XXVI - 12(93)
"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)
WHICH BLOOD ARE YOU UNDER?
One of the biggest problems facing hospitals today is an adequate blood supply. Donations drop off during the summer months, around holidays, and sometimes for no reason at all. Blood can be stored only for a limited time. The blood cells remain alive from 35 to 45 days after they are drawn from the donor. Following this time lapse, the blood cells die and have to be destroyed. Old units have to be constantly replaced with fresh units due to this limited "shelf life." When donations slow down, a shortage occurs. It is readily seen that a shortage can be a grave concern for a blood bank.
To fully understand the problem, let us take a short look at an aspect of God's wonderful creation. Not everyone's blood is the same. There are four major blood groups which are called types. The four major types are O, A, B, and AB. The occurrence of these types also varies. About 47% of the population is type A; 45% is type O; 3% is type B; and 0.3% is type AB.
Each of these blood types have similar but very distinctive characteristics. Therefore, it is very important when a patient receives a blood transfusion that he or she receives his or her own blood type. If the patient accidently receives the wrong blood type, that person's body will recognize the blood cells as foreign objects. The body will then respond and use antibodies to attack and destroy the foreign cells. This event can easily be fatal to the patient. Herein lies the problem of keeping a constant blood supply to accommodate everyone's blood type.
There is an interesting observation that helps blood bankers in their struggle to keep up with the demand. It is true (as noted above) that you can't give type A blood to a type B patient or vice-versa, but there is one type of blood that can be infused into all other blood types. This is type O, hence the title "universal donor". To understand this phenomenon, let's briefly look at how God created the red blood cells. All red blood cells start out with the same structure. The surface of the cell is made up of proteins. Embedded in these proteins are chains of sugars. These chains of sugar all have the same roots, with the only exception being the last sugar in the chain. The next to last sugar is always galactose. If the last sugar is only fucose, you have the structure of a type O cell. If on the next to the last sugar (galactose) an N-acetyl-galactosamine is attached and is positioned next to the terminal fucose you have the structure of a type A cell. If attached to the next to the last sugar (galactose) another galactose is attached and lies next to the terminal fucose you have the structure of a type B cell. The type AB cell has both the terminal N-acetyl-galactosamine and terminal galactose structures. (See top of next page for diagram) Looking at this closely, we can see that type O cells contain nothing different from type A or type B cells, and the body does not recognize these cells as foreign. This knowledge gave birth to an idea. A bio-chemist from New York theorized that if he could turn type A or type B blood into type O blood (which can be infused into any blood type) the shortage would be solved. He reasoned that if these sugars are attached to the red cell by enzymes, he could also remove them with the use of enzymes. He found he could make a modified type O cell by using an enzyme found in coffee beans. This enzyme had the effect of clipping off the end galactose from the type B cell, thus making it appear like a type O cell. Then the biochemist decided to test his modified cells to see if they acted like normal red blood cells. It lived as long as a normal cell; it carried oxygen
Page 2
just like a normal red cell; and he was convinced they were just like real type O cells.
After a period of animal testing, the bio-chemist was ready to challenge one of God's most intricate components in His crowning act of creation, the human immune system. He infused his modified type O cells into a type O patient. His modified O cells did not fool the patient's immune system. The patient's immune system recognized these cells as foreign. His counterfeit blood did not meet the need to save a patient.
We are also saved by blood; both literal and spiritual. In Revelation 7:11-14 is pictured the redeemed around the throne of God, arrayed in white robes. John was told by the angel that, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." This group did not settle for a counterfeit blood to save them. They chose to stand up for truth and permitted themselves to be covered with the cleansing blood that Christ shed for all. We cannot save ourselves or have another save us with their blood. But, today we face groups of people that claim just that.
One of the largest religious movements today is the "New Age" movement. They believe that one can achieve perfection on this earth and become a god himself. In other words, you can save yourself by your own blood. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that you can confess your sins to a priest and he can remove your sins; or in other words, someone else can save you with their blood. This holds true also for many Protestant denominations and Independent Ministries. They teach, as did the Pharisees of old, that to be saved you must be numbered amongst their ranks.
Paul noted these people when he wrote "... they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Rom. 10:2-3)
It is easy to sit back and say, "What do I have to do with the New Age
Movement or the Roman Catholic Church? This doesn't apply to me." But wait! John
wrote of another class of people which said, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing..." (Rev. 3:17) This, of course, is referring to the Laodicean period of church history. This is the very period of time in which we are now living. If you believe that you are in need of nothing, you, too, believe that your own blood is sufficient to save you. Looking at the full impact of this thought, you now have also broken the first commandment - "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." In other words, you have placed yourself before God. Once casting aside this commandment, the others will fall in order and you will then have broken all the commandments. John, however, writes about the people of Jesus, "here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:12) And again, "Blessed are they that do His commandments that they may have right to the tree of life." (Rev. 22:14)
If we do not come to the point in our lives where we can admit we are "wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked," and in need of the saving blood that Christ shed for us (Rom. 5:9), we will try to save ourselves with a counterfeit blood, which is in fact trying to establish our own righteousness.
In these last few moments of this world's history, we dare not be caught ignorant of God's righteousness. If we try to establish our own type of righteousness, just as the biochemist tried to establish his own blood and fool the human immune system, we also will fail. Failure in this sense not only means just death, but the second death from which there is no return. We, therefore, have to ask ourselves the question: Which blood am I under? Is it the original blood that Christ shed for me, my blood, or some other modified blood that won't pass the test?
Clifford Haak, MT (ASCP)
Page 3
"AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS POSITION"
After writing the lead article for WWN-10(93), "Progress in Your Belief," my attention was called to an article in Landmarks,
a new publication from Steps to Life. Put together by John Osborne, it attempted
to answer the question - "Who is an Historic Seventh-day Adventist?" The heart
of the article is the editorial found in the first issue of the Signs of the Times, June 4, 1874. Placed there by James White, it was the formulation of the principal doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
In 1959, the Pacific Press published a book, The Living Witness, which contained "Significant Articles from
the SIGNS OF THE TIMES from 1874-1959." The first article was the 1874 editorial. Prefacing the editorial was a statement prepared by the
book's editor, Richard Lewis. Commenting on these fundamentals, he wrote:
"The formulation of principal doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
here presented was constructed earlier than the indicated publication date in
the Signs. Though there is no assurance that James White was the only author, he no doubt had a large part in its composition."
Actually this same Statement of Beliefs, unsigned, had been published in pamphlet form on the Steam Press in Battle Creek in 1872.
In the Landmark article, John Osborne places his personal comments (in italics) at various intervals in the Statement of Beliefs. However, he writes a preface
in which he contradicts the very fundamentals which the pioneers set forth as constituting their beliefs. First note what the beliefs state. Article 3 reads:
"That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of His will to man, and are the
only infallible rule of faith and practice."
Article 16 reads in part:
"That the Spirit of God was promised to manifest itself in the church through certain gifts enumerated especially in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4; that these gifts
are not designed to supersede, or to take the place of, the Bible, which is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, any more than the Bible can take the place of the Holy Spirit;
As early as April 21, 1851 in The Review and Herald published from Paris, Maine, James
White had set forth in clear unmistakable language the relationship of "The Gifts of the Gospel Church" to the Bible. He wrote:
"The gifts of the Spirit should all have their proper places. The Bible is an everlasting rock. It is our faith and practice. In it the man of God is ' thoroughly furnished unto all good works.' If every member of the church of Christ was holy, harmless, and separate from sinners, and searched the Holy Scriptures diligently and with much prayer for duty, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, we think, they would be able to learn their whole duty in 'all good works.' Thus ' the man of God may be perfect.' But as the reverse exists, and ever has existed, God in much mercy has pitied the weakness of His people, and has set the gifts in the gospel church to correct our errors, and to lead us to His Living Word. Paul says that they are for the 'perfecting of the saints,' 'till we all come into the unity of the faith.' The extreme necessity of the church in its imperfect state is God's opportunity to manifest the gifts of the Spirit.
"Every Christian is therefore in duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect
rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit
in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that at the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. The Word should be in front, and the eyes of the church should be placed upon it, as the rule to walk by, and the fountain of wisdom from which to learn duty in 'all good works."' (Vol. I, No.9; Emphasis mine)
Now what did John Osborne state was evidence of an "historic" Seventh-day Adventist? He wrote:
"It should also be said that an Historic Seventh-day Adventist believes Ellen G. White to have been a prophet of God and that her writings have divine authority. Therefore, an Historic Seventh-day Adventist will give precedence to God's last day prophet, to His last day church, over his own opinion. ... Either Ellen White was
Page 4
a prophet of God on the same par as the Biblical prophets or she was no prophet at all. (p. 4; emphasis supplied)
According to our spiritual forefathers, the position of John Osborne is "an extremely dangerous position." It is surely not the position of "historic Adventism." The pioneers of this movement placed the Bible as "the only infallible rule of faith and practice." They declared plainly that "the gifts" which included the ministry of Ellen G. White, though not named, were "not designed to supersede, or to take the place of, the Bible."
From whence has this "extremely dangerous" position arisen? Actually it is "new theology." In 1980, the 27 Statements of Fundamental Beliefs voted at Dallas, Texas, omitted the word, "only" from the statement on "The Holy Scriptures" as "the only infallible revelation of His will." This made way for the statement on "The Gift of Prophecy" to read that the writings of Ellen G. White "are a continuing and authoritative source of truth," along with the Scriptures as "the authoritative revealer of doctrines." John Osborne is not giving you "historic Seventh-day Adventism, but rather presenting one of the tenets of the "new theology." It is a deceptive theology which he sets forth, mingled with the first detailed Statement of Beliefs which our spiritual forefathers formulated. Sadly many a concerned Adventist will accept this deception, and continue to support such a ministry.
In the layout of this article by the staff of Steps to Life was an abbreviated quotation from
Medical Ministry reading - "Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist" - no period, or deletion marks. This kind of an assertion was not the norm for Ellen G. White. The actual and full sentence reads - "Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist, to all intents and purposes." In other words, it is the "intent" and "purpose" that tells whether a person is a Seventh-day Adventist or not, not the name. In all honesty, the official name today stands for those who believe and accept the 27 Fundamentals as voted at Dallas, Texas. Plainly it represents a "new theology" which our spiritual forefathers would never embrace.
We may deny belief in certain teachings of the "new theology," but if we accept and promote another teaching which is also "new theology," what advantage have we? Yes, Christ was a "Seventh-day Adventist" both in intent and purpose, but can an "independent ministry" say they are "historic" Seventh-day Adventists when they take an "extremely dangerous position" to which our spiritual forefathers did not subscribe.
LET'S TALK IT OVER
The article in Landmarks by John Osborne on "Who is an Historic Seventh-day Adventist?" raises again the question about what kind of an Adventist should one be at this period of the world's history. It seems in our zeal without knowledge we are unable to learn lessons from history.
When the Pilgrims were about to set sail from Holland for the New World, their pastor, John Robinson, told them that both "Luther and Calvin were great and shining lights in their times, yet they penetrated not into the whole counsel of God." But the followers of Luther, and the followers of Calvin had "come to a period" in their religious experience. They wanted only "historic" Lutheranism, or "historic" Calvinism depending upon whom they followed. Lest the Pilgrims fall into the same spiritual
state, John Robinson told them, "The Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of His Holy Word."
(Source Book, 1922 edition, p. 528)
In 1738-39, Wesley, "a lightbearer for God" (GC, p. 253), laid the foundation for the Methodist Church, yet one hundred years later, I do not read where Ellen G. White, whose spiritual roots were in Methodism, advocated staying in "historic" Methodism. More truth had broken forth from the Word of God. In 1890 in the wake of the 1888 call to righteousness by
faith, Ellen White could write:
"We must not think, 'Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our faith, and we may rest on this knowledge.' The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light."
(R&H, March 25, 1890)
Now today, over 100 years beyond 1888, we are hearing the cry, "We have all the truth, stay with 'historic' Adventism." In so doing we have put a period to our spiritual growth, and blinded our eyes to "the advancing truth" and "increasing light" God would have shine upon our path. This is pure Laodiceanism. Tragically, all that many "concerned Adventists" have done is to transfer themselves and their support from one Laodicean condition to another equally as
Page 5
dangerous.
Some want to distinguish between "landmarks" and "pillars." But whether you draw up a list of landmarks or pillars, you do not find a single list where "the gifts" are listed as one of them. Seventh-day Adventism was built on the Bible. The "advancing light" of 1888 came from the Bible. True,
as James White wrote: "The gifts of the Spirit should all (including the gift of prophecy) have their proper places." But that place is not a position of equality with the Bible.
Equality of inspiration is one thing; equality of authority and infallibility is another. One of the gifts of the Spirit is evangelism. An evangelist may be inspired as he speaks truth, but this does not give him an authority equal to the Bible, nor make him infallible. A teaching pastor may be equally as inspired as an evangelist, but does this give him the authority to lord it over the flock of God and claim infallibility?
Then how do we relate to the present hour of the utmost confusion caused by "the many voices" with their siren songs. One thing should be crystal clear that "an extremely dangerous position" is not truth. Truth does not put one in such jeopardy. We need basic Adventism - the pillars and/or landmarks. Then we need to square our perceptions of truth with these basics, discarding that which does not square, and enlarging that which does. Such an Adventism is a progressive Adventism. Those adopting such an Adventism will be walking in the light that shines more and more on their pathway as the perfect day approaches. (Prov. 4:18; II Peter 1:19)
There is another aspect to the question of "spiritual gifts." In the 1872
Statement of Beliefs co-authored by James White and which he used as the first
editorial in The Signs of the Times in 1874, White did not single out one gift above another. It was not until 1950 when an addition was made to the 1931 Statement, that Ellen C. White's name is included, and priority is given to "the gift of the Spirit of prophecy" as "one of the identifying marks of the remnant church." In all of the Statements from 1872 through the amended 1931 Statement in 1950, there is included within the statements themselves, two Scriptural references - I Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4. These two references need to be given thoughtful consideration when studying the doctrine of spiritual gifts.
Ephesians 4 gives the list in this order: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. (ver. 11) In I Corinthians 12, the list varies, except for the first two. In the enumeration of these two, priority is suggested: "first apostles, secondarily prophets." (ver. 28) The meaning assigned to the word, "apostles" must be given its broadest concept - the gift of administration. There is not a single "independent ministry" that I know who would accept this order of authority. Apart from this vertical interpretation suggested by Paul, is the horizontal - all the gifts enumerated in Ephesians 4 are of equal authority, since they all come from the same Spirit. This likewise is no more acceptable than the vertical by these ministries. But is the solution, taking what James White termed, "an extremely dangerous position"?
Much more study must be given to this doctrine than has been given, but let us not suggest as "historic" Adventism a position which the
pioneers did not espouse. This is deception. I would suggest that everyone who desires truth obtain for himself a copy of "Statements of Belief - A Comparison" and study the statements from 1872 through 1980, checking these points.
whg
|