Letters to the Churches by M.L. Andreason

[skyblue888]

LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES

Post # 1

by M.L. Andreason, an emeritus professor at Andrews University in those years...

THE WHITE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Early in the summer of 1957 I had placed in my hands, providentially, I believe, a copy of the minutes of the White Board of Trustees for May of that year. For those who are not familiar with this Board, I may state that it is a small committee appointed to have in trust the large volume of letters, manuscrïpts, and books left by the late Mrs. E.G. White. In counsel with the officers of the denomination, the board decides who is to have access to the material, and to what extent and for what purpose, what is to be published and what is not; and what material is not to be made available at all.

Much of the work of the committee consists in examining and editing those writings and recommending for publication such matter as appears to be of permanent value. This work is of great importance to the church, for only that which is released by the board sees the light of day. During her lifetime Mrs. White herself did much of the work of selecting and editing, and in all cases she had the oversight of what was done. All knew that whatever was published was under her supervision and that it had her approval. The board now has taken over this work.

A CHRISTIAN CHURCH, NOT A SECT!

According to the White minutes, it was on the first day of May, 1957, that two men, members of the committee which had been appointed to write the book that came to be known as Questions on Doctrine, were invited by the board to meet with them to discuss a question that had received some consideration at a meeting the previous January. It concerned statements made by Mrs. White in regard to the atonement now in progress in the sanctuary above. This conception did not agree with the evangelicals. To understand this fully, and its importance, it is necessary to review some history.

The Adventist leaders had for some time been in contact with two ministers of another faith, evangelicals, Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin, respectively editor and an assistant editor of the religious journal Eternity, published in Philadelphia, and had discussed with them various of our doctrines. In these conversations, as in the numerous letters that passed between them, the evangelicals had raised serious objections to some of our beliefs.

The question of greatest importance was whether Adventists could be considered Christians while holding such views as the doctrine of the sanctuary, the 2,300 days, the date 1844, the investigative judgment and Christ's atoning work in the sanctuary in Heaven since 1844. Our men expressed the desire that the Adventist church be reckoned as one of the regular Protestant churches, a Christian church, not a sect.

The two groups spent "hundreds of hours" studying and wrote many hundreds of pages. The evangelicals visited our headquarters in Takoma Park, and our men visited Philadelphia and were guests at Dr. Barnhouse in his comfortable home. From time to time other men were called into consultation on such matters as the Voice of Prophecy and our periodicals, all with a view of ascertaining what stood in the way of our being recognized as a Christian denomination.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

ARRANGEMENTS WORKED OUT!

After long and protracted discussions, the two parties came at last to a working agreement, and though the evangelicals still objected to a number of our doctrines, they were willing to recognize us as Christians. We would need to make some changes in some of our books in regard to the "mark of the beast" and also "regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh." Eternity Magazine, September 1956.

This was brought to the "attention of the General Conference officers, that the situation might be remedied and such publications might be corrected." The corrections were made, and "this action of the Seventh-day Adventists was indicative of similar steps that were taken subsequently." Ibid.

The evangelicals published a report of their conferences with the Adventists in Eternity from which the above quotations are taken. The Adventists published no report. Even at the General Conference session last year (1958), the matter was not discussed. Only a few knew that there had been any conferences with the evangelicals. There were rumors that the Adventists leaders had been in conference with the evangelicals, but that was considered by some only as hearsay. The few who did know kept their counsel. There seemed to be a conspiracy of secrecy.

Till this day (1958) we do not know, and are not supposed to know, who carried on the conferences with the evangelicals. We do not know, and are not supposed to know, who wrote Questions on Doctrine. Diligent inquiry produced no result. We do not know, and are not supposed to know, just what changes were made, and in what books, concerning the mark of the beast and the nature of Christ while in the flesh. We do not know who authorized the omission of the thirteenth chapter of Revelation in our Sabbath school lessons of the second quarter of 1958, which deals with the mark of the beast.

Dr. Barhnouse reports that to "avoid charges brought against them by the evangelicals", the Adventists "worked out arrangements" that concerned the Voice of Prophecy and the Signs of the Times. What was "worked out" we do not know and are not told. Should we not have a detailed report? We, of course, also wonder how it came to pass that ministers of another denomination had any voice or any say whatsoever in how we conduct our work. Have our leaders abdicated? How is it that they consult the evangelicals and keep our own people in the dark?

to be continued

[skyblue888]

WHAT WAS DONE AT THE CONFERENCES?

For a report of this we are confined almost entirely to the published account in Eternity. The subject that took up much of the time at the conferences was that of the sanctuary. Dr. Barnhouse was frank in his estimate of this doctrine. In particular did he object to our teaching on the investigative judgment which he characterized as "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history." Later he called it "the unimportant and almost naive doctrine of the investigative judgment." Eternity, September, 1956.

Dr. Barnhouse, in discussing Hiram Edson's explanation of the disappointment in 1844, says that the assumption that Christ "has a work to perform in the most holy place before coming to this earth... is a human, face-saving idea (which) some uninformed adventists... carried to fantastic, literalistic extremes. Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventists leaders say, flatly, that they repudiated all such extremes. This they said in no uncertain terms. Further, they do not believe, as some of their earlier teachers taught that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary, but instead that He was still carrying on a second ministerial work since 1844. This idea is also totally repudiated." Ibid.

Note these statements: The idea that Christ had a work to perform in the most holy place before coming to this earth... is a human, face-saving idea. Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventist leaders say flatly that they repudiated such extremes. This they said in no uncertain terms.

I think it is due the denomination to have a clear-cut statement from our leaders if Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin told the truth when they heard our leaders say that they repudiated the idea that Christ had a work to do in the second apartment before coming to this earth. This question demands a clear-cut answer.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

THE ATONEMENT

Before reporting further what was done at the conferences, let us come back to the two men who on that first day of May 1957, met with the White Board of Trustees to seek their counsel and, also, to make a suggestion.

The men were well acquainted with the statements made by Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin, that the idea of Christ's ministry in the second apartment in the sanctuary above had been totally repudiated. This had been in print several months at that time, and had not been protested. The men, however, did not need the printed statement, for both of them had had a part in the discussions with the evangelicals.

One of them in particular had taken a prominent part in the conferences, had visited Dr. Barnhouse in his home, had spoken in Dr. Barnhouse's churches at his invitation. He was one of the four men who really carried the load, and the one chosen to accompany Mr. Martin on his tour of the west coast to speak in our churches. He was held in high esteem by Dr. Barnhouse. This feeling was mutual.

About the time when the two men first visited the vault, a series of articles appeared in the Ministry which claimed to be "the Adventist understanding of the atonement, confirmed and illuminated and clarified by the Spirit of Prophecy." In the February issue, 1957, the statement occurs that the "sacrificial act on the cross (is) a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man's sin."

This pronouncement is in harmony with the belief of our leaders, as Dr. Barnhouse quoted them. It is also in harmony with a statement signed by a chief officer in a personal letter:

"You cannot, brother Andreason, take away from us this precious teaching that Jesus made a complete and all-sufficient atoning sacrifice on the cross... This we shall ever hold fast, and continue to proclaim it, even as our dear venerated forefathers in the faith."

It would be interesting if the writer would produce proof of his assertion. The truth is our forefathers believed and proclaimed no such thing. They did not believe that the work on the cross was complete and all-sufficient. They did believe that a ransom was there paid and that this was all-sufficient; but the final atonement awaited Christ's entrance into the most holy in 1844. This the Adventists have always taught and believed, and this is the old and established doctrine which our venerated forefathers believed and proclaimed.

They could not teach that the atonement on the cross was final, complete and all-sufficient, and yet believe that another atonement also final, occurred in 1844. Such would be absurd and meaningless. Paying the penalty for our sin was, indeed, a vital and necessary part of God's plan for our salvation, but it was by no means all. It was, as it were, placing in the bank of Heaven a sum sufficient and in every way adequate for any contingency, and which could be drawn on by and for each individual as needed. This payment was "the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb, without blemish and without spot." 1 Peter 1;19.

In His death on the cross Jesus "paid it all"; but the precious treasure becomes efficacious for us only as Christ draws upon it for us, and this must await the coming into the world of each individual; hence, the atonement must continue as long as people are born."

to be continued

Note: Christ's death upon the cross was the "condition" for the atonement:

"Christ's sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled. The work for which He had come to this world had been accomplished.. He had won the Kingdom. He had wrested it from Satan and had become heir of all things." E.G.White, Acts of the Apostles, p.29.

After His resurrection, He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions:

"The intercession of Christ in our behalf is that of presenting His divine merits in the offering of Himself to the Father as our Substitute and Surety, for He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." E.G. White, Signs of the Times, July 4, 1892.

On the 22nd of October 1844, He moved from the holy to the most holy apartment to begin the final atonement!

to be continued

[fccool]

Quote:

It would be interesting if the writer would produce proof of his assertion. The truth is our forefathers believed and proclaimed no such thing. They did not believe that the work on the cross was complete and all-sufficient.

The misunderstanding stems from understanding the idea of atonement. At-One-Ment, is typically should be translated reconciliation. Getting back to "normal", or back to the source.

There are two parties. God and people. If people transgress, and thus separated, then reconciliation would need either effort from God to bring people back, or effort from men to do the same, or both.

What our forefathers believed on the topic is irrelevant, if it indeed a skewed and perverted theology.

I think it's fairly clear that God does not require blood of animals, or people for reconciliation. He desires willingness repentance, understanding and obedience. (Isaiah 1:11)

What was the work of Christ on earth? The current Adventist theology makes Him out to be purely the "atonement lamb" in terms of the need for re-payment of debt to the father. The father "needs" that blood to forgive, but wait! We just demonstrated that He does not! He's not about rituals, but about love, understanding, and obedience (in terms of doing what's good for us).

Why did Christ come? I think in order to answer that, we have to see how he came:

1) He could be born to any family. To any influential, educated, well-respected family. Yet, he was born to very poor, shaky and "unknown" family. He was not educated by the top teachers, was not political, he was by all means "ordinary".

2) He then goes on to teaching people about God, by breaking down formed preconceptions about what God was about. Not about blind obedience, but about love, which is the fulfillment of the law.

3) He tells his followers that in order to properly love people, one must put himself beneath them. He washes their feet as a demonstration.

4) He then does not resist or defends himself, and becomes a criminal on a cross, dies, and is resurrected and leaves.

Generally, evangelicals and Adventists focus on #4 as the purpose of Christ's death. It was to "pay the debt of death" that people collectively owe to God. So, this idea of "ransom payment" is formed, due to misunderstanding the NT language to describe the act.

You see, the Ransom idea does not quite fit in if we begin taking it literally. Who holds us hostage? Is it sin? Is it Father? Is it Satan? Who is the ransom paid to? To sin? To Father? To Satan?

I'm going to suggest you a perspective that was long lost on us through layers of legalistic doctrine, and all of the technicalities of various rituals. It's a fairly simple perspective, but it makes sense, and it's the only Biblical perspective that's consistent with nature of God.

We as humanity are screwed up not for the reason that we don't follow the law. Not following the law is a result of our our screwed up understanding, not the cause. We are screwed up, not because we are lawless, but because we are LOVELESS. Now, I can give you a whole lecture on proper perspective of Godly love, but I'll just say that law is a result of love... not the other way around.

So, the only way for God to help the people who have no love to love again is to love them visibly. Now, when you love someone, you get below them. You offer yourself as a sacrifice, so to speak. You get to their level. You don't build yourself up in their eyes, and make them feel worthless.

So, how did God love us? All of us know John 3:16, but there's more to it. He did not merely sent his Son (which is extensions of himself). He came in a form of a poor, homeless, carpenter that could talk without any awkwardness to the least of us. The criminals, addicts, poor, destitute, prostitutes, and etc. He did not force and expect these people to rise up to His level. He got himself below this people to lift them up. He got below them by himself being homeless, dirty, "uneducated", simple, and even criminal that died on the cross. That's how low he was willing to go.

You can't understand all of this, but through perspective of love that gets under you and lifts you up. Dogma is math that needs to be correct. Love is a principle that seeks to fulfill the needs of other. That's how God loves. He continually cares and gives care to those who ignore Him. He gives people what they need.

And that's why he gave us what we needed the most. A perfect sacrifice. He literally sacrificed Himself (his nature, his dignity, his grandeur, his awesomeness), by dying a criminal's death of the cross. Now, God can't die. I think it's common sense. Yet, the meaning of death in this case is death to self. When you love, you die to self. That day, God dies to self, literally, physically and symbolically. Not in terms that he was "selfish" before, but because we could not relate to him in all of his awesomeness. We could not understand what true love was in terms of self-sacrifice. Now we can visibly see it.

True love is a God sacrificing himself to become a man, forever, in order that He can relate (the root of term relationship) to us.

Now, with this in mind, take any OT or NT verse about atonement in the NT, and it falls into place.

—Proverbs 21:3To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

—Hosea 6: 6For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Micah 6: 6Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? 7Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

—Isaiah 1:11To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? 13Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. 15And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. 16Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. 18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

How are we justified in the above? By changing our mentality and turning to doing good as our desires change. Notice, "let us reason together".

Romans 3: For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The concept is the same. God forgives not because someone died, but because person changes his/her mentality. Just like the prodigal son is forgiven by the father upon coming back. The father did not kill his other son so that the first one can be forgiven. He just forgave freely. The sacrifice is father's pride, because forgiveness requires us to get below the person we forgiving... swallow our pride, and forgive them.

That's the nature of forgiveness, and that's the nature of true and selfless sacrifice.

There's no need for complicated dates. The drawings of what each compartment in temple represents, and guesswork of what Christ might be doing now in Heaven. It's secondary to what was done on Earth. It was complete in a sense that it should be enough for us.

People who need more than that should be reminded of certain spiritual leaders that Christ chastised. They needed more, and they simply bound people up in obligatory dogma and rituals that took focus away from what was of much larger importance.

[skyblue888]

THE MERITS OF CHRIST: INEXHAUSTIBLE FUND

Hear this:

"There is an inexhaustible fund of perfect obedience accruing from His obedience. How is it, that such an infinite treasure is not appropriated? In Heaven, the merits of Christ, His self-denial, and self-sacrifice, are treasured up as incense, to be offered up with the prayers of His people." General Conference Bulletin, Vol.3:101,102, Fourth Quarter, 1899.

Note the phrases: "inexhaustible fund", "merits of Christ". This fund was deposited at the cross, but not "used up" there. It is "treasured up" and offered up with the prayers of God's people. And especially since 1844 is this fund drawn on heavily as God's people advance to holiness; but it is not exhausted, there is sufficient and to spare.

When we pray, in this year of 1959, Christ intercedes for us and mingles with our prayers "the merits of His own life of obedience. Our prayers are made fragrant by this incense. Christ has pledged Himself to intercede in our behalf and the Father hears His Son." Ibid.

* "Jesus has turned the merits of His sacrifice into prayer. Jesus prays, and by prayer succeeds." E.G. White, Bible Commentary, Vol.7, p.914.

Contrast this with the statement in Questions on Doctrine, page 381:

"Jesus appeared in the presence of God for us... But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross."

Note the picture: Christ appears in the presence of God for us. He pleads, but He gets nothing. For 1800 years He pleads, and gets nothing. Does He not know that He already has it? Will no one inform Him that it is useless to plead? He Himself has "no hope" of getting anything now or at any future time. And yet He pleads, and keeps on pleading. What a sight for the angels! And this is represented to be Adventist teaching! This is the book that has the approval of Adventist leaders and is sent out to the world to show what we believe. May God forgive us. How can we stand before the world and convince any one that we believe in a Savior who is mighty to save, when we present Him as pleading in vain before the Father?

But thank God, this is not Adventist doctrine. Hear this from Mrs. White, as quoted above:

"Christ has pledged Himself to intercede in our behalf, and the Father always hears His Son."

* "The intercession of Christ in our behalf is that of presenting His divine merits in the offering of Himself to the Father as our Substitute and Surety, for He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." Signs of the Times, July 4, 1892.

This is Christianity, and the other is not.

Shall we remain silent under such conditions?

to be continued

* supplied by the poster

[skyblue888]

THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST

It may interest the reader to know how the new theology regarding the human nature of Christ came to be accepted by the leaders, and how it came to be included in QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE, and thus receive official standing.

The question of the nature of Christ while in the flesh is one of the foundation pillars of Christianity. On this doctrine hangs the destiny of man. The apostle John makes it a deciding factor by saying, "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." "And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." 1 John 4:2,3.

In what kind of flesh did Jesus come to this earth? "Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation." Desire of Ages, p.117. "Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." Rom.1:3.

Only as Christ placed Himself on the level of the humanity He had come to save, could He demonstrate to men how to overcome their infirmities and passions. If the men with whom He associated had understood that He was exempt from the passions with which they had to battle, His influence would immediately have been destroyed and He would be reckoned a deceiver. His pronouncement, "I have overcome the world," (John 16:33), would be accepted as a dishonest boast; for without passions He had nothing to overcome. His promise that "to him that overcomes will I grant to sit down with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father on His throne," (Revelation 3:21), would be met by the claim that if God would exempt men from passions, they also could do what Christ had done.

That God exempted Christ from the passions that corrupt men, is the acme of all heresy. It is destruction of all true religion and completely nullifies the plan of redemption, and makes God a deceiver and Christ His accomplice. Great responsibility rests upon those who teach such false doctrine to the destruction of souls.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

A GOD-DISHONORING DOCTRINE

The truth of course, is that God "spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us," (Romans 8:32); rather because His nature was sensitive to the least slight or disrespect or contempt, His tests were harder and His temptations stronger than any we have to endure. He resisted "even unto blood". No, God did not spare or exempt Him. In His agony He "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared." Hebrews 5:7. "Though He were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which He suffered." Verse 8.

In view of all this, we repeat the question, How did this God-dishonoring doctrine find its way into our denomination? Was it the result of close and prayerful study by competent men over a series of years, and were the final conclusions submitted to the denomination in public representative meetings, advertised beforehand in the Review giving the details of what changes were contemplated, as the denomination has voted as the proper procedure? None of these things were done. An anonymous book appeared and men were judged and the brakes tightened on any one who objected.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Letters to the Churches

THE STORY

Here is the story of how this new doctrine found its way into the denomination as reported by Dr.Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor of the religious journal, Eternity, in the September, 1956, issue of his magazine, later issued as a copyrighted article entitled, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?"

With permission we quote from this article. We may inject that Dr. Barnhouse advises us that the entire content of the article was submitted to the Adventist brethren for approval before publication. The fact that this report has been in print for nearly three years (1959) and no correction or protest has been forthcoming from our leaders would strongly argue that they accept the truthfulness of the account.

Dr. Barnhouse reports that "a little less than two years ago it was decided that Mr. Martin should undertake research in connection with Seventh-day Adventism." Mr. Walter R. Martin was at that time a candidate for degree of Doctor of Philosophy in New York University and also connected with the editorial staff of Eternity. Wishing to get firsthand and reliable information, Mr. Martin went to Washington to the Adventist headquarters where he got in touch with some of the leaders. "The response was immediate and enthusiastic."

to be continued

[skyblue888]

TANTAMOUNT TO AN ABDICATION

Mr. Martin "immediately perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had been previously attributed to them." Chief among these were the question of the mark of the beast, and the nature of Christ in the flesh.

Mr. Martin pointed out to them that in their bookstore adjoining the building in which these meetings were taking place, a certain volume published by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of the General Conference officers, that the situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected.

This concerned particularly the doctrine of the mark of the beast and the fundamental doctrines of the Adventist church held from near its beginning. When the leaders discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, they suggested to the officers that the situation be "remedied and such publications be corrected."

This was done. We are not informed which publications were so "remedied and corrected", nor if the authors were notified before the changes were made; nor if the duly appointed house committee was consulted; nor if the book editors or the publishing house were agreeable to the changes.

We do know, however, that in the Sabbath school lessons for the second quarter of 1958, which dealt with the book of Revelation, chapter by chapter, the thirteenth chapter which discusses the mark of the beast was entirely omitted. Chapter 12 was there, so was chapter 14, but there was no chapter 13. The Sabbath school lessons had evidently been "remedied and corrected."

It is certainly anomalous when a minister of another denomination has enough influence with our leaders to have them correct our theology, effect a change in the teaching of the denomination on a most vital doctrine of the church, and even invade the Sabbath schools of the world and withhold from them the important lessons of Revelation 13. For our leaders to accept this is tantamount to an abdication of their leadership.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

THE GREATEST UNTRUTH EVER

But this is not all. Dr. Barnhouse reports that the same procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ in the flesh, the subject with which we have been here dealing. Our leaders assured Mr. Martin that "the majority of the denomination has always held (the nature of Christ while in the flesh) to be sinless, holy, and perfect, despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the church at large."

If our leaders told Mr. Martin this, they told the greatest untruth ever. For the denomination has never held any other view than that expressed by Mrs. White in the quotations used in this article. We challenge our leaders or anybody, to produce proof of their assertion. How grossly untrue is the statement that certain writers got into print with views "completely repugnant to the church at large."

Mrs. White was one of those writers who "got into print".

Hear also what our standard book, Bible Readings for the Home Circle, sold to the public by the millions, has to say on the subject. I have before me two copies, one printed by the Pacific Press in 1916, the other by the Southern Publishing house in 1944. They both read alike. Here is the accepted teaching by the denomination:

"In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like unto His brethren', was not ' in all points tempted like as we are ', did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Savior man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed.

On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits--a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way every one who is born of the Spirit may gain the victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. (Revelation 3:21). Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. John 3:3-7." page 21.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

THE LUNATIC FRINGE

In explanation of how these writers "got into print" with their views, our leaders told Mr. Martin that "they had among their number certain members of their 'lunatic fringe ', even as there are similar ' wild-eyed irresponsibles' in every field of fundamental Christianity."

I think this is going too far. Mrs. White did not belong to the "lunatic fringe" who got into print, nor did the authors of Bible Readings. Our leaders should make a most humble apology to the denomination for such a slur upon their members. It is almost unbelievable that they should have made such statements. But the accusation has been in print nearly three years, and there has been no protest of any kind. I am humiliated that such accusations should have been made, and even more so that our leaders are completely callous in their attitude toward them.

That the reader may see for himself the original report of Dr. Barnhouse, I herewith reproduce portions of the reprint, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" This is not the report in full, but only that part which relates to the question here discussed. Later I shall present other extracts.

"A little less than two years ago it was decided that Mr. Martin should undertake research in connection with Seventh-day Adventism. We got into touch with the Adventists saying that we wished to treat them fairly and would appreciate the opportunity of interviewing some of their leaders. The response was immediate and enthusiastic....

to be continued

[skyblue888]

THE MAJORITY GROUP OF SANE LEADERSHIP

"Mr. Martin went to Takoma Park, Washington, D.C., the headquarters of the Seventh-day Adventist movement. At first the two groups looked upon each other with great suspicion. Mr. Martin had read a vast quantity of Adventist literature and presented them with a series of approximately forty questions concerning their theological position. On a second visit he was presented with scores of pages of detailed theological answers to his questions. Immediately it was perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which have been attributed to them."

"Mr. Martin's book on Seventh-day Adventism will appear in print within a few months. It will carry a foreword by responsible leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church to the effect that they have not been misquoted in the volume and that the areas of agreement and disagreement as set forth by Mr. Martin are accurate from their point of references as well as from our evangelical point of view. All of Mr. Martin's references to a new Adventist volume on their doctrines will be from the page proof of their book, which will appear in print simultaneously with his work. Henceforth any fair criticism of the Adventist movement must refer to these simultaneous publications.

"The position of the Adventists seem to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination.

"To avoid charges that have been brought against them by evangelicals, Adventists have already worked out arrangements that the Voice of Prophecy radio program and the Signs of the Times, their largest paper, be identified as representations of the Seventh-day Adventist church."

to be continued

[skyblue888]

CERTAIN SALIENT FACTS

I wish to emphasize certain salient facts:

1. Questions on Doctrine, page 383, states that Christ was exempt. The Spirit of Prophecy makes clear that Christ was not exempt, from the temptations and passions that affect men. Whoever accepts the new theology must reject the Testimonies. There is no other choice.

2. Mr. Martin was instrumental in having our teaching on the mark of the beast and the nature of Christ in the flesh changed. Similar changes were made in other books, but we are not informed what those changes are.

3. Our leaders have promised not to proselytize. This effectively will stop our work for the world. And we have promised to report to Mr. Martin those who transgress.

4. We have been threatened to have the brakes applied to such as fail to believe and follow the leaders. Such are characterized as "wild-eyed irresponsibles" and are said to constitute the "lunatic fringe."

5. We are appalled to learn that in some way these evangelical clergymen have had enough influence with our leaders to cause the Voice of Prophecy and the Signs of the Times to trim their sails to "avoid charges that have been brought against them by evangelicals". This is terrifying news. These organs are instruments of God, and it is unbelievable that the leaders should permit any outside influence to affect them. In this a great sin against the denomination has been committed that can be blotted out only by deep repentance of the guilty parties, or in lieu of this, that the men concerned quietly resign from holy office.

Our members are largely unaware of the conditions existing, and every effort is being made to keep them in ignorance. Orders have been issued to keep everything secret, and it will be noted that even at the late General Conference session (1958) no report was given of our leaders' trafficking with the evangelicals and making alliances with them. Our officials are playing with fire, and the resulting conflagration will fulfill the prediction that the coming Omega of apostasy "will be of a most startling nature." Selected Messages, Vol.1, p.197.

Seven times I have asked for a hearing, and I have been promised one, but only on the condition that I meet privately with certain men, and that no record be given me of the proceedings. I have asked for a public hearing, or if it is to be a private one, that a tape recording be made, and that I be given a copy. This has been denied me. As I cannot have such a hearing, I am writing these messages which contain, and will contain, what I would have said at such a hearing. Can the reader surmise the reason why the officers do not want the hearing I ask?

I am a Seventh-day Adventist, and I love this message that I have preached for so long. I grieve deeply as I see the foundation pillars being destroyed, the blessed truths that have made us what we are, abandoned.

I am thankful to be in good health and wish that the blessing of the Lord may be with each reader. We have come to strenuous times, and it behooves each to keep close to God in these perilous times. The Lord be with you.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

THE MAY FIRST MEETING

I doubt that the Adventist leaders were fully aware of the many references in Mrs. White's works to the atonement now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary since 1844. If they were, how would they have dared to take the position they did in regard to the sanctuary question? This idea finds support in the apparent surprise of the two men who visited the vault and stated that in their research they had "become acutely aware of the E.G. White statements which indicate that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary." Minutes, May 1, 1957, page 1483.

Why did they become acutely aware? The discovery seemed to surprise them. In using the plural, they admit of more than one reference. I do not know how many they found. I have found seventeen, and there are doubtless others. And why did they use the word "indicate"? Mrs. White does more than indicate. She makes definite pronouncements. Here are some of them:

"At the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, to perform the closing work of atonement, preparatory to His coming." Great Controversy, 422.

"Christ had only completed one part of His work as our Intercessor, to enter upon another portion of the work, and He still pleaded the merits of His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners." Ibid, 429.

"At the opening of the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844, Christ entered there to perform the closing work of the atonement." Ibid, 433.

These statements are definite. It was at the end of the 2300 days in 1844, that Christ entered the most holy "to perform the closing work of the atonement." He had only completed one part of His work as our Intercessor, in the first apartment. Now He enters upon another portion of the work. He pleads the merits of His blood before the Father. He is continually standing at the altar. This is necessary because of he continual commission of sin. Jesus presents the oblation for every offense and every shortcoming of the sinner. This argues a continuing, present atonement. "He ever lives to make intercession for them." Hebrews 7:25.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

ATTEMPTED TAMPERING

It is presumed that when the two men stated that they had "become acutely aware of the E.G. White statements which indicate that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary," they had read the quotations cited above and perhaps others. Would they change their former erroneous opinions and harmonize with the plain words of the Spirit of Prophecy? No, on the contrary, they "suggested to the trustees that some footnotes or Appendix notes might appear in certain of the E.G. White books clarifying very largely in the words of Ellen G. White our understanding of the various phases of the atoning work of Christ." Minutes, page 1483.

Ponder this amazing statement. They admit that Mrs. White says that "the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary," and then they propose that insertions be made in some of Mrs. White's books that will give our understanding of the atonement! They were, however, only acting in harmony with the official statement in Questions on Doctrine that when one reads "in the writings of E.G. White--that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application", etc., pages 354,355.

If Sister White were now living and should read this, she would most certainly deal with presumptuous writers and in words that could be understood. She would not concede the right of anyone, whoever he might be, to change what she has written or interpret it so as to vitiate its clear meaning. The claim which Questions on Doctrine makes that she means what she does not say, effectively destroys the force of all she has ever written. If we have to consult an inspired interpreter from Washington before knowing what she means, we might better discard the Testimonies altogether. May God save His people.

Early in this century when the fate of the denomination hung in the balance, Sister White wrote: "Satan has laid his plans to undermine our faith in the history of the cause and work of God. I am deeply in earnest as I write this; Satan is working with men in prominent positions to sweep away the foundation of our faith. Shall we allow this to be done, brethren?" Review and Herald, Nov.12, 1903.

Answering the question, she says: "My message to you is: No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth. I have been instructed to warn our people; for many are in danger of receiving theories and sophistries that undermine the foundation pillars of the faith." Letters to Physicians and Ministers, Series B, No.2, p.15.

"For the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us, to becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word--especially concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary... But the waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified, through His Word and the Testimonies of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority." Ibid, 59.

"Do you wonder that when I see the beginning of a work that would remove the pillars of our faith, I have something to say? I must obey the command, 'Meet it.'" Ibid, 58.

to be continued

[BobRyan]

Seems like a lot of smoke and fury with very little substance.

I think we can all agree that QoD presents a two-phase atonement with the first phase completed at the cross - and the second phase now going on in the Most Holy Place - and specific to the work of Christ as our High Priest that started in 1844. Pretty hard to ignore that.

In the posts of this thread to this point - we see many references to Christ's current work of Atonement in heaven. But what some seem to fail to remember is that Elle White speaks of Christ's finished atoning sacrifice completed at the cross -

Here it is in "Our High Calling" by Ellen White

Quote:

All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life. The Lord declares, by the prophet Isaiah: "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Isaiah 43:25. Said Jesus: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels." "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." Revelation 3:5; Matthew 10:32, 33. {GC 483.2}

I want to lift up my voice for Jesus and say, Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Go forth from the cave by faith. Look to Jesus, your helper. Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Look to your atoning Sacrifice lifted up upon the cross, the Innocent dying for the guilty. . . . {OHC 136.3}

His offering of Himself was full and ample. Nothing was wanting. It was indeed a whole and ample atonement that was made. Then why . . . indicate by words and example that Christ has died for you in vain? After the exhibitions of love that was without a parallel, you say by your words of doubt and mournful discouragement, "He does not love me. He will not forgive me. My sins are of too hard a character to be cured by the blood of Jesus. The offering is not of sufficient value to pay the debt I owe for the rescue of my soul." {OHC 136.4}

David was pardoned of his transgression because he humbled his heart before God in repentance and contrition of soul, and believed that God's promise to forgive would be fulfilled. He confessed his sin, repented, and was reconverted. In the rapture of the assurance of forgiveness, he exclaimed, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." Ps. 32:1, 2. The blessing comes because of pardon; pardon comes through faith that the sin, confessed and repented of, is borne by the great Sin Bearer. Thus from Christ cometh all our blessings. His death is an atoning sacrifice for our sins. He is the great Medium through whom we receive the mercy and favor of God. {OHC 83.5}

All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life. The Lord declares, by the prophet Isaiah: "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Isaiah 43:25. Said Jesus: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels." "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." Revelation 3:5; Matthew 10:32, 33. {GC 483.2}

Satan invents unnumbered schemes to occupy our minds, that they may not dwell upon the very work with which we ought to be best acquainted. The archdeceiver hates the great truths that bring to view an atoning sacrifice and an all-powerful mediator. He knows that with him everything depends on his diverting minds from Jesus and His truth. {GC 488.1}

In that last quote we have "Atoning Sacrifice" at the cross - and we have a present "all-powerful Mediator" in the Most Holy Place.

It is not one or the other - it is BOTH AND.

in Christ,

Bob

[skyblue888]

THE MINUTES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

After this situation came to my knowledge, I did a great deal of praying. What was my responsibility in this matter, or did I have any? I confided in no one. I decided my first responsibility would be to the officials in Washington, so I wrote to headquarters. I was there informed that I had no right to the information I had. That was supposed to be secret, and I had no right even to read the documents.

After four letters were passed. I was told that they did not care to discuss the matter further. The matter was settled. When I inquired if this meant that the door was closed, I received this reply: "I have considered the matter to which you have referred as closed." As to the scurrilous and untrue article in the Ministry, "I have discussed this with the brethren concerned and would like to leave the matter there." So the door was closed.

Here are some of the official pronouncements:

"The minutes are confidential and not intended for public use." If wrong is committed, is it forbidden to expose it merely because some want to keep it confidential?

"You are doing this upon hearsay and upon confidential minutes which you had no right even to read." No one ever talked to me of this or informed me. I read the minutes and acted upon them. The minutes are not hearsay. They are officially documented and signed.

"... you have no right even to read."

When I have evidence that to me seems destructive of the faith, am I to close my eyes to what I consider premeditated attempts to mislead the people by the insertions of notes, explanations, and appendix notes in the books of Mrs. White? Is this officially approved?

"I wish to repeat what I wrote before, that men have a perfect right to go to boards, including the White Estate group, and make their suggestions without fear of being disciplined or dealt with as heretics."

"To suggest that good and faithful Seventh -day Adventist men sat down to tamper with the pillars of our faith is as far from fact as the poles are apart... tampering with the Testimonies, when so such thing ever took place, nor was there any attempt ever made to do this."

I leave to the reader's decision just why the men went to the committee: did they not come to have insertions, notes, Appendix notes, explanations made in "some of the E.G. White books?"

While the committee eventually decided not to do this, the guilt of the men is not changed by that fact. To assert that as for "tampering with the Testimonies when no such thing ever took place nor was there any attempt ever made to do this," the Minutes speak for themselves.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Seems like a lot of smoke and fury with very little substance.

I think we can all agree that QoD presents a two-phase atonement with the first phase completed at the cross - and the second phase now going on in the Most Holy Place - and specific to the work of Christ as our High Priest that started in 1844. Pretty hard to ignore that.

In the posts of this thread to this point - we see many references to Christ's current work of Atonement in heaven. But what some seem to fail to remember is that Elle White speaks of Christ's finished atoning sacrifice completed at the cross -

Here it is in "Our High Calling" by Ellen White

Quote:

All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life. The Lord declares, by the prophet Isaiah: "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Isaiah 43:25. Said Jesus: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels." "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." Revelation 3:5; Matthew 10:32, 33. {GC 483.2}

I want to lift up my voice for Jesus and say, Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Go forth from the cave by faith. Look to Jesus, your helper. Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Look to your atoning Sacrifice lifted up upon the cross, the Innocent dying for the guilty. . . . {OHC 136.3}

His offering of Himself was full and ample. Nothing was wanting. It was indeed a whole and ample atonement that was made. Then why . . . indicate by words and example that Christ has died for you in vain? After the exhibitions of love that was without a parallel, you say by your words of doubt and mournful discouragement, "He does not love me. He will not forgive me. My sins are of too hard a character to be cured by the blood of Jesus. The offering is not of sufficient value to pay the debt I owe for the rescue of my soul." {OHC 136.4}

David was pardoned of his transgression because he humbled his heart before God in repentance and contrition of soul, and believed that God's promise to forgive would be fulfilled. He confessed his sin, repented, and was reconverted. In the rapture of the assurance of forgiveness, he exclaimed, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." Ps. 32:1, 2. The blessing comes because of pardon; pardon comes through faith that the sin, confessed and repented of, is borne by the great Sin Bearer. Thus from Christ cometh all our blessings. His death is an atoning sacrifice for our sins. He is the great Medium through whom we receive the mercy and favor of God. {OHC 83.5}

All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life. The Lord declares, by the prophet Isaiah: "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Isaiah 43:25. Said Jesus: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels." "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." Revelation 3:5; Matthew 10:32, 33. {GC 483.2}

Satan invents unnumbered schemes to occupy our minds, that they may not dwell upon the very work with which we ought to be best acquainted. The archdeceiver hates the great truths that bring to view an atoning sacrifice and an all-powerful mediator. He knows that with him everything depends on his diverting minds from Jesus and His truth. {GC 488.1}

In that last quote we have "Atoning Sacrifice" at the cross - and we have a present "all-powerful Mediator" in the Most Holy Place.

It is not one or the other - it is BOTH AND.

in Christ,

Bob

It is spoken of as the "atoning sacrifice" in the sense that at the cross the condition for the atonement had been fulfilled. "Christ's sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for trhe atonement had been fulfilled. The work for which He had come to this world had been accomplished. He had won the Kingdom. He had wrested it from Satan and had become heir of all things. He was on His way to the throne of God, to be honored by the heavenly host."

The atonement began at His ascension:

"The intercession of Christ in our behalf is that of presenting His divine merits in the offering of Himself to the Father as our substitute and surety; for He ascended up on high to make atonement for our transgression." F.W.105.

If the atonement was made on the cross why would there be a need to make atonement for our transgressions in the first apartment of the sanctuary above and for the need of a final atonement in the second apartment?

sky

[skyblue888]

Andreason continues:

I found in a small pamphlet entitled, "A Word to the Little Flock," published by James White in Brunswick, Maine, May 30, 1847, a statement by Sister White on the sanctuary that immediately drew my attention. It is dated April 21, 1847, and written from Topsham, Maine. On page 12, I found these words, which I suppose our Ministry author also found. Says Sister White:

"I believe the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, etc., and that it was His will, that Brother Crozier should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint. I pray that these lines may prove a blessing to you, and all the dear children who may read them." Signed E.G. White.

I lost no time to get a copy of that Extra and read it. As I write this I have before me a photostatic copy of the Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, and on pages 40 and 41 of that issue I read Brother Crosier's article. After having discussed certain theories in which he does not believe, Brother Crozier observes:

"But again, they say that the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly.

6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us.

This, then is the "true light", which the Lord showed Sister White in vision, had His approval, and which she felt fully authorized to recommend to every saint. Only as we downgrade Sister White can we reject this testimony of hers. We are not ready to do this.

We now face this situation. Did our Ministry author in his thorough search find this statement that Brother Crozier had "the true light"? If he did not find it, he has little ground to feel pleased with his work. In either case, if I were a teacher and had sent him to do this research work and he presented the collection in Questions on Doctrine as his report, I would have to give him a straight F, which in school language stands for Failure. It is either a case of poor research, or of omission, which latter, under the circumstances, is most serious.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

A SERIOUS SITUATION

This vault episode brings into focus a serious situation. It is not merely a matter of two men attempting to have insertions made in some of Mrs. White's books. A much more serious thing is that this act had the approval of the administration, who stated that the men had a "perfect right" to do what they did. This pronouncement opens the way for others to follow, and as the matter is kept secret, great abuse could readily result. Undoubtedly, if the matter is left to a vote of the people, there will be no permission for any to tamper, or attempt to tamper, with the writings of Ellen G. White.

The men who visited the vault May 1, as related, stated clearly that they had discovered that Mrs. White taught plainly "that the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary." On the other hand, the Ministry of February, 1957, stated the very opposite. It said that the "sacrificial act on the cross is a complete, perfect, and final atonement for men's sins."

Questions on Doctrine attempts to reconcile these opposing views by stating that whether one "hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature--even in the writings of Ellen G. White--that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application", etc. Pages 354,355.

It is clear that if the atonement on the cross was final, there cannot be a later atonement also final. When we therefore for a hundred years have preached that the great day of atonement (final atonement) began in 1844, we were wrong. It ended 1800 years before.

The hundreds of books we have published; the more than a million copies of Bible Readings we have sold; the millions of hand bills we have distributed saying that it is "court week in Heaven", were all false doctrine, the Bible instruction we have given the children and the young ministry and which they have imbibed as Bible truth, is a fable. Uriah Smith, Loughborough, Andrews, Watson, Jones, Daniells, Branson, Johnson, Lacey, Haskell, Gilbert, and a host of others stand convicted of having taught false doctrine; and the whole denomination whose chief contribution to Christianity is the sanctuary doctrine and Christ's ministry, must now confess that we were all wrong, and that we have no message to the world for these last days.

In other words, we were a deceived and deceiving people. The fact that we may have been honest does not alter the fact that we have given a false message. Take away from us the sanctuary question, the investigative judgment, the message of the 2300 days, Christ's work in the most holy, and we have no right to exist as a denominated people, as God's messengers to a doomed world. If the Spirit of Prophecy has led us astray these many years, let us throw it away.

But no! Halt! God has not led us astray. We have not told cunningly devised fables. We have a message that will stand the test and confound the undermining theories that are finding their way in among us. It is not the people that have gone astray except as they have followed the leaders. It is time that there be a turn-about.

It is now more than four years ago that the apostasy began to be plainly evident. Since that time there has been a deliberate attempt to weaken the faith in the Spirit of Prophecy, as it is clear that as long as the people revere the gift given us, they cannot be led far astray. Of this we shall speak shortly.

The time for action has come. The time to open up the dark corners has arrived. There must no longer be any secret agreements, no compact with other denominations who hate the law and the Sabbath, who ridicule our most holy faith. We must no longer hobnob with enemies of the truth, no more promise that we will not proselytize. We must not tolerate leadership which condone tamperings with the writings entrusted to us, and stigmatizes as belonging to the lunatic fringe those who dare disagree with them. We must no longer remain silent. To thy tents, O Israel!

to be continued

[BobRyan]

Seems like a lot of smoke and fury with very little substance.

I think we can all agree that QoD presents a two-phase atonement with the first phase completed at the cross - and the second phase now going on in the Most Holy Place - and specific to the work of Christ as our High Priest that started in 1844. Pretty hard to ignore that.

In the posts of this thread to this point - we see many references to Christ's current work of Atonement in heaven. But what some seem to fail to remember is that Elle White speaks of Christ's finished atoning sacrifice completed at the cross -

Here it is in "Our High Calling" by Ellen White

Quote:

All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life. The Lord declares, by the prophet Isaiah: "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Isaiah 43:25. Said Jesus: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels." "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." Revelation 3:5; Matthew 10:32, 33. {GC 483.2}

I want to lift up my voice for Jesus and say, Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Go forth from the cave by faith. Look to Jesus, your helper. Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Look to your atoning Sacrifice lifted up upon the cross, the Innocent dying for the guilty. . . . {OHC 136.3}

His offering of Himself was full and ample. Nothing was wanting. It was indeed a whole and ample atonement that was made. Then why . . . indicate by words and example that Christ has died for you in vain? After the exhibitions of love that was without a parallel, you say by your words of doubt and mournful discouragement, "He does not love me. He will not forgive me. My sins are of too hard a character to be cured by the blood of Jesus. The offering is not of sufficient value to pay the debt I owe for the rescue of my soul." {OHC 136.4}

David was pardoned of his transgression because he humbled his heart before God in repentance and contrition of soul, and believed that God's promise to forgive would be fulfilled. He confessed his sin, repented, and was reconverted. In the rapture of the assurance of forgiveness, he exclaimed, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." Ps. 32:1, 2. The blessing comes because of pardon; pardon comes through faith that the sin, confessed and repented of, is borne by the great Sin Bearer. Thus from Christ cometh all our blessings. His death is an atoning sacrifice for our sins. He is the great Medium through whom we receive the mercy and favor of God. {OHC 83.5}

All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life. The Lord declares, by the prophet Isaiah: "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Isaiah 43:25. Said Jesus: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels." "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." Revelation 3:5; Matthew 10:32, 33. {GC 483.2}

Satan invents unnumbered schemes to occupy our minds, that they may not dwell upon the very work with which we ought to be best acquainted. The archdeceiver hates the great truths that bring to view an atoning sacrifice and an all-powerful mediator. He knows that with him everything depends on his diverting minds from Jesus and His truth. {GC 488.1}

In that last quote we have "Atoning Sacrifice" at the cross - and we have a present "all-powerful Mediator" in the Most Holy Place.

It is not one or the other - it is BOTH AND.

[skyblue888]

Bob, are you ignoring what Mrs. White said about Crozier's view of the atonement?

[skyblue888]

RECKONED AMONG THE ESTABLISHED CHURCHES

I have been uneasy since I first heard that our leaders were negotiating with the Evangelicals but had hoped that the blandishment of our church's being reckoned among the established churches as being one of them would not appeal to our men. We had heard too many sermons on the text,"The people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations,(denominations)" to be deceived. (Numbers 23:9.)

As the negotiations were considered top secret it was some time before any definite news leaked out. When it did, it was disturbing. Washington furnished little news, and all others informed me they had nothing to say. It seemed apparent, however, our leaders were being influenced and steps were being taken that would be hard to retrace.

The first authentic news did not come from our leaders or through our journals but from an Evangelical publication dated September, 1956, which issued a special edition with an account of what had taken place. This account was so unbelievable that we hesitated to give it credence. We were sure that what it reported had never taken place and that our leaders would promptly issue a denial. We waited a year, we waited two. But until this date, no protest or denial has been issued. Reluctantly, we must, therefore, accept the account as true. Let us consider the situation as it has developed.

to be continued

[BobRyan]

Bob, are you ignoring what Mrs. White said about Crozier's view of the atonement?

hopefully not. More specifically however - I am not ignoring what Ellen White herself said about the atonement.

What I stated in my prior post is that Andreason issued a lot of sound and furry about Martin being an evangelical - but QoD never came around to Martin's view on the Atonement. Martin himself details in long explanation in his book "Kingdom of the Cults" all the reasons why he does not like our sanctuary doctrine.

The problem of "speaking past each other" was solved however with QoD. Instead of evangelicals "inventing things" for SDAs to believe, based on one person's extreme statements - they were forced to rely on sanctioned denominationally published material. So they still ended up not liking SDA doctrine - but they could not go off on some wild tangent about Christ's atoning sacrifice still being made in heaven as if Christ was in heaven dying for our sins "some more".

Andreason was wrong on the nature of Christ and QoD came out squarely against his views in that regard. He then drags in the "evangelical card" as a way to draw followers. That was a mistake because it had no substance in the area of Atonement.

Andreason only had two points that could actually be proven from the book QoD.

1. The authors were dialoging with Evangelicals.

2. The authors differed with Andreason on the subject of the sinless nature of Christ.

Andreason was right on the subject of needing to live without sinning after the close of probation. When George Knight endeavors to throw Andreason "under the bus" for the problem with the sinless nature of Christ and QoD -- he also "Throws out the baby with the bath water". And that too is unfortunate. Some have excused George Knight by saying that he is not a theologian, and but I think more study into the point would have served him better.

in Christ,

Bob