ATONEMENT—"The atonement is finished at the cross" is the teaching of most of the passages in this book which deal with the subject (although there are paragraphs which definitely say the opposite). Keep in mind that when the atonement is finished, our salvation is completed. All that follows, according to the modern Protestant view, is our acceptance of that salvation and Christ’s return to take us to heaven. Clearly, the doctrine of a "finished atonement [at the cross]" is diametrically—opposed to the Bible teaching that mankind must obey the law of God. The truth is that if we will not actively cooperate— in trustful, day-by-day reliance on Christ,—with God in His work for our salvation,—we will not be saved. Here is how the new book puts it:

"Christ’s serving as the surety meant that if the human race would fall into sin He would bear the price of their redemption; He would make the atonement for their sin.. At the cross Jesus fulfilled His pledge to be humanity’s surety in the covenant. His cry ‘it Is finished’ marked the completion of His mission."—SDAB, 94/1:3, 94/2:2.

in this new doctrinal book—even more than in the previous one,—are to be found the phrases, "atoning death," and "atoning sacrifice." For example, It is to be found 21 times in just 5 portions of the new book:

53/2:1; 110/2:4; 111/1:1; 111/1:2;

111/1:3-111/2:0; 111/2:1; 112/1:4;

115/2:1; 115/2:2; 116/1:1; 116/1:1;

157/2:3; 160/1:1; 240/1:1; 240/2:2;

242/1:1; 242/2:2; 243/1:4; 315/1:3;

315/1:4; 315/2:1; 315/2:2.

Fortunately, there are four places in the book where the atonement is also applied to the work within the tabernacle or the heavenly Sanctuary

(SDAB, 110/3, 110/2:1-2; 315/2:4-316/1:0; 318/1:2; 317/1:3, 327/2:2).

But the fact remains that this book at the same time teaches the opposite view that the atonement was finished at the cross.

‘~The atonement, or reconciliation, was completed on the cross as foreshadowed by the sacrifices, and the penitent believer can trust in this finished work of our Lord. "—SDAB, 315/2:1.

The reader is taught that forgiveness of our past sins, and a "clothing in the righteousness of Christ" by His heavenly mediation of—without reference to any need on our part to obey God—is all that Is necessary to insure that Christ’s finished atonement on the cross will open heaven’s gates to us.

"The mediatorial ministry of the resurrected Christ has the twofold objective of forgiving and clothing—the application of His death and life to our life and our standing before God. Calvary’s ‘It is finished’ marked the completion of a perfect life and a perfect sacrifice. Sinners needed both."—SDAB, 114/2:2.

Here Is how Questions on Doctrine taught the same error:

"Most decidedly the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Jesus our Lord was offered and completed on the cross of Calvary. this was done for all mankind."—QD, 350:2.

 all-sufficient, perfect, substitutionary sacrifice for sin, which completely satisfies the justice of God and fulfills every requirement [for salvation]. "—QD, 352:4-353:0.

‘‘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 we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross." —QD, 354:7-355.0.

"This sacrifice [on Calvary] was completely efficacious. It provided complete atonement for all mankind."—QD, 357:0.

"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.’ ‘—QD, 381:1.

Norman Guiley, whose manuscript formed the basis for this new doctrinal book, according to Its Acknowledgment (p. v), said It about the same way:

‘It is finished’ blazes across the heavens, reaching both backward and forward in history

Just as surely as man’s creation was completed on creation Friday, so His salvation was finished on crucifixion Friday."—COS, 101:0,4-102.0.

Here is how Gulley explains the "finished atonement on the cross" to the students at Southern College of SDA, in Collegedale, Tennessee. A student asks questions, and "Bob" replies:

"‘Was His mission on earth not sufficient? Does He need now add to what He accomplished there? Is the ‘It is finished’ of Calvary only a qualified fact after all? . . How can we harmonize a completed work at the cross with a continuing work In heaven?’ . . ‘Christ’s death shut Satan’s mouth and opened up the gates back into Eden for man. "It Is finished really means the end of both the controversy and man’s salvation.’ -. ‘So Christ’s post resurrection ministry doesn’t add anything to the cross, as if it were insufficient?’ Bob smiled, ‘No.’ "—COS, 113:4, 114.1-4.

THE TWO-APARTMENT SANCTUARY—This is a concept which, although clearly revealed in the earthly type, is one that the new theology especially dislikes. in this new doctrinal book, we find no mention of that the Sanctuary in heaven has two apartments. In fact, there is no indication that It is structure of any kind. In fact, we are not only not told that it has two rooms; we are not told it has any rooms at all! For example, read SDAB, 314/1-314/2:2. The only clear statement on the two apartments concerns the earthly tent not the heavenly antitype (SDAB, 316/1:3). The new theology wishes to avoid the earthly type of the tabernacle. In this way it can avoid Leviticus 16 and spend its time misapplying the book of Hebrews. As Froom said in Questions on Doctrine:

"It is better to see and study the great realities of the sacrifice and priestly ministry of Christ than to dwell too much upon the details of the typical service, which gave but an inadequate portrayal of the sacrifice and ministry of Christ. Far better to interpret the earthly tabernacle In the light of the heavenly, rather than to circumscribe the antitypical realities by the limitations of too close an application of the type."—QD, 379:1.

And Gulley chimes in on the same point, putting these words into the mouth of his Southern College student:

‘Yes, I see now. Bob, that the sanctuary imagery is helpful I’m not worried about what a heavenly sanctuary means. While I know that Ellen White makes some specific statements that the sanctuary is real place, I’m not sure that I know exactly what it is like. But I’m willing to wait till I get to heaven to understand exactly what the sanctuary there is—whether heaven itself or something symbolized by the earthly patten."—COS, 118:0.

And then Gulley immediately adds this subtle doubt:

"But what does bother me Is the intercession of Christ. Does He really need to intercede before God? The concept reminds me of my mother trying to calm down my father when he was mad at me—Ibid.

INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT—As far as the new theology is concerned, the investigative judgement is only some "pre-advent judgement" that concerns the little horn power, and Is not an Investigation into the lives or obedience of the people of God. This is logical enough, for since modern Protestantism does not believe anyone need obey God,—why should anyone be judged for having not done so?

‘‘Daniel’s visions point to a pre-Advent judgment in which God will secure a verdict of condemnation upon the little horn, and thus upon Satan himself.’ ‘—SDA 8, 325/1:3.

‘‘While the judgment brings condemnation upon the apostate little horn power, it is ‘made in favor of the saints of the Most High.’’ SDAB, 325/1:4-325/2:0.

As we have mentioned earlier, both truth and error will be found in this book. In the last sentence on page 326/2:0 is an excellent statement. But there are also others. The following quotation teaches that the Day of Atonement in antitype does not end until after the Millennium!

"The events on the Day of Atonement illustrate the three phases of God’s final judgment. They are (1) the ‘premillennial judgment’ (or ‘the investigative judgment’) which is also called the ‘pre-Advent judgment’; (2)the ‘millennial judgment’; and (3) the ‘executive judgment’ which takes place at the end of the millennium."—SDAB, 317/2:2.

That is an incorrect concept and found nowhere in the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy. At the end of the Leviticus 16 sequence of events, the scapegoat is not slain, but consigned to a wilderness (at the beginning of the Millennium).

Amid great fear, Gulley’s SC student voices his hatred of the Investigative Judgment:

"Then a pained expression crossed his face. ‘Then what is the investigative judgment all about? I rebel when I think of it.’ He kicked a stone forcefully. ‘Look at all these birds, flowers, and trees He made for us. they show His love for us, His creation. Most important, consider Christ’s life and death for us. Why a judgment after all these evidences of love? [He should save me whether I obey Him or not; that would prove His love for me.] Seems contradictory to me. He’s either for us or against us. And what if I sin the day my name comes up?’ He wrung his hands nervously. ‘I hate this judgment Idea! This dagger forever hanging over us! Please, Bob,’ John pleaded, ‘Please help me understand, to make sense of it."—COS. 118:1.

Then Gulley’s "Bob" answers his question—by telling him the Investigative Judgment has nothing to do with obedience or disobedience on his part—but is just a love feast.

‘There’s another perspective that may also help.’ ‘What’s that?’ John blurted out. Alter all, anything that could throw light on the subject was just what he needed. ‘I believe that we can also view this day of atonement as a ‘preAdvent wedding day.’. . ‘Pre-Advent wedding day! that’s sure a new idea to me. But I like it. Tell me more.’ . . ‘The pre-Advent inspection is to see whether those called have also accepted the free gift of the bridegroom’s wedding garment. The way to stay in the wedding and become the bride, married to Christ, is to accept His perfect life, or wedding garment.. For it is not our works that get us through the inspection, but His: His perfect human righteousness—that robe, or wedding garment, covering us. This means the preAdvent judgment primarily concerns Itself with our acceptance of Christ’s substitutionary life (and death), rather than mainly with our life..’ ‘That’s neat.’’ ‘—COS, 120:1-3.

As have other new theology writers in our ranks in recent years, Norman Gulley now points out that It is the work of the Investigative Judgment to search out and find those people who have been trying to obey the law of God—and condemn them In the judgment. "John" in his sins will have no problem passing the inspection, but those who keep the commandments of God are In great danger and may well be finally lost.

Gully employs the common new theology tactic of pitting Christ’s "finished obedience" at Calvary against you own Legalists actions: In Gulley’s view, there are only Christ’s work (Christ’s obedience) which you may accept in place of any of your own, and thus be saved, or there is your own works (your own obedience), apart from Christ, which will bring you condemnation and perdition. He, as well as the new theology, never refers to your works (your obedience) done IN CHRIST has having any relation to the salvation process. Yet the truth is that without them you—with those new theologians—will not be saved.

‘‘On the other hand, the inspection also unveils those who, although professed Christians, have actually gone about relying on their own works as if they could muster up sufficient merit to get them through without Christ’s life and death.’ ‘Once more John stood up and paced back and forth for a few moments. ‘Bob, I think I see it. I have been afraid of this preAdvent judgment because I have been focusing on my own miserable record. But if I accept Christ’s life—in my place,—and cling to His substitution [on the cross], then I have on the wedding garment. Is that correct?’ With a smile Bob clasped his arm. ‘Yes, indeed. When we view the pre-Advent judgment in wedding-garment terms, we see that our acceptance of Christ’s works rather than worrying over our own Is the crucial point.’.. ‘In fact, all judgment or salvation comes from either rejection or acceptance of the substitutionary judgment that Christ made for us at Calvary.’ "—COS, 120:2-124:3.

There Is more that we could deal with here, but we will refer you to our more complete analysis of this new doctrinal book in our eight-part tract set, Our New Doctrinal Book: Seventh-day Adventist’s Believe DH—3013 08).

But before concluding this study, let us note another Intriguing feature of Questions on Doctrines that was repeated in the Senior Teacher’s Quarterly which deals with the second half of this new doctrinal book. In each, a section is included commending Martin’s Evangelical churches as being the only ones having CORRECT doctrinal beliefs! Of course, we are considered as being among them. These remarks were obviously designed to cheer the heart of Walter Martin and win his hearty approval—and avoid his disapprobation:

"In the twentieth century evangelicalism [the Evangelicals] is the term used to describe the international movement that is committed to defend the historically orthodox [doctrinally correct] Protestant theological positions. They usually are the most missionary-minded, and are found almost everywhere in the world. In some groups, spiritual gifts seem to focus mainly on speaking in tongues. The Third World numerous denominations are rising indigenously. Amid all the organizational confusion, evangelicals recognize one another by the common message of eternal salvation that they proclaim. Seventh-day Adventists rank high among the highly organized religious structures."— TE3SSQ, 136:3-4 teacher’s Edition, Third Quarter 1988 Senior Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, 136:3-41.

It is thought by the Adventist new theology that, although we may "rank high" among the Evangelicals, we do not yet stand at the highest among them, for here are still to be found among us "historic Adventists" with their lunatic-fringe teachings, such as the necessity of obeying the law of God and keeping the Bible Sabbath.

A similar statement exalting the Evangelicals as the only bearers of modern doctrinal accuracy was included in Questions on Doctrine;’ but first a significant—and companion statement, this one those who are included in "Babylon:"

"What is denominated ‘Babylon’ in Scripture, obviously embraces those who have broken with the spirit and essence of true Christianity, and have followed the way of apostasy. Such are under the censure of heaven. "—QD. 197:1.

"[Protestant] Groups and organizations such as the Fundamentalists, the international Council of Christian Churches, and the National Association of Evangelicals have withdrawn from the older organizations because of what they believed to be modernist apostasy entrenched in the controlling leadership of various denominations.—QD, 201:1.

Now, if you will carefully consider why these strange statements should be included in Questions on Doctrine, and then repeated 31 years later in the Sabbath School Quarterly commenting on its successor, Seventh-day Adventists Believe. This, in Itself should clearly indicate that just as Walter Martin was the prompting motive for, and the one to be appeased, by the publication of that first doctrinal book.—so he was the prime mover and the one whose wishes were to be respectfully fulfilled in the publication of the second.

In concluding this discovery that Seventh-day Adventists are now included in the Evangelical churches (which totally deny the necessity of obedience to God’s Moral Law), we also learn that the Evangelicals— which Walter Martin champions— have already come out of Babylon, in response to the Second Angel’s Message, for they have already come out of the apostate churches!

For your information, one of the major errors that the Second Angel calls men from is "the theory of eternal torment,"—a theory which nearly all modern apostate Protestant churches embrace (GC, 536:3). But the classic statement on that which the Second Angel calls men from is given in Great Controversy, page 603. Read It.

"In defiance of the warnings which God has given, they [the fallen churches which the Second Angel calls the people of God out of] will continue to trample upon one of the precepts of the Decalogue, until they are led to persecute those who hold it sacred. Christ is set at nought in the contempt placed upon His word and his people."—Great Controversy, 603:2.

According to this, a church falls not only because It willfully disobeys the commandments of God, but also because it places contempt on those who do! You will want to read the next two pages in the book also (604-605).

It Is interesting that, in the QD passage quoted above, we are told that the reason the faithful come out of the fallen churches is because of "modernist apostasy entrenched in the controlling leadership." And to think that that definition of the Second Angel’s call out—is found in the book,

Questions on Doctrine!

Earlier, In this brief survey of an astonishing episode In our church history,—one that we are still being heavily affected by,—we mentioned Donald Barnhouse’s "bombshell" magazine (a term that, in the same Issue, he used to describe it). We now have something of a NEW bombshell for you, and we shall occupy the remainder of this tract set In consideration of it and Its meaning and implications.

As we were nearing the conclusion of this study, a new Item of information quite providentially came to us. As you may recall, this latest doctrinal book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, came off the presses of the Review and Herald Publishing Association in May of this year (1988), just in time to become the companion book for the Third and Fourth Senior Sabbath School Quarterlies.

You may recall that in our earlier eight-part tract study on this new doctrinal book, we mentioned the odd discovery that NOWHERE in the Third Quarterly was the doctrinal book mentioned as the accompanying study book for that and the next quarter, even though each lesson in the Third and Fourth Quarter exactly matched the 27 successive chapters in the new doctrinal book, according to a Quarterly schedule decided upon several years beforehand. It was obvious that something very unusual had taken place within a few months prior to publication; something so serious that it appeared quite likely that the book might not be published in time—or at all.

But that was all we knew. Two days ago, this writer learned what happened. The information came from a worker in the Review, who told it to a friend, who told it to me:

AFTER the covers for the new doctrinal book were prepared, photographed, the plates were made, and the covers completed,—havoc descended upon that book’s scheduling. Word came to the printing house that

THE EQUIVALENT OF SEVENTY-FIVE PAGES WERE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE NEW DOCTRINAL BOOK!

Now, aside from its introductory and index pages, there are only 379 pages of text in the entire book. Each page is a large 7 x 9 inches in size and has two columns with lots of printed material.

THE AMOUNT OF TEXT SUDDENLY REMOVED AMOUNTED TO ONE-FIFTH OF THE ENTIRE BOOK!

This sudden change is nothing short of astounding. Several years of careful writing, deliberation, addition and removal had taken place. Now, suddenly, just before the book printing date—and after the covers had already been completed,—an equivalent of one page In every five were removed from the new doctrinal book!

What could all this mean? What was removed? Why was it removed? Why did all this suddenly happen just before publication date? It all seems like a great mystery, but there are facts that can be applied to the situation.

First however, what was removed? Well, some very good material may have been taken out. But, actually, I suspect that that which was removed In—what appears to have been a sudden panic—was primarily bad material.

We may never know exactly what took place, but let us again review the probable printing schedule of that book. The present writer is himself a book publisher and is conversant with the involvements in taking a book through to publication. He has also read statements regarding how long it takes for a Review book to go "through the tube," as they term their book production channels and schedules of operation.

The new doctrinal book came off the presses at about the time it was supposed to—in May, 1988. But there was such a strong likelihood that it would not make it In time that all references to It as the Quarterly study book had been stripped at the last minute from the Third Quarter’s Sabbath School Quarterly. Yet, Senior Sabbath School Lesson Quarterlies, and their accompanying books, are planned ahead as much as three years in advance! 

Because the book covers had already been completed when the notice of a drop of 75 equivalent pages In text was told to the Review,—we know that that announcement could not, in view of the large book press run planned with the consequent large book binding operation involved, have occurred more than three or four months at the most before book release date.

 Because the text of the book had not yet been printed, while the covers had, it was probably not more than three or four months before May.

 The fact that the change in those Quarterly announcement box changes could still be made Is in itself another indicator that the 75-page cut was suddenly announced not less than three or four months before May. The Quarterlies, after being printed, are shipped out to many distant places quite some time before new-quarterly date.)

What happened three or four months before the book release date? The January 27 meeting of N.C. Wilson with a sizable number of leaders from the independent groups!

We were personally told that, at that day-long meeting, Eider Wilson was surprised to learn of Instances of most terrible articles, pictures, etc., that had in recent months come of the denominational presses in some of its publications. (For example, he was told of a recent Insight cover that was a picture of a worldly rock music star.) By his own words, he replied in astonishment that the leaders had, as a policy, thought it best to let each editorial staff be on their own, but that perhaps a mistake had been made by not checking over—and maintaining a firmer control of—what they were doing.

Actually, there are enough new theology men in the General Conference, that having them oversee what the various magazine editors of our church publish is not going to solve the problem.

 But in regard to books, we know that the General Conference has, for a number of years now, not permitted any to be printed—at least in North America—without first meeting with the approval of their representatives—which may be General Conference leaders or Ph.D.s in our colleges and universities. This new doctrinal book was no exception—as you will note from page vof it.

But the strong likelihood is that someone at that January 27 meeting— either in the meeting or after it ended—alerted Neal C. Wilson to the strong danger of a massive church member reaction against the forthcoming new doctrinal book, if it contained a large amount of error.

We know that Wilson convened that January 27 meeting for the very reason that he was becoming frightened at the large numbers of Adventists who were becoming disenchanted with church leadership and church support—and for the first time he suspected that it might not entirely be the fault of the church members!

(It was for the same reason—to help inform Elder Wilson of the true facts— that we published our four-part tract set, What It Will Take to Turn Our Church Around WM—186-189), at that time as an appeal to him and our top leaders. In that wide-ranging study we pointed out many, many areas that our leaders needed to give attention to, In order to again win the confidence and support of the membership.)

Looking at the whole picture, It is our opinion that someone in attendance at that January 27 meeting warned Elder Wilson that he better have some known historic Adventists that he had confidence in—check over that forthcoming doctrinal book—or real trouble was ahead!

At any rate, so it happened! AT ABOUT THAT TIME, someone, or several individuals, were authorized to check the book over at about that time—the end of January—and they crossed out enough material from the book galleys (proof copies) that an announcement could be sent over to the Review offices as soon as possible—probably early in February—that an equivalent of 75 pages— one-fifth of the text—was going to be dropped from the book.

But, we are told, the Review had already completed the covers and the workers there had a most difficult time handling the problem, for the spines of the book text would now be too narrow for those completed covers.

Yet, as we now know, they did not succeed in getting all the error out of the new book. Could they have done so? It was, admittedly a large book with lots of detailed points. But, yes, we believe they could have—if they had quickly called in a larger number of the faithful to check it over. The present writer found the errors, that he has discussed and quoted in this and in the previous study, in only two days’ time. There are probably more that he did not find, but If, say ten or fifteen such individuals had checked it over,—within half a week they could have found them all.

So it turns out that there is a very good Indication that our denomination was barely saved from a most terrible doctrinal book! What we now have is probably far better than what we might have had! ironically, however, if the error had been more clear cut—as in Helmut Ott’s book (see Salvation in Sin WM—179-18 ID—it would have been far easier to show its wrongness.

But we are thankful that Heaven intervened in some way and reduced the total impact of error In Seventh-day Adventists Believe.

YET THERE ARE LESSONS FOR US TO LEARN FROM THIS ENTIRE EXPERIENCE. WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM HERE? If we can locate it, we will not have a repeat of this in the future. If we do not learn it, our church members will continue to be presented with books with error.

FIRST, our church leaders are fearful to only let historic Adventists prepare our doctrinal books, other books, and our magazine articles.

SECOND, They fear to offend the influential new theology men in our ranks and the wealthy new theology men among our laity. —Yet it is only the historic Adventists among us that really understand our beliefs, defend them, and financially support the church.

Far to often our leaders fear to leave out the Ph.D.s. They are afraid to not

let our liberal and new theology college and university teachers be the leading authors of Biblical and doctrinal studies printed for the church.

THIRD, there is even a question whether some of our leaders know what a historic Adventist is. Many do not know how to Identify either a historic Adventist or his beliefs.

Why can any genuine Adventist not know what is a historic Adventist, or historic Adventist teachings? Those who have little acquaintance with the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy can not do so, but then are they real Adventists?

FOURTH—and this is an important one,—we have come to a time when, as a denomination, we make our doctrinal decisions by consensus and by chance.

1-THEOLOGY BY CONSENSUS: 

For example, we wish to prepare a new doctrinal statement. For this purpose we appoint a group of men to develop it. On this committee, 15 people have a bunch of various ideas leaning toward the new theology; another 10 or 15 have varied ideas that cluster closer to, or within historic Adventism. A third group of 10 or 20 do not really know or care much about our doctrinal beliefs. They are business executives who spend their lives specializing in running committee meetings, listening to financial reports, and making policy decisions.

We then take the conclusions of this odd assortment of people—and just lump those conclusions all together. We go by what most of them can fairly tolerantly agree on, and call it "consensus theology." This requires dropping out certain points that are particularly unacceptable to some on that committee. These frequently are concepts that are unique, or almost unique, to Adventists, although still vital (such as, in the new doctrinal book, an affirmation of the 6,000 years since Creation, or two apartments in the heavenly Sanctuary)

In the process, men side In with the ideas of their friends, those who are influential and may later help them move upward, or have given or protected their jobs or done them a favor at some time in the past. And so it goes. Theology by consensus.

2-THEOLOGY BY CHANCE:

According to page v of the new doctrinal book, P.G. Damsteegt writes a book based on a manuscript by Norman Gulley, who for several years has been known to be a new theology advocate. As he proceeds, Damsteegt

discusses sections of it with a committee of 27 "church leaders, theologians, and pastors." They arrive at a consensus of opinion, as discussed in the above two paragraphs.

Then a secretary types up the consensus report sections and gradually sends them off to 197 other people for their opinions. They toss in their ideas (including some oddities, such as Instantaneous sanctification, and an antitypical day of atonement -that begins with-a-pre Advent judgment and ends over a thousand years later). Paragraphs are inserted here; paragraphs are reworded there.

Thus a man-made document is gradually developed like the tower in Genesis 11. This "by-consensus-and by-chance" approach gradually results in something of a giant pot luck lunch, and Is about as digestible. For if the reader accepts everything in the entire book, he will end up with mutually-conflicting points of belief.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

Because there is NO NORM for our interpretations of the Bible, the result is a MAN-MADE hodgepodge. It is composed of whatever happens to have been tossed into that particular theological stew. it Is an "opinion stew," and sometimes it includes something that makes "poison in the pot."

We are letting the prides, prejudices, opinions, and interpretations of a few men—or dozens of men; it matters not—determine our doctrinal beliefs.- We-then make all these varied and conflicting opinions THE STANDARD BY WHICH WE INTERPRET BIBLE PASSAGES! It becomes another of our doctrinal statements.

This is NOT in God’s order! Over a hundred years ago, He personally gave us the Spirit of Prophecy to be A

DIVINELY-INSPIRED STANDARD TO INTERPRET BIBLE PASSAGES!

We are setting aside the Spirit of Prophecy for the opinions and prejudice of men. We are setting aside God’s inspired Bible interpretation and substituting a man-made one. in doing this, we are insulting the Spirit of God.

Sounds strongly worded? It is not strong enough. If we had not the light we have, we would not be so heavily judged In the books of heaven. But we who know that the Spirit of Prophecy

was given to safeguard us from deception, prepare us for the Final Crisis and final translation,—and then to set aside those books in favor of the varied opinions of men, in the formulation of our official doctrinal statements, we are sinning against God.

I will say it again: We are setting aside the Spirit of Prophecy for the opinions and prejudices of men. Such an action by the leaders of our church stands as an insult to God.

Talk of apostasy! THAT is apostasy! It is equivalent to the Israelites getting rid of Moses at Meribah, selecting new leaders from among themselves and then following them withersoever they might lead them, in a march that eventually takes them back to Egypt.

It is equivalent to choosing a king to rule over us, in place of the prophet that the God of heaven appointed to lead us.

It is insubordination against our divine Leader that is bringing us into this impasse. He has given us through the Spirit of Prophecy our doctrines and standards for our practical, everyday instruction in the home, In the church, and in our relations with the world. We are setting aside that divinely-inspired counsel and formulating our own doctrines, standards, and lifestyle in church, home, and community.

(For example, read the section in this new doctrinal book on the sanctuary service,—and then read chapters 23, 24, and 28 In Great Controversy (pages 409-432, 479-491), and carefully compare the two. Many, many important principles in our historic Sanctuary Truth are omitted from the new doctrinal book.)

The EXCUSES offered for this course of action are two-fold:

One is that the Spirit of Prophecy is out-of-date, and was only worthwhile guidance for nineteenth-century Christians. (But when asked which part is out-of-date, we receive only hems and haws, and a change of subject.)

Another is that the Spirit of Prophecy was not given to explain doctrine, interpret the Bible, or clarify the standards we are to live by. It was only given, we are told by the liberals and modernists in our church, to comfort us.

What comfort is there in comfort only, without practical instruction in what to believe and how to live?

The papacy Is the outworking of a principle that emerges naturally from the corrupt heart: "I want to take the place of God in your life. "The effort to get rid of the Spirit of Prophecy and substitute the dictums of men In its place comes from the same carnal desire.

The excuse given for the excuse Is to be found In two quotations (Evangelism, page 256, paragraphs 2 and 3). it is said that Ellen White herself told us that the Spirit of Prophecy is not to be used in place of the Bible.

But what the critics do not tell you is that both of those passages are speaking about holding meetings for unbelievers who neither know our teachings nor the writings of Ellen White. We may begin our Bible studies by proving our points from the Bible, but later, as they learn about the Spirit of Prophecy and gain confidence in it, we are to begin instructing them in those invaluable books. Read all the rest of the quotations in this same chapter in Evangelism! (pages 255-260). They give a clear picture of the importance of instructing even new believers in the Spirit of Prophecy.

And what about those that have been baptized into the church?

Hold Bible-Spirit of Prophecy study classes with them and ground them solidly in our historic beliefs, the inspired writings that they are founded upon, and the history of the church down through the ages, during the Millerite movement, and in the years since then.

If the Spirit of Prophecy was not given to explain doctrine, interpret the Bible, and clarify the standards we are to live by,—what was it given for?

What else is in it!

The Spirit of Prophecy was given in these last days to guard, protect, instruct, and guide the remnant people of God through the Final Crisis, to the Second Coming,—so that they can enter the city of God.

Let me tell you this: If you adamantly refuse to accept the Spirit of Prophecy and be governed by its precepts, then you are not part of the remnant and will not successfully go through to the end, either with It or outside of it. For you know too much. The heathen may come in and join with the remnant later, but you will go out into darkness, and be as a match that is extinguished. You had your opportunity and you refused It.

Any man or group of men who stand by the position of Ford and Martin that the Spirit of Prophecy was only given

"to comfort" but never to instruct in doctrines and standards—is already separated from the faithful. it matters not who carries the name and the organization; that which counts in the eyes of God are the ones who OBEY and DEFEND His Inspired Word. The "remnant" of Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 are those that obey God by faith in Christ and who have the Spirit of Prophecy.

The rest are little better than baptized world lings as far as God is concerned. They are a mixed multitude to trouble, confuse, and harass the faithful In these last days, so that

they will draw the closer to God and to study and obedience of His Word.

Such men may even be included among the leaders of our denomination, but they are not of us and should be put out from among us. if they do not believe, practice, and defend the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, they are not Seventh-day Adventists.

Until the Spirit of Prophecy again takes its rightful place as the primary interpreter of the Bible in our church, we will continue to move deeper into an apostasy of both doctrines and standards. There is no other answer; there is no other solution. Apart from genuine conversion, submission, and obedience to God and His Scriptures, there is no hope for any of us.

But salvation is an individual matter. None can be saved for another. Each of us must make our own decision and stand by it through our earthly days. And in the outworking of the Investigative Judgment, it will be seen who have chosen to put God and His Written Word first In their lives, and who have merrily traveled the broad road, following the opinions and vagaries of men.

"When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions, Contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which Contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit.

"A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. [Written in 1905.1 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 their voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time.

"We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such an application moves one pillar from 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 come to the people of God." —Letter 329. 1905.

RETURN TO BOOKS