for Him to be constantly on guard in order to preserve His purity . . .” (Ital. as in book.) Is Mr. Martin giving the truth about Seventh-day Adventism when he says they have “ repudiated the concept of the s i n f u l n a t u r e of Christ” ? This is of course a denial of the impeccability of our sinless Sav iour. As Dr. Scofield said: “Were the teaching of the Seventh-day Advent ists true, we would have a monstrosity •—deity inheriting a sinful nature. If this could have been so, there could have been no sinless sacrifice, no hope for sinners, no Saviour.” Seventh-day Adventism has always taught that it was possible for Christ to sin, and they have not changed this view one iota according to their own statements. 3. Quotation from Martin’s book, Page 228: “ The Adventists have repudiated . . . the ‘mark of the beast’ for Sunday keepers.” Have they really? In the Review and Herald of Jan. 8, 1959 one reads: “ The sealing work is now going on . . . ” A little booklet entitled, “ The Mark of the Beast” can be purchased in SDA bookstores. It is published by Review & Herald Pub. Association, and is therefore “ official.” Not only is “ the mark of the beast” hurled at “ Sunday keepers” but also such state ments: “ But I wish to ask you Protest ants who are present, WHY do you keep Sunday?” and in addition, “That lets the sun worshippers out right there; for the God of the fourth com mandment actually made the god [evidently the sun] they [Sunday keepers] worship. They can easily subscribe to every commandment but the fourth,” etc. Is this the whole truth about Sev enth-day Adventism? Buy the booklet and see. 4. Quotation from Martinis book, Page 173: “Why do these critics [Christians like myself who do not wish fellow ship with the unscriptural system] attempt to make it appear that Adventists believe that their fellow- Christians are lost?” Perhaps Mr. Martin believes as stated in Review and Herald, SDA official publication, on Sept. 17, 1959: “ Yes, the Sabbath is a sign of that ‘holiness without which no man shall see the Lord’ (Heb. 12:14).” Or this is also Mr. Martin’s defini tion of justification, as it appeared in Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1960? “ But now, thanks be to God, He offers justification freely by His grace. To be justified means to be accounted righteous. What does this mean? It means to meet the standard of God’s
law. This perfect law of God reveals the attributes of our Saviour. When we are clothed with the robe of Christ’s righteousness we are, as it were, clothed with His law . . . The Sabbath, by pointing to divine power, is the sign of righteousness by faith . . . Not only creation, but redemp tion, is commemorated by the observ ance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and thus the truths of righteousness by faith are expressed.” All Bible-taught Christians are aware that this is not the Biblical teaching of justification. As you can see, I am not trying to refute the SDA teaching here, but only pointing out that Martin is omitting some of the most basic teachings of SDA, but I cannot refrain from quoting one verse here that destroyed for me the whole Seventh-day Adventist concept of justification of faith plus works: “ Knowing that a man is not justi fied by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16). 5. A final quotation from Martin’s book, Page 113: “ Christians of all denominations may heatedly disagree with the Seventh-day Adventist a t t i t ud e toward Mrs. White, but all that she wrote on such subjects as salvation or Christian living characterizes her as a Christian in every sense of the term.” We have already quoted from Mrs. White in “ Questions on Doctrine” with regard to the SDA heresy that Christ had a “ sinful nature.” Luke said under inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the angel announced to Mary: “ The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the High est shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,” and that was God’s descrip tion of the sinless, holy human nature of the Son of God. As Dr. Haldeman said, “ That which was begotten was not a Person [for He was the eternal Son] but a nature— a human nature. This human nature was holy . . . It was the holiness produced of and through the Holy Ghost. This holy, sinless human nature was indissolubly joined to the eternal personality of the Son.” Certainly Mrs. White’s false teaching on this subject would not be any aid to “ Christian living” ! Lies do not help truth. Mrs. White taught erroneously the b l a s p h e m o u s “ sanctuary theory” which even more than the Sabbath is
An Open Letter (cont.) No one on earth could cause Mrs. White to have a vision. She herself had no control in this matter. It was with her as it was with the prophets of old. ‘Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost’ (2 Peter 1:21).” Let Mrs. White herself answer Mr. Martin, in SELECTED MESSAGES, Book One, Page 40: “ I saw that in striking against the visions they did not strike against the worm—the feeble instrument that God spake through—but against the Holy Ghost. I saw it was a small thing to speak against the instrument, but it was dangerous to slight the words of God.” The context here is unmistak able that she was referring to her own writings. Have the Seventh-day Adventists, as Mr. Martin claims on page 228 of his book, “ repudiated . . . the infalli bility of Ellen G. White?” Of course not! 2. Quotation from Martin’s book, Page 228: “ The Adventists have repudiated the concept of the sinful nature of Christ.” Now Mr. Martin leans heavily upon “ Questions on Doctrine,” published in 1957 by Review & Herald (SDA) Pub lishing Association. Very well. We will let this latest SDA book on doc trine answer Mr. Martin. See Page 63: “ But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation.” (Ital. theirs. This is a quotation from Mrs. White.) Page 656 of “ Questions on Doc trine” : “ He [Christ] took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degener acy of the race” (Ital. as in the book, a quotation from Review & Herald of July 28, 1874). “ It would have been an almost in finite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the'results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a hered ity to share our sorrows and tempta tions, and to give us the example of a sinless life.” (Ital. as in the book which is quoting Mrs. White in The Desire of Ages, p. 49). Page 659 of “ Questions on Doc trine” : “ Jesus was placed where His char acter would be tested. It was necessary
2*
TH E K IN G 'S BU SINESS
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker