his researches [that is, those of the editor of Eternity ], Fundamentalists have stretched out a hand, and Seventh-day Adventists have accepted it gladly.” * Eternity does not speak for Fundamentalists. The information furnished Time by Eternity’s editors simply represented the interpretation of Seventh-day Adventism by Eternity’s editors. I have received letter after letter from Fundamentalists deeply deploring this action. Here is one Fundamentalist (and, of course, I speak for our entire Bible Institute of Los Angeles’ constitu ency at home and abroad now numbering in the thousands) who does not extend the hand of fellow- | hat Mrs. Ellen G. White is still the official spokesman for Seventh-day Adventism is amply clear from an article in an official Seventh-day Adventist publication, Review and Herald, of Dec. 13, 1956, written by President of the Adventists, R. R. Figuhr, for Adventists. It explains the Eternity articles under the title, "A Non-Adventist Examines Our Beliefs, The Background of Articles Appearing in ‘Eternity’ Magazine.” I recommend that all T he K ing ’ s B usiness readers secure and read it in full. For instance Mr. Figuhr writes con cerning Adventist belief regarding Christ: “ On this funda mental issue it has been so reassuring to turn to the writings of Sister White, where Christ, His nature, His mission, and the completeness of His atonement are so clearly and unquestionably set forth.” In the accompanying article, Mrs. White’s view of the nature of Christ is set forth and it is far from reassuring to a Bible believer. In our next article we shall discuss Mrs. White’s teaching regarding atonement - sanctuary - and - scapegoat which are inextricably interwoven, and which will not be reassuring but abhorrent to those relying upon the finished work of Christ upon the cross of Calvary. Mr. Figuhr’s article gives no indication of any proposed alteration of the Seventh-day Adventist creed. In my judgment this excursion into heresy has produced nothing but confusion to the church of Christ and hin drance to its work for Him. — Louis T. Talbot ship to those whose official textbooks, both new and old, at present teach: 1) That the Lord Jesus Christ in His incarnation assumed a sinful, fallen human nature 2) That the atonement was not finished on the cross of Calvary 3) That immortality is conditional 4) That the spirit of the believer does not go im mediately into the presence of Christ at death but instead “ sleeps” in the grave until the resurrection 5) That souls who reject Christ do not really “ perish” (that is, endure eternal punishment) but that they will be annihilated eventually 6) That Satan as “ the scapegoat” has some part in the hearing away of our sins *Courtesy Time; copyright Time, Inc. 1956. APRIL 1957
7) That we are not saved by grace alone, apart from works of any kind 8) That the seventh day Jewish Sabbath is God’s test and seal. I believe every one of the above mentioned teach ings to be false and unscriptural, as well as other Seventh-day Adventist views about the coming of Christ and the millennium in heaven, and dietary restrictions, Mrs. White’s prophetism, etc. I have mentioned the foregoing eight which seem to me to be the most destructive, and in all consistency I repudiate them. At the same time I find it impossible to reject the views without rejecting the inventors and purveyors of them. No such logical incompatibility appears to trouble the Eternity editors. Having committed them selves to the unworthy cause of championing this sect, whatever it teaches, they have involved themselves in a strange untenable position. In all fairness to them, they have stated emphati cally that they do not believe these heresies I have listed. At the same time they must not regard them with the seriousness with which the majority of evan gelicals do else they surely would have required an abandonment of these views before they took on the advocacy of the denomination. The more I consider it, the more my astonishment grows at the wonder of orthodoxy coming to the defense of a system including such heresies. Of course, in order to justify this the heresies are passed over rather lightly. For instan ce , in the September 1956 issue of Eternity magazine one reads that the infamous “ scape goat” teaching “while admittedly strange is not heretical,” and that sabbath-keeping while a “more serious doctrine” yet “ is not sufficient to bar Seventh- day Adventists from the fellowship of true Christians, but which makes such fellowship very difficult because of the overtones of legalism that has a tendency to gnaw at the roots of sovereign grace to unworthy sinners.” The doctrine of investigative judgment is called “ unimportant and naive.” Of conditional immortality the editor admits “ the most serious difference” and then goes right on to say that Seventh-day Adventists should be acknowledged as “ redeemed brethren and members of the Body of Christ” (p. 4 5 ). In the January 1957 issue the inconsistency of approving a sect whose teachings are not approved is even more marked. I quote: “ It [soul-sleep] does not constitute a bar to our having fellowship with them” (p. 13 ); “ Investigative judgment . . . can offer no real objec tion between Adventists and their fellow-Christians” (p. 3 8 ); “ The scape-goat interpretation . . . cannot be cited as a legitimate reason for refusing to fellow ship with Adventists” (p. 3 8 ); “ There is no reason why this view [regarding Mrs. White’s counsels] should prohibit Christians of other denominations from having fellowship with Adventists, as long as Adventists do not attempt to enforce upon their fel low-Christians the counsels that Mrs. White specifi cally directs to them” (p. 3 8 ) ; “ This issue [that is, dietary restrictions] fails to justify a refusal of fellowship” (p. 40). CONTINUED 25
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker