In this issue:
Is There a Literal Sanctuary in Heaven?
David Clayton
During the 1960’s when Robert Brinsmead emphasized the fact
that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary involved also a cleansing
of God’s people here on earth, his agitations got him branded as an
offshoot and a heretic by the SDA church. The church, erroneously,
wanted only to emphasize what was taking place in heaven, making it
irrelevant to us here on earth. Now the opposite thing is being done.
All the emphasis is being placed on what is being done in us here one
earth, making the work in heaven irrelevant. In fact, many are denying
entirely that any literal work is taking place in heaven. In reality,
this means that we have no concept of heaven’s activities and therefore
have nothing on which to fasten our faith. All we have is vague words
about sanctification and perfection, but no real concept of what is
happening or of how it happens. Thus, we cannot exercise faith in God’s
work or cooperate in its accomplishment.
The recognition of a literal Sanctuary building in heaven leads us to
the logical conclusion that the cleansing of the Sanctuary must involve
some kind of removal of impurity, or sin from the building itself. This
understanding, of course, led the Adventist pioneers to discover the
truth of the investigative judgment and its place in God’s plan for His
last day people. Rejection of the literal Sanctuary, automatically means
there can be no such thing as an investigative judgment. Both these
truths, then, the Literal heavenly Sanctuary, and the Investigative
Judgment go hand in hand (we might also add in passing that critical
truths such as the supremacy of God the Father, the literal Sonship of
Jesus Christ, the real and literal mediatorial work of Jesus Christ as
our High Priest are also inextricably tied to the truth of a literal
heavenly Sanctuary).
Does The Bible Reveal a Literal Sanctuary Building in Heaven
1. The book of Revelation in several places speaks of a temple in
heaven. (Rev.11:19;15:15) It may be argued that the representation here
is symbolic, but symbolic of what? “Jesus is the temple”, some
confidently state. While we accept that Jesus is ONE representation of
the temple, we find it impossible to understand how reasonable persons
could claim that in ALL cases, the temple is a representation of Jesus.
Consider the following verses:
Rev 14:15 :- And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a
loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap:
for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is
ripe.
Rev 14:17 :- And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
Rev 15:6 :- And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the
seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts
girded with golden girdles.
What are we supposed to understand here? That God wants us to believe
that angels come out of Jesus? Furthermore, as we look at verse 15, of
chapter 14, we see that an angel came out of the temple and spoke to
Jesus who was sitting on a cloud. Surely, this ought to be plain enough
for even the blindest person to see.
Revelation 21:22 says, “I saw no temple therein (in the city)”. Does
this literally mean that there is no sanctuary building? So we accept it
to mean. John says he did not “see” any temple, because God and Christ
are the temple of it. We accept that what he saw (or did not see)
represents a true picture of the city. No temple will be there, for God
and Jesus will be the city’s temple. So then, when he says in another
place (Rev. 11:19 etc.) that he saw a temple in heaven Why is it now so
difficult in this case to believe that he was seeing aright?
The words sanctuary and temple have been used interchangeably to mean
basically, the dwelling place of God (Ex.25:8). However, a temple is
also a place for the worship of God. In Revelation 21:22, this must be
the sense in which the “temple” is used. “The Lord God Almighty and the
Lamb are the temple of it.” This, obviously, is not intended to say that
God’s dwelling place is Himself, but rather that there will be no
central place of worship in the new Jerusalem, because the glory and
presence of God will fill the entire city (Rev.21:23,11;22:5). The focus
is on, how and where men will worship.
Evidently, this is also the chief purpose of the heavenly temple. in
Heaven, there is a place where God manifests His presence; a place where
He may be seen. This is His temple; His dwelling place, and obviously,
the central place for assemblies and worship in heaven.
Consider that heaven is probably much larger than the planet, earth.
Angels in one corner of heaven cannot worship in the visible presence of
God unless they travel to that central place where He manifests His
presence, which is His temple.
The scriptures describe God as an infinitely awesome Being. as we read
some of the things which are said about Him, our minds are filled with
wonder. Words fail us. He exists “from everlasting to everlasting.” He
“inhabiteth eternity.” He fills “heaven and earth.” He “was and is to
come.” Of Him alone it may truly be said, “thou only art holy. There is
none like Thee.” It is beyond controversy that no building in earth or
heaven can encompass this God. As Solomon said,
“but will God indeed dwell in the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of
heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have
builded?” (1Kings 8:27
Nevertheless, the very person who spoke these words, Solomon, built a
temple for the worship of God, emphasizing the point that though God may
not be confined to a building, yet He manifests His presence in certain
appointed places. After all, it was God Himself who told Moses, “let
them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them (Ex. 25:8.”
God’s Spirit fills every corner of the universe. In this form God is
everywhere present, invisible, intangible, incomprehensible.
Nevertheless, God does have a bodily form as the scriptures so clearly
testify. He does reveal Himself as an unspeakably glorious Being,
sitting on a throne in a specific location in the universe. This
location is called “heaven Thy dwelling place (1 kings 8:30).” The same
scriptures testify that in heaven, God’s specific dwelling place is the
temple (Hab.2:20;Rev.11:19). There is a heaven. There God dwells. Heaven
is the headquarters of the Universe. A vast place. In what specific
part of heaven does God dwell? Where can we find His throne located? In
His temple.
The evidence of scripture is abundant and unanimous in the declaration
of the fact that there is a temple in heaven. A real, literal place
which is the dwelling place of God. Those who are requiring scriptural
evidence, and scripture only, with the claim that Ellen White was often
guilty of misunderstanding what she saw, or of expressing her own
opinion, are strangely inconsistent here. Reason demands that they
believe in a literal temple in heaven, unless there is plain scriptural
testimony that there is no such place. without any such scriptural
evidence they reject the idea of there being any such place. Upon what
basis we ask? Upon the basis of human reasoning!! This is the plain fact
of the matter. What a dangerous and shaky foundation upon which to
build!! And indeed, this is the foundation of the whole structure of
error which is being built by those who reject the teachings of original
Adventism. Upon this basic false premise, the idea that there cannot be
any sanctuary building in heaven, the whole maze of confusion is
erected.
The Testimony of Paul
In Hebrews 8:1,2, the Apostle Paul testifies that Jesus ministers in
“the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, (or set up),” “in the
heavens.” Then in verse five, he states that the work of the levitical
priests on earth were an “example and shadow of heavenly things.” Now we
know that an example, or a shadow resembles the real thing but is not
in every way like the reality. The earthly example had a real sanctuary
building. Does the real ministry of Christ in heaven also have a real
Sanctuary building? The apostle Paul states in clear and unmistakable
language that it did. He says in Heb.8:5
“Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was
admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See,
saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to
thee in the mount.”
(paraphrasing) “We know there is a real sanctuary in heaven because
when Moses was about to make the earthly tabernacle, God told Him that
he must make it according to the pattern which he showed him. So Moses
was shown the design of the heavenly sanctuary, and was instructed to
make the earthly one according to the same pattern.”
Please examine this verse (Heb.8:5) very carefully and you will see
that this is what Paul is saying. You may say that the apostle Paul was
faulty in his reasoning (if you dare), but you cannot honestly say that
this is not what he is saying. In this book (Hebrews) he clearly teaches
that there is a literal Sanctuary building in heaven, where Jesus
performs his priestly ministry. In Heb.9:1, he says:
“Then verily (truly) the first covenant had ALSO ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary.”
Can any honest person examine this verse and deny the truth that there
is a heavenly sanctuary in which, “ordinances of divine service,” are
performed? Why is the word ALSO used? It means “as well as.”
The first covenant had ordinances of service and a sanctuary, AS WELL
AS the second covenant! Moses saw the pattern of the heavenly sanctuary,
then he went and built a tabernacle, resembling as closely as possible
the one whose pattern he had been shown. Solomon’s temple, constructed
hundreds of years later was a far more elaborate and stately structure,
embellished with the most precious earthly materials, and was one of the
most magnificent buildings this world has ever seen. When Herod’s
temple was constructed during the time of Roman domination, it too was
made of the best material which this world had to offer, and was in many
ways much different from that first simple structure which Moses had
constructed in the wilderness. However, it is of great significance that
no matter how the outside of the temple was changed, and no matter what
materials was used in the building, some things basically remained the
same. Unchangeable.
1. There were always two apartments to the sanctuary. the Holy and the Most Holy place.
2. The furniture remained the same.
3. The services remained the same.
These were the absolutes. These were the unchangeables. Why? because
this is what Moses saw when he was shown the pattern. He saw a building,
more magnificent than human words can describe. A vast structure,
immense beyond human imagination, the dwelling place of the Almighty
One, and the central place of worship in the universe. He could never
hope to make something even closely resembling such a structure, but he
took careful note of the basic plan, the structure, the layout, and he
built a tabernacle with two apartments. These are the plain facts, and
if the truth be told, this is the crux of the matter.
The enemies of Adventism have never had any problems with the idea of a
sanctuary in heaven. They would willingly accept that all of heaven is
one vast sanctuary. However, whenever there is the suggestion of a
two-apartment Sanctuary, there is an immediate outcry, because this is
the basis upon which the distinctive truths of Adventism are founded.
Take away this truth and historic-Seventh-day Adventism is destroyed. No
wonder the devil attacks this truth so unrelentingly. However, as we
have seen, the Biblical evidence is too clear to be misunderstood. There
is a literal two-apartment sanctuary building in heaven where Jesus
Christ, Our true High priest, performs “ordinances of divine service” on
behalf of God’s earthly children. These are the truths of the Bible and
all who truly believe that it contains the word of God must accept,
believe and live by these truths.
The Difference With the Godhead Message
“The days are fast approaching when there will be
great perplexity and confusion. Satan, clothed in angel robes, will
deceive, if possible, the very elect. There will be gods many and lords
many. Every wind of doctrine will be blowing ….” (5T – 80)
So prophesied the messenger of the Lord, and all who have the
faintest idea of what is presently happening within the ranks of
Seventh-day Adventism can testify that Ellen White truly was inspired by
the Spirit of prophecy when she wrote that statement.
“God does not destroy,” “God and Jesus must be called by the Hebrew
names, Yahweh and Yashua,” “The feast days ought to be still observed,”
“there is no investigative judgement etc. etc. And so the list goes on. I
don’t know what it is like in the other churches, but something about
Seventh-day Adventism seems to breed a thirst for new, and strange
doctrines. It is not surprising that there are some people who conclude
that the safest course is to stick with the fundamentals as defined by
the organised church and to leave to the church theologians the task of
sorting through the mass of rubble which is flying around.
This widespread confusion and the abundance of these “winds of
doctrine,” is perhaps the main reason why the truth about the godhead is
so difficult for some people to accept and perhaps even to examine with
an open mind. For many, it is simply, “oh no! Here comes another
fanatical offshoot idea!”
Is the truth about God and His Son, simply one of a dozen wild ideas
flying about, or, are there some vital factors about the godhead
message which separate it from the others? There are indeed such
factors. Let us examine some of them.
The godhead message is not a new message to Adventism. The message
as we are now proclaiming it, was accepted and taught by the entire
Seventh-day Adventist Church from its beginning until the early part of
the 20th century. A period of at least 71 years which covered the
lifetime of God’s messenger, Ellen White. What we are seeking to do
therefore, is not to introduce a new doctrine, but to restore one which
was an integral part of the SDA movement until after the death of the
prophet. Is there any one of the other doctrines which are floating
around which was also a part of the teaching of the Adventist Church in
the past? The answer is no. Not a single one. They are all “new”
doctrines. A highly significant fact.
Here is what Ellen White had to say about the doctrines which were believed and taught by the early SDA church:
Selected Messages Book 1 – 206
Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our
faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce,
Elder {Hiram} Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were
among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the
truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and
prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and
sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the
Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible,
in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it
with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said,
“We can do nothing more,” the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I
would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we
had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were
to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to
understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His
priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we
shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others
the instruction that the Lord had given me.
SM1: 208
“Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day
Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point, has
been sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the
miracle-working power of the Lord. But the waymarks which have made us
what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has
signified through His word and the testimony of His Spirit.”
T8: 297
“Let none seek to tear away the foundations of our faith–the foundations
that were laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the
word and by revelation. Upon these foundations we have been building for
the last fifty years. Men may suppose that they have found a new way
and that they can lay a stronger foundation than that which has been
laid. But this is a great deception. Other foundation can no man lay
than that which has been laid.”
Does this imply that the pioneers were absolutely correct on every
single point which they taught? Not necessarily. God did not give to
Ellen White or to any other person a full explanation of every verse in
the Bible. In some cases their understanding of certain prophecies may
have been inaccurate in some details. However, it is evident that on the
issues which are vital to salvation and to the mission of the Advent
movement, God did give to Ellen White and the pioneers a line of truth
which was untainted by false concepts. It is undeniable that this truth
included a proper concept of who God is (T8-292-3) as well as an
accurate understanding of Jesus, “His mission and His priesthood.”
(SM1-206)
Any new doctrine which is now being promoted as “vital” and which
was not taught by the pioneers cannot be important. While the Bible is
the basis of all our doctrines and the authority for all reforms
(GC-595), yet God saw fit to give a prophet to the Advent movement. “And
by a prophet the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was
he preserved.” Hosea 12:13.
Was this gift really necessary? Who would dare to question the
wisdom of God who saw our need and gave the gift? Are we wiser than God?
Yet, if we do not accept Ellen White as an authoritative source, what
is this but a rejection of the gift which God has given? It is the same
as saying, “God, I appreciate your gift, but I really think I can do
better without it.” The truth is that our understanding of Bible truth
will always be in harmony with God’s revelations through Ellen White, if
we truly accept that she was God’s messenger. What would be the good of
God sending a messenger who was so unreliable that we could not have
confidence in her? Therefore, Ellen White justifiably states:
“Men may get up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce
souls from the truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken
through Sister White, and has given her a message, will be safe from the
many delusions that will come in these last days.” (3SM – 83 )
So back to our main point: Any true call for a return to “Historic
Adventism” must be a call to return to the beliefs of our pioneers.
Likewise, any “new” truth which was not a part of the package which God
gave to the pioneers cannot be of major significance. Early in the
history of the movement, Ellen White and the pioneers already had the
truth which was necessary to take us into the kingdom (SM1-206). The
problem was not a shortage of truth, or the presence of false doctrines.
The problem was a failure to appreciate and receive the truth they
already had.
There is only one doctrine once embraced by the SDA church, which
has been officially rejected by the denomination since the time of Ellen
White and the pioneers. This is the doctrine that Jesus is truly the
begotten Son of God, and that the Holy Spirit is not a third Being in a
trinitarian God, but is rather an extension of the Father’s personality.
This is what makes the godhead controversy different from all the
others. It is a restoration of the original package, while all the
others are an attempt to introduce something completely new.
Miscellaneous Thoughts
When Lucifer accused Jehovah, there were questions in the minds of the angels. However, as the controversy has unfolded, they have come to see more and more clearly, God’s wonderful love, mercy and justice. This morning as I sit here so dull of mind, how do the angels feel about Thee, O my God? How are they relating to You at this moment? What are they saying? What are they doing? What are their desires, ambitions, goals?
I know how they feel. They love You more than words can express, but still, they seek for those words. Night and day they seek to find a way to let it be known how good You are, and how they appreciate You. They behold Your dealings with the children of men; they see Your infinite mercy, your wisdom, and involuntarily, they burst into praise.
Their ambition? their aim? To know You better! To serve You all the days of eternity, as faithfully as possible! They have no personal ambitions. No self-centred goals. They have learned that you have a plan for the life of every creature which takes in every second of life. They know that this plan is perfect for them, calculated to give complete and lasting happiness, as well as the highest possible development of every aspect of their being. Therefore, all their lives, they simply seek to know your will and to obey it. In this, they have found everything. (TMB – 109)
Our God can, wants to, and will, if we permit Him, lead us every moment. Order every detail of our lives. Guide us continually, even in seemingly trivial matters. Our duty, privilege and joy, is to seek to know that will. To place ourselves in a position where we can hear His voice, see His way and by His grace, walk in it. Having found this, we have found our goal in life.
Do not block, do not cloud the channels whereby God would speak with us. Do not throw the mind off balance by the least intemperance. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit by idle chatter or foolish jesting. No, not for a moment.
Do not permit images, or sounds to enter the mind by the eyes or ears which will crowd the awareness of spiritual things out.
At Home and Abroad OUR RECENT TRIP TO THE USA
During the months of September and October of 1988, I was privileged to visit the United States of America and to fellowship with many of the brethren there who have embraced the message concerning God and His Son. The experience was an unforgettable one. On the mental, social and spiritual planes I was bombarded with such a variety of new and rich experiences that I still find it difficult to express what the trip really meant to me.
My first sight of the United States as the plane descended over Florida, must have been of the Florida Everglades. No one told me what it was, but as I gazed down upon that vast, barren patchwork of green and brown, I figured it must be the great swampland known as the Everglades. Maybe that first sense of awe at the immensity of it was typical of the feelings I had as I travelled from place to place. Big. That was my first impression of the USA. The flat horizons of New Mexico, without a hill in sight, as well as the awesome gaping gorge known as the Grand Canyon, only complemented that first impression. For someone from a small island with the seashore only an hour’s drive away in any direction, it was quite an experience. At first I found it a little difficult to understand why there were so many man-made lakes in the USA. Large bodies of water, artificially created. However, when I began to appreciate that a trip to the seaside could, in many cases involve a journey of several days, then I began to understand.
The other impression which fastened itself upon my mind, was that of a country obsessed with commerce. Everywhere we went, the highways were infested with a never-ending line of huge semi-trailers. Thousands of them in a never ending stream, night and day, criscrossing the intricate and vast network of interstate highways, on a never ending mission of delivery. America is a place where things are on the move, but I could not help feeling a pang, as I realised that all this activity, rush and bustle had nothing to do with salvation, but rather with the pursuit of things of this life.
While our base was in Illinois where we spent most of our time, we were able to visit a number of other states. We spent four days at a campmeeting in Wilhoit, Arizona, and in the process of getting there, passed through Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico ……While in Arizona we spent a half day at the Grand Canyon. An experience which cannot be easily described. Words, and even photographs cannot convey the awe which one feels upon first encountering that vast gash in the face of the earth. 250 miles long and 10 miles wide at its widest point , the Grand Canyon is grand indeed, being easily longer than Jamaica itself. We also spent weekends in Tennessee and Cincinnati, Ohio, as well as a couple of days in Washington DC. West Virginia where we spent an entire week, was a lot like Jamaica in terms of the hilly nature of the country and the winding roads.
Most of our time was spent with Randall and Lucy Mercer and their family in Illinois. There, we were quickly made to understand that we had not left home at all, but simply changed location. Randall and his family did everything possible to make us feel at home. If it had not been for the loved ones left behind in Jamaica, we might not have missed home at all. This royal treatment, however, was typical of the way were treated everywhere we went. In Tennessee at the home of Joe and Mabel Harricharan, in Arizona at the home of Sister Arlene Bailey, in Cincinnati at the home of Bruce and Ritza Harblutzel and in West Virginia, where pastor Allen Stump and family, Glenn and Ann Ford, and in fact, the whole church, went overboard in not only making us feel at home, but in arranging for us to visit Washington DC, and to do some sightseeing.
The truth of the godhead is steadily advancing in the USA. The groups are relatively small. I don’t think I was in a congregation of more than 30 people while I was there. However, the reason for this is that the country is so big, that it is, practically speaking, difficult for the brethren to get together very often. Our trip from Illinois to Arizona took three days (one way)! Nevertheless, while I was at Randall’s home, there were new people calling in ever so often, wanting to receive tapes and literature. By God’s own means, in ways unconnected, and unthought of by man, the truth is steadily advancing.
In America, as here in Jamaica, my impression is that the brethren are just as captivated as we are by the wonder of the truth that God gave His only begotten Son for our sakes. May all of us, wherever we are, strive for a deeper and more practical application of this truth. While we rejoice in the knowledge of our Father’s wonderful love and forgiving mercy, we must never be satisfied until those same attributes are perfectly reflected in our own characters. This, after all, is the ultimate reason why we seek so earnestly to learn what is truth.
editor
CAMP COPPER DEC. 1998
The 1998 camp meeting, although much smaller in numbers than previously was a refreshing and spiritual experience. The Lord is always willing to bless whether we be many or few, as long as our ears are open and our hearts are willing to receive what He has to give us.
The brethren from Manchester left for camp on Wednesday, December 22, most of us traveling in the back of a truck driven by Brother Howard Williams, along with the brethren from Kingston. We had expected to leave by 3:00 p.m. but were delayed and left at about 5:00.
The journey down was smooth and uneventful, and we arrived at about 9:00 p.m. We discovered that due to rain the day before, the road was very soft and muddy, and we had to leave the truck a little way off from the campground and use the smaller vehicles to transport our luggage down. We were all very tired from the long day, and slept very soundly that night.
The next day, meetings began, and worship was conducted by Bro. David at 6:30. It was a good way to begin and it put us in the mood for the other studies to come. We had meetings scheduled for 10:30 a.m., 3:30 p.m., and a one hour prophecy study at 7:30 p.m.
The main speakers were Brother Colin Gyles, Brother David Clayton and Brother Wayne Sutherland. The presentations were spiritually stimulating and made us all think. Some of the topics were, “Who Paid The Ultimate Penalty for Sin” and “We can be Perfect Because God is Faithful.” We were all richly blessed, and the general attitude throughout the camp was one of unity and peace. The ladies were able to attend the meetings regularly, while previously they were hindered by the fact that they were responsible for preparing three meals per day. On this occasion, they were only asked to prepare lunch.
A few brethren arrived on Friday, and we had a wonderful worship session of Friday night in anticipation of the coming day of rest and gladness.
On Sabbath morning, every one was ready on time, and after a brief Sabbath School study by Brother Howard Williams, we were blessed by a most inspiring presentation by Brother David Clayton. The subject was, “Who is This God?” The Message focused on God, His Omniscience, His power, His glory. It was truly a memorable day, and indeed a memorable camp meeting. It was with heavy hearts that we bade the brethren goodbye the following morning and departed to our respective homes, truly blessed. We look forward to the next camp meeting with intense, and almost impatient anticipation.
Contributed by a young participant
Personal Mention
Wedding Bells:
Wedding bells recently rang in Montego Bay for Brother Michael
Taylor and Sister Delia Pennicott. They were married on December 13 and
all indications are that they will live happily ever after. We wish them
eternal happiness, and that even in this troubled world, in these
troubled times, the Spirit of our Father may abide in their home, and
that the peace that passeth understanding may always be theirs.
Congratulations Michael and Delia.
Prayer Request:
We continue to request your prayers on behalf of Daniel Lewis, the
Son of Sister Beverly Grant-Lewis. Most of us know that Daniel was in a
car accident last year which has left him totally paralyzed from the
waist down. Humanly speaking, there is no hope that he will ever walk
again. However, Christians do not speak, or think in human terms. Please
request of God that Daniel may not only be healed of this crippling
infirmity, but even more important, that through this terrible
experience he may learn to know, and to respond to the love of God.
Evangelistic Meetings:
On Sunday, January 10, the brethren in Manchester started a series
of evangelistic meetings in the Peartree area of Manchester. Brothers
Harold Webb and Arthur Thompson did intensive visiting in the area for a
few weeks and got acquainted with the people and got them prepared for
the meetings.
At the time of publication we have already had two nights of
meetings which have been very encouraging. Our tent, which has a
capacity of a little over a hundred was by no means full, but those who
came showed keen interest and responded well to the messages. Your
prayers are requested for this project.
Leroy Froom Letter
(Many of us are aware of the fact that
Leroy Froom was the single person most responsible for the adoption of
the doctrine of the trinity by the SDA Church. The following is a
portion of a letter written by Froom to Reuben Figuhr, the then
president of the General Conference. This letter gives additional
insight into the way some of our pioneers’ writings were attacked by
those who made the change, and also shows how strong was the opposition
which they had to face when the change was being introduced.)
Dear Brother Figuhr,
…. Perhaps I might give you a little background that would serve
as a setting for some of these matters. In the first place, I was called
to the General Conference in 1926 to be a junior associate to Elder A.
C. Daniells. That, in itself, was enough to damn me for all times with a
certain group. These were the men who fought Daniells tooth and nail,
and finally got him out of presidential office because there had been
conflict between Daniells and B. G. Wilkinson over his sensationalism
and over numerous things that need not be put on paper.
Not long after coming to the General Conference I was unfortunately
named chairman of a committee to examine and report upon the book that
had been privately published, called Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,”
by B. G. Wilkinson. The committee did conscientious work, and we were
unanimous in recommending to the officers that the book was unreliable,
could serve no helpful purpose, was based on misinformation, and was
totally unsound in its arguments and conclusions. It was in direct
conflict with the writings of the Spirit of prophecy and the usages of
the Spirit of prophecy in our denominational positions. Dr. B. G. was
mightily stirred.
He brought a whole suitcase full of books, which Brother J. S.
Washburn carried as his right-hand man, and laid out on the table before
him to make an elaborate defence of his position. You see, the book was
privately published, without authorization, without any protective
reading committee, and was filled with wild statements.
The General Conference Committee and officers heard Dr. Wilkinson
and voted to reaffirm their position asking him not to continue the sale
of the book. However that was flagrantly flaunted. It continued to be
sold as before.
This all stems back to a concept that the book Daniel and Revelation
was virtually an inspired volume. It taught the old view of the daily.
It taught the Arian view of the Godhead, and therefore denied the
eternal pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ. And those who differed
were enemies of the faith, subverters of the cause we love, and they
felt bound before God to fight it to the utmost. They felt that the
Union had been placed geographically to keep the Headquarters from going
to perdition and leading the denomination after them.
Professor W. W. Prescott was a particular target because he taught
the eternal pre-existence of the deity of Jesus Christ. He also taught
the new view of the Daily, as did Daniells. And in their attempt to
safeguard the denomination, they entered into these schemes that are
perhaps somewhat well-known now.
When the revision of Daniel and Revelation was contemplated, I was
named as chairman of the revision committee, but I immediately
disqualified myself because I knew it would never do. There was too much
prejudice against me because of other relationships, and so Professor
Howell was named the chairman. The revision involved the elimination of
all the allusions to the Arian view concerning Christ. Elder Detwiler
was fearfully upset over this. His blood vessels stood out like
whipcords on his neck and his face was red as a beet, and some people
feared that he might have an attack of apoplexy. Elder Spicer was pretty
warm also because of the charges made and the defences in behalf of the
book. This was all in the spring meeting of the committee at the
Woodstock Hotel, in New York City. It was there that Brother Spicer made
a remark that was regrettable. He said that the book D&R has done
more harm than it had done good. I think that was not really his
thought. I think he meant that so far as the deity position on Christ
had been a terrible blow to us all through the years. And we have found
in recent time that that is one of the chief reasons for placing (us)
among the unChristian cults.
When my books began to appear—the Prophetic Faith volumes—there was a
terrible furor on the part of this group Uriah Smith was the inventor
or discoverer or expositor of all of our wonderful positions on truth.
And for me to have the temerity to try to make out that anyone else had
held those positions beforehand was blasphemy, Furthermore many of these
men had elements of error, and I was repeating error, and the Spirit of
prophecy says to never repeat error, when I exposed the fallacies of
some of these expositors in the course of these volumes.
I was publicly denounced in the chapel at the Washington Missionary
College by Dr. B. G. Wilkinson as the most dangerous man in this
denomination. But the real campaign was the covered one, in which J S.
Washburn was a front man, and Dr. B. G. was the hidden instigator. There
was a never-ending barrage of letters from him, J. H. Wirtz, Claude
Holmes, and others that could be named. These attacks were so violent
that Elder McElhany and other leaders had to write in no uncertain
terms, particularly to Washburn. Even Brother Detwiler warned him that
if he didn’t change his spirit, he would lose his own soul. I happen to
have a copy of that letter, and I have knowledge of many more of the
attempts by certain Columbia men to put Brother Washburn in an
institution, and of many of the other features that Mrs. Tewalt touches
upon, I have no knowledge and far less interest.
When I asked her if these charges and statements of hers were true,
concerning her father and Dr. Wilkinson in their special relationship,
she sent me these letters, which I have and which I shall retain. I
think about the last thing that Dr. B. G. Wilkinson would want to have
would be the public reading before some ecclesiastical tribunal of these
letters with their attacks, not only upon me, but upon denominational
leaders and institutions and godly men like M. E. Kern and others that
could be named. I have not shown these letters to others and do not
purpose to do so unless counselled otherwise. I do think that you could
have access to letters of a more general character that were sent to
your assistant treasurer, Brother Adair. They are on file. I have read
some of them, for Brother Adair gave them to me to read.
It is to be remembered that these are the men that were the
custodians of the orthodoxy concerning Christ as a created being, not
eternal in His pre-existence and deity, and in related matters. The very
fact that our relation to the deity of Christ, the completeness of the
atonement of the cross, so far as the atoning sacrifice is concerned,
our relationship to the transaction with the scapegoat, and particularly
the nature of Christ during the incarnation are on every hand the
criteria by which we have been adjudged and condemned as heretics and a
cult that is not even Christian in its connotation,—these facts in
contrast and confirmation of the Spirit of prophecy counsels, which are
repeated and reiterated, telling us what we should emphasize and the
fundamental importance of bearing a true and prominent message
thereon,—all tie together to show that we are following the way of the
Lord in our present attempt to correct these unfortunate
misapprehensions. But in so doing, Elder Figuhr, we inevitably run into
the last of the die-hards on the other view, who consider that they are
the ones who are saving the day and preserving the faith.
It is a sad story, but conflict over these fundamentally variant views, I suppose, is inevitable.
Believe me to be,
Very sincerely in the Master’s service,
L.E. Froom
“…while men slept … An enemy hath done this”
These times
This is the age of the half-read page;
Of the quick hash and the mad dash;
Of the plane hop with a brief stop;
Of the lamp tan in a short span.
Of the bright night and the nerves tight;
Of the big shot in a good spot;
Of the brain-strain and the heart pain;
Of the cat-naps till the spring snaps.
–and the fun’s done!
Selected
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
