Letters to the Churches by M.L. Andreason

[John317]

LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES

Post # 1

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

...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.

First, notice that Andreason doesn't mention the Trinity. This is good evidence that Andreason didn't object to the clear position taken by QOD on the Trinity.

Secondly, I think it was a huge mistake for our SDA leaders at that time to be concerned with whether we were reckoned by Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin to be one of the regular Protestant churches. That concern gave those two men power over us that they should never have had. The truth is what really matters-- not whether we are considered a sect or Christian. What God thinks of us is the only thing that matters-- not what people call us. And if God approves of us, it doesn't matter what other people think of us. If we had the truth, we shouldn't have made any effort to change it so that churches in Babylon would like us or approve of us. That was wrong and is still wrong-- that is, it is the wrong motive for making any substanative changes in our beliefs and teachings.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

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.

Just tuning in but you are exacto mundo on this important point,Bob. The continuig furor on QOD is a direct result of ML's personal private interpretations. I grow just as weary of hearing so many sincere SDA's attribute every failure of the today's church to that which they have never actually investigated, as I do of evangelicals (Proclamation)continuing to misrepresent what Adventists really teach. It's guilt by association, the good Samaritan in reverse. The overwhelming majority of those (SDA) spiritual leaders of that time were proud of the representation that the group of theologians that met with Martin presented. HMS, F.D.Nichol, (and my grandfather)among them.You are doing an important service to expose the myths (lies)that surround those meetings.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES

Post # 1

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

...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.

First, notice that Andreason doesn't mention the Trinity. This is good evidence that Andreason didn't object to the clear position taken by QOD on the Trinity.

Secondly, I think it was a huge mistake for our SDA leaders at that time to be concerned with whether we were reckoned by Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin to be one of the regular Protestant churches. That concern gave those two men power over us that they should never have had. The truth is what really matters-- not whether we are considered a sect or Christian. What God thinks of us is the only thing that matters-- not what people call us. And if God approves of us, it doesn't matter what other people think of us. If we had the truth, we shouldn't have made any effort to change it so that churches in Babylon would like us or approve of us. That was wrong and is still wrong-- that is, it is the wrong motive for making any substanative changes in our beliefs and teachings.

Are you familar with the entirety of the story,John? It was Walter Martin who originally contacted the SDA church in order to properly represent their teachings in his soon to be Kingdom of the Cults. He notes his suprise at many of the myths that he had previously believed about Adventism.Our status went from cult to Christian, something we had been proclaiming since our existence. Our leaders did not instigate a quest for Evangelical legitimacy.It was the clarity of our Biblical teachings that Martin based his verdict on while rejecting many of the same truths.

[skyblue888]

doug, the first contacts with Barnhouse were made a few years before the SDA/Evangelical meetings of the 1950s and they were initiated by a conference president. You did not know that?

[skyblue888]

A CHANGE OF EMPHASIS

Of late years there has been a change of emphasis in the Ministry and not for the better. This change coincides with the period in which our leaders have been in close contact and rapport with the Evangelicals. The trend was in evidence before, but now has blossomed. As an example of this, I shall call attention to an article in the February, 1957, issue entitled, "The Priestly Application of the Atoning Act."

It is claimed that it "is the Adventist understanding of the atonement, confirmed and illustrated and clarified by the Spirit of Prophecy." As it has not been renounced or protested, we may justly conclude that it is officially approved.

The author gives a short tribute to the "magnifying glass", the Spirit of Prophecy, then goes on to state that the atonement "... is not, on the one hand, limited just to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. On the other hand, neither is it confined to the ministry of our heavenly High Priest in the sanctuary above, on the anti typical day of atonement, or hour of God's judgment, as some of our forefathers first erroneously thought and wrote." Ministry, February, 1957, page 9.

The author stresses the fact that the Spirit of Prophecy clearly teaches that both these aspects are included, "one aspect being incomplete without the other, and each being the indispensable complement of the other". Ibid.

That is, both the death on the cross and Christ's ministry in the second apartment are necessary to atonement. With this, we are in full agreement. The death was a necessary part of the atonement. The one is incomplete without the other.

This point should be noted, for a few sentences further on, the author will say that the death on the cross is complete in itself; to quote: "The sacrificial act of the cross is a complete, perfect and final atonement for man's sin." Page 10.

After having first said that the sacrificial death was incomplete, he now says it is complete, perfect, and final. He does not consider the death merely as a partial atonement, but a complete and perfect and final one. With this we disagree. The two statements are irreconcilable.

This is more than merely an unfortunate wording. While in the next paragraph the author gives lip service to the need of a ministration in the sanctuary above, he leaves out every essential feature of the atonement and omits the dates which are essential to the Adventist concept of a final atonement, which justifies our existence as a people with the message for the world at this time.

In his explanation of Christ's work in the sanctuary, he does not refer to or mention Daniel 8:14: "Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Without this text, Christ's work in the sanctuary becomes meaningless. He does not mention 457 B.C. or the 70 weeks, or the middle of the week which pinpoints the time of the sacrifice on the cross, and is "... as a nail in a sure place," (Isaiah 22:23) to which we fasten the whole chronological scheme in prophecy and which also justifies the date, 1844.

Remove or change these dates, and Adventists are without an anchor for the chronological system climaxing in 1844, and are unable to justify their existence as a people who are to proclaim this most important message to the world for this time: "Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come." Revelation 14:7. Every one of these dates the author leaves out, and what remains, in the words of Dr. Barnhouse, "is flat, stale, and unprofitable." Eternity Extra, September 1956, page 4.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

A COMPREHENSIVE ASSEMBLAGE!!!

In Questions on Doctrine, beginning at page 661, there is a section C consisting of collections from the writings of Mrs. White on the subject of atonement, thirty pages in all. It claims to be a "comprehensive assemblage" of Mrs. White's teachings on the atonement.

From the use of the word, "comprehensive", I expected to find a full and extensive collection. But in consulting this material, I was disappointed in its paucity and one-sidedness. I found it to be a very incomplete and meager collection, leaving out numerous quotations that rightly belong even in a small compilation, not to say a comprehensive one.

And strangely enough, quotations that were omitted were such as must on no account be left out.

First of all, I wanted to know what Mrs. White had to say of the date, 1844, which is the "crisis year". I wanted to know if it had anything particularly to do with the atonement, or if it could safely be left out.

I found that the one author had omitted it. So I looked in turn for other quotations, not one of which I found in the assemblage. I looked for the statement: "At the termination of the 2300 days in 1844... our great High Priest enters the holy of holies, and there appears in the presence of God, to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man,--to perform the work of the investigative judgment, and to make atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits." This is said to be the "great day of final atonement." Great Controversy, 480.

I searched for this important statement in the comprehensive assemblage, but it was not there. I looked for the parallel statement: "... 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." Ibid, 422. I did not find it.

I looked for this statement: "This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn work--to cleanse the sanctuary" I could not find it.

I looked for the statement: "The end of the 2300 days in 1844 marked an important crisis." Ibid, 429. I did not find it.

I looked for other statements, such as: "The sacred work of Christ that is going on at the present time in the heavenly sanctuary," "... the atoning work of Christ is now in progress in the heavenly sanctuary," "Today He is making atonement for us before the Father." Testimonies, Vol.5, p.520; White Board Minutes, page 1483; Manuscrïpts 21, 1895. I found none of these.

At first I thought that this book, Questions on Doctrine, did not have room for these texts, nor did the Ministry. But I had to abandon this reasoning when I observed that it was only a particular kind of statement that was omitted.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

CAN THIS BE A MERE COINCIDENCE?

The omitted quotations all clustered about the important "crisis" date, 1844, the investigative judgment, Christ's entering into the most holy for the final atonement; His making atonement now; His making atonement "today before the Father".

These are the statements that Dr. Barnhouse ridiculed and which he said our leaders had "totally repudiated." He had also ridiculed Hiram Edson's experience in the cornfield and had called the investigative judgment not only a "peculiar" but a "human, face-saving idea", in fact "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon, in religious history". Eternity Extra, September 1956, pages 3,4.

And now we found all these offending statements left out of the "comprehensive assemblage."

Can this be a mere coincidence?

We wonder what effect the ridicule of the Evangelicals had upon our leaders and upon the author of the article in the Ministry, which we are discussing. One thing that kept our men from going overboard, body and soul, to the Evangelicals, was, doubtless, Mrs. White's writings. She is very emphatic on the question of the sanctuary, and it would not be easy to convert our people to the new view, as long as they had the Testimonies to sustain them in the old position.

The faith of our people in the Spirit of Prophecy must be weakened, or better yet, destroyed, before much headway can be made in bringing in the new view. The Ministry article serves well for this purpose.

It was the editor, himself, who in his research 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". White Minutes, page 1483.

This did not at all fit in with the new view that the atonement was made on the cross, and so he suggested that "footnotes or Appendix notes might appear in certain of E.G. White's books clarifying very largely in the words of Ellen G. White our understanding of the various phases of the atoning work of Christ." Ibid. And he suggested haste in the "preparation and inclusion of such notes in future printings of the E.G. White books".

When the plan became known, it was abandoned.

The author of the article in the February, 1957, Ministry then took over and had the article printed which we are considering.

to be continued

[Guest]

Do go on....

[doug yowell]

doug, the first contacts with Barnhouse were made a few years before the SDA/Evangelical meetings of the 1950s and they were initiated by a conference president. You did not know that?

I don't remember the name of the conference prez. or if he was, in fact,a conference president. I do remember that after hearing a radio sermon on the Law given by Donald Barnhouse, an SDA pastor wrote him a letter expressing his support of the content of that message. This in turn confused Barnhouse who had always thought that SDA's were a wacko cult and did not believe in God's Word as opposed to a woman prophet. If I remember correctly, Martin being one of Barnhouse's young protege's, at Barnhouse's request,contacted GC headquarters requesting further information about SDA's. I'm not even positive whether or not Barnhouse even attended any of the subsequent meetings.

Is all your info coming from ML's edition of the story or are you including Walter Martin's version as well? It's been awhile since I've gone thru the accounts by the different parties. Since MLA wasn't in attendence I'd double check his accuracy. But I vaguely remember Martin rehearsing his involvment in the introduction to his controversial treatment of SDA's in Kingdom of the Cults. Martin took a good size hit from mainstream Christianity when he labeled SDA's a non-cult.

The question, as Bob pointed out,continues to center around the nature of Christ and it's effect on the atonement. If one accepts Andreason's view as historically accurate one would naturally sympathize with his criticism of those other leaders who disagreed with his dissention.

[BobRyan]

A COMPREHENSIVE ASSEMBLAGE!!!

In Questions on Doctrine, beginning at page 661, there is a section C consisting of collections from the writings of Mrs. White on the subject of atonement, thirty pages in all. It claims to be a "comprehensive assemblage" of Mrs. White's teachings on the atonement.

From the use of the word, "comprehensive", I expected to find a full and extensive collection. But in consulting this material, I was disappointed in its paucity and one-sidedness. I found it to be a very incomplete and meager collection, leaving out numerous quotations that rightly belong even in a small compilation, not to say a comprehensive one.

And strangely enough, quotations that were omitted were such as must on no account be left out.

[skyblue888]

Well, Bob, on this one, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. It is clear to me that you have failed to discern what really happened during these 18 secret meetings that took place between 1955 and 1957.

You are belittling M.L. Andreason's work and brushing it aside as of no consequence to your own detriment.

In the type, no atonement took place when the victim was slain. It was not until the blood was sprinkled by the priest that atonement was made.

There was no atonement made until Christ entered the holy of the sanctuary in heaven and began to plead before the Father the merits of His shed blood in our behalf. Only as He does this while on the earth the repentant believer appropriates His merits to himself by claiming them can there be any atonement for sin to bring pardon and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Crozier's article teaches this and the Lord showed Mrs. White that this was the true light. Period.

The leaders were very subtle with the evangelicals. They did not give a clear sound of trumpet to them. This was an opportunity to teach them the sanctuary truth. Instead they confused the issue by giving them the impression that they too believed and taught that the atonement was made on the cross and that it was complete.

It is obvious that u have failed to see that and you need to take a closer look.

sky

[skyblue888]

NOT IN A SINGLE CASE

by M.L. Andreason

The author asks this question, "Why, in the early days, in the light of all this, did not Mrs. White point out and correct the limited or sometimes erroneous concept of some of our early writers concerning the atonement? And why did she employ some of their restricted phrases without contrasting, at the time, her own larger, truer meaning when using them?" Ministry, February, 1957, page 11.

This was the dilemma. Some of our early writers had erroneous concepts about the atonement, the author claims. Sister White did not correct them, but even used some of their own restricted phrases. How could this be explained? The answer, which the author gives, is the most astonishing and astounding answer that has ever been given to such a question. Hear this:

"In answer: it is essential that we first of all remember this basic fact: No doctrinal truth or prophetic interpretation ever came to this people initially through the Spirit of Prophecy--not in a single case."

Read those words again. And have in mind that this is an article which claims to give the true meaning of the atonement, the official interpretation; that it has the approval of the administration and that the editor passed it. Also, it has not been retracted or changed. It stands.

These are bold words, almost unbelievable words, and utterly untrue words. To assert that Sister White never, not even in a single case, initially contributed any doctrinal truth or prophetic interpretation will not be believed by her thousands and millions of readers who all have been benefited by her words. For myself, I have been largely helped and instructed by her doctrinal teachings and prophetic interpretation.

Even the author himself, who on page 11 of the February, 1957, Ministry, says, "We are fundamentally Protestants, taking the Bible only as our sole rule of faith and practice", in a signed letter the next month asserts, "I take the total Spirit of Prophecy teachings on a given subject to be the authoritative Seventh-day Adventist teaching."

It does not strengthen faith to have a writer say publicly, "The Bible and the Bible only" and privately deny it. One statement is evidently made to the world for them to believe; the other to our people to quiet their fears. Some explanation is due.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

IT CAME DIRECTLY FROM GOD

by M.L. Andreason

The reader will have noted that the author does not say that Sister White never contributed any doctrinal truth or prophetic interpretation. He says that she never contributed anything initially, that is, she never made any original contribution. She got it from somebody else, she "lifted" it.

Our enemies have made that assertion for years, but I never thought that such would be announced to the whole world with the consent of our leaders. But here it is.

Whatever Sister White wrote, be it the counsel of the Father and Son in eternity, or Satan's inmost rebellious thoughts, "somebody told her." She never contributed a thing, initially. Never in a single case! Let me produce a single case. The following is taken from Special Testimonies, Series B, No.2, pages 56,57:

"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, brother Pierce, Elder Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the word. Again and again the brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, 'We can do nothing more', the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me."

In this case there was no human intermediary. Unless we are to believe that Sister White did not tell the truth, she got her instructions from above. In this case the instruction concerned "Christ, His mission, and His priesthood", the very subjects we have now under consideration. Whatever we may be, or not be, sure of, we know now that the instruction that came to Sister White on the subject of Christ, His mission and His priesthood came direct from God.

This means that the sanctuary question as our forefathers taught and believed it had God for its Author. It came as a result of a vision, which I do not believe can be said of any other doctrine we hold.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

doug, the first contacts with Barnhouse were made a few years before the SDA/Evangelical meetings of the 1950s and they were initiated by a conference president. You did not know that?

sky

_________________

I don't remember the name of the conference prez. or if he was, in fact,a conference president. I do remember that after hearing a radio sermon on the Law given by Donald Barnhouse, an SDA pastor wrote him a letter expressing his support of the content of that message. This in turn confused Barnhouse who had always thought that SDA's were a wacko cult and did not believe in God's Word as opposed to a woman prophet. If I remember correctly, Martin being one of Barnhouse's young protege's, at Barnhouse's request,contacted GC headquarters requesting further information about SDA's. I'm not even positive whether or not Barnhouse even attended any of the subsequent meetings.

Is all your info coming from ML's edition of the story or are you including Walter Martin's version as well? It's been awhile since I've gone thru the accounts by the different parties. Since MLA wasn't in attendence I'd double check his accuracy. But I vaguely remember Martin rehearsing his involvment in the introduction to his controversial treatment of SDA's in Kingdom of the Cults. Martin took a good size hit from mainstream Christianity when he labeled SDA's a non-cult.

The question, as Bob pointed out,continues to center around the nature of Christ and it's effect on the atonement. If one accepts Andreason's view as historically accurate one would naturally sympathize with his criticism of those other leaders who disagreed with his dissention.

Doug

__________________

That's right, that's what happened. And I am sure it was a president of one of the conferences in the US but I can't remember his name right now and I can't find the book that has this info.

sky

[John317]

Have you heard of or read Herbert Douglass' excellent book, Fork In the Road? Elder Douglass was there and was close friends of all three men, especially of Anderson and Froom. He recently wrote a book in which gives details of the meetings and a lot of insights about what happened and why.

It's a must read for anyone who is interested in the meetings between the SDA representatives and Barnhouse and Martin, and the fall-out from the book QOD.

The Ellen White material alone at the end of the book makes it well worth the price.

[skyblue888]

John, there was a time when I used to read all of brother Douglas' books but I am not sure if I read that one. What year was this one published? Sounds like an interesting book to read and I am sure he is right on as he is right on on the nature of Christ in His humanity. Where can I get this book?

sky

[skyblue888]

A CRISIS

by M.L.Andreason

We have reached a crisis in this denomination when leaders are attempting to enforce false doctrines and threaten those who object. The whole program is unbelievable. Men are now attempting to remove the foundations of many generations, and think they can succeed.

If we did not have the Spirit of Prophecy we could not know of the departure from sound doctrine which is now threatening us, and the coming of the Omega which will decimate our ranks and cause grievous wounds. The present situation has been clearly outlined. We are nearing the climax.

I am well aware that oftentimes visions were given to confirm previous study. I am well aware that for some time Sister White's mind was "locked", as she expressed it, and that hence visions were given, as in the instance here considered. She herself says that "for two or three years my mind continued to be locked to an understanding of the scriptures."

During that time the Lord gave visions. Then an experience came to her, and she records, "from that time to this I have been able to understand the word of God." ibid, page 58.

For "two or three years" Mrs. White's mind was locked. This was evidently by God to strengthen their faith in the gift; for the men knew that of herself she had no knowledge. Then, when they came to the end of their knowledge and did not know what to do, light came from a source of which they knew that of herself she could not solve their problems. It was clearly the Lord's leading, and they confessed it and "accepted as light direct from Heaven the revelations given."

In an attempt to protect himself, the author now turns completely around and says that she frequently went "far beyond the positions taken by any of the original advocates, and her counsels would often be so clear, so full, and so far reaching that they proved to be far ahead of the concepts of any of her contemporaries--sometimes fifty years in advance of their acceptance by some." I wonder whom she copied under such circumstances!

In composing the book, Questions on Doctrine, it became necessary to do some research work in Sister White's published and unpublished manuscripts to ascertain beyond a doubt just what she had said on various subjects. This work was turned over to the Ministry author who reports as follows in the Ministry for February, 1957, page 11:

to be continued

[doug yowell]

Have you heard of or read Herbert Douglass' excellent book, Fork In the Road? Elder Douglass was there and was close friends of all three men, especially of Anderson and Froom. He recently wrote a book in which gives details of the meetings and a lot of insights about what happened and why.

It's a must read for anyone who is interested in the meetings between the SDA representatives and Barnhouse and Martin, and the fall-out from the book QOD.

The Ellen White material alone at the end of the book makes it well worth the price.

Can I read it at the Heritage Room? Do they have a copy there?

[doug yowell]

It seems odd that Andreason alone noted the "obvious" danger that sprung out of these encounters. There were many active Adventist theologians,evangelists,pastors,teachers, and others that did not share ML's cynical conclusions about them.

As I mentioned before, my grandpa, who was an integral part of the GC scene spoke proudly of the work of the three. The secrecy aspect so often cited as evidence of a sell out was really not all that secret. Other Bible giants of our movement such as F.D. Nichol (Answers to Objections-I still consider this to be the clearest, most Bible reasoned defense of SDA teachings,most often cited by Walter Martin and other opponents of Adventism),H.M.S. Richards(hardly a theological dupe),William Fagel and a host of other denominational leaders gave their support to the outcome.I find Andreason's claim of "I alone have escaped to tell you" rather suspect.

[skyblue888]

Doug, I doubt you did your homework on that one. Nichol and Andreason should have been consulted at that time. Why were they not? Andreason had long been regarded as an authority on the subject of the sanctuary. The very fact that him and Nichol were kept away from these secret meetings was very significant for the simple reason that the leaders knew that these men would never compromise our pillars.

There were several ministers who agreed with Andreason but they were too afraid of identifying with him publicly for fear of losing their standing with the General Conference, for fear of losing their job. Mrs. White had predicted that this new movement with the new theology would tolerate no opposition.

sky

[skyblue888]

THE MINISTRY REPORT

by M.L. Andreason

"The further question has likewise arisen: Just why were these counsels, clarifications, and expositions on the atonement, and its priestly manifestations, not brought together for our use before this?"

The answer, we believe, is equally simple and straightforward and obvious. No one had taken the time for the sustained effort involved in laborious, comprehensive search necessary to find, analyze them.

"Since our leaders were largely unaware of this latent evidence and its priceless value, the need was not felt, and the time for such a vast project was not considered available. Access to the complete files of all the old periodicals containing Ellen White's two thousand articles is not easy, for there is no complete file in any one place. More than that, the priceless manuscript statements are not available in published form.

"Further, as a church we have been so engrossed in giving our special message to the world, in keeping with our complex movement rolling onward in its multiple activities, that no one seemed to have the time or even the burden for such a huge task. It was known that the search would be a most laborious one because of the vast amount of material that must be compassed.

"However, when the need clearly arose and the time for such a search had obviously come, the necessity was recognized and the time taken to compass not only the familiar book statements, but the vast array of periodicals, articles, and manuscrïpt counsels bearing thereon."

It will be noticed that the author does not minimize the task that faced him--and it was a great task. It is to be regretted that he should take the opportunity to inform us that the leaders had not felt the need of this work, did not have the time for it, and did not even have any burden for it.

It was in this search that he discovered that Mrs. White did not contradict or change what she said in the beginning of her work. The author puts it in his peculiar phraseology that "Mrs. White's later statements do not contradict or change her earlier statements." He had evidently hoped that she had changed her position on the atonement, which position he had criticized and attempted to explain by saying that she never, nor even in a single case, had contributed anything initially to doctrine or prophetic interpretation.

It is clear that if she intended to change her position, she had abundant opportunity to do so in the sixty or more years she lived after making her position clear on the atonement. But she did not contradict or change what she had once written. This is the testimony of the very one who had challenged her early position, and who now is compelled to testify that she did not change. It is a poetic justice that the author of the Ministry article should be the one to testify after he had examined all the material that there is no evidence that she ever changed her mind or contradicted what she had written after.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

PLAYING WITH FIRE

by M.L. Andreason

This created another dilemma for our author. He must now let stand all she had ever written, and could not argue she had authorized any change whatsoever. What then could he do or did he do? A most unique solution he had: he calmly asserted that Sister White did not mean what she said!

Note again his peculiar use of the English language, not a direct statement but a passive approach: he says, "... a distinct clarification of terms and of meaning emerges that is destined to have far-reaching consequences." Her later statements "invest those earlier terms with a larger, truer meaning inherently there all the time." And so he explains when she says that Christ is making atonement (he is omitting the word now), she is "obviously applying the completed atonement to the individual."

This is in complete harmony with the statement in Questions on Doctrine where the author boldly asserts that if any 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 of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross."

This is news indeed. I have written several books, one of them on the Sanctuary service and hence these may come under what he calls "Adventist literature". And now some unauthorized individual proclaims to the world that when I say that Christ is making atonement now, I do not mean it. It means that He is making application, but not atonement which was made 1800 years ago. However, it is only a minor matter that he presumes to act as my interpreter and tell what I mean by what I say. But when he undertakes to tell the world that when Ellen White says that Christ is making atonement she means simply that He is making application. That is serious.

And so when I read, "... even in the writings of Ellen G. White," that Christ is making atonement, I am not to believe it. He made the atonement 1800 years ago, not now; and even if she affirms that Christ is making atonement now, that "today He is making atonement", that "We are in the great day of atonement, and the sacred work of Christ for the people of God is going on at the present time (1882) in the heavenly sanctuary should be our constant study", I am still to apply to the interpreter to find out what she means. (See Testimonies, Vol.5, p.520.)

Such is playing with words, it is playing with fire, and makes any interpretation possible. If the author is right, I am permitted to take any word of an author and say that he means something else than what he says. Such makes inter-communication impossible, and the world a Babel. What would agreements amount to, or contracts, or words of mouth, if I am permitted to put my own constructions on what another man says? The Bible says that the seventh day is the Sabbath. That seems plain enough. But the author's theory would permit me to hold that the Bible means no such thing. Absurd, you say. And I say Amen. When the Bible says seven, it does not mean one. With the author's philosophy, however, words become meaningless.

"Let your nay be nay, and your yea be yea" James says. That is, mean what you say. To make the plain statement that "Christ is making atonement now" mean that He is making application now is indefensible on grammatical, philological, theological, or common-sense ground. And to go farther and upon such false interpretation build a new theology to be enforced by sanctions, is simply out of this world. Undue assumption of authority coupled with overconfidence in the virtue of bestowed honors have borne fruit. And the fruit is not good.

to be continued

[BobRyan]

A CHANGE OF EMPHASIS

Of late years there has been a change of emphasis in the Ministry and not for the better. This change coincides with the period in which our leaders have been in close contact and rapport with the Evangelicals. The trend was in evidence before, but now has blossomed. As an example of this, I shall call attention to an article in the February, 1957, issue entitled, "The Priestly Application of the Atoning Act."

It is claimed that it "is the Adventist understanding of the atonement, confirmed and illustrated and clarified by the Spirit of Prophecy." As it has not been renounced or protested, we may justly conclude that it is officially approved.

The author gives a short tribute to the "magnifying glass", the Spirit of Prophecy, then goes on to state that the atonement "... is not, on the one hand, limited just to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. On the other hand, neither is it confined to the ministry of our heavenly High Priest in the sanctuary above, on the anti typical day of atonement, or hour of God's judgment, as some of our forefathers first erroneously thought and wrote." Ministry, February, 1957, page 9.

You need to stay focused. You have switched from the claim that QoD was in some kind of error on the subject of the Atonement - to "Ministry Magazine" has published authors who offerred up really bad theology from time to time.

There is no doubt at all that Ministry Magazine has in past years been very liberal, opened the door to anti-SDAs who even to this day proclaim that they were published by Ministry Magazine - while the continue today their diatribes against SDAs ... etc.

There is also no doubt that some of the "downside" of favoring teachers and authors that go to non-SDA theology sources for their degrees - has hurt the church over time.

But I thought this thread was focused specifically on the claims that Adreason made against QoD.

That has been a source of confusion for some of our conservative SDA friends.

in Christ,

Bob

[doug yowell]

There were several ministers who agreed with Andreason but they were too afraid of identifying with him publicly for fear of losing their standing with the General Conference, for fear of losing their job. Mrs. White had predicted that this new movement with the new theology would tolerate no opposition.

sky

None of the afore mentioned ministers agreed with Andreason so naturally they would not support his campaign.Had F.D. objected to being left out of the meetings my grandfather would have noted it. Besides, I think that most of the leadership of the GC knew each other quite well. The church was much smaller then.

[skyblue888]

Seems to me you two are obviously determined to defend the "new movement" that we have been warned about, no matter what. So be it but that won't change the facts. The articles from the Ministry magazine only reflected the compromises that had been made in secret meetings with the evangelicals. Can't miss that when you stay focussed.

WARNING NOT TO BE UNHEEDED

by M.L.Andreason

The present attempt to lessen and destroy confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy and established a new theology, may deceive some, even many, but the foundations upon which we have built these many years, still stands, and God still lives. This warning should not go unheeded. "If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the Testimonies He has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan, and Abiram." Testimonies to the Church, vol.5, page 66.

In an incomplete research which I conducted years ago I found what the author found, and more. Among other things, 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:

to be continued