(Reproduced here is a letter written in 1980 to Martin by a Seventh-Day Adventist Bible teacher. Following it, is Martin's reply. It is clear that Walter Martin was becoming increasingly impatient with the letters be had received from traditional Adventists- and from modernist ones- that indicated a concern on the part of some of our church members and workers to see a retrenchment into more historic Adventism in our doctrinal statements. It was but a premonition of coming events, as we shall see later in this present study, "The Beginning of the End."

Prof. Walter Martin

Post Office Box 500 Capistrano, Ca. 92693 Dear Prof. Martin:

Sometimes I wonder if the "truth" will ever be made known? It seems we are still going over the ground you and your late friend Dr. Barnhouse walked over some twenty plus years ago.

Since our last correspondence concerning the writing of the book "Questions on Doctrine," I have gone over carefully a communiqué by Dr. Barnhouse wherein he stated: "We (referring to you and himself) have written and signed by the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist movement that we have not misinterpreted Seventh-day Adventist positions."

Perhaps he was speaking about the foreword of your book, which was signed by one of our officers. However, he also stated: "Everything I have published was read by Seventh-day Adventist leaders before we published. Not a line have I ever printed that was not previously read by Froom. "

Was Dr. Froom the only one that gave his consent and placed an endorsement upon the writings in "Eternity?" The reason I raise the question is because of a letter I received from the Editor of "The Ministry Magazine." (The one that took Dr. Roy Anderson's place) He told me that "when it comes to your quoting "Eternity" magazine, you must remember that this is their interpretation of the story . . You cannot hold the Adventist Church leadership responsible for our saying what others said we said.. So what Barnhouse and Martin said our leaders said, still has to be taken in that context."

I must say, this rather muddies the water and makes it most difficult to discern which person has spoken "truth. " I would like to believe that God is still leading the honest in heart and those who are seeking to know Him as their personal Saviour. However, as a professor of religion here at O.K.A., it sometimes becomes rather hard to determine just where we stand as a denomination. Are we divided?

I would appreciate anything you might have from your files that could help clear up this issue in my mind once for all.

Let me thank you in advance for your time and consideration and may I remain Sincerely,

(Signed)

December 9, 1980

Dear Brother ___;

I am sorry for a late reply to your letter of last January, but my schedule has been horrendous. As I stated in my "Eternity" articles and Dr. Barnhouse stated in his editorial, and as I have further stated in "The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism" and "The Kingdom of the Cults," representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination with the full approval of Reuben Figuhr, then president, entered into lengthy dialogue with myself, Dr. Barnhouse, and Dr. George Cannon for the purpose of ascertaining Seventh-day Adventism's agreement or disagreement with historic Christianity. Dr. Roy Allan Anderson, Dr. W.E. Read, Dr. LeRoy Froom, and Dr. Unruh referred our dialogues to selected members of the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary in Washington and to Reuben Figuhr. When the book, "Questions on Doctrine" was published, it was stated that it represented historic Adventism as understood by the leaders of the church at that time. The book was in response to the questions I addressed to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. The current editor of The Ministry, who is maintaining that what went on in those dialogues and the material that was printed was merely the interpretation "Eternity" magazine placed upon it is not only woefully ignorant, but he apparently can't read. "Barnhouse and Martin" didn't say what your leaders said, Barnhouse and Martin reproduced exactly what they said; and after they had read it, as the book "Questions on Doctrine" and my book accurately represents it all.

It is sorry to see after such a short period of time that some leaders of Adventism have not only short memories, but are now attempting to say things which are blatantly erroneous.

If this dialogue must be public once more, I shall be happy to produce the documentation. Dr. Roy Anderson is still alive as is Dr. Unruh. This was not a matter of interpretation. This was a matter of very thorough documentation and the editor of the ministry had better start doing his homework or his attitude will further what is now a growing schism within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.

One cannot simply have his cake and eat it too. Either the Seventh-day Adventist denomination stood behind the book "Questions on Doctrine", or they printed it under false pretenses. I do not accept the latter; and all the evidence is in favor of the former. You may consult Dr. Anderson if you wish. He is an honorable man with a good memory; and if we have to get down to the area of factual data, the editor of The Ministry will not be very successful in defending this double talk.

With appreciation for your correspondence and a continuing interest in the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, I remain,

In the Fellowship of our Lord,

Walter Martin

(The following letter was sent to a layman in North America in the to summer of 1982. W. Duncan Eva, its author, is Special Assistant to President of the General Conference. For many years a close friend of Desmond Ford, he has continued to the present time to favor both the doctrines and the advocates of Ford's modernistic views. (The most recent example of this was his trip to Australasia in spring of 1982-see CN-4, pp. 2-3, and the tape "The Cuckoos," both available from Pilgrims' Rest.)

This letter provides us with, several insights and two very significant facts. The two facts are these: (1) The publication costs of "Questions on Doctrine" was subsidized by the General Conference so that it could be more widely circulated. We have earlier learned in this extensive study, "The Beginning of the End," that for ten years the General Conference paid the full cost of ranting and mailing out thousands of copies of QD to non-Adventist thought leaders and their schools and libraries, so that they would think that we believed much as they did. But now we learn that the cost of all the copies that were sold were also partly paid for by the General Conference! A study made in the early sixties by a layman revealed that nearly all of the money that the General Conference has to work with, comes from foreign mission offerings and tithe. Should foreign mission offerings be used to send QD out everywhere,- when it teaches non-Adventist teachings? Frankly, some of this seems a little high-handed. What right do a small group of men in the General Conference have to initiate, carry out, and then subsidize such a project? The General Conference in Quadrennial Session never gave approval to such a project (and probably never heard about it until after the books were selling in the Adventist Book and Bible Houses).

