Editorial - "Sons of Light"............................................................2

Osborne Joins Trek of: "Foolish Virgins!"........................................4

A Critique- "Fall, Final Atonement and Vindication"..........................6

"People of the Book"?....................................................................8

Page 2

This past Sabbath (August 29), we were studying John 12:20-50 for the Sabbath School lesson. We were about to pass by the response of the people to "a voice from heaven" (ver. 28) with only a casual observation, when Ron, our Business Manager and Treasurer, said that we were missing a very important point. He noted that some who heard thought it had thundered; others that an angel had spoken. (ver. 29) They all in reality heard the same thing but perceived it differently. Then Ron asked, "What do we hear when the Word of God is spoken? Do we really understand what we hear, or is it to us merely as if it had thundered?" It became apparent that the whole of the recorded experience in this section of John's Gospel emphasized this point.

Jesus was approaching the supreme moment in His life, - the purpose for which He had come in to the world - to give His life as a ransom for many. His soul was troubled. (ver. 27) His humanity was beginning to tremble as the hour approached. What should He say? "Father, save Me from this hour?" No, "for this cause came [He] unto this hour." Then He said what only a truly surrendered person could say -"Father, glorify thy name." (ver. .28) Then came the voice from heaven. But this response was not to meet the need of Jesus, but for the sake of the people who were gathered there in the temple. Why?

A momentous crisis had come in the history of the world - and the universe. God would be "glorified" in Jesus; the prince of this world would be cast out. This would be the reality - though unseen. That which would be seen would be a Man condemned as a Hebrew zealot for seeking to set up a kingdom in place of the Roman power. It would be as if it had thundered - the storm would soon pass over, and the sun would appear again. Why could not men see the reality - the unseen, a crisis of the ages?

[Perhaps, that this point be not missed, a word of explanation is in order. The KJV reads - "Now is the judgment of this world." (ver. 31) The word translated - "judgment" - is the Greek word, krisis, which transliterated into English is - crisis. Also the Greek text does not have a "the" so the verse literally reads - "Now is a crisis of this world."]

We are approaching another crisis of this world. In fact, we are in the hour of its final approach. Are we hearing only thunder, and are thus unable to truly perceive the meaning of what has, and is taking place? Why? Is the experience as recorded in John 12 being repeated again today?

The people's response to Jesus' announcement of an imminent crisis was that they had been taught that

Page 3

the Messiah abideth forever, and why should He teach that "the Son of man must be lifted up." They even declared that this was based on inspiration - "out of the law." (ver. 34) Jesus' answer to this faulty perception was very simple - "While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons of light." (ver. 36, RV) Jesus is stating plainly that being able to quote or compile "inspired writings" does not mean that one is walking in the light, or teaching truth!

In the verses that follow, John adds his "commentary" as to why the darkness covered the people so that they were unable to perceive the light of truth and be truly "sons of light." John first quotes from Isaiah 53:1, then adds - "Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again"_- and he quotes Isaiah 6:10. But in quoting, he uses neither our KJV translation, nor fully the LXX . 1 John contrasts a "he" with the 'I" of "I should heal them." The words of Jesus, upon which John is commenting speak of only two "persons" - "the prince of this world" who was to be cast out, and "the Son of man" who was to be lifted up for the healing of mankind. And so now comes another question: Why was the prince of this world able to so blind the chosen people of God they could not perceive true light, and to become so dull that the voice from heaven was only distinguishable as thunder?

John clearly states that among the chief rulers many believed on Jesus (ver. 42). But "belief" is not enough. Connected with true belief must come confession. The Greek word translated, "confess," is homologeo, compounded from homos (like) and logos (word) meaning "to speak in accordance with; adopt the same terms of language." But to do so in Christ's day - to confess Him - was costly. They would be "put out of the synagogue." A confession of truth today:1 is just as costly. Men shun separation, yet at the same time they tell people they are in search of the cross. They hold up before the people a "messiah" who will wait forever, while rejecting the Son of man who was lifted up outside the gate of the city. (See Heb.. 13:12-13)

Why this deceptive duplicity? John tells us - "They loved the praise of men more than the praise of' God" (ver.43). These are the voices which are sounding today on the periphery of Adventism. Down deep in their hearts they know things are not well. They also know, if their persistent rebellion against light has not totally blinded them, that God has spoken in fulfilled prophecy as to the times and seasons. But to so confess, would lead to but one thing - they would be put out of the synagogue. Not to be "a son of light" means that one becomes by default "a son of darkness." And as in Christ's day, they turn from Christ - the lifted up Son of man - to keep in the good graces of the hierarchy. The glorification that God offers - the cross they reject that they may have the approbation of people who are unable to discern the enunciation of God's voice, thinking it

Page 4

thundered. Or worse yet, accepting the adulation of a people who think they hear in their crossless message the voice of an angel.

What are you? A son of light? Or a promoter of darkness under the guise of light? Are you willing to walk with Jesus wherever He went? Even to the Cross outside the gate! Or are you afraid to confess the truth for fear of being put out of the synagogue?

The sad part today is that there are those who are advocating what is called "separation" (such a Sessler) who do not even know what the truth is all about. They are teaching error. They even quote "inspired sources" as did the people of Christ's day. But having either no knowledge of, or having rejected "present truth", they advocate a separation without having made a confession to truth which would bring about in God's own way - being put out of the synagogue.

1 -- How John quoted Isaiah 6:10: Isa. 6:10 KJV - "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

Isa. 6:10 LXX - "For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

John 6:40 RV - "[Isaiah said again] He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them."

Page 5

In the recent issue of Telecaster (Vol. 1, #2), John Osborne answers a question about his present relationship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church inasmuch as he moved his headquarters out of the Bonita Springs SDA Church. In this reply, he tells of the "deal" cut with the conference brethren which will place him and his local following under their jurisdiction. He noted that while at the present time, the Conference "does not recognize him as the pastor," it is believed "that with the pleasant winds of reconciliation that are blowing that that time will soon come." (p. 34) This means simply that he will be restored as a full minister within the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Osborne's version of the "reconciliation" can be read in an answer to another question of the same issue of Telecaster (p. 36). He indicated in the discussion that the subjects of the "use of the tithe" and "the Nature of Christ" were approached "with open mindedness and candor." He did not tell what agreement was reached in regard to the tithe, but it can be accurately deducted that "the Nature of Christ" dealt with the subject of the Incarnation. This doctrine presents, no problem for the hierarchy - they can bend either way, or both ways. As one conference president told a concerned brother, "We are not concerned with what you believe. Adventists now have an open-ended theology. Believe what you wish; just keep the tithe coming in."

[Until the "fine print" of the whole "deal" cut by Osborne and the Florida Conference hierarchy is made available for all to read, reservations must be entertained in regard to Osborne's report of what was agreed to. Some of Osborne's deceptive tactics prior to this can be documented, and there is no evidence that he has made a change since these were brought to his attention.]

The real picture comes into sharp focus as one considers the doctrine of the Incarnation which was discussed. In a recent editorial in the Adventist Review - "Pulling Together in North America" - this doctrine was noted with the following comment:

Nor should we divide the church over the human nature of Jesus. Let us exalt Jesus as the only one fully God yet fully man, the one tempted in all points and capable of falling yet wholly without sin. Regardless of whether we think that Jesus came in the nature of Adam before or after the Fall, we can agree on these most basic points." (July 2, 1987, p. 4)

Page 6

Since this is the present position of the Church leadership they had no problem adjusting to Osborne's belief on this point. But it does raise a very acute question for Osborne. Is it vital whether one believes that Christ took the pre-Fall, or post-Fall nature of Adam? While the "brethren" assured Osborne that he could believe what he wished and "no demands" (Osborne's emphasis) would be placed upon him to believe otherwise, Osborne compromised with them admitting that they also could believe as they wished. In essence, he told the hierarchy by joining them, it just isn't that important! With the position of the hierarchy clearly set forth in the Adventist Review, Osborne gave credence to apostasy by tacitly joining it!

It is a deception to tell people "I didn't give up anything, yet we all got together." Osborne did give up a vital point by admitting you can believe what you wish about the nature of Christ in the incarnation. Can you so admit? You must decide, and in so deciding, you must make a decision in regard to Osborne. Can two walk together lest they be agreed? This question presents a challenge to you as well as telling you the real nature of the compromise Osborne made with the hierarchy.

Perhaps by accident, or mere coincidence, in this same issue of the Telecaster, is an article on "The Ten Virgins." It reveals the full import of the "deal" Osborne cut with the hierarchy. One quote in the article from the Writings, if Osborne had followed its message, would have saved him from his own self-deception. It reads - "The parable [of the Ten Virgins] is designed to point to the peril of surface work." (See p. 13) This "surface work" - the shallow thinking - marks and identifies the whole of Osborne's program. One of his own board members conveyed this problem to me, and even attempted to arrange for Osborne to have sufficient data to be informed, but to no avail.

Let us take a hard, below-the-surface look at the message of the parable. There are certain "given" factors as in geometry:

1) All the virgins had lamps, which represent the Sacred Scriptures. ("Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." (Ps.119:105) At no time were the lamps discarded even by the foolish virgins.

2) All were virgins; all professed a pure faith.

3) All "slumbered and slept." (25:5)

4) The voice that aroused them came from outside. (25:6)

5) When awakened, they all "trimmed their lamps." (25:7)

6) The light of the lamps of the foolish virgins began to go out. The foolish said to the wise - "Our lamps are going out." (25:8 Greek)

7) The foolish go to the merchandisers of spiritual things to get oil. They turn to men and make a deal. On such the door is shut!

Page 7

Interestingly, this parable was used by Ellen G. White in connection with the reaction to the 1888 Message. She wrote to a brother who had been blessed by the Ottawa, Kansas Campmeeting. Referring to the parable she wrote:

This parable has been and will be fulfilled to the very letter, for it has special application to this time, and like the third angel's message, has been fulfilled and will be present truth till the close of time." (R&H, Aug. 19, 1890)

Besides linking the parable with the third angel's message, she also connects it with the Laodicean state. In the same article, she wrote:

The state of the Church represented by the foolish virgins, is also spoken of as the Laodicean state. (Ibid.)

What is sometimes forgotten is that the "most precious message" God gave to Elders Waggoner and Jones was for the church, and that message is declared to be "a testimony that presented the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the third angel's message, in clear distinct lines." (TM, pp. 91, 93)

Let us take a look at the parallel between the parable of the Ten Virgins and the picture of Laodicea. In Rev. 3:14-20, Christ is pictured as ever outside the church - standing at the door knocking, but never let in by the leadership of the church. Further, the picture portrayed is that only individuals not the church corporately - open the door to receive Jesus. The text reads - "If any man." (3:20) In the parable, the wise "go out to a meeting" with Jesus, while the foolish go to man. They remain in the Laodicean state.

A similar picture of warning is to be found in the Third Angel's Message. It declares - "If any man worship the beast" (14:9) It is important to note how the "beast" is defined: - "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is a number of a man. (13:18) In simple language the message states - "If any man worship man." What does it mean to worship? - Give allegiance to; come into fellowship with; seek acceptance by.

The foolish virgins go to man because they want the approval and acceptance of man on the way to meet the Bridegroom. Those who reject the Third Angel's Message give allegiance to and fellowship with man - worship a beast! They may even preach the message in a theoretical and surface manner, telling their listeners they are preaching "traditional" Adventism.

It is a lonely road to walk out to meet Jesus. Few guests want to join you in true fellowship with Him - "sup with Him" - taking the emblems of His sacrifice. They much prefer the banquet tables where all can make merry, and there is a manufactured fellowship and unity. "They love the praise of men more than the praise of God." (Jn.12:43)

Don't forget the parable. The foolish virgins still have their lamps. You will still hear the same doctrinal presentations from Osborne you have heard before. There may be even the same semblance of power; but it will lead you to a worship of man, instead of taking you forth to meet the Bridegroom. There will continue to be the display of "self" (See back page of Telecaster) and the exaltation of man with the design to obtain means, because cutting a "deal" with men, he has to turn to man for his support.

Well did Jesus say - How can ye believe, which receive honor from one another, and seek not that honor that cometh from God only? (John 5:44)

Page 8

This essay is published by 1888 Message Revival, and authored by Bob White as a sincere attempt to direct attention to the final atonement and its significance. That there is such a need is beyond question to those who are willing to give serious thought to the sanctuary message.

The whole essay is built around a statement in the book, Education, pp. 14-15. It reads:

In order to understand what is comprehended in the work of education, we need to consider both the nature of man and the purpose of God in creating him. We need to consider also the change in man's condition through the coming in of a knowledge of evil, and God's plan for still fulfilling His purpose in the education of the human race.

In the development of his thesis, the writer dwells at length on what happened to man when he sinned in contrast to what he was as God created him. In this he assumed a faulty and untenable premise. Asking - "What is an unfallen nature?" - he writes:

Whether of man, or an angel, or an inhabitant of an unfallen world, it is the perfect blending of the natural attributes of that species of creature, fully blended with the divine nature. The divine nature is an ingredient, an active component of the nature of that intelligent creature. Adam's unfallen nature was a perfect blend of all his natural attributes with the divine nature. Such a blend "does not commit sin" (MH 180). (p. 4, Emphasis his)

The simple fact is that Adam did sin - so did Lucifer! Instead of changing this false premise of what is an "unfallen nature," he compounds his error by asserting that after man fell, he was given another nature. He writes:

Adam was instantly given a fallen nature when he CHOSE to sin... (p. 3, Emphasis his)

Of this fallen nature, Bob White declares:

The fallen nature is NOT a corruption, a degradation, a perversion, of the unfallen nature. It is a different nature than the unfallen nature.(Ibid. Emphasis his)

By taking this position, White contradicts the Writings upon which his whole essay is built. Ellen G. White wrote:

In creating man, God gave him noble qualities. He endowed him with a well-balanced mind, and made every power of his being harmonious. After the fall there was not given to man another set of faculties... The fall did not create in man new faculties, energies, and passions; for this would have been a reflection upon God. It was through disobedience to God's requirements that these powers were perverted; the affections were misplaced, and turned from the high and holy purpose to a lower aim and to meet a lower standard...

Page 9

Through the sanctification of the truth man becomes a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. What may not man become through the grace given him, if he will but be a partaker of the divine nature? (R&H, March 1, 1887)

Two things need to be noted from this statement: 1) Man was not created with a "divine nature." He receives this "through the sanctification of the truth." 2) Man was not given a different nature as the result of his disobedience, but the faculties with which he was endowed were "perverted, misused, and degenerated by disobedience."

The premise as set forth by the writer of the essay, left him but one way to go as to what the plan of redemption was to accomplish, and that is, the eradication of the fallen nature, given him "instantly" when he sinned. And this is the position taken. He writes:

The detrimental effect of sin upon the mind must be eradicated." (p. 7, Emphasis his)

Commenting on Zachariah 3, White further states:

Satan stands by to accuse [the 144,000], and the command is given: "Take away the filthy garments" (the fallen human nature for it has completed its purpose). (p. 8)

While Bob White denies that his position is "holy flesh" teaching (p. 10), there is no escaping the fact that the concept of the "eradication of the fallen nature" is indeed basic Holy Flesh doctrine. An interesting sidelight is that while researching the Holy Flesh Movement, prior to the publication of the E. G. White Review and Herald articles, I found tucked away in the papers of S. S. Davis, one of the leading exponents of the teaching in Indiana, the quotation from the March 1, 1887 issue. They never used it; they just couldn't reconcile it to their teaching of the "eradication of the fallen nature."

Throughout the essay by Bob White, there were constant overtones of Brinsmeadism (Decade I). Parallels between White's observations and the teachings found in God's Eternal Purpose were obvious. This was understandable inasmuch as White was closely associated with Robert Brinsmead during the first decade, flying him from appointment to appointment in the United States and Canada.

While this Essay must be severely faulted for its erroneous assumptions, it is hoped that this will not mean that the study of the final atonement will be set aside as of little moment.

NOTE

Since the publication of the last issue of "Watchman, What of the Night?" (XX-10), we have had opportunity to review further the new 1888 Re-Examined and find that to limit a discussion of its premises to a critique in this issue of Commentary would be inadequate. We plan to devote the whole issue of WWN (XX-11) to an analysis of the publication. It will present the united findings of both editors.

Page 10

"PEOPLE OF THE BOOK"?

When I became a Seventh-day Adventist sixteen years ago I heard our people proudly describe themselves as: "People of the Book." For many years Seventh-day Adventist were rightfully known as "People of the Book." However, as I meet our people in the churches and in their homes, as I read the publications from the periphery of Adventism, I have become painfully aware that as a group, we are no longer "People of the Book."

Why is it that our knowledge of the Scriptures is not what it should be? Is it because we are not spending the time in study that we should? While many are not taking time to study, there are some on the periphery of Adventism who are devoting much time to study and yet are still unable to discern truth from error, unable to understand the real issues of Adventism today. Why is this so?

I would like to propose that our lack of understanding is in part because of a most subtle deception that the devil has for the remnant people. That deception is the use of the "lesser light" of the Spirit of Prophecy as the "greater light" instead of it being a means to lead us to the "greater light" -the Bible.

Before I continue any further I would like to state my own personal conviction regarding God's special gift to His remnant people.

My understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy is the same as that of the late M. L. Andreasen. He stated:

I believe that the writings of Sister White are true messages of God for this church and that no one can ignore and disobey them except at great, infinitely great, loss.

Let me make this clear. I am not to worship Sister White or her writings. I am to worship God. I am to preach Christ. I am not to consider her writings another Bible. As a Protestant I must stand on the Bible and the Bible only. I am not to consider her writings an addition to the Bible, presenting new light. I am to use them as a magnifying glass that does not create new truths but makes plainer that which is already revealed. In my own life and thinking I find them of surpassing value. I most highly recommend them to others. (Without Fear or Favor, p. 78)

"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ ... The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Rev. 12:17; 19:10) For one to deny the place of the Spirit of Prophecy, he must deny that portion of Scripture which clearly identifies its existence.

While looking through the June-July issue of Laymen Ministry News, I noticed an example of the above mentioned deception. A study "Overcoming Sin" (p. 28) was written

Page 11

in question and answer form with thirteen questions. The answers to these questions were from the Spirit of Prophecy and the Bible. In answering the thirteen questions, only two of the questions received answers from the Bible. In the same issue was an article - "The Work of the Holy Spirit and Apostasy." (p. 21-27) In this seven-page article there were twenty-four references from the Spirit of Prophecy, one reference from A.T. Jones, and three references from the Bible (two of which were in the quotations.) This seems to be the rule rather than the exception, not only for this publication, but for the great majority of publications that come from the presses of the so called "dissidents."

Again, lest I be misunderstood, let me state that I am not against the use of the Spirit of Prophecy. One only needs to read my articles in the Thought Paper over the last year to see where I stand. Let me also state that we can and must overcome sin. The Spirit of Prophecy references used in this article were statements of truth and good for our study. However, after reading through the study, one is left with the opinion that the Spirit of Prophecy is the guide for the Christian and that the Bible is used to add strength to the Spirit of Prophecy statements.

