|
|
||
|
|
|||
I have recently read the book More Than a Prophet by Adventist scholar Graeme S. Bradford. This work is, I believe, a useful one for developing an understanding of such vital principles as conditional prophecy, the Biblical foundation of Adventist doctrines, and a deeper knowledge of how these doctrines in general have developed over time.
That having been said, the book is a product of modern Adventism, and as such will contain statements and theological viewpoints with which CSDAs will not agree. If these few issues are kept in mind, however, I believe that the overall message of the work will be beneficial.
In order to identify these areas, and also to emphasize the useful points I have encountered, I would like here (keeping in mind that this article is not an exhaustive review of every detail of the book’s contents) to divide the statements I will mention into two classes: things that we would consider to be erroneous, and things that we would consider useful. Here, then is that division:
1) Lack of victory over sin
for born-again believers
We read, “God has met us where we are. For example, who cannot identify with Paul when he cries out, ‘We know that the law is spiritual: but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do…. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from the body of this death?… Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…’ (Romans 7:14, 15, 24; 8:1)” [More Than a Prophet, p. 29]
The reader who is familiar with Romans 7 will immediately notice that a few very important statements have been cut out of the quote for presentation here. First and foremost, the author ignores the setting of Romans 7, appearing between chapters 6 and 8. The overall message of these three chapters is that we who are converted do not commit known sins, (Rom 6:1-7, 10-18, 22,23; Rom 7:5, 6, 9, 25; Rom 8:1-15) yet these verses are extracted from that proper context to promote the exact opposite message.
As the article The Two Pauls points out, those who use Romans 7 as a passage to promote the “saved in sin” theology do not recognize the time frame that Paul sets for the passage in places such as verse 5, which reads, “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” (Rom 7:5) The entire passage follows an explanation that we are now freed from the law of sin and death, under which the sin “in our members” bring forth “fruit unto death,” or sinful acts. Romans 7 is an explanation of what it was like before Christ set Paul free from sins (verse 25) after which he would walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh, now bringing forth the works he could appreciate and control.
Even in the segment quoted by Bradford, he only partially cites the passage to read, “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from the body of this death?… Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…” This skipping from Rom 7:24 to Rom 8:1 results in a terrible error, because it gives the impression (if the actual verses are not read) that because we merely recognize our sinful nature, we escape condemnation.
But no, it leaves out verse 25… after Paul asks, “Who shall deliver me from this body of death” he immediately gives the answer, “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” (Rom 7:25) And now, because we accept and then thank Jesus Christ our Lord for redeeming us, “There is therefore now (a specific word in Greek that means at this particular time) no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Rom 8:1 in its entirety) The condemnation is removed from those who walk in the Spirit through Christ, not merely those who cry out “Who shall redeem me.” Yes, Paul points out, sin continues to reside in our flesh; but condemnation passes only from those who do not follow the dictates of the flesh, doing the things they hate and leaving undone the things they love.
It is the sinner who is to identify with Paul in Romans 7, but it is the saint, he who has been born again, who is to identify with Paul in Romans 6, 7 and 8. He will recognize in Romans 7 his past, when “the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death,” but then he will further recognize in Paul’s testimony the day he cried out to Yahshua for salvation and, by faith, received it, and began to walk in the spirit, escaping the condemnation he had rightly earned by his actions in the flesh.
In further denial of the Victory doctrine, Bradford appears to concur with Adventist Scholar Edward Heppenstal. Heppenstal is critical of the position of an earlier theologian, M. L. Andreasen. Bradford describes Andreasen as “a pre-emminent Bible scholar and a devout follower of the writings of Ellen White during the 1930s and 1940s,” but opines that his theology is “an example of the improper use of her writings,” and further, that “his writings show no evidence that he had correctly understood inspiration from the Bible and Ellen White’s writings.” [ibid., p. 187]
So what was this terrible theology that so badly misunderstood the Bible and Ellen White’s writings? It was the idea that:
- The soul can be cleansed in the antitypical Day of Atonement.
- The saints will go through the Time of Trouble without a direct Intercessor.
- Christ will not come until His character is perfectly reflected in His people.
- The final generation of Christians may become victorious over each sin in turn until they are ready for translation.
If a reader, familiar with the Bible and Ellen White’s writings, should become confused at this point and think, “But that is what is taught!” they would be right. That IS what is taught by the Bible and Ellen White’s writings… but it is no longer what is taught by modern Adventism – at least not officially. Of course, there may be some local congregations, and some godly pastors, who are unaware that the stamp of approval for these doctrines have been pulled out from under them like an old rug… but what we are dealing with is a religious organization whose firm foundation has gone the way of the mammoth. A number of the things once taught are now seen as large curiosities fit only for theological museum displays.
Yet Bradford quotes Heppenstal’s criticism of this view, “The idea just does not hold up. We can’t be sinless before Christ comes. A man coming to Christ just a week or two before Jesus returns can’t do it. His relationship to Christ, that is what matters.” [ibid., page 177]
This was briefly discussed in The Silent Tribulation, the first part of the October 2006 New Moon study, and I will simply reproduce the relevant portion of the discussion here:
If the Sanctuary doctrine is understood, and the end time events are placed in their right setting, this objection has no foundation. Understanding that a “time of trouble” takes place after the close of probation, (Rev 22:11) but before the return of Yahshua, we realize that no one will come to Christ “just a week or two before Jesus returns.” The case of each individual will have already been decided, based upon his relationship to Christ, before the Advent, even before the time of Jacob’s Trouble, therefore the idea of not having enough time to perfect Christian character has no bearing on the topic of complete victory over known sin, and a final refining of the soul.
The Scriptures teach, “when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as He is pure.” (1John 3:2, 3)
A part of the preparation, however, is standing firm amidst trial, and the Tribulation will be the final valley before Mount Zion, even though it will be a process largely invisible to the secular world.
2) The omniscient nature of
Christ in His human form
We read, “He was always stating truth because He was God. As such He was omniscient. Ordinary humans cannot perform at the same level.” [ibid., p. 47]
“He knew everything because He was ‘God with us.’” [ibid., p. 48]
This is an interesting area of new theology that some within Adventism are coming to embrace. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christ was limited in His humanity, including in the area of knowing all things.
He did not know, for example, when the time of His second Advent would be. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32)
Some have attempted to say that the word “knoweth” means that the Son may “know” but cannot tell others, since the phrase is sometimes translated “cannot tell.” This is not a valid argument, however, since the phrase “cannot tell” is used only 8 times of the over 650 times the expression “to know”appears, and then only in conjunction with the Greek word ou. Whenever the word appears by itself it means, as Strong’s Concordance points out: “to perceive, notice, discern, discover,” “to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive,” and so on.
The expression never, in any verse, means to actually know, but to keep that knowledge to one’s self. When individuals “cannot tell,” it is because they do not know, or are not sure of the answer. (Mat 21:27; Mark 11:33; John 8:14, 16:18; 2Cor12:2, 3)
Further, Christ expressed genuine surprise on several occasions, such as when encountering greater faith in a Gentile than in the Jews, (Mat 8:10) and at the unbelief of those around Him in general. (Mark 6:6) This is not an exhaustive list by any means.
As Adventists, who respect the writings of Ellen White, the fact that the Messiah was limited in His knowledge while in human form should be perfectly plain.
She wrote that Christ, as our example, had to learn just like any other child, and that through the Scriptures came to a “knowledge” of who He was. In one passage it comes across very plainly that He had to learn about life and nature by examination: “Working at the carpenter’s bench, bearing the burdens of home life, learning the lessons of obedience and toil, He found recreation amidst the scenes of nature, gathering knowledge as He sought to understand nature’s mysteries. He studied the word of God, and His hours of greatest happiness were found when He could turn aside from the scene of His labors to go into the fields, to meditate in the quiet valleys, to hold communion with God on the mountainside or amid the trees of the forest.
The early morning often found Him in some secluded place, meditating, searching the Scriptures, or in prayer.” [The Ministry of Healing, page 52]
We read of His temptation to be frustrated when an hour of rest for which He had been hoping was denied to Him by the needs of those around Him: “But soon He was again sought for by the multitude. Supposing that He had gone to His usual place of retirement, the people followed Him thither. His hope to gain even one hour of rest was frustrated. But in the depth of His pure, compassionate heart the Good Shepherd of the sheep had only love and pity for these restless, thirsting souls.” [The Ministry of Healing, page 57]
In the Garden of Gethsemane, when He was dealing most heavily with the burden of His humanity we read the touching words: “Satan with his fierce temptations wrung the heart of Jesus. The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father’s wrath upon Him as man’s substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God.” [The Desire of Ages, page 753]
In another place, “He prays for strength to endure the test in behalf of humanity. He must Himself gain a fresh hold on Omnipotence, for only thus can He contemplate the future.” [The Desire of Ages, page 419, emphasis added] In other words, only as Christ lay hold of the Omnipotence that was His by divine law and through union with the Father, was He able to contemplate the future. This absolutely refutes the idea that the Messiah was, even in His humanity, naturally all-knowing, if these words are to be given any credence among Adventists. While Ellen White will at times say that Yahshua could see certain things with “omniscient eye,” this was in regard to specific circumstances, and obviously did not reflect the natural state of Him who needed to specifically lay hold on the power of the Father to know the future. This is a power that was, at times, denied to Him so that He could not see beyond the portals of the tomb.
What this theology truly amounts to is really just a more subtle denial of the victory message. The genuine Gospel teaches that by faith we can follow the example of Christ, to know what we need to know, and to affirm in our words and deeds, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” (Phil 4:13)
Even Ellen White’s writings, often used by misled theologians to counteract the Gospel, reveal, “The power of Omnipotence [the very power that allowed Christ to know and do all that He needed to know and do] is at the service of those who trust in God.” [Faith and Works, page 93]
3) An acceptance of the
Trinity doctrine
Although not stressed in this book, as a mainstream Adventist publication the work does agree with the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by Adventism. We read a quote from Robert Johnson recorded by the author, “It [the SDA Church] corrected its understanding of Christ and the Trinity, reclaimed the great truth of salvation through faith, and found much else to learn or to unlearn.” [More Than a Prophet, p. 143]
In order to save space in this review, I will mention a post on the CSDA forum that deals with the idea that “increasing light” from God will lead a movement to first reject a true doctrine and then re-adopt it. This is the position taken by modern, mainstream Adventists; however, this is entirely without precedent in religious history. One may also see page 163 of Bradford’s book, where he mentions the way in which Adventists “quietly accepted Trinitarianism.” This is not the true process of corporate repentance from error and reform!
When true knowledge has been lost, such as under the papal church that developed via the union of the apostolic Church with Rome, it has always been the result of apostasy, and never the result of an earnest study of the Scriptures.
The post that deals with the specifics has been converted to an article, and may be found here: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation
4) Drifting too far from
conservatism in its interpretation of prophecy
Following in the footsteps of Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, the author of More Than a Prophet attempts to re-interpret the prophecies of the Bible according to current events.
Now, this by itself is not a negative thing. Indeed, the CSDA Church has re-interpreted the prophecies regarding the Sunday Law to reflect the recent development of the Trademark Law. The difference between these two is that the Sunday Law was inherently tied to the faith of those who would be resisting such a law, and the circumstances that arose did so along the lines of very well-defined principles, such as the idea that any church system, regardless of how blessed it has been, will fall if it joins to civil government. A law specifically designed to test the fidelity of that particular system will be meaningless if that fidelity has already been disproved by a Biblical standard.
More Than a Prophet, however, takes this freedom a step too far. We read, “It is important that Adventist eschatology [studies of end-time events] be meaningful to the vast numbers of Adventists living in all countries of the world. […] Today the challenge is not Catholic immigration, but eastern Mysticism, which is invading the West. The rise of Islam in its fundamentalist form is also a threat to the stability of the world. […] World-wide, end-time events must also today be able to embrace meaning when one considers one billion followers of Islam and one billion Chinese.”
The problem with that idea is that the spirit of the papacy is still as much of a threat as it has ever been, despite the fact that a Sunday Law is not on the horizon today. All the principles outlined in The Great Controversy, which deals with significant end-time events, have been fulfilled by an organization that indeed took over where the papacy left off, following in its spirit and traditions regarding (for example) the use of force. In the SDA Trademark Law we see that the words of Ellen White are fulfilled even in the very last days of human history: “Thus the secular power was in the hands of the church. It was not long before these measures led to the inevitable result -- persecution.” [The Great Controversy (1888 edition), page 292]
There has always been false religion in the world. The rise of Eastern Mysticism is simply the latest manifestation of Satan’s distractions, and men would as easily be distracted by any other falsehood if they were not actively seeking the Almighty by accepting the gift of His grace. Islam has already been covered in prophecy – wars and rumors of wars. (Mat 25:6, Mar 13:7) The Messiah told us from the beginning that the time of the end would come amidst global strife; the fact that it is coming from Islam, and not secular Rome or some other nation, is immaterial. The CSDA position is that the conservative reading is always best unless there is a valid and overwhelming reason to deviate.
5) Misunderstanding the dual
applications of prophecy
We read, “Since [Donald] Casebolt wrote his article [“Is Ellen White’s Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy Final?” Spectrum, June 1982, pp. 2-9] other voices have also challenged the traditional interpretation of the Dark Day and Falling of the Stars. One such person was Hans LaRondelle who stresses that these events occur not prior to but at the actual coming of Jesus to this earth again. He quotes other Adventist scholars who support him, “A number of contemporary Adventist expositors admit the exegetical problems with the old interpretation of the cosmic signs… (See Marvin Moore, The Crisis of the End Time… S. Bacchiocchi, The Advent Hope for Human Hopelessness)… these books no longer articulate the traditional application of the cosmic signs.” [More Than a Prophet, p. 138]
Bradford then goes on to quote other Adventist scholars such as George Knight, and provide further statements from Hans LaRondelle, showing that the traditional Adventist interpretation of the cosmic signs did not fulfill all the elements with which they are surrounded in Scripture. The point being made is that since these signs would rightly apply to the time of, or immediately preceding, the second Advent, the traditional understanding is in error.
Whereas it is true that the cosmic signs in a large part accompany the second coming, there is absolutely no reason to discard or even diminish the importance of the traditional Adventist understanding of these signs on that account. Case after case in Scripture may be cited of the principle of dual fulfillment, in which something occurs that is a type of an earlier sign, even though a final and complete fulfillment is yet future.
To name just two: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Yahweh; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Mal 4:5, 6)
According to the highest source of divine sanction, we read that John the Baptist fulfilled this prophecy: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.’ Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Mat 17:11-13)
Even more explicitly, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mat 11:13-15)
Now, did John the Baptist come before “The great and terrible/dreadful day” of the Lord? No… there is no direct connection between John and this Day. The great and terrible day is described as the day of Judgment, the second coming: “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of Yahweh come.” (Joel 2:31 – Note: this is after the latter rain falls in the end of days, cf. v 28)
John the Baptist was a fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy partially, yet he did not not fulfill every sign pointing to the prophet’s appearance given by Malachi.
Adventists are fully aware that there is another fulfillment that was to come in the future: “The Lord says, ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord’ (Mal. 4:5). Somebody is to come in the spirit and power of Elijah, and when he appears, men may say, ‘You are too earnest, you do not interpret the Scriptures in the proper way. Let me tell you how to teach your message.’” [Selected Messages Book 1, page 412, emphasis added]
Likewise, the traditional Adventist understanding of the cosmic signs, rather than being in error, are at least as valid an application as was made of John to Elijah. That there is a final fulfillment to come does not to any degree weaken the understanding developed within Adventism for these things.
Second: “When [Joseph] arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night, and departed into Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son.’” (Mat 2:14, 15)
This verse quotes an earlier passage of Scripture, reading, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” (Hos 11:1) If we read the next verses, however, we see that this could never be completely applied to Christ, for it continues, “As they called them, so they went from them; they sacrificed unto Ba’alim, and burned incense to graven images. I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms, but they knew not that I healed them.” (verses 2, 3)
Clearly, Matthew pointed to Hosea as an antitype of that which was partly fulfilled by Christ, but completely fulfilled by the nation of Israel. Christ, as the “King of the Jews,” (Luke 23:3) represented in one Individual all that Israel should have been, but was not, because of unbelief. Was Matthew’s understanding of the prophecy in error because Christ did not fulfill the prophecy as Hosea intended? Certainly not, but the same symbolism was used to convey to the readers the nature of Christ as the Son of Elohim, and the fact that He was following in the footsteps of the nation He had come to represent and save.
If the multiple-application-of-prophecy principle is understood, there remains no reason to undermine confidence in the understanding of those who brought great truths to light through early Adventism. This does not in any way limit our ability to search the Scriptures for further applications of the principles and details of prophetic fulfillment, but neither does it give license to gainsay the Spirit-led conclusions of the Adventist pioneers.
While more time was spent on that with which we would not agree, naturally, something must also be said for the benefits of this book. More Than a Prophet is capable of providing significant insight into how prophecy should be handled, in the case of Ellen White, or anyone else under the New Covenant who has received a similar gift.
Here are some of the contributions one may gain from reading Dr. Bradford’s work:
1) Understanding the need for an evaluation
of New Testament prophetic pronouncements
We read, “In the New Testament we are told to evaluate prophecies. Apart from the authority given to the prophets in the Old Testament and that of the apostles in the New Testament, we have seen that prophecy is sometimes given a lower status in the New Testament. […] Not that the gift is without some doctrinal authority, however that authority which is to be used to protect the faithful from doctrinal error does not belong to the gift of prophecy alone but is also given to apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers. [Ephesians 3:11-14] […] In contrast to the authority given to the apostles in the New Testament, prophets are to have their prophecies evaluated.” [More Than a Prophet, p.77]
This is probably the book’s best contribution, and indeed all of chapters seven through nine are very good at providing Biblical evidence for the above assertions. They point out that while Old Testament prophets had an almost god-like authority, (1Kings 18:7) so much so that if they misused their gift they were to be immediately put to death, (Deu 13:5, 1Kings 13:20-24) there is a difference revealed after Christ’s sacrifice. Now there are apostles, now there are Scriptures by which the words of the prophets may be tested, and therefore the authority once inherent in prophetic utterances is no longer as absolute.
This is extremely important when considering the case of Ellen White; even though the Biblical prophets often erred in their pronouncements, we are specifically told to evaluate prophetic utterances by Christian speakers. (1Cor 14:5; 1Th 5:20, 21) There is no indication in these passages that the evaluation is to decide whether or not the prophet truly has the gift, but whether or not those particular statements have immediate practical benefit. Sadly, these verses have not been followed by the critics of Ellen White, and much of their dissatisfaction with her work has been a result of misunderstanding her role as a New Testament oracle, and ignorance of how intimately Mrs. White worked alongside the Adventist leaders in her day to formulate and develop doctrine.
An error on the part of a New Testament prophet does not mean that the gift he or she possesses is not genuine, or the individual false, only that he or she may have misunderstood the vision; and it may take the voice of the Church as a whole to properly understand and apply certain things learned in the visions of an individual. The authority given to the Church by Christ (Mat 16:19, 18:18-20) is unprecedented in Israel; that is to say, in Israel the authority rested specifically in the leaders or individual prophets, but in the Church each individual member had personal responsibility for the actions of the Body as a whole, and this includes how to understand the words of the modern-day prophets.
2) Bible-only approach to foundational
doctrines
In properly pointing out the role of New Testament prophets such as Ellen White, Bradford also provides the benefit of elevating the roles of the pastors, elders and teachers to their rightful places. We read, “Many gifts are given to the church to help keep unity and protect against heresy […] When Ellen White spoke out against errors that would confuse the church and cause harm to the relationship members had to Christ, she was doing what prophets are called upon to do. However, the same can be said for other gifts such as the gift of being an evangelist, a pastor and a teacher. It is important to remember that these and the teachings from these gifts must be in harmony with God’s final revelation in Christ as found in the Scriptures. The final court of appeal must always be the Bible.” [More Than a Prophet, p. 205]
Quoting from James White, Bradford reports, “What has the Review [an Adventist publication] to do with Ellen White’s views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as an authority on any point… It’s motto has been, ‘The Bible, and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty.’…” [ibid., p. 205]
This is in line with the “official” Seventh-day Adventist view, and the applied CSDA view.
