The Great Conspiracy #9

THE FINAL ATONEMENT His work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin. Manuscript. 69, 1912, page 13. e are engaged in a mighty conflict, and it will become more close and determined, as we near the final struggle,” Ellen White warned. “We have a sleepless adversary, and he is constantly at work upon human minds that have not had a personal experience in the teachings of the people of God for the past fifty years.” (Selected Messages, Book 1, page 102, emphasis supplied). Satan knows that if we forget “the way the Lord has led us,” and especially if we should forget “His teaching in our past history,” (Life Sketches, page 196), then it would be easy to introduce heresy into the greatest movement of truth the world has ever known. What did Ellen White mean by “His teaching in our past history?” Before we can proceed with our research and find the correct answer to this question, we must first understand the correct method to follow in our study of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. The Bible answer to the proper method of study is that “precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.” (Isaiah 28:10). Does it not follow that we should use the very same method to interpret passages in the Spirit of Prophecy? Yes, indeed. “The Spirit of the Lord will be in the instruction, and doubts existing in many minds will be swept away,” Ellen White counseled. “The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture.” (Letter, 73, 1905, also, Selected Messages, book. 1, pages 41, 42, emphasis supplied). Notice that we are instructed to study the Spirit of Prophecy “as scripture is explained by scripture,” and further, “The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given.” That is very plain, is it not? However, there is one more important aspect that must be remembered in the study of the Spirit of Prophecy – “time and place must be W Chapter 11 The Fin -187- considered.” “Regarding the testimonies, nothing is ignored, nothing is cast aside,” Ellen White wrote, “but time and place must be considered.” (ibid., Letter, 73, 1905, emphasis supplied). This inspired counsel on how to study the Testimonies is simple. (1) Dot not cast aside any part of the Testimonies. (2) Compare all that is written on a subject. (3) “Time and place” must also be considered. This is sound and logical advice, is it not? The Past Fifty Years (1844-1900) Ellen White warned many times that some in the Church would bring in “new strange doctrines,” and, “something odd and sensational to present to the people.” (Letter, 73, 1905). The safeguard, of course, is to remember “the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” (ibid., Life Sketches, page 196). Not only that, but Ellen White was very specific about what she meant by the phrase, “His teaching in our past history.” Many times she stated, writing at the turn of the century (again keeping in mind “time and place”) that, “the value of the evidences of truth that we have received during the past half century, is above estimate.” (Review and Herald, April 19, 1906, emphasis supplied). “Study the Bible truths that for fifty years have been calling us out from the world,” Ellen White counseled. (ibid., Review and Herald, April 19, 1906, emphasis supplied). In other words, noting time and place, 1906, when this testimony was penned, the truth that pioneer Adventists taught from 1844 to the turn of the century, was, and still is, “the three angel’s messages.” The pioneer Seventh-day Adventist message given this people in the past century is the true end-time “Gospel” to a perishing world. God does not change. His message does not change. Any message that is not in harmony with this “most precious message” is what Ellen White called “strange fire,” what we know today as “new theology.” Strange Fire “For all in responsible positions I have a message spoken by the mouth of the Lord,” Ellen White wrote. (Testimonies to Ministers, page 357, emphasis supplied). And what was this message from God to the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church? “He [those in responsible positions] will represent the sacredness of the work, he will magnify the truth, and will ever present before men and angels the holy perfume of the character of Christ [the law of God],” Ellen White related the message from God. “This is the sacred fire of God’s Chapter 11 The Fin -188- own kindling. Anything aside from this is strange fire, abhorrent to God, and the more offensive as one’s position in the work involves larger responsibilities.” (ibid., Testimonies to Ministers, page 357, emphasis supplied). There are 115 references to the phrase “strange fire” in the writings of Ellen White. We have learned that false doctrine is “strange fire” presented to the Seventh-day Adventist Church by “those in responsible positions.” We will now learn what is the “sacred fire of God.” The Sacred Fire Of God When the power of God testifies to what is truth, the truth is to stand forever as the truth. . .. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. . . . And while the Scriptures are God’s Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. Ellen G. White, A Call to the Watchmen, pages 14, 15. (emphasis supplied). Notice that, “He [God] Himself has taught us what is truth,” and, “When the power of God testifies to what is truth, the truth is to stand forever as the truth.” Could anything be more plain? An application or interpretation of Scripture that “moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake.” In this statement Ellen White emphasized that it was “the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.” The past fifty years have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith as we received the great and wonderful evidences that were made certain to us in 1844, after the passing of the time. . .. Not a word is changed or denied. That which the Holy Spirit testified to as truth after the passing of the time, in our great disappointment, is the solid foundation of truth. . .. Ellen G. White, The Upward Look, page 352. (emphasis supplied). “Not a word is changed or denied,” of the Advent truth for “the past fifty years,” and this truth that was laid down after the great disappointment in 1844 “is the solid foundation of truth.” The emphasis again, and again is stated to be the truth that was held by Seventh-day Adventists for “the past fifty years.” (See also, Gospel Workers, 1915 page 307). “The pillars of truth were revealed, and we accepted the foundation principles that have made us what we are -- Seventh-day Adventists,” Ellen White stated, “keeping the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus.” (Upward Look, page 352, emphasis supplied). Notice that, “The pillars of truth were revealed,” and pioneer Adventists “accepted the foundation principles” of truth. They were truly the remnant who were “keeping the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus.” Notice Ellen White said “having” the faith of Jesus. They possessed the faith of Jesus. Pioneer Adventists were people of obedience to all of God’s commandments. Their lives were in harmony with the law of God because they possessed faith like Jesus. Thus the apostle Paul said, “I can do all things.” How? “Through Chapter 11 The Fin -189- Christ which strengtheneth me.” (Philippians 4:13). This is righteousness by faith. Obedience by faith. Again, about the pillars of our faith, Ellen White stated, “And while the Scriptures are God’s Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake.” (A Call to the Watchmen, pages 14, 15, emphasis supplied). Old Landmarks and Pillars Of Adventism What are the “pillars” and “old landmarks” of truth? According to the Spirit of Prophecy, there are really only three pillars of Adventism. Notice carefully the description of these three pillars, also known as the old landmarks. The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God’s people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels’ messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, “The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” [1] One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. [2] The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed it’s strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God’s law. [3] The nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. . ..” Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pages 30, 31. (emphasis supplied). (1) The Sanctuary, the Foundation Pillar of Adventism The first “pillar” or “landmark” that Satan would attack is the foundation pillar of the Advent movement. This landmark is the first angel’s message, the message that the remnant people were commissioned to give to a perishing world. This sanctuary truth is the one doctrine held only by Seventh-day Adventists. For Satan to attack the second pillar, the Sabbath truth, or the third pillar, the state of man in death, would be too obvious for alert Seventh-day Adventists. Satan must be more clever than to attack the obvious. If Satan attacked the sanctuary truth outright, by stating “there is no sanctuary in heaven,” the Advent people would detect the deception immediately. Too many testimonies had been written against that kind of an assault upon this foundation pillar of Adventism. A Most Subtle Deception History reveals that Satan would shrewdly concentrate his assault on the most important “phase” of the sanctuary truth. Satan would cleverly attack, and try to negate, the “final atonement” and the “blotting out of sins” work of Jesus Christ, our heavenly High Priest. Satan would introduce into the Seventh-day Adventist Church the false concept held by the fallen churches of Babylon, that the atonement was final, completed and finished on the cross. This false concept would lead the people to feel secure in their sins. This most subtle deception would at the same time do away with the truth of the 1844 message – that the final atonement is being completed in heaven by our High Priest, Jesus Christ, the true Lamb of God. To complete his masterful deception, Satan, after establishing the erroneous “complete and final Chapter 11 The Fin -190- atonement on the cross” concept, would then introduce into the Seventh-day Adventist Church a false concept of the human nature Christ assumed while in the flesh. This second false concept would give the people a false “assurance” and lead them to believe that Christ is their substitute only. This deception would lead the people to accept the false doctrine of “free grace” held by all so-called “contemporary Christians.” This would be Satan’s most cunning and subtle deception, for it would lead the people to be lost in their sins! This overwhelming deception the Spirit of Prophecy describes as “the Omega of apostasy.” “The Omega would follow in a little while,” Ellen White warned. “I tremble for our people.” (Sermons and Talks “The Foundation of Our Faith,” page 341, emphasis supplied). Jesus warned that in the last days Satan’s battle strategy against the remnant people of God would be so deceptive that “if it were possible, it should deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24b). Thus Paul stated, “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light, therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.” (2 Corinthians 11:14, 15a, emphasis supplied). “One will arise and still another with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit,” Ellen White cautioned. “We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith.” (A Call to the Watchmen, page 14, emphasis supplied). How can we know what is truth? How can we identify heresy in these last days? How can we avoid being deceived by our cunning adversary? “When the power of God testifies to what is truth, the truth is to stand forever as the truth,” Ellen White replies. “No after suppositions, contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained.” (ibid., A Call to the Watchmen, page 24, emphasis supplied). A Safeguard and A Bulwark Against Heresy A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat and repeat till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard bearers who have fallen in death, are to speak through the reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time. ibid., Ellen G. White, A Call to the Watchmen (pages 14, 15). (emphasis supplied). Notice the words, “I am instructed.” The instruction came directly from heaven. The instruction from heaven was that “voices are to be heard.” Who’s voices are to be heard? “The standard bearers [pioneer Adventists] who have fallen in death, are to speak through the reprinting of their writings.” Not only that, but, “They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time.” So that is the key, the doctrinal rock we should hold on to – the truth in our past history! “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” (ibid., Life Sketches, page 196). This statement was published in 1915. We must go back to the beginning of the Advent movement, the first “fifty years” of our Chapter 11 The Fin -191- past history to discover what was the truth that was endorsed by “the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.” (ibid., A Call to the Watchmen, page 15). Then we must compare any new teaching, any “new theology,” to the teachings of pioneer Seventh-day Adventists from 1844 to the turn of the century. The True Doctrine of the Final Atonement As Taught From 1844 To 1931 (87 years) “The doctrine of the Sanctuary was enunciated soon after the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844,” Leroy Froom wrote. “The earliest declaration of this doctrine was the published statement written out by O. R. L. Crosier – but representing the joint studies of Hiram Edson, Crosier, and Dr. F. B. Hawn – which studies took place in Port Gibson and neighboring Canandaigua, New York, in the week or months following the crisis in October.” (Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, pages 111, 112). “Published first in 1845 in the local Adventist paper, The Day-Dawn, in Canandaigua,” Froom continued, “it appeared in fuller form in The Day-Star Extra of February 7, 1846, printed in Cincinnati, Ohio.” (ibid., Movement of Destiny, page 112). Froom went on to state that, “Concerning the published results of these studies, Ellen Harmon White wrote this statement in a letter to Eli Curtis, dated April 21, 1847, and published the same year in one of our earliest pieces of denominational literature, A Word to the Little Flock.” (ibid., Movement of Destiny, page 111). Froom then quoted the statement of Ellen White. However, because he did not agree with the “final atonement” aspect of Crosier’s article, Froom omitted an important part of the Ellen White endorsement of the article by adding ellipses at the end of the first sentence as follows: The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary. . .; and that it was His will, that Brother C, should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. (ibid., Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 111). What was left out by the ellipses in Froom’s quotation? Here is the statement as written without the ellipses: The Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the sanctuary, et cetera, and that it was His [God’s] will that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that Extra to every saint. Ellen G. White, A Word to the Little Flock, page 12. (emphasis supplied). Froom purposely left out the “et cetera,” that Ellen White had written. Why? Because the “et cetera,” implied that Crosier had published the complete truth on all aspects of the Sanctuary truth, especially the “final atonement” phase of the Sanctuary truth. Notice Ellen White stated that, “The Lord showed me in vision,” and that “Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the sanctuary, et cetera,” and that it was God’s will “that Brother C. should write out Chapter 11 The Fin -192- the view which he gave us in the Day-Star Extra.” Unquestionably a solid endorsement from the Lord through the Spirit of Prophecy of O. R. L. Crosier’s Day-Star, Extra, article. If Leroy Froom, contemporary historian of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, could not agree with all the aspects of truth in Crosier’s article, then he also could not agree with the Spirit of Prophecy which endorsed the article. It will be shown below that most contemporary Adventist historians, writers and scholars are also out of harmony with pioneer Seventh-day Adventists and the Spirit of Prophecy on the teaching of the “Final Atonement” phase of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. The Final Atonement What had Crosier written that Froom and contemporary Adventist leadership could not agree with? It was Crosiers’ “final atonement” emphasis – that the atonement was not finished and completed on the cross, but that as our High Priest, Christ is now making the “final atonement” in the heavenly Sanctuary. While doing research for this manuscript, the author placed a call to the James White Memorial Library at Andrews University to purchase a photo-copy of Crosier’s original article as it appeared in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. The photo-copy of the article arrived, minus the “atonement” portion of the article! Another letter was mailed, with the required funds, requesting that the full article be sent, including the “atonement” portion of Crosier’s Day-Star, Extra article. As of this writing (more then ten years), and no further correspondence has been received. What is the corporate Seventh-day Adventist Church trying to hide? Thanks to the faithful work of Adventist laymen the complete article was published on the Adventist Pioneer Library CD-ROM disk. (Adventist Pioneer Library, P. O. Box 1844, Loma Linda, CA 92354-0380, USA). Here, then, is the complete “atonement” portion of Crosier’s article in full. This is the true position on the “final atonement” phase of the heavenly Sanctuary as it was endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy: “But again, they say the atonement is made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired,” Crosier began. “So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believes; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority.” (Owen R. L. Crosier, Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. (emphasis supplied). “Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests,” Crosier suggested. He then explained the “Final Atonement” phase of Christ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary in following six areas: 1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest; but who officiated on Calvary? Roman soldiers and wicked Jews. 2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim. (Lev. 4:1-4, 13-15), after that the priest took the blood and made the atonement. (Lev. 4:5-12, 16-21). 3. Christ was the appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing anything on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement. Chapter 11 The Fin -193- 4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place. 5. He could not, according to Hebrews 8:4, make the atonement while on earth, “If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest.” The Levitical was the earthly priesthood, the Divine, the heavenly. 6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, til after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered His heavenly Sanctuary for us. Owen R. L. Crosier, Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. (emphasis supplied). “Let us examine a few texts that appear to speak of the atonement as past,” Crosier continued. “Rom. 5:11; `By whom we have now received the atonement, (margin, reconciliation).’ This passage clearly shows a present possession of the atonement at the time the apostle wrote; but it by no means proves that the entire atonement was then in the past.” (ibid., Crosier, Day-Star, Extra, 2/7/1846, emphasis supplied). When the Savior was about to be taken up from His apostles, He “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father,” which came on the day of Pentecost when they were all “baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Christ had entered His Father’s house, the Sanctuary, as High Priest, and began His intercession for His people by “praying the Father” for “another Comforter,” John 14:15, “and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,” Acts 2:33, He shed it down upon His waiting apostles. Then, in compliance with their commission, Peter, at the third of the day began to preach, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Acts 2:38. This word remission, signifies forgiveness, pardon or more literally sending of sins. Now, put by the side of this text, another on this point from his discourse at the ninth hour of the same day. Acts 3:18, “Repent ye therefore; and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” Here He exhorts to repentance and conversion (turning away from sin); for what purpose? “That your sins may be (future) blotted out.” Every one can see that the blotting out of sins does not take place at repentance and conversion; but follows and must of necessity be preceded by them. Repentance, conversion, and baptism had become imperative duties in the present tense; and when performed, those doing them “washed away” (Acts 22:16) remitted or sent away from them their sins. (Acts 2:28). And of course are forgiven and have “received the atonement;” but they had not received it entirely at that time, because their sins were not yet blotted out. How far then had they advanced in the reconciling process? Just so far as the individual under the law had when he had confessed his sin, brought his victim to the door of the tabernacle, laid his hand upon it and slain it, and the priest had with it’s blood entered the Holy and sprinkled it before the veil and upon the alter and thus made an atonement for him and he was forgiven. Only that was the type and this the reality. That prepared for the cleansing of the great day of atonement, this for the blotting out of sins “when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, and He shall send Jesus.” Hence, “by whom we have now received the atonement” in the same as “by whom we have received the forgiveness of sin.” At this point the man is “made free from sin.” The Lamb on Calvary’s cross is our victim slain; “Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant” “in the heavens” is our intercessing High Priest, making atonement with His own blood by and with which He entered there. The essence of the process is the same as in the “shadow.” 1st. Convinced of sin; 2nd. Repentance and confession; 3d. Present the Divine sacrifice bleeding. This done in faith and sincerity, we can do no more, no more is required. Owen R. L. Crosier, Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. (emphasis supplied). “In the heavenly Sanctuary our High Priest with His own blood makes the atonement and we are forgiven,” Crosier concluded. He then quoted 1 Peter 2:24; “`Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree.’ (see also Matt. 8:17; Isa. 53:4-12).” (ibid., Crosier, Day-Star, Extra, Chapter 11 The Fin -194- 2/7/1846, emphasis supplied). “His body is the `one sacrifice’ for repenting mortals, to which their sins are imparted and through whose blood in the hands of the living active Priest they are conveyed to the heavenly Sanctuary,” Crosier explained. “That was offered `once for all’ `on the tree;’ and all who would avail themselves of its merits must through faith, there receive it as theirs, bleeding at the hands of sinful mortals like themselves.” (ibid., Crosier, Day-Star, Extra, 2/7/1846, emphasis supplied). “After thus obtaining the atonement of forgiveness we must `maintain good works,’ not the `deeds of the law;’ but `being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness,’” Crosier concluded. “This work we will understand to be peculiar to the Gospel Dispensation.” (ibid., Crosier, Day- Star, Extra, 2/7/1846, emphasis supplied). This article makes it clear that pioneer Adventists did not believe in a “completed and final atonement on the cross.” Indeed, the “Fundamental Principles of Beliefs” written by James White and published in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook (1874-1914) stated almost the very words of Crosier on the final atonement. Note carefully the statement by James White: That there is one Lord Jesus Christ. . .that He. . .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 the 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. James White, 1874 Fundamental Principles, op. sit. The Living Witness, “Significant Articles From the Signs of the Times,” 1874-1959, Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1959, page 2. (emphasis supplied). Did Ellen White agree with this “Fundamental Principles” statement on the final atonement? Did she also agree with Crosier’s article in the Day-Star, Extra? Indeed she did! She stated that, “I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint.” (ibid., letter to Eli Curtis, 4/21/1847). In one of Ellen White’s earliest visions she was shown the concept of the sanctuary truth symbolized by the first angel’s message: Sub-Title–End of the 2300 Days: I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. . .. Before the throne I saw the Advent people--the church and the world. I saw two companies, one bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the other stood uninterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then He would look to His Father, and appear to be pleading with Him. A light would come from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light. Many came out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not cherish the light, and it moved off from them. Some cherished it, and went and bowed down with the little praying company. This company all received the light and rejoiced in it, and their countenances shone with its glory. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, pages 54, 55. (emphasis supplied). Four very important facts must be acknowledged in this passage if we are to understand the times in which we live: (1) At the end of the 2,300 days, Ellen White saw the Father and the Son sitting on the throne in the holy place or first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Chapter 11 The Fin -195- (2) Before the throne were all the people of the world divided into three groups – (1) God’s true Advent people, (2) the professed church, (3) the world. (3) Although there were three groups before the throne, only two were divided. “I saw two companies, one bowed down before the throne, deeply interested.” The Church and the world “stood uninterested and careless.” (4) God’s true Advent people are a very small portion of professed Christians and the world’s teeming billions. Ellen White stated that only a “few would receive this great light” and that only a few would join with “the little praying company.” God’s true people are always a small company. (See Luke 12:32; Matt. 7:14). Indeed, did not Jesus say, “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matthew 24:37). What was the most important fact about the days of Noah? “When once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,” the apostle Peter replies, “wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:20b, emphasis supplied). Christ and the Father Enter the Most Holy In 1844 Evangelical Christians and contemporary Adventists state that Christ entered the most holy place at His ascension. This teaching is heresy, and is not the teaching of pioneer Adventists. Note carefully the following statement from the Spirit of Prophecy: “End of the 2,300 Days” “I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son,” Ellen White began. “I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. . ..” (Early Writings, page 54, emphasis supplied). I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. . .. Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. . .. Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest, and pray, “My Father, give us Thy Spirit.” Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light, power, and much love, joy, and peace. ibid., Ellen G. White, Early Writings, page 55. (emphasis supplied). There are five important facts that must be acknowledged in this vision given Ellen White. Note carefully the time-frame of the vision. (1) The time of the vision was at the ““End of the 2300 Days” The end of the 2300 days was October 22, 1844. (2) In vision Ellen White saw God the Father arise from His throne in the holy place, or first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and move into the holy of holies, “within the veil,” and sit down. (See Daniel 7:9, 10). God the Father moved “through the Veil” into the most holy place Chapter 11 The Fin -196- of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844. (3) Jesus also arose from His throne in the holy place, or first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 and “stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat.” (See Daniel 7:13). There Ellen White saw Jesus our great High Priest, “standing before the Father.” (4) Those who by faith entered the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary with the Father and the Son received “light, power, and much love, joy, and peace.” (5) Ellen White did not see even “one ray of light” pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He had arisen and entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. Further, she stated that the people who did not enter the holy of holies by faith “were left in perfect darkness.” Mark this point well. The fallen churches of Babylon have not one ray of light and are in total darkness! “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20, emphasis supplied). Do the Sunday-keeping churches believe in the Law and the Sabbath? No, there is no light in them. “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” (Proverbs 28:9). I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, “Father, give us Thy Spirit.” Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy, and peace. Satan’s object was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive God’s children. ibid., Ellen G. White, Early Writings, page 56. (emphasis supplied). Again, pioneer Adventist doctrine points out that the Sunday-keeping churches became Babylon because they refused to follow by faith the Father and Son into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844! They refused the first angel’s message! There are two other important facts that must be acknowledged in this early vision given to Ellen White. (1) Satan appeared to be by the throne in the first apartment, or holy place, “trying to carry on the work of God.” (2) Satan breathes upon the fallen churches of Babylon “an unholy influence,” and in this unholy influence there is “light and much power.” We see this unholy influence and false power in the erroneous faith healing and counterfeit joy and peace of the contemporary Evangelical and Pentecostal churches. We also see this “unholy influence” and false “joy and peace” in the “Celebration” movement within the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church. Only a delay of the Lord’s coming will reveal the acceptance of “tongue-speaking” and “divine healing” in public services of the Church. Dr. Walter Martin, noted Evangelical writer on the cults, stated on the John Ankerberg television show that Ellen White was a false prophet “because she approved the false position of Crosier on the final atonement.” Martin’s opinion should not concern Adventists, because he belongs to that group who are in darkness. The Two Locations Of God’s Throne Chapter 11 The Fin -197- Was God the Father’s throne in the holy place, the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, at the ascension of Christ, and the years prior to 1844? Did pioneer Adventists believe in “moving throne?” Was Ellen White correct about the location of God’s throne prior to 1844 when she saw in vision the Father and the Son move from the holy place, the first apartment, through the Veil, into the holiest, or second apartment in 1844? The answer to these three questions is an absolute, indisputable, definite yes! Daniel saw the 1,200 reign of the “little horn,” the Papacy would extend from A.D. 538 to A.D. 1798. He saw God the Father seated in the most holy place, the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, sometime following the reign of the little horn – shortly after 1798. Daniel and John Confirm Ellen White “I beheld till the thrones were cast down,” Daniel saw in vision, “and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.” (Daniel 7:9). Daniel said that “I beheld till,” or past the time of the little horn, the Papacy. It was after the little horn when Daniel saw “the Ancient of days did sit.” Notice also that the “wheels” of God the Father’s throne appeared “as burning fire.” Then, like Ellen White, Daniel saw Jesus, the Son, move into the most holy, the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man [Jesus] came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days [the Father],” Daniel wrote, “and they brought him [Jesus] near before him [the Father].” (Daniel 7:13, emphasis supplied). Why did the Father and the Son move into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844? The angel told Daniel that, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” (Daniel 8:14). What is the cleansing of the sanctuary? “A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him [the Father],” Daniel replies, “thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.” (Daniel 7:10, emphasis supplied). “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged,” the apostle John wrote, “and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” (Revelation 11:18, emphasis supplied). In the first ten chapters of Revelation the apostle John places God the Father’s throne in the holy place, the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Then John was allowed for the first time to look into the most holy place. There he saw the golden ark containing the ten commandments. “And the temple of God was opened in heaven,” John wrote, “and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament.” (Revelation 11:19a). Contemporary Adventism Opposes Daniel, John, and Ellen White On the Location Of God’s Throne Before 1844 Elmer Ellsworth Andross Chapter 11 The Fin -198- There was contention between pioneer Adventists and Evangelical Christians over the location of God’s throne. (1) Pioneer Adventists believed and taught the concept of moving thrones. They taught that the Father’s throne was in the holy place, or first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary until 1844, at which time the Father moved into the most holy, or second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary and was seated. (Daniel 7:9, 10). This concept was Biblical and was confirmed by the Spirit of Prophecy. (See above). (2) Evangelical, Sunday-keeping Christians do not believe in a heavenly sanctuary. They teach that all of heaven is a most holy place and the exact location of God’s throne is unknown. (3) Contemporary Seventh-day Adventist theology seeks to compromise the two positions. Modern Adventism teaches that the Father’s throne is confined to the most holy, or second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. More liberal Adventists teach the Desmond Ford thesis that there is no heavenly sanctuary, and that all of heaven is a most holy place. Historically the two opposing concepts between pioneer Adventists and Evangelical Christians had to be compromised if ecumenical ties were to be established between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and other Christian churches. But how could these two opposing concepts be compromised? Compromise First Published In 1912 E. E. Andross was the first Seventh-day Adventist to publish the compromising concept that God’s throne has always been located in the most holy place, and “at His ascension” Christ entered the most holy place to appear before the Father to be confirmed. Then Christ returned to the holy place, or first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, to perform the “first phase” of His heavenly ministry. The Father remained in the most holy, or second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary where His throne has always been. Christ then, in 1844, reentered the most holy to perform the judgmental, or “second phase” of His heavenly ministry. (See, E. E. Andross, A More Excellent Ministry, Pacific Press Publishing Association, Mountain View, California, 1912). This erroneous concept is the current position of contemporary Adventism. This concept is not Biblical. (See, Daniel 7:9, 10). The concept that Christ entered the most holy and then returned to the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary was never taught by pioneer Adventists, nor was it ever confirmed by the Spirit of Prophecy. Where in the world did E. E. Andross get the idea for such an erroneous concept? Andross Influenced By Ballenger E. E. Andross was associated in England with A. F. Ballenger, an Adventist minister who taught erroneous concepts on the sanctuary doctrine. Ellen White opposed all the erroneous concepts presented by Ballenger. (See, Ellen G. White, “The Integrity of the Sanctuary Truth,” Manuscript Release, No. 760, page 4). “Elder A. F. Ballenger. . .for a time was a minister in Great Britain,” Arthur White wrote. “Associated with him in the work in Britain were such men as Elder E. W. Farnsworth and E. E. Andross.” (EGW: The Early Elmshaven Years, Vol. 5, 1900-1905, pages 405, 406, emphasis Chapter 11 The Fin -199- supplied). “In early 1905, A. F. Ballenger was over in Great Britain while I was there, and he had not been very thoroughly instructed in some points of the faith,” Andross recalled. “He had been preaching around over the country on certain practical points of the faith, and had had considerable success in that line, but he had not been thoroughly grounded in the doctrinal points of the faith.” (E. E. Andross, Bible Study No. II, July 13, 1911, pages. 13, 14, emphasis supplied). Notice the date of Andross’ report of Ballenger’s apostasy, 1911. One year later Andross published his book, A More Excellent Ministry, 1912, on the sanctuary service as he saw it. Andross admits in his report that he worked closely with Ballenger: One night while laboring with me in London, it came his turn to preach on the subject of the sanctuary. He [Ballenger] did so, but he was very much discouraged over his effort on the subject of the sanctuary that night. And then he said, “If the Lord will help me, I will never preach again until I know what I am preaching.” “I am not going to get it from our books. If our brethren could obtain it from the original sources, why can’t I? I will go to the books or commentaries and all these various sources from which Elder Uriah Smith obtained light on the subject of the sanctuary, and I will get it from the same sources that he did. I will not know it because Elder Uriah Smith knew it, but I will know it because God is teaching it to me directly.” ibid., E. E. Andross, Bible Study No. II, July 13, 1911, pages. 13, 14. (emphasis supplied). “The result was, he [Ballenger] developed a theory with reference to the sanctuary that is very subtle,” Andross concluded, “and resulted in his being disconnected from the work entirely since 1905 at the General Conference.” (ibid., Bible Study No. II, p. 14, emphasis supplied). “In his 1911 talks at the Oakland camp meeting Elder Andross carefully traces through various texts that were employed by Ballenger in support of his views,” Arthur White wrote. “Then he traces through the interpretation of these texts as held by Seventh-day Adventists, a position strongly supported by the repeated testimony of Ellen White as having been given to her in confirmation of truth in the early days of studying doctrinal points.” (EGW: The Early Elmshaven Years, Vol. 5, 1900-1905, page 408, emphasis supplied). Again notice the date, 1911, one year prior to the publication of Andross’ book A More Excellent Ministry. Contrary to the last statement by Arthur White, the Spirit of Prophecy did not “confirm” the concept published by Andross in his 1912 book. Ellen White did not confirm the erroneous concept that Christ entered the most holy, or second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, at the time of His ascension to appear before the Father to be confirmed, and then returned to the holy, or first apartment, to perform the first phase of His heavenly ministry. Although this erroneous concept cannot be found in the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy, it is promoted as the pioneer Adventist concept by contemporary Seventh-day Adventist theology. Roy Adams Praises Ballenger’s Erroneous Concept “Ballenger’s stress on. . .Christ’s entry into the most holy place at His ascension may be retained,” Roy Adams stated, “and shown to be compatible with the notion of an antipical day of Chapter 11 The Fin -200- atonement commencing in 1844.” (Roy Adams, The Sanctuary Doctrine, “Andrews University Doctrinal Dissertation Series,” page 255, emphasis supplied). Notice that Roy Adams, current assistant editor of the Adventist Review, states that Ballenger’s erroneous concept of Christ’s entry into the most holy place at His ascension “may be retained.” Moreover, Roy Adams believes that Ballenger’s erroneous concept can be “shown to be compatible with the notion of an antipical day of atonement commencing in 1844.” This is liberal “new theology” Adventism in its most subtle and deceptive form. This is the “Omega” of apostasy that Ellen White saw and that caused her to “tremble for our people.” “The Omega would follow in a little while,” Ellen White warned. “I tremble for our people.” (Sermons and Talks, Vol. 1, page 341, emphasis supplied). Roy Adams Opposes Pioneer Adventist Concept Of Moveable Thrones “Yet there is an inner conviction on the part of many [new theology] Bible students that the correspondence between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries could not be in terms of a one-one relationship,” Adams concluded. “[Uriah] Smith caught this point. . .. Ballenger recognized it and hurled it against Smith’s notion of a mobile heavenly throne.” (ibid., The Sanctuary Doctrine, emphasis supplied). The Work Of Jesus In the Most Holy Of the Heavenly Sanctuary On October 22, 1844, at the end of the 2,300 days (years), Jesus came before the Father to serve as our High Priest. Daniel saw this great event in vision. “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man [Jesus] came with the clouds of heaven,” Daniel wrote, “and came to the Ancient of days [the Father], and they brought him near before him.” (Daniel 7:13). It was at that time that Jesus was given His kingdom. This event was the marriage of the Lamb. Pioneer Adventist saw the fulfillment of this prophecy in the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) and the “midnight cry” given in the summer of 1844. “And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.” (Matthew 25:6). “And there was given him [Jesus] dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him,” Daniel wrote, “his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:14). At this time “the judgement was set, and the books were opened.” (Daniel 7:10). “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” (Revelation 11:18, emphasis supplied). Pioneer Adventists saw that the work of Jesus our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary consisted, not only of judgement, but in the blotting out of sins. In the blotting out of sins Jesus is making the final atonement. Pioneer Adventist Writers On the Final Atonement Chapter 11 The Fin -201- What about other pioneer Adventists? Was O. R. L. Crosier the only one who believed the final atonement is finished in heaven by our High Priest? No, indeed. Notice carefully a few statements from the most acknowledged pioneer Adventists. “The Final Atonement” and “The Blotting Out Of Sins” 1. Pioneer Adventist James N. Andrews “By many, the idea of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary will be treated with scorn, `because’ say they, `there is nothing in Heaven to be cleansed,’” Andrews began. “Such overlook the fact that the holy of holies, where God manifested his glory, and which no one but the High Priest could enter, was, according to the law, to be cleansed, because the sins of the people were borne into it by the blood of sin-offering. Lev. 16.” (James N. Andrews, The Sanctuary and Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, Battle Creek, Mich. 1872, page 90, emphasis supplied). “And they overlook the fact that Paul plainly testifies that the heavenly sanctuary must be cleansed for the same reason. Heb. 9:23, 24. See also Col. 1:20,” Andrews continued. “It was unclean in this sense only: the sins of men had been borne into it through the blood of sin offering, and they must be removed.” Then Andrews added, “This fact can be grasped by every mind.” (ibid., page 91, emphasis supplied). “The work of cleansing the sanctuary changes the ministration from the holy place to the holiest of all. Lev. 16; Heb. 9:6, 7; Rev. 11:19,” Andrews continued. “As the ministration in the holy place of the temple in heaven began immediately after the end of the typical system, at the close of the sixty-nine and a half weeks (Dan. 9:27), so the ministration in the holiest of all, in the heavenly sanctuary, begins with the termination of the 2300 days.” (ibid., page 91, emphasis supplied). “Then our High Priest enters the holiest to cleanse the sanctuary,” Andrews concluded. “The termination of this great period marks the commencement of the ministration of the Lord Jesus in the holiest of all.” (ibid., page 91). “This work, as presented in the type, we have already seen was for a two-fold purpose, viz.: [1] the forgiveness of iniquity, [2] and the cleansing of the sanctuary,” Andrews stated. “And this great work our Lord accomplishes with His own blood; whether by the actual presentation of it, or by virtue of its merits, we need not stop to inquire.” (ibid., page 91, emphasis supplied). “No one can fail to perceive that this event, the cleansing of the sanctuary, is one of infinite importance,” Andrews wrote. “This accomplishes the great work of the Messiah in the tabernacle in heaven, and renders it complete.” (ibid., page 91, emphasis supplied). Notice that Andrews concedes that the work of final atonement and cleansing of our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary “renders it complete.” This is done in heaven, not at the cross. “The work of cleansing the sanctuary is succeeded by the act of placing the sins, thus removed upon the head of the scape-goat, to be borne away forever from the sanctuary,” Andrews concludes. “The work of our High Priest for the sins of the world will then be completed, and He be Chapter 11 The Fin -202- ready to appear `without sin unto salvation.’” (ibid., page 92, emphasis supplied). Notice that Andrews states that, “The work of our High Priest for the sins of the world will then be completed.” Is this statement in harmony with Crosier? Yes, indeed. “In the heavenly Sanctuary our High Priest with His own blood makes the atonement and we are forgiven,” Crosier stated. (Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846). Is this statement by Andrews in harmony with Ellen White? Yes, indeed. “His [Christ’s] work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” (Manuscript 69, 1912, page 13, emphasis supplied). Contemporary SDA Opposing Position Are these statements by Andrews, Crosier, and Ellen White in harmony with contemporary Seventh-day Adventist doctrine? No, they are not. “When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature–even in the writings of Ellen G. White–that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross.” (Questions on Doctrine, page 354, (1957), emphasis supplied). Satan’s conspiracy against the Advent truth is so subtle, so deceptive, that without constant study by the Christian, detection is almost impossible. Did not Jesus warn that “if it were possible it should deceive the very elect?” Notice very, very, carefully the two opposing statements below, the truth as stated by Ellen White, followed by the error as stated by the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church: Ellen White’s Statement When Christ, the Mediator, burst the bands of the tomb, and ascended on high to minister for man, [1] He first entered the holy place, where, by virtue of His own sacrifice, He made an offering for the sins of men. With intercession and pleading He presented before God the prayers and repentance and faith of His people, purified by the incense of His own merits. [2] He next entered the Most Holy Place [in 1844], to make an atonement for the sins of the people, and cleanse the sanctuary. His work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.--Ms. 69, 1912, p. 13. (“The Sin and Death of Moses,” copied Sept. 10, 1912.) Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, Volume 11, page 54. (emphasis supplied). Erroneous Contemporary Adventist Church Statement This becomes all the more meaningful when we realize that Jesus our surety entered the “holy places” and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. And now, as our High Priest He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice. Questions on Doctrine, page 381. (emphasis theirs). Notice that Ellen White states that Jesus “entered the holy place, where. . .He made an offering for the sins of men.” The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church says, No. They admit that Jesus did enter the `holy places’ and appeared in the presence of God for us. “But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time.” Ellen White says, “He next entered the Most Holy Place, to make an atonement for the sins of the Chapter 11 The Fin -203- people, and cleanse the sanctuary.” And, “His work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” (Ms. 69, 1912, p. 13). The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church says, “No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross.” (QD, p. 381). “The sins of those who have obtained pardon through the great sin-offering, are, at the close of our Lord’s work in the holy places, blotted out (Acts 3:19),” J. N. Andrews concluded, “and being then transferred to the scape-goat, are borne away from the sanctuary and host forever, and rest upon the head of their author, the devil.” (ibid., The Sanctuary and Twenty-Three Hundred Days, page 92, emphasis supplied). James N. Andrews then endorsed the writings of O. R. L. Crosier: “The following valuable remarks on this important point are from the pen of O. R. L. Crozier, written in 1846.” (The Sanctuary and Twenty-Three Hundred Days, p. 91). Andrews then quoted a passage from the Day-Star, Extra, written by Crosier. 2. Pioneer Adventist Joseph Bates “First, then to be perfect in time it must begin on the 10th day of the 7th month, and no where else,” Bates stated. “Then please look back to the 10th of the 7th month, 1844, where all the virgins were out looking for the Bridegroom, or as in the type, waiting for Jesus our great High Priest, to finish the atonement for the sanctuary and ourselves, and bless us by his glorious appearing.” (Joseph Bates, Eighth Way Mark, “Bridegroom Come,” page 101, emphasis supplied). “Then we say at the commencement of this second type, the symbol of our trial, was where the Bridegroom came, and commenced the cleansing of the sanctuary,” Bates concluded. “When God speaks and shakes earth and heaven, Joel says Jerusalem will be holy, the sanctuary will be complete, the atonement finished; for God will then be the hope of his people.” (ibid., page 102, emphasis supplied). 3. Pioneer Adventist Stephen N. Haskell In Acts 3:19 we read: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” Then your sins are blotted out when the times of refreshing come. We are to-day in the time of the blotting out of our sins. We are now looking for the times of refreshing, and the outpouring of the Spirit. The Lord teaches knowledge to those who are weaned, and those who study the Word have the refreshing. The refreshing is the outpouring of the Spirit of God in the time of the blotting out of sins, and that is where we are now. Stephen N. Haskell, “Preparation For Reception Of the Holy Spirit,” 1909 General Conference Daily Bulletin, May 20, 1909, page 106. (emphasis supplied). [Address given at 9:15 A. M. Thursday, May 20, and Friday, May 21, 1909.] 4. Pioneer Adventist Alonzo Trevor Jones “We are also in the time of the utter blotting out of all sins that have ever been against us,” A. T. Jones wrote. “And the blotting out of sins is exactly this thing of the cleansing of the sanctuary; it is the finishing of all transgression in our lives; it is the making an end of all sins in our character; it is the bringing in of the very righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, to abide alone Chapter 11 The Fin -204- everlastingly.” (A. T. Jones, “The Times of Refreshing,” The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, page 124, emphasis supplied). “Therefore now as never before we are to repent and be converted that our sins may be blotted out,” Jones concluded, “that an utter end shall be made of them forever in our lives and everlasting righteousness brought in.” (ibid., p. 124, emphasis supplied). 5. Pioneer Adventist J. N. Loughborough “Still later Elder [J. H.] Waggoner wrote a third pamphlet of about the same size, entitled, The Atonement in the Light of Reason and Revelation,” Loughborough wrote. “About the year 1884 this was revised and enlarged to a volume of some 400 pages. It is a clear and concise treatise upon the subject indicated by its title.” (J. N. Loughborough, Great Second Advent Movement, page 334, emphasis supplied). [note:-J. H, Waggoner was the father of E. J. Waggoner.] 6. Pioneer Adventist E. J. Waggoner “The blotting out of sin is the erasing of it from the nature, the being of man. . .,” E. J. Waggoner wrote. “The erasing of sin is the blotting of it from our natures, so that we shall know it no more.” (E. J. Waggoner, Review and Herald, September 30, 1902, emphasis supplied). “`The worshipers once purged’–actually purged by the blood of Christ–have `no more conscience of sin,’ because the way of sin is gone from them. . .,” Waggoner wrote. “This is the work of Christ in the true sanctuary which the Lord pitched, and not man,–the sanctuary not made with hands, but brought into existence by the thought of God.” (ibid., Review and Herald, September 30, 1902, emphasis supplied). 7. Pioneer Adventist Joseph Harvey Waggoner And yet another question has been raised, on which some minds have been perplexed. If the blotting out of sins is done in the closing work of the priest, when the sanctuary is cleansed, that is to say, in the Judgment, then the sins of all the saints must stand on record till that time. Now it has been shown (Chapter Three) that justification by faith and salvation are not identical; the former is a fact of experience at the present time, while the latter is contingent on “patient continuance in well-doing” on the part of the justified one. As was remarked, “justification by faith is not a final procedure; it does not take the place of the Judgment, nor render the Judgment unnecessary. It looks to something beyond itself to be accomplished in the future.” Joseph Harvey Waggoner, “The Judgement,” The Atonement, page 226. (emphasis supplied). 8. Pioneer Adventist James White How natural, then, the conclusion, that as the Jewish priests ministered daily in connection with the holy place of the sanctuary, and on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the close of their yearly round of service, the high priest entered the most holy place to make atonement for the cleansing of the sanctuary, so Christ ministered in connection with the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary from the time of his ascension to the ending of the 2300 days of Dan.8, in 1844, when, on the tenth day of the seventh month of that year, he entered the most holy place of the heavenly tabernacle to make a special atonement for the blotting out of the sins of his people, or, which is the same thing, for the cleansing of the sanctuary. The typical sanctuary was cleansed from the sins of the people with the offering of blood. The nature of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary may be learned from the type. By virtue of his own blood, Christ entered the most holy to make a special atonement for the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle. James White, “The Sanctuary,” Bible Adventism, pages 185, 186. (emphasis supplied). Chapter 11 The Fin -205- The doctrine of a “final atonement in heaven” is stated by James White in several places. Three other references are, Life Incidents, pages 192, 193; Life Sketches, page 111: Our Faith and Hope, pages 175, 176. Pioneer Adventists taught the “final atonement” completed in heaven in perfect harmony with the Day-Star, Extra as written by O. R. L. Crosier. Many other examples could be presented. This position was one of the “foundation” truths that was endorsed by the Spirit of God at the beginning of the Advent movement. “A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was plainly marked out before me,” Ellen White wrote, “and I gave my brethren and sisters the instruction that the Lord had given me.” (Ellen G. White, “Establishing the Foundation of Our Faith,” Manuscript 135, 1903, page 3, emphasis supplied). Ellen White On the Final Atonement The Spirit of Prophecy teaches that the “atonement” was not completed on the cross, as the fallen churches of Babylon, and the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church now teach. Although there are many more examples, the following are seven clear statements by Ellen White that the “atonement” was not completed and finished on the cross, but is finalized in the heavenly Sanctuary. Early Statement - 1852 As Jesus died on Calvary, He cried, “It is finished,” and the veil of the temple was rent in twain, from the top to the bottom. This was to show that the services of the earthly sanctuary were forever finished, and that God would no more meet with the priests in their earthly temple, to accept their sacrifices. The blood of Jesus was then shed, which was to be offered by Himself in the heavenly sanctuary. As the priest entered the most holy once a year to cleanse the earthly sanctuary, so Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly, at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation, and thus to cleanse the sanctuary. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, page 253, 1852. (emphasis supplied). Later Statement, 1912 When Christ, the Mediator, burst the bands of the tomb, and ascended on high to minister for man, He first entered the holy place, where, by virtue of His own sacrifice, He made an offering for the sins of men. With intercession and pleading He presented before God the prayers and repentance and faith of His people, purified by the incense of His own merits. He next entered the Most Holy Place [in 1844], to make an atonement for the sins of the people, and cleanse the sanctuary. His work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.--Ms. 69, 1912, p. 13. (“The Sin and Death of Moses,” copied Sept. 10, 1912.) Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, Volume 11, page 54. (emphasis supplied). Notice the dates of these two statements, 1852 and 1912. After sixty years the Spirit of Prophecy was yet consistent with the original message of the “final atonement” completed in heaven. “As in the final atonement the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven,” Ellen White wrote, “no more to be remembered or come into mind, so in the type they were borne away into the wilderness, forever separated from the congregation.” (Patriarchs and Chapter 11 The Fin -206- Prophets, page 358, emphasis supplied). As he [Christ] repeated these words he pointed to the heavenly Sanctuary. The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the Most Holy place where Jesus stands before the ark, making his final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers, and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. Jesus makes an atonement for those who died, not receiving the light upon God’s commandments, who sinned ignorantly. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, page 254; See also, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pages 162, 163. (emphasis supplied). “The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement,” Ellen White stated, “so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement.” (ibid., Patriarchs and Prophets, page 357, emphasis supplied). “In the typical service only those who had come before God with confession and repentance, and whose sins, through the blood of the sin offering, were transferred to the sanctuary, had a part in the service of the Day of atonement,” Ellen White stated. “So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God. . ..” (The Great Controversy, page 480; See also, The Faith I Live By, page 210, emphasis supplied). “In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement--the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary,” Ellen White stated, “which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted.” (ibid., Patriarchs and Prophets, pages 357, 358, emphasis supplied). This teaching of the final atonement in heaven, the blotting out of sins, was the true message of the First Angel, the “Present Truth” as taught and believed by pioneer Seventh-day Adventists and endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy. Are these statements by Ellen White in harmony with the Day-Star, Extra article written by O. R. L. Crosier? Indeed they are! Erroneous Contemporary Adventist Teaching On the Final Atonement Satan knew that to ensure victory in his battle plan against the Seventh-day Adventist truth, he must influence the leaders and teachers of the Church to falsify historical documents and to even lie about doctrinal positions once held by the pioneers of the Advent movement. Again we ask, how can we know what is the real truth when historical teachings have been falsified by modern teachers, ministry and Church leaders? “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history,” Ellen White replies (LS, p. 196). “The value of the evidences of truth that we have received during the past half century, is above estimate.” (R&H, 4/19/06). In 1957 the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church published their position on the “final atonement” in Ministry magazine, official organ to the ministry of the Church. In this editorial, Roy Allen Anderson, then editor of Ministry magazine and Ministerial Secretary of the Chapter 11 The Fin -207- General Conference, stated that “the sacrificial act of the cross (was) a perfect, complete, and final atonement.” (Ministry, February, 1957, emphasis supplied). Is this statement in harmony with the article written by Crosier, endorsed by the Spirit of God, and taught by pioneer Adventists for over 100 years? No, it is not. “Jesus entered the Most Holy of the heavenly, at the end of the 2300 days of Dan, viii, in 1844, to make a final atonement,” Ellen White replies. (ibid., Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, pages 161, 162, emphasis supplied). In opposition to pioneer teaching the ministry of the contemporary Church says, “No, the sacrificial act of the cross was a perfect, complete, and final atonement.” In the “official” book, “Seventh-day Adentists Answer, Questions on Doctrine, also published in 1957, can be found the following statement on the final atonement: “Adventists do not hold any theory of a duel atonement.” (QOD, p. 390, emphasis theirs). This book was endorsed by the highest authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Is this statement by the highest authority of the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church in harmony with the position held by Crosier, Ellen White and the pioneer Adventists? No, indeed. “But again, they say the atonement is made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. . .so the churches and world believes; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account.” Crosier replies. (Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846, emphasis supplied). “When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature -- even in the writings of Ellen G. White – that Christ is making atonement now,” contemporary Church leadership concludes, “it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross.” (ibid., Questions on Doctrine, page 354, emphasis theirs). This was the official position of the Church in 1957. Is this position still held today by the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Yes, indeed. Note carefully the following statement from the official Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual. Current Heretical Statements In Christ’s life of perfect obedience to God’s will, His suffering, death and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God’s law and the graciousness of His character, for it both condemns our sins and provides for our forgiveness. . .. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God’s triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 1986, page 25. (emphasis supplied). Is the “official” statement in the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual in harmony with the original statement written by Crosier? No, it is not. Is it in harmony with the writings of Ellen White? No, a thousand times no! “The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement.” (ibid., Patriarchs and Prophets, page 357, emphasis supplied). Chapter 11 The Fin -208- “There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man,” contemporary SDA Church leadership states. “In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross.” (Seventhday Adventist Believe. . . 27 Fundamental Doctrines, 1988, page 312, emphasis supplied). These statements, beyond question, confirm the erroneous idea that the atonement was finished and completed on the cross. The contemporary Church leadership say “the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross.” “No, brethren, that is not the truth,” Ellen White would reply if she were alive today. “This teaching is one of the errors of Babylon.” How do we know Ellen White would speak thus? Because her writings speak thus. Note the following statement: “The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin,” Ellen White wrote, “it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement.” (ibid., Patriarchs and Prophets, page 357, emphasis supplied). This “new theology” first began to be taught in 1957, after more than 100 years of the existence of the Advent truth as taught by Ellen White and pioneer Adventists! (See, Questions on Doctrine, pages 354, 355). Where is the proof of this statement? In the year 1952 the truth of the final atonement finalized in the heavenly sanctuary was still being taught by the editor in chief of the Review and Herald. Of those who charge us with teaching strange doctrines because we believe that Christ’s work of atonement for sin was begun rather than completed on Calvary, we ask these questions: If complete and final atonement was made on the cross for all sins, then will not all be saved? for Paul says that He “died for all.” Are we to understand you as being Universalists? “No,” you say, “not all men will be saved.” Well, then, are we to understand that you hold that Christ made complete atonement on the cross for only a limited few, and that His sacrifice was not world embracing, but only partial? That would be predestination in its worst form. Francis D. Nichol, Answers to Objections, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1952 edition, page 408. (emphasis supplied). Ballenger’s Heresy Now Accepted By the Contemporary SDA Church Satan has been very clever in his last-day deceptions. However, he made a serious blunder in 1905 when he directed his first assault on the “final atonement” phase of the sanctuary truth. His great mistake was the timing – the messenger of the Lord was still alive! “There was in their midst one through whom the Spirit of God was able to point out what was truth and what was error.” E. E. Andross wrote. (Bible Study, No. II, page 14). What erroneous concepts did A. F. Ballenger teach on the sanctuary truth? We must know, because Satan has introduced the same erroneous concepts again into the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and because we have been admonished that we should not “forget how the Lord has led us, and His teaching, in our past history.” (Life Sketches, page 196). Elder E. W. Farnsworth, who was also working in England with Ballenger and Andross at the Chapter 11 The Fin -209- time, reported on Ballenger’s erroneous teachings in a letter addressed “to the General Conference president, who in turn conveyed the information to W. C. White on March 16, 1905.” (Arthur L. White, Early Elmshaven Years, Vol. 5, page 407): There was another feature of the meeting which was really sad to me. Brother Ballenger has got into a condition of mind which would seem to me to unfit him entirely to preach the message. He has been studying the subject of the sanctuary a good deal lately, and he comes to the conclusion that the atonement was made when Christ was crucified and that when He ascended He went immediately into the Most Holy Place and that His ministry has been carried on there ever since. E. W. Farnsworth to Arthur G. Daniells, in Arthur G. Daniells to W. C. White, March 16, 1905. (emphasis supplied). Notice the three heretical concepts of Ballenger’s teaching. (1) “The atonement was made when Christ was crucified, (2) and that when He ascended He went immediately into the Most Holy Place, (3) and that His ministry has been carried on there ever since.” Astounding! This is exactly the teaching of the “new” theology currently devastating the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This erroneous concept is entirely at odds with the historic teaching of pioneer Adventists. Moreover, this teaching is in opposition to the Spirit of Prophecy. “He [Ballenger] sees clearly that his view cannot be made to harmonize with the testimonies,” Farnsworth wrote in his letter, “at least he admits freely that he is totally unable to do so.” (ibid., Letter to AGD and WCW, 3/16/05). Farnsworth stated further that, in his own mind, Ballenger felt that “there is an irreconcilable difference” between his theories and Ellen White. (ibid., Letter to AGD and WCW, 3/16/05). “This, of course, involves the authenticity of the Testimonies and practically upsets them,” Farnsworth concluded. (ibid., Letter to AGD and WCW, 3/16/05). “Farnsworth reported that a number of Adventist ministers in Great Britain were taking up these new views on the sanctuary, and confusion was coming in,” Arthur White observed. (EEY, vol. 5, p. 408). Arthur White stated further that, “Early in the 1905 session Ballenger laid before the leading brethren what he felt was new light, but they were unable to accept his reasoning and pointed out the errors in his application of Scripture.” (ibid., EEY, vol. 5, p. 408). Ellen White’s Reply To Ballenger’s Teaching What did Ellen White think of this “new theology” presented by A. F. Ballenger? What did she think of the erroneous concept that “the atonement was made when Christ was crucified and that when He ascended He went immediately into the Most Holy Place and that His ministry has been carried on there ever since.” Did she have any light from heaven on the subject? What would she say if this erroneous concept was taught today? “It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and the Testimonies that God has been giving us for the past half century,” Ellen White replied to Ballenger. “I declare in the name of the Lord that the most dangerous heresies are seeking to find entrance among us as a people, and Elder Ballenger is making spoil of his own soul.” (MS., S 59, 1905, Chapter 11 The Fin -210- emphasis supplied). (For further EGW statements on the teachings of A. F. Ballenger see, Christ In His Sanctuary, pages 3-18). “There is not truth in the explanations of Scripture that Elder Ballenger and those associated with him are presenting,” Ellen White cautioned. “I am instructed to say to Elder Ballenger, Your theories, which have multitudes of fine threads, and need so many explanations, are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God.” (ibid., MS. S 59, 1905, emphasis supplied). The attack of Satan on the sanctuary truth at that time came to not because the Messenger of the Lord was alive and confronted the false doctrine. However, today Ellen White is no longer with the Church. As Israel of old, we only have the writings of the prophet. Has the Seventhday Adventist Church fallen for the old erroneous concepts of Ballenger? Although Ellen White had warned that these dangerous concepts “are not to be brought to the flock of God,” that is exactly what has been promoted by the “new” theology. Contemporary Scholars Endorses Ballenger’s Theories In 1981 Roy Adams, currently assistant editor of the Adventist Review, wrote his Doctoral Dissertation at Andrews University. Adams wrote on the sanctuary doctrinal positions held by Uriah Smith, M. L. Andreason, and A. F. Ballenger. Notice carefully the following conclusion by Roy Adams on the position held by A. F. Ballenger: Ballenger’s treatment of Hebrews 6:19, 20 is so strong, exegetically, that it has to be regarded as a significant movement towards a closer affinity to the biblical testimony in regard to the meaning of the phrase “within the veil.” His argumentation, based as it was on solid scriptural indications, far surpassed the value of [Uriah] Smith’s on the same point. And inasmuch as the two positions were diametrically opposed to each other, Ballenger’s is to be preferred. Roy Adams, The Sanctuary Doctrine, “Three Approaches in the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, Andrews University Press, 1981, page 245. (emphasis supplied). Notice that Roy Adams, speaking for contemporary Seventh-day Adventist theologians, states that Ballenger’s treatment of Scripture “is so strong,” and “that it has to be regarded as a significant movement towards a closer affinity to the biblical testimony.” On this point Adams concluded that Ballenger’s argumentations are “based as it was on solid scriptural indications.” Amazing! This man is currently the assistant editor of the Adventist Review, and will probably be the next Chief Editor. “None of the figures [Smith, Andreason, Ballenger] appreciated the full implications of Hebrews 6:19,20,” Roy Adams concluded, “but it was Ballenger who came closest to recognizing it.” (ibid., The Sanctuary Doctrine, page 246, emphasis supplied). “Now again our Brother Ballenger is presenting theories that cannot be substantiated by the Word of God,” Ellen White replies to Roy Adams’ statement. “It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and the Testimonies that God has been giving us for the past Chapter 11 The Fin -211- half century.” (Manuscript Release, S 59, 1905, page 409, emphasis supplied). “Ballenger’s stress on the atonement at the cross and on Christ’s entry into the most holy place at His ascension,” Adams stated, “maybe retained and shown to be compatible with the notion of an antipical day of atonement commencing in 1844. . ..” (ibid., The Sanctuary Doctrine, page 255, emphasis supplied). In a biography of M. L. Andreason is a publishers note which erroneously states, “While denominational literature has adopted the phrase `the benefits of His atonement,’ every effort is put forth to make clear to the world that Seventh-day Adventists believe that an important part of the atonement is taking place in the heavenly sanctuary.” (Virginia Steinweg, Without Fear or Favor, 1979, Review and Herald Publishing Company, page 183, emphasis supplied). This statement is just not true. Seventh-day Adventist Church literature does not make “every effort. . .to make clear to the world that Seventh-day Adventists believe that an important part of the atonement is taking place in the heavenly sanctuary.” The heresy has been advanced in the new 27 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. Uriah Smith Again the Scapegoat Once more we have come full circle. Notice how Roy Adams, in his effort to present Ballenger’s theories as truth, downgrades Uriah Smith: “His [Ballenger’s] argumentation, based as it was on solid scriptural indications, far surpassed the value of Smith’s on the same point.” Roy Adams admits that Ballenger and Smith were at opposite ends of theology on the sanctuary doctrine, “And inasmuch as the two positions were diametrically opposed to each other.” The truth is that Ballenger was “diametrically opposed” to all pioneer Adventists. Indeed, E. E. Andross, who had worked with Ballenger in England, stated that, “He [Ballenger] sees clearly that his view cannot be made to harmonize with the testimonies, at least he admits freely that he is totally unable to do so.” Even Ballenger himself had stated that “there is an irreconcilable difference” between his theories and Ellen White. (ibid., E. E. Andross, Bible Study, No. II, July 13, 1911, pages 13). Then Roy Adams, completely disregarding Spirit of Prophecy counsel, states that “Ballenger’s [position] is to be preferred,” to that of Uriah Smith. Adams could have chosen any other pioneer Adventist instead of Uriah Smith as an example of pioneer Adventist teaching on the sanctuary, because Uriah Smith’s writings on the subject are in perfect harmony with O. R. L. Crosier, James White, J. N. Andrews and others. Notice that not one statement by Uriah Smith was quoted in our presentation of pioneer Adventist teachings on the sanctuary. Many of Smith’s statements could have been used to verify his unanimity with other pioneer Adventists. This was not necessary. Any serious research of Adventist history can plainly establish that Smith’s writings on the sanctuary are in perfect unanimity with those of his peers. Indeed, Roy Adams in his conclusion admits that there is little difference between Uriah Smith, M. L. Andreason, J. N. Andrews, and other pioneer Chapter 11 The Fin -212- Adventists. He champions the fact that there was a “radical departure in the area of the sanctuary” from pioneer writers such as Smith, Andrews, White, and Andreason. “Ballenger’s radical departure in the area of the sanctuary was of immense significance to the purpose of this study,” Adams admits. (ibid., The Sanctuary Doctrine, page 256). “But while it would be impossible to synthesize the sanctuary theology of these three figures [Uriah Smith, A. F. Ballenger, M. L. Andreason] into a unified whole, it is feasible to build a contemporary Adventist theology of the sanctuary, using their insights, however diverse they are in some points,” Adams reasons. “Such an eclectic approach would need to discard or modify some features while retaining others with profit.” (ibid., The Sanctuary Doctrine, page 255). This is the real problem with contemporary Adventist scholarship. They wish to teach truth mixed with error. Why? Because Adventist leadership aspires to join the great Ecumenical movement sweeping the world. They wish to be considered “Christian brethren” by the fallen churches of Babylon! Roy Adams’ Erroneous Conclusion “Clearly, this does not mean that Adventism may not learn a great deal from the issues Ballenger raised and championed,” Adams concluded. “His many positive contributions to the theology of the sanctuary have already been noted.” (ibid., The Sanctuary Doctrine, page 256). “There is not truth in the explanations of Scripture that Elder Ballenger and those associated with him [Roy Adams] are presenting,” Ellen White cautioned. “I am instructed to say to Elder Ballenger [and Roy Adams], Your theories, which have multitudes of fine threads, and need so many explanations, are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God.” (ibid., Manuscript S 59, 1905, emphasis supplied). Moveable Thrones “Yet there is an inner conviction on the part of many [new theology] Bible students that the correspondence between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries could not be in terms of a one-one relationship,” Adams concluded. Smith caught this point. . .. Ballenger recognized it and hurled it against Smith’s notion of a mobile heavenly throne.” Pioneer Adventist Opposition To Adams’ Statement The Ancient of Days, (God,) sets between the Cherubims, in the Most Holy Place. This is where he is sought unto when the National Atonement is made. Where then is His Throne during the daily ministration? Ans. - In the type. See Exo. 29:42-44, and 30:6,36. In the anti-type, Jesus says he sets on his Father’s Throne, Rev. 3:21. John in vision sees the throne in the Holy Place where the seven lamps of fire are. See Rev. 4:1,2 and 5; 5:1,7. God was thereon. Joseph Bates, Anti-Type or Substance, page 132. (emphasis supplied). Many other pioneer statements on the “moveable throne” of God could be presented. However, only one by Ellen White will suffice. END OF THE 2300 DAYS: I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. . .. Chapter 11 The Fin -213- I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne. . .. Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father [now] sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. . .. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, page 55. (emphasis supplied). “Within the Veil” In his statement, Roy Adams concluded that, “Ballenger’s treatment of Hebrews 6:19,20 is so strong, exegetically, that it has to be regarded as a significant movement towards a closer affinity to the biblical testimony in regard to the meaning of the phrase `within the veil.’” (ibid., The Sanctuary Doctrine page 245). As seen before, Ballenger believed that, at His ascension, and not in 1844, Christ entered directly into the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary to perform the second phase of his priestly ministry. Pioneer Adventists believed and taught that Christ did not go into the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary until October 22, 1844, at the end of the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14. Contrary to pioneer Adventists, contemporary Seventh-day Adventists teach that all of heaven is a sanctuary, and that “there is no veil at all in heaven – and all of heaven is a most holy place!” (Garry F. Williams, in a sermon at a major Seventh-day Adventist Church). If you ask a contemporary Seventh-day Adventist minister or theologian he will tell you there is no veil in heaven, no two compartments in the heavenly sanctuary. Some may deny it, but they do believe this to be true. They really do not believe in a literal heavenly Sanctuary, but that “all of heaven is a sanctuary and a most holy place.” (ibid., Gary F. Williams). Indeed, contemporary Adventist literature (and the official 27 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs), since the Evangelical Conferences of 1955-56, state that Christ is now ministering “the benefits of His atonement which He made on the cross.” “I declare in the name of the Lord that the most dangerous heresies are seeking to find entrance among us as a people, and Elder Ballenger is making spoil of his own soul,” Ellen White warned. “Your theories. . .are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God.” (ibid., Manuscript S 59, 1905, emphasis supplied). (MS. S 59). It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people, Ellen White predicted, “to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and the Testimonies that God has been giving us for the past half century.” (ibid., MS. S 59, emphasis supplied). “Let us all cling to the established truth of the sanctuary,” Ellen White concluded. (ibid., MS. S 59, 1905). In 1905 this “truth of the sanctuary” would be the “established truth” presented by Crosier, James White, and other pioneer Adventists. The contemporary Church is now teaching the false doctrines on the sanctuary that were first by introduced A. F. Ballenger. (See history above, Chapter #3, “Early Ecumenical Concessions”). On the first angel’s message, the sanctuary truth, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is now in apostasy. How the Lord will choose to deal with the Church and this apostasy is a frightening possibility. Is it any wonder that Ellen White, commenting Chapter 11 The Fin -214- on this “Omega of Apostasy” stated that, “I tremble for our people.”(ibid., Sermons and Talks, page 341, emphasis supplied).

THE GREAT CONSPIRACY # 8

A WARNING, AND ITS REJECTION The message given us by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner is a message of God to the Laodicean Church Letter S-24, 1892 n the year 1950, Elders Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, two missionaries from Africa, presented a Paper to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists titled, 1888–Re-examined. In this Paper Wieland and Short pleaded with the leadership of the Church to issue a corporate repentance for the Church’s rejection of the 1888 message. Their premise for this rejection of the 1888 message was that Ellen White had stated that the 1888 message was the beginning of the “latter rain.” The “Loud Cry” had begun in 1888, and the fact that the Church was still here in 1950 proved that we had, not only rejected the 1888 message, but we had rejected the Loud Cry! “The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer,” Ellen White wrote in 1892. “This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth.” (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, November 22,1892, emphasis supplied). (See also, Selected Messages, Book 1, page 362). Now brethren, when did that message of the righteousness of Christ, begin with us as a people? [One or two in the audience: “Three or four years ago.”] Which was it, three? or four? [Congregation: “Four.”] Yes, four. Where was it? [Congregation: “Minneapolis.”] What then did the brethren reject at Minneapolis? [Some in the Congregation: “The loud cry.”] What is that message of righteousness? The Testimony has told us what it is; the loud cry – the latter rain. Then what did the brethren in that fearful position in which they stood, reject at Minneapolis? They rejected the latter rain – the loud cry of the third angel’s message. Alonzo T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, 1893 (page 183) (emphasis supplied). Notice that the pioneer Adventist people attending the 1893 General Conference session acknowledged that the Church leadership in 1888 “rejected the latter rain – the loud cry of the third angel’s message!” This statement by Jones in the 1903 General Conference Bulletin was presented to the leading brethren by Wieland and Short in their 1950 Paper, “1888-Re-examined.” “We know by every evidence that now we are in the times of refreshing,” A. T. Jones wrote, “the I Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -164- time of the latter rain.” (The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, “The Times of Refreshing,” page 124, emphasis supplied). “Now as never before we are to repent and be converted that our sins may be blotted out, that an utter end shall be made of them forever in our lives and everlasting righteousness brought in,” A. T. Jones concluded. “And this, in order that the fulness of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit shall be ours in this time of the refreshing of the latter rain.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, page 125, emphasis supplied). Again, the fact that the Church was still here on earth in the year 1950 confirmed Wieland and Short’s allegation that the message of 1888 had been rejected. This was indeed sound reasoning. Elders Wieland and Short also charged that the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was “infatuated with a false Christ and are presenting a false Christ.” This charge was also categorically rejected by the leadership of the Church in 1950. “The charge that we are infatuated with a false Christ and are presenting a false Christ is, we believe, unfounded,” the report stated. “We must record our inability to accept some of the things Brethren Wieland and Short say about the nature and work of Christ.” (ibid., Wieland and Short Manuscript Report, page 3, emphasis supplied). 1950 – A Pivotal Period In SDA History In 1949, one year previous to the charge by Elders Wieland and Short that the leadership of the Church was “infatuated with a false Christ and are presenting a false Christ,” Dr. Denton E. Rebok was commissioned by the Review and Herald to revise Bible Readings for the Home. Leroy Froom recalls the details as follows: “In 1949, Professor D. E. Rebok, then president of our Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, when it was still in Washington, D. C., was requested by the Review and Herald to revise Bible Readings for the Home Circle,” Leroy Froom stated. “Coming upon this unfortunate note on page 174, in the study on the “Sinless Life,” he recognized that this was not true.” (Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 428). Rebok then deleted the note and replaced it with a new note. The deleted note was in response to question number 6, “How fully did Christ share our common humanity?” The Scripture reference was Hebrews 2:17, “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” The Note that leadership felt was false read as follows: In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not “made like unto His brethren,” was not “in all points tempted like as we are,” did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherited–a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage-ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way everyone who is “born of the Spirit” Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -165- may gain like victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. Rev. 3:21. Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. John 3:3-7. Bible Readings for the Home, Copyright Review and Herald Publishing Association, all editions 1914- 1949, Pacific Press Publishing Association, page 173. (emphasis supplied). This statement that appeared for 35 years in Bible Readings for the Home was the express position on Christ’s human nature given by E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones in the 1888 message. It was also the express position of all pioneer Seventh-day Adventists, and it was the position of Ellen G. White. (See, Dr. Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh; See below, Chapter #12, “The Ultimate Betrayal”). “The example He [Christ] has left must be followed,” Ellen White counseled. “He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted.” (Medical Ministry, page 181, emphasis supplied). Think of Christ’s humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. He took our sorrows, bearing our grief and shame. He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset. He united humanity with divinity: a divine spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh. . . . “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” because by so doing He could associate with the sinful, sorrowing sons and daughters of Adam. Ellen G. White, Youth’s Instructor, December, 1900. (emphasis supplied). Truth Replaced With Error In 1949 The note in Bible Readings was deleted and a new note inserted in its place. All editions since 1949 read as follows: Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of man. As a member of the human family “it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren” – “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Just how far that “likeness” goes is a mystery of the incarnation which men have never been able to solve. Bible Readings for the Home, Copyright Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1959 edition, Pacific Press Publishing Association, page 143. (emphasis supplied). Wieland and Short were correct. The leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church had rejected the 1888 message. Moreover, in 1949 the leadership of the Church had indeed become “infatuated with a false Christ” and were presenting a false Christ. The Actual 1888 Message That Was Rejected A Most Precious Message “The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones,” Ellen White wrote in 1895, seven years after the 1888 General Conference session in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Testimonies to Ministers, pages. 91, 92, written May 1, 1895 from Hobart, Tasmania, emphasis supplied). “This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world,” Ellen White wrote. “It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.” (ibid., Testimonies to Ministers, pages. 91, 92, emphasis supplied). Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -166- Contemporary articles and books authored by modern-day Adventists fail to emphasize the last line in this statement by Ellen White. Liberal “new theology” writers are inclined to emphasize the first portion of the statement, “it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ,” and omit the last part of the sentence, ”which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.” “But as the precious message of present truth was spoken to the people by Brn. Jones and Waggoner,” Ellen White recalled one year after the 1888 General Conference, “the people saw new beauty in the third angel’s message, and they were greatly encouraged.” (Review and Herald, August 13, 1889, emphasis supplied). Three years later she recalled that, “The message given us by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner is a message of God to the Laodicean Church.” (Letter S-24, 1892, emphasis supplied). The same year Ellen White testified, “I considered it a privilege to stand by the side of my brethren [Jones and Waggoner], and give my testimony with the message for the time; and I saw that the power of God attended the message wherever it was spoken.” (R&H, March 18, 1890, emphasis supplied). Three years later, in a letter written May 1, 1895 from Hobart, Tasmania Ellen White stated further about Jones and Waggoner, “If you reject Christ’s delegated messengers, you reject Christ.” (See, Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91-97, emphasis supplied). Quite an endorsement of Jones and Waggoner and the 1888 message, wouldn’t you say? Notice the following six important points about the 1888 message and the messengers: (1) The Lord sent “a most precious message” to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. (2) This most precious message was “a message of present truth.” (3) Through this most precious message “the people saw new beauty in the third angel’s message.” (4) This most precious message “is a message of God to the Laodicean Church.” (5) Ellen White saw that the power of God attended the message. (6) If you rejected the messengers, Jones and Waggoner, you were rejecting Christ. Some Questions and Answers About the 1888 Message If “The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones,” wouldn’t it be to our advantage to find out what that message really was? Why is there so much confusion and disagreement by Seventh-day Adventist historians over the content of the 1888 message? Because of all the disagreement and mystery over the content of the 1888 message, wouldn’t it be prudent to seek the answer from the messengers themselves? Indeed, we should check the writings of Jones and Waggoner. Therefore, the remainder of his chapter will highlight the writings of A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, Christ’s delegated messengers. We wish to discover, (1) the actual content of the 1888 message, (2) why the message was rejected in 1888 and 1950, and, even more importantly, (3) why the 1888 message is rejected today. As we begin our research, we are astonished to discover that most of the writings of Jones and Waggoner have been discarded and concealed by the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -167- Church. Only two books by E. J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, and, The Glad Tidings were published by Seventh-day Adventist publishing houses. And this was only at the urging of Robert J. Wieland. Not one book by A. T. Jones was published by the Church. Why is this? Why are most of the writings of Jones and Waggoner published outside of the denomination? Leadership would probably answer, “Because Jones and Waggoner left the Church, and we hesitated to republish their writings.” “It is quite possible Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy, but if they should be, this would not prove that they had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake,” Ellen White replies. “But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they were not under the control of the Spirit of God.” (Letter S-24, 1892, emphasis supplied). Notice that it was “quite possible Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy.” However, “this would not prove that they had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake.” Is it possible that the leadership of the SDA Church today are among those who “would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they were not under the control of the Spirit of God?” Three Major Divisions of the 1888 Message The 1888 message presented by E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones consisted of three separate, yet coinciding, portions of the message. (1) Righteousness by Faith,” (2) “the Human Nature of Christ,” (3) the “undue ecclesiastical authority” of Church leadership. To reject any one of these three portions of the 1888 message is to reject the message. To reject the message is to reject Christ. “If you reject Christ’s delegated messengers, you reject Christ.” Ellen White stated. (ibid., Testimonies to Ministers, page 91, emphasis supplied). In their presentation to the General Conference in 1950, Wieland and Short failed to present the third portion of the 1888 message, the “Ecclesiastical Authority.” Although it is true that the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church rejected all three phases of the 1888 message, it was this third portion, “undue ecclesiastical authority,” Church leadership has the greatest aversion to. We will now carefully examine the three major portions of the 1888 message from the writings of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones. Part #1 of the 1888 Message – Obedience By Faith The first portion of the 1888 message was “righteousness by faith.” As we shall soon discover, by examining the writings of Jones and Waggoner, a better title would be “obedience by faith.” Not all in the corporate Church of 1888 rejected this first portion of the message. Today, however, SDA leadership, by-and-large, does reject the idea of “obedience by faith.” The new theology emphasis is on “free grace,” which is salvation without obedience to the law of God. Justification for your past sins, and justification for the sins you are planning on committing in the future! This is the erroneous “righteousness by faith” doctrine taught by the Sunday-keeping churches of Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -168- Babylon. Pioneer Adventist Righteousness By Faith As Taught By Waggoner and Jones The “righteousness by faith” portion of this “most precious message” consisted of three important points: (1) “Justification through faith in the Surety,” (2) the message “invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ,” (3) this righteousness of Christ “is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.” Without “obedience” to all the commandments of God there can be no “righteousness by faith,” no “justification through faith in the Surety.” It is as simple as that, dear reader. “If ye love me, keep my commandments,” Jesus said. “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” (John 14:15; 15:10). We can only obey the ten commandments “through faith” in the power of Christ. “Here are they who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12). This was the byword of pioneer Adventism – “The commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Again, the doctrine of “free grace” is one of the “doctrines of devils” of the Evangelical Sunday-keeping Churches of modern Babylon, and also the “new theology” of modern Adventism. (1 Timothy 4:1, 2). What about justification by faith? Is there justification for those who disobey God’s law? “There is no justification for those who, having the light, close their eyes and their ears to a plain `Thus saith the Lord,’” Ellen White replies to our question. “They have taken up the weapons of their warfare against God, and their guilt is made manifest.” (Signs of the Times, November 22, 1899, emphasis supplied). The apostle James saw that dangers would arise in presenting the subject of justification by faith, and he labored to show that genuine faith cannot exist without corresponding works. The experience of Abraham is presented. “Seest thou,” he says, “how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” James 2:22. Thus genuine faith does a genuine work in the believer. Faith and obedience bring a solid, valuable experience. Ellen G. White, “God’s Remedy For Sin,” The Faith I Live By. (page 115) (emphasis supplied). Righteousness By Faith – Evangelical Or Adventist? Waggoner and Jones emphasized that the righteousness by faith they were presenting was not the concept taught by the popular churches of modern Babylon. It was not a new concept, but an old concept presented by the apostles during the time of the apostolic church. This true concept of righteousness by faith had been lost during the dark ages, along with all the cardinal doctrines of the apostolic church, and was now being restored by Waggoner and Jones as a true portion of the continuing Reformation of the Christian church. It was a concept of righteousness by faith that was “made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.” We will now consider this first portion of the 1888 message, this concept of “obedience by faith,” as it was presented by A. T. Jones. Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -169- A. T. Jones On Obedience By Faith “There is obedience of Christ His whole lifetime in Sabbath observance, to make every soul righteous in that,” Jones wrote. “And so Sabbath-keeping can be, and it is, altogether of the works of God and of the righteousness of God which is by faith.” (A. T. Jones, Lessons From the Reformation, page 343, emphasis supplied). “There is no obedience of Christ in Sunday observance, ever to make any soul righteous in that,” Jones continued. “And so Sunday observance has to be, and it is, altogether of man’s own works and never can be of faith.” (ibid., LFR, page 343, emphasis supplied). Thus we see A. T. Jones’ position on obedience by faith. The Sunday-keeping churches do not have true Righteousness by Faith because they reject obedience to the Sabbath, one of the ten commandments, and there is no righteousness in Sunday. But, according to A. T. Jones, there is righteousness by faith in obedience to the seventh day Sabbath, which is the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. The word of God is truth. All His commandments are truth. Ps. 119:151. When God has spoken, that word must be accepted as the truth, and all there is then to do is to obey the word as He has spoken it. “It shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God as he hath commanded us.” Deut. 6:25. Nothing is obedience but to do what the Lord says, as He says it. He says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” To disregard the day which God has commanded to be kept, is disobedience. And the disobedience is not in the slightest relieved by the substitution of another day for the one which the Lord has fixed, even though that other day be styled “Christian.” The fact is that the seventh day is the Sabbath; and in the fast-hastening Judgment the question will be, Have you kept it? God is now calling out a people who will keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Nothing but that will answer. Neither commandment of God nor faith of Jesus ever enjoined the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week. Both commandment of God and faith of Jesus show the everlasting obligation to keep the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Will you obey God? Will you keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus? Alonzo T. Jones, The Abiding Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, page 128. (emphasis supplied). “It being, then, the one great purpose of Christianity to restore man to his original condition and relation to God, its purpose is to restore him to the condition in which he can love God with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the mind, and with all the strength, and his neighbor as himself,” A. T. Jones concluded. “It is to restore him to obedience to these first two of all the commandments. It is to restore him to perfect and supreme religion.” (A. T. Jones, Christian Patriotism, pages. 8, 9, emphasis supplied). Many more examples of the teaching of A. T. Jones could be presented. The reader is invited to study the books quoted. (These books can be obtained from Laymen’s Ministry News, Publishing International, Inc., HC04, Box 94C, St. Maries, Idaho, 83861; – Leaves-Of-Autumn-Books, P. O. Box 440, Payson, Arizona, 85541). E. J. Waggoner On Obedience By Faith How about E. J. Waggoner? Did he also teach that righteousness by faith was made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God? Yes, indeed. Waggoner’s teaching was in perfect Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -170- harmony with Scripture and the teaching of Jones. “In 1 Cor. 1:30 we are told that Christ is made unto us righteousness as well as wisdom, and since Christ is the wisdom of God and in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, it is evident that the righteousness which He is made to us is the righteousness of God,” Waggoner wrote. “Let us see what this righteousness is.” (E. J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, page 46). In Ps. 119:172 the Psalmist thus addresses the Lord, “My tongue shall speak of Thy word, for all Thy commandments are righteousness.” The commandments are righteousness, not simply in the abstract, but they are the righteousness of God. For proof read the following:- “Lift up your eyes to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath, for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner; but my salvation shall be forever and my righteousness shall not be abolished. Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.” Isa. 51:6, 7. ibid., E. J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, pages 46, 47. (emphasis supplied). Notice that those who know righteousness are “the people in whose heart is my law.” Thus the apostle Paul wrote, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12). Moreover, the apostle John wrote, “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” (I John 3:7). “What do we learn from this?” Waggoner continued. “That they who know the righteousness of God are those in whose heart is His law, and therefore that the law of God is the righteousness of God.” (ibid., CAHR, page 47, emphasis supplied). “Sin is the transgression of the law [1 John 3:4], and it is also unrighteousness; therefore sin and unrighteousness are identical,” Waggoner reasoned. “But if unrighteousness is transgression of the law, righteousness must be obedience to the law.” (ibid., Christ and His Righteousness pages 47, 48, emphasis supplied). “Unrighteousness = transgression of the law. . .which is a negative equation,” Waggoner resolved. “The same thing, stated in positive terms, would be: Righteousness = obedience to the law.” (ibid., CAHR, page 48, emphasis supplied). “Now what law is it obedience to which is righteousness and disobedience to which is sin?” Waggoner asks. “It is that law which says, `Thou shalt not covet,’ for the apostle Paul tells us that this law convinced him of sin. Rom. 7:7.” (ibid., Christ and His Righteousness, page 48). “The law of ten commandments, then, is the measure of the righteousness of God,” Waggoner concluded. “Since it is the law of God and is righteousness, it must be the righteousness of God. There is, indeed, no other righteousness.” (ibid., Christ and His Righteousness, page 48, emphasis supplied). “This little digression will help us to bear in mind that in the chapter before us there is no disparagement of the law,” Waggoner stated, “but the righteousness, which is the fruit of faith, is always obedience to the law of God.” (The Everlasting Covenant, page 296, emphasis supplied). “The Gospel is preached `for the obedience of faith,” Waggoner concluded. “Obedience carries a Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -171- blessing with it, for it is written, “Blessed are they that do His commandments.” (ibid., The Everlasting Covenant, page 296, emphasis supplied). This last Scripture quoted by Waggoner (Revelation 22:14) is omitted in the modern translations that the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church treasures so dearly. We can plainly see from these passages that E. J. Waggoner also taught that righteousness by faith consists of obedience to God’s holy law. Waggoner’s writings are in perfect harmony with Scripture and the teachings of A. T. Jones. The reader is invited to study the books quoted in context. Ellen White On Obedience By Faith Did Ellen White agree with Waggoner and Jones on “obedience by faith,” the first portion of the 1888 message? Yes, indeed. Notice carefully the following five statements from the pen of inspiration on obedience by faith: By living faith, by earnest prayer to God, and depending upon Jesus’ merits, we are clothed with His righteousness, and we are saved. “Oh, yes,” some say, “we are saved in doing nothing. In fact, I am saved. I need not keep the law of God. I am saved by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.” Ellen G. White, Faith and Works, page 71. “Christ came to our world to bring all men back to allegiance to God,” Ellen White stated. “To take the position that you can break God’s law, for Christ has done it all, is a position of death, for you are as verily a transgressor as anyone.” (ibid., Faith and Works, page 71, emphasis supplied). Those who are teaching this doctrine to-day have much to say in regard to faith and the righteousness of Christ; but they pervert the truth, and make it serve the cause of error. They declare that we have only to believe on Jesus Christ, and that faith is all-sufficient: that the righteousness of Christ is to be the sinner’s credentials; that this imputed righteousness fulfills the law for us, and that we are under no obligation to obey the law of God. This class claim that Christ came to save sinners, and that He has saved them. “I am saved,” they will repeat over and over again. But are they saved while transgressing the law of Jehovah?-- No; for the garments of Christ’s righteousness are not a cloak for iniquity. Such teaching is a gross deception, and Christ becomes to these persons a stumbling block as He did to the Jews,--to the Jews, because they would not receive Him as their personal Saviour, to these professed believers in Christ, because they separate Christ and the law, and regard faith as a substitute for obedience. They separate the Father and the Son, the Saviour of the world. Virtually they teach, both by precept and example, that Christ, by His death, saves men in their transgressions. Ellen G. White, “The Law and the Gospel,” Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, February 8, 1897. (emphasis supplied). “Many will say, I am saved, I am saved, I am saved,” Ellen White stated in her 1888 messages. “Well, have they been cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit? and can they cleanse themselves by the righteousness of the law?” (1888 Materials, page 128). Jesus Christ came to this world, and there is His righteousness to impart to the children of men who are obeying the law of God. The whole world can say, I am saved, as well as any transgressor today. They can say, I believe on Christ that He is my Saviour, but why do they disregard His law which is the transcript of His character? When they disregard the law of Jehovah they disregard the Lord Jesus Christ. ibid., The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, “Sabbath Talk,” page 128. (emphasis supplied). From these five statements it is clear that Ellen White was in total agreement with the teaching Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -172- of Waggoner and Jones on obedience by faith to the law of God. The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church today rejects this first portion of the 1888 message by teaching the Evangelical concept of righteousness by faith. The “new theology” so prevalent in contemporary Adventism teaches “free grace,” salvation without obedience to the law of God. Part #2 of the 1888 Message – Christ’s Human Nature The second portion of the 1888 message was the nature Christ assumed while in the flesh. Why is it so important that the Christian should understand the truth on this point? Because if the Christian believes the true doctrine of the 1888 message on the nature Christ assumed while in the flesh – that Christ took upon Himself our sinful, fallen nature like as we have – then Christ becomes the Christian’s example in obedience. If we believe the erroneous concept taught by modern Babylon and the “new” theology of the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church – that Christ took upon Himself the nature of Adam before he fell in the Garden of Eden – then Christ becomes the Christian’s substitute only. Why is this “before the fall” position so desirous of the contemporary SDA Church leadership? Because this erroneous doctrine can be harmonized with the Evangelical doctrine of “free grace,” which brings Adventism into harmony will all modern Christendom. Thus in 1973 the book, So Much In Common, “Between the World Council of Churches and the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” was co-authored by Bert B. Beach, then President of the Northern Europe Division of Seventh-day Adventists, and Lukas Vischer, Secretary of the World Council of Churches. By the acceptance of this erroneous doctrine of “free grace,” the Seventh-day Adventist Church can now be accepted into the vast Ecumenical movement sweeping the world, and be accepted into the Evangelical community as Christian brethren. Seventh-day Adventism is no longer considered to be a cult. Remember, that in our research, we have discovered so far that the reason, the bottom line, for all apostasy has been ecumenical. SDA Church leaders have always resented being classed along with Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other cultic groups. (See, Adventist Heritage, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1977). A. T. Jones On the Human Nature Of Christ “The Lord Jesus took the same flesh and blood, the same human nature, that we have, flesh just like our sinful flesh,” A. T. Jones wrote in the Review and Herald, “and because of sin, and by the power of the Spirit of God through the divine mind that was in Him, `condemned sin in the flesh.’ Rom. 8:3.” (“Sinful Flesh,” Review and Herald, April 18, 1899). Jones added further in the article that “therein is our deliverance (Rom. 7:25); therein is our victory. `Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.’ `A new heart will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you.’” (ibid., RH, 4/18/1899). In his book, The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, A. T. Jones states clearly his teaching on the human nature Christ assumed while in the flesh. Indeed, in this work six chapter titles are dedicated to the human nature of Christ; Chapter 3, “Christ as Man,” page 17; Chapter 4, “He Took Part of the Same,” page 21; Chapter 5, “Made Under the Law,” page 27; Chapter 6, “Made Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -173- of a Woman,” page 32; Chapter 7, “The Law of Heredity,” page 40; and Chapter 8, “In All Things Like,” page 45. Let us consider a few statements from this most wonderful work. “Christ As Man” “Just as certainly as we see Jesus lower than the angels, unto the suffering of death,” Jones wrote, “so certainly it is by this demonstrated that, as man, Jesus took the nature of man as he is since death entered and not the nature of man as he was before he became subject to death.” (The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, page 20, emphasis supplied). “If He [Christ] were not of the same flesh as are those whom He came to redeem,” Jones concluded, “then He never really came to the world which needs to be redeemed.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 35, emphasis supplied). “He Took Part Of the Same” “Man is subject to death,” Jones reasoned. “Therefore Jesus must become man, as man is since he is subject to death.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 22, emphasis supplied). “Before man sinned he was not in any sense subject to sufferings,” Jones continued. “And for Jesus to have come in the nature of man as he was before sin entered, would have been only to come in a way and in a nature in which it would be impossible for Him to know the sufferings of man and therefore impossible to reach him to save him.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 22, emphasis supplied). “But since it became Him, in bringing men unto glory, to be made perfect through sufferings,” Jones concluded, “it is certain that Jesus in becoming man partook of the nature of man as he is since he became subject to suffering, even the suffering of death, which is the wages of sin.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 22, emphasis supplied). “Made Under the Law” “1. `Christ Jesus. . .being in the form of God. . .emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men.’ Phil. 2:5-7, R.V.,” Jones wrote in chapter five. “He was made in the likeness of men, as men are, just where they are.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 27, emphasis supplied). “2. `The Word was made flesh.’ He `took part of the same’ flesh and blood as that of which the children of men are partakers, as they are since man has fallen into sin,” Jones continued. “And so it is written: `When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made. . .under the law.’” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 27, emphasis supplied). “Made Of A Woman” “By what means was Christ made flesh?” Jones asked. “Through what means was He partaker of human nature? Exactly the same means as are all of us partakers: all of the children of men. For it is written: `As the children [of the man] are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.’” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 32). Likewise signifies “in the like way,” “thus,” “in the same way.” So He partook of “the same” flesh and blood that men have in the same way that men partake of it. Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -174- Men partake of it by birth. So “likewise” did He. Accordingly, it is written, “Unto us a Child is born.” ibid., A. T. Jones, The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, page 32. (emphasis supplied). “Accordingly, it is further written: `God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, Gal. 4:4,’” Jones continued. “He, being made of a woman in this world, in the nature of things He was made of the only kind of woman that this world knows.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 32, emphasis supplied). “In order to do this, He must be made of a woman, because the woman, not the man, was first and originally in the transgression,” Jones wrote. “For `Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’ 1 Tim. 2:14.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, pages 32, 33, emphasis supplied). “It was `the Seed of the woman’ that was to bruise the serpent’s head,” Jones concluded, “and it was only as `the seed of the woman’ and `made of a woman’ that He could meet the serpent on his own ground, at the very point of the entrance of sin into this world.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 33). The Human Nature Of Mary If Jesus was not just like you and me, the fact that Christ was born of a woman raises the question of the human nature of Mary. What does the 1888 message teach about the human nature of Mary, the mother of Jesus? It is thoroughly understood that in His birth Christ did partake of the nature of Mary–the “woman” of whom He was “made.” But the carnal mind is not willing to allow that God in His perfection of holiness could endure to come to men where they are in their sinfulness. Therefore endeavor has been made to escape the consequences of this glorious truth, which is the emptying of self, by inventing a theory that the nature of the virgin Mary was different from the nature of the rest of mankind; that her flesh was not exactly such flesh as is that of all mankind. This invention sets up that by some special means Mary was made different from the rest of human beings, especially in order that Christ might be becomingly born of her. A. T. Jones, The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, pages 35, 36. (emphasis supplied). “This invention has culminated in what is known as the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception,” Jones explained. “Many Protestants, if not the vast majority of them as well as other non-Catholics, think that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus by the virgin Mary. But this is altogether a mistake. It refers not at all to the conception of Christ by Mary but to the conception of Mary herself by her mother.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 36, emphasis supplied). “The official and `infallible’ doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,” Jones stated, “as solemnly defined as an article of faith, by Pope Pius IX, speaking ex-cathedra on the 8th of December 1854 is as follows:–” By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, [Mary] was preserved free from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful. Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -175- Wherefore, if any shall presume, which may God avert, to think in their heart otherwise then has been defined by us, let them know, and moreover understand, that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have made shipwreck as regards the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church. Catholic Belief, page 214, op. sit., A. T. Jones, The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, page 36. E. J. Waggoner On the Immaculate Conception Of Mary “After speaking the last time I was here, there were two questions handed me, and I might read them now,” E. J. Waggoner stated. “One of them is this; `Was that Holy Thing that was born of the Virgin Mary born in sinful flesh, and did that flesh have the same evil tendencies to contend with that ours does?’” (General Conference Bulletin, 1901, page 403). “Before we go on with this text, let me show you what there is in the idea that is in this question,” Waggoner continued. “You have it in mind, Was Christ that holy thing which was born of the virgin Mary, born in sinful flesh?” (ibid., GCB, 1901, page 403). “Did you ever hear of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception?” Waggoner asked. “And do you know what it is? Some of you possibly have supposed in hearing of it, that it means that Jesus Christ was born sinless.” (ibid., GCB, 1901, page 403). “This is not the Catholic dogma at all,” Waggoner explained. “The doctrine of the immaculate conception is that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born sinless. Why? – Ostensibly to magnify Jesus, really the work of the devil to put a wide gulf between Jesus the Saviour of men, and the men He came to save, so that one could not pass over to the other. That is all.” (ibid., GCB, 1901, page 404, emphasis supplied). “We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not,” Waggoner continued. “There are a great many that have got the marks yet, but I am persuaded of this, that every soul that is here tonight desires to know the way of truth and righteousness. . .and that there is no one here who is unconsciously clinging to the dogmas of the papacy, who does not desire to be freed from them.” (ibid., GCB, 1901, page 404, emphasis supplied). “Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (Because we know that ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary?” Waggoner asked. “Mind you, in Him was no sin, but the Mystery of God manifest in the flesh, the marvel of the ages, the wonder of the angels, that thing which even now they desire to understand, and which they can form no just idea of, only as they are taught it by the church, is the perfect manifestation of the life of God in its spotless purity in the midst of sinful flesh. O that is a marvel, is it not?” (ibid., GCB, 1901, page 405). E. J. Waggoner On the Human Nature Of Christ At the 1888 General Conference session in Minneapolis, Minnesota, there had been no General Conference Bulletin published. Neither had there been any written recording of what was presented at the conference. However, Jessie Mosier, Waggoner’s secretary did take shorthand notes. In 1890, two years after the infamous 1888 General Conference, E. J. Waggoner published his message in a book titled Christ and His Righteousness. This book is acknowledged by most Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -176- Adventist historians as the actual message given at the 1888 General Conference session by E. J. Waggoner. The book has been published by Pacific Press Publishing Association. We will now consider a few excerpts from that most excellent work. “God Manifest In the Flesh” “A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem,” Waggoner wrote. “Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden, and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” (E. J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, page 26, emphasis supplied). “Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He `was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,’” Waggoner concluded. “David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, `Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ Ps. 51:5.” (ibid., Christ and His Righteousness, page 27, emphasis supplied). Part #3 of the 1888 Message – Undue Ecclesiastical Authority The third portion of the 1888 message was condemnation of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical authority exercised by the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church over the laity. The assumption of “undo authority” by SDA Church leadership makes it impossible for the Holy Spirit to do His work of perfecting the character of Christ in the individual Christian. Ecclesiastical authority stands between the Holy Spirit and the individual. The first two portions of the 1888 message, (1) “Obedience by Faith,” and (2) “Christ’s Human Nature,” were presented to the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1950 by Elders Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short in their Paper, 1888-Re-examined. However, the third portion of the 1888 message, “Undue Ecclesiastical Authority” was not presented by Wieland and Short. This third portion of the 1888 message was rejected by the corporate Seventh-day Adventist Church of 1888, and is rejected today by the contemporary Church. A. T. Jones On “Undue Ecclesiastical Authority” “Some denominations extend the thought to the point of insisting that Religious Liberty is the freedom of every individual from any interference. . .by the State,” A. T. Jones wrote. “But not one of the denominations thinks, or will allow, that Religious Liberty is the perfect freedom of the individual believer from prohibition, or interference, or jurisdiction, in the matter of religion or faith, by the church.” (A. T. Jones, Lessons From the Reformation, “The Reformation Religious Liberty,” page 227, emphasis his). “And so the denominations all exercise as churches the very power and jurisdiction that they deny to the State,” Jones lamented. “They deny to the individual as a member of the Church the very Religions Liberty which they advocate for him as a member of the State. (ibid., Lessons From the Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -177- Reformation, page 227, emphasis his). “Thus they [the Church] present the interesting situation that the Christian has more Religious Liberty as a member of the State than he can have as a member of the church,” Jones stated. “For the individual as only a member of the State they demand as a natural right, a Religious Liberty that they will not allow to him as a member of the church under the grace of God!” (ibid., Lessons From the Reformation, page 228, emphasis supplied). “Does anybody but a confirmed denominationalist – a papist – need to be told that Reformation and Christian Religious Liberty is no such thing as that?” Jones asks, “that no Reformer was ever so blind and confused as that, in his thinking? (ibid., Lessons From the Reformation, page 228, emphasis supplied). “Authority Of Church Leadership” “The failure of James and the church in Jerusalem to recognize Christ’s gift of Paul and in Paul to the Church, put Paul in Roman prisons to the day of his death (except a very short interval near the end),” Jones wrote, “robbed the churches of Christ’s wonderful revelations in the Mystery of God, and hastened the rise of the mystery of iniquity. Gal. 2:13; Acts 21:18; 2 Tim. 1: 15; 4: 16; Gal. 1: 15, 16; Eph. 3: 2-5; Col. 1: 26-29; 2 Thess. 2: 3-10.” (ibid., Lessons From the Reformation, page 170, emphasis supplied). “And the failure of professed Christians to recognize Christ’s spiritual gifts, is always of the mystery of iniquity,” Jones continued. “For it is but the manifestation of the natural against the spiritual, of the will of man against the will of Christ, and of man instead of Christ – of man in the place of God – in The Church.” (ibid., Lessons From the Reformation, page 171, emphasis supplied). In the Scriptures there is no such thing as appointment or election by men in the Church, nor in the churches. There is ordination, but not election. And the ordination is the act of response of the members of the Body to the will of their Head [Jesus], not the endorsement nor the legalizing of it. Elections came in from Greece, by those Greeks who in the “falling away,” had not the Spirit, and so had lost their Head. Appointments came in from Rome, when the Greek political system in church affairs was imperialized and the bishop of Rome became the head. The Reformation threw off the Greco-Roman heathen political naturalism, and restored the spiritual principle of the divine order. Alonzo T. Jones, Lessons From the Reformation, “The Reformation Guidance,” pages 170, 171. (emphasis supplied). “But there has been another falling away,” Jones lamented. “Again the spiritual principle has been lost.” (ibid., Lessons From the Reformation, page 171, emphasis supplied). “In every denomination of professed Protestants the Greco-Roman naturalistic principle of human election and appointment prevails,” Jones stated. “Yet they are not consistent even in this inconsistency. Only some of the responsibilities that rightly pertain to the Church are allowed to be subject to election or appointment: as deacons, elders, and others of `helps’ or `governments.’” (ibid., Lessons From the Reformation, page 171, emphasis supplied). “Out of all the Babylonish confusion of the two great fallings away combined [Roman Catholic and Protestant], Christ calls all of His own unto Himself, in His own Church which He is now Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -178- sanctifying and cleansing with the washing of water by the Word, preparatory to her Glorious Presentation. Rev. 17: 5; 18: 4,” Jones concluded. “All the Religious Liberty known today either by individuals, or by States, or yet by the churches, is due to The Reformation.” (ibid., Lessons From the Reformation, page 173, emphasis supplied). E. J. Waggoner On “Undue Ecclesiastical Authority” “So we learn from the words of the Saviour, that there is to be no such thing in the church of Christ as the exercise of authority such as is known in civil government,” E. J. Waggoner stated. “The church is on an entirely different plane from the State. There is no likeness whatever between them.” (E. J. Waggoner, The Present Truth England, vol. 9, no. 22, August 31, 1893, emphasis supplied). “The kingdom of Christ is a thing entirely different from human ideas of government,” Waggoner continued. “He said, `My kingdom is not of this world.’ John 18:36.” (ibid., Present Truth, 8/31/1893, emphasis supplied). “They who think to understand the working of Christ’s kingdom by studying earthly models,” Waggoner concluded, “are proceeding in the wrong way, and are working in the dark.” (ibid., Present Truth, 8/31/1893, emphasis supplied). “Recall again the words of 1 Peter 5:3,” Waggoner stated. “The elders or bishops he exhorts not to be `lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.’” (ibid., Present Truth, 8/31/1893). “There can therefore be in the true church of Christ no such thing as a `Lord Bishop,’” Waggoner concludes. “That is one of the fruits of the unlawful connection of the church with the world.” (ibid., Present Truth, 8/31/1893, emphasis supplied). “The church of Christ, as directed by the Lord Himself, is the only place on earth where `liberty, equality, and fraternity’ can be fully realized,” Waggoner continued. “The trouble with earthly associations formed for the purpose of promoting liberty and equality on earth, is that they are only human organizations, directed only by human wisdom and human power, and among men self is bound to predominate.” (ibid., Present Truth, 8/31/1893, emphasis supplied). “`Rank,’ as known among men, is unknown to the church of Christ,” Waggoner continued. “There is no such thing as one setting himself up above another, or allowing himself to be so placed or considered. That pertains to the princes of this world, but the words of Christ are, `It shall not be so among you.’” (ibid., Present Truth, 8/31/1893). “Christ `emptied Himself,’ and therefore self has no place in His body, the church,” Waggoner concluded. “To the Jews He said, `How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God?’ John 5:44.” (ibid., Present Truth, 8/31/1893, emphasis supplied). Notice the date on these statements by E. J. Wagoner, 1893. This was just five years after the 1888 message was presented by Waggoner and Jones at Minneapolis. Ellen White Confirmed the Third Portion Of the 1888 Message Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -179- “Undue Ecclesiastical Authority” On May 1, 1895, writing a testimonial Letter to O. A. Olsen, Ellen White confirmed the third portion of the 1888 message on “Undue Ecclesiastical Authority.” Indeed, this testimonial Letter is included in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, which certifies the affinity of this Letter to the 1888 message. In this testimonial letter Ellen White stated in part: Now, it has been Satan’s determined purpose to eclipse the view of Jesus, and lead man to look to man, and trust to man, and be educated to expect help from man. For years the church has been looking to man and expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of eternal life are centered. Therefore [for that reason] God gave to His servants [Waggoner and Jones] a testimony that presented the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the third angel’s message in clear, distinct lines. Ellen G. White, Letter to O. A. Olsen, dated at Hobart, Tasmania, May 1, 1895; The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, page 1338. (emphasis supplied). Notice that because “for years the church has been looking to man, and expecting much from man,” and because the Church was “not looking to Jesus,” therefore, for that reason, “God gave to His servants a testimony that presented the truth as it is in Jesus.” (1) God gave to Waggoner and Jones a testimony. (2) The reason God gave this special message was because the Church was looking to man, instead of looking to Christ. (3) This truth Ellen White stated “is the third angel’s message, in clear, distinct lines.” The third portion of this truth was a rebuke of “Undue ecclesiastical Authority.” The reason why this third portion of the message was rejected then and now should be obvious to the reader. The Perfecting Of the Saints The work of the Holy Spirit is to make the Christian ready to receive the seal of God and the outpouring of the latter rain. This last generation perfecting of character would prepare the Lord’s remnant people to stand during the seven last plagues without a mediator between them and their heavenly Father. Jones and Waggoner also taught that the bottom line of the 1888 message was that this work of perfecting the character of the remnant would fit them for translation. A. T. Jones On the Perfecting Of the Saints “Everlasting Righteousness” “Everlasting righteousness, remember,” Jones wrote. “Not a righteousness for today and sin tomorrow and righteousness again and sin again. That is not everlasting righteousness.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, page 123, emphasis supplied). “Everlasting righteousness is righteousness that is brought in and stays everlastingly in the life of him who has believed and confessed and who still further believes and receives this everlasting righteousness in the place of all sin and all sinning,” Jones added further. “This alone is everlasting righteousness; this alone is eternal redemption from sin. And this unspeakable blessing is the gracious gift of God by the heavenly ministry which He has established in our behalf in the priesthood and ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 123, emphasis supplied). Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -180- “Accordingly, today, just now, `while it is called today,’ as never before,” Jones concluded, “the word of God to all people is `Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come [`that there may come seasons of refreshing,’ R.V.] from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things.’ Acts 3:19-21.” (ibid., The Consecrated Way, page 123). E. J. Waggoner On the Perfecting Of the Saints “We need to be on our guard against the idea that the blotting out of sin is merely as the passing of a sponge over a slate, or an entry in a ledger, to balance the account,” E. J. Waggoner wrote. “This is not the blotting out of sin.” (Review and Herald, September 30, 1902, emphasis supplied). “The tearing of a leaf out of a book, or even the burning of the book containing the record, does not blot out the sin,” Waggoner continued. “The sin is not blotted out by blotting out the account of it, any more than throwing my Bible into the fire abolishes the Word of God.” (ibid., R&H, 9/30/1902, emphasis supplied). “The blotting out of sin is the erasing of it from the nature,” Waggoner concluded, “the being of man.” (ibid., R&H, 9/30/1902, emphasis supplied). Waggoner was not teaching “holy flesh” here. He was referring to the character, “the nature” of man, and not the flesh of man. Man’s flesh will be changed when Jesus comes, not his character. The character must be changed now. “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin,” Waggoner continued. “Our bodies are but the channel, the border, the sand upon the shore, of the river of life. Impressions have been made upon us by sin.” (ibid., R&H, 9/30/1902). “At the seashore when you see a smooth piece of sand, your first impulse is to make some mark on it, to write some characters upon it,” Waggoner explained. “Then the sea comes up, and each wave that passes over it helps to obliterate the impression until it is entirely blotted out.” (ibid., R&H, 9/30/1902). “Even so the stream of life from the throne of God will wash away and blot out the impressions of sin upon us,” Waggoner concluded. (ibid., R&H, 9/30/1902, emphasis supplied). “The erasing of sin is the blotting of it from our natures, so that we shall know it no more,” Waggoner wrote. “`The worshipers once purged’–actually purged by the blood of Christ–have `no more conscience of sin,’ because the way of sin is gone from them.” (ibid., R&H, 9/30/1902, emphasis supplied). “Their iniquity may be sought for, but it will not be found,” Waggoner stated. “It is for ever gone from them,–it is foreign to their new natures, and even though they may be able to recall the fact that they have committed certain sins, they have forgotten the sin itself–they do not think of doing it any more.” (ibid., R&H, 9/30/1902, emphasis supplied). “This is the work of Christ in the true sanctuary which the Lord pitched, and not man,” Waggoner concluded, “the sanctuary not made with hands, but brought into existence by the thought of Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -181- God.” (ibid., R&H, 9/30/1902, emphasis supplied). The Faith Of Jesus It is the “work of Christ” in the true sanctuary in heaven to blot out sins from the “character” of the believer. This is what is meant by those who have “the faith of Jesus.” The by-word of pioneer Adventists was “the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12). “As the fourth commandment and those who observe it are ignored and despised,” Ellen White stated, “the faithful feel that it is the time not to hide their faith but to exalt the law of Jehovah by unfurling the banner on which is inscribed the message of the third angel, the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” (General Conference Daily Bulletin, April 13, 1891, emphasis supplied). God is now calling out a people who will keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Nothing but that will answer. Neither commandment of God nor faith of Jesus ever enjoined the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week. Both commandment of God and faith of Jesus show the everlasting obligation to keep the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Will you obey God? Will you keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus? A. T. Jones, The Abiding Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, page 128. (emphasis supplied). Notice that four times in this statement A. T. Jones used the pioneer Seventh-day Adventist byword, “the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” This is taken from the description of the three angel’s messages recorded in Revelation 14:1-11. After describing the three angel’s messages the Scripture then states in verse 12, “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” ( Revelation 14:12). It must be here noted that the New International Version of the Bible, honored by the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church, and read freely from the pulpits of the Church states, “This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12, NIV, emphasis supplied). Notice that the NIV renders the text “faithful TO Jesus” rather than “faith OF Jesus.” It is not just a matter of semantics. It is a matter of theology. The New International Version rendering can be harmonized with the erroneous Evangelical theological concept of “free grace” – salvation without obedience to the law of God. This is the “new” theology of contemporary Seventh-day Adventism. The King James Version rendering unfurls the banner of pioneer Adventism upon which is inscribed “the commandments of God, and the faith OF Jesus.” The 1888 message of righteousness by faith presented by Waggoner and Jones was a concept contrary to this erroneous theology of “free grace.” The 1888 message “invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.” (Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers, pages 91-97, emphasis supplied). Obedience to God’s law we understand, but what exactly is “the faith OF Jesus?” It is the bottom line of the 1888 message. When we have the faith of Jesus we will walk as He walked, obey as He Obeyed. “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” (I John 2:6, emphasis supplied). Eight times in the book of Revelation Jesus admonishes His followers to be overcomers. (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12. 21; 21:7). In the second and Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -182- third chapters of Revelation Jesus gives seven wonderful promises to those that overcome. (1) To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. (Revelation 2:7, emphasis supplied). (2) He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. (Revelation 2:11, emphasis supplied). (3) To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. (Revelation 2:17, emphasis supplied). (4) And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: (Revelation 2:26, emphasis supplied). (5) He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Revelation 3:5, emphasis supplied). (6) Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (Revelation 3:12, emphasis supplied). (7) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21, emphasis supplied). The eighth and final reference promises that, “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” (Revelation 21:7, emphasis supplied). If we walk as Jesus walked, if we have “the faith of Jesus,” we will then receive the “seal of God” and the “latter rain” of the holy spirit – and the world will be lightened with His glory! 1888 Message Was the Beginning Of the Latter Rain “The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer,” Ellen White wrote in 1892. “This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth.” (Review and Herald, November 22, 1892, emphasis supplied). Notice that this 1892 testimony states that the “loud cry” had already begun four years prior in the 1888 message given at Minneapolis, Minnesota by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short observed that if the 1888 message was the beginning of the latter rain, the fact that the Church was still here in 1950 was proof that the Church had rejected, not only the 1888 message, but that the Church had rejected the latter rain! The fact that the Church in 1999 is still here forty nine more years confirms Wieland and Short’s thesis. In a sermon preached at the 1893 General Conference session, A. T. Jones referred to this testimony given by Ellen White the previous year. He commented further on Ellen White’s statement that the giving of the 1888 message was the beginning of the “Latter Rain” and the “Loud Cry” of the third angel’s message. “You remember the other evening when I was reading that second chapter of Joel, that one of the brethren, when I had read that 23rd verse–Brother Corliss–called attention to the margin. Do you remember that?” A. T. Jones asked the congregation. “And I said we would have use for the margin at another time.” (General Conference Bulletin, 1893, page 183). Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -183- “Now all of you turn and read that margin,” Jones continued. “The 23d verse says, `Be glad, then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God: for he hath given you the former rain, moderately.’” (ibid., GCB, page 183). What is the margin? “A teacher of righteousness.” He hath given you “a teacher of righteousness.” How? “According to righteousness.” “And he will cause to come down for you the rain”; then what will that be? When He gave the former rain, what was it? “A teacher of righteousness.” And when He gives the latter rain, what will it be? “A teacher of righteousness.” How? “According to righteousness.” Then is not that just what the testimony has told us in that article that has been read to you several times? “The loud cry of the third angel,” the latter rain has already begun, “in the message of the righteousness of Christ.” [R&H, 11/22/1892.] Is not that what Joel told us long ago? Has not our eye been held that we did not see? Did not we need the anointing? Brethren, what in the world do we need so much as that? How glad we ought to be that God sent His own Spirit in the prophets to show us, when we did not see! How infinitely glad we ought to be for that! ibid., Alonzo T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, 1893, page 183. “Well then the latter rain–the loud cry–according to the testimony and according to the Scripture, is `the teaching of righteousness,’ and `according to righteousness,’ too,” Jones concluded. (ibid., GCB, page 183). Now brethren, when did that message of the righteousness of Christ, begin with us as a people? [One or two in the audience: “Three or four years ago.”] Which was it, three? or four? [Congregation: “Four.”] Yes, four. Where was it? [Congregation: “Minneapolis.”] What then did the brethren reject at Minneapolis? [Some in the Congregation: “The loud cry.”] What is that message of righteousness? The Testimony has told us what it is; the loud cry – the latter rain. Then what did the brethren in that fearful position in which they stood, reject at Minneapolis? They rejected the latter rain – the loud cry of the third angel’s message. ibid., Alonzo T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, 1893, page 183. (emphasis supplied). Will the leadership of the corporate Seventh-day Adventist Church ever repent? No, the Church leadership will never admit the need of repentance. They will go on in blindness until it is too late for repentance. They will forever consider themselves “the voice of God on earth to Seventh-day Adventists.” (William Johnsson, Editor in Chief, Adventist Review, in a television interview, The John Ankerberg Show). General Conference Official Reply To Charge Of Wieland and Short In 1958 the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church officially rejected the charges brought by Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short in 1950. The leadership also rejected Wieland and Short’s warning that if there was no corporate repentance the Church would ultimately reach out to Babylon and join in the world-wide Ecumenical movement that would soon embrace the religious world. (1) First: That at the General Conference session held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the year 1888, “we”– our church or denomination – rejected the light sent to us by the Lord through Brethren A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner on the subject of righteousness by faith; that since then we have been on a detour, presenting hazy ideas regarding righteousness by faith; and that we have been infatuated with a false Christ. (2) Second: That we can never get back on the track, and experience the full blessing of God in the outpouring of the latter rain, until the General Conference confesses that we rejected the light in Minneapolis. (3) Our Answer: Certainly Brethren Wieland and Short have failed to prove that our church rejected the light Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -184- in Minneapolis. Neither Brethren Wieland or Short nor anyone else can prove that this light was rejected. The facts are that there was no action taken to reject it. (4) The charge that we are infatuated with a false Christ and are presenting a false Christ is, we believe, unfounded. We must record our inability to accept some of the things Brethren Wieland and Short say about the nature and work of Christ. Wieland and Short Manuscript Report, As Received By the Officers, page 3. (emphasis supplied). Notice the arrogant and brazen admission of aversion to, and rejection of, the message presented by Waggoner and Jones in 1888, and the message-presented by Wieland and Short in 1950. Note SDA leadership’s bold rejection of the “human nature of Christ” as it was taught by Wagoner and Jones in their “most precious message.” Even more important than rejecting true doctrine, is the refusal of SDA leadership to repent. SDA Leadership Denial Of Rejecting the 1888 Message “Neither Brethren Wieland or Short nor anyone else can prove that this light was rejected,” Committee statement. “The facts are that there was no action taken to reject it.” (ibid.) Denial Of Presenting A False Christ “The charge that we are infatuated with a false Christ and are presenting a false Christ is, we believe, unfounded,” Committee statement. “We must record our inability to accept some of the things Brethren Wieland and Short say about the nature and work of Christ.” (ibid.) The leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in recent years has urged upon the people the idea that the messages of righteous by faith given in 1888 was totally accepted by the Church. Indeed, a book was recently published by the Review and Herald in which the title of the book implied this very concept. The Book, Through Crisis To Victory The Seventh-day Adventist Church published a book on the history of the 1888 message entitled, “Through Crisis to Victory.” (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1966). The author, A. V. Olson, was then chairman of the Ellen G. White Estate. When the second edition of this book was published the name was changed to “13 Crisis Years.” Arthur L. White, chairman of the White Estate at the time of the revision (1981), commented that the reason for the change in the title was that the former title, “Through Crisis To Victory,” implied total “victory” by the Church of the message of righteous by faith as given at the 1888 General Conference session. (See Arthur L. White, “Forward to the Second Edition,” A. V. Olson, 13 Crisis Years, Revised Edition, 1981, pages 9-11). This statement by Arthur White was a lefthanded admission of a “partial” rejection of the 1888 message. Translation Faith – Bottom Line Of the 1888 Message “And this true faith in Christ the Son of God as that true priest, in that true ministry, of that true sanctuary, at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,” A. T. Jones concluded, “that His priesthood and ministry finishes transgression and makes an end of sins and makes reconciliation for iniquity and brings in everlasting righteousness–this true faith will make every comer thereunto perfect. It will prepare him for the seal of God and for the final annointing of the Chapter 10 A Warning, and It’s Rejection -185- Most Holy.” (The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, page 127, emphasis supplied). The present time being the time when the coming of Jesus and the restitution of all things is at the very doors and this final perfecting of the saints having necessarily to precede the coming of the Lord and the restitution of all things, we know by every evidence that now we are in the times of refreshing–the time of the latter rain. And as certainly as that is so, we are also in the time of the utter blotting out of all sins that have ever been against us. And the blotting out of sins is exactly this thing of the cleansing of the sanctuary; it is the finishing of all transgression in our lives; it is the making an end of all sins in our character; it is the bringing in of the very righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, to abide alone everlastingly. ibid., A. T. Jones, The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, page 124. (emphasis supplied). “Brethren, that is where we are,”Jones stated to the leadership of the Church in 1893. “Let us act like it. Let us thank the Lord that He is dealing with us still, to save us from our errors, to save us from our dangers, to keep us back from wrong courses, and to pour upon us the latter rain, that we may be translated.” (Sermon, General Conference Daily Bulletin, 1893, page 185, emphasis supplied). “That is what the message means–translation–to you and me,” Jones implored. “Brethren, let us receive it with all the heart, and thank God for it.” (ibid., GCB, 1893, page 185, emphasis supplied). “And then in the righteousness, the peace, and the power of this true faith, let every soul who knows it spread abroad to all people and to the end of the world the glorious news of the priesthood of Christ,” Jones concluded, “of the cleansing of the sanctuary, of the finishing of the mystery of God, of the times of refreshing come, and of the soon coming of the Lord `to be glorified in His saints and to be admired in all them that believe. . .in that day’ and to `present to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing’ but `holy and without blemish.’” (ibid., The Consecrated Way To Christian Perfection, pages 128, 129, emphasis supplied). Oh dear Lord, what have we done with this “most precious message?” If the latter rain began with the 1888 message, why are we still here in this wicked old world in 1999? In our earnest quest for truth we must find the answers to this most important question. One hundred and ten years have passed since the latter rain began to fall, and then was evidently withdrawn from an unbelieving Church. Oh Lord, is it too late? Is there yet time for our salvation? Let not the pronouncement be placed on us. The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved