A CREED AND A CHURCH MANUAL
Page 111
The first
step of apostasy is to get up a creed,
telling us what we shall believe.
1. John N. Loughborough
Speaking of the attempt to remove the name Seventh-day
Adventist from the American Sentinel (Religious Liberty journal of the SDA Church) in 1890, to make
the magazine popular with other denominations, Ellen White stated, "This
policy is the first step in a succession of wrong steps." (Counsels
to Writers and Editors, page 96, emphasis supplied).
In the context of this testimony Ellen White was speaking of the "wrong
steps" the leading brethren were taking down the road to ecumenical concessions.
However, in 1890 a living prophet was present and this "first step" toward
ecumenism was averted. In 1926 the first "wrong step" toward ecumenical
concessions was actually taken by the General Conference voting that "We
recognize every agency that lifts up Christ before man as a part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the
world, and we hold in high
esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in
winning souls to Christ." ("Relationship To Other
Societies," General Conference Executive Committee, 1926). In 1928 a second
"wrong step" toward ecumenism was taken by the acceptance of a new Bible,
the American Revised version,
above the Authorized King James version . (See, Art., Wilkinson, Benjamin George, Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Revised
Edition, 1976, page 1609). At the 1930 General Conference session, the Committee
took a third wrong step, "in a succession of wrong
steps," toward ecumenism by voting to publish a
Church Manual , and an official
"new" Statement of Fundamental Beliefs.(See below).Again, in 1890 the first
wrong step "in a succession of wrong steps" was avoided. Why were these
second and third steeps in 1926 and 1930 not avoided? Because there was no
longer a living prophet. Ellen White passed from the scene in 1915,
eleven years prior to the second wrong step taken in 1926! Interestingly, when SDA Church leadership decided to take these
"succession of wrong steps" toward ecumenism, the three steps were taken
quickly, only two years apart -- 1926, 1928, 1930. While Seventh-day Adventist
Church leadership were taking the three "wrong steps," at that very hour in history the deadly wound of the Papacy
was healed! (See, San Francisco
Chronicle , Tuesday, February 12, 1929).
2. Ancient and Modern Israel's Desire to Look to Man The Bible records how "the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah." (I Samuel 8:4). And what did the General Conference Committee of ancient Israel say to Samuel? "Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." (I Sanuel 8:5). "But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us." (Verse 6a).Speaking of the parallels between ancient Israel and modern Israel, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Ellen White stated, "We are repeating the history of that people." (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, page 160)."Now, it has been Satan's determined purpose to eclipse the view of Jesus, and lead man to look to man, and trust to man, and be educated to expect help from man," Ellen White wrote. "For years the church has been looking to man and expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of eternal life are centered." (Letter to O. A. Olsen, dated at Hobart, Tasmania, May 1, 1895; The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials,page 1338, emphasis supplied).
3. What should the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have
done when tempted to look to man for guidance? What did Samuel do when the
people demanded a king or president to rule over them "like the nations?"
The Bible says that, "Samuel prayed unto the Lord." (I�Samuel�8:6).
4. Modern Israel and Leroy Froom "Leroy Edwin Froom...was
called to the General Conference headquarters, where he was first associate
secretary and then secretary of the Ministerial Association from 1926 to 1950," the SDA Encyclopedia states. "During this time he founded The Ministry
magazine and was its editor for 22 years." (ibid,
Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia , Second Revised Edition, 1995, Review and Herald Publishing Association,
emphasis supplied).Leroy Froom played a major role in the three wrong steps
"in a succession of wrong steps," toward ecumenism. Froom came to the General
Conference to serve as "secretary of the Ministerial Association in 1926,"
the year the first "wrong step" was voted. (See above). Two years later in
the second "wrong step" toward ecumenism articles published promoting a "new"
Bible first appeared in The Ministry magazine (1928, see above) founded and edited by Froom. In the
third "wrong step" toward ecumenism, Froom narrates in his own words the
role he played in the formulation of a Creed and the first Seventh-day Adventist
Church Manual. (See below). Because
of this ecumenical background, Leroy Froom was the most important figure
in the ecumenical, Evangelical conferences of 1955-1956. (Leroy Edwin Froom,
Movement of Destiny, pages 469,
470).
5. The Fascinating History of the Formation of a Creed and Church Manual "[Edson] Rogers was distressed over the fact that, because of differences, for a number of years there had been no statement of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs, or Faith, in our annual Yearbook," Leroy Froom stated in his historical book of 1971. (Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 410, emphasis supplied)."Because of differences?" The only "differences" over Seventh-day Adventist doctrine was in the mind of Edson Rogers and Leroy Froom. Adventists in 1930 were united in the truth as it was so eloquently stated by James White in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbooks prior to 1914.In 1930, Edson Rogers was the General Conference statistician. He held that position for thirty eight years, from 1903 until he retired in 1941. "He [Rogers] was responsible for the makeup and issuance of the annual Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook." (ibid., Froom, MD, page 410, emphasis supplied).Other denominations had declarations of faith in their annuals. So as far as other religious bodies could observe, our fundamental beliefs were undefined and unspecified. That troubled Rogers, for he believed that this omission placed us at a decided disadvantage--which was true. (Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 410). (emphasis supplied).
6. "Other denominations had declarations of faith in their annuals." Now
there is an absurd reason to form a Statement of Beliefs -- a creed! Since
when should we care what the other denominations of Babylon do in their church
policies? The second line: "So as far as other religious bodies could observe,"
is another redundant statement. Are we supposed to care what other religious
bodies think about our doctrine? We have a commission from God to call those
people out of Babylon, out of their churches and creeds, and into the truth.
Froom stated that the omission of a Statement of Beliefs "troubled Rogers."
Obviously it also troubled Froom as he was writing in favor of Roger's position.
As to the omission of a Statement of Beliefs from the annual SDA Church
Yearbook, it will be clearly seen
just who it was that omitted the Statements of Beliefs from the Yearbooks starting in 1914!An "official"
Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, published in an "official" Church Manual, filled with "official"
Church policies. This was something that was carefully
avoided by pioneer Seventh-day Adventists -- from the great disappointment
in 1844, until 1930 -- a period of 86 years! Remember, Ellen
White received visions and direct counsel from the Lord on such matters,
and she was alive for 71 of those years. We find nothing in the Spirit of
Prophecy instructing or counseling that the Church should publish an "official"
Church Manual, which would be filled with Church "policies." Neither
is there counsel or instruction that the Church should formulate an "official"
Statement of Fundamental Beliefs" that would be a test of faith to Church
members. However, there are many statements on Church "policies" in the
Spirit of Prophecy.
7. Ambitious Church Policies "In no respect is God's work to be circumscribed
by man-made restrictions," Ellen White counseled. "Many of the ambitious plans and policies that have been made
are not endorsed by Him" (Manuscript Releases, Vol.
1, page 245, emphasis supplied).
8. Notice the counsel is given that "in no respect" is God's work to be
circumscribed, enclosed or encompassed, "by man-made restrictions." Indeed,
many of the ambitious "policies" that are made "are not endorsed by Him."
Ellen White was concerned about worldly policies coming into the Church. The
following are some choice counsel on worldly policies:Sub-title, Worldly Policies Steal Away Identity -- It is conformity to the world that
is causing our people to lose their bearings. The perversion of right principles has
not been brought about suddenly. The
angel of the Lord presented this matter to me in symbols. It seemed as
if a thief were stealthily moving closer and still closer and gradually
but surely stealing away the identity of God's work by leading our brethren to conform to worldly policies. (Ellen G. White, The Publishing Ministry,
page 169). (emphasis supplied).
9. Notice that, "The perversion of right principles has not been brought
about suddenly," and this "perversion" was "leading our brethren to conform
to worldly policies." Moreover, Ellen White stated, "The angel of the Lord
presented this matter to me." It is interesting to note that there are 77
references to the word "policies" on the EGW CD-ROM disk, and 773 references to the word "policy" in the writings of Ellen
White. None are favorable to Seventh-day Adventist
Church leadership.
10. Pioneer Adventists Opposed a Creed or Church Manual The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make
that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed.
The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And
fifth, to commence persecution against such. (Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Mich.
Third-Day, October 8, 1861).
11. "The purpose of the Lord can be clearly discerned in bringing out a
distinct people under the proclamation of the second angel's message--the
second call to the `supper'-and the `midnight cry,'" Loughborough stated.
"Precious truths for the last days were to be searched out and proclaimed--a work which could not be done in `creed-bound' churches
any more than the heralding of the gospel to the world could
be accomplished by the apostolic church while retaining a connection with
the Jewish sects." (J. N. Loughborough, The Second
Angel's Message, page 178, emphasis supplied).Loughborough
added further that, "God called for separation there, and he also called
for separation of the Advent believers from those
who would seek to hold them in the circle of their creeds." (ibid., SAM,
page 178, emphasis supplied).
12. James White Agrees With Loughborough "On the
subject of creeds, I agree with Bro. Loughborough," James White stated. "Now I take the
ground that creeds stand in direct opposition to the gifts." (Review and Herald , October 8, 1861, emphasis supplied)."Let us suppose a case:
We get up a creed, stating just what we shall believe on this point and the
other, and just what we shall do in reference to this thing and that, and
say that we will believe the gifts too," James White continued. "But suppose
the Lord, through the gifts, should give us some new light that did not harmonize
with our creed; then, if we remain true to the gifts, it knocks our creed all over at once."
James White added further that, "Making a creed is setting the stakes, and
barring up the way to all future advancement." (ibid.,
Review and Herald , October 8, 1861, emphasis supplied)."They say virtually that the Lord must not do anything further
than what has been marked out in the creed," James White stated. "A creed [Official Statement of Beliefs] and the gifts thus stand
in direct opposition to each other." (ibid., Review and Herald , October 8,
1861, emphasis supplied).Now what is our position
as a people? The Bible is our creed. We reject
everything in the form of a human creed. We take
the Bible and the gifts of the Spirit; embracing the faith that thus the
Lord will teach us from time to time. And in this we take a position against
the formation of a creed. We are not taking one
step, in what we are doing, toward becoming Babylon. (James White,
"Doings of the Battle Creek Conference, October 5 & 6, 1861,"
Review and Herald, Battle Creek,
Mich. Third-Day, OCT. 8, 1861). (emphasis supplied).
13. Notice hat if we adapt a creed, or "official" statement of beliefs, we would be taking a step "toward becoming Babylon." If we wish to be like the other denominations, we are taking a step "toward becoming Babylon" ourselves.
14. Timing Right For An Official Seventh-day Adventist Creed and Church
Manual "Shortly after the death of Ellen G. White
(1915), the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church began to publish
articles in the Signs of the Times and Ministry magazines promoting the American Revised Version of the Bible,"so
states the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia.
In 1928 the time was right for a new Bible. Two years
later (1930) the time was right for a Creed and a Church Manual."The time had come, he [Edson Rogers]
felt, for a suitable Statement
of Faith to appear in our Yearbook," Froom recalled. "This, he thought, now
to be possible." (ibid., Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 418, emphasis supplied).Why was it "now possible" in 1930
to publish a Church Manual, which had previously been voted down by pioneer Adventists?
Why was the time right in 1930 to write a new "suitable" Statement of Beliefs?
Why was it "now possible" since 1928 to promote a new version of the Bible,
inspired by the Jesuits of Rome, on a parity with the Authorized Bible of
pioneer Seventh-day Adventists?
15. Froom Reveals Why the Timing Was Right "Back in the spring of 1930," Leroy Froom
recalled, "Arthur G. Daniells, for more than twenty years president of our
General Conference, told me he believed that at
a later time I should undertake a thorough survey
plan of redemption, its principles, provisions, and divine Personalities."
(Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 17, emphasis supplied)."Elder Daniells recognized the serious
problems involved," Froom recalled. "He knew that time would be required for
certain theological wounds to heal, and for attitudes
to modify on the part of some." Froom added further
that, "Possibly it would be necessary to wait until
certain individuals had dropped out of action." (ibid., Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 17, emphasis
supplied).
16. These statements by Froom are quite revealing. Consider the following
three important aspects of why "the timing was right" in 1930 according to
Leroy Froom.
17. (1) The time element in these three statements, "the spring of 1930."
Remember this date. Many important events were taking place at this time,
not only in Adventism, but also in the world.
18. (2) Arthur G. Daniells had told Froom that "time would be required
for certain theological wounds to heal," and time would be required for
"attitudes to modify." What did Daniells mean by these statements? Evidently,
Daniells meant that with the passing of time, attitudes would "change" and
"modify," and become more liberal.(3) The most astounding statement Froom
recalled was that, "Possibly it would be necessary to wait until certain
individuals had dropped out of action." To paraphrase Daniells, this could
only mean that, "it would be necessary to wait until
all pioneer Adventists had died!"
19. Who were some of these "certain individuals" who had by 1930 passed
to their rest. Again, taking "time and place" into consideration, note carefully
the dates these pioneer Adventists "dropped out of action."
20. (1) Uriah Smith "dropped out of action" when he died in 1903.
21. (2) Daniel Bourdeau "dropped out of action" at his death in 1905.
22. (3) Ellen G. White "dropped out of action" at her death in 1915.
23. (4) E. J. Waggoner and Dr. David Paulson "dropped out of action" when they died the following year in 1916.
24. (5) Stephen Haskell "dropped out of action" at his death in 1922.
25. (6) A. T. Jones "dropped out of action" at his death in 1923.(7) John Norton Loughborough "dropped out of action" at his death in 1924, two years before SDA leadership adopted the policy that, "We recognize every agency that lifts up Christ before man as a part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ." ("Relationship To Other Societies," General Conference Executive Committee, 1926, emphasis supplied).In 1930 the time was now right for change because these "certain individuals" had passed to their rest and would not be able to sound an alarm. Their voices were now silent. Their writings could still speak, but this would not be as effectual as a live pioneer speaking in protest to the changes that began in 1926. For many years the writings of pioneer Adventists have been eliminated from the shelves of Adventist Book Centers. Indeed, the writings of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones have been virtually impossible to find until recent years. Leaves-Of-Autumn-Books, Adventist Pioneer Library, on Compact Disk, and other independent ministries have been responsible for the restoration of pioneer Adventist writings being restored, not only to the people, but also to Adventist Book Centers.
26. A Suitable Statement of Faith? "The time had
come, he [Edson Rogers] felt, for a suitable Statement
of Faith to appear in our Yearbook," Froom stated. (ibid., Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 418, emphasis
supplied)."A suitable Statement of Faith?" Why did Edson Rogers, Leroy Froom,
and other Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders feel that the old "Fundamental
Principles," published in the Yearbookfrom 1874 through 1914, were no longer "suitable?" Was there
error or heresy in the old "Fundamental Principles?"
27. Who Wrote the Original Statement of Fundamental Principles?
28. At this point it must be established who wrote the 1874 "Fundamental
Principles" that had stood for over 40 years without challenge. Contemporary
Seventh-day Adventists say it was Uriah Smith. Is this true?In his 1971 book,
Movement of Destiny, Froom tells
an outright lie about who wrote the 1874 "Fundamental Principles" of Seventh-day
Adventist Beliefs. He states that Uriah Smith wrote the old "Fundamental Principles,"
when the truth was that James White was the author.
29. Leroy Froom Falsifies History 1872 "DECLARATION"
WITHOUT "AUTHORITY."-- Apparently the first comprehensive "Declaration" of Seventh-day Adventist
"Fundamental Principles" ever attempted appeared in 1872. It was in the form
of a 14-page leaflet titled "A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles of
the Seventh-day Adventists." It was a somewhat formal statement. Though appearing anonymously, it was actually composed by Smith. (Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny,
pages 159, 160). (emphasis supplied).
30. Leroy Froom begins by using his favorite theological diversion word,
"apparently." The word suggests no real proof of anything. Froom then admits
that the document "appeared anonymously," but takes the liberty to state
with biased, dogmatic certainty, and without any documented proof whatsoever,
that "it was actually composed by [Uriah] Smith."
31. Documented Proof That Froom Altered an Historical Fact In 1959, the Pacific Press Publishing Association published a
book titled, The Living Witness, "Significant Articles >From the Signs of the Times." The title of the
first article in the book, the first article ever published in the
Signs of the Times, was "Fundamental
Principles." The author of this first article was James White, not Uriah
Smith as Leroy Froom would have us believe. The introductory statement by
the publishers to this first article stated:The formulation
of principle doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church here presented
was constructed earlier than the indicated publication date in the
Signs [1874]. Though there is no assurance that James White was the only author, he no doubt had a large part in its
composition. (The Living
Witness, 1959, Pacific Press Publishing Association,
pages 1, 2). (emphasis supplied).
32. Notice that the editors of the book, Living
Witness, disagree with Leroy Froom by stating that,
"Though there is no assurance that James White was the only author, he no
doubt had a large part in its composition." It is the practice of contemporary
Seventh-day Adventist historians to place all blame, for what they consider
to be error, solely on Uriah Smith."In the Declaration," Froom continued,
"his [Uriah Smith's] introductory paragraph reads:" (Ibid., Froom, MD, pages 159, 160). Froom
then quoted only the first two sentences of the 1872 introductory statement.In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish
to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed,
or discipline, aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having
any authority with our people, nor is designed to secure uniformity among
them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is,
and has been, with great unanimity, held by them. (A Declaration of Fundamental Principles, 1872, page 3). (emphasis Froom's).
33. In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to
have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed,
or discipline, aside from the Bible. We do not
put forth this as having any authority with our people.�.�.. (Leroy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, pages 159, 160). (emphasis Froom's).
34. Notice that Froom emphasizes a portion of the second sentence, "We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people,
nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith," while he omits the last part of the sentence which states,
"but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them [Seventh-day
Adventists]."
35. Froom's Unfounded Purpose For Altering History "It is to be particularly noted that by the author's [Uriah Smith's]
own statement it was not put forth as having any `authority,' nor to secure
`uniformity' of belief," Froom stated triumphantly. "But it clearly had
less `unanimity' than he [Uriah Smith] averred." (Ibid., Froom, MD, pages 159,�160).
36. Again Froom was bending the truth. In response to Froom's erroneous
statement we must comment as follows:
37. (1) It was James White who wrote the "Fundamental Principles," not
Uriah Smith.(2) Could Leroy Froom state that those Fundamental Principles,
"clearly had less `unanimity' than James White averred?" No. It would be
impossible to convince Adventists that James White was in error. Therefore,
Froom aspired to place the origin of the "Fundamental Principles" squarely
on the shoulders of Uriah Smith. Froom knew that conferring Uriah Smith
as the author of "Fundamental Principles" would provide less support and
"unanimity" to the Fundamental Principles than if it was known that James
White was the actual author. This devious tactic has been used many times
by contemporary Seventh-day Adventist historians. (See, Leroy Edwin Froom,
Movement of Destiny, Review and
Herald Publishing Association, pages 157-166).
38. Only Two Sentences Quoted Leroy Froom, in his
attempt to show Uriah Smith as the sole author of the "Fundamental Principles,"
quotes only the first two sentences from James White's introductory statement
in the Signs of the Times article. White's introductory statement is here quoted in full
context. The first two sentences quoted by Leroy Froom are enclosed by brackets.
The portion omitted by Froom is noted in underline typeface. Note the wonderful
message by James White in the balance of the statement that was omitted by
Froom:[In presenting to the public this synopsis
of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles
of faith, creed, or discipline aside from the Bible. We do not put forth
this as having authority with our people, nor is designed to secure uniformity
among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and
has been, with great unanimity, held by them.] We
often find it necessary to meet inquiries on this subject, and sometimes
to correct false statements circulated against us, and to remove erroneous
impressions which have obtained with those who have not had an opportunity
to become acquainted with our faith and practice. Our only object is to meet this
necessity.
39. With these remarks, we ask the attention of the reader to the following
propositions which aim to be a concise statement
of the more prominent features of our faith. (James
White, Editorial, Signs of the Times, June 4, 1874, Vol. 1, Num. 1: The
Living Witness, 1959, Pacific Press Publishing Association,
pages 1, 2).
40. As stated above, those Seventh-day Adventist "Fundamental Principles"
first appeared in a pamphlet in 1872, appeared unchanged two years later
in the first edition of the Signs of the Times,
and was written by James White. It appeared again, in the
exact wording, in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbooks beginning in 1889 through the year 1914. Note carefully the
following three important facts:(1) These "Fundamental Principles" were published
in the official journals of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for 42 years,
without challenge from a single pioneer Adventist!
41. (2) Ellen White was alive during those 42 years, and there was no testimonies
given against those "Fundamental Principles of Faith." Ellen White must have
known about the existence of the "Fundamental Principles" and read them
many times herself. Indeed, her husband, James White, was the author of the
"Fundamental Principles."(3) Publication of these "Fundamental Principles"
ended in 1914, one year before the death of Ellen
White in 1915! The Strange
Case of the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbooks "So as far as other religious bodies could observe," Leroy Froom
stated, "our fundamental beliefs were undefined and
unspecified." (Froom, Movement
of Destiny, page 410, emphasis supplied).The statement
that, "So as far as other religious bodies could observe," proves Froom's
ecumenical aspirations. Froom often worried about what "other religious
bodies" might think of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (Movement of Destiny, pages 469, 470).
That is why Froom would later become a major participant in the Evangelical
Conferences of 1955-56. (See below, Chapter 12, "The Ultimate Betrayal").
The statement, "our fundamental beliefs were undefined and unspecified,"
is one of Froom's greatest lies in all of his writings. The "Fundamental
Principles" had appeared in print in 1872, and in the first issue of the
Signs of the Times in 1874, and
in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbooks between the years 1889 and 1914 -- a
period spanning 42 total years! After 1914 it was
discontinued. Why? Who was the General Conference statistician in 1914,
when the "Fundamental Principles" were discontinued?"He [Rogers] was responsible for the makeup and issuance of
the annual Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook," Froom replies. Edson Rogers was that statistician, and was
responsible for the makeup and issuance of the annual Yearbook, from 1903 when he took office,
until he retired in 1941." (ibid., MD, page 410, emphasis supplied). Rogers, therefore, as General
Conferences statistician, was also the one responsible
for removing the original "Fundamental Principles from the Yearbook after
the 1914 edition! Again, it must be noted that the
original "Fundamental Principles" statement was removed after the 1914 SDA Yearbook -- at the time off Ellen White's death in 1915! Now, in 1930, it was Edson Rogers, the one who removed the
original "Fundamental Principles" -- who was suggesting the need of a "new"
Statement of Beliefs."Rogers was distressed
over the fact that, because of differences, for a number
of years there had been no statement of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs, or
Faith, in our annual Yearbook." (ibid., MD,
page 10).
42. "Rogers was distressed?" He was the one who removed the original Fundamental
Principles! And what "differences" was Rogers "distressed" about? Who was
Edson Rogers that he should challenge pioneer Adventist "Fundamental Principles"
that had stood unchallenged from 1844 to 1930, a period of 86 years?What "differences"
over doctrinal truth had developed since 1914, and by whom? Obviously, Rogers
did not agree with James White and the other pioneer Adventists who had endorsed
the "Fundamental Principles" that had appeared in the Yearbook for so many years. Moreover,
it should be noted that Ellen White was alive during the 40 years these
"Fundamental Principles" were published in the SDA Yearbook. She must have been aware of
their content. Surely Ellen White would have given counsel if the "Fundamental
Principles" published by her husband, James White, in the Yearbook contained error or heresy.
Yet Rogers and the Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership of 1930 had "differences"
with those original Fundamental Principles. Obviously, Froom also agreed
with Rogers and the 1930 Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership.Again,
it should be reviewed, taking time and place into consideration, that the
original "Fundamental Principles" appeared through the year 1914. They were
omitted the following year in 1915. The year the "Fundamental Principles"
were omitted, 1915, was the year Ellen White died! Froom stated that the omission of a Statement of Beliefs from
the Yearbook, "troubled Rogers,
for he believed that this omission placed us at a decided disadvantage." Edson
Rogers was troubled because there was no Statement of Beliefs in the
Yearbook -- yet Rogers himself,
as General Conference statistician, was the one who
had omitted the "Fundamental Principles" from the Yearbook after the 1914
edition!To this end he [Rogers]
agitated in high places,
both at home and even abroad.
And his appeals were not without effect, for it was a reasonable request. Moreover, apostates were
constantly misrepresenting us and projecting distorted caricatures of the
Adventist Faith. That provided an added reason. So, largely as a result of Rogers' urging's, a small committee of well-qualified
leaders was named to frame such a statement. (Leroy
Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 410). (emphasis supplied).
43. There are so many subtle contradictions, allusions, and implications in this one paragraph that it almost boggles the mind! Note the following four important points in Froom's statement:
44. (1) Rogers "agitated in high places." He went to the top. As General
Conference statistician he undoubtedly knew personally the leading brethren
of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Note that Rogers agitated at headquarters,
"and even abroad."(2) "His appeals were not without effect." The brethren
listened to Rogers and agreed. Undoubtedly, as Ministerial Secretary of the
General Conference, and Editor and founder of The
Ministry magazine, Froom backed Rogers. In this paragraph,
Froom himself stated that "it was a reasonable request."(3) "Largely as a
result of Rogers' urging's." Rogers was responsible for getting the ball
rolling, so to speak. Rogers was responsible for omitting the original "Fundamental
Principles" from the SDA Yearbook. Why? So fifteen years later he could agitate for a "new" official
Statement of Beliefs, and, as a result of his own "urging's," Rogers was
successful in getting Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership to approve
a "new" official Statement of Fundamental Beliefs."(4) "A small committee was named to frame
such a statement." A small committee? Evidently the leading brethren felt
that "a small committee" would suffice in the framing of a "new" Statement
of Fundamental Beliefs. Astounding! A small committee could speak for the
entire denomination and tell the world what Seventh-day Adventists believe.
Actually, the "new" Statement of Fundamental Beliefs was
written by one man! (See below).
45. Committee of Only Four Voted: That the chair [C. H. Watson, General
Conference president] appoint a committee
of which he shall be a member
to prepare such a statement for publication in the
Year Book. "Named: M. E. Kern,
F. M. Wilcox, E. R. Palmer, C. H. Watson." (General Conference Minutes, December 29, 1930, page 195.
op. sit., Froom, MD, page 411).
(emphasis supplied).
46. Notice that the General Conference President, C. H. Watson (one man
at the head), was voted the authority to select the committee of four "of which he shall be a member." Then
three other men were named with Watson as members of the four-man committee.
Who were the three other men that were chosen, and what position did they
hold in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1930? What heavenly credentials
did these men hold that would make them wise enough to define the doctrinal
beliefs of the entire Seventh-day Adventist denomination? Again, Froom gives
us the answer:DISTINGUISHED COMMITTEE: WILCOX FORMULATES
-- On December 29, 1930--thus between the GC sessions of 1930 and 1936 --
this highly representative committee of four was appointed
to draw up a suggestive statement of our beliefs. As noted, the committee was comprised of M. E. Kern, F. M.
Wilcox, E. R. Palmer, and C. H. Watson, all of whom are now deceased [1971].
(ibid., Leroy Edwin Froom,
Movement Of Destiny, page 411).
(emphasis supplied).
47. According to Froom, in 1930, "Kern was associate secretary of the General
Conference, Wilcox was editor of the Review, Palmer manager of the Review and Herald Publishing Association,
and Watson, president of the General Conference." (ibid., MD, page 411).
48. To Be Used at an Appropriate Time? "Fortunately,
they later made specific statements to this writer concerning this episode,"
Froom added further, "for use at an appropriate time." (ibid., MD,
page 411, emphasis supplied).
49. What did Froom mean "for use at an appropriate time?" Would the Seventh-day
Adventist Church leadership have to wait until even more orthodox Adventists
had passed "out of action?" About the four man committee, Froom had stated
in 1971, "all of whom are now deceased.""Back in the spring of 1930 Arthur
G. Daniells...told me he believed that, at a later
time, I should undertake
a thorough survey of the entire plan of Redemption -- its principles, provisions, and divine Personalities," Leroy
Froom stated in the Author to Reader section of his book Movement of Destiny. (ibid., MD, page 17, emphasis supplied).
Unfortunately, in his book Froom presented, not a "survey," but a revision of Seventh-day Adventist
doctrine. As will be shown later, the "principles" and "provisions" of Adventism
were altered in the books, Seventh-day Adventists
Answer, Question on Doctrine, and, Movement of Destiny. The "divine Personalities"
-- the pioneer Adventist position on the human nature of Jesus Christ --
was changed, altered, mutilated, and omitted in Seventh-day Adventist publications.
(See, "Evangelical Conferences of 1955-56, Adventist
Heritage, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1977; see also below, Chapter
12, "The Ultimate Betrayal").Neal C. Wilson, Chairman of the Guidance Committee
for Leroy Froom's book, Movement of Destiny, was at the time Vice-President of the General Conference and
President of the North American Division. (ibid., MD, page 15). Wilson stated that, "The preparation of this
volume began about forty years ago." (ibid., MD,
page 15, emphasis supplied). The book was published in 1971 which would have
placed the beginning of its preparation in the year 1931. Considering time
and place in history, What was taking place in the year 1931? The "new" Statement
of Beliefs was published in the 1931 SDA Yearbook,
and the first Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, which was published in
1932!
50. One Man Writes New Statements -- Leadership Rubber-Stamps "As no one else seemed willing to take the lead in formulating
a statement, Wilcox--as a writer and editor--wrote up for consideration of the committee a suggested summary of `Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists,'" Froom wrote. (ibid., MD, pages 377-380, emphasis supplied). In a sub-title, Froom
stated further that, "Approval By Committee Not Required.""Elder Wilcox
felt he had drawn up a balanced summarizing statement," Froom stated. "With
full knowledge and approval of the committee of four, he [Wilcox] passed it over to Rogers,
who placed it in the 1931 Yearbook." (ibid., MD,
page 414, emphasis supplied).Notice that, "Elder Wilcox felt he had drawn
up a balanced summarizing statement." Here Froom boldly admits that Wilcox
was the only one who drew up the "new" Statement of Beliefs. And that "With
full knowledge and approval of the committee of four." Wilcox than "passed
it over to Rogers, who placed it in the 1931 Yearbook." After all his agitating "in high places, both at home and
even abroad" (MD, p. 410), Rogers got his way, and Adventism got a "new"
apostate Statement of Beliefs, and for the first time in the history of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church an apostate Church Manual
filled with worldly policies and an official Statement of
Beliefs to which all must adhere -- a Creed!"It has appeared there annually ever since," Froom concluded.
"The authorizing did not call for submission to
any other committee for approval." (ibid., MD, page 414, emphasis supplied).Again
note that, "The authorizing did not call for submission to any other committee for approval." The
new official Creed was put
into edict by the committee of four! These statements by Froom were written
in 1971 when the book Movement of Destinywas published. Note carefully Froom's conclusion, and justification
for the formulation of the "new" 1931 Statement of Beliefs:"It was therefore
without any formal denominational adoption that this [1931] statement of `Fundamental Beliefs' first appeared in the
Yearbook, and was, by common consent, accepted without challenge," Froom concluded
triumphantly. "And it was on this basis
that it was the first public presentation of a united--harmonized
--faith."
(ibid., Movement of Destiny, page 414, emphasis supplied).Observe that this "new" Statement
of Beliefs was adapted by Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership "without
any formal denominational adoption," and it was by common consent, "accepted
without challenge" by the General Conference Committee, or any other denominational
leader, or "without challenge" from laity. One
man wrote a "new" doctrinal statement, and by common consent of leadership
it was "accepted without challenge!" The 1874 "Principles,"
written by James White and published in the first issue of the Signs of the Times and published in the
Yearbooks for 25 years, were also
accepted "without any formal denominational adoption," and were also "accepted
without challenge," yet using this same reasoning, Froom, Rogers and the
1930 Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership were unwilling to accept the
original 1874 Statement of Beliefs on those terms. Froom then added triumphantly
that "it was on this basis that the new Statement of Beliefs was the first
public presentation of a united--harmonized --faith." (emphasis his). However, as noted above by pioneer Adventists,
James White and John Loughborough, the formation of a Creed is not a sign
of "a united -- harmonized -- faith," but only an image of modern Babylon.
Has the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church become "a sister to fallen
Babylon?" (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 21, page 380). Who knows? Let Jesus be the judge."In the
balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed," Ellen White warned.
"She will be judged by the
privileges and advantages that she has had.�.�.." (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, page
247, April 21, 1903, emphasis supplied). Ellen White added further that, "By
the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will
she be judged."(ibid., Testimonies
for the Church, Vol. 8, page 247, emphasis supplied).The
Seventh-day Adventist Church was not united on the "new" 1931 Statement of
Beliefs. The community of believers is the true Church, not the General Conference.
The Advent people, who are asleep in Laodicean slumber, knew nothing about
the "new" Statement of Beliefs until they appeared in the first Seventh-day
Adventist Church Manual.
They had no voice in the matter, or a chance to accept or reject the new
Statements. "It was by common consent" of the leadership that the "new" Statement
of Beliefs were adopted. Seventh-day Adventist laymen have always had complete
confidence in the leading brethren. But this is not the way of the Bereans,
for they "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts
17:11).What was so offensive in the old "Fundamental Principles" published
in the Yearbooks for 25
years? What was changed in the "new" Statement of Beliefs? And even more
important, what was omitted by the new Statements?
51. "Original" Fundamental Principles verses
"New" Statement of Beliefs
52. "Old Landmarks" verses "New Theology" Let us now compare the Fundamental Principles, written by James White and published in the Yearbooks for 25 years, with the "new" Statement of Beliefs, written by F. M. Wilcox and published in the 1931 Yearbook, and in the "first" Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual in 1932. A simple examination of the two documents will reveal what was changed and what was omitted.
53. Statement On the Godhead Statement In the
SDA Church Yearbooks, 1889-1914
54. THE TRINITY -- No statement on the Trinity.
55. 1. THE FATHER -- That there is one God, a personal, spiritual Being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit.
56. 2. THE SON -- That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the One by whom He created all things, and by whom they do consist.�.�..
57. THE HOLY SPIRIT -- No statement on the Holy Spirit.
58. Statement on the Holy Spirit was included in the statement on the FATHER, Who is "everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit."
59. Statement In the 1931 Yearbook and the First SDA Church Manual
(1932)
60. THE TRINITY. That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal
Father, a personal, spiritual, Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient,
infinite in wisdom and love, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal
Father, through whom all things were created and whom the salvation of the
redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead, the
great regenerating power in the work of redemption.
61. Pioneer Seventh-day Adventists did not believe in the "Trinity" as
stated in this contemporary Statement of Beliefs. The word "Trinity" cannot
be found in the Bible, or in the Spirit of Prophecy."The Church had to wait
for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the council of Constantinople (381) was the formula
of one God existing in three co-equal Persons formally ratified." (J.�N.�D.�Kelly, Dean of St. Edmond Hall, Oxford, "The Pre-Nicene
Theology," Early Christian Doctrines, pages 87, 88, emphasis supplied).Chapter
VI, DOCTRINE Of A TRINITY SUBVERSIVE Of THE ATONEMENT. Trinitarians do not
believe that the divine nature died.�.�.. They. . .take every expression
referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures
abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity. The declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die,
is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And we
would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for
redemption? The answer must, of course, be, To that one which died or shed
his blood for us; for "we have redemption through his blood." Then it is
evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only human, and
that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he
could neither suffer nor die. Surely, we say right,
that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood
of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism. (Joseph Harvey Waggoner, The Atonement, pages 174, 175). (emphasis supplied).
62. "I am he that liveth, and was dead," Jesus said, "and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and
have the keys of hell [Greek, hades=grave] and of death." (Revelation 1:18,
emphasis supplied).
63. The original "Principles," written by James White, stated that God
the Father was "everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit."
The new 1931 "Statement," written by F. M. Wilcox, states that the Holy Spirit
is "the third Person of the Godhead."
64. Statement On the Incarnation (Human Nature of Christ) Statement In the SDA Church Yearbooks, 1889-1914
65. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father...that He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham
for the redemption of our fallen race; that He dwelt among
men, full of grace and truth, lived our example.
66. "For verily he took not on him [Jesus] the nature of angels," Paul
stated, "but he took on him [Jesus] the seed of Abraham." (Hebrews 2:16,
emphasis supplied).Statement In the 1931
Yearbook and the First SDA
Church Manual (1932)
67. That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence
as the Eternal Father. While retaining His divine
nature, He took upon Himself the nature of the human
family, lived on earth as a man, exemplified in His life as our example the
principles of righteousness,...The 1872-1914 "Principles" statement that Christ
took on him "the nature of the seed of Abraham" is omitted in the new 1931
"Statements," de-emphasizing the pioneer Adventist belief in the fallen
human nature of Christ. The new 1931 "Statements" adds that Christ retained
His divine nature while in human flesh. The original "Principles," written
by James White, stated that Christ "lived our example." The new 1931 "Statement
of Beliefs" state that Christ exemplified "the principles of righteousness."
(See, Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh, "One Hundred Years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology," The
Cherrystone Press, P.�O. Box 3180, Cherry Valley, California, 92223; See
also, J. R. Zurcher, Touched With Our Feelings, Review and Herald (1999).
68. Two Views On the Human Nature of Christ
69. Today, most Seventh-day Adventist ministers, teachers, and leadership
will tell you that there are currently two views on the human nature of Christ
in the contemporary SDA Church. Of course, there is always two views of
a doctrinal position -- the true and the false. First, we will consider the
pioneer Adventist view on the human nature of Christ, then the current position
held by the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church.Statement In the SDA Yearbooks, 1889-1914
70. (1) He [Christ] took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham. (James
White, 1874 Fundamental Principles, op. sit. The Living Witness, "Significant Articles
From the Signs of the Times," 1874-1959, Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1959, page 2).The New Contemporary Seventh-day
Adventist View
71. (2) He [Christ] was like Adam before his fall. (Leroy Edwin Froom,
Movement of Destiny, 1971, page
428).
72. Statements On the Final Atonement Pioneer
Adventists believed that the Atonement was not finished on the cross, but
is finalized in the Heavenly Sanctuary during the anti-typical Day of Atonement
-- 1844 to the close of probation. (See, O. R. L. Croxsier, Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846; James
White, 1874 Fundamental Principles, op. sit. The Living Witness, "Significant Articles
From the Signs of the Times," 1874-1959, Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1959, page 2; James N. Andrews, The Sanctuary
and Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Steam Press of the
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, Battle Creek, Mich. 1872;
Joseph Bates, Eighth Way Mark; Stephen N. Haskell, "Preparation For Reception of the Holy
Spirit," 1909 General Conference Daily Bulletin, May 20, 1909; A. T. Jones, The Consecrated
Way To Christian Perfection; J. N. Loughborough,
Great Second Advent Movement; E.
J. Waggoner, Review and Herald, September 30, 1902; James White, "The Sanctuary," Bible Adventism)..[Note:- While doing research for this manuscript, the author
placed a call to the James White Memorial Library at Andrews University to
purchase a photo-copy of Crosier's original article as it appeared in the
Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846.
The photo-copy of the article arrived, minus the
"atonement" portion of the article! Another letter
was mailed, with the required funds, requesting that the full article be
sent, including the "atonement" portion of Crosier's Day-Star, Extra article. As of this
writing (more then ten years), no further correspondence has been received.
What is the corporate Seventh-day Adventist Church trying to hide? Thanks
to the faithful work of Adventist laymen the complete article was published
on the Adventist Pioneer Library CD-ROM disk. (Adventist Pioneer Library, P. O. Box 1844, Loma Linda, CA 92354-0380, USA/]
73. Statement In the SDA Church Yearbooks, 1889-1914
74. (1) That there is one Lord Jesus Christ...that He...died our sacrifice,
was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only Mediator
in the sanctuary in heaven, where, with His own blood,
He makes the atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was
but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work as
priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed
and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven.
75. Statement In the 1931 Yearbook and the First SDA Church Manual
(1932)
76. (2) That Jesus Christ...died on the cross for our sins, was raised
from the dead, and ascended to the Father, where
He ever lives to make intercession for us.
77. Notice that the 1874 "Principles" states that "the sanctuary in heaven,
[is] where, with His own blood, He makes the atonement for our sins." The
new 1931 "Statement of Beliefs" states simply that in the heavenly sanctuary
Christ "ever lives to make intercession for us." The reason for the change
is to imply that the final atonement was finished and completed on the cross.
This changed position on the atonement placed the Seventh-day Adventist Church
in harmony with the Sunday-keeping churches of Babylon, and made it possible for ecumenical ties with other denominations. Also observe that a large portion of the original 1874 statement
on the "Final Atonement" was omitted from the "new" 1931 Statement of Beliefs.
The portion omitted stated, "which atonement, so
far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice,
is the very last portion of His work as priest, according to the example of
the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of
our Lord in heaven." (ibid.).
78. Two Views of the Final Atonement Historic
Pioneer Seventh-day Adventist View
79. (1) Of those who charge us with teaching strange doctrines because we believe that Christ's work of atonement for sin was
begun rather than completed on Calvary, we ask
these questions: If complete and final atonement
was made on the cross for all sins, then will not all be saved? for Paul says that He "died for all." Are we to understand
you as being Universalists? "No," you say, "not all men will be saved." Well,
then, are we to understand that you hold that Christ made complete atonement
on the cross for only a limited few, and that His sacrifice was not world
embracing, but only partial? That would be predestination
in its worst form. (Francis D. Nichol, Answers to Objections, Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1952 edition, page 408). (emphasis supplied).
80. The New Contemporary Seventh-day Adventist View
81. (2) When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist
literature--even in the writings of Ellen G. White--that Christ is making
atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial
atonement He made on the cross. (Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1957, pages 354, 355). (emphasis theirs).
82. Historic Pioneer Seventh-day Adventist View
83. (1) [Christ] ascended on high to be our only Mediator in the sanctuary
in heaven, where, with His own blood, He makes atonement
for our sins; which atonement, so far from being
made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very
last portion of His work as priest. (James White, 1874 Statement of Beliefs, op. sit. The
Living Witness, "Significant Articles From the Signs
of the Times, 1874-1959, Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1959, page
3). (emphasis supplied).
84. The New Contemporary Seventh-day Adventist View
85. (2) Jesus our surety entered the "holy places," and appeared in the
presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at
that time, or at some future time. No! He had already
obtained it for us on the cross. And now as our
High Priest He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice to us. (Questions on Doctrine, Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1957, page 381). (emphasis theirs).
86. Notice that pioneer Adventists believed and taught that it was in the
heavenly sanctuary "where, with His own blood, He makes atonement for our sins." Contemporary
Adventism does not even state that Christ entered "the most holy place" in
the heavenly sanctuary, but states that Christ entered the "holy places."
"But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time,
or at some future time." Pioneer Adventists state that the heavenly sanctuary
is "where" Jesus "makes atonement for our sins." Contemporary Adventism says,
"No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross."
87. Statement On Christ's Ministry In the Heavenly Sanctuary
88. "The Blotting Out of Sins" Statement In the
SDA Yearbooks, 1889-1914
89. That the sanctuary of the new covenant is the tabernacle of God in
heaven, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8 and onward, and of which our Lord,
as great High Priest, is minister; that this sanctuary is the anti-type of
the Mosaic tabernacle, and that the priestly work of our Lord, connected
therewith, is the anti-type of the work of the Jewish priests of the former
dispensation; that this is the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the
2300 days; what is termed its cleansing being in this case, as in the type,
simply the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, to finish
the round of service connected therewith, by blotting
out and removing from the sanctuary the sins which have been transferred
to it by means of the ministration in the first apartment; and that this work, in the anti-type, commencing in 1844,
occupies a brief but indefinite space, at the conclusion of which the work
of mercy for the world is finished.
90. Statement In the 1931 Yearbook and the First SDA Church Manual
(1932)
91. That the true sanctuary, of which the tabernacle on earth was a type,
in the temple of God in heaven, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8 and onward,
and of which the Lord Jesus, as our great High Priest, is minister; and that
the priestly work of our Lord is the antitype of the work of the Jewish priests
of the former dispensation; that this heavenly sanctuary is the one to be
cleansed at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14; its cleansing being, as in the type, a work of judgement, beginning with the entrance of Christ as High Priest upon
the judgement phase of His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, foreshadowed in the earthly sanctuary
service of cleansing the sanctuary on the day of atonement. This work of judgement, in the heavenly
sanctuary, began in 1844. The completion will close human probation.
92. The 1874 "Principles" state that Christ's work in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary is "blotting out and removing from the sanctuary the sins which have been transferred to it by means of the ministration in the first apartment." The new 1931 "Statement of Beliefs" state that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is "a work of judgement." The "blotting out of sins," or final atonement, is omitted. "The judgement phase of His ministry," is emphasized, and again it is stated that Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary is confined to, "This work of judgement." Notice that the 1931 "Statement" suggests that the atonement was completed and finished on the cross, and that Christ has now entered "the judgement phase of His ministry." The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church currently teaches that this last phase of Christ's ministry in heaven is judgmental only, and not the "blotting out of sins," which is the final atonement.In contrast to this erroneous 1931 statement, the pioneer 1874 "Fundamental Principles" states that Christ's ministry in the most holy place is "to finish the round of service connected therewith, by blotting out and removing from the sanctuary the sins which have been transferred to it by means of the ministration in the first apartment." (ibid.).
93. The Place of the Study of Prophecy Statement
In the SDA Yearbooks, 1889-1914
94. That prophecy is a part of God's revelation to man; that it is included
in that Scripture which is profitable for instruction; that it is designed
for us and our children; that so far from being enshrouded in impenetrable
mystery, it is that which especially constitutes the word of God a lamp to
our feet and a light to our path; that a blessing is pronounced upon those
who study it; and that, consequently, it is to be understood by the people
of God sufficiently to show them their position in the world's history and
the special duties required at their hands.
95. Statement In the 1931 Yearbook and the First SDA Church Manual
(1932)
96. OMITTED -- No statement on prophecy since 1914.The statement on prophecy
was omitted in the 1931 statement of beliefs. The time of the new 1931 statement
of beliefs is significant. At this time, 1931, when the Seventh-day Adventist
Church omitted the statement on prophecy, just two years prior in 1929, the
deadly wound of the Papacy was healed at the signing of the Lateran Treaty
between the nation of Italy and the Papacy. (See, San Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday, February
12, 1929).
97. Identification Of the Man Of Sin Statement
In the SDA Yearbooks, 1889-1914
98. That as the man of sin, the papacy
has thought to change times and laws (the law of God,
Daniel 7:25), and has misled almost all Christendom in regard to the fourth
commandment; we find a prophecy of a reform in this respect to be wrought
among believers just before the second coming of Christ.
99. Statement In the 1931 Yearbook and the First SDA Church Manual
(1932)
100. OMITTED -- No statement on the man of sin (the papacy) since 1914.The
statement identifying the "Man of Sin" is omitted from the "new" 1931 Statement
of Beliefs. Again, at the very time of the healing
of the Papal wound!
101. Historical Events Cast Their Shadow When studying history one must consider time and place -- events that had recently taken place, or that were taking place -- events that were casting their shadow in the near future. For example, What was taking place in the world between the years in question, 1928-1931?(1) The year 1929 would see the crash of the Stock Market and the beginning of the greatest depression the world had ever known -- even to the end of the twentieth century!(2) 1929 was the year the "deadly wound" of the Papacy was healed. "The Lateran Treaty, signed on Feb. 11, 1929, by Benito Mussolini for the Italian government and Cardinal Pietro Gasparri for the papacy, settled the vexatious question of the relationship between the Holy See and Italy." (Robin Buss, "The Lateran Treaty," The New Growler's Multimedia Encyclopedia, Release 6). Reporting on the signing of this document, the San Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday, February 12, 1929, carried the story on the front page with a photograph of Cardinal Pietro Gasparri and Benito Mussolini signing the document with the caption, "Heal Wound Of Many Years."The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exist today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High. (Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, page 571). (emphasis supplied).
102. What has been the response of the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership to the "healing of the wound," and to this inspired counsel of the Spirit of Prophecy?Although it is true that there was a period in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church when the denomination took a distinctly anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term, "hierarchy" was used in a pejorative sense to refer to the papal form of church governance, that attitude on the Church's part was nothing more than a manifestation of widespread anti-popery among conservative Protestant denominations in the early part of this century and the latter part of the last, and which has been consigned to the historical trash heap so far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is concerned. (Court Brief, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Pacific Press Publishing Association, footnote #2, page 41). (emphasis supplied). (Note:- This document, Excerpts Legal Documents, may be obtained from the Adventist Laymen's Foundation, P.O. Box, 69, Ozone, AR 72854).
103. In this third "wrong step" toward ecumenism the Seventh-day Adventist
leadership accepted and approved new doctrines; (1) a new statement on the
Trinity; (2) a new Christ, with a divine human nature, instead of a Christ
with a fallen human nature; (3) a new "final atonement," completed and finished
on the cross, rather than a final atonement finished in the most holy place
of the heavenly sanctuary. These three apostate
doctrinal changes made it possible for ecumenical ties between the Seventh-day
Adventist Church and other denominations! To substantiate
these three apostate doctrines a new Bible, the American Revised Version
(now approved by the Papacy in the "new" RSV), was embraced. Then all of
this was placed in the first Church Manual, the first "creed" for Seventh-day Adventists, along with many
"worldly policies."
104. Did this apostasy from the truth on the atonement and the human nature
of Christ progress in the years following 1931? Yes. This apostasy did advance
and was culminated in the ultimate betrayal of trust in the 1955-1956 Evangelical
Conferences by the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (See below,
Chapter 12, "The Ultimate Betrayal").
105. Ecumenical Objective in Formulating New Statement of Beliefs
What was the reason given for a new Statement of Faith?
"So the world might know," Froom stated. Why not restore the original "Fundamental
Principles" back into the Yearbook, and also into the proposed "new"Church
Manual? Because, Rogers and Froom believed that,
before the world should see what Seventh-day Adventists believe, "a suitable
Statement of Faith" needed to be formulated "to appear in our Yearbook." To accomplish this objective,
Edson Rogers, the General Conference statistician, had omitted the original
"Fundamental Principles" from the Yearbooks
since 1914. Now, sixteen years later, in 1930, Edson had
"agitated" in high places, and even abroad, and was successful in getting
a "new" Statement of Beliefs voted in 1931. Once again the leadership of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church were seeking recognition from the world
in their first Church Manual and "official" Creed.The stage was now set. With an erroneous
Bible in hand, and an official ecumenical "Statement of Beliefs," and an
official Church Manual or
creed in place, Seventh-day Adventist leadership, with mandated ecclesiastical
authority, was now ready and willing to lead the
ship into strange ports! "But in the sanctuaries
of worship in our day," Ellen White wrote, "with the songs of praise, the
prayers, and the teaching from the pulpit, there
is not merely strange fire, but positive defilement." (Temperance, page 45, emphasis supplied).