Prophecy played an important part in the Reformation. Many of the Reformers perceived clearly that the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation pointed squarely at the Papacy as the Antichrist. The preaching of the prophetic word was so effective that the Papacy bestirred itself, and through the Jesuit Ribera presented a counter system of interpretation which removed the onus from the pope. The antichrist - so this new system taught - would be a man who would appear at the end of the age. The 1260 Days were not symbolic time, but literal, and would be actually, - three and one half years. "Although Ribera launched the Futuristic system of interpretation, it was popularized and made to register by the astute Cardinal Bellarmine, with his effective phrasings and polemical power." (Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 493) It must "ever be remembered that the heart of Bellarmine's thesis - which was both clever and plausible, though deceptive - was simply this: (1) Antichrist is an individual Jew, and not an apostate Christian system. (2) Therefore the length of his exploits must harmonize with the life period of one man three and a half literal years, and not 1260 years." (Ibid., p. 498, Emphasis his)

In launching the prophetic counter attack against the position of the Reformers, there was not only an attempt to place the actual fulfillment of prophecy into the future - removed from the then present - but also a very subtle suggestion that the antichrist could not be a system, but a single man attempting to destroy the established faith. In fact, Ribera in his 500-page Commentary on Revelation, when faced with the 17th and 18th Chapters, admits the woman "to be not only pagan Rome but also Christian Rome after a future falling away from the Pope ... Therefore in Revelation 18 Rome's burning is in judgment for the sins of both pagan Rome and Rome apostatized from the Pope." (Ibid., Pp. 491-492) In other words, the Pope never apostatizes; and all apostasy is to be found in falling away from the Pope at the time of the future antichrist. All of this is the basic premise of Futurism, and these two elements are to be found in the book, Omega.

Walton places the Omega as still future. He writes:

We have heard the warning that something even more dangerous would come someday. For that reason it is vitally important that we analyze what happened earlier and seek to recognize the signals that may herald the approach of the last great apostasy. (p. 77)

The omega: a mysterious danger that waits for the church at the end of time. Ellen White saw it and "trembled for our people."(p. 86)

By so doing, Walton has removed the onus of apostasy from 1950 to the present. But not only this, we are to look for this terrible apostasy as something which will come from "individuals" who seek to destroy the Advent faith; and not from the organized hierarchical system which has been the force behind all of the apostasy since 1950. In other words, the "pope" never becomes apostate, only those who leave the "pope."

Walton sketchily quotes (p. 52) as descriptive of what would have been had the alpha succeeded, these words from Ellen G. White:

The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists,

Page 2

and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand, as the 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 as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath, of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of this new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure. (Special Testimonies, Series B, #2, pp. 54-55)

But Walton fails to emphasize those equally as true words regarding the omega - "The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given. (Ibid., p. 50.)

Thus the "omega" received will be marked by the telltale signs that would have been evident had the "alpha" succeeded, namely, "giving up doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith;" - "our religion would be changed;" - "a new organization would be established;" and "books of a new order would be written." This is not future, but present - and no wonder Ellen G. White trembled for the people she loved - though unseen to her - when they would be encouraged with Jesuitical cunning to look for a future "omega" when such an apostasy had already engulfed them.

Walton has ably shown (p. 25) that in The Living Temple, which contained the "alpha" of deadly heresies, Kellogg taught that God's sanctuary was in the human body, and this teaching as presented in book, would lead to the conclusion that the message of 1844 was irrelevant and meaningless. But there are other avenues to the same end, and the enemy failing in one approach had another doctrinal deviation available to accomplish the same ends. To teach that the atonement of Christ was completed on the Cross leads to the same conclusion. If completed, what need have we for the final atonement? And this teaching that Christ obtained everything for us on the Cross was written into a book which was of a "new order," Questions on Doctrine. Here is its teaching:

How glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is also our representative at the court of heaven! This becomes all the more meaningful when we realize that Jesus our surety entered the "holy places," and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. ( p. 381 Emphasis theirs)

Further:

Only Christ, the Creator, the one only God-man, could make a substitutionary atonement for man's transgressions. And this Christ did completely, perfectly, and once for all, on Golgotha. (p. 400)

It doesn't take a learned theologian to recognize that if the "atonement" was made "completely" and "once for all" on the Cross, that there is no further atonement to be made in 1844, and thus the significance of 1844 vanishes. In the May, 1981, issue of WWN, we called attention to the fact "the Editor of the Adventist Review is on record as having written that the book - Questions on Doctrine - 'in no way changes our fundamental beliefs. In fact, it probably sets them forth more clearly than any publication that has been issued from our presses in many a year.'" (Letter dated, Feb. 28, 1968) In the same issue, we further quoted from a letter Walter Martin had recently written which stated - "When the book, Questions on Doctrine was published, it was stated that it represented historic Adventism as understood by the leaders of church at that time." (Letter to W. L. Santee, Dec. 9, 1980) A falling away had already occurred! All of this places Kenneth H. Wood, Editor of the Adventist Review, in the same position as Harvey J. Kellogg, the only difference being that Kellogg wrote a book, while Wood is only affirming a book written, both of which teach doctrine which nullifies the Adventist teaching on the sanctuary. It is only natural then for Wood to grasp the opportunity to write the "Foreword" to the book - Omega - which places the "omega" into the future, and thus by adopting the deadly peril of futurism, Wood seeks to clear himself of having sanctioned the real beginning of the "omega."

Page 3

This book was of a "new order" - published by a denominational publishing house - Review and Herald Publishing Association - but with its "Introduction" signed only by "The Editorial Committee" - no name or names published as its authors but with an anonymous notation - "Prepared by a Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers, and Editors." Yet, and note carefully, this book declared - "This volume can be viewed as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." (p. 9) Interestingly, while The Living Temple was not published by the denominational press in Battle Creek, the book, Questions on Doctrine was. Ellen G. White had said the omega "will be received."

Not only is Questions on Doctrine a "new order" of publication in the above noted areas, but it is also "old" in that it is exactly like The Living Temple in two aspects. 1) Dr. Kellogg maintained that his views were really no different from those expressed by Mrs. White in the chapter 'God in Nature' in her book Education. (John Harvey Kellogg, Richard Schwarz, p. 185) The writers of Questions on Doctrine placed three Appendixes of over 50 pages with nothing but "quotes" from Ellen G. White in an attempt to sustain the "new theology."

2) The second parallel between The Living Temple and Questions on Doctrine is the mingling of truth with error. In Kellogg's book is a section on "Sons of God." In it is stated the following truth:

From the earliest ages the thought has existed in the human mind, that man is not a mere product of the earth, as modern philosophers would have us believe, but a son of God. The earliest traditions of the Greeks and Romans, as well as of other nations, have recognized the fact that man is the "offspring" (Acts 17:28) of a divine parent, that he is the son of God, and bound by kinship to his Progenitor, - made "in the image of God." Gen. 1:27. The image has become debased by sin, disease, and degeneracy, yet, even in its worst state, sill represents something of those divine attributes which lift the human race so immeasurably above the highest representatives of the animal kingdom.

This doctrine was clearly taught by Paul in his famous sermon delivered from Mars' Hill, at Athens, of which we have a record in Acts 17:22-29. "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands ... For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." Acts 17:24, 28. (The Living Temple, p. 34)

To illustrate this concept, Kellogg tells of the testimony of a "shabbily dressed colored boy" who declared - "Some people are proud of their lineage, - I am proud of mine; I am the son of a King; I am a brother of Jesus Christ." (p. 35) Then Kellogg goes to his next section - titled from the Bible - "Not Far from Every One of Us," and wrote heretically in comment on this quotes from Paul:

Let us accept this as a literal, physiological fact, as a scientific truth which is attested by myriads of witnesses in the natural world about us, as well as by the word of God. Scientific men have ceased the attempt to prove man to be a mere product of physical forces, but they recognize in his existence, and in every function of his body the presence of an infinite Intelligence, working, controlling, creating, for man's good. God dwells in man. He is the life of man. He is the servant of man. (Ibid.)

M. L. Andreasen in his analysis of Questions on Doctrine notes a similar mixture of truth and heresy. He wrote:

But having read Questions on Doctrine carefully, I noticed that certain things would be said on one page, and a few pages further on this would be ignored. I had made note of certain double-tongued expressions, and it gave me a 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. (Letters to the Churches, Series A, #5, pp. 4-5)

One has only to check Questions on Doctrine, p. 381, (Quoted, p. 2, col. 2) where it is stated that Christ appeared in the presence of God upon His ascension but did not "hope" to obtain anything for His people because "He had already obtained it for us on the cross." And this was placed in italics by the authors! Then a page further one can read:

Christ became our surety, and He Himself fulfilled all that the everlasting covenant required. As the "last Adam," He has become one of Adam's race. And as our surety, He not only bore our sins and carried our sorrows on Calvary, but from the throne of

Page 4

grace dispenses His blessings and intercedes on our behalf. (Pp. 382-383)

How can such double-talk" be reconciled? Is the heavenly ministry of Christ a hopeless intercession?

In the time of the "alpha," one book was published, and it by the Providence of God was not issued from the Battle Creek press of the Church. (Omega, pp. 26-27, 29-30) Ellen G. White had declared if the "alpha" should succeed, "books" - plural - of a new order would have been written. But the "alpha" was thwarted. However, what was not done in the "alpha""will be received" in the time of the "omega." (Spec. Test. B p.50) We have noted in the above paragraphs the first book of the "omega" and the parallels between it and The Living Temple. Questions on Doctrine was followed by another book which confirmed the same heresies which it taught. Movement of Destiny like Questions on Doctrine was published by the denominational press in Washington DC, and its author, Leroy E. Froom, was the key writer of Questions on Doctrine, though at the time, this fact was not known. (See , Vol. 4, #2, 1977, p. 38) Movement of Destiny carried the imprimatur of the then president of the General Conference, Pierson, and the nihil obstat (a good word) of the now president of the same conference, who served as "Chairman of the Guiding Committee" for the book. (p.16) According to Froom himself "sixty of the most competent denominational scholars of a dozen specialties" assisted in reviewing copy for the book. (Letter dated April 17, 1971)

Movement of Destiny presented the same doctrine which by logical conclusion leads to the annulment of our basic teaching regarding the ministry of Christ in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, thus discarding the events of 1844 and onward as an irrelevance unsuited to new light - it being merely a way station on Adventism's road toward maturity. Froom proclaimed - "Atoning 'Act' Completed on Calvary's Cross." (p. 500) The writings of Ellen G. White were used profusely - sentences and phrases connected at Froom's design throughout the doctrinal presentation of this concept. He wrote:

Referring to it [the Cross] as the "great atonement," Ellen White declares, "The seal of heaven was fixed to Christ's atonement. His sacrifice is in every way satisfactory." It is "sufficient" and "efficacious" and "complete." (p. 501, Emphasis his)

Then he concludes "The transaction of the Cross then, is indisputably the Act of the Atonement." The full force of Froom's emphasis is subtly projected. Note his use of the "great atonement." It is in quotes - no reference given. Observe now where this phrase is to be found. The "Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists" reads:

II. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, that He took on Him the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that He ..." died our sacrifice, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, through the merits of His shed blood, He secures pardon and forgiveness. . . and as the closing portion of His work as priest, . . He will make the great atonement.(1889 Yearbook, p. 147)

Froom in his book, deliberately places in contradiction the historic teaching of the Church, and seeks to quote Ellen G. White in support of this deviation of the sanctuary teaching which leads to the annulment of the significance of 1844.

Not only this, Froom's book is filled with misrepresentation of what was really taught by Waggoner during the 1888 messages. In fact, Froom has Waggoner teaching exactly opposite to what he taught in regard to the incarnation. (Movement of Destiny, p. 197) In our research manuscript on the Incarnation (An Interpretive History of the Doctrine ... pp. 85-87) we compare what Froom said Waggoner wrote, and quote exactly what Waggoner did write. This fact alone should cause anyone to tremble for unsuspecting readers who have been taught blind loyalty to anyone and to anything bearing the official imprimatur.

The book Movement of Destiny - carries historical inaccuracies. Froom writes concerning A. G. Daniells - "He was elected president of the General Conference in 1901." (p. 393) This is absolutely contrary to fact. For a book which was supposedly read carefully by some sixty scholars of the Church and for this error to pass uncorrected, one is forced to conclude that the history of 1901-1903 is being "covered" for the purpose of the author's objectives. There was no president of the General Conference from 1901-1903. The reasons for this and what ensued must be understood to understand the present. No cover-up is admissible!

Books Questions on Doctrine, and Movement of Destiny - of a new order have been written, and published by the Church's presses with the full approval of the hierarchy of the Church. The "omega" has come; the laity have been deceived by its ministers in high places. It is so much "better," in

Page 5

fact, it is necessary to adopt the Jesuitical tactics, and place the fulfillment of the "omega" into the future - away from the immediate past, so as to maintain the authority and power of the hierarchy over "the community of believers." And this the book - Omega - is designed to accomplish!

(We shall discuss other "marks" of the "omega" in future issues of "Watchman, What of the Night?" as time and space permit.)

*******

ANOTHER ASPECT OF "FUTURISM"

Not alone from the hierarchy are we being led into Jesuitical "futurism," but some professing a firm belief in historic Adventism are teaching a form of "futurism" which can lead only to fanaticism. To understand the force of this new danger, we must note what happened with many who experienced the 1844 disappointment. The situation is described in The Incredible Cover-up by Dave MacPherson. He wrote:

Prophetic writers calculating the dates to be found in the book of Daniel, usually determined that the tribulation started with the edict of Justinian in A.D. 533. The French Revolution of 1793 came 1260 years after that date ... When the nineteenth century finally arrived there was talk that the year 1823 would be one of special significance, since it would occur 1290 years after the Justinian edict.

Early in the 1800s a strong reaction to post-millennialism set in, in the form of a movement which greatly emphasized the return of Christ. We would call it a prophetic revival! British newspapers and journals gave a lot of space to the discussion of prophecy, Bible conferences stressing prophetic subjects soon appeared; and the imminent return of Christ was the topic of the day.

The year-day theory was still popular with many folk, but began to lose followers after events failed to transpire at the predicted times. It was gradually replaced with what became known as the "futuristic" interpretation. Futurists of the first three decades of the last century held that Antichrist would be a world ruler at the end of the age who would persecute all true Christians during the great tribulation. (p. 26)

Because the disappointed believers did not follow "by faith" their Lord as He moved His ministry to second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, they jettisoned the year-day principle of prophetic interpretation, and adopted in its place "futurism." Now what difference is it in principle to say in our hearts - "My Lord delayeth His coming" - the events of the past are so far removed from us, we have no present contemporary prophetic fulfillment upon which to base our hope - and while admitting that the 2300 days were fulfilled in 1844, we teach that these same time prophecies will have a literal fulfillment in the future? And this fallacy is being projected by some who profess by various publications that they are kindred spirits with those who hold to the fundamental, historic faith of Adventism. They even publish documents such as Think Straight About the Incarnation, and Letters to the Churches to give credibility to their heresies. But somewhere down the line, these "futurists" - Jesuits in sheep's clothing - will have to set a date when these "literal time" prophecies will begin to be fulfilled. Thus the time-setting which followed 1844 will again be repeated with all of its sorry fanaticism. But in the meantime precious souls are being beguiled under these false presentations.

*******

COMIC STRIP PROFESSOR KEYNOTES GOSPEL CONGRESS

According to a widely circulated announcement heralding the anticipated "Gospel Congress" sponsored by Good News Unlimited, Dr. Smuts vanRooyen, formerly on the staff of Andrews University was to deliver the Opening Address, July 23, 1981. This is the same vanRooyen, who at the Graduation weekend at Union College, this year, told the graduates that what spinach was to Popeye, the Cross was to Jesus.

When we reduce the sacred - the glory of the Cross - to the level of the vulgar and the profane, there is no limit to where we will go in our theology. When our theological perceptions are geared to the mentality level of the comic strips, we can glibly tell the religious press - "'I believe Christ made all the provision necessary for salvation in AD 31' at his death on the cross, and thus salvation for believers is certain." (Christianity Today, June 12, 1981, p. 35)

What is being revealed by the roster of scheduled speakers for the Gospel Congress is most interesting. Among the announced speakers is the Editor of

Page 6

Christianity Today, Kenneth Kantzer. During the last year, it became very noticeable that Evangelical Adventists were getting considerable press coverage in the journal. Even an editorial appealing to the Adventist Church hierarchy to accept the new theology was written. (CT, October 24, 1980, p. 13) Now the Editor addresses the first such Congress. But there is another very interesting fact. Christianity Today is celebrating its 25th Anniversary. (CT, July 17, 1981 issue) Conceived as a brainchild by Billy Graham, it has had phenomenal growth and acceptance. But when we consider 25 years ago - 1981 minus 25 - we arrive at 1956, the year which closed the Seventh-day Adventist-Evangelical Conferences. The following year - 1957 - the book, Questions on Doctrine was published. Now 25 years later the "birds" come home to roost. Yet the hierarchy are not willing to admit that the "omega" began 25 years ago, but with Jesuitical cunning seek to place it still in the future - applying it to the "birds" which are swooping in for a landing.

