|
XXI - 05(88)
"Watchman,
what of the night?"
"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
THE
REDEMPTION
IN
CHRIST JESUS
Paul told the Christians in Rome that God by His grace freely justified them "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (ROM 3:24) By faith in God's word, one receives this justification. Is this redemption limited to a particular time, or to a special group of people? Or does God have but one means of redemption for all time? Jesus Christ in whom is this redemption is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8) Peter declared to those who had delivered Jesus to be crucified - "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)
_________________________________________________________
1888 Re-Examined Examined (Part Six)
Page 5
Knight Descends on Jones (Part 4)
(To Be Continued in XXI-6)
_________________________________________________________
Does the Old Testament speak the same language, or did God hold out to those before the Cross a cooperative redemption? They could develop a character through the latent power within them, and He would do what they didn't get done. In other words does the Old Testament teach that man becomes a co-saviour of himself with God?
Then we who are living in the final hours of human history, is there a different plan for our redemption than the one described by Paul? What was there about the message of Justification by Faith as given in 1888 which was different than the gospel proclaimed by Paul? Or was it different? If there is one question or issue of conflict which is paramount over all the other issues surrounding the 1888 experience, it is the above question. This essay will seek to answer
Page 2
this paramount question as we survey "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
The Old Testament Picture
Through Isaiah, God called - "Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of
the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isa. 45:22) It was "in the Lord" that "all the seed of Israel" was "justified." (45:25). Zechariah noted that the provisional services given to Israel in the sacrificial system would meet the reality when to "the house of David" would be opened "a fountain ... for sin and uncleanness." (13:1) Jeremiah stated that the One who would provide this fountain would be called - "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (23:6)
Not only was man not a co-saviour of himself, neither could he develop supposed powers within him because he had been created in the image of God. The depravity of man is well attested to in the Old Testament scriptures. Jeremiah writes - "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (17:9) Isaiah described this desperate condition of man observing that "from the sole of his foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores." (1:6) For those who lived in Old Testament times, there was only one answer "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." This is true for all time - the nature of man - his complete impotency to do good and his need - a Saviour.
The Revelation of the New Testament
The means for our salvation has been provided in the sacrifice on Calvary. But - and this point dare not be disregarded - not only did Jesus in His death provide the means for man's salvation, Calvary reestablished the sovereignty of God over time and eternity. God could bring an end to sin with no questions ever raised again as to His love and justice. In Revelation, a larger view of Calvary is symbolically described in the conflict between Michael and the "dragon." (12:7-9) Calvary completely "routed" the devil, and "in heaven" a voice was heard declaring - "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God,
and the power of His Christ." (12:10) Because Christ conquered, God was enabled to declare unconditionally what would take place in the final resolution of sin.
This is what the book of Revelation is all about - the unveiling of the "things which must shortly come to pass." (1:1) One of those things is the fact that at some point in time, just prior to the pouring out of the wrath of God in the seven last plagues, "the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven [is] opened;" and "no man [is] able to enter into the temple till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." (15:5, 8) The only Man who had been in "the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven" (according to the type) was the sole "mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" in whom there is redemption. (I Tim. 2:5) At some point in time, the mediatorial work of Christ will cease. This "must" come to pass.
Those who will stand in that day and the question is asked - "Who shall be able to stand?" (Rev. 6:17) - will have to not only understand, but also experience a more mature perception of righteousness by faith than any previous generation. This is not saying that it will be a different righteousness than was perceived by previous generations in time; for there is only one righteousness - "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." But the question that must be answered is what does the "only Mediator" obtain for us in "the temple of the tabernacle in heaven" and how can one obtain the results of that mediation so as to be shielded from the wrath of God? This is what must be addressed in the light of the 1888 Message, and so far has been by-passed in all centennial articles and publications on the history and message of 1888. The bottom line is simply a willingness to confront the meaning and significance of the final atonement. But if we deny the final atonement - a teaching based in the Bible we thereby deny the basis for which the Seventh-day Adventist Church was called into existence.
The "everlasting gospel" of Revelation 14 is indeed the "age-long" gospel. It is the same gospel devised by "the counsel of peace" prior to the entrance of sin; the same gospel projected in promise through Old Testament times; the same gospel revealed in Jesus, proclaimed by Paul, and rediscovered in the Reformation; but now in the final scenes of the great controversy has a special application for those who will be ready to meet Jesus face to face at His return. Unless this is clearly perceived and projected above the din and excitement to be generated in the reenactment of 1888 at Minneapolis this Fall, God's professed will be more
Page 3
destitute of the Holy Spirit than they are now. What is the answer?
The official Church is boxed in by its own compromises. When they published,
Questions on Doctrine, it was stated that when Christ "appeared in the presence of God for us" 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) Not only do the leaders of the church still stand behind this book as an authoritative expression of the church's belief, but this has also been incorporated into the official Statement of Beliefs voted at Dallas, Texas, in 1980. The very language borrowed from the Evangelicals which conveys this concept was incorporated into article #23 of the Statement. (For a detailed, documented study see - "A Sacred Trust Betrayed" - a tape and study guide prepared by the Adventist Laymen's Foundation)
Now there is another side to this coin. There are reactionaries on the periphery of Adventism who deny an atonement at the Cross, and seek to set forth the work of the final atonement as a program to be obtained by human works of righteousness which give merit. Thus those redeemed from the last generation would be superior to all other generations because they become co-saviours with Christ in the cleansing from sin. Because the rank and file of both ministry and laity in 1888 did not understand even the rudiments of righteousness by faith it was only a doctrinal theory with them God had to begin at the ABC's of justification by faith. If we had not experienced the redemption in Christ Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, how could we accept the gracious provision of cleansing to be extended in the final atonement?
We have not yet learned that "divine grace is needed at the beginning" of our Christian experience, and "divine grace" is essential "at every step of advance"; and that "divine grace alone
can complete the work." (See TM, p. 508) We can no more cleanse ourselves from
sin, than we can provide the means for our forgiveness
Are there no works? Yes, there is a faith that works! Faith lays hold of the promises of God and the fruitage is seen in a full life of witness and service. It is not a self-development program which works the cleansing of the soul. The victors in the final hour of earth's history overcome the devil "by the blood of the Lamb (the redemption that is in Jesus Christ), and the word of their testimony (objective, not subjective), and they loved not their lives unto death (even the death of the cross)." Rev. 12:11 [See also Gal. 2:20]
WHG
Page 4
CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
Lesson #15
Bond Servants and Freemen
Question
Answer
1. Who is the servant of sin? John 8:34
2. What is the end of those who stay slaves to sin?
Ro. 6: 16
3. When we sin, who is our master? 1 John 3:8
4. Can the carnal (unconverted) mind break the bondage of sin?
Ro. 8: 7, 8
5. Through Whom and what is freedom? John 8:31-36
6. What does God desire for us? Ro. 6: 1, 2
7. Into what has God called us? Gal. 5:13
8. Where is liberty to be found? 2 Cor. 3:17
9. What must happen to the "old man" (self) so that we may cease to serve sin?
Ro. 6: 6
10. When the "old man'' is dead, from what are we freed?
Ro. 6:7
11. How is the "old man" put to death? Ro. 6:13
12. How complete must our yielding (surrender) be?
Ro. 6:19 (See note 1)
13. Where do we find life after death to sin?
Ro. 6:10,11
14. What great promise may we claim when Satan tempts us to re-enter his service? Ps. 116:16
15. What promise do we have that God will continue with us? (See note 2) Phil. 1:6 (See note 2)
NOTES
1. "The whole secret of overcoming, then, lies in first wholly yielding to God, with a sincere desire to do His will; next, in knowing that in our yielding He accepts us as His servants; and then, in retaining that submission to Him, and leaving ourselves in His hands."
(Christ Our Righteousness, E. J. Waggoner, p. 98.)
2. "Do you feel that it is too great a sacrifice to yield all to Christ? Ask yourself the question, 'What has Christ given for me?' The Son of God gave all - life and love and suffering - for our redemption. And can it be that we, the unworthy objects of so great love, will withhold our hearts from Him? Every moment of our lives we have been partakers of the blessings of His grace, and for this very reason we cannot fully realize the depths of ignorance and misery from which we have been saved. Can we look upon Him whom our sins have pierced, and yet be willing to do despite to all His love and Sacrifice? ...
"You cannot change your heart, you cannot of yourself give to God its
affections; but you can choose to serve Him." (Steps to Christ, pp. 45, 47)
Page 5
1888
RE-EXAMINED EXAMINED
EXAMINED
In the Fall of 1954, I accepted the responsibility as Pastor-Evangelist of the Hagerstown District in Maryland. The Wayside Chapel was nearing completion in which the evangelistic meetings were to be held. The first sermon I preached in this new assignment was in the old church by the railroad tracks. That morning, Elder J. S. Washburn sat in the front pew alert, giving close attention to what I said.
Four years previous to this Elder R. J. Wieland interviewed Elder Washburn
who had been in attendance at the 1888 General Conference session. In the
November-December issue of the 1888 Message Newsletter, the official
organ of Elders Wieland and Short, was printed what was purported to be the full
account of that interview. (pp. 6-7) Knowing that this was not a true
representation of the interview - there was more to it than was being printed,
and there were unmarked deletions in that which was being released - I wrote to
the chairperson of the "Editorial Committee" - Mrs. Helen Cate. She replied - "I
printed it as it was given to me by Robert Wieland." (Post card dated March
17,1988) This is the most serious deceptive use of data by Elder R. J. Wieland
yet to come to light when contrasted to what the message of the righteousness of
Christ is to be - "pure, unadulterated truth." (TM, p. 65)
[The delay - December to April - in our response to this report of the interview with Elder Washburn was due to the fact that we had to locate in our files the copy of this interview.]
Not only did Elder Washburn sign the typed copy of the interview, and write in above his signature - "True Report of Interview" but it is also evident that he wrote in corrections with his own hand. The typed account in its original form is six pages in length, single spaced with narrow margins. It covered
much more than the 1888 Conference and the interview which Washburn had with
Ellen G. White at the Ottawa Camp meeting in Kansas. In fact, the Washburn
Interview, as reported in the official organ of Wieland and Short, amounts to
less than two pages of the whole, yet the readers of the Newsletter were led to believe they were given a complete report.
Besides this, another problem presents itself. The interview was taken down
in note form, and while detailed, transitional concepts are not always recorded.
Keeping in mind that 37 years have now elapsed between the interview and its
present partial publication, some of these transitional thoughts cannot be
recalled. This is understandable. Notice an example from the notes covered in
the release as found in the Newsletter. The actual copy signed by Washburn reads:
JHM father to H. A. Morrison of Takoma Park. "Why, that man who talks to US as he does, certainly talks like he knows the Lord!" Washburn thought.
Does the "US" stand for Uriah Smith or is it capitalized for emphasis? In the
notes all the principal people are identified by the initials of their names,
e.g., EGW, ATJ, EJW, etc. Wieland apparently could not recall, so he worked over
the notes as follows in the Newsletter:
J. H. Morrison was the father to Elder H. A. Morrison of Takoma Park [in 1950 H. A. Morrison was prominent there] .
He did not indicate the deletion by proper marks. An indication might have raised questions, but not as serious as an unmarked deletion!
Other deletions occur for no apparent reason as the notes are continuous. For
an example, we shall quote from the Newsletter version and give in bold type the unmarked omission:
Sister White would stand by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner
and would say, "Brethren, there's great light here." She would hear Waggoner all
the way through, but get up and go out before Morrison would finish his
rebuttal. So I asked Morrison, "I know these two men are wrong." "Of course they
are," he said. "They were all in California together, including Sister White, and came on train together, so they influence EGW to go with them."
But when one reads Wieland's edited version, there is no indication of this omission.
The most serious omission is just two words. The paragraph in the Newsletter reads:
Page 6
Ellen White tried desperately to bring in a revival before the close. S. N. Haskell stood loyally with Jones and Waggoner, but three-fourths of the workers stood against the new light.
The interview report read: (dropped words in bold type)
EGW tried desperately to bring in a revival before the close. SNH and OAO stood loyally with ATJ and EJW, but three-fourths of the workers stood against the new light.
Admittedly, there are problems here, but these are not solved by deceptive literary tactics. The context indicates Washburn is referring to the actual 1888 session. Elder
O. A. Olsen, the person indicated by "OAO", was not present although he was elected President of the General Conference at the session. He did not arrive in the States to assume the responsibilities of the office for six months. During the interval, W. C. White acted as President. This unique situation - how could Washburn have forgotten it unless his recall was failing? Or, why did he not strike it out when he reviewed what Wieland had typed and submitted to him? He did change certain words as is evident from his pen corrections. It must also be remembered, Washburn was recalling events 60 years prior to the time of the interview. Now if his memory was this weak on such a unique situation, how much credibility can be given to the section on the 1888 period and its aftermath?
But was Washburn's mind taking in the whole sweep of Olsen's administration?
To make this assumption also creates problems for Wieland and Short. Elder D. K.
Short, in his document, The Mystery of 1888 (pp. 6466), shows that O. A.
Olsen did not in reality back Jones and Waggoner, but rather gave only lip
service. The basis for this conclusion is to be found in letters which Ellen G.
White sent to Olsen. Thus to have included the two word deletion would create
problems for Short's thesis. A simple footnote would have sufficed explaining
that it was to Ellen White the Lord had revealed the lip service of Olsen; but
to Washburn it would have appeared as firm backing of Jones and Waggoner. This
explanation is much to be preferred to literary deception. How can one profess
to proclaim the righteousness of Christ which is "unadulterated truth" and deal
in deception? The two just do not go together! In the 1950 edition of 1888 Reexamined, these "messengers" of the Lord wrote - "Absolutely nothing which does not bear the test of truth will be triumphant in the judgment."
(p. 2) This was omitted from the revised edition in 1987. Was this omission a
forerunner of the looseness with truth exhibited in this supposed full report of
the interview with Washburn as released in the Newsletter? How can
Wieland now deal with the issues raised in the "Special Report" of Ministry when he has stooped to lower literary ethics than even the hierarchy practice?
The Root Problem
In 1958 Wieland and Short wrote to Elder W. R. Beach, then Secretary of the General Conference, as to how they viewed their call from God as it related to the corporate church. They stated:
We do not believe that this matter should be appealed over your heads to the church at large through private publishing. We do not believe in breaking down the lines of church organization. (Letter dated Nov. 18, 1958; emphasis theirs)
Yet in recent years Wieland has done that which in 1958 he wrote he did not believe in.
In 1959 another letter was addressed to W. R. Beach. It read:
We wish to state herewith our desire to leave this matter,
to drop it henceforth and to continue as in the past to refrain from any
agitation whatsoever in the pressing of our view upon the General Conference or
the church. (Dated, Jan. 21, 1959; A Warning and Its Reception, p. 396; emphasis mine)
At the present time, Wieland is not keeping this word to the church's hierarchy.
In the Review & Herald (May 8, 1969), a report appears of a meeting which took place in the early summer of 1967 - a significant date! It reads:
We come now to a period of more recent date having to do with events of the summer of 1967, which we believe will be of interest to our workers and members. At the invitation of the General Conference, R. J. Wieland, one of the authors of the manuscript [1888 Reexamined], spent several days in Washington D. C., conferring with a group of the brethren [Wilson(Chr), Pierson, Lowe, White, Murdoch, Bradley, Froom, Neufeld] who met with him to discuss the manuscript and its use and effect among those who have read it. (D. K. Short, manager of the Sentinel Publishing Association in Cape Town, South Africa, could not attend the meeting.) Those who were present in the group will testify that
Page 7
it was an excellent meeting, and that the spirit of fellowship in the blessed Advent message was present throughout. (p. 6)
Wieland also gives us his version of this meeting in a letter to Short dated, July 12, 1967. The concluding paragraph reads:
To sum it all up, as I see the meeting [June 27-29] in retrospect: the 1951 report said the ms was unworthy of serious consideration because it was "critical"; the 1958 report said it was unworthy of such consideration because it used EGW statements out of context; and the 1967 hearing concludes it is likewise unworthy because its fruitage is evil. When we are not able to say anything effective to clarify misunderstandings, I do not think that last charge is really fair; but I believe the time has come to "let go and let God", and to keep still. The Lord Jesus gave everybody, good and bad, an excellent example - as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth. Whether I am right or wrong, I believe I must from hereon be "dumb".
But this personal commitment has not been honored; Wieland has not
been true to himself. As a result of this self-deception, we see deletions in
the new edition of 1888 Reexamined to sustain a presupposition. Now as noted above, we see a lack of even deletions marks where deletions have been made. Why?
O why will a man who had been called of God as His messenger come to this low estate in dealing with truth? In the answer to this question, we arrive at the root of the problem.
In the Nov. 18, 1958 letter, we find this revealing comment:
We reaffirm our convictions expressed to you numerous times: that the ultimate Revival and Reformation should come to God's people with the good will and support of the General Conference leadership; God Himself respects you brethren. If you do not see things clearly, or if you oppose His purpose, He will patiently wait until He can have your willing and hearty cooperation.
All evidence available indicates that Wieland still holds to this position. Since he does, then in all honesty to maintain the integrity of his word, he should abide by his commitments made to those whom he claims "God Himself respects." No excuse such as "the people made me do it" - the Aaronic excuse - will be acceptable.
Back in 1950, the two messengers wrote:
Time enough has now gone to satisfy anyone's reasonable patience. Even God's patience may soon be at an end. The nauseating effects of our wretched lukewarmness will not, cannot, be tolerated by the Lord Himself forever, (1950 edition, p. 10)
This position is noticeably different from the statement made in the letter written Nov. 18, 1958. To recognize that God's patience has been exhausted would justify the breaking of all commitments to the hierarchy which has led the corporate body into the rejection of truth and light. It would free Wieland's conscience from any sense of guilt resulting from his inconsistent positions. He would not need then to seek to cover with a "fig leaf" garment - deceptive literary editing - important data. However, the continued compromising which this messenger has indulged is now bearing fruit in unethical literary practice.
Instead of continuing to listen to some of the editorial committee who have urged him into his present predicament as did Israel, Aaron, this messenger whom God called needs to seriously and honestly sit down and reassess the past in the light of fulfilled prophecy. He needs our prayers that he may disentangle himself from some of his "miserable counselors" and see the "dog house" in which he perceived himself shut in 1967, as truly "the offence of the cross" - and not continue to reject it! It will take a lot of undoing, and a crucifixion of the nature that made him bow to the person of man in 1950; but God is able if the human heart is willing!
WHG & AS
|