historic adventist

None Dare Call It Apostasy, Part II

by

Dr. Ralph Larson

Introduction

Since many have asked, the following is a statement that was prepared by Elder Ralph Larson to present to the “Prex- Ad” Council of the Pacific Union Conference on February 18, 1992. This is a group of about twenty administrators of conferences, colleges, hospitals and ethnic groups who consult together before meeting with the Union Committee.

Although Dr. Larson had been told that he would be given thirty minutes and had prepared his paper accordingly, he was cut off when fifteen minutes had passed and was told that the administrators could read the rest of the paper later. Yet the council made their decision to affirm their denial of his honorary ministerial credentials after Dr. and Mrs. Larson left the room, apparently without waiting to read the paper, a tragic lack of due process.

This information is being shared, not for purposes of malice or revenge, but so that others may understand what actually was said and what they may possibly encounter when placed in similar circumstances. Our trust must be wholly in the Lord and in His truth, and we must firmly resolve to stand for the right though the heavens fall.

Part two

We come before you today because we understand from the Lord’s counsels that this is our Christian duty. We are sure all would recognize that a hearing conducted after judgment regarding my credentials has already been made, would not be described as justice in any judicial system in the world. We find this principle expressed in the question put to the Pharisees by Nicodemus: “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” John7: 51.

In our situation, the answer would appear to be, yes, it does. More troubling still, to those who are concerned about the principles of fairness, is the fact that this group is not the proper body to either conduct a hearing or make judgment regarding my case. Proper procedures would have required a hearing

We would do well to remember that in every’ judicial proceeding, not only is the accused on trial, but the court is also on trial.

before the Union Conference Committee, which has been empowered to issue credentials, and that such a hearing have been conducted before judgment was made.

And there is yet another cloud over these proceedings. Elder Castillo wrote to me:

“At our past Union Executive Committee, it was voted to deny your honorary ministerial credential.”

Yet, four members of the committee have stated that my name was not mentioned in their meeting, and so was neither discussed nor voted upon. Elder Mostert, while conceding that the minutes contain no record of an action denying my credentials, told me over the phone that my name was placed before the executive committee and the reasons for denying my credentials were fully explained. He suggested that the four committee members might have all happened to be out of the room at that particular time.

In any case, it would seem that basic principles of fairness would require that if a minister who has given his life to the service of the church, whose life and character have never been questioned, whose theology and preaching is the same as that presented in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and whose ministry has resulted in more than five thousand persons being added to the church by baptism, is to be denied honorary ministerial credentials, this should be properly done by a duly authorized body, and the action and reasons for it should be fully and specifically stated in the committee records and announced to the church. This would, of course, require that a hearing be conducted before a decision is made, and that the accused be provided an opportunity to face his accusers and respond to their accusations.

This proper procedure has not been followed. Yet the editors of Ministry magazine have quickly seized upon the action that was taken, and in spite of the grievous irregularities, announced to its world- wide constituency that my credentials had been denied. Since no reason has been given, speculation is now arising as to whether I have been found guilty of financial fraud or gross immorality. Questions of this nature are reaching us and are very troubling, not only to us but also to our two children who are workers in God’s cause. We do not believe the Lord appreciates this manner of dealing with one who has rendered Him a lifetime of service and whose present problem is simply that he has been found defending the principles of our faith as set forth in the book Seventh- day Adventists Believe.

We would do well to remember that in every judicial proceeding, not only is the accused on trial, but the court is also on trial. We do not believe that you ~‘ gentlemen have served yourselves well by the manner in which you have dealt with this case. Neither have you served well the church or the Lord. We believe this group has a moral responsibility to set this matter right, and it should be done now, not after my death, as in the case of Elder M. L. Andreason. We believe I am entitled to a fair trial regarding my theology and ministry before the Union Executive Committee. If that committee, after a fair trial has been conducted, votes to deny my credentials, we believe a full statement of the specific reasons for that action should be made, and the statement published in Ministry magazine.

But now may we suggest that we lift our eyes from the individual tree we have been examining and spend a few moments considering the forest as a whole. it is apparent that there is division in the church. We would like to offer a few thoughts regarding:

Division: Its Nature, Its Causes, and Its Cure.

Division is most easily defined as the opposite of unity. We all believe that unity in the church is precious. It is priceless. Unity was the great burden of the last recorded prayer of Jesus for His disciples (John 17). Unity was what made possible the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Unity was one of the major factors that gave power to the Seventh- day Adventist Church as it emerged from the Millerite Movement.

What is the basis of this precious unity? Paul calls it “the unity of the faith” Ephesians 4: 13. He further describes it as “speaking the truth in love,” verse 15, and indicates that those who have this unity of the faith will not be “carried about with every wind of doctrine” verse 14.

Ellen White describes the search for unity in 1844:

“We would come together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one in faith and doctrine; for we knew that Christ is not divided” TM 24. [All emphasis supplied.]

Their prayers were answered. They did become one in faith and doctrine, and they bestowed that legacy of unity upon us. Our church has enjoyed a phenomenal degree of unity throughout most of its history. We who have spent years in soul- winning work have found it an enormous advantage to be able

“No one has any Independent authority apart from Christ and His word” SDA‘s Believe 146.

to tell our converts they were uniting with a worldwide church that had a oneness in faith and doctrine over all the earth.

But notice how God has warned us through His messenger that unity must be based upon faith and doctrine:

“Christ calls for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating, ennobling truth and fulse, misleading . . . . I urge our brethren to unify upon a true, scriptural basis” 1 SM 175.

“We are to unify, but not on a platform of error” Series B, “Freedom in Christ” 47. Our church has not unified upon a platform of error, but upon a platform of truth. Our doctrines have been the foundation of our unity, but if wrong doctrines are introduced, causing the foundation of truth to crumble, we will struggle in vain to preserve our unity. The wise man does not build his house upon the sand.

At various times in the history of Christianity, there have arisen tensions between Christians who had differing views of what constitutes sound declines. Instead of meeting this problem on the theological level, church officials have sometimes tried to resolve it on the basis of church authority. This has never been and never will be successful. Ecclesiology must be derived from theology. Theology cannot be derived from ecclesiology, lest it degenerate into ecclesiolatry.

Our doctrinal book states: “Christ exercises His authority through His church and its specially appointed servants, but He never transfers His power. No one has any independent authority apart from Christ and His word’ SDA ‘s Believe 146.

“Whatever the church does that is in accordance with the directions given in God’s Word will be ratified in heaven” 7T 263.

“The church . . . . must say about sin what God says about it. She must deal with it as God directs, and her action is ratified in heaven” DA 806.

This brings us immediately and specifically to the heart of our present problem. There is a wide- spread and rapidly growing conviction among many church members, especially in the North American Division, Australia and Europe, that some of our church leaders are emphatically not saying about sin what God says about It, but rather are saying that we will all keep on sinning until Jesus comes, at which time He will miraculously fix us so we will never sin again. This makes our sanctuary doctrine nonsensical and invalidates the Spirit of Prophecy, which repeatedly endorses the sanctuary doctrine.

These concerned church members recognize that this strange new doctrine is out of harmony with our historic faith, out of harmony with the Scriptures, and out of harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy in which there are literally thousands of statements affirming the reality of victorious Christian living, and at least forty- eight warnings against the idea that Christ will change our characters when He comes. (See our Tell of His Power.)

This is manifestly a theological problem, and it needs to be dealt with on a theological level. Church members do not see this as a minor issue. They see it as one which vitally concerns their eternal salvation. But when they question or challenge this strange new doctrine and ask, “Why is the church not saying about sin what God says about it as stated in Seventh- day Adventists Believe?” they often find, to their bewilderment, that they are accused of being divisive trouble- makers who are attacking the church.

More tragically still, the response of church officialdom to questions, appeals, and protests, consistently reflects a desire to ignore the theological dimensions of the problem and to issue appeals for unity, supported by stem admonitions about the authority of the church. Within the last thirty days I received a letter from a conference president which said frankly, “Most of my response will be from a practical point of view, rather than a theological approach,” yet the matter at hand was theological in nature.

Thus we see a tension between a concept of truth and a concept of church authority. When the disciples of Jesus were summoned to appear before the Sanhedrin, they went gladly, anticipating an opportunity to express their convictions of truth about Jesus. They found, however, that the Sanhedrin proposed one question only, Do you submit to our authority?

Result— the church was split.

When Martin Luther and his companions were summoned to appear before the emperor, they also went gladly, hoping for a discussion of the principles of scriptural truth. But they were confronted with the same question, Do you submit to our authority? Result— the church was split.

Today we find ourselves caught up in a similar situation, and we may well reflect about the past. It has been said that those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat history. Surely the lesson of history is clear that theological questions must be

There is a wide- spread and rapidly growing conviction. . . that some of our church leaders are emphatically not saying about sin what God says about it.

given theological answers, and that unity will result if the theological answers are sound and persuasive because they bear up well under scriptural investigation. The introduction of false doctrines into our platform of truth cannot but bring division. Fair- minded people everywhere will judge that the division is caused by those who introduce changes in our theology, not by those who prefer to maintain our historic theology unchanged.

It cannot be denied that, in a certain sense, truth is divisive. Note the words of Jesus on this point:

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter- in- law against her mother- in- law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household” Matthew 10: 34- 36.

When truth and error meet, division may be the result, but should we blame the division on those who teach the truth?

This leads us to the questions of responsibility and guilt Jesus unquestionably created division when He came to this earth. But was this wrong? Should He have stayed in heaven in order to avoid creating division? Would the unity that might have resulted been desirable? Clearly the apostles created division wherever they went. But again we ask, Was this wrong? Would it have been better for them to have hushed their voices for the sake of unity?

One of the most bitter accusations hurled at us as a people has been that by preaching the Sabbath we created division among Christians. But has this been wrong and has not the accusation of divisiveness been hurled at all reformers? We read in Signs of the Times, January 28, 1886:

“Reformers of the present day will meet with the same discouragements as did their Master.”

Neither is there anything new about the same, strange misjudgment we meet today: “When controversy is awakened, the advocates of truth are accredited with causing disturbance” ST, 10- 17- 95.

The following counsel is timely: “Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition…. Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this, those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious, heretical, or schismatic…. This spirit will increase more and more. . . .

“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God’s word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers” GC 458- 459.

When truth and error meet, division may be the result, but should we blame the division on those who teach the truth?

Several months ago we received an urgent request to conduct a seminar in a church in this Union. The people there had many questions, which we answered from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. As we were leaving, they gave us a tape and suggested we listen to it on the way home.

The tape turned out to be a message that had been presented to them by their conference president a few weeks before our visit. On several points, he had told them the exact opposite of what we had shown them. Here is a sampling of the president’s opinion regarding perfection of character.

“Is it not extremely discouraging to us to discover, as we look back through the annals of history, to discover [sic] that no one except Jesus has ever reached that perfect standard, at least so far as we know? If Jesus is the only one so far who has reached that perfect standard, it doesn’t give us a great deal of encouragement, does it, to be able to accomplish what the great spiritual giants of the past were not able to accomplish.”

We, of course, had known nothing about this, so we had walked right into trouble. We had shown them our research report entitled Tell of His Power, which contains 2,500 statements from Ellen White’s writings, all of which strongly affirm the possibility of character perfection through the power of Christ. Worse yet, we had shown them a chapter in our book which records 48 warnings from Ellen White that there will be no change of character when Christ comes. We had also shown them a chapter which contains 37 statements from Ellen White regarding persons who have achieved character perfection. Jesus was not the only one, according to the Lord’s messenger. Her list of champions includes the patriarchs, the apostles, Enoch, Elijah, Joseph, Daniel and John. She writes:

“Souls that have borne the likeness of Satan have become transformed into the image of God” AA 476.

“Thousands have set the Lord before them, and by beholding have been changed into the same image” COL 133- 134.

“Some few in every generation from Adam resisted his (Satan’s) every artifice and stood forth as noble representations of what it was in the power of man to do and to be— Christ working with human efforts, helping man in overcoming the power of Satan” RH 3- 3- 74.

“In every phase of your character building you are to please God. This you may do; for Enoch pleased Him though living in a degenerate age. And there are Enochs in this our day” COL 332.

This is only a sampling. We had shown them many other Spirit of Prophecy passages that could not be harmonized with the opinions of the president. As we were driving along and listening to the tape, Jeanne turned to me and said, “This is it, Ralph. This is going to cost you your credentials.”

So— on that day we began to prepare our minds for the experience through which we are now passing. Yet, what else could we have done? Should we have

Elder Mostert wrote me a letter which began with these words:
“I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding It necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching. ”

withheld the truth from the people in order to protect our position? No doubt the president’s visit, followed by ours, created some division of thought in that district Who is responsible for that division? What would be a fair judgment? And what would be God’s judgment?

We are not suggesting that this is the only dynamic working in the situation. We had earlier incurred the displeasure of the officers of the Division. Elders Bradford, Crumley and Dale had asked Dr. Frank Holbrook of the Biblical Research Institute to prepare a theological rationale to be used against independent ministry leaders. This paper was then sent to Ron Spear, along with warnings that he must submit to the authority of the church.

But, unfortunately, Dr. Holbrook had spread his net in such a manner that the first victim would have been Elder Bradford himself. After comparing independent ministry leaders with the rebel Satan and the rebels Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Dr. Holbrook had set forth two theological aberrations that called for disfellowshipping members from the church, views we historic Adventists hold regarding 1) the human nature of Christ, and 2) righteousness by faith.

When this paper came into my hands, I wrote to the Division leadership, pointing out that on November 16, 1988, Elder Bradford had written a letter to me containing the following lines:

. . . . my views on the human nature of Christ are almost identical with some that you and others have expressed. I have preached them at large gatherings and camp meetings around the world.”

This is precisely the fault for which Dr. Holbrook had recommended disfellowshipping— holding a “wrong” view about the human nature of Christ and disturbing church members in other countries about it. He had also argued that our view regarding righteousness by faith is not in the book Seventh- day Adventists Believe. It is actually stated in that book 140 times!

I pointed these things out in a letter to the officers of the Division, and they were most displeased. Therefore, when Elder Mostert told me that the Division officers were in favor of denying my credentials, I was not surprised.

This paper by a member of the Biblical Research Institute may be taken as a sampling of the incredible theological confusion that exists in the church today. It is beyond question a theological problem which urgently needs to be dealt with on a theological level. The longer this is delayed, the greater will be the damage to the church. Our people have historically had an orientation toward truth. Many have left other churches and united with our church for the sake of truth. They have recognized that placing confidence in church leaders above devotion to the truth is a danger to be avoided. They have accepted the principle of individual responsibility for studying and knowing the truth and have turned away from the concept that the church is the interpreter of Scriptures. They have accepted Ellen White’s statement that:

“The Bible with its precious gems of truth was not written for the scholar alone” ST 331.

Therefore, it is a serious mistake to meet their urgent questions and concerns about our “truths that have been held sacred” with evasions and dissimulations. Suggestions by leadership that historic Seventh- day Adventists think they are the only ones in the church who know the truth, or that they are setting themselves up to be the judges of the church, or that they consider themselves to be the only holy ones, are recognized by many church members as simply throwing dust into the air. These tactics have a disastrous effect upon their confidence in leadership.

The historic Adventists, numbering in the thousands, are most emphatically not a group of crackpots and weirdos. They are not a group of malcontents and fanatics who turn to independent ministries simply as an expression of their rebellious spirit They are, for the most part, loyal, steadfast church members who have faced Sabbath tests, endured opposition from families and friends and have persevered in their devotion to the Lord and His sacred truth in the face of formidable odds. They turn to the independent ministries for a reason that has been well stated by our own Union president, Elder Mostert. On May 1, 1990, Elder Mostert wrote me a letter which began with these words:

“I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding it necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching.”

Where will they go to hear basic Adventist teaching when the independent ministries have been destroyed, as seems to be the intention of the present church leadership? No doubt you have heard of the addresses given by our General Conference president at such places as the camp meeting in Hope, British Columbia, in 1991, which seemed to be a declaration of open season on the independent ministries and those who support them. I have tapes of those messages, and some of the statements are as awesome as they are inaccurate, intemperate and inflammatory.

But these messages have apparently set the pace, and in response, equally inaccurate and intemperate tirades have already been published by two Union presidents in their Union papers. I am finding it increasingly difficult to persuade the church members to whom I minister that these false accusations are made in ignorance and not in malice.

If the independent ministries are successfully destroyed, what can we expect to happen then? Can anyone seriously suppose that those church members who, as stated by our Union president, have had to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching will then meekly submit to authority and give their support to those who have destroyed the independent ministries? Can we expect them to just forget that their theological questions have not been answered? And, are we remembering a fact that was expressed to me recently by a retired Union Conference president:

“I hope that our brethren will remember that our conservative members are the financial backbone of our church.”

Which leads us inexorably to the question of tithe. As I have testified that the historic Adventists are not weirdos and crack- pots who support independent ministries simply as an expression of their rebellious spirit, I also wish to testify that neither do they send tithe to independent ministries because they prefer to do so. They would much rather send their tithe through church channels but feel they cannot conscientiously support the preaching of false theology.

I wish to address myself to an enormous misunderstanding that I regard as one of the major factors in our present problem. We hear much talk and many accusations about the independent ministries soliciting tithe. No independent ministry of my acquaintance has ever solicited tithe. Brethren, I plead with you to believe me when I say that the independent ministries do not solicit tithe, because they do not need to solicit tithe. It comes to them unsolicited, unbidden, unrequested. It is freely and voluntarily contributed by church members who are trying to relieve their consciences of a heavy burden.

This is the effect. What is the cause? The cause is the lack of preaching basic Seventh- day Adventist truths in their home churches and often supplanting them with either empty pablum or errors borrowed from Babylon. The cause is emphatically not the eloquence and trickery of a group of skillful con men who are leading independent ministries, as some seem to believe. To suppose that crushing the independent ministries and leaving the problem in the churches unresolved is a fearful mistake.

It was in response to the many urgent questions of such church members that I researched the matter and published my findings in the September, 1991 edition of Our Firm Foundation, in an article entitled, “The Tithe Problem, Who Is Responsible?” This article was a straight- forward and factual report of my findings on that subject. I stand ready to modify or correct my conclusions at any time evidence is presented to me that would justify such a modification or correction.

Unfortunately, some of the responses to that article have been something less than straightforward and factual, so much so that the office of the White Estate has made clear that the article on tithe published in the Review was a private project of Roger Coon, done entirely independent of either the White Estate Board or the White Estate staff. Of the many problems in the Roger Coon article, I would mention two. Coon argued that when Ellen White used the word “means,” this generally referred only to offerings and not to tithe. We are presently aware of 168 occasions when Ellen White went into print using the word “means” in a way that included tithe. Why did an officer of the White Estate not know this?

Again, Coon faults those who make reference to the “Watson letter,” since Ellen White had stated she did not desire her diversions of tithe to be widely

“God has a church. It Is not the great cathedral, neither Is it the national establishment . . . It Is the people who bye God and keep His commandments ” UL 315.

advertised. This overlooks the fact that the entire relevant portions of the Watson letter were published by the White Estate itself in 1981 (see Ellen G. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, 395- 396), and again in 1987 (see 2MR 99- 100). Why did an officer of the White Estate not know this?

In summary, may I quote the second sentence of the letter written to me by Elder Mostert on May 1, 1990:

“Obviously, one of the most unmet needs in the church at the present time is the lack of opportunity for leaders to dialogue with members in a meaningful way that does not create further frustration.”

I agree with and heartily applaud this statement It echoes the cries we hear from hurting and bewildered historic Adventists all across the continent: Why will not our leaders talk to us? Why will they not listen to us? Why will they not investigate our condition to determine whether our appeals are valid? Why are we considered trouble- makers because we are holding to the doctrines that are set forth in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe? Can our leaders not recognize that antagonistic doctrines are being preached in many of our pulpits, taught in many of our schools, printed in our publishing houses and circulated in the Review? Is it their intention to support these false doctrines?

Further, they ask, Why do our leaders identify us as evildoers and enemies of the church when we finally give up appealing to them and turn in despair to places where our historic faith is being defended? Why do they use their power and authority against a minister who is widely known as a defender of our historic faith, while the facilities of some of our largest churches remain open to one who is equally well- known as an enemy of our historic faith?

Jeanne and I are presently ministering, by their invitation, to thousands of historic Adventists in this country and in other countries. In the year 1991 we spent forty of the fifty-two weekends conducting seminars in defense of our historic faith. (We pause to mention that we receive no remuneration whatever for conducting these seminars. The people pay only our expenses. We are sure you can understand how perplexed the historic Seventh- day Adventists are when they read in a Union paper that we are doing this for our own financial benefit.) We are presently fully booked for 1992 and into 1993.

We are able to report to you that the conviction is spreading among these historic Adventists that they are going to be hounded out of the church. They feel this is the only possible understanding of the inflammatory tirades that are being published against them. They are observing closely those situations in which illegal church discipline is being applied and disfellowshipping has already begun in flagrant disregard of the provisions in the church manual. One of the most evident characteristics of these actions has been and is continuing to be a lack of “due process.”

The historic Adventists remember that when Dr. Desmond Ford launched a vigorous assault against our sanctuary doctrine, the principles of “due process” were carefully followed. Every effort was made to ensure his case was dealt with in a fair and prudent manner, and rightly so. The historic Adventists are also noting that even though Dr. Ford is now attacking much more than our sanctuary doctrine and contributing very largely to the present apostasy in the church, the facilities of some of our largest churches remain open to him.

They are contrasting this with the fact that in a Pacific Union Recorder of 1991 an announcement stated Ralph Larson would conduct a seminar in the Beaumont Church on July 26 and 27 entitled “In Defense of the Sanctuary.” Before six weeks had passed, he had lost his ministerial credentials, without due process. This speaks volumes to the historic Seventh- day Adventists. Why, they are asking, is there so much patient tolerance toward those who attack our faith and so little toward those who defend it?

These developments are causing historic Adventists to consider carefully the proper relationship between the truth, the church and church authority. They are asking, Is it a valid theology of church authority that requires us to surrender the truth and accept false doctrines or is this a misuse and abuse of church authority? Is it a valid theology of stewardship that requires us to give financial support to the preaching of false doctrines? Is it a valid theology of church order that brands the preaching of truth as

The present division in the church Is a tension between our true historic faith, as described In Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and the Incompatible doctrines of modern Calvinism.

“divisive,” while tolerating the preaching of untruth? And, in the ultimate sense, what is the church? Let the Lord through His chosen messenger provide us with the answer:

“God has a church. It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment . . . it is the people who love God and keep His commandments.” UL 315.

We are directing your attention to the reality that the present division in the church is a tension between our true historic faith, as described in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and the incompatible doctrines of modern Calvinism. We hold that it is unreasonable and unfair to charge this division upon those ministers and church members who wish to cling to our historic faith. The responsibility for division should be laid at the door of those who are promoting the false doctrines of Calvinism among us.

We believe that every administrator has a sacred obligation to encourage and support those who are defending our historic faith and not let himself be manipulated or maneuvered into an attitude of opposition toward them by camouflaged accusations of divisiveness, etc.

We are presently hearing that Dr. Desmond Ford is broadcasting that many of our scholars and administrators are now accepting his theology. This charge cannot be well met by silence and inaction, which will cause people to conclude that the allegation must be true.

Kenneth Sample, successor to Walter Martin, reports that when he took a survey of fifty- six ministers in a single conference in this Union, fourteen admitted to disbelief in the biblical basis of our sanctuary doctrine and thirteen more passed by that question while answering the other questions in the survey. Thus, about half of those surveyed could not bear a positive testimony in regard to the doctrine of which Ellen White wrote:

“The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith” Letter 208, 1906; EV 221.

Surely it is time for the officers of this Union to resolutely lead the way in ascertaining what persons, in the classrooms of our schools and the pulpits of our churches, are teaching the doctrines described in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, and what persons are substituting for those doctrines antagonistic and incompatible doctrines.

And it is time for a thorough investigation of my particular case, and a full and fair trial to be conducted by the Union Conference Committee. At that trial I will submit evidence that

  1. I have appealed to our church leaders and scholars to recognize our theological problem by an investment of much time, many written appeals, and several thousand dollars worth of our two major research reports, The Word Made Flesh and Tell of His Power, that have been distributed among them.
  2. I have sought no speaking appointments anywhere, but have simply responded to urgent requests for help from the suffering historic Seventh- day Adventists.
  3. The evidence presented in our research reports has not been challenged by biblical or Spirit of Prophecy evidence from anyone. It has been met by sneers, jeers, and arguments against the man.
  4. My theology is precisely the theology that is set forth in Seventh- day Adventists Believe.

Therefore, those who oppose my ministry and our doctrinal book are the ones who are divisive.

We are to unite, but not upon a platform of error.

Order copies of “None Dare Call it Apostasy” from our bookstore.

The Tithe Problem, Part II

by

by Ralph Larson

The editors of the Adventist Review have taken notice of the questions about tithe that are troubling an increasing number of our church members and have published in their edition of September 7, 1991, a supplement in the form of an inserted tract dealing with the subject.

This development is most welcome. It is hoped that the Review editors will continue this enlightened policy, and that they will apply it to the other areas of concern that are as troubling to our members as the tithe question, if not more troubling.

We suggest that every church member who has a sincere desire to know and to do God’s will, will do well to save this special insert and compare it with the article on tithe in the September issue of Our Firm Foundation, as well as with this article.

We are confident that only good can come from such a comparison. let every church member examine the evidence and draw his or her own conclusions. Here the matter must ultimately rest, as was recognized by Ellen White in a thought- provoking statement on page 616 of The Desire of Ages:

“The Jewish rulers recognized the obligation of tithing, and this was right; but they did not leave the people to carry out their own convictions of duty.”

It is to be hoped that all concerned parties will remember that church members cannot be forced to pay tithe. They must act out their own convictions in the matter, and these convictions will grow out of their satisfaction with the scriptural and the Spirit of Prophecy evidences placed before them. Scoldings and threatenings will not suffice, and church discipline on this point is specifically forbidden in the church Manual. See page 240 in the 1971 edition and page 165 in the 1986 edition

We, therefore, welcome the decision of the Review editors to bring the subject out into the open, so that church members may be provided with the opportunity to weigh evidence, evaluate arguments, and develop their own convictions of duty.

Basic Principles Before considering the specifics of the situation, let us identify some landmarks and fixed boundaries, basic principles that must apply to any and all of the details. The most important and relevant truth that must be kept in mind throughout all of our study is:

“It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional.” – Selected Messages, book 1,67

The experience of the Israelites, who were once the chosen people of God but were eventually rejected as a people by God, testifies eloquently to the truth of this statement. The opinion that prevailed among the Jews of Christ’s time was that regardless of how far they departed from the express will of God, they nevertheless retained their position as the chosen people of God, with all of the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. This conviction was in spite of such clear warnings as had been given in Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Jeremiah 18, and elsewhere.

Here is the crux of the matter. The questions that we must consider are these: Could it be possible that the error of the Jews might have, to some degree, crept into our thinking? Are we beginning to believe that we are unconditionally the true church of God? Are we presuming that the rights and privileges of a true and faithful church are ours unconditionally? That the promises of God are without condition?

Are we supposing that the rights and privileges of a true and faithful ministry can be claimed by our ministry unconditionally? That they have a right to collect tithe regardless of what they teach and do?

Doubtless we would find these questions easier to answer if they were expressed in terms of totality— total rejection of all of the will of God by all of the ministers of our church. We would quickly agree that such is not the case. But does that resolve our problem? Was there not always a faithful remnant in Israel? And do we know of any church today that rejects all of God’s truth? Yet, God rejected Israel, and we know God is calling His people out of the popular churches of our time.

Is it not apparent that there is a line beyond which infidelity may not pass with impunity? A line beyond which neither a church nor a ministry can claim for itself the rights and privileges that God has guaranteed to a faithful church and to a faithful ministry? We must remember the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional.

We come now to the question, How should we see our church and its ministry today? The Review tract writer suggests that there is a significant difference between saying there is apostasy in a church and saying a church, speaking of the entire body of believers, is in apostasy. This point is well taken. I know of only one independent ministry leader who has a conviction that the church is in apostasy. The rest would say, like the Review tract writer, that there is apostasy in the church, although they would not minimize it as he does.

I have received a letter from a Union Conference president which opens with this sentence: “I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding it necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching.” And I would recommend for thoughtful study the Annual Council 1973/ 1974 Appeals for reform as published in Our Firm Foundation in December 1991.

The precise point in increasing apostasy at which it would be appropriate to stop saying there is apostasy in the church and start saying the church is in apostasy is a difficult problem. It is doubtful that human wisdom is sufficient for the question. Probably it would be best to let that point be defined by the Divine Mind that never errs in judgment.

But the questions that are coming to me from all across the country are from church members who are facing an immediate, practical problem. They are being forced to recognize that some of the doctrines being presented in their particular churches are very different from the doctrines they were taught when they joined the church or when they attended Adventist schools. Many recognize the strange doctrines as the very errors they left behind when they withdrew from other churches in order to become Seventh- day Adventists.

These members do not wish to return to those errors, nor have them taught to their children. Many have made fruitless appeals to church pastors and administrators. These are the kind of people who are turning in despair to ministries which are teaching the unchanged Seventh- day Adventist faith. These are the kind of people who are asking the urgent question, “Does God require me to pay tithe to support the teaching of false doctrines? Would it be wrong to pay tithe to a ministry that teaches the faith that I believe?”

I sympathize with them, although I do not presently share their problem. The church where I hold membership is served by a pastor who preaches the historic Seventh- day Adventist message, and so I am comfortable paying tithe and offerings to this church. If this pastor were transferred and a Calvinistic Adventist pastor put into his place, I do not know what I would do. I hope that I never have to face the problem. But others are facing the problem.

These questions are what caused me to do the research that was reported in Our Firm Foundation, September 1991. I set forth my conclusion in this statement:

“In neither Ellen White’s writings nor her practice was there anything to support the view that all tithe, regardless of circumstances, must be paid through regular channels.”

The writer of the Review tract article challenges this conclusion and sets forth a series of arguments in support of the view that all tithe must be paid through the regular church channels, apparently regardless of circumstances. He sees it as the correct understanding of Ellen White’s writings on the subject.

For purposes of analysis, we will group his arguments as follows:

  1. Argument from the Scriptures
  2. Arguments from the Spirit of Prophecy
  3. Arguments regarding Document File 213
  4. Arguments based on supernatural powers
  5. Arguments ad hominem, against the man
  6. Theological questions

Argument From the Scriptures

We use “argument” in the singular form because there is only one scriptural argument presented:

“The Old Testament gives clear instruction for the return and use of the tithe. The New Testament does not elaborate further, except to endorse the necessity of tithe paying.” Page 2

Let us compare this statement with 1 Corinthians 9, in which the apostle Paul responds to questions about his credentials and his right to the financial support of the people. The general principles set forth in the first twelve verses are brought to a specific conclusion in verses 13 and 14:

“Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? And they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”

Verse 13 is an obvious reference to the tithing system, by which the Levites were supported. Verse 14 specifically applies the same principle to another group. And who are they? “They which preach the gospel.”

Their credentials are the gospel which they preach. And was Paul a pluralist? Was he saying that preachers of any gospel and all gospels are to be supported by the tithe? We will find the answer in Galatians 1: 8- 9:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Does “let him be accursed” equate with “Let him be supported by the tithe?” And notice that Paul includes even himself in the warning, saying “Though we preach any other gospel unto you….” Is he not putting the test of truth above all other tests? Is he not telling them that the true gospel is the highest of all credentials? So much so that they should refuse to listen to even Paul himself if he came back to them preaching a different gospel, a new theology? How, then, can it be argued that if a minister is a member of a certain church and carries credentials from that church, he is entitled to be supported by the tithes of God’s people regardless of what gospel he preaches?

Arguments From the Spirit of Prophecy

Unfortunately, much of the material in this area is wasted, because it does not deal with the question before us. The longest series of Spirit of Prophecy quotations presented are warnings against withholding tithe, a practice which no one is defending. All of the parties involved in the present discussion believe that tithe paying is a sacred duty. None would approve of withholding it.

Similarly, much attention is given to the Spirit of Prophecy counsels regarding the proper use of the tithe to support the ministers of the gospel, a matter concerning which there is no significant disagreement. All of the parties involved are committed to following these inspired counsels, although in his list of the proper uses of the tithe, the writer might have included this instruction: “But while some go forth to preach, He calls upon others to answer to His claims upon them for tithes and offerings with which to support the ministry, and to spread the printed truth all over the land” Testimonies, vol. 4, 472; emphasis supplied in all quotations

Emphasis in the Review tract is placed upon a caution against any person “gathering up tithes,” which I would understand to mean solicitation. I do not know of any independent ministry that solicits tithe. Tithe comes to the independent ministries voluntarily from church members who are weary of false teachings being presented in their particular churches. Most of these church members have been faithful tithe payers for many years. Their devotion and fidelity to this Bible truth is not different from their devotion and fidelity to the other truths of our faith which they cannot bear to see changed. Where truth is taught, tithe is paid. That is the bottom line.

A strong attempt is made to apply Ellen White’s warnings against withholding tithe to the payment of tithe through other than the regular church channels. Two lines of reasoning are set forth in support of this proposition.

First, it is argued that for Ellen White the expression “the Lord’s treasury” meant only church and conference treasuries. This statement is in spite of the fact that when she herself sent tithe directly to needy ministers, and not through church or conference treasuries, she wrote, “The money is not withheld from the Lord’s treasury.” (The Watson letter, quoted in Review tract, page 13.) How, then, can it be maintained that for her “the lord’s treasury” meant only church and conference treasuries?

The Review tract writer apparently anticipated this question and offered what is, to my mind’ a very unsatisfactory explanation. After having admonished us that for Ellen White “the lord’s treasury” meant always and only the church and conference treasuries, he then tells us that when Ellen White’s tithe was sent directly to needy ministers, bypassing church and conference treasuries, it was not withheld from the lord’s treasury because they were Seventhday Adventist ministers.

Readers may decide for themselves whether this attempt to walk on both sides of the street at once is persuasive. Would not this interpretation open the door for all of us to bypass church and conference treasuries and send our tithe directly to needy ministers of our choice?

The second line of reasoning advanced in support of the claim that for Ellen White “the Lord’s treasury” meant only church and conference treasuries is that for Ellen White the word “means” does not generally include tithe but is applied only to offerings. Since only this argument was new to me, I checked it out carefully, and quickly discovered that the claim does not bear up well under investigation.

I went to that marvelous invention, the “CD Rom,” as produced by the White Estate, and asked it to report whether in Ellen White’s writings the words tithe, tithes, tithing, and tenth, were ever used in connection with the word means. It promptly supplied 168 references in which these words were used in such a manner as to make it impossible to separate them from the word means, which obviously included them. In some passages tithes and offerings together are referred to as means, and in other passages tithe alone is referred to as means. For the sake of brevity, we will provide here a sampling of those statements that do not include offerings: “Every soul who is honored in being a steward of God is to carefully guard the tithe money. This is sacred means.” Manuscript Releases. vol. 1, 185

“There are a large number of names on our church books; and if all would be prompt in paying an honest tithe to the lord, which is His portion, the treasury would not lack for means.” Counsels on Stewardship, 95

“Of the means which is entrusted to man, God claims a certain portion- a tithe.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 149 “God has given special direction as to the use of the tithe. He does not design that His work shall be crippled for want of means.” Gospel Workers, 224

“Should means flow into the treasury exactly according to God’s plan- a tenth of all the increase, there would be abundance to carry forward His work.” Evangelism, 252

“And in view of this the Lord commands us, ‘Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house; ‘ that is, a surplus of means in the treasury.” Review and Herald, vol. 2, 18

“If all of our people paid a faithful tithe, there would be more means in the treasury.” Ibid., vol. 4, 507

“With an increase of numbers would have come an increase of tithe, providing means to carry the message to other places.” Pamphlet No. 67,9

“If all, both rich and poor, would bring their tithes into the storehouse, there would be a sufficient supply of means.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 475

Since Ellen White went into print 168 times with statements clearly identifying tithes as means, (sometimes using duplicate words), it is difficult to understand how the Review tract writer could have reached an opposite conclusion. And since his representation that for Ellen White the expression “the lord’s treasury” means only church and conference treasuries is not supported by either of the two evidences he offers, it collapses of its own weight. It deprives of all validity the attempt to apply Ellen White’s warnings against “withholding tithe” to those who do not withhold tithe but, rather, send it to ministers that they feel are faithful to our message. And it gives particular force to her statement:

“All the means is not to be handled by one agency or organization.” Spalding- Magan Collection, 421

Arguments Regarding Document File 213

As was stated in my article in Our Firm Foundation, September 1991, this file contains a record of the plans that were made by Willie White, Ellen White’s son and secretary; General Conference President A. 0. Daniells; Elder W. W. Prescott; and others to deal with criticisms of Ellen White that had been published by a Dr. Stewart in the year 1907. Stewart had charged Ellen White with inconsistency in that she recommended paying tithe through organizational channels, yet did not always follow her own counsel. Their proposal for dealing with the challenge was set forth in these words:

“As to the proper use of the tithe: the outline of a statement upon this subject which was agreed upon was briefly this: to give extracts from Sister White’s writings as to the tithe and its use; to show that her testimony and her own usual practice was in favor of paying the tithe into the regularly designated treasury, to be used under the counsel of the committees appointed for such purposes; to show further from her writings that when those who have charge of the expenditure of the tithe so far fail in the discharge of their duty that the regularly organized channels for the distribution of the tithe become hindrances to its proper use, then in order to carry out the divine plan that the tithe should be expended in the wisest manner for the furtherance of the work, individuals have the right to pay their tithes direct to needy fields; but that this involves a considerable degree of personal responsibility, which must be assumed by those who decide to follow this plan. It was thought that this matter could be handled in a way to show that the departure from the regular plans was authorized only when the regular plans failed to be carried out by those in positions of responsibility.”

The Review tract writer tries to offset this evidence by the following methods: First, doubt is cast upon the authorship and dating of the document. I see no reason for such doubts. The file contains four letters from Dr. Stewart on the subject, all addressed to Willie White. There is also a letter of response from Willie White to Dr. Stewart. The notes, or “memoranda,” contain ten references to Willie White as the one who should answer certain questions. The most significant of the ten for the purposes of our inquiry is

“Tithe— to whom it should be paid: “Refer this to W. C. White. Very important.” In the light of this evidence it appears that to question Willie White’s involvement in the proceedings is hardly reasonable. And to question the date is not more reasonable. The four letters if of Dr. Stewart to Willie White are dated October 22, 1906; May 8, 1907; June 10, 1907; and June 24, 1907. Willie White’s letter to Dr. Stewart is dated June 9, 1907. The book by Dr. Stewart was published in mid- October, 1907, and a copy was sent to Willie White on October 27, 1907. The “memoranda” which includes the statement about tithe makes specific reference to this book. These facts seem to adequately establish the date for all practical purposes.

Second, the Review tract writer proposes that these men did not properly understand Ellen White’s thinking regarding the tithe, and supports this proposal with a most unhelpful comparison. He refers to a vision of heavenly planets given to Ellen White in 1846 in the presence of James White and Joseph Bates, who assumed that she was seeing Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. Then, we are told:

“Closeness to a prophet does not guarantee correctness.” We are asked to accept this as evidence that Ellen White’s son Willie, who had been her personal secretary and companion for twenty- six years, did not understand her thinking regarding the tithe, a matter concerning which she had gone into print well over a thousand times. The Review tract writer, viewing the situation from a distance of more than 80 years, seems to feel he has a better understanding of her thinking than Willie White did.

This reasoning strains the credulity to the breaking point.

Another attempt to discredit Document File 213 will be commented on in section 4. Before leaving this section we must mention a puzzling question and answer found on page 5 of the tract:

  1. “I’ve heard it said that other women who joined Mrs. White in her ‘tithe project’ for the Southern ministers didn’t send their tithe through Mrs. White but sent it directly to needy ministers, and that she must have approved of such actions. Is this so?”
  2. “No.” (Followed by a lengthy explanation.) I do not understand how the writer proposes to harmonize this statement with the following lines in the Watson letter, which appears on page 13 of the Review tract:

“If there have been cases where our sisters have appropriated their tithe to the support of the ministers working for the colored people in the South, let every man, if he is wise, hold his peace….

“I commend those sisters who have placed their tithe where it is most needed to help do a work that is being left undone.”

Especially puzzling is the writer’s recommendation that “the only safe course to follow, as regards Mrs. White’s position on the tithe question, is to let her speak for herself.” Page 6

Why, then, should the writer pose two questions about Ellen White’s writings (on pages 5 and 6) and refer us to two interpreters of Ellen White’s writings for the answers? We are reminded of her own words:

“My Instructor said to me, Tell these men that God has not committed to them the work of measuring, classifying, and defining the character of the testimonies.” Selected Messages, book 1,49

I intend no disrespect to anyone, but I prefer to look at Ellen White’s writings with my own eyes and not through the eyes of another.

Arguments Based on Supernatural Knowledge

On page six of the tract we find two statements that go far beyond human knowledge and could only be made by persons who are writing with supernatural wisdom of some kind.

In the first, a White Estate archivist makes reference to the Document File 213 and writes: “The Watson letter is the only Ellen White statement from which they formed their conclusions.” Compare this with some lines from the statement itself: “To give extracts from Sister White’s writings…. To show that her testimony and her own usual practice….. To show further from her writings.”

We see here no indication that they considered nothing but the Watson letter In the absence of such an indication, to state what they did or did not consider would require supernatural knowledge.

On page 6 of the tract we find this bold statement: “And it is an undeniable fact that Mrs. White never counseled anyone to place his or her tithes anywhere except in the denominational ‘treasury.” ‘

This is breathtaking. How could any human being know with such certainty what Ellen White never did? Only by supernatural knowledge. A logician would point out that nothing can be proved by the absence of evidence. It would be more accurate and more modest for a writer to state that he had found no evidence of such counsel in the written records. But, to firmly state as an “undeniable fact” that she never gave any such counsel would surely require godlike powers.

Similar in nature is the bold statement on page 9 of the tract: “Ellen White never even considered such an option.” How can any human being state with such assurance what another person has or has not considered? Would not this require supernatural knowledge?

On page 10 the Review tract writer does not hesitate to tell us what Ellen White intended and on page 15 he explains to us what Ellen White had in mind on a certain occasion. All of this requires powers that are not possessed by ordinary humans. Most of us would have to admit that we are not able to read the minds of our contemporaries, much less the minds of persons who died long before we were born. Surely such statements should be regarded with extreme caution.

Arguments Ad Hominem

A long established principle of discussion is that those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man. This is called the argument ad hominem, against the man, also expressed in the statement:

“As evidence decreases, vehemence increases.” It is to be regretted that the Review tract writer makes several references to those who “solicit or accept” tithe. As stated earlier, I have never heard of any ministry that solicits tithe. Also as stated before, tithe comes to independent ministries unbidden from distressed and disenchanted church members. Ellen White herself did not reject such tithe. (See the Watson letter.)

Neither have I ever heard of anyone who accuses the church of being in apostasy simply because of a different view regarding the human nature of Christ. See “Theological Questions” below. For the evidence which causes most historic Adventists to reject the author’s reasoning about the human nature of Christ, we refer the reader to our 365- page research report, The Word Was Made Flesh, available from Hope International.

When a writer proposes that he will present to us a “fair reading” of Ellen White’s writings (page 11), he is alleging that only an unfair person could understand the matter differently than he does.

And to suggest or imply that persons who quote a portion of a long statement have sinister purposes m mind is again to lay claim to supernatural abilities to read minds and to judge motives.

Since Ellen White strongly indicated in the Watson letter that she preferred that her personal handling of tithe funds not be widely advertised, it is alleged that persons like myself who have made reference to the letter are at fault. This allegation overlooks the fact that the entire letter has been published twice by the White Estate itself, in 1987 in Manuscript Releases, Vol. 11, pages 99- 100, and in 1981 in Elder Arthur White’s Ellen 0. White: The Early Elmshaven Years, pages 3953%. To fault those who now make reference to it is hardly candid.

The tendency to use the argument against the man reaches its climax on page 7, where it is proposed that it may eventually be discovered that

(1) “Those who now take the position that the church has apostatized were themselves guilty of apostasy.”

We respond again that the vast majority of the thousands of members who are calling for the church to return to its pure teachings are not saying that the church has apostatized. They are saying there is apostasy in the church, which the Review tract writer himself concedes (page 3). And we take exception to the writer’s definition of these people’s views about God’s storehouse:

(2)… “teaching others that God’s ‘storehouse’ today is the treasury of any place where Sabbath- keeping religious work for Christ is being performed.”

I have never heard of any person who would so describe the storehouse. To so characterize those who are pleading for the church to hold to all of the doctrines of our historic faith, including the sanctuary, the three angel’s messages, and so on, is not appropriate.

I must commend the Review tract writer, however, for not indulging in the type of argument “against the man” that some others are employing. The allegation is that those who are appealing for the church to heed and follow God’s counsels are setting themselves up as “more holy,” “holy ones,” “pious critics,” “the only ones who are right.” These allegations constitute the nadir, in my opinion, of the arguments against the man.

It is left to the considered judgment of the reader how well the cause of truth is served by such allegations as these. As for the Review tract writer’s attempt to apply the principle of Matthew 18: 15 to the present problem in the church, I refer the reader to Testimonies, Volume 2, page 15, where it is emphasized that Matthew 18: 15 applies to personal injuries, not church problems.

The Review tract writer does not seem to allow for an independent ministry to be legitimate and loyal unless it is to some degree under the supervision and/ or control of the church organization. This is similar to the views expressed in the eleven demands that were made upon independent ministries some time ago. According to P. T. Magan, who with E. A. Sutherland was a co- founder of Madison College, Ellen White’s views were a bit different. From Magan’s copious diaries we excerpt a few lines:

August 8, 1904: “He [E. A. Sutherland?] says that he worked with W. C. White during the forenoon getting articles and plans ready regarding the incorporation of the school at Nashville. In the afternoon he met with Daniels,( the General Conference president,) Prescott, (field secretary of the General Conference,) Griggs, Washburn, Byrd, and W. C. White to consider our plan of organization. Daniels did not like it.”

As later entries in the diary indicate, the Spirit of the Lord was giving instructions through Ellen White to the founders of Madison College which the General Conference president did not like. August 9, 1904: “Talk with Mrs. E. G. White and W. C. White regarding our plans for organization. She said we were not to go under the dominion of the Southern Union Conference.”

August 14, 1906: “Spent forenoon with Daniels. Told him why our school was independent and would have to eat showbread.” May 7, 1907: “Talked with Sister White regarding attitude of General Conference toward us. Mrs. Sara McEnterfer and Lillian present. Told Sister White about the administration view that we had no right to go and get money unless we were owned by the conference. She replied: “You are doing double what they are. Take all the donations you can get. The money belongs to the Lord and not to these men. The position they take is not of God. The Southern Union Conference is not to own or control you. You cannot turn things over to them.”

May 14, 1907: “I talked to her [E. G. White] about the General Conference position that concerns non- conference owned should have no money. She answered: ‘Daniels and those with him are taking a position on this matter that is not of God. ‘”

May 23, 1907: “Spent the forenoon with W. C. White. He gave me Sister White’s letters to Daniels regarding us. He told me he did not agree with the administration at Washington in insisting that all monies pass through their hands. Said that he would not agree to our going under conference domination.”

As is noted by the Review tract writer, Ellen White served as a board member of Madison College. This would seem to indicate that in her view an institution and/ or a ministry could be totally independent from the church organization and still be approved by. the Lord. But, as in Ellen White’s time, this view is still not appreciated by some of our church administrators.

Theological Questions

Although we have already pointed out that the heart of the present tithe issue is a theological problem, the theological points raised by the Review tract writer have been purposely deferred to this section for comment.

After conceding that there is apostasy in the church, the Review tract writer strangely takes no notice at all of the fact that this apostasy is the immediate and urgent concern of probably 95 percent of the people whom he is trying to correct. This apostasy is the specific reason for the redirection of their tithe.

Instead of dealing with this problem, the writer addresses his remarks toward a minuscule group who may be guilty of various charges that he directs at them. This tactic is not helpful to the thousands of church members who are not doing the things that he deplores, but who are deeply concerned about the increasing apostasy in the church. Their question is, Why does he not address our problem? Why doesn’t he talk to us?

And I wish to address to the Review tract writer, as well as to all others who have expressed similar concerns, the same question: Why don’t you talk to us? Why do you tilt at windmills? Why do you flog dead horses? Why do you focus on the symptoms and ignore the disease? Why do you set up straw men and then beat them to pieces while we can only look on in wonderment?

The vast majority of church members who are variously known as “historic Adventists,” “Independents,” and so forth, do not recognize themselves at all in the pictures often painted. The Review tract writer sets out to fault and hopefully correct certain persons whom he apparently suspects of evil purposes toward the church. He identifies these persons by three characteristics which he vigorously condemns:

  1. Solicitation of tithe,
  2. Saying that the church is in apostasy, and
  3. Basing the above accusation on a view of the nature of Christ. When the writer repeatedly describes the offenders as persons who solicit tithe, we can only respond that we do not know of whom he is speaking. I, personally, have never heard of any person who solicits tithe.

When the writer faults persons who say the church is in apostasy, we wonder, “To whom is he referring?”

And when the Review tract writer takes aim at persons who allegedly set forth a different view of the nature of Christ as the basis of their accusation that the church is in apostasy, we ask again, “Of whom is he speaking?” I have never heard of such persons.

The people to whom I minister have enormously larger concerns. They are witnessing, for example, rejection of our sanctuary doctrine, the introduction into our church of false Calvinistic doctrines of justification and sanctification, rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy, and a general lowering of the church standards. They are not helped by the singling out of the nature of Christ as if that were the only issue.

We pause to point out that the true doctrine of the nature of Christ is set forth in the new Seventh- day Adventists Believe, pages 37- 56. Check and see. The Review tract writer places before us an unhelpful comparison of the present apostasy with the pantheistic apostasy of Dr. J. H. Kellogg. We must remember that Kellogg’s apostasy was met head- on. It was not ignored until apostasy had spread through a large portion of the church, as is happening today. A. 0. Daniels, General Conference president at the time, used the power and influence of his office to defend the truth and to oppose the error. We look in vain for such decisive action today, in spite of clear Spirit of Prophecy counsels that apply to both apostasies.

There is a crying need for communication on the part of our church leaders, a communication that includes some attentive, open- minded listening. There are mountains of misunderstanding.

I am finding it more and more difficult to persuade the historic Adventists to whom I minster that the misinformation that is being constantly circulated about them is done in ignorance and not with malice. It is not easy to explain to those who want only to believe and practice the faith that they accepted when they joined our church why they should now be called divisive, controversial, troublemakers, legalists, rightwingers, destructive critics, attackers of the church, and so forth. They see these epithets as grossly unfair, untrue allegations. I believe that any impartial court would agree with them. Surely any fair- minded person would agree that those who are promoting theological changes are the ones who produce division, and those who resist theological changes should not be so accused. To represent those people as attacking the church is absurd. To call for a church to be true to the counsels of the Lord is surely not attacking the church.

We now come to my strongest point of disagreement with the Review tract writer. He presents the following question and answer:

  1. “I recently read that the SDA church leadership is out to resolve its ‘tithe- problem’ by ‘crushing’ and ‘destroying’ independent ministries that are doing a lot of good. Is this so?”
  2. “The answer is No.” (It is followed by a lengthy explanation.) I do not question the sincerity of the writer, but I do not find it possible to accept this answer. At a camp meeting in the Northwest in 1991, a speaker who represents our church administration at its highest level unburdened himself of some opinions about independent ministries. When audio tapes of his messages were sent to me, I listened in deep sadness to language that was inaccurate, intemperate, and highly inflammatory. When copied to typewriter paper, the tirade filled two pages single- spaced, and ended with an appeal to his hearers to “deal with” the offenders in their local churches.

The speaker apparently was not even aware of his inappropriate use of the word “new” to describe the views regarding the nature of Christ that are held by most of the historic Adventists. There are 1200 statements from pre- 1950 Seventh- day Adventist writers, including 400 from Ellen White, to support the position that the historic Adventist view is the “old” and the Calvinistic view is the “new.” Sadly, the speaker seems to regard these 1200 statements as “snake- oil.”

I know of no independent ministry whose books are not audited. I know of no independent ministry that pays anyone a yearly salary of $100,000 or more. Far, far from it. All of the independent ministries of my acquaintance are legally registered as nonprofit corporations and can provide donors with full accountability in the form of tax- deductible receipts. I know of no independent ministry that is trying to divide or destroy the church. Many independent workers are former denominational workers, intensely loyal to the church, who feel called to the work they are doing.

When a church administrator compares certain Seventh- day Adventists to the butchers of Auschwitz and Dachau who exterminated millions of Jews, I feel that we are forced to recognize that it is an attempt to fan the flames of passion against those church members, preparatory to disfellowshiping them. Already it seems that some other church leaders are taking the cue and are adding fuel to the flames.

But will this injustice crush and destroy the faith of those who do not wish to change their theology? I doubt it. It might even cause that faith to grow and to multiply. It has happened before in the history of religion.

A retired Union Conference president said to me recently, “I hope the brethren will not forget that our conservative members are the financial backbone of our church.” This point is worthy of reflection.

To summarize and to state the problem in simple terms: The Seventh- day Adventist church today contains three groups of church members. At one end of the spectrum is a group who know very well what they are doing. They are working vigorously to change the doctrines of our church and with the flexibility of method provided by their theological principle that God does not expect anyone to stop sinning. Hence, the misrepresentations, false allegations, and so on.

At the other end of the spectrum is another group who know very well what they are doing trying to preserve in their purity the doctrines of our church and to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord. In spite of bitter opposition and misrepresentation, this group is growing very rapidly.

In the center of the spectrum is a third and larger group who apparently have not yet comprehended what the tensions are about, or who lack the courage of their convictions.

Over all preside our church administrators, most of whom seem to be looking on, either benignly or indifferently, while attempts are being made to change our theology, from time to time issuing piteous pleas for unity which can only remind us of the Ellen White warning:

“We are to unify, but not upon a platform of error.” Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, article “Freedom in Christ,” 47

And we are presently witnessing what appears to be an orchestrated propaganda campaign, conducted for the purpose of fanning the flames of prejudice against historic/ independent church members, preparatory to disfellowshiping them from the church.

So— the historic Adventists continue to ask, “Why will nobody talk to us? Why can we not even be granted a fair hearing? Why are we being so continuously misrepresented and falsely accused? And why do those who thus deal with us yet think they have a right to demand our tithes and offerings?”

I submit that these are valid questions. Since this article began with questions about tithe, let me conclude it with some final thoughts on that subject. Recently I sat in a meeting with a thousand other church members and listened to a General Conference representative repeatedly denounce “the independent ministries who are draining off the church’s money.”

I listened in silence, but the language of my heart was, “Get real, Brother. Get real.” I had heard in my own church a pastor say that televangelist Jerry Falwell counts Seventh-day Adventists as his second largest group of financial supporters. It was stated that the source of this information was a Union Conference secretary. I telephoned’ the secretary, and he verified the report. He had heard it from Falwell’s own lips.

The Union secretary added that an Adventist Church member who had spent some time working with televangelist Pat Robertson’s organization reported the same was true there. When we remember that these men count their receipts in many millions of dollars per year, we have to recognize that the portion they receive from Seventh- day Adventists, their second highest donor group, must also be measured in millions. It is doubtful that the combined budgets of all the Adventist independent ministries would equal what even one of these televangelists is collecting from Seventh- day Adventists each year.

Why is nobody asking why? Why do so many of our leaders seem to be unaware of the malaise that is affecting so many of our churches, where so few messages from the pulpit reflect any sense of the urgency of our task? Is it any wonder that church members, who have never doubted that our Creator is a loving, caring God, (a message they could hear in most non-Seventh- day Adventist Christian churches) grow weary of hearing this truth endlessly repeated, and turn to preaching that seems to have more immediate significance?

Preaching the wonderful love of God we must do, but not leave the other undone. Let us remember that if Noah had done nothing but preach about a loving, earing God, there would have been no ark and his family would have perished in the Flood. If Moses had done nothing but preach about a loving, caring God there would have been no deliverance of God’s people from the land of bondage. If we do no more than preach about a loving, caring God, it will be necessary for God to raise up another people to take the three angels’ messages to the world. Our loving, caring God is a God of action, and His saving action for this world is in its final stages. The last warning message must go to the world. Will it be carried by a faithful Adventist ministry and people, or by those whom God calls to take their places?

And now a thought question. There are two distinct series of Ellen White predictions about the Adventist ministry of the end- time. One series describes how unfaithful ministers will arise among us, and is expressed in such shockingly clear statements as these:

“Many will stand in our pulpits with the torch of false prophecy in their hands, kindled from the hellish torch of Satan.” Testimonies to Ministers, 409- 410

“In the very midst of us will arise false teachers, giving heed to seducing spirits whose doctrines are of satanic origin. These teachers will draw away disciples after themselves.” Review aud Herald, vol. 5, 9

The other series of predictions emphasizes that in the closing work God will pass by many ministers who have been trained in “literary institutions,” and will call men from their regular employment to finish the preaching of our message. See The Great Controversy, 608, and Testimonies, vol. 5, page 80 Two classes of ministers are thus placed before us. One group are highly educated but selfconfident, self- dependent, and in some cases unfaithful. The other group, though having less formal education, place their confidence in God, in His Word, and in the Spirit of Prophecy.

Which of these two groups of ministers, according to your convictions, should be supported by our tithes? And are we safe in assuming that this description is a faraway scenario that will probably not occur in our time?

Two very powerful forces within the Seventh- day Adventist Church are now on a collision course and seem to be moving inexorably toward what may well be a major confrontation. One force is represented by the rapidly increasing number of church members who are reacting against changes in our theology and are making firm decisions that, come what may, by God’s grace, they will be true to the Scriptures and to the Spirit of Prophecy.

The other force is represented in what appears to be a heedless, headstrong authoritarianism in which there is an equally firm determination that regardless of circumstances, all church members must be required to submit to the authority of the church. Theological questions, the heart of the problem, are being brushed aside as irrelevant, or are themselves being subordinated to church authority in an echo of the papal policy that the Scriptures mean whatever the church says they mean.

We cannot but view the scene with apprehension as we reflect about similar confrontations in the past. It was headstrong authoritarianism that divided Israel from Judah in the days of Rehoboam. It was similar authoritarianism that divided the followers of Christ from Israel in New Testament times and that divided Protestants from Catholics in Reformation times. Will it be the same with us? Is the remnant church foredoomed to also founder in the shoals of authoritarianism? Or might we yet be able to turn the church back from disaster by joining the apostle Paul in placing the test of truth above all other tests?

As we ponder such matters, we find ourselves struggling with two concepts. On the one hand we have a hope, to which we cling desperately, that the church we love so ardently will recover and complete our God- given task.

On the other hand, we have before us the Spirit of Prophecy predictions that our church will experience an enormous convulsion as we near the end of time, a shaking and a purging that will take many of our leaders and more than half of our members out of the church.

Which experience are we now entering? Will we be granted a respite? Or must we brace ourselves for the shaking time?

In any case, let us remember that the greatest hours of our message, the loud cry and the latter rain, are after the shaking time. Let us take to our hearts the words of the lord to Joshua:

“Have not I commanded thee? Be strong.” Joshua 1: 9

Buy copies of the Tithe Problem in our bookstore.

ISSUES: Part II – Appendixes

by

Dr. John J. Grosboll

Appendix #1
Appendix #2
Appendix #3
Appendix #4

Appendix #1

Inspired Definitions and Descriptions of the true church:

  1. “Those who keep God’s commandments, those who live not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, compose the church of the living God. Those who choose to follow Antichrist are subjects of the great apostate. Ranged under the banner of Satan, they break God’s law, and lead others to break it” 1MR 296.
  2. “The church is the instrumentality by which Christ enlightens those that sit in darkness” RH 3/ 22/ 98.
  3. “The people of God have a high and holy calling. They are Christ’s representatives. Paul address the church in Corinth as those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints. ‘

And he adds: For we are laborers together with God; ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. ‘ ‘Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. ‘ Again he says to them: What agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ‘ To the saints at Ephesus he writes: ‘Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit. ‘ Says Peter, ‘Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” RH 5/ 6/ 1884.

  1. “To the end of time, the presence of the Spirit is to abide with the true church” CS 251.
  2. “Jesus sees His true church on the earth, whose greatest ambition is to cooperate with Him in the grand work of saving souls” HP 284.
  3. “There is a strife between the forces of good and evil, between the loyal and the disloyal angels. Christ and Satan are not at an agreement, and they never will be. In every age the true church of God has engaged in decided warfare against satanic agencies. Until the controversy is ended, the struggle will go on, between wicked angels and wicked men on the one side, and holy angels and true believers on the other” Testimonies for the church Containing letters to Physicians and Ministers Instruction to Seventh- day Adventists, 5.
  4. “We can see from this scripture that it is not the true church of God that makes war with those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. It is the people who make void the law, who place themselves on the side of the dragon, and persecute those who vindicate God’s precepts” ST 4/ 22/ 89.
  5. “In holy vision, John saw the remnant church on the earth, in an age of lawlessness, and he points them out in unmistakable language: ‘Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. ‘ They are in harmony with that law that rests in the ark in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary” ST 2/ 3/ 88.
  6. “It is Christ’s organized body upon the earth, and respect is required to be paid to His ordinances. In the case of Saul, Ananias represents Christ, and he also represents Christ’s ministers upon the earth who are appointed to act in Christ’s stead” 3T 433.
  7. “God has a church. It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment, neither is it the various denominations; it is the people who love God and keep His commandments. ‘Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them. ‘ Where Christ is, even among the humble few, this is Christ’s church, for the presence of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church. Where two or three are present who love and obey the commandments of God, Jesus there presides, let it be in the desolate place of the earth, in the wideness, in the city, [or] enclosed in prison walls. The glory of God has penetrated the prison walls, flooding with glorious beams of heavenly light the darkest dungeon. His saints may suffer, but their sufferings will, like the apostles’ of old, spread their faith and win souls to Christ and glorify His holy name. The bitterest opposition expressed by those who hate God’s great moral standard of righteousness should not and will not shake the steadfast soul who trusts fully in God” 17MR 81, 82.
  8. “God calls the church His body. The church is the bride, the Lamb’s wife. God is the Father of the family, the shepherd of the flock. But a mere outward connection with any church will not save a man. It is personal faith in a personal Saviour that brings the soul into spiritual union with Christ. This truth Christ plainly teaches in the sixth chapter of John” 16MR 277.
  9. “The church on earth is God’s temple, and it is to assume divine proportions before the world. This building is to be the light of the world. It is to be composed of living stones laid close together, stone fitting to stone, making a solid building. All these stones are not of the same shape or dimension. Some are large, and some are small, but each one has its own place to fill. In the whole building there is not to be one misshapen stone. Each one is perfect. And each stone is a living stone, a stone that emits light. The value of the stones is determined by the light they reflect to the world” RH 12/ 4/ 00.
  10. “In the Scriptures the figure of the erection of a temple is frequently used to illustrate the building of the church. . . . Writing of the building of this temple, Peter says, ‘To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood… ‘ (1 Peter 2: 4, 5)” God’s Amazing Grace, 123. 14. “The church is very precious in His sight, It is the case which contains His jewels, the fold which encloses His flock, and He longs to see it without spot or blemish or any such thing. He yearns after it with unspeakable love” 6T 261.

Appendix #2

Ellen White quotations which distinguish between the true church and the professed church:

  1. “Romanists have persisted in bringing against Protestants the charge of heresy and willful separation from the true church. But these accusations apply rather to themselves. They are the ones who laid down the banner of Christ and departed from ‘the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. ‘ Jude 3” GC 51.
  2. “There is a lack of moral and spiritual power throughout our Conferences. Many churches do not have light in themselves. The members do not give evidence that they are branches of the True Vine, by bearing much fruit to the glory of God, but appear to be withering away. Their Redeemer has withdrawn his light, the inspiration of his Holy Spirit, from their assemblies; [‘ To the end of time the presence of the Spirit is to abide with the true church” AA55.] for they have ceased to represent the self- denial, the sympathy and compassionate love of the world’s Redeemer; they have not love for the souls for whom Christ has died. They have ceased to be true and faithful. [“ From the beginning faithful souls have constituted the church on earth” AA 11.] It is a sad picture— the feeble piety, the want of consecration and devotion to God. There has been a separation of the soul from God; many have cut off the communication between him and the soul by refusing his messengers and his message” 1888 Materials, 764.
  3. “These are the true feelings of a large class in Battle Creek. Satan exults at his success in controlling the minds also many who profess to be Christians. He has deceived them, benumbed their sensibilities, and planted his hellish banner right in their midst, and they are so completely deceived that they know not that it is he. The people have not erected graven images, yet their sin is no less in the sight of God. They worship mammon. They love worldly gain. Some will make any sacrifice of conscience to obtain their object. God’s professed people are selfish and self- caring. They love the things of this world, and have fellowship with the works of darkness. They have pleasure in unrighteousness. They have not love toward God, nor love for their neighbors. They are idolaters— worse, far worse, in the sight of God, than the heathen graven- image worshipers who have no knowledge of a better way” Appeal to the Battle Creek Church, 2,3.

Contrast the above statement about the professed church with the following statement about the true church: “There is a strife between the forces of good and evil, between the loyal and the disloyal angels. Christ and Satan are not at an agreement, and they never will be. In every age the true church of God has engaged in decided wait are against satanic agencies. Until the controversy is ended, the struggle will go on, between wicked angels and wicked men on the one side, and holy angels and true believers on the other” Special Testimonies, Series B, 5.

  1. “The apostle’s words of warning to the Corinthian church are applicable to all time, and are specially adapted to the wants of our day. By idolatry he did not alone mean the worship of idols, but also selfishness, love of ease, the gratification of appetite and passion. All these come under the head of idolatry. A mere profession of faith iii Christ, and a boastful knowledge of the truth, does not constitute a Christian. A religion which seeks only to gratify the eye, the ear, and the taste, or which permits any hurtful self- indulgence, is not the religion of Christ. It is in harmony with the spirit of the world, and is opposed to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Festivals and scenes of amusement, in which professed members of the Christian church imitate the customs and enjoy the pleasures of the world, constitute a virtual union with the enemies of God” LP 169, 170.
  2. “For many centuries, first through paganism and then through the Papacy, Satan exerted his powers to blot from the earth God’s faithful witnesses. Both heathen and papists were actuated by the same dragon spirit. They differed only in that the Romish apostate, making a pretense of serving God, was the more dangerous and cruel foe. Through the agency of Romanism, Satan took the world captive. The professed church of God was swept into the ranks of this delusion, and for more than a thousand years the true people of God suffered under the dragon’s ire” ST 2/ 8/ 10.
  3. “Even the professed church of Christ, with their exalted privileges and high professions, discerned not the image of Christ in this self- denying child of God because they were so far removed from Christ themselves that they reflected not His image. They judged by the external appearance and took no special pains to discern the inward adorning. Here was a woman whose resources of knowledge and genuine experience in the mysteries of godliness exceeded those of anyone residing at ,and whose manner of address to the youth and children was ~5V~ sing, instructive, and salutary. She was not harsh, but correct and sympathetic, and would have proved one of the most useful laborers in the field as an instructor of the youth and an intelligent, useful companion and counselor to mothers. She could reach hearts by her earnest, matter- of- fact presentation of incidents in her religious life, which she had devoted to the service of her Redeemer. Had the church emerged from darkness and deception into the clear light, their hearts would have been drawn out after the lonely stranger. Her prayers, her tears, her distress, at seeing no way of usefulness open to her, have been seen and heard in heaven. The Lord offered to His people talented help; but they were rich and increased with goods, and had need of nothing. They turned from and rejected a most precious blessing of which they will yet feel the need. Had Elder E stood in the clear light of God and been imbued with His Spirit when this servant of Jesus, lonely, homeless, and thirsting for a work to do for her Master, was brought to his notice, spirit would have answered to spirit, as face answereth to face in a mirror; his heart would have been drawn out after this disciple of Christ, and he would have understood her. Thus also with the church. They had been in such spiritual blindness they had lost the sound of the voice of the true Shepherd and were following the voice of a stranger, who was leading them from the fold of Christ” 2T 141, 142. Notice that the fold is the church of Christ (1MR 237) and these were professed church members, members of the Battle Creek SDA church who were being led ‘from the fold of Christ, ‘ that is, from the true church.
  4. “Pride and lukewarmness have made the professed people of God an offense in his sight” RH 8/ 7/ 94. Now notice the contrast between the professed people and the true people of God: “We are to find the assurance of our acceptance with God in his written promise, not in a happy flight of feeling. Were we to ground our hope upon joyful emotions, there are many of God’s true people who would be without assurance. There are in the fold of Christ not only the sheep, that he leads into green pastures, but the lambs, that the Shepherd gathers in his arms and carries in his bosom. . . . they are precious in the sight of the Lord” ST 4/ 18/ 95.
  5. “There are many, many, professed Christians who are waiting unconcernedly for the coming of the Lord. They have not on the garment of His righteousness. They may profess to be children of God, but they are not cleansed from sin. They are selfish and self- sufficient. Their experience is Christless. They neither love God supremely nor their neighbor as themselves. They have no true idea of what constitutes holiness. They do not see the defects in themselves. So blinded are they, that they are not able to detect the subtle working of pride and iniquity. They are clad in the rags of self- righteousness, and stricken with spiritual blindness. Satan has cast his shadow between them and Christ, and they have no wish to study the pure, holy character of the Saviour” RH 2/ 26/ 1901.
  6. “The times are marked by extraordinary depravity. The religion of the churches of today is of a kind that should make every true follower of God afraid of it. The religious character of professed Christians makes them act like demons. ‘We have a law, ‘ they say, and by our law He ought to die. ‘ More than common contempt will be shown to those who make the Word of God their criterion” ST 1/ 31/ 1900.
  7. “The trouble is, religion is professed but not practiced. The Spirit of God will dwell in the hearts of his followers. The condition of the cause of God will cause the deepest suffering of mind and anguish of soul. Oh that the history of the past would influence the present! Oh that all would feel to the depths of their souls that they have it as a privilege and duty individually to be earnest believers in the truth and co- laborers with their self- denying Saviour who has loved them and given his life for them” Special Testimony to the Battle Creek Church, 17, 18.
  8. “When Jesus came as a man to our world, Satan had led the Jews into the practice of a religion that pleased the powers of darkness. The professed people of God had departed from God, and were following another leader. Through their own perversity, they were going on to destruction; but Christ came to dispute the authority of Satan. He was met on every hand by the temptation of the enemy, who sought to appear not as a fallen, evil angel, but as an exalted, loyal angel. He sought to veil his true character of the deceiver, the falsifier, the apostate, the accuser of the brethren, and the murderer, and to present himself as one who had the honor of God at heart. But the life of Christ was made one long scene of conflict. Satan stirred up the evil hearts of men, and set envy and prejudice at work against the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. He caused men to question and to doubt the word, works, and mission of Christ” ST 4/ 25/ 95.
  9. “The true people of God, who have the spirit of the work of the Lord and the salvation of souls at heart, will ever view sin in its real, sinful character. They will always bean the side of faithful and plain dealing with sins which easily beset the people of God. Especially in the closing work for the church, in the sealing time of the one hundred and forty- four thousand who are to stand without fault before the throne of God, will they feel most deeply the wrongs of God’s professed people. This is forcibly set forth by the prophet’s illustration of the last work under the figure of the men each having a slaughter weapon in his hand. One man among them was clothed with linen. with a writer’s inkhorn by his side. ‘And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof” 3T 266.
  10. “But the heavenly principles that distinguish those who are one with Christ from those who are one with the world have become almost indistinguishable. The professed people of Christ are no longer a separate and peculiar people. The line of demarcation is indistinct. People are subordinating themselves to the world, to its practices, its customs, its selfishness. The church has gone over to the world in transgression of the law, when the world should have come over to the church in obedience to the law. Daily the church is becoming converted to the world. Professing Christians are slaves of mammon. Their indulgence of appetite, and extravagant expenditure of money for selfish gratification, greatly dishonors God” Special Testimony to the Battle Creek Church, 9.
  11. “Christ declares that there will exist similar unbelief concerning His second coming. As the people of Noah’s day ‘knew not until the Flood came, and took them all away; so, ‘ in the words of our Saviour, ‘shall also the coming of the Son of man be. ‘ Matthew 24: 39. When the professed people of God are uniting with the world, living as they live, and joining with them in forbidden pleasures; when the luxury of the world becomes the luxury of the church; when the marriage bells are chiming, and all are looking forward to many years of worldly prosperity— then, suddenly as the lightning flashes from the heavens, will come the end of their bright visions and delusive hopes” GC 338, 339.
  12. “Satan was seeking by this means to oppose and destroy the work of God. The people had been greatly stirred by the advent movement, thousands of sinners had been converted, and faithful men were giving themselves to the work of proclaiming the truth, even in the tarrying time. The prince of evil was losing his subjects; and in order to bring reproach upon the cause of God, he sought to deceive some who professed the faith and to drive them to extremes. Then his agents stood ready to seize upon every error, every failure, every unbecoming act, and hold it up before the people in the most exaggerated light, to render Adventists and their faith odious. Thus the greater the number whom he could crowd in to make a profession of faith in the second advent while his power controlled their hearts, the greater advantage would he gain by calling attention to them as representatives of the whole body of believers” GC 395.
  13. “Those among Sabbathkeepers who have yielded to the influence of the world are to be tested. The perils of the last days are upon us, and a trial is before the professed people of God which many have not anticipated. The genuineness of their faith will be proved. Many have united with woridlings in pride, vanity, and pleasure seeking, flattering themselves that they could do this and still be Christians. But it is such indulgences that separate them from God and make them children of the world. Christ has given us no such example. Those only who deny self, and live a life of sobriety, humility, and holiness, are true followers of Jesus; and such cannot enjoy the society of the lovers of the world” 4T 633

Appendix #3

Who is an historic Seventh- day Adventist?

An historic Seventh- day Adventist is a person who believes the historic teachings of Seventh- day Adventists. The following article by James White from the Signs of the Times in 1874 outlines the historic doctrines of Seventh- day Adventists. A historic Seventh- day Adventist still believes all of these. It should also be said that an historic Seventh- day Adventist believes that Ellen G. White is a prophet of God and that her writings have divine authority— an historic Seventh- day Adventist will never argue against a theological position based on the weight of evidence in the Ellen G. White writings.

Fundamental Principles By James White

In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed. or discipline aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them. We often find it necessary to meet inquiries on this subject, and sometimes to correct false statements circulated against us, and to remove erroneous impressions which have obtained with those who have not had an opportunity to become acquainted with our faith and practice. Our only object is to meet this necessity.

With these remarks, we ask the attention of the reader to the following propositions which aim to be a concise statement of the more prominent features of our faith.

  1. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual Being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit. Psalm 139: 7.
  2. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, and Son of the Eternal Father, the One by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that He dwelt among men, full of grace and truth, lived our example,’ died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only Mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, with His own blood, He makes atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven. See Leviticus 16; Hebrews 8: 4, 5; 9: 6, 7; etc.
  3. That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of His will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
  4. That baptism is an ordinance of the Christian church, to follow faith and repentance, an ordinance by which we commemorate the resurrection of Christ, as by this act we show our faith in His burial and resurrection, and, through that, of the resurrection of all the saints at the last day; and that no other mode fitly represents these facts than that which the Scriptures prescribe, namely, immersion. Romans 6: 3- 5; Colossians 2: 12.
  5. That the new birth comprises the entire change necessary to fit us for the kingdom of God, and consists of two parts First, a moral change, wrought by conversion and a Christian life; second, a physical change at the second coming of Christ, whereby, if dead, we are raised incorruptible, and, if living, are changed to immortality in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. John 3: 3, 5; Luke 20: 36.
  6. We believe that prophecy is a part of God’s revelation to man; that it is included in that scripture which is profitable for instruction (2 Timothy 3: 16); that it is designed for us and our children (Deuteronomy 29: 29); that so far from being enshrouded in impenetrable mystery, it is that which especially constitutes the word of God a lamp to our feet and a light to our path (Psalm 119: 105; 2 Peter 1: 19); that a blessing is pronounced upon those who study it (Revelation 1: 1- 3); and that, consequently, it is to be understood by the people of God, sufficiently to show them their position in the world’s history, and the special duties required at their hands,
  7. That the world’s history from specified dates in the past, the rise and fall of empires, and the chronological succession of events down to the setting up of God’s everlasting kingdom, are outlined in numerous great chains of prophecy; and that these prophecies are now all fulfilled except the closing scenes.
  8. That the doctrine of the world’s conversion and temporal millennium is a fable of these last days, calculated to lull men into a state of carnal security, and cause them to be overtaken by the great day of the Lord as by a thief in the night; that the second coming of Christ is to precede, not follow the millennium; for until the Lord appears, the papal power, with all its abominations, is to continue, the wheat and tares grow together, and evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, as the word of God declares.
  9. That the mistake of Adventists in 1844 pertained to the nature of the event then to transpire, not to the time; that no prophetic period is given to reach to the second advent, but that the longest one, the two thousand and three hundred days of Daniel 8: 14, terminated in that year, and brought us to an event called the cleansing of the sanctuary.
  10. That the sanctuary of the new covenant is the tabernacle of God in heaven, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8, and onward, of which our Lord, as great High Priest, is minister; that this sanctuary is the antitype of the Mosaic tabernacle, and that the priestly work of our Lord, connected therewith, is the antitype of the work of the Jewish priests of the former dispensation (Hebrews 8: 1- 5, etc.); that this is the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days; what is termed its cleansing being in this case, as in the type, simply the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, to finish the round of service connected therewith, by blotting out and removing from the sanctuary the sins which had been transferred to it by means of the ministration in the first apartment (Hebrews 9: 22,23); and that this work, in the antitype, commencing in 1844, occupies a brief but indefinite space, at the conclusion of which the work of mercy for the world is finished.
  11. That God’s moral requirements are the same upon all men in all dispensations; that these are summarily contained in the commandments spoken by Jehovah from Sinai, engraved on the tables of stone, and deposited in the ark, which was in consequence called the “ark of the covenant,” or testament (Numbers 10: 33; Hebrews 9: 4, etc.); that this law is immutable and perpetual, being a transcript of the tables deposited in the ark of God’s testament; for under the sounding of the seventh trumpet we are told that “the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in His temple the ark of His testament” (Revelation 11: 19).
  12. That the fourth commandment of this law requires that we devote the seventh day of each week, commonly called Saturday, to abstinence from our own labor, and to the performance of sacred and religious duties; that this is the only weekly Sabbath known to the Bible, being the day that was set apart before Paradise was lost (Genesis 2: 2, 3), and which will be observed in Paradise restored (Isaiah 66: 22, 23); that the facts upon which the Sabbath institution is based confine it to the seventh day, as they are not true of any other day; and that the terms Jewish Sabbath and Christian Sabbath, as applied to the weekly rest day, are names of human invention, un- Scriptural in fact, and false in meaning.
  13. That, as the man of sin, the papacy has thought to change times and laws (the laws of God, Daniel 7: 25), and has misled almost all Christendom in regard to the fourth commandment; we find a prophecy of a reform in this respect to be wrought among believers just before the coming of Christ (Isaiah 56: 1, 2; 1 Peter 1: 5; Revelation 14: 12, etc.).
  14. That, as the natural or carnal heart is at enmity with God and His law, this enmity can be subdued only by a radical transformation of the affections, the exchange of unholy for holy principles; that this transformation follows repentance and faith, is the special work of the Holy Spirit, and constitutes regeneration or conversion.
  15. That, as all have violated the law of God, and cannot of themselves render obedience to His just requirements, we are dependent on Christ, first for justification from our past offenses, and, secondly, for grace whereby to render acceptable obedience to His holy law in time to come.
  16. That the Spirit of God was promised to manifest itself in the church through certain gifts, enumerated especially in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4; that these gifts are not designed to supersede, or take the place of, the Bible, which is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, any more than the Bible can take the place of the Holy Spirit; that in specifying the various channels of its operation, that Spirit has simply made provision for its own existence and presence with the people of God to the end of time, to lead to an understanding of that word which it had inspired, to convince of sin, and work a transformation in the heart and life; and that those who deny to the Spirit its place and operation do plainly deny that part of the Bible which assigns to it this work and position.
  17. That God, in accordance with His uniform dealings with the race, sends forth a proclamation of the approach of the second advent of Christ; that this work is symbolized by the three messages of Revelation 14, the last one bringing to view the work of reform on the law of God, that His people may acquire a complete readiness for that event.
  18. That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary (see proposition 10), synchronizing with the time of the proclamation of the third message, is a time of investigative judgment, first, with reference to the dead, and, at the close of probation, with reference to the living, to determine who of the myriads now sleeping in the dust of the earth are worthy of a part in the first resurrection, and who of its living multitudes are worthy of translation— points which must be determined before the Lord appears.
  19. That the grave, whither we all tend, expressed by the Hebrew Scheol and the Greek hades, is a place of darkness in which there is no work, device, wisdom, or knowledge. Ecclesiastes 9: 10.
  20. That the state to which we are reduced by death is one of silence, inactivity and entire unconsciousness. Psalm 146: 4; Ecclesiastes 9: 5, 6; Daniel 12: 2; etc.
  21. That out of this prison house of the grave, mankind are to be brought by a bodily resurrection; the righteous having part in the first resurrection, which takes place at the second advent of Christ; the wicked, in the second resurrection, which takes place a thousand years thereafter. Revelation 20: 4- 6.
  22. That at the last trump, the living righteous are to be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and with the resurrected righteous are to be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, so forever to be with the Lord.
  23. That these immortalized ones are then taken to heaven, to the New Jerusalem, the Father’s house in which there are many mansions (John 14: 1- 3), where they reign with Christ a thousand years, judging the world and fallen angels, that is, apportioning the punishment to be executed upon them at the close of the one thousand years (Revelation 20: 4; 1 Corinthians 6: 2,3); that during this time the earth lies in a desolate and chaotic condition (Jeremiah 4: 20- 27), described, as in the beginning, by the Greek term abussos, bottomless pit (Septuagint of Genesis 1: 2); and that here Satan is confined during the thousand years (Revelation 20: 1, 2), and here finally destroyed (Revelation 20: 10; Malachi 4: 1); the theater of the ruin he has wrought in the universe, being appropriately made for a time his gloomy prison house, and then the place of his final execution.
  24. That at the end of the thousand years, the Lord descends with His people and the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21: 2), the wicked dead are raised and come up upon the surface of the yet unrenewed earth, and gather about the city, the camp of the saints (Revelation 20: 9), and fire comes down from God out of heaven, and devours them. They are then consumed root and branch (Malachi 4: 1), becoming as though they had not been (Obadiah 15, 16). In this everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 1: 9), the wicked meet the everlasting punishment threatened against them (Matthew 25: 46). This is the perdition of ungodly men, the fire which consumes them being the fire for which “the heavens and the earth, which are now,” are kept in store, which shall melt even the elements with its intensity, and purge the earth from the deepest stains of the curse of sin. 2 Peter 3: 7- 12.
  25. That a new heavens and earth shall spring by the power of God from the ashes of the old, to be, with the New Jerusalem for its metropolis and capital, the eternal inheritance of the saints, the place where the righteous shall evermore dwell. 2 Peter 3: 13; Psalm 37: 11, 29; Matthew 5: 5.

‘As stated in the first paragraph of this article, the “Fundamental Principles” was not regarded as a creed but rather as a synopsis of current beliefs generally held by Seventh- day Adventists, beliefs which were and are subject to deeper understanding and restatement from time to time. An example of the restatement of an essential doctrine— that of the atoning work of Christ, of which Ellen G. White said, “The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster” (Gospel Workers, page 315)— is seen in a revised statement of principles by the congregation at Battle Creek in 1894. Many of the leaders of the church were residing at Battle Creek at the time, so that the revision, presented under the title, “Some Things Seventh- day Adventists Believe,” may be considered representative.

The portion of the revision which concerns the atonement is as follows: “lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only Mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, through the atoning merits of His blood, He secures the pardon and forgiveness of all who penitently come to God through Him; and as the closing portion of His work as priest before He comes again as King of kings, He will make the final atonement for the sins of all believers, and blot them out, as foreshadowed and prefigured by the Levitical priesthood.”

Appendix #4

Who is the church that appears to fall but does not?

By Ellen White

My mind is deeply exercised in regard to our condition as a people. . . . when we do practice the truth we are then following Jesus, who is the light of the world; and if we as a people are not constantly elevating, becoming more and more spiritually minded, we are becoming like the Pharisees— self righteous— while we do not the will of God.

I think of how many who profess the truth are keeping it apart from their lives. They do not bring its sanctifying, refining, spiritualizing power into their hearts. I think how this grieves Jesus.

I think of His great sorrow as He wept over Jerusalem, exclaiming, “0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not” [Luke 13: 34]! God forbid that these words shall apply to those who have great light and blessings. In the rejecting of Jerusalem it was because great privileges were abused, which brought the denunciation upon all who lightly regarded the great opportunities and precious light that were entrusted to their keeping. Privileges do not commend us to God, but they commend God to us. No people are saved because they have great light and special advantages, for these high and heavenly favors only increase their responsibility. The more and increased light God has given makes the receiver more responsible. It does not place the receiver in any safer position unless the privileges are wisely improved, prized, and used to advance God’s glory. Christ said, “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee. Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matt. 11: 21].

When Jerusalem was divorced from God it was because of her sins. She fell from an exalted height that Tyre and Sidon had never reached. And when an angel falls he becomes a fiend. The depth of our ruin is measured by the exalted light to which God has raised us in His great goodness and unspeakable mercy. Oh, what privileges are granted to us as a people! And if God spared not His people that He loved, because they refused to walk in the light, how can He spare the people whom he has blessed with the light of heaven in having opened to them the most exalted truth ever entrusted to mortal man to give to the world?

We are far from being the people God would have us to be. because we do not elevate the soul and refine the character in harmony with the wonderful unfolding of God’s truth and His purposes. “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” [Prov. 14: 34]. Sin is a disorganizer. Wherever it is cherished— in the individual heart, in the household, in the church— there is disorder, strife, variance, enmity, envy, jealousy, because the enemy of man of God has the controlling power over the mind. But let the truth be loved and brought into the life, as well as advocated, and that man or woman will hate sin and will be a living representative of Jesus Christ to the world.

The people claiming to believe the truth will not be condemned because they had not the light, but because they had great light and did not bring their hearts to the test of God’s great moral standard of righteousness. The people who claim to believe the truth must be elevated by living it out. Real Bible religion must leaven the life, refine and ennoble the character, making it more and more like the divine model. Then will the home be vocal with prayer, with thanksgiving and praise to God. Angels will minister in the home and accompany the worshiper to the house of prayer.

Let the churches who claim to believe the truth, who are advocating the law of God, keep that law and depart from all iniquity. Let the Individual members of the church resist the temptations to practice evils and indulge in sin. Let the church commence the work of purification before God by repentance, humiliation, deep heart searching, for we are in the antitypical day of atonement— solemn hour fraught with eternal results. . . .

God never forsakes people or individuals until they forsake Him. Outward opposition will not cause the faith of God’s people, who are keeping His commandments, to become dim. The neglect to bring purity and truth into practice will grieve the Spirit of God and weaken them because God is not in their midst to bless. Internal corruption will bring the denunciations of God upon this people as it did upon Jerusalem. Oh, let pleading voices, let earnest prayer be heard, that those who preach to others shall not themselves be castaways. My brethren, we know not what is before us, and our only safety is in following the Light of the world. God will work with us and for us if the sins which brought His wrath upon the old world, upon Sodom and Gomorrah and upon ancient Jerusalem, do not become our crime.

The least transgression of God’s law brings guilt upon the transgressor, and without earnest repentance and forsaking of sin he will surely become an apostate.

All the policy in the world cannot save us from a terrible sifting, and all the efforts made with high authorities will not lift from us the scourging of God, just because sin is cherished. If as a people we do not keep ourselves in the faith and not only advocate with pen and voice the commandments of God, but keep them every one, not violating a single precept knowingly, then weakness and ruin will come upon us. It is a work that we must attend to in every one of our churches. Each man must be a Christian. . . .

We are to be ready and waiting for the orders of God. Nations will be stirred to their very center. Support will be withdrawn from those who proclaim God’s only standard of righteousness, the only sure test of character. And all who will not bow to the decrees of the national councils and obey the national laws to exalt the sabbath instituted by the man of sin to the disregard of God’s holy day, will feel, not the oppressive power of popery alone, but of the Protestant world, the image of the beast.

Satan will work his miracles to deceive; he will set up his power as supreme. The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out–the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place. None but those who have been overcoming by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony will be found with the loyal and true, without spot or stain of sin, without guile in their mouths. We must be divested of our self-righteousness and arrayed in the righteousness of Christ.

The remnant that purify their souls by obeying the truth gather strength from the trying process, exhibiting the beauty of holiness amid the surrounding apostasy. All these, He says, I have graven…upon the palms of my hands” [Isa. 49:16]. They are held in everlasting, imperishable remembrance. We want faith now, living faith. We want to have a living testimony that shall cut to the heart of the sinner. There is too much sermonizing and too little ministering. We want the holy unction. We need the spirit and fervor of the truth. Many of the ministers are half paralyzed by their own defects of character. They need the converting power of God. Manuscript Releases, Volume Twelve, Pages 318-325

Click here to order copies of this whole booklet from our bookstore.

ISSUES: Part II SECTION TWO “The Church”

by

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Spiritual Nature of the Church
The promises
Israel (Abraham’s seed)
The apostasy in Christendom
When reformation of the church was impossible
Can you tell the difference between the true church and the professed- only church?
Two true churches? (the invisible church)
The professed church and the true church
Who are God’s denominated people?
Questions and answers

To be a Christian is not merely to take the name of Christ, but to have the mind of Christ, to submit to the will of God in all things. Many who profess to be Christians have yet to learn this great lesson. Many know little of what it is to deny self for Christ’s sake. They do not study how they can best glorify God and advance His cause. But it is self, self, how can it be gratified? Such religion is worthless. In the day of God those who possess it will be weighed in the balance and found wanting. TMK 174

ISSUES: Part Two SECTION TWO “The Church”

Dr. John J. Grosboll

The church is one of the things of God, the most precious thing on earth in His sight. It has been established and purchased at an infinite cost to heaven. What is it about the church that makes it so precious? Although no human can give a complete answer to this question, a very imperfect and partial answer could be as follows. When the great controversy was inaugurated in heaven, God and His government were challenged with the following justification:

  1. First of all, Lucifer claimed that God’s law was unnecessary for angels, and second, he claimed that created beings could not perfectly keep the law. Lucifer wanted a change in God’s law that would allow him to be part of the Godhead or like God (this would require a change in the first commandment and a change in the spiritual meaning of the rest of the commandments).
  2. Lucifer claimed that Christ had privileges that he should have also. God did not at all consent to this demand.
  3. Lucifer claimed that he wanted to obtain more freedom and liberty and that the principles of God’s government did not work perfectly and could be improved upon. Although Lucifer attempted to gain God’s condemnation by the entire universe of creatures created by God’s own hand, the nature of the charges made it impossible for God to vindicate His character or government as God because the charges which were accepted by about one third of the angels were not only against God, His government and His law, but they claimed that created beings could not keep His law and that His law resulted in a condition of life for created beings that was inferior to that life which could be enjoyed if the law were changed.

After Lucifer was expelled from heaven, he determined to be revenged upon God by causing the fall of our first parents, Adam and Eve, which he succeeded in doing. When Adam and Eve fell, they lost their former righteousness and purity of character. They were transgressors of the first commandment and spiritually they had broken every commandment in God’s law (Romans 7: 14). Satan claimed that either Adam and Eve would have to die with all the other transgressors of God’s law (including himself) or God would have to allow him and all the other fallen angels back into heaven if Adam and Eve were forgiven. God said to the devil, “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise your head and you will bruise his heel” Genesis 3: 15.

SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THE CHURCH

Here in Genesis 3: 15, immediately after the fall, God announces the establishment of His church as His people. All people in the world can claim Eve as their mother according to the flesh, but God was here speaking only of those who would be, not just the fleshly descendants of Eve, but her spiritual descendants— those who would demonstrate by the character that they would develop that God was their Father and the devil their adversary.

Immediately after the fall of man, the spiritual nature of the church is revealed. There would be descendants of Eve that would be the seed of the devil— his spiritual children— and there would be enmity between these descendants of Eve according to the flesh and the descendants of Eve who were not only her fleshly but her spiritual children. Immediately after the fall, God makes it plain that ONLY the spiritual descendants of Eve are His people, His church. Those who are only her descendants according to the flesh, or who make a profession of being His children but develop characters like Satan, are the seed of the serpent and are not God’s children or part of His church at all. “There must be open and avowed enmity between the church and the serpent, between her seed and his seed” ST 8/ 26/ 89.

THE PROMISES

From this time on, often the church was again likened to a woman or sometimes the seed of the woman. This promise in Genesis 3: 15 was passed down for twenty generations. In the twentieth generation, the promise was renewed and more explicitly stated to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, and 17. God’s covenant renewed with Abraham included the following provisions: (1) The sign or token that one had entered into this covenant was the rite of circumcision (Genesis 17: 10- 14). (2) For everyone who entered into this covenant, God promises to be their God (Genesis 17: 7, 8). (3) God promised that everyone who was part of this covenant would “inherit the land in which you are a stranger” (Genesis 17: 8). Some have thought that this refers only to the land of Palestine, but Abraham understood it to refer not only to Palestine but to an eternal inheritance in the earth made new at the end of time (Hebrews 11: 8- 10). The righteous are strangers in this earth (Hebrews 11: 13- 16; 1 Peter 1: 1), but they will inherit the earth (Psalm 37). (4) To be part of the covenant you must be part of Abraham’s seed because the covenant was made only to Abraham and his seed (Genesis 17: 7). (5) The covenant was not made with the fleshly descendants of Abraham but only with those who were his spiritual seed. We know for sure that this was a condition of the covenant from the beginning because Ishmael was of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh and was circumcised— he received the token or symbol of being part of the covenant (Genesis 17: 25), yet Ishmael was never part of the covenant! (see Romans 9) This is absolute proof that to be part of the covenant or testament you must be the spiritual seed of Abraham, not just the literal seed. In fact, you could be part of the spiritual seed of Abraham and thereby be part of the covenant even if you were not of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. The experience of Rahab the harlot in Jericho and of Ruth the Moabitess who became one of the progenitors of Christ demonstrates this fact— neither were of the physical seed of Abraham, but they both became part of his spiritual seed, so much so, that Ruth was chosen to be an ancestor of the Christ who was to come from the seed of Abraham.

ISRAEL (ABRAHAM’S SEED)

This covenant or testament of promise was renewed with Isaac and Jacob. After the night of Jacob’s trouble, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel, which means “a prince with God,” and this became the official name of God’s people in this world forever. (This is not the only official name of God’s people today, however.) From this time on, one of the most common names for God’s church is “Israel.” In describing the victory of the saints at the end of the time of trouble, Ellen White calls them the Israel of God (EW 285).

However, many in ancient times and today are confused because they think that whenever the Bible talks about Israel it is talking about God’s true church. This assumption is often not true.

The human mind was originally created to operate in harmony and within the parameters of the Ten Commandments. Almost all learning from babyhood is based on the assumption that what is heard or what is seen is the truth. Without an observance of the ninth commandment, no order or learning can take place. But sin deceived (Romans 7: 11) and people who were the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh did not develop a character of faith and love like Abraham. They were his descendants according to the flesh, but they were not his spiritual descendants; they were not God’s children. Therefore an element of confusion was initiated which has continued to the present day: people who professed to be the children of Abraham, Israelites, God’s people, part of His church, were not the spiritual children of Abraham at all; spiritually they were not Israelites but they were called Israel; they professed to be part of Israel; they professed the same religion and were called Israelites (and they were Israelites according to the flesh). They were Israel by profession but not in reality. This is one of the awful results of sin— you cannot determine reality by a person’s profession or word.

Even a casual reading of the Old Testament reveals that many who were Israelites according to the flesh were not God’s people (some of them were called by the Old Testament writers the sons of Belial, that is, the devil); whereas those who are really part of His church are His people. Notice how explicitly the Bible writer states it: “They are not all Israel who are of Israel” Romans 9: 6. Those who are of Israel are those who profess to be God’s people, those who profess to be the Israel of God; but not all of these are really Israel; not all of them are really God’s people; not all of them are really part of the church. Today as then there are many who are “of Israel.” They have received the rite of baptism; they have professed to be God’s people; they are accounted by men to be God’s people, His church; they are numbered with God’s people and joined to them, but they are not really part of the church at all— they are only “pretended believers,” they are “false brethren” (COL). A false brother is not a true brother, but all those who are really part of the church are true brethren.

Until this basic fact is understood, much confusion will exist in the mind of a student of the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy. In the Bible “different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea” 1SM 20. If the word Israel or the word church is always interpreted to mean the same thing, then explicit contradictions are found in the inspired writings; but a real contradiction is impossible because ‘‘ all truth. . . . is consistent with itself in all its manifestations PP 114. No lie is of the truth (1 John 2: 21).

It is a common practice when an apparent contradiction occurs in inspired writings for students to make philosophical models to explain these contradictions. Because those who are part of the true church by profession and those who are part of the true church in character (reality) as well as profession have not been the same group for thousands of years and the prophets are using the imperfect language of men (1SM 20) in prophetic writings, both groups are often called simply “the church.”

In the Bible the word law is another example of the imperfectness of human speech. Sometimes the Bible writer uses the word law when talking about the Ten Commandments. At other times the same word without qualifiers is used to describe the ceremonial law or the same word is used to describe the first five books of Moses which were called the law in the Hebrew Bible. And still other times the word law is used to describe the effect of sin on a person or persons. In each case, the context of the verse must be examined to determine what law is being talked about.

This multiple use of the word law has been a prolific field for misunderstanding in which Seventh- day Adventists have had to learn how to explain the different ways that the word is used and that the moral law of Ten Commandments has never been and never can be changed. If a person is candidly looking for evidence, the different ways that the word law is used can be demonstrated from the text itself so that there is no real contradiction, even though from the first casual reading there had seemed to be. The same is true for the word church.

Until it is understood that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel,” the Old Testament prophets cannot be properly understood because when they use the word Israel, sometimes they are talking about the real or true Israel of God, His true church, and sometimes they are talking about Israel according to the flesh, those who profess to be Israel but are not all Israel. A knowledge of this fact explains many apparent contradictions in the Old Testament. For example, compare the following apparently direct contradictions: “I have forsaken My house, I have left My heritage”; Jeremiah 12: 7 (see also Deuteronomy 31: 17; Isaiah 2: 6; Jeremiah 7: 29; 2 Chronicles 15: 2; 24: 20) and “For Israel is not forsaken nor Judah by his God, the Lord of hosts, though their land was filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel ” Jeremiah 51: 5 (see also Deuteronomy 31: 6, 8). How do you explain this apparently direct contradiction? An examination of all similar passages reveals the answer. The professed Israel, or Israel according to the flesh, the professed church of that day was forsaken and left by God (Ezekiel describes it graphically in the first chapters of his book.) because they had forsaken Him; but the true Israel of God never has been and never will be forsaken (Hebrews 13: 6). Those who will never be forsaken are the spiritual seed 01 Abraham— those who seek God and put their trust in Him (Psalm 9: 10), those who are righteous, the saints (Psalm 37: 25,28). Because God’s professed people forsook Him, He forsook them; but even though the land (that actually belonged only to His true people) was filled with the sin of His professed people, His true people were not forsaken and never will be.

But in Bible times as today people often base their life on what they can see and not on the spiritual reality of a godly character. Most of the tribes of the children of Israel were “lost” as a result of the Assyrian captivity and have not since that time had a distinct visible identity. Of the Israelites who remained, the majority were of the tribe of Judah and the name for God’s true people became the Jews instead of Israel (which they still were).

Most of the Jews eventually put their trust in the outward church organization instead of developing a godly character. They became so confused their thinking that they thought the outward manifestations or symbols of true religion were the essence itself. They could not tell the difference between the professed church and the true church. They could not distinguish the form from the substance. They could not tell the difference between profession and spiritual reality. This is always the result of spiritual blindness. (Jesus said that the Jews were spiritually blind— John 9 and Matthew 15.) This is one of the main reason for the confusion today about who and what the church is— Laodicea is spiritually blind.

One of the results of this misperception is that religious faith and trust is placed in church organizations, creeds and outward forms of religion. When trust is placed in the creature instead of the Creator, instead of fearing God (Revelation 14: 6) men fear other men. This fear of men is amply documented in the gospels which speak often about the fear of the Jews (see John 7; 9; 12).

Also, whenever spiritual blindness has occurred, the emphasis in religion is always upon the physical— circumcision of the flesh, baptism with water, the attainment of various human goals and objectives; but it does no good to keep the symbols if the spiritual reality that is symbolized is lost. Circumcision represented the cutting away of sin from the life (Deuteronomy 30: 6); baptism represents the washing away of sin from the life and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It does no good to observe the symbol if the spiritual reality is not experienced.

When Jesus was here, the Jews believed they were the true church because they were the seed of Abraham. They forgot that the promises were given only to the spiritual seed. They forgot that without a spiritual similarity to Abraham, a genealogy showing your fleshly connection to him was useless. When John the Baptist said, “And do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father, ‘ ‘ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones” Matthew 3: 9, he was assaulting their most treasured religious beliefs. They believed that, because they were Abraham’s descendants, they were members of the true church, the true people of God. John the Baptist told them not to think that a fleshly connection to Abraham guaranteed this. “John declared to the Jews that their standing before God was to be decided by their character and life. Profession was worthless. If their life and character were not in harmony with God’s law, they were not His people” DA 107. (All emphasis supplied) It was true that to become Abraham’s seed was to have everlasting life, but the Jews thought it was the literal seed that counted and John the Baptist said that this counted for nothing— profession counted for nothing. It was character that counted and God could raise up from the stones (Gentiles— people spiritually dead) people who would have the character of Abraham and therefore be in the most literal sense Abraham’s spiritual children. John the Baptist said that it was character likeness or spiritual relationship to Abraham that counted, not an outward relationship of profession (or of the flesh).

Jesus stated this truth in even stronger language “‘ I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father and you do what you have seen with your father. They answered and said to Him, ‘Abraham is our father. ‘ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were Abraham’ children, you would do the works of Abraham. Bu now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did no do this. You do the deeds of your father. ‘ Then the said to Him, ‘We were not born of fornication; w have one Father— God. ‘ Jesus said to them, ‘I God were your Father, you would love Me, for proceeded forth and came from God; nor have come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” ‘ John 8: 37- 44.

Jesus acknowledged that they were the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, but He denied that they were the children of promise. He denied that they were Abraham’s spiritual seed; He denied that they were part of the church, rather Jesus said plainly that they were of the synagogue of Satan. Jesus here made it plain that it was spiritual or character likeness that counted.

“The Pharisees had declared themselves the children of Abraham. Jesus told them that this claim could be established only by doing the works of Abraham. The true children of Abraham would live, as he did, a life of obedience to God. They would not try to kill One who was speaking the truth that was given Him from God. In plotting against Christ, the rabbis were not doing the works of Abraham. A mere lineal descent from Abraham was of no value.

Without a spiritual connection with Him, which would be manifested in possessing the same spirit, and doing the same works, they were not His children” DA 466, 467.

The Jews believed that the professed church professed Israel (Israel according to the flesh), was the true church; but Jesus said that they were not truly the children of Abraham but rather the children of the devil— they were not the true church at all, but of the synagogue of Satan, the devil’s children. They were the professed church of God. the professed people of God, the professed true church, but not the true church at all in reality. In a time of apostasy, the professed church and the true church is not the same at all.

This same battle over the definition of the true church— that the professed or outward church is not the same as the true church— had to be fought by the apostles and is discussed in detail in the New Testament, not only in the gospels but in the epistles and other New Testament books.

The theology of the Jews taught that the professed church was the true church. The theology of the apostles taught that the true church could only be defined by spiritual relationship and not on profession alone.

The Jews thought that the fleshly seed of Abraham or the professed church was the true church, but the apostles taught that only the spiritual seed was truly the church (Romans 4: 13- 17; 9: 8; Galatians 3: 7).

The Jews thought that the visible, outward relationship was what counted, but the apostles taught that it was the inward, vital relationship that counted (Romans 2: 28, 29).

The Jews professed to be the true church of God. If you could not tell the difference between the professed church and the true church, you would not have become a member of the apostolic church at Pentecost.

THE APOSTASY IN CHRISTENDOM

However, in Christendom something very similar happened to what had formerly happened in Judaism. Part of the great apostasy in Christianity, was the teaching which has affected Christendom to the present day that “Christianity consists in the mere profession of the name pertaining not to the essential character, nor implying any material change in the general conduct” Great Empires of Bible Prophecy, A. T. Jones, 471.

A person calling himself a Christian, professing to be a Christian but not living a Christlike life, is a fraud; he is a Christian in name but not in character. He is not really a true Christian but a professed Christian only. Likewise a church professing to be Christian but breaking God’s law, teaching others to break God’s law or saying that it cannot be kept, is a Christian church in name only, not in reality. It is not a true Christian church at all. As apostasy comes into a church, the whole church is of professed Christians; but within the professed church is a usually much smaller number of true Christians whose character is in harmony with their profession. A true Christian may not have character perfection yet and may be making many mistakes, but he will be loyal to the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus or spirit of prophecy and will not seek any excuse to explain away disobedience.

Professing Christians became confused again between the profession and the reality. A philosophy was developed which has enslaved billions of human beings right up to the present day. Seventh- day Adventists are not exempt from this slavery. Again the confusion had to do with the identification of the true church just as in the days of John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles. The philosophy which has enslaved so many could be summarized like this:

Christians were taught and believed that you could only have eternal life if you belonged to the “visible church.” They believed that this was the professed Christian organization who claimed to have received apostolic authority directly from a line of uninterrupted bishops all the way back to Peter and that these bishops had the keys to the kingdom of heaven and could send a person to heaven or hell. People believed that if these bishops or their appointed subordinates cut one off from their church organization (excommunication and mass excommunications called interdicts), that one would lose eternal life and go to everlasting burnings.

WHEN REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH WAS IMPOSSIBLE

As in the time of Christ, people were confused between profession and real spiritual relationship. Eternal life is only for those who are a part of the body of Christ, but who is part of the body of Christ? It is spiritual relationship and not merely visible profession that makes one a part of the church or the body of Christ (see Ephesians 5: 25- 32).

There has only been one church since the beginning of time. The apostolic church was not a new church, and the Seventh- day Adventist Church is not a new church founded in the nineteenth century. The Adventist Church is but the remnant of the church that has existed since the beginning of time (see Revelation 12 and the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles).

The keys to the kingdom of heaven— the power to bind and loose— is given to all Christians (see 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 18: 15- 20), but a person is not a Christian unless he is Christlike in character (see 1 John 3). In other words, it is impossible for any person or group of persons who do not have a Christlike character to actually cast a person out of the true church. In the Dark Ages there never could be revival or reformation until the fear of man was broken. Many Roman Catholics abhorred the apostasy which had engulfed the Christian world and they wrote and preached about the need of revival and reformation, but reformation was impossible. Every time revival and reformation started, the church threatened excommunication.

Revival and reformation could never come until the fear of man was overcome. In Jesus’ time you had to overcome your fear of man to follow Jesus. In the Dark Ages and in the time of the Reformers you had to overcome your “fear of man” to follow truth (see John 14: 6). It was impossible for the Reformation to succeed as long as people thought they would lose eternal life if the church excommunicated them. Until men understood who and what the church was according to the New Testament, there could be no reformation. People could see that the men who were operating the church were wicked, but they said the church is holy! Those who were following the doctrines and teachings of the church were evil, but they said the church was righteous!

Again, as in the days of Christ, men had mistaken profession for character, the symbols for the substance, the forms and rituals for the reality. Again mankind had to learn that if the character does not conform to the profession, all the professions in the world are worse than meaningless because, if our character does not conform to our profession, we are living a lie. The devil’s most successful agents are men and women who profess to be Christians but are unlike Christ in character.

Who has apostolic authority? The doctrine of apostolic succession teaches that Christ gave to the apostle Peter apostolic authority and this apostolic authority was passed down in succession to each later bishop of Rome (the pope). Ellen White comments on this “question that has long agitated the Christian world,— the question of apostolic succession. Descent from Abraham was proved, not by name and lineage, but by likeness of character. So the apostolic succession rests not upon the transmission of ecclesiastical authority, but upon spiritual relationship.

A life actuated by the apostles’ spirit, the belief and teaching of the truth they taught, this is the true evidence of apostolic succession. This is what constitutes men the successors of the first teachers of the gospel” DA 467.

This is especially applicable in the present day when such an ado is being made about who has authority to baptize, preach, write, or ordain or to call himself a Seventh- day Adventist, a Seventh- day Adventist minister or a Seventh- day Adventist Church. A real or true Seventh-day Adventist minister (an historic Seventh- day Adventist) will teach and preach the Seventh-day Adventist message that God raised up the second advent movement to proclaim to the world— Revelation 14: 6- 12. A person who claims to be a Seventh- day Adventist minister who is not preaching this message is not really a Seventh- day Adventist minister, no matter what credentials he has; and a person who is preaching the historic Adventist message is a Seventh-day Adventist minister, whether he has received credentials or not. The way some reason today would have kept them from hearing John the Baptist and Jesus and, for sure, the apostle Paul.

I wonder, have we learned and retained the lesson the apostles had to learn about the identity of the true church? Have we learned and retained the lesson the Reformers had to learn about who the church is? Is there any chance that in these last days the devil has forgotten errors which he has used so successfully in the time of Christ and since that time to cause the loss of countless millions of human beings?

CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TRUE CHURCH AND THE PROFESSED- ONLY CHURCH?

In the days of Jesus and the apostles, unless you could tell the difference between the real true church and the professed true church you would never have been a Christian. The Jewish church professed to be the true church of God all the days of the apostle Paul (see Sketches from the Life of Paul, 226). In a time of apostasy, unless you can tell the difference, you will not be able to make proper decisions about what church to be a part of.

The Jews believed that the true church was professed Israel, but the apostles taught that the true church was spiritual Israel only (see Romans 9: 6- 8).

You become a member of God’s professed people when you are baptized with water, but you only become a member of God’s true people when you are baptized with the Holy Spirit—” By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” 1 Corinthians 12: 13. Baptism with water is a symbol of baptism with the Holy Spirit and after the ratification of the New Covenant, if a person does not receive the Holy Spirit at his baptism (Acts 2: 38), his baptism is only a form.

You are in reality part of the church only when you partake of the life of Christ; and the person who partakes of the devil’s program of living— any kind of living in known sin— is not a member of the body of Christ (the church) no matter what his profession is (1 Corinthians 10: 15- 21).

Being part of the true church involves a vital union with Christ, but a person can be a part of the professed church with only a superficial or professed union with Christ (Ephesians 5: 32; John 12: 40- 42).

To really be a member of the true remnant church, you must keep the commandments and have the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 12: 17 and 19: 10); but you may profess to be a member, and outwardly be a member in a time of apostasy, and not live according to the spirit of prophecy or keep God’s commandments.

There could be no sixteenth century reformation until men understood who the true church really was because as long as they thought that they would burn in hell- fire if the church excommunicated them, fear of men would prevent any lasting reformation.

Disfellowshipping is occurring again today and a lasting revival and reformation cannot occur until men and women have no fear of what men can do. Whole churches are being disbanded. We must face reality. Whole conferences and even divisions could be lost. Even the General Conference could be lost in the battle before the final victory of God’s saints. Actually, all of these entities will be lost and destroyed if there is not true repentance, confession of wrong and restitution, and a determination to stand on the solid platform where the church militant stands (UL 152). If you are not prepared for such an eventuality, you simply are not prepared for what is very rapidly developing among God’s professed people today (see None Dare Call It Apostasy). Many who are professed “Christians” are actually part of the synagogue of Satan— Revelation 2: 9— they are not really part of the body of Christ, or the church, at all. This can be true of people in all churches, including the Seventh- day Adventist Church.

“The trials of the Children of Israel, and their attitude just before the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second coming of Christ” 1SM 406.

TWO TRUE CHURCHES? (THE INVISIBLE CHURCH)

In attempting to create a philosophical model which will explain the apparent contradictions in inspired writings, many inventions have been developed. One of the oldest of these is the theory of two true churches. The Bible teaches that there is only one true church (Ephesians 4: 4). This is true for both time and space. Ellen White concurs with this Biblical teaching as you would expect (see the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles) . There has only been one true church since the beginning of time and there is only one true church in all the universe. Ellen White says that the church in heaven and the church on earth are one (ST 6/ 6/ 95; 6T 366) and also that from the beginning of time faithful souls have constituted the church (AA 11; OHC 172).

There have not been two or three or six churches since the beginning. The church in Old Testament times, in the days of the apostles, and today are not separate churches even though they might be called by different names to designate the time or place being spoken of. They are each a part of the one church that has been since the beginning. This one church has always gone through and it will always go through. The true church went through in Jesus’ day, but very few of the professed church went through with it. The same was true in the time of the midnight cry and the same will be true at the end.

In the Dark Ages the theory of two true churches was developed. The theory went like this, “There is an invisible church and Christ is the head of that and there is a visible church and the pope is the head of that.” Concerning this theory John Wycliffe said that if the church had two heads, it was a monster. All the Protestant Reformers said that the church had only one head and that head was Christ (Ephesians 1: 22, 23).

The concept that there are two true churches, a visible church and an invisible church, is heresy and is not acknowledged by any inspired writer. This false teaching forms the foundation of an entire theological structure which may seem very logical but is not based on inspired writings. This theory was part of the confusion of the Dark Ages and, unfortunately, many have imbibed this ancient heresy and brought it into their experience today. This theory and all the theology built on it will end in disaster. It results in a totally distorted concept of who the church is. Anytime anyone starts talking about the “invisible church,” a red flag should wave in your mind and the bells should start ringing in your head that you are being taught heresy. Not once does Ellen White ever talk about an invisible church.

It is true that part of the true church is presently invisible to us, but it is not a separate entity or church. Ellen White says that the church on earth and the church in heaven are one and we cannot presently see the church in heaven while the church on earth is visible to us, but inspired writers never speak of a separate entity or church called the invisible church. Such an entity does not exist. Like the Virgin Mary, an entire theology has been built up over an assumption which is none- existent. When the foundation of a theology is based on a false assumption, no matter how logical the system is, it is entirely false.

Many Protestant theology students have been surprised to find out how logical Roman Catholic theology is. But even though it is logical, it is still false because it is built on a false foundation— the assumption that the Roman bishop is by divine right the head over all the churches in the world and that the decrees of the church supersede the Bible. In the same way, all the theology built on the theory of two true churches, a visible and an invisible church, will someday be seen to have caused the loss of a multitude of souls because it is built on a false foundation. One of the most common ways that this man- made theory is used to cause the loss of souls is to define the visible church as a certain church organization and then take inspired statements concerning the true church and use them to influence people to be faithful to that church organization no matter how deep in apostasy or sin it becomes. This sly tactic caused the loss of millions of souls during the Dark Ages and the devil has not forgotten it.

The net effect of creating two true churches and designating them the visible and the invisible church is to enable a person to ignore some of the plainest statements in inspired writings about who and what the church is. One of the most common ways that this man- made theory is used to cause the loss of souls is to pre- define the inspired statements about the true church to refer to a non- entity, the invisible church, and then simply sweep aside all the inspired statements that explicitly define who and what the church is. The most clear, simple, convincing and explicit definition statements in inspired writings are simply made of none- effect by this theory. But the statements still say the same thing and they will still have to be faced in the judgment if at no other time. It is not honest to take the clear statements of inspiration and simply sweep them aside and arbitrarily relegate them to something that really does not exist— the invisible church. Once this heresy has really taken hold of a person’s mind you cannot touch them with any evidence from inspired writings— as soon as you read a definition statement about the church, they immediately decide in their mind that the statement is talking about the invisible church (which term Ellen White never uses) and then refer to a quotation in which the word church is used in a different way to prove their position. It is very similar to talking to a Church of Christ member about the Sabbath and the law. The clearest statements in Scripture are swept aside with the theological system they have developed and then texts talking about the ceremonial law are used to prove that you are in error.

For example, in at least five places in the Ellen White writings you will find a statement similar to the following: “All down through the history of the world, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth” OHC 172 (see also AA 11; RH 12/ 4/ 1900). This is not just a sentence in which the word church appears, as are many of the statements used by those teaching the heresy of the invisible church. This is a definition statement of who and what the church is. But those who believe in the false doctrine of two true churches, a visible and an invisible church, sweep away this plain inspired definition of who and what the church is and make it of none effect by saying that it refers to the nonentity that they have concocted in their imagination— the invisible church. They make the plain inspired Word of God of none effect by their tradition— their man- made doctrine of the invisible church.

Notice that this statement is not talking about the church triumphant. It is talking about the church down through the history of the world or, as is stated in Acts of the Apostles on page 11, the church that has existed from the beginning. I

Incidentally, what does the word constitute mean? Synonyms would be the words compose , comprise, form, and make up. If you insert any of these simple words into the definition statement of Ellen White as to who and what the church is, you will see how plain inspiration is in defining who and what the church is. In the Appendix of this booklet there are listed numerous inspired definitions of the church; but if this was the only definition you had, you would have enough to know the truth for sure— you would never need to be mixed up because truth is always consistent with itself in all its manifestations (PP 113) and you can be sure that Ellen White, being an inspired prophet of the Lord, will never say anything in any other context that will contradict her plain definition statements about who and what the church is. If you are really a sincere seeker for truth, you will interpret all difficult texts that you may not understand in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy by the clear definition statements that are unmistakable. You would not, for example, use the details of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as a definition statement about the state of the dead. In the same way, when the word church is used by Ellen White or a bible writer to describe many different entities in place or time, you will not take these statements as definition statements.

This is basic Protestant theology. Notice how John Knox explained this principle: “Said Mary: ‘Ye interpret the Scriptures in one manner, and they [the Roman Catholic teachers] interpret in another; whom shall I believe, and who shall be judge?” ‘

“‘ Ye shall believe God, that plainly speaketh in His word, ‘ answered the Reformer; ‘and farther than the word teaches you, ye neither shall believe the one nor the other. The word of God is plain in itself: and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, which is never contrary to Himself, explains the same more clearly in other places, so that there can remain no doubt but unto such as obstinately remain ignorant” ‘ GC 251.

But many people take some of the plainest statements in inspired writings about who and what the church is and make them of no effect because of their man- made doctrine about an entity that does not exist— the invisible church. This false teaching is often explained like this: All the statements in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy stating exactly who and what the church is are swept aside by saying that they are talking about the invisible church (the non- entity), and that all those in spiritual Babylon who are God’s true children, all in the apostate world who are His true children, compose this non- entity of the invisible church as well as the true and faithful Seventh- day Adventists. But then they say that there is a second true church, the visible Seventh- day Adventist Church or the church militant, which is obviously composed of wheat and tares. Since this is confusing to many people, we should ask the question: What is the church militant, which is often referred to as the visible church and sometimes as the organized church?

Before answering this question from inspired writings, it can be pointed out what the church militant is NOT. Never does Ellen White define the church militant as being a certain church organization. This is important to understand because many are reading into Ellen White statements their own preconceived opinions just as the Jews did with inspired statements in the time of Christ.

One of the most prominent definitions of the church militant in the Ellen White writings is that it is God’s living church (TM 45). The living church has the following characteristics:

  1. It is a working church (RH 11/ 6/ 88).
  2. It has a high standard of holiness (9MR 185, 186).
  3. Each member of a living church is “individually a habitation of God through the Spirit.., that the Lord Jesus Christ may dwell in his innermost being, ennobling and sanctifying his human nature by His divine attributes” IHP 283.
  4. This living church was not founded in 1844 or 1863, it “through the ages has been building in accordance with the divine pattern, with materials that have been likened to ‘gold, silver, precious stones, ‘ ‘polished after the similitude of a palace. ‘ 1 Corinthians 3: 12; Psalm 144: 12. Of this spiritual temple Christ is ‘the chief Cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. ‘ Ephesians 2: 20, 21” PK 36, 37.
  5. It will be “practicing the word” (1888 Materials, 1532).
  6. “We have a work to do if we would be a living church. Individually and as a whole we are to tread sin under our feet. Our habits, our conversation, our daily life, must be placed on the Lord’s side. We must intercede and wrestle with a covenant- keeping God in behalf of His watchmen, that souls may be won to the Saviour” 12MR 102.

The above quotations do not exhaust the Ellen White descriptions of what a living church is but they do make it evident that not every professed Seventh- day Adventist is part of the church militant because the church militant is a living church (FLB 305).

Second, the church militant is fighting and wrestling against temptations and is fighting severe battles with the spiritual forces of evil. It is wrestling “against the confederacy of evil” (FLB 305). It is in a severe conflict and this conflict will become more bitter and fierce until the end. If we do not individually take part in the battle, we are not really part of the church militant and will never be part of the church triumphant. Notice the following graphic descriptions of this fact:

“The Christian life is a constant warfare. The church militant is not the church triumphant. Paul says, ‘We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ‘ We must meet human beings of power and influence who are on Satan’s side of the controversy” Peter’s Counsel to Parents, 23.

“The church militant is not in this world the church triumphant. From generation to generation, the enemy has been marshaling his forces against God. His enmity against the law of God has increased as time has passed. And his followers are at enmity with any one who has moral courage to depart from evil, and bear witness to the truth” RH 7/ 26/ 1898.

“The Church militant is not the Church triumphant. Unless the people of God wage a valiant warfare against every species of sin, they will never pass through the portals of the holy city. And we shall have no second trial” RH 12/ 31/ 1901.

“Christians are engaged in a warfare. The church militant is not the church triumphant. The followers of Christ, marching toward Zion, must fight at every step…. He [Satan] has claimed this world. Declaring that no human- being can keep the law of God’s kingdom, he claims all men as his subjects” ST 6/ 10/ 03.

“The Lord desires us to be victorious over the powers of darkness. He is willing to save to the uttermost all who come to Him. It is through Him that ~we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. ‘ Through Him we have access to heaven’s treasure- house— His Word, the Holy Scriptures. From this treasure- house we are to draw the weapons of our warfare— the weapons so effectively used by our Saviour. With the sword of truth— ‘it is written’— He vanquished the foe. Armed with this sword, and protected by the shield of faith, we, the church militant, shall be able to stand unmoved by Satan’s assaults. Continuing to resist the enemy, we shall constantly gain strength, and finally become the church triumphant” ST 6/ 10/ 03.

Third, the church militant does not sustain (condone) those who are carnally minded although carnally minded people will be found within her borders (RH 1/ 16/ 94). We will see how this occurs shortly.

Fourth, the church militant is composed of erring men and women and is not yet perfect (as the church triumphant will be) and it will be necessary not only to exercise mercy toward the erring but also by this practice we will be preparing to become part of the church triumphant (ST 1/ 4/ 1883).

So who is the church militant? The church militant is the living church of God that has all the above identifying characteristics. Obviously, not every professed Seventh- day Adventist is part of the church militant— the church militant is by definition that church who is fighting the spiritual forces of darkness in this world; and those who are not taking part in the war, who are spiritually dead while they have a name that they are living, cannot be part of the church militant in reality. They are simply part of the professed church or/ people of God. This is a term used frequently by Ellen White and she often draws a sharp distinction between the professed church and the true church. In times of persecution, the professed people of God and His true people become almost the same thing, but, in times of liberty, the same is not true.

THE PROFESSED CHURCH AND THE TRUE CHURCH

We have seen that in Old Testament times there was only one true Israel of God, but we saw that this true Israel of God was a remnant of a much larger group that Paul calls Israel according the flesh. Paul made it very clear that “they are not all Israel [the true people of God] who are of Israel [the professed people of God]” Romans 9: 6. The same was true during New Testament times. We saw that the Jews were the professed true church of God all during the time of the apostle Paul’s ministry. But the true church of God were those, both Jews and Gentiles, who had not only the profession but the spiritual relationship to the True Vine, the ones who were in reality the spiritual seed of the woman. So there was a difference between the professed church in both Old Testament and New Testament times.

Was this true during the Dark Ages also? Indeed it was: “For many centuries, first through paganism and then through the Papacy, Satan exerted his powers to blot from the earth God’s faithful witnesses. Both heathen and papists were actuated by the same dragon spirit. They differed only in that the Romish apostate, making a pretense of serving God, was the more dangerous and cruel foe. Through the agency of Romanism, Satan took the world captive. The professed church of God was swept into the ranks of this delusion, and for more than a thousand years the true people of God suffered under the dragon’s ire” ST 2/ 8/ 1910. What is this inspired statement saying? Who was the professed true church of God during the Dark Ages? It was those churches that had been swept into the Roman apostasy and were no longer part of spiritual Israel but had become part of spiritual Babylon. In plain English, the professed true church of God during the Dark Ages was the Romanist or Roman Catholic Church. But was that giant professed true church the true people of God, His true church, the spiritual seed of the woman (Genesis 3: 15)? No, they were trying to destroy the true church. In plain language, the professed true church was attempting to destroy the real or true church. Obviously, the professed true church and the real or true church was not the same.

Would the same be true today during the time of the end? “Oh, no,” someone might say, “the cycles have to stop in the last days; God’s professed true people today are finally the true church in reality” (even though this has never once been completely the case in nearly 6,000 years!). The professed church will never be the same as the one true church until the very end (see Word to the Little Flock, 12). There is only one true church, not two; and this one true church is defined in Appendix #1.

The professed Seventh- day Adventist Church is composed of all those who have made a profession of faith in all the doctrines of the Bible, including Revelation 14: 6- 12, and have been baptized by water. If they experience what they profess, they are really modern Israel, the spiritual seed of the woman (Revelation 12: 17). If they do not experience what they profess, if their character is not in harmony with their profession, they are only Israel according to the flesh— the professed people of God but not such in reality.

You become part of the professed church when you are baptized with water, but you are not actually part of the body of Christ unless you have been baptized with the Holy Spirit, which is one of the things baptism with water represents. Paul says that we become part of the body of Christ (the church) when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12: 13). You are part of the professed remnant church when, having been baptized with water, you profess to keep all the commandments of God and live according to the Spirit of Prophecy as revealed in the writings of Ellen White (Revelation 12: 17; 19: 10; Joel 2: 28- 32); but you are recognized in heaven as part of the true church when you actually do what you profess.

We are not to accept into fellowship in the professed church anyone who is living in open sin and all such that are already members are to be disfellowshipped (see 1 Corinthians 5; 2 John). This does not mean that there are no tares (A tare is someone who is living a righteous life on the outside, that is, he is not living in open sin, but his heart is not right— see COL 70- 74.) in the borders of the professed church of God. There will be tares until the angels separate them from the wheat. (It appears that we have been in this separation process now for several years— it is most commonly referred to by Ellen White as the shaking and is called a terrible ordeal.)

This shaking and sifting process continues until the end. Until the very end there will always be a difference between the professed and the true church or people of God. Following are a few Ellen White statements which contrast the professed church and the true church as we near the end. It is important to understand the difference because, just as in the Dark Ages, the professed Seventh- day Adventist Church can turn on and attempt to destroy the true Seventh-day Adventist Church (see the clear inspired definitions of the true Seventh- day Adventist Church in Appendix #1).

“The true people of God, who have the spirit of the work of the Lord and the salvation of souls at heart, will ever view sin it its real, sinful character. They will always be on the side of faithful and plain dealing with sins which easily beset the people of God. Especially in the closing work for the church, in the sealing time of the one hundred and forty- four thousand, who are to stand without fault before the throne of God, will they feel most deeply the wrongs of God’s professed people” RH 6/ 8/ 86 (parallel statements in 3T 266 and RH 9/ 23/ 1873).

“You think, that those who worship before the saint’s feet, (Rev. 3: 9), will at last be saved. Here I must differ with you; for God shew me that this class were professed Adventists, who had fallen away, and ‘crucified to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. ‘ And in the ‘hour of temptation, ‘ which is yet to come, to show out every one’s true character, they will know that they are forever lost; and overwhelmed with anguish of spirit, they will bow at the saint’s feet” Word to the Little Flock, 12. In Maranatha on page 287, these professed Adventists are called the synagogue of Satan.

In Christ’s day, most of the Jews, the professed people of God, were actually the synagogue of Satan, as Jesus made clear in John 8: 44. A professed church becomes part of the synagogue of Satan when it becomes involved in deliberate disobedience to God’s law: “Christ speaks of the church over which Satan presides as the synagogue of Satan. Its members are the children of disobedience. They are those who choose to sin, who labor to make void the holy law of God. It is Satan’s work to mingle evil with good, and to remove the distinction between good and evil. Christ would have a church that labors to separate the evil from the good, whose members will not willingly tolerate wrong- doing, but will expel it from the heart and life” RH 12/ 4/ 00.

“All that is not in accordance with the known and expressed will of God, is at enmity with God, and has its origin in the synagogue of Satan. The will of God is expressed in his law, and sin is the transgression of the law. Those who disregard the commandments of God, and teach for doctrines the commandments of men, are working in Satan’s line, and are in harmony with the great leader of apostasy” ST 6/ 11/ 94.

“It should be noted that this is not the same as saying that a church or group has past the borders of probation. After a professed church has begun following Satan by practicing disobedience, the Lord sends messengers to them to turn them from this disobedience and bring them back into harmony with the law of God and the testimony of Jesus. If the reproofs and rebukes of God are listened to, a revival and reformation can happen and the lost sheep of the house of Israel can be reclaimed. If nobody will listen to messages of warning, then the last resort God has is to send judgments and finally mercy makes her last plea” (DA 587).

WHO ARE GOD’S DENOMINATED PEOPLE?

It is often assumed that God’s distinct denominated people must be a certain Seventh-day Adventist organization, etc., but we must let inspiration tell us who God’s distinct denominated people are. Again we will find that inspiration defines God’s distinct denominated people today in spiritual terms and if we do not have the spiritual characteristics, we are not really God’s distinct denominated people no matter what organization we are a member of.

  • The identifying mark that makes you part of God’s denominated people is keeping God’s commandments:

“As I was considering this matter in the night season, it seemed as if One stood up in the midst of us and pointed us back to the Israelites as an illustration of a distinct people, denominated of God. That which made them denominational was the observance of God’s commandments. In the twelfth to the eighteenth verses of the thirty- first chapter of Exodus their distinguishing sign is mentioned. ‘Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep, ‘ the Lord declared, ‘for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.. . . It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever” ‘ 19MR 38.

  • We are Seventh- day Adventists because we keep the Sabbath and look for the second advent:

“We are Seventh- day Adventists. This is a fitting name, for we keep the seventh-day Sabbath, and look for the second advent of our Lord in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. Even with respect to the name indicating some of the peculiar points of faith distinguishing us from other Christians, we are denominational. In keeping the Sabbath that God declares should be kept holy as a sign between Himself and His people, we show to the world that we are His peculiar, chosen people— a people whom He has denominated” 19MR 40.

  • When you decide to serve God, you are denominational: Mrs. E. G. White: “When you come to the point where you decide to serve God, you are denominational.

You should not link up with men who have no faith, men who although acquainted with the truth for many years, refuse to obey its teachings. Such men are not to have a voice in your council- meetings. Even if they were very rich, I would not bind myself to them by a single thread. I would not seek their advice in regard to the business transactions and other matters connected with the management of the institution. The time has come when we must find our bearings. We must come to our senses, and know where we are standing. We are on the very borders of the eternal world. We cannot tell what may happen next” 19MR 52.

  • Those who keep the Sabbath are God’s denominated people and we are to cherish this denominational distinction:

“Do not these words point us out as God’s denominated people? and do they not declare to us that so long as time shall last, we are to cherish the sacred, denominational distinction placed on us? The children of Israel were to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations ‘for a perpetual covenant. ‘ The Sabbath has lost none of its meaning. It is still the sign between God and his people, and it will be so forever” RH 8/ 4/ 04.

  • We are not to hide our name: “In the name of the Lord we are to identify ourselves as Seventh-day Adventists” BCL 52. “The reasons why we are denominated people of God are to be repeated and repeated. Deuteronomy 4: 1- 13; 5: 1- 33.— Ms 175, 1905. (Diary, July 10, 1905.)” 8MR 427.

There has been an attempt to slander God’s true people. God’s true people, His true church, are those who keep the commandments of God and obey the Spirit of Prophecy (see UL 315). But there has been an attempt to say that anyone who is not under the authority of a certain Seventh- day Adventist organization is not a part of God’s true people or true church. Conscientious Seventh- day Adventist ministers have been asked by a conference or union or the General Conference to do something that they could not do with a clear conscience. For being faithful to their conscientious convictions, they have been fired or disfellowshipped or in some other way forcefully separated from the organized structure, the professed Seventh- day Adventist Church, the professed true church of God of the last days. Then the message goes out far and near that these persons have separated from the church, that they are working independent of the church. In some cases the charge is made that they are not part of God’s denominated people anymore, that they are not Seventh- day Adventists, when the truth is that the professed Seventh- day Adventist Church cast them out with force. This has not only been done with individuals but with entire churches and even larger groups! This underhanded work is misleading because many Seventh- day Adventists do not yet know who the true church really is— they think that it is a certain church organization, but it is rather the people who love God and keep His commandments (UL 315). In many cases around the world, the true and faithful have been disfellowshipped; but these are still the only true church and those who have disfellowshipped them thereby give the whole universe evidence that they are on the opposite side of the great controversy from God’s true and faithful people— His true church. They thereby show that they are part of the synagogue of Satan just as the Jews were in Christ’s day. They are not part of the true church at all: “We can see from this scripture [Revelation 12: 17] that it is not the true church of God that makes war with those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. It is the people who make void the law, who place themselves on the side of the dragon, and persecute those who vindicate God’s precepts” ST 4/ 22/ 1889.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question: Who and what is a Seventh- day Adventist church?
Answer: A Seventh- day Adventist church is a congregation of Seventh- day Adventist believers who are organized as a local church body. To tell if a professed Seventh- day Adventist church is a truly historic Seventh- day Adventist local church, you should find out if they believe the historic Adventist beliefs as listed in Appendix #3.

Question: Could you give me more quotations where Ellen White draws a distinction between the true church and the professed church?
Answer: Yes, see Appendix #2.

Question: What is an historic Seventh- day Adventist?
Answer: An historic Seventh- day Adventist is a person who professes to believe all the historic Seventh- day Adventist beliefs (briefly listed in appendix #4) and does not believe the “new theology.” Hallmarks of the new theology are the following concepts:

  1. A person cannot have complete and perfect victory over sin in this life,
  2. rejection of the significance of 1844 and the investigative judgment and the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary being the antitype of the Jewish sanctuary,
  3. rejection of the writings of Ellen White as those of a true prophet of God and authoritative,
  4. salvation (and the gospel) is by justification alone and
  5. substitution of the authority of the church (church manual) in place of the supreme authority of the Bible. If a person believes any one of the five above, he is not an historic Adventist.

Question: Who is modern Israel?
Answer: “I was shown that those who are trying to obey God and purify their souls through obedience to the truth are God’s chosen people, His modern Israel” 2T 109.

Question: Could you give many Ellen White definition statements of the church to back up your thesis?
Answer: Yes, see Appendix #1.

Question: Doesn’t the Spirit of Prophecy say that God’s people today are destined to triumph?
Answer: The truth is soon to triumph and only those who stay with the truth will triumph with it:

“The church of God, hated and persecuted by the world, are educated and disciplined in the school of Christ. They walk in narrow paths on earth; they are purified in the furnace of affliction. They follow Christ through sore conflicts; they endure self- denial and experience bitter disappointments; but their painful experience teaches them the guilt and woe of sin, and they look upon it with abhorrence. Being partakers of Christ’s sufferings, they are destined to be partakers of His glory. In holy vision the prophet saw the triumph of the people of God. He says, ‘I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory, . . . stand on the sea of glass, having the hams of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints. ‘ ‘These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple: and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. ‘ Revelation 15: 2, 3; 7: 14, 15” MB 31. “The truth is soon to triumph gloriously and all who now choose to be laborers together with God will triumph with it” 9T 135.

Question: Who is really a church member? (Who is really a Seventh- day Adventist?)
Answer: (1) You become a member of the professed church when you are baptized with water; but you are not a member of the true church, the actual body of Christ, unless you are baptized with the Holy Spirit. According to 1 Corinthians 12: 13, we do not become a member of the true church— the body of Christ— until we are baptized by the Holy Spirit. (2) When your name is voted in by a local church body after your baptism with water, then your name is added to the church book on earth and you are a member of a local professed church. Usually, within this body, some are professed only, but some are both professed and members of the true church— the church of the Firstborn and the names of the members of the church of the First- born are registered in heaven (Hebrews 12: 23). “God . . . . draws the dividing line between those who bear his name by profession, and those whose character shows them to be his children” ST 6/ 30/ 1881.

Special Note: In this small booklet only the definition issue of the church has been addressed. Several other serious and slanderous charges are being leveled against ministries attempting to help complete the gospel commission in the world. These will be addressed later if the Lord wills. One issue is the charge of separation; another is the charge of criticism; another is the charges concerning church authority and church organization; and still another issue is the definition of Babylon. All these must be addressed because: “When man assails his fellow men, and presents in a ridiculous light those whom God has appointed to do work for him, we would not be doing justice to the accusers, or to those who are misled by their accusations should we keep silent, leaving the people to think that their brethren and sisters, in whom they have had confidence, are no longer worthy of their love and fellowship. This work, arising in our very midst, and resembling the work of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, is an offence to God, and should be met. And on every point the accusers should be called upon to bring their proof. Every charge should be carefully investigated” 3SM 348.

Appendixes –>

The Word From Heaven

by
by

In this article I would like to share with you some memories. Memories that go back twenty years, to when, as far as I was concerned, the whole historic Adventist movement began.

At that time I received an assignment from the brethren that I found very difficult to understand. It just did not make any kind of sense to me. Throughout all of my forty years of ministry for the Lord in the Adventist Church, my main interest has always been the soul winning work. I sympathize with Elder W. A. Spicer, one of the early pioneer Presidents of our General Conference, who used to say, “In this work there is only one thing that is worthwhile, and that is bringing a soul to Jesus Christ. All of the rest is just muss and fuss and bother.”

That is how I have always felt. So, when I was pastoring a church, I kept evangelism going as much as I could. When I was teaching in college, I did the same thing. And when I was teaching in the Theological Seminary, I did the same thing. I also spent fifteen years in full time evangelism, which was the cream of my years of life.

In 1977, in the fall of the year, I was conducting an evangelistic experiment in another Conference that I fully believed was going to revolutionize the whole picture of evangelistic work among Seventh-day Adventists. During this time I began to get calls from leaders in the conference and they told me, “We want you to go to the Campus Hill Church, in Loma Linda, and be the senior pastor there.” I said, “Why? That church is an institutional church with no new territory for evangelism whatsoever. It is surrounded by other churches.” I just could not make sense of it. I turned down the offer three times. But finally, when the Union Conference President pressed me, I decided I had better be a good soldier and start obeying orders. But I still kept wondering why?

Watching Prophecy Be Fulfilled

When I began pastoring the Campus Hill Church, I ran into something that I had never seen before in my whole life as a Seventh-day Adventist, even though, as an evangelist and as a Ministerial Secretary, I had come in close contact with many churches. The congregation was divided over theological issues and the tensions were severe. One could walk around on Sabbath morning and go into the different Sabbath School classes and hear two different theologies being presented on any Sabbath morning. I was absolutely dumbfounded. I had never seen anything like it, and never dreamed that anything like it existed in Adventism. I had to dig in and figure out what it was all about.

At that time, I did not realize that I was watching a fulfillment of prophecy. Later, however, I discovered that Ellen White had written about exactly what I saw happening in Loma Linda. She said in Selected Messages, vol. 2, 114: “Divisions will come in the church. Two parties will be developed.”

I saw the two parties being developed in the Loma Linda Campus Hill Seventh-day Adventist Church, and since then I have seen the division spread throughout our churches all over the country. It is no longer in isolated places; it is throughout Adventism. Who are these two parties? The first group was made up of people who were very thoroughly convinced that the message they had been taught when they joined the church, the message they had been taught when they went to Seventh-day Adventist academies, colleges and seminaries, was true. There was nothing wrong with the message they had learned to love and they had no intention of changing it for another gospel.

The other group was insisting that we change traditional, Biblical Adventist theology into something called New Theology. Actually their “new theology” is very old. Just like many of the doctrines that are promoted as “new light,” New Theology dates back a long, long time to errors the Reformers made and even earlier.

For example, a few years back we started hearing a great deal about a new morality in the world. When you took the curtains off and looked at it, you could see that this was something that began in Sodom and Gomorrah a long, long time ago.

And progressive theology is not much different. It is really regressive. I read with a strange mixture of feelings, recently, a prediction made by the president of a Seventh-day Adventist College in our country, in which he said something like this: “We have theological minds among us who are going to bring us into vistas of truth that the apostles could not even dream of.” I thought for a moment, “Man you have me on the edge of my seat. Show it to me!” Then I thought, “Oh, come on, relax, Larson. When the curtains are parted, it will have originated in Sodom and Gomorrah or back in some ancient time.” That is the way it always works.

When I came to Loma Linda and I found the New Theology apostasy, that is now a tide flowing through all Adventism, it was in its beginning there. The question I faced was, “What shall I do?” I did not feel as though I had any choice. As an evangelist, I had been defending the Seventh-day Adventist faith for years and years and I was not about to change—unless God showed me some good reason why I should—and He did not!

Consequently, I took a public stand against this apostasy and for a little while I felt all alone. However, I soon began to find out that there were people all over the country who shared my feelings. They, too, were astonished at what was happening around them. One by one, people scattered across this nation began to sound the cry, “This is terrible! I am going to do something about this if I can.”

After a while I became acquainted with Ron Spear in Washington and then with Doctors Russell and Colon Standish. We soon learned that the apostasy was really creeping through the whole ranks of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. And people all around the country were beginning to rise up and say, “I do not know what I can do, but I am going to try to do something.”

In a short time there was a Hope International Ministry, which is now putting out a hundred million pages of truth filled literature every year as a part of their worldwide work. There was a Steps to Life Ministry which sends out thousands of videos, magazines, tapes and books. There was a Remnant Publications, which has published hundreds of thousands of Spirit of Prophecy books for use worldwide. And there was a little tiny Cherrystone Press out in Cherry Valley, CA, which was my own ministry, publishing scholarly books.

In these ministries, and many others, there have been an innumerable number of cities of refuge started. Cities of refuge that are needed because of the warnings we have against listening to and receiving error.

The Danger of Error

I want to share with you in these pages several inspired statements about error, and the danger that exists for all who go to listen to it. Consider carefully these inspired messages for God’s people: “Error is falsehood and deception. Those who partake of it must suffer in consequence.” The Upward Look, 125.

“Error is never harmless. It never sanctifies but always leaves confusion and dissention. It is always dangerous.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, 47.

“There is in error and unbelief that which bewilders and bewitches the mind.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 46.

“I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings . . . God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go; for unless He sends us to those meetings where error is forced home by the power of the will, He will not keep us. The angels cease their watchful care over us, and we are left to the buffetings of the enemy, to be darkened and weakened by him.” Early Writings, 124, 125.

If anyone challenges you about using this statement from Early Writings, which was written quite a while ago, just remind them that Bible writers, including Jesus Himself, when a question was placed before them, gave principles of truth to answer issues which were much bigger than the individual question they were being asked.

When the Pharisees brought Jesus a coin in the temple and said, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or no?” Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:17, 21. No theologian of any faith has ever argued that those words apply only to taxes. All theologians hold that those words apply to all relationships between a Christian and the state. Similarly, when Ellen White says, “Where error is being preached we have no business going,” it applies to all times and all circumstances.

Inspired messages such as these have been the mandate that has required many faithful Adventists, in order to be faithful to God’s Word, to leave the conference churches and begin attending homechurches.

Do You Know the Issues at Stake?

How many historic Adventists are there now? After twenty years, there are thousands and thousands of those who have seen the issues at stake. But there are tens of thousands of those who do not yet comprehend what is going on.

In the Adventist Church today there are three kinds of people. On the one side, at the extreme end of the scale, there is a small group of Seventh-day Adventists who know exactly what they are doing. They are trying to change our faith from Adventism to Calvinism. At the other end there is another small group that knows exactly what they are doing. They are trying to defend the faith so it will not be changed from Adventism into Calvinism. In between there is a larger group who do not know what the score is. They have not figured out the enormous issues at stake yet. That is why we are trying to help them understand what is happening.

There is a line in The Great Controversy, 640, that makes me tremble when I read it, because it is so applicable to our time and our situation. It says, “Religious teachers have led souls to perdition while professing to guide them to the gates of Paradise.” [All emphasis supplied.] Throughout the Biblical story and throughout the history of the modern church from Christ to this day, apostasy in churches has usually begun with the leadership and come down to the common people, especially through schools and institutions of higher education.

Those who today are standing for the truth against the wave of error that is sweeping through Adventism are being treated just as God’s people of all ages have been treated when they stand firm for the truth. Sister White wrote: “Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition. ‘Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.’ John 3:20. As men see that they cannot maintain their position by the Scriptures, many determine to maintain it at all hazards, and with a malicious spirit they assail the character and motives of those who stand in defense of unpopular truth. It is the same policy which has been pursued in all ages. Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this, those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious, heretical, or schismatic . . . This spirit will increase more and more.” The Great Controversy, 458, 459.

On the same page she poses this question, “In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall we conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims?” Her answer is a most emphatic NO! We must keep pressing on, giving the straight truth no matter the odds. And this is what we have done. They have not been able to frighten us—although they have tried very hard. Despite all of the things that were intended to frighten us away from our defense of the historic faith, we are still hanging on.

The Unity Problem

However, there is another problem, which many historic Adventists have been increasingly concerned about as the years have passed by, and that is the lack of unity among the historic Adventists. It is easy to understand why we have this problem when you realize that this movement did not start with all of us gathering for a big council meeting before going out to do our job. This was a grass roots movement. People came forward to do the work in different places, without the knowledge that there were others involved in the same work and who shared the same burden to defend our faith. So, the way things began did not contribute to unity.

Then, of course, the devil wants to keep us apart. He tries to work hard on his policy of divide and conquer—which he practices with skill. Consider thoughtfully these inspired statements: “Unity is the strength of the church. Satan knows this, and he employs his whole force to bring in dissension. He desires to see a lack of harmony among the members of the church of God.”Selected Messages, vol. 2, 159. “The unity of the church is the convincing evidence that God has sent Jesus into the world as its Redeemer. This is an argument which worldlings cannot controvert. Therefore Satan is constantly working to prevent this union and harmony, that unbelievers, by witnessing backsliding, dissension, and strife among professed Christians, may become disgusted with religion and be confirmed in their impenitence. God is dishonored by those who profess the truth while they are at variance and enmity with one another.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 619.

And there is something that has contributed to our lack of unity. We were very sensitive about the accusation that we were trying to start a second church to compete with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That was not a true accusation. It never has been and it never will be. It is not our purpose or intention to try to start a second church. However, because we were all so sensitive on this subject, many of us hesitated to join ourselves in united, organized ways.

Nevertheless, these reasons for our disunity in no way diminish the fact that God has called us to unity. “Press together, press together,” is what the angel said. (See Selected Messages, vol. 2, 374.)

This has been a concern to many of us. We have been praying, thinking and studying about it for years. There have been many conversations and very many prayers sent heavenward asking the Lord what we should do. Finally, all of this bore its fruit. In a meeting in February, 1998, in Florida, a group of more than twenty ministry leaders spent three days together. It was a heavenly sitting together. We wept together. We prayed together. We studied together. We confessed our sins together and we vowed we were going to find some way to mold this movement into unity like it ought to be—still without violating the principles we stand for.

One of the first things we had to settle was, Are those who charge us with divisiveness correct when they say that we are destroying the unity of the church and that we should just come back and unite with them? Is their argument correct?

When we studied this together, these are the types of inspired instructions that we found: “I am instructed to say to our people, unify, unify. But we are not to unify with those who are departing from the faith.” Selected Messages, vol. 3, 412.

“Christ calls for unity but He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating and ennobling truth and false misleading doctrines. He calls sin and impenitence by the right name. He does not gloss over wrong doing with a coat of untempered mortar. I urge our brethren to unify upon a true scriptural basis.” Notebook Leaflets, vol. 2, 164.

“The Lord calls upon us to unify in harmony with Bible truth.” The Upward Look, 149.

“Harmony and cooperation must be maintained without compromising one principle of truth.”Counsels to Writers and Editors, 79.

“We are to unify but not on a platform of error.” Battle Creek Letters, 111.

So that question was very quickly and easily settled in our discussion. Are those in the conference correct when they say, “It does not make any difference which way we go, what we teach or what we do not teach. You must stay together with us.”? No, that is pure falsehood. We are to have unity, but not with those who are teaching error.

However, that does not lessen our obligation to seek for unity with those who are standing on the platform of eternal truth. We have been given many divine commands on this point:

“Unity of thought, unity of prayer, unity of action is essential.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, 165.

“He [Christ] calls for unity and unity we must have.” The Upward Look, 141. This is not just good advice. This is a command from the Lord Himself. We must unify!

“In unity there is a life, a power, that can be obtained in no other way. There will be a vast power in the church when the energies of the members are united under the control of the Spirit. Then will God be able to work mightily through His people for the conversion of sinners.”Testimonies, vol. 7, 236.

“The Lord is greatly dishonored when disunion exists among His people.” Testimonies, vol. 8, 174.

“Union brings strength, disunion weakness. Those who refuse to work in harmony greatly dishonor God.” The Southern Watchman, February 2, 1904.

“The world is looking on with gratification at the disunion among Christians. Infidelity is well pleased. God calls for a change among His people.” Review and Herald, December 30, 1902.

“Let us not think that our churches can enjoy God’s blessing while in a state of disunion.” Upward Look, 172.

“The Spirit of God will not abide where there is disunion and contention among believers in the truth.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 221.

After studying these solemn warnings, we had no choice. We must do something about the disunion that exists among us. We resolved that things must be changed drastically, dramatically, fully and completely because God has commanded it and we must do it.

After much study and prayer, we chose to endeavor to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:3.) While recognizing our differences of opinions on various points we also recognized that the Lord wanted to lead us to a higher level that would finally result in perfect unity of faith as expressed in the following paragraph: “It is the same to-day as it was in the days of Christ. As the disciples were brought together, each with different faults, some inherited or cultivated tendency to evil, so in our church relations we find men and women whose characters are defective; not one of us is perfect. But in Christ, and through Christ, we are to dwell in the family of God, learning to become one in faith, in doctrine, in spirit, that at last we may be received into our eternal habitation. We shall have our tests, our grievances, our differences of opinion; but if Christ is abiding in the heart of each, there can be no dissension. The love of Christ will lead to love of one another, and the lessons of the Master will harmonize all differences, bringing us into unity, till we shall be of one mind and one judgment. Strife for supremacy will cease, and no one will be disposed to glory over another, but we shall esteem others better than ourselves, and so be built up into a spiritual temple for the Lord.” Signs of the Times, April 20, 1891.

This spiritual temple, which can only be completed with love and unity (while at the same time refusing to unite with error of any kind), must be finished before Jesus comes. We recognize that much more work needs to be done before God’s spiritual temple is completed and ready for Jesus to come, but we are completely dedicated to cooperating with the Holy Spirit for the finishing of this task.

This experience of perfect unity must take place in every institution and in every church. If it does not, then some of the people in these institutions or churches will be purged out by the fan of God, as the chaff is sifted from the wheat. We are in “the days of purification of the church.”

Testimonies, vol. 5, 80. Is it not time that every Adventist in the world should fast and pray that we may be purified and brought into the experience described in Ephesians 4—the experience of unity, not only in spirit, but in faith, so that we are not purged out by the trials that are thickening around God’s people?

May you be one of the people described in the next sentence: “God will have a people pure and true. In the mighty sifting soon to take place we shall be better able to measure the strength of Israel. The signs reveal that the time is near when the Lord will manifest that His fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor.” Ibid.