoxy 'Types were regarded as
Old Testament facts which were ordained by God to adumbrate or foreshadow
aspects of Christ or the Gospel in the New Testament.' This view has in
succeeding centuries been accepted as the traditional understanding of Biblical
typology. It is still regarded as the true concept on the subject by many with
a Biblicist view of the Scriptures." (ibid,
p.163) Modern Protestant scholarship disassociates itself strongly from this
type of typology. It is basic to Adventism. Thus in two areas - the methodology
of prophetic interpretation, and typology, which is the key to the
understanding of the work Christ as the High Priest is doing for us now -
"Babylon" fell. These aspects of the "fall of Babylon" are
now being echoed in the corridors of Adventism. Disregarding the fact that the understanding of prophecy from
Adventism's very inception was founded on the historicist hermeneutic, many
voices in the Community of Adventism today have adopted a form of Jesuitical
futurism and have produced many speculative concepts of the fulfilment
of what the book of Revelation is saying. Why should we fall with the
Babylonians? Equally as tragic is what we have done in the area of sanctuary
typology. While there are those who have gone to extremes and find typical
significance in every socket and board of the earthly sanctuary model, others
have nullified the basic type by compromise. This latter is exemplified by the
infamous conferences between the Evangelicals and Seventh-day Adventist
leadership in 1955-56. The book, Questions
on Doctrine, confirmed a part of the extent of the compromise. One example
will suffice: In seeking to reflect Evangelical thought that the atonement was completed on the Cross, the book, Questions on Doctrine, reads - "When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature - even in the writings of Ellen G. White - that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross." (p.354-355; emphasis theirs) Further, this is enlarged in another section of the book. Indicating that Christ "our surety [has] entered the 'holy places,' and appeared in the presence of God for us." The book states:
"But it was not with the hope of
obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had
already obtained it for us on the cross." (p.381, emphasis theirs)
Where is the "final" atonement which formed the basic pillar of the
structure of Adventism? The type taught a dual atonement, one at the Altar in the Court (Lev.
4), and the other on the Day of Atonements (Heb) which began in the Most Holy
apartment and closed at the Altar in the Court (Lev. 16). This type prefigures
the Lamb of God as the sacrifice on the Cross, and as High Priest ministering
that one sacrifice in a final atonement ministry. The book, Questions on Doctrine, unequivocally
declares - "Adventists do not hold any theory of
a dual atonement. 'Christ hath redeemed us' (Gal. 3:13) 'once for
all."' (p. 390 emphasis theirs) To proclaim the fall of Babylon is one thing; but to fail to recognize
what caused the fall of Babylon, and, therefore, to fall into the teachings of
Babylon is another thing. This tragedy is applicable whether adopting the prophetic
hermeneutic of Babylon, or accepting their version of the atonement. Both have
produced dire consequences in the community of Adventism. To say that all interpretations of the prophecies which have been drawn,
using the historicist methodology, are correct Page 4 would be nothing but a manifestation of blind ignorance. However, you do
not correct error by changing to another alien hermeneutic which is known to
have been formulated to evade truth. Neither do you combine two hermeneutics,
applying one to the book of Daniel and a different one to the book of
Revelation. This is total self-deception and ignorance. The same problem faces us in noting our
sanctuary theology. To conclude that the sanctuary teaching as perceived by
"historic" Adventism is infallibly correct, again shows one's
ignorance of the problems that have surfaced due to a more thorough searching
of the Word. But to throw the "baby" out with the bath water as was
done through the compromises made with the Evangelicals is sheer folly. How can
one proclaim that "Babylon" is fallen, and in the next breath
pronounce one's acceptance of the very concepts which led to the fall of
Babylon in the first place? You cannot accept the theology of Babylon, and
proclaim the Second Angel's Message. If one will but observe carefully the
final call of Revelation 18, it is a call to the people of God who have either
ignorantly fallen into "Babylon" or who have in blind loyalty
followed their leaders into Babylonian captivity. It is time now to proclaim the
message - "Come out of her my
people" - and to declare plainly wherein "Babylon" itself first
fell. You cannot do so by adopting "Babylonian" hermeneutics of
prophetic interpretation, nor by blurring the typology of the sanctuary either
by over-kill, or by false assumptions. #
"Honoreth not the Son, John 5:23 During the last few years, if there has been one volatile subject above
others which has divided the community of Adventism, it has been the Doctrine
of the Godhead. During this time we have seen many and varied perversions of
what is supposed to be the ultimate truth on this subject. It is surprising
that with the limited number of "Gods" involved, that so many
"truths" can be proposed. Although in many cases the major difference
is in relegating one or both of the "other" Gods to
"lesser" Gods. As a result great confusion continues to divide and
splinter the independent community of Adventism today! It is our hope, as we
address some basic principles and understandings, that some of this confusion
may be dispelled and those with teachable spirits blessed. (Heb. 5:12) No one as yet, that we are aware of, has had a problem with accepting
the fact that the Being we call our Father, is God - "self existent, ever
existent". However, many are unable to place "The Word" (John
1:1) as "self existent, ever existent," let alone identifying the
Holy Spirit as a personal Being. Why is this? We have found that it is primarily due to a misconception of what
constitutes the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. The assumption is that
there are three Gods, a Trinity, where a closer view of the theological meaning
of the word Trinity is ONE GOD, with
three generations or emanations. Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary (Fifth Edition) defines Trinity as, "The union
of three persons or hypostases (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one
Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three
persons or hypostases as to individuality." (Emphasis mine) Many while
seeking to distance themselves from the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity
have, in fact, drawn closer to what Catholicism has taught for centuries. The
Catholic position can be found in I John 5: 7, 8: "For there are three
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the
Spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one. Interestingly, the part of these verses
which reads "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and
these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,"
cannot be found in any Greek manuscript prior to the sixteenth century.
However, late manuscripts of the Vulgate have them word for word. (See
footnote: The Zondervan
Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, p.714) The Converts Catechism of
Catholic Doctrine (p.31), by Geiermann reads: Q. What does the
Catholic Church teach about God? A. About God the
Catholic Church teaches as divinely revealed, that: (1) There is one God, infinitely perfect, who
exists of Himself from all eternity. (2) In God there are three persons, Father, Son and
Holy Ghost, equal in all perfections. (3) The Son proceeds from the Father by generation,
and the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son from all eternity. (4) God loves to show His goodness and mercy to mankind. Sadly, there are those in Adventism teaching a concept very close to
this. Especially is this true among some prominent independent voices, who in
their fear of being tainted as "Trinitarian," have led many to the
very doors of Babylon. Unfortunately in arriving at their conclusions, the
character of our Creator is denigrated. Although most acknowledge that Jesus
Christ is God, for some incomprehensible reason, He cannot be "as
God" as the Father. They claim that He must have had an origin. Whether it
be in the remote eternity, or just prior to the creation of this earth, really
makes little difference. These "Seventh-day Papists" must then twist some basic
statements of New Testament Scripture. Recently we received several tracts, in
each of which were quoted a portion of 1 Tim. 6:16; "Who only hath
immortality ..." and this was attributed to the Father. But notice the
preceding verse; "Which in His times he shall show, who is the blessed and
only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords." The Page 5 context of this verse reveals that it is Jesus Christ who "shall
show" the Father as King of kings and Lord of lords. Scripture also
declares Jesus Christ to be King of kings and Lord of lords. (Rev. 17:14;
19:16) But this is ignored. This is less than honest! We find a similar problem in the declaration to John in Revelation.
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which
is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Rev. 1:8) Jesus
also declares Himself to be the Alpha and the Omega. (Rev. 22:13) This Biblical
factor wherein God and the Word can both claim the same titles and
prerogatives, is not given due weight by these independants. Unfortunately many have chosen to take an eisegetical view of Scripture,
resulting in a Doctrine that conforms beautifully to their opinions, and only incidentally to God's Word. They would
have Isaiah mistaken, when in referring to the Messiah, he declares Him to be
"Immanuel - God with us." (Isa. 7:14; 8:10 & Matt. 1:23) Or worse
still, to consider Isaiah confused when he declares this Messiah to be
"The mighty God," and "The Father of Eternity." (Isa. 9:6
Heb.) What has not been fully understood is the duality that comes across in
the Hebrew of the Old Testament, such as the word, Elohim as Gods; and
in the Shema of Israel which linguistically reads - "Hear, O Israel: the
Lord thy Gods is one Lord." (Deut. 6:4) These same ones are promulgating the heresy that Christ was
"begotten," "generated" or "birthed" prior to the
incarnation. Regardless of what they want to call it, whether it be a
generating, an emanation, or a "birthing," it comes back to the point
that the Word is less than a "self existent, eternally existent"
Being. The how is irrelevant. Out of
the three descriptions above, "begotten" is the only term found in
Scripture in reference to Christ, other than the virgin birth at Bethlehem.
(Matt. 1:18, Rev. 12:2) We find in John 1:14 that the words "only begotten" are
translated from the Greek word "μονογενοῦς" (monogenos).
Thayer states in regard to "only begotten" that; "He [Jesus
Christ] is spoken of by John not because the Word ... was eternally
generated by God the Father (the orthodox interpretation), or came forth from
the being of God just before the beginning of the world (subordinationism), but
because of the incarnation." (Thayer's
Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament p.417, 418; emphasis mine) Ellen G. White makes the correct position transparent, when she
writes; "In Christ is life,
original, unborrowed, underived." (The
Desire of Ages, p.530) If one alleges that the Word had an origin, then He automatically
becomes the literal Son of God. While recognizing that to the human mind, a
father - son relationship is always associated with procreation, is this what
Scripture reveals happened with God? Is this what Deity seeks to reveal for
man's salvation? We do not believe so. In humanity, it is often recognized,
that there is no closer relationship or bond than that between a father and his
son. We believe that it is this bond or oneness that God seeks to reveal to
mankind, thereby "bringing many sons unto glory." (Heb. 2:10) It is
this oneness between Himself and the Father, that Jesus sought to reveal at
every opportunity. Comparing the oneness of Their relationship, with the
oneness that we may have with the Father through Him (John. 10:30; 17:11), we
desire such a oneness with the Father and therefore receive the Son that we
might have the privilege of sonship (John 1:12). For it is only in being one
with the Son that we can be one with the Father, and thus be "made perfect
in one". (Jn. 17:23) "By His obedience to all the commandments of God, Christ wrought
out a redemption for man. This was not done by going out of himself to another,
but by taking humanity into himself. Thus Christ gave to humanity an existence
out of himself. To bring humanity into Christ, to bring the fallen race into oneness
with divinity, is the work of redemption. Christ took human nature that men
might be one with him as he is one with the Father, that God may love man as he
loves his only begotten Son, that men may be partakers of the divine nature,
and be complete in him." (Review and
Herald, April 5, 1901) We find that in Gabriel's disclosure to Mary,
he declares more than just the birth of the Messiah, but proclaims also what He
shall be called: "... therefore also that holy (thing) which shall be born
of thee shall be called
(future tense) the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) It becomes apparent that the
Word was not previously known as "the Son." The Bible reveals a decree wherein God says "thou art My Son this
day have I begotten Thee." (Ps. 2:7) Paul quotes this in connection with
his comparison of the pre-eminence of Christ above the angels. Further, Paul
quotes God (the Father) as addressing this decreed Son as God, quoting again
from Psalms - "Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever." (Heb. 1:8) Here in connection with the decree of sonship is
introduced the fact that two Beings are equally God. This decree does not
declare that the Son was inferior to the Father, or that the Father was
superior to the Son. It was an arrangement whereby One would be as a father and
the other as a son. This arrangement is also noted by Zechariah. He wrote that
"the counsel of peace shall be
between them both." (6:13) This was the objective of the plan of
redemption. "We have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:1) Apostle John put the duality concept in as simple language as is
possible, when he wrote that: "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) The
word was in the Greek is
ἦν; it is a verb in the imperfect tense, which expresses continuous
action in past time. What John is telling us is that there never was a time
that the Word was not, or that there never was a time that the Word was not
with God, or that there never was a Page 6 time that the Word was not God. Both God and the Word are eternal. It is
this Word which "was made flesh and dwelt among us,... full of grace and
truth." John, having introduced the Word as God, and as always with "the
God"(Gr.), quotes that Word as defining the nature of God. "God is
Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in
truth." (John 4:24 Gr.) Paul also understood the original status of the
Godhead, as well as the results of the incarnation. He wrote; "Who being
in the form of God [Spirit], thought it not robbery to be equal with
God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a slave,
and was made in the likeness of men." (Phil. 2:6, 7 Gr.) The word
"equal" which Paul uses here, "ἴσα" means equal in
"quality and quantity." Paul is stating categorically, that the Word
lacked nothing in comparison with "the God." It is critical to understand the factors of the Godhead correctly, if we
are to understand what actually took place during the incarnation, and to
properly recognize the huge sacrifice that was made by God to obtain man's
salvation. There are many texts in reference to the Father and Son in the New
Testament, and yet how many of us fail to recognize what the Pharisees
understood in the Father - Son relationship. They understood perfectly what
Jesus was claiming when He referred to Himself as the Son of God. Because Jesus
healed on the Sabbath a controversy arose, at which time Jesus responded,
"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (John 5:17) The response of
the Jews to this assertion is immediately recorded: "Therefore the Jews sought the more to
kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath,
but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18) Again this word is "ἴσα" - equal in quality and quantity.
The Jews understood what Jesus claimed. Even those who would soon crucify their Messiah, who killed and stoned
their prophets, could recognise
what was meant by calling Jesus the "Son of God". John does not
record the Pharisees words - perhaps they were unprintable - but he does record
Jesus' response. He then explained the condition of the incarnation.
"Jesus ... said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, The Son can do
nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he
doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son." (John 5:19, 20) The Word was continuing to reveal while in the flesh, what He had tried
to reveal, while as the Spirit. We find in Moses' conversation with Jehovah at
the burning bush, that He had described Himself as; "I AM THAT I AM: and
he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me
unto you." The Seventh-day Adventist
Bible Commentary records that this name has specific meaning; "In
Hebrew as in English, this name is a form of the verb 'to be,' and implies that
its possessor is the eternal, self existing One." (1 BC p. 511) While on
earth He was continuing to reveal Himself, though incarnated, as the
"eternal, self existing One." In a continuing encounter with the Jews, Christ left no question as to
who He was and identified Himself as the One who appeared to Moses at the
burning bush. He declared; "I said
therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins."
(John 8:24; Gr.) The Pharisees responded "Who art thou?" In the continuing
heated exchange, Jesus frankly proclaimed; "Before Abraham was, I am" thus removing all
doubt that He indeed was the eternal, self existent One. It was then that they
took up stones to render the proscribed punishment for blasphemy. How many
independent Adventists today are spiritually stoning their Creator, by not
acknowledging His eternal, self existence? As Christ proclaimed, these same ones
"will die in their sins." Many years have passed since the agitation arose resultant from the book
Questions on Doctrine wherein the
true humanity of Christ was questioned. The book claimed that God did not play
fair and favoured His Son by exempting Him from "the inherited passions and pollutions that
corrupt the natural descendants of Adam." (Q on D p. 383) As then, even now Satan is attacking with the same
objective, but from the opposite direction. He is seeking to undermine just how
great the sacrifice made by God on man's behalf was, and thereby deplete the
drawing power of our uplifted Saviour. (John 12:32) This time it is not His
equality with man that is brought into question, but His equality with God the
Father. Just as there were those who have refused to
acknowledge that Christ became truly man in fallen sinful nature without
sinning, so there are those today who refuse to acknowledge that He is truly
God eternal and self existent. They are just as devoid of the "divine
nature" and cannot be "complete in him," as those who deny that
He came "in the likeness of sinful flesh". (Rom. 8:3) dl
Page 7
Let's Talk It Over During a trip West in June, I kept facing various facets of an issue
which has become a hallmark of "historic" Adventism and by which
every "voice" in the community of Adventism is judged. However, this
issue is not confined to them alone. The question, what is your view of Ellen
G. White, completely over-shadows the question, "What think ye of
Christ?" In fact, one would think that the latter question is irrelevant,
if only the first question is given the answer expected by the
"historic" Adventist. I have been aware for some time of the position held by the Standish
brothers, published in Spear's publication, that it is their "expectation
that in the kingdom Sister White will be seen to have been a major
prophet." (OFF, April 1989,
p.15) This places her in the canon of Scripture next to Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and Daniel. I have heard it expressed that the corpus of the writings
of Ellen G. White constitutes a third canon of Scripture. However, I was not
prepared to hear from a friend of many years that even as the New Testament is
an interpreter of the Old, so Ellen G. White is an inspired interpreter of the
New, thus when one studies a question in theology, or any other issue, he first
goes to what Ellen G. White has written, and then works back to the Old
Testament. This comes close to what Ferrell holds that the Scriptures consist
of the Bible and the Writings of Ellen G. White. I was faulted by one that in
presenting a study on the Godhead I used only the Bible as counseled by Ellen
G. White herself. (See The Great
Controversy p. 595) One must recognize that if he really believes the
Bible, he must accept the doctrine of spiritual gifts; and the evidence is
clear that Ellen G. White did possess a spiritual gift, perhaps several. But
surely, one must also recognize how God indicated she was to be set before the
people. She, herself, stated what her position was: "I am not to appear
before the people as holding any other position than that of a messenger with a
message." (Signed communication from St. Helena, California, November 17,
1903) In a meeting two and one half years previously in the Battle Creek
College library, Ellen White plainly told the workers assembled: Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever
to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where
you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness.
Carry it straight out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know
now. (Spalding & Magan Collection,
p. 174) One is reminded of the testimony to a "Bro. R" that "if
you had made God's word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard
and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies."
(Vol. 5, p.665) There is much spiritual blessing to be derived in reading the
messages God sent by His messenger,
but the Bible must be basic in our study of, and search for, truth. While on the trip West, I stayed one night in the Wiemar
Inn. While there I took advantage of the opportunity to talk via telephone with
Dr. Herbert Douglas. He is writing a book on the writings of Ellen G. White. In
it, he will be dealing with current questions which have surfaced relating to
these Writings. For example, I asked him about the letter W. W. Prescott wrote
to W. C. White questioning the way he was handling his mother's Writings.
Douglas told me he was incorporating this question into the material which will
be discussed in his book. Also, while on the trip West, I learned of another publication that is in the "works." Dr. Jean R. Zurcher has written a book in French on a historical review of the doctrine of the Incarnation as it has been altered in recent Adventist teaching. It is being translated with a foreword by Elder Kenneth Wood. From what I was told of the book by one who has previewed it, Zurcher contends that the doctrine of the Incarnation is a major and decisive issue in Adventisim This, with another recent publication on the subject, should bring the doctrine of the Incarnation again to a front. |