THE WORK OF THE "LITTLE HORN" POWER

HUGUENOTS IN PRISON FOR THEIR FAITH"Others had trial ... of bonds and imprisonment." Heb. 11:36.

The prophetic picture of the rise and work of the "little horn" finds its exact counterpart in the history of the Roman Papacy:

The Place.—The little horn was seen by the prophet rising in the field of the Roman Empire. That was the very place where the great kingdom of the Papacy appeared, taking the name of Roman.

The Time.—The rise of the ecclesiastical kingdom of the little-horn power in the prophecy followed the breaking up of the Roman Empire into the ten kingdoms. Just so the ecclesiastical kingdom of the Roman Papacy rises to view in history immediately following the division of the empire.

The Period of Supremacy.—The prophecy allotted 1260 years to the full supremacy of this power. History responds that from the beginning of the papal supremacy, in the days of Justinian, a period of 1260 years brings us into the stirring events of the last decade of the eighteenth century, that gave to the Papacy a deadly wound.

THE LOVE OF POWER THE POWER OF LOVE
"He shall speak great words against the Most High." Dan. 7:25.



One further set of specifications remains for study:

The Work.—Of the nature and work of the power represented by the little horn, the prophecy declares:

"He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." Dan. 7:25.

Do we find in the record that the Church of Rome has fulfilled these specifications also? The Scripture prophecy is absolutely a word-photograph of the workings of the papal church. Look at the main features:

1. Speaking great words against the Most High.

2. Wearing out the saints of the Most High.

3. Thinking to change the times and the laws of the Most High.

Every count in the indictment may be clearly proved, and that by testimony from Roman Catholic sources

"He Shall Speak Great Words Against the Most High"

As Daniel observed the little-horn power, he heard it speaking "very great things." The angel declared that these great swelling words were really against the Most High. And what could be more against the honor of the Most High than that to mortal man should be ascribed the titles and attributes of divinity? Here are some of the "great words:"

"All the names which are attributed to Christ in Scripture, implying His supremacy over the church, are also attributed to the Pope."—Bellarmine, "On the Authority of Councils," book 2, chap. 17.

This ruling has been actually applied through the ages. Says Elliott:

"Look at the Sicilian ambassadors prostrated before him [Pope Martin IV] with the cry, 'Lamb of God! that takest away the sins of the world!'"—"Horæ Apocalypticæ," part 4, chap. 5, sec. 2.



CHRISTIANS IN PRISON BENEATH THE COLOSSEUM AWAITING MARTYRDOM
"And shall wear out the saints of the Most High." Dan. 7:25.

"The Pope is of so great dignity and excellence, that he is not merely man, but as if God, and the vicar of God (non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius). The Pope alone is called most holy,... divine monarch, and supreme emperor, and king of kings.... The Pope is of so great dignity and power that he constitutes one and the same tribunal with Christ (faciat unum et idem tribunal cum Christo), so that whatsoever the Pope does seems to proceed from the mouth of God (abore Dei)."—"Prompta Bibliotheca" (Ferraris), art. "Papa;" Ferraris's Ecclesiastical Dictionary (Roman Catholic), art. "The Pope." Quoted in Guinness's "Romanism and the Reformation," p. 16.

These are no merely extravagant adulations of the Dark Ages, to be repudiated by the moderns; these terms express the unchanging doctrinal claims of the Roman Church, that put man in the place of God. The modern Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, repeated the claim:

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."—"The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII" (New York, Benziger Brothers), p. 304.

Thus does the Papacy "speak great words against the Most High."

"And Shall Wear Out the Saints of the Most High"

All through the Dark Ages we catch glimpses of the ruthless hand of Rome laid upon simple believers in God's Holy Word; but plans for wholesale wearing out of the saints of God were devised as the Waldenses and others rose to a widespread work of witnessing, heralds of the dawn of the coming Reformation,—

"These who gave earliest notice,
As the lark
Springs from the ground the morn to gratulate;
Who, rather, rose the day to antedate,
By striking out a solitary spark,
When all the world with midnight gloom was dark—
The harbingers of good whom bitter hate
In vain endeavored to exterminate."
—Wordsworth.

Pope Innocent III gave orders concerning them as follows:

"Therefore by this present apostolical writing, we give you a strict command that, by whatever means you can, you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them. You shall exercise the rigor of ecclesiastical power against them and all those who have made themselves suspected by associating with them. They may not appeal from your judgments, and, if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword."—Quoted from Migne, 214, col. 71, in Thatcher and McNeal's "Source Book for Medieval History," p. 210.

As the truth spread, so also the papal church redoubled its efforts by sword and flame. The historian Lecky says:

"That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history. The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are now so scanty that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings."—"History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe," Vol. II, p. 32.

