December 26, 2021 by The Remnant Herald
“The great waymarks of truth, showing us our bearings in prophetic history, are to be carefully guarded, lest they be torn down, and replaced with theories that would bring confusion rather than genuine light.” Selected Messages, volume 2, p. 101 (Manuscript 31, 1896)
If ever there was an expression of INDELIBLE, UNQUESTIONABLE, ABSOLUTE TRUTH that ought to be accepted uncritically, this quote fits that category —
“Satan is constantly endeavouring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will.” (The Great Controversy, pp. 413, 414. 1884 edition; Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 413)
The peril of placing one’s understanding of truth in the hands of a minister or theologian was vividly portrayed by the enemy himself, who declared:
“The people accept their ministers’ explanations of Scripture, and do not investigate for themselves. Therefore, by working through the ministers, I can control the people according to my will.” (Ibid, p. 340. 1884 edition; Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 338).
One of the most startling acknowledgments made in recent decades with regards to doubts and uncertainties that engulf many a theological mind came from none other than Dr. Desmond Ford himself. Whatever the context and intent of his remarks, they highlight how destructive it is, in the name of scholastic freedom, to quibble and speculate over God’s Word:
“No sensible person looks for infallibility in the doctrinal structure of any church. That would be impossible. At the close of a series of more than 100 hours of instruction in one debatable field, I once told my students: ‘Half of what I have told you is wrong, but I don’t know which half.’ Teachers and church leaders at best are only one-eyed leaders of the blind.” Spectrum, November 1988, p. 61. Auburn, California.
It was such lectures by Dr. Ford at Avondale College that alarmed “The Concerned Brethren” — a group of lay people, retired ministers, evangelists, and administrators in Australia who warned our people from the 1970s until their deaths regarding the doctrinal apostasy of the New Theology. In December 1975, they wrote to the leadership of the Australasian Division, declaring:
“We, the undersigned, retired ministers and laymen of the Church, wish to humbly express to you our very deep concern regarding the downward trend of the teaching being given to our trainee ministers at Avondale College — our future leaders.
“At a meeting of some of the responsible and representative older men held recently, many disturbing proofs were cited, concerning the distortions of truth that are being taught these young people. Brethren, we are deeply concerned for the safety of the church of God. There is an attempted shift in the foundations, and we fear that ere long, a tremendous split might well take place in the Church. This must be avoided at any cost, while avoiding a compromise of truth. Subjects such as: righteousness by faith; the age of the earth; the inspiration of the Scriptures; the seventieth week of Daniel; the two-apartment sanctuary in heaven; the Spirit of Prophecy, and a number of other subjects including the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, as believed and taught by the pioneers of this Church, are being undermined by those who lean towards modernist teachings and worldly scholarship in the Theology Department at Avondale.
“As retired workers and church officers, we feel that the established Seventh-day Adventist Church is being white-anted and if not checked immediately, disastrous results will accrue…Our earnest prayer is that God will give you great wisdom and direction, as you consider what should be done to avoid the greatest crisis in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the Australasian Division.” The Remnant Herald, February 2001, p. 957
In the field of prophetic exposition (which this article shall be confined to), Pastor Llewellyn Jones (a retired minister from Melbourne, Australia) was the first of “The Concerned Brethren” to publicly document Dr. Ford’s revisions to key verses in Daniel and Revelation. In 1974, Pastor Jones issued a thin booklet, A Review of Dr. D. Ford’s “New Teaching” on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel, warning the reader —
“That it is highly questionable whether Adventist theological students can immerse themselves in the exegesis of Futurist scholars without, at least to some extent, embracing the presuppositions on which that false exegesis is built.” Page 6. Burnside Press. Wahroonga, Sydney, Australia. 1974
Years of exposure to the writings and teachings of theologians from different denominations (including those of the late Professor F. F. Bruce, the famous Plymouth Brethren intellectual, from whom Dr. Ford received a doctorate of philosophy degree in New Testament studies in 1972, after spending 24 months at Manchester University, England) molded Des Ford’s thinking away from historic Adventism. In the field of eschatology (the study of last day events), his conclusions were diametrically opposed to what the Seventh-day Adventist movement has taught from its infancy, as these examples clearly reveal:
• The Man of Sin (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
“We have also noticed that many things can be said with certainty regarding what Antichrist is not. He is not any past personage. He belongs to the future and not to history.” The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology, p. 246. Manchester University. Manchester, United Kingdom. July 1972
“In a bygone polemical era, Protestants assumed this usage in 2 Thessalonians and thereby found an effective club to batter the papal antichrist. This view, however, ignored not only the eschatological setting of 2 Thessalonians 2, but also the truth that the Christian church must cease to be such once the Antichrist becomes its tenant.” Ibid, pp. 248, 249
• Little Horn (Daniel 8:9), Vile Person (Daniel 11:21)
“…only Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled the chief specifications of Daniel 8’s little horn, and the vile person of Daniel 11. All other fulfillments, such as pagan and papal Rome, are fulfillments in principle rather than in detail.” Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement and The Investigative Judgment, p. 469. Evangelion Press. Casselberry, Florida. 1980
• Year-Day Principle (Genesis 29:27; Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6)
“It is quite impossible to prove that the year-day principle is a biblical datum.” Ministry, October 1980
• Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:24-27)
“We feel it unwise to take a literal approach to the numbers and dates of Daniel 9:24-27.” Good News For Adventists, p. 36. Good News Unlimited. Auburn, California. 1985
• Deadly Wound/Papacy/Antichrist (Revelation 13)
“Thus Revelation 13:3 is an illusion to Christ’s victory over Satan at the cross…1798 meant nothing whatsoever to the Christians of John’s time; it means little to us today!…Let us notice how historicism limits the symbol of Antichrist. Undoubtedly, the papacy of the Middle Ages, with its blasphemous claims, persecuting tendencies, and internal corruption, was a fulfilment of the Antichrist prophecies. But it certainly did not exhaust the Antichrist symbol. We must not give the papacy that much credit! … Adventism’s limited understanding of Antichrist is seen also in its interpretation of Daniel 7-9, and Revelation 13-14, 17-18.” Ibid, p. 5
The historical development of prophetic interpretation in the Christian era (particularly by the Waldenses, the Reformers and the Millerites) — meticulously documented in LeRoy Froom’s four-volume series, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Review and Herald Publishing Association, Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. 1946-1954) — was devalued by Dr. Ford. The New Theology, having disannulled the weight of evidence in support of Adventism’s Protestant expositions on the “Antichrist,” categorically dismisses the unfolding of current events in relation to the papacy as having any prophetic significance for the people of God in the closing stages of this earth’s history:
(Quoting Dr. Ford): “Christians of the first century had a fairly good idea of what John the Revelator was saying. They understood him to be addressing events in their era, not nineteen centuries beyond. Secondly, historicism ignores the fact that prophetic symbols are deliberately impressionistic so they have recurring situations elsewhere in history. Thirdly, historicism fails to see that apocalyptic literature (like Daniel and Revelation) does not claim to set forth a detailed blueprint for 2000 years of history. On the contrary, everything foretold could have been speedily fulfilled to the generation which first read its pages.” Ibid, p. 19.
Dr. Ford claimed majority support from his theological peers for the positions he espoused, but his beliefs on such points (mirroring those of fallen Protestantism) were in defiance of the Spirit of Prophecy:
“The light that Daniel received from God was given especially for these last days…The very name ‘Revelation’ contradicts the statement that it is a sealed book. ‘Revelation’ means that something of importance is revealed. The truths of this book are addressed to those living in the last days.” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, pp. 112, 113
“All need wisdom carefully to search out the mystery of iniquity that figures so largely in the winding up of this earth’s history…He has called them to expose the wickedness of the man of sin who has made the Sunday law a distinctive power, who has thought to change times and laws…” Ibid, p. 118
“Each of the ancient prophets spoke less for their own time than for ours, so that their prophesying is in force for us.” Selected Messages, volume 3, p. 338 (Letter 74a, 1897)
In light of all this, it was inevitable that Dr. Ford had much to say in disagreement with Sister White:
“Despite E.G. White’s confirmation of the Lisbon earthquake, the Dark Day, and the falling of the stars as a fulfilment of Christ’s predictive Olivet discourse, they are no longer relevant signs to our generation of the nearness of His coming. The allusions to these events in The Great Controversy are an application suitable for the people first addressed — Adventists of the nineteenth century.” Ministry, October 1980
At this juncture, the reader may be tempted to ask: what’s the point of going through all this history on Dr. Ford? It is because the New Theology has evolved from that era to promote more erroneous ideas that negate our prophetic message. How? By claiming that our views on Revelation 13 are totally out of date, that Sunday laws are not likely to be a feature of end-time events, and in some circles, it is even stated that God Himself is not able to foresee and foretell the future!
THE BIBLE SAYS: “The dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure…for it is written…” Daniel 2:45; Matthew 4:10.
When one engages in dismantling the framework of truth, there is no telling how far that work of apostasy will go, as we have seen over the last several decades.
The balance of this article will address present reappraisals on prophecy in three contested areas:
— Open Theism (God cannot predict the future)
— Papacy/Sunday Laws Not a Feature of the End Times
— The Great Controversy a 19th Century Perspective
—————————-
Open Theism is a modern theological term invented by Seventh-day Adventist scholar Dr. Richard Rice. In 1980, Dr. Rice’s book, The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will, was published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association, in which he advocated this theory. Open Theism teaches us that the future is open to various potentialities — beyond any definite knowledge of God — because it is yet to be fulfilled. It is a point of debate that has been waged for centuries — the apparent friction between man’s freewill and God’s omniscience (all-knowing capacity).
The late Pastor Bob Trefz (formerly the editor of Freedom’s Ring and Cherith Chronicle) refuted this heresy of Open Theism most convincingly:
“The theological problem of freedom versus foreknowledge is resolved immediately when one looks at it from the perspective of God, not man, and from the very name, I AM. God lives in a different dimension than man. God preserves man’s freedom, but because God sees the future like we see the present, He knows in advance the decisions that man, in his freedom, will make. Therefore God knows in minute detail what the future will be and, on that basis, God gave John on Patmos the accurate picture of what will transpire at the end of time.” Cherith Chronicle, March-April 2016, p. 17. Woodland, Washington.
As good as this rebuttal is, we need not rely on the words of a man to resolve this so-called enigma. Scripture and Inspiration can answer this challenge.
“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.” Isaiah 46:9, 10
(See also Isaiah 42:9; Jeremiah 1:5; Daniel 2:28)
“I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike to God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things that are transpiring daily.” Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, volume 1, p. 1099 (Manuscript 5a, 1895)
“Before Him who ruleth in the heavens, the mysteries of the past and the future are alike outspread…” Signs of the Times, February 13, 1893
“To Christ, the present and the future, the near and the far, were one.” The Watchman, February 11, 1908
This truth is clearly evident when one reads about the tears Jesus wept for Jerusalem as He foresaw the destruction of the city at the hands of the Romans (Luke 19:41-44) and the future of the Jewish people in the millennia ahead —
“What, then, was the grief of Him WHOSE PROPHETIC GLANCE TOOK IN NOT YEARS, BUT AGES?” The Great Controversy, p. 21. 1884 edition. (Capitalization supplied by the Editor)
Tragically, the heresy that denies God the capacity to have a perfect knowledge of the future whilst preserving our liberty to choose our own destiny has well and truly infiltrated Adventism. According to Pastor David Larson (the son of the late stalwart for truth, Pastor Ralph Larson), Open Theism was first brought into the Church through the lecture classes of Dr. Jack Provonsha at Loma Linda University around 1957 (website of Spectrum: Richard Rice Discusses Open Theism. Blog — November 11, 2007). Other men began to teach this error in the leading universities of the denomination. Pastor Bob Trefz wrote of his own personal encounter with Open Theism in the early 1970s:
“There was a new heresy that was sweeping the world of theology when I was at the Seminary [Andrews University] — that God does not know the future, that God can be surprised. I remember William Johnsson, later the Editor of the Adventist Review, propounding this theory at the Seminary.” Cherith Chronicle, March-April 2016, p. 18. Woodland, Washington
Dr. Jon Paulien (left) with Dr. Desmond Ford at Campus Hill Church, Loma Linda on September 2008.
Shades of this error have also been linked with aspects of the “apotelesmatic principle” (regarding eschatology — it is open to varying degrees and times of fulfilment and different methods of interpretation). A flawed impression is left in the mind that somehow God is not able to provide a clear, definite outline of events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. Dr. Jon Paulien, an avid supporter of Dr. Desmond Ford’s theology, delivered a talk in 2015 in his capacity as professor of religion at Loma Linda University, entitled, Revelation 13 and the Papacy — Bible Prophecy and the Pope’s Visit. In his lecture, Dr. Paulien declared that end-time events are akin to a blank page — “prophecy is not a done deal.” In Dr. Paulien’s mind, the last days are so opaque that there is even room for the Catholic Church to experience a spiritual revival! Thus, Revelation 13 may be fulfilled in a totally different way!
“And the good news for the Catholic Church is that while I believe that Revelation 13 indicates that the papacy of the Middle Ages — the way I look at it, that’s the way I see it — that is sort of the poster child for everything that has gone wrong with the Christian church through the ages, does seem to suggest that it’ll have a rebirth at the end of time…God is not done with the Catholic Church, and God is not done with the pope…So don’t be too proud that you are on the right side of prophecy and don’t be too condemnatory of those who are on the other side, because HISTORY ISN’T FINISHED YET…
“THAT FUTURE IS NOT WRITTEN YET.” Ibid, pp. 12, 13. (Capitalization supplied by the Editor)
Dr. Ian Paisley at the European Parliament, Strasbourg, France on October 11, 1988.
These sentiments reveal that Dr. Paulien is now deliberately engaged, like Dr. Ford before him, in dismantling the prophetic structure of Adventism. Dr. Paulien may be highly embarrassed if a Dr. Ian Paisley were to appear at one of his talks and boldly assert his beliefs about Rome, as did the Irish Unionist leader at the European Parliament in October 1988, when he proclaimed in a booming voice to Pope John Paul II:
“I refuse you as Christ’s enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrine.” Website of The Huffington Post (United Kingdom): Watch the Moment Ian Paisley Called Pope John Paul II “The Antichrist.” September 12, 2014
Like Dr. Ford, Dr. Paulien limits the Church of Rome in the Middle Ages as having a fulfilment in Bible prophecy, but not the full scope of it down through time to the end. Like Dr. Ford, Dr. Paulien curtails our biblical focus on Rome through the use of the apotelesmatic principle in revising prophecy. Like Dr. Ford (quoting from The Star, March 15, 1982. Christchurch, New Zealand) —
“A new movement within the Seventh-day Adventist Church was bringing it much closer to the mainline evangelical churches, a prominent California-based Adventist theologian, Dr. Desmond Ford, said.”
—Dr. Paulien is working to deliver a more “inclusive approach to different faiths,’ claiming that “the negative messages of Revelation 13 … [are] not at the core of what it means to be an Adventist Christian.” One person in the audience at Loma Linda in 2015 (during the visit of Pope Francis to the United States) understood exactly where Dr. Paulien was coming from:
“…don’t you feel that, rather than preaching the end-time, biblical Seventh-day Adventist prophetical message that we have all come to hear about or know what’s going on as far as the pope — the Jesuit pope’s interest in America, haven’t you just preached an ecumenical, World Council of Churches, let’s all get along — let’s not talk about Revelation 13 Seventh-day Adventist prophecy, but let’s just kind of Lutheran World Conference — we’re all going to be one, and maybe the Adventists are wrong. I feel like I think though it was well intended, I think it did the opposite effect.” Cherith Chronicle, March-April 2016, p. 11
Upon reading this, we should not be surprised to see Dr. Paulien now advocating that Sunday laws may not be a feature of end-time events in the 21st century — they could have happened in the 19th-century as delineated in The Great Controversy when it was first published. The inference that The Great Controversy is only a 19th-century Adventist perspective on eschatology is one that was claimed as such by Desmond Ford, Reinder Brunisma (Adventist Today, November 7, 2018), and Robert Brinsmead. As a case in point, Bob Brinsmead belittled The Great Controversy by contending that –
“The Great Controversy is so saturated with a nineteenth-century world view that much of it is credible only to the reader who has first accepted Mrs. White as a prophet. This book is convincing only to Adventists. It tends to be more cultic than any of the books Mrs. White wrote for the public.” Judged By the Gospel, p. 193. Verdict Publications. Fallbrook, California. Second Printing. November 1980
Dr. Paulien joins an increasingly long line of pastors and theologians who have sapped the confidence of our people in The Great Controversy. By claiming that the deferment of the fulfilment of a prophecy therefore mandates a change in its interpretation (quoting from The Coming Sunday Law Dilemma Featuring Jon Paulien. YouTube — October 31, 2020) —
Minute 30: “As circumstances change, the fulfilment of Revelation 13 could take other forms than the ones that seemed so clear in 1888.”
— Dr. Paulien relegates The Great Controversy to the dustbin of irrelevancy, to the “historical trash heap”!
Minute 27: “…we should be careful not to assume that the end-time will be identical to Great Controversy in every detail.”
Minute 28: “The idea of a worldwide Sunday law made a lot of sense back then. The world was quite different than today.”
Minute 30: “Great Controversy fits perfectly with exactly what was happening in the world in the 1880s.”
Minute 41: “What she was describing in Great Controversy was about her present and her near future.”
Sister White made it abundantly clear that the end-time issues outlined in The Great Controversy are relevant for the very last days — meaning, not restricted just to her era! Note also her statement about Sunday:
“The Great Controversy should be very widely circulated. It contains the story of the past, the present, and the future. In its outline of the closing scenes of this earth’s history, it bears a powerful testimony on behalf of the truth. I am more anxious to see a wide circulation of this book than for any others I have written; for in The Great Controversy, the last message of warning to the world is given more distinctly than in any of my other books.” Colporteur Ministry, p. 127 (Letter 281, 1905)
“The substitution of the laws of men for the law of God, the exaltation, by merely human authority, of Sunday in place of the Bible Sabbath, is the last act in the drama. When this substitution becomes universal, God will reveal Himself. He will arise in His majesty to shake terribly the earth. He will come out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the world for their iniquity, and the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.” Testimonies for the Church, volume 7, p. 141
In Australia, a pastor from the Victorian Conference followed the thinking of Dr. Paulien in an article published in the Adventist Record, July 20, 2021, entitled, “Present-Truth and Predicting The Future: Have Adventists Got It Wrong?” He cited Jonah and Nineveh as a central case in demonstrating how prophecy is susceptible to conditionality. A salient point, though, was ignored in the delivery of this argument — deferment of a prophecy’s fulfiment does not give license to a new interpretation of the original prediction! Nineveh was still destroyed (as foretold in Nahum 3:7, 19), approximately 170 years after Jonah’s warnings of doom; the children of Israel did eventually occupy the promised land in fulfillment of the prophecy spoken to Abraham (Genesis 13:14-17), although they experienced a delay of forty years (Numbers 14:34). With regards to the Sunday law crisis of the 19th-century, the following caveat is not once referred to by those who now teach that our views on Revelation 13 need to be revised:
“But this need not be, JUST AT THIS POINT IN TIME, if the church is aroused to her duty and her work. A vast responsibility is devolving upon men and women of prayer throughout the land, to petition that God may sweep back this cloud of evil and give us a few more years of grace to work for the Master.” Review and Herald Extra, December 11, 1888 (Capitalization supplied by the Editor)
The omission of any reference to the efforts of some of our leading brethren who answered the call to exert their efforts on behalf of religious liberty (notably A.T. Jones, who testified before U.S. Senator H.W. Blair in Washington, D.C., in December 1888, against a Sunday closure bill sponsored by the senator [it was subsequently defeated, in large part, due to A.T. Jones’ superb rebuttals]) deprives our people of knowing one of the reasons why Sunday laws were not enacted over a century ago. Furthermore, our current generation of believers are wholly ignorant of this statement made by the pen of Inspiration in 1901 as to why there has been such a long delay in the Lord’s return:
“We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel; but for Christ’s sake, His people should add sin to sin by charging God with the consequence of their own wrong course of action.” Evangelism, p. 696 (Letter 184, 1901)
The delay in the fulfillment of a predicted event does not amount to a change of the event itself! This principle, though, is rejected out of hand by the New Theology. Pastors, theologians, and conference officials are now telling our people that what the servant of the Lord wrote about end-time events needs to be qualified at virtually every single turn!
“It would go against both the guidance of Scripture and Ellen White herself if we were to suppress our study of Bible prophecy based on a conditional nineteenth century end-game and feel that we have it all figured out…We cannot base our interpretation of it [Revelation 13:11-17] on Ellen White’s end-time scenarios that were conditional upon developments in her day…Given that her outlook on the last days was based on conditions that were clearly not met, we need to factor this in when reading what she said regarding the end times.” Adventist Record, July 20, 2021
These comments mirror those of Dr. Paulien who, in turn, was very much influenced by the theology of Dr. Ford. In 1970, Claude Thompson, a professor at that time from Chandler School of Theology (USA), delivered a very sobering assessment that is worth noting:
“We should take a look at theological seminaries. They may be doing more harm than good.” Quoted in The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism, p. 150. James V. Heidinger II. Seedbed Publishing. Franklin, Tennessee. 2017
The title of the above book could easily be adapted to what has transpired in Adventism for over 60 years. Denominational leaders who met in Takoma Park for the 1973 Annual Council uttered this timely warning:
“One of the greatest threats to our institutions of higher learning is seen in the counterfeit philosophies and theologies that may be unconsciously absorbed in worldly institutions by our future teachers and brought back as the ‘wine’ of Babylon to Adventist schools (Revelation 14:8-10; 18:1-4).” Australasian Record, April 29, 1974
The fruit of believing the error of the New Theology is the destruction of our confidence in the “more sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1:19). Let us resolve not to put our trust in erring men, but only in the word of God!
About The Remnant Herald: The Remnant Herald is an Australian publication produced by Remnant Ministries. The current editor and author is Elvis Placer, and we have reproduced this article with his permission. You can contact Elvis Placer through email at rh1844@pm.me or call the office clerk at +61 3 9706 2173 to request a FREE subscription to the Remnant Herald.
PHOTO CREDITS
First photo: Shutterstock
Second photo: Personal
Third photo: Shutterstock
Fourth photo: Noelrt
Fifth photo: Watchman Africa
© 2014-2023 Advent Messenger | All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment