In the March 2 1, 1991 issue of the Adventist Review, the editor-in-chief, Dr. William G. Johnsson wrote a most deplorable editorial. Taking off from the negative response received from an equally deplorable editorial written by Roy Adams back in the August 30, 1990 issue of the Review on government aid to subsidize parents with children in Church sponsored schools, Johnsson revealed policies of operation within the functioning of the editorial staff which underscores the drift in Adventism today.

First his defense of Adams: Johnsson wrote that Adams did not advocate direct aid to Adventist schools. This Is true. Adams just advocated the same kind of aid that the Roman Catholic Church advocates In its attempt to breach the wall of separation of church and state. Adams used the very logic that the Roman Catholic bishops use to justify their request for such a government hand-out to help Catholic parents send their children to Catholic schools. Adams went so far as to suggest - "wouldn't it be prudent to make common cause with Catholics on this one issue and press the case together with our political representatives?"

Johnsson continues and asks a series of questions in a very revealing paragraph. He wrote:

However, some people wondered if the editorial carried a hidden agenda. Did the Review staff have a plan to alter the church's longstanding position with regard to church and state? Did the editorial signal a change coming from the administration? Even Christianity Today commented on the editorial implications.

Christianity Today (CT) did indeed comment on the "editorial implications" of what Adams had written. CT's Washington editor, Kim Lawton, used the Review editorial as the lead feature in an article on Church and State - "Disestablishing the 'Establishment Clause'?" Ms. Lawton wrote:

Late this summer, the Adventist Review sent shock waves through the Seventh-day Adventist community by publishing an

Page 2

editorial that advocated a "tax deduction or rebate" for parents who send their children to religious schools. In the editorial "Getting a Piece of Our Own Pie," writer Roy Adams described receiving in the mail on the same day his annual county school assessment and the bill for his children's tuition at the Adventist Academy. "Does it make sense at all to pay large dollars to send my neighbors' kids to school and then turn around and pay yet again to send my own children to church school, with no corresponding assistance from society at large?" he asked.

Adams' proposal was not new in the religious world. But it was startling coming out of the Adventist community, which has traditionally favored a strict separation between church and state and opposed any type of government benefits for religion. An Adventist spokesman said the editorial does not signal wholesale change on the part of the denomination, but conceded it is indicative of growing internal tensions about the role of government and religious education. (Nov. 5, 1990, p. 62)

Now note again the questions asked by Johnsson: "Did the Review staff have a plan to alter the church's longstanding position with regard to church and state? Did the editorial signal a change coming from the administration?" Nowhere in the editorial do we find these questions answered. It would have been clarifying just to have written, "There is no hidden agenda, and the staff had no plans to alter the church's position on separation of church and state, neither does this editorial signal any change in the Church's administration position." But the absence of such an affirmation opens the door to the fact that there is indeed "a hidden agenda." Besides in the CT article "an Adventist spokesman" said it did not "signal" a "wholesale change," which means a change nevertheless of some consequence.

This deplorable editorial is simply an attempt to blunt the "shock waves" of Adams' desire for a piece of "pie" at taxpayer's expense; plus seeking to disassociate the Folkenberg administration from this editorial's thrust. This latter aspect is totally impossible. In the assignments of responsibilities to the General Vice Presidents, such as chairmanships of various boards and the oversight of the different departments of the General Conference, Folkenberg retained for himself the oversight of the Adventist Review. What he does in this instance, or does not do, will be a clear indication of the direction of the leadership in the Church, and can reveal to the rank and file of the laity just what his principles, convictions, or lack of the same, really are.

Add to this picture, the admitted policy of the Review editorial staff, that each sees the other's editorials, prior to publication, and that "not infrequently editorials are modified along the way; occasionally one will be withdrawn and another substituted late, in the process." This states clearly that the editorial in question by Adams was seen and approved by the staff. Could not Johnsson have perceived the reaction which would come to such a blatant editorial. it is doubtful that he is that ignorant. He had to approve the release of such all editorial. He should be removed along with Adams from any further editorial responsibility, it should be done forthwith, and a cleaning up of the entire staff should quickly follow. Is Folkenberg man enough to do it? The issues are clear with no foggy "gray" area.

Johnsson emphasizes to broaden the distance between the editorial staff and the Church's administration, that the present Adventist Review is not the "Official Organ of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" as when it carried such a designation from 1961 through 1967. But such a paper, both the laity and under-clergy of the Church need. They have a right to know that when the editors of the Church's official paper write, they are writing in harmony with, and speaking for, the elected leadership's position on issues which effect the Church. If the editors are not speaking in harmony with the official position of the Church, they should be removed from their responsibilities. Folkenberg now has an opportunity to state clearly by actions where he stands on the separation of church and state in the matter of parochiaid.

To justify "a discreet distance" between the Adventist Review and the leadership of the Church, Johnsson indicates that the editors must be able to exercise "the prophetic note as the Lord impresses them." The Scripture indicates that first come "apostles" [administrators] and then "secondarily prophets." (1 Cor. 12:28) What is Johnsson actually trying to get across - that he and his staff are now the "prophetic voice" in the Church?!! Have the editors of the Adventist Review become the "spirit of prophecy"? But he closes the editorial with the sentence, referring to the editorials written - "They are essentially our own opinions. " Human opinions, as diabolical as Adams' editorial in August 1990, are now given the status of prophetic enlightenment from the Lord! Unbelievable! How far has "Israel" fallen"!

Johnsson seeks further to enhance the standing of the editorial staff by indicating that "the six full time editors have earned a total of three

Page 3

Ph.D. degrees and nine Master's degrees." Two of the Ph.D's are held by himself and Roy Adams. However, it would be enlightening to ask these men to square their doctrinal dissertations with fundamental Adventism. Johnsson's dissertation for his degree from Vanderbilt University was on "Defilement and Purgation In the Book of Hebrews." One searches in vain in this dissertation for any orthodox Adventism in it. Desmond Ford is no further out than Johnsson. Adams' dissertation for his degree from Andrews University was on "The Sanctuary Doctrine." He discusses what he terms the ''Three approaches in the Seventh-day Adventist Church" - Uriah Smith, A. F. Ballenger, and M. L. Andreasen - and concludes with a strong endorsement of Johnsson's dissertation from Vanderbilt. These men Should be asked when was the last time, if any, they wrote on the High Priestly ministry of Jesus Christ as revealed in the types and shadows of the Hebrew sanctuary of the wilderness. When have they discussed the meaning of the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14 in a positive manner?

Also on the editorial staff is a "News Editor" whose responsibility is to select the news the leaders are to be informed about (managed?) relative to events within and without of the Church. The news from without is gathered from various news services. In the same issue as the deplorable editorial by Johnsson one finds a news item on the "World's Most Translated Book." (p. 7) This is good, but with it was included a picture of three Bibles - a picture is worth a thousand words. One of the three was foreign language Bible, and the other two were English versions - the Good News Bible and the Revised English Bible. Either in the selection for the picture, or in the selection of the picture, something went wrong, accidently or otherwise. But with the mentality exhibited in Adams' editorial that we make common cause with the Catholics, it is hard to believe that the picture was an accident.

The Revised English Bible is an ecumenical Bible. It is "a radical revision of The New English Bible." This new version was planned and directed by representatives of not only various Protestant churches, such as the Baptist, Methodist, Society of Friends, Moravian, Salvation Army, Reformed, and Church of England, but also, Roman Catholic Churches of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. It includes the Apocrypha. It is a continuing of the drift toward Rome begun with the publication of the English Revised Version in 1885.

In the Adventist Review, we feature this drift toward Rome. We advocate making common cause with Rome in its objective of breaching the wall of separation of church and state. Now we will be able to see where Folkenberg stands on this drift toward Rome within the Editorial staff of what is really the Church's voice whether admitted or not. Of course we recognize that since 1975, it has no longer been "good Seventh-day Adventism to express...an aversion to Roman Catholicism as such." (See Excerpts Legal Documents, p. 46)

(Written, March 26, 1991)

In the mails this past week, a brother on the West Coast shared with me the March, 1991, issue of News From Jerusalem. It asked the question - "When Will the Temple Be Built in Jerusalem?" It is no longer the question of will the temple be rebuilt, but when. This monthly journal is published by Midnight Call, Inc., of West Columbia, SC. The advertisements of Bible Prophecy Conferences in the journal indicate that it is a ministry orientated to the study of Bible prophecy, but in the setting of the secret rapture theory.

The logic and reasoning used to answer the question asked - "When Will the Temple Be Built In Jerusalem?" - is both interesting and alarming. The answer to the question begins:

First, we must ask, what is the temple? It is Jerusalem's small sanctuary. We must see this clearly: Canaan without Jerusalem is incomplete: Jerusalem without the Temple is unthinkable. Just as a person without an inner sanctuary is not a fulfilled person, so Jerusalem without the Temple is not the fulfilled Jerusalem.

This is the King in the royal city of Jerusalem. But in the same breath he says, "and he shall be a priest upon his throne"...This is the High Priest in the Temple. Thus, we see that the reign of Jesus Christ as King in Jerusalem, which He will soon begin, and his priesthood are

Page 4

inseparable. For this reason Jerusalem and the temple are also inseparable. The city and the Temple will be one. ...

Are there any signs yet that the Temple will be built? Yes! We cannot give any specific date, but the necessity for the building of the Temple is becoming urgent, even for political reason. The building of the Temple will be a political act of great significance, because only in this way will the annexation of Jerusalem become a political reality. (pp. 6, 7)

While the writer connects this whole prophetic schema with the "secret rapture," nevertheless, he is echoing a common concept held by a number within the Adventist community, that Luke 21:24 cannot be fulfilled so long as the Temple mount is under Moslem control. The text reads - "And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles (nations), until the times of the Gentiles (nations) be fulfilled." To hold to the position that not until the temple is rebuilt will this prophecy be fulfilled is to fail to understand the context in which Jesus gave this prophecy that night on the Mount of Olivet.

Jesus had just left the Temple a few hours before. He stated plainly as He was leaving - "Your house is left unto you desolate." (Matt 23:38) No longer did He claim the Temple as either His nor His Father's. Thus as He unfolded for His disciples in answer to their multiple questions, He did not connect the "times of the nations" with the temple, nor with the nation of Israel, but only with the fate of the city itself. He did not consider Jerusalem and the Temple "inseparable." This fact must be kept clearly in mind in the study of Luke 21:24.

That there can be a Temple rebuilt on Mount Moriah is within the realm of possibility, and from the evidence presented in this prophecy journal - News From Israel - it is being not only contemplated but planned for by religious leaders in Israel. But it will not be Luke 21:24 that will be fulfilled by that event, but rather a preparation for the fulfillment of Daniel 11:45. Indeed that person behind the "he" of Daniel 11:45 may come in fulfillment of as many prophecies as possible to show that he is the Christ, the Messiah of Israel, even coming "suddenly to his temple." It is this aspect, the suddenness, that makes the contemplated events so alarming. For when Daniel 11:45 is fulfilled, Michael stands up. (Daniel 12:1) it is not then the close of probation for the "nations" as corporate bodies, as indicated by the fulfillment of Luke 21:24, but the close of probation of the whole human race. The shortness of the time involved is emphasized in Revelation 17. For but only "one hour" do the "ten horns" receive power to reign with the "beast." When the sudden, rapid movements envelope the world, there will be little time to put one's house in order. That is why it is absolutely perilous to ignore the fulfillment of Luke 21:24, applying to it different criteria for fulfillment that Jesus Himself gave. True if we can put it off into some future time, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, we can escape the reality of the now time, and what the now time demands of us. But we do so at our eternal peril.

There has been much speculation in regard to Bible prophecy as a result of the present crisis in the Persian Gulf. (See "Iraqi Fallout," WWN, XXIII-12, Dec 1990) This has led to a counter reaction. On my desk is a recent letter which suggests:

Ellen White has not written that we are to look to the conditions of the Middle East in trying to interpret Daniel, chapter eleven, otherwise we would miss the spiritual application that is more meaningful to us. (March 19, 1991)

While comments on Daniel 11 are almost non existent in the Writings, Ellen white does state - "The prophecy of the eleventh chapter of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment." (9T:14) In fact, she specifically points out, that events in the history of Jerusalem are connected with the final scenes; but rather than directing our attention to Daniel 11, she calls our attention to Luke. Here are her words:

In the twenty-first chapter of Luke, Christ foretold what was to come upon Jerusalem, and with it He connected the scenes which were to take place in the history of this world just prior to the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (CtoW&E, pp. 23-24)

One must face the fact that in this reference, Ellen White singled out Luke alone of the three synoptic gospels which record the eschatological discourse of Jesus. The event in the history of Jerusalem, which is noted by Luke only, concerns the end of probationary time for the "nations" as corporate bodies, in other words, Luke 21:24. Any prophetic guidepost missed or denied leads one to decisions out of harmony with Heaven's agenda for one's life, which usually has eternal consequences.

When brought face to face with fulfilled

Page 5

prophecy not to our liking, we attempt to either discredit it, or give an interpretation to the types and symbols used which mute the force of the prophecy. This means that we seek, to spiritualize away in this case, the meaning of "Jerusalem" and "Israel. " There is no question that of AD 34, Israel as a corporate Church/Nation was no longer considered as the " elect" of God, a chosen nation; and neither was the city of Jerusalem, considered longer as the holy city. There came into existence a new "elect," a new "commonwealth of Israel" (I Peter 1:2, Eph. 2:12-13), and the holy city of God is the "heavenly Jerusalem." (Heb, 12:22)

All of this data does not set aside the fact that Jesus on the Mount of Olives in His outline of the future, made events in the history of the earthly city of Jerusalem, signs for His followers to the final times of human history. In AD 66, Jerusalem had ceased to be the holy city of God, yet when the Roman armies surrounded the city, it was a sign to those who believed His word, to flee the city because its destruction was nigh at hand. The restoration of Jewish control to that same city - which has occurred - also constitutes a sign to those who are willing to see and cease from their Laodicean blindness. It is a sign that the corporate bodies of earth have been weighed in the balances of the sanctuary, and have been found to be wanting. The Judgment passes to the cases of the individuals. If we wait to set our houses in order until the temple is rebuilt, and Lucifer, as Christ, suddenly comes to his temple, we may have waited too long. Now is still the time accepted; now is still the day of salvation.

(March 26, 1991)

Every day we awake, we awaken to a day that has neither been promised nor earned. Once received, we are promised that as our days, so shall our strength be.

In the first article - "A Deplorable Editorial" we noted the pictorial recommendation of the Revised English Bible. From the "jacket," we noted that it was proclaimed as a "radical revision" of the New English Bible. Representatives of a wide group of churches took part in the revision, including the hierarchies of the Roman Catholic church in the British Isles. In the preface of the Bible, the story of the revision is enlarged. The original initiative for the New English Bible came from the Church of Scotland. The Joint Committee formed to carry forward the project was made up of Protestant bodies. After its publication, the composition of the Joint Committee was changed to include the Roman Catholic church. From this new Joint Committee came the Revised English Bible which includes the Apocrypha.

It is in the Apocrypha that the doctrine of Purgatory is taught. First, one must understand the exact teaching of the Roman Catholic church in regard to this doctrine. It reads as defined by the council of Trent - "That there is a purgatory and that souls detained there are benefitted by the prayers of the faithful and especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar [Mass]." Now observe the teaching as found in the Apocrypha. In a battle with the army of Gorias, the Jews under Judas Maccabaeus lost a number of their men. After resting on the Sabbath, Sunday morning they gathered the dead bodies to be sent to their kinsfolk for burial "in their family graves." In the process, they found hidden idols on the bodies of the dead which in their judgment indicated why they had been killed. For this they turned "to prayer" begging "that every trace of this offence might be blotted out." Then a contribution was levied on each man, and sent to Jerusalem "to provide a sin-offering - fit and proper act in which he took due account of the resurrection." "The text continues:

Had he not been expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and senseless to pray for the dead; but since he had in view the splendid reward reserved for those who die a godly death, his purpose was holy and devout. That was why he offered the atoning sacrifice, to free the dead from their sin. (2nd Maccabees 12:44-45 REB)

Page 6

This new version with the Apocrypha is but the culmination of a long history of English revisions to mute the force of the KJV as the bulwark of Protestantism. It was through the Oxford Movement within the Church of England that the Romeward Movement began, and which laid the groundwork for the first revision, the English in 1881-1885. The founder of the Oxford Movement was John H. Newman, author of "Lead Kindly Light" and who later himself went over to Rome becoming Cardinal Newman. He with Herrell Froude in 1833 toured Europe centering their trip in Rome. While there these two Oxford professors put the question as to what was necessary to place the Church of England back into the bosom of the Papacy. The answer came clear and without equivocation - "the Church of England must accept the Counsel of Trent." This beginning was evidenced in the changes made in the English Revised Version (ERV) when compared to the KJV. In the doctrine of the state of man in death, the false concept of which, is basic to the doctrine of Purgatory, can be seen the beginnings of what has now been completed by the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the REB.