(2) The second point is even more important: A successor to "Questions on Doctrine" is already in the planning stages. It will be published "in several years. " What slant will the doctrines have in that book? This is very serious. Especially in view of the fact that (a) our college Bible teachers will probably do most of the writing of articles, and (b) a poll of our college Bible teachers made by Raymond Cottrell in 1980 [see details in WM-22J revealed that a large number no longer believed basic Adventist teachings dealt with in the poll. Here is W. Duncan Eva's letter:]

Office of the President

General Conference of
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
Church World Headquarters:
6840 Eastern Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20012 USA
Telephone: (202) 722-6000
Cable: Adventist, Washington
Telex: 89-580

August 24, 1982 Dear Brother ___:

Thank you very much for your letter of July 28 addressed to Elder [Neal C.] Wilson. As you know and have said in your letter, he is not able to reply to all the correspondence that comes to his desk and has, therefore, requested that I endeavor to reply to the questions that you have asked.

In regard to the book Questions on Doctrine, you ask why there has never been any semblance of an official repudiation of it.

Questions on Doctrine was prepared, at the request of the General Conference officers, by a group of conservative Adventist scholars in the 1950's. Its circulation around the world field was subsidized by the General Conference so it could be sold at the price of $1.50 (if I remember correctly) per copy. [You will note on DH-107, p. 3, that the price of the book to our own members, when originally released, was $5.00.] It has never been republished in English, though there has been considerable demand for it. However, it was recently published in South America, I believe, in the Portuguese language. It is the plan for the Review and Herald to prepare a book on systematic theology, representing the Adventist view and understanding, to replace Questions on Doctrine. It will appear in a few years as Volume 11 of the Commentary Series. It will, of course, be a new book and will not follow the format and pattern of Questions on Doctrine.

I am not altogether clear on what you mean in regard to the "errors" in Questions on Doctrine. You are probably referring to the stand it takes on Christology ["Christology" = the doctrine of Christ," i.e., the human nature of Christ] and certain aspects of Soteriology ["Soteriology" = the doctrine of how we are saved, i.e., when the atonement was completed, and whether mankind needs to keep the Law of God as part of that salvation process]. I can only say that its writers, after careful study, and the General Conference administration at the time it was published, believed it set forth the truth correctly. Many, I am inclined to think not a minority, still believe the same way today . .

In regard to Movement of Destiny, I might say that it has been revised in some places recently to correct some statements that tended to be misleading. There is, however, no intention to withdraw it from circulation for the brethren feel it makes a contribution to our understanding of the history of our church and the developments that have led us through the years. Elder Pearson, the former president of the General Conference, spoke of it as "a must for every worker, every theological student, and every church officer-in fact, for every church member who loves this message and longs to see it triumph in the near, very near future."

There are some who speak and write disparagingly of Dr. L.E. Froom, but he writes as one who has studied into these questions deeply and who lived close to the situation through the years of his ministry. As a long-time secretary of the Ministerial Association, he had opportunity to know many things intimately that others, perhaps, were not so fortunate to understand.

In regard to Dr. Heppenstall and his stand on original sin, may I say first of all that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has never clearly stated where it stands in regard to original sin as a doctrine. There are no references to it as such in the 27 articles recently revised and adopted at the Dallas General Conference session in 1980. Dr. Heppenstall is a respected scholar of this church. His understanding of some things may be different from yours but he sees support for his understanding in both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy and what he has written was written to be helpful. As I know him, he has always acted as a Christian gentleman and at the recent Glacier View meeting made one of the most moving appeals to Dr. Desmond Ford to stay by the church, accept the counsel of the brethren and seek to work out with his fellow scholars some of the questions that he had raised. Many of us regret deeply that Dr. Ford did not heed that appeal [to remain a church worker].

I am not in a position to say more than this about what you call "this heresy." You ask how many of the leaders believe it. I cannot answer that question because I do not know exactly what you mean by "this heresy." I suppose it includes Dr. Heppenstall's understanding of original sin, maybe some of the faults you have to find with Movement of Destiny and perhaps also modern protestant evangelical theology. You say that Mrs. White is clearly opposed to these errors and their proponents are proceeding to make her testimony of none effect. I would have to understand a great deal more clearly what you are saying, Brother ___, before I would venture to reply. At this point there is for me wise counsel in Proverbs 18:13 [quoted].

You ask secondly why there is no official propaganda or literature against the new theology published from our headquarters as there was against Brinsmead. Here again I am not altogether clear on what you mean by "new theology." It is very easy for us to attach labels which have a meaning as far as we personally are concerned, but are not always understood by others. If you are talking about the controversy that has been continuing for some time- in regard to the interpretation of Daniel 8, the Sanctuary, the Day of Atonement, and certain chapters in the book of Hebrews, then it would seem to me that the church has made very clear answers.

With warm Christian greetings,

Sincerely your brother,

(Signed)

W. Duncan Eva

Special Assistant to the President

bs

("The Beginning of the End" was a major historical analysis of a theological compromise that took place nearly twenty years ago.

But at this point, the past becomes the present and we find ourselves confronted with -a new bombshell in the very near future.

Now we are no longer dealing with history; we are faced with either a repetition of this General Conference compromise again - this year-or a dramatic reversal of Walter Martin's position in regard to our Church.

