The very first Protestant principle in truth taken away...

[skyblue888]

Been away from the forum for a while.

There is an issue that keeps coming up

and it just won't go away. Are some of

you aware that at the 1909 General

Conference the right of private judgment

in the church, which is the first Protestant

principle in truth, was taken away from us?

Please take the time to read the next four

posts before you weigh in on this. That would

be appreciated. Thank you.

sky

[skyblue888]

Part 1

In this same General Conference of 1909, at Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. on May 26, in the Twenty-second meeting of the Conference, the proceedings as officially published confirm all that I have here said as to this papistical

tendency. The subject before the Conference was Resolutions 10 and 11 providing that "a book editor be appointed by the General Conference Committee" and warning the people against reading any literature that has not on it the S.D.A. denominational imprint. The minutes contain the following:

"D.W. Farnsworth: How extensive would be the power of the book editor? Would he simply attend to the grammatical errors and the style, or would he make practically a new book of it?"

"W.C. White: I understand that a servant is to do that which he is instructed and employed to do, and if he does not do it satisfactorily, his employer gives him proper instruction. This man, who would be employed by the General Conference, would work under the direction of the General Conference Committee, principally through the Publishing Department. He would naturally do those things which he was asked to do; and his work would be submitted to the members who direct his labor, for approval. It would be impossible for this congregation to instruct a book editor as to how far he should go in literary criticism or in criticism of theology, but the members who stand close to him would need to give instruction and his work would be, I understand, advisory, and would be directed by the General Conference.

"W.C. White: "Isn't it time that we say to our people that the imprint of one of our houses means something? The imprint of one of our school printing houses means something. The imprint of one of our conferences means something. In our 'Year Book' there are twenty-two publishing houses recognized. Should not our people take time to look to the 'Year Book' and see what that imprint is? Otherwise how are we to carry into this publishing work the same principles that we stand for in the doctrine of the laying on of hands, as it applies to church officers, to conference officers, to teachers in our schools? It is that sort of work that this resolution is aimed at, and I am sure that your sympathies are with it... It is intended to instruct our people to watch the imprint of the literature which they receive, and to have some test as to whether it is Seventh-day Adventist literature or not, before they eat it or began to pass it out for other peopleto eat."

I could myself characterize the foregoing and show just what it is like, but this has been so well done by the Review and Herald itself that I will only quote what that paper says

just one week following the day when the foregoing statements were made in General Conference.

In the Review and Herald of June 3, 1909, on the first editorial page there is the following editorial article entitled, "Subjugating the Mind."

[Gibs]

I believe that to be true Sky, want to see the posts.

[skyblue888]

Part 2

In the Review and Herald of June 3, 1909, on the first editorial page there is the following editorial article entitled, "Subjugating the Mind."

"The conquest of the human mind has been one of the prime objects of man's enemy during the entire campaign of unrighteousness. There have been many methods employed in bringing it about; but one object runs through them all. To subjugate the mind is to conquer the individual who possesses it. Lucifer has had that in view in the inauguration of every system of false worship, as well as in some other movements not rated as religious.

"In hypnotism, or mesmerism, the operator can do nothing until the subject yields his intellect to the control of another. In Spiritualism the 'spirits' can do nothing until the medium is in a 'receptive' mood. In Christian Science, in the Emmanuel Movement this same campaign against the conscious self is waged, while the subliminal self, or some other being's self is set over the thoughts and actions of the individual.

"In the same category stands the Roman Church, anathematizing private opinion and liberty of conscience, and seeking to compel men to think and speak only as the church dictates. Dr. O.R. Brownson, in the preface to his great defense of the Catholic Church Essays and Reviews, page VI, says:

"The articles (which comprise the book) before being printed in the Quaterly Review were submitted to the revision of a competent theologian, and I have no reason to suppose that they contain anything not in accordance with Catholic faith and morals; but they are as a matter of course republished with submission to the proper authority, and I shall be most happy to correct any error of any sort they may contain the moment it is brought authoritatively to my notice. It is not my province to teach; all that I am free to do is to reproduce with scrupulous fidelity what I am taught."

"This is the position that must be taken by every loyal Catholic writer. Otherwise his book is placed upon the Index Expurgatorius, and he is anathematized if he persists in holding his opinion. Every book that bears the 'Imprimatur' of an archbishop stands for an individual whose mind is subjected to the dominance of some authority outside himself; and every time such dominance is permitted, God is robbed of the allegiance that is His due. When the whole world bows down to one earthly ruler, although he is arrayed in the insignia of the vicegerent of Christ, it will have declared its intellectual and religious capitulation to the powers of darkness, and the time for the Sun of Righteousness to shine forth in the glory of the Father will have come."

I do not know that this editorial in the Review and Herald of June 3, 1909, was aimed at that papalistic procedure of the General Conference one week before. I hope that it was. But whether it was or not it certainly could not have hit straighter that procedure in General Conference, if it had been positively aimed at it.

For what can be the difference in principle or in practice between the "Imprimatur" of a Catholic archbishop and the "Imprimatur" of a Seventh-day Adventist Publishing House or Conference when this "Imprint" can come only from the General Conference through its editor, who, as a "servant," is to do only that which he is instructed and employed to do by the General Conference Committee or "the members who stand close to him" "to give him instruction."

What can be the difference in principle, in practice, or in consequences, between the people of the Catholic Church being instructed to watch for the "Imprimatur" of literature which they receive, and have this test as to whether it is Catholic literature or not, before they can eat it or begin to pass it out for other people to eat--what can be the difference between that and this instruction to Seventh-day Adventists to "watch for the Imprint of literature which they receive, and have this test as to whether it is Seventh-day Adventist literature or not, before they can eat it or begin to pass it out for other people to eat"?

What is the difference between the position, and the condition, too, of that Catholic writer whose province is only to reproduce what he is taught by his ecclesiastical superiors--what is the difference between that man and this proposed General Conference editor who is expected to be "a servant to do that which he is instructed" by the General Conference Committee to do, and whose "work should be submitted to the members who directed his labor, for approval"?

And note: "It would be impossible for this congregation to instruct a book editor as to how far he should go in literary criticism or in criticism of theology, BUT the members who stand close to him would need to give him instruction!"--Yes, of course! It would be impossible for you to do anything of that kind. But we, lo! we the superior few, "who stand close to him"--WE can do all this in perfection!

I shall not follow analysis further. I will only say that never in all the Middle Ages was there a more papalistic thing proposed than this that was put through by the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference May 26, 1909. Read the full proceedings on pages 173-175, General Conference Bulletin, and then read many times again the editorial here quoted from the Review and Herald, June 3, 1909.

And will the Seventh-day Adventist people submit to this subjugating and enslaving thing as the Catholic people do? Will they? Will you? The Seventh-day Adventist officialdom will, of course, just as the Catholic officialdom does, for it was they who put this thing through. And indeed they have already submitted to it, for all the three hundred and twenty-eight delegates, in the whole discussion covering large pages there was not a single dissenting vote. They have done it; now will the people submit to it?

___________

Note: "While engaged in earnest prayer, I was lost to everything around me; the room was filled with light, and I was hearing a message to an assembly that seemed to be the General Conference. I was moved by the Spirit of God to make a most earnest appeal; for I was impressed that great danger was before us at the heart of the work. I had been, and still was, bowed down with distress of mind and body, burdened with the thought that I must bear a message to our people at Battle Creek to warn them against a line of action that would separate God from the publishing house." T.M.461.

"If you lay your hand upon the publishing work, this great instrumentality of God, to place your mold and superscription upon it, you will find that it will be dangerous to your own souls, and disastrous to the work of God. It will be as great a sin in the sight of God as was the sin of Uzzah when he put forth his hand to steady the ark." T.M.462.

She wrote, "You cannot do this." T.M.462.

But they did it anyway.

"In the weakness of human judgment, men were gathering into their finite hands the lines of control, while God's will, God's way and counsel, were not sought as indispensable. Men of stubborn, ironlike will, both in and out of the office, were confederating together, determined to drive certain measures through in accordance with their own judgment." T.M.461,462.

[skyblue888]

Part 3

"A servant is to do that which he is instructed and employed to do." W. C. White.

Yes, he is. But whose servant is he? Every Christian is to be the servant of Christ, to do that which he is instructed and employed by Christ to do. And Christ has spoken it, "Be not ye the servants of men."

Whose servant are you?

By this action of the General Conference in session every Seventh-day Adventist is definitely put upon the issue, to decide it himself for himself. Whose servant is he? Is he the servant of Christ to do what he is instructed and employed by Christ to do? Or is he the servant of men to do what he is instructed and employed to do by some committee or some specially superior few who stand close to him to give him instruction?

Also by this General Conference action every Seventh-day Adventist is brought to the issue to decide it himself, for himself,--what is the test of truth? Is it "the Spirit of Truth"--who is given to "guide you into all truth" or is it certain "Imprint" fixed by men?

And in view of this double issue let there be rung out everywhere clear and distinct the Divine Word, "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." 1 Cor.7:23.

In the General Conference of 1903, I said in this connection that though Israel several times started back to Egypt, they never got there. But now it must be said that if this order of things (man being made amenable to man) shall be confirmed by this General Conference, then you will have got there; you will be back to Egypt; and the bands and fetters and yokes "that have been put upon God's people" will be confirmed instead of broken. And as certainly as this shall be,--then there will go forth again from God the mighty word, "Let My people go, that they may serve ME."

In this General Conference now going to confirm that? Nay; will not this General Conference and every Seventh-day Adventist in the world espouse Christ and the Christian order only and forever?

Next: It is not Protestant in truth.

[skyblue888]

Part 4

This professed "organized work" is not Protestant in truth. The first of all Protestant principle is "the right of private judgment" in religion, and thus perfect individuality in religion. But this first of all protestant principle is neither recognized nor allowed in the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work." The principle is recognized, as relates to the State,--but it is not allowed at all as relates to the church, nor is it allowed in the S.D.A. denomination.

"The organized work" will spend much time and effort and money, and will travel long distances to many places, to maintain and defend the full and perfect right of every individual to believe for himself, without any dictation or interference by the State. And all of this is perfectly right. But this is not Protestant, in truth.

The Protestant principle as such applies first of all to the church. It must never be forgotten that this principle as originally espoused, primarily had no reference whatever to the State, but only to the church and its "organized work." Secondarily it related to the State, because the State was only the tool of the church. And when by the Constitution of the United States, church and State became separated, the principle applies, of course, equally to the State as to the church.

But primarily and through all Protestant history the principle applies to the church. And now for Seventh-day Adventists, or anybody else, to confine it exclusively or even primarily to the State, and deny it as to the church, is a total perversion of it, and exactly repeats the same perverse course of every denomination before.

Therefore, when the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and "organized work" apply this first of all Protestant principles to the State, as they do, and then refuse it as to the church, as they do, it is absolutely inconsistent in itself, and unprotestant as to the principle; it is not fairly Protestant to protest against Rome, and then follow Rome's very course. It is not fairly Protestant to protest even against false Protestantism only in some things, while repeating other things that are just as falsely Protestant and more Romish. For who ever heard of any other Protestant teaching that "In Peter... believers are united in the Holy Ghost"? Review & Herald, May 2, 1907, p.10.

Further: You maintain that when the State holds strictly to this principle of perfect freedom of conscience and individuality in religion, that is according to Christian principle. But you will not allow that your own church, shall hold this attitude, which you insist that the State must hold. In this, then, you require that the State shall be more Christian than your own church. Any abridgement or interference whatever with this full and perfect right of the individual by the State, the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work" will vigorously deny over yonder on Capitol Hill. But you positively affirm it for your owh church over here on Takoma Park Hill.

You insist that your church shall hold and exercise this very power that you deny to the State. Then it is certain that, as the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work" stands, all of the people are better off only as citizens of the United States, than they would be as members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. For so long as they are only citizens of the United States, your "organized work" will spend time and money and energy strongly and continuously to maintain their perfect right in the exercise of private judgment and their own individuality, in religion. But the moment they become members of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, that right is absolutely denied; and if they attempt to exercise it, then the "organized work" will spend time and money and energy in vigorously denying the right and denouncing them, and casting them out, even without any notice or hearing.

And all this as to this Protestant principle is witnessed by your own acknowledged authoritative writings. In Great Controversy, page 293, there is mentioned "that great principle, the outgrowth of the New Testament, which acknowledges God as the SOLE JUDGE of human faith;" and then there follow these weighty and most pertinent words:

"The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors."

Is that papal error so deeply rooted in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and "organized work" that it can not be rooted up? Is it so deeply rooted there that it must remain and grow into another great papal tree of religious despotism in the church? Even if this be so, there must not be forgotten the Divine Word that "Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." My brethren, far better will it be to allow that papal error to be rooted up now by the gentle grace of the Holy Spirit, than to refuse this now, and then have it rooted up by the awful hand of the mighty God in that great and hastening day. O! choose now, to have it rooted up now.

By A.T. Jones

[Gibs]

I had read bits and pieces of that but had never gathered so much together.

This is an eye opener and one can see why A T Jones was so disliked, is he saw this clearly and put his pen to revealing it.

To follow Jesus Christ and the unerring Word only is the safe path to dwell in.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[Ted Oplinger]

All said and told,, I don't think God really cares if man's institutions recognize the rights He has given His children. When the time comes, He directs them to exercise those rights, regardless of what man's institutions say of the matter.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

All said and true, Jackson.

That is assuming that what is taught as standards from the pulpit are the Biblical standards and principles God teaches - a pretty big assumption in some denominations.

My point of reference comes from the perspective of getting a message God wants preached, out to the people, when the denomination gatekeepers and keymasters want the message squashed. That's a bit different scenario than what you're referring to...and, yes, it can happen within the SDA church.

From the standpoint of standards...yes, standards and discipline must be maintained. Reverence for the pulpit and the Word must be upheld.

It is a striking balance that must be maintained between free exploration of the Word and doctrinal standards to be maintained. The key is in taking studies together with those who may not necessarily see things as you see them, as well as those who do. Wisdom is found in many such counselors.

Blessings,