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.
R.J.
WIELAND TEACHES:
FIRST,
everyone in the world—past, present, and future—was
automatically justified by God, reconciled to Him, saved and
redeemed when Christ died on the cross.
The
condemnation of the law (caused by disobedience to God’s law at
anytime during one’s lifetime), which fell upon every human
being who would ever live, was totally and irrevocably removed at
the cross and could not later be charged to any person.
These
gifts were not partially—but fully—bestowed in A.D. 31, and
were not conditional on anything that anyone would be required to
say, think, or do during his entire lifetime.
No
part of these gifts were deferred or postponed until a later time,
or until the fulfillment of later conditions.
So
everyone was saved at the cross. It was a “finished
atonement.”
R.J.
WIELAND ALSO TEACHES:
SECOND,
everyone must accept Christ by faith or be lost. Those who accept
Him by faith will consistently obey Him.
THIS
PRESENT STUDY FOCUSES ON THE FIRST OF THESE TWO TEACHINGS:
The
reason for this is that Wieland now says his message is superior
to that of historic Adventism. Since the second part,
tends to be similar to historic Adventism, it would have to
be the first part, which he claims to be superior to the
historic beliefs of God’s people. |
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
|