D.G. Barnhouse and Seventh-Day Adventism
Paul Wilson
Table of Contents
D.G. Barnhouse and Seventh-Day Adventism
(Continued from last month)
Surely the Seventh-day Adventists will tell us that Paul went into the synagogues on the Sabbath day. This he certainly did, and it was of God that he did. That was the one day when he could find the Jews gathered together, and so he utilized the same in preaching Jesus to them. The same thing was true of the Lord, and the other apostles. They had a message to deliver to the Jews, and they fulfilled it.
Adventists may well stress the Sabbath, for it is clear evidence that they do not understand the whole Christian era; they do not comprehend new creation. They are "law-keepers," and that belongs with the old dispensation. In this age of grace, God has brought in new creation through Christ dead and risen, and the eighth day is a sign of the new creation. Of this they seem to be willingly ignorant. The eighth day is the beginning of a new week, and in the types of the Old Testament, the eighth day (the first day of a new week) has this significance. It prefigures the bringing in of something new. Lev. 23 is a case in point: everything that referred to this period of time was on the first day of a new week. Thus the Lord arose on the first day, and the wave sheaf was offered that day; the Spirit of God descended to form the Church on that day, and the type of it—the wave loaves—was carried out on that day. It was the day on which the Lord Jesus met with His disciples after His resurrection, once and again. It was the day "when the disciples came together to break bread." It was on that day the Corinthian believers were to lay by of their means for the poor saints at Jerusalem. True, the Jewish women who came to anoint the Lord's body in the tomb rested on the Sabbath day, but they were devout Jews and were living on the other side of His resurrection. Neither the Adventists nor anyone else can prove that any Christian assembly met on the Sabbath day, nor that there is even a hint in any Christian epistle that Christians should observe it; nay, rather, it is embraced in the things condemned.
Some may refer to the Lord's words in Matt. 24, "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day," as a warrant for Sabbath-keeping. But even a casual examination of the subject should clear that matter. It is the Lord's direction to the Jewish remnant (not on Christian ground) which will exist in a future day, and who will have to flee for their lives when an idol is set up IN THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM. (See Matt. 24:15-21, and Dan. 12:11, where "abomination" means an "idol" which will be set up in the "holy place" of the temple.) When the Lord gave directions for the Jewish believers to flee Jerusalem before Titus destroyed the city, He said NOT ONE WORD about not fleeing on the. Sabbath day, for they were not under law. (Luke 21.) These things are all mixed up in hopeless confusion in Adventist literature, and they boldly assume positions that are really untenable. And all their talk about the Church of Rome being the beast who, supposedly, changed the Sabbath is just so much dust thrown into the air. What if Rome does take credit for such a change, that alters nothing. Why go back to the second or third century and speak of what Rome did; go back, rather, to the beginning of Christianity and learn what Christianity is, and do not annex Judaism to Christianity. When the Church has been translated to heaven, then it will be God's mind to go back to the Sabbath, and the Sabbath will be observed on earth in the Millennium. (But, of course, there is no millennial reign of Christ to the Adventists, for their weird and fantastic doctrine teaches that the earth will remain a burned out, uninhabited place for that period of time; and everything must fit their doctrine.)
Regardless of what the Adventists and their apologists may say, it is no light matter for them to bind themselves to the Sabbath. It is evidence of their whole legal system which undermines the very truth of the gospel. It is part and parcel of their Judaised Christianity, or, perhaps rather, Christianized Judaism.
Besides the more serious soul-destroying features of this Sabbath and commandment-keeping legalism, the Adventists' obsessions carry them into many hard and ridiculous situations. Their General Conference president, Mr. R. R. Figuhr, who recently visited Iceland, wrote back, "Iceland lies far to the north.... It was a new experience Friday evening to await the beginning of the Sabbath. The sun actually set at 11:46 p.m. and rose the next morning at a little before 2:00.... In the winter, of course, the opposite is the case."—Review and Herald, August 8, 1957. What a short night! Just over two hours. If he had gone farther north, to where the sun does not set in summer nor rise in winter, what would he have done? From sunset to sunset might be months long; it would either be a long Sabbath or a long period without one. And an Adventist sailing across the international dateline might easily have two Sabbaths together, or, sailing in the opposite direction, miss one entirely. At any rate they would vary from six to eight days apart. The children of Israel, to whom the law of the Sabbath was given, had no such problems in the land which the Lord their God gave them.
We may be accused of being ungracious in our comments, but we have not treated this doctrine any worse than did the inspired Apostle when he encountered it in the Galatian assemblies. His remarks were scathing, and his denunciation strong—"let him be accursed."
There is one more phase of the Adventists' law-keeping that should be examined; namely, their "health reform" doctrine. That they are dedicated to this also, we can easily prove from their own 1957 periodicals and books. Let us notice a few statements of theirs:
"Health reform is an important part of our message.... A study of health reform fits into our evangelism as an attractive feature of gospel work." Notice it is a part of their gospel. "As we begin our study on health reform we should have a few definite objectives in mind. We should aim, primarily, to lead people away from the more health-destroying and demoralizing practices, which center in the use of unclean foods," etc.—Review and Herald, July 11, 1957. "Two years ago there was not a single Seventh-day Adventist in the town. Today there are only two families that do not have at least one baptized member in our recently organized church. Neither liquor nor lard can anywhere be bought in the village, and there is now only one pig in this town, which a couple of years ago was literally overrun with them."—Review and Herald, May 16, 1957. "Since reading and studying your Bible lessons my husband and I do not eat or have any pork in any form or shape in our home. I will observe the Sabbath from now on, as stated in the fourth commandment of God."—Review and Herald, June 6, 1957. "The Spirit of prophecy writings are quite pointed concerning the matter: 'The angel's prohibition included "every unclean thing."' "—Review and Herald, August 1, 1957. "To find comfort and consolation he often read the Koran. He became interested in endeavoring to find some Christians who did not eat swine's flesh. He was greatly disappointed many times, until one day he visited one of our Seventh-day Adventist Bible instructors.... After much study he and his wife were baptized." "Probably the most effective way to curtail the accumulation of cancer viruses is to avoid eating meat,... to eliminate meat of all kinds from their diet."—Review Herald, May 2, 1957. "In 1900 the messenger of the Lord wrote: 'It will not be long until animal food will be discarded by many besides Seventh-day Adventists.'—Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 124."—Review and Herald, May 2, 1957. "He [Christ] taught them that health is the reward of obedience to the laws of God."—The Desire of Ages, p. 824.
We are aware that the Seventh-day Adventist apologists are willing to accept their "health reform" measures as merely for health's sake, but this is only part of it. It has its roots deep in their whole legal system of Jewish bondage. Listen to this: "That which corrupts the body tends to corrupt the soul."—Mrs. White, from Review and Herald, August 1, 1957. "These are included in the reforms that prepare a people to meet the Lord. There is power in presenting these principles with a 'Thus saith the Lord.'... When the time arrives for more specific instruction (which would be preparatory to baptism and church membership) the student will then see more clearly that each successive study is a link in the chain of truth in preparation for our Lord's return.... Health instruction is an important factor in true sanctification.... Before a Christian can hope to be glorified with his Lord he must be sanctified." Then in another place, "Why was it important that God's regulations be observed? [Answer] To shield them from ravaging disease and apostasy. Exod. 15:26. To preserve for Himself a holy people. Lev. 11:43-47. Cf. 1 Thess. 5:23. [Question] Are these health principles important in our day? [Answer] Enjoined upon all New Testament Christians. 2 Cor. 6:17, 18; 7:1. A clean church will await Christ's return."—Review and Herald, July 11, 1957.
We do not have space for more such quotations, but we are convinced from their own writings that their "health reform" is but another phase of keeping the law. What does it mean but that, when they say it is "enjoined upon all New Testament Christians"? This is different from the instructions given in Acts 15 when some Judaiser's would have put the Gentile Christians under the Mosaic law. All that was prohibited was flesh containing the blood, and that has nothing to do with Mosaic law, for it was prohibited to man from the time that flesh was given him for food in Gen. 9 It antedated the giving of the law; it was a prohibition to man generally, not the Jew only. And certainly fornication was not for a Christian, as mentioned in Acts 15, for it is explained elsewhere that his body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
People who come under the power of Seventh-day Adventism are brought into legal bondage. Let their apologists painstakingly read Adventist literature—past and present; let them not be deceived by good words and fair speeches. In our last quotation from the Adventists' official paper, they plainly state that this food restriction helps prepare a people for the coming of the Lord, that it is a part of their sanctification which a Christian MUST have before he can hope to be glorified. This is diametrically opposed to the truth of the gospel Paul preached. He would withstand to the face, as he once did Peter (Gal. 2:11), those who propagate such gospel-destroying heresy. "But meat commendeth us not to God." 1 Cor. 8:8. No meat or lack of meat will sanctify the Christian, nor prepare him for glory—he is not a law-burdened Jew. Perhaps we should remember that the Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the "Israel of God." To accept their "health reform" tenets is to fall from grace, and is apostasy.
If Mrs. White and her followers know so much better than God Himself did when He gave man flesh to eat, why accept the Bible as the Word of God? Surely God would have known how bad it was. Plainly, pork and pork products and all unclean flesh are forbidden to the Adventists, and many of them even make a fetish out of abstaining from all meat. This reminds us of the warning given by the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy against those who commanded to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving of them that believe and know the truth. He calls such restrictions doctrines of demons. (1 Tim. 4.) Remember that "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving." v. 4. That does not mean that some foods may not be spoiled and unfit for human consumption, or that some people through allergies or ill-health may not be able to eat certain foods; but when man's diet is put on a basis of a legal statute for sanctification, for preparing a people for heaven, or to shield from apostasy, it is to be rejected forthwith. Besides being Mosaic law, it is the doctrine and commandments of men, of which we are warned in Col. 2 It does indeed have a show of wisdom, but it is contrary to the truth of the gospel.
We say again, this "health reform" is not a matter of indifference for people who want the truth, any more than are the other gross errors of Seventh-day Adventism with which we have already dealt.
Postscript
As we go to press we have just received a copy of Eternity magazine for November 1957, in which Dr. Donald G. Barnhouse reaffirms his stand that the Seventh-day Adventists are sound Evangelical Christians. In his latest defense of Seventh-day Adventism, he lauds the simultaneous release of the 720-page book by the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists explaining their position, and a book by Mr. Walter Martin, favorably reviewing Adventism, saying: "It may be the first time in modern church history that two parties with sharp differences have prayed and talked with each other and come finally to an understanding of the areas of agreement and disagreement."
Dr. Barnhouse attempts to discredit all criticism of Adventism (except that which he and Mr. Martin are willing to concede) as entirely "out of date," or the work of those who are "willingly ignorant of the facts or victims of such prejudice that they are no longer to be trusted as teachers in this field." It should be emphasized that neither of these apologists named finds anything in the "areas of disagreement" that they consider of such vital importance as to undermine the foundations of the gospel, or to constitute a barrier to Christian fellowship.
Nevertheless, what we have been saying in this and previous issues can be verified from current magazines of the Adventists' General Conference, or from books now being advertised and sold by them. We may well ask, Just who is "willingly ignorant"?
Any true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ has the Holy Spirit of God as the "anointing" with which to perceive "the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (1 John 4:6), and he does not need Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin to set themselves up to be the last court of appeal, and to act as the custodians of the consciences of other Christians in the matter of false doctrines. Dr. Barnhouse makes the bold and presumptuous statement that Mr. Martin's new book "renders obsolete every other non-Adventist book that has been written on the appraisal and criticism of Seventh-day Adventism."
Dr. Barnhouse quotes from the new Seventh-day Adventist book to show that there are 19 points of agreement between Adventists and "Conservative Christians," but this is not really so, for what Adventists mean by some of these statements and what loyal Christians mean by them are two different things. Let us examine a few of these points:
When they say, "He lived an absolutely sinless life here on earth," they really mean that He did so in spite of inheriting a sinful nature.
When they say "That the vicarious, atoning death of Jesus Christ, once for all, is all-sufficient for the redemption of a lost race," this must be taken with reservations in view of the many qualifications we read elsewhere in their books and periodicals, wherein they place great stress on things the individual must do. According to their doctrine this atoning death would not avail to those who reject their strange message of "the third angel" teaching obedience to the law, and Sabbath-keeping.
When they say "That He now serves as our advocate in priestly ministry and mediation before the Father," their whole doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary and His present examination of the records in heaven to see who are worthy of eternal life must be considered.
When they say "That He will return in a premillennial, personal, imminent second advent," they do not refer to the millennial reign of Christ on earth, as the Bible teaches, but rather to a time when, according to them, the earth will be a burned-out chaos.
When they say "That man is sanctified by the indwelling Christ through the Holy Spirit," we must remember that they claim other things are necessary for sanctification without which no one can be glorified. This we have already shown includes the abstaining from eating pork and pork products.
Dr. Barnhouse, then, quoting from the new Adventist book, lists 12 points in which the Adventists find themselves in disagreement with some while in agreement with other "Conservative Christians." In this category come the keeping of the ten commandments (Sabbath and all), their disbelief in the present existence of the soul and spirit apart from the body, their complete rejection of eternal punishment, and their teaching of annihilation which is concomitant. How can Dr. Barnhouse recommend showing fellowship to the propagators of these pernicious evil doctrines? Just who are the "Conservative Christians" with whom the Seventh-day Adventists find themselves in agreement on these "DAMNABLE HERESIES"? We do not know any such, nor would we accept them as such if they could be brought forward. Why castigate Jehovah's Witnesses for their doctrines of soul sleep and extinction of the lost and of Satan and his angels, and take to our bosom the Adventists who boldly teach the same things These teachings have put them into the company of the cults, the infidels, and the scoffers.
Dr. Barnhouse has intimated before that the Adventists were going to repudiate Mrs. White. Have they done it? NO, NO. They boldly take their same old position, and stand by her as "God's messenger." They have not the slightest thought of altering their course, Dr. Barnhouse and company notwithstanding.
In this latest defense of the Adventists, Dr. Barnhouse says that the most serious charge against the Adventists has been that they taught that "Jesus Christ had a sinful human nature," and that this has been made a large issue by one "defender of the faith" who attempted to pin this error on Mrs. White herself. Let us read what Mrs. "White has really said:
"Notwithstanding that the sins of a guilty world were laid upon Christ [this at His baptism, which is gross error], notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon Himself our fallen nature." "It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden, but Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.... He [God] permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss." "In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him.... It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities
of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.... But our Savior took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation."-The Desire of Ages, pp. 49, 112, 117.
We are loath to defile the pages of our magazine with such writings as the above, but we put them here for Christians to see for themselves whether or not Mrs. White was unjustly blamed for teaching this great evil, as Dr. Barnhouse confidently avers.
Dr. Barnhouse, evidently sensing some incongruities in his position, has sought to make a way of escape for himself and Mrs. White by saying, "The original difficulty arose from the fact that Mrs. White was not a trained theologian and was largely unacquainted with historical theology.... In my opinion she lacked profundity, accuracy, and scholarship." Under any other circumstances this would be considered an affront and an insult, but in this case it is an expediency to excuse her plainly-stated false doctrines. But such pretexts will not palliate her evil, for she and her followers claim that she had the "gift of prophecy" by which she wrote "messages of counsel and warning, which we believe were just as verily from God as were the messages of the prophets in days of old." -The Testimony of Jesus, The Spirit of Prophecy, by W. E. Read (purchased in 1957). And Mrs. White said of her own writings, "It is God, and not an erring mortal who has spoken." But very plainly it would be impossible for anyone speaking by the Spirit of God to err, much less to speak blasphemous things. The unlearned and untaught Galilean fisherman, Simon Peter, made no mistakes either in his preaching by the Spirit (Acts 2), or in writing to the Jewish believers; and he surely had no theological background. The same might be said for the "herdman" Amos and many other Bible writers whom the Spirit of God used to pen divine communications.
We would that all of our readers could be "wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil" (Rom. 16:19), for there is little profit for the soul in being occupied with evil; but there is a time when we MUST "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
Jude 1, 3. It would be disloyalty to Christ to let this plot to vindicate the Seventh-day Adventists go unchallenged, for the glory of the Lord is involved, and it could lead souls to perdition.
In conclusion, we contend on the basis of the Seventh-day Adventists' current literature that they have not changed from what they were, nor have their false doctrines been altered. This is even confirmed by their own statement in an advertisement for their much publicized new book, "Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine," which says: "This treatise [is] not a 'new' pronouncement of faith and doctrine-every answer given comes from within the framework of fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists as outlined in the Church Manual." Therefore let none be deceived by sweet, soothing assurances to the contrary.
Then, we may ask, Why was this new book published if there is nothing new in it? Evidently to render a powerful assist to the work of Dr. Donald G. Barnhouse and Mr. Walter Martin in their great effort to have the Adventists accredited as bona fide fundamental, Evangelical Christians. Dr. Barnhouse says that the Adventists' answers in the new book "were hammered out with us." It is obviously designed to catch unwary non-Adventists. It certainly was not needed for their own followers, who have mountains of Adventist literature already.
And Mr. Martin's new book, "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists," with a signed statement in the front of it from an official of the Adventists' group, is based on this "hammered out" new Adventist book. It seems that he has worked unofficially as their public relations adviser to make the terminology of their old doctrines less objectionable, and then written his new book to back it up. Christians, beware! Beware of poisonous doctrines with innocent-looking labels! "Let NO man deceive you."
D.G. Barnhouse and Seventh-Day Adventism
The campaign which has been spearheaded by Dr. Donald G. Barnhouse, Dr. E. Schuyler English, and Mr. Walter Martin (with their respective magazines, Eternity and Our Hope) to gain for the Seventh-day Adventists the fellowship of evangelical Christians, seems to be bearing its baleful fruit. We have just learned from San Jose, Costa Rica, that an evangelical group, the "Committee of Cooperation for Latin America," has accepted the "General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist" as an associate member. Thus the cult that has been the bane of many faithful missionaries will have acquired increased stature and influence.
We saw last month that the Adventists are still guilty of having within the body politic the very serious heresies that the Lord Jesus possessed a fallen human nature, that He was liable to sin, that He risked eternal loss, and could not see through the tomb to resurrection. Thus the very essentials of deity are removed with un holy hands. How can a faithful follower of Christ be at peace with this? What fellowship can he have with it, and not be disloyal to Christ?
In our December issue we considered the Adventists' denial of the finished work of Christ by their strange doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary, for they reject the plain statements of Scripture that He went at once to the right hand of God where He sat Himself down in perpetuity, never to rise up to deal with the question of sins again. We quoted from the works of Mrs. E. G. White (which are still on sale in their book rooms) to the effect that the sins were transferred to the heavenly sanctuary, and that Christ was working about sins in cleansing the outer sphere, the holy place, until 1844, and that since then He is investigating sins in the holiest. Now all this is entirely incompatible with the truth of the gospel of God concerning His Son. And while Dr. Barnhouse and Mr. Martin both assure us that these views are "not heretical," and "should constitute no bar to fellowship," we judge that they are of such great moment that fellowship is impossible, and trust that many faithful men and women will feel likewise.
Next let us look briefly at the Adventists' strange, false doctrine regarding the scapegoat, for it is interwoven with their sanctuary theory. To understand the real truth as to this subject, it is necessary to have a somewhat clear view of what is taught in Lev. 16 regarding the two goats which were involved in the cleansing from sin on the great day of atonement.
Two goats (nothing to distinguish the one from the other) were to be taken on that day, and the high priest was to cast lots between them—the one for the Lord's lot, and the other for the people's lot. Both goats were to be used to "make atonement." The goat which was the Lord's lot was to be killed as a sin offering, and its blood was to be taken by the high priest into the holiest and sprinkled there before and on the mercy seat. Its blood was to make atonement for the whole congregation, and be used to reconcile the holy place because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
The other goat, the people's lot, was to be taken by the high priest after he came out of the tabernacle. He was to "lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and... send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness." Lev. 16:21, 22.
The goat of the Lord's lot is a type of the Lord Jesus in His sacrifice on Calvary's cross as the One who made expiation, or propitiation, for sin and fully glorified God about the whole question of sin. The blood of the goat was placed upon the mercy seat where God dwelt among the people. There the cherubim looked down upon the mercy seat where the blood was placed. So all God's holy claims against sin were fully satisfied in the death and blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus.
The other goat—the people's lot—was not killed, but "presented alive before the LORD, TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT WITH HIM, AND to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness." This goat represents the other part of the work of the Lord Jesus; that is, His actual bearing the sins of His people, and removing them forever. While the former goat gives the type of the expiation before God, the latter gives the shadow of His substitution for sinners. There was no confessing of sins on the head of the goat of the Lord's lot, but on the head of the scapegoat the sins of the people were in type transferred by the laying on of the high priest's hands and his confessing over it the sins of the people.
Both aspects of the death of Christ are needful. God must have His holiness vindicated, and the blood must be presented before Him; but it is likewise needful for the sinner who has been brought to a sense of his guilt before God, to have his conscience set at liberty by the knowledge that Jesus bore his very own sins and removed them forever. The knowledge that God saw the blood of the first goat as it was placed upon the mercy seat was not sufficient to give the guilty conscience peace; the actual transference of his sins to Christ to be removed forever was requisite to peace with God. To use the words of another, "It is not enough to see God has been glorified in the death of Christ; I feel my own sins before God. Then I see that He has confessed my sins; and now as Priest on high, He maintains me in the power of reconciliation made."—Notes on Hebrews, J.N.D.
Now it is precisely here that Seventh-day Adventism falls into a grievous and monstrous error. They boldly contend that "when the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary has been completed [note that it is not yet completed], then in the presence of God and the heavenly angels and the host of the redeemed the sins of God's people [for remember that according to Adventism they have been transferred "by the blood and by the flesh" of Christ to heaven] will be placed upon Satan: he will be declared guilty of all the evil which he has caused them to commit. And as the scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, so Satan will be banished to the desolate earth, an uninhabited and dreary wilderness." - The Great Controversy, p. 658. Today they blandly disclaim that Satan has anything to do with the atonement; but remember that the scapegoat was also for the express purpose of making atonement. Evidently in their blind folly this has been overlooked.
Furthermore, remember that it was only by casting lots for the goats that any difference was made between them—they were not distinguishable in themselves. This is quite understandable if both are types of the Lord Jesus in His twofold character of the work of atonement; that is, expiation and substitution. But falsely try to make one of them a type of Satan, and insurmountable trouble ensues. Were Satan and Christ indistinguishable? and were both to make an atonement? Was it left to a matter of chance which work was for Christ and which for Satan? Far be the thought! The truth cannot be mistaken by any mind subject to the general truth of the Word of God. But those who bring their own erroneous thoughts to Scripture are sure to wrest it to their own condemnation.
Another question must show the fallacy of the Adventist heresy: Why if, as they now claim, Satan will only bear his own sins (namely, the part he played in prompting others to sin), is there any reason for transferring the guilt and sins of men to him? Men have their own guilt, and Satan has his. Transferring their sins to him is crass folly. But see this in the light of the Lord's confessing our sins to bear them substitutionally, and to remove them forever from sight and record, and the reason for the transference is evident. But, wicked thought! if Satan bears our sins, then he has a part in our atonement. Could anything lead more surely to blasphemy against Christ, and despite to His blessed work of atonement? Again, we say with emphasis, Seventh-day Adventism is permeated with evil doctrine.
There is still another fallacy in this transferring of sins to Satan, as though if it were not for him man would not sin. It is an easy way of shifting responsibility from man to Satan. It presupposes that fallen man only does wrong because Satan provokes him to it; this is error, for man himself is innately bad, and is capable of doing evil without prompting. "A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."
Matt. 7:17. "For from within, out of the HEART OF MEN, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness." Mark 7:21, 22. Furthermore, if Adventism were correct, and if man is so weak that he only acts when pushed to do so, then why punish man at all?
There is another conclusive proof in Scripture, that man is bad and that he will do evil without the devil's promptings. When the Lord Jesus establishes His glorious millennial kingdom, and Satan is bound, there will still be overt wickedness. In Psalm 101, which "gives us the principles on which the government of this earth will be carried on by Jehovah's King" (quotation from last month's article on Psalm 94), it is said, "Morning by morning will I destroy all the wicked of the land." v. 8; A.R.V. There will be wicked persons to be cut off daily, even though Satan cannot tempt them to do evil. This does not indicate that those who are born again and thus enter into the kingdom will rebel, but Psalm 18 lets us know that when the Messiah sets up His kingdom, many will yield feigned obedience (see margin of Psa. 18: 44). Their rebellion against the beneficent reign of Christ will prove that man is bad in himself without any promptings from Satan. (Of course the Adventists will not listen to this, for they have the illogical and unscriptural idea of the Millennium as being a time when the earth will lie dormant after being burned out. But this ill-conceived doctrine provides a manufactured solution for their false teaching about the scapegoat being Satan; that is, that he will bear the sins into this burned out waste—they must make a "wilderness" for Satan to bear sins into. Does not a careful evaluation of their scapegoat theory prove that when once any portion of Scripture is distorted, then every other part which it touches must be warped to make it fit? And so the process continues!)
Adventists have been very adept at conjuring up manifold arguments to support this false doctrine. One of their number, John Edwin Fulton, says, "Christ is the high priest; and the high priest sends the goat away. Christ could not send Himself away."
- The Sanctuary and the Judgment, p. 29. This may convince some simple souls; but the first goat represented Christ, and the high priest represented Christ as He presented its blood—thus, His own blood. By Mr. Fulton's argument, this would have been impossible. We need to remember that Christ is both the offerer and the offering; He is the One who made expiation for sins before God, and the One who bore our sins as our substitute. He is represented by both goats, and by the priest in both actions. He, blessed be His name, has done it all!
The prophet Isaiah has well expressed by the Holy Spirit the language of those who know the Lord Jesus as their substitute: "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed." Isa. 53:5. Then as to the transference of sins to Him, it is said, "Jehovah hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all." v. 6; A.R.V. In Psalm 69:5, the Lord Jesus takes the sins on Himself. Thank God, we who have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ did not have to lay our sins on Jesus, for we might have forgotten some of them. The poet has expressed this well:
"All thy sins were laid upon Him,
Jesus bore them on the tree;
God, who knew them, laid them on Him,
And, believing, thou art free."
The Adventists and their new apologists excuse this strange false doctrine of the scapegoat by referring to prominent Jewish theologians who held that the scapegoat was Satan; but when did Jewish theologians ever see anything aright about Jesus? And regardless of who may have held this doctrine, it is error. It detracts from the work of Christ and gives to Satan one of Christ's most needful works as far as the awakened sinner is concerned. And while Mr. Martin says that "it certainly cannot be cited as a legitimate reason for refusing fellowship with the Adventists," and Dr. Barnhouse concurs, we object. It can and should. And if Mr. Martin were faithful to the Word, they would not want him; but he has compromised himself and preached in their churches. Did he attack these heresies when he preached among them? Surely not!
Furthermore, this group of errors which we have so far noticed does not stand alone; it is only a part of a whole scheme of false doctrine which is destructive of the true gospel, false to Christ, and damaging to souls.
Denial of Christ's substitutionary work AND COMPLETE REMOVAL of the sins He bore, as typified in the scapegoat, has led to the Adventist's preposterous stand that after a man's sins have been forgiven, they can be brought out and again charged to him. Such forgiving is unworthy of man, not to speak of Him who "cannot deny Himself." W. H. Branson, past president of the sect, says that after men receive pardon, if they "refuse to confess present sins, and harden the heart against the voice of the Spirit... the sins of the past" will "be charged to them again."-How Men are Saved, p. 53. Their S. N. Haskell says: "Sins are forgiven and covered when confessed, and will never be uncovered if the one who confesses them remains faithful: but if he forsakes the Lord and turns back into the world, that part of his past life which, while he was faithful, was covered by Christ's righteousness [mark, not by the blood of Christ], appears open and uncovered on the books of heaven."—The Cross and Its Shadow, pp. 77, 78. If that be true, they are not covered at all; but David described the blessedness of one who knew his sins removed, saying, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and WHOSE SINS ARE COVERED." Rom. 4:7.
This is only one little point in all the muddled false doctrine of the Adventists who corrupt the truth of God. May God graciously thwart the work of their apologists who would accredit them as true evangelicals, and thus help to expose precious souls to their Christ-dishonoring gospel, which is "not another," but a deception. We are sorry that we have not yet covered the blasphemous heresy which denies the consciousness of the soul after death, and that boldly rejects the eternal damnation of the lost, and that places people under the law, but space forbids at this time.
D.G. Barnhouse and Seventh-Day Adventism
Since our first writings last year against the change of attitude toward Seventh-day Adventism in Our Hope magazine, in which its editor endorsed this cult as a basically sound Christian sect, others have joined in the great right about-face movement until they seem to vie with one another to take the lead in extolling the soundness of this basic heterodoxy. Such names as Dr. Donald Gray Barnhouse, Eternity magazine, Zondervan Publishing Company, Mr. Walter Martin, Dr. E. Schuyler English, and Christian Life magazine are in the vanguard of those who have either rushed to print favorable interviews, or have come out unequivocally in favor of outright acceptance of Adventists as orthodox Christians, and of extending to them the right-hand of fellowship. The matter has not been confined to the religious press, but it has now spilled over into the secular press with a rather full account of the workings of Messrs. Barnhouse and Martin with Eternity magazine being reported in the December 31St issue of Time magazine. Thus this gigantic whitewash engineered by a few self-appointed leaders is affecting the whole of what has been generally considered fundamental Christendom. It may well shake the whole structure of fundamentalism to its very foundations, and probably make a rift which will never be healed. Many true-hearted, devoted Christians simply cannot and will not go along with such fellowship of light with darkness.
Perhaps nothing in our generation is a clearer mark of the time of the end than this capitulation to Adventism by men who were once considered very orthodox and sound. It reminds us of the conditions that existed among the Jews, as the canon of Old Testament Scripture closed, as recorded in the book of Malachi; for then everything was in disorder and confusion, and all sense of what was right before God was lost, so that God said,
Paraphrasing and quotations from Adventist literature are in italics.
"Ye have wearied the LORD with your words.. When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delighteth in them." Truly the Lord's words that the leaven was hidden in the meal "until the whole was leavened" have come to pass. Evil doctrine has been at work, and the seeds of the great apostasy have been sown; in fact, they are sprouting and will bring forth an abundant crop.
It is not within our province to decide what has motivated these leaders to become defenders of a false system, but we have a duty to our readers to analyze what they have done. It is our opinion that somewhere along the line they have lost their perception, and then were led into the anomalous position of seeking to be defenders of the faith and of Adventism at the same time. The most distressing thing about the whole case is that they have written as though no one else had any right to question their judgment, and they assume to act for Evangelical Christendom at large. They have sought to close the door to discussion or dispute and demand blind acceptance of their decisions, which we are persuaded are grossly in error.
These apologists casually admit that the Adventists did at one time hold some wrong views that were serious, but state that they do not now hold them. But let us see what the Adventists themselves have to say at this time. We quote from their foremost publication, Signs of the Times, for October 2, 1956: "Adventists Vindicated." "One of the most epoch-making events in recent church history is the publication of an article on Seventh-day Adventists in the September issue of ETERNITY. It exploded in religious circles like a hydrogen bomb, and its 'fall out' is being carried on the winds of theological argument clear around the world.... They have, in fact, endured a century of slander. Now at last vindication has come." Do they say, We held error which we now repudiate and abhor? No, not at all. In this official statement they make no mention of a change of position, but rather say that for one hundred years they have been slandered, and now at last vindication has come. We may ask, Just who has changed? The answer should be apparent.
Dr. Barnhouse admits that the Adventists still hold "two or three positions" which he cannot accept, although both he and Mr. Martin insist that these are not heretical and should be no bar to fellowship between them and orthodox Christians. But let us see how the Adventists feel about Dr. Barnhouse and his "two or three positions"; we again quote from the Signs of the Times: "We hold nothing against him because he found `two or three positions' with which he could not agree. That was to be expected. The best of Christians have differed on minor [we shall let the reader judge whether they are minor or not as we proceed] matters of theology all down the centuries, and will continue to do so till the end of time." Then with further reference to the "two or three positions" they say: "Further study of these matters in the same open-minded and prayerful spirit will, we trust, lead the good doctor and his fellow evangelicals to agree that Seventh-day Adventists have strong Biblical as well as historical evidence for the positions which they take." It is clearly evident that on these positions they have no intention of changing, but fondly hope that their newly-found friends will come all the way over to their positions.
Even if there has been some change in the official doctrines and beliefs of the Adventists from those held years ago, they cannot escape the sad history of that Christ-dishonoring systematized error. Job rightly asked, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" and correctly answered, "Not one." Job 14:4. Rank error does not perform a metamorphosis so that it gradually transforms itself into truth. Every system is the product of its own history and foundation, and blasphemy against the Person and work of Christ remains what it was. The only way out of evil is to leave it. If a saint of God finds himself a partaker of evil doctrine, he should leave it forthwith. "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ [the Lord] depart from iniquity.... If a man therefore purge himself from these [in separating himself from them] he shall be a vessel unto honor," etc. 2 Tim. 2:19-21.
It is all very easy for them and their apologists to blame bad doctrines on a certain "lunatic fringe," but these heresies were held and taught by men of renown among them, and not by men only, but by a woman, Mrs. Ellen G. White, who was pre-eminent among the leaders. Will they classify her in the "lunatic fringe"? NEVER! She is still honored and revered by them as "God's messenger," and Mr. Martin defends their right to do this. Of course men have a right to do as they please in their own organizations, but the Word of God should guide in the Church of God, and they profess to be that, or in that. And the Word of God says: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak." 1 Cor. 14:34. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. Did God give instructions for His Church and then send a woman to violate His express word? That could not be. It is vain to argue that there were women as prophets in Old Testament times, especially in times of ruin, for that was not the Church of God. Nor will it do to contend that because Philip the Evangelist had four daughters who prophesied, women are to teach, as Mrs. White did. There is not the slightest indication that these four women taught in the Church, nor that they prophesied there. No one walking in simple obedience to the Word of God would have become ensnared in Seventh-day Adventism when he learned the place of Mrs. White; he would have said, I see that Adventism cannot be of God when a woman is their greatest teacher and leader. As an aside, it is instructive to see how prominent women have been in the promulgation of heresies, as is evident in any history of the cults.
But let us proceed to look at some of the wicked doctrines which Mr. Martin says (in Our Hope for November, 1956) were "fringe views" which the "overwhelming majority never held." First we shall consider a paramount issue; namely, that the Lord Jesus "partook of man's sinful fallen nature at the incarnation." Mrs. 'White wrote in The Desire of the Ages, chapter 11, some fanciful speculations which she added to the Word of God (albeit God warned, "Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar") that the Lord Jesus after His baptism in Jordan bowed "in prayer on the river bank," asking God "for the witness that God accepts humanity in the person of His Son," which "angels listened to," after which they were "eager to bear their loved Commander a message of assurance" before the Father answered Him. (This is obvious error, for we learn from Mark 1:10 that it was immediately upon His coming out of the water that the Spirit descended upon Him and the voice of the Father spoke from heaven.) At this point Mrs. White clearly states her teaching regarding the nature which the Lord took, and we quote:
"This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. These words of confirmation were given to inspire faith in those who witnessed the scene, and to strengthen the Savior for His mission. Notwithstanding that THE SINS OF A GUILTY WORLD WERE LAID UPON CHRIST,
notwithstanding the humiliation of TAKING UPON HIMSELF OUR FALLEN NATURE, the voice from heaven declared Him to be the Son of the Eternal. John had been deeply moved as he saw Jesus bowed as a suppliant pleading with tears for the approval of the Father." (Emphasis ours.) Now here in clear, unmistakable language is the word of their "Messenger," saying two things we judge to be blasphemous—1. that Christ had the sins of a guilty world on Him at His baptism; 2. that He took upon Him our fallen nature. We do not have to beg the question, but we say emphatically that God did not look upon His Son with delight when He had sins on Him, for in the ONLY TIME that He had sins on Him (the three hours of darkness on the cross) God turned His face from Him. To say that sins were on Him during His life and ministry is to deny the truth as to His Person, and to make God a party to looking with favor upon sin. This is a libel upon God. The second gross error is one which Mr. Martin would fain have us believe was not held by any but a fringe group, lunatic at that. But beyond all question, Mrs. White did hold and teach that the Lord Jesus took on Him fallen human nature.
Here are some other shocking quotations from Mrs. White on the same subject and from the same book: "Christ took upon Him the INFIRMITIES OF DEGENERATE HUMANITY.
Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.... But our Savior took humanity, WITH ALL ITS LIABILITIES. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation." p. 117. "It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of His sinless life. Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. [This last sentence carries the implication that the Son was not God, but only had a high place in the courts of God, of which Satan could be envious.] He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, AT THE RISK OF FAILURE AND ETERNAL LOSS." p. 49.
Frankly, we loathe the defiling of our pages with such gross blasphemy against the blessed and HOLY Person of our Lord and Savior, but it seems necessary to actually quote these defamations in order to show that these most serious heresies have been propagated by the very highest authority in Seventh-day Adventism, and that their new apologists are mistaken. Adventism has been steeped in bad doctrine, and the corpus delecti is still within. Will Messrs. Barnhouse, Martin, and English say that the Adventists have banned all books containing such teachings, or that they have excommunicated a single person for such views? We strongly advise a faithful believer who finds himself within the folds where such heresy has been taught, and is still to be found, to "purge himself" from it, even though some current leader may attempt to absolve themselves of it.
We could refer to many other quotations from Mrs. White and others to prove our point, but those quoted should be sufficient for the purpose, and it should be apparent that we have not used "outdated quotations, mangled paragraphs, and extreme distortions" as Mr. Martin charges critics of Adventism have done. To attribute to the Holy Son of God as a man a fallen human nature, the possibility of sinning, or the danger of His eternal loss is most serious heresy. "God is Light," and LIGHT IS ABSOLUTELY REPULSIVE OF AND IMPERVIOUS TO EVIL. It is all very easy for Mr. Martin to aver that the Adventists believe in the "deity of Christ" and His spotless humanity, but this doctrine which has been widely disseminated among them, and is still within the body politic, undermines the very essentials of deity. It is of such error that the Word of God warns that to receive one who brings it, or to greet him, is to partake of his evil deeds (see 2 John).
The only way that presentday Adventism could clear itself of this and other serious heresies would be for them to publicly disavow Mrs. White, and to utterly reject her, for the error she taught is a part of her. They would have to reject her writings, not merely delete portions of them; but then there would be no reason for Seventh-day Adventism.
In the light of the unmistakable teachings of Mrs. White we were utterly amazed to read the following from the pen of Mr. W. Martin: "On the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith necessary to the salvation of the soul and the growth of the life of Christ, Ellen G. White has never written anything which is seriously contrary to the simple, plain declarations of the gospel.... No one can fairly challenge her writings on the basis of their conformity to the basic principles of the gospel, for conform they most certainly do!" This recalled a scripture from Isa. 42, where God asks: "Who is blind, but My servant?" Perhaps Mr. Martin does not believe that to touch the Lord Jesus in the very essential of deity affects "the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith." But it most surely does, for if He had "our fallen nature," He could not be God. If He partook of the "infirmities of degenerate humanity... with all its liabilities," He lacked the very essentials of deity; and if He were not God, there is no Savior for fallen men. We would need to cry out with Isaiah, "Woe is me," and say with Mary, "They have taken away my Lord." The teachings of Mrs. White regarding the Person of Christ (not yet to name her teachings regarding the work of Christ) undermine the very foundation of the gospel. And if Mr. Martin were right, and the salvation of the soul not damaged, shall we be interested only in our salvation while we are callously indifferent to affront and dishonor to our blessed Savior? Far be the thought!
But we must not overlook another statement of Mr. Martin's regarding these things. He says that he "has no hesitation whatsoever in stating that those previous positions so widely seized upon by the ENEMIES OF ADVENTISM have been totally repudiated by the Seventh-day Adventist denomination FOR SOME YEARS." This is strictly a partisan statement, for he dares to challenge faithful Christian men who have through the years withstood rank Adventist heresy with being "enemies of Adventism." This is a slur to men of God who have dared to stand in the breach and seek to hold back a tide of evil doctrine. Many had no thought of being enemies of Adventism, but were at war with evil doctrine touching the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, no matter by what name it was called. Has one no right to be aroused when our Lord is slandered? he certainly has; and to be devoid of righteous indignation at the propagation of such heresies is to be unfaithful to Christ. There is no middle ground when His Person is impugned or His work assailed.
Next, what does Mr. Martin mean by saying that the Adventists repudiated this error for "some years"? The book from which Mrs. White's quotations have been copied was printed by the Adventist official West Coast publishing house—Pacific Press Publishing Association, Mount a in View, California—in 1956, and the book is on sale in their So. Calif. Conference headquarters book store as this goes to press. But Mr. Martin seeks to prepare the way for such criticism by suggesting that the Adventists still have many problems to be solved in various fields such as "publications" and "public relations." He seems to be acting in this field now, so perhaps in future editions of objectionable books they can quietly expunge the damaging statements, but the fact remains that Mrs. 'White, whom they say was "inspired" to carry the "Lord's message" to them, did teach many heresies, and she herself has not been repudiated.
Concerning the recentness of the iniquitous teaching of the Lord's possessing a fallen human nature, this heresy was defended by none other than Mr. Milton E. Kern, a field secretary of the General Conference, who by his own statement was a preacher among them as early as 1914, and should know their doctrines if anyone does. His book is still on sale in their stores in January, 1957. It was printed by no less an organization than their own Review and Herald Publishing Association, at their general headquarters, Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. This book is entitled, "Bible Reasons Why You Should Be a Seventh-day Adventist," and is an answer to a book by Mr. E. B. Jones who wrote against their false doc trines.
Mr. Kern challenges Mr. Jones's statement that all men "save Christ, have possessed the nature of evil, for all have been the offspring of their father, Adam," by replying, "But is it not true that through His mother, Jesus, also, like all mankind, was the offspring of Adam?" He further adds that it was "only by becoming one with us could Christ act as our high priest and be qualified to pay the sacrificial penalty for our sins." pp. 8, 9. Mr. Kern even quotes the verse, "He bath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin," as though that supported the false teaching. He was not made sin at any time, except in the three hours of darkness; to say that it was so at any other time is fundamental error of the worst kind.
Mr. Kern attacked Mr. Jones for saying that Jesus "could not fail," and defended Mrs. White's blasphemy, saying that God permitted His Son to "meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss." Mr. Kern said, "Of those who, like Mr. Jones, insist that Jesus 'could not fail,' or could not sin, Dean F. W. Farrar has well said: 'Some, in a zeal at once intemperate and ignorant, have claimed for Him not only actual sinlessness but a nature to which sin was divinely and miraculously impossible. What then? If His great conflict were a mere deceptive phantasmagoria, how can the narrative of it profit us?'" Need we quote more to prove that these abominable heresies have been taught, have continued to be taught, and have been defended by leaders among the Seventh-day Adventists? We have long known this, but the new serious aspect is the effort that leading so-called fundamentalists are making to obscure the facts. Mr. Martin even takes up the cudgels for them and charges men who have dared to expose some of these facts as being "professional detractors" of the Adventists.
It is our judgment that Protestantism is passing an important milestone on the downward path to the great apostasy. When the eyes of leaders have become dim, and camels can be swallowed down like gnats, evil will come in like a flood. May God raise up men to lift up a banner against it, but our only real hope is the coming of the Lord for His own.
The Lord willing, we shall have more to say in later issues on the vital truths that are being let go.