On February 22, 1983 in an address in Napa, California, Walter Martin told the audience that be was again seeking more doctrinal "answers" from the General Conference. He said that he had already demanded these answers- and if they were not forthcoming, be was going to do; some revising of his official statement of our Church.

For seventeen years he has publicly stated that Seventh-day Adventism is not a cult: -But in this lecture it is obvious that he has been receiving letters from 'a large number of Fordite Adventists', and non Adventist Fordite, sympathizers who are urging Martin to now revise his classification of our denomination

As a; result Martin says he has contacted the General Conference, and has submited another listing of doctrinal "questions": to which she wants "answers" that are satisfactory to him. No reply or the wrong reply will be sufficient cause for unpleasant action on his part "in his new book" which be will be releasing in a short time

So, those of you who thought you were reading history now find you are reading current news. And it is news that you should yourself act upon.- ln 1955 we were told nothing about Martin's questions - much less our answers- Not until the Protestant magazines leaked the news in their "bombshell ", articles did Adventists, as a whole, learn what was taking place. Today another set of "questions " has-been submitted to the General Conference. And the Church has known nothing about it. But, fortunately on February 22., of this year, Walter Martin told us what was happening..:. . .

It is now time to read- and then WRITE.

'Write the General Conference and demand that our leaders stop yielding to Evangelical demands for doctrinal compromise. We are compromising with the Evangelicals within our Church on the matter of doctrine. (The "Evangelicals within our Church" are the Fordites and "new theology" advocates.) And now the pressure is on to yield more to the Evangelicals without the Church.

What will you do about it? Will you stand for the right and urge the right--or will you cowardly shrink into a corner and decide that it is somebody else's business to speak up.

Here are major portions of Walter Martin's lecture on Seventh-day Adventism today, delivered at the Napa Christian Mission-Church, Napa; California (very close to Pacific Union College) to a large audience composed of Adventists and non-Adventists: j

In 1955 I published a book called "The Rise of The Cults."

In that book I discussed various cult structures, and one of the groups that I mentioned was the Seventh-day Adventists. I was contacted shortly afterwards by a very fine Christian man now with the Lord, T. E. Unruh, a Seventh-day Adventist. He was concerned that I, an expert on cults, would classify him and Seventh-day Adventists along with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and Christian Science. He asked for a meeting so we could talk about it. I said: I'm always interested in truth, always interested in examining facts and evidence; yes, I'd be glad to meet with you. I met with him; and that meeting let to another series of meetings with a committee appointed by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (which is the highest government body of the Adventist denomination).

We met together. We proceeded to discuss together issues of Seventh-day Adventism. This was the first time that this had ever happened in the history of that denomination. As a result of it, after these got going, the then president of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, Reuben Figuhr (who is still alive) appointed this study for the purpose of arriving at an area of discussion and of truth, so that there would be a bridge between Evangelical Christianity and Seventh-day Adventism, and that the communication gap could be bridged.

Now these meetings went on over a period of two years. Literally hundreds and hundreds of hours of work and research were gone into it.

It seemed that it would be a good idea to publish a book on the subject that would answer questions about Seventh-day Adventist theology. I went with this proposal to Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, my teacher, who was absolutely convinced that Seventh-day Adventism was a non-Christian cult, and thought I had lost whatever reasoning I had by coming back with material that indicated otherwise.

We had a long session and Dr. Barnhouse said: "I think you should investigate this further." So with that I proceeded to meet with the Adventists-with Professor George Cannon, with the great Adventist historian, Professor LeRoy Froom; W.E. Read, one of the top researchers of Old Testament material; T.E. Unruh, one of their conference presidents; and of course, with Roy Allan Anderson, Editor of the "Ministry Magazine."

It was agreed that my book, "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism," would be released in Seventh-day Adventist bookstores. It was agreed that we would push their volume in Evangelical bookstores, so that more than four-thousand stores could get the information, and get it through the Adventists and through the Evangelicals. It was not a tiny project. It was a great project- It had the support of the president of the General Conference and the committees he personally appointed. We had cooperation from everybody in attempting it. It was not considered to be a new statement of faith but an expansion of what they considered to be historic Seventh-day Adventism.

Now we learned early on in our discussions that there was a division in Seventh-day Adventism that had to be recognized. There was a lunatic fringe that believed doctrines that appalled even the Adventists. And I came in one day with a suitcase, literally a suitcase, full of publications from Adventist publishing houses. Before I opened the suitcase, I said to my brothers on the committee, do you know that your denomination teaches these things? And I listed them, and they were appalled. I said I have the mark of the beast, and they looked at each other and said, "Impossible!" I said, "Well I have." I said, "I have been told that by three Adventist publishing houses." "NO!" I said, "Yes." I said, "It gets even worse brothers. It says here in your publications that Jesus didn't complete the atonement on the cross. It says here in your publication-and I went down the line on the subject. "Impossible!" I said, "Alright," I said, "Look in the suitcase." So I put the suitcase up on the table and spread out about two hundred documents. And they spent a couple of days going through the documents. When they came back, they said, "Who would ever have believed that all of this was in print." and; "We certainly have to do something about it immediately." I said, "Good! But this is what is confusing the whole Evangelical world and this is what is confusing the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. You've got to speak with one voice on the great foundations of the gospel. You've got to speak with one voice so the sheep (the people) can hear it. And there are problems. You must face them."

They were very responsive, and we entered into work in earnest. "Questions on Doctrine" was published. It was a great success. More than 150,000 copies went forth. And then strange things began to happen. I published my book about Seventh-day Adventism, and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists refused to put it in Adventist bookstores. That was our first clue that there were some problems on high levels. Secondly we began to find out that there were Adventists writing us, who were saying; "This is not what the Adventist Church really believes. You have been deceived." And they gave us information. Then other ministers and others began to come to us giving us more information. We went back over the information. It was a great sifting process.

Then we began to realize that a great body of information was beginning to surface, and progressively it has over the years. I could not bring here tonight all of the material which I have collected now and preach in the Search Institute. Suffice it to say there are four cartons, that would be stacked up to the height of this pulpit, of material which is coming from Adventists all over the world, pointing out to us things which are still inconsistent in the denomination.

What I want to begin with is to tell you, that there are Seventh-day Adventists, a great body of them, who are born-again Christians, and love the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. That is absolutely true. In fact some of the Adventists are here tonight. Then there are some important representatives of Seventh-day Adventism who are at this point beginning to move the denomination back from where they came in 1957.

This group believes that Jesus Christ had a sinful human nature. This group believes that the atonement was not completed on the cross. This group believes that Ellen G. White is not only a prophetess of God, but that Ellen G. White was an infallible interpreter of the Bible, so that now ministers are being disfellowshipped and people are being removed from the Adventist denomination on grounds which are completely repudiated by the book, "Questions on Doctrine." In fact there are ministers here tonight that I know. Two of whom were unfrocked in the Adventist denomination because they favored "Questions on Doctrine" to their own General Conference.

A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and among his own people, she [Ellen White] said. The Scripture also says that a Pharoah arose who knew not Joseph, which means there have been some very subtle and progressive changes going on in Seventh-day Adventism theology. They have reached a crisis point.

It is not a small group of people anymore that are disenchanted. We have hundreds and hundreds of letters from Adventist pastors, missionaries, and leaders. They are more than disenchanted with some of the things that they are seeing. We also have a body of information now, which originally the denomination denied existed but which now exists, and is documented evidence. It is therefore very important to understand that our Seventh-day Adventist brothers and sisters, who want to stay with "Questions on Doctrine" are sticking with what I was told, and Dr. Barnhouse was told and the Evangelical world was told in 1957 and through 1960.

These people are in great jeopardy right now. They need a lot of prayer and a lot of support, because they are trying to hang on to the basic foundations, whereas an "old guard" with Seventh-day Adventism in positions of power and authority are very systematically rooting out the people that do not agree with this. That is simply going right now, and it is denied as absolute folly.

The core of the entire problem is the role of Ellen G. White in Seventh day Adventism and the Sanctuary doctrine, which has generated enormous controversy. Now, tonight we don't have time to go through four boxes of material. We do not have time to review all the problems connected with Adventist theology.

This is very important: If you have an infallible interpreter then you have developed a paper pope. Now the move is afoot to establish the papacy of Mrs. White, and that move is deadly.

The claim was made for Mrs. White in "Questions on Doctrine" and in Adventist publications, that she is not a canonical writer of scripture .. that is the claim in "Questions on Doctrine."

I was originally told by some Seventh-day Adventists, that in the early days of the Church, they maintained that they were the "Remnant Church," to the exclusion of all others. I said that's heresy, there is no remnant church, there is only the body of Christ. You can talk about a remnant to the book of Revelation under the tribulation conditions. But we're not in the tribulation period. And they said, "Well, our view has been vindicated somewhat." And they gave me a new statement on it.

I am now getting literature telling us that we are right back where we were in 1956, and they are indeed the "Remnant Church"! . . The Seventh-day Adventist denomination in 1957 stated, that it did not believe that it was the "Remnant Church" to the exclusion of everybody else. Now we are beginning to get feedback to the contrary. The Adventist Church in the clearest possible terms stated in 1956, that the atonement of Christ was completed on the cross, that it was over with, no continuation. We are now beginning to receive considerable material quite the opposite. The Adventist Church told us in 1956 that Jesus Christ had an absolutely sinless nature, and they repudiated publications even by their own magazines, that said that Christ had a sinful human nature.

In 1957, the Adventist denomination said nobody will be excommunicated for not understanding or believing in, in effect, Mrs. White's prophetic gift. Today people are being excommunicated from the denomination because they call under question those things. Now these are issues that the Adventist church must face.

I do not question the integrity of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. I have addressed a series of questions to them and I am eagerly awaiting their response to those questions.

What I did in 1956, I have done again for the purpose of helping my Adventist brothers and sisters and the whole body of Christ. Seventh-day Adventism has made enormous strides and has made great contributions to the life of the Christian church. Their medical works are unchallenged. Their dedication I have seen on the mission fields of the world.

The fact that they are concerned and do preach Christ and the many people that have come to Christ through that preaching is undeniable. But side by side, there has grown up with this, a body of teaching which if permitted to continue will classify Seventh-day Adventism along with the cults all over again.

One of the great highlights of my life, was to stand in Jerusalem with Roy Allan Anderson of the Seventh-day Adventist Church about ten years ago, and there to see a Seventh-day Adventist minister serve communion, an ecumenical prophetic conference for the whole church of Christ, with thousands of people there, and they asked Roy to serve communion. Before Dr. Barnhouse's work and my work in 1956 to 1960, Roy Anderson would have been considered by that group, unworthy of an invitation and would never have been received as a Christian minister. But the Holy Spirit took that work and "Questions on Doctrine" and that committee; and Reuben Figuhr who had the courage to do it, and they transformed the image of Seventh-day Adventism.

Now the great threat is that it may go back again. This cannot be permitted to happen if at all possible in the body of Christ. We must fight for the integrity of our Seventh-day Adventist brothers to believe what their church says they believed. That's the real question, whether they stay with "Questions on Doctrine" and back it, will they republish it?

They deliberately suppressed it at one time. It was up for publication. I have the whole story. It was suppressed by powers of the Adventist denomination that didn't agree with what it said. Well what did it say? I'll tell you. This is what "Questions on Doctrine" said: that the trinity is Biblical theology and is to be believed; that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh with a perfect human nature; that He died on the cross and paid the price for all our sins once for all. "Questions on Doctrine" said, he rose bodily from the dead, he is sent to heaven as our great High Priest. "Questions on Doctrine" said, the atonement was finished on the cross. "Questions on Doctrine" said, salvation is solely by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. That's what it said, and that's good solid Christian theology.

Today, we are hearing voices within the Adventist denomination that are not teaching good solid Christian theology. They are teaching heresies, which the church originally repudiated.

I even have to say that Mrs. White is a false prophet, that she is an enemy of the gospel. I have received, you wouldn't believe how many letters, and how many telephone calls, from people trying to get me to write an article on Ellen White, the false prophet. I have been trying to do so. Now I'm going on record with this publicly, it'll probably offend some people, but it has to be said. Joseph Smith denied the great doctrines of the Bible. Joseph Smith was a false prophet. False prophets are known by the fact that they are enemies of the cross of Christ. That is the mark of a false prophet. Enemies of God, who turn you away from the Lord, your God. That is what a false prophet is. Tomorrow night we talk about Mormonism, and we'll see that very clearly.

Mrs. White by that definition could never be called a false prophet. She did preach the gospel. She did draw Christ; only read her book "Steps to Christ," you'll recognize that. Mrs. White exercised; I believe, at certain times, spiritual gifts. But Mrs. White was a sinner saved by grace.

There is no need for any investigative judgment at any time, because Jesus took care of it all on the cross. If you have the kind of a God that's got to go over a set of books to decide whether or not you have been justified, you have not got the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible knew who was justified before time began. He did not need the Millerite movement of 1843 to update Him on it, or 1844. The Bible does not teach that Jesus Christ went from the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary into the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844, but the Bible teaches at His resurrection Jesus Christ entered into the holiest of all with His own blood, and it obtained eternal redemption for us.

The doctrine of the incomplete atonement is incomplete reality. It is not Christian theology. It denies justification by faith. There is a book published by the Adventist denomination now. It's called the "Omega" book. This has to be repudiated as rapidly as possible, if the Adventists are to have credibility in the eyes of the Christian church. Because in that book they go back to attempting to establish righteousness, not on the basis of grace alone and salvation by grace alone, but bringing in the very legalism which got them in the trouble we had years and years ago.

There are lunatic Baptists, Episcopalians, you name it. I wouldn't want to be represented by a lunatic Baptist. I don't think that a good bunch of Seventh-day Adventists want to be represented by some of the lunacy that is coming out by Adventist publications today. So I wouldn't want to judge that as representative of total Seventh-day Adventism.

But they have a problem. [The Adventists] And that problem now becomes the problem of the body of Christ. The body of Christ must work together with them to try and solve it. That is why I have not taken positions publicly against the General Conference. That is why I have not published lots and lots and lots of material in Christian magazines when I've been asked to. Because the Adventist denomination deserves the chance to look squarely in the face of questions and answer them. If they answer them so they repudiate "Questions on Doctrine," they deserve what happens. And if they will affirm what they said they historically believed, that the people who are now in positions of power, who are propagating these false teachings should be removed from the denomination immediately. But godly Adventists should not be discriminated against, when they are definitely trying to solve the problems.

There are Seventh-day Adventist ministers in this valley who have left the Seventh-day Adventists Church out of conviction. Some have been thrown out of this church by conviction. They deserve the heartfelt apologies of their denomination.

"Questions on Doctrine" dealt with this, beautifully, clearcut. Salvation by grace through faith. On the basic areas of Christian theology, Christians of all denominations had better be prepared, as we move toward the end of the ages, to hang together.

The center of the gospel is evident, and we've got to stay with that. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination will affirm the centrality of that gospel, if the Seventh-day Adventist denomination will repudiate those who are misrepresenting them. If the Seventh-day Adventist denomination will stop talking out of both sides of the mouth, then the Christian public and the Adventists will then at last hear one thing.

Let them [the Adventist Church] repudiate the "Omega" publication, and then let the denomination squarely and forthrightly say this- here we stand on the foundations we announced in 1956- and discipline the people that don't believe in them. Then they will once again have credibility in the eyes of the Evangelical world and in the eyes of many disappointed and frustrated Adventists.

Martin, preface to Question Period: "I will be publishing on the subject of the puzzle of Seventh-day Adventism, and what I publish, on tape and in book form, will be available in over 6,000 Christian bookstores with 90 days after it is released. So we are going to get a good response from the Christian public, and now you know why I am concerned, and why I feel this is a matter of great importance for the Adventists and their fellow Christians."

Martin: I'm interested in only one thing: I'm interested in the official position of your denomination, and what it says. I'm willing to accept what they say is their position as I did in 1956, provided it is backed up with documentation. And I think that's fair.

Question from the audience: You will be having a book come out very soon, and is it Seventh-day Adventism as you presented tonight, and is it [General] Conference supported?

Answer by Martin: Wait for the book. Wait for the book. And that will tell you exactly. As I said at the beginning of the lecture, that I don't prejudice [or is the word "prejudge"?] the General Conference. I'm giving them every chance to respond as brothers.

Different questioner: You're saying that in your book [you're going to publish that] you're going to classify this church as a cult-.

Martin interjecting: I didn't say that.

Questioner: Okay, I mean, are you? That's my question.

Martin reply: I'm not answering that question tonight-.

Questioner interjecting: Oh, you're not answering it tonight-.

Martin interjecting: I'm waiting for answers myself [from the General Conference]

Different questioner: Where in the Bible does it state that the Sabbath that Jesus kept has been changed to Sunday?

Martin reply: It hasn't. The Seventh-day Sabbath still stands as a memorial of Creation. That has not been changed. The early Christian Church maintained the first day of the week . .

[The majority of the early Christian Church did not keep Sunday, even down to the fifth century A.D. Read BS-3-4 "The Story of the Change of the Sabbath."]

The [Christian] Church by the middle of the second century was all meeting on the first day of the week, essentially, throughout the world where the gospel was preached. Now, [it is true that] the Lord Jesus kept the Seventh-day Sabbath,-of that there is no doubt . . This [the Seventh-day Sabbath] is a shadow; the substance is Christ. I believe you keep the Seventh-day Sabbath to the glory of God and I have no quarrel with you. I just don't want to have the Mark of the Beast because I happen to believe what the historic church kept as the first day of the week. But the first day of the week is not the Sabbath. You are perfectly correct.

[A good question and a fascinating reply. Martin said or implied this: "According to the Bible we should keep the Seventh-day Sabbath. Jesus kept the Bible Sabbath. However, we should not keep the Sabbath of Jesus-the Sabbath that Jesus kept. Instead, we should observe the day that the Christians of the first few centuries consecrated as sacred, which is Sunday. " But there are three flaws here: (1) We should obey and adhere to the practices of the Bible, not those of Christians of a later time. (2) If Jesus kept the Sabbath, then we should keep it also. Christ is substance and His Sabbath is substance, too. (3) His point that we should keep the holy day of most Christians in the second century, instead of the Sabbath of Jesus and the Bible has already been seen to be shallow. It is following men instead of the Word of God. But the truth is that most Christians in the second century-and even down to the fifth century A.D. kept the Seventh day Sabbath. Both Martin and Bacchiochi teach that by the second century A.D. the majority of Christians kept Sunday. But this is not true. It is disproved by historical records. (Read BS4-5 and 19-20 for ancient citations bearing on this.) The truth is that a majority of Christians were keeping the true Sabbath a hundred years after Constantine I enacted the first Sunday Law in 321 A.D. And this is understandable when we recall that most Christians did not live in Alexandria or Rome. These were the two centers of Sunday-keeping. There are both Biblical and historical reasons to keep the Bible Sabbath. And there is no excuse, either in the Bible or in history, to reject it.]

Different questioner: I believe in the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy. And I'm thankful I do. But about doctrinal authority: Where does the authority for doctrine end? You mentioned that it ended with the Bible and the early church fathers-.

Martin interjecting: No, No, No.

Questioner continuing with sentence: -and a systematic study of their theology.

Martin interjecting: No.

Questioner continuing: -That's what you said-.

Martin interjecting: No. I'm sorry. I didn't say that doctrine was decided on the basis of the early church fathers. I never said that-.

Questioner interjecting: Authority-! Where does the end of it come? Because you can't take the theologians-because they all disagree!

Martin interjecting: Would you listen to me for a second?

Questioner: Sure.

Martin: Are you acquainted with the book entitled "The Creeds of Christendom"?

Questioner: No, I'm not.

Martin: You should be. It's 400 pages of-.

Questioner interjecting: The Bible alone is enough for me . .

Martin: "The Creeds of Christendom" is based upon Scriptures, spanning nineteen hundred centuries of careful scholarship in tracing the doctrines of Biblical theology and the teachings of the Christian Church. Your own great historian forgot more history than you'll ever know, Leroy Froom, used it [COC] as a reference work-and he was a great historian. In the "Creeds of Christendom" you will find a body of systematic doctrine which the Christian Church has always believed. It is Biblical theology. .. I'm telling you that there is a body of doctrine [which, however, is mutually conflicting] that the Church has always used to test other people's ideas . . When Mrs. White's theology is presented-or anybody's theology;-you test it by Scripture and by the basic doctrines of the Scriptures, which are contained in the "Creeds of Christendom" book, which I am recommending. I did not say; I never told you, that the church fathers decided anything. Never; so don't misquote me.

[The above is an extremely important conversation. The questioner recognized that Martin and the Protestants were arbitrarily deciding what was truth and what was error, what was a "Christian body" and what was a "cult," on the basis of some kind of standard of doctrinal authority. Martin's reply is that the conflicting creeds of the various Catholic councils and, later, of the various Protestant churches constitutes the standard by which all correct doctrine is to be determined today. But it is obvious that that it is placing man's decisions, ideas, and councils above the Written Word of the living God. It is the inspired messages of God through His prophets that are to govern the lives, conduct and beliefs of His people and the operation of His Church on earth. Martin is but mirroring the great error of modern Christendom: the thinking that the interpretations of men are more important than the clear statements of Inspiration.]

Different questioner: What about Roman Catholicism?

Martin: Roman Catholicism is not a cult [!] But within the Roman Church there are cults, such as the cult of Mary. But the basic doctrines of the Roman Church is Christ's Catholic theology [his exact words] which most Protestants subscribe (to]. It is what they have added that we disagree with. So don't just buzz off and say that the Catholic Church is a cult. You need to do a lot more homework on the subject.

[A second highly significant point. Martin and his associates classify all churches as (1) Christian, (2) cults, or (3) pagan. Churches which teach truths that lead souls to Christ are in the first category; those that do not are in the second or third categories. Martin considers Romanism as teaching such essentially sound doctrine that it can be considered as a non-cult, or Christian church. This is incredible! He is on the verge of declaring Seventh-day Adventists as a non-Christian or "cult" church, and yet he extends the hand of fellowship to Rome! "But within the Roman Catholic Church there are cults, such as the cult of Mary, " he says. The cult of Mary is the worship of Mary, through kneeling before her statues and praying on beads to her and invoking her aid in time of need. ALL genuine Roman Catholics do this. And yet Martin thinks that Mariolatry can somehow be separated from mainstream Catholicism as being something that only a few Catholics are involved in.

The previous question about Martin's basis of doctrinal authority is closely related to this one about the doctrinal legitimacy of the teachings of Rome. Martin said that it is the creeds in the "Creeds of Christendom " which should decide all doctrinal correctness. But the creeds in that book include every major doctrinal creed enunciated by Catholic councils for a number of centuries. And he adds: "The basic doctrines of the Roman Church is Christ's Catholic theology, which most Protestants subscribe [adhere] to. " How well we agree! The rejection by Rome of the Bible Sabbath has been mimicked and defended by its Protestant daughters for centuries.

The truth is that Catholicism is paganism disguised in Christian terminology, Adventism is solidly Bible-based, and most of modern Protestantism is in quiet rebellion against a number of Biblical teachings, such as the Bible Sabbath.]

[The following was prepared by one who, according to our knowledge, was in attendance at Walter Martin's Napa valley lecture. Dear reader, it is time that you take your stand as to which side you will defend in this controversy between historic Adventism and modernism in our Church. -Vance Ferrell]

In response to a request by the Evangelical of Napa Valley, including the Napa Valley Gospel Fellowship (headed by Alan Crandall, editor of Evangelical magazine, and Alexander LaBrecque), Dr. Walter Martin discussed the crisis of the Seventh-day Adventists. He stated that his reason for speaking was that the problems within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination were spilling over into the Evangelical world, and people were choosing sides over the book "Questions on Doctrine". It will be remembered that in 1955 Dr. Martin had written a book entitled "The Rise of the Cults," in which he included the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Certain leaders of the denomination took exception to what he had written, and requested a discussion with Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse and Dr. Martin.

A committee for this purpose was appointed by Reuben Figuhr, Then president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, so that there would be a BRIDGE of communication between the Evangelical community and Adventism.

In this connection let us note the following statements from the Messenger of the Lord, in the Review and Herald, July 24, 1894: ". . It is a grave mistake on the part of those who are children of God to seek to bridge the gulf that separates the children of light from the children of darkness by yielding principle, by compromising the truth . . "Also in Testimonies to Ministers, page 470:".. We are not to make less prominent the special truths that have separated us from the world, and made us what WE are; for they are fraught with eternal interest." And on page 471: There is no time now to range ourselves on the side of the transgressors of God's law, to see with their eyes, to hear with their ears, and to understand with their perverted senses. "

Dr. Martin stated that the members of this special committee overwhelmingly approved of the book "Questions on Doctrine" which was published after two years of work, and that it represented "historic Adventism". When he informed the Seventh-Day Adventist leaders that many books and publications of the church contained doctrines completely contrary, these men were "appalled"; said it was "impossible," and they never would have believed such things were in print. They said that there was a 'lunatic fringe" that did believe in the "mark of the beast," the "unfinished atonement," the "investigative judgment," etc., but that these did not represent "historic Adventism".

According to Dr. Martin, the book "Questions on Doctrine" was a great success. But then strange things began to happen. Many Adventist wrote to him and a great body of information began to surface, that was not according to the views expressed in the book "Questions on Doctrine." He stated that there is among Seventh-day Adventists a great body who are "Born-again" Christians, then there are some unfortunate representatives who are at this time beginning to move the denomination back to where they were before 1957 (when "Questions on Doctrine" was published). These "false" doctrines, he said, were that "Christ had a sinful human nature, "an unfinished atonement;" that Mrs. White was "an infallible interpreter, etc." That there were some very subtle changes going on, and they have now reached a crisis point. "Our Seventh-day Adventist brothers and sisters who want to stay with the doctrines as stated in "Questions on Doctrine" are in great jeopardy. They need a lot of prayer and support." He feels it is the "old guard" in the Seventh-day Adventist church who are at the core of the problem. The Seventh-day Adventists do not need to be pushed now, but need to be loved, to be cared for. No one is "trying to destroy the denomination," but it must "submit to the authority of the Christian world. "To place Mrs. White as an infallible authority can be lethal. He would discourage those who are trying to start another denomination. (Evidently a reference to Gospel Fellowship and Gospel Unlimited (Ford) groups.) We have no need of an "investigative judgment"; nor did we need the Millerites or 1844. "The Omega book must be repudiated as soon as possible," because it established righteousness by "legalism". The Sabbath is legalism when you "try to enforce it with extra-Biblical revelations".

He stated that there are lunatic Baptists, Episcopalians, etc., and that Seventh-day Adventists would not want to be represented by some of the lunacy being published today. Some Seventh-day Adventists have problems, which now become the problems of the "body of Christ". The denomination deserves the chance to look squarely into the problem regarding "Questions on Doctrine," and should cease speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Within the denomination are those of the "lunatic fringe" (a term used by Seventh-Day Adventist leaders in the 1956 discussions), and those promulgating false teachings should be removed. "There are Seventh-day Adventist ministers in this valley who have left the church, and who deserve the apologies of the denomination. (Apparently referring to the two former Andrews University students who are now editing the "Evangelical" magazine, a copy of which Dr. Martin displayed in his hand as he talked-- it was the issue with the picture of Ellen White comprising the front cover, and in which she was described as being an "epileptic" who had visions when under "seizures".)

