Wieland vs. Historic Adventism

Someone gave me a copy of the March-April 1996 issue of Wieland’s 1888 Message Newsletter, with his In Search of the Gospel: We Believe for March 1996. In the latter he repeatedly says that his teachings are not those of historic Adventism. He seems proud of the fact.

But he says he has something better: the 1888 message! At this, we wonder what the 1888 message really was. Where can we learn what it was?

 There are those who will direct our attention to writings of Alonzo T. Jones (1850-1923) and Ellet J. Waggoner (1855-1916), as the place to go to find the 1888 message. There are lots of those writings, and few of us have ever seen most of them, much less read them. Since Ellen White recommended the 1888 message to us, some are uncertain how to find out exactly what it was.

Then comes along R.J. Wieland and his 1888 Message Study Committee sessions, and says, “We have the 1888 message!”

It is easy to assume that, since Wieland says he has studied the 1888 message for years, he ought to know what it is.

But, upon closer examination, we find that what Wieland and his committee are teaching is a strange new theory.

Well then, is the theory correct? How can we know? There is a way that we can know. The solution is obvious: If their ideas are correct, they will agree with the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, just as we mention below. But if they do not, then we cannot accept those theories, regardless of how beautiful they may sound. 

First, let us clear the air as to the nature of the 1888 message. It is not mysterious. It is not a secret which God has kept for only a few who have access to century-old writings, which the rest of us cannot find.

In the providence of God, He permitted the presentations and the crisis at the Minneapolis General Conference Session to occur. We will not here discuss the proceedings of the session itself, because we can better learn that message elsewhere.

Many things were discussed during the meetings at Minneapolis, which began on October 17, 1888. Oddly enough, the identity of one of the horns of a beast described by Daniel occupied much of the precession, and political infighting much of the main session.

But we make a mistake by turning to the writings of Jones and Waggoner to learn that message.

Ellen White herself warned that there was a danger in trusting too much in those two men, for she said they were special targets of Satan and might later be overcome.

First, Jones and Waggoner had several different messages, some right and some wrong. They were human, uninspired folk, just like you and me. Their writings were not safe, as are the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. Some of those messages contained error. For example, Waggoner taught that Christ was a created being. Within a few years after 1888, it is clear that Jones was also teaching error.

Second, when politically minded church leaders found that Ellen White, standing in defense of the young men, had by 1891 won the majority of church members to her side, those leaders decided to change their approach.

What they did was to send Ellen White to Australia to get her out of the way, and then to win the favor of Jones and Waggoner, who by that time were quite popularly received by the membership. It was recognized that friendship with Jones and Waggoner could help one advance in the church.

By 1893, this attention and flattery was going to the head of Jones, and he was already becoming extreme in some of his assertions.

For example, by that year he was teaching that there were no conditions to salvation! (Read 1 Selected Messages, 377-379.)

All through the 1890s, both men were principle speakers at General Conference Sessions. In 1897, Jones became a member of the General Conference Committee. From 1897 to 1901 he was editor in chief of the Review, with Uriah Smith as associate editor.

With the passing years, the situation worsened. Jones became fascinated with the powerful personality of John Harvey Kellogg. Those of you who have read the present writer’s in-depth biography of Kellogg, Jones, and Waggoner (The Alpha of Apostasy) will recall that Ellen White personally warned Jones not to go back to Battle Creek. The transcript of that conversation, held at Elmshaven in 1903, reveals that Jones spoke scoffingly to Ellen White. He went to Battle Creek, and, as warned, came under Kellogg’s skeptical spell. Uniting with Kellogg in his battle to take over the Sanitarium, Jones lost his way. By the end of the decade, Jones’ separation from the Spirit of Prophecy was complete. It was a tragic loss.

There was also another one.

In the spring of 1892, E.J. Waggoner arrived in England with his family. He had been appointed editor of the British journal, Present Truth. As the years went by, his hold on God also gradually weakened. But he succumbed to temptation differently than Jones.

After his return to America in 1902, Waggoner devised a new theory. It was called “celestial marriages.” The idea was that each person will be married forever in heaven, but not necessarily to the one he was married to on earth.

So Waggoner decided to find that one and, while on earth, enter into his celestial marriage! Forsaking his wife, he remarried and was disfellowshipped in 1906. From 1910 until his death in 1916, he was a teacher on the staff of Kellogg’s Battle Creek College.

Although we may like to read the writings of Jones and Waggoner, we cannot rely on them. They are not as safe as some people imagine.

How then can we find the true (true) message of 1888?

There is a way, and it is not difficult. It was given to us by God.

 First, Ellen White was writing about that message before 1888! Some people imagine that Jones and Waggoner invented the message, and that Ellen White accepted it. But she was writing on the subject before the carriages and train cars converged on that little white church in Minneapolis. Her published writings testify to the falsity of the charge that she borrowed it from Jones and Waggoner.

You can read these statements in the book, Christ Our Righteousness, compiled years later by A.G. Daniels in the 1920s. They comprise quotations penned primarily from 1886 to 1902.

You can also read 1 Selected Messages, 350-354, where she wrote on the subject in 1883.

But, in His providence, God has given us additional sources for understanding the 1888 message:

After the Minneapolis Session adjourned, Ellen White traveled around the country preaching it for several years. Then she set to work writing. —And did she write! On and on she went, year after year, all through the 1890s and the first half of the first decade of the 20th century.

Here is where you will find the 1888 message:

Part of 5 Testimonies - 1898

Patriarchs and Prophets - 1890

Steps to Christ - 1892

Mount of Blessing - 1896

Desire of Ages - 1898

Christ’s Object Lessons - 1900

Education - 1903

Ministry of Healing - 1905

For 17 years those books were churned out, covering every aspect of the 1888 message. Indeed, far more than was discussed at Minneapolis is to be found within the pages of those volumes.

Think not that God has left you an orphan, to the mercy of everyone who comes along with an “1888 message.” That message was considered important enough to be written down by a fully inspired prophet—so you could be certain of every word.

Well, we have learned a lot so far: First, we should be careful about people who come around, claiming to have “new light.” Second, when they come bearing what they call the “1888 message,” it should fully agree with the Spirit of Prophecy. Third, we should also keep in mind that Jones and Waggoner are not as reliable as we have been told. Fourth, we have learned a wonderful fact! The 1888 message is found in its purest and most complete form in Ellen White’s 1886-1902 letters (available today in the book, Christ Our Righteousness), and in those eight books she wrote between 1890 to 1905. (Also read 1 Selected Messages, 350 to 400. It is excellent material!)

Now let us turn our attention to the teachings of Robert J. Wieland. Is he really teaching the genuine 1888 message? This is the question so many have as they wonder about Wieland’s ideas, since some of them seem so strange.

Keep in mind that we cannot turn to Jones and Waggoner to learn whether Wieland is teaching a correct message. And we surely cannot rely on anyone else back then. —Except Ellen White!

The precious Spirit of Prophecy! Thank God everyday for those special books.

The total 1888 message is contained in those books, and more besides. She was given even more advanced light, through dreams and visions, with the passing years. And she carefully wrote it all down, in the books listed above. So we today have a more complete message of righteousness by faith than the assembled brethren heard in that little church in October 1888.

When Robert Wieland (in his books, magazine articles, and seminars) claims to have the “1888 message,” and part of it just does not agree with what you have been reading in the Spirit of Prophecy, you can know there is something wrong. And the problem is not with the Spirit of Prophecy, it is with Wieland. He has been doing some theorizing. Intelligent men often do that, and R.J. Wieland is very intelligent.

We do not have space in this report to deal with all of Wieland’s views, but here is a brief overview of some of them:

It is a strange fact that some people who focus too much on what they perceive to be the “1888 message” tend to move into the error of unconditional salvation.

A major movement began in Washington State in the late 1920s, based on the message of 1888. It was headed by Evert Rogers and his brother, Merle. But, by the late 1930s, the movement faded away as Merle, the more oratorical speaker of the two, led most of the followers off into a “no-conditions” salvation. Starting a church in Los Angeles, he taught that “righteousness by faith” covered everything, including people who wanted to keep smoking. In the 1960s, the present writer spoke personally to several individuals who had been in that movement, and learned the above facts.

On April 9, 1893, Ellen White wrote a letter to another individual—A.T. Jones—who, having had a part in giving the message at Minneapolis, was already—only four years later—drifting away from the truth!

It is a remarkable fact that Robert Wieland, after himself studying the 1888 message for years, has also drifted in that direction.

It does seem that a person would be safer studying the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, and totally omitting study of what men at the time, or later, said about the Minneapolis message—than to try and penetrate deeply into the words and writings of uninspired men back then, or now,—at the cost of setting aside the counsels laid out so clearly in the Spirit of Prophecy.

In her April 9, 1893, letter to Alonzo Jones, she said this:

“I was attending a meeting, and a large congregation were present. In my dream you were presenting the subject of faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing, that there were no conditions.

“The matter was presented in that light that I knew minds would be confused, and would not receive the correct impression in reference to faith and works, and I decided to write to you.”—1 Selected Messages, 377.

As mentioned at the beginning of this report, a copy the March-April 1996 issue of Wieland’s 1888 Message Newsletter and his In Search of the Gospel: We Believe [ISG] for March 1996 was recently handed to me. Wieland’s extensive doctrinal presentation is to be found in ISG. It begins with this comment:

“In the present confusion, many are not sure what it [the everlasting gospel] is:

“Is salvation totally by grace through faith, or is it by faith plus by works?

“Are sanctified works meritorious?

“When Christ died on His cross, did He accomplish the Father’s appointed mission for Him to ‘save the world’? Or did He largely fail?”—ISG, 1.

NO CONDITIONS—In the 27-page document which follows, Wieland tries to prove his strange theory that salvation is totally by grace. Question two, above, is more of the same. Question three concerns Wieland’s theory of a finished atonement on the cross. Note the stated implication that, if our salvation was not completed at Calvary, then Christ would have essentially failed.

Wait a minute! That is the peculiar theory Ellen White was warning A.T. Jones against! —Just as Jones slipped away from the 1888 message, so Wieland has too.

“You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing, that there were no conditions . . in reference to faith and works, and I decided to write to you.

“You state this matter too strongly. There are conditions to our receiving justification and sanctification, and the righteousness of Christ. I know your meaning, but you leave a wrong impression upon many minds.

“While good works will not save even one soul, yet it is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works. God saves us under a law, that we must ask if we would receive, seek if we would find, and knock if we would have the door opened unto us.”—1 Selected Messages, 377.

As we continue on with our discovery of what Robert Wieland has to say on this subject, we will see how very applicable the above is to his extreme views.

It is remarkable how history can repeat itself. Men try to make a solid message more dramatic by way-out concepts (perhaps to call attention to their own superior understanding of that message), and in the process destroy the heart of the message.

SETTING ASIDE THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY—Earlier we said to beware of those who downgrade the Spirit of Prophecy, by saying that we must directly interpret the Bible. Put this in your memory and never forget it. When a man says that, what he is actually saying is this: “I want you to accept my interpretation of the Bible instead of the Spirit of Prophecy interpretation.” By accepting that implication, people get themselves talked into error. Their minds seem to become mysteriously locked.

My counsel is to flee from such men, and take your loved ones with you.

Wieland is painfully aware that others have noted how his teachings do not agree with plain Spirit of Prophecy statements. But his response is that we should use the Bible, not the Spirit of Prophecy!

“As in all past ages, the Holy Spirit is today primarily directing the attention of God’s people to the Bible.”—ISG, 11.

“We cannot deny that God has given His Word, the Bible, as our primary rule of faith. The Holy Spirit is directing the attention of honest people around the world to its truths. We must use the Bible in proclaiming the message.”—ISG, 12.

“If Ellen White were here today, she would want a minister to preach from the Bible.”—ISG, 12.

“It can’t be Heaven’s will that no human ever conceive or utter a thought not already explicitly articulated by Ellen White.”—ISG, 14.

And then, in the next few paragraphs he returns to one of his strange views: “It is easy to be saved, and hard to be lost.” That is another of his unscriptural theories.

