In this issue:
Metamorphosis
David Clayton
One hundred years ago when Ellen
White prophesied of the coming of a great apostasy within Seventh-day
Adventism, she declared that one of the hallmarks of this apostasy would
be that “books of a new order would be written.” And “a new system of
intellectual philosophy would be introduced.” (SM1-204) “The fundamental
principles which had sustained the work for the past fifty years (the
first fifty years of Adventism) would be accounted as error.” This
remarkable prophecy has been so strikingly fulfilled in the adopting of
the Trinity by the SDA church that it can only be willful blindness
which prevents Seventh-day Adventists from recognizing it.
Over the past decade strenuous efforts have been made by the SDA
church to promote the idea that God is a Trinity, and correspondingly to
downgrade the founders and pioneers of Adventism, promoting the idea
that they were relatively ignorant and naïve in matters of theology and
consequently embraced and promoted false ideas about God. The latest
fulfillment of Ellen White’s prophecy has been by way of the publication
of three new books promoting the Trinity.
Books of A New Order
The first of these books is entitled, Understanding the Trinity, and
was written by a retired Australian SDA minister named Max Hatton.
Hatton was at first a Jehovah’s Witness, but later, mostly because of
the doctrine of the Trinity, he rejected the teachings of the Witnesses.
Eventually he became a Seventh-day Adventist. His book was published in
the year 2001.
The second book is the Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology.
This book has been published as volume 12 of the Seventh-day Adventist
Bible Commentary series and contains a significant section dealing with
the issue of the Godhead. This book, of course, may be regarded as
defining the official position of the SDA church and was published in
the year 2001 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association.
The third book is entitled, The Trinity, and is co-authored by Woodrow
Whidden, Jerry Moon and John Reeve, all notable Seventh-day Adventist
theologians. It is a fairly large book of 288 pages and is entirely
dedicated to the subject of the Trinity. This is the latest book of the
three and was published in the year 2002 by the Review and Herald
Publishing Association.
It is significant, that one of the purposes of these books had been to
attempt to turn back the growing tide of Anti-Trinitarianism within
Adventism. In the introduction of the latest book, “The Trinity,” it
states,
…The greater surprise in my life and ministry has not been so much in
dealing with zealous Jehovah’s Witnesses on the Trinity – rather, it is
now having to meet essentially the same anti-Trinitarian arguments
coming from fellow Seventh-day Adventists. And they are raising this
issue with an intensity not too far removed from the zeal of the
Watchtower representatives.
…new challenges to the doctrine of the Trinity have arisen both from
inside and outside of Adventism. Various reports and observations
suggest that my own personal experience with this issue fairly reflects
the current situation.
…Not only are there increasing reports of pockets of anti-Trinitarian
revival in various regions across North America, but via the Internet
its influence has spread around the world. As this grassroots Arian or
anti-Trinitarian movement gains ground, local churches increasingly find
themselves drawn into debate over the issues. – The Trinity, by Woodrow
Whidden, Jerry Moon, John Reeve, p.7-9
In the same book it suggests that there has been confusion within the
ranks of Adventism on the subject of the Trinity and suggests that this
is due to the fact that there has been little discussion of the subject.
Confusion
There can be no denial of the fact the Seventh-day Adventists, having
rejected their heritage have become quite confused on the subject of
God, as the following quote from the Collegiate Quarterly will
demonstrate. The Collegiate Quarterly is the study guide used by SDA
young people in Adventist Colleges and Universities.
“Recently, I was having a biblical discussion with a group of Adventist
and non-Adventist friends, during which the following question was
raised. It caused me to reflect, “What do Adventists believe about the
trinity?” Immediately, a Sunday worshiper said the word trinity cannot
be found in the Bible. All the Adventists conceded. One answered that
there is one God, one being with three personalities, meaning that God
the Father has a kind of split personality.
Another Adventist answered that God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit are all equal in power and in thought. A third Adventist
said that when we get to heaven we will see God the Father and Jesus
Christ, but the Holy Spirit will not be in evidence because there would
no longer be a need for Him. A fourth said that all three Gods exist,
but God the Father is most powerful, Jesus less powerful, and the Holy
Spirit the least powerful. Finally, a fifth Adventist said that the
Father is God, but Jesus Christ is not God.
Understandably, my non-Adventist friends were confused. “How could
five people from the same church have such different opinions about
God?” they asked. A Jewish friend remarked, “that means every time
Adventists pray, some are praying to one God and some are praying to
many Gods.” “Your church sounds like confusion,” a Muslim interjected.
This incident troubled me for the entire week. I had always believed
in the Trinity as stated in The Twenty-Seven Fundamental Beliefs of
Seventh-day Adventists, so it never occurred to me that some Adventists
believed otherwise.
The following Sabbath, I went to church and asked various people their
belief about the Trinity. Amazingly, I received radically different
opinions. It seems clear that we do not know what we believe.
If Adventists cannot agree on one of our fundamental beliefs, how can
we then go “into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature?” “Go ye into all the world” is a divine commission. To carry
out that commission successfully, we must have unity of purpose and a
common message. This requires a thorough knowledge of what we believe
and a sound understanding of God’s word. God’s church must know what it
believes and what it stands for. – Collegiate Quarterly, January – March
1999, p.113 (“The Three Gods”)
For many decades the average Adventist has had to struggle with the
fact that, while the church claimed to believe in the Trinity, both the
Bible and the writings of Ellen White presented glaring contradictions
to the concept of a Trinity. Unlike the members of most other churches,
Seventh-day Adventists by and large pay more attention to serious Bible
Study and as a result are more aware of the plain Bible teaching that
God is a single individual, who has a Son, begotten in His express
image. An attempt to harmonize these Bible teachings with the
Trinitarian declarations of the church has resulted in a confused state
of things in Adventism where there are widely differing ideas about God,
with most Seventh-day Adventists not quite sure of exactly what to
believe. Many take refuge behind the statement that God is an
“inexplicable mystery.”
The Truth Is Important
No thinking person can deny that the doctrine of God is most important. Noted SDA Theologian Raoul Dederen has stated,
. . . .If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, then those who deny it
do not worship the God of the Scriptures. If it is false, the
Trinitarians, by paying divine honor to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,
are equally guilty of idolatry. – Doctrine of The Trinity, Raoul
Dederen, p.1
Similar sentiments have been echoed by the writers of the Handbook of SDA Theology and The Trinity.
…. The doctrine of the Trinity (is), at the very center of the
doctrine of God in particular and of Christian theology in general…. –
Handbook of SDA Theology, p.120
We are convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity is not just a minor
quibble over some peripheral doctrine or dubious moral issue. The truth
contained in this profound doctrine forms the essential basis for the
very heart of what is unique to Christianity. Out of our insights to the
Trinity emerges our very understanding of the greatest of all biblical
notions – God is love. – The Trinity, by Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon,
John Reeve, p.279
These books represent an attempt by the SDA church to come to grips
with the confusion in its ranks and to take a definitive position which
may be accepted as the official stand of Adventism on the subject of
God.
I suppose that with the publication of these books we may consider all
previous positions taken by the SDA church as null and void. This is
quite interesting. As recently as 1996 the following statement appeared
in the Adventist Review:
A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three
Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally.
In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore
harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into,
the role of the Father, another the role of the Son. The remaining
divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the
plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion
transpired in heaven.
By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost
none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and
other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan
of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son
to the Father.”– Gordon Jensen: Adventist Review, October 31, 1996,
p.12 (Week of Prayer readings)
After reading this, one could be excused for believing that the SDA
church taught tritheism, the belief in three individual Gods. Four years
later, however, Max Hatton makes a statement in his book condemning the
statement made by Gordon Jensen in the Review, and inadvertently
accusing his church of teaching paganism.
Tri-theism results from an overemphasis on the three ness. It results
really in there being three completely separate persons or Gods. This is
really Polytheism (which really is Paganism). – Understanding The
Trinity – Max Hatton, p.135
The attempt to settle the confusion in the ranks of Adventism is
commendable, but the trend taken in these books is disappointing and in a
way frightening.
An examination of the teachings of these books reveal that Adventism
is attempting to come up with a concept of God which will allow it to
maintain the word “Trinity,” while escaping the accusation of having
embraced Roman Catholicism. In this way it aims to maintain its status
among its evangelical friends as a proper “Christian” church, while
satisfying its members that it is not walking in the steps of
Catholicism.
Orthodox Trinitarianism
In order for us to properly appreciate the position being presently
taken by Adventism, it is necessary for us to first properly understand
the teachings of the Orthodox (the Catholic) Trinity. The concept of God
which is embraced and taught by the vast majority of Christian
denominations. The classical definition of this Trinity is the
Athanasian creed which reads in part, as follows:
Whoever wishes to be saved
Before all things It is necessary that he hold the catholic faith,
which faith, if anyone does not keep it whole and unharmed, without
doubt he will perish everlastingly.
Now the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons not dividing the
divine Being.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
of the Holy Spirit, but the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit is all one, their glory equal, their majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit:
the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated and the Holy Spirit uncreated,
the Father infinite, the Son infinite and the Holy Spirit infinite, the
Father eternal, the Son eternal and the Holy Spirit eternal; and yet
they are not three Eternals but one Eternal, just as they are not three
Uncreated, not three Infinites, but one Uncreated and one Infinite.
In the same way the Father is almighty, the Son almighty and the Holy
Spirit almighty, and yet they are not three Almighties but one Almighty.
Thus, the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.
Thus, the Father is the Lord, the Son is the Lord and the Holy Spirit is the Lord, and yet not three Lords but one Lord.
Because just as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each
Person singly to be both God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the
catholic religion to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is from none, not made nor created nor begotten; the Son is
from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten; the Holy
Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor
begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this Trinity there is no before or after, no greater or less,
but all three Persons are co-eternal with each other and co-equal.
So that in all things, as has already been said, the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, is to be worshipped.
He therefore who wishes to be saved let him think thus of the Trinity.
Max Hatton, the retired Australian Minister is in agreement with the
Athanasian creed and comments that “This formula has served Christians
well for over two millennia.” He adds, however, that “the assertion that
the Son is begotten would hardly be included if the statement was made
today.” This is an interesting comment which we will say more on later.
Incidentally however, it is a false comment. The institution which first
formulated the Athanasian creed, the Roman Catholic Church, still
believes in a Son who is “Eternally Begotten” as the following comment
from Pope John Paul II demonstrates:
“At today’s general audience held in St. Peter’s Square, the Pope spoke
on “Jesus’ Relationship With His Father, Revelation of the Trinitarian
Mystery.”
John Paul II said that the “essential union” between Jesus and the
Father not only concerns the activity of the Son “but also that which
qualifies his being.”
“The Father is he who in the life of the Trinity is the absolute
principle, he who has no beginning and from whom divine life emanates.”
As the Lateran Council states: “It is the Father who generates, the Son
who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds” from both of them. –
Vatican Information Service, March 10, 1999
Let us bear in mind that when the Roman Catholic Church speaks of
Christ being begotten, they mean something very different from what the
term normally means. They believe He is “eternally begotten,” Whatever
this means. At the same time, they teach that the Father was not before
Him, nor is the Father greater than He is. So we should not make the
mistake of believing that because they use the term “begotten,” the
Roman Catholic Church really believes that Jesus is the Son of God in
the true sense of the word.
The following quotations taken from a Trinitarian web-site give us a
fairly good idea of what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches and sets
the stage for a better understanding of what Seventh-day Adventism is
now advocating.
“There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there
are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but
distinct in subsistence.
“The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in
essence or substance, but three in personality. This does not mean three
independent Gods existing as one, but three Persons who are co-equal,
co-eternal, inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one
absolute Divine essence and Being.
“The three Persons are the same in substance, i.e., in essence or in
their essential nature, but distinct in subsistence which describes
God’s mode or quality of existence in three Persons. By mode of
existence we do not mean one God acting in three different ways, but one
Divine Being existing in three distinct Persons within one Divine
Substance or Essence. Again, this is not exactly three individuals as we
think of three personal individuals, but one Divine Being who acts and
thinks as one within a three-fold personality. This is incomprehensible
to our finite and limited minds, but it is the teaching of the
Scripture. “In the Being of God there are not three individuals, but
only three personal self distinctions within the one Divine Essence.”
“. . . .When we say that God is a Unity we mean that, though God is in
himself a threefold center of life, his life is not split into three. He
is one in essence, in personality and in will. – The Trinity
(Tri-unity) of God, by J. Hampton Keathley III (www.bible.org)
A 190 degree turn
From a position where the earlier Seventh-day Adventists utterly
rejected the doctrine of the Trinity as “pagan” and “Catholic”, the SDA
denomination has gone through a process of evolution where it finally,
in essence, promotes this most Roman Catholic of Roman Catholic
doctrines with very little variation from the Roman Catholic concept.
You may judge for yourself whether this statement is true by reading the
following quotes from Adventism’s latest books on the Trinity.
….When we think of the three persons of the Trinity we are likely to
think of them as we would three human persons. That is three persons of
the same sort of substance (essence). But because there is only One God,
the three persons must be of the same substance (essence). Three human
persons would be exclusive – independent of one another. The three
persons of the Trinity, however, must be inclusive and not independent
of one another. Because there is but one true God, by nature we have to
conclude that He is plural as to persons but single as to substance. –
Understanding The Trinity – Max Hatton, p. 19-20
….At times “oneness” can involve the meaning of unity (i.e., John
10:30; 17:21,23). However, if the “oneness” expressed in these texts is
conceived only as a gathering of independent “onenesses” that come
together in order to form a unity, the specific singleness
characteristic of the one Godhead to which they testify is dissolved
into a plurality of gods….In other words, since the God of the Bible
is one and not many, all the various revelations about Him presented
throughout the Bible refer to the same, one divine reality and not to a
plurality of divine beings. – Handbook of SDA Theology – p.121
Adventists are new to the Trinitarian world and use their terms
carelessly in a way that long-standing Trinitarians don’t. For example
Whidden, Moon and Reeve sometimes use the words “person” and “being”
interchangeably. Something a knowledgeable Trinitarian would not do.
“Person” as applied to God indicates a being with personality,
intellect, and will. Unlike the multiple gods of polytheism, the three
persons of the biblical Godhead are profoundly united in purpose, mind,
and character, to that despite Their individuality, they are never
divided, never in conflict, and thus constitute not three gods, but one
God. – The Trinity, by Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, John Reeve, p.192
Because of this imprecise use of terms, it is at times a little
uncertain as to exactly what Whidden, Moon and Reeve are promoting. Do
they believe in one Being or substance made up of three “persons” or
“hypostases”, or, do they believe in three individual Beings who are one
in the sense that they are identical in every respect and in full
harmony and agreement on all things? Do they believe in Trinitarianism,
or do they believe in Tritheism? The following quotes from their book
illustrate the basis for this uncertainty. Whether deliberately or
carelessly, they are not very precise in defining their concept of God
as the following quotes illustrate.
The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Godhead consists of three divine
Persons – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are not three Gods, but
three divine Persons who are one in nature (same essence or substance),
character and purpose. Each has eternally pre-existed – that is, there
has never been a time in eternity past when they did not coexist, and
there will never be a time when They will cease to exist.
While the three divine Persons are one, They have taken different
roles or positions in the Godhead’s work of creation, redemption, and
the loving administration of the universe. The Father has assumed
overall leadership, the Son has subordinated Himself to the leadership
of the Father, and the Spirit is voluntarily subordinate to both the
Father and the Son. – The Trinity, by Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, John
Reeve, p.243
Here it says that there are not three Gods, but three persons who are
of the same (not similar) substance, made up of three persons. Earlier,
however, in the same book the following statement appears:
…as Jesus formally begins His public ministry of redemption, all three
members of the Heavenly Trio are present. The newly baptized Jesus
stands on the banks of the Jordan, the Spirit descends on Him like a
dove, and the Father audibly speaks words of divine approval and
identity from heaven. This scene powerfully portrays the oneness of
purpose held by the Godhead. Furthermore, it clearly evidences the
distinctness of each divine being. Matthew does not present the Spirit
and the Son as simply different manifestations or personifications of
the Father, but as distinct personalities in concert with the Father.
Yet They give every appearance of oneness in purpose and character as
They focus on the redemptive mission of the Son. – The Trinity, by
Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, John Reeve, p.32, 33
“It clearly evidences the distinctness of each divine being” here we are
told that there are three divine beings!! These beings are one in
“purpose and character.”
Which is it? Is it one being or are there three beings? As we can see,
there is good reason for the confusion which exists within Adventism on
the subject of the Godhead. The same confusion results when seeking
answers from the Handbook of SDA Theology. On page 121 of this book we
read:
….At times “oneness” can involve the meaning of unity (i.e., John
10:30; 17:21,23). However, if the “oneness” expressed in these texts is
conceived only as a gathering of independent “onenesses” that come
together in order to form a unity, the specific singleness
characteristic of the one Godhead to which they testify is dissolved
into a plurality of gods….In other words, since the God of the Bible
is one and not many, all the various revelations about Him presented
throughout the Bible refer to the same, one divine reality and not to a
plurality of divine beings. – Handbook of SDA Theology – p.121
“Here we see a clear teaching that God does not consist of three
separate beings. He is not made up of three “independent onenesses.”
This would result in a “plurality of gods.” “All the various
revelations…. refer….not to a plurality of divine beings.” It is
stated clearly. God is one “reality, not several “beings.” A few pages
later, however, we find a statement contradicting this one.
….The reality of divine forsakenness is possible only when the one
God is understood in His biblical, Trinitarian structure, which involves
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as divine, personal, conscious beings,
mutually interacting among themselves and with the created universe. –
Handbook of SDA Theology – p.127
It is clear that the SDA Church is going through a metamorphosis with
respect to its teaching about God. What is also clear is that each step
brings it closer and closer into harmony with Rome and her daughters. We
can only sympathize with the poor church members who have committed
themselves wholeheartedly to following the “church,” wherever and
however it leads. It seems that are destined to become even more
confused, with no hope of a reprieve on the horizon.
We will say more about these new books in future publications.
From My Vantage Point
By W. A. Sutherland
“This know also, that in the last
days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own
selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,
unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false
accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of
God”. 1 Timothy 3: 1-4
These verses speak directly to my experience. My occupation as a
public school teacher has afforded me a “sneak preview” into the future
and if I should join with the popular belief that “children are our
future” and if it is fair to judge what the future will be from my
present experience with the average young person, then brace yourselves,
because the future looks extremely dim.
Many of my colleagues have expressed the conviction, that their duty
is to teach, and that teaching the academic subjects is the only way in
which they will be involved with the programmes of their respective
schools. What is it that has compelled them to adopt such an
attitude? The experiences of teachers in many places today in attempting
to correct or discipline students has been so frightening that a
significant number of my colleagues have decided that the best way to
deal with the situation is to avoid any situation with students which
could be confrontational.
On one occasion, one teacher seeking to encourage some students to
return to their classes, just after their lunch break, poured water on
the area where they were seated and was in turn doused with water by one
of the students. Another teacher, attempting to enforce a school rule,
took a knife from a student, but shortly afterwards had to seek refuge
when the student armed himself with a pair of scissors and came looking
for the teacher.
These are some of the milder experiences which some teachers are
facing and these are not unique to this institution. Friends of mine
from many other schools have shared similar experiences with me. The
electronic and print media have in recent times broadcast many cases of
violence in schools between students and students, between students and
ancillary workers, as well as between students and teachers.
What is frightening is the frequency with which such incidences occur.
The average school today at almost any level is no longer a place where
you can send your children with the assurance that they will be safe.
In fact teachers themselves might be excused in approaching each days
work with the attitude of one whose occupation is risky and hazardous to
life.
Many reason that the present condition of our Education System and the
state of our world is nothing new. Many deceive themselves with the
illusion that our present conditions will improve, while we live in the
presence of sin. They are failing to recognize the facts. From my
vantage point, I am forced to conclude that, barring the intervention of
God, the future is bleak. Things are not improving, but worsening
rapidly each day.
From my vantage point, there is little joy and almost no hope. As we
contemplate these things, let us consider the words of Him who foresaw
it all:
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up
your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. (Luke 21:28)
A Theological disaster
From time to time we receive
requests to publish articles with which we may not agree 100 %. It is
not our general policy to promote what we believe to be error. However
we are willing at times to publish some articles with which we may not
agree, under the following conditions:
1. The article will be immediately followed by an article of our own
which will point out and comment on the errors which we perceive to be
in the article.
2. The article must not exceed 1000 words. We reserve the right to
reject or edit any articles which exceed the stated limit.
3. There is no guarantee that any particular article will be published.
4. The name of the author must accompany the article and will also be published.
5. There will be no guarantee that follow-up articles by the same author will be published.
This may not seem like a very favorable policy to those who may
disagree with us. However, it is the only basis on which we will agree
to publish articles which may contradict what we believe to be the
truth.
The following letter was written by P.D. Clayton, a very close
relative of mine. He has appealed to my interest in “vindicating truth”
as the basis for a request that the letter be published. We do not agree
with much of what he has written and our reply follows immediately
after his letter.
We have numbered the paragraphs of his letter for easy reference and
in our response will make reference to these paragraphs by number.
A Theological Disaster
by P.D. Clayton
1 Your lead article, “The
Certainty of Adventism,” published in the October issue of “Open Face,”
must have been targeted to a captive audience or you could not have
advanced so many assumptions as facts in trying to validate the SDA
doctrine of an investigative judgment begun in 1844.
2 It is my hope that your Christian interest in vindicating truth will permit your publishing the following comments.
3 It would be wrong to suggest that only those who deny the
possibility of Christian perfection reject the SDA formula for its
accomplishment. It is clear from the Hebrew religious calendar which you
cited that an end-time union of God with His Church was pre-figured in
the Day of Atonement on each tenth day of the seventh month. But it must
be remembered that many dramatic events ensued between Pentecost and
the feast of trumpets and which were not foreshadowed on the Jewish
religious chart. The dynamic apostolic movement that electrified the
world with the gospel of the risen Christ, and the liberating surge of
the Reformation wave across the enslavement of Rome both rose at God’s
command and played their respective parts in shaping the Church for the
work of final atonement. Daniel 7, Daniel 8 and Revelation 12 speak more
precisely about those times and it is unsafe to ignore God’s hand in
the up rise of these lighthouses or the lessons to be learned from their
downfall.
4 Seventh-day Adventism – with some justification I think–lays claims
to divine origins. And a careful study of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14
strongly suggests that a strong reformatory movement would focus on the
year 1844. The fact is, however, that though independent Bible
interpreters like Irving in England drew attention to the noteworthiness
of that year, William Miller and a large North American discipleship
put a theory on its significance eventually resulting in the Great
Disappointment of October 22, 1844.
5 Survivors of this disaster – subsequently named Seventh-day
Adventists – chose to accept Miller’s module for their revised sanctuary
version fabricating around it the doctrine of the Investigative
Judgment. Unlike you, I think that the movement thus departed from,
rather than establishing its mission of cleansing (restoring,
rededicating) the sanctuary which had been cast down by the diabolical
little horn of Daniel 8.
6 My humble view is that this departure with its strong emphasis on
man’s works (his records) being arraigned was partly what God tried to
rebuke through the witness of Waggoner and Jones in 1888.
7 I find it somewhat disappointing that you should imply that the
mention of earthly sanctuary furniture in John’s glimpses of heavenly
activity proves their duplicate presence there, and thus, the sanctuary
which houses them. It was after John had obeyed the summons to “come up
hither,” to be shown things that would be hereafter that he saw the four
living creatures with animal heads; were they representative or real?
John saw a lamb take the book from the Being on the throne; he saw a
lamb on Mount Zion with 144,000, but we are left to infer whom the lamb
represented in each case. Regarding eh symbolic significance of these
seemingly heavenly duplicates the prophet himself gave a clear guideline
when he wrote in Revelation 4:5, “and out of the throne proceeded
lightning and thundering and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire
burning before the throne, which are the seven spirits of God.”
8 In the same way that the seven golden candlesticks of the earthly
sanctuary had a dissimilar spiritual reality in heaven, so must the ark
of the testimony, then altar, the censer and incense, event the temple
itself – with which John was quite familiar – represent eternal
establishments and issues which the earthly sanctuary could only faintly
foreshadow.
9 I have heard it strongly urged that heaven is a real place, real
there meaning tangible, as we understand it; but let me ask this; how
real is the hell in which the demonic hosts dwell, and where is it
located? How real are the chains with which rebellious angels are bound
in darkness? (2 Peter 2:4). We need to exercise care in making pragmatic
assertions about spiritual things seeing that inspiration speaks of
abstract virtues this way;
10 “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” (1 Cor. 13:13)
11 The Investigative Judgment message as proclaimed by the SDA
pioneers depended on the veracity of the cleansing of a heavenly
sanctuary closely modeled after the ancient Hebrew sanctuary and its
ritual.
12 But even if this modeling had the clear backing of Scripture, the
brethren launched the doctrine on some real inaccuracies. The pioneers
taught that when someone sinned in the ancient Hebrew community, that
person took a sin offering (usually a lamb) to the door of the
tabernacle and confessed sin on its head after which the animal was
killed and its blood taken into the Holy Place where it was sprinkled at
the foot of the veil separating the two apartments of the sanctuary.
The symbolism of this, according to the brethren, was that sin was
transferred from the individual to the animal and through its blood to
the sanctuary. At that point the sinner was reprieved, but his sin
remained where it was deposited, in the first apartment. It was his
accumulated sin which was ceremonially purged on the day of atonement.
13 Well, according to the Scriptures there was only one case in which
blood from the sin offering of the individual sinner was taken into the
sanctuary; that was where the offender was a priest. In the cases of the
“common people,” and the “rulers” or tribal elders who constituted the
bulk of the congregation of Israel, all the blood from their sacrifices
was poured out at the foot of the brazen altar or altar of burnt
offering, and forgiveness was obtained on the instant – see Leviticus
4:3-35. It will be observed that blood was also sprinkled in the holy
place following the appropriate sacrifice for corporate sins of the
community.
14 I have elsewhere advanced my opinion of why blood was sprinkled in
the sanctuary on behalf of the erring priest or the congregation as a
whole. I will not abuse your indulgence by going into that now. Suffice
it to say that if the symbolic sacrificial blood did in fact carry sin,
the bulk of Israel’s transgressions did not contaminate the sanctuary at
all.
15 The beliefs of the pioneers were however even more erroneously
tilted when they implied sin’s pollution in the blood of the animal
sacrificed. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) so that when in
symbol the animal vicariously died for the sinner, it incurred no
further stigma. On the contrary, its innocent uncontaminated blood
(representative of its life flow) became an instrument of cleansing and
atonement – see Lev. 17:11. IT should never be forgotten that all animal
sacrifices foreshadowed Jesus the supreme and ultimate sacrifice of
heaven and that although He was made sin for us, iniquity could not
touch, much less contaminate His inviolate character or tarnish His
spotless blood. The blood, whether poured out fully at the foot of the
brazen altar (representing Calvary) of part sprinkled before the veil,
atoned for sin and obtained for man the mercy of God. So obviously since
there was no sin accumulated, there could have been no spiritual spring
cleaning on the day of atonement.
16 Why then this supremely important and solemn day? You have
suggested that by floodlighting the Day of Atonement (Judgment hour)
pioneer SDAs called attention to the ideal of character perfection to be
attained by the remnant church. I suggest that it unwittingly did the
very opposite. By choosing the earthly sanctuary it adopted a temporary
(“imposed until the time of reformation.” – Heb. 9:10) institution
supported by an imperfect structure (animal sacrifices, human
functionaries, localized shrines) “which could not make him that did the
service perfect as pertaining to the conscience. (Heb. 9:9)
17 But the imperfection went deeper than that. Merely spiritualizing
the sacrifice, the leadership and the scope of sanctuary worship would
not redress a system which was a teaching aid to illustrate the coming
salvation in Jesus (our schoolmaster) to bring us to Christ – Gal.
3:24), and not a ritual blueprint of God’s way in the heavens.
18 Read how Paul emphasizes this in his letter to the Hebrew Christians.
19 “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for
under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that
another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be
called after the order of Aaron? (12) For the priesthood being changed,
there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb 7:11-12)
20 The brazen altar on which the sin offering was killed clearly
represented Calvary. The Holy Place – also called the “tabernacle of the
congregation” – represented the daily atonement made for mans inherent
sinfulness, through the merits of Calvary’s sacrifice (accepted by
faith). But the “holiest” represented a spiritual attainment of
perfection unavailable under the Levitical priesthood. Paul wrote in
Hebrews 921 :7,8:
21 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not
without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the
people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of
all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet
standing: (Heb 9:7-8) (Please read the NIV for greater clarity)
22 It seems clear that with the passing of the first covenant there
ended also the earthly sanctuary, its Levitical priesthood and its
ritual laws (see Heb. 9:1-7), and in its place was inaugurated the new
covenant (Heb. 8:10-13) with a new priesthood (Hebrews 8:1,2,6) able to
take us into the perfection of character which the
Melchizedec King-priest alone can accomplish.
23 You might want to wonder like me, David, whether the atonement made
first for the holiest on the Day of Atonement could not also represent
the at-one-ment made in the heavens when Satanic forces were cast out on
the death of our Lord. The atonement for the tabernacle of the
congregation and for Calvary’s completed work is still continuing till
Jesus shall purge the remnant from affinity to sin, God’s ultimate
purpose and supreme mystery. (Eph. 1:9,10)
24 It does seem significant that Satan who began with disruption in
heaven (the Sanctum Sanctorum) is finally saddled with the onus of guilt
after the final atonement is made.
25 Closing points to ponder could include:
a. The fact that only the living were completely cleansed on the Day
of Atonement, although the sin offering was sufficient for those who
went before.
b. The fact that the high priest was completely responsible for the
soul cleansing of that portentous day. The soul affliction of the King
James version is called self-denial in the NIV and seems to speak of
surrender in its most unprecedented form.
26. Keep listening to the voice of God, however unworthy His chosen messenger may seem.
Our response
It is a pity that the so-called
“assumptions” made in defense of an investigative judgment begun in 1844
were not specifically mentioned (1). Upon reviewing the article in
question I find no mention made of the year 1844 (the author evidently
made the assumption that I was defending this date). Rather, the last
section of the article shows by comparing Daniel 7 and Revelation 4-11
that both passages are speaking of the same event which is a pre-advent
Investigative Judgment. One hardly needs to make assumptions when the
facts speak so clearly and unmistakably. It is interesting that those
who deny a pre-advent investigative judgment are quick to condemn the
interpretation taken by Adventists of Daniel 7:9, 10, but have no
alternative interpretation which even begins to make a little sense.
Some have suggested that it refers to the-great-white-throne judgment of
Revelation 20, but even the most superficial reader should realize that
such an interpretation completely ignores the sequence and context of
the passage.
The writer of this letter, P.D. Clayton, concedes somewhat
reluctantly that Adventism has some justification for its claims to
divine origins (4), and even goes so far as to admit that Daniel 8:14
indicated the rise of a “strong reformatory movement” in 1844. He then
goes on, however, to label the same Advent movement which was of “divine
origins” as being the survivors of a theologically founded “disaster”
which was guilty of fabricating the main doctrine around which the
movement centered. He then concluded that the embryonic movement, just
in the process of making a beginning, departed from its mission by
“fabricating” this doctrine. We should remember that the whole force of
that reformatory movement in the 1830s – 40s stemmed from the strong
belief of those involved in it that they were getting ready to meet the
Lord – a belief which was based on their interpretation of Daniel 8:14.
If they were so totally deluded and departed from their mission from the
very inception of the movement, then I am left mystified, wondering
where the “divine origins” of such a movement can be found.
We know that the famous Minneapolis General Conference held in 1888
was intended, among other things to focus the SDA movement on faith
rather than works, but the further suggestion that God was indirectly
rebuking the doctrine of the investigative judgment (6), is another
example of wishful thinking and unfounded assumption as there is not the
slightest evidence to support such a theory.
How Real is heaven
Mr. Clayton then goes on to suggest that because some things seen in
heaven are clearly symbolic, then the sanctuary and its furnishings seen
in heaven must also be symbolic. He totally ignores the fact that many
of the things seen there are unquestionably real and to be taken
literally such as the angels, the throne of God, etc. Or shall we
spiritualize these away as symbols as well? While it is true that some
things are clearly symbols, it is equally true that others are actually
the way they are represented. The context and the sense of the passage
must determine for us which is which.
Revelation, a book of symbols, speaks of a heavenly sanctuary and its
furniture. Are these literal things, or are they symbols of something
else. The letter to the Hebrews, which is not a book of symbols, but
rather, a book which explains types and symbols, states quite plainly
that there is a heavenly sanctuary, the “true” tabernacle which was
pitched by the Lord and not man. The apostle Paul makes it clear that it
was his understanding that Moses was given a pattern of the heavenly
sanctuary as the blueprint upon which he was to base the construction of
the earthly. (see Heb. 8:5) We may question whether Paul was correct in
coming to this conclusion, but no reasonable person can deny that this
is the point he is attempting to make here. We can be certain that Paul
also believed in a literal heavenly sanctuary.
When he was taken into heaven in vision, John saw there a temple, an
altar of incense, a censer, as well as the ark of the Testament. What do
these things represent? One person says, “John says he saw them, so I
believe they are there.” Another person says, “John says he saw them but
I don’t believe they are there.” Which of these persons has more
justification for his conclusion? We are not suggesting that the
sanctuary in heaven and its furniture are exact replicas of what existed
in the Hebrew sanctuary. However, it should be obvious to the honest
reader that the fact that John saw these things in heaven must mean that
there is a heavenly equivalent for each item which existed on earth.
The Lamb was a symbol, but a symbol of a real person, Jesus Christ. The
seven lamps of fire are symbols, but symbols of something real—the Holy
Spirit. The four living creatures probably do not really have the faces
of eagle, calf, man and lion, but they represent real beings
nevertheless. In the same way, the temple, the ark, the altar, the
censer etc. all represent real things which have some practical
function.
What do they represent? What are their functions? These are the
questions which Adventism has answered in making heaven a real place
instead of an airy-fairy theory, and its functions real events rather
than philosophical fancies. As the writer of the letter stated, these
things represent “eternal establishments … which the earthly sanctuary
could only faintly foreshadow.” What is interesting is the fact that
those who reject the conclusions of Adventism do not usually have any
explanations as to what each of these things represent—they pooh; pooh
the interpretations of Adventism, but have none of their own to offer.
Our letter writer compares the realities of heaven with the “chains”
which bind rebellious angels, and the realities of faith, hope and
charity (9, 10). Is he saying that heaven is just an abstract principle?
A figurative place?
Faith hope and charity are not virtues which are limited to the world
to come. They are realities which we experience here and now in this
world and in this life. Does this mean that we do not live in a “real”
tangible world? Why then does the fact that heaven is filled with faith
hope and charity indicate that it is not a tangible place?
It is not accurate to say that the doctrine of the Investigative
Judgment depended on the understanding of the cleansing of a heavenly
sanctuary modeled after the ancient Hebrew sanctuary (11). It is true
that the Adventist pioneers used the Hebrew sanctuary as their starting
point in understanding and defining the doctrine because of their
perception that Daniel 8:14 pointed to this event. However, one may
ignore Daniel 8:14 and the Levitical sanctuary completely and still find
the doctrine of the end-time Investigative Judgment taught many places
in scripture. (Dan 7:9,10; Rev. 4-8: Matt. 22:8-14; Matt. 25:31-46 Etc.)
Sin Transferred to Heaven?
A great deal has been made of the fact that the pioneers suggested
that the blood of the sacrificed animal was taken into the sanctuary,
when in actual fact, the blood was in most cases poured out at the foot
of the altar (13). Let us not forget though, that in those cases where
blood was not taken into the sanctuary the priest had to partake of the
flesh of the animal, thereby in himself fulfilling the function of the
transferred blood as he went in and out of the sanctuary.
Those who object to the teachings of Adventism shrink back in horror
at the suggestion that the blood, or the flesh of the slain animal
(representing the flesh and blood of Christ) was a medium for
transferring sin to the sanctuary as suggested by the early Adventists
(15). But let us think for a moment: did the early Adventists really
believe that sin itself was transferred to heaven? What is sin? Can it
exist without a medium in which to operate? Is it something like dirt,
or germs? What did the early Adventists mean by stating that by means of
the blood of the sacrifice sin was transferred to the sanctuary? Does
not the doctrine of the investigative judgment clearly demonstrate what
they meant? When they said that sins were to be blotted from the
heavenly sanctuary they meant the RECORD of sin, not sin itself!!! This
is really quite simple. It is difficult to see how one can misunderstand
their meaning. They were simply saying that by means of Christ’s
sacrifice, by means of His flesh and blood, as we are in Him, our sinful
records are transferred to heaven, there to be dealt with in the
heavenly sanctuary.
Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. (1 Tim 5:24)
By what means does it become possible for our sins (sinful records) to
be dealt with in heaven? It is by means of the blood of Christ!! He
takes my name on his lips, my sinful record is dealt with in the
heavenly sanctuary because I have confessed my sins in His name. This is
all they meant. No more, no less.
Real Events
I find it mystifying that our letter-writer should claim that the
early Adventists chose the earthly sanctuary (rather than the
heavenly[16]). They did no more and no less than did the writers of the
books of Hebrews and Revelation. What they did was conclude that every
event in the Hebrew sanctuary had a meaning, that each ritual, service,
piece of furniture had an equivalent heavenly reality, much greater in
scope than the earthly tabernacle. They examined each event, each
implement and sought for its greater meaning, believing that in each
event God had encapsulated some vital clues to give us an understanding
of heavenly realities.
Those who object to Adventism’s interpretations have a much more vague
view of these things. They agree of course that they all represent
heavenly realities, but what heavenly realities? “Oh,” they say, “the
ways of salvation, the glories of redemption etc.” but there is nothing
you can come to grips with no concept of events of which the imagination
can take hold.
A man and his wife go to a soccer match. When it is over, the man can
describe every goal, every dribble, every shot that was made. He felt
the tension, the drama, he understands and can relate the plays and the
build up which led to each goal, the ebb and flow of the game, the
tactics which eventually led to one side winning and the other losing.
His wife on the other hand may say, “well, it was interesting. There was
a lot of running around. I think the red side won and the blue side
lost.”
This illustrates the difference between Adventism and other Christian
groups. Many recognize that something is going on and that the stakes
are high. In some vague way they realize that something is happening in
heaven. But what, they don’t know. They say, “Jesus is getting ready to
perfect His people.” But how? How is he “getting ready?” is he sitting,
standing, walking, talking? What is He doing? Adventism found an answer
to these questions in the types established by God in the services of
the earthly sanctuary.
The earthly priesthood could never make us perfect. It dealt only with
types, figures, symbols. The new covenant priesthood, however, deals
with the real things. As these REAL events take place, God and heaven
accomplishes the work of saving and perfecting the people of God.
On the typical day of atonement, an atonement was made for the holiest
place. Our writer suggests that this took place at the time of the
death of Christ (AD 31 [23]). In making this suggestion he completely
ignores the chronological sequence of the day of atonement in the Hebrew
calendar. He ignores the fact that the day of atonement was after the
Passover, after Pentecost, after the first fruits and wave sheaf, and
had a clearly designated space and timing AFTER these events!!! These
festivals did not just speak of the events to take place in salvation
history, but indisputably also indicated the timing of these events. A
fact often overlooked or ignored by critics of Adventism. The fact is
that the day of atonement service clearly indicated an atonement to be
made for the (heavenly) most holy place during the end-time anti-typical
day of atonement. An event understood and explained ONLY by true
Adventism.
Finally, it is true that only the living were cleansed on the day of
atonement in the type. The suggestion of our letter writer is that this
is also true in the antitype (26a). Evidently, of course, he does not
believe that the day of atonement services embraces dead Christians. A
little thought, however, will show why the typical services were limited
to the living, even though the antitype must include ALL Israel, both
living and dead.
a. Firstly, since the services took place every year, those who were
dead would have participated at some time while they were alive.
b. Since the services took place every year, then we must realize that
the type did not, and could not embrace what had happened the previous
year. In the type, the entire history of salvation was one year long.
Those who died the year before did not exist (in the type). However, in
reality, all Christians still exist. There are no dead in the kingdom of
God (Matt. 22:32).
c. It was unnecessary to include the dead in the type since (unlike
the antitype) the type dealt with only what could be seen.
In the antitype, God’s people sleep, but are not truly dead, (John
11:26) therefore they must be included among Israel and whatever work is
being done for Israel. Since the service or the work takes place once
for all rather than every year, then it must embrace every single
Israelite whether alive or “dead” since there never was and never will
be another chance for those who do not benefit from this one time
atonement experience.
At Home and Abroad
Dedication in Clarendon
December 27, 2002 was a high day for the believers in Hayes,
Clarendon. This was the day on which they had the first opportunity of
worshipping in their new meeting place.
To be sure the facilities are very humble. The new “chapel” consists
of a rectangular tent with a sturdy metal framework and a concrete
floor, set up in the front of Sister Bev Walters’ home. Nevertheless,
humble as it is, this new facility will be a great help to the work in
Clarendon. The former meeting place was Sister Walters’ verandah which
was woefully inadequate as no more than ten people could squeeze when
services were held. With the new tent they will now feel free to invite
people out to visit their services, and there are even plans to hold
evangelistic meetings.
Plans are now being made to construct a toilet on the outside of the
house so that there will not be such a burden on the home itself when
services are held. Please continue to hold these brethren up in your
prayers and if you feel impressed to contribute to their effort in any
way, please do not hesitate to do so.
Report on Duncans Group
A few months ago a group of six believers in Duncans Trelawny were
led to examine the truth about God and His Son. They were convinced that
it was Bible truth and embraced it wholeheartedly. We are happy to
report that they are continuing to rejoice in the truth and to stand
firmly in defense of this truth. Please continue to pray for them.
A Grievous Loss
Believers in Jamaica and especially Kingston, experienced a deep
loss with the death of Sister (Dr.) Beverly Grant-Lewis early in
February. Sister Bev as she was affectionately known, had been diagnosed
with cancer of the liver just a few weeks ago. She tried to do what she
could by way of seeking help using natural methods. The medical
establishment of course could do nothing as liver cancer is regarded in
such circles as being incurable. She was given six weeks to live.
Prayers ascended on her behalf from all over the world, but in the end,
it was our Father’s will that she should sleep and we all have to accept
that this was best for her. We miss her greatly and look forward with
longing to the time when we will meet again in the land where there will
be no more death, neither crying nor sorrow.
Jamaican Camp meeting
The Jamaican Camp meeting for
2003 will be held from April 17 – 21. This year we will again be at the
Mount Forest campsite in Manchester which overlooks the ocean and the
parish of St. Elizabeth.
Breakfast and lunch will be provided for the duration of the camp, but
each person will have to provide his evening meal or supper. The fees
for the campsite have gone up since we were there last year and this,
along with the fact that we are providing meals compelled us to set the
camp fees at $500.00 (US $10.00) which is the lowest we could go.
Please remember to bring your own bedding and eating utensils as well as your Bible, song book and note book.
Special guest speakers this year will be Brothers Lynnford Beachy from
Smyrna Gospel Ministries and Willis Smith of Third Angels Prison
Ministry. Please plan to be there at all costs. It promises to be a
blessed time.
The Wooden Bowl
A frail old man went to live
with his son, daughter-in-law, and four-year old grandson. The old man’s
hands trembled, his eyesight was blurred, and his step faltered. The
family ate together at the table. But the elderly grandfather’s shaky
hands and failing sight made eating difficult. Peas rolled off his spoon
onto the floor. When he grasped the glass, milk spilled on
the tablecloth.
The son and daughter-in-law became irritated with the mess. “We must
do something about Grandfather,” said the son. “I’ve had enough of his
spilled milk, noisy eating, and food on the floor”.
So the husband and wife set a small table in the corner. There,
Grandfather ate alone while the rest of the family enjoyed dinner. Since
Grandfather had broken a dish or two, his food was served in a wooden
bowl. When the family glanced in Grandfather’s direction, sometime he
had a tear in his eye as he sat alone. Still, the only words the couple
had for him were sharp admonitions when he dropped a fork or spilled
food.
The four-year-old watched it all in silence. One evening before
supper, the father noticed his son playing with wood scraps on the
floor. He asked the child sweetly, “What are you making?” Just as
sweetly, the boy responded, “Oh, I am making a little bowl for you and
Mama to eat your food in when I grow up.” The four-year-old smiled and
went back to work.
The words so struck the parents so that they were speechless. Then
tears started to stream down their cheeks. Though no word was spoken,
both knew what must be done.
That evening the husband took Grandfather’s hand and gently led him
back to the family table. For the remainder of his days he ate every
meal with the family. And for some reason, neither husband nor wife
seemed to care any longer when a fork was dropped, milk spilled, or the
tablecloth soiled.
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
