|
XXXV - 11(02) “Watchman, what of the night?” "The hour has come, the
hour is striking and striking at you,
THIS YEAR
In Retrospect
Editor's Preface
Since in the November issue of WWN we insert
the listing of the manuscripts and publications available through the
Foundation, the actual size of the publication is reduced one page. During the
years, we have at times brought together for the November issue, news from the
ecumenical world. This year, we will note in review some of the high points
which were discussed during the year and update some of the issues, such as the
crisis which has rocked the Roman Church. The question can be asked, "Anything
new in publication and research?" The answer is negative. Until we come to
know what has taken place in the Church during the last half century, we will
remain children in respect of what our duty is. Some may already have these
documents, such as Steps to Rome, (being led by the eulogized
"Adventist Statesman"); The Hour & the End; and "The
Sacred Trust Betrayed." If you do, may we suggest that you call a
friend's attention to their availability. One book
that speaks volumes is So Much in Common, a book co-authored by B. B.
Beach, and Dr. Lukas Vischer, who at the time of writing was secretary of the
Faith and Order Commission of the For those interested in a detailed study of what has happened over the
past half century, we suggest the following sequence: 1) M. L. Andreasen's Letters to the
Churches. 2) SDA-Evangelical Conferences. taking
special note of the recorded telephone conversation between A. L. Hudson and
Donald G. Barnhouse. 3) Key Doctrinal Comparisons,
from the first Statement in 1872 to the 1980 Dallas Statement. Page 2
In
Retrospect: This Year
In the December issue of WWN for the year
2001, we called attention to the counsel given by the Lord's messenger in the Review
& Herald, We have many lessons to learn, and many,
many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they
will never have to give up a cherished view, never
have an occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold
our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the
unity for which Christ prayed. As we concluded the article, we commented,
"If in 1892, there were lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn, the
intervening years have not nullified this counsel, and because it has not been
done, it makes it even more necessary that such an attempt be made now."
(p. 7) In the January issue of this year, we began
with the key doctrine of Adventism - the teaching and understanding of the
meaning of the sanctuary which God, in blueprint form, gave to Moses at Throughout the history of Adventism, there
have been questions and problems over this basic teaching. Many are unaware
that E. J. Waggoner of the 1888
team stumbled over aspects of the "orthodox" teaching. Prior to his
sudden death in 1916, Waggoner wrote a letter to a friend in which he stated: Sin is a condition, not an entity. It
exists only in the individual, and can be removed only by a new life in the
individual. ... Twenty five years ago [1891], these
truths (of Christ's saving grace) coupIed with the self-evident truth that sin
is not an entity but a condition that can exist only in a person, made it clear
to me that it is impossible that there could be any such thing as the
transferring of sins to the sanctuary in heaven, thus defiling that place; and
that there could, consequently, be no such thing, either in 1844. A.D. or at any other time, as the "cleansing of the heavenly
sanctuary." (pp. 9, 14) It is also of interest that as Waggoner
continues his "Confession of Faith" he sets forth arguments very
similar to those used by Cottrell in his essay read before the San Diego
Chapter of the Association of Adventist Forums, February 9th of this year. (See
WWN XXX-7) Because Cottrell has borrowed from Waggoner, and because Waggoner
drew the conclusion he did, doesn't make it right, nor does it nullify the
sanctuary truth. But it does make more imperative, that the counsel that we
have many things to learn, and many, many things to unlearn, be applied. Waggoner concluded correctly that sin is not
an entity, but a condition. Further, in the type, one did not transfer sin to
the sanctuary via his sin offering. The defiling record of sin had been or was
already being placed in the books of Heaven (Dan. In 1890, the first volume of the Conflict of
the Ages series was published - Patriarchs and Prophets. In it would be
found the following paragraph: The most important part of the daily
ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals. The repentant
sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle, and placing his hand
upon the vicim's head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from
himself to the innocent sacrifice. By his own hand the animal was then slain,
and the blood was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled
before the vail, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner
had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood transferred
in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy
place; but then the flesh was to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the
sons of Aaron, saying, "God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the
congregation." Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin of
the penitent to the sanctuary. (pp.
354-355). Page 3 In this paragraph is to be found a subscript
asking the reader to turn to Appendix, Note 9. This note reads: When a sin-offering was presented for a
priest or for the whole congregation, the blood was carried into the holy
place, and sprinkled before the vail, and placed upon the horns of the golden
altar. The fat was consumed upon the altar of burnt offering in the court, but
the body of the victim was burned without the camp. See Lev. 4:1-21. When, however, the offering was for a
ruler or for one of the people, the blood was not taken into the holy place,
but the flesh was to be eaten by the priest as the Lord directed Moses:
"The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall
it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting." Lev. 6:26, RV. See also
Lev. 4:22-35. (p. 761). This note was in the original 1890 edition.
Simply, it is saying that what was written in the text of the book does not
accord with the Scriptures. This causes some questions to arise, and some
observations on the data which has surfaced. First the data: 1) Patriarchs
& Prophets was published in 1890 with the above quoted appendix note; 2) Waggoner indicates that it was in
1891 he confronted some cardinal points in the sanctuary message and found them
wanting; and 3) in 1892, Ellen
White called for the getting together in Bible study as was done at the
beginning of the movement. Why? "We have many lessons to learn, and many,
many to unlearn." Because of the date, 1892, one could conclude that the
whole question still involved the issue of 1888, but a careful reading of the
article in the Review & Herald,
July 26, indicates a broader range of subjects. Secondly, the questions: Instead of placing
an appendix note, why did not the publishers go to Ellen White, and kindly, but
pointedly indicate to her that she was not in line with Scripture on this point
and make the corrections then and there? Why has there been no explanation of
this variance with Scripture all these years while the attacks on the sanctuary
truth have continued to mount? In the type, the sin was a sin of ignorance,
which when known was to be confessed. The penitent was to bring the specified
offering and having placed his hand upon its head, was to slay it. (Lev.
4:22-24; 27-29). The common priest was to take some of the blood of the victim
and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour the balance of
the blood at the base of the same altar. The result to the confessor is clearly
stated - "the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his
sin, and it shall be forgiven him" (vs. 26, 31, 35). At no time was the blood
taken into the sanctuary. The record on the horns of the Altar in the court was
confessional. The steps were orderly: recognize the sin, confess the sin,
accept a substitute, and the common priest secured forgiveness. This is also
New Testament theology. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just
to forgive us our sins, ..." (I John 1:9). The important factor is that this
transaction was done in the court, not in the sanctuary. Thus when the time of
cleansing would come typically once a year, the High Priest would complete the
"cleansing" ritual at that Altar. (Lev. 16:18-19). If sin were an
entity, and the position valid that the sin offering transferred sin to the
sanctuary, then the ceremony could have ended in the Another point dare not be overlooked. If the
sacrifice of the sin-offering, and the finger printing of the blood of that
sacrifice transferred sin as an entity to the sanctuary, then the easiest way
to escape the condemnation of sin is not to confess. No confession, no registry
in blood, thus no Page 4 record of sin. One is home "scot-free." Except, that one would still be an unforgiven sinner facing the
wrath of God against sin. Instead of accepting Him who was made to be
sin for us, we would remain what we really are - sinners. '0
AnomoV Earlier in the year, the scandal within the
Roman Church broke into the secular press, but we were unable to cover the
subject until the June issue of WWN. We chose the title, as above, using the
Greek word from II Thess. 2:8, translated in the KJV as "that Wicked
(One)." Thayer, in his Lexicon translates this word, "He in whom all
iniquity has fixed its abode." This is most accurate and very defining! Several things have occurred since then. The
American hierarchy of the Roman Church was summoned to On his recent visit to In his remarks at the World Youth Day
Mass, the supreme pontiff lamented the "sadness and shame" of the
pedophile scandal rocking the church. As before - in a Palm Sunday letter to
the Roman clergy and an address to a His other message was conveyed in the
presence of The pope did not make any mention of the
hierarchy's responsibility in the tragedy. Catholics are left to wonder if his
attitude toward Cardinal Law is an implicit endorsement of Law's policy of
coverup, payoff and fast shuffle of notorious pedophiles from parish to parish
- with no warning to their new parish. Or is it simply an expression of
hierarchical solidarity and a suggestion to the people in the pews that this is
entirely a matter for the supreme pontiff to decide? Ms. McGrory in her feature article
indicated that there is a "fast-growing lay group" in the Roman
church, called the "Voice of the Faithful." Founded in Cardinal Law discouraged the formation of
this group and has locked horns with it over "the all-important matter of
money." When church contributions started declining because the laity
objected [to] having their funds used as hush money, the Voice of the Faithful
offered direct contributions to needy agencies. Law balked insisting that all
funds go through him. Victims' Advocate David Clohessy,
executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, had
trouble with the pope's formulation of an equation between child victims and
priests unfairly tainted by the scandal. He calls it "ludicrous" to
compare the embarrassment of priests to the devastation of children. The founder and first president of Voice of
the Faithful was Dr. James Muller,
a professor at the Harvard School of Medicine and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
"As a devout Catholic, he instantly attracted
Page
5 attention and support when, in a personal crisis of
faith, he invited the laity to make known their anger and pain inside the
church. Four thousand people attended a recent convention in Muller did not encourage nor agitate the
removal of Cardinal Law. He explained: It isn't just Cardinal Law. Sexual abuse
is not just in the While Dr. Muller perceives of the problem as
"absolute power," The
Catholic World Report documents it as "The Gay Priest
Problem." In its November, 2000
issue, it published an essay by a Marine Corps and Navy Chaplain. One of his
observations is relevant: When more of your priests die by sodomy
than by martyrdom, you know you've got a problem; when the man you bring for
the fix comes down with AIDS; you know that you have got a crisis; and when the
Pope first gets the facts thanks to 60 Minutes, you know you're corrupt.
(p. 57). We first noted this Essay in the 2001
February issue of WWN. However, in the June issue of this year we detailed some
of the data from The Catholic World
Report including the foul language used by the South African auxiliary
bishop, Reggie Cawcutt, who was exposed by Roman Catholic Faithful for his
participation in a homosexual internet "chat room." The report of
this "chat room" participation has been given with all of its
vulgarity in the August/September issue of The
Catholic World Report, page 64. Along with this report is the release from
the Cawcutt is a self admitted "gay,"
and he is quoted as saying on the internet, "I suppose the issue is really
celibacy and not gay sex." In all of this scandal that is rocking the
Roman Church, and the various reasons being projected as to why, the problem;
one senses that there is a relationship between the conduct of the pedophile
priests, and the life style of their superiors all the way up into the Vatican
curia. - + - "We have nothing to
fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history." Life Sketches, p, 196
WEBSITE
E-
Originally published by Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Mississippi/Arkansas
Wm. H. Grotheer, Editor
Adventist Laymen's Foundation was chartered in 1971 by Elder Wm. H. Grotheer, then 29 years in the Seventh-day Adventist
ministry, and associates, for the benefit of Seventh-day Adventists who were deeply concerned about the compromises of fundamental
doctrines by the Church leaders in conference with those who had no right to influence them. Elder Grotheer began to publish the monthly "Thought Paper," Watchman, What of the Night? (WWN) in January, 1968, and continued the publication as Editor until the end of 2006. Elder Grotheer died on May 2, 2009.
|