I Chose the Cross

I plunged fully into Adventism, getting involved with every possible aspect of it. But because it could not provide me with a sound Gospel foundation on which to secure my salvation experience, I became very ‘religious’.

I was baptized into Adventism in 1949 at the age of 13, not because I had received Jesus as my personal Savior, but because I was going to the local Adventist College the next year to begin high school! The pastor told my mother, who was the only born-again Christian in the family at the time, that I would receive special attention at college if I enrolled as a baptized member. I later discovered this was not true. All the pastor was interested in was baptismal statistics. So much for his understanding about the true meaning of baptism!

I finished high school after four years at the end of 1953 totally disillusioned because of a disappointing spiritual experience the previous year during the second week-of-prayer. As a result, I kissed Adventism in particular, and religion in general, goodbye. I also threw God out in the process—like the proverbial baby with the bath water. I seriously intended never to be involved again. With that behind my back I went into the world at full speed!

After a few enquiries from the local minister to my mother and others as to my religious status, I was written off as a lost cause by him. My mother, however, kept praying for my salvation. As a result, I was dramatically saved seven years later during a Sabbath morning service conducted by world-renowned Adventist evangelist Alvin E. Cook—not because of his message, but by God’s direct intervention in answer to my mother’s prayers. I was in that meeting because my mother asked me to go this once and because I respected her request. (All this is a story on its own).

After this event, I plunged fully into Adventism, getting involved with every possible aspect of it. But because it could not provide me with a sound Gospel foundation on which to secure my salvation experience, I became very religious. (Adventism could not impart that which it does not possess). For the next two years my life consisted of cramming my head with religious information by doing a number of doctrinal courses, and by slavishly following various religious programs prescribed by the denomination such as a Through the Bible reading program, a Systematic Bible Study program, a Bible Marking program, a Morning Watch Devotional program, and a Missionary Outreach program, to name but a few.

I did all these things with precision and religious devotion in preparation for the Investigative Judgment. This, we were constantly reminded in church, was soon to “pass to the cases of the living” (GC 490). But none of these efforts facilitated any advancement in my understanding of the New Testament Gospel and how to have a relationship with God as my heavenly Father. They were only a means of acquiring a categorized knowledge, something like a denominational systematic theology. Thus did I confound religion with spirituality.

After having worked through all the doctrines a number of times, I began concentrating on Adventism’s cardinal doctrine—its 1844 theology which consists of four parts: 1) the date October 22, 1844, 2) the Investigative Judgment into the cases of God’s people, 3) the cleansing of the sanctuary by blotting out the record of their sins based on the final atonement made for them, and 4) the probation of believers. I remembered how the importance of this doctrine was stressed while at college and why: 1) it constitutes “the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith” (GC 409) ever since the days of William Miller; 2) it constitutes the only original contribution Adventism has made to Christian theology; 3) it alone justifies the existence of Adventism as a religious body; 4) it alone gives Adventists their true, unique and special identity: God’s only true Church and end-time Remnant—a special people, with a special message, for a special time (to quote a popular Adventist slogan)! I once again got out all the lessons pertaining to this doctrine from among the courses I had done. I also got out all the books by Mrs. White in which she expounds it fully, such as The Great Controversy and Early Writings. Thus equipped, I began studying this most important of doctrines intensively.

---

On the advice of Mrs. White, I became a strict vegetarian because, according to her, vegetarianism is indispensable for being ready for the coming of the Lord. (She states that no meat eaters will be translated!) She also states that vegetarianism is an important aid in subduing the passions of the flesh so as to make progress in sanctification! This, however, did not work in my case.

---

But not long afterwards I began having problems with recurring sin in my life—something I thought I was done with forever the day I got saved. I did not understand about the sinful nature that remains in the believer and how to deal with it so as to have daily victory over it. On the advice of Mrs. White, I became a strict vegetarian because, according to her, vegetarianism is indispensable for being ready for the coming of the Lord. (She states that no meat eaters will be translated!) She also states that vegetarianism is an important aid in subduing the passions of the flesh so as to make progress in sanctification! This, however, did not work in my case. I then adapted my diet even further by only eating Adventist health foods such as gluten patties and True Links sausages. But this did not solve my problem either. All I got from them was a strong dose of heartburn!

I then began to have serious doubts as to whether I would be ready for the Investigative Judgment. I realized more and more that unless something radical happened in my life, I was not going to pass the Investigative Judgment. I would not, therefore, receive the final atonement so the record of my sins could be blotted out. This meant the sanctuary would not be cleansed from my sins and I would not receive God’s verdict of justification “full and complete” (GC 484). I would not, therefore, go to heaven when Jesus came again. Instead, I just knew I would be lost forever! At this point in time I was sorely tempted to again give up on God, Adventism, and religion.

But God intervened again. In 1965 Robert Brinsmead visited South Africa to promote his Sanctuary Awakening Message. This was a revival of traditional (historic) Adventism launched by him in 1960 to counter the Evangelical “Babylonian friendly” movement that had infiltrated the church during the 1950s culminating in the publication of Questions on Doctrines in 1957. It was from him I heard good news for the first time.

In his lectures he explained Adventism’s cardinal 1844 doctrine emphasizing its significance for Adventists. He also addressed the question that I and many other Adventists had become concerned about: “How can we pass the Investigative Judgment”? To this question Brinsmead had a simple answer: “Jesus stands for the contrite believer in the judgment!” This, he said, is our only hope. We do not come to this judgment presenting the perfection we have attained. No one will ever pass the judgment on this basis because no one can attain this perfection! This clearly was a radical deviation from traditional Adventism. But it was good news throughout the denomination. It gave hope to many of us who had despaired of ever reaching that required goal of perfection required to pass the Investigative Judgment.

It is important to be clear regarding the special message of historic Adventism as much confusion existed about it when I was still an Adventist. There was Evangelical Adventism, Liberal Adventism, and Traditional Adventism—all claiming to constitute true Adventism and all basing their claims on statements by Mrs. White! But, as Brinsmead pointed out, there was always only one authentic form of Adventism—that formulated by the pioneers within the first decade after the Great Disappointment when Jesus failed to return as predicted by William Miller. All this was clear confirmation of what I was taught at college. I therefore sided with traditional Adventists behind Brinsmead as our main spokesperson.

The main figure behind Evangelical Adventism at this time was Dr. Desmond Ford. Besides the Gospel he was preaching, he contended that those doctrines that make Adventism unique—its 1844 theology—do not constitute true Adventism. He pointed out that William Miller proclaimed the imminent return of Christ, which was biblical. The mistake he made was to put a date to this event, which was not biblical. Ford then made an appeal that the unbiblical innovation of the pioneers be discarded and that Adventists return to proclaiming the message for which God had raised up the Advent movement—the imminent return of Christ as Miller had done but without the date!

No, no, no, we protested! The subsequent explanation given for the Great Disappointment, we pointed out, is in fact what constitutes authentic Adventism. F. D. Nichol explains it this way: “Seventh-day Adventists, as a distinct religious body, most correctly could be described as beginning at the moment that a new interpretation was given to the prophecy of the 2300 days” (The Midnight Cry, p. 478. Emphasis mine). As far as we were concerned, this understanding was also clearly stated throughout the writings of Mrs. White.

We did not, therefore, see the neo-Adventism of the pioneers as a mistaken extension of the Millerite movement as Ford concluded. We believed that after the Great Disappointment God gave the pioneers the correct understanding of Daniel 8:14. Thus did He raise up a new end-time movement with a new end-time message—“A special people, with a special message for a special time”. Because we did not agree with Ford’s conclusion, we rejected his appeal. During this time we fearlessly staked everything on the new and special truth of 1844.

Then, at the end of the 1960s, Brinsmead caused a major upheaval in the traditional camp by admitting that Dr. Ford was correct in his evaluation of Adventism and in his presentation of the Gospel. At about this time Dr. Ford rose to prominence on the Adventist public scene. Independently of each other, Ford and Brinsmead shook Adventism in two areas: 1) they showed that Adventism’s traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 cannot be substantiated from the Bible using basic principles of hermeneutics; 2) they broke through the stalemate of Adventism’s version of the Gospel with the real Good News as recorded for us in the New Testament by the Lord’s chosen apostles.

In the first area, they convincingly showed that Adventism’s cardinal doctrine (its 1844 theology) is out of harmony with its cardinal text—Daniel 8:14—both contextually and linguistically. In other words, Adventism’s 1844 Sanctuary doctrine cannot be substantiated by an exegesis of Daniel 8:14 using sound hermeneutic principles such as considering the immediate context and the correct meaning of the original language.

---

By this confrontation, Adventism was shaken as I never thought possible. Many Adventists despaired as they were made aware that the foundation on which they had built their religious house was not the solid rock they had presumed it to be, but sinking sand instead!

---

By this confrontation, Adventism was shaken as I never thought possible. Many Adventists despaired as they were made aware that the foundation on which they had built their religious house was not the solid rock they had presumed it to be, but sinking sand instead! This was also no less a traumatic experience for me.

In the second area, their Gospel messages brought hope to the shaken and traumatized. These messages were based on the New Testament affirmation of: 1) a complete, final and all-sufficient atonement made by Christ upon the cross in AD 30 (John 19:30; Rom. 3:24b-25) by which He obtained an eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12); 2) His resurrection from the dead; and 3) His once-for-all entrance into the real Most Holy Place—heaven itself (Heb. 9:24) at His ascension where He sat down at the right hand of God Almighty “with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him” (1 Pet. 3:22; Heb. 1:3b; 8:1; 10:12); 4) also, this Gospel was once-for-all committed to the Christian Church (Jude 1:3).

Based on this finished work of Christ, it was stated that every believer: 1) is justified and forgiven full and complete by God the moment he believes (Rom. 3:24a, 28); 2) has the record of his sins blotted out by God immediately (Rom. 4:8; Acts 3:19; Ps. 51:1; Isa. 43:25) and, as a result; 3) stands before God fully in the clear from that moment on until the last day if he continues to believe. Therefore, it was further stated, every believer in Jesus can know exactly where he stands with God now and where he will stand with God on the last day if he continues to believe—fully justified and forgiven by God and fully in the clear with Him (Rom. 5:9)! Thousands of Adventists rejoiced in their message.

I had to admit to myself that I had never heard anything like it, and I was touched by it! I, however, felt responsible to defend what was bequeathed to us by the pioneers. I, therefore, stated that I was fully prepared to go along with Mrs. White’s inspired interpretation of Daniel 8:14 as was given her by God in vision. I also pointed out that this “new” Gospel was fundamentally different from Adventism’s cardinal 1844 theology and that historic Adventism and Mrs. White had always clearly taught that Christ began His real work of redemption in heaven on October 22, 1844.

I, in turn, drew their attention to Mrs. White’s explanation of what is involved in this work of redemption. First, she states that only those believers who pass the Investigative Judgment will receive Christ’s final atonement. Then, based on this atonement, the record of their sins will be blotted out. Thus will the sanctuary be cleansed from their sins. Then, and only then, will they receive “pardon and justification full and complete”. Only then will they be granted “a share in His (Christ’s) glory and a seat upon His throne. Then, and only then, “Christ will clothe His faithful ones with His own righteousness…Thus will be realized the complete fulfillment of the new covenant…” (GC 484-485. Emphasis mine). I emphasized the fact that once all this has been done for believers who have passed the Investigative Judgment, only then can they claim to be saved—not before! Only then can they be sure of heaven—not before!

In the meantime, according to Mrs. White’s clear teaching, all believers alive are on probation. Now then, I asked, how can one be sure of salvation while on probation? You can’t for the simple reason you aren’t! I reminded them of Mrs. White’s warning that while on probation, believers should never claim to be saved (COL 155). Salvation is contingent on having this work of redemption accomplished for them in heaven.

I also pointed out the implications of this: no believer alive can therefore be sure of heaven. To claim such assurance would be presumptuous in the extreme. Only after we have passed the Investigative Judgment, after we have received Christ’s final atonement, and after we have had the record of his sins blotted out—all still in the future—can we claim to be saved and will we be ready for the coming of the Lord (GC 424-425; 483-486).

During this time I was desperately trying to show that Ford and Brinsmead were not authentic Adventists because they were not preaching authentic (traditional) Adventism as defined by its 1844 doctrine! But the more I was confronted with the Gospel, the less peace I had in my soul; the more I was trying to prove Adventism’s 1844 doctrine from the Bible alone, the less successful I was.

