|
XXXIV - 6(01) “Watchman, what of the night?” "The hour has come, the
hour is striking and striking at you,
THE SEARCH FOR IDENTITY -6- Page 2 The Image to the Beast Page 5 The Commandments of God Page 7 Editor's Preface
To those Adventists whose connections with the Church go back to
the 30's and 40's of this past century, the name of M. L. Andreasen stands for
a devoted Christian scholar and theologian. He was a saintly person in whose
presence you felt at ease, yet conscious that he knew the God you wished to
know better. His legs were short, and his body long, so that when he would
speak to ministerial groups sitting down, which he often did, the toe of one
shoe touched the floor, and the other shoe crossed over the heel of the first
shoe. He spoke with a Danish accent but with precise English diction. Knight has much to say negatively about Andreasen, even though he
admits that it is "impossible to overestimate the influence of M. L.
Andreasen on twentieth century Adventist theology." The one theological
concept with which Knight takes major exception was the doctrine of sinlessness
which the "last generation" living must confront. Andreasen taught
the doctrine clearly and forcibly. In this issue of WWN, we discuss Andreasen's
teaching; Knight's problem with it; and then apply the principle which Knight himself set forth in the first chapter of his book,
"the dynamic nature of truth." Because of questions raised by readers regarding the special issue
on the "Image to the Beast," we have written a Biblical Analysis of
the subject within the context of the prophecies which form a unit with
Revelation 13, where the "image" is introduced. This section of
Revelation also focuses on the doctrine of "the last generation." The final article is on the "commandments of God." Is sin
an act, one's nature, or both, and what did Jesus say? Page 2 The Search for Identity
-6- When we began this series of critiques on the book, A Search for Identity by Dr. George R.
Knight, we cornmented on the cover designed for the
publication. As we have reached the final chapters, it is obvious that those
designing the cover truly sensed the emphasis of the book. Looming largest
among the portraits displayed of the men and woman of Adventist history, was A.
T. Jones, next was M. L. Andreasen, then came Ellen G.
White. These three, Knight links together in their influence
on the course of Adventism in the 20th Century, especially on how both Jones
and Andreasen interpreted Ellen G. White. Knight's antipathy toward Jones was evident in the book, From 1888 to Apostasy, written in 1987.
Now his almost equal dislike for Andreasen comes through in this book. As he
concludes the discussion of the question, "What is Fundamentalist in
Adventism?" he devotes a section to "The Crucial Role of M. L.
Andreasen and His 'Last Generation' Theology." He wrote: It is impossible to
overestimate the influence of M. L. Andreasen on twentieth-century Adventist
theology. His theological package is so central to modem Adventist development
that a person is forced to respond in one way or another to it. Individuals and
groups in the church either agree with his theology or they react against it.
Neutrality is not an option for those who understand his teachings. (p 144). It goes without question that Knight abandons the neutrality
usually manifested by an objective historian and reacts negatively to
Andreasen. His special vendetta is directed against the chapter, "The Last
Generation," in Andreasen's book, The
Sanctuary Service. He also seeks to link Andreasen and Jones and include
Ellen G. White in the process, He surmises: We should also point out that
Andreasen's chapter indicates an extremely heavy reliance upon his
understanding of the thought of Ellen G. White even though he does not directly
quote her even once. He was apparently following the methodology advanced by A.
T. Jones. Jones had claimed in 1894 that the only "right use of the
Testimonies" is "to study the Bible through them, so that the things
brought forth in them we shall see and know for ourselves are in the Bible; and
then present those things to others not from the Testimonies themselves, but
from the Bible itself. Whether Andreasen had picked his methodology directly
from Jones or whether he had acquired it indirectly from him through the way
Adventists were doing theology in the 1930s and 1940s is open to debate. (p. 150) In his next chapter, "Adventism in Theological Tension,"
Knight again launches an attack on Andreasen. He cites an article by Donald
Grey Barnhouse, editor of Eternity,
who asked the question, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" This
article was the result of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956.
Commenting, Knight wrote: In that article, with apparent
approval of L. E. Froom and R. A. Anderson (leaders of the General Conference
Ministerial Association) Barnhouse publicly relegated M. L. Andreasen
(Adventism's leading theologian in the 1930s and l940s) and his theology to
"the lunatic fringe" of Adventism and implied that Andreasen and his
type were "similar" to the "wild-eyed irresponsibles
in every field of fundamental Christianity." (pp.164-165). In the article by Barnhouse, Andreasen is not named as one of the
supposed "lunatic fringe." The placing of Andreasen in this category
by Knight had to come from personal contacts with the Adventist leaders named
or recollections gathered from interviews with individuals directly involved in
the discussions between the Adventists and the Evangelicals; or it reflects his
personal antipathy for Andreasen and his desire to "smear" his
character. This is a revelation of the corruptness of the human heart in
vindictiveness and jealousy of a man who all have to admit exerted great
influence in the Church. The question can be asked that if Knight really wanted
to be objective as an accurate historian ought to be, why did he not document
the source of his inclusion of Andreasen as a part of the "lunatic
fringe" of Adventism? Rather he places himself in
company with those who wished to defame Andreasen. It is further evidence that
Knight has an agenda which he wants to accomplish in the publishing of this
book. Before discussing Andreasen's "last generation" theology
which so disturbs Knight, some personal observations are in order. Soon after
my mother and I accepted the Truth, we attended the Sabbath services of a
campmeeting held on the grounds of the Nevada Sanitarium and Hospital in Decades later, I was to see that he knew that Father very
intimately. Following the SDA-Evangelical Conferences and the release of the
book, Questions on Doctrine,
Andreasen's strong opposition to the "sell-out" was answered ad
hominem, by claiming that he was senile. I decided while on vacation to
visit Elder Andreasen at his home in Page 3 myself if such a charge had any validity. I invited my brother-in-law, to
accompany me on the visit. We found him very alert, and the time spent was most
edifying. When we were about to leave, my brother-in-law excused himself
briefly, but while out, Elder Andreasen inquired about his spiritual state. I
told him, and then when he returned, we all knelt in prayer. I was made fully
conscious that he knew that Father. His prayer for the Church he loved, for us
in his home, and my brother-in-law in particular, went far beyond the ceiling
of the room to the very throne of the Infinite. He was God's man for the hour
even in retirement. During the years of my ministry, first in Now let us turn our attention to Andreasen's theology of the
"Last Generation." Briefly it is this: God will have a people who
will live lives in the last generation free from sinning, and in so doing, will
vindicate God before the universe. This group of people will be alive when
Jesus comes the second time and thus will be translated without seeing death.
This perception is based on certain texts of Scripture found in Revelation 14.
In this chapter a group designated as the 144, 000 stand with the Lamb on Knight ignores this evidence,
and throws it all out because he maintains that Andreasen teaches an
achievement of the goal by human effort "closer to the pre-1888 theology
of the Butler/Smith faction" rather than a "grace oriented
interpretation" of salvation as presented by Ellen G. White. (p. 151).
Again Knight's bias against Jones and Waggoner comes through for they led in
the presentation of a "grace oriented" message in 1888 and after.
However, one will find Andreasen
writing in his Letters to the Churches (No.6, p.14) this: The final demonstration of
what God can do in
humanity is made in the last generation who bears all the infirmities and
weaknesses which the race has acquired through six thousand years of sin and
transgression. (Emphasis supplied) A simple recognition of the eschatology of the book of Revelation
demands the conclusion which Andreasen drew. John was shown a point in time
when all intercession would cease in the "temple" of God; yet time
would continue "till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled"
(15:8). With no intercessor in God's presence, what lives must be evidenced by
the "saints"? The only answer is lives in perfect harmony with
"the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (14:12). How can
this be realized? "Not of works, lest any man should boast."
To state it plainly, God is not looking for 144,000 perfect people to vindicate
His name by their righteousness, but rather 144,000 sinners who recognize their
spiritual poverty, through whom He may manifest His power to make them living
"saints." Knight's agenda in writing this biased historical review of
doctrinal concepts under the guise of a search for identity comes through in
his recognition of Andreasen's influence on Adventist teaching and then his
attempt to completely denigrate him without noting the Biblical evidence which
sustains Andreasen's basic position. If Andreasen's position in any facet
cannot be sustained Biblically, then let Knight point it out; but to ignore
certain Biblical eschatological concepts which sustain Andreasen's basic
premise on "the last generation" is unconscionable for a professor of
church history at the Church's Theological Seminary. Knight, in the very first chapter of his book, noted "the
dynamic nature of 'present truth."' In setting forth this fundamental premise,
he quoted extensively Page 4 from Ellen G. White.
However, it is interesting to note carefully how he quoted and what he
eliminated in so quoting which would have a bearing on his premise. In the
section on "The Pathway of Progressive Understanding" (pp. 24-28), he
quoted from Counsels to Writers and Editors, p.37 which states: 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. Does this mean that when I perceive aspects of what I have held to
be truth to be wrong, and need modification, that I throw the whole thing out?
In other words, throw out the "the baby with the bath water?" No!
Knight omitted the topic sentence which begins the paragraph he quoted. That
sentence reads - "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to
unlearn." What then should have been Knight's approach to the teaching of
Andreasen that was such an anathema to him? If he thought Andreasen was
teaching a "works" oriented approach for the perfection of the saints
in "the last generation," then correct that. But why throw out the
Biblical basis for a unique "last generation"? Rather, learn and
unlearn as the suggested counsel indicates. That would be true "progressive
understanding." However, one cannot arrive at truth when he begins with an
agenda to accomplish an objective, right or wrong. It is impossible to arrive at a true evaluation of the "last
generation" concept without consideration of another issue which Knight
reintroduces in discussing the theology of Andreasen. He wrote: A fourth concept underlying
Andreasen's theology is the teaching of Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott that
Jesus became incarnate in flesh just like Adam after the Fall
with all of its sinful tendencies. Thus Jesus can in every way be our example
in developing a perfect life (p.145). First, one must understand the full import of the "last
generation" concept as given in the Revelation "which God gave to
Jesus to shew unto His servants things which must ... come to pass"
(1:1). In that revelation, it is clearly stated that there will be "holy
ones" who will "keep the commandments of God and the faith of
Jesus" prior to the Second Advent (14:12, 14). In other words, while
manifesting in life's deeds that they no longer sin, nevertheless they still
live in the "vile body" (Phil. 3:21) with all of its tendencies to
sin. This impacts on one's understanding of the
incarnation of Jesus Christ. If Christ took a human nature exempt from its fallen
tendencies, then the "holy ones" of the "last generation"
would attain a victory greater that Jesus Himself attained. This contradicts
the very Revelation itself. In Chapter 12, the "male child" (Gr.),
with all that that implies, as the Messiah (Christ) accomplished
"salvation" and vindicated God - "the kingdom of our God"
was affirmed (vs. 5, 10). How then were Christ's "servants" to relate
to this monumental victory? They overcome the devil "by the blood of the
Lamb," (not by their works and good deeds). It was for them to give
"the word of their testimony," loving "not their lives unto the
death" (v. 11). The "last generation" is no exception. Are their
lives in harmony with the commandments of God a demonstration to vindicate God,
or are they a demonstration of the power of God in a fallen nature that has
sinned, when He takes to Himself His "great power" and reigns?
(11:17). In other words, they are trophies of His great and final revelation of
the gospel's saving power through Jesus Christ! Does not the "everlasting
gospel" of the Three Angels reveal how the victory of the
"saints" is to be realized? (Rev. 14:6, 12). Is it not of God, rather
than of men? To another prophet were revealed the details of the
"how." Zechariah saw the high priest Joshua "clothed with filthy
garments" (3:3) standing before the angel of the Lord with Satan at his
right hand "to be his adversary" (3:1; margin, Heb.). The command was
given: "Take away the filthy garments from him" (v.4). Here came the
moment of truth. To loose his garments would leave
him naked. To cling to them he would remain clothed in filthiness. Joshua could
not clean the filthiness of his garments, nor could he clothe himself, once he
was stripped naked. While the command to take the filthy garments was given to
"those that stood before the Lord," it was the Lord who promised to
take care of the mortifying situation. He said, "Behold I have caused
thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with a change of
raiment (v. 4). All that Joshua had to do was to "swallow" his pride,
and yield to the "work" of those that stood before the Lord. Little
have we understood the work of those "ministering spirits" who
minister to those who "shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb. 1:14). The results to Joshua are clearly stated: 1) A "fair mitre" was set upon
his head (v.5). 2) He
would "judge (God's) house, and "keep (the Lord's) courts"
finding his place "walk(ing) among (those) that
stood by" (v. 7). This closely parallels the description of the work and
place of the "saints" defined in Revelation as the 144,000 (7:15).
Further, these victors through surrender and humiliation, a conundrum from a
human Page 5 viewpoint, are declared to be "men wondered at" or as the margin
reads - "men of wonder" or a sign" (Zech. 3:8). The attainment
is not what they did, except surrender, but what God could do for them in a
final confrontation with Satan by surrendering. This is the Biblical basis for
the "final generation" concept. Also in his chapter, "Adventism in Tension," Knight
introduces the challenge of Elders Wieland and Short in regard to the Church's
rejection of the Message brought by Jones and Waggoner at the 1888 General
Conference Session. After commenting very briefly on some of the "positive
insights" involved in the challenge, Knight turns to "their
problematic aspects." He writes: For one thing, they teach the
concept of righteousness by faith set forth by Jones and Waggoner is greater
than and different from the understanding of the Reformers and evangelical
Christianity. (p. 82) This should not be the issue by which to judge Wieland and Short's
theme. In the premise held by Knight in the very first chapter of his book on
the dynamic nature of present truth, that truth is an advancing truth, then it
should be expected that Jones and Waggoner would be in advance of the
Reformers' perception. That is not the question. The judgment should be based
on the factors of the gospel revealed to Paul by Jesus Christ Himself (Gal.
1:11-12). To teach contrariwise would be to be accursed (v.8). This whole issue
is reduced as to why this message was given through Jones and Waggoner. In
fact, this is the paramount question to be answered. The evidence is clear that
prior to 1888, the ministry of the Church, for the most part, were preaching a
faith plus works plan of salvation. At the General Conference in 1888 and
after, these men called for a righteousness which is by faith, and a response
motivated by a love for Christ for what He did for man. The
facts of life are simply that not only as man cannot provide the means of his
redemption, neither can he live the life required by God of Adam prior to the Fall. The attempt is merely filthy garments covering a vile
body. If then there was to be a "last generation" which "kept
the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," the same experience which
is involved in justification, must also be involved in sanctification. If man
can produce a goodness by which God justifies him, then he can do the same in
order to be sanctified. However, if justification is found in the simple
prayer, "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13-14), then
sanctification is recognizing the fact that I need to be stripped of my filthy
garments, and accepting in their place the garments provided by Christ. This
process is totally the work of God in a surrendered soul. We have to learn the
first, justification, which is by faith, before we can learn the second,
sanctification, which too, is by faith. See I Cor.
1:30-31. A BIBLICAL ANALYSIS: The Image to the Beast The call to those "that dwell on the earth" to make an
image to the beast" (Revelation 13:14) is preceded by much prophetic
symbolism. This symbolism must be noted if a correct Biblical understanding of
the "Image" formed is to be achieved. This symbolism begins with the
12th chapter. In fact, Revelation 12:12-17 is the outline which is enlarged in
Chapters 13 and 14. While chapter 12:1-11 is devoted to the victory of the
"Seed" of the woman over the dragon, the balance of the chapter covers
briefly the conflict between the dragon and the woman till the revelation of
the remnant of her "seed which keep the commandments of God" (ver.
17). This "seed" is again interjected into the prophecy (Rev. 14:12),
where they are called "holy ones." Upon the victory of the "Man-child" (12:5), the dragon
came down in "great wrath" for his time had been circumscribed. John
recorded a voice in heaven speaking with finality. This voice directed its
message to three different groups (12:12). To the
"heavens, and ye that dwell in them." They were to rejoice.
Why? Because the dragon prevailed not; "neither was there place found
anymore in heaven" for him (12:8). But to the "inhabiters" of
"the earth and of the sea" a woe was given. This division of the "inhabiters"
is significant. It is symbolic and has a bearing on what follows in the
unfolding of the prophetic outline. The first beast of
Revelation 13 "rises up out of the sea" (13:1), while the second
beast comes "up out of the earth" (13:11). The non-descript beast coming out of the sea combines the symbolism
of Daniel 7 in the reverse order as it was given to Daniel - leopard, bear, and
lion (13:2; cmp. with Dan. 7:12). It is related to
the dragon before it, having "seven heads and ten horns" (12:3;
13:1). This is papal Page 6 the The second beast comes up out of the earth as the first beast goes
into captivity and is slain. (13:10) The date for the
captivity of the Papacy is easily determined -1798 - when Berthier,
under orders from Napoleon took the Pope a captive from The description of the beast is of import. It was to be
"lamb-like" with "two" distinct and separate horns of
power. In Daniel, the Papal phase of Often this "false prophet" is interpreted as "apostate
Protestantism." However, we need to keep in mind that the mainline bodies
of Protestantism began in the area of "sea" - Europe, and not the The healing of the "deadly wound" from a political point
of view began in 1929 when Mussolini signed with the Papal Secretary of State,
Cardinal Gasparri, the historic Roman Pact. The pope
once more became a civil ruler. This was followed by the attempt of the
appointment of an American Ambassador to the During this same period of time when secret workings were
transpiring between the Regardless of what political persuasion one may be, this last
election in the Some may wish to question the meaning of the term,
"earth" in Rev. 13:14, and broaden its application to include the
whole world. It is true that the Greek word for earth, gh, does have that meaning, the literal physical earth. However, if
John had wished to change the symbolic use to a literal word, meaning all the
peoples of the inhabited earth, he would have used the word, oikoumenh. But he didn't, thus it is best to hold to the symbolic meaning in
this text.
Page 7 The Commandments of God Prominent in the identification of the "last generation"
of God's people is the fact that they "keep the commandments of God."
Besides this is added the fact that they also "keep... the faith of
Jesus" (Rev. 14:12). Jesus in the upper room surrounded by His chosen
apostles, said to them: "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth
Me" (John 14:21). Do all these references to the
"commandments of God" refer to the Ten Commandments as proclaimed
from Sinai? Are the "commandments" of Jesus different, an addition to
the Ten? By the analogy of Scripture, we can conclude that He who spoke in
the flesh was also He who spoke from the summit of Sinai. According to Paul, He
who was with It is in the sermon on the Mount that the
contrast can be noted, and the full definition of sin perceived. There on the
latter Mount, Jesus declared, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of
old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Matt. 5:27). In the act was the
manifestation of sin. But Jesus probed the matter more fully, "But I say
unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his
heart" (v. 28). Here all the world stands guilty
before God, and sin is revealed in its complete dimension. Not only by the act
is sin revealed; but the very nature of man is corrupt and must be cleansed so
as to be in God's presence. Jesus declared from the same Mount, "Blessed
are the pure in heart: for they shall see God" (5:8). This man cannot do -
cleanse himself. Here enters, "righteousness by faith." This righteousness
comes only in and through Christ. It was His faith which achieved it. He
manifested perfect faith in the Father to keep Him from sin while bearing in
His flesh the fallen nature of Adam. "He condemned sin in the flesh"
(Rom. 8:3). He placed Himself in the hands of the Father as He entered the
shadows of the second death to pay the penalty for all sin (Luke 23:46). In the
same act is manifest a faith in fallen man that they would accept His sacrifice
and mediatorial power to become once more what He,
the Creator, intended them to be in the first place. The Holy Spirit is also a witness to us: for after that he had said
before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith
the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write
them. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more (Heb.
10:15-17). The
redemption in Christ Jesus will go to the very core of the sin problem - the
thoughts and the intents of the heart. Now where remission of these is,
there is no more offering for sin
(v. 18). When this occurs, the "last generation" will have
come. The "holy ones" will "keep the commandments of God and the
faith of Jesus." The "men of wonder" will appear as their
"iniquity" is removed "in one day" (Zech 3:8-9). Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into "the holy places in
the blood of Jesus" (Lit. Gr.), by a
new and living way, which he hath new made (margin) for us through the
veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having an high priest over the house of
God; let us draw near in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water (Heb. 10:19-22). # +++++ Divine Grace is needed at the
beginning, divine grace at every step of advance, and divine grace alone can complete the work. (TM, p. 5-8)
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.
|