Elsewhere, in ISG, he says this:

“A ‘lesser light’ is never as bright as a ‘greater light.’ Ellen White saw her writings as leading us to the Bible, not away from it.”—ISG, 20.

If Wieland did not believe his light was brighter than Ellen White’s light, he would point everyone to the Spirit of Prophecy and the Bible. He would not try to pull us away from the Spirit of Prophecy so he can direct us—not to the Bible—but to his interpretation of the Bible.

Wieland says we are in the “old covenant,” when we try to obey the law today. In the following statement, he tries to explain away the fact that the Spirit of Prophecy teaches that which he, himself, objects to:

“Wresting Ellen White statements from their setting is a perversion of ‘the testimony of Jesus.’ When such selections appear to contradict the Bible, more context is needed. It is not right to try to force her to teach the old covenant. She often wrote paradoxically, with sanctified good sense, and from different perspectives, but always ‘gospel.’ ”—ISG, 20.

Did you know that Ellen White wrote “paradoxically”? Wieland would have us all flee from Ellen White and her “paradoxes” to the safety of his interpretations of the Bible.

CORPORATE SALVATION—Robert Wieland and Jack Sequeira both teach essentially the same concepts. Each publicly supports the teaching of the other, fully. Both teach this strange concept, which you will not find in the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy: The corporate race has corporate repentance and corporate redemption.

The corporate race received its corporate redemption over 1,900 years ago at the cross.

“[At the cross, Christ] redeemed, purchased, reclaimed, restored to favor, emancipated, delivered, released from death, liberated, the entire corporate human race.”—ISG, 7.

And he adds in the same paragraph: “The more closely the original language is examined, the more clearly shines this truth.” Beware of those who tell you they are able to derive advanced doctrinal truths from the Greek and Hebrew; advanced truths, that is, which you have never read in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy!

The present writer took a double major in theology and Biblical Languages for his baccalaureate, but he was one course shy of a double major in both for the two advanced seminary theology degrees after that. He can tell you that you need not expect to find advanced truths in the Greek and Hebrew on doctrinal issues, which are not found in the Spirit of Prophecy! Let no man mislead you on this score.

That is yet another reason why we do not need to follow this eager rush to read the new Bible translations, authored by modernists, in the hope of finding advanced light. —All the light we need to get to heaven, and more besides, is confirmed in the Spirit of Prophecy!

What does Wieland mean by “corporate redemption?” He means that every human who has or will ever live on earth—was saved at the cross. Sounds strange? It is. You will not find it in the Bible nor in the Spirit of Prophecy. But, by quoting small phrases from modern Bible translations, and combining it with complicated logic (Wieland utilizes very deep thinking), he weaves a phantom portrait, yet one which does not match anything in God’s Word.

CORPORATE REPENTANCE—Before continuing on, we should note that Wieland also teaches “corporate repentance.” This is the teaching that the only way that God’s people today can be accepted by Him and empowered with the Holy Spirit to finish the work so Christ can return is to introduce a resolution at a forthcoming General Conference Session, admitting that we erred at the 1888 Conference in not accepting the teachings on righteousness by faith presented there.

“The principle of corporate repentance is taught in Revelation 3:14-21.”—ISG, 24.

Reading the passage, you find that it refers to individual (not group) repentance. Jesus is knocking at the door of each of our hearts. That is how He seeks to gain admittance to the entire church. Each individual in the church must accept Him, in order for Jesus to enter as Lord of the church. “If any man hear My voice and open, I will come in to him,”—not any congregation or denomination.

Whether alone or in a congregation, we repent individually and are saved individually.

FULLY FINISHED AT THE CROSS—Wieland explains that we were fully saved at the cross. Nothing else need be done other than to accept Christ. —But does this not sound like the new theology? It is its blood brother.

“Since Christ has already paid the penalty for every man’s sin, the only reason anyone can be condemned at last is continued unbelief.”—ISG, 27.

“[At the cross, Christ] redeemed, purchased, reclaimed, restored to favor, emancipated, delivered, released from death, liberated, the entire corporate human race.”—ISG, 7.

That covers about everything. Wieland says that, at the cross, our salvation was essentially completed. Using a modern translation (he refers them to the King James), he says a “verdict of acquittal” was handed down at that time. This acquittal, he says, eliminated present or future condemnation of anyone by the law, so they could not be lost (“easy to be saved, hard to be lost”) unless they did not profess Christ.

But really now, was our condemnation automatically removed at Calvary? According to John 3:18, we are already condemned, until we accept Jesus and begin a life of trusting and obeying.

“The sacrifice of Christ gave much more than mere physical life. It lifted from humanity the condemnation of the second death, and gave every spiritual blessing and happiness that humanity has ever known.”—ISG, 17.

That passage sounds right, and it sounds wrong. What is the problem? It is this: Christ’s death did not automatically give us life, freedom from condemnation, and happiness; it offered it. Do not misunderstand: Wieland’s point is that, on the cross, Christ gave fullness of life, freedom from condemnation, and happiness. Do you see about you in the world such abundant life, peace, and happiness? Do you see freedom from the guilt which brings a sense of condemnation? No, you do not. It is not yours until you accept Christ in sincerity of heart, and afterward by His grace obey Him and put away sin. But Wieland’s theory is that you have it automatically at the start.

Continuing on with the above paragraph:

“This deliverance from the fear of eternal death is the ‘justification unto life’ that Christ has given to ‘all men,’ not merely offered to them. Having died every man’s second death, Christ has secured for him the gift of salvation. This means that ‘all men’ are born and live under a legal ‘verdict of acquittal’ ‘in Christ.’ ”—ISG, 17.

The entire above paragraph says that, nearly two millennia ago when Christ died, everyone in the world lost their fear of death and received justification—because Christ died the second death for them and gave them salvation. The salvation occurred then because the verdict of acquittal for all men was handed down at that time. Therefore the final judgment must have occurred then.

No, you have never read anything like that in the Spirit of Prophecy, nor in the Bible. It is just not there.

Here are facts attested to by God’s Word: All over the world men fear death, for they have guilt and are in their sins. Most are not justified. Unless they accept Christ and by faith live obedient lives, no one is released from the future second death. The judgment has not yet convened, and not until it does is the verdict of acquittal handed down to the faithful. No one should consider himself “saved”—and why: because any of us can, by our choice, at any time fall away. Here is God’s Word on this subject:

“Never can we safely put confidence in self or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure against temptation. Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Every one should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation.”—Christ’s Object Lessons, 155.

“We are never to rest in a satisfied condition, and cease to make advancement, saying, ‘I am saved.’ When this idea is entertained, the motives for watchfulness, for prayer, for earnest endeavor to press onward to higher attainments, cease to exist. No sanctified tongue will be found uttering these words till Christ shall come, and we enter in through the gates into the city of God.”—1 Selected Messages, 314.

VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL—Wieland says he gets his idea of “verdict of acquittal” from the New English Bible (ISG, 7). But neither the Bible nor Ellen White uses the term, ‘verdict of acquittal,’ nor anything like it, when speaking about what was done at Calvary.

SAVED AT THE CROSS—According to Wieland, if we had not been saved at the cross, the race would long ago have ceased to exist.

“If Christ had not given Himself for the human race, the race would have been ‘lost.’ But He did give Himself; therefore in that sense He ‘saved’ the human race. We would all otherwise be dead with the second death. Christ alone is our Saviour.”—ISG, 18.

Wieland confuses facts here. Christ gave Himself for the race, and offers the hope of salvation to everyone who will accept Him. Christ will save everyone, if they will accept Him and, by faith, obey Him. If they do not, they will ultimately perish.

Wieland assumes that Christ had to complete our full redemption in A.D. 31, or the race would have fallen in death right then. That is an error. Another element must be inserted here, which Wieland does not mention: probationary life. In anticipation of Calvary, as soon as Adam sinned mankind was granted probationary life. Each person is allotted a span of years to see what his choices will be and how he will live. The salvation of the faithful is not assured until the close of their probation (which, for most people, occurs at death).

Calvary provided probationary time in which we could make important decisions and, by Christ’s grace, choose to put away sin and obey Him.

It is not at all necessary that everyone be “saved” at the cross,—or they all fall down dead right there!

In the next paragraph, Wieland says this:

“If a person is rescued from drowning, in that sense he is ‘saved.’ The word includes the present legal redemption of the human race. ‘In (Christ) we live and move and have our being’ was spoken to pagans at Athens.”—ISG, 18.

Unfortunately, this is more confused thinking: Christ is in the process of rescuing us right now. But the work is not complete at this time. We are not yet “saved.”

Saved means redeemed. We are not “redeemed” at this time. It was while preparing his in-depth studies on last-day events (the End-time Series), that he discovered another facet of Ellen White’s totally accurate use of words: She never, never speaks of God’s people as “redeemed” while they are in this world! But, describing them, when they are later in heaven or in the earth made new, she calls them “the redeemed.” The meaning of “redeemed” and “saved” are the same. It is true that the Protestants lightly use the words, “saved” and “redeemed,” but we should not do so. We have clearer light.

In the above statement, Wieland mentions Acts 17:28. All creation, throughout the universe, is continually under God’s care—or it would immediately self-destruct. Everyone on earth is also physically under His care. Because of Calvary, they have probationary life. That verse does not mean that pagans are already redeemed.

As far as Wieland is concerned, salvation was completed—finished—at the cross. We only need accept the completed work.

“God has already done everything for us; our job is to respond by faith.”—ISG, 22.

UNCONDITIONAL  AND  NOT  POSTPONED—Wieland believes that Christ did a total work at Calvary. He sees the work at the cross as being not only complete—but unconditional. In addition, he maintains that the unconditional gifts were doled out totally at that time—with none postponed till later.

Speaking of what he thinks happened to the race in A.D. 31, Wieland attempts to counter the objections of others who insist that salvation, justification, and no-condemnation were postponed till later.

Wieland says our justification and salvation was fully completed at the cross,—with no part of it being deferred or delayed until a later time:

“Nothing was ‘deferred’ or ‘delayed.’ Our punishment was totally inflicted on Christ. His sacrifice fully paid the debt of ‘every man’s sin. In that sense, He saved the world. This can be nothing short of a legal justification for ‘all men,’ or as the Bible says, a ‘verdict of acquittal for all men.’ ”—ISG, 17.

“Some who differ with us insist that unconditional love is not unconditional pardon, which is very true. But by their ‘not waived but deferred, . . delayed’ doctrine, they logically take a further step—they want a conditional sacrifice.”—ISG, 6.

Wieland says it correctly. If salvation, justification, and no-condemnation were actually postponed until some later time after A.D. 31,—the delay was obviously made to grant those gifts to only certain people who would later meet certain conditions. That is exactly right.

But Wieland rejects the possibility. Continuing:

“If by His death Christ did not pay the full penalty for the sins of ‘all men,’ the logical conclusion has to be that He died only provisionally, conditionally, tentatively.”—ISG, 6.

Really, that is strange logic! What if I fully paid for something at the store, but said I would give you part then, part later on, and still more at a later time. I had laid down the purchase price and could do with it as I wished. No one need quibble, saying that I did not fully lay down the price, just because I did not hand it all over right then. —And viewing Calvary, all of us, including Wieland, ought to freely admit Christ paid the full price at that time!

On Calvary, Christ paid the full amount. What did it pay for, and when was it doled out? First, it made possible the appeals of the Holy Spirit on human hearts, convicting of sin and drawing to Christ, for the entire 6,000 years. Second, it provided forgiveness and justification for those who accepted and remained in Christ—as they did so. Third, it provided enabling grace for them to overcome sin and resist temptation, day by day. Fourth, it will make possible the resurrection, translation, glorification, and eternal life of those finally redeemed.

In addition, the price paid at Calvary made it possible for Christ to minister thereafter on our behalf in the first and, later, in the second apartments of the heavenly Sanctuary. It was by that ministry that He gradually doled out the pre-close of probation benefits of His great sacrifice.

Instead, Wieland says that the gift of redemption was totally, unconditionally, given in A.D. 31. He insists none of it was doled out later; it all had to be given to the “corporate race” at the cross.

Such a strange concept not only destroys individual choice in salvation; it also eliminates the opportunity for anyone in the 4,000 years before Calvary to be drawn by the Holy Spirit, converted, and saved. According to that theory, it would seem that the gift of salvation could not be given after Calvary, nor before.

DOING AWAY WITH CHOICE—This “corporate race,” “corporate salvation,” theory sounds suspiciously like Calvinism. No individual choice is required; no personal obedience or putting away of sin. Like predestination, no personal involvement is needed; salvation is solely the result of an arbitrary act of God alone.

The theory also sounds like universalism. If everybody is saved at the cross, then everybody is saved. Elsewhere Wieland says that is not so. —But if the gift of salvation is fully, unconditionally, given at Calvary to everyone, then his theory has to be universalism.

We all acknowledge that Wieland has a deep mind; but it seems that, avoiding the Spirit of Prophecy as he tries, his mental depth has become entangled in abstract theories.

Wieland says the work of salvation was finished at the cross, and will be in vain for no one:

“Our Sabbath School Quarterly has several times in recent years said the same thing in essence—that the sacrifice of Christ is only provisional, is in vain, it does no one any good unless he takes the initiative to believe and obey. But we see the divine sacrifice as unconditional, not provisional, and ‘finished.’ ”—ISG, 6.

In the above statement. Wieland declares that if the gifts were not totally dispensed in A.D. 31, then they could only have provided salvation to that select few willing to accept them. But that alternative, which Wieland abhors, is true.

AUTOMATIC AND UNCONDITIONALLY AT THE CROSS—So Wieland says salvation is unconditionally given by Christ. Yet that was exactly what Ellen White warned an earlier “1888 Conference expert” about!

By 1893, A.T. Jones had fallen into the error of saying there were no conditions to receiving righteousness by faith. But, as we have noted in the above statements, R.J. Wieland goes a step further—and says there are no conditions to receiving final salvation!

Here is the warning given to Alonzo Jones:

“You were presenting the subject of faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing, that there were no conditions . .

“It is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works. God saves us under a law, that we must ask if we would receive, seek if we would find, and knock if we would have the door opened unto us.”—1 Selected Messages, 377, written to A.T. Jones.

According to Wieland’s theory, no one needs to knock; everyone receives the gift automatically.

“Then when you say there are no conditions, and some expressions are made quite broad, you burden the minds, and some cannot see consistency in your expressions. They cannot see how they can harmonize these expressions with the plain statements of the Word of God.”—1 Selected Messages, 378.

IMPERSONAL MOB SALVATION—According to Wieland, the door is opened automatically to everyone, and no one need knock. But that produces an impersonal, crowd-salvation type of arrangement. No one need come individually to Christ, for everyone is already saved. No one need attain a personal relationship with Jesus; for, without such a relationship, salvation is assured.

Yet oddly enough, there are other passages in Wieland’s writings where he says the personal relationship is necessary.

EASY TO BE SAVED, HARD TO BE LOST—Now you can understand why Robert Wieland’s favorite title for his lectures at 1888 Study Committee Seminars is “Easy to be Saved, Hard to be Lost.”

“It is ‘easy’ to be saved and ‘hard’ to be lost . . By extracting statements from their context, it is possible to force Ellen White to present a dismal view of the great difficulties in following Christ. But some do the same in distorting the Bible.”—ISG, 14.

“It is difficult to be lost and it is easy to be saved, if one understands and believes how good the Good News is . . Christ has already paid the penalty for every man’s sin.”—ISG,  27.

THE “RESTORED TO FAVOR” SENTENCE—When asked whether the Spirit of Prophecy supports his theory, he frequently quotes one statement in vindication:

“Christ has ‘restored the whole race of men to favor with God.’ ”—1 Selected Messages, 343, quoted in ISG, 8.

“She [Ellen White] believes that He actually redeemed the world, the entire human race. He ‘restored the whole race of men to favor with God.’ ”—ISG, 12.

Wieland banks on that sentence to vindicate his theory that, at the cross, the gifts of justification, redemption, and no-condemnation were totally, unconditionally, given to every human being who would ever live.

The truth is that, in anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ, the Father could send the Holy Spirit and the angels to work on men’s hearts. But “favor with God” is not equivalent to totally, unconditionally, saved at the cross! They are different concepts.

GRACE UNCONDITIONALLY GIVES JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION—Wieland also speaks of “gifts.” He says these are given to us totally apart from any effort on our part.

“Justification and sanctification are not human achievements, but totally gifts of divine grace.”—ISG, 18.

“Grace, without a legal basis for it, is ‘cheap grace.’ Unless it is unconditional it cannot be grace! Grace is unmerited, unearned, undeserved favor. Justification was ‘the gift’ that grace gave.”—ISG, 17.

The above statement is partly correct. Grace is initially given to everyone. It is unmerited, unearned, and undeserved. We are told it encircles the world like the air around us. There are different aspects to grace: It convicts every man of sin, and seeks to draw him to Christ. It moves on men to repent, and to those who do so, it becomes forgiving and enabling grace. But those who consistently reject it, sin against the Holy Spirit and grieve Him away.

Thus grace starts out unconditionally to everyone, but then, gradually, it is rejected or accepted. Those who yield to the working of the Holy Spirit are enabled to live godly lives.

In the above statements, Wieland says that justification and sanctification are given unconditionally by grace to every person. That is not true.

Let us now examine more closely Wieland’s position on justification:

“The human race is judicially justified by that sacrifice at the cross, although none can experience a change of heart except by personal faith.”—ISG, 13.

“Thus Christ’s sacrifice has literally saved the world from premature destruction and legally justified ‘every man.’ ”—ISG, 27.

“The sacrifice of Christ did restore the whole race of men to favor with God, and thus justified the world in a legal sense.”—ISG, 17.

But Wieland also says that this justification must be accepted. If so, it becomes a different kind of justification, which he calls “justification by faith.” So his theory provides us with two justifications! You do not find two justifications in Scripture.

“When the sinner hears and believes the pure gospel, he is justified by faith. By their unbelief, the lost deliberately negate the justification Christ has already effected for them.”—ISG, 27.

As stated above, this second justification, Wieland says, is received by faith alone. He adds that those who refuse to believe, lose their first justification. —But that is strange, since elsewhere Wieland says that the justification every human receives at the cross is unconditional—and brings him unconditional salvation. Now Wieland is adding one condition: faith. But that is the only condition. As with A.T. Jones, Wieland speaks of faith alone as our passport to heaven.

“Salvation is by faith; condemnation comes by unbelief (or non-faith).”—ISG, 27.

As if two justifications is not confusing enough, Wieland elsewhere tells us there is only one justification, not two:

“There is only one justification; that which was effected at the cross for the entire human race.”—ISG, 25.

Therefore, according to Wieland, the second justification does not exist.

WORTHLESS OBEDIENCE—According to Wieland, the obedience of even God’s children is worthless.

“Not even a thousand years of sanctified obedience can merit salvation.”—ISG, 18.

Wieland may consider obeying God’s laws to be worthless; yet, according to that 1SM 377 statement quoted earlier, we will not be saved without obedience.

It is true that, elsewhere, Wieland says that faith in Christ will automatically produce obedience. But Ellen White stated the matter differently, and there was a reason.

Yes, it is true that overcoming power to resist sin and obey God’s law comes only through His grace, as we take hold of it by faith. But we must personally choose to be on guard, and immediately resist sin and choose the right at every step. This is vital. We do not float into heaven. It takes work, effort on our part to get there. That message is to be found all through the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.

UNCONDITIONAL SECOND DEATH—Wieland also says he believes that Christ unconditionally died the second death for everyone.

“We are to tell the sinner that Christ is already his Saviour. He has already died his second death, He has already suffered the punishment for his sin.”—ISG, 18.

Christ provided for all men to be saved, but He did not unconditionally die their second death. —If He did, no human being could perish in hellfire after the third advent! Both the righteous and the wicked would live forever.

JUSTIFICATION ALONE—Wieland approvingly quotes an error penned by E.J. Waggoner:

“Waggoner said: ‘There is but one thing in this world that a man needs, and that is justification,”—ISG, 16.

As with Wieland, there was a tendency in Jones and Waggoner to speak in extremes. Ellen White called it “taking extreme views.” We need to keep in the center of Scripture, and not try to say or write spectacular new theological concepts.

In reply to Waggoner’s statement: Man needs more than forgiveness to be saved. The truth is there is no such thing as “justification alone,” except to a dying man who accepts Christ and then passes away. Justification alone theology is deathbed theology. Real life includes sanctification. The moment after you are justified, your sanctification begins. Justification provides you with forgiveness and reconciliation with God. The next moment you arise to begin walking with Him through life, as His humble, obedient servant.

Such attempts to split things apart only confuses people. Keep it simple—and how do you do that? If you want simple, clear, accurate statements of Christian living—lay down the books of the learned theologians, and pick up Steps to Christ, Mount of Blessing, Desire of Ages, and Christ’s Object Lessons!

FACELESS JUSTIFICATION—Justification indiscriminately given to everyone, regardless of his present or future conduct, is wholesale acquittal.

“The redemption, the legal justification [was] accomplished by Christ at His cross.”—ISG, 21.

“Justification accomplished at the cross must precede our obedience . . The gospel has to be Good News of Christ’s accomplishment, period. Not ours.”—ISG, 19.

Justification is provided at Calvary, not accomplished there. It is not given to a faceless corporation; it is given, individually, to each person during his own life—if he is willing to accept it.

Yes, justification and sanctification is entirely of Christ, but if we do not do our part, we do not receive or retain that which He offers us.

NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY—Because of the cross, Wieland speaks of no “double jeopardy” for any of mankind.

“God does not put them in double jeopardy.”—ISG, 6.

“Christ has already died their second death, paid the penalty for their sins. There is no double jeopardy.”—ISG, 20.

“Jeopardy” is the danger of conviction and punishment to which a defendant is exposed when put on trial for a crime. “Double jeopardy” is also a legal term, and means the subjection of a person to trial for the same offense for which he has already been tried under a valid charge. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall be subjected to double jeopardy. In other words, he cannot be tried twice for the same offense. The right against double jeopardy bars the government not only from starting a new criminal trial after it has failed to get a conviction the first time but also from appealing a verdict of acquittal. Of course, the accused may appeal a verdict against himself.

How would such a rule apply to the plan of redemption? It is of interest that we do not find the term in the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy.

But, if we were to apply the term to the cases of the wicked, and say, as Wieland does, that they were judged and acquitted at the cross,—then they could be tried in no later judgment! There could be no investigative judgment in the last days to differentiate in the record books between the righteous and the wicked; there could be no sentencing judgment during the millennium to decide the amount of punishment to be meted out to each one; and there could be no executive judgment after the third advent to inflict punishment upon them!

Wieland’s theory of universal, unconditional, and nondelayed justification at Calvary—would eliminate any possibility of a future judgment—or punishment.

If there is no double jeopardy, then the wicked cannot die for sins Christ paid for.

But, oddly enough, Wieland also says that Christ can later condemn the wicked, after earlier releasing them from condemnation, because to do this would not be to give them “double jeopardy.” But, based on the intrinsic meaning of double jeopardy, the opposite would be true. According to his statement, they were fully, unconditionally acquitted, and then later the acquittal might be removed.

HISTORIC ADVENTISM FLAWED—Throughout most of his lengthy March 1996, In Search of the Gospel: We Believe, R.J. Wieland places “The ‘Historic’ Adventist View” in the left column, and “The 1888 Message View” in the right. He says this:

“ ‘Historic Adventism is essential, but not good enough. It needs the 1888 message. Those who rejected the ‘beginning’ of the loud cry a century ago were all ‘historic’ Adventists. The Good News in the ‘most precious message’ of 1888 is the ‘beginning’ of the solution that the world church needs.”—ISG, 20.

Under the column called “The 1888 Message View” are to be found the types of errors we have discussed in this report. Surely, no one needs to be led to believe that all the world is justified and no one is condemned—and without any conditions, now or later.

WIELAND’S MESSAGE—Wieland believes that his message must be accepted.