Motley, in his "Rise of the Dutch Republic" (part 3, chap. 2), tells how Philip II of Spain—who declared that he would "never consent to be the sovereign of heretics"—sent the Duke of Alva to take over the Netherlands:

"Early in the year the most sublime sentence of death was promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation of the world. The Roman tyrant [Nero] wished that his enemies' heads were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip to place the heads of all his Netherlands subjects upon a single neck for the same fell purpose. Upon February 16, 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution, without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is probably the most concise death warrant that was ever framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines."

Roman Catholic writers admit that the papal church has sought to exterminate what it calls heresy, by the power of the sword.

The Western Watchman (St. Louis), Dec. 24, 1908, says:

"The church has persecuted.... Protestants were persecuted in France and Spain with the full approval of the church authorities. We have always defended the persecution of the Huguenots, and the Spanish Inquisition. Wherever and whenever there is honest Catholicity, there will be a clear distinction drawn between truth and error, and Catholicity and all forms of error. When she thinks it good to use physical force, she will use it."

Prof. Alfred Baudrillart, rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, says:

"The Catholic Church is a respecter of conscience and of liberty.... She has, and she loudly proclaims that she has, a 'horror of blood.' Nevertheless, when confronted by heresy, she does not content herself with persuasion; arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture. She creates tribunals like those of the Inquisition, she calls the laws of the state to her aid, if necessary she encourages a crusade, or a religious war, and all her 'horror of blood' practically culminates into urging the secular power to shed it, which proceeding is almost more odious—for it is less frank—than shedding it herself. Especially did she act thus in the sixteenth century with regard to Protestants. Not content to reform morally, to preach by example, to convert people by eloquent and holy missionaries, she lit in Italy, in the Low Countries, and above all in Spain, the funeral piles of the Inquisition. In France under Francis I and Henry II, in England under Mary Tudor, she tortured the heretics, whilst both in France and Germany during the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century if she did not actually begin, at any rate she encouraged and actively aided, the religious wars."—"The Catholic Church, the Renaissance and Protestantism" (London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd., 1908), pp. 182, 183.

She has done it—the Church of Rome has worn out the saints of the Most High. The prophet in vision saw an ecclesiastical kingly power rise among the kingdoms of the divided Roman Empire. Its look was more stout than its fellows, and the prophet heard it speaking "very great things," and saw it wearing out the saints of the Most High through the long centuries.

THE SHAME OF RELIGIOUS WARS
Christ viewing the battle fields of history, where millions of His followers have been slain in His name.



"Guilty!" is the clear verdict of history, against the Church of Rome on these two counts of the prophetic indictment.

"And Think to Change Times and Laws"

The power that was to speak great words against the Most High, and to wear out the saints of the Most High, was further—in its self-exalting opposition to God—to assume to lay hands upon times and laws, evidently the times and the laws of the Most High; for to say that such a power would lay hands on the laws of men, changing or setting aside human legislation, would signify less than the preceding counts. This third specification states a climax in the indictment—the self-exalting, persecuting power was to lay hands upon the very law of the Most High. It is clearly the same power that the apostle Paul said would rise to dominion after his time: "Then shall be revealed the lawless one." 2 Thess. 2:8, A.R.V.

God's Law Unchangeable

Just as the laws of a government express its character, so the law of God is a reflection of the divine character. "The law of the Lord is perfect." Ps. 19:7. "Wherefore the law is holy," said the apostle, "and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Rom. 7:12.

Jesus declared, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Ps. 40:8. And He maintained the unchangeable, enduring integrity of that law: "Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18.

But in Daniel's prophecy is foretold the rise of this power that was to think to change the times and the laws of the Most High.

Here, again, the evidence points straight to the Church of Rome; for it is a fact that the Papacy has laid violent hands on the law of God—upon the precept, too, that deals with sacred time—and has thought to change it.

In a volume to be seen in the British Museum, dated 1545, the following comment on Dan. 7:25 is attributed to Philipp Melanchthon, the Reformer, associate of Luther (reproduced with the old English spelling):

"He changeth the tymes and lawes that any of the sixe worke dayes commanded of God will make them unholy and idle dayes when he lyste, or of their owne holy dayes abolished make worke dayes agen, or when they changed ye Saterday into Sondaye.... They have changed God's lawes and turned them into their owne tradicions to be kept above God's precepts."—"Exposition of Daniel the Prophete," Gathered out of Philipp Melanchthon, Johan Ecolampadius, etc., by George Joye, 1545, p. 119.

This is exactly what the power represented by the little horn was to assume to do. The commandