Our Lord counsels us to "buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich" (Revelation 3:18). We all know that the "gold tried in the fire is faith that works by love" (COL 158).
If we already possessed the "gold’, we would not be urged to "buy" it. We must cease assuming that we already possess it and need only more efficient methods of displaying it — more modern methods of journalism, more money for TV and radio stations, or better techniques of homiletics. Our need is basic. In respect of the very "gold" itself, the True Witness says our treasure-box is empty. Christ Himself says so.
It is quite possible that once we "buy" the gold itself so that we actually do possess it, we will not be so distraught in our search for adequate means to display it. Perhaps the Lord of hosts who says, "The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine", will then convict generous hearts to give prodigally for the world-wide display of His people’s "gold" when that time comes.
It is the "angel" who is counseled by the True Witness, not just "some" individuals here and there. It is the general body of the church leadership. There is no way that we can evade the direct point of his "counsel". All attempts to evade it will only result in more confusion and postponing the finishing of Gods work for further decades. Heaven pity us if we remonstrate with our Lord and insist, "But I have always understood the gospel and taught it with power! I know I understand it. Thou canst not mean me! Thou hast blessed my work so wonderfully. ‘We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou has taught in our streets!’ ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name have done many wonderful works?'" (Matt. 7:22; Luke 14:26).
Our Lord says to the lukewarm "angel" in this time of such immense eschatological opportunity, "I feel like vomiting you out of My mouth (mello se emesai)" (Rev. 3:16). This warning is parallel to that Christ gives those who say, "Lord, Lord, open unto us; … I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from Me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Luke 13:25-28). That’s an awful word — "iniquity". We instinctively pass it on to our non-believing neighbors. What we need to realize is that Christian experience perfectly acceptable in times previous to the cleansing of the sanctuary becomes "lukewarmness" in our day. Measured devotion appropriate during the ministry of the High Priest in the Holy Apartment becomes "iniquity" when weighed against the incomparably greater scope of consecration appropriate to His ministry in the most Holy Apartment. (See Leviticus 23:27-32).
To our High Priest, there is no more nauseous sin than this. And still it is not "works" that He is talking about. The "gold" we lack is not more feverish activity. That we are truly "rich" in already. It is faith, pure and true, that we must "buy".
Why "buy" it? Why doesn’t He say, "Ask of Me, and I will give it to you"? Could it be that we must surrender our false concepts of faith in exchange for the true? The Laodicean message recognizes that we are in possession of some kind of tender that must be exchanged at the heavenly commissary for the "gold", like one barters for an object to be bought. The counsel to "buy" is very significant. Note what "goods" we do possess:
Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods. (Rev. 3: 17)
What greater deception can come upon human minds than a confidence that they are right, when they are all wrong! The message of the True Witness finds the people of God in a sad deception, yet honest in that deception … Those addressed are flattering themselves that they are in an exalted spiritual condition … secure in their attainments … rich in spiritual knowledge."(3T 252-253. emphasis added).
The "price" we must give up is "deception", false "spiritual knowledge". In other words, we must surrender our false ideas and mistaken conceptions in order to "buy" the "gold". Let us look again at the inspired definition of the "gold" that we need:
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ (1Pet 1:7).
The gold tried in the tire is faith that works by love. Only this can bring us into harmony with God. We may be active, we may do much work; but without love, such love as dwelt in the heart of Christ, we can never be numbered with the family of heaven. (COL 158, emphasis added).
The gold here recommended as having being tried in the fire, is faith and love. It makes the heart rich; for it has been purged until it is pure, and the more it is tested the more brilliant is its luster. (4T 88).
We have been talking about "faith and love" for many decades. Don’t we have them by now? What meaning is there here? Can we gloss this over with a few pious platitudes? Or is our Lord trying to tell us that we don’t really understand what love is, and therefore cannot have true faith? Is the "angel" of the Church destitute of "such love as dwelt in the heart of Christ"?
Yes, he is, according to the True Witness. This is very shocking to contemplate. But let us look more deeply into the matter. There are two great antithetical ideas of "love". One has come from Hellenism and is the kind of "love" on which popular evangelical Christianity is based. The other is completely different, and is the kind of love that can have its source only in the ministry of the true High Priest in His cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. (EW 55, 56).
Our Lords charge becomes baffling and incomprehensible to us when we are ignorant of what that love really is. "Love — why, that’s the very thing I’m strong on! I know I love my loved ones and my brethren. What lack I yet?" Self-satisfied hearts will feel no need and probably at this late hour cannot be awakened. But many do indeed feel a great need and will immediately recognize the "gold" when they see it.
Remember that in its full context, the inspired pen says the "gold’ is "faith that works by love". Therefore, in order to understand what the True Witness means by saying "buy of Me gold tried in the fire", we must first of all examine what "love" is. Only then will we be able to understand what "faith" is.
Christ Himself makes clear what New Testament faith is, and His view is different from that of the popular concept. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him … " (John 3: 16). Note: (1) Gods love is the first thing, and until that love is revealed there can be no "believing". (2) As the result of His "loving" and "giving", the sinner finds it possible to "believe". ("To believe" and "to have faith" is one word in Greek). Thus, faith is a heart-experience, "heart-work" to borrow Ellen White’s phrase, and it cannot exist until God’: love is understood and appreciated.
Please note very carefully a fundamental point: the "believing" is not motivated by a fear of perishing or an acquisitive reward of everlasting life. The primary causative clause of Jesus’ statement is "for God so loved". The two secondary clauses are "that He gave His only begotten Son" and "that whosoever believeth ". The believing is a direct result of the loving. And Christ Himself spoke the words of John 3:16.
Thus there begins to emerge a clear definition of New Testament "faith": Faith is a heart-response to, or a heart-appreciation of: the love of God revealed at the cross. Re-read Romans and Galatians with this John 3:16 definition in mind and you will find Paul reproduced with startling high-fidelity realism. He will come alive for you.
The redemption from perishing and the reward of everlasting life are only byproducts of genuine New Testament faith. The twin motivations of fear-of-hell and hope-of-reward are not valid aspects of the faith itself.
There are those who are perplexed by this New Testament definition of faith. They feel inclined to accept the idea that Ellen G. White has somehow changed Christ’s and Paul’s definition of faith and made it a self-centered acquisitive act of the soul as the popular churches teach. In her writings, they say, faith is "trust", and "trust" presupposes a state of egocentric insecurity. It is true that she often says that faith is trust.
In fact there are scores of differing definitions of faith in the Index among the 700 entries under that word. There were probably many varying nuances of meaning even in Paul’s day.
But Ellen White does not destroy Paul’s grand concept of faith. When the apostle presented his great teaching of "righteousness by faith", the word "faith" gained a stupendous, explicit and dynamic meaning that was not possible before the cross or at least could not be clearly seen until then. Even Nicodemus, who heard Jesus say the words in John 3:16, could not see it until the cross. Hellenistic Greek cannot define faith clearly.
It was the same with the word "love". No one really knew what love was until the cross. The life and death of Jesus invested an obscure Greek word, agape, with a meaning never dreamed of before. And then these two words, agape, and its human response, faith, turned the ancient "world upside down". And Ellen G. White is in complete harmony with New Testament faith.
We understand neither Paul or Ellen White until we recognize that the faith which brings righteousness is something immeasurably greater than the egocentric idea we have supposed it to be. The only entry among the 700 in the Index that is the common denominator of them all is the same as Paul’s working definition of faith: "Faith — Genuine (or real) always works by love" (6 BC 1111; Index, Vol. 1, p. 968). Note how she clearly upholds Paul’s definition of faith:
Joshua desired to lead them to serve God. not by compulsion, but willingly. Love to God is the very foundation of religion. To engage in His service merely from hope of reward or fear of punishment would avail nothing. Open apostasy would not be more offensive to God than hypocrisy and mere formal worship. (PP 523).
It is not the fear of punishment or the hope of everlasting reward that leads the disciples of Christ to follow Him. They behold the Saviour’s matchless love, revealed throughout His pilgrimage on earth, from the manger of Bethlehem to Calvary’s cross, and the sight of Him attracts. it softens and subdues the soul. Love awakens in the heart of the beholders. They hear His voice. and they follow him. (DA 480).
There are those who profess to serve God. while they rely upon their own efforts to obey His law, to form a right character and secure salvation. Their hearts are not moved by any deep sense of the love of Christ. but they seek to perform the duties of the Christian life as that which God requires of them in order to gain heaven. Such religion is worth nothing. SC 44, 45, emphasis added).
The context of the last statement is interesting. With the strongest emphasis that words could possibly convey, Ellen White continually points us to the cross and the revelation of Gods love there. This is the true motivation for serving the Lord, she says. And of this motivation she adds:
Oh. let us contemplate the amazing sacrifice that has been made for us! Let us try to appreciate the labor and energy that Heaven is expending to reclaim the lost, and bring them back to the Father’s house. Motives stronger. and agencies more powerful. could never be brought into operation:. . Let us place ourselves in right relation to Him who has loved us with amazing love. (SC 21, 22).
It is true that the Lords messenger also employs other "mighty incentives and encouragements to urge us to give the heart’s loving service to our Creator and Redeemer", which appear superficially to endorse a self-centered view of faith. This is perplexing. Does she contradict herself? Are we to remain in a kind of limbo on this matter, and when we read of the love of God revealed at the cross tend to discount it as ineffective motivation?
Four possible explanations of these apparent contradictions are:
1. "The worlds Redeemer accepts men as they are, with all their wants, imperfections, and weaknesses" (SC 46). and lets them begin the Christian life with whatever motivation they are at the moment capable of. Many may be baptized from purely selfish reasons with no appreciation of Calvary. Their religion is at present "worth nothing" (SC 49, but at least the law is their "schoolmaster" to bring them unto Christ that eventually they "might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24).
2. Millions of Christians have gone into the grave without ever properly appreciating the Atonement. They lived in eras of comparative darkness, and lived up to all the light they had. They never found full release from self-centered legalism, but they did the best they could. The Lord has accepted them. Many of them have died since Steps to Christ was published. There is help in that book for those who prepare for death. But there is also help there for those who will prepare for translation!
3. The work of the High Priest in the Most Holy Apartment will result in the complete purification of the motives of those who follow His work by faith. They will become mature Christians and "put away childish things" (1 Cor. 13:ll). In the full context of Paul’s chapter on agape. "childish things" are self-centered motivations. By understanding that Ellen White ministered in a transition period, her apparent contradictions are resolved. Not yet had all of God’s people been ready to "put away childish things", nor were they quite ready yet to know that motivation "which is perfect".
4. With no desire to contradict what our Lord says, it may be better to be a "lukewarm" church member than not to be a member at all. At least this is what we have supposed for many decades, hence many immature efforts to increase our membership. If a person accepts the terms of church membership and enters the church, however unconscious he may be of his true spiritual state, there is always a chance that he will respond to the Holy Spirit and overcome his lukewarmness.
When our Lord says, "I would thou wert cold or hot", we may not necessarily assume He means He wishes we were either "hot" members or completely out of the church. Perhaps so; but He may mean He wishes we were either "hot" members, or "cold" members who truly felt our need of warmth. The popular self-centered motivations employed in some evangelism may indeed increase our membership; the point is, the true "constraint" of the love of Christ alone can enable us to overcome our lukewarmness.
Before we turn to examine more closely what New Testament love is, let us look at one more Ellen G. White statement that is exceedingly clear and incisive on this matter of faith being a heart-appreciation of the Atonement:
The precious blood of Jesus is the fountain prepared to cleanse the soul from the defilement of sin. When you determine to take Him as your friend, a new and enduring light will shine from the cross of Christ. A true sense of the sacrifice and intercession of the dear Saviour will break the heart that has become hardened in sin; and love. thankfulness. and humility will come into the soul. The surrender of the heart to Jesus subdues the rebel into a penitent. and then the language of the obedient soul is. Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new". This is the true religion of the Bible. Everything short of this is a deception. (4T 625).
Neither the words "faith" nor "righteousness" appear in this passage; yet righteousness is certainly the experience described. If righteousness comes only by faith, it becomes obvious that true faith must be the means that effects this great change.
Returning to our topic of the "gold’ we are counseled to "buy", we must seek to discover what New Testament love is. Unless we understand and appreciate that, we cannot possibly understand what faith is. Very briefly we may summarize the contrast between Gods heavenly love (agape) and the human emotion we all know which is commonly assumed to be "love":
| |
The Common Idea of Love |
|
God’s Love (Agape) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
1. Always dependent on beauty or goodness of its object Loves "its own", such as family or those who are good to us. |
|
1. Loves those who are ugly or unworthy. "God commendeth His agape toward us. in that while we were yet sinners [and enemies] Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8, 10). |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
2. Rests on a sense of need, as husband or wife loves spouse because of need, or children love parents. and parents their children, because they need them. |
|
2. God, who is infinite in wealth, loves out of His goodness alone. "He [Christ] was rich. yet for your sakes He became poor" (2 Cor. 8:9). |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
3. Dependent on value of its object. |
|
3. Creates value in its object (Isa. 13:12). |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
4. Man seeking after God. All false religion based on idea that God is esoteric, hiding Himself. Salvation thus depends on man’s initiative. |
|
4. Not man seeking God but God seeking after man. "The Son of man is come to seek and to save … " (Luke 19:10). Thus, salvation dependent on Gods initiative. not ours. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
5. Always aspires to climb up higher. Continual motivation of sinful man. (Seen even in the church and ministerial leadership). |
|
5. Ready to step down lower. Purest revelation of agape seen in Philippians 2:5-8. Christ was in highest place but stepped down to lowest, "even the death of the cross". |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
6. Is basically self-love. Modern evangelical leaders now strongly teach necessity for primary love of self. Self-love confused with proper sense of self-respect dependent on appreciation of Christ’s sacrifice in our behalf. Ultimate dimension of self-love: |
|
6. Is the utter emptying of self. (But this is not monastic asceticism or egocentric self-denial pursued as a means to a greater eventual reward. Such is mere religious opportunism). "Seeketh not her own", genuinely seeks the good of others. Its fullest dimension is the following: |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
7. Desires immortality as heavenly reward. All religions, Christian or non-Christian, appeal to this basic egocentric motivation. Has been dominant motivation employed in much Seventh-day Adventist evangelism. Responsible for egocentric lukewarmness. |
|
7. Willing to sacrifice eternal life, even to be lost eternally. Supreme demonstration is Christ on His cross where He died the equivalent of the "second death" for us. Moses and Paul are examples of redeemed sinners who knew such agape (cf. Ex. 32:32; Rom. 9:1-3). |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
(Contrasts adapted from Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, p. 210) |
|
|
|
These contrasts explain why John created that sublime equation "God is agape". And "he that loveth not [with agape] knoweth not God’, but "every one that loveth [with agape]is born of God, and knoweth God. … Herein is our agape made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment. … There is no fear in agape; but perfect agape casteth out fear. … He that feareth is not made perfect in agape". No one can invent or originate such love from a human source!
"We love because He first loved us" (1 John 4:7-19).
This was the idea that turned the ancient world upside down in the time of the apostles (Acts 17:6). It will turn the world upside down again when the remnant church comprehends "with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height … to know the agape of Christ, which passeth knowledge (Eph. 3:17-19). Without such agape, all our "tongues of men and of angels" are "as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal"; all our prophecy, "knowledge", and "faith … to remove mountains" is nothing. So terrible is the self-deception we are prone to that we can "bestow all my goods to feed the poor … and give my body to be burned" and yet lack the true motivation of agape (1Cor. 13:1-3). (This, incidentally, is Laodicean lukewarmness! It could continue for thousands of years and Gods work not be finished).
Whereas all non-Christian religions as well as apostate Christianity appeal to man’s self- centeredness and insecurity, the apostles presented a gospel with a radically different appeal. Paul, for example, did not begin his preaching with a presentation of man’s need, but of Gods deed. "When I came to you, … I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:1, 2). "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received [first], how that Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). The result was the development of true faith in the hearts of the listeners. An example Paul mentions is the Galatians themselves, whose response was the "hearing of faith" (cf. Gal, 3:1, 2) a true heart-appreciation of that "wondrous cross, on which the Prince of glory died". Such a heart response is the true article of "faith" found in New Testament justification by faith. (This, incidentally, is the third angel’s message in verity!).
This is why such justification by faith leads to "obedience to all the commandments of God" (TM 92) including willing acceptance of the Sabbath truth. "Agape is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:10).
The true Christocentric motivation for service and obedience finds refreshing demonstration in the appeals of the 1888 messengers, in contrast to its almost total extinction in our day (thank God, it is beginning to appear again). A.T. Jones said:
I heard of a person who made an expression something like this, speaking of the missionary work "Oh, I must do more work or I will not have stars in my crown. I must do more or someone else will have more stars than I." Fine motive, isn’t it? The person who works for stars in his crown, that he may have more stars than somebody else will never have any stars at all. That is not the right motive; nothing is the right motive but love for Christ.
Think of it. my brethren, if I should be so happy and so glad as to get to that blessed place, and the Saviour should hand me a crown, do you think brethren, that I could stand in His presence and put it on? … Do you think that I could stand before my master and beholding the print of the nails in His hand, and see the marks of the thorns that pierced His lovely brow, — do you think I say, that I could … receive from those hands a crown, to be placed on my head? No! No! I would want to bow low at His knee and put it on His head, for His is the power and the glory. Let His be the eternal joy, and let mine be to see His glory, and I shall be satisfied.
I have thought but little of my crown; but I have thought that if I can add one beam of glory to His countenance, one ray of gladness to the brow that was pierced with thorns, that if I can add one glimmer of joy to that face, oh! … then my joy will be complete. … Let the love of Christ constrain us.
Brethren, if we keep our minds on Christ, we will not be troubled with thinking of the stars in our crown. for our salvation will be sure and our joy full. He wants us to work and oh. let us work from that motive of love. (Sermon, Sept. 24, 1888, Oakland, California; RG11 (Presidential) Documents, 1863-1901, Manuscripts & Typescripts folder, General Conference Archives).
It is painful for us moderns to contemplate the complete contrast in motive in this appeal with that which is so exceedingly popular in our day. We love to sing, "Will there be any stars in my crown?’ (Many of our hymns and gospel songs are as far from New Testament religion as Augustine’s theology which formed the basis of medieval piety). The above hymn was written in 1897 (Church Hymnal No. 626) and illustrates the falling away from New Testament agape that began with the early church and has never yet been properly faced and corrected.
Long before the true Sabbath was changed into Sunday, our Lord rebuked the "angel of the church of Ephesus", " I have somewhat against thee, because thou has left thy first love (agape)" (Rev. 2:4). We have superficially assumed that this was a sort of romantic backsliding, interpreting "first love" in terms of our own emotional experiences. But our Lord is not here discussing sentimentalism.
The one New Testament concept that Satan hates pre-eminently is agape, the very antithesis of his raison d’etre. It being the principle that effectively destroys his egocentric commitment, agape became his first target of attack in the early church. The writings of the "Fathers" document the truth of our Lords charge to "the angel of the church of Ephesus". Like termites stealthily burrowing from deep within, ideas from heathenism began finding entrance into the early church. First was the idea of self-centered love (eras) as an alternative to New Testament agape, in order to replace the true Christocentric motivation with an egocentric one. The change of the Sabbath into Sunday could never have found acceptance among early Christians had not the groundwork been previously laid by the adulteration of the true concept of love.
Roman Catholic theology, says Nygren, is based on a fusion of the two ideas (op. cit., passim). Augustine was the theological "father" who brought this to pass, along with his ideas of determinism, predestination, and original sin. His new idea of "love" he termed (in Latin) caritas, from which we have derived our word "charity," which has brought so much confusion in our King James Bibles as an attempt to translate agape. The medieval idea virtually eclipsed Gods grace.
For a brief time Luther tried to break up the synthesis to restore agape again. But after his death, his followers returned to the adulterated concept, because they could not relinquish the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. Practically all the churches, without any effective exception, have inherited this confused idea of love, along with Sunday observance, and the natural immortality of the soul from medieval Romanism. Some of their leaders must yearn almost pathetically to return to the pure New Testament truths, but do not as yet sense the way.
Wherever one finds the idea of the natural immortality of the soul, there he is sure to find self- centeredness as the dominant concept of love. It is as different from the New Testament idea of love as Sunday is different from Sabbath, yet is likewise a cleverly designed counterfeit. The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul is a flag that warns us: here you will find no true understanding of the everlasting gospel of righteousness by faith because there can be no true idea of New Testament faith, certainly not that which is in harmony with the cleansing of the sanctuary.
This is one of the real reasons why Ellen White warned against the dangers of this false but subtle error. Ultimate Spiritualism is a false righteousness by faith:
The popular ministry cannot successfully resist Spiritualism. They have nothing wherewith to shield their flocks from its baleful influence. … The immortality of the soul … is the foundation of Spiritualism. (1T 344).
Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness. Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of Spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome …
As Spiritualism more closely imitates the nominal Christianity of the day. it has greater power to deceive and ensnare. Satan himself is converted, after the modern order of things. He will appear in the character of an angel of light.. Protestants. having cast away the shield of truth. will also be deluded. Papists, Protestants and worldlings will alike accept the form of godliness without the power. (GC 588).
The simplicity of true godliness is buried beneath tradition.
The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul is one error with which the enemy is deceiving man. this error is well-nigh universal …
This is one of the lies forged in the synagogue of the enemy, one of the poisonous drafts of Babylon. (EV 247).
Why is it impossible for true New Testament love to exist in company with this "poisonous draft of Babylon"? Why can’t Babylon see the cross, see agape, and experience genuine New Testament faith? Why can’t she proclaim the true gospel?
Integral to the idea of the natural immortality of the soul is the view that Christ did not make an infinite sacrifice when He died on the cross. He tells the repentant thief, We’ll get a great reward today. "Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Yes, both supposedly went there that day! Throughout His ordeal, our Lord was sustained by the hope of reward and comforted by the assurance that He would not truly die. His sacrifice was only physical agony and human shame, of a temporary nature. Moses made an even greater sacrifice in behalf of Israel when he asked that his name be blotted from the Book of Life if Israel could not be forgiven (Ex. 32:32)! But in this popular view, the complete self-emptying nature of agape in Christ’s love is neatly removed. He was motivated merely by egocentric concern; or at least the hope of reward was thoroughly mixed with His love.
But the true Biblical view is that Christ’s sacrifice was truly infinite and eternal. Not only His human body "died"; He Himself died the equivalent of the "second death", the death without hope of resurrection. Himself being the infinite Son of God, such a sacrifice is the measure of infinite love, beyond our capacity to appreciate fully. Although He was indeed sustained by the bright assurance of His Father’s favor up to the moment that darkness enveloped Calvary, there came over Him then the horror of a great darkness when He cried out, "My God, My God, why has Thou forsaken Me?" the Father’s face was completely hidden. The full weight of our guilt was pressing upon Him. He then lost sight of the resurrection and a future reward:
The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. (DA 753).
It is this infinite dimension of Christ’s love that is eclipsed by the pagan-papal doctrine of natural immortality. No church that holds to this concept can adequately appreciate the cross, or preach it in its proper power. This false doctrine further makes it impossible for the "agape of Christ" to constrain us truly, for its high fidelity realism is absent. And with agape thus adulterated, faith likewise is adulterated; and it is inevitable that righteousness be likewise shorn of its true dimensions. Nothing can come of it but disobedience to the law, continued sinning, self- centeredness, and lukewarmness, all cloaked as "salvation by faith".
Thus, when John says love (agape) is of God (1 John 4:7), he means that there can be no other source. "Herein is love (agape), not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (verse 10). But we can sum up live ways in which that "propitiation" is virtually denied or at least obscured, by this popular false doctrine. It creates a perplexity or hiatus: (1) The Father did not truly give His son but only lent Him; (2) His love was conditioned by a self-seeking anticipation of reward; (3) He made no real sacrifice beyond that which many martyrs have had to make, such as physical sufferings, but was sustained by more hope than many humans have when they die; (4) He did not truly die, but immediately entered a higher state of conscious existence in paradise; (5) at is very best, the love that "dwelt in the heart of Christ", so understood, was a synthesis of agape and eros identical to the caritas of Augustine, the basis of medieval Romanism.
Thus the cross is robbed of its true glory and New Testament love is nullified. Automatically therefore faith is likewise robbed of its true content, and is "dead", as James warns us. It cannot produce true obedience. Fear or concern for personal security remains the dominant motivation for the human soul. The cross cannot exercise its true power because it is enshrouded in mysterious confusion like a mountain peak encircled by clouds. No wonder Christ was concerned at the beginning of the process in the early church that led to the great apostasy — "thou hast left thy first agape." Until Evangelicalism sees and accepts the truth of the nature of man in the light of the cross, it will be quite unable to accept the cross of true Sabbath-keeping, or other "testing truths" of the third angel’s message.
"The popular ministry" are ever so sincere, we know, and ever so earnest and devoted. But as a body they have no just appreciation of "the breadth, and length, and depth, and height" of the "agape of Christ, which passes knowledge" (Eph. 3:18, 19). Their false doctrines hide true love from them. Their concept of Christian love is much closer to the Catholic idea than to New Testament love. In its very highest forms, it cannot shed its egocentric motif. All this we can easily recognize.
Now, the crucial question is: Do Seventh-day Adventists in general have the same basic idea of love as do the popular churches? More specifically, do they have the same idea of "righteousness by faith" that the popular churches have in consequence of their belief in the natural immortality of the soul? According to the True Witness of Revelation 3, "the angel of the church of the Laodiceans" has a problem in this respect, but honestly and sincerely "knows not" his true condition. Have the hands on the clock of time turned far enough for us to look at the past objectively?
If "the angel of the Church" were not "poor" in genuine New Testament faith and love, how could he repeatedly have borrowed "righteousness by faith" from these same popular churches who hold "the poisonous drafts of Babylon"? We can look at only a few revealing examples. The full story cannot yet be told:
1. Because of a failure to appreciate the 1888 message, far back in the 1890’s there was a tendency to confuse Quaker author Hannah Whitall Smith’s The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life with true righteousness by faith, (cf. General Conference Bulletin, 1893,. pp. 358, 359). Author Smith borrowed her ideas in turn from Fenelon, a Roman Catholic mystic at the court of Louis XIV, who spent his life energies trying to convert Protestants to Rome. (cf. Great Controversy, p. 272; Britannica, 1968, vol. 9, p. 169). To this day Smith’s (and therefore Fenelon’s) ideas are endorsed by many as genuine righteousness by faith. This is the natural result of a sincere ignorance of the true contrast between Romanist and New Testament concepts of faith.
Through the decades there have been prominent examples of this confusion over Roman Catholic concepts of piety and the "interior life". It is considered popular and a mark of sophistication to be warmly appreciative of the teachings of Pascal and Fenelon. And indeed, there are scintillating gems of philosophical beauty in their works. The study of Fenelon’s "self-renunciation" has been urged as virtually the same concept as taught in the writings of Ellen G. White, due to an unawareness of the import of agape. There seems to be a warmth of spiritual fervor that charms. It is not surprising that many youth have been innocently confused and misled.
This mixing of the true and the false is essentially the same process that led to Augustine’s mixture of agape and Hellenistic love which was the foundation of medieval Romanism. The lack of discernment was and is the problem. How could such confusion have existed had there been a clear understanding of the message the Lord gave this people in 1888? It is fallacy to assume that false concepts are purified when mixed with Spirit of Prophecy quotations as though arsenic could be nullified if mixed with flour.
In the same era of the 1890’s, there was a tendency to confuse Rome’s concepts of "righteousness by faith" with the 1888 message. This was also due to a failure to appreciate the message the Lord sent us. Thus the uncertainty regarding the 1888 message prepared the stage for a succession of Seventh-day Adventist pilgrimages to non-Adventist theologians to find help in understanding and proclaiming "righteousness by faith".
Some of the brethren. since the Minneapolis meeting, I have heard myself say "amen" to preaching. to statements that were utterly heathen. and did not know but that it was the righteousness of Christ. Some of those who stood so openly against that at that time, and voted with uplifted hand against it, … since that time I have heard say "amen" to statements that were as openly and decidedly papal as the papal church itself can state them. (General Conference Bulletin. 1893, p. 244; A.T. Jones).
That you may have the two things — the truth of justification by faith, and the falsity of it — side by side, I will read what this [Catholic belief] says, and then what God says in Steps to Christ … I want you to see what the Roman Catholic idea of justification by faith is, because I have had to meet it among professed Seventh-day Adventists the past four years right straight through. These very things, these very expressions that are in this Catholic book as to what justification by faith is and how to obtain it, are just such expressions as professed Seventh-day Adventists have made to me as to what justification by faith is.
I want to know how you and I can carry a message to this world, warning them against the worship of the beast when we hold in our very profession the doctrines of the beast. … It is high time that Seventh-day Adventists understood it (Ibid., p. 261, 262. See also pages 265, 266).
Many today sincerely believe that the Lord honored the Sunday-keeping churches who hold to the natural immortality of the soul by vouchsafing to them the "same light" of righteousness by faith that He gave to us in 1888. According to this view, those who hold these "two great errors", these "poisonous drafts of Babylon", understand and are heralding to the world the true "everlasting gospel". This confused conviction actually strikes at the very heart of Seventh-day Adventist existence by questioning the uniqueness of "the everlasting gospel" as the Lord entrusted true concepts of righteousness by faith to us:
Others, not of our faith, were being moved to restudy the same truth of Righteousness by Faith, at about the same time [1888], which is historically true, as noted elsewhere. (Movement of Destiny, p. 255, footnote, emphasis added.)
We have not been too well aware of these paralleling spiritual movements — of organizations outside the Advent Movement — having the same genera1 burden and emphasis, and arising at about the same time. … The impulse manifestly came from the same Source. And in timing, Righteousness by Faith centered in the year 1888. For example. the renowned Keswick Conferences … the Northfield Bible Conferences, founded by Dwight L. Moody, … men like Murray, Simpson, Gordon, Holden, Meyer, McNeil, Moody, Waugh, McConkey, Scroggie, Howden, Smith, McKensie, McIntosh, Brooks, Dixon, Kyle, Morgan, Needham, [A.T.] Pierson, Seiss, Thomas, West and a score of others — all giving this [1888] general emphasis. Untold numbers have known and been blessed by their writings. And this includes many of our own men. (Ibid., pp. 319-321, emphasis added).
It is only fair that we recognize that the author saw there were limitations in these non-Adventists’ concepts. But this only more sharply points up the real problem: Many through these long decades have not recognized that there are two entirely separate and antithetical "schools" of righteousness by faith, one having its source in Christ and His apostles, and the other having its source in the great "falling away" that is coming to its successive final stages in the "fall of Babylon" since 1844. These two "schools" hold antithetical views of New Testament love and faith. Instead, we have supposed that "the popular ministry" automatically understand the true gospel — they just don’t go "far enough".
2. In the 1920’s and 1930’s the record shows that many of us wholeheartedly and enthusiastically accepted and endorsed the Sunday School Times ideas of righteousness by faith known as "The Victorious Life". This history illustrates the truth of our Lord’s words that we desperately need to "buy" of Him "gold", and not from "the popular ministry":
a. The first step seemed to be the publication of The Doctrine of Christ (Review and Herald, 1919). The author quotes from some unknown source, approvingly, in support of "The Victorious Life" idea. Investigation reveals that the author’s source was a book written by Robert C. McQuilkin, Corresponding Secretary, Victorious Life Conferences, Princeton and Cedar Lake, 1918, published by Headquarters for Victorious Life Literature, Philadelphia. The editor of the Sunday School Times wrote the foreword of McQuilkin’s book:
It was the new and undiscovered country of the Victorious Life that brought us together, Bob McQuilkin and me, … the foreign land of undreamed riches and delights. … I am glad that he is now sharing his findings and his convictions with many, through these studies in the Victorious Life. (Charles G. Trumbull, Victorious Life Studies, Foreword).
b. The Doctrine of Christ forthwith began its work among us and soon we find able, prominent speakers one by one supporting the imported concepts. "The Victorious Life" solidly established the egocentric, "Evangelical" concept of love in the Seventh-day Adventist Church and led the church thoroughly away from the concepts of righteousness by faith that made the 1888 message unique. As with Fenelon, the program was to search for Ellen G. White quotations that appeared, out of context, to support the Sunday School Times ideas, quotations which really cannot be understood except in the context in which she wrote them — the 1888 message. A theological thesis in the Seminary says of this history:
About the same time [1920] … various denominational leaders were giving thought to what was termed the "victorious life". … At the General Conference session of 1922. … A.G. Daniells in addressing the delegates, stated that he had come to believe in what was being termed the "victorious life" …
O. Montgomery, at the time vice-president of the South American Division. and later one of the general vice-presidents of the world organization, stated that "much emphasis" had been given to that theme "of late". He referred to articles written for denominational journals and sermons that he had heard. He was under the impression that some considered it a phase of Christian experience unknown before. He showed that it was the very same experience that Adventists had spoken of as a part of justification and righteousness by faith …
C. H. Watson, at the time one of the vice-presidents of the General Conference, capitalized the "victorious life" idea in a Week of Prayer Reading for 1923. (Developments in the Teaching of Justification and Righteousness by Faith in the Seventh-day Adventist Church after 1900, by Bruno William Steinweg, 1948, pp. 39-43).
Bear in mind that these speakers of the 1920’s were the same brethren whom Dr. Froom quotes as insisting that the 1888 message was accepted. (Op. cit., pp. 681- 686).
c. The religious revival that swept the popular churches in that era was adopted by our brethren, enthusiastically. We do not find in the files of the Review dissenting voices of any who discerned that "The Victorious Life" was a fulfillment of the following warning in Great Controversy:
Before the time for such a movement shall come [the Loud Cry], he [Satan] will endeavor to prevent it by introducing a counterfeit. … He will make it appear that God’s special blessing is poured out; there will be manifest what is thought to be great religious interest. Multitudes will exult that God is working marvelously for them, when the work is that of another spirit. (GC 464, emphasis added.)
Following is a sampling of the pronouncements of writers in the Review and Herald:
"The Victorious Life" is only another expression for "righteousness by faith". (R&H, Nov. 11, 1920).
"The Victorious Life" is nothing more nor less than simple Bible Christianity. (Editor, R&H, July 6, 1922).
The following excerpts are taken verbatim from a little book on righteousness by faith of that era which illustrate the constant leaning on what Ellen White spoke of as "the popular ministry":
Cortland Myers says, Dr. L. Munhall said, says Cortland Myers, Robert F. Horton says, Henry Van Dyke says, wrote … Whitefield Edwards says, Dr. W.T. Grenfell says, at the feet of D.L. Moody. Charles Dickens said, Sherwood Eddy said, Bishop Hannington said, Amos R Wells has said. Charles G. Finney once said, D.L. Moody says, Forrest Hallenbeck says, John Wesley … said, John R. Mott says, Charles G. Trumbull says, Sunday School Times says … (Alone With God, Pacific Press).
A ready example of the confusion that has prevailed was the attempt to make Ellen G. White endorse "The Victorious Life" enthusiasm by entitling one of her letters accordingly (see Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 516-520). This is understandable as the book was compiled during the height of the movement (1922).
3. We must look at the 1926 General Conference Session that was held in Milwaukee. It was a great occasion and the delegates who gathered there were deeply in earnest. They never dreamed that the work would still be unfinished over half a century later:
It is the hope and belief of all that this session of the Conference will be marked as an unusually spiritual one. A conviction seems to have taken possession of many that the time has fully come for this movement to go forward in a mighty movement for the finishing of the work (Carlyle B. Haynes, General Conference Bulletin, 1926, p. 3).
An earnest and sincere writer tells us that the 1926 Conference is more important than the 1888 one:
It is my firm opinion that it would be well to give less emphasis to 1888 and more emphasis to 1926. In fact, the General Conference of 1926 was what 1888 might have been. had there been greater unanimity on the meaning of the gospel. (Norval F. Pease, The Faith That Saves, p. 59).
In searching for evidence that we have truly accepted the Lord’s message of righteousness by faith, some cite the 1926 General Conference Session as an example of positive "victory". The messages given were deeply spiritual and fervent. It was one of our finest Sessions, no doubt.
One author suggests: "No more positive evidence of spiritual growth and maturity [since 18881 could be presented than the sermons of 1926" (Pease, op. cit.). In other words, the strongest evidence for the acceptance of the 1888 message is the 1926 Session messages.
But as one examines those messages, what does he find? An almost complete absence of the basic motifs that made the 1888 message unique! Without realizing it, our brethren in 1926 had gotten away from the message that was intended to finish Gods work and had been deeply influenced by the "Victorious Life" borrowing from "the popular ministry". Let us say that they were wonderful, godly, dedicated, marvelous men and women. We like to think of our forebears that way. But did they possess the "gold"? Two facts make the answer clear: (a) If the 1888 message began to supply the need, as Ellen White said; the 1926 messages lack that content. This can be proven by motif analysis. (b) The passage of over half a century since 1926 makes suspect the claim that the 1926 Conference was a victory where 1888 was a defeat.
Shortly afterwards, Elder A.G. Daniells published his celebrated and valuable Christ Our Righteousness. It contains very frank statements admitting that the 1888 message was never truly accepted (pp. 39, 55, 58, 59, 63, 79, 86, 1926 ed.). But the author did not accurately reproduce the 1888 message itself. Practically none of the unique aspects of the 1888 message find expression there. Even the Ellen G. White quotations used seem selected in such a way as to avoid them or filter them out.
In the conclusion of his book seeking to summarize his idea of "entering through the door of faith", he falls back onto an emphasis on man’s own efforts (pp. 130, 131). He betrays reliance on the key thought of legalism some seven times in one paragraph alone — "we should" do this or that (pp. 131, 132). Such exhortations — "we should" pray more, "we should" believe more, "we should" read our Bibles more, "we should" be more earnest, "we should" sacrifice more — appear frequently in the earnest appeals of our general leaders of those days. They demonstrate an ignorance of true New Testament motivation — genuine faith which automatically produces full consecration.
Daniells concludes his book with a one-sided emphasis on justification to the exclusion of true sanctification, a concept much closer to the Sunday School Times’ "victorious life" idea than to the 1888 concept of getting ready for translation:
And every day that comes and goes we should humbly plead before the throne of grace the merits. the perfect obedience, of Christ in the place of our transgressions and sins. And in doing this, we should believe and realize that our justification comes through Christ as our substitute and surety, that He has died for us, and He is our atonement and righteousness … (Christ Our Righteousness, p. 132).
In fact, not once in his book does Elder Daniells seem able to recognize that Christ is our example as well as "substitute". The author was earnest and sincere and his book is indeed valuable; but it clearly shows the influence of the "victorious life" enthusiasm in drawing us away from the real heart of the 1888 message. (For example, see Daniells’ summary of "the gospel" on pages 117, 118, 1926 ed.).
We can agree with one author when he says that Elder Daniells’ stand in this book "was in perfect harmony with the best evangelical teaching" (By Faith Alone, p. 189) But "perfect harmony" with the finest orthodox evangelical teaching of the past and of Daniells’ contemporaries in "the popular ministry" is not good enough to hasten the coming of the Lord. The past half a century can demonstrate that clearly. In fact, the confusion of present-day "Reformationist" justification by faith can be traced to the popular emphases among us of the 1920’s. This constant leaning on non-Adventist theologians and universities and popular Evangelical leaders retards rather than advances the Seventh-day Adventist cause.
Elder Daniells significantly analyzes an Ellen G. White prediction that "false theories and erroneous ideas will take minds captive, Christ and His righteousness will be dropped out of the experience of many, and their faith will be without power or life", unless the 1888 message is truly accepted (R&H, Sept. 3, 1889). He says:
To a lamentable degree, God’s people failed to bring the divine power into their experience, and the result predicted has been seen:
1. False theories and erroneous ideas have taken minds captive.
2. Christ and His righteousness have been dropped out of the experience of many. (Op. cit., p. 108, emphasis added).
Our history had demonstrated the truth of Elder Daniells’ analysis far more graphically than he could ever have imagined.
4. In the 1950’s we borrowed and endorsed the Methodist missionary E. Stanley Jones’ concepts of "righteousness by faith" and recommended them to our ministers as "safe". Jones’ concepts "would enrich one’s ministry", said The Ministry (February, 1950). Yet Jones’ preoccupation with the idea of the natural immortality of the soul causes him to confuse telepathic communication with the dead with the reception of the Holy Spirit, and also to confess that "Christ Himself has deficiencies which are to be supplied by other faiths" (The Message of Sat Tul Ashram, pp. 285, 291). It was Jones who coined the slogan, "Share Your Faith", which we eagerly adopted; but Jones meant that "this sharing means not only giving out what one has to non-Christians, but the sharing of what they have in their own faiths … Christ Himself has deficiencies" (Ibid.). What a source for our "righteousness by faith"!
We find one lone, dissenting public voice in the church paper at last protesting this borrowing from E. Stanley Jones. Elder W.A. Spicer wrote an article for the Review which was published during the summer of 1950, exposing the falseness of his ideas, mentioning Jones by name. (In the spring of 1950 he had published an article containing an oblique warning).
5. The 1952 Bible Conference (September 1-13 in the Sligo Church) claimed to recover the 1888 message and even to go beyond it. One prominent speaker said:
To a large degree the church failed to build on the foundation laid at the 1888 General Conference. Much has been lost as a result. We are years behind. … Long ere this we should have been in the Promised Land.
But the message of righteousness by faith given in the 1888 Conference has been repeated here. Practically every speaker from the first day onward has laid great stress upon this all-important doctrine, and there was no prearranged plan that he should do so. … Truly this one subject has, in this conference "swallowed up every other".
And this great truth has been given here in this 1952 Bible Conference with far greater power than it was given in the 1888 Conference because those who have spoken here have had the advantage of much added light shining forth from hundreds of pronouncements on this subject in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy which those who spoke back there did not have.
The light of justification and righteousness by faith shines upon us today more clearly than it ever shone before upon any people.
No longer will the question be, "What was the attitude of our workers and people toward the message of righteousness by faith that was given in 1888? What did they do bout it?" From now on the great question must be, "What did we do with the light on righteousness by faith as proclaimed in the 1952 Bible Conference?" (W.H. Branson, Our Firm Foundation, vol. 2. pp. 616, 617).
Since then over three decades have passed by — time enough to finish God’s work There was no official opposition to the 1952 message. "Practically every speaker" proclaimed it, and apparently everyone accepted it. And the speakers were the "angel of the church of the Laodiceans" — the church leadership. If the 1952 message was a true recovery of the 1888 message, the work should have been finished shortly afterward, for it was given "with far greater power" than in 1888. The 1952 brethren were "richer" than "any people" in world history! They had the "gold".
But a careful study of the 1952 messages fails to disclose the basic motifs that made the 1888 message unique. Like the 1926 messages on righteousness by
faith, they present no light beyond what the church has been preaching for many decades. Somehow the truths that Ellen White endorsed in 1888 eluded our brethren of 1952. This is understandable, for with the possible exceptions of one or two they had very likely never actually studied the 1888 message in its original context. (Even today few have).
Elder Branson claimed that in spite of its lukewarmness the church had a "perfect system of truth". He failed to see that "the gospel of Christ … is the power of God unto salvation", and that if the church truly possessed the "gospel of Christ" in its fulness, the "power" would be automatic. Thus he failed to recognize the basic principle of "righteousness by faith’ — that if one has the faith, the righteousness is sure to be there too. He claimed we are rich in the very thing the True Witness says we are poor in. He expressed no need on the part of the speakers to understand true righteousness by faith, but claimed for them an "impulse by the Spirit of God’ "far greater" than Ellen White claimed for the messengers sent in 1888.
Careful motif analysis can demonstrate that the messages of the 1926 and 1952 meetings prepared the way for the current confusion of so-called "Reformationist" concepts of justification by faith in place of the unique truths divinely entrusted to Seventh-day Adventists.
If one will read through both volumes of Our Firm Foundation, where "practically every speaker … laid great stress upon this all-important doctrine [righteousness by faith]", he will find an astounding fact emerge. Not one speaker recognized the danger that the Lords servant warned of in the passage quoted above (GC 464) nor did one discern that the popular churches’ interpretation of righteousness by faith is devoid of New Testament love. No one discerned a relation between the ministry of the heavenly High Priest in the Most Holy Apartment and an understanding of true righteousness by faith. It is amazing that the following quotation from Early Writings was not referred to once:
Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest [the Most Holy Apartment], and pray, "My Father, give us Thy Spirit". Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light power, and much love, joy and peace.
I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne [who had not followed Christ by faith into the Most Holy Apartment]; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, "Father. give us Thy Spirit". Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence: in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy and peace (EW 55, 56).
The setting of this passage is critically important, for it has a direct bearing on our understanding of the gospel itself "The company who were still bowed before the throne" is the group who rejected the sanctuary truth in the 1844 era. Although the imagery is highly symbolic, it is clear Ellen White was referring to the change in Christ’s ministry at the end of the 2300 years. Those who did not appreciate the change exposed themselves to a lethal deception — Satan masquerading as the "Christ" in a ministry which the true High Priest had now "left."
But this tragic deception is not limited to people living in that immediate post-1844 era. Churches which embrace the doctrine of natural immortality are exposed to the same frightful danger. In this time when the sanctuary doctrine is being boldly challenged by many within the Seventh-day Adventist church, we need to see that a rejection of this unique Seventh-day Adventist sanctuary doctrine entails also a rejection of the pure New Testament gospel of righteousness by faith:
Many who professed to love Jesus, and who shed tears as they read the story of the cross, derided the good news of His (second) coming. … Those who rejected the first angel’s message could not be benefitted by the second; neither were they benefitted by the midnight cry, which was to prepare them to enter with Jesus by faith into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. And by rejecting the two former messages, they have so darkened their understanding that they can see no light in the third angel’s message, which shows the way into the most holy place. I saw that as the Jews crucified Jesus, so the nominal churches had crucified these messages, and therefore they have (note present tense) no knowledge of the way into the most holy, and they can not be benefitted by the intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews. who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left; Satan, pleased with the deception, assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed Christians to himself, working with his power, his signs and lying wonders. to fasten them in his snare.. He also comes as an angel of light and spreads his influence over the land by means of false reformations. The churches are elated, and consider that God is working marvelously for them, when it is the work of another spirit (EW 55, 56).
In many of the revivals which have occurred during the last half century. the same influences have been at work to a greater or less degree … an emotional excitement, a mingling of the true with the false, that is well adapted to deceive. (CC 464).
No awareness of the danger of this counterfeit gospel of the orthodox "popular ministry" found expression throughout the 1952 Bible Conference.
6. In the 1960’s we eagerly adopted ideas and methods from Campus Crusade for Christ, sending ministers to their headquarters to learn from them how to present "righteousness by faith". This can be attested by the wide prominence given to their Four Spiritual Laws and similar substitutes that we prepared ourselves from time to time. Some of our men worked with the Campus Crusade group very closely, but this enthusiasm seemed to be cooled by Campus Crusade’s reported insistence that all their workers subscribe to the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. This is essential to their concepts of righteousness by faith.
Campus Crusade’s Four Spiritual Laws are thoroughly egocentric. The "righteousness by faith" they present is not parallel to or consistent with the work that Christ is doing in the Most Holy Apartment Those who have used them and supposed they accomplished much good with them have not realized that this brand of "righteousness by faith" is as far from true New Testament teaching as Sunday is from Sabbath-keeping.
7. In the recent decade (the 1970’s) we have eagerly turned to the message and methods of the famed "church growth" experts and proponents, hoping to find there principles of "evangelism explosion" that will work with us as they do with them. As in all the previous movements for decades, the concept of love (and consequently the concept of faith) is thoroughly egocentric. Yet we seek to validate these concepts by searching for Spirit of Prophecy support for them. The implication is very clear: God has given to the popular ministry the "gold tried in the fire", and we are to go "buy" of them. He has entrusted to them the secret of finishing the work The confusion goes back to the post-1888 history.
Thus, like Israel of old, we have wandered in a kind of spiritual wilderness for many decades, not understanding the message the Lord sent to us. Through "our" failure to receive the 1888 message for what it truly was, we have been reading the Spirit of Prophecy with a "veil" over our eyes, the same one that the Jews had (cf. 2 Cor. 3:15). It is the same "veil" that hung over the eyes of the brethren who attended the 1888 Conference to whom the Lords servant said, "I have been talking and pleading with you, but it does not seem to make any difference with you" (MS. 9, 1888). They had the living presence of the prophet with them, and it made no difference with them. We have her books with us. But they too have made no difference because we have unwittingly accepted the "popular ministry’s" ideas of righteousness by faith in place of the true. In fact, we quite officially see no distinction between their doctrine in that respect and that which God has for us (cf. Movement of Destiny, pp. 255-258, 319-321, 616-628).
So much have we failed to realize and appreciate the uniqueness of our message of righteousness by faith that we have moved from our positions on "the remnant church" and the proclamation of the "everlasting gospel" as being emphatically and clearly unique. Now we say that some popular evangelical churches and organizations who keep Sunday and hold to the natural immortality of the soul, those "poisonous drafts of Babylon" (Ev. 247) are a part of the true remnant church and are proclaiming the everlasting gospel to the world. The implication is clear that the "everlasting gospel" of the three angels’ messages has been entrusted by heaven to "many of the evangelical churches" whose "whole new missionary zeal" has significantly postponed the fall of Babylon beginning in the early 19th century (cf. Mission Possible, by Gottfried Oosterwal, pp. 32-39). We need to ask a very serious question: Is this "whole new missionary zeal" indeed a genuine proclamation of "the everlasting gospel" "in verity"? Or are we being blinded by "an angel of light" and his "false reformations"?
How can those who hold to the "poisonous drafts of Babylon", the natural immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness and who do not understand the Atonement clearly give the "everlasting gospel" to the world? True, the great mass of Gods people are in the popular churches, and they are sincere. We must respect them and truly "cooperate" with them in every good work. But is our "mission" virtually a me-too voice proclaiming what is basically the same gospel? Is there no clearly unique message to call Gods people "Out"?
Nothing is said here to be critical or disrespectful toward the brethren of the past ninety years and those living today who have sincerely assumed that "the popular ministry" understand the "same truth of righteousness by faith’ the Lord gave us in 1888. Nothing is said here with a fault-finding spirit We are simply looking at the Laodicean message and inquiring how it can be true that we do indeed need to buy of our Lord "gold tried in the fire".
The 1888 message constituted a genuine revival of the original New Testament idea of agape and its complementary response, faith. Thus, its concept of justification by faith was unique and distinct from that of the "popular ministry ". Freed at last from the confusion of the egocentric idea of the natural immortality of the soul, the 1888 message was able to restate the apostolic ideas more clearly. With the sole exception of Luther, who only partially reached this goal, one searches almost in vain through history to find another similar breakthrough. Most of the 16th to 18th century Reformers were still shackled to the pagan-papal idea which had its origin in Hellenism, Calvin and Wesley for example. They searched for the breakthrough but could never truly find it.
Is it not time that this confusion concerning love and faith be resolved in the remnant church? There is such a thing as the Seventh-day Adventist conscience. Does that conscience recognize the need that our True Witness says is ours?
If what we have understood and preached since 1926 or longer is the "same truth" as that "beginning" of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry of 1888, will someone please tell us why the work has not yet been finished, nor the earth been lightened with the glory of the fourth angel?
8. In the 1950’s we borrowed and endorsed the Methodist missionary E. Stanley Jones’ concepts of "righteousness by faith" and recommended them to our ministers as "safe". Jones’ concepts "would enrich one’s ministry", said The Ministry (February, 1950). Yet Jones’ preoccupation with the idea of the natural immortality of the soul causes him to confuse telepathic communication with the dead with the reception of the Holy Spirit, and also to confess that "Christ Himself has deficiencies which are to be supplied by other faiths" (The Message of Sat Tul Ashram, pp. 285, 291). It was Jones who coined the slogan, "Share Your Faith", which we eagerly adopted; but Jones meant that "this sharing means not only giving out what one has to non-Christians, but the sharing of what they have in their own faiths … Christ Himself has deficiencies" (Ibid.). What a source for our "righteousness by faith"!
We find one lone, dissenting public voice in the church paper at last protesting this borrowing from E. Stanley Jones. Elder W.A. Spicer wrote an article for the Review which was published during the summer of 1950, exposing the falseness of his ideas, mentioning Jones by name. (In the spring of 1950 he had published an article containing an oblique warning).
9. The 1952 Bible Conference (September 1-13 in the Sligo Church) claimed to recover the 1888 message and even to go beyond it. One prominent speaker said:
To a large degree the church failed to build on the foundation laid at the 1888 General Conference. Much has been lost as a result. We are years behind. … Long ere this we should have been in the Promised Land.
But the message of righteousness by faith given in the 1888 Conference has been repeated here. Practically every speaker from the first day onward has laid great stress upon this all-important doctrine, and there was no prearranged plan that he should do so. … Truly this one subject has, in this conference "swallowed up every other".
And this great truth has been given here in this 1952 Bible Conference with far greater power than it was given in the 1888 Conference because those who have spoken here have had the advantage of much added light shining forth from hundreds of pronouncements on this subject in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy which those who spoke back there did not have.
The light of justification and righteousness by faith shines upon us today more clearly than it ever shone before upon any people.
No longer will the question be, "What was the attitude of our workers and people toward the message of righteousness by faith that was given in 1888? What did they do bout it?" From now on the great question must be, "What did we do with the light on righteousness by faith as proclaimed in the 1952 Bible Conference?" (W.H. Branson, Our Firm Foundation, vol. 2. pp. 616, 617).
Since then over three decades have passed by — time enough to finish God’s work There was no official opposition to the 1952 message. "Practically every speaker" proclaimed it, and apparently everyone accepted it. And the speakers were the "angel of the church of the Laodiceans" — the church leadership. If the 1952 message was a true recovery of the 1888 message, the work should have been finished shortly afterward, for it was given "with far greater power" than in 1888. The 1952 brethren were "richer" than "any people" in world history! They had the "gold".
But a careful study of the 1952 messages fails to disclose the basic motifs that made the 1888 message unique. Like the 1926 messages on righteousness by faith, they present no light beyond what the church has been preaching for many decades. Somehow the truths that Ellen White endorsed in 1888 eluded our brethren of 1952. This is understandable, for with the possible exceptions of one or two they had very likely never actually studied the 1888 message in its original context. (Even today few have).
Elder Branson claimed that in spite of its lukewarmness the church had a "perfect system of truth". He failed to see that "the gospel of Christ … is the power of God unto salvation", and that if the church truly possessed the "gospel of Christ" in its fullness, the "power" would be automatic. Thus he failed to recognize the basic principle of "righteousness by faith’ — that if one has the faith, the righteousness is sure to be there too. He claimed we are rich in the very thing the True Witness says we are poor in. He expressed no need on the part of the speakers to understand true righteousness by faith, but claimed for them an "impulse by the Spirit of God’ "far greater" than Ellen White claimed for the messengers sent in 1888.
Careful motif analysis can demonstrate that the messages of the 1926 and 1952 meetings prepared the way for the current confusion of so-called "Reformationist" concepts of justification by faith in place of the unique truths divinely entrusted to Seventh-day Adventists.
If one will read through both volumes of Our Firm Foundation, where "practically every speaker … laid great stress upon this all-important doctrine [righteousness by faith]", he will find an astounding fact emerge. Not one speaker recognized the danger that the Lords servant warned of in the passage quoted above (GC 464) nor did one discern that the popular churches’ interpretation of righteousness by faith is devoid of New Testament love. No one discerned a relation between the ministry of the heavenly High Priest in the Most Holy Apartment and an understanding of true righteousness by faith. It is amazing that the following quotation from Early Writings was not referred to once:
Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest [the Most Holy Apartment], and pray, "My Father, give us Thy Spirit". Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light power, and much love, joy and peace.
I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne [who had not followed Christ by faith into the Most Holy Apartment]; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, "Father, give us Thy Spirit". Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence: in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy and peace (EW 55, 56).
The setting of this passage is critically important, for it has a direct bearing on our understanding of the gospel itself "The company who were still bowed before the throne" is the group who rejected the sanctuary truth in the 1844 era. Although the imagery is highly symbolic, it is clear Ellen White was referring to the change in Christ’s ministry at the end of the 2300 years. Those who did not appreciate the change exposed themselves to a lethal deception — Satan masquerading as the "Christ" in a ministry which the true High Priest had now "left."
But this tragic deception is not limited to people living in that immediate post-1844 era. Churches which embrace the doctrine of natural immortality are exposed to the same frightful danger. In this time when the sanctuary doctrine is being boldly challenged by many within the Seventh-day Adventist church, we need to see that a rejection of this unique Seventh-day Adventist sanctuary doctrine entails also a rejection of the pure New Testament gospel of righteousness by faith:
Many who professed to love Jesus, and who shed tears as they read the story of the cross, derided the good news of His (second) coming. … Those who rejected the first angel’s message could not be benefited by the second; neither were they benefited by the midnight cry, which was to prepare them to enter with Jesus by faith into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. And by rejecting the two former messages, they have so darkened their understanding that they can see no light in the third angel’s message, which shows the way into the most holy place. I saw that as the Jews crucified Jesus, so the nominal churches had crucified these messages, and therefore they have (note present tense) no knowledge of the way into the most holy, and they can not be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews. who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left; Satan, pleased with the deception, assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed Christians to himself, working with his power, his signs and lying wonders. to fasten them in his snare.. He also comes as an angel of light and spreads his influence over the land by means of false reformations. The churches are elated, and consider that God is working marvelously for them, when it is the work of another spirit (EW 55, 56).
In many of the revivals which have occurred during the last half century. the same influences have been at work to a greater or less degree … an emotional excitement, a mingling of the true with the false, that is well adapted to deceive. (CC 464).
No awareness of the danger of this counterfeit gospel of the orthodox "popular ministry" found expression throughout the 1952 Bible Conference.
10. In the 1960’s we eagerly adopted ideas and methods from Campus Crusade for Christ, sending ministers to their headquarters to learn from them how to present "righteousness by faith". This can be attested by the wide prominence given to their Four Spiritual Laws and similar substitutes that we prepared ourselves from time to time. Some of our men worked with the Campus Crusade group very closely, but this enthusiasm seemed to be cooled by Campus Crusade’s reported insistence that all their workers subscribe to the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. This is essential to their concepts of righteousness by faith.
Campus Crusade’s Four Spiritual Laws are thoroughly egocentric. The "righteousness by faith" they present is not parallel to or consistent with the work that Christ is doing in the Most Holy Apartment Those who have used them and supposed they accomplished much good with them have not realized that this brand of "righteousness by faith" is as far from true New Testament teaching as Sunday is from Sabbath-keeping.
11. In the recent decade (the 1970’s) we have eagerly turned to the message and methods of the famed "church growth" experts and proponents, hoping to find there principles of "evangelism explosion" that will work with us as they do with them. As in all the previous movements for decades, the concept of love (and consequently the concept of faith) is thoroughly egocentric. Yet we seek to validate these concepts by searching for Spirit of Prophecy support for them. The implication is very clear: God has given to the popular ministry the "gold tried in the fire", and we are to go "buy" of them. He has entrusted to them the secret of finishing the work The confusion goes back to the post-1888 history.
Thus, like Israel of old, we have wandered in a kind of spiritual wilderness for many decades, not understanding the message the Lord sent to us. Through "our" failure to receive the 1888 message for what it truly was, we have been reading the Spirit of Prophecy with a "veil" over our eyes, the same one that the Jews had (cf. 2 Cor. 3:15). It is the same "veil" that hung over the eyes of the brethren who attended the 1888 Conference to whom the Lords servant said, "I have been talking and pleading with you, but it does not seem to make any difference with you" (MS. 9, 1888). They had the living presence of the prophet with them, and it made no difference with them. We have her books with us. But they too have made no difference because we have unwittingly accepted the "popular ministry’s" ideas of righteousness by faith in place of the true. In fact, we quite officially see no distinction between their doctrine in that respect and that which God has for us (cf. Movement of Destiny, pp. 255-258, 319-321, 616-628).
So much have we failed to realize and appreciate the uniqueness of our message of righteousness by faith that we have moved from our positions on "the remnant church" and the proclamation of the "everlasting gospel" as being emphatically and clearly unique. Now we say that some popular evangelical churches and organizations who keep Sunday and hold to the natural immortality of the soul, those "poisonous drafts of Babylon" (Ev. 247) are a part of the true remnant church and are proclaiming the everlasting gospel to the world. The implication is clear that the "everlasting gospel" of the three angels’ messages has been entrusted by heaven to "many of the evangelical churches" whose "whole new missionary zeal" has significantly postponed the fall of Babylon beginning in the early 19th century (cf. Mission Possible, by Gottfried Oosterwal, pp. 32-39). We need to ask a very serious question: Is this "whole new missionary zeal" indeed a genuine proclamation of "the everlasting gospel" "in verity"? Or are we being blinded by "an angel of light" and his "false reformations"?
How can those who hold to the "poisonous drafts of Babylon", the natural immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness and who do not understand the Atonement clearly give the "everlasting gospel" to the world? True, the great mass of Gods people are in the popular churches, and they are sincere. We must respect them and truly "cooperate" with them in every good work. But is our "mission" virtually a me-too voice proclaiming what is basically the same gospel? Is there no clearly unique message to call Gods people "Out"?
Nothing is said here to be critical or disrespectful toward the brethren of the past ninety years and those living today who have sincerely assumed that "the popular ministry" understand the "same truth of righteousness by faith’ the Lord gave us in 1888. Nothing is said here with a fault-finding spirit We are simply looking at the Laodicean message and inquiring how it can be true that we do indeed need to buy of our Lord "gold tried in the fire".
The 1888 message constituted a genuine revival of the original New Testament idea of agape and its complementary response, faith. Thus, its concept of justification by faith was unique and distinct from that of the "popular ministry ". Freed at last from the confusion of the egocentric idea of the natural immortality of the soul, the 1888 message was able to restate the apostolic ideas more clearly. With the sole exception of Luther, who only partially reached this goal, one searches almost in vain through history to find another similar breakthrough. Most of the 16th to 18th century Reformers were still shackled to the pagan-papal idea which had its origin in Hellenism, Calvin and Wesley for example. They searched for the breakthrough but could never truly find it.
Is it not time that this confusion concerning love and faith be resolved in the remnant church? There is such a thing as the Seventh-day Adventist conscience. Does that conscience recognize the need that our True Witness says is ours?
If what we have understood and preached since 1926 or longer is the "same truth" as that "beginning" of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry of 1888, will someone please tell us why the work has not yet been finished, nor the earth been lightened with the glory of the fourth angel?