---

What aggravated my frustration was that, in order to substantiate Adventism’s cardinal doctrine, I had to resort to the writings of Mrs. White every time!

---

What aggravated my frustration was that, in order to substantiate Adventism’s cardinal doctrine, I had to resort to the writings of Mrs. White every time! What aggravated my frustration even further was the expository preaching and teaching of both Ford and Brinsmead. These constituted a new paradigm radically different to the Adventist proof-text one I had been familiar with during all my years in Adventism and which now proved totally inadequate.

Eventually and virtually overwhelmed with frustration, I was persuaded in my soul to take a deep and careful look into the theology of both sides objectively and without prejudice as far as possible. This brought me to a serious re-evaluation of Adventism and all it stood for—particularly its cardinal doctrine as contained in its 1844 theology.

But despite the clarity of the New Testament Gospel, I found this re-evaluation extremely difficult in the light of Mrs. White’s spirit of prophecy—especially her “The Lord showed me” and “I saw” claims. I did not realize how brainwashed I was by these and how shrewdly the hierarchy in Washington had used them to keep the likes of me in bondage to the system. As a result, I kept subjecting God’s word to that of Mrs. White. I kept questioning my interpretation of God’s word (despite its clarity) in the light of Mrs. White’s contrary but inspired interpretation of it! This was no easy matter for me because I took God seriously, I took His word seriously and I took Mrs. White’s spirit of prophecy seriously.

Ultimately, after what seemed like an eternity, the light of heaven broke through to my brainwashed mind as a result of the faithful and patient ministry of the Holy Spirit who finally tipped the scales in favor of the New Testament Gospel! I gladly accepted, without compromise, the good news as recorded for us in the New Testament by the Lord’s chosen apostles. A great peace flooded my soul and I knew I had made the right decision. There were four factors that contributed to this assurance:

1) There was the Sola Scriptura principle of the Reformation which was emphasized in Brinsmead’s Present Truth magazine. In its light I had to admit that I did not qualify as a Protestant. On the contrary, by basing my understanding of truth on an extra-biblical authority—that of Mrs. White—I could see that I qualified as a good Roman Catholic instead!

This was quite a traumatic eye opener especially in the light of Adventism’s claim that it was raised up by God to complete the Reformation so nobly begun by the Reformers. Also, Adventism has always vehemently denounced Catholicism as the anti-Christ! I was glad to be free so as to honor God by basing my understanding of truth on a clear “Thus saith the Lord” from His word alone!

2) Then there was the exposure of Mrs. White’s fraudulent ministry. Firstly, there was the extent of her plagiarism. This was a great shock for me as I really believed all she ever wrote came from the Lord as claimed by her and as taught me at college and as a layman. No face-saving reason tendered by Washington for this deception could soften the blow. This was enough reason for me to label her a false prophet.

Secondly, and worse, she claimed special revelation (a direct word from the Lord) to endorse, support and promulgate Adventism’s 1844 doctrine which was consistently shown, not only to have no support from the Bible, but to be contrary to the New Testament affirmation of Christ’s finished work of redemption upon the cross, His once-for-all entrance into the Most Holy Place at His ascension, and His sitting down at the right hand of God! In this she clearly had spoken presumptuously, thereby invalidating her claim to possess the spirit of prophecy. This ended my bondage to Mrs. White once-for-all! For this I was most thankful to the Lord.

3) There were also the invaluable contributions by Ford’s Good News Unlimited magazine in which Gospel articles were a regular feature. In these were emphasized the finished work of Christ on the cross, His triumphant resurrection from the dead, and His once-for-all entrance into the Most Holy Place to sit down at the right hand of God as clearly stated in the book of Hebrews. Written in the first century A.D. it declares, “He (Christ) entered (past tense) the Most Holy Place once for all” (Heb. 9:12 NIV) at His ascension and not eighteen centuries later, on October 22, 1844, as taught by Mrs. White!

Then there was Dr. Ford’s Glacier View defense manuscript, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment published in 1980. This monumental work was indeed the last nail into Adventism’s coffin for me. It convincingly showed that Adventism’s 1844 doctrine has no Scriptural support at all. It was now clear to me that by preaching this doctrine Adventists were going beyond the New Testament witness. They were therefore preaching “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6) to that preached by the apostles! In this, Adventism stood exposed as a sect. I then renounced it as such.

4) There was also my temporary involvement with the strange phenomenon that featured prominently in the church during the decade of the 1970s known as Evangelical Adventism. I say “strange” because once a person understands both theologies clearly, he will understand that a person cannot possibly be both! At the time, I understood traditional (historic) Adventism far better than I understood the Gospel. But in the increasing light of the Gospel, two basic aspects concerning both theologies began crystallizing in my mind: 1) The fundamental difference between them; 2) The finality of both. In view of these two aspects, I eventually came to the conclusion that an impassable gulf exists between them which cannot be bridged without modifying both. But the finality of both admits no modifications or compromise.

So it was that during that time some scholars who sided with Ford tried to salvage Adventism by trying to create a synthesis between its 1844 theology and the apostolic New Testament Gospel. In the beginning I decided to go along with this noble objective. Evangelica magazine promoted Evangelical Adventism during this time. But after a while on this road I began to realize that our objective would never be achieved without compromising both theologies. And as neither of these theologies allow for any compromise, I found myself at a split in the road where I had to choose. By God’s grace I chose to go on the Gospel road.

---

I then concluded there was no such a phenomenon as an ‘Evangelical Adventist’.

---

I then concluded there was no such a phenomenon as an Evangelical Adventist. One is either an Adventist, standing by AD 1844 with its related teaching of Christ’s ongoing work of atonement and redemption in heaven, or an Evangelical, standing by AD 30 with its related teaching of Christ’s finished atonement and redemption accomplished on the cross. Evangelical Adventism was therefore a contradiction in terms and a half-baked theological system. As such it was a dead-end road with no future. This proved true as it eventually fizzled out as a recognized movement within the church, having served its purpose as the temporary means of making a transition from Adventism to the Gospel for many including myself.

So, after having looked at Adventism from all possible sides, I had to agree with the statement of Dr. Donald Barnhouse, the Evangelical scholar who investigated Adventism’s doctrines during the 1950’s, that Adventism’s 1844 Sanctuary doctrine is indeed the greatest face-saving philosophical phenomenon in religious history. Yet, it has been proudly touted as the only original contribution that Adventism has made to Christian theology. What a contribution—the biggest conundrum in the history of the Christian Church! No wonder Adventists have never yet been able to convince one single recognized Evangelical Bible scholar that their cardinal 1844 doctrine, as based on their unique interpretation of Daniel 8:14, is worthy of a second thought, notwithstanding the fact that Mrs. White claims that it is based on a direct revelation received by her from God!

Then, after I had reached the verdict that Adventism’s unique interpretation of Daniel 8:14 (its cardinal doctrine) has no biblical support and that it is anti the New Testament Gospel, I had to face squarely the implications of this for Adventism: 1) its foundation and central pillar had collapsed and with that the entire edifice. Nothing salvageable remained; 2) it no longer had a unique message to give to Christendom and the world; 3) its continued existence as a religious body was no longer justified. Therefore people should no longer give it their support; 4) this meant the end of Adventists’ unique self-image as “a special people with a special message for a special time.” They were no more special in God’s sight than any other forgiven saint. All this was a matter of simple honesty with us as Adventists and with the rest of Christianity.

With that conclusion I severed all ties with Adventism forever in 1980. It took this long (1970-1980) because I had to be fully convinced in my own mind about all of it—step by step. And after renouncing Adventism completely I was free to fully embrace the New Testament Gospel without compromise. Thus ended my twenty years in Adventism’s house of bondage and to this day I thank God for His liberating Gospel by which that was made possible.

As a result, I know that all my sins are blotted out—fully and completely, that I have received pardon and justification—fully and completely—and that I am released from the condemnation of the law—fully and completely. Therefore, I do have full assurance of eternal life and heaven now. And all this, not because I have passed some fictitious Investigative Judgment, but because Jesus made a final, full and complete atonement (payment) for my sins with His precious blood shed on the cross. As a result I now have a dynamic relationship with my Lord in which I daily enjoy intimate fellowship with Him through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I therefore live my life fully committed to Him “who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). †

---