*******

A LETTER TO NEAL C. WILSON

July 19, 1981

Publications and Research

*******

ECUMENICITY

GC Hosts Prayer Breakfast -- The General Conference hosted a prayer breakfast in the Campus Center at Columbia Union College, May 7, 1981. Greetings were received from President Reagan, Neal C. Wilson, and the Mayors of both Takoma Park, and the District of Columbia. - Prayers following an address by Congressman Don Clausen included among others, Dr. Sal Crisculo of Our Lady of Sorrows Church in Takoma Park. (Adventist Review, May 21, 1981, p. 24)

Conducts a Lenten Prayer Breakfast-- Pastor Burton Santee of the Leavenworth, Kansas, Seventh-day Adventist Church conducted a Lenten prayer breakfast as a part of his activities with the Ministerial Alliance. After so doing, the Alliance expressed a desire "to participate in a traditional Adventist Church service." It was held in the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church. (Mid-America Adventist Outlook, June 10, 1981, p. 7)

Beach Attends Press Club Luncheon-- On April 28, 1981, the Press Club hosted Robert A. R. Runcie, Archbishop of Canterbury, on his first substantial visit to the United States. Not only is the Archbishop the chairman of the General Synod of the Church of England, but also diocesan bishop, and carries pastoral duties in Canterbury. Attending from the General Conference as would be expected was Dr. Bert Beach, Secretary of the Inter-church Council, plus Elders Ernest H. J. Steed, and Victor Cooper. (Adventist Review, July 16, 1981, p. 21)

Page 7

NOTES AND COMMENTS

Silver Lake West - IV -- September 10-13, at the same camping area as on previous years. Guest speakers this year will include Elder Willard Santee, and Brother John J. Adam, a director on the Board of the Adventist Layman Council, and coeditor of the SDA Press Release.

DAVENPORT BANKRUPTCY The Los Angeles Times of July 25, 1981, carried an article about the Petition for Bankruptcy filed by Donald J. Davenport, M. D. The feature article was headlined - "Massive Church Fund Loss Feared." The subheading read - "Adventist Investor's Petition for Bankruptcy Raises Alarm." This was stating it rather mildly - the news pushed the panic button in Takoma Park. The first article is to be followed by a second as the staff writers have uncovered more information. Following the Los Angeles Times release, similar stories appeared in leading newspapers across the nation. While we will be giving more detailed information in subsequent issues of "Watchman, What of the Night?" - we wish merely to note for you certain reactions of the hierarchy when questioned by the staff writers. The President of the North American Division, Charles E. Bradford, stated that the funds loaned to Davenport were "'surplus' monies not needed for day-to-day operations of the church." With the estimate of funds loaned to Davenport ranging as high as 60 million dollars by some sources, this should give the laity some idea of the "surplus" funds. It is a bit ludicrous to be calling for contributions for the maintenance of the church's operations here and overseas with these monies laying around, tempting the "stewards"(?) to gamble with them. Keep in mind that Davenport did not come before the various committees of the conferences and union with a gun demanding these funds - they were freely lent to him with approval and upon the recommendation of the hierarchy - though perhaps at the lower levels, such as, the "bishops" and "archbishop's." Bradford assured the staff writers that none of the money lent to Davenport came from the General Conference, but he did not tell how much money the General Conference still has in the Wall Street stock market. Surely one of these days, the laity will wake up to the fact that the storehouse of Malachi 3:10 is no longer the treasury of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and that the divine "Instructor" really did know what He was talking about when He asked the question - "How is the faithful city become a harlot?" (8T:250) Each needs to ask himself, or herself - "Am I still 'funding' the harlot?"

SPECIAL ISSUE The editors of the Adventist Review have published a special issue as "an expansion" of the Statement of Beliefs voted at the General Conference Session in Dallas. As you read what they wrote, be sure you have before you a copy of the voted "beliefs." (Gen. Conf. Bulletin #9, May 1, 1980, PP 23-27) In certain key areas which we have thus far studied, what the editors wrote and what was voted do not say the same thing. It would appear that the editors are trying to rewrite the voted Statement to make it more palatable to the rank and file of the membership who have become concerned with what was voted. We shall have more to say in a documented article in a forthcoming, "Watchman, What of the Night?"

NEXT ISSUE We will produce for our readers a document written by "A source within the denomination, name withheld" comparing the facts of the legal cases in which the Church was involved during the previous decade, and how the hierarchy sought to deceive the laity through the pages of the Adventist Review. We do this solely to alert the laity as to what they can expect today in the report of the Davenport Bankruptcy case as it is given to the Church through the same official organ. The only additional feature in the present "cover up" will be the official organs of the Union Conferences, and such has already began to appear, as evidenced in the Pacific Union Record, July 27, 1981, in the column - "We're Glad You Asked."