A SEARCH FOR IDENTITY -4-

"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)

In this issue we discuss another question asked by Dr. Knight in his search for identity in discussing "The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs." He asks, "What is Christian in Adventism?" and covers the period from 1886 to 1919. While he lists four theological issues flowing from the General Conference session of 1888, we discuss only two in this issue. Knight's problem appears to rise from the fact that he does not know the basic factors in the "everlasting gospel." These we discuss, giving special emphasis to the fourth theological issue to flow from the 1888 session as listed by Knight - the Incarnation.

The whole issue of the Incarnation revolves around one point, and one point only. Was there a Divine intervention in the birth of Jesus? Roman Catholic teaching says, Yes; the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception followed. All the explanations given by the Evangelicals and others vary only in degree from this Dogma. In this issue of WWN, we note a certain theory of this doctrine in Adventism beginning with the Holy Flesh teaching and continuing down to the current teaching among "historic" Adventist "voices." Space did not permit us to discuss the current official teaching of the Church based on the theology of Henry Melvill which indirectly demands this same emphasis - a Divine intervention. (See, A Search for Identity, pp. 123-124)

There is a distinct difference between the Incarnate Christ and us. His Divine Identity was and is eternal; while our identity comes from a union between an earthly father and mother. The question centers on what kind of flesh, the λογος took upon Himself. Was there a Divine intervention which made his flesh different from ours?

Covering the period from 1886 to 1919 in Adventist Church history, Dr. Knight asks the question, "What is Christian in Adventism?"

Choosing the date 1886, to begin an answer to the question, sets the stage for the righteousness by faith confrontation at the General Conference Session in Minneapolis. The closing date, 1919, could be taken for the Bible Conference of that date; however, Knight indicates that between 1900 and 1920, five theological struggles erupted within Adventism. He lists these five as: 1) The Holy Flesh Movement in Indiana; 2) The "pantheistic ideas" from Battle Creek; 3) A. F. Ballenger's rejection of the traditional understanding of the sanctuary doctrine; 4) The ecclesiology struggle over church organization; and 5) The extended controversy over the "daily" of Daniel 8:13. Then he wrote that due to "external strains" - the conflict in the Protestant world between modernism and fundamentalism which reached a crisis point in the 1920s - Adventism would be led into "a third great question of identity" (pp.126-127).

This second question of Identity, "What is Christian in Adventism," according to Knight involves doctrinal concepts which "flowed from the meetings" of the 1888 General Conference Session. He lists four: 1) A re-examination of the ground for settling theological issues; 2) A fuller understanding of righteousness by faith in relationship to the Third Angel's Message; 3) The doctrine of the Trinity; and 4) The human nature of Jesus Christ (p.93). Since we have discussed in previous articles of this series, the question of the Trinity as raised by Knight, and the basis for all doctrinal formulations, we will focus this issue of WWN on the other two concepts, Numbers 2 & 4,

In regard to the relationship of the message of righteousness by faith to the Third Angel's Message, Knight blatantly wrote:

Ellen White made it clear that the concept of justification that she agreed with in Jones and Waggoner's preaching was not some new understanding of the topic, but the same as that taught by the evangelicals (p.106; emphasis supplied)

If indeed, the message of righteousness by faith as presented by Jones and Waggoner at the 1888 General Conference session was the same as was and is being taught by the "evangelicals;" and the Third Angel's Message is in "verity" the message of justification by faith (R&H, April 1, 1890), then the "evangelicals" are preaching the Third Angel's Message. This again reveals Knight's faulty evaluation of history, and his lack of understanding of what the message of 1888 was all about.

Further, it is actually the crux of the whole issue which has been raised in the Church since 1950. The challenge made by Wieland and Short was that the 1888 Message as brought by Jones and Waggoner was not accepted by the Church, but was rather rejected in 1888 and has, as yet, not been accepted, and we might add, not understood. The question might even be raised as to whether Wieland himself understands the real purpose and objective of the giving of the message of justification by faith to the Church in 1888. It is a factor to which more study needs to be given. However, with the hardening of the lines by the release of the "Report of the Primacy of the Gospel Committee," both on the part of the Church and the 1888 Study Committee itself, will not help produce a positive study of this factor. Actually, it would appear that we are back to "square one" with more heat than light having been generated.

If this conclusion is valid, then the place to begin is to review Paul's basic gospel. Why? Because at the very apex of the controversy in the apostolic Church over the gospel, he pronounced an anathema or any man or angel who would vary in the slightest the gospel given him by Jesus Christ Himself. What he wrote bears careful review.

Though we, or an angel from heaven, proclaim any other gospel unto you than that which we preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again. If any man preach any other gospel than ye have received, let him be accursed. ... I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not of man. For I neither received it of man neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1:8-9, 11-12)

If words have any meaning whatever, Paul is declaring unequivocally that the Gospel he proclaimed was the only gospel and was received by him through direct revelation from Jesus Christ. If either a man or an angel declared another gospel, let that man or angel be accursed (Gr. ἀνάθεμα ). In simple application, it means that the "everlasting gospel" carried by the First Angel of Revelation 14 (v. 6) was the same gospel as had been received by Paul. Further, if either Jones or Waggoner preached in 1888 a new or different gospel

What then was the gospel proclaimed by Paul? He clearly defines it in his general letter to the province of Asia. It reads:

By grace ye having been saved [σεσῳσμένοι] through faith, and this not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. [Eph. 2:8-10]

The Greek perfect participle - σεσῳσμένοι - is in the passive voice, indicating that those saved have been acted upon instead of doing the acting. It is solely a gift, God's gift. We might also ask, since through faith, who's faith? In the Galatian letter, Paul had stated that the renewed life which he lived in the flesh, he lived "by the faith of the Son of God, who loved [him], and gave Himself for [him]" (2:20). According to Paul, even his faith was not his own. This echoes in "the everlasting gospel" of the First Angel when the final results of all Three Angels' messages are declared to be a people which "keep the faith of Jesus" (14:12).

However, the faith of Jesus in the life produces something according to Paul's gospel, - "good works." If missing, it is not then the true gospel. But specific works are designated - those which God "had before ordained that we should walk in them." The gospel is to be a restoration to what man once was, a life in harmony with God. The first thing that God and man did after man's first day of life, was to enter into a Sabbath fellowship - God's rest (Gen. 2:2-3). To this rest, Jesus invites man to return (Matt. 11:28-30). Because the "gospel" proclaimed by the evangelicals does not lead to this divine objective, it cannot be the true gospel, as Knight asserts, nor is it the message of justification by faith emphasized in 1888 by Jones and Waggoner. The evangelical "gospel" and the Pauline gospel are not the same, and they will lead to two different ends - the seal of God or the mark of the beast!

The tragedy of the present conflict in Adventism is that the Enemy has shrewdly devised two ways, one on either side of the narrow way "which leadeth to life" (Matt. 7:14). One is designated as "cheap" grace. One merely says, "I am saved," and lives by that which is "right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). The other seeks by works to contribute to what God has provided in Christ Jesus. The tragedy is compounded because many in this latter category consider themselves as "historic" Adventists, when in reality they would have been with the opponents of Jones and Waggoner had they been living in 1888.

This designation of our Saviour is found frequently in the Epistles of Paul either as "the Lord Jesus Christ," or as "Jesus Christ our Lord" (e.g. Rom. 1:3, 7). In this designation is a name covering His saving work - Messiah - and what He was - Lord - and what He became - Jesus - to accomplish that work.

Knight in discussing the nature that Christ assumed in His humanity as taught by Jones and Waggoner, seeks to separate this teaching from their message of Justification by Faith as given in 1888, and holds it as an adjunct teaching which they developed following 1888. He had to admit, however, that in the book, The Gospel in the Book of Galatians by Waggoner, which was circulated at the session, he did hold that "if Christ was not made in all things like unto His brethren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us" (p. 118). Knight also approaches his premise from another angle. He indicates that while Ellen White commended Jones and Waggoner "for uplifting the 'divine person' of Jesus," she gave no such approval of their teachings on Christ's human nature at any time."

This latter position reveals either Knight's inadequacy in his historical research or a flagrant attempt to cover up the truth to maintain his agenda. Ellen White did not have to approve the truth of what Waggoner wrote in his book in regard to the Incarnation, because she herself taught the same thing in some of her earliest Writings. Excerpts from these read as follows:

Jesus also told them that they [angels] would have a part to act, to be with Him, and at different times strengthen Him. That He should take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be equal with theirs. [Spiritual Gifts, Vol.1, p. 25:1858]

The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam. [R&H, Feb. 24, 1874]

Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to earth to help man. [Ibid., July 28, 1874]

It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man. [Spirit of Prophecy, Vol.2, p 39:1877]

[For further amplification of the historical data see our manuscript - An Interpretative History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church (on this website)]

There is no question that both Jones and Waggoner preached after 1888, as a part of the "everlasting gospel," the fact that Christ took upon Himself the fallen nature of man. They were but following Paul who considered this concept as basic to the Gospel given him by Jesus Christ. He begins his great epistle to the Romans with these words:

Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, ... concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. [1:1, 3-4]

The very doctrine of the Incarnation, by the Latin name assigned to it (incarnatas), declares that Christ came in the flesh. The question is, what flesh (and this includes all that is human) did He take upon Himself? The Scriptures plainly teach that He was born of Mary (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:35). The only flesh she could give was the fallen flesh, as well as the nature, of Adam, unless - and here is the pivotal point - there was a Divine intervention. This factor, Knight has not assessed in his Search for Identity.

At the very time that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was forming out of what Knight describes as "the utter confusion in the wake of the October 22 disappointment" (p.55), the Papacy issued as one of its "great words" (Daniel 7:11), the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Simply, it is an assumption of a Divine Intervention in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. The question in any search for Identity must include the question as to whether God in raising up the Seventh-day Adventist Church to proclaim the "everlasting gospel" (Revelation 14), raised them up to proclaim a different "intervention" from Rome, or to deny that there was any intervention, and thus preach the Pauline "gospel of God" that Christ "according to the flesh" was "made of the seed of David"?

Since justification by faith alone and the incarnation of Christ in taking upon Himself the "seed of David" are parts of but one gospel, it follows that both aspects would be presented in the messages which Jones and Waggoner would present, whether at the 1888 Session or at any subsequent sessions. Knight weighs in on the presentation of the Incarnation by Jones in his series of sermons at the 1895 Session. At the meetings Jones preached 26 times on the third angel's message devoting six of them entirely to the subject of the Incarnation. Of these Knight writes:

In his usual manner, Jones was quite explicit as he put his views before the delegates. "Christ's nature," he claimed, "is precisely our nature." "In his human nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you." Christ did not come like the first Adam. "but as the first Adam had caused his descendants to be at the time at which he came." (1895 GCB 231, 233, 436)

There is, Jones claimed, "not a single tendency to sin in you and me that was not in Adam when he stepped out of the garden." Christ took our flesh in the incarnation, with "just the same tendencies to sin that are in you and me. ... All the tendencies to sin that are in human flesh were in his human flesh," yet, "not one of them was ever allowed to appear; he conquered them all" [ibid. 266, 267].

Thus Jesus, according to Jones, was born just like every other child - that is with sinful tendencies. On the other hand, He lived a life without sin. He, in fact, showed the universe that individuals can overcome sin in human flesh. Jesus is an example in this matter for every Christian. As Jones put it, "In Jesus Christ as he was in sinful flesh, God has demonstrated before the universe that He can so take possession of sinful flesh as to manifest his own presence, his power, and his glory, instead of sin manifesting itself. And all that the Son asks of any man, in order to accomplish this in him, is that the man will let the Lord have him as the Lord Jesus did." [ibid. 303].

In short, Jones pointed out in 1905, by overcoming sin in human flesh, Jesus had opened a "consecrated way" for each of His followers to do the same. Each can have "perfection of character. . . in human flesh in this world [Consecrated Way, 84] through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That type of living, Jones declared in 1897, would make God's people a demonstration to the universe. Their lives would proclaim: "Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" [1897 GCB 279].

Knight in his continued discussion attempts to show that "all the delegates at the 1895 General Conference session" did not agree with Jones. These delegates challenged Jones, not on Scripture, but on what Ellen White had written. Knight joins them by adding to their original reference other statements which he gathered from the Writings. This is quite incongruous with the position which he stated had been established in 1888 that "'the Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and practice. ... Here is divine authority which is supreme in matters of faith"' (p. 97). It should be observed also that Knight in assembling various statements which he assumes negates the position of Jones [He has a real antipathy for Jones] he omits a very key reference which reads:

Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. He took our sorrows, bearing our grief and shame. He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset. He united humanity with divinity: a divine spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh. He united Himself with the temple. "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us," ... [BC7-A p.157].

This reference reflects a Biblical tenet which needs to be carefully considered, even quoting the Biblical source - John 1:14. It was the pre-existent Eternal Word that "flesh became" ('ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο). He in some mysterious way divested Himself of what He was and became man with our flesh - the flesh of humanity four thousand years after the Fall. Paul puts it this way:

Jesus Christ: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself taking the form of a bondservant. [Phil. 2:6-7 ARV margin].

Now a "bondservant" (δούλου) is a slave. The pre-existent One, the Eternal Identity, took a slave form in the Incarnation in place of His God-form. The "slave form" is the form which every child of fallen Adam receives with all the forces which such a form implies. Such a form, the Word took upon Himself in becoming Jesus, unless - there was a divine intervention!

Knight lists the short-lived Holy Flesh Movement (1899-1901) as one of the theological struggles which erupted in Adventism during this period in which he discusses, "What is Christian in Adventism?" (See, p. 1 of this issue). While Knight observes that this movement "moved beyond the traditional Adventist interest in character perfection to that of the perfection of the human body before the Second Advent," the issue of the Incarnation did become a crucial point. It taught that there was a "Divine intervention." R. S. Donnell, president of the Indiana Conference and leader of the Movement, wrote a series of articles for the Indiana Reporter, in an attack on what Jones was writing at the time in the Review & Herald:

In order to save man, Christ must enter humanity, and because all were sinners, and not a body could be found that was suitable, what had to be done? A body had to be made for the occasion. And so we read in Hebrews 10:5: "A body hath Thou prepared "Me." ["What I Taught in Indiana," p. 9; Article Three]

But Christ was born in a body formed in the womb of Mary. The position of Donnell is clear: the body' that Christ assumed was prepared of God in the womb of Mary, a body "unlike the rest of the children of Adam." In another article, Donnell stated it this way:

Christ's nature was a divine human nature. A nature which, prior to the new birth, has not been possessed by a single son or daughter of Adam since the fall. [ibid., p.20]

This translates into the concept that Christ came into humanity "born-born again," as a result of a divine intervention.

Clearly Jones and Waggoner understood that the choice between truth and error in regard to the humanity assumed by Christ lies in difference between His being "made of the seed of David according to the flesh," and the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. At the General Conference session of 1901, EIder E. J. Waggoner spoke at the evening meeting on April 16. (The next morning a statement would be read to the session that would end the Holy Flesh Movement) As Dr. Waggoner began his message, he read a question that had been handed to him - "Was that hoIy thing which was born of the virgin Mary born in sinful flesh, and did that flesh have the same evil tendencies to contend with that ours does?" (GC Bulletin, p. 403). During his message he declared:

Let me show you what there is in the idea that is in this question. ... Did you ever hear of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception? And do you know what it is? Some of you possibly have supposed in hearing it, that it meant that Jesus Christ was born sinless. That is not the Catholic dogma at all. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born sinless. Why? - Ostensibly to magnify Jesus; really the work of the devil to put a wide gulf between Jesus the Saviour of men, and the men whom He came to save, so that one could not pass over to the other. That is all.

We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not There are a great many that have got the marks yet, ...

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

Two days later a confession before the delegates by Elder R. S. Donnell signaled the demise of the "Holy Flesh" Movement [ibid., p. 422]. One would think that with it would have died the teaching of the doctrine of the Incarnation as had been held by Donnell. Not so; it is very much alive today in the community of Adventism.

In 1985, the editors of Ministry printed essays giving two divergent views of the Incarnation, as to whether Christ took the pre-Fall or post-Fall nature of Adam (June, pp.8-21). A year later, T. A. Davis responded with an essay - "Christ's Human Nature: An Alternate View" (June, 1986, pp. 14-16). This alternate view presented by Davis was the exact teaching of R. S. Donnell. Later in that year, leaders of "independent"

ministries assembled at Hartland Institute hosted by Colin Standish with the objective of arriving at a consensus in regard to certain key doctrines, one of them being the Incarnation. Leading the discussion on the Incarnation was Elder T. A. Davis. Only one of the men present challenged the position of Davis.

Also present at this meeting at Hartland was Ron Spear who had already embraced the position presented by Davis. In his book, Waymarks of Adventism (1981), he asked the question, "Did Christ really have an advantage over me?" He said the answer was both, "yes" and "no." For the "yes" answer, he stated:

Yes, Christ had an advantage in one sense: He had a sanctified will, from birth to the cross. He was born with the nature that becomes ours when we are born again - humanity combined with divinity. [1st. Sec. Edition, p.39; emphasis his]

This is the identical concept as voiced by Donnell. (See page 5, col. 1, last quotation; and compare) As Waggoner so aptly stated, at that evening meeting on April 16, 1901, "We need to settle it, every one of us, whether we are out of the Church of Rome or not. There are a great many who have got the marks yet."

Justification by faith and the Incarnation cannot be separated. These two doctrines were united in the messages which Jones and Waggoner gave at the 1888 General Conference session and the following sessions at which either of them spoke. The emphasis varied from session to session. However, the emphasis on the Incarnation centered on the fact that Christ assumed the fallen nature of Adam, accepting the working of the law of heredity. Any variation from this cardinal point is but a reflection of the Roman dogma of "divine intervention" which made Jesus "unlike the rest of the children of Adam" because His mother, Mary, was declared so to be.

"None are to pick up any points of this doctrine {holy flesh} and call it truth. There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric."

Within a week, we received from the field a copy of a letter sent E-mail to a brother in Germany, and two "Dial Daily Bread" messages picked up by a brother in Australia. They all spoke the same message: Stay by the ship; the corporate SDA Church will ultimately repent, and go through. We can understand in part, Elder R. J. Wieland's anguish. He has given many years of his life calling for denominational repentance, but there has been none. His hope mounted with the formation of The Primacy of the Gospel Committee by the Administrative Committee of the General Conference for the purpose of giving study to "the biblical doctrine of righteousness by faith," giving particular attention "to the special understanding of this doctrine as has been advanced over the past fifty years" by D. K. Short and himself. Now that the final report of the majority of the committee has been submitted to the General Conference calling for Wieland to "either shape up or ship out," he has come to a critical crossroads in his life. (See WWN 1(01), page 7)

Wieland arrived at this critical point by misreading the indicators both in the Scriptures and the Writings. However, there is no justification for him to seek to rebuild his hope, and assure his followers that ultimately the corporate Church will repent and turn around, basing such an assumption on a faulty exegesis of the Greek text.

Both in the letter to Germany and Dial Daily Bread of February 10, 2001, Wieland maintained that the message to Laodicea - "I will spue thee out of my mouth" doesn't mean that, but means rather, "I am about to spue thee out, but won't do it." He bases this on the Greek -μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου The interpretation hangs on one word, μέλλω translated "I will" in the KJV, but which Wieland translates, "I am about." He cites another use of the same word in Rev. 10:4 - "I was about to write (εμελλον γράφειν) However, μέλλω is used 12x in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 3:16, it is in the present indicative with the infinitive, ἐμέσαι in the aorist or Greek past tense. The only other place in Revelation where the present of μέλλω is combined with the infinitive in the aorist is Rev. 1:19 - "and the things which shall be hereafter." There is no way you can interpret the meaning in this verse as "about" but doesn't happen. To do so in 3:16 is deceptive, and does not give evidence of Christ's righteousness. . . .

The second linguistic problem which Wieland faces in the message to the angel of the Church of Laodicea is the change in the use of the pronouns from the corporate, "thee," and "thou" of verses 15-19, to the individual "if any man" (τις) in verse 20. This should also be clear: Jesus, after the corporate does not repent, and He has to spue it out, turns to the individual, "any one" who will open the door for Him to come in.

A further picture emerges as one analyzes the message to the Church of Philadelphia (3:11-12). To them Jesus says, "I come quickly." Evidently, this Church is in existence at the end time. Notice that on the overcomer is written "the name of my God." In Revelation 14:1, it speaks of the group who have the "Father's name in their foreheads." Of that group, it will also be said, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (14:12). [Hear our tape - "The Eighth Church of Revelation"]

Jesus was invited to leave "Israel" and go to Greece and find "rest of soul," but He refused. He would stay in fellowship with God's professed people, no matter how painful it might be, and bear His cross there (John 12:20-28). In these last days there is lukewarmness in the church, there can even be "apostasy IN the church."

Leaving the church is not the solution. The basic idea of the Bible truth of the Day of Atonement is the "cleansing of the sanctuary," not destroying it.

This is plain distortion of the Word of God by a man who is desperate, and in anguish. Let us note a few of these assertions which Wieland made:

1) "He [Jesus] would stay in fellowship with God's professed people, no matter how painful it might be, and bear His cross there."

What did Jesus really say: "Behold your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple" (Matt. 23:38-39; 24:1) Paul wrote specifically to a people facing the same issue we face today. He stated: "Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp bearing His reproach" (Heb. 13:12-13; emphasis supplied)

Only eyes totally afflicted with Laodicean blindness can fail to see that it is the Church that is IN apostasy. Then who needs to repent? The Church, yes! But what about those inflicted with this blindness?

3) "The basic idea of the Bible truth of the Day of Atonement is ' the cleansing of the sanctuary,' not destroying it."

I am totally unaware of any teaching that the cleansing of the sanctuary on the typical Day of Atonement was the type of a cleansing of an earthly organization. Daniel 8:14 speaks of a cleansing of "the sanctuary," but that is the heavenly. It was William Miller who taught that it was this earth. Paul told the Jewish Christians that had problems over "Israel" repenting and going through to look up, for in leaving the "Temple" with its earthly priestly system, they were now "come to mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22).

Isn't this the city the name of which will be inscribed on the overcomers of Philadelphia, and isn't Mt. Sion the place where they will ultimately stand? (Rev. 3:12; 14:1).

Originally published by Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Mississippi/Arkansas

Wm. H. Grotheer, Editor

Adventist Laymen's Foundation was chartered in 1971 by Elder Wm. H. Grotheer, then 29 years in the Seventh-day Adventist ministry, and associates, for the benefit of Seventh-day Adventists who were deeply concerned about the compromises of fundamental doctrines by the Church leaders in conference with those who had no right to influence them. Elder Grotheer began to publish the monthly "Thought Paper," Watchman, What of the Night? (WWN) in January, 1968, and continued the publication as Editor until the end of 2006. Elder Grotheer died on May 2, 2009.