|
XIX - 08(86) THIRTY YEARS OF APOSTASY
1956 - 1986
- + - This year marks the thirtieth anniversary since the Seventh-day Adventist-Evangelical Conferences were concluded. All the major Adventist conferees have, passed to their rest. On the Evangelical side, Walter Martin Remains. In recent years, he has reminded the leadership of the Adventist Church of the concessions which were made during the Conferences, and which were summarized in the book - Questions on Doctrine (Q on D). In his recent revised and expanded edition of The Kingdom of the Cults, Martin noted his "special concern" over "the doctrinal upheaval in Adventism." On February 16, 1983, he wrote a letter to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists calling for a "public and official statement for a reaffirming or denying the authority of the Adventist book, Questions on Doctrine." To this demand, on April 29, 1983, W. Richard Lesher, then a vice-president of the General Conference, and now president of Andrews University, responded. He wrote: You ask first if Seventh-day Adventists still stand behind the answers given to your questions in Questions on Doctrine as they did in 1957. The answer is yes. (p. 410) In a recent televised confrontation with Martin on the John Ankerberg Show, 1 Wm. G. Johnsson, Editor of the Adventist Review, categorically stated: In terms of the denomination's stand on the book, we have not repudiated Questions on Doctrine. The book went into eight printings, 150,000 copies. - Now that's a lot of copies. It is still used in college classes. (From an official transcript of the Show) There can be no question as to where the hierarchy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church stands in regard to the book, Q on D, and its teachings. To understand the gravity of the apostasy which occurred in the 1955-1956 SDA-Evangelical Conferences and expressed in the book, Q on D, resulting therefrom, one must have a clear perception of the gospel - the good news - committed to the Adventist Movement. This is not "another gospel" but the full and complete gospel. It is a gospel based solely on the merits and work of Jesus Christ. Founded on the typical revelation that God gave to Israel, true Adventists see in the animals slain, a prefiguring of the Lamb of God who "taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29) They perceive in the work of both the common priests and high priest, not only the earthly ministry of Jesus, but also His ministry in the Sanctuary of Heavenly Places. (Heb. 8:1-2) They understand with Peter - "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) However, they see clearly - based on the type of the Hebrew sanctuary service - two atonements. The record reads that should an individual - ruler, or common person - sin, he could bring his offering, confess his sin, and "the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him." (Lev. 4::26-31) The message thus conveyed Page 2 is that the forgiveness is so complete, that there is an "one-ment" again between the sinner and his God. This was accomplished at the Altar of Burnt Offering. Then on the Day of Atonement, as the congregation of Israel afflicted their souls without the Court, the high priest made "an atonement" for Israel so that collectively and individually they should be "clean from all [their] sins before the Lord." (Lev. 16:30) This was accomplished in type by the mediation of the high priest beginning in the Most Holy place of the sanctuary. (Lev. 16:33) It is referred to as the atonement of "atonements." (Ex. 30:10) Thus the Cross of Calvary prefigured in the Altar of Burnt Offering, and the work of Christ as the High Priest after the Order of Melchisedec prefigured in the annual ministry on the typical Day of Atonement, become the two foci of the gospel committed to the Advent Movement. Both of the foci involve atonement in the fullest meaning of the word. This basic truth - the full gospel committed to the trust of the Adventist Church, the Adventist conferees denied in the compromise with the Evangelicals. In answer to the question - Since Adventists hold that complete sacrificial atonement was made on the cross, what do they teach concerning the ministry of our Lord as High Priest in heaven? (QOD, p. 369) they responded - Adventists do not hold any theory of a dual atonement. "Christ hath redeemed us" (Gal. 3:13) "once for all" (Heb. 10:10). (Ibid., p. :390, Emphasis theirs) This concept is further emphasized in the section on "The Scapegoat." Froom wrote: Only Christ, the Creator, and the one and only God-man, could make a substitutionary atonement for men's transgressions. And this Christ did completely, perfectly, and once for all on Golgotha. (Ibid., p. 400) If language means anything, this statement precludes any atonement resulting from the final ministry of Christ in The Most Ho1y Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, unless the atonement of the antitypical Yom Kippur is achieved by human works. But such a position would not accord with the testimony: Divine grace is needed at the beginning, divine grace at every step of advance, and divine grace alone can complete the work. (TM 508, emphasis mine) All of this poses certain questions, and to these questions answers are given: 1. How is that which Christ accomplishes in His heavenly ministry described in the book - Q on D? Answer: How, glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is also our representative at the court in 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. And now as our High Priest He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice to us. (p.381, emphasis theirs) Observe that the wording - "ministers the virtues of. His atoning sacrifice to us" - is used to summarize the concept that Christ obtains nothing for us in His final ministry in the Most Holy Place. 2. How then is the literature which has been published by Adventist presses teaching an atonement to be accomplished by Jesus in the Most Holy Place of Heaven to be explained? Answer: When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature - even in the writings of Ellen G. White - that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests.(pp. 354-355, emphasis theirs) Note again the wording - this time emphasized, that such wording means a finished atonement on the cross, and no final atonement resultant from Christ's ministry in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary. This language is used to mean a denial of a dual atonement. 2 The use of this new phraseology to deny a final atonement, and to confirm a fully completed atonement on the cross was a part of the "cover-up" to take the edge off of Page 3 the compromise. Barnhouse had already gone into print in his publication, Eternity, stating that both he and Martin had heard the Adventist leaders "totally" repudiate the concept "that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead that He was still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844." (Sept. 1956) Now when the book, Q on D, appeared in 1957, this new phraseology appeared. T. E. Unruh, who chaired the SDA-Evangelical Conferences, showed his hand when writing 20 years after these conferences, relates: We came to see that many misunderstandings rested on semantic grounds, because of our use of an inbred denominational vocabulary. Our friends [Barnhouse and Martin] helped us to express our beliefs in terms more easily understood by theologians of other communions. (Adventist Heritage, Vol. 4, #2, 1977, p. 40) 3 Herein was the method used to cover-up the compromise. The same tack that was used in allaying the concerns of the laity over the compromises made by the Adventist conferees at the Conferences with Barnhouse and Martin was the same tack used in presenting the new Statement of Beliefs to the delegates at the Dallas session of the General Conference. In the telephone conversation with Barnhouse, Hudson kept noting that what he was hearing from the leaders in Washington - no change in our fundamental beliefs - was not what Barnhouse and Martin were saying in Eternity, that the leadership had "totally repudiated" the "everlasting gospel" as committed to the Advent Movement. Then, when 20 years after the fact, the Adventist version of the Conferences was written, the explanation is given that we were merely trying to express in Q on D fundamental Adventism in a way so that the theologians of the world could better understand what we believe. This is exactly the approach that Elder Neal C. Wilson used in introducing the 27 Statements of Belief for consideration by the delegates at the Dallas session. He said: We are not suggesting changing any belief or doctrine that the church has held. We have no interest in tearing up any of the foundations of historical Adventism. This document is not designed to do that, nor to open the way so that it can be done. It should be clear that we are not adding anything nor are we deleting anything in terms of historical Adventist theology. We are trying to express our beliefs in a way that will be understood today. There are a great many individuals, for instance, who write to the General Conference Ministerial Association requesting a simple statement of our fundamental beliefs. We would like to feel that when such a statement is sent to those who are theologically educated or who are proficient in stating Biblical truth simply, they will understand not what they see but rather what we see and what we believe. It is one thing for me to apply a certain set of values and theological-doctrinal principles to a statement and find that it all fits together. Someone else reading the same statement might not perceive the same truth. (1980 GC Bulletin, #5, p. 9, Emphasis his) BUT - and note carefully - in Section #23, "Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary," is to be found the following: There is sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. (1980 GC Bulletin, #9, p. 27, Emphasis mine) NOW COMPARE - this is the same language, merely substituting synonyms, as is found in Q on D, pp. 354-355, where the explanation is made as to what is meant when pioneer Adventist writers, including Ellen G. White declared that "Christ is making atonement now." (See p. 2, col . 2) Further, this statement is used in connection with the emphasized concept that when Christ went back to heaven to become High Priest, "it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time." The reason is given - "He had already obtained it for us on the cross," and "now as our High Priest He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice to us." (See also, p. 2, col. 2) This statement then is a cover up phraseology, whereby we are denying the historical Adventist concept of a final atonement and is so understood by non-Adventists theologians. In 1980, through its official action the General Conference in session, in voting this statement, has denied the everlasting Page 4 gospel involving "the hours of God's judgment" - at which the final atonement will be made. RECALL - that, on the John Ankerberg Show, taped in December, 1984, and aired just prior to the 1985 General Conference Session, Dr. William G. Johnsson, Editor of the Adventist Review, affirmed that the Church had not set aside the book, Q on D, declaring - "Categorically, I can tell you that the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has not repudiated Questions on Doctrine." During the confrontation with Martin, Johnsson based his position on the 27 Statements of Belief as voted at Dallas, affirming - "No other statements have the authority of the fundamental beliefs. These are our statements of faith." Putting these two assertions together, it is clear that the corporate Church still clings to the repudiation of a final atonement as made by the Adventist conferees