3) “Circumstances alter
conditions”
Much has been written about the conditional nature of prophecy, such as here: The Mark in Prophecy
Fortunately, Bradford’s book also recognizes this often-overlooked aspect of prophetic utterances, particularly as they apply to Ellen White’s writings. We read, “So what sort of authority does [Ellen White] have with the Adventist community? We know that some would want to give her formal authority. That is, her words are always taken to be true simply because she says so. To them she is the last word on the sciences of biology, geology and history, as well as theology. […] But that type of authority has now gone forever as more Adventists become aware of her sources in some of those areas. […] Many others in Adventism would say that they prefer to give her ‘internal authority.’ That is when she speaks we will listen to what she has to say and treat her words with respect as one so often used by God. However, when she speaks, they declare that they will weigh up the ‘intrinsic truthfulness’ of what she has to say. […] As such they are wittingly or unwittingly following Paul’s counsel of 1 Corinthians 14:29 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 where Paul admonishes believers to ‘judge’ or ‘test’ the ideas that come from prophets.
“In dong this they also follow the counsel of Ellen White herself who when rebuking those who took an inflexible approach to what she had previously written concerning the age children should commence school, said, ‘That is how it is, and my mind has been greatly stirred in regard to the idea, “Why Sister White has said so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going right up to it.” God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things.”’” [ibid., pp. 128, 129, quoting 5T, pp. 685, 686]
This provides a balanced view of Ellen White’s writings as something of a product of her time in terms of, for example, medical and educational knowledge. It does not mean that the principles behind either her medical advice or her prophetic expectations are invalid. This simply means that we must know how the circumstances alter the relation of things. The position of Creation Seventh Day Adventists, for example, is that the set of circumstances that would have allowed a Sunday Law to be a valid test of faithful Christians is no longer applicable, now that professed Sabbath-keepers are persecuting other Christians by means of a union of Church and state.
This has led us to a new understanding of the Mark of the Beast as it relates to the days after the uniting of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists with the United States civil government. Bradford, interestingly enough, discusses the principles that would allow for such a new understanding. He writes, “In his book End Time Jon Paulien shows how end time events can undergo adjustments as time goes on and new situations arise. […] Thus, it would seem, we have a biblical model set before us on the need to adjust our expectations of the fulfillment of prophecy appropriate to the age in which we live. God’s purposes will be fulfilled; but how and when can undergo development and change.
“Other voices may also be heard in Adventism calling for the need to reinterpret biblical prophecies in harmony with the present age. One such voice is Alden Thompson: ‘A direct corollary exists between the concept of delay and that of re-application […] Israel’s history should inform us that if we delay long enough, a radical re-ordering could be in order.’” [ibid., p. 141, emphasis added]
Of course, as we saw before, Bradford’s favored application of this idea seems to be a lessening of concern for the papal spirit, and more focus on Eastern Mysticism and fundamentalist Islam. CSDAs believe that these particular deceptions and developments are already covered in existing prophecies, and further, that the papal spirit is an eternal principle underlying any potential manifestation of the Mark of the Beast, the last test for the people of God.
We do not need to re-examine the character of Catholicism, as Bradford suggests we do, [ibid., p. 148] but re-examine its political strengths and weaknesses. We must be able to see how that very character has come to manifest itself in protestant Churches of the united states, including modern Adventism. We need to see that the very principles and knowledge we have had as the Advent people from the very beginning can allow us to detect and avoid even these most subtle traps that Satan has set for the elect in earth’s final hours. It has always been known that it is the image of the beast, and not the beast itself, that presents that trial; and we have indeed seen it come to pass as predicted, even if not quite as expected. Understanding how that works is the very and proper use of the spirit of prophecy.
Yours in the Messiah,
David.