Here are some examples:

I Peter 4:6 - KJV - "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead..."

REB - "That was why the gospel was preached even to the dead..."

II Peter 2:9 - KJV - "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished."

REB - "The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials, and to keep the wicked under punishment until the day of judgment."

Further, in the outline given by Paul for the celebration of the COMMUNION Service is seen the change of wording which seeks to establish the basis for the Mass. Note:

I Cor. 11:24 - KJV - "And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me."

REB - "And after giving thanks to God broke it and said: 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in memory of me.' "

Behind this whole doctrinal structure of Rome as it is being introduced into Protestantism is the teaching of salvation by works. This change is noticeable in the translation of Matt. 18:2-3:

KJV - "Verily I say to you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,"

REB - "truly I tell you: unless you turn around and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Here the passive form of the verb in the Greek text for "converted," "turn around," is given the force of the active. Instead of being acted upon - passive - and turned around by the power of God, one turns himself around - converts himself, such is the teaching of Rome. Then is recommended the Bible which so teaches. To us belongeth "confusion of faces, as it is this day." (Dan. 9:7)

Many letters come in the mail. Some make requests for publications; some seek additional information on a given topic covered in a particular issue of WNN, while a few become so bold as to challenge documentation from recognized and credible sources. Yet from time to time letters come from those who have perceived truth and rejoice in the truth perceived. One such letter, I wish to discuss in this editorial because the depth of this person's perception could prove a blessing if many more so perceived. The letter read in part (and the emphasis is theirs):

It has gotten to the point to where you can hardly tell the true from the false and I thank you for your timely articles. Sometimes we can't readily discern the small errors. I so many times assumed that anyone quoting Sister Ellen White was really telling it straight.

Many more concerned Adventists need to recognize that they are making the same "assumption" to their spiritual detriment. If everyone who has been awakened to the fact that things within the Seventh-day Adventist Church are not what they should be nor what they once were, would also recognize that the mere quoting from the Writings by the "many voices" on the periphery of Adventism is being used to cover ulterior objectives, 95% of those "voices" would cease to sound for lack of support.

At the 1901 General Conference session on April 1 - and she wasn't fooling - Ellen G. White told a group of workers assembled in the Battle Creek library-

Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. (Spalding-Magan Collection, p. 174)

Many of these "voices" sounding are novices when it comes to the Bible. Some at times will begin their "message" from a section of the Scripture, and then continue their presentation with nothing but quotes from the Writings. If you should question them closely on what the Word of God meant that they had quoted as an introduction, you would either draw a blank, or an attempted evasion of the question asked.

Ellen G. White clearly understood the purpose of the "gift" given to her. It was a "lesser

Page 7

light" leading to a "greater light." (CM, p. 125) She even gave clear instruction as to how her writings were not to be used. Many wrote to her asking the privilege to use her writings "to give force to certain subjects which they wished to present to the people" so "as to leave a deep impression upon them." This permission she refused to give during her lifetime. Why? "In using the testimonies to bolster up some subject which may impress the mind of the author [or speaker], the extracts may give a different impression than that which they would were they read in their original connection." (Selected Messages, Bk. 1, p. 58)

Today, the unrestrained use of the Writings to given credibility to the "many voices" (R&H, Dec. 13, 1892) sounding on the periphery of Adventism has resulted in nothing but wholesale confusion. Instead of using the Writings as a "lesser light" leading to the "greater light," too many of the "voices" never arrive at the "greater light" themselves, nor do they bring their listeners to that light - the Bible. The Adventism being taught by these "voices" is not a Bible-based historic Adventism, but rather a Writing-based - who knows what? - to which "time and place" is never considered as advised by Ellen G. White herself. (SM, op.cit., p. 57) It might also be emphasized that merely to put down the date when a particular testimony was written is not always observing the principle of "time and place." Internal evidence in the case of some of the Writings determines the "time" factor.

We are encouraged to know that some are awakening to the fact that one cannot assume that the use of the Writings insures, the credibility of the user. May many more also have their eyes anointed so that they, too, shall see.