Dr. Martin went on to maintain that salvation is by grace through faith alone, and that righteousness requires obedience to faith (?) not to law! -- that the law cannot be kept, though keeping the commandments is a marvelous goal. It is not the seal of God. "As we move toward the end of the age, we must hang together, or we'll hang separately." We cannot afford to argue over peripherals.

He stated that Seventh-day Adventists must reject Mrs. White because we dare not accept any authority that in its role becomes the supreme arbiter of Scripture, for that is Roman Catholic -- not Protestant; also that it is the same as Mormonism. He also attacked her first vision, her teaching about the shut door, and other such distortions and falsifying and materials that have been supplied to him by those in and out of the Seventh-day Adventist church who have a "Satanic hatred" for the Spirit of Prophecy, as she herself described it, and which would be one of the signs of the 2nd coming -- in fact she stated that "The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God."

.."There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded." 1 Selected Messages, page 48.

Again Dr. Martin stated strongly that we must "repudiate the Omega publications," and stand on the foundations arrived at in 1956 and "discipline" those who do not believe them; that it is terrible to be torn apart, and we are called to healing by acknowledging truth so that

God may bless. He stated: "Now is the time to make a decision. Now is the moment of truth." "Our role as non-Seventh-day Adventists is to be empathetic and insistent that the members submit to the authority of the church."

He said that if Seventh-day Adventists continued to believe they are "the remnant church", that Christ did not have a sinless nature, and that the atonement was not finished at the cross - that if this body of teaching is permitted to continue, they will be classed with the cults. They will have so much to lose if they do not take the correct position as stated in "Questions on Doctrine"-that the Holy Spirit and Reuben Figuhr had transformed Seventh-day Adventism. "We must fight for our Seventh-day Adventist brethren that the church will take the right position: "Questions on Doctrine" has been suppressed, and now voices are teaching heresy which the church originally repudiated. This must be 'remedied'. Adventism is answerable to the authority of the Word of God, not to those who would perpetuate heresy and are now bankrupt." He stated that he has submitted a list of questions to the General Conference, to be answered by the hierarchy and not the "lunatic fringe", so that he will know what information to put in his forthcoming book and tapes, entitled "The Puzzle of Seventh-day Adventism."

'There is to be no compromise with those who are worshiping an idol Sabbath. We are not to spend our time in controversy with those who know the truth, and upon whom the light of truth has been shining, when they turn away their ear from the truth to turn to fables. I was told that men will employ every policy to make less prominent the difference between the faith of Seventh-day Adventists and those who observe the first day of the week. In this controversy the whole world will be engaged, and the time is short. This is no time to haul down our colors. " Ibid.

"Our people have been regarded as too insignificant to be worthy of notice, but a change will come; the movements are now being made. The Christian world is now making movements which will necessarily bring the commandment-keeping people to notice. There is a daily suppression of God's truth for the theories and false doctrines of human origin. There are plans and movements being set on foot to enslave the consciences of those who would be loyal to God. The law-making powers will be against God's people. Every soul will be tested. 0 that we would as a people be wise for ourselves and by precept and example impart that wisdom to our children! Every position of our faith will be searched into, and if we are not thorough Bible students, established, strengthened, settled, the wisdom of the world's great men will be too much for us." 2 Selected Messages, 386.

Those who apostatize are voicing the words of the dragon. We have to meet satanic agencies who went to make war with the saints. 'The dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Those who apostatize leave the 'true' and 'faithful' people of God, and fraternize with those who represent Barabbas By their fruits ye shall know them.' "2 Selected Messages, 395.

"A company was presented before me under the name of Seventh-day Adventist, who were advising that the banner or sign which makes us a distinctive people should not be held out so strikingly; for they claimed it was not the best policy in securing success to our institutions. This distinctive banner is to be borne through the world to the close of probation. In describing the remnant people of God, John says, 'Here is the patience of the saints- here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus'.. I saw some reaching out their hands to remove the banner and obscure its significance. . "-2 Selected Messages, 385.

"Satan is at work among God's people, even as he worked among the angels in the heavenly courts, and many are being ensnared. "-The Upward Look, 351.

'When Satan shall have accomplished his work of ensnaring all who will subject themselves to his deceptive influence, when he shall have finished his work of scattering abroad, Christ will rise up and bring deliverance to every one whose name is found written in the book of life. "-The Upward Look, 365.

"As has been foretold in the Scriptures, there will be seducing spirits and doctrines of devils in the midst of the church, and these evil influences will increase; but hold fast the beginning of your confidence firm unto the end. . The perils of the last days are upon us Devote not precious time in trying to convince those who would change the truth of God into a lie." -The Upward Look, 168.

"Now is our time of peril. . Without cause, men will become our enemies. The motives of the people will be misinterpreted, not only by the world, but by their own brethren .. God's servants must arm themselves with the mind of Christ. They must not expect to escape insult and misjudgment They will be called enthusiasts and fanatics.. But let them not become discouraged. God's hand is on the wheel of His providence, guiding His work to the glory of His name. '-The Upward Look, 177.

"To stand in defense of truth when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few,-this will be our test. '5 Testimonies, 228.

PILGRIMS' REST - Beersheba Springs, TN 37305