In keeping with the Adventists' desperate attempts to convince a United States District Court that the government of the S.D.A. Church is papal in structure (which will be described in chapter 25), we may expect to find an authoritarian attitude extending right down the hierarchal chain of command through Division presidents, Union presidents, conference presidents and thence through conference workers and church pastors. Let us briefly look at the chain of command in the South Pacific Division, not only to see if it is authoritarian in nature, but also to find out its true objective. Does it advance the cause espoused by the Adventist pioneers or does it aid the slide toward Rome?

We have noted at some length, Division president Scragg's attitude to Dr. Colin Standish's speaking at "unauthorized" meetings- he was unappreciative. Yet Colin's audiences were very enthusiastic, which simply adds up to the fact that they were listening to messages which they seldom hear.

Similarly, other visiting and local preachers find their "unauthorized" meetings in considerable demand. One such preacher is veteran retired evangelist, Pastor Austin P. Cooke. In this connection, let us now look at the Union presidents and discover their administrative attitudes. Do they render allegiance to God and the divine commission given to the remnant church, or do they bow to the wishes of men?

We have two Union Conferences in the homelands of the South Pacific Division- the Trans-Tasman Union with headquarters in Sydney and the Trans-Australia Conference, controlled from Melbourne. Both the Union presidents, Pastor Harold Harker and Pastor Desmond Hills respectively, know what historic Adventism is all about and to the best of the author's knowledge, are quite capable of preaching it. Indeed, both have publicly stated in the hearing of the author, their unswerving allegiance to preaching the three angels' messages.*

* Special Business meeting called in attempt to silence Anchor magazine, Avondale Memorial Church (September 27, 1987).

Seventh-day Adventist retired ministers receive their honorary credentials through the Union in which they reside. It is the president's duty to know about the suitability of those to whom his committee issues credentials. There are certain guidelines laid down in the Church Manual regarding church discipline. From page 158 of the Church Manual we read:

No individual member or group of members should start a movement or form an organization or seek to encourage a following for the attainment of any objective, or the teaching of any doctrine or message not in harmony with the fundamental religious objectives and teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

*The fact that Dr. Ford is allowed to remain a member of the S.D.A. Church while contravening conditions of membership laid down in the Church Manual, is another issue to which President Neil Clayton Wilson apparently turns a blind eye.

We have already noted at some length (chapter 14) that a retired minister, Pastor V. Heise, credentialed in the T.T.U.C., openly supported Ford's organization by contributing an article to Good News Australia (September 1988). Surely any member, especially a minister, who so boldly identifies with the ideals of Ford's organization cannot, according to the Church Manual, be considered a loyal church member, let alone hold ministerial credentials issued by the S.D.A. Church.

On February 23, 1989, the author wrote to the president of the Trans-Tasman Union Conference expressing concern. Enclosed was a copy of Heise's article. In reply, Pastor Harker attempted to dodge the main issue- that of public support for Ford- with the following diversionary remarks:

"There was nothing in the article that could be seen "as cause for disciplinary action." . . . I also do not see Pastor Vern Heise, who is retired, forming a new organization or trying to get a following." (letter March 16, 1989).

However, to his credit, he did eventually get around to addressing the real concern of the author by noting before closing that:

"It does tell where sympathies lie and this should be noted." (ibid.).

During the latter part of May 1989, the T.T.U.C. executive met in session and Pastor Heise's credentials were left intact. But those of veteran Pastor Austin Cooke, who publicly upholds historic Adventism and denounces error, were revoked (Letter from Harker to Cooke, May 23, 1989).

Meanwhile, in the Trans-Australia Union Conference, a lay member of the S.D.A. church had been recently admitted into church employment as a high school teacher. He also had publicly supported Ford by writing articles appearing in Good News Australia. On January 26, 1989, the author wrote to T.A.U.C. president, Pastor D. Hills expressing general concern:

"that so many of our administrators knowingly employ men whose interpretation of truth coincides with Des Ford's reformationist concept of righteousness by faith and other views aberrant to Seventh-day Adventism. Need I remind you of the great influence our teachers have upon our youth and the significance of placing Fordian teachers in our church schools?"

In reply (February 1, 1989) Pastor Hills stated:

"It is not true that "many of our administrators knowingly employ men whose interpretations of the truth coincide with Des Ford's etc."

Then followed an astounding admission:

"The leadership of the church that I am associated with are fully aware that there are people who don't preach error but also don't preach all of the Word of God."

He then defended the teacher on the grounds that his president didn't "know of this church member teaching views held by Des Ford or withholding truths upheld by the Seventh-day Adventist Church." Apparently these remarks were primarily based on the fact that the teacher in question had taught Sabbath School classes and came "with positive recommendations as a loyal Seventh-day Adventist."

In this case, the president of the T.A.U.C. entirely ignored the point of concern-that the teacher was sufficiently supportive of Ford to declare his position publicly- so he ignored it. The author replied, February 17, 1989, pointing out that:

"You have ducked the question of employing Fordian sympathizers.... May I point out to you that you are being given the opportunity to give credibility to your numerous affirmations [of loyalty to Adventists' perception of truth]."

In reply, President Hills sought to minimize the impact of his admission by stating that:

"You need to note that the statement was made with reference to "people" and you are not correct in presuming that that's specifically stated "church employees."

But, the careful reader will note that the concern expressed in the correspondence has been only about people employed by the church.

By now, it must be evident that in a hierarchal system of administration, even though an administrator may be inclined to act to uphold the standards required for the preservation of Adventist beliefs and ideals, it is most unlikely that subordinates will act against the direction of their superiors. If they were so in the habit, it is not likely that they would have attained their position on the ladder of hierarchy. But the end result is that both the two homeland Unions are administratively tolerant of Fordian supporters- a fact which contrasts with their attitude shown toward some ministers who are openly loyal to historic Adventism.

We now come down the ladder of hierarchy to conference level. In the North New South Wales Conference, of which Pastor Rex Moe is president, some curious methods have been used in "advancing" God's work. A recent spate of disfellowshipments and resignations indicate the surfacing of an undercurrent of disenchantment with what is seen as evidence of "kingly," "papal like" power.

Pastor Moe took upon himself the task of shutting down the Anchor magazine.* During a special business meeting of the Avondale Memorial Church, September 27, 1987, he claimed that the Anchor's charges that the Australasian Division had accepted apostasy when they had exonerated Ford at the Biblical Research grounds Institute's at that time Ford had not declared his apostate position.

Yet the editor of Anchor was able to produce two witnesses (who were in attendance at the BRI meetings) to say that President Rex Moe had vigorously defended Ford, especially in connection with Ford's claim that the earth's age was considerably more than 6,000 years. Moe hotly objected to this testimony, saying that he had always been comfortable with Sister White's position- that the earth is around 6,000 years old.

But the editor had come into possession of a curious set of papers which President Moe, through his committee, had arranged to circulate quietly among his workers. These papers were written and prepared by one of his ministers, Pastor S. R. Goldstone, who had taken the liberty of entitling them "The Seventh-day Adventist Church Believes . . ." (he had beaten the G. C. ministerial association to the punch with their book "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " ).

* A letter to the editor of Anchor magazine appeared in "Anchor Lines," February 1987 edition: "A friend of mine from Glen Innes (North New South Wales) claims that the president told church members there, that "they" were going to deal with the Editor and shut the Anchor up."

Further light on the wishful intentions of the administration is revealed in a South Queensland church bulletin dated August 15, 1987:

"Action was taken by the church where he [the editor] holds membership, to apply church discipline if he continues to publish Anchor.

In the event, such action was not initiated until February 27, 1988, over six months after the "event" was announced.

A motion to disfellowship Meyers failed by 101:54 (see Anchor No. 19, pg 13 for report).

The Anchor magazine was brought into being in April 1985 to uphold historic Adventism and expose error. Its first editor was H. H. Meyers, an Adventist layman with membership at the Avondale Memorial Church. It is presently being edited jointly by Ron and Ula Cable, and its continued success indicates the real need which it and other similar magazines fulfill. Back numbers and current copies may be obtained from:

The Editors, Anchor magazine

P.O.Box 19, KALBAR Queensland 4309 AUSTRALIA

Quite a deal of resource materials accompanied Goldstone's comments on each of the fundamentals. Each section of the fundamentals was preceded with a full page on which appeared a large cautionary notice written in Goldstone's handwriting:

Resource Material only. Please use with discretion.

But preceding a section containing some forty of Mrs. White's quotations bearing on the earth's age, appeared an extra injunction:

Note that the Bible nowhere makes statements regarding the age of the earth. It is adamant that God was the Creator. Where the Bible is silent we ought to be silent.*

*If the Bible nowhere makes statements on the age of the earth, then by the same method of reasoning, it nowhere mentions the year 1844 as the start of the investigative judgment. There is no end to the possibilities of such specious reasoning.

The editor then produced this evidence before the assembled business meeting, showing that some twelve years on from Ford's BRI meetings, we have a president who denies supporting Ford, yet is presently assisting in the distribution of Fordian material which casts doubt not only on the denomination's understanding of the age of the earth, but also by implication, on the Spirit of Prophecy.

The fact that this sort of material is being circulated to the ministry with a caution as to how it is used, holds grave implications, for obviously it is not intended for the eyes of the laity. But other ideas are quietly injected into the minds of the ministry. In the section dealing with fundamental No. 23, p. 10, relating to our distinctive beliefs on the investigative judgment, Goldstone says,

"The conclusion reached by the consensus of scholars within the Seventh-day Adventist Church is that the Book of Hebrews neither confirms nor denies our belief in the investigative judgment."

In fairness to Goldstone, we here record that he claims to believe in an investigative judgment but he gets his belief from an overall view of the Bible- not just Hebrews. But even this affirmation gets a watering down:

"I believe the primary purpose of the investigative judgment is to vindicate God's name before His intelligent creatures. God is on trial more than men." (p. 13).

But his view is strangely at variance with that of the pioneers who regarded the warnings of a personal judgment as a message to be urgently proclaimed.

It is no wonder that the ministry is cautioned over and over again to be discreet in their use of such information!

The next stage in the attempt to silence the Anchor took place just five months later-on February 27, 1988. This time a Special Business meeting of the Avondale Memorial Church was called to consider disciplining the editor, H. H. Meyers, for continuing to publish Anchor. By church standards, this was an illegal meeting, for it contravened the clear rules of the Church Manual:

"No church officer should advise, no committee should recommend, nor should any church vote, that the name of a wrongdoer shall be removed from the church books, until the instruction given by Christ has been faithfully followed." (Church Manual p. 155).

Christ's instructions, as mentioned in the Church Manual are to be found in Matthew 18. Surely these would require that the church pastor with a church elder would have visited the editor. But it seems that silencing those who "sigh and cry" has such priority that Christ's instructions don't apply, for neither the church pastor nor the president nor anyone delegated by the church came to discuss the matter with editor Meyers.* No one even bothered to ascertain whether or not the time for the disciplinary meeting was convenient to the "erring one."

* Another example of reckless dissemination of false information concerns President Scragg's correspondence concerning the Editor of Anchor.

In responding to a letter from a church member expressing surprise that Meyers had never been visited by the church pastor, Scragg said, "I know that the conference president and church pastors have visited him more than once" (Letter, January 13, 1988). But in reply to persistent correspondence, Scragg had to admit his error: "You are right; there have been no recent pastoral visits to Hilton Meyers" (Letter, April 21, 1988). In fact, there had never been any pastoral visits to Meyers.

However, the president did show his interest by attending the meeting. He sat there and by his silence condoned the efforts to discredit the editor and then watched a motion instigated to have the editor disfellowshiped. But he was in for a surprise! He was forced to witness the scheming and conspiring of some eighteen months come undone. By secret ballot, the motion was lost- 101 votes to 54.

Had church pastor J. Beamish followed the injunction of Christ and had dialogue with the editor, he could have learned that he had been negotiating for several months with new editors who were about to take over. In the event, the meeting was a big fuss over nothing, for by this time, Meyers was no longer the editor. One cannot escape the conclusion that if similar planning and energy were directed toward spreading the third angel's message, there would be no need for journals like the Anchor.

Pastor Ross Goldstone has since been appointed pastor of the Avondale Memorial Church. Pastor Austin Cooke has had his membership there during the previous eight years of his retirement. Never once in all these years has he been invited to preach in divine service or take a Sabbath School lesson. It is no wonder then, that he commenced fellowshiping in another church, at nearby Boolaroo. There he has been able to participate by teaching Sabbath School lessons.

In November 1988, he applied to have his membership transferred to the Boolaroo church. But, by April 17, 1989, at the time of an Avondale Memorial Church business meeting, his transfer had still not been put to the church for vote. Pastor Cooke requested at this meeting that in view of the inordinate delay, his transfer be put to the vote and settled at that very meeting.

Pastor Goldstone, who chaired the meeting, flatly refused. After difficult attempts to question him, it appeared that he was awaiting advice from the Trans-Tasman Union Conference.

This unusual procedure seems to denote a lack of confidence in a credentialing system that has shown confidence in Pastor Cooke throughout his outstandingly successful evangelistic career. Is this part of a popish pattern in the South Pacific Division to suppress the teaching of established truth? In Pastor Cooke's case, his standing as a church member is under question, simply because he has offended an authoritarian system by moving around the Division giving truth-starved church members the historic Adventist message and denouncing apostasy. In years gone by, such commitment would be lauded by conference presidents. Why not now?

Which brings us to another important sphere of Division influence- Avondale College, and in particular, its theology department. This is the college which was brought into being under the direct guidance of God through Mrs. E. G. White. Our pioneers denied themselves in order to have a "School for Christian Workers." Later it became known as the "Australasian Missionary College" and as such it has been eminently successful. But now it is known as Avondale College, a "college of higher learning." The management still claim to run a "blueprint" college.

This is where young church members train to be Seventh-day Adventist ministers, but having studied Babylonian theology, not all of them know what Seventh-day Adventism should be about. One recent graduate had to ask the meaning of the term, "three angels' messages."

The theology department is very sensitive to criticism. Around the end of 1988, a video tape was produced by a lecturer in evangelism at Avondale College, Pastor Graeme Bradford. It was directed against the preaching of a veteran retired minister who, while exposing apostate Adventism, had brought the college into it. This tape has been quietly circulated around the conferences and played to selected audiences. Although Bradford frequently addresses the veteran by name, he had not bothered to advise him of the tape's existence, let alone afford him the courtesy of seeing it.

Discerning viewers of this video will be grateful for the fact that we now have an unequivocal admission from the theology department that they are in the track of Calvinistic-evangelical theology. Bradford follows Froom's subtle approach in promoting "new theology," raises doubts on the competency of the pioneers by showing that new light demanded that they forsake Arianism, and from this attempts to have Mrs. E. G. White imply that new light will continue to be revealed (even on accepted truth).

Part of this "new light" appears to be old light revealed by the Roman Catholic Church. Bradford comes down heavily for Augustine's invention of original sin, claiming that we are all born sinners except Christ who, because He didn't sin, must have entered this world with a different nature from ours. But, quite unfairly, he fails to give credit to Augustine for his inventive genius, which runs contrary to scripture (1 John 3:4) and claims that he gets this doctrine (of anti-christ, 1 John 4:3) from the Bible.

However, can Bradford make the Bible contradict itself? It's quite simple. Rome has already provided him with her Roman corruptions of Scripture and, in keeping with those who promote apostate Adventism, he turns to Rome for help. He reads from Psalms, according to the NIV:

Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me (Psalm 51:5, NIV).

Says Bradford, "That's the word of God- sinner from birth."

But those who believe that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" will know that God cannot contradict Himself. He says: "For sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). And God's Messenger tells us that this is the only definition of sin in the Bible (GC 493). But God tells us in His Holy Word just what David really did say:

Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm 51:5, KJV).

Bradford tries to tell his viewers that the KJV has the same meaning as given in the NIV. Then why did he cite the NIV? The reason is obvious- it doesn't. Bradford here shows that he does not believe the SDA Bible Commentary on this text, which says:

David recognizes that children inherit natures with propensities to evil (Vol. 3, p. 755).

Isn't that why God chose Mary to be Christ's mother- so that Jesus would inherit a similar nature to that with which you and I started life?

The owner of the NIV copyright is the New York International Bible Society. Their Preface claims that their Bible is "a completely new translation ... made by over 100 scholars" and that it is "trans-denominational," that is, suitable for a variety of denominations because it reflects the philosophy of the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals. So it is an ecumenical Bible!

As with the KJV, the translators appear to rely on the Masoretic text, but we are advised that there are "variant readings" not necessarily specified by footnotes. As the translators of the KJV also claim to rely on the Masoretic text, then it seems that the NIV translators went elsewhere to translate Psalm 51:5. Was it the Septuagint? No- the LXX agrees with the Masoretic from which the KJV derives:

"For, behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me." (The Septuagint Greek and English, Bagster).

We must search the NIV Preface again for clues. Here we are told that readings from the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome were occasionally used in the Psalms "where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading."

Well, that really gives us something to think about, doesn't it? We are told that the translators are associated with the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals. If a reading seemed doubtful to their religious beliefs they simply searched for a "textual witness that appeared to provide a correct reading," in this case, a reading that would uphold Augustine's invention of original sin.

But even Jerome, a friend and admirer of Augustine, was not able to translate Psalm 51:5 so as to entirely support his friend's invention of original sin as translated in the NIV. A literal translation of his Latin Juxta Hebraica would read something like this:

"Behold, I was born in a condition of blame and in sin my mother conceived me."

(Recently, the author was browsing through a religious book shop in the Philippines. All the Bibles on display were Roman Catholic publications with the exception of one other- the NIV.)

In his video, Bradford frequently identifies with the theology of most of the ministry in Australasia, which is not surprising. They too have received ministerial training that is tainted, if not impregnated with Fordism. But Bradford's video reveals another identifying characteristic of a forlorn cause. He conducts an interview with a retired history professor who sets about to discredit our retired evangelist over a minor historical mistake, which he is alleged to have made during a lecture some thirty years back, yes, thirty years ago!

As if that were not puerile enough, this frustrated professor then resorted to a vitriolic attack on God's veteran. He described what he perceived to be one of the evangelist's idiosyncrasies:

"And so he feels free to make what amounts to be defamatory statements ... about people and institutions and does it with an inane neurotic laugh that you would expect to get from a firebug or a saboteur."

Is this an insight into the kind of "love" that is promoted by a theology that advocates more love and less doctrine?

How deplorable to realize that those who have been entrusted with the training of Seventh-day Adventist ministers have misdirected their time and talents in such destructive pursuits! But even more devastating is the realization that there are presidents and/or other workers around the conferences who encourage such unchristian and un-Adventist-like ventures by disseminating such a destructive video.

One June 8, 1989, during a meeting held to "enlighten" elders of the South Queensland Conference at Kallangur, Pastor Bradford advertised this series of video tapes, assuring the elders that they had approval of South Pacific Division leadership. Conference president David Lawson enthusiastically offered to help in the distribution. Then in the July edition of his conference paper, Focus, Lawson took the opportunity to get Bradford's message to all of his constituents:

If you did not hear Pastor Bradford at the Elders' Meeting, let me suggest that you obtain a set of the videos produced by Avondale College featuring Pastor Bradford.

Truly the experiences of the pioneers could well be emulated by our leaders today. God's Messenger says,

"We are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. . . . We would search the scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds.... The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error.

"As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed on a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me.... It is the enemy that leads minds off on side-tracks [such as the Bradford video tape]. He is pleased when those who know the truth become engrossed in collecting scriptures to pile around erroneous theories, which have no foundation in truth. The scriptures thus used are misapplied; they were not given to substantiate error, but to strengthen truth." (Gospel Workers, ed. 1915, 302-303).

Unless the church, which is now being leavened with her own backsliding, shall repent and be converted, she will eat of the fruit of her own doing, until she shall abhor herself. When she resists the evil and chooses the good, when she seeks God with all humility and reaches her high calling in Christ, standing on the platform of eternal truth and by faith laying hold upon the attainments prepared for her, she will be healed. She will appear in her God-given simplicity and purity, separate from earthly entanglements, showing that the truth has made her free indeed. Then her members will indeed be the chosen of God, His representatives.

The time has come for a thorough reformation to take place. When this reformation begins, the spirit of prayer will actuate every believer and will banish from the church the spirit of discord and strife. Those who have not been living in Christian fellowship will draw close to one another.

Ellen G. White

Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 8, 250-251

When we read in Adventist literature the oft-repeated term "apostate Protestantism" we understand that the author is talking about Protestant churches that are backsliding to Rome. When the Seventh-day Adventist Church accepts the teachings of apostate Protestantism and imitates the ways of Rome, it is logical to refer to that condition as apostate Adventism, for the very term "apostasy" denotes a turning back or backsliding from a position once espoused.

God's Messenger had no illusions as to the direction in which a backsliding church is headed:

"It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy." (Signs of the Times, February 19, 1894).

We have seen how, in 1903 the church deliberately defied God's will by returning to a type of bureaucratic government described by Mrs. White as a "kingly power" and by A. T. Jones as "a government more like that of the Papacy than any of the Protestant churches" (see chapter 13).

We have also seen how the doctrinal changes brought into the Seventh-day Adventist Church under the cloak of historic Adventism, have brought us into favor with popular evangelicalism. Let us now briefly examine the veracity of our Messenger's claim that such changes lead toward the Papacy, by examining the two prongs of the dagger-namely, the unfallen nature and the judgment in relation to a completed atonement.

1. God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3)

"The Romanists have been trying to get the human nature of Christ as far away from our humanity as possible, and hence have taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary." (Bishop Simpson in his "Yale Lectures on Preaching," quoted in Bible Echo, December 1897).

"By the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Rome teaches that the mother of Jesus was preserved from the stain of "original sin," and that she had sinless flesh. Consequently she was separated from the rest of humanity. As a result of the separating of Jesus from sinful flesh, the Roman priesthood has been instituted to mediate between Christ and the sinner (Sabbath School Quarterly, second quarter 1913, p. 25).

"Ancient Babylon affirmed that the gods (or God) dwelt not in the flesh. By the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (that is, that she herself was born without a taint of original sin) modern Babylon teaches that God, in the person of His Son, did not take the same flesh with us; that is, sinful flesh (Bible Readings for the Home Circle, 1915, p. 236).

"The Scripture plainly teaches that Jesus, when born of a woman, assumed sinful flesh (Hebrews 2:14; Romans 8:3) and thus became united with man in his fallen condition. This doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary separates Jesus from the human family in its present state, by giving Him "perfect human nature" free from the stain of original sin, and thus prepares the way for the introduction of the human mediation which is one of the prominent features of the Roman Catholic system. The very essence of Christianity being the experience, "Christ in you, the hope of glory," it thus appears that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary strikes at the very heart of Christianity." (note by editors, Source Book for Bible Students, p. 220, Review and Herald, 1919; deleted from the 1922 edition).

In spite of such striking statements, all of which appear in official publications of the SDA Church, the books Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny uphold the Roman Catholic heresy which is dependent on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Both teach that Christ did not inherit a sinful human nature.

Examples follow:

"Took Sinless Human Nature." (QOD, p. 650)

"Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall." (MOD, p. 497)

2. "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:14).

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5).

When a Seventh-day Adventist publication states "Complete Atonement Made on Cross" (MOD p. 501) and "The atonement, or reconciliation was completed on the cross as pre-shadowed by the sacrifices, and the penitent believer can trust in this finished work of our Lord" ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . ", p. 315) the church's belief in an atoning role of Christ in heaven as High Priest and Mediator is logically brought into ridicule. In commenting on Adventism's changed position, Barnhouse described our belief in the investigative judgment as "stale, flat and unprofitable" (Eternity, September 1956).

But, as seen earlier in this chapter, the Roman Catholic Church seeks to abort Christ's role of heavenly High Priest by insinuating its own mediators between God and man. Satan is determined one way or another to rob Jesus Christ of His mediatorial role for which He alone is qualified.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted (Hebrews 2:14-18).

Whether Christ's work of salvation is cut off at the cross with a "completed act of atonement" or whether His work is circumscribed by the confines of a papal wafer in a virtual state of perpetual crucifixion, is of little consequence to the archdeceiver. Either way, there is no need for an investigative judgment- which is described by our prophet as Christ's final act of atonement.

By either means, man is not constrained to seek an intimate union with our Saviour by following "Jesus by faith into the heavenly sanctuary" (EW 255). Instead, he can delude himself that he need not obey God, for he is already saved at the cross; or by the incantations of a mystical human mediator:

"The Holy Eucharist is the sublime source of this intimate union with Jesus Christ during man's earthly pilgrimage, for in receiving Holy Communion, the Christian soul may truly exclaim: "And I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me" Galatians 2:20 (The Catholic Church the True Church of the Bible, pp. 132-133, quoted in Source Book for Bible Students, 1919, p. 297; 1922 edition p. 319).

* "Clayton" is a brand of non-alcoholic drink advertised in Australia as "The drink you have when you're not drinking."

They tell us its primary purpose is to give the universe an opportunity to judge God. Apparently this face-saving concept has been officially accepted by the ministerial association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,** for in their publication "Seventh-day Adventist Believe. .. ", we read:

This judgment is not for the benefit of the Godhead. It is primarily for the benefit of the universe, answering the charges of Satan and giving assurance to the unfallen creation that God will allow into His kingdom only those who truly have been converted. So God opens the books of record for impartial inspection. Daniel 7:9-10 ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. ", p. 325).

The issue is with God and the universe, not between God and the true child (ibid. p. 326).

** "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " comes "with the authorization and encouragement of President Neal C. Wilson and the other officers of the General Conference ... to furnish reliable information on the beliefs of our church" (p. v).

* Terminology used by G. Youlden (Sermon, Avondale Memorial Church, August 20, 1988).

This teaching in "Seventh-day Adventists Believe .. . " is very different from that of historic Adventism. Just listen to what the then president of the General Conference had to say just thirteen years earlier (1975):

"The apostle Paul declares: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10). We may not like it, we may not believe it, but the inspired writer declares it nonetheless certain that every one of us has a court case pending before the heavenly tribunal.... The great final judgment determines in which group you and I and every person born into this world will be- saved or lost- when Jesus returns. Not everyone who makes a start in the Christian way will go through to the kingdom. "Once in grace, always in grace" is a doctrine neither of the remnant church nor of the Scriptures. "He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved," Jesus taught. (Matthew 24:13). The judgment separates those who merely begin to serve the Lord from those who follow Him unto the end." (R. H. Pierson, We Still Believe, pp 123124).

Truly, a backsliding church does lessen the distance between itself and the Papacy.

A church can apostatize in either of two ways- it can grow careless and indifferent to its special beliefs that have set it apart as a denomination; or it can revert to the beliefs and practices which it had originally discarded by assiduously promoting a deceitful campaign of subversion.

Both types of apostasy require the assistance of time and funerals. The latter type must inevitably be planned and controlled by the religious system to which its victim is attracted. We know of but one religious system which has formed a specific organization to subvert Protestantism- the Roman Catholic Church with its misnamed "Society of Jesus."

In his book Alberto, ex-Roman Catholic priest Dr. Alberto Rivera tells how he was one of many young seminarians trained by the Jesuits to infiltrate Protestant denominations. He says:

"The first Protestant groups they [the Jesuits] moved on were the 7th Day Adventists [sic] and the Full Gospel Business Men" (p. 28).

In a later public interview with Mike Clute, Alberto not only reaffirmed that Jesuits had penetrated the S.D.A. Church but said that on a membership basis, the S.D.A. Church has been infiltrated more thoroughly than any other. Not surprisingly, along with the Roman Catholic Church, some Evangelical-type Adventist ministers and academics have not only denied Rivera's claim, but they are known to have exercised their imagination with hilarious descriptions of Jesuits lurking in the shadows of Adventist churches and institutions. The author does not seek to gainsay such people for they probably have the advantage of varying degrees of association with Rome and her daughters.

In the following three chapters we will briefly consider aspects of the Church's conduct which appear to be consistent with that of a papal hierarchy, and leave it to the reader to determine the credibility of Alberto Rivera's claims.

When Robert Pierson became General Conference president, the plan to pervert Adventist doctrine received a setback. Questions on Doctrine went out of print. LeRoy Froom had to act to salvage the situation, so he wrote the book, Movement of Destiny under the guise of fulfilling Elder Daniells' wish that he explain to the church the meaning of righteousness by faith.

In reality, MOD turned out to be a defense of the book Questions on Doctrine which, if its real purpose were known, was not likely to evoke the enthusiasm of President Pierson. Froom must have realized that it was vital to have the president's approval and recommendation for his book to have wide distribution and acceptance. So Froom had printed thousands of copies of a promotional pamphlet titled The Fascinating Story of Movement of Destiny. In it he made great store of the fact that he was about to fulfill Elder Daniells' commission, and that the Foreword to Movement of Destiny contained a glowing recommendation by the president of the General Conference-Elder Robert Pierson. Neither was he backward in proclaiming that the vice-president, Neal C. Wilson had given a similar recommendation in his Preface.

However, after publication of Movement of Destiny, President Pierson received a rude shock. He was reading things that he had not seen in the manuscript! His reaction was to forbid the publishers to use his Foreword in any future editions.* So when the next edition came out, Pierson's Foreword was deleted, but Elder Wilson must have agreed wholeheartedly with the book, for his Preface of approval remained.

* On October 6, 1988, Elder Robert Pierson wrote the author: "Some portions of Elder Froom's manuscript Movement of Destiny I had not read before its publication. Much of it I had read however, and what I read I heartily agreed with and was glad to write the requested Foreword. After reading some portions later, I declined to have my Foreword used in any subsequent editions."

Elder Pierson was troubled! He had been unwittingly and unfairly used. So he set about to write a book titled We Still Believe (Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1975). The very title indicates that he was aware that heresy was abroad. In it he reaffirmed the doctrines worked out by our pioneers, including our belief in Christ's continuing work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. Commenting on Fundamental Fourteen of the SDA Yearbook, 1973-1974 which states that "the priestly work of our Lord is the antitype of the work of the Jewish priests," he says:

"The Seventh-day Adventist Church today still believes the great truths presented in these symbols of salvation. We have neither changed our minds nor our position-the sanctuary truth is present truth today just as it was October 23, 1844, when the Lord revealed it initially to Hiram Edson" (We Still Believe, p. 111).

On page 119, he quotes the Lord's Messenger:

"The Sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work on behalf of men." (GC 488).

And again,

"The intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross." (ibid. p. 489).

Then he makes crystal clear his belief that Christ's present work in the sanctuary is a continuation of the atonement by quoting from The Great Controversy, p. 489:

"We are now living in the great day of atonement." (We Still Believe, p. 120).

In 1978, Elder R. H. Pierson retired from the presidency of the General Conference before his term of office had expired.* During the Annual Council of the General Conference (1978) he was moved to give a farewell address in which he gave an impassioned plea for the preservation of the faith. He warned of the approach of the omega of apostasy:

"Brethren, I beg of you, study, know what is ahead, then with God's help prepare your people to meet it.

"Regrettably there are those in the church who belittle the inspiration of the total Bible . . . who question the Spirit of Prophecy's short chronology of the earth, and who subtly and not-so-subtly attack the Spirit of Prophecy. . . . There are some who point to the reformers and contemporary theologians as a source and the norm for Seventh-day Adventist doctrine.... There are those who wish to forget the standards of the church we love. There are those who covet and would court the favor of the evangelicals; those who would throw off the mantle of a peculiar people; and those who would go the way of the secular, materialistic world.

"Fellow leaders, beloved brethren and sisters- don't let it happen! . . . I appeal to Andrews University, to the Seminary, to Loma Linda University- don't let it happen! We are not Seventh-day Anglicans, not Seventh-day Lutherans, we are Seventh-day Adventists! This is God's last church with God's last message!

* While it is generally believed that Elder Pierson retired for reasons of health, some who are close to the G. C. consider that he was "eased" out of the presidency. In view of his adherence to historic Adventism (as shown by his repudiation of some teachings in MOD in his book We Still Believe, this claim appears credible.

Further, it will be noted that since his retirement, practically every one of the warnings given in his farewell speech have gone unheeded; on the contrary, it seems that some Curia-like body has seen to it that they have been put into practice.

The Roman Curia is described as "the highly complicated and structured hierarchical body which is the Holy See's civil service" (Thomas and Morgan-Witts, Pontiff, p. 49, Granada Publishing).

"Popes may come and popes may go, but the Roman Curia, like the civil servants of an elected government need to remain in place. It is the curia which shapes and coordinates the political affairs of the pseudo-Christian system centered in the Vatican.

"Pope John Paul I did not appreciate all the advice tendered to him by his Curia. He had some plans of his own. On the thirty-third day of his pontificate, he made the decision to pull his liberal army of Jesuits back into line. He summoned the iron-willed Superior-General of that society, Pedro Arrupe, to appear before him on the following morning to answer to charges of spiritual sedition, having steered his twenty-seven thousand members "on a direct collision course with orthodox Church dogma (ibid., p. 364).

"Before Pope Paul I finally retired that night he sat up in bed going over the papers that had been prepared for the Jesuit Superior. But they were not to be delivered; they were found the next morning scattered near his dead body, still sitting up in bed!" (Ibid., p. 378).

It seems that the General Conference of the SDA Church has had a few men who have entrenched themselves in the administration at Washington D.C. Presidents come and presidents go, but some names appear almost as fixtures in a Curia-like band of executive directors.

While God's Messenger remained in our midst, such men were subjected to the restraining voice of rebuke. But after her death the papal-like tendencies of the "kingly" government were nurtured and exploited by the growing hierarchy. Soon they would take the opportunity to flex their muscles.

Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson was a forceful and outspoken figure of the time. His feelings about the exercise of "kingly power" were well known, for along with Mrs. White and Elders Waggoner and Jones, he had, as a young worker, voted in 1903 against the reinstitution of a presidential-type government.

The SDA Encyclopedia reveals some interesting details about Wilkinson's outstanding career. He trained for the ministry at Battle Creek College, became an evangelist in Wisconsin, obtained a B.A. at the University of Michigan and returned to Battle Creek College as dean. After a short spell as president of the Canadian Conference, he became the dean of theology at Union College. He is credited with commencing our work in Rome, Paris, and in Spain, having spent four years as president of the Latin Conference in the Southern European Division.

Returning to North America, we find him as evangelist, dean of theology at Washington Missionary College and president of Columbia Union Conference, and Kansas and East Pennsylvanian Conferences.

In 1935 Wilkinson became president of the Washington Missionary College, which post he held until 1945. While in his previous position as dean, Dr. Wilkinson perceived the trend among Adventist scholars to favor the modern versions of the Bible.*

*This is not surprising as, in 1926, the Berrien Springs College Press published a text book on doctrines for use in S.D.A. colleges, in which it claimed the ARV to be "more accurate, more scholarly, more valuable" than the AV (p. 59).

He was aware that the Pacific Press Association had published a book by William P. Pierce titled The World's Best Book (1930). This book elevated the American Revised Version by saying that the two thousand or more changes in the New Testament "had done no violence to the original sense" but had in fact refined it (p. 83). Such a conclusion was based on the premise that since the translation of the King James Bible, more reliable codices had become available, such as the Alexandrian, Vatican and Sinaitic, which the author describes as "great Codices" (The World's Best Book, chapter XIII).

Wilkinson knew that the ARV had done "violence to the original sense." He was aware that these "more reliable" manuscripts carried Roman Catholic readings of the Latin Vulgate which had been rejected by the Protestants of the Reformation. They had been secretly injected into the supposed revision of the Authorized Version in 1881 by the extensive use of the carefully hidden Greek New Testament of Doctors Westcott and Hort. These clergymen of the Church of England had long fallen under the spell of ritualism, Romanism and higher criticism (See Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, chapter IX).

The Revised Versions had not been generally received with favor. Some sixty years after the publication of the RV and twenty years after the ARV, the popular Ladies' Home Journal commented on the virtues of the Authorized Version:

"Now, as the English-speaking people have the best Bible in the world . . . we ought to make the most of it. . . . This means that we ought invariably in the church and on public occasions to use the Authorized Version; all others are inferior." (November 1921).

A few months later, the Herald and Presbyter magazine denounced the Revised Version:

"This Revised Version is in large part in line with what is known as "Modernism." Those who really investigate the matter ... realize that the RV is part of a movement to modernize Christian thought and faith and do away with established truth." (July 16, 1924).

Apparently Dr. Wilkinson's concerns over our church's acceptance of the ARV were not appreciated by the Washington hierarchy. General Conference president W. A. Spicer wrote to Wilkinson expressing his concern that he or the college should make an issue of the comparative merits of Bible translations. He stated:

"When one of our leading colleges gives publicity to this matter as really a controversial issue, it is blazing a new trail. It is my conviction that none of our colleges should give public agitation to a question that involves a new issue, especially one pertaining to the Word of God, without counsel from the General Conference Committee in Council." (Letter, November 18, 1928).

But it seems that Wilkinson was by no means the only one to air his views without obtaining the sanction of the growing papal like power in Washington. On January 14, 1930, President Spicer was constrained to write to Elder W. W. Prescott, who as Signs editor had run a series of articles on the versions. (In reality, these articles downgraded the KJV by elevating the revised versions):

"I have just read the fourth article of the series. I must say, Brother Prescott, that I feel concerning your setting forth of the faultiness of Bible manuscripts that this is ill-timed and harmful. The tendency of this kind of discussion I believe is to spread questioning and unbelief."

But even as Spicer was showing his concern, Dr. Wilkinson had been busy and by June 1930 he had written and published a book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. It was "written with the fervent hope that it will confirm and establish faith in God's Word, which through the ages has been preserved inviolate" (Foreword).

He then demonstrated that there were fundamentally two different Bibles- the uncorrupted and the corrupted, as represented by the Protestant Bibles and the Roman Catholic. It was the Authorized Bible of King James, which nourished the Protestant Reformation in the English-speaking world, having followed the same N.T. text of Erasmus as Tyndale had used in his English Bible.

Wilkinson then showed how the Jesuits had infiltrated Oxford University, and insinuated their Roman Bibles into the Revised Version in order to combat the authority of the Authorized Version which they saw as a "paper pope." Catholics gloated at the fact that this had been accomplished by Protestants themselves. Said Cardinal Wiseman,

"When we consider the scorn cast by the Reformers upon the Vulgate (Catholic Bible), and their recurrence, in consequence to the Greek [text of Erasmus], as the only accurate standard, we cannot but rejoice at the silent triumph which truth has at length gained over clamorous error. For, in fact, the principal writers who have avenged the Vulgate, and obtained for it its critical preeminence, are Protestants." (Wiseman Essays, Vol. 1, p. 104).

Wilkinson also dealt at length with the Roman input into the American RV. He showed how Dr. Philip Schaff, president of the American Committee of Revision had brought from Germany the contaminating theory of "historical development" which had filled Oxford with the Roman poison of Modernism. Wilkinson quoted (p. 236):

"It is quite time that the churches of our country should awake to the extent and tendencies of this movement in the midst of American Protestantism. After a series of advances and retractions, strongly resembling the tactics of the Tractarian party [an Oxford group] in England, we have at length a bold avowal of the "primacy of Peter," the fundamental and test doctrine of the Papacy, followed by a concision of every vital point of Christianity- Church, Ministry, Worship, Sacraments, and the right of Private Judgment to Romanism, and that too, while the name and the forms of Protestantism are (as far as possible) studiously retained." (New Brunswick Review, May 1854, p. 20).

Wilkinson's book brought a swift response from the General Conference- but not the kind of response that Bible-believing Protestants would expect. The church that had "recognized the equal value of the Authorized and the ARV" (G. C. Committee, March 20, 1930) and had recently extolled the virtues of the ARV in The World's Best Book, denounced Wilkinson's book as "unauthorized." Said vice-president J. L. McElhany in a letter to Union and local conferences in North America:

"The book in question has not been passed upon by a book committee of any of our publishing houses.... Our Authorized Bible Vindicated can be of no particular help to our work, and will only serve to continue the agitation of a question which we believe should be avoided." (Letter, July 27, 1930).

But the Washington "Curia" did not let the matter rest. They were so concerned by Wilkinson's exposure of the Jesuit plan to wreck the Protestant Bible that they formed a committee to defame Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.*

* As usual, the members of the committee remain anonymous. But the names L. E. Froom, L. E. Howell, and M. E. Kern are currently connected with this committee. It is interesting to note that when the AV was presented in The World's Best Book as having inferior manuscripts to the ARV, the "Curia" showed no concern.

They came up with a document, which purported to be a review of Wilkinson's book. But for reasons best known to themselves, no names are appended to this document. A copy of Wilkinson's Answers to the Reviewer's Objections is in the author's possession.

Fortunately, Wilkinson listed each significant objection and replied to each one, so we have a fairly accurate overview of the objections. His reply must be regarded by any impartial reader as an exposure of a gross misrepresentation of facts by a hostile review committee. Wilkinson comments thus:

"But those who wrote the document to which I now reply were under obligation, since they called it a "review" to be impartial and to present the good and the strong side of my arguments as well as those phases which seemed to them to be weak. This they notably failed to do." (Introduction p. 1).

He then listed eight great arguments which the Reviewers had chosen to ignore:

1. The Romanizing and Unitarian character of Westcott and Hort, two leading English revisers.

2. The grave charges concerning Dr. Philip Schaff, president of the American Revision Committees.

3. The connection between the Revision of the AV and the Oxford movement which Jesuitized England.

4. The arguments drawn from the [Roman Catholic] Council of Trent, which voted among other means of combating the Reformation to "put the [Roman Catholic] Vulgate on its feet."

5. That the Catholic scholars rejoiced that the RV had restored Catholic readings that had been denounced in the Reformation.

6. The argument drawn from the chapter "The Reformers Reject the Bible of the Papacy."

7. The tremendous argument drawn from the great struggle over the Jesuit Bible of 1582.

8. The chapter, "Three Hundred Years of Attack on the King James Version" by Jesuits, higher critics, and pantheistic German scholars (from Introduction to Answers to Reviewer's Objections).

It will be noticed that all of the above points involve the struggle for Papal supremacy over Protestantism. These the Reviewers could not deny, so they ignored them. The objections and accusations which they did raise, many of which were puerile, were ably refuted by Wilkinson. No wonder the General Conference "Curia" were anxious to bury all traces of this resounding defeat. It is reported that the General Conference requested that Wilkinson not circulate his reply to their objections. (Clute tape).

Interestingly, in later years, and currently the denomination's attempts to justify most modern versions to the detriment of the Authorized King James Bible, ignore those same great points listed by Wilkinson. Instead, they trot out the time-worn arguments put forth by Roman Catholics and their lackeys in Protestantism. A typical example is to be found in the recent series of six articles by Arthur J. Ferch, published in the South Pacific Record, commencing March 25, 1989, titled "History of the New Testament."

Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson was a studious man with an inquiring mind. During investigations which he had made into the history of the New Testament, he had come to realize that God's guardians of His truth through the Dark Ages were also the custodians of true Scripture. This, of course is logical, and had been acknowledged by Mrs. E. G. White:

"The Waldenses were among the first of the people of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures....They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution.... But in a most wonderful manner it was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness." (The Great Controversy, pp 65,69).

According to a friend of the Wilkinson family, Wilkinson's ability as a scholar and researcher had come to the notice of Cordell Hull, then U. S. Secretary of State. He issued to Wilkinson, credentials which virtually unlocked to him the vaults of the world, thus enabling him to examine rare historical documents and manuscripts.

In 1944, the Pacific Press Publishing Association published Wilkinson's findings in the book, Truth Triumphant. Like his previous work, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, it was greatly appreciated by the rank and file of Adventists. Here was a book which demonstrated that the great truths of God had been safely handed down from apostolic times and guarded by His true church until present times. But it was the church in the wilderness and not the church in Rome that was the custodian of Truth!

This was a book that would strengthen the faith and beliefs of every Seventh-day Adventist. But the Washington "Curia" was not pleased. According to the Clute interview, L. E. Froom instructed the Pacific Press to destroy the plates of Truth Triumphant. This could explain why this much-sought-after book has not been republished by the denomination.*

* Truth Triumphant is available from Hartland Publications, P 0 Box 1, Rapidan, VA 22733 USA

No doubt Wilkinson's exposure of the false scriptures and the role played by them in fostering apostasy had left its mark on Adventism.

In 1954, the General Conference reacted by publishing the book Problems in Translation, the work of a nameless committee. But most of the problems were in fact, brought about by the church's increasing acceptance of the modern versions. It sought to deal with the problem by trying to please everyone. After reciting the stance taken back in the early 1930s, that the 1611 KJV and the 1901 ARV "Shall serve us without discrimination," they also appealed to our workers to cooperate "in endeavoring to preserve the unity of our people" by "leaving all free to use the version of their choice" (Problems in Translation, pp. 74-75).

So once again, Wilkinson's timely warnings had been rebuffed mainly on the grounds of unity. No attempt was made to address the real issue-that it was the church in the wilderness which had been appointed as the guardian of God's Word and not Rome, and that Rome had foisted its corrupted versions upon unsuspecting Protestants and Seventh-day Adventists alike.

And then comes this remarkably contradictory statement:

"If resort is made indiscriminately to the various translations, the reader or hearer gets the impression that the different versions stand on an equal footing, as far as authoritatively transmitting the word of God is concerned, which is not the case." (ibid., p. 57).

(Such a foray into the minefields of consensus must have been deemed successful, for the Seventh-day Adventist Church has since come to rely increasingly on consensus statements.)

But the time was not far off when the church would drop all pretense of caution and impartiality. They would not only foist the Roman Bibles on their own membership, but would become foremost in recommending them to Christendom at large. In short, they would become "Rome's Little Helper." But that is another story to be told in the following chapter.

In retrospect, the decade of the 1950s must be seen as a great watershed in Seventh-day Adventist history. By 1954, Elder R. R. Figuhr had assumed the presidency of the General Conference. He was fresh from associate editorship of the Ministry magazine with Elder R. A. Anderson, who in turn had been an Associate Editor with L. E. Froom. Circumstances were now favorable for the great leap forward (backward) into apostasy. We have seen how this was accomplished with the help of the evangelicals, Dr. Barnhouse and Walter Martin.

Before long, an event took place which President Figuhr saw as a distinct threat to the "Curia's" plans. A book, titled The Living Witness, consisting of forty-seven "significant articles" was published by the Pacific Press Publishing Association in 1959. When Elder Figuhr read it, he reacted with alacrity. Here was a book, published within two years of Questions on Doctrine which contradicted the "completed atonement." What would Barnhouse and Martin say? What would our new-found friends in Christendom think?

The offending article was written by the late Elder James White, editor of the Signs of the Times.

"[Jesus Christ] ascended on high to be our only mediator in the Sanctuary in heaven where, with His own blood, He makes atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made at the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven." (The Living Witness, p. 2).

We are indebted to Elder M. L. Andreasen for the following account of Figuhr's reaction:

"When Elder Figuhr read the statement in the "Living Witness" that the atonement was not made on the cross, he ordered the books that had already been bound destroyed. Several hundred books that had already been shipped out, were also destroyed, as well as 2000 signatures that had not yet been bound. The financial loss would be worthwhile.... It was necessary that a whole signature of 16 pages be replaced with corrected material." (M. L. Andreasen's Letters to the Churches).

Andreasen continued with this highly significant statement:

"If the question was raised why a discussion should arise as to where and when the atonement was made, Elder White would answer: "On this question hangs the existence of the SDA denomination. If the atonement was made on the cross in A.D. 31 and this atonement was complete, perfect, final as the Ministry asserts, then there cannot possibly be another final atonement 1810 years later. And if there is no day of atonement at the end of the 2300 days in 1844, then the whole 1844 movement was a mistake, and the Adventists false prophets. If there was no cleansing of the sanctuary in 1844, then the Three Angels' Messages and the Hour of Judgment call were a false alarm, and then we may as well "totally repudiate" our entire message as the evangelicals state our leaders have done and which the leaders have never denied." (ibid.).

(Both quotations as reprinted in The M. L. Andreasen File, p. 96, by Laymen Ministry News, 1988.)

Surely it would be difficult to imagine an action more closely aligned with papal-like behavior! Its exposure by Andreasen in his Letters to the Churches helps us to understand why the "Curia" sought revenge by depriving him of his credentials and his sustentation.

And so today, when we turn to the book The Living Witness, we find that the "Witness" has been maimed. The dagger struck and His message has been muted. We may well ask:

Which church has a vested interest in abolishing Christ's mediatorial role between God and man, if it is not the Church of Rome? Which church would want to replace the Bible which brought on the Protestant Reformation and from which we obtained our doctrines?

Is Alberto's claim that the Jesuits have successfully infiltrated Adventism really so incredible?

Why should Rome not take advantage of a system with which they are familiar already?- the papal-like system that A. T. Jones had identified as that already adopted by the Seventh day Adventist Church?