“ ‘Error often appears to lie close to the path of truth’ [8T 290]. But it is too late to again mistake truth for error. We don’t have another century to sort out confusion.”—ISG, 9.

“God forbid that we again should ‘brace ourselves’ against truth.”—ISG,  9.

To reject the message R.J. Wieland brings us is to have committed the unpardonable sin.

“If we declare the Holy Spirit’s work to be the work of Satan, Jesus says we commit an unpardonable sin.”—ISG, 3.

Only those who accept the new light will go through to the end.

“When God’s people understand and believe this ‘third angel’s message in verity’ they will (by faith) overcome sin and live in the sight of a holy God without an Intercessor.”—ISG, 23.

________________________________________

THE TEACHINGS OF JACK SEQUEIRA

For years Robert Wieland, in his writings and lectures, has given the impression that the 1888 message contained a hidden secret which we need to unravel, a secret he can explain. Because his concepts are complicated and his reasoning involved, many people had a difficult time detecting where Wieland was headed—until, in the spring of 1994, he came out openly in favor of the teachings of Jack Sequeira.

Since then, Wieland and his associates in the 1888 Message Study Committee, have been very forward in their support of Sequeira’s teachings, books, and meetings.

Two weeks ago, Donald K. Short, now living in North Carolina, sent a message to the present writer, in which he also sided with Jack Sequeira.

WHAT SEQUEIRA TEACHES—Here is a brief review of some of the unusual teachings of Jack Sequeira, as given in his book, Beyond Belief [BB], and two audiotaped talks he gave at the Walla Walla City Church about 1990; one attacking Ellen White and, the other, the Sanctuary Message. The following analysis is summarized from our tract set, The Teachings of Jack Sequeira [WM–501-506]:

SPIRIT OF PROPHECY—In his audiotaped sermon, Issues: the Spirit of Prophecy [ISP], Sequeira said we are not to quote or refer to the Spirit of Prophecy writings in lectures and sermons, and we are not to quote or refer to their principles in private conversations with others.

SANCTUARY MESSAGE—In his audiotaped sermon, Issues: The Heavenly Sanctuary [IHS], Sequeira said the “sanctuary” in heaven has only one room, Jesus entered the most holy place in A.D. 31, and Christ has a two-phase ministry in that one room. To climax the tape, he said there really is no sanctuary in heaven!

“God dwells in heaven. Heaven itself is the sanctuary . . To us, heaven itself is the sanctuary.”—IHS.

“When she saw two rooms, it was only symbolic.”—IHS.

“Hey, Jesus! You made a mistake; there are supposed to be two rooms! No!”—IHS.

“We Christians can rejoice because we have already received the atonement.”—BB, 51.

The word translated, “atonement,” in the KJV of Romans 5:11 does not mean that. It is katallage, and means “reconciliation.” Paul, writing over 25 years after Calvary, said that those who have accepted Christ have been reconciled with God. But the atonement was not yet completed.

Robert J. Wieland has repeatedly praised and defended Jack Sequeira, in spite of heavy criticism for having done so. Never at any time has Wieland said there is any error in Sequeira’s teachings.

It is significant that, in the March 1996 summary of his teachings (entitled In Search of the Gospel: We Still Believe [ISG] and discussed earlier in this report), Wieland said there is a sanctuary in heaven, but made no mention that it had two apartments. In addition, he makes no mention that Christ ministered in the first apartment until 1844, and then entered the second apartment. Wieland also says nothing about the possibility of there being an investigative judgment. He only talks about judgment at the cross.

Regarding Ellen White, both Sequeira and Wieland repeatedly say we should go to the Bible for instruction in spiritual matters, not to the Spirit of Prophecy.

UNCONDITIONAL SALVATION AT THE CROSS—It is also of interest that both Sequeira and Wieland continually speak about “agape” love. On a chart on page 25 of his book, Beyond Belief, Sequeira says that agape means “salvation by faith alone.” On pages 25-26, he says “Only the agape gospel is unconditional good news.”

“When Christ . . [died] mankind’s redemption was fully realized.”—Handout prepared by Sequeira and distributed at the Walla Walla City Church, April 1991.

“God actually and unconditionally saved all humanity at the cross.”—BB, 8.

“All that is necessary for our salvation from sin is already an accomplished fact in Christ.”—BB, 118.

JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION—Like Wieland, Sequeira says that justification does it all.

“When Christ died on the cross, all humanity was legally justified because all humanity died with Him there.”—BB, 43.

“The imparted righteousness of Christ . . does not contribute in the slightest way to our qualification for heaven.”—BB 32.

“Justification means all of Christ’s righteousness that He provided for us so that nothing more is required of us to qualify for heaven.”—BB, 103.

The truth is that justification is forgiveness received, and sanctification is obedience done in Christ’s enabling strength, or grace. But Sequeira says to obey God is to return to Rome.

“The gospel of faith plus works, or justification plus sanctification, is at the heart of Roman Catholic theology. It is a subtle form of ‘legalism.’ ”—BB, 25.

Notice, in the above statement, that Sequeira identifies sanctification as merely man-made works.

“Christ also kept the whole law on our behalf. All this becomes ours the moment we are justified by faith. Justification means all of Christ’s righteousness that He provided for us so that nothing more is required of us to qualify for heaven. In other words, we stand perfect in Him.”—BB, 103.

“Stumbling under grace, falling into sin, does not deprive us of justification.”—BB, 166.

“If a person believes that salvation ultimately depends to some degree on his or her behavior, then the faith such a person is able to generate will naturally be polluted with self-concern.”—BB, 91.

“All that is necessary for our salvation from sin is already an accomplished fact in Christ.”—BB, 118.

“All three of these aspects of our salvation—justification, sanctification and glorification—have already been accomplished in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—BB, 30.

CORPORATE DEATH—Wieland says that, at the cross, corporate mankind received unconditional release from the second death. Sequeira describes it about the same way. They both call it the “Good News.”

“The entire human race is corporately one in Jesus Christ . . What Jesus did, we have done, because we are corporately one in Him. His perfect life and death are considered to be our life and death as well.”—BB, 37.

“When Adam sinned . . he brought the judgment of condemnation and death to ‘all men.’ In the same way, when Christ obeyed, He . . cancelled all our personal sins . . This is the unconditional Good News.”—BB, 54-55.

CORPORATE OBEDIENCE—Sequeira says all of humanity was unconditionally declared obedient to God’s law at the cross.

“The doctrine of substitution is based on the concept of corporate oneness. God can legally justify sinners because all humanity corporately obeyed the law in one Man, Jesus Christ. Only when we identify the humanity of Jesus with the corporate fallen humanity He came to redeem can we teach an ethical gospel that is unconditional Good News.”—BB, 48.

“In Him we lived a perfect life; in Him we died the penalty for sin.”—BB, 48-49.

BEHAVIOR AND OBEDIENCE OF NO CONSEQUENCE—Live as you please, you cannot be lost. This is the message many will get out of Sequeira’s teachings:

“Full and complete salvation has already been obtained in Jesus Christ . . [It is incorrect to believe that] salvation ultimately depends to some degree on his or her behavior.”—BB, 91.

“Jesus Christ has already accomplished everything necessary for sinful men and women to be declared righteous and candidates for heaven.”—BB, 33.

“The devil has deceived many Christians into believing . . that something more is necessary: that they must keep the law.”—BB, 104.

AWAY WITH THE LAW—Your behavior is all your thoughts, words, decisions, and actions. As far as Sequeira is concerned, none of that has any affect on whether or not you will go to heaven.

“How should we Christians view the law? Is it still binding on us? The answer is emphatically NO; the law is not binding on us.”—BB, 166.

“ ‘Christ became a man to prove that men and women can keep God’s law’ [is what some say]. The problem with this answer is that we cannot explicitly substantiate it from Scripture.”—BB, 41.

“He [Satan] makes it appear that salvation comes not by faith alone, but that it depends to some degree on our own behavior.”—BB, 174.

IT IS ALL RIGHT TO SIN—Regardless of your conduct, you can go to heaven anyway. If you are under grace, neither sin nor obedience to law matters.

“Sin no longer has authority to condemn or control a believer, because such a person is no longer under the law’s control.”—BB, 165.

“There is a world of difference between sinning under law and sinning under grace . . Stumbling under grace, falling into sin, does not deprive us of justification. Neither does it bring condemnation.”—BB, 166.

“It simply isn’t true that everyone dies because they have personally sinned . . Sinful man is not lost because he has committed sins, but because he is without Christ.”—BB, 134.

“If a person believes that salvation ultimately depends to some degree on his or her behavior, then the faith such a person is able to generate will naturally be polluted with self-concern.”—BB, 91.

We do not now need to live a perfect life in Christ; He did it for us.

“In Him we lived a perfect life; in Him we died the penalty for sin.”—BB, 48-49.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBEY—Sequeira teaches that it is impossible to obey the law of God, even by taking hold of the strength and grace of Christ:

“God will never help the flesh to be good, for the flesh is Satan’s domain and unalterably opposed to God.”—BB, 94.

“Performing works of law is a subtle form of rebellion against God.”—BB, 97.

“God did not give us His only-begotten Son so that we could copy Him, but so that we could receive Him . . God is not looking at us to see how good we are or how hard we are trying to keep His law.”—BB, 98.

THOSE WHO OBEY GOD’S LAW WILL EVENTUALLY RECEIVE THE MARK—Sequeira teaches that Sabbath­keeping means not to obey God, and that those who persist in doing it will eventually become Sunday­keepers.

“[The keeping of] the Sabbath, signifying salvation by faith alone, vs. Sunday, signifying salvation by works or human effort.”—Handout prepared by Sequeira and distributed at the Walla Walla City Church, April 1991.

“The real issue is not the one we usually think of—Sabbath keeping vs. Sunday keeping. Many sincere Sunday-keeping Christians today are fully resting in Christ for salvation . .

“In the end time, those who have deliberately turned their backs on God’s free gift of salvation in Christ will worship the dragon that gives power to the beast. They will exalt Sunday as man’s day of rest in defiance of God’s rest day. The issue, then, in the final conflict will not be between two groups of Christians, or even between two rest days, but between two opposing methods of salvation.”—BB, 184-185.

“The fundamental issue throughout Scripture is salvation by faith vs. salvation by works. At the heart of the Bible message is salvation by grace made effective through faith alone.”—BB, 185.

It is unfortunate that Robert Wieland and Jack Sequeira are teaching these errors. We must pray—and warn others while there is time.

When someone comes to you, declaring he has new light or old light rediscovered,—beware!

If he presents concepts that seem remarkably new and strange, then you should question why this is so. You have been reading the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy for years, yet you never read such a concept!

Because the Spirit of Prophecy provides far more Inspired detail about divine truth than the Bible, the “new or rediscovered light” should already be familiar to you. It should not seem novel and different.

(Of course, if you have not been regularly reading in the Spirit of Prophecy, you are open to error of all kinds! Start today prayerfully, humbly, regularly reading in the Inspired books!)

Keep in mind that all the light we need to get to heaven and guard us against error is to be found in those sacred books: the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. Trusting in Jesus, regularly reading both and obeying His Word will protect you against deception.

We are told that new light, when presented, will agree with what is already in those books.

So when something new and odd is presented to you as new light, be very, very cautious.

The Bible—and the Spirit of Prophecy—should clearly state that new light. It should say it clearly and plainly. There should be no question about the meaning or intent.

Beware of those who can only provide a quotation that almost says what they are trying to say, but actually does not! Also beware when they try to hurry you into a decision.

There are other danger signals to be observed:

Beware of those who, as introduction or proof, quote Spirit of Prophecy statements telling us to consider new light. Beware! Those doing so are begging the question. The reasoning goes like this:

Ellen White says there will be new light. I come to you now with something new. Therefore it must be new light and you must accept it.

Let the warning bells ring in your mind when this happens! Get out of there and take your loved ones with you.

Here is another danger signal:

Beware of those who quote a Spirit of Prophecy passage encouraging us to study the Bible, and then say, “See, you should read the Bible, not the Spirit of Prophecy.” Those who do this are afraid of the Spirit of Prophecy. They know it contains evidence that their theories are wrong.

  Return to Books