Adventist Alert Church History Study

Publisher of the
"Watchman, What of the Night?" (WWN)... More Info
William H. Grotheer, Editor of Research & Publication for the ALF
- 1970s
- 1980s
- 1990s
- 2000s

SHORT STUDIES - William H. Grotheer -
"Another Comforter", study on the Holy Spirit
1976 a Letter and a Reply: - SDA General Conference warning against WWN.
Further Background Information on Zaire -General Conference pays Government to keep church there.
From a WWN letter to a reader: RE: Lakes of Fire - 2 lakes of fire.
Trademark of the name Seventh-day Adventist [Perez Court Case] - US District Court Case - GC of SDA vs.R. Perez, and others [Franchize of name "SDA" not to be used outside of denominational bounds.]

top
Manuscripts

Interpretative History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, An
- William H. Grotheer

Bible Study Guides
- William H. Grotheer

End Time Line Re-Surveyed Parts 1 & 2 - Adventist Layman's Foundation

Excerpts - Legal Documents
- EEOC vs PPPA - Adventist Laymen's Foundation

Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, The - William H. Grotheer

Hour and the End is Striking at You, The - William H. Grotheer

In the Form of a Slave
- William H. Grotheer

Jerusalem In Bible Prophecy
- William H. Grotheer

Key Doctrinal Comparisons - Statements of Belief 1872-1980
- William H. Grotheer

Pope Paul VI Given Gold Medallion by Adventist Church Leader
- William H. Grotheer

Sacred Trust BETRAYED!, The - William H. Grotheer

Seal of God
- William H. Grotheer

Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956
- William H. Grotheer

SIGN of the END of TIME, The - William H. Grotheer

STEPS to ROME
- William H. Grotheer

Times of the Gentiles Fulfilled, The - A Study in Depth of Luke 21:24
- William H. Grotheer

Remembering
Elder William H. Grotheer

~~~~~
TOP

BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

Song of Solomon - Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary

Ten Commandments - as Compared in the New International Version & the King James Version & the Hebrew Interlinear

OTHER BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS & ARTICLES:

Additional Various Studies --
"Saving Faith" - Dr. E. J. Waggoner
"What is Man" The Gospel in Creation - "The Gospel in Creation"
"A Convicting Jewish Witness", study on the Godhead - David L. Cooper D.D.

Bible As History - Werner Keller

Canons of the Bible, The - Raymond A. Cutts

Daniel and the Revelation - Uriah Smith

Facts of Faith - Christian Edwardson

Individuality in Religion - Alonzo T. Jones

"Is the Bible Inspired or Expired?" - J. J. Williamson

Letters to the Churches - M. L. Andreasen

Place of the Bible In Education, The - Alonzo T. Jones

Sabbath, The - M. L. Andreasen

Sanctuary Service, The
- M. L. Andreasen

So Much In Common - WCC/SDA

Spiritual Gifts. The Great Controversy, between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and his Angels - Ellen G. White

Under Which Banner? - Jon A. Vannoy

TOP
~~~~~

The MISSION of this site -- is to put the articles from the WWN in a searchable Essay form. It is not our purpose to copy WWN in whole.

Any portion of the thought paper may be reproduced without further permission by adding the credit line - "Reprinted from WWN, Victoria, BC Canada."

Thank you for visiting. We look forward to you coming back.

~~~~~
TOP

WWN 2001 Oct - Dec

2001 Oct -- XXXIV -- 10(01) -- THE YEAR 1950 -- Editor's Preface -- In the August issue of "Watchman, What of the Night?"we covered some of the same ground which will be covered in this issue. That was because in the final historical coverage in Knight's book, A Search for Identity, he reviewed the tension in Adventism since 1950. In this study, we give the basis as to why the date 1950 has significance. It is, as it were, a climax date in the long standing conflict between truth and error in the great controversy between Christ and Satan.

We sometimes fail to realize before there was a Seventh-day Adventist, even before the name was considered, basic truth was committed in trust to a small remnant who survived the great disappointment in 1844. This truth was not a pillar of the faith, but a part of the foundation upon which the pillars were to rest. It is the foundation which no man can lay, save that which is already laid in Jesus Christ - the full revelation of the gospel of God. This the enemy of God hates. It forever settled his fate, and established "the kingdom of God" and demonstrated the "power of His Christ."

In the time frame of 1950, a prophecy of Jesus was established by a series of events which should be as important to the people of God in earth's final hour as was the first part of the same prophecy to His followers in AD. 66. With 20/20 vision we can see and proclaim with eagerness that which has been fulfilled, as well as that which will be fulfilled in the future, but when it is fulfilled prophecy which impacts upon us in the "now" time, we refuse to make the decision which its fulfillment demands. The Israel of Christ's day made the same mistake. They rejected the evidence of fulfilled prophecy before their eyes. They rejected the Messiah!

p 2 -- The Year 1950 -- The Focal Point of Events of the 20th Century in the Great Controversy -- In the study of Bible prophecy, one finds prophecies which are either fulfilled at the end of a time sequence, or by events. For example, in the book of Daniel, the prophet wrote that he heard "holy ones in heaven conversing, the question asked, and the answer given for him to write down: - "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" (8:14). This is a "time" prophecy. Jesus in his eschatological discourse stated - "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken" (Mark. 13:24-25). This is a prophecy of events to occur. However, from those prophesied events, when they did occur, we have dates. The Dark Day was May 19, 1780; and the Falling of the Stars occurred on November 13, 1833.

A careful study of the prophetic word brings the year 1950 into focus. Around that year, and in that year, events of deep significance took place, events which not only "cast their shadows before," but also an event which prophecy had indicated would take place with no references to time.

In the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream in which "four great beast came up from the sea" (7:3) one following the other. Finally a little horn arose in the head of the fourth beast, and was never separate therefrom (v.8). He continued to observe that after the reign of this horn for a specified period, "a time, and times, and the dividing of time" (vs. 25-26), "the judgment was set and the books were opened" (vs. 9-10). Then the prophet is startled by "the great words which the horn spake" (v.11). It is true that the "little horn" spoke words against the most High during his reign for "a time and times, and the dividing of time" (538-1798 AD); but the word, "great" is supplied in verse 25. The great words follow "the hour of His judgment" in 1844.

There have been three dogmas promulgated by the "little horn" since 1844:
1)   The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception - 1854
2)   The Dogma of Papal Infallibility - 1870
3)   The Dogma of the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven - 1950.

The last of these "great words" which impacts 1950 should provoke serious study and comprehension as we parallel the great controversy between Christ and Satan. They reach back to the beginnings of the Second Advent Movement and to the very first dogma in 1854. Relative to the "Marian" Dogmas, the chain of events has been listed in The Thunder of Justice: The Current Marian times had their beginnings in 1830 when our Blessed Mother appeared to Catherine Laboure in the convent at Rue de Bac, in Paris, France, as the Mediatrix of all Graces, and gave the Miraculous Medal to the world. One side of this medal had an image of two hearts: the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. (p. 7).

Sixteen years later, Mary supposedly appeared to young children in the French Alps telling them about things which upset her Son. The Roman Church approved this revelation in 1851, and in 1854 Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Four years later another apparition of Mary confirmed this Dogma. The accounting reads: In 1858, Our Blessed Mother oppeored to a peasont girl, Bernadette Soubirous ot Lourdes, France, announcing herself as the Immaculate Conception - confirming the dogma proclaimed by Pius IX (in 1854). Bernadette had never heard the term until told by Our Blessed Mother. (ibid.)

Another series of events parallel these dates: 1) "The public labors of Mr. Miller, according to the best evidence to be obtained, date from the autumn of 1831" (Memoirs of William Miller, p.97)

Though faulty in certain Biblical exegesis, the Second Advent Movement led by Miller in the States directed attention to the prophecy of Daniel 8:14; the study of the sanctuary types; and consideration of the Three Angels' Messages of Revelation 14. After the passing of time in 1844, there came from the shattered and disappointed believers, a small "remnant" who would later become known as Seventh-day Adventists. However, prior to the adoption of a name, God committed in trust to this remnant the doctrine of the Incarnation in direct contradistinction to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

p 3 -- 2) In 1858, the first volume of Spiritual Gifts was published, which discusses the Great Controversy "between Christ and His angels, and Satan and his angels."

The very first paragraph sets forth the issue which ignited the rebellion which had been seething in the heart of Lucifer - the design of God for and in the creation of man. The key sentences read: And I saw that when God said to His Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man. ... He wished to be the highest in heaven, next to God, and receive the highest honors. Until this time all heaven was in order, harmony and perfect subjection to the government of God. (p. 17). (See also Isa. 14:12-13)

In passing, it might be well to note that had this concept been understood, the formulation of the doctrine of the "investigative judgement" as an explanation for 1844 would have been modified to conform to the vision given Daniel in chapter 7.

In the third chapter on "The Plan of Salvation" is to be found two direct statements indicating the nature that Christ would assume in the Incarnation. They read: Jesus told (the angels) that they should have a part to act, to be with Him, and at different times to strengthen Him. That He should take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be equal with theirs. (p. 25).

Satan again rejoiced with his angels that he could by causing man's fall, pull down the Son of God from His exalted position. He told his angels that when Jesus should take fallen man's nature, he could overpower Him, and thus hinder the accomplishment of the plan of salvation. (p. 27).

This position, that Christ took upon Himself, man's fallen nature, was consistently held for the next seventy years. Although not singled out in the listing of the "pillars" of the faith (Ms. 13, 1889), documentation has shown that this concept was a part of the very fiber of Adventist teaching. (See the research by Dr. Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh, which surveys one hundred years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology from 1852 onward, or An Interpretative History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, by the Editor).

With the presentation of Righteousness by Faith at the 1888 General Conference session and the sessions following, the doctrine of the Incarnation received special emphasis by both A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner as a part of that message. Although there are certain current church historians, such as George R. Knight, who would like to mitigate this fact, the documentation is available to substantiate what these "messengers" actually taught. It is true that at the beginning of the 20th Century an aberrant movement, known as the Holy Flesh Movement, challenged the concepts as set forth by A. T. Jones then serving as editor of the Review & Herald. (See, R. S. Donnell, What I Taught in Indiana, p.15) However, at the time of its demise in 1901, E. J. Waggoner placed in bold contrast the position held by the Church with the Dogma of Rome. In the evening meeting on April 16 at the General Conference Session, he stated: The doctrine of the immaculate conception is that Mary, the mother of Jesus was born sinless. Why? - Ostensibly to magnify Jesus; really the work of the devil to put a wide gulf between Jesus the Saviour of men, and the men who He came to save, so that one could not pass over to the other. That is all.

We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not. There are a great many that have got the marks yet, but I am persuaded of this, that every soul who is here tonight desires to know the way of truth and righteousness, and there is no one here who is unconsciously clinging to the dogmas of the papacy, who does not desire to be freed from them.

Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary. Mind you, in Him was no sin, but the mystery of God manifest in the flesh, the marvel of the ages, the wonder of the angels, that thing which even now they desire to understand, and which they can form no just idea of, only as they are taught it by the church, is the perfect manifestation of the life of God in its spotless purity in the midst of sinful flesh. 0 that is a marvel, is it not? (GC Bulletin, p. 404)

In 1949 a revised edition of the standard Adventist publication, Bible Readings for the Home, was released. The chapter, "A Sinless Life" was altered. For example, the 1915 edition read, "In Christ, (God) demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh." The revised edition read - "In Christ, (God) demonstrated that it is possible, by

p 4 -- His grace and power, to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in the flesh." One word only omitted, and the changed concept moved the Church toward Rome, and away from the sacred trust committed to it in its inception.

In 1950, the administration of the church changed hands. To the new General Conference Committee, two young missionaries to Africa, home on furlough, presented their concern that the Church had never fully repented of the rejection of the 1888 Message nor had fully accepted it, as brought by the two "messengers," Jones and Waggoner. These two 1950 "messengers" wrote out the basis for their findings in a manuscript known as 1888 Re-Examined. From Heaven's viewpoint, this one event may be viewed as the prime event in 1950 in the purposes of God for His church. Wieland and Short took a firm stand in regard to the doctrine of the Incarnation reflecting the original position of the Church. (See A Warning and Its Reception, pp. 186-189) Based on the same basic premise as set forth in the manuscript, that there "is a True Christ and there is a false christ," D. K. Short published in 1991, a paperback, "Made Like ... His Brethren." Whatever reaction may be taken to some of the positions expressed by Short, he clearly set forth Jesus as accepting the fallen nature of man in the Incarnation.

In 1952, a revised and greatly enlarged" Answers to Objections, by F. D. Nichol, editor of the official organ of the Church, The Review & Herald, with a foreword by the new General Conference President, W. H. Branson, was published. In it Nichol wrote: Adventists believe that Christ, the "lost Adam," possessed, on His human side, a nature like that of the "first man Adam," a nature free from any defiling taint of sin, but capable of responding to sin, and that that nature was handicapped by the debilitating effects of four thousand years of sin's inroads on man's body and nervous system and environment. (p.393).

In 1952, Branson called a Bible Conference to refute the challenge made in 1950 by Wieland and Short. In this Bible Conference, the doctrine of the Incarnation was not discussed. A change had begun in the thinking of the Church's leadership which would alter the truth committed to it in contrast to the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception. They dared not bring it out into the open at the Bible Conference. However, the confusion was already visible to those who had eyes to see. W. H. Branson, who penned the foreword to Nichol's enlarged and revised tome, also wrote a book, The Drama of the Ages, which was given wide circulation. In it he wrote, alluding to the significance of Jacob's ladder: The Catholic doctrine of the "immaculate conception" is that Mary, the mother of our Lord, was preserved free from original sin. If this be true, then Jesus did not partake of man's fallen nature. This belief cuts off the lower rungs of the ladder, and leaves man without a Saviour who can be touched with the feeling of men's infirmities, and who can sympathize with them in their temptations and sufferings. By this teaching Jesus is made out to be altogether and wholly divine. Thus the ladder does not reach the earth where men are. (2nd ed., pp.88-89)

It should be obvious that Nichol's book with its preface by Branson does not agree with what Branson wrote in his publication. Confusion was beginning to set in. The final denial of the Church's primitive faith came in the compromise made with the Evangelicals in 1955-1956. In the published answers to the questions asked by them, the Adventist conferees responded:
Although born in the flesh, (Christ) was nevertheless God, and was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam. He was "without sin," not only in His outward conduct, but in His very nature. (Questions on Doctrine, p. 383; emphasis supplied).

The very word used, "exempt," appears to be borrowed from the explanation of the Roman dogma in Cardinal Gibbons' book, Faith of Our Fathers, where he wrote speaking of Mary, "She alone was exempt from the original taint" (p. 171, 88th rev. ed.; emphasis supplied).

The force of the statement in Questions on Doctrine rests upon the fact that in the "Introduction" to the book is found this affirmation - "This volume can be viewed as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" (p.9). Let it be noted that the Adventist leadership, as Branson, cited above, were as much aware of the meaning of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 1950s as was Waggoner in 1901. The only difference was that in the 1950s, Adventist "voices" speaking for the Church, embraced the Dogma in principle.

Two other events occurred just prior to 1950 which would have a decisive impact on the decades follow-

p 5 -- ing. In 1948, the World Council of Churches began to function, and the State of Israel was reborn. It was this latter event which jolted the Church into a restudy of its prophetic understandings. In 1944, the Pacific Press published a paperback entitled, Palestine in Prophecy. It was used as a "book of the month" by the Voice of Prophecy radio program. The final paragraph of this book reads: The apostle Paul speaks of Jerusalem as being "in bondage with her children." (Gal. 4:25) Had the Jews been faithful, Jerusalem would have been enlarged and beautified to become the center of the whole earth, beautiful for situation. But throughout the generations (from) the fall of that city in AD 70, Jerusalem has been "a burdensome stone" and "a cup of trembling unto all people" (Zechariah 12:2, 3); and it will be so till the end of time. Palestine and Jerusalem do not have a bright future in this present world, and those who are holding the hope of a national restoration for the Jews are following a theological will-o'-the-wisp.

Then in 1947, with rumblings in the ancient land of Israel itself that something was on foot, another paper-back was published by the same Press which stated: The God of heaven who overthrew the city and the nation and who because of their apostasy dispersed the inhabitants to the ends of the earth, forever settles the question of a complete return and restoration in old Canaan (of a nation of Israel) by asserting that it "cannot be." (The Jews and Palestine, p. 61)

A year later in 1948, our prophetic interpretation was blasted by reality. From "it cannot be" we were confronted with, "it is." From the Jewish viewpoint, it was a stupendous event. Menachem Begin, in his published memoirs, The Revolt, stated: There is no doubt that the revival of Hebrew national independence in our generation has no precedence in human history. A nation had been driven out of its country and after the loss of its liberty and the utter failure of its uprisings. It had wandered about the face of the earth for nearly 2,000 years. Its wanderings had been drenched in blood. And now, in the 71st generation of its exile. this wandering people had returned to its Homeland. The global tour was ended. The circle of wanderings was closed and the nation had returned to the Motherland that bore it.

Let it be clearly understood that the restoration of Israel as a nation, though an unprecedented event in all human history as Begin asserts, was not a fulfilment of any Bible prophecy. Coming events were but casting their shadows before.

Reeling from the impact of a false prophetic interpretation, and confronted by the 1888 challenge by Wieland and Short, the Church replied by a Bible Conference in 1952. Near the close of the conference, W. H. Branson, president of the General Conference, spoke on "The Lord Our Righteousness." As he finalized his study, he said - "The message of righteousness by faith given in the 1888 Conference has been repeated here. ... 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." (Our Firm Foundation, Vol. 2, p. 616). While an analysis of the presentations given would fail to substantiate Branson's conclusion that the one subject of righteousness by faith "swallowed up every other," it is indicative of the impact the manuscript by Wieland and Short had on the General Conference Committee.

The correction of the prophetic interpretation was assigned to A. S. Maxwell, editor of the Signs of the Times. In his presentation, he cited three areas of unfulfilled prophecy, one of which was, "Developments in Palestine." (ibid., p. 230). He began by saying - "The recent dramatic restoration of the nation of Israel has focused the attention of mankind once more upon Palestine." Then he called attention to the prophecy of Jesus which he said "all should be watching with special care," and quoted Luke 21:24. Why? Maxwell noted that while the nation of Israel was restored, Jerusalem was still in alien hands, "the times of the Gentiles were not yet fulfilled." Then he commented that "Jerusalem is to remain trodden down by Gentiles till the probationary time of all Gentiles has run out. If this is correct, how much hinges upon the fate of this ancient city, and the power that occupies it" (p.231). He failed to distinguish between "Gentiles" as individuals, and "Gentiles" as nations which the linguistics of the text indicate.

In taking the position he took, Maxwell returned to the Church's previous understanding of Luke 21:24, the exposition first given by Edson White in his widely circulated book, The Coming King, published in both America and Australia, The first American edition in 1898 read: We also read that "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of

p 6 -- the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Luke 21:24. Jerusalem has never again come into possession of the Jews, and will not until "the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." This will be when the work of the gospel is finished. (p. 98)

Three years later In a letter to Dr. Harvey Kellogg, Ellen White commented, - "In the twenty-first chapter of Luke, Christ foretold what was to come upon Jerusalem; with it He connected the scenes which were to take place in the history of this world just prior to the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Letter 20, 1901).

When this prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled in its first phase in 1967, Jerusalem recaptured by Israel, that year, the General Conference made its final rejection of the conclusions drawn by Wieland and Short in 1888 Re-Examined. Commenting on this final meeting, Wieland wrote to Short: To sum it all up, as I see the meeting (June 27-29, 1967) in retrospect: the 1951 report said the MS was unworthy of serious consideration because it was "critical;" the 1958 report said it was unworthy of such consideration because it used EGW statements out of context; the 1967 hearing concludes it is likewise unworthy because its fruitage is evil. When we are not able to say anything effective to clarify misunderstandings, I do not think that the last charge is really fair; but I believe the time has come to "let go and let God," and to keep still. The Lord Jesus gave everybody, good and bad, an excellent example - as sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth. Whether I am right or wrong, I believe I must from hereon be "dumb." ("Buff Section" A Warning and Its Reception, Fnd. Ed., Letter to D. K. Short, p. 8)

Also in 1967, the Central Committee of the WCC placed an Adventist theologian on its Faith and Order Commission with the consent and approval of the General Conference.

Thirteen years later, in 1980, Israel completed a second phase of its control of ancient Jerusalem. By the action of the Knesset, old Jerusalem was combined with its modern counterpart making one city the "complete and united" capital of Israel. Jesus' prophecy reached its final fulfilment.

The year 1980 also marked the adoption of a new Statement of Fundamental Beliefs in which the original teaching of the Church on the Incarnation was muted to the single observation - "He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ" (#4). In an expanded explanation of what the voted beliefs mean, the book, Seventh-day Adventist Believe ..., adopted what is called "the orthodox" position (p.57, #13), and quotes this position of the Anglican clergyman, Melvill, as a summary of the Adventist belief on the Incarnation. Melvill had written: Christ's humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not fallen, because it never descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin. (p. 47).

This position varies little, if any, from the position stated by Nichol in his book written in 1952 (See p. 4 above). The one voice which God raised up to proclaimed the "everlasting gospel" (Rev. 14:6) was derailed, and that by the official "voice" the Church in session. The "gospel of God ... concerning His Son Jesus Christ, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:1, 3), was no longer affirmed by the Church, regardless of how many individual members might still so believe. The prophecy of Jesus concerned corporate bodies. Its final fulfilment was reached in 1980.

Now we return to the key event by which prophecy marked the year 1950 - the Dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven. It does not mean that Mary ascended into Heaven in 1950, that had been taught and believed by the Roman Church from prior times. The teaching was validated in 1950 by the infallible power bestowed by the Roman Church on the Pope when speaking ex cathedra. This in turn gave official credence to the apparitions of Mary.

It is reported that Leo XIII (1878-1903) had a vision in which he was informed "that Satan would be allowed one hundred years" to vent his wrath, and that "Satan chose for his one hundred years the Twentieth Century" (The Thunder of Justice, pp.4-5). To counteract this supposed working of Satan, the Church looked upon the Twentieth Century as "the Age of Mary." The writings of Saint Louis de Monfort (1673-1716) are cited as indicating that just as Mary preceded the first coming of Jesus so "the Reign of the Blessed Virgin would precede a Reign of the Lord Jesus." The authors of The Thunder of Justice state: Never before in history have we experienced the number

p 7 -- of apparitions and supernatural phenomena as we have experienced in this century, particularly the latter half. On December 8, 1990, Mary stated to Father Gobbi: "I was driven by the Most Holy Trinity to become the Mother of the Second Advent, and thus my motherly task of preparing the Church and all humanity to receive Jesus, who is returning to you in glory." (p. 20)

Herein is the great deception, the coming of Satan as Christ in "the last remnant of time." All who are not kept by "the power of God through faith in His word will be swept into the ranks of this delusion."

The authors of The Thunder of Justice have chronicled various apparitions of Mary since 1531. For the first four hundred plus years till 1950, nineteen occurred. In the next three decades from 1950 to 1980; there were twenty two. And since 1980, to the time of the writing of the book in the early 1990s, thirty six.

This data and the stated objectives behind the Marian apparitions should tell us something. The world is in for an overwhelming surprise. But not only the world but many of those professing to believe the truth for this hour are not "home free" from this great deception.

"We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history" (LS, p. 196). The issue transcends a denominational designation. Before there was a Seventh-day Adventist, or the name even thought of, God made provision that the truth relative to the Incarnation be set forth in contradistinction to the dogma that Rome proclaimed. The issue is the gospel of God "concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:3-4). It is that victory which proclaims the "power of His Christ" (Rev. 12:10).

In the flesh, in the nature of fallen Adam, Jesus lived a life that no other son of Adam had ever lived, or can live. He did no sin. It is by faith in this righteousness alone, that we can have the hope of victory. It is these two basic elements of the "good news" of God that has come down through our church history, and at each point of the way has been contested by the enemy - 1888, 1901, 1950, 1967. But with this final date, God connected a prophecy of Jesus Himself which was to serve for His professed people as a warning signal, even as the surrounding of Jerusalem in AD 66, by alien armies, served as a warning signal to His people then. There was a brief interlude in time till AD 70, and there has been an interlude in time since 1967 to 1980, when the rejection of the original trust was crystalized in an action by the Church in session. And now as we have entered the 21st Century, the Church has again turned its back on "the gospel of God" through the action of its leaders.

"What is justification by faith? - It is the Work of God in laying the glory of man in the dust, and doing for man that which it is not in his power to do for himself. When men see their own nothingness, they are prepared to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ. When they begin to praise and exalt God all the day long, then by beholding they are becoming changed into the same image.

"What is regeneration? - It is revealing to man what is his own real nature, that in himself he is worthless."
Special Testimonies for Ministers, #9, p. 62

--- (2001 Oct) --- End --- TOP

2001 Nov -- XXXIV -- 11(01) -- THE KING JAMES VERSION -- Editor's Preview -- With this issue of WWN, we include the new Order Form for 2002. A book which we previously carried in stock, we are now again able to offer Individuality in Religion by A. T. Jones.. With another printing of Letters to the Churches by Elder M.L. Andreasen, there are no longer limits on quantity ordered. Another manuscript EEOC vs PPPA which carries the major court documents in the Merikay Silver case is also available in limited supply.

One may ask, why the emphasis on these manuscripts and documents from the past, year after year? In the second article, we note that the bottom line of the Sabbath School lessons for the Third Quarter was "stay with the corporate body" as it is the true "remnant" for this final hour. How was this conclusion reached? The corporate body, though made up of faulty people, still holds the true doctrines. All one has to do is to become knowledgeable of the apostasy that has marked the Church's course over the past five decades to know that this is not true. These deviations from truth have not been corrected, neither have the official voices who sanctioned them been repudiated. One tape with its helps, will give you an outline into which you can put all the other factors, as well as see the fallacy which the Sabbath School Lessons sought to promote. That tape with its documented helps photographically reproduced from the sources is "The Sacred Trust Betrayed." Of course, if you do not want to see anything different from what the hierarchy wants you to see, then do not listen to it.

The article on the KJV calls your attention to two things: 1) How this version supports one position of Desmond Ford and how the NKJV compounds it; and 2) How Ellen G. White reacted to a new version in her day.

p 2 -- The KJV -- Two factors motivate the discussing of the King James Version (KJV) in this issue of WWN. Earlier in the year at a camp meeting held by the "historics" near the Foundation, the use of other than the KJV by one of the "voices" produced a reaction. In the summer, the History Book Club to which I belong, had as one of their choices for the month the book, In the Beginning by Alister E. McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, and published by Doubleday. This book is a review of the background of the social, religious, and political forces which were involved in the publication of the KJV. McGrath is a lucid writer, and the book makes very easy and interesting as well as informative reading.

Before discussing the KJV further, let me state my position and use of the version. It is the only version that I have ever used in preaching from the lectern in evangelism, from the pulpit in the service of divine worship, or teaching the Scriptures in the college classroom. I see no reason to make any change even with the New King James Version available. If some text is better translated in another version than in the KJV, I do not hesitate to cite that translation and state why. For example, the KJV translates Hebrews 9:12 stating that "by His own blood (Christ) entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." If the English language means anything, the KJV is saying that Christ before He entered the first apartment of the Heavenly Sanctuary obtained for us "eternal redemption." In other words, the atonement was completed on the cross.

The translation in the NKJV is worse. It reads that Christ "with His own blood ... entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." This gives support not only to a completed atonement on the Cross but also to the contention that Christ upon His ascension went directly into the Most Holy Place. It was quite ludicrous to hear a prominent "voice" among the historics railing on Ford, and then holding tenaciously to a translation of the Scriptures which sustains Ford's position.

On the other hand, the RSV reads: He (Christ) entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but His own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

This translation can be sustained linguistically by Greek grammar. It is a case of the aorist (past tense) participle indicating "action identical with that of the main verb." (Nunn, A Short Syntax of NT Greek, #264)

Another observation on the use of translations is of interest. In 1901, the American Revised Version was published. In 1903 when the book, Education, was released, the footnotes of Scripture references reveal that some forty plus references from the new version were used, as well as one from Rotherham's translation.

It needs to be kept in mind that the KJV is a translation; the Old Testament from the Hebrew, the New Testament from the Greek. The Greek text from which the New Testament of the KJV was translated should be of the utmost concern. McGrath gives some background information on this text. He states:      Erasmus of Rotterdam produced a printed Greek text of the New Testament in 1516, which called into question some of the Latin translations found in the Vulgate. Erasmus was obliged to complete his Greek text on the basis of various manuscripts he was able to consult. None of these were especially ancient; Erasmus had to work on the basis of the criterion of accessibility. As far as we can ascertain, none of the half dozen manuscripts were earlier than the tenth century.
   Erasmus's edition of the Greek text of the New Testament was revised over the next century. The Parisian printer Robert Estienne produced a number of editions based on Erasmus's text, as did the Genevan theological and biblical scholar Theodore Beza later. It is known that the King James translators made use of Beza's edition of the Greek text of the New Testament; it was, after all, the best edition of the text then available.
   This particular version of the text has become known as the textus recpetus, ("the received text"), not because of any "official" church judgment or decision, but simply because New Testament scholars based their work upon it (p. 241).

Since 1611, the date of the first edition of the KJV, there have been found manuscripts of the New Testament much closer in time to the autographs, than were available in 1611. The result, we have available a much more accurate Greek text than the translators of the KJV knew. However, McGrath is quick to point

p 3 -- out: It must be made clear immediately that this does not call into question the general reliability of the King James Bible. The issue concerns minor textual variations. Not a single teaching of the Christian faith is affected by these variations, nor is any major historical aspect of the gospel narratives of early Christianity affected. The important point is that, in general, the King James Bible was based on the textus receptus. Scholarly fashions have changed, and the Alexandrinus text - named after the Codex Alexandrinus - is now preferred within the scholarly community to the Byzantine text, which the textus receptus reflects. (p. 242)

You will observe that McGrath uses the word, "fashions" - "scholarly fashions." Fashion should not dictate in the reading or study of the Bible. The NIV may be the "in" thing, or the use of the NKJV so that one may not be looked upon as "old fashioned," yet as McGrath concludes: "The King James Bible retains its place as a literary and religious classic, by which all others continue to be judged" (p.300). I shall continue to use it as the version of first choice, and yet I will be open to any translation of a particular verse which expresses the thought intended by the Greek text more clearly.

Returning to the example we have used previously - Heb. 9:12 - we find that the text of the textus receptus is identical to the "fashionable" Greek text referred to by McGrath. The difference between the translations involves a point in Greek grammar. I, therefore, accept the translation which harmonizes best with the whole of the priestly ministry of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.

However, there are exceptions. After writing as quoted above from page 242, McGrath states on the page following, "we may note a remarkable exception to the statement, made above" (p. 243). This involves I John 5:7-8, known as the Comma Johanneum. The KJV reads: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The RSV reads: And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

Commenting, McGrath states: "This however, is an exceptional case. In general, the variations between the textus receptus and the Codex Alexandrinus are interesting, but slight" (p. 244). How then did this major gloss get into the KJV? Note the following: The passage as given in the KJV is in no Greek MS earlier than the 15th and 16th centuries. The disputed words found their way into the KJV by way of the Greek text of Erasmus. It is said that Erasmus offered to include the disputed words in his Greek Testament if he were shown even one Greek MS that contained them. A library in Dublin produced such a MS (known as 34), and Erasmus included the passage in his text. It is now believed that the latter editions of the Vulgate acquired the passage by the mistake of a scribe who included an exegetical marginal comment in the Bible text he was copying. The disputed words have been widely used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, but in view of such overwhelming evidence against their authenticity, their support is valueless and should not be used. (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol.7, p. 675)

Where does this leave one in respect to the Bible he reads? It is true that the English of 1611 is not in many respects, the English of 2001. There have been changes in word meanings. For example, the word, "prevent" used in I Thess. 4:15, carried the meaning of the word, "precede," which we now use. The NKJV reflects that change in word meaning. This is a minor variation when compared with the NKJV for Hebrews 9:12 which we cited above. While there is still retained a questionable translation of the Greek from the KJV, the NKJV compounds the error in its translation of the verse.

What Bible should one read? For me the answer is simple - the KJV. If I find a problem, I can compare the verse in question with another version, or go to the Greek texts available. For those who have questions and are unable to consult a Greek text, help is available. The library of this Foundation is open to aid any serious student of the Word of God.

p 4 -- Not Exactly a New Concept But Is It Valid? -- While preparing this issue of WWN, the editor received a call from a young man in Maryland calling his attention to the Sabbath School lessons (then current) for the Third Quarter. The lesson which prompted the call
was Lesson 11, "The Remnant." The premise of this lesson was that God has had "many remnants" during sacred history beginning with Noah, yet in each instance, the people who composed the remnant though not perfect, proclaimed present truth. The criterion for character was loyalty, not perfection. The question is asked, "How perfect does one have to be in order to be in the remnant?" The key text was given as Rev. 12:17, and applied to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This application is not new, but has been standard Adventist teaching.

It is true that each "remnant" cited, from salvation history beginning with Noah, including the returned captives from the Babylon, and the new "Israel" composed of some who came from the nation which rejected Jesus Christ, were imperfect. The conclusion would appear to be validated that this same standard of imperfection would apply in the case of the final remnant. But the key text itself nullifies this conclusion. Revelation 12:17 reads that the warfare of "the dragon" is with "the remnant" which "keep [not "are trying to keep"] the commandments of God." And - there is a difference! Further, those who respond to the Three Angels' Messages of Revelation 14:6-10 -
the basic present truth committed to the Seventh-day Adventist Church - are defined not only as keeping the commandments of God, but also as they who "keep ... the faith of Jesus" (14:12). Whatever is not of this faith which Jesus authored, is sin (Rom. 14:23); and it is this faith, and this faith alone which gives victory (I John 5:4). The question is simple: Does this faith provide an incomplete victory, or a complete victory? Further, the fact, that the final generation of mankind closes when the final atonement of Jesus' High Priestly mediation is completed, sets the last "remnant of her seed" in a different category than any previous "remnant"!

The lesson sets forth two premises: 1) Adventists may have the quiet confidence that we are a
special people, entrusted by God with present truth to share with the world in these last days. Our basic identity is tied up with that understanding. If we ever lose that understanding, we'll loose our mission, message, and the purpose to exist as a separate entity. (p. 133, Teacher's Quarterly)

2) Being part of the remnant, however much a privilege, is no guarantee of salvation, as the history of the remnant church proves. Being among the remnant means only that you're a part of the corporate body that has been given great light and truth, "present truth." How we as individuals, respond to that light and truth is what will determine our ultimate destiny. (Box in Thursday's study)

Herein a lesson is missed. Though the historical data is given illustrating one of the "remnants" in salvation history - "The Remnant According to Grace" (Tuesday) - this remnant included Jews who to be a part of such a remnant had to separate from their previous "corporate" identity. This same factor involving the final "remnant" is avoided in the lesson. However, the gift of the spirit of prophecy is noted as a key characteristic of the final remnant. (Thursday section) In that gift is found this statement: In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed upon her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence, "Found wanting." By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged. (8T:247)

No one who has any knowledge of the history of the Church over the past five decades can deny that the Church corporately has met the conditions which would warrant the Divine sentence indicated. (Study carefully, "The Sacred Trust Betrayed." ) Actually the Sabbath School lessons for the Third Quarter were deceptive. It has been a long time since various doctrines as appeared in the Quarterly had been studied in Sabbath School. This now leads to the perception that the deviations from truth that have marked the past five decades are no more. Yet statements by men speaking in official capacity, and a book published by direct General Conference
authorization and control, denying some of the very teachings as set forth in the Quarterly, have not been repudiated.

p 5 -- Do It Correctly Eugene Lincoln -- If you want to draw a single Muslim to your evangelistic meetings, don't call them Crusades. When talking of the Sabbath and Sunday, don't accuse the Catholics or Constantine - or anyone else, for that matter - of changing the Sabbath. The fact remains that no one has changed it. People in past times have tried to change it, however. The Lord would not, and humans cannot, change this weekly memorial. So the seventh day, commonly called Saturday, remains as the Sabbath.

When presenting the Sabbath, do not use a human-made seal to illustrate what a seal must contain: The person's name, his or her office, and the territory over which he or she exerts authority. The U.S. President's seal does not contain thœ name of the current president. The only wording on it is "SEAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Few seals contain all three elements. If you regard the Sabbath as God's seal, you can find more illustrations to prove your point.

Do not enter the discussion with an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Pray for the right words to say. And remember that presenting the Sabbath, apart from the Messiah of the Sabbath, has no saving power.

Editor's Note: From time to time, we receive poems through which the children of God, old and young alike, exress their deeper feelings. Two such follow:

Poetic Counsel
Take your eyes off your problems
Reach out for the hand of God.
Your yesterdays are all forgiven
With Him you'll safely trod.
Stress causes mind and body problems
And no one can help, but He -
So cast your burdens on Jesus (Ps. 55:22)
And He will sustain you instantly.
So why wait dear Loved One;
For the boom on you to fall?
Jesus is near - just a prayer away,
And He hears your urgent call.
Lottie E. Menge

God has given so much
to me ...
Give one thing more -
a grateful heart.
George Herbert

A Day of Sabbath Rest
On Sabbath morning I early rise,
and on my knees I bow to pray.
I ask the Lord my thoughts to focus
on this His very special day.

I seek the Holy Spirit's blessing
and His outpouring from above,
I know He'll fill our hearts with fire
His mercy and His love.

I turn the pages of the Bible
in study of God's promises for me.
I hunger and thirst for righteousness;
its such truth alone that sets us free.

I sing a hymn of joyful praise
to the God of my salvation.
He made the Sabbath day for worship,
the seventh day of earth's creation.

And now as I watch the sinking sun
descending slowly in the West,
I ponder all of nature's splendor, and
thank my Maker for His day of Sabbath rest.
Anonymous

--- (2001 Nov) --- End --- TOP

2001 Dec -- XXXIV -- 12(01) -- Doctrinal Idolatry -- Editor's Preface -- With this issue we complete thirty four years of continuous publication. My mind goes back to the first issue sent out in December, 1967, as I - 1(68). It had been written for the most part at a desk in the Central Mississippi Chapter of the American Red Cross. When Madison College closed its doors, I was sent to Andrews University to complete my graduate work so as to return to the Madison Campus and teach Bible and History to the nursing students coming from Southern Missionary College for their practics at Madison Hospital. This did not materialize, and I was left free to accept any ministerial work offered. Instead, I asked for a leave of absence which was granted. I obtained a signed statement by the Southern Union Conference president that this leave was of my initiation, and as a minister in good and regular standing.

While at Andrews University, I could not erase from my mind the conviction that my future work, would be in the field of writing. I didn't like to write; I resisted the thought. My first responsibility after taking leave was that of supervising counselor of an educational unit in a Federal project to help alleviate illiteracy for the underprivileged in the state of Mississippi. The hours in driving to and from the unit as well as the night testing programs gave no time for writing. But I could not erase from my mind the call to write. So one morning while driving to Yazoo City, I pulled off from the highway onto a side road, and there in prayer with tears flowing freely, I promised the Lord I would write if he found me a job where I could have time to do so. In a few weeks, the position at the Red Cross opened, caring for the department of Service to Military Families. I was told that I had to be at the desk eight hours a day (M-F) but if not busy, I could use the time as I wished. So during October and November of 1967,the first "Watchman What of the Night?" was written. It was mimeographed, and sent out in December to a very small group of names that I could quickly put together. The organization of the Adventist Laymen's Foundation was to come later, as we found it necessary to respond to the requests coming from the growing group of readers of those early issues.

p 2 -- Doctrinal Idolatry -- Paul in his letter to the Romans charged that the heathen "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man." They also "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator" (1:23, 25). In other words, the heathen imposed upon the Divine, the human. Instead of seeking to understand God as He revealed Himself to be, they created a God, according to their earthly perceptions of Him.

The commandment is specific, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" (Ex. 20: 4-5). The God of Israel remained "invisible" (I Tim. 1:17), representing Himself by the Shekinah glory dwelling between the cherubim (Ps. 80:1). John wrote: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God ( monogenhV QeoV) who being ('o wn ) in the bosom of the Father, hath declared Him" (John 1:18; Gr.).

How did the Word who was equally God (John 1:1) in becoming flesh reveal Him? The Scripture is clear. As the second Adam, He came to restore the broken relationship resultant upon the first Adam's failure. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Cor. 15:22). Even as Adam was a son of God (Luke 3:38), so the Messiah became a Son so as to restore "many sons unto glory" (Heb. 2:10). This father-son relationship while revealing the objective of God for the salvation of man, dare not be turned, and read as the revelation of the nature of the Godhead. To do so is nothing less than "doctrinal idolatry," changing "the truth of God into a lie."

It is true that the incarnate Word is declared to be the Son of God. Many New Testament references can be cited. This is as the angel Gabriel said it would be: "That holy One which shall be born of thee shall be called ( klhqhsetai ) a Son of God" (Luke 1:35; Gr.). Gabriel did not say either that "He was" or that "He is;" but that He "shall be called a Son of God" This "Sonship" is based on a different premise than a human father-son relationship. We dare not be guilty of the heathen application of the human upon the Divine.

The Messianic second Psalm begins with the rebellion against Jehovah and His Anointed One in a great controversy motif (2:1-6). The Hebrew word "Anointed" in verse 2 is Meshiho (Messiah) - "the Anointed One of Him." This Anointed One is set as a "King" in Zion (ver. 6). The compact is between the Two Jehovahs of Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus saith the Lord (Yehowah), the King of Israel, and his redeemer, the Lord (Yehowah) of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God (Elohim). The eternal God, the King of Israel, when He came unto His own, His own received Him not, but cried out, "We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15). However, this counsel of peace which was "between the Two of Them" (Zech. 6:13; Heb.) involved more than a kingship. A decree was issued defining the messianic relationship, which stated: I will declare the dercee: the Lord hath said unto Me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (ver. 7).

The Godhead relationship is defined in Isaiah 44:6, the Messianic relationship is set forth in Psalm 2:7. To project back upon the pre-existent Elohim, the decreed relationship by which that Elohim designed to convey their objective in redemption, is doctrinal idolatry, and reveals the mind set of paganism. We might well ponder the following counsel: When the mind is engrossed with the conceptions and theories of men to the exclusion of the wisdom of God, it is stamped with idolatry. (FCE, p. 186)

No outward shrines may be visible, there may be no image for the eye to rest upon, yet we may be practising idolatry. It is easy to make an idol of cherished ideas or objects as to fashion gods of wood or stone. Thousands have a false conception of God and His attributes; They are as verily serving a false god as were the servants of Baal. (5T:173-174)

The "Messianic" decree in its fulfilment became the core of the Gospel. To two different experiences in the life of "the Word made flesh" was the decreed "sonship" applied: 1) "When He bringeth the first begotten into the world" God did not say to the angels, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee" but rather, "Let all the angels of God worship Him" (Heb. 1:5-6). He was "in flesh appearing" but nevertheless God, now to be "called the Son of God." 2) "We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God has fulfilled the same to us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts

p 3 -- 13:32-33). In the Incarnation and in the Resurrection, the decree meets it objective and fulfilment. It is as the "Son of God" and "the Son of man" that the Messiah stands as the only Mediator between God and man. Paul states it this way - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus the Messiah" (See I Tim. 2: 5). It is still the Two of Isaiah 44:6 and Zechariah 6:13. Status of position does not alter the nature of Being. The decreed Son is still God in a new dimension - the God-man.

Paul declares the "gospel of God" to be composed of two components: 1) "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ (Messiah) our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" and 2) "Declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:3-4). This gospel, Paul affirmed, did not come from man, but "by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Messiah)" directly. By the Incarnation, the "Anointed One" was to be "called the Son of God" and by the Resurrection, He was declared the Son of God with power.

The picture in Revelation brings together the whole of the objective of the counsel of peace which was between the Two of Them. The Messiah is standing "in the midst of the throne as "a Lamb as it had been slain" (5:6), and thus in worshipping Him that sat on the Throne would be to worship the Lamb also. Indeed, He has sat down with the Father in His throne. (3:21). He could say to John who had fallen at His feet, "I am the first and the last" (1:17; Isa. 44:6). "I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold I am alive forevermore" (1:18). There was a "sundering of th. Divine powers" in the redemption provided for men, but in the exaltation of the risen Lord, He is alive forevermore.
The last words of John in his first Epistle are apropos - "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." Yes, even doctrinal idolatry.

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no ELOHIM. - Isaiah 44:6.

What Purpose? - The Tithe -- With this issue, we complete 34 years of publication. During this time span, we have discussed or said little about the question of tithing. It is an individual matter and highly personal between an individual and his God. Whether one tithes very resrictively, or is liberal in his interpretation of what he should tithe is dependent on his appreciation of what God has done and is doing for him. The Biblical injunction is clear: "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house" (Mal. 3:10).

In this one verse is the injunction - "Bring ye all the tithe." It is not a matter of allocating here and there the tithe as we may determine, but "all" is to come to one place - "the storehouse." But what is the storehouse? The regular Church would have you believe that the storehouse is the Conference. This may or may not be true. The Bible defines "the house of God." To Timothy, Paul wrote: These things write I unto you, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of truth. (I Tim. 3:15)

Here the "house of God" - the storehouse - is defined as "the church of the living God." So the position of the regular Church has merit, except for one fact. The "church of the living God" is "the pillar and the ground of the truth." Therefore, if a church is in apostasy from the truth, it ceases to be "the storehouse" of God. The first determinate factor in the placement of the tithe is truth. The tithe cannot be placed where error is a "pillar" of the faith.

How are we to understand the purpose of the tithe? The injunction in Malachi reads - "that there may be meat in My house" - literally "food." Does this mear then - "pay the preacher"? It does not say food for the preacher, but for the whole house of God - all who are of "the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). This does involve the preacher but in the same way the church is involved. Jesus, during His eschatological sermon on the Mount of Olives, questioned: Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Iord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. (Matt. 24:45-46)

p 4 -- "Food in My house" is focused by Christ on "food in due season;" and that "season" being the time of the second coming. It is incumbent upon those who receive tithe, to feed the household of God with "present truth" in regard to the prophecies which relate to earth's final hours; as well as the spiritual experience all must have who will endure to the end. This also serves as a criterion for where the tithe is to be placed. Awesome is the responsibility as well as the accountability of each one who truly desires to place the Lord's holy tithe where it ought to be placed. What an accounting will have to be given by "servants" who accept tithe, and do not provide "food in due season" but continue to preach error instead of truth. Further, how will the "blind guides" who continue to urge people to support apostasy with their tithe answer in the day of final accounts?
Yes, while tithing is a personal matter, it serves as a criterion as to how one relates to what is holy, and to what God claims as His own, for the tithe is both holy and the Lord's. (Lev. 27:30). The decision is individual, but the guidelines as to its purpose and use are clearly stated.

Three Messengers -- In 1888, the Church had three messengers, none of whom claimed infallibility. In 1903, the first "messenger" wrote: From the year 1846 until the present time, I have received messages from the Lord, and have communicated them to the people. This is my work to give to the people the light that God gives to me. I am commissioned to receive and communicate His messages. I am not to appear before the people as ho!ding any other position than that of a messenger with a message. (St. Helena, California, Nov. 17, 1903; quoted in "The Final Word and A Confession," p.10)

In 1888, God sent two other "messengers" to the Church with a specific message. Reviewing this commission, Ellen White wrote: The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is manifest in obedience to all of the commandments of God. (TM, pp. 91-92)

In the same testimony, it was noted: "It is the perpetual life of the church to love God supremely, and to love others as they love themselves." But in 1888, there was little of this love manifest in the Church, so "God gave to His messengers just what the people needed" (ibid., p. 95) Then the question was asked, "How long will you hate and despise the messengers of God's righteousness?" (p.96).

There can be little doubt, that Ellen G. White who recognized her commission as a "messenger" also recognized Jones and Waggoner as commissioned "messengers" with a specific message for the Church. The question, though asked, has not been researched nor answered as to why God chose two other "messengers" to give the message of justification by faith instead of the first "messenger"? Further, while the two "messengers" of 1888 emphasized the "gospel" of the Three Angels' Messages of Revelation 14, during the same period, the first "messenger" was counselling the Church on an attitude and condition of mind which has been as much spurned as was the
message of righteousness by faith itself, as given by Jones and Waggoner. Only the aspect of righteousness by faith has been brought to the forefront by the challenge of Wieland and Short in 1950.

In 1892, the admonition was given - "Let no one come to the conclusion that there is no more truth to be revealed" (Counsels on Sabbath School Work, p.34). Two years prior, a brother had asked Ellen White, "Do you think we must understand the truth for ourselves? Why can't we take the truth that others have gathered together, and believe them?" To this she wrote - "It is dangerous to make flesh our arm. We should lean upon the arm of Infinite Power. God has been revealing this to us for years. We must have living faith in our hearts and reach out for larger knowledge and
more advanced light" (R&H, March 25, 1890).

The messages of the three "messengers are congruent. Each is a part of the whole. The righteousness of Christ was declared to be "pure, unadulterated truth" (TM, p. 65), and the truth was declared to be "an advancing truth" with the counsel, "we must walk in the increasing light" (op. cit, R&H). Lest, we would conclude that this counsel was being directed solely toward those opposing Jones and Waggoner, and that "the advancing light" was only in reference to the
message of righteousness by faith - which it did in-

p 5 -- clude - Ellen White wrote: There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will loose anything by close investigation. (R&H, Dec.20, 1892).

And again: We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have an occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. (R&H, July 26, 1892).

Here is the crux of our problem - "the unity for which Christ prayed." It is so desperately needed among the fragmented segments of Adventism, yet it is among these segments that the "determined persistency" which opposes that unity is most visibly seen. We may proclaim the 1888 Message and form a committee for its promotion, yet if we are not willing to walk in the advancing light of truth which leads to a "pure, unadulterated truth," we in reality do not have the righteousness of Christ manifest in a living and working faith. The message of two messengers may be given, but failure to heed the message of the third leaves a void which nullifies "the unity for which Christ prayed."

Then there are those who profess to be upholding the "historic" faith, who, not only, know little of what righteousness by faith means, but also reject any advancing light of truth. They remain in the same Laodicean state out of which they profess to have come. Tragically, they have attached "works" as well as "hobby horses" to their confession of faith and are riding them "like the midnight ride of Paul Revere." But it is not leading to "the unity for which Christ prayed."
In the Review & Herald (July 26, 1892) in which is found the challenge - "We have many lessons to learn, arid many, many to unlearn" - are also found the directives of how "the unity for which Christ prayed" may be realized.

The question is first asked "How shall we search the Scriptures?" This is the first hurdle today, that evidently was not a stumbling block in 1892. Today, the question which dominates is "What do the Writings teach?" before we even open the Bible. The question the first messenger noted as the beginning point to achieve the unity for which Christ prayed, is "How shall we search the Scriptures?" and she made it clear that she meant the Bible. She observed that "many who read and even teach the Bible, do not comprehend the precious truth they are teaching or studying."

After asking the first question, the first "messenger of the Lord" questioned: Shall we drive our stakes of doctrine one after another, and then try to make all Scripture meet our established opinions, or shall we take our ideas and views to the Scriptures, and measure our theories on every side by the Scriptures of truth?

The answer is obvious. The Bible determines truth, not our own ideas and opinions. "Men entertain errors, when the truth is clearly marked out, and if they would bring their doctrines to the word of God, and not read the word of God in the light of their doctrines, to prove their ideas right, they would not walk in darkness or blindness, or cherish error. Many give the words of Scripture a meaning that suits their own opinions, and they mislead themselves and deceive others by their misinterpretation of God's word." (ibid.)

How then are we to study the Word so as to attain "the unity for which Christ prayed"? As we take up the study of God's word, we should do so with humble hearts. All selfishness, all love of originality, should be laid aside. Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. It was the unwillingness Of the Jews to give up their long-established traditions that proved their ruin. They were determined not to see any flaw in their own opinions or in their interpretations of the Scriptures; but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. (ibid.)

This last step will be most difficult to take. To discard the many, many things that must be unlearned, which have been long cherished will be traumatic. At that point we will either do as the Jews did in a different form, or we will, with humble hearts, lay aside error.

p 6 -- The Jews crucified Jesus who was the truth, we can today crucify the truth as it is in Jesus.

With what attitude should we approach a challenge to our personal perceptions? The answer is given: Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. (ibid.)

Then the first messenger of the Lord recalled that "this was the spirit cherished among us forty years ago" which would take one back to the 1850s prior to the formation of the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church. What did that "Little Flock" as they were then called do?

We would come together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one in faith and doctrine; for we knew that Christ is not divided. One point at a time was made the subject of investigation. Solemnity characterized these councils of investigation. The Scriptures were opened with a solemn sense of awe. Often we fasted, that we might be better fitted to understand the truth. After earnest prayer, if any point was not understood, it was discussed, and each one expressed his opinion freely; then we would again bow in prayer, and earnest supplications went up to heaven that God would help us see eye to eye, that we might be one, as Christ and the Father are one. (ibid.)

If we would seek to emulate the experience that marked the beginning of the Advent Movement, it would become obvious that there were difficulties to solve. First, Bible Conferences such as have marked the years since then, such as the 1919 or 1952 conferences, cannot duplicate the setting necessary to achieve the true objective of "the unity for which Christ prayed." Study groups would have to be limited in size, small enough so that each one present could "freely" express himself. The time allotted would have to be of a duration so that solid conclusions based in the study of the Word could be achieved. The pace of life to which we are accustomed would have to be drastically altered. Progress would be slow due to the many and varied winds of doctrine that have been blowing unchecked in the corridors of Adventism during the past few decades.

Then there is a primary question that must be addressed. Who is willing among the many voices sounding in the corridors of Adventism "to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism and who "will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed"? Besides this, there is a more acute question: Who would be willing to admit that he was in error even if shown to be by the study of the Word?

We are prone to think that since the pioneer brethren came together and through fasting, prayer and study of the Bible, formulated a comprehensive doctrinal structure in the 1850s, it is infallibly sound. Yet it was some forty years later that the first messenger stated unequivocally that there were still things to learn, and many, many things to unlearn. This fact, we are reluctant to acknowledge and act upon in accordance with the directive - "learn" and doubly "unlearn." It has been made even more difficult to follow and accept, when it is obvious in the history of the church from 1950 and climaxing in 1980, most attempts to do so have resulted in apostasy from the truth rather than growth in the truth. This has been carefully documented in the first eight issues of WWN for this year as we critiqued Dr. George R. Knight's book, A Search for Identity.

Those promoting the current agitation over the 1888 Message, while placing in the forefront the message given by the second two messengers, have ignored, or we might say, have rejected, the directives by the first messenger in regard to the advancing light of truth. They deplore the rejection by the "brethren" of the 1888 message, yet at the same time reject the advancing light of truth commensurate to the hour to which we have come in human history. Their rejection since their challenge in 1950, and documented in A Warning and Its Reception, seems to have made no impression upon them.

There are questions that demand attention. There can be no question that we have reached the end of time. Jesus Himself gave a prophecy which would mark that end. We have not heeded it nor the message of the first messenger regarding final events. (See R&H, Dec. 13, 1892) From the very beginning of the Advent Movement, the first messenger encouraged the "Little Flock" to consider what could be designated as a "great controversy motif" in the understanding the salvation history. (See Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1) This means simply that when the final judgment began in heaven, the first question to be resolved, of necessity, would involve the angelic host. From one of them is where sin began. The prophecy clearly indicates this fact (Daniel 7:10), but we have given it little consideration.

It is our objective, by the grace of God, to address

p 7 -- some of these questions forthrightly in the issues of WWN for 2002. If in 1892, there were lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn, the intervening years have not nullified this counsel, but because it has not been done, it has made it even more necessary that such an attempt be made.

Divine Intervention -- While God created man a free moral agent with the power of choice, He did not abdicate His Sovereignty to intervene in the course of human affairs. The first act of sin caused God to intervene for the protection of the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden. "He drove out the man" (Gen. 3:22-24). When the wickedness of man became so great that "every imagination of his heart was only evil continually," God altered the whole of the original creation by a flood of waters (Gen. 7:11). As the defiance of man again exhibited itself on the plain in the land of Shinar, "the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded" (Gen. 11:5). He intervened. The very functioning of the human mind was altered which led to diversity of cultures and varied ethnic groupings.

With the call of Abraham, God intended through man to intervene in the affairs of man. Man was to reveal God to his fellow men. The exhibit which God developed in His relationship with Abraham was the element of faith - seeing the unseen by promise as if it were reality. The development of this faith in Abraham was so time consuming, that God had to intervene directly when only by that divine intervention could the promise be fulfilled. The whole reproductive system of Sarah had to be rejuvinated. In this experience, is set forth the single question which governs all else in the great controversy between good and evil - "Is any thing too hard for the Lord?" (Gen. 18:14). Paul, citing this experience, wrote of Abraham, that he "being fully persuaded that, what [God] had promised, He was able also to perform" (Rom. 4:21). This is the basis of grace, and the substance of faith.

The Gospel as promised required Divine Intervention (Rom. 1:1, 3-4). God entered flesh itself so as to condemn sin where it resided. (Rom. 8:3). But there was no intervention in His own behalf to purge the flesh before He entered it. He further limited Himself. In that flesh, of His own self, He could do nothing. (John 5:30). But when the Messiah was made verily sin for us in all of its aspects - He died the "second death" - God intervened! To John, the risen Lord could proclaim; "I was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore" (Rev. 1:18).

There is to be another divine intervention. In the provision of the gospel for our present sinful lives, there is the promise that "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (I John 2:1). However, in the contest with the flesh, we "cannot do the things that (we) would" (Gal. 5:17). No amount of good works brings to us perfection. We fail often, though the "intent" is still there. We press on toward "the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." To "be thus minded" is to "be (presently) perfect" (Phil. 3:14-15). There is a time, however, when that intercession will cease. (Rev. 15:8). What Divine Intervention does God have planned for those whose "intent" is toward His high calling, when He takes unto Himself His great power and reigns? (Rev. 11:17). This is the supreme question of the present hour, and can be answered only in the context of the final atonement. There are only two factors from the human perspective: 1) Soul affIction, and 2) Cease from trust in our own works. (Lev. 23:29-30). All the rest, according to the type is the work of the High Priest. The promise has been given - "He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him" (Heb. 7:25). The question asked so long ago - "Is there anything too hard for the Lord" - is apropos. "Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever" (Jude 24-25). --- (2001 Dec) --- End --- TOP

2001 -- Special Report 1(01) -- The Forming of the Image To the Beast -- Is it Now Accomplished? -- Editor's Preface -- The author of this special issue wishes to remain anonymous under the pen name, Pro Libertas. A Seventh-day Adventist since 1953, he has a legal background as a graduate of London University and Lincoln's Inn of Court, London, England, with degrees of Ll.B and Barrister-at-Law. He practiced law in a British jurisdiction for twenty years before coming to the United States in 1975. Now an American citizen, he received training in the laws of the United States before working as an assistant to attorneys in Corporate and Civil Litigation law departments of a major California corporation between 1991 and 1996. Deeply concerned with what he sees taking place since the American election and having followed closely the development of the Religious Right, the author has deep convictions as to the fulfillment of the prophecy of Revelation 13 before our very eyes today. However, he leaves with each reader the final judgment as to what he sees, really means. Is the forming of the Image to the Beast now being accomplished?

There is no question but that the events of the past few months leaves one stunned. The selection by the Supreme Court of the President of the United States in a five to four decision, with three of the five judges confessed Romanists, plus the rapid fire changes initiated by the President without a clear mandate to govern, clearly indicates the meaning of what we have been told - "the final movements will be rapid ones."

Consideration needs to be given to the fact that the common bond between the Religious Right and the Hierarchy of the Roman Church is the issue of abortion, and the basis of this factor is grounded in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

p 2 -- The Forming of the Image To the Beast -- Is it Now Accomplished? -- Pro Libertas -- To the knowledgeable Seventh-day Adventist, there should be no question about the connection between the Roman Catholic Church and the Image to the Beast It is a fact established beyond all reasonable doubt that the first beast of Revelation 13 is the papacy. All the characteristics and identifying marks apply to none other than the Church of Rome. It can also be established that the second beast "coming up out of the earth" is Protestant America. Our Lord revealed that in time the second beast would exercise all the power of the first beast before him. Sadly the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has for many years departed from the former clear separation of the church from Rome and apostate Protestantism, so that today the message of Revelation 13 is at best muted and at worst repudiated.

In the American colonies the Roman Church had little influence. Of the original thirteen only Maryland included an appreciable number of Catholics. Roman Catholics were often unwelcome in the other colonies, and in some colonies, they were excluded. Some estimates indicate there were 25,000 in the colonial population of 4,500,000 in 1776. In 1789 John Carroll was appointed Bishop of Baltimore, with a diocese encompassing the entire new nation. While the laity were social outcasts, and viewed with suspicion and hostility on the part of their Protestant neighbdrs' well into the 20th century, the hierarchy enjoyed its place in the free society of the United States from the beginning. This and the growth of the Catholic population are of profound significance. In 1850 Catholics made up only 5% of the total population; by 1906, they made up 17% (14 mIllion out of 82 million) and constituted the largest single religious denomination in the country. They have never looked back.

At the 1895 General Conference session, A T. Jones as a part of his series on the "Third Angel's Message" presented a study on "The Papacy." He noted the intense interest with which Leo XIII viewed the American experiment in democracy and the place of the Roman Church in the United States, where he believed the stronghold of Romanism of the future lay. Of particular interest to Leo was the fact that this democracy was "without restraining bonds." Jones brought this central issue into focus by stating: The papacy is very impatient of any restraining bonds; in fact, it wants none at all. And the one grand discovery Leo XIII has made, which no pope before him ever made, is that turn which is taken now all the time by Leo, and from him by those who are managing the affairs in this country, - the turn that is taken upon the clause of the Constitution of the United States, - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Leo has made the discovery that the papacy can be pushed upon this country in every possible way, and by every possible means, and that Congress is prohibited from ever legislating in any way to stop it. That is a discovery that he made that none before him made, and that is how it is that he of late can so fully endorse the United States Constitution. (GC Bulletin, pp.29, 30)

In an Encyclical published in the Catholic Standard, February 2, 1895, Leo XIII made it very clear that although the Church of Rome was enjoying "a prosperous growth" in America, this was not to be taken as evidence that it was better to have Church and State separate. Thus was Leo both the admirer and the foe of democracy and the U.S. Constitution. The diabolical insights and the machinations of Leo XIII are a critical component of the relentless assaults against the twin First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the United States Constitution.

The Nation with two Lamblike Horns -- Christian Edwardson in his book, Facts of Faith, provides an analysis of the second beast of Revelation 13. In the last two of six specifications drawn from the prophecy, he states: (5) It would be a great nation, for it was equal in power to the Papacy (v.12).

(6) And yet its principles were to be lamblike, mild (v. 11), or as the Danish and German have it: "Like a lamb" - Christlike. And Christ advocated two great principles: First, separation of church and state. He said: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's" (Luke 20:25). That is keep the two separate. Second, religious liberty. He said: "If any man hear My words, and believe not, I judge him not" John 12:47. "Judge not, that ye be not judged" Matt. 7:1.

It is evident that only one nation answers to all these specifications: the United States of America. (p.235).

There is much talk today by right-wing jurists about the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. Their real agenda is to reinterpret the Constitution with the primary purpose of destroying the "wall of separation" between Church and State. Whatever can be discerned of the original intent of the founders of this nation, their object in framing the religion clauses can be deteimined from the plain language of their private statements and letters. The following are a few selections that give the lie to opponents of the total separation between Church and State: GEORGE WASHINGTON -- The tribute of thanksgiving which you offer to the gracious Father of lights, for His inspiration of our public councils with wis-

p 3 -- dom and firmness to complete the national Constitution, is worthy of men who, devoted to the pious purpose of religion, desire their accomplishment by such means as advance the temporal happiness of mankind. And here I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe, that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little Political attention. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna Charta of our country. (George Washington in a letter to Presbyterian Church representatives in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, October 1789; emphasis supplied)

JOHN ADAMS -- You have not extended your ideas of the right of private judgment and the liberty of conscience, both in religion and philosophy, farther than I do. Mine are limited only by morals and propriety. (John Adams in a letter to M. M. Noah regarding Jews in America, July 31, 1818).

JAMES MADISON -- The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State. (James Madison, letter to Robert Welsh, March 2, 1819)

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity. (James Madison, a letter to F. L. Schaeffer, December 3, 1821)

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. (James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822; emphasis supplied)

Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principles of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your system, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its Maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political and civil institutions. (Excerpt from James Madison's Detached Memoranda)

THOMAS JEFFERSON -- Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. (Thomas Jefferson, Writings, Library of America, p. 510; Emphasis supplied).

In the case of Reynolds v. United States, decided in 1878, redecided in 1879, the Supreme Court quoted Jefferson's statement and said: Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

In 1947 the Supreme Court again adopted Thomas Jefferson's view in the case of Everson v. Board of Education and stated, "That wall must be kept high and impregnable." Opponents of the "wall of separation" claim that the Court went far beyond Jefferson's original intent; but this flies in the face of the facts of history. Similarly, the powerful forces that are now engaged in the work of undermining the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty argue that the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation." Perhaps all of them, or a majority of them, really believe their own propaganda. The fact is that they are wrong. In addition to all of the statements of the framers of the Constitution which indicate the contrary, there was a treaty between the United States and the Barbary, in which Article 11 expressly stated that the "government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This treaty was made under the presidency of George Washington and signed into law by President John Adams. The Catholic hierarchy has never been under any illusion on this point. The Roman Catholic Church did "recognize" the United States as a "Christian nation" when in 1892 a Supreme Court Justice said that it was. However, from Pope Leo XIII's own statement in his encyclical to America, we know that he recognized "State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced."

The Image speaks as a Dragon -- In Facts of Faith, Christian Edwardson makes this comment on Rev. 13:11: The prophet continues: "He spake as a dragon." ... A nation speaks through its laws. This prophetic statement, therefore, reveals that a great change in policy is to come over our beloved country. The "dragon" is a symbol of pagan Rome, that persecuted the early Christians during the first three centuries. ...

This prophecy also reveals what influence will be brought to bear upon our lawmakers and people to produce this sad change. We have already seen that "the first beast" of Revelation 13:1-10 represents the Papacy, and by reading the eleventh and twelfth verses we see that the effort of the lamblike beast will be to cause "the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast,

p 4 -- whose deadly wound was healed." That is: The whole trend is Romeward, therefore it must be Rome that is working in disguise to bring about such a trend. (p.239)

Further, The Papacy was formed by a union of church and state, which resulted in the persecution of dissenters. An "image," or "likeness" to the Papacy in America would be a union of church and state, or a co-operation between them, as in the days of papal Rome. And, seeing it is to be "an image to the beast," it cannot be the beast itself, but must be an effort started among Protestants, who desire the aid of the state to enforce some of their dogmas. (p.302)

The course of history in this Republic which has brought us to the apocalyptic conditions of the present is precisely in accord with the above statements. The principle of total separation of Church and State was under steady assault from the very beginning. The excerpt quoted above from a letter of George Washington to church representatives indicates the dissatisfaction of some church people then to the exclusion of an establishment of religion from the Constitution. The first serious effort to reverse this wise action of the framers occurred in 1864. An amendment to the Constitution proposed by the National Reform Association, known as the Christian Amendment, attempted to have inserted God, Christianity, and Jesus in the Preamble. Sixty-four other religious measures were introduced in Congress between 1888 and 1910. At all times it has been Protestants who have been pressing this agenda publicly. However, the blueprint laid out by Leo XIII has been followed assiduously by the Catholics. They, in the words of Christian Edwardson, were: ... focused on America, not in an antagonistic way, but quietly, in wisely planned, systematically organized, and well directed efforts along numerous lines, so as to gain favor among Protestants, and not to be suspected as propaganda. (p.241)

So successful were the Catholics in gaining favor among Protestants that the latter sought the former's aid in achieving their objectives, all unsuspecting of the ultimate goal of Catholicism in the United States. This is documented in the final chapter of Facts of Faith (pp. 304-306). It has now culminated in the modem political movements and organizations that have now imposed the distinct form of the Image to the Beast on this Republic that was founded on the grand principles of civil and religious liberty.

The Religious Right & Allies Take Over -- The origins of the modem religious right can be traced back to the failed presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. Following Goldwater's defeat a conservative movement known as the New Right was formed with a declaration of war against communism and a perceived "movement" which they called "secular humanism." They believed that this "movement" was trying to steer the U.S. away from a God centered society to "atheistic socialism." Key leaders of the New Right were three men from the Goldwater campaign: Richard Viguerie, Howard Phillips and Paul Weyrich. By the early '70s they had laid the foundations for a conservative revolution in the United States. Viguerie built a fund-raising empire with the use of a list of Goldwater donors. Phillips founded the Conservative Caucus which promoted militarism. Weyrich obtained financial backing from Colorado beer magnate Joseph Coors to found the Heritage Foundation. This is a right-wing think tank that has exercised great influence on Republican presidential administrations since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980. He also brought into being the Free Congress Foundation for the purpose of building a right-wing political movement and electing sympathetic politicians to Congress. Although possessed of superb organizational skills, the three men did not have a popular base of support. To remedy this lack, they targeted Democratic working class voters with social and cultural issues. (See, "Historical Background of the Religious Right" at http://www.aclu.org/about/right3.html).

The next phase of the campaign to rid the nation of "secular humanism" is noted in this ACLU report, under the caption - "Mobilizing a New Constituency": In the mid-1970s Viguerie used his sophisticated direct mail fund-raising techniques to address another constituency: evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Viguerie sought to tap resentment toward Supreme Court decisions banning prayer in the public schools and establishing a woman's right to an abortion. His direct mail efforts not only brought money into the New Right's coffers; they disseminated a steady flow of appeals that encouraged evangelicals to become involved in politics.

Other new activist organizations also played an important role in mobilizing this constituency. In 1974 and 1975 a group of key leaders, including Richard DeVos, president of Amway Corporation, and Bill Bright, president of Campus Crusade for Christ convened a series of secret meetings to plan the development of the religious right. This group published a blueprint for Christians to win elections and a manual designed to persuade evangelical Christians to adopt conservative positions on a whole range of issues. Bill Bright subsequently sponsored the "I Found It," campaign, which used billboards, bumper stickers, and newspaper ads in a massive effort to expose every person in the United States to the gospel. Between 1976 and 1980 the campaign spent several hundred million dollars, much of it raised by Texas billionaire Nelson Bunker Hunt.

Organizations arose to mobilize women by appealing to "family values" and anxieties about the emerging feminist movement. In 1972, Phyllis Schlafly founded the Eagle Forum to organize opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, which she saw as a threat to the traditional family. (Schlafly had authored a conspiratorial book titled A Choice Not An Echo, which had served as the slogan of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign.) And in 1979, Beverly LaHaye founded what would become the most successful New Right women's organization, Concerned Women for America. Civil rights for gay people emerged as another flashpoint for the Right. ...

p 5 -- Although usually regarded as a fringe religious cult, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, or Moon Organization, played an important behind-the-scenes role in spurring the development of the New Right and religious right. Direct mail guru Richard Viguerie has raised money for various Moon Organization groups since 1965. The principle source of Moon's funding, however, is in Japan, where Moon has had close connections with the Japanese right wing and prominent members of the Liberal Democratic Party. Beginning in 1975, a conservatively estimated $80 million a year began flowing from the Japanese branch of the Unification Church to the United States. Much of this money went to various New Right organizations and to Moon's Washington Times, a daily newspaper that since 1982 has served as a sounding board for the New Right. Activists for the Moon Organization usually work with others on the right through an array of groups with patriotic-sounding names, such as the American Freedom Coalition and the anti communist CAUSA. Founded in 1987, the American Freedom Coalition brought together various elements of the right, including anti-Communist, anti-abortion, and "pro-family" groups.

The ACLU report describes the organization and work of Falwell's Moral Majority and its eclipse. Being - Disappointed with their accomplishments through the Reagan Presidency, religious right leaders shifted their strategy and tactics to winning offices at the state and local level and gaining control of local Republican Party organizations. With the eclipse of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, Paul Weyrich and Pat Robertson worked as allies in both this shift in strategy and this power struggle.

Of enormous significance is the ideology driving the agenda of the religious right. It is an end-times ideology. The ACLU describes this ideology as 'To Rule and Reign:" The analysis reads: If the religious right is, as many of its leaders say, fighting a war, then it is a war in which ideas are critical. Conservative evangelical leaders seek control of political institutions as a means to implement their theological ideas. And their theology can provide a powerful motivation for political activism. Awareness of these ideas is essential to understanding their political tactics and objectives. [IHowever], the religious right is by no means monolithic; it is divided on certain theological issues and organizational style. Yet despite these divisions, it has forged a working consensus on political ideology and strategy.

Further, the Evangelical concept of the "End Times" enters the picture. The report continues: Belief in an evangelical religion does not automatically lead to involvement in public affairs. For much of this century, evangelicals have avoided direct involvement in politics and instead have focused on saving souls. Evangelicals' motivations for political activism depend, in part, on their beliefs about the "end times." Indeed, the most important divisions within the religious right revolve around beliefs on this issue. There are two main schools of thought.

In the larger school are the "premillenialists." They believe that Christians will be lifted into heaven en masse - in what is known as the rapture - before the battle of Armageddon, the final battle between good and evil. Afterwards, they will return to earth, where they will "rule and reign" with Christ. Since premillenialists believe that Christ's return will cause the world to be reformed, they have little incentive to become politically active and reform the world themselves. Instead, their primary obligation is to evangelize- to convert as many non-believers as possible before Christ's return. Overcoming this disinclination to political activism has been one of the greatest challenges confronting the leaders of the religious right. In the smaller theological camp are the "postmillenialists," who believe that Christ will not return until after Christians reign for a thousand years. Because they believe that they must literally prepare the way for Christ's return, their ranks include some of the most committed political activists on the religious right.

Involved in this picture are the "Christian Reconstructionists:" The most militant postmillenialists are known as Christian Reconstructionists. Though a tiny minority on the religious right, their ideas have exerted an important influence. They stress a literal interpretation of the Bible and believe that society should be "reconstructed" to conform to Biblical laws. The most prominent Reconstructionist is Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, a former Orthodox Presbyterian minister and John Birch Society activist who has published numerous books and tracts through his think-tank, Chalcedon, headquartered in Vallecito, California. He and his son-in- law Gary North (now estranged) are largely responsible for developing and propagating Christian Reconstructionism's political program. Rushdoony and North seek to rebuild society according to a biblical blueprint. Their prescriptions include the death penalty for unrepentant homosexuality, abortion, and adultery; the abolition of the prison system; which would be made possible by imposing the death penalty on serious criminals and forcing less serious criminals to make restitution; the elimination of sexually explicit materials; schools run entirely by the churches; and the complete elimination of property taxes. Rushdoony's extreme views are shared by only a tiny minority of the religious right, but these views have had a major impact through what is loosely known as "Kingdom" or "Dominion" theology. According to these theologies, Christians are mandated by the Bible to take control of all secular institutions and build the Kingdom of God on earth. Kingdom theology gives evangelical organizers not only a powerful incentive to become politically active, but also a long-range social vision which has become the central, unifying ideology for the religious right.

It is not possible within the limits of this article to mention all of the arms of the religious right movement. Suffice it to say that all of the maior religious right leaders have united in a single political entity called the Council for National Policy. These include the three original founders of the New Right movement, all of the well-known names of the religious right leadership plus some not so well known, all of the multimillionaire funders of the religious right organizations, and a number of leaders of the Republican Con-

p 6 -- gress, among them Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, and Trent Lott. The Council "is an extremely secretive organization that meets behind closed doors to strategize and co-ordinate its campaign." (See: http://www.geocities.com/alanjpakula/triple2.html). Now President George W. Bush addressed this organization in a secret meeting in October, 1999, and his presidential campaign refused to allow the tape to be released. However, notes of persons in attendance reportedly indicate that his promises included restrictions on "special" civil rights, "Christian" prayer in schools which would be "Christian" or corporate only, that he would "work hard" to overturn Roe v. Wade, and appoint only anti-choice judges to the Supreme Court and the federal bench. He expressed his approval of revoking First Amendment guarantees of separation of Church and State and freedom of speech. In his view, Christianity is the only real religion.

There is another powerful right-wing organization, not directly connected with the religious right. It is the Federalist Society. Its origins are described by Jerry Landay in The Washington Monthly (March, 2000): The Society's origins can be traced back to 1979 - the year before Ronald Reagan's victory - when a legal scholar named Michael Horowitz published a tract on the public-interest law movement, exhorting conservatives to overturn a half-century of liberal dominance of the legal establishment. This could be done, he wrote, by indoctrinating or winning over succeeding generations of law students, lawyers, and judges. By definition, the campaign had to be rooted in the fertile ground of law schools. To Horowitz's good fortune, Reagan was elected in 1980, and his administration set to work filling the sails of the Federalist movement.

Horowitz's concept was taken up with relish by senior members of the new Administration. They operated on two tracks - designed to insure that the Reagan Revolution would well outlast the Reagan Presidency. The first, to reclaim the Federal courts from liberals, swept an array of conservative scholars and judges from law schools and state courts onto the Federal bench: the likes of Robert Bork, Ralph Winter, Antonin Scalia, Richard Posner, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Anthony Kennedy.

The second track was even more forward looking and involved the apprenticing of a new generation of conservative lawyer-intellectual-under-30 to the Reagan apparat.

The Second track was laid with the establishment of the founding chapters of the Federalist Society at Yale under Robert Bork, and at the University of Chicago under Antonin Scalia. It has been fair sailing ever since.

When one looks for a connection between the Catholic Church and the religious right, it is not to be found primarily in institutional organization, but rather in a community of interests in specifically defined areas such as the anti-abortion movement, aid to parochial schools, and so on. However, in the establishment of the Federalist Society one can see the fingerprints of the Roman Catholics, whose modus operandi has ever been to capture the elite of society. Scalia is of course a Catholic. Bork is believed to be an agnostic, but clearly is subject to a powerful Catholic influence: his wife is a board member of the Catholic Campaign for America, which seeks to teach Catholics to bring Catholic values into public life.

With 25,000 members plus scores of close affiliates nation-wide - including Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, and University of Chicago brain-boxes Richard Epstein and Frank Easterbrook (also a federal appellate judge) - the Federalist Society is quite simply the best-organized, best-funded, and most effective legal network operating in this country. Its rank-and-file include conservative lawyers, law students, law professors, bureaucrats, activists, and judges. They meet at law schools and function rooms across the country to discuss and debate the finer points of legal theory and substance on panels that often include liberals - providing friction, stimulus, and the illusion of balance. What gets less attention, however, is that the Society is accomplishing in the courts what Republicans can't achieve politically. There is nothing like tile Federalist Society on the left. (Ibid.: emphasis supplied.)

Starting with the New Right in the '70s, this is the pervasive, entrenched, sinister power that Satan has built up and put into place for this end time. The total force of all these movements has been concentrated on seizing the White House for George Bush.

The Selecting of a President with a Religious Mission -- Many political commentators who are uncomfortable with the notion of religion in government indulge in the wishful thinking that George W. Bush learned from his father's problems with the evangelicals, and merely professes Christian faith to secure what has become the base of the Republican party. But Bush has talked freely about the "spiritual awakening" that he experienced from a single conversation with Billy Graham in 1985. He does not describe himself as "born again" he says, because his faith deepened more gradually than that term implies. He made a startling statement in a Republican presidential primary debate that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher "because He changed my life." An article in the New York Times (January 23, 2000) reported that, far from mere political posturing his belief was "both a central pillar of his life and critical to his vision for the nation and the way he would govern." This information came from religious leaders, friends and Bush himself. The article went on: As president, Mr. Bush says, he would "look first" to religious organizations of various faiths, rather than government or secular agencies, to attack poverty, homelessness and addiction. He has also said he would not require religious programs to censor their spiritual teachings to get government aid. He believes that God has a place in government, that religion has a place in society, and it is not to be marginalized and put on the periphery as though it is some sort of extra," said the Rev. Tony Evans, an evangelist and senior pastor of the Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas who prays with Mr. Bush....

p 7 -- But behind the scenes, some of the nation's most prominent Christian conservatives are supporters, friends and advisers of Mr. Bush. They say they are confident he will promote their agenda on abortion and "family values," as well as church-state issues. (Emphasis supplied.)

We will probably never know what commitments Bush made to the Council for National Policy; but the above quotations are proof enough of his enmity against the separation of Church and State.

Bush had two direct masters in the recent presidential election campaign - the hierarchy of the Roman Church, and its offspring the New Right-Religious Right alliance. The Washington Post reported that about two years earlier meetings began between a small group of conservative Catholics and Carl Rove, Bush's top strategist, to plan a coalition based on an alliance of deeply religious, churchgoing Protestants and Catholics. The article stated: Their goal was to secure the GOP as the political home of regular churchgoers. If successful, they would create a political party dominated by those seeking to advance an agenda of moral re-generation, with a core committed to ending legalized abortion, promoting premarital abstinence and attacking sexuality in the movies and on television. (Oct. 28, 2000)

Significantly, the coalition move coincided with a decision at the 1998 conclave of the National Conference of Bishops to make banning abortion the top political priority of the Roman Church. Flowing from this decision, the Catholic hierarchy "sharply ratcheted up its political activity during the 2000 elections," according to a report in Church & State (December, 2000). The report by the editor, Joseph L. Conn, stated that, "While the news media focused its attention on the partisan posture of the Christian Coalition and some African-American churches, the political activities of the Roman Catholic Church, the nation's largest religious denomination, went little noticed." Bush established close personal relationships with the Catholic hierarchy during the election campaign. Conn reported that on the final weekend of the campaign Bush met in private with Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, who is "one of the most right-wing partisan prelates in the country." It is not clear how successful the hierarchy was in its political activism on behalf of Bush. Gore won 50 per cent of the Catholic vote (down from 53 per cent for Clinton in 1996) to Bush's 47 per cent (compared to Bob Dole's 37 per cent in 1996.) Considering the report by Church & State of the intense pressure on the Catholic laity from pulpits across the nation, it is surprising that Bush failed to get the majority of their votes to win a clear victory. This can be credited in part to an independent streak in the Catholic laity of America. Perhaps it is also a reflection of the uneasy union between the Religious Right and the Catholic laity? Nevertheless the damage is done, and there has been a break-through of enormous magnitude. Can the tide of battle be turned for a little while before the end? Time will tell.

What George Bush has done from the day of his inaugural ceremony through the ensuing two weeks so loudly proclaims his antipathy to separation of Church and State that mention of his high-handed accession to power is almost redundant However, the power struggle in Florida, and its outcome, belie the amiable image that he seeks to project while waging war against the constitutional rights of the people. Whoever was the true winner of Florida's electoral votes, the crucial point is that all of the votes were never counted. Despite the propaganda to the contrary released by the Republicans and believed by a majority of Americans, according to the polls, there were persistent, reliable reports that they feared Gore would have won either a full recount in the selected counties or a full statewide recount It was truly alarming to see the undemocratic forces that were unleashed by the party in the Florida contest. It was an exercise in raw political power against the will of the majority of voters in the nation. It was accomplished by determined action and threats on the ground in the counting process.

It was advanced in the Florida legislature and the U.S. Congress. There were vicious attacks on the Florida Supreme Court in the exercise of its rightful jurisdiction as the ultimate interpreter of Florida law, combined with unprecedented appeals for intervention by the federal courts. There was no genuine federal constitutional question involved in the post-election controversy. The equal protection clause of the Constitution was rejected by a Federal District Court and the Federal District Court of Appeals as a basis for halting the counting of undervotes. The U.S. Supreme Court did not take up that ground on the first appeal, but the conservative majority seized on the clause in the second appeal to hand down a decision that they said must not be taken as a precedent for any other case. Ironically, the equal protection clause had been enacted to benefit newly emancipated slaves, but by its application in the present case it was mostly the votes of their descendants that were discarded. It was a win at all costs strategy in which the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court became deeply involved. All of this was done by Republicans who had been preaching for years that we are a nation of laws and not men! This was an awesome manifestation of the very spirit of the beast.

The Scripture says, "Saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast ..." Rev. 13:14 (part 2.) Amazingly George Bush was declaring it throughout his campaign, and somehow precisely what he was saying did not get through to millions of Americans, who would never have given him their vote if they had known. The term "compassionate conservatism" was not a promise to soften the harsh, laissez-faire policies of the Republicans which favors the affluent in our society. Only those who were familiar with the name Marvin Olasky, and his books, The Tragedy of American Compassion (1992) and Renewing Compassion (1996) could have had any idea what was involved. Only those who were aware of another Olasky book, Compassionate Conservatism. What It Is,

p 8 -- What It Does, and How It Can Transform America, for which George Bush wrote a foreword and an appendix could have had any inkling what the nation was in for if Bush was elected. Bush calls Olasky "compassionate conservatism's" leading thinker. He also says, "Compassion demands personal help and accountability, yet when delivered by big government it came to mean something very different" Bush further states in the Foreword: Government can do certain things very well, but it cannot put hope in our hearts or a sense of purpose in our lives. That requires churches and synagogues and mosques and charities.

Not surprisingly, the ideology of Olasky's 1992 book was enthusiastically embraced by Newt Gingrich and his congressional allies to form the basis for "The Republican Revolution." They emphasized economics and smaller govemment; but "compassionate conservatism" is, above all, the blueprint of a plan to, "Tear down that wall of separation" between Church and State, Olasky's own phrase spoken in a lecture, "What Is Compassionate Conservatism and Can It Transform America?" delivered before the Heritage Foundation on July 11, 2000.

As alarming as current events are, there is cause for greater alarm because the opening wedge of "mcompassionate conservatism" has already been enacted by Congress as a part of the 1996 welfare reform legislation. It was sponsored by then U.S. Senator John Ashcroft, now George Bush's Attorney-General. This devout Pentecostal has a well documented hostility towards many of our cherished constitutional freedoms, most notably the wall of separation between Church and State. Charitable Choice frees religious organizations from the requirement that government subsidized services be provided in a secular manner, and usually through a separate legal entity. Sadly, even Al Gore stunned civil libertarians by endorsing Charitable Choice in May, 2000, stating that dispensing a little religion along with a hot meal or job training is a good idea, and government should support it. As reported by ABC News, Rev. James Dunn, executive director of the Joint Baptist Committee put it well: We've got a whole lot of people who are going to take the money and try to win people to Jesus with it. They are going to take it and use it to undergird their overall mission. It's who we are today as a Christian people. We don't distinguish between our do-gooding and our good-talking. We can't separate them because we sincerely believe when you are feeding someone who is hungry, you should be telling him about Jesus, too. There is nothing evil about that. That's the way the contemporary Christian understands the gospel. But we had better not take tax dollars to do it because those tax dollars were not paid to help my church win converts or to proselytize. (Emphasis supplied.)

With non-Christians present at Bush's inaugural ceremony, his presidency started with the promotion of Christianity in the opening and closing prayers. Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell said in the closing benediction, "in the name that's above all names, Jesus the Christ. Let all who agree say amen," to the certain discomfort of many. Bush included in his speech a promise to give "Church and charity, synagogue and mosque ... an honored place in our plans and laws. (Emphasis supplied.) Then, within the first two hours of his presidency, he made a proclamation declaring January 21, 2001, a "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving to God."

All of this has been followed during his first week in office by actions on abortion, and an education package sent to Congress with inclusion of voucher funding for religious and other private schools. (CONCERNING ABORTION, IT IS OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE "RIGHT TO LIFE" MOVEMENT IS BASED ON THE CATHOLIC DOGMA OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, AND THE CONDEMNATION OF THE UNBAPTIZED ABORTED FETUS TO AN ETERNITY IN LIMBO.)

On January 29, Bush unveiled a new White House Office for promoting government aid to "faith-based" organizations (i.e. churches) as a part of a major "faith-based" social service initiative. This is a man with a purpose - and in a hurry! Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church & State declared: Bush is throwing the massive weight of the federal government behind religious groups and religious conversions. The President appears to believe that the government should use religion to solve all the nations social problems. This approach strikes at the heart of the religious freedoms guanteeded by the First Amendment. (See http:www.au.org/pr126O1.htm.)

The "wall of separation" between Church and State has been breached by Congress in the Charitable Choice legislaton and now by a broader executive order. The nation has been set inexorably on course towards the ultimate fulfilment of Revelation 13. Is the Image to the Beast now fully formed, or must the full force of the tyranny and persecution first be manifest? One must come to his own conclusions. There is one certainty - prophecy has and will continue to be fulfilled. Our Lord stated that these things "must shortly come to pass" (Rev. 1:1). As this nation teeters on the brink of the extinction of democracy and the freedoms we have dearly cherished, we have only one hope of survival. We must place all our trust and confidence in Christ whose mighty arm will deliver His people out of their affliction. --- Special 1(01) --