The Divinely Appointed Remedies: "Gold"
Chapter 7 (continued — part 8)
- We must look at the 1926 General
Conference Session that was held in Milwaukee. It was a great occasion and
the delegates who gathered there were deeply in earnest. They never
dreamed that the work would still be unfinished over half a century later:
It is the hope and belief of all that
this session of the Conference will be marked as an unusually spiritual
one. A conviction seems to have taken possession of many that the time has
fully come for this movement to go forward in a mighty movement for the
finishing of the work (Carlyle B. Haynes, General Conference Bulletin,
1926, p. 3).
An earnest and sincere writer tells us
that the 1926 Conference is more important than the 1888 one:
It is my
firm opinion that it would be well to give less emphasis to 1888 and more
emphasis to 1926. In fact, the General Conference of 1926 was what 1888
might have been. had there been greater unanimity on the meaning of
the gospel. (Norval F. Pease, The
Faith That Saves, p. 59).
In searching for evidence that we have
truly accepted the Lord’s message of righteousness by faith, some cite
the 1926 General Conference Session as an example of positive
"victory". The messages given were deeply spiritual and fervent.
It was one of our finest Sessions, no doubt.
One author suggests: "No more
positive evidence of spiritual growth and maturity [since 18881 could be
presented than the sermons of 1926" (Pease, op. cit.). In
other words, the strongest evidence for the acceptance of the 1888 message
is the 1926 Session messages.
But as one examines those messages, what
does he find? An almost complete absence of the basic motifs that made the
1888 message unique! Without realizing it, our brethren in 1926 had gotten
away from the message that was intended to finish Gods work and had been
deeply influenced by the "Victorious Life" borrowing from
"the popular ministry". Let us say that they were wonderful,
godly, dedicated, marvelous men and women. We like to think of our
forebears that way. But did they possess the "gold"? Two
facts make the answer clear: (a) If the 1888 message began to supply the
need, as Ellen White said; the 1926 messages lack that content. This can
be proven by motif analysis. (b) The passage of over half a century since
1926 makes suspect the claim that the 1926 Conference was a victory where
1888 was a defeat.
Shortly afterwards, Elder A.G. Daniells
published his celebrated and valuable Christ Our Righteousness. It
contains very frank statements admitting that the 1888 message was never
truly accepted (pp. 39, 55, 58, 59, 63, 79, 86, 1926 ed.). But the author
did not accurately reproduce the 1888 message itself.
Practically none of the unique aspects of the 1888 message find expression
there. Even the Ellen G. White quotations used seem selected in such a way
as to avoid them or filter them out.
In the conclusion of his book seeking to
summarize his idea of "entering through the door of faith", he
falls back onto an emphasis on man’s own efforts (pp. 130, 131). He
betrays reliance on the key thought of legalism some seven times in one
paragraph alone — "we should" do this or that (pp. 131, 132).
Such exhortations — "we should" pray more, "we
should" believe more, "we should" read our Bibles more,
"we should" be more earnest, "we should" sacrifice
more — appear frequently in the earnest appeals of our general leaders
of those days. They demonstrate an ignorance of true New Testament
motivation — genuine faith which automatically produces full
consecration.
Daniells concludes his book with a
one-sided emphasis on justification to the exclusion of true
sanctification, a concept much closer to the Sunday School Times’
"victorious life" idea than to the 1888 concept of getting ready
for translation:
And every day that comes and goes we
should humbly plead before the throne of grace the merits. the perfect
obedience, of Christ in the place of our transgressions and sins. And in
doing this, we should believe and realize that our justification comes
through Christ as our substitute and surety, that He has died for us, and
He is our atonement and righteousness … (Christ Our Righteousness,
p. 132).
In fact, not once in his book does Elder
Daniells seem able to recognize that Christ is our example as well as
"substitute". The author was earnest and sincere and his book is indeed valuable; but it
clearly shows the influence of the "victorious life" enthusiasm
in drawing us away from the real heart of the 1888 message. (For example,
see Daniells’ summary of "the gospel" on pages 117, 118, 1926
ed.).
We can agree with one author when he says
that Elder Daniells’ stand in this book "was in perfect harmony
with the best evangelical teaching" (By Faith Alone, p. 189)
But "perfect harmony" with the finest orthodox evangelical
teaching of the past and of Daniells’ contemporaries in "the
popular ministry" is not good enough to hasten the coming of the
Lord. The past half a century can demonstrate that clearly. In fact, the
confusion of present-day "Reformationist" justification by faith
can be traced to the popular emphases among us of the 1920’s. This
constant leaning on non-Adventist theologians and universities and popular
Evangelical leaders retards rather than advances the Seventh-day Adventist
cause.
Elder Daniells significantly analyzes an
Ellen G. White prediction that "false theories and erroneous ideas
will take minds captive, Christ and His righteousness will be dropped out
of the experience of many, and their faith will be without power or
life", unless the 1888 message is truly accepted (R&H, Sept. 3,
1889). He says:
To a lamentable degree, God’s people failed
to bring the divine power into their experience, and the result
predicted has been seen:
-
False theories and erroneous ideas have
taken minds captive.
-
Christ and His righteousness have been
dropped out of the experience of many. (Op. cit., p. 108, emphasis
added).
Our history had demonstrated the truth of
Elder Daniells’ analysis far more graphically
than he could ever have imagined.
(4). In the 1950’s we borrowed and
endorsed the Methodist missionary E. Stanley Jones’ concepts of
"righteousness by faith" and recommended them to our ministers
as "safe". Jones’ concepts "would enrich one’s
ministry", said The Ministry (February, 1950). Yet Jones’
preoccupation with the idea of the natural immortality of the soul causes
him to confuse telepathic communication with the dead with the reception
of the Holy Spirit, and also to confess that "Christ Himself has
deficiencies which are to be supplied by other faiths" (The
Message of Sat Tul Ashram, pp. 285, 291). It was Jones who coined the
slogan, "Share Your Faith", which we eagerly adopted; but Jones
meant that "this sharing means not only giving out what one has to
non-Christians, but the sharing of what they have in their own faiths …
Christ Himself has deficiencies" (Ibid.). What a source for our
"righteousness by faith"!
We find one lone, dissenting public voice
in the church paper at last protesting this borrowing from E. Stanley
Jones. Elder W.A. Spicer wrote an article for the Review which was
published during the summer of 1950, exposing the falseness of his ideas,
mentioning Jones by name. (In the spring of 1950 he had published an
article containing an oblique warning).
(5). The 1952 Bible Conference (September
1-13 in the Sligo Church) claimed to recover the 1888 message and even to
go beyond it. One prominent speaker said:
To a large degree the church failed to
build on the foundation laid at the 1888 General Conference. Much has been
lost as a result. We are years behind. … Long ere this we should have
been in the Promised Land.
But the message of righteousness by faith
given in the 1888 Conference has been repeated here. Practically every
speaker from the first day onward has laid great stress upon this
all-important doctrine, and there was no prearranged plan that he should
do so. … Truly this one subject has, in this conference "swallowed
up every other".
And this great truth has been given here
in this 1952 Bible Conference with far greater power than it was given in
the 1888 Conference because those who have spoken here have had the
advantage of much added light shining forth from hundreds of
pronouncements on this subject in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy
which those who spoke back there did not have.
The light of justification and
righteousness by faith shines upon us today more clearly than it ever
shone before upon any people.
No longer will the question be,
"What was the attitude of our workers and people toward the message
of righteousness by faith that was given in 1888? What did they do bout
it?" From now on the great question must be, "What did we do
with the light on righteousness by faith as proclaimed in the 1952 Bible
Conference?" (W.H. Branson, Our Firm Foundation, vol. 2. pp.
616, 617).
Since then over three decades have passed
by — time enough to finish God’s work There was no official opposition
to the 1952 message. "Practically every speaker" proclaimed it,
and apparently everyone accepted it. And the speakers were the "angel
of the church of the Laodiceans" — the church leadership. If the
1952 message was a true recovery of the 1888 message, the work should have
been finished shortly afterward, for it was given "with far greater
power" than in 1888. The 1952 brethren were "richer" than
"any people" in world history! They had the "gold".
But a careful study of the 1952 messages
fails to disclose the basic motifs that made the 1888 message unique. Like
the 1926 messages on righteousness by
faith, they present no light beyond what
the church has been preaching for many decades. Somehow the truths that
Ellen White endorsed in 1888 eluded our brethren of 1952. This is
understandable, for with the possible exceptions of one or two they had
very likely never actually studied the 1888 message in its original
context. (Even today few have).
Elder Branson claimed that in spite of
its lukewarmness the church had a "perfect system of truth". He
failed to see that "the gospel of Christ … is the power of God unto
salvation", and that if the church truly possessed the "gospel
of Christ" in its fulness, the "power" would be automatic.
Thus he failed to recognize the basic principle of "righteousness by
faith’ — that if one has the faith, the righteousness is sure to be
there too. He claimed we are rich in the very thing the True Witness says
we are poor in. He expressed no need on the part of the speakers to
understand true righteousness by faith, but claimed for them an
"impulse by the Spirit of God’ "far greater" than Ellen
White claimed for the messengers sent in 1888.
Careful motif analysis can demonstrate
that the messages of the 1926 and 1952 meetings prepared the way for the
current confusion of so-called "Reformationist" concepts of
justification by faith in place of the unique truths divinely entrusted to
Seventh-day Adventists.
If one will read through both volumes of Our
Firm Foundation, where "practically every speaker … laid great
stress upon this all-important doctrine [righteousness by faith]", he
will find an astounding fact emerge. Not one speaker recognized the danger
that the Lords
servant warned of in the passage quoted
above (GC 464) nor did one discern that the popular churches’
interpretation of righteousness by faith is devoid of New Testament love.
No one discerned a relation between the ministry of the heavenly High
Priest in the Most Holy Apartment and an understanding of true
righteousness by faith. It is amazing that the following quotation from Early
Writings was not referred to once:
Those who rose up with Jesus would send
up their faith to Him in the holiest [the Most Holy Apartment], and pray,
"My Father, give us Thy Spirit". Then Jesus would breathe upon
them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light power, and much love,
joy and peace.
I turned to look at the company who were
still bowed before the throne [who had not followed Christ by faith into
the Most Holy Apartment]; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan
appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw
them look up to the throne, and pray, "Father. give us Thy
Spirit". Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence: in
it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy and peace (EW
55, 56).
The setting of this passage is critically
important, for it has a direct bearing on our understanding of the gospel
itself "The company who were still bowed before the throne" is
the group who rejected the sanctuary truth in the 1844 era. Although the
imagery is highly symbolic, it is clear Ellen White was referring to the
change in Christ’s ministry at the end of the 2300 years. Those who did
not appreciate the change exposed themselves to a lethal deception —
Satan masquerading as the "Christ" in a ministry which the true
High Priest had now "left."
But this tragic deception is not limited
to people living in that immediate post-1844 era. Churches which
embrace the doctrine of natural
immortality are exposed to the same frightful danger. In this time
when the sanctuary doctrine is being boldly challenged by many within the
Seventh-day Adventist church, we need to see that a rejection of this
unique Seventh-day Adventist sanctuary doctrine entails also a rejection
of the pure New Testament gospel of righteousness by faith:
Many who professed to love Jesus, and who
shed tears as they read the story of the cross, derided the good news of
His (second) coming. … Those who rejected the first angel’s message
could not be benefitted by the second; neither were they benefitted by the
midnight cry, which was to prepare them to enter with Jesus by faith into
the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. And by rejecting the two
former messages, they have so darkened their understanding that they can
see no light in the third angel’s message, which shows the way into the
most holy place. I saw that as the Jews crucified Jesus, so the nominal
churches had crucified these messages, and therefore they have (note
present tense) no knowledge of the way into the most holy, and they can
not be benefitted by the intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews. who
offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to
the apartment which Jesus has left; Satan, pleased with the deception,
assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed
Christians to himself, working with his power, his signs and lying
wonders. to fasten them in his snare.. He also comes as an angel of light
and spreads his influence over the land by means of false reformations.
The churches are elated, and consider that God is working marvelously for
them, when it is the work of another spirit (EW 55, 56).
In many of the revivals which have
occurred during the last half century. the same influences have been at
work to a greater or less degree … an emotional excitement, a mingling
of the true with the false, that is well adapted to deceive. (CC 464).
No awareness of the danger of this
counterfeit gospel
of the orthodox "popular
ministry" found expression throughout the 1952 Bible Conference.
(6) In the 1960’s we eagerly adopted
ideas and methods from Campus Crusade for Christ, sending ministers to
their headquarters to learn from them how to present "righteousness
by faith". This can be attested by the wide prominence given to their
Four Spiritual Laws and similar substitutes that we prepared
ourselves from time to time. Some of our men worked with the Campus
Crusade group very closely, but this enthusiasm seemed to be cooled by
Campus Crusade’s reported insistence that all their workers subscribe to
the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. This is essential to
their concepts of righteousness by faith.
Campus Crusade’s Four Spiritual Laws
are thoroughly egocentric. The "righteousness by faith" they
present is not parallel to or consistent with the work that Christ is
doing in the Most Holy Apartment Those who have used them and supposed
they accomplished much good with them have not realized that this brand of
"righteousness by faith" is as far from true New Testament
teaching as Sunday is from Sabbath-keeping.
(7). In the recent decade (the 1970’s)
we have eagerly turned to the message and methods of the famed
"church growth" experts and proponents, hoping to find there
principles of "evangelism explosion" that will work with us as
they do with them. As in all the previous movements for decades, the
concept of love (and consequently the concept of faith) is thoroughly
egocentric. Yet we seek to validate these concepts by searching for Spirit
of Prophecy support for them. The implication is very clear: God has given
to the popular ministry the "gold tried in the fire", and we are
to go
"buy" of them. He has entrusted
to them the secret of finishing the work The confusion goes back to the
post-1888 history.
Thus, like Israel of old, we have
wandered in a kind of spiritual wilderness for many decades, not
understanding the message the Lord sent to us. Through "our"
failure to receive the 1888 message for what it truly was, we have been
reading the Spirit of Prophecy with a "veil" over our eyes, the
same one that the Jews had (cf. 2 Cor. 3:15). It is the same
"veil" that hung over the eyes of the brethren who attended the
1888 Conference to whom the Lords servant said, "I have been talking
and pleading with you, but it does not seem to make any difference with
you" (MS. 9, 1888). They had the living presence of the prophet with
them, and it made no difference with them. We have her books with us. But
they too have made no difference because we have unwittingly accepted the
"popular ministry’s" ideas of righteousness by faith in place
of the true. In fact, we quite officially see no distinction between their
doctrine in that respect and that which God has for us (cf. Movement of
Destiny, pp. 255-258, 319-321, 616-628).
So much have we failed to realize and
appreciate the uniqueness of our message of righteousness by faith that we
have moved from our positions on "the remnant church" and the
proclamation of the "everlasting gospel" as being emphatically
and clearly unique. Now we say that some popular evangelical churches and
organizations who keep Sunday and hold to the natural immortality of the
soul, those "poisonous drafts of Babylon" (Ev. 247) are a part
of the true remnant church and are proclaiming the everlasting gospel to
the world. The implication is clear that
the "everlasting gospel" of the
three angels’ messages has been entrusted by heaven to "many of the
evangelical churches" whose "whole new missionary zeal" has
significantly postponed the fall of Babylon beginning in the early 19th
century (cf. Mission Possible, by Gottfried Oosterwal, pp. 32-39).
We need to ask a very serious question: Is this "whole new missionary
zeal" indeed a genuine proclamation of "the everlasting
gospel" "in verity"? Or are we being blinded by "an
angel of light" and his "false reformations"?
How can those who hold to the
"poisonous drafts of Babylon", the natural immortality of the
soul and Sunday sacredness and who do not understand the Atonement clearly
give the "everlasting gospel" to the world? True, the great mass
of Gods people are in the popular churches, and they are sincere. We must
respect them and truly "cooperate" with them in every good work.
But is our "mission" virtually a me-too voice proclaiming what
is basically the same gospel? Is there no clearly unique message to call
Gods people "Out"?
Nothing is said here to be critical or
disrespectful toward the brethren of the past ninety years and those
living today who have sincerely assumed that "the popular
ministry" understand the "same truth of righteousness by faith’
the Lord gave us in 1888. Nothing is said here with a fault-finding spirit
We are simply looking at the Laodicean message and inquiring how it can be
true that we do indeed need to buy of our Lord "gold tried in
the fire".
The 1888 message constituted a genuine
revival of the original New Testament idea of agape and its
complementary response, faith. Thus, its concept of justification by faith
was unique and distinct from that
of the "popular ministry ".
Freed at last from the confusion of the egocentric idea of the natural
immortality of the soul, the 1888 message was able to restate the
apostolic ideas more clearly. With the sole exception of Luther, who only
partially reached this goal, one searches almost in vain through history
to find another similar breakthrough. Most of the 16th to 18th
century Reformers were still shackled to the pagan-papal idea which had
its origin in Hellenism, Calvin and Wesley for example. They searched for
the breakthrough but could never truly find it.
Is it not time that this confusion
concerning love and faith be resolved in the remnant church? There is such
a thing as the Seventh-day Adventist conscience. Does that conscience
recognize the need that our True Witness says is ours?
If what we have understood and preached
since 1926 or longer is the "same truth" as that
"beginning" of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry of 1888, will
someone please tell us why the work has not yet been finished, nor the
earth been lightened with the glory of the fourth angel?
E.
Stanley Jones Endorsed |
