Adventist Deconstruction by Trojan Horse Liberals as listed by their own
works
By Koot van Wyk
Christ said that by their fruits you shall know them. If my eyes have to
perceive and decide whether they are fruit or not, I may make errors in
calculating people or listing people that are not belonging. But what if
someone who prides himself to be “open”, “different than traditional”, “liberal?”
like Arthur Patrick from Avondale College, Australia, does the listing? That is
exactly what should be done. He published an article in 1987 giving quite illuminating
incriminating evidence:
Patrick first sets out to list the traditional Adventist pioneers with a
stable consensus about the Investigative Judgment doctrine. He said:
“The nineteenth-century writings of Joseph Bates, J. N. Loughborough, Uriah
Smith, James White, J.N. Andrews and particularly Ellen White developed
and stabilised the nineteenth-century understanding of the sanctuary teaching,
including the investigative judgment.”[1] Luckily I ran into all the articles
published between 1846-1904 collected by Paul A. Gordon of the Ellen White
Estate whom I have personally met in South Africa, which he published July of
1981.[2] Arthur Patrick is correct. I was of course interested on the issue of
the pioneer interpretation of 1 Peter 4:17 in the light of the Investigative
Judgment since 1844 or whether anyone of them suggested it refers, like the
Reform Tradition [Luther, Calvin et al] position, that it refers to “persecution
permitted in the lives of the saints”. Answer? All of the names listed by
Arthur Patrick said that 1 Peter 4:17 is talking about the Investigative
Judgment in Heaven since 1844. The consensus of pioneer Adventism was this way.
Then Arthur Patrick did something surprising. He cited Investigative
Judgment renouncer Raymond Cottrell saying in his own paraphrase: “However,
often at about two-decade intervals, dissenters have challenged the orthodoxy
of their time.”[3]
A list is then provided by Patrick and he is not the first to give this
list:
“Dudley M. Canright (1840-1919) wrote the most-quoted attack on Adventism
in general and its sanctuary teaching in particular. Canright liked to
emphasise Owen Crosier’s claim that his famous 1840s article was written to ‘support
the theory that the door of mercy was shut.’ Paul McGraw’s doctoral
dissertation (2004)[4] observes the church did not do well in answering the
questions Canright posed in such books as Seventh-day Adventism
Renounced (1889).”[5]
Having a purpose or objective while you are writing or doing research? It
is an ingredient in research. Why not? You should have a research problem or
question you wish to answer. Crosier did that, did he not? Strange that Paul
McGraw in 2004 fell victim of Canright apologetics? ”Birds of a feather flock
together?”
Patrick has a second person listed contrary to Adventism.
“Albion Fox Ballenger (1861-1921) found nine “misfits” in the way
Adventists interpreted the first-apartment ministry of Jesus. In Ballenger’s
view, prior to Calvary Christ ministered for thousands of years in the first
apartment and then moved into the second apartment at His ascension.”
Patrick goes on to say that Gary Land and Calvin Edwards wrote a biography
of Ballenger and their presentation is “coherent understanding”.[6]
Coherent with whom or with what? This is very important. With whom is a
heretic coherent or how can a biographer of a heretic give coherent
understanding? Positionless? So-called “objective” or “neutral”?
Historiographically impossible.
The biblical position is that Christ entered the first apartment at His
ascension and not before that. We have a Highpriest in heaven Who is accustomed
to our infirmities since He suffered Himself with it. The Bible says that the
earth experience of Jesus gave Him the key and authentication for His ministry
in the first apartment. It can be the two-third angels undoubting realization
that Christ is able. Ballenger’s view is based on an Atonement Ministry in
Heaven since Adam and Eve but in theory it sounds nice but the purpose of Books
in Heaven are exactly that records are kept for later considerations. The
questions Ballenger raised was dealt with in the articles collect by Paul
Gordon in 1981. Ballenger was not the first one to raise these issues.
In his article in December of 1849 in Present Truth, David Arnold said that
“there is no intercessor in the first apartment and in vain do misguided souls
knock at that door” meaning it is shut. Being in the Most Holy does not mean
that Christ do not do intercession for sinners after 1844. Arnold is clear on
that when he said Christ in the Most Holy for judgment sake and having a
breast-plate before the Father “all for whom He is now acting as intercessor”.
Double function here. Judge and Mediator in One. There is a continuation of the
Meditorial Work of Christ but in a different function before the Father than
before. 1844 is the closing of that door and opening of the Most Holy function.
Imagine someone writing a nice biography of Lucifer or Satan? To explain
how nice he was and yet?
Then Patrick introduced another “hall of fame” dissenter of Adventism: ‘William
W. Fletcher (1879-1947) was born in Tasmania, served as a church leader (many
roles, including president, South Australian Conference, president of the
Indian Union Mission; Bible teacher at Australasian Missionary College) in
Australia and Asia. Fletcher contended that at the time of His ascension our
Lord entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary and “sat down at the
right hand of God.’ Another Australian, Keith Moxon, spent years gathering data
that illumines Fletcher’s gracious life, deep convictions and tragic severance
from the church. Fletcher’s major book is entitled Reasons for My
Faith (1932).”[7]
Tragic severance from the church, indeed. But one cannot blame the church
or the Investigative Judgment doctrine of the Old and New Testaments for this
tragic. He made his bed and he slept on it. If someone is wrong, no matter how
much you polish data about the person, wrong is wrong, biblically. People will
quick react saying: what a biblicistic judgmental position. “What a
Fundamentalist!” as James Barr cried out in his books of 1948. Barr was out to
destroy Fundamentalists and Biblicists and in blog’s I wrote at http://www.egw.org and VANWYK NOTE I have
indicated that he is a modern Baal-prophet.
Patrick supports Women Ordination which is a-biblical. LGBTQH accommodation
which is a-biblical. Widening views and criticism on Ellen White and her
writings. Side with the antagonists of Adventist doctrine and the heretics “polishers
of their data”. When someone is skew the vision is on the sideline seeing only
the heretics and polishing their appearance and relating with their mood and
attitude, they blame the church from which they get their tithe-surrendered
salaries monthly and cannot get rid of this uncomfortable “intolerable”
bedmate. I have talked about this mentioning Raymond Cottrell. The principle is
this: When they are divorced, their vision ends skew and shadows creep in to
mislead them from the straight path and now they find themselves surrounded
with heretics of Adventism with whom they sympathize.
Patrick’s next listing of a heretic on the Investigative Judgment is L.
Conradi.
“Louis R. Conradi (1856-1936) was born in Germany and served the church in
ministerial and leadership roles in the United States and Europe for over fifty
years. For about three decades, Conradi pondered the questions that in 1932 caused
him to leave Adventism and become a Seventh Day Baptist minister.”
From 1932, Patrick jumped to the 1950’s with the Newzealand President
Robert Greive and his close associates.
“During the 1950s, Robert Greive, as president of the Queensland
conference, opposed the right-wing views of the Brinsmead family, developing a
view of Righteousness by Faith that was interpreted as diminishing the
traditional Adventist concept of the sanctuary. After his transfer to Auckland,
in 1956 Greive was dismissed from the leadership of the North New Zealand
conference and from Adventist ministry. At least four of Greive’s ministerial
staff were dismissed for identifying with the same issues.”
What Arthur Patrick do not spell out is the controversy and inroads of
peccatum originale of Luther in Adventism in Systematic Theology professors in
the NAD during this time. There is also the wish of L. R. Froom to appease the
Reformed churches so that Adventism does not look like a sect. It is well
documented by interviews with those involved even on Youtube.
Patrick also mentioned that Desmond Ford was disgraced in 1980 for his
anti-biblical views, which of course Patrick does not call anti-biblical.
To summarize, Patrick just want to show that these heretics had more in
their toolboxes than the church allowed them to show: “While these dissenters
were all terminated from their employment within the church as was Desmond Ford
at a later time (1980), the questions they raised and the answers they
attempted to give remain crucial for those who wish to understand the Adventist
doctrine of the sanctuary. Also important are the writings of many others who
remained within the church even though important questions with which they
struggled remained unanswered to their satisfaction. Some of the best known of
these thought-leaders are highly-regarded as editors of periodicals like Adventist
Review and Ministry or as editors/authors of the SDA Bible
Commentary: W.W. Prescott (1855-1944), L.E. Froom (1890-1974), F.D.
Nichol (1897-1966) and Raymond F. Cottrell (1911-2003).”[8]
Arthur do list Froom but nothing about his appeasement pushdrive. Cottrell
I already mentioned above.
Sources:
[1] For an
introduction to sources for the study of Seventh-day Adventism, see Arthur N.
Patrick, (1987, June). “Seventh-day Adventists in the South Pacific: A Review
of Sources,” Journal of Religious History 14, no. 3 (June
1987), 307-326. The main frame of this writing is from Arthur Patrick, (2009,
30th of April). Post 35, “The Sanctuary/Investigative Judgment,
1844-2008: A short, documented history of an Adventist teaching.” Posted on
January 16, 2012 by adventiststudies. Downloaded online on 11th of
August 2018 at https://adventiststudies.com/2012/01/16/post-35/ [2] Paul A. Gordon, (1981, July). Pioneer Articles on the Sanctuary Daniel
8:14, The Judgment, 2300 days, Day-Year Principle 1846-1904. Ellen White
Estate. [3] Raymond F. Cottrell, “The ‘Sanctuary Doctrine’–Asset or Liability,” a
presentation to the San Diego Forum, 9 February 2002, in DF 597, Ellen G.
White/SDA Research Centre, Avondale College. [4] Paul McGraw’s doctoral dissertation (2004). [5] Patrick’s paraphrase and summary. [6] Gary Land and Edwards [7] For a short biography of Fletcher, see SDA Encyclopedia. Patick
indicated that the Moxon collection is located in the Ellen G.
White/SDA Research Centre, Avondale College.