Some day you and I will be standing before a court of law and asked to give a reason for the hope that is within us. At that time an Ellen G. White quote will not do! While many Adventists can give a Bible study on the Sabbath or the state of the dead, there are few who can give a good study from the Bible alone on Daniel 8:14. There are even fewer Adventists who can show from the Bible alone that the Christian should believe in the separation of church and state. Most Adventists would quickly agree that the church must be separated from the powers that be, but how do they prove it? They site the problems that have occurred in past history when the church and state were united, or they give references from The Great Controversy.

Adventists claim to be a continuation of the Protestant reformation. The motto of the reformation was "sola Scriptura." Yet many of the professed heirs of the reformation have a new motto: "The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy." I know, at this point, I will be dubbed by some as an heir to the apostasy of D. M. Canright. But please let the reader understand, the Testimonies are not in question. The Testimonies are not the problem today. Canright used "sola Scriptura" in order to discredit Mrs. White's writings. The problem is not with Ellen G. White. The problem is the improper use of the gift that God has given to His people. Ellen G. White herself recognized this problem. We need to consider what she said for two reasons. First, there are many who are not informed on this issue. Secondly, the "Neo-Adventist" who would place the Writings above the Bible also need to understand the true nature of what she has written. While many of these statements may be shocking, they are vital to our understanding.

Page 12

Testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy

On the last day of the 1909 General Conference, Ellen G. White went to the platform to speak. "After a few words of good cheer and farewell, she turned to the pulpit on which lay a Bible. Opening it, she held it up with hands that trembled with age. 'Brethren and sisters, I commend unto you this Book.' She closed the Book and walked down from the platform. She had spoken her last word to the assembled delegates of the Seventh -day Adventist Church." (Without Fear or Favor, pages 66, 67)

Today many would teach new doctrines which they claim are supported by the Writings. Not only are doctrines taught, but a whole host of reforms as well. However, if one desires to follow the teachings of the Spirit of Prophecy concerning doctrines and reforms, the Writings are explicit! - "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms.(SOP, Vol. IV, p. 413; Also see The Great Controversy, p. 595.)

During the time that I was a member in one of our churches in West Virginia, the pastor's father-in-law was given opportunities to speak frequently. This sincere man would take a large catalog case full of Spirit of Prophecy books onto the platform and begin to read quote after quote. As a new Christian, I desired to hear the word of God preached from the pulpit. I was hungry for the meat of the Bible.

As good as the references were, they did not meet the need in my life at that time. I must wonder if the Spirit of Prophecy quotes from the publications of today are the meat that the people in the field need? A few years later I was in a church where the minister passed out Spirit of Prophecy books before the worship service to people to read quotes for him at different parts of his message. I often thought of what visitors might have thought who came to hear Bible preaching from "People of the Book." What did Ellen White say concerning this practice? She wrote:

My brethren, God has given you but one standard and that is the Bible. The Bible and the Bible alone is to be your guide. The testimonies should never be preached from our pulpits. They should be read at home and used as stepping stones in the study of the Bible. You have no right to use the testimonies to prove doctrines. Had you studied your Bibles as you should there never would have been any need of the testimonies for it is God's perfect and complete guide to all who would know the way of life. (Proper Use of the Testimonies, pp. 4-5; Quoted in The Greatest Thing in the World, p. 5 - Emphasis supplied)

Christians should be preparing for what is soon to break upon the world as an overwhelming surprise, and this preparation they should make by diligently studying the word of God, and striving to conform their lives to its precepts. The tremendous issues of eternity demand of us something besides an imaginary religion, a religion of words and forms, where truth is

Page 13

kept in the outer court. God calls for a revival and a reformation. The words of the Bible, and the Bible alone, should be heard from the pulpit. (Prophets and Kings, page 626)

At times I have seen individuals carry small file boxes of quotations from the Writings to read to someone who differed in doctrine or lifestyle from them. Please think carefully about what Sister White told a group gathering in the Battle Creek College library April 1, 1901 during the General Conference session. She said: