XXXV - 11 (02)
what of the night?”
"The hour has come, the hour is
striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
Since in the November issue of WWN we insert the listing of the manuscripts and publications available through the Foundation, the actual size of the publication is reduced one page. During the years, we have at times brought together for the November issue, news from the ecumenical world. This year, we will note in review some of the high points which were discussed during the year and update some of the issues, such as the crisis which has rocked the Roman Church.
The question can be asked, "Anything
new in publication and research?" The answer is negative. Until we come to
know what has taken place in the Church during the last half century, we will
remain children in respect of what our duty is. Some may already have these
documents, such as Steps to Rome, (being led by the eulogized
"Adventist Statesman"); The Hour & the End; and "The
Sacred Trust Betrayed." If you do, may we suggest that you call a
friend's attention to their availability. One book
that speaks volumes is So Much in Common, a book co-authored by B. B.
Beach, and Dr. Lukas Vischer, who at the time of writing was secretary of the
Faith and Order Commission of the
For those interested in a detailed study of what has happened over the past half century, we suggest the following sequence:
1) M. L. Andreasen's Letters to the Churches.
2) SDA-Evangelical Conferences. taking special note of the recorded telephone conversation between A. L. Hudson and Donald G. Barnhouse.
3) Key Doctrinal Comparisons, from the first Statement in 1872 to the 1980 Dallas Statement.
In the December issue of WWN for the year
2001, we called attention to the counsel given by the Lord's messenger in the Review
We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have an occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.
As we concluded the article, we commented, "If in 1892, there were lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn, the intervening years have not nullified this counsel, and because it has not been done, it makes it even more necessary that such an attempt be made now." (p. 7)
In the January issue of this year, we began
with the key doctrine of Adventism - the teaching and understanding of the
meaning of the sanctuary which God, in blueprint form, gave to Moses at
Throughout the history of Adventism, there have been questions and problems over this basic teaching. Many are unaware that E. J. Waggoner of the 1888 team stumbled over aspects of the "orthodox" teaching. Prior to his sudden death in 1916, Waggoner wrote a letter to a friend in which he stated:
Sin is a condition, not an entity. It exists only in the individual, and can be removed only by a new life in the individual. ...
Twenty five years ago , these truths (of Christ's saving grace) coupIed with the self-evident truth that sin is not an entity but a condition that can exist only in a person, made it clear to me that it is impossible that there could be any such thing as the transferring of sins to the sanctuary in heaven, thus defiling that place; and that there could, consequently, be no such thing, either in 1844. A.D. or at any other time, as the "cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary." (pp. 9, 14)
It is also of interest that as Waggoner continues his "Confession of Faith" he sets forth arguments very similar to those used by Cottrell in his essay read before the San Diego Chapter of the Association of Adventist Forums, February 9th of this year. (See WWN XXX-7) Because Cottrell has borrowed from Waggoner, and because Waggoner drew the conclusion he did, doesn't make it right, nor does it nullify the sanctuary truth. But it does make more imperative, that the counsel that we have many things to learn, and many, many things to unlearn, be applied.
Waggoner concluded correctly that sin is not an entity, but a condition. Further, in the type, one did not transfer sin to the sanctuary via his sin offering. The defiling record of sin had been or was already being placed in the books of Heaven (Dan. ; Rev. 20:12).
In 1890, the first volume of the Conflict of the Ages series was published - Patriarchs and Prophets. In it would be found the following paragraph:
The most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals. The repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle, and placing his hand upon the vicim's head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. By his own hand the animal was then slain, and the blood was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the vail, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood transferred in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but then the flesh was to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying, "God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation." Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin of the penitent to the sanctuary. (pp. 354-355).
In this paragraph is to be found a subscript asking the reader to turn to Appendix, Note 9. This note reads:
When a sin-offering was presented for a priest or for the whole congregation, the blood was carried into the holy place, and sprinkled before the vail, and placed upon the horns of the golden altar. The fat was consumed upon the altar of burnt offering in the court, but the body of the victim was burned without the camp. See Lev. 4:1-21.
When, however, the offering was for a ruler or for one of the people, the blood was not taken into the holy place, but the flesh was to be eaten by the priest as the Lord directed Moses: "The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting." Lev. 6:26, RV. See also Lev. 4:22-35. (p. 761).
This note was in the original 1890 edition. Simply, it is saying that what was written in the text of the book does not accord with the Scriptures. This causes some questions to arise, and some observations on the data which has surfaced. First the data: 1) Patriarchs & Prophets was published in 1890 with the above quoted appendix note; 2) Waggoner indicates that it was in 1891 he confronted some cardinal points in the sanctuary message and found them wanting; and 3) in 1892, Ellen White called for the getting together in Bible study as was done at the beginning of the movement. Why? "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn." Because of the date, 1892, one could conclude that the whole question still involved the issue of 1888, but a careful reading of the article in the Review & Herald, July 26, indicates a broader range of subjects.
Secondly, the questions: Instead of placing an appendix note, why did not the publishers go to Ellen White, and kindly, but pointedly indicate to her that she was not in line with Scripture on this point and make the corrections then and there? Why has there been no explanation of this variance with Scripture all these years while the attacks on the sanctuary truth have continued to mount?
In the type, the sin was a sin of ignorance, which when known was to be confessed. The penitent was to bring the specified offering and having placed his hand upon its head, was to slay it. (Lev. 4:22-24; 27-29). The common priest was to take some of the blood of the victim and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour the balance of the blood at the base of the same altar. The result to the confessor is clearly stated - "the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him" (vs. 26, 31, 35). At no time was the blood taken into the sanctuary. The record on the horns of the Altar in the court was confessional. The steps were orderly: recognize the sin, confess the sin, accept a substitute, and the common priest secured forgiveness. This is also New Testament theology. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, ..." (I John 1:9).
The important factor is that this
transaction was done in the court, not in the sanctuary. Thus when the time of
cleansing would come typically once a year, the High Priest would complete the
"cleansing" ritual at that Altar. (Lev. 16:18-19). If sin were an
entity, and the position valid that the sin offering transferred sin to the
sanctuary, then the ceremony could have ended in the
Another point dare not be overlooked. If the sacrifice of the sin-offering, and the finger printing of the blood of that sacrifice transferred sin as an entity to the sanctuary, then the easiest way to escape the condemnation of sin is not to confess. No confession, no registry in blood, thus no
record of sin. One is home "scot-free." Except, that one would still be an unforgiven sinner facing the wrath of God against sin. Instead of accepting Him who was made to be sin for us, we would remain what we really are - sinners.
Earlier in the year, the scandal within the Roman Church broke into the secular press, but we were unable to cover the subject until the June issue of WWN. We chose the title, as above, using the Greek word from II Thess. 2:8, translated in the KJV as "that Wicked (One)." Thayer, in his Lexicon translates this word, "He in whom all iniquity has fixed its abode." This is most accurate and very defining!
Several things have occurred since then. The
American hierarchy of the Roman Church was summoned to
On his recent visit to
In his remarks at the World Youth Day
Mass, the supreme pontiff lamented the "sadness and shame" of the
pedophile scandal rocking the church. As before - in a Palm Sunday letter to
the Roman clergy and an address to a
His other message was conveyed in the
The pope did not make any mention of the hierarchy's responsibility in the tragedy. Catholics are left to wonder if his attitude toward Cardinal Law is an implicit endorsement of Law's policy of coverup, payoff and fast shuffle of notorious pedophiles from parish to parish - with no warning to their new parish. Or is it simply an expression of hierarchical solidarity and a suggestion to the people in the pews that this is entirely a matter for the supreme pontiff to decide?
Ms. McGrory in her feature article
indicated that there is a "fast-growing lay group" in the Roman
church, called the "Voice of the Faithful." Founded in
Cardinal Law discouraged the formation of this group and has locked horns with it over "the all-important matter of money." When church contributions started declining because the laity objected [to] having their funds used as hush money, the Voice of the Faithful offered direct contributions to needy agencies. Law balked insisting that all funds go through him.
Victims' Advocate David Clohessy, executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, had trouble with the pope's formulation of an equation between child victims and priests unfairly tainted by the scandal. He calls it "ludicrous" to compare the embarrassment of priests to the devastation of children.
The founder and first president of Voice of the Faithful was Dr. James Muller, a professor at the Harvard School of Medicine and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. "As a devout Catholic, he instantly attracted
attention and support when, in a personal crisis of
faith, he invited the laity to make known their anger and pain inside the
church. Four thousand people attended a recent convention in
Muller did not encourage nor agitate the removal of Cardinal Law. He explained:
It isn't just Cardinal Law. Sexual abuse
is not just in the
While Dr. Muller perceives of the problem as "absolute power," The Catholic World Report documents it as "The Gay Priest Problem." In its November, 2000 issue, it published an essay by a Marine Corps and Navy Chaplain. One of his observations is relevant:
When more of your priests die by sodomy than by martyrdom, you know you've got a problem; when the man you bring for the fix comes down with AIDS; you know that you have got a crisis; and when the Pope first gets the facts thanks to 60 Minutes, you know you're corrupt. (p. 57).
We first noted this Essay in the 2001
February issue of WWN. However, in the June issue of this year we detailed some
of the data from The Catholic World
Report including the foul language used by the South African auxiliary
bishop, Reggie Cawcutt, who was exposed by Roman Catholic Faithful for his
participation in a homosexual internet "chat room." The report of
this "chat room" participation has been given with all of its
vulgarity in the August/September issue of The
Catholic World Report, page 64. Along with this report is the release from
Cawcutt is a self admitted "gay," and he is quoted as saying on the internet, "I suppose the issue is really celibacy and not gay sex." In all of this scandal that is rocking the Roman Church, and the various reasons being projected as to why, the problem; one senses that there is a relationship between the conduct of the pedophile priests, and the life style of their superiors all the way up into the Vatican curia.
- + -
"We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history."
Life Sketches, p, 196