In this issue:
Who sent Jesus and from Where?
The following article is an edited version of a letter written by brother Lloyd Martin (author of the book, “100 And More Mysteries Of The Trinity”). Brother Martin contends that the word “Trinity” was coined specifically to describe the Roman Catholic concept of God and that therefore the Catholic understanding of the word is the only legitimate definition of the word that there is. He feels that in using the word “Trinity” to describe its concept of God, the SDA Church has embraced the most objectionable feature of the faith of Rome.
Implications of The Trinity
I object to all heresies opposed to
the true sonship of Christ and the true relationship of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit. More particularly, I renounce the doctrine of the
Trinity, which above all other heresies is the very antithesis of the
deity of Christ and is the premier fabrication of the antichrist Roman
Catholic Church. Of all heresies inimical to the true sonship of Christ
and the infinite love of God, the Trinity stands without equal as the
most subtle and influential. This doctrine, while teaching the
distinctiveness of Christ, at the same time denies His individuality
(separateness as a being) by portraying Him as a derived projection of
God the Father, thereby making Him a virtual non-entity. By this subtle
teaching the true sonship as well as the deity of Christ is destroyed
and in its wake, the infinite love of God.
This doctrine which has engulfed Adventism since 1930 is obviously
fraught with implications for the credibility and acceptance of our
Church as God’s final remnant. It brings into question our church’s
fitness to fulfill its specific mission to prepare a dying world for the
long overdue return of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. No justification for
our acceptance of the Trinity can possibly repair the damage done to the
credibility of the founding fathers of our faith and to Seventh-day
Adventism, which during the first 86 years of its existence was
decidedly anti-Trinitarian. It must not be forgotten that all of the
pioneers (with the great majority coming from a Trinitarian background)
renounced this doctrine when they became Adventists.
Sheer loyalty to our heritage as well as common sense demand that we
must investigate this doctrine. Almost everyone who professes belief in
the Trinity has, at best, only a limited knowledge of the doctrine and
this in itself speaks volumes. These facts make the question as to
whether or not a discussion on the subject is relevant, quite redundant.
The basis of my faith
Lest there be questions as to what exactly the basis of this supposedly
“new thing” I have espoused is, let me state that it is the
oldest position of all, the same as was held by the first post biblical
(after AD 100) believers known as the apostolic fathers and the
apologists as well as the waldenses and the Adventist pioneers. This
historical basis is the belief that the Scriptures teach that Christ was
literally begotten of the Father before all ages (eternal times), yet
He is from all eternity. It is the belief that this seeming
contradiction is perfectly harmonious and whether or not one can explain
it, it must be accepted by faith as true, since the Scriptures declare
both to be a fact. In addition to accepting this by faith it accepts the
logic that since He is begotten of the Father’s eternal substance He
must therefore be the eternal son (offspring) of God and hence, in
essence be truly from all eternity. It is the belief that if Christ is
truly begotten of the Father, it cannot demean His eternity or deity but
rather enhances them. Above all it is the belief that if Christ is not
truly begotten of the Father He cannot be a true son and if He is not a
true son, God could not have demonstrated the magnitude of His love for
sinners in sending Him to die for them. (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9)
It is the only position on the sonship of Christ that conforms to the
true meaning of the Greek word monogenes meaning “only begotten.” It is
the only belief that upholds at the same time the views of the true
relation and relationship of the Father and the Son; the individuality
of Christ; His eternity and His equality in attributes to the Father. It
is therefore the only belief that upholds the true sonship of Christ.
It denies all the other beliefs regarding the sonship of Christ,
foremost of which is the doctrine of the Trinity. It holds that all such
teachings are theological technology, human speculations antagonistic
to the most foundational truth of Scripture that Christ is truly the
only begotten Son of God and that these teachings are founded in pride,
inspired by Satan rather than faith in the infinite word of God.
The conclusion is that there are only two choices. Is Christ truly the
Son of God or is He not truly the Son of God? My position beyond
controversy is the only one that could answer in the affirmative. It is
instructive to note that the subject of the sonship of Christ has been
the focal point of attack against God by Satan from the inception of sin
both in heaven and on earth, at the crucifixion and in every major
apostasy within God’s church since, not excepting the omega of deadly
heresies within the SDA Church in the 1930s. If indeed the pre-incarnate
Christ is not truly the Son of God then there can be no just basis for
genuine faith in the love of God for lost sinners.
Adventist Misconceptions
Some of the points of confusion and misconception in relation to the
subject of the Trinity existing within the Adventist Church today are as
follows.
(1) That the Trinity simply means that the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit are three divine persons and these somehow constitute the one
God. The understanding of what this means is so cloudy that when there
is an attempt to explain it as many as five explanations for this
doctrine are shown to exist within the Adventist Church today. Although
the Scripture uses the expression “one God,” where it chooses to explain
itself it always applies to the Father. Likewise the Spirit of Prophecy
has never said that there are three persons in God.
(2) That the Trinity is the same as the godhead. This is a great misconception.
A derived Sonship
(3) The belief that the doctrine of the Trinity opposes the teaching
that Christ was derived from the Father. This is a patently false
statement because the derivation of Christ from the Father by a
continuous, unceasing process is the very foundation of the doctrine of
the Trinity. This assertion is unchallengeable and its accuracy can be
readily attested to by any knowledgeable and authoritative writing on
the subject of the Trinity. This process of derivation is what is termed
“The doctrine of eternal generation.” This concept is further
bolstered, firstly by the Gnostic Sabellian word “homoousious” (same or
identical substance or being) which is the controversial key word of the
Trinity appearing in the Nicean creed, secondly by the meaning which
was first assigned to the term Trinity by Tertullian who in introducing
the concept said that Christ was a subordinate projection or portion of
God the Father. Lastly Augustine in giving the final expression to the
Trinity stated that the will of the Father and the will of the Son was
the same, hence they were one and the same Being.
A derived existence was the specific version of the sonship of Christ
taught by Trinitarians as opposed to a begotten sonship of the apostolic
fathers and the apologists, a transitional sonship of the modalists; an
emanated sonship of the origenists and a created sonship of the arians.
An inoriginate sonship, the idea that the Son of God did not have an
origin was the view held by persons whom everyone else regarded as pagan
and polytheists. Such persons were never a part of the Christian
community as they were termed blasphemers.
The begotten sonship concept is fundamentally different from all the
others in that it is the only one that rejects the premise of all the
others that “the substance of God could not be divided.” Essentially
therefore there were only two kinds of sonship, a real and an unreal
sonship. The begotten sonship was the very opposite to the derived
sonship in that it set forth Christ as God’s very own Son (Rom. 8:32) a
separate entity (being) from the Father, as against a distinct portion
(person) of the Father. The failure to appreciate this distinction is
not unlike the failure to understand the difference between what is
created and what is begotten, the origination of specie (creation) as
opposed to the continuation of specie (procreation).
(4) When Ellen White made the statement that, “in Christ is life
original, unborrowed and underived,” was she trying to correct a false
view concerning the divinity of Christ? If this was so then this
statement would be most appropriately directed at the Trinity. The
Trinitarian view above all others most specifically taught that Christ
was derived. The fact is that while Ellen White was uplifting the deity
of Christ by this statement she was also emphasizing that as the only
true offspring of God, the only one of the Father’s eternal kind,
nature, race or genus, He inherently possessed eternal life as a natural
inheritance. Hence, He must be truly Son and logically, truly God,
fully divine. By contrast eternal life is not inherent in creatures who
are products of created (non eternal) matter and hence it can only be
bestowed upon them as a gift. Nevertheless, eternal life, whether
inherent (naturally innate) or bestowed (conferred upon) as a gift to
all creatures possesses the same features. It is original, unborrowed
and underived. Original because it is the only genuine life, the very
life of God. It is unborrowed because it is permanent or everlasting. It
is underived because it is not a projection or portion of the life of
the Father as the Trinity teaches, but is possessed by each recipient as
a substantive reality.
The substantial or primary meaning of the word “derived” if its Latin
root is taken into consideration, is something that is a tributary or
branch of a main source from which it is never detached. “De” means
“from” and “rivus” means “river.” The word derived therefore literally
indicates “from a river.” Accordingly the Trinity was frequently
explained under various analogies such as the fountain, the river and
the stream, or the sun, the ray and the heat. Christ was the river or
the ray which was continuously being derived from the source of the
fountain or the sun. The conclusion was that He was never a separate
entity. This is precisely what the doctrine of eternal generation, the
very foundation of the Trinity, taught. The Trinity, in contrast to all
other views was the only one that held that Christ was a distinct
“person,” but not a separate being from the Father.
The chief objective of Ellen White’s statement was to commend Christ to
sinners as the life giver who could bestow eternal life (life original
and unborrowed) upon repentant sinners. In an indirect and secondary
sense the phrase was a repudiation of the Trinity which specifically
taught that the life of Christ was derived. Ellen White, by stating that
in Christ was life original and unborrowed, must be regarded as
indirectly condemning the Trinity. It seems that she understood that the
Trinity meant numeric unity whereby God is regarded as a single
organism or being, possessed of three component parts.
The orthodox Trinity
(5) The Nicean creed of 325 A.D. is the universally accepted original
basis of the doctrine of the Trinity, a fact which is acknowledged even
in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Any teaching of a Trinity
which does not acknowledge or conform to the creed is not regarded as
the orthodox accepted Trinity and carries no recognition at all. This
certainly bears thinking about in light of the fact that it was the
acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity which caused Seventh-day
Adventism to lose the label of “cult,” and to be accepted by popular
Christendom as a “good Christian church.” The Niceano-Constantinopoliton
creed of 381 A.D. which gave greater recognition to the Holy Spirit
reconfirmed the earlier creed as authoritative. The Athanasian creed of
uncertain date of origin and source, also confirms the Nicean creed. In
view of the fact that the term Trinity or a counterpart is not found in
Scripture (unlike “rapture” for “caught up,” or “millennium” for
“thousand years”) and that there is no historical precedence for a
different version, there can be no reasonable basis for insistence of a
use of the term that does not conform to the creed.
In other words, the Term “Trinity,” means only one thing and that is the
definition given to it when it originated in the councils of the
Catholic Church. Ethics, honesty and common sense ought to suggest that
the term should be best avoided. The prophet Ellen White who was an
inspired example of honesty, apparently thought that prudence in the
choice of her terminologies as well as clarity in doctrine should take
precedence over expediency, which is one obvious reason why she never
used the word “Trinity.” On the other hand it appears that expediency
takes precedence over everything else in today’s church, even over gross
embarrassment and transparency.
(6) The Nicean creed, the authority for the Trinity taught that the one
God of Scripture was the Father from whom the Son was begotten. The
creed therefore contradicts the 27 fundamentals of Adventism which
teaches that the one God is Father, Son and Spirit.
(7) To say that the teaching that Christ was begotten of the Father is
the same as the Arian concept of a created Son is a blatant falsehood.
In reality Arianism was the only teaching that denied that the Son of
God in any sense came from the Father. Instead Arianism taught that the
Son came into existence from out of nothing (ex nihilo). The Nicean
creed which addressed the Arian heresy countered it by stating that the
Son was begotten of, or out of the Father’s substance (ousia). Any
professed Christian who denied that Christ was “begotten,” that is, came
from the Father’s being was regarded as Arian or otherwise as a pagan
and polytheist. Any person who denies that Christ was begotten is truly
an Arian.
(8) It is obvious that the people of the orient (including even Arians)
like persons of the west today, also understood that the term “begotten”
clearly had a connotation of being brought into conscious existence
even in its application to the pre-incarnate Christ. More specifically,
except for the Arians, they all knew that it meant to born from or to
proceed from out of something already existing. They were therefore not
confused with theological devisings (unlike many Christians today), that
the term “begotten Son,” was anthropomorphic, merely a convenient but
not a literal term, designed to make finite beings believe something
that they could never understand or make sense of.
(9) The charge that the pioneers were Arians is spurious and should
cease at once. The Adventist pioneers believed that Christ was begotten
of the Father as a separate entity. Hence it is impossible for them to
have been Arians as they are often misrepresented to have been. On the
other hand they obviously did not believe that Christ was derived from
the Father by an unceasing generation which is the reason they rejected
the Trinity.
Known by its fruits
(10) The true fame of the Trinity must surely be its infamy, for it has
stood out by far more for the evil it has done than for any good it may
be imagined to have done. From its introduction in the early third
century the hallmark of the Trinity has been controversy, heresy,
apostasy, deceit and crusading warfare. When first proposed it
introduced the concept of subodinationism whereby the Son of God was
said to be inferior to the Father.
(11) When ratified by the council of Nicea, it was introduced into the
creed by deceit and foisted off on the majority who did not subscribe to
it. Similarly it was through artifice sometime afterwards that it was
able to draw into its ranks those who had entered into an accord with it
against the outrageous Arians and Anomeans.
(12) It had as its patron two neophyte emperors who enforced it upon
dissenters under threat of banishment, death and condemnation. It was a
state imposed doctrine in collusion with professed churchmen. The act of
its enforcement at Nicea gave birth to the Papacy. The Papacy is
therefore derived from the Trinity, one inseparable substance.
(13) Its rise to prominence in the Pergamos period was synonymous with
the apostasy of that period. The Trinity was the central point of
controversy and when the dust had settled, the Trinitarians who
comprised the Roman Papal church triumphed, while those opposed to the
Trinity went into the wilderness. The Trinity was therefore directly
responsible for the greatest apostasy of the Christian era which marked
the falling away from the Smyrnian period of spiritual prosperity which
preceded it.
(14) The Trinity which initiated the great apostasy was also the prime
factor directly responsible for the eventual Papal domination in 538
A.D. This was accomplished when it successfully overthrew the last
bastion of resistance to the doctrine in the form of the three so-called
barbarian kingdoms. These “barbarians” were converted, Sabbath-keeping
Christians who rejected the Trinity, yet were not Arians. The Papal
antichrist church would never have attained the supremacy without the
Trinity. 1260 years of Papal supremacy and all that it represents from
heresy to inquisition must be laid squarely at the feet of the Trinity.
Papal supremacy therefore corresponds to the triumph of the Trinity.
Mere Coincidence?
(15) The restoration of Papal supremacy through the many concordats of
the Lateran treaty in 1929 was in effect a restoration of the Trinity
which is synonymous with apostasy. In the following year, 1930, the
Adventist Church for the first time officially sanctioned the Trinity.
The proximity of the acceptance of the Trinity by Adventists to the
healing of the deadly wound of the Papacy is not a mere coincidence, but
rather a natural consequence of cause and effect for a church steeped
in Laodicean backsliding. The reverse to this is also true. The wounding
of the Papal Trinity at the end of the 18th century was followed by the
rise of the great Adventist anti-Trinity restoration movement in the
first half of the 19th century.
Adventist Dilemma
The conclusion that the last point leads to is unavoidable. Clearly it
is only as the Papal Trinity (the only Trinity) receives a deadly wound
in Adventist theology that God’s Advent people will be reinstated as
purveyors of virgin, unadulterated truth. To put it bluntly, Seventh-day
Adventists must rediscover their heritage as the remnant church,
charged among other things with presenting the pure truths of the gospel
of salvation. In doing so they must be mindful that the sanctification
that is an indispensable prerequisite for the return of Christ must be a
blend of doctrinal truth and a corresponding Christian experience. John
17:17. This can never be attained while any heresy is subscribed to.
Rev. 14:5. The Trinity represents the mother of all heresies and hence
should be the first to be discarded. No doctrine that one is so ignorant
of and hence so unable to understand and teach could ever be the
central doctrine of Christianity as is claimed of the Trinity. Moreover,
no doctrine that is so steeped in controversy and deception could ever
be of God. A doctrine so embedded in deception that claims made for it
are the very opposite of what it really teaches.
Any attempt to defend this doctrine is a futile one, especially if one
is doing so on the basis that it is opposed to a derived existence of
Christ. Our church today has entrapped itself in a dilemmic entanglement
of the most massive and embarrassing proportions by its acceptance of
the Trinity, and the fundamental reason for this is that it has chosen
to participate in the contest of the age old contention of the devil
that Christ is not truly the Son of God. Nowhere is this more evident
than in the distortion and consequent denial of the true meaning of the
word “begotten,” (monogenes) by paralleling it with the words, “created”
and “derived.” As a result, the SDA church has placed itself between a
rock and a hard place by having to live with Sister White’s constant
assertion that Christ was truly the begotten Son of God from before the
creation while she just as definitely stated that he was neither created
nor derived.
The dilemma is manifold for if one claims to be a true Trinitarian then
he must of necessity accept the life of Christ as a derived existence.
On the other hand if one rejects the concept of a derived life, one must
also of necessity reject the Trinity. The one cannot be accepted and
the other rejected, for they are one identical substance. If one insists
on being called a Trinitarian while rejecting the idea of Christ having
a derived existence, then such a person must be honest and acknowledge
that he does not support the orthodox Trinity of Nicea and be prepared
to be relegated to the ranks of cultism.
What bewitching fascination does the term Trinity hold over the minds of
modern-day Adventists, in spite of its many embarrassing disadvantages?
Why did men like J.N.Andrews who could recite the entire New Testament
from memory, and the other outstanding founding fathers of our faith
reject the concept and avoid the term Trinity like the plague? Is it
because they did not have as much light as we do today? The fact is that
an unbiased study will reveal that they were far more advanced in a
knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity than present day Adventists.
Perhaps the Trinity may be accepted as legitimate truth, but only if
truth is dependent upon ignorance; only if Rome the antichrist Church
brought a blessing to the world by its formulation of the Trinity; only
if Constantine can be embraced as the patron of the “blessed” Trinity
while instituting a Sunday law; only if Christ is not really the Son of
God but a derived projection of the Father and only if all these things
require less faith and more sense to believe than that Christ can be
truly begotten of the Father while at the same time being from all
eternity.
There is only one way for our church to avert the impending challenge
from Rome over the common ground which we share with her and which is
all of her creation and which will bring untold embarrassment and
disruption in the ranks of Adventism and this is to quickly move first
and remove the scourge of this doctrine from among us.
In our neck of the woods
Zemrie McGlashan
We are living on the south side of
the beautiful island of Jamaica, overlooking Treasure Beach. Although
the Seventh-day Adventist church is some one hundred years old in this
neighbourhood yet the Sunday church which is only forty (40) years old
has managed to conjure up far more membership and has flooded the entire
area with its beguiling doctrines.
Although our group is small and the work seems to be extremely slow,
we are determined to spread the truth about God and His Son with the
hope of demystifying the mystery that has held, and continues to hold so
many innocent people in darkness. Since the Seventh-day Adventist
Church has joined hands with the Sunday Church, their friendship has
become much closer to the extent that they are supporting each other in
their crusades, concerts and Christmas programs. Even the present piano
that the Sunday Church is using was loaned to them by the SDA church.
you can imagine that this has made our work much harder. Nevertheless we
are not discouraged for the God who sent us out to work has promised
that He would be with us always.
When God sent us out to sow, He did not intend for us to be concerned
about the field or soil on which we sow, but rather that we should
always be concerned about the seed which we sow. My belief is always to
sow, to flood every area with the word of God, then leave the rest to
God, because it is He who gives life to His word and it is His Spirit
alone that can cause the word (seed) to germinate in the heart of an
individual.
I was brought up with the belief that if I did not win a soul into the
church, then when I go to heaven there would not be any stars in my
crown, and for years I laboured with the hope of filling my crown with
stars. But the Lord saw my ignorance and had mercy on me, because I
could not seem to bring one soul in that I could pinpoint and say, “I
brought him in.” Today, my only intention is to do the work that God
gives me to do and not fight Him for that which belongs to Him, which I
am unable to do anyway.
During the past several years I have been inspired to work in the area
of health with the hope of using this as the gateway of spreading the
Third Angel’s message. Although I have no formal training in this area,
yet I can see where the Lord has blessed me tremendously with the little
mustard seed that He has given me, because He has not limited my work
to just helping people to reform their way of eating and drinking or in
giving advice to those who are ailing, but also to help the sick and the
helpless in any way that I can.
For example, a few months ago I heard about an incident that involved
three deacons from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I did not realize
how serious the situation had become until one day whilst at the
supermarket I overheard one of the deacons in a heated conversation with
a young man who was involved in the incident. The situation was
apparently so serious that the deacon went off to get the police.
I rushed home, put away my purchases and immediately went to see
the parties in question. I was just in time to calm down a huge
confrontation involving four families including the three deacons.
Because the word of God is “sharper than any two-edged sword,” it was
able to pierce the hearts of these individuals and because the spirit of
the Lord is calm and gentle it was able to bring peace to them. So when
the police arrived they discovered that they were not needed.
This confrontation all started when a man on his way to see one of the
deacons crushed the foot of a relative who fell asleep with his feet
stretched across the driveway. The man was sent to the hospital and
although the x-ray showed no broken bones, the foot was so badly damaged
that the doctor’s advice made it necessary for him to visit the
hospital daily, to prevent any future amputation.
This man neglected his daily visit however, and as a result, the foot
became infested with screwworms, swelling to about three times its
normal size. This was a part of the reason for the calling in of the
police. The other part was that the patient as well as his relatives
wanted to capitalize on this misfortune. The Lord impressed upon my
brother and me to take up the matter. We ended up feeding this man three
times per day, buying all his antibiotics, all his dressings even
though, in spite of this, it was often difficult to get his cooperation.
At times he would not allow us to touch him and at other times he
attempted to throw away his antibiotics. His foot took approximately two
months to heal. Nevertheless we were well rewarded when we saw the
peace and harmony shared by everyone afterwards and in addition, this
gave us some opportunity to share the word.
To date we have had many listening ears and though we have not yet
seen what many of us would have liked to see – people coming out and
joining our group – this is not our primary aim as I am no longer
working for stars in my crown, but that the precious name and love of
God may be seen in our work and in our lives. We want the living Saviour
to be seen in our actions, heard in our words and perceived in our
attitudes. This is our aim, our motive in our neck of the woods.
Report of Jamaican Campmeeting 2002
Gideon Clayton
Many who attended anticipated CAMPMEETING 2002 with much enthusiasm.
Somewhere between 4:00 and 5:30 p.m. the campers began arriving, on
Thursday the 28th of March, with brother Howard William’s large dump
truck getting there first and taking some of the brethren (mostly the
younger folk).
“MAINTAINING THE VISION” was the slogan chosen for the camp meeting and
brother H. Williams was the first person to present a message at the
start of the meeting. In the evening meeting of this first day, our eyes
were turned to the subject of Christ as the central figure to be kept
always before us.
On Friday morning at approximately 6:30 brother Charles Peter gave a
presentation which many found both stimulating and challenging.
Rain fell relatively heavily on
the first day the campmeeting began, but never fell again throughout the
duration of the event. It would almost seem as if God was giving his
approval by this occurrence.
There was very strong wind during the nights and warm days at times
but not a deterrent in comparison to the wonderful spiritual feasts we
enjoyed each day.
There was beauty all around both night and day. The campsite is set
overlooking the sea a few miles from Alligator Pond (a little township
just near the bay). The nights were also pretty as one looked towards
the land. The lights which seem to be set in the distant plains of St.
Elizabeth looked like jewels glittering against the soft background of
the darkness.
Brother Allen Stump became the next speaker, who delivered a
meaningful admonition which was felt where it mattered most (in our
hearts).
Brother Stump, Hans (his son), Heidi (his daughter), brother and
sister Ann and Glen Ford came all the way from West Virginia to be at
our camp meeting. They really blessed us with their presence.
The midday hour presenter that had
been chosen was well known to all.As brother Cole took his place on the
podium everyone knew that we were all going to receive a valuable
lecture on healthful living. Brother Marlon Cole is an authority on
wholistic medicine. He operates a colon care clinic in Mandeville as
well as one in Kingston. Following his talk, most who were present felt
blessed and wiser concerning the use of supplements in the diet.
Colin Gyles our brother from Kingston was expected to take the
afternoon slot at 3:00-4:30 p.m. but was unable to keep the appointment,
so brother David Clayton led out in a question and answer session in
which people were able to express themselves freely and to have their
burning questions addressed. The session was a lively one as there was
wholehearted participation.
From seven to half past eight o’clock brother Glen Ford gave a very
moving experience taken from his life. His powerful testimony was given
in a somewhat quiet way, but left indelible marks in the hearts of those
who heard.
It seemed like a North American night as the evening became nippy then
breezy and finally cold to some of us Jamaicans, but the temperature
seemed to be quite comfortable for our American brothers and sisters on
the other hand. However, the spiritual warmth of the atmosphere between
our brethren remained intense.
Sabbath morning ushered in an anticipated high point of the entire
camp which saw over a hundred saints attending which included women and
children. The beautiful day was initiated with a heavenly rendition
vocalized by a female quartet which could be called restoration singers.
Wonderful strains emanated from the lips of sisters Naomi Morris,
Karleen Williams, Jennifer Clayton and Ivorene Hendricks as they sang
‘He was there all the time’.
Brother Leford, Russel during the early presentation made an impact on
most when he described the result of a Christless life. His homily was
based on a personal experience taken from his life.
Brother David Clayton as the succeeding presenter, got everyone
involved in the lesson which he conducted. The younger folk in
particular were encouraged to participate. Jesus to be reproduced in his
people was the focus.
A newly formed singing group from restoration ministries provided
another musical repast that thrilled many hearts. This happened just
before brother Allen Stump took the rostrum again. As brother Allen
proceeded, he used some practical demonstrations to make his point and
to cement the lessons which he brought. The focus was Christ crucified.
Lunch time found the family of God scattered around the compound; some
chatting, some in bible studies, others simply enjoying the beauty of
the setting and the tasty lunch. The brethren from the U.S.A. thoroughly
absorbed the Jamaican atmosphere and made sure that we knew it. They
like our food.
Our dear sister Lorraine Sutherland had graciously volunteered to take
charge of the canteen which she did. She got help from a few other
willing sisters who unselfishly gave up their comfort and time to help
make the meeting the success that it was.
The song service which preceded every presentation, never failed to
make our brethren demonstrate their enthusiasm. Their lusty singing
echoed around the walls of the chapel as happiness seemed to be
expressed on every face.
Brother Neville Morris next spoke about Christ’s worthiness and his
love. He closed with a musical solo which every one appreciated.
Brother C. Howard was given charge of what was called a marriage
seminar. This convened during the last session on Sabbath afternoon. It
proved to be a very interesting and intense discussion, with brother
Wayne Sutherland’s and brother Orlando Clayton’s family being
highlighted as model families. This event was so interesting that it
lasted until pretty late into the night.
A highlight of the camp experience was the baptism in which three of
our precious sisters desired baptism and were granted their wish. The
baptism was administered at Alligator Pond by our dear brother, Pastor
Allen Stump. Those baptized are sisters Sonya Griffiths, Daliah Deer and
Thalia Gordon. A few of the young people wanted to get their feet wet
and did so after the baptism, at the beach which ran in close proximity
and parallel to the river that eventually empties into the sea.
Three other young people expressed their desire to be baptized and will be baptized sometime in the near future.
Because of the baptism, we got behind our schedule a bit and so we had
breakfast rather hurriedly and quickly repaired to the chapel where
brother Stump related the difficulties experienced in getting brother
and sister Ford to Jamaica, and God’s hand in the matter which
eventually brought success.
Our brother Marlon Cole again treated us to some good advice
concerning maintaining good health. ‘NUTRITION’was his topic. His
admonition to, ‘chew your liquids and drink your solids’will not be easy
to forget.
Brother Arthan Wright gave the next message, which centered on God’s
special care for his people. Brother Wright spoke with conviction and
left every one to muse on those thoughts which he presented. We
especially appreciated the fact that brother Arthan had come all the way
from Miami to fellowhip and to share with us.
In the evening we were all deeply moved by brother Roger Hendricks’
presentation which was basically a testimony combined with a challenge
to us to be fully committed to Christ. This was followed by testimones.
All listened intently to the various testimonies which blessed our souls
on this last evening at camp. Many of our brethren left changed,
convicted and determined to maintain the high spiritual tone which was
evident at the camp.
On the last day of the wonderful experience just before close of camp,
sister Lorraine Sutherland made her contribution by focusing on how
Moses learned that all God’s biddings are enablings. The lesson she
wished to impart was this; ‘There is a purpose for every one’. Brother
Wayne Sutherland sang ‘Lord I’m available to you’ as a complement to his
wife’s presentation.
It should be noted that brother Sutherland volunteered to conduct the
Sabbath school for the younger folk during the adult’s version on the
Sabbath.
The closing admonition before breaking camp was conducted by brother
David Clayton, after the hymn ‘Tell me the story of Jesus’ had been
sung. The singing was very hearty as all had come to expect. They sang
their hearts out (the brethren).
All too soon the wonderful meeting drew to a close as brother David
Clayton gave a short message and exhortation. Camp broke as hugs and
goodbyes were seen every where.
Many became emotional as they turned away from the bit of heaven that had been felt during those few days.
A Defender of Laodicea
In response to the article in
the February Open Face entitled, “Philadelphia or Laodicea,” we received
a critical response from an apparently well-meaning but seriously
misinformed brother who took us to task for taking a position contrary
to that which Uriah Smith took in his interpretation of the Seven
Churches of Revelation chapters 2 and 3. We have chosen to respond to
the main points of his letter in this public way because we believe it
may be helpful for others who may also have similar misconceptions and
who are similarly misguided, to be exposed to his arguments and to see
the loopholes in them.
Since we did not get this brother’s permission to publish his letter
we will let him remain anonymous and refer to him simply as brother G.
Below we have listed what we consider the main points of brother G’s
objections along with one or two secondary points which we feel also
need to be dealt with.
BROTHER G’S CRITICISMS
1. Your work and its outcome can be tested by two things: Does it
stand up under intense scrutiny and what are its results and
implications?
2. As an ardent student of prophecy I cannot help but note some gaping
holes in your arguments and serious internal discrepancies between your
views and those of the pioneers your work is seeking to promote.
3. You and I share the view that Uriah Smith’s work is a sterling
example of prophetic interpretation that is both accurate and
spirit-led, even given the highest stamp of approval in the writings of
Ellen White
4. Keep in mind that the SDA church had no reason to alter the
explanations given by Uriah Smith (the leading pioneer on matters of
prophetic or “apocalyptic” interpretation) as it related to the seven
churches. And you have not one shred of evidence that the church did
alter his work, except statements dealing only with the nature of
Christ. You and I know that full well.
5. I am a little concerned that in your zeal and strong desire to wake
up the sleeping virgins or convert the lukewarm Laodiceans you have
unwittingly done the following in you article: (a) Undermined Uriah
Smith’s sequential interpretation of the seven churches and even
contradicted him on some points (b) showed your lack of comprehensive
reading of the pioneers on this matter.
6. Notice further the faults in your arguments: YOU SAY, (a) “God’s
church in the last moments of time will not be Laodicea but
Philadelphia.” (b) “Sardis is the period of the great awakening from the
time of the Millerite movement, to the early stages of the SDA Church.
(pg. 3 top of first column) In your desire to do a good work of
“reforming” and “restoring” your have actually done the following also.
(a) Presented inaccurate facts on the time period covered by Sardis (the
period of the reformers – Luther Calvin etc.) making it relate to the
Milerite movement – THIS CONTRADICTS URIAH SMITH. (b) Made it appear
that Philadelphia was the period of the formation of the Adventist
Church after 1844 when in actual fact it covered the Millerite movement
“up to” 1844 when the investigative judgement began. (c) Made it appear
that the Laodicean state and stage of the Church is one of doctrinal
error and no good can be found in this stage when actually it is clearly
a contradiction of the pioneer teaching by Uriah Smith who clearly
believed the end time church was the last stage called “Laodicea” but
suffers from a lukewarm state and a feeling of suffiency because, quote,
“no fault is found with Laodiceans on account of doctrines they hold.”
7. You and I know full well that what Uriah Smith taught on the seven
churches is, has been, and always will be what the pioneers, as a
majority, believed and taught as it related to the sequential order of
the seven churches and also the periods they covered.
8. So I ask you, do you still believe that you are really supporting
the pioneer stance on this issue? I hope you will be honest to take a
second look at your work.
9. It would be helpful to recognize that, as Mrs. White puts it: “No
man’s judgment is to be surrendered to the judgment of one man. But when
the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority
that God has on earth is exercised … private interpretation must not be
maintained, but surrendered.” (Testimonies Vol. 3, p.492)
10.Uriah Smith’s views were GC endorsed. Were yours? Your views on
Laodicea & Philadelphia are so singular in their findings it begs
the question: Were they subject to the “highest authority that God has
on earth,” the GC? So how are you a part of the remnant church?
Response to Brother G
I would like to respond to brother G’s criticisms point by point. I Will refer to his statements by number as enumerated above.
1. In his first point brother G recommends that my work be tested by
two things: (a) How it stands up under intense scrutiny and (b) Its
results and implications. I have no problem with these criteria, but
just wish to qualify his first point by stating that it depends on who
is doing the intense scrutiny. Hopefully it would be someone who is more
careful and more informed than brother G. My reasons for saying this
will become apparent as I continue.
2. Whether or not brother G is an ardent student of prophecy I do not
know. The facts must speak for themselves. One thing seems apparent
however and this is the fact that his “ardent” study seems to be limited
to the writings of Uriah Smith. The best result that can come from such
a narrow field of research, be it ever so “ardently” done, is that one
may become very capable of parroting Uriah Smith and become a brilliant
reflector of other men’s thoughts.
3. I certainly empathize with brother G in the sentiment that Uriah
Smith’s work (Daniel and the Revelation) is a sterling example of
prophetic interpretation but I must take issue with his implication that
it is absolutely accurate. Even though Ellen White approved of the book
only a person who is extremely naïve would take this to mean that there
are no errors in the book.
4. Here brother G shows that his methods of research are at worst
extremely faulty and at best are extremely limited. He states quite
confidently that, “you have not one shred of evidence that the church
did alter his work, except statements dealing only with the nature of
Christ.” Though he claims that “You and I know that full well,” my
knowledge certainly does not coincide with his on this matter. It is
regrettable that this well-meaning brother did not take the trouble to
do a little careful research before making such a dogmatic statement.
One is tempted to wonder if this is the kind of foundation upon which he
bases his claims to be an “ardent student of prophecy.”
Changes to Daniel & Revelation
Below there are two statements from two different editions of Daniel
and The Revelation by Uriah Smith. They are both taken from the
identical chapter and from the same place. Please note the prominent
omission from the present day edition of the book: The differences in
both passages have been highlighted in bold letters.
Daniel and The Revelation 1897 edition (The Original book)
“. . . . the 144,000 here seen on Mount Zion are the saints who were
just before brought to view as objects of the wrath of the beast and his
image, there are the very best of reasons for believing.
1. They are identical with those sealed in Revelation 7, who have
already been shown to be the righteous who are alive at the second
coming of Christ.
2. They are the overcomers in the sixth or Philadelphian state of the church. (See Rev.3:11, 12.)
3. They are “redeemed from among men” (verse 4), an expression which
can be applicable only to those who are translated from among the
living.” – Daniel & The Revelation, p.629, by Uriah Smith, (1897
edition)
Daniel and The Revelation 1944 & 1972 edition (Present day version)
“. . . . the 144,000 here seen on Mount Zion are the saints who were in
Revelation 13 brought to view as objects of the wrath of the beast and
his image.
They are identical with those sealed as described in Revelation 7, who
have already been shown to be the righteous who are alive at the second
coming of Christ.
They are “redeemed from among men” (verse 4), an expression which can
be applicable only to those who are translated from among the
living.” – Daniel & The Revelation, p.626, by Uriah Smith, (1944 and
1972 edition)
As we can clearly see, Uriah Smith taught that The sixth or
Philadelphian state of the church was the segment of the seven churches
which would produce the remnant or the 144,000. This truth was included
in his original book (the book approved by Ellen White) before it was
expunged along with the godhead truth back in the purging of 1944.
Clearly, the changes in Uriah Smith’s Daniel and The Revelation have
been far more comprehensive and wide-ranging than brother G’s “research”
has led him to believe.
5. My only comment on point number 5 is that the facts will show who
has been guilty of a lack of “comprehensive reading of the pioneers,” on
this matter.
Printing error
6. The first two criticisms made by brother G under point number 6 are
the result of a printing error. The passage in question actually reads,
“After Thyatira there is Sardis, ing the period of the great awakening
from the time of the Millerite movement …” In actual fact it should have
read, “After Thyatira there is Sardis, then Philadelphia. Philadelphia
is accepted by all Adventists, as representing the period of the great
awakening from the time of the Millerite movement …” apparently in the
process of printing, the last line on page 2 got cut off so that the
last word on that page was Sardis, while the first word on page 3 is
“ing,” which is the last part of the word “representing” This was a
genuine misprint and was our fault, but even then I think careful
reading might have made brother G realize that some words were missing
since the first word on page three “ing” actually makes no sense unless
it is a continuation of another hyphenated word.
NO DOCTRINAL ERROR?
As for the repetition of Uriah Smith’s contention that “no doctrinal
error can be found in Laodicea,” we find ourselves caught on the horns
of a dilemma if we perpetuate that argument. It is as clear as day that
the SDA church today teaches a different doctrine on the subject of the
godhead than did the SDA pioneers. Now then, which version of Laodicea
was free of doctrinal error? Was it the pioneer version (after the
1850s) a decidedly non-Trinitarian church, or was it today’s version of
Laodicea, a decidedly Trinitarian church? Which doctrine was error?
Surely even the most die-hard Laodicean cannot suggest that both
teachings about God are equally true.
7. We have already responded to point number 7, however, we will just
quote a couple of others of the earliest pioneers to demonstrate that
again brother G is quite misguided in his contention that the pioneers
were unanimous in their acceptance that the Advent movement represented
Laodicea:
SOME EARLY ADVENT VIEWS ON PHILADELPHIA & LAODICEA
Joseph Bates
“The fifth state of the Church is Sardis: 3:1-6; out of which the great
body of the second Advent believers came in 1843 and ’44. – 4th and 5th
verses.
The sixth state of the Church is Philadelphia. It was made up or
organized by second Advent believers principally from the churches in
the fifth or Sardis state.
The seventh state is the Laodicean, organized by those who left the
Philadelphia after the 2300 days, the appointed time, had ended. Hosea
describes all their converts, v. 7. This is the state which the great
head of the church is laboring to disband and dissolve: 3:14-21; see
particularly 19th verse. Repent (and turn to the Philadelphia) for there
is no other state of the Church since 1844, where the new commandment
can be kept:” — Joseph Bates, An Explanation of The Typical and The
Antitypical Sanctuary,
“These three last states of the church will be here when Jesus
comes. They all exist now.” — Joseph Bates, An Explanation of The
Typical and The Antitypical Sanctuary, p.138, Joseph Bates
“Thus they have organized the Laodicean church. And by their false
teaching they have drawn thousands of the Philadelphians away with them
into the Laodicean state. Jesus has sent a gracious message for all the
honest ones in this state, saying, “As many as I love, I rebuke and
chasten: be zealous therefore and repent.” Rev.iii,19. We thank the Lord
that a goodly number have taken heed to his message, and are now in the
Philadelphia church, believing and proclaiming the third angel’s
message. Still Jesus is calling after others, saying, “Behold, I stand
at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I
will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 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.” Verses
20,21. Thus Jesus is continually calling, and holding out every
inducement, by counseling, chastening and promising the poor Laodicean,
even the highest honors he can bestow, if, after all he has done, he
will repent and open his heart to him.”
“My dear brethren in the Philadelphia church, let us read this gracious
message again, and pray the God of Israel to animate and inspire us with
new courage, and unslackened zeal, to carry out the purpose of our
divine Lord and Master, to the poor Laodicean, by searching them out
wherever they can be found, and teaching them the present truth.” –
Joseph Bates, 2R&H2 p.14
The Review and Herald
“So with the Philadelphia period. It terminated in the past. But the
testimony to that church reaches to Christ’s coming, because many of the
Philadelphians were to prove faithful, keep the word of Christ’s
patience, pass on down through the Laodicean period, and finally
overcome.” – J. W. (James White?)
“That there is to be a call to the Laodicean Church, and that the time
for that call to be made is at hand, is evident. But who constitute the
Laodicean Church? An array of argument on this point seems
unnecessary. All Advent believers know perfectly well that the
Philadelphia Church, the Church of Brotherly Love, was made up of those
who came out of the Sardis, or nominal Church in 1844, under the cry
“Babylon is fallen, is fallen.” They know, also, that the Laodicean
Church is the next in order, and is the seventh and last stage of the
Church, as brought to view in Rev. chapters ii, and iii. This church is
made up of such as have become “luke-warm,” and have left the
Philadelphia Church, of brotherly love, and are saying “I am rich and
increased in goods, and have need of nothing;” and know not that they
are “wretched and miserable, and poor and blind, and naked.” – Present
Truth and The Advent Review – Aug 1849 – Nov. 1850
“In verse 12, is the precious overcoming promise to all in this
church. They are to be pillars in the temple of God, and have the name
of God, the Holy City, and Jesus’ own new name written upon them. Here
we see that all the precious promises are made to this church that
believe in the shut door, and keep in the open door. They cannot be
claimed by those remaining in the Sardis, or Laodicean state of the
church.” – R&H, Nov. 1, 1850
8. On the basis of the evidence presented we would suggest that it is
brother G who needs to take a more careful look at his work.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE GC
9. Once again our brother speaks dogmatically merely on the basis of
an extremely superficial examination. The statement which he has quoted
with regards to the authority of the General Conference is the one which
is fed to those who depend on the organized SDA church to determine
their diet. Unfortunately such a diet is frequently greatly deficient in
balanced truth and leads to spiritual malnutrition. In response to this
point I will simply quote some additional statements from Ellen G.
White with the relevant dates. These will speak for themselves.
1875 – I have been shown that no man’s judgement should be surrendered
to the judgement of any one man. But when the judgement of the General
Conference, which is the highest authority that God has on earth, is
exercised, private independence and private judgement must not be
maintained, but be surrendered. (T3:492)
1889 – (14 years later) We acknowledge the General Conference to be
the highest authority recognized by God on earth. Here the whole of our
people are represented, and speak through their delegates. Here is not
north nor south, nor east nor west. It is one the world over. (Gen.
Conf. Bulletin – Oct.23,1889)
1894 -(5 years later) Do not misunderstand me as approving of the
recent action of the General Conference Association of which you write,
but in regard to that matter, it is right that I should speak to
them. They have many difficulties to meet and if they err in their
action, the Lord knows it all, and can overrule for the good of those
who trust Him (Testimony to Elder Littlejohn, Aug.3, 1894)
1895 – (1 year later) I do not find rest in spirit. Scene after scene
is presented in symbols before me, and I find no rest until I begin to
write out the matter. At the center of the work, matters are being
shaped so that every other institution is following the same course. And
the General Conference itself is becoming corrupted with wrong
sentiments and principles (TM:359)
1896 – (1 year later, and 21 years after her first statement regarding
the authority of the General Conference). Who can now feel sure that
they are safe in respecting the voice of the General Conference
Association? If the people in our churches understood the management of
the men who walk in the light of the sparks of their own kindling, would
they respect their decisions? I answer, no, not for a moment. (Special
testimony to Review & Herald office in Battle Creek, 1896)
The same work that has been done in the past will be carried forward
under the guise of the General Conference Association. The sacred
character of this association is fast disappearing. Who then will be
respected as pure, holy and undefiled? Will there be any voice that
God’s people can respect as a voice to be respected? There certainly is
nothing now that bears the divine credentials. Who can now feel sure
that they are safe in respecting the voice of the General Conference
Association? Much pride and loftiness, and a spirit which desires to
rule, has been manifested; but very little of the Spirit which leads men
to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn of Him, has been shown. Human
inventions and human plans are eclipsing sacred things, and excluding
divine instruction. Men are taking the place of God by seeking to assume
authority over their fellow men. (Taken from letter to Elder O.A.
Olsen, “Sunnyside,” Cooranbong, NSW, May 31,1896)
1899 (3 years later). Let those in America who suppose the voice of
the General Conference to be the voice of God, become one with God,
before they utter their opinions. (Testimony to Elder S.N. Haskell, Nov.
15, 1899)
1901 – (2 years later). That these men should stand in the sacred
place to be the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the
General Conference to be, that is past. (General Conference Bulletin,
1901, page 25, column 2, par.1)
The voice of the General Conference has been represented as an
authority to be heeded as the voice of the Holy Spirit. But when members
of the General Conference become entangled in business affairs and
financial perplexities, the sacred elevated character of their work is
to a great degree lost. The temple of God becomes a place of merchandise
and the ministers of God’s house as commercial businessmen. (ibid.
1901, page 76)
NO SALVATION IN LAODICEA
Finally, we would like to close by once again quoting the two
sentences from the writings of Ellen White which were included in our
previous article on “Philadelphia or Laodicea?”
“The church is in the Laodicean state, the presence of God is not in her midst.” Manuscript 156 (1898)
“The state of the church represented by the foolish virgins, is also
spoken of as the Laodicean state.” Review & Herald, Aug. 19, 1890
Here Ellen White clearly identifies two characteristics of the Laodicean state:
a) God is not among those who are in the Laodicean state.
b) The Laodicean state is represented by the foolish virgins.
Both of those characteristics describe a lost condition. No person or
institution who is found in such a state can be saved. The question
seems unnecessary, but in the light of the prevailing confusion it needs
to be asked: Is it possible for Laodicea to be not in the Laodicean
condition? Since Laodicea is a spiritual appellation (it is not the
actual designated name of any denomination or religious group today as
far as I know), then any designation of any group as being Laodicean
must focus on the characteristics of that group rather than any other
attribute. The title Laodicean, applied to Adventism is a term of
condemnation, not a generic description or a chronological designation.
In the light of these facts, we close with the affirmation in
agreement with the original book, Daniel and the Revelation of Uriah
Smith, that God’s last day people will be from the Philadelphian Church
and not from the Laodicean.
Who are these preachers of new doctrines?” exclaim those who desire a popular religion. “They are unlearned, few in numbers, and of the poorer class. Yet they claim to have the truth, and to be the chosen people of God . . . How greatly superior in numbers and influence is our church! How many great and learned men are among us! . . . ” These are the arguments that have a telling influence upon the world; but they are no more conclusive now than in the days of the Reformer. (GC – 148)
Who sent Jesus, and from where?
We must believe the word of God.
We must believe all the word of God and care not for the traditions and
the suppositions of men.
If God says He sent His Son, I believe He had a son to send.
If God says He sent His Son, I do not believe that the Son sent Himself.
If God says He sent His Son into the world I believe that Son could not have been in the world at the time when He was sent.
If God says He had a begotten Son, it matters not what the feeble
minds of men may imagine. “One word of truth outweighs the whole world.”
God was the first Father in the universe, according to the Scriptures
(Prov. 8:22-25). How dare we suggest that God could not bring forth a
son from His being, simply because He is not flesh? What do we know of
the nature of Spirit? How disrespectful to suggest that God would have
to be pregnant in order to beget a Son!!
Thus saith the Lord!! (not the traditions of men).
Where Was Christ When He was sent? in Heaven or Bethlehem?
1. (John 3:17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
2. (1 John 4:9) In this was manifested the love of God toward us,
because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we
might live through him.
3. (John 6:38) For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
4. (John 10:36) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and
sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of
God?
5. (John 17:18) As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
6. (1 John 4:9) In this was manifested the love of God toward us,
because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we
might live through him.
Where Did Christ Come From?
7. (John 7:29) But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
8. John 8:42) Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would
love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of
myself, but he sent me.
9. (John 17:8) For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest
me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out
from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Who Sent Christ?
10. (John 4:34) Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
11. (John 5:23) That all men should honour the Son, even as they
honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the
Father which hath sent him
12. (John 5:30) I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge:
and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will
of the Father which hath sent me.
13. (John 5:36) But I have greater witness than that of John: for the
works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I
do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
14. (John 5:37) And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne
witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen
his shape.
15. (John 5:38) And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
16. (John 6:39) And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that
of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise
it up again at the last day.
17. (John 6:40) And this is the will of him that sent me, that every
one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting
life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
18. (John 6:44) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath
sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
19. (John 6:57) As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
20. (John 7:16) Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
21. (John 7:18) He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but
he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no
unright-eousness is in him.
22. (John 7:28) Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying,
Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself,
but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
23. (John 7:33) Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.
24. (John 8:16) And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
25. (John 8:18) I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
26. (John 8:26) I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he
that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have
heard of him.
27. (John 8:29) And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not
left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
28. ( (John 9:4) I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
29. (John 11:42) And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because
of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou
hast sent me.
30. (John 12:44) Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
31. (John 12:45) And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
32. (John 12:49) For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which
sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should
speak.
33. (John 13:20) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth
whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him
that sent me.
34. (John 14:24) He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the
word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
35. (John 15:21) But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.
36. (John 17:21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me,
and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may
believe that thou hast sent me.
37. (John 17:23) I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made
perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and
hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
38. (1 John 4:10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he
loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
39. (1 John 4:14) And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
40. (Luke 9:48) And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child
in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him
that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be
great.
41. (Mark 12:6) Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent
him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
42. (Luke 20:13) Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I
will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they
see him.
With such a weight of Scriptural evidence will we continue to deny this truth so persistently emphasized by our Lord? (at least 37 times in the gospel of John alone!!)
Liquid blessing
75% of Americans are chronically dehydrated. (Likely applies to half the world
In 37% of Americans, the thirst mechanism is so weak that it is often mistaken for hunger.
Even MILD dehydration will slow down one’s metabolism as much as 3%.
One glass of water shut down midnight hunger pangs for almost 100% of the dieters studied in a U-Washington study.
Lack of water, the #1 trigger of daytime fatigue.
Preliminary research indicates that 8-10 glasses of water a day could
significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers.
A mere 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory,
trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen
or on a printed page.
Drinking 5 glasses of water daily decreases the risk of colon cancer
by 45%, plus it can slash the risk of breast cancer by 79%, and one is
50% less likely to develop bladder cancer.
Are you drinking the amount of water you should every day?
Voices of the People
Thank
you so much for your ministry. We receive a true blessing in every Open
Face publication. May the Lord continue to bless you in His work.
Tennessee, USA
I am very thankful for my supply of Open Face and I must say it has
enlightened me in every way. Thank you. What about the Old Paths
publication? Is it only limited to the United States? Do I have to order
from them directly? Thanks be to God for your ministry and I pray that
you will grow from strength to strength. Keep up the good work.
St. James, Jamaica
The time has just flown since you were here in Australia. It seems
like just yesterday that we met you, but time has passed. I hope you
remember us. We think of you lots and have visited your web site
sometimes as well as Smyrna’s. It’s actually different reading the
articles you write now, since we have listened to you give talks. When
we read we can imagine hearing you as well. We just wanted to tell you
how much we have enjoyed reading your latest newsletter on Philadelphia
or Laodicea. When we went to our Bible study this morning we were
discussing it with others in the group who had been reading it also and
we have gotten a lot out of it.
Vic, Australia
I would like to tell you that I have come to the exact same
conclusions as you have regarding the seven churches and the fact that
Philadelphia and the 144,000 are identical. I have been preaching this
for about eight years now, and I have been working on a book for about
three years. Recently I have been presenting these truths to a group of
church members who meet independently from the main church here …
As I have been going through the book of Revelation the numbers of
people leaving the main church to come and listen has been growing
steadily, which is encouraging. I used to think that I was the only one
who believed that the Philadelphia Church was God’s last day Church. It
is very gratifying to know that others are re-discovering these vital
truths too. God bless.
New Zealand
Just read your article, “Philadelphia or Laodicea.” Great article.
Makes a lot of sense. I don’t know if the Lord is trying to tell me
something but you are actually the third person this week that has
talked to me about the state of the church and whether I should be
attending or not. Is this God’s remnant church or not? I am battling
with this at the moment. It is causing some stress. Is the Lord telling
me to get out of this church and start a home group or what? Is it right
for me to still attend a church that is preaching error? Your article
has made me think a little. I have to do some study. Or is it Satan?
Australia
I’m …. from Germany. I have contact with Brother Allen Stump since a
couple of weeks. I’ve translated some of your Tracts into German and
offered them to him for putting them on his site. He told me to contact
you. If you would like some translated versions too, I would be glad if I
could send you some.
You know, It all started when I found the site sundaylaw.com… then
I was on smyrna.org and was reading the tract, “Satan’s deadliest lie”.
I read the first 3 sentences and thought, “who can write the gospel so
plain and clear and delicious”. So I started to translate it after these
three sentences. Later on I just thought, “wait a minute, what is this
all about”? I stopped writing. I was reading. And then: Boom! I was
shocked! I took my bible and looked for all those verses…”It’s real!”,
I thought. I was on fire.
I called up my mom, she could not speak when I told her all. (since
then she is my companion and Greek-expert in this issue…) We have
studied this matter for hours daily. We are so happy to know all this.
But we have a lot of brethren, which are warning us to reject this idea,
but we love God and His Son (this is what they don’t know). There is a
lot more to tell, but not much time.
I’ve also listened to your sermons about the trinity issue, and I
was like paralyzed when I saw things clearer. I thank God for such
people like you! You’re doing a great job!
Please tell me if I can help with anything.
I’ve heard that you have some beautiful music. I’d be very thankful
for some tapes. Now, at the end of your sermon “Who is this God” there
is a marvelous group singing a beautiful song, I think it’s called “I
worship You, almighty God”. If you have this song or some more of
them… and please let me know how to pay.
And don’t forget: Ask me for some Tracts in German.
I would like to write you a lot more but I’m going to save it for the next mail.
God bless you!
Bavaria, Germany
I have read some of your “Open Face” papers and I would like to be
on your mailing list. I am thankful for your timely, spirit-filled
messages and presentations. Am enclosing a check to help you fund your
ministry.
Arizona, USA
I recently listened to your audio tape on “Relative Perfection.”
I’ve also read the article in Old Paths and watched the video on “The
Return of The Fourth Angel.” I praise the Lord for the wonderful light
He is shining on His people …What an awesome responsibility we have to
live up to! The report on your visit to Australia is educational and
heartening. The three missionary journeys this past year (Africa, Peru,
Australia) may well mark the beginning of God’s final message being
taken to the world.
Kansas, USA
I wanted to send you a letter of encouragement. I have been truly
blessed by your ministry. Especially “Who is Telling The Truth About
God” and most recently, your February newsletter. WOW! You blew me away!
I am now finally able to understand how someone can love God. He
demonstrated His love for us by giving up His only begotten Son. It’s so
simple my 5 year old and 4 year old children can understand it.
Florida, USA
One of the ladies that came to your meeting has really grasped the
message down here about the Trinity falsehood and has been sharing her
new found truth and doing wonders. A few people have accepted it because
of her work. …God bless and keep strong in the faith.
Tasmania, Australia
My husband and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
and all the others at Restoration Ministries for being such dedicated
servants of our Lord and for your diligence in spreading His message.
Our family has been blessed by the videos and newsletters produced with
the help of you and the brethren at Smyrna Gospel Ministries. It is
comforting to know that God has raised up so many caring people to share
the burden of fulfilling the desire for truth in those who hunger for
it.
USA
A friend of mine sent me your excellent newsletter and I would
appreciate being included in your database for future mailings.
New Zealand
I have read two of your articles entitled, “Which God,” and “The God
of The Bible,” which I’ve found to be masterpieces. I would like you to
send me some more information on the godhead, including the “Godhead
Package.” Please send me whatever information you can. Maybe you can
help me to really change from the life I am living, to the life that
pleases God.
St. Thomas, Jamaica
I wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your last newsletter
about the Laodicean ‘condition’. It is exactly what I feel has happened
to people in these churches, that they even rejoice in being asleep,
that grace will save them, and that He knows their hearts, blah,
blah…He knows our hearts, whether we were willing to obey Him and go
on in truth or just sit there and deny ourselves a chance to become more
like Him in obedience. Anyway, it was an excellent letter and I am
praying for you and your ministry. Let us know if you are ever in the
area. We’d love to have you stay sometime. Blessings on you!
Washington, USA
Thank you so much for sending the books by Colin Gyles. I really
liked the article from the internet, but books will be nice to share. I
gave one to my son the other day and he seemed interested because he has
felt something has been wrong in the church for some time.
Their daughter is getting baptized on the 20th of April and I have
such mixed feelings about this. I just don’t know what to suggest as we
don’t have a church! She is the one who told me she was
‘non-Trinitarian’ after I had the long talk with her about Jesus and God
and what their spirit was. It made sense to her and she got all
excited. But there is nothing to keep them focused. She is just a child
going to ‘our’ church schools and being taught error.
God must have a plan to shake up this church some way. Our leaders
are very much Trinitarian and the people really believe them. I have
decided to give a copy of the April ‘Old Paths’ to every minister in our
church. I’m going to ask that they preach on the Nature of God ‘from
the bible’. That we need to hear this subject talked about. You know
even after all these years, I have never heard a sermon on the Trinity.
If it is so important to them, why don’t they teach it! You get
statements in the Review and other church papers, and it is sometimes
discussed in the Sabbath schools, but they avoid it in the pulpit. No
wonder people don’t know what they believe. It is just always insinuated
that you believe it their way.
I’m just rambling. You are busy and I don’t want to take up your
time, but wanted to thank you for sending the books and I always
appreciate your sermons. God is blessing your work I know! We are
looking forward to seeing you again this next summer in West Virginia.
We have our plane tickets already, and God willing, we will be there.
Keep us in your prayers.
California, USA
Just was reading ‘OPEN FACE’ #24 and came across a discussion about
the Trinitarian Doctrine and maybe more than a discussion. What is all
this about? What is the Trinitarian Doctrine anyway? Would be pleased if
you could send info about this idea and the discussions that took
place. Any material available? Appreciated the lead article on
Laodicea. Sounds reasonable. Thanks
USA
We have appreciated and been greatly blessed by your presentations
on the Trinity issue since we first heard those first three cassette
tapes of yours.
The subject was first brought to our attention in about 1993 or ’94
by Caleb Alonzo our friend; and what an eye opener! We having been
raised SDA had never heard of these things! Thanks be our faith is
secure in God, so that hurt and disappointment in our church did not
shake our hold on Him, but for the first time it really hit us that the
church leadership was not to be put up on a pedestal in our minds.
We already knew about many things concerning that, but this new one sickened us BIG TIME!
We just praise God that there are a few brave men out there exposing
the lie in clear simple terminology. We are asking that you put us on
your Open Face mailing list.
Colorado, USA
I write to thank you for your article “Return of the 4th Angel”.
Praise God that he has given you such clear discernment of Church history, SOP and the Bible.
The article gave me much encouragement (in the face of so much
opposition). Just the other day I received correspondence from a dear
man (SDA), a man perhaps best described as a Bible scholar, who
basically said “I have enclosed for your urgent reading a study by one
of our Church’s best know authorities on the subject of the Godhead –
Leroy Froom”!!
Even our so called scholars are blinded by good old fashioned tradition!
Keep up the good work! We regularly uplift you in prayer.
God bless,
South Australia
Thank you very much for your newsletter. Again I must say that I was
paralysed as I was reading your article about Philadelphia and
Laodicea, just like the feeling I had when I read about the Trinity
issue. Its like being born again.
I thank our precious Father for giving us so much light about Him,
His glory and about our Laodicean state, so that we can break through
from Laodicea to Philadelphia with the power of Jesus Christ.
I found it fascinating, thus I translated it into German, for our
German brethren. Please put it on your Website for everyone.
Bavaria, Germany
Open Face is published bi-monthly and is sent free to all who desire to receive it.
David Clayton: Editor and Publisher
P. O. Box 23 Knockpatrick
Manchester, Jamaica W.I.
Phone: (876) 904-7392
email: david@restorationministry.com
