Go, and Sin No More.

Psa_25:11  For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.

Isa_55:7  Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Jas 4:8  Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. 

Jas 4:9  Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. 

Jas 4:10  Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. 

1Ti 1:15  This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 

1Ti 1:16  Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. 

*******

Our relation to the Government while we are in that position, and our relation to the means of our restoration, should be considered with great carefulness and candor.

VII. THE SINNER MUST ACCEPT, NOT MAKE, CONDITIONS

This proposition must be evident to all, for 1. Treason is the highest crime. He who commits murder takes a life, but he who seeks to subvert the law, seeks the destruction of life’s safeguard, of that which is to protect life by preventing and punishing crime. Hence, it is the aggregation of all crimes.

2. The Government has the sole right to free there from. By this is meant that the Government has the sole right to dictate the terms or conditions by which rebels may be restored to citizenship.

This is true, also, in regard to all crimes for which pardon is desired. And this right, Government ought to exercise. No criminal has any right to dictate the terms of his own pardon, or the means by which he may be restored to the favor of the Government.

And no one who has any regard for violated rights, for down-trodden justice, for the sacred principles of law and order, could be willing to see the traitor unconditionally restored to place and favor. No Government would be safe pursuing such a course; neither could it command respect.

3. He who will not accept the conditions is a traitor still. If the Government has the sole right to dictate terms to rebels, which all

The Atonement - 34

must allow, then the transgressor can only change his relation to the Government by accepting those terms; and if he refuses to accept them, he, of course, persists in maintaining his position in rebellion. Or to substitute terms of his own would be no better, but rather an insult to the Government, a denial of its right and authority. If a criminal were to dictate how crimes should be treated, government would be a farce and become the contempt of honest men.

Therefore two things must be required of a transgressor or rebel, which only can be accepted, to wit:—

1. UNQUALIFIED SUBMISSION TO THE LAWS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSGRESSED, and,

2. A HEARTY ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN OR CONDITIONS OFFERED FOR HIS RESTORATION.

An objection is often urged against this view, viz., that if a substitute be accepted and the penalty of the law be laid upon him, then there is no pardon—no mercy, but justice only in the transaction. For, says the objector, if the debt be paid by another person, it cannot justly be held against the principal; payment cannot be twice demanded. The fatal fault of this objection is this: It regards crime as a debt, which it is not.

A man may owe a debt without any guilt attaching to him; but not so of sin. In the very first step there is mercy toward the sinner in the acceptance of a substitute in his behalf; and after the substitute has suffered the penalty, the sinner is as deserving of punishment in his own person as he was before. He has done nothing to relieve himself of the odium of his crime. All must see, at a glance, that what has been said about the acceptance of conditions is a necessary part of this system of pardon, as the Government not only needs satisfaction for the past, but a safeguard for the future.

This the mere payment of a past debt would not furnish. Therefore the acceptance of a substitute who volunteers to bear the penalty of crime opens the way for pardon to be granted consistently with justice. Now if the criminal accepts that substitute so as to make the offering his own, and fulfills the required conditions, so that he unites his efforts with those of the substitute in honoring the law, then the Government has its safeguard against future rebellion. But without this, all the evils of

- 35 - J. H. Waggoner

unconditional pardon may accrue from the action of the sinner, even though a substitute have suffered in his behalf. But if the law be honored by the suffering of the substitute, and the sinner cease to sin, and accept the conditions, as herein proposed, there remains no difficulty. The Government is honored in the justice of the transaction, and the sinner is justified and saved by its provisions of mercy. But if any of these particulars be lacking, the system will then be defective.

Pardon granted on any other terms tends to iniquity, violating the principles of right and justice, and subverting government.1 It is unnecessary to argue, but well to mention, that a substitute, to render satisfaction to justice, must be free from condemnation in his own life; he must be innocent in the sight of the law, or free from its transgression. For one criminal to offer his life for another would not be any satisfaction to justice, seeing his own was already forfeited.

RIGHTS OF SUBJECTS

While advocating the claims of the Government, we must not lose sight of the truth that the subjects have claims on justice also. As very much is due from the subjects to the Government, so something is due from the Government to the subjects. It is expected of a Government to establish its laws, and of the subjects to obey them;

The Atonement - 36

1. This is a necessary deduction from the very plain facts set forth in this argument. There are two theological systems extant which stand opposed to these principles; one, claiming that man may and will be saved without accepting and complying with conditions, or without substitution. This is Universalism, which really denies the Atonement. The other is Antinomianism, which claims that the law is abolished when the Atonement is made, instead of being honored and vindicated by it. Both these systems are denials of justice, and tend to subvert the principles of government as established by reason and the Scriptures. But as these principles lie at the very foundation of the divine Government, the above systems are, though professedly Christian, practically infidel. but it should be able to present tangible and substantial claims to obedience. We notice, then,

1. The Government must plainly reveal its laws. It is recorded of a certain tyrant that he caused his laws to be posted at such a height that they could not be read, and then punished those who did not keep them. This was injustice—it was indeed tyranny. It is law that defines our duty; and in order that obedience may be justly enforced, such declaration of duty should be clear and distinct: not left to supposition, or to doubtful inference. We have before considered that a moral government, a system above nature, is acknowledged; but what is due to that government our consciousness, or moral sense, does not inform us. On this point, our opinions, if not guided by revelation, will be as various as our impulses, our interests, or the difference of our circumstances and education. But if our duties be left to our own judgments, with our conflicting feelings and interests, our determinations will be so various that confusion and anarchy must unavoidably be the result. It would in truth be no law—no government. Was ever a government known that proclaimed no laws, but left all actions entirely to the choice of the subjects?

No! there could be no government under such conditions. Shall we then admit that God, the Creator of heaven and earth, is a moral Governor, and this we do by admitting a moral system, and yet deny his justice, his wisdom, and, in fact, his very government, by denying the revelation of his will, or law, to man? Such a denial is too unreasonable to be tolerated; it involves conclusions too absurd and derogatory to the divine character. It is really sinking Deity below our ideas of a wise human governor. But again: As it is the prerogative of the Government to ordain its laws, so it is its sole prerogative, prerogative, as we have seen, to determine the means whereby a rebel may be restored to citizenship, and as the law must be plainly revealed to serve the purposes of justice, so,

2. The Government must plainly reveal the conditions of pardon. The right to ordain conditions being exclusively in the Government, the subjects or offenders can have no means of ascertaining them, except by direct revelation. If left without this, they can never be

- 37 - J. H. Waggoner

restored; for it would be absurd to leave the offenders to devise their own means. That would be to place the dearest rights of the Government into the hands of criminals, a thought unworthy of consideration. In all this we plainly see that one demand of justice is a written revelation. And so reasonable is this, so consistent with the plainest principles of justice, that, instead of objecting to a written revelation, every one that is capable of reasoning correctly should expect such a revelation, as strictly necessary to the moral Government of God.s

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT-AN EXAMINATION OF A REMEDIAL SYSTEM IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND REVELATION.  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

Crimes Pardoned.

Isa_53:5  But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

(Excerpt) 

(Continued from yesterday…)

Closely examining this subject we find,

IV. WHAT THE GOVERNOR MUST DO IN GRANTING PARDON 

He must do one of the following things:— 1. Disregard the strict claims of law and justice. But this, of course, is evil in its tendency, giving license to crime, and favoring lawlessness, rather than restraining it, which latter must remain the true object of government. This, indeed, is the very thing we have all the time been guarding against. We cannot admit this, it being dangerous to the Government. Because if the claims of the law may be disregarded in one case, they may be in many—they may be in all; and then government is at an end. And if the executive sets the example of disregarding the claims of the law, others may thereby be led to follow his example, or all may; and the result is the same—lawlessness and anarchy. And all this from following the example of him who occupies the throne of justice! The very thought is, in the highest degree, abhorrent.

Only one way remains possible by which pardon may be granted without trampling on justice, and endangering the Government; that is 2. Make satisfaction to the law by voluntary substitution. If the substitution be voluntary, so that the substitute be satisfied, and the full penalty of the law be inflicted, so that the law and justice be satisfied, all must be satisfied—all conflicting interests and feelings must be reconciled. Let  no one  say,  to oppose this, that such is not the case when pardon is granted in human Governments; for these are imperfect, and instead of conforming strictly to justice they can only hope to approximate it. The interests above referred to are never harmonized in human Governments. In these, if the prisoner is punished less than the penalty indicated by the law, then the law is deprived just so much of its due. In such case, justice is not

The Atonement - 30

reconciled or vindicated; it is suspended. All must see at a glance that the means herein proposed alone obviates all difficulties. Let us further examine its effects.

V. VOLUNTARY SUBSTITUTION,

1. Recognizes the claims of law. We have supposed substitution wherein all parties are satisfied—all conflicts reconciled. But if the law were unjust, if the accused were not really guilty of a wrong, the act of condemning would be tyrannical. There could then be no satisfaction, either to justice, or to the condemned, or to his substitute. Hence, to obtain the desired result, there must be acquiescence in the justness of the proceeding, which is a recognition of the justice of the law which condemned.

2. It honors and maintains the Government. It must be admitted that every infringement on the claims of law, every departure from strict justice, is a violation of common rights, and endangers the Government. Whatever honors and vindicates the claims of law and justice, tends to maintain the Government; and of course to vindicate personal rights under it. This voluntary substitution does, as has been shown.

3. It dispenses mercy, which could not otherwise be offered consistently with the great principles of right and justice. Hence, all the objects of government—justice and mercy, truth and love, —meet in this arrangement. This is precisely the idea of an Atonement—not a thing to be deprecated, as some have vainly imagined, but to be loved and esteemed, as a certain vindication of right and justice, and a beneficent dispensation of love and mercy. In the examination of principles thus far we have found that the Atonement affects our relation to the Government in two respects, looking to the past and to the future. To the past, in that it frees from condemnation for past offenses; and to the future, in that it recognizes the claims of the law, thus binding us to future obedience to the law. But some affect to discover no harmony between these objects, though it is plain that a proposed Atonement which should lose sight

- 31 - J. H. Waggoner  

Of either of these would fail to unite justice and mercy; it would leave the sinner condemned, or dishonor the Government. It may, however, be noticed further,

VI. WHY AN ATONEMENT IS NECESSARY

1. Future obedience will not justify the guilty.

To argue this seems hardly necessary, as it has been shown that justice and mercy meet in no way but by an Atonement.

But some deny the use, by which it is presumed they mean the necessity, or justness, of obeying a law which will not justify the guilty. But the deficiency lies only in their own oversight. They make no distinction between justifying the innocent and the guilty.

The innocent are justified by law; the guilty cannot be.

But the innocent are justified by law only if they remain innocent; that is, if they continue to obey.

While the transgressor, already condemned, is not freed from condemnation of past offense by future obedience.

In this, no more is claimed than is settled as a principle of action in legal and even in commercial transactions. He who killed, last year, cannot offer in justification that he has not killed, this year. The judge has no right to listen to the plea of the thief, that he has not recently stolen, while the evidence of his past guilt is clear. It does not release a man from a past debt to pay for what he buys to-day. Present justice and present morality simply answer a present demand, leaving the past unsettled. But we have a question to ask to those who think it is not required to keep a law because it will not justify the transgressor.

If the law condemns a thief, and he can only be cleared by pardon, does the granting of a pardon release him from obligation to keep the law, and leave him free to steal thereafter?

2. We have no ransom to bring.

The demand of the Government is obedience; and the duty is perpetual.

Any cessation or suspension is a break in the chain that we cannot restore. We cannot on one day perform the duties of another, in such a manner as to suspend obligations on that other day. Presenting this idea on a moral basis purely, we will be better able to appreciate it. The obligation to love God with all our heart binds us every day of our life. Suppose we fail on one day, it would be absurd to say we could make amends by

The Atonement - 32

another day’s obedience; for that would be to love God that other day with more than all the heart, so as to apply some of our superabundance of love to the past! Hence the transgressor could not save himself, even though he retained all his original strength to obey; but the following truth is well known:—

3. We are incapacitated by immoral practices.

In this, appeal is made to the consciousness of every candid, reflecting mind. We all acknowledge ourselves to be subjects of temptation, and often find in ourselves a proneness to do that which our convictions forbid. If we allow ourselves to do wrong, these feelings become still stronger, and we are less able to resist the temptation. Wrong-doing becomes a habit, hard to resist or overcome. Thus, he who has a moderate desire to drink ardent spirits will find that desire greatly strengthened by indulgence and it will finally, if indulged too far, bring him completely under its control. This is the tendency of all wrong-doing. Now we all feel conscious of having done more or less wrong; and it is but reasonable to say we have done more than we are conscious of, inasmuch as we have not been sufficiently tenacious of the right, nor very watchful to observe our own wrongs. And, according to the plain truth herein stated, we have become weak according to the wrong we have done, and so much the more need the assistance of a third party to set us right with the power we have offended.

An Atonement must not only unite justice and mercy, and reconcile the transgressor to the law, but the perpetuity and stability of the Government should be the first consideration, as they are first in importance in our relations and duties, because on them the perpetuity of all private relations and rights depends. We all assent to this, that public good should be held paramount to private interest. But these only come in conflict when we place ourselves in opposition to the Government. Hence, if our interest conflicts with the Government, which is the conservator of general rights, it is proved to be a selfish interest. For, had we honored and sustained the Government in our lives or actions, it would justify or sustain us; but if our rights are forfeited by disobedience, wherein is the Government to blame? Because the transgressor has sacrificed his

- 33 - J. H. Waggoner

own rights, it is not therefore reasonable to ask that justice be dishonored, and the rights of others be sacrificed for his benefit. As right should be the first consideration in all transactions, the interest of the Government, which is right, should certainly be held paramount to the good of the transgressor, who is wrong. Therefore, in making an Atonement, the upholding of law—the maintaining of governmental authority—should be held as of the first importance. This is the only manner in which an Atonement can honor the Government in behalf of which it is made.

By a single violation of law, we forfeit our rights and privileges; but by persisting in such violation, or inducing others so to do, and thus disregarding the authority of law, we take the rank of rebels or traitors against the Government. Our relation to the Government while we are in that position, and our relation to the means of our restoration, should be considered with great carefulness and candor.

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT-AN EXAMINATION OF A REMEDIAL SYSTEM IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND REVELATION.  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

(((NOTE-by me, the one posting the excerpt:

In our world today we have governmental pardons. It's not unusual for a president to pardon certain people. Some presidents have pardoned more than others, but it's something that has become expected.  When a president pardons someone they are freed from prison, freed from the rest of their punishment that fit the crime they were guilty of. Has their pardon given them license to go commit further crimes? No. But their undeserved pardon has given them something many criminals long for… getting out of serving their just sentence. And yes, I'm using the example of a just punishment not someone wrongly convicted etc.  Often we hear of early releases of prisoners because of good behavior. Has their behavior absolved them of the guilt and need to be punished for what they did? Not really. Our system is completely imperfect. To those the criminal harmed in the course of their crime, they feel cheated of justice when a criminal is let go early. My grandfather was murdered and his murderer was convicted and his supposed 25 to life was a lot less than 25 to life… his early parole was a blow to our family who wanted the man who took the life of our beloved grandfather to at least serve the time given him for punishment. No, the time given would not ever really pay for the life of our grandfather, but it was better than the man going unpunished entirely.

In God's perfect government things are much different.

No one stepped up and said they'd serve the rest of my grandfather's murderer's sentence. No one offered to continue to pay for the crime. In fact the crime's demand for punishment has not been fully met, but rather just left undone.

In God's perfect government- every single crime, every single violation of His law will be answered for in one way or another. Not a single offense will be left unattended to. We cannot hide our guilt, we cannot absolve our own guilt, we are unable to atone for what we've done. The pardon for our crimes is our only hope. We won't deserve it, we can't deserve it, and our pardon unlike those of our own government, will be satisfied in that the crime committed will not go unanswered. Our pardon will come only as Another chooses to suffer for what we have done.

I'm going to stop here because I don't want to get ahead of the studying we are doing.   May God help us ALL to comprehend the truth of His Word, the truth of His Love, all through the Holy Spirit guiding us. In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, our Savior! ))))

Sin, Punishment, Pardon.

(Excerpt)

We will now proceed, as briefly as possible, to examine some of the well-known and well-accepted claims and requirements of government.

I. SIN OUGHT TO BE PUNISHED

Penalty gives force to the law, and without it, law is a nullity. And no matter what consequences may result from the violation of law, the criminal is not punished till the penalty is inflicted. We might find many cases in our courts where the accused has suffered consequences more severe than the punishment which the law inflicts; but the judge cannot regard these—his office is to see that the penalty prescribed by the law be inflicted. He who violates the law risks the penalty and the intermediate consequences. In behalf of the affirmation that the transgression of the law ought to be punished, the following reasons are offered:— 1. It injures the subjects of the Government. One great object of government is the good of its subjects. The imprisonment of the thief, the robber, and the murderer, answers a double purpose, punishing the crimes, and preventing their further praying upon our property and our lives. The same law that restrains the evil-doer,

The Atonement - 26

secures the rights of the well-doer. Hence, every violation of the law of a Government is an invasion of the rights of the subjects thereof. Its tendency will be more clearly seen if we imagine for a moment that the law be disregarded by not one only, but by many, or by all. Then all rights, all safeguards, would be trampled down, and the objects of government entirely defeated. This, of course, is the tendency of every transgression. 2. It brings contempt upon the Government. In case of war we have seen thousands offer their lives as a sacrifice to uphold the Government and maintain its honor. If it cannot secure respect, it cannot maintain its authority. And if authority be despised, no rights and privileges are safe. All the evils noticed in the preceding paragraph are involved in this. 3. It insults and abuses the Creator and Governor. So blinding is the influence of sin that men despise the authority of God, and insult him daily, without any apparent compunction. All violations of law are insults to, and abuse of, authority. Every individual has rights in his own sphere, and there is no right more sacred than that of the Supreme authority to claim the respect and reverence of the subjects. And if the Governor be not respected, his Government cannot be; and if that be not respected, of course the rights of the subjects under it will not be. Consider again, if this example were followed by all—by all the intelligences of the universe; if all the men on earth and all the angels in Heaven should unite in abusing and insulting the God of Heaven, his Government would be turned into one vast field of anarchy, and individual rights would no longer be recognized. No one could consent that God should suffer such a state of things to continue without making an effort to reclaim the Government, and to maintain and vindicate right laws. Of course all must agree that sin ought to be punished.

II. CAN THE SINNER BE CLEARED?

This question is of the greatest importance, and no one should pass it lightly. All would say at once that the sinner can be cleared; but of necessity something must be involved in securing his

- 27 - J. H. Waggoner

acquittal. It must appear to all that he cannot possibly be cleared unless one of the following things takes place:— 1. The law be suffered to be trampled upon with impunity. This, of course, should not be permitted, for reasons given above; and we may say, will not be permitted, if the executive has a proper sense of right and justice to himself and to his subjects, and requisite power to enforce his authority. But the divine attributes must be a sufficient guarantee to guard this point. 2. The law be abolished. But this would be an acknowledgment of weakness or error on the part of the Government rather than evidence of wrong on the part of the transgressor. Or if the law were not acknowledged to be wrong, nor the Government in error, the case would be equally bad, presenting the pitiable spectacle of a Government abolishing a good law to accommodate a bad subject—one of rebellious tendencies. This would not be restraining sin; it would be rather favoring or licensing sin, and justifying the sinner in his evil course. And it would have a tendency to bring in all the evils of anarchy and ruin that we have considered as the unavoidable results of destroying governmental authority. To suppose that God would act thus is a libel on the wisdom and justice of the King of Heaven which we would not dare to utter. These suppositions are inadmissible. 3. The Governor pardon. This is a prerogative that may, under proper restrictions and conditions, be safely exercised. Therefore we must accept this as the only alternative; as the only means whereby the sinner may escape from the punishment of his crimes. By examining the foregoing points, it will be perceived that the acts of abolishing the law, and pardoning the transgressor, cannot in any case be united. One would be a nullity if both were attempted. This will be better appreciated when we consider the conditions under which pardon may be granted, and how the Government (which must ever be the first and chief concern) will be affected thereby.

(((MY (study giver, not author of above or below excerpt) interjection here--  So many Christians claim to have this pardon offered by God through Jesus Christ His Son and the sacrifice He made to gain that pardon for them.  They acknowledge they are sinners but FALL short in this area quite often. They'll seek forgiveness for any stealing, cheating, lying, they'll lament their lack of God fearing, their vain talking of Him their not worshiping Him but others (self, people, things). They'll even ask for forgiveness for not honoring God on the Sabbath and this is where so incredibly many people fall short.  They have a vague notion of the Sabbath and what it is supposed to be. They ask for and most likely receive forgiveness for breaking the Sabbath in their ignorance, yet we all know that ignorance only lasts as long as there is no opportunity for someone to know the truth. In fact- we here in the U.S.A. have heard it said more than once… Ignorance is NO excuse for breaking the law.  How can that be? If you don't know a law exists how can you be accused of breaking it? You can be accused because you have an obligation to become familiar with the laws in your country. You have an obligation to seek out a source of knowledge that tells you what the laws around you are.  Most people grow up being taught the laws as a matter of course. Parents pass the knowledge down to their children, schools teach the laws in various ways. By the time you're of an age of accountability to the law you are expected to have learned that law. A young child stealing a toy from a store will often be taught a valuable lesson when it's discovered. They will be taught that stealing is wrong and most likely suffer a very light parental punishment. From that point on as they grow older, the punishments for stealing will become much more severe all the way until they are about thirteen or so ( I could be wrong ) when a child of that age steals they could conceivably be sent to a juvenile detention home for punishment. All the laws we are expected to keep are taught to us and there is little use our going before a judge and saying I wasn't taught stealing apples was wrong, I was taught stealing oranges was wrong.  With the acknowledgement of a law existing that can be broken, comes the responsibility to know the details of the law.  If you think that's too much, that we can't be expected to know every single law of our land, it's most likely true because there are laws that we may never have to know because they are convoluted and made in such a way they have little to do with our lives (corporate law for a non-corporate involved person).  We know God's law- the moral ten laws given to us in stone, written by His finger, reiterated by God in the Flesh, Jesus Christ, are binding today- we know this because that's what sin is- breaking God's law. We have no sin without a law telling us we have broken it. Now we have an obligation to make sure we are following those laws not just assuming we are. The man who prides himself in not cheating on his wife, may very well be doing so because he is lusting after many woman he watches on television, or elsewhere. He might think nothing of fantasizing about those women even when he's with his wife, as long as he isn't really touching them he believes he's following the law of not committing adultery.  He's wrong as we well know, and how to we know this? Our Savior revealed the law more fully to us, the heart of that law when He told us to look on a woman to lust after her is adultery too. The clarity of the law, the heart of the law is important so if we stop short and don't study the heart of each law given then we are responsible for not studying, we are responsible for our own ignorance by choosing to remain so. Yes, many people claim Christ's forgiveness and then continue to not even recognize they are still breaking the very laws they are asking forgiveness for breaking.  If a criminal stole a car and was punished for it, then released and immediately stole another car… would they be allowed to be kept free of punishment for that? No. So why do Christians believe after they are pardoned for their sins that they can continue on in those sins without punishment? We have to acknowledge all the laws we are accountable for, not just the laws we find easy to abide by.   Okay, ending my interjection and most likely saying stuff the author of the excerpt will say in His own way.))))

The Atonement - 28

III. PARDON SUPPOSES OR RECOGNIZES,

1. The guilt of the condemned. This is evident. To pardon an innocent man would be preposterous. Human Governments sometimes professedly do this, as when it is ascertained that a man, who is in prison for a term of years, is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted, the Governor issues a pardon as a means of his release. But it is a misnomer, and really an insult to the innocent man. The law should make provision for release from unjust confinement without subjecting a man to the disgrace of receiving a pardon when he had committed no crime. 2. The power of government. This is equally evident. To pardon is to remit a penalty which might be inflicted. It would be a mere farce to offer a pardon to those whom the Government had no power to punish. 3. The justice of the law transgressed. This is nearly parallel with the first proposition, and like it, evident; for to pronounce a man guilty is to say that he has done wrong. And if a violation of law be wrong, the law violated must be right. An unjust law is, in a moral view, a nullity. When a law is found to be unconstitutional, or a nullity, the prisoner under it is not really pardoned; he should be released from false imprisonment; and such release is of justice, not of mercy. But pardon is of favor. Thus it is clear that the justice of the law is acknowledged in the article of pardon. Now as pardon supposes the guilt of the prisoner, the power of the Government, and the justice of the law, in all these it may be made to honor the Government and vindicate its integrity. But there are other principles involved. The act of pardon recognizes the claims of law, by recognizing its justice. Thus far it honors the Government. But the question still remains, Are those claims satisfied as well as acknowledged? According to a plain truth before noticed, the sinner ought to be punished; justice imperatively demands it. How then can pardon be granted, and strict justice be administered? In this case there will arise two conflicting interests; one of sympathy for the accused, leaning toward mercy; the other; strenuous for the integrity of the Government, leaning toward 

- 29 - J. H. Waggoner

justice. How can these principles be reconciled? Can both parties be satisfied? Here is a difficulty; and this will lead us to notice the conditions or restrictions under which pardon may be granted with safety. For an indiscriminate, unconditional pardon is dangerous to the Government. Closely examining this subject we find…  (to be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT-AN EXAMINATION OF A REMEDIAL SYSTEM IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND REVELATION.  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

God Alone Can Discern the Thoughts and Intents of the Heart.

CHAPTER III.

REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORAL SYSTEM  

The administration of government is a simple, easy, yes, a pleasant matter, where all the subjects are perfectly obedient. No such Government now exists on this earth; but every one can picture to himself how happy the State would be where there was no sin; no violation of the law; no invasion of rights; no denial or disregard of authority; no discord, but each seeking the peace and happiness of the other. Who would not pray, “Thy kingdom come,” if its coming will introduce such a state of things?

(((I (the blog/study/excerpt poster) need to interject here for a moment. When I read the above I could imagine A LOT of people do NOT want a perfect, harmonious world. So many people thrive on chaos and disorder. We've altered the perception of what would constitute a perfect world and changed it greatly from a 'government' with at 'happy State', without sin, without violation of law, etc. We've made that kind of world seem dictatorship ruled, communistic, authoritative. The mere thought of such a world scarcely brings longing to anyone anymore because it is associated with oppression by the ONE(s) in charge. The RULER(s) who dictates to people, and such a ruler is deemed evil to force PEACE upon others. Satan has worked his evil so thoroughly that beyond doubt- evil is called good and good is called evil. While people may mouth the words of peace for all mankind, inwardly they want a different kind of existence where they have little or no boundaries set upon them by anyone. To them freedom from oppression is freedom from morality. (End of my interjection) ))))

But when sin enters, everything is changed. New and strange relations are introduced. New interests spring up. New duties devolve upon both the Government and the criminal. The governor must then take steps to maintain the integrity of the law, the honor of the State, and thereby to protect the subjects from the consequences of wrong-doing. For every violation of the law is an invasion upon the rights and liberties of the citizens. As we shall notice more particularly hereafter, two parties then arise; one, pitying the criminal, pleading for mercy; the other, fearing for the safety of the State and the welfare of its subjects, pleading for justice. And such are the realities now before us. With such an unfortunate state of things we have to deal. Such difficulties and diverse interests are found everywhere upon the face of the earth. While we consider the requirements of a moral system in such a state of things, we must bear in mind that there is no moral Government on earth. That is to say, there is no Government on earth entirely of moral principles, or administered solely upon a moral basis. And, from the very nature of things, it is impossible that there shall be in the present state. No human Government is administered with regard to the intentions of the subjects aside from their actions. No governor, no judge, no jury, has been able to “discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Secret things are not, and cannot here, be brought into judgement. A moral system, or a moral Government, can be administered by God alone. All that we have

- 25 - J. H. Waggoner

said or shall say respecting a moral system, we say in reference to the rule and authority of  God, who only  can  defend moral principles, and bring into judgment the violators of the spirit of law as well as the violators of its letter. But the principles of justice and of government we may understand, and are able to discern in regard to their requirements under various circumstances. According to the measure of our ability, we are under obligation to maintain these principles; and though we cannot discern the intents of the hearts of others, we are required to guard our own hearts, and to respect these principles in our lives. And however much we might shrink from the strict enforcement of these principles, we must bear in mind that law not only binds us, but it protects us; and we would have every reason to dread the results of a failure to uphold and enforce law. We deprecate tyranny, but it is seldom as blindly cruel as anarchy. We will now proceed, as briefly as possible, to examine some of the well-known and well-accepted claims and requirements of government.

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT-AN EXAMINATION OF A REMEDIAL SYSTEM IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE AND REVELATION.  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

Heb_4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

To be continued….

*******

(((Including a "Watchman, What of the Night?" Thought  Paper - Seventh-Day Adventists who seek only truth would be wise to read it. I'm not saying those seeking PERFECTION, all of us have sinned some greater sins than others. God has used sinners to be His prophets, His preachers, His teachers, simply because all humans fight the spiritual battle, the moral battle and there are NONE who are perfect - except our Savior, Jesus Christ.))))

1979 May -- A QUESTION TO CONSIDER -- 

Jesus asked a question - "When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)

There are two things of interest in regard to this question which Jesus propounded. Both are revealed in the Greek text. In the Greek sentence is an untranslatable particle - ara - which marks an inferential question to which a negative answer is expected. However, it is the second aspect of this question that I would have you consider. The question literally reads - "When the Son of man cometh, shall He find the faith on the earth?"

Jesus was not suggesting when He comes, the world will be devoid of religion, theology, or doctrine. He had stated in the Sermon on the Mount that in the final day of judgment, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?" (Matt. 7:22) Paul tells us "the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." (I Tim. 4:1) In fact the whole of the final picture in the Book of Revelation indicates that there will be a deep interest in religious activities. Men will worship - but it will be the beast, and its image! (Rev. 13:15; 14:9) The world of religion - symbolized by the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet - will have a great spiritual revival - "spirits of devils, working miracles." (Rev. 16:14) The question Jesus asked was simply - Would He find THE faith on the earth? - the faith which He left in trust to His followers.

There will be a group of people who will "keep. . . the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:12); but compared to the vast throngs of humanity who will deny this faith for "the doctrines of devils" it will seem that the genuine faith will be nonexistent. The question thus comes to each professor of truth - "Am I in THE faith?"

But this is not all of our responsibility. Jude wrote - "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write to you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (vs. 3) In an hour when every wind of doctrine is blowing, we dare not sit idly by thinking that because we are in THE faith, that is all that will be required. We must earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

When God raised up this Movement in 1844 - and let us keep this fact distinct from church "organization" which did not come till 1863 - He gave to the small company "who after the passing of time in 1844, searched for truth as for hidden

p 2 -- treasure" light which enabled them "to understand the Scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood." It was a "line of truth" that would extend from that date till we should enter the city of God. (Special Testimonies Series B, No. 2, pp. 56-57)

On this sure platform of truth, we are to stand, and for this truth we are to contend. We read:      As a people, we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith. The principles of truth that God has revealed to us are our only true foundation. They have made us what we are. The lapse of time has not lessened their value. It is the constant effort of the enemy to remove these truths from their setting, and to put in their place spurious theories. He will bring in everything that he possibly can to carry out his deceptive designs. But the Lord will raise up men of keen perception, who will give these truths their proper place in the plan of God.(Ibid., P. 51)

Not only is it the constant work of the enemy to remove these truths from their setting, but God in His mercy has told us when we will have reached the most critical time in that attempt on the part of the devil and his human mouthpieces. Of this we read:       After the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations, every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation, and minds will be confused. . .

Then there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith. R&H, Dec. 13, 1892 (7BC:985)

We have limited the scope of our thinking to conclude that when the Sabbath truth has been proclaimed to all nations (The Greek can be also translated - "Gentiles") the end that would come would be the very event of the second coming of Christ in the clouds of glory. (Matt. 24:14) But the servant of the Lord, says that the "end" has a much larger meaning than we have previously supposed. It will be the "end time" in which "the devil is come down having great wrath" (Rev. 12:10) as he seeks to prepare the world for his appearance as Christ. "Every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation." "Then there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith" - the faith delivered to us in 1844.

The Lord has not left us in ignorance concerning when this time will be. It is now! When the truth of the Sabbath - see context of statement in 7BC:985 - has been proclaimed as a witness to the Gentiles or nations, their time is up - it is then the "end-time." The prophecy of warning given by Jesus reads - "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, till the times of the Gentiles [nations] be fulfilled." (Luke 21:24) This event was fulfilled in 1967. Thus God has signaled to those who desire truth that we have indeed reached the "end-time" when the enemy is seeking to tear down the pillars of our faith. Sadly the vast majority of the professed people of God are letting this be done without raising a voice in protest, or to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

p 3 -- Some who seem to be upholding "the faith" deny the fulfillment of this prophecy and declare they see no significance in it. Thus they are putting out the eyesight of the very saints they are professing to be helping to understand the message of righteousness by faith. What a tragedy!

This tragedy is being compounded in that this very tearing down of the pillars of our faith is being done not from without, but from within with the full approval and blessing of the hierarchy. The leadership appears to be giving lip service to the historic faith through the pages of the Adventist Review, but they continue to permit professors from our schools to have full rein to disseminate their deadly heresies upon the laity of the church. And these same teachers of religion are placing in the minds of the future ministers of the church, these same deadly heresies. Well may we cry with the Psalmist - "Help Lord, for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men." (Ps. 12:1)

Somehow, we seem to have overlooked the prophecy which reads:      Many (not just a few) will stand in our pulpits with the torch of false prophecy in their hands, kindled from the hellish torch of Satan. If doubts and unbelief are cherished, the faithful ministers will be removed from the people who think they know so much. "If thou hadst known," said Christ, "even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong to thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes." Luke 19:42  (TM, pp. 409-410)

Keep in mind that today no one can get into the pulpit of our organizational Seventh-day Adventist Church unless he holds valid, up-to-date credentials from the hierarchy. (The only exceptions are Catholic priests, and Apostate Protestant clergy.) Thus this prophecy tells us that the hierarchy will be responsible for the "false prophecy" which will be pressed upon the laity from the pulpits of the church they thought was keeping the faith. The "faithful ministers" will be removed and many of them have been this is a matter of record.

Today, not only is Dr. Desmond Ford being given free access to the pulpits of our churches in many conferences, but he is instructing ministers at Worker's Meetings, and teaching future ministerial students in one of our schools - Pacific Union College. Further his damnable heresy of prophetic futurism - which came out of Jesuitism - is being lauded from the Southern Publishing Association which has published his book - Daniel. This publication is being hailed as the greatest work on prophecy in the church since Uriah Smith's Thoughts on Daniel. But Ford is not alone; he has cohorts in apostasy in the area of Justification by Faith and the Incarnation, such as Heppenstall, and others, both active and retired. Remember the servant of the Lord said this "false prophecy" would come right from the pulpits of the Church!

Thank God, the Movement is in His hands, and the firm platform is still solid for the feet of the saints. May God help the laity to see the difference between the church organized in 1863, and the Movement of God founded in 1844. Are you in THE faith? Are you contending for THE faith which was once delivered unto the saints? When the Son of man cometh, He will come to take "the saints" who " keep. . . the faith of Jesus."

p 4 -- TRUTH UPHELD IN AUSTRALIA -- Two veteran ministers of the Adventist Church in Australia Elders J. W. Kent and George Burnside 1 - have published a small tract entitled: - Dr. D. Ford Versus E. G. White on the Vital Subject of the Man of Sin. (Short title -The Man of Sin) The position of Dr. Desmond Ford is taken from his doctoral dissertation at Manchester University in 1972, a copy of which is in the Avondale College Library. The comparison is headed by a statement from Testimonies to Ministers which reads - "The Lord has called His people. . . to expose the wickedness of the man of sin." (p. 118) The following references are quoted from the Spirit of Prophecy:       God's Estimate of the Papal Power - By the treatment of His Word the popes have exalted themselves above the God of heaven. This is the reason that in prophecy the papal power is specified as the "man of sin." Satan is the originator of sin. The power that he causes to alter any one of God's holy precepts, is the man of sin. Under Satan's special direction the papal power has done this very work.(7BC:911)

The Representative of Satan - There is one pointed out in prophecy as the man of sin. He is the representative of Satan. Taking the suggestions of Satan concerning the law of God, which is as unchangeable as His throne, this man of sin comes in and represents to the world that he has changed the law, and that the first day of the week instead of the seventh is now the Sabbath. Professing infallibility, he claims the right to change the law of God to suit his own purposes. By so doing, he exalts himself above God. (7BC:910)

The special characteristic of the beast. . . is the breaking of God's commandments. Says Daniel of the little horn, the papacy, "He shall think to change the times and the law." And Paul styled the same power the ''man of sin," who was to exalt himself above God. One prophecy is a compliment of the other. Only by changing God's law could the papacy exalt itself above God; . . . (GC, p. 446)

. . . the beast itself, - - the papacy. (GC, p. 443) . . . the representative of Satan, - - the bishop of Rome. (GC, P. 50) The "man of sin," which is also styled the "mystery of iniquity," the "son of perdition," and "that wicked," represents the papacy, which as foretold in prophecy, was to maintain its supremacy for 1260 years. This period ended in 1798. The coming of Christ could not take place before that time. Paul covers with his caution the whole of the Christian dispensation down to the year 1798. It is this side of that time that the message of Christ's second coming is to be proclaimed. (GC, p. 356)

1 Elder George Burnside before retirement served as Evangelist and Ministerial Secretary of the Australian Division.

p 5 -- Opposite the quotations which we have copied on page 4, are given these from Dr. Desmond Ford's dissertation:      We have also noticed that many things can be said with certainty regarding what the Antichrist is not. He is not any past personage. He belongs to the future and not to history. (p. 246)

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 Thess 2, but also the truth that the Christian church must cease to be such once the Antichrist becomes its tenant. (pp. 248-49)

We have noticed also that the lawless one appears only at the end of' time. (p. 242)

In the setting of 2 Thess 2, Antichrist is an individual to be manifested at the end of time. His parousia is a sign that the end has come. Therefore, any interpretation which applies this passage to an individual of past history, or to a succession of such, misses the mark.(p. 238)

Then the conclusion is drawn by Elders Kent and Burnside as follows:      The above statements speak for themselves. Dr. Ford says the opposite to God's inspired penman.

Dr. Ford not merely refuses to follow this instruction, but joins with the enemies of Truth. To him the man of sin is not in "past history" but "appears only at the end of time." He joins with the futurists the most bitter opponents of God's Threefold Message. A careful reading of Dr. Ford's thesis has failed to find one indication that the papacy is the man of sin. His series of articles in the Signs of the Times is likewise silent on this vital truth.

Dr. Ford's strong emphasis on a future antichrist who is to "appear only at the end of time," who "belongs to the future and not to history" is a blunt denial and rebuttal to all that has been clearly stated in Great Controversy, Daniel and Revelation and scores of our other books, as well as Adventist preaching and teaching for over 130 years.

It is apparent that Dr. Ford has gone to the ranks of our opponents. It shows how far on this road he has drifted when F. F. Bruce, a Plymouth Brethren, will write a foreword to Dr. Ford's book and have his name in clear print on the cover. [See Daniel by Dr. Ford published by Southern Publishing Association.]

May God give every lover of the Advent Message grace to continually lift voice, pen, means and influence in combating this enemy of truth.      "If God abhors one sin above another of which His people are guilty, it is

p 6 -- doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality is regarded of God as a grievous crime, and in a religious crisis equal to the very worst type of hostility against God." (3T:281)

Because Elders Kent and Burnside sought to warn the professed people of God concerning "the hellish torch of false prophecy" kindled in the class rooms of Avondale College, published by the Southern Publishing Association, they were barred from the pulpits of The Greater Sydney Conference of the church in Australia. See the letter reproduced on p. 7. As you read this letter, you will observe that the Conference President, Elder K. J. Bullock, accused these ministers as producing an "unscholarly, unethical" document which "seriously misrepresents Dr. Desmond Ford." An evaluation of this tract has been made by Dr. Colin D. Standish, formerly president of Columbia Union College, and now Academic Dean of Weimar Institute in California. In a signed statement, he wrote:      I have carefully examined the section of Dr. Desmond Ford's thesis presented to Manchester University, 1972, dealing with the man of sin. As one who has served on graduate theses' committees, it is my opinion that the authors of "Dr. D. Ford verses E. G. White on the vital subject of the Man of Sin" have used their sources accurately and in context. I discovered three punctuational errors from the thesis which have no significance to contextual meaning. Two are abbreviation stops and one is a missing comma. There is also a capitalisation and a paging mistake and slight wording error in the references from Ellen G. White. This involves the reference from Great Controversy given as page 442, which in fact is page 443.

In my evaluation there is a very careful effort by the author of the thesis to make his point that the man of sin is not identifiable with the Papacy of the past, and it is my view that, not only are the conclusions to this effect in the paper referred to above, consistent with the thesis material, they are the only possible conclusions than can be made. Dr. Ford's views, as expressed in his thesis are diametrically opposed to, and irreconcilable with, the inspired writings of Ellen G. White on this topic of the man of sin.

p 7 -- THE GREATER SYDNEY CONFERENCE OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH           84 THE BOULEVARDE. STRATHFIELD. N.S.W. 2135. TELEPHONE: 747-6465

December 18, 1978.

Dear Brethren:       Considerable anguish has been caused in the Conference by the circulation of an anonymous document entitled "The Man of Sin."

Pastor J. W. Kent claims that he and Pastor Burnside are responsible for the document. It has apparently been placed in the hands of some retired ministers and possibly some laymen at Cooranbong who have assisted in its circulation.

The document is unscholarly, unethical and seriously misrepresents Dr. Desmond Ford. The conclusions drawn in the document are totally invalid and the spirit of it is certainly not good.

We consider that while this document is in circulation Pastors W. Kent and G. Burnside should not occupy the pulpit in our Conference churches and we are therefore asking you not to list them for preaching appointments.

With very best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

K. J. Bullock, PRESIDENT.

p 8 -- THE PROBLEM -- The concerned brethren in Australia are seeking to contend for the faith which has been committed to us as a people against the inroad of apostasy as represented in the teachings of Dr. Desmond Ford now of Pacific Union College. But these brethren have failed to reckon with the "new" official position of the hierarchy of the Church as stated in the Briefs submitted to the United States District Court of Northern California in the case of EEOC vs PPPA. In a Brief filed with the Court on March 3, 1975 by the lawyers for the Pacific Press, it is stated in a footnote:      Although it is true that there was a period in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church when the denomination took a distinctly anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term "hierarchy" was used in a perjorative sense to refer to the papal form of church governance, that attitude on the Church's part was nothing more than a manifestation of widespread anti-popery among conservative protestant denominations in the early part of this century and the latter part of the last, and which has now been consigned to the historical trash heap so far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is concerned. (p. 4, #2)

The question now arises, how can the officials of the Church and the Brief quoted above was submitted with their full approval - take sides against Dr. Desmond Ford, who is merely articulating these same concepts from a slightly different viewpoint? What the brethren in Australia fail to realize is how deep and dark the apostasy actually is within the Church. They see only Dr. Desmond Ford, and do not see that he has cohorts in apostasy within and without the hierarchy of the Church. Word has come to this desk that the new president of the General Conference - Elder Neal C. Wilson - is planning to rein in Dr. Ford. But how can he challenge Dr.. Ford on his position in regard to the "Man of Sin" when soon after his elevation to the chair of "first minister" he sought to pay a "courtesy visit" on a Catholic cardinal? You can read about it in the Adventist Review. Here is the report:      Church leaders in Britain made contacts with the Archbishop of

Canterbury, Donald Coggan, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Basil (Cardinal) Hume, with a view to Elder Wilson's paying courtesy visits. Unfortunately, the Adventists were not able to give these religious dignitaries sufficient notice for dialoguesto materialize on this occasion; however, both archbishops sent greetings and best wishes to the new General Conference president on his assuming office. (March 22, 1979, p. 19)

We dare not forget - "It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy." (Signs of the Times, Feb. 19, 1894)

"AND LET IT BE REMEMBERED, IT IS THE BOAST OF ROME THAT SHE NEVER CHANGES." Great Controversy, p. 581

"At a mass officiated by the Pope at the Palafoxian seminary [during his Mexican tour], the official guide stated that John Paul II 'fills the place of Christ, is the greatest human mediator between God and man, and is assisted by the Holy Spirit and cannot err.' During his appearance in Oaxaca, a priest who later received a papal blessing led the crowd in shouting, 'For those who have sight, you, John Paul II, are for us, Christ."'Christianity Today, March 2, 1979, "News"

++++++

p 9 -- DR. D. FORD'S DANGEROUS DOCTRINES -- This is the title of, a 20 page booklet published in Australia by the Watchman Press (P. 0. Box 18, Beecroft, NSW 2119) which covers not only the teaching of Dr. Ford in regard to the "Man of Sin," but also other doctrines which are at variance with the historic faith of the Advent Movement. Elder J. W. Kent in the "Preface" writes:      In the early 1970's the senior ministers, and especially the evangelists in our Australian division faced a serious problem. They found themselves having wide doctrinal differences with the young interns fresh from Avondale College coming to work with them. This very different theology was traced back to the Bible Department, then headed by Dr. D. Ford.

In their perplexity the senior men, some active and some retired talked amongst themselves, and ultimately formed a study group to investigate the new theology. Having studied the new theology, we found it did not harmonize with the foundation Adventist teaching we had been and were still preaching. As a group we have consistently opposed the new theology. To date we have endeavored to confine our approach to the president and officers of the division. Now we are widening our approach to include senior ministers and elders.

The next page carries the names of eight ministers in the Australian Division:   J. W. Kent, Herbert White, A. W. Knight, R. N. Heggie, J. E. Cormack, George Burnside, J. B. Keith, and W. G. Ferris. Over these names, it is written concerning this publication:      This is the voice of concerned men. As is well known we have given our lives in the preaching of the Everlasting Gospel - The Three Angels' Messages of Rev. 14:6-12. This is God's last appeal to a sin-doomed world, reaching from 1844 to the coming of our Saviour as King of kings. This message is a line of truth that stretches from 1844 to the End. Not a pin or a pillar is to be removed. This is the instruction of Inspiration. We gladly write in its defense.

Every Adventist who is awakened from his Laodicean nap can say "Amen" to the concern of these men. In the booklet they list the dangerous doctrines of Dr. Desmond Ford as follows:

1)   Dr. D. Ford denies there is a Two Apartment Sanctuary in Heaven.

2)   Dr. Ford claims that Heaven Is the Sanctuary.

3)   Denies the Papacy is the Man of Sin.

4)   The Bible is not unerring. [The Bible contains errors.]

5)   The Age of the Earth is much older than the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy indicates.

6)   The Apostle Paul did not write the Book of Hebrews. (Also held at Andrews University.)

p 10 -- 7)   Christ expected the END in His generation

8)   The four methods of prophetic interpretation Historicism, Preterism, Futurism, and Idealism - all contain aspects of truth. [The same thing is taught in his book - Daniel - published by SPA. See pp. 68-69. Preterism and Futurism were methods invented by Jesuits.]

9)   Dr. Ford teaches "The Finished Work of Christ" on the Cross. (So also Dr. Heppenstall, and the books, Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny.)

10)   Dr. Ford down-grades the imparted righteousness of Christ.

These men are to be commended on the stand they are now taking. However, there remains some gnawing questions. Where were these men some twenty-five plus years ago when all of this apostasy started in the Church? Are they so naive as to believe this all began with Dr. Desmond Ford? What stand did these men take when the book - Questions on Doctrine - was published? How did they respond to Elder Andreasen's Letters to the Churches? Where were they when the book - Movement of Destiny - was presented to the Church with Pierson's and Wilson's imprimatur? Both - Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny teach some of the same doctrines these men now consider dangerous. Were their voices raised then to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints?

This booklet contains another major problem in regard to the truth. No where in its 20 pages does it score Dr. Desmond Ford in regard to his false theory concerning the Incarnation. On this subject there is a strange silence. Yet, Dr. Ford through his wife, Gillian, presented an unequivocal challenge that what one believed in regard to the Incarnation effected what one believed in regard to Righteousness by Faith. (See The Soteriological Implications of the Human Nature of Christ, p. 2) While these venerable men challenge Ford in the area of the imparted righteousness of Christ (See point #10 above), they say nothing in regard to the Incarnation, and the historic position of the Church on this subject. We need to keep in mind that the recent Sabbath School lessons on this topic received open opposition at high levels in Australia. Where did these men stand at that time?

Since these brethren are now "widening" their approach "to include senior ministers and elders" let us pray that they will not only give truth, but the whole truth as it is in Jesus. And when they write - "On these truths we dare not compromise" (p. 18), may they have the courage to include "the most marvelous thing that ever took place in earth or heaven - the incarnation of the Son of God." (Ms. 76, 1903: 7BC:904)

WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER BEING MORTGAGED? -- On the next page is a copy of an advertising letter received by a Catholic family in Wisconsin, -- who turned it over to his Adventist neighbor who did not receive one. All underscoring in the reproduced letter was done by the B. C. Ziegler and Company. With the letter was a colored sheet picturing the $8,000,000 White Memorial Medical Center. This sheet notes that "holders of the bonds due March 1 , 1994 have the option to have such bonds mature on March 1, 1989."