in 1955-56. At the New Orleans session in 1985, Neal C. Wilson raised the issue about the Statement of Beliefs indicating that there had been requests to review some of the concepts as voted at Dallas. He closed the door on any such discussion, remarking - There seems to have been a very favorable world reaction to and acceptance of the Fundamental Beliefs as voted in 1980. ... Frankly, throughout the past five years there has been no one who has revealed to us that the Holy Spirit has led in making any substantive changes. (1985 GC Bulletin-, #9, p. 17) Thus the apostasy began 30 years ago continues. The trust of the "everlasting gospel" based as it is in the dual atonement concepts of the Hebrew sanctuary service has been betrayed. To those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, should sense what the present advocacy of staying in and supporting such a betrayal will mean in the light of the corporate judgment upon the Church. "Men, maidens, and little children, all perish together" with the "guardians of the spiritual interests of the people," but who "had betrayed their trust." (5T:211). Well did the Lord God say through Ezekiel the prophet - "Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow after their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 0 Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes of the deserts. Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord. They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word. (Eze. 13:3-6) __________________________________________ 1 - 'For a full analysis of the Martin-Johnsson confrontation on the John Ankerberg Show see WWN, XVIII - 9. (Sept. 1985) 2 - M. L. Andreasen tells of a request made to the Ellen G. White Estate Board by two of the Adventist conferees to add "footnotes or Appendix notes" to certain E. G. White books so as to give their "understanding of the various phases of the atoning work of Christ," and thus bring the Writings in line with the assertion in the book, Q on D, pp. 354-355. See Letters to the Churches, Series A, #2, pp. 24-26. (Letters to the Churches) 3 - The available documents on the SDA-Evangelical Conferences may be found on the Adventist Laymen's Foundation website.
Page 5
Transcript of a Recorded CONVERSATION between A. L. HUDSON and DR. DONALD BARNHOUSE May 16, 1958 Regarding the book QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE (Concluded)
[In last month's issue, the segment of the conversation ended with Hudson pressing Barnhouse to make public his files telling what the Adventist Church leaders had written to him regarding basic doctrines of the Church. Then Hudson refers to what Martin had also told him. We pick up the conversation at this point.] (H) I know what Martin told me, And I know that he will not answer any letters in confirming what he told me, but our men are representing - (B) Possibly he believes that you are just a trouble maker. (H) I think that's entirely possible. I appreciate his position. I'm not trying to cause trouble to anybody, but I want to know what our men are teaching and if we should change, I want to change with them, provided they can convince me that I should change; but to try to give the idea to you and Martin that we have changed, and to give the idea to us that we haven't changed, I don't go for that. Now, I think our men ought to come out and be honest on the proposition. (B) Well, look, the important thing is this, where the great change has come, they have absolutely denied, and in the book, 700 page book which you have, they have denied beyond question that they hold any position which makes Christ anything other than the eternal second Person of the Godhead. (H) I grant that. (B) Do you believe that Jesus is the Lord Jehovah? (H) Yes, if I understand what you mean by the Lord Jehovah. I believe that He is the second Person of the Godhead, eternally existent. He became incarnate and became a man. Now, on that point, however, there is a great controversy. (B) Exactly. Now, you see there were Seventh-day Adventists who held that He was sinful, that He did not have a sinless nature, and they took the Docetism principle from back in the early church history. Now your leaders have come out in the strongest possible repudiation of that phase of Seventh-day Adventist teaching. (H) They are taking the position, are they not, that Christ has the nature of Adam before he sinned, isn't that true? (B) I hope not! (H) What is their position as you understand it? (B) That Christ had, that He was the God-man. Adam was a created being subject to fall. Jesus Christ was the God-man, not subject to fall. (H) And that's your understanding of the position of our leaders? (B) Of course! They have taken it so strongly and it is in their book. We hold they say, with the church of all the centuries that Jesus Christ was the eternal sinless son of God, etc., etc. (H) Well, I don't want to take longer of your time. I was trying to clear up specifically the item of whether our leaders had made overtures to the National Association of Evangelicals for fellowship. (B) I don't think they have. (H) Now, that is what I'm trying to get at. That puts it in a different category. (B) This would precipitate in the National Association, this would precipitate a fight that might break the National Association into pieces. (H) In other words, it is still a matter of theological discussion in comparative religions. It's not a practical matter of determining whether or not Adventists should be admitted to the National Association of Evangelicals. (B) Why, that has never been under discussion. Page 6 never heard about until you told me, this morning. (H) It has come out in the Evangelical press. We have been represented as standing before the door of the National Association of Evangelicals asking for entrance. Now I'm trying to run that down and see if it is nothing but a rumor. (B) I'll tell you what was said was this. The Seventh-day Baptists are already in. You see the Seventh-day Baptists have been a member of the National Association of Evangelicals for years. And someone stated, I believe, I wasn't at the convention, that Seventh-day Adventists had as much right in it as the Seventh-day Baptists. But I do not believe that anybody in the Seventh-day Adventist group applied or made overtures. If it had been done, it would have been done through us because, brother, I came out and said that Seventh-day Adventists were Christians. But I'm going to have to say that a man called me up from Oregon and spent a half an hour on the telephone telling me that he was not a Christian, for that's what you've told me this morning. (H) Well, of course, that is a matter of opinion. (B) No it isn't. Excuse me, but this is the matter. It says, if anybody come and bring not the doctrine of Christ, this is the spirit of the anti-christ. Now you see, if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal, sinless Son of God, that He could not have sinned, and goodness, we have 18 quotations from Mrs. White saying the same thing, 18 quotations from Ellen G. White stating exactly this position, and denying what you are telling me. (H) On the other hand I have quotations that state just the opposite. (B) One quotation. (H) We have more than that. (B) NO. (H) You don't have them all. (B) Oh yes we do. Look Froom and the rest of them say that Walter Martin knows more about Seventh-day Adventists than any professor in Takoma Park, Washington, -- (H) Well, that again is a matter of opinion. (B) Let me tell you this, you talk to Martin, you tell him anything, and he'll give you the page number. He's got that kind of a memory. (H) I don't question that he's read a lot of the Spirit of Prophecy. (B) He's read it all. And everything else she ever wrote including, the book they've got locked up in the safe and won't let anybody see. (H) What's the name of that book? (B) I don't know. (H) You don't know, but Martin has read it? (B) Of course. (H) You know she wrote about 25 million words. That's quite a lot for a man to read. (B) That's too much, you know. She was running off at the mouth, and the Holy Spirit certainly was not doing it. (H) Do you think that Anderson and Froom agree with you on that position? (B) Look, I know that these men are intelligent enough to know that she was a fallible human being, and that she said so herself. You don't believe that she was infallible, do you? Do you? (H) You get into the matter of your various concepts of inspiration. You ask me a question. I'll answer it. I believe she was a prophet. (B) Do you believe that she was infallible? (H) Well; I say she was a prophet the same as any other true prophet. (B) Do you believe that she was in error ever? (H) As a human being? (B) In her writing. Do you believe that in some of her writing that you have to point to certain sentences and say, "Boy, she sure pulled a booper! That's for the birds! It is not true." (H) I haven't encountered any of those quotations, no. (B) You haven't? (H) No. (B) Oh, brother, are - you a dupe. You are not honest as the people in Takoma Park or Page 7 Richards. Richards doesn't hold with you. (H) You mean the Voice of Prophecy? (B) Yes. (H) He feels she has written error? (B) Of course he does. Every one of these men have said this to me. Every man. Every man. They believe that she was raised up of God to be a great blessing, and that the Spirit of Prophecy was upon her, but they all agree she wrote error in some places. (H) You gather from your association with those men that they believe that she was a prophet though. (B) They believe that God came upon her in a special way, and for a message to His people at a special time. (H) Would you gather the impression in your talking with them that they feel that she was a prophet in the same sense that Isaiah and Jeremiah were? (B) Of course not. Certainly not. They are intelligent men, and they are Christians. I mean, anybody who would say that they believe that Ellen G. White was a prophet in the same sense as Isaiah - in the first place, they are denying the Bible's word about prophecy concerning a woman. You see you simply have to put all that out of your mind before you ever accept such a thing, and you see, I mean,: if you take this position, Seventh-day Adventism will have to go back into the same position as Mormonism with their Book of Mormon. A guest has just arrived for lunch, and I've got to go. (H) I appreciate your time. Now, I'll tell you my position on Mrs. White, just for the record. I don't know what you're going to publish that I have said. I hope that you have it accurately. My position is this - the Bible mentions two kinds of prophets, a true prophet and a false prophet. I believe Mrs. White was a true prophet. Now that is my position. (B) Yeah, I know that's your position. She was just a good woman who was greatly blessed and greatly mistaken, very frequently. (H) And you don't think Elder Froom and Richards and the others take my position, that she was a true prophet? (B) Of course they don't. (H) I see. (B) None of them do. (H) Well, I appreciate your time. (B) They all believe now as I say, that she was a blessed woman, and that she had a special mission for God's people for a special time, but they all, believe that, they know, that she wrote error. I mean, find out about the book of hers that is locked up in the safe and that nobody is allowed to see. (H) Yes, I'll ask about that. I'll make inquiry. Thank you very much, Dr. Barnhouse. Good-bye. (B) Good-bye. TWO NEW MP3 STUDIES AVAILABLE ON WEBSITE THE AGENDA OF THE JUDGMENT A Consideration of the Judgment before the Ancient of Days after the correction of the Crosier error. THE DIVINE RATIONALE FOR THE 144,000 God's answer to the Laodicean failure; His vindication in the Judgment; and the realization of His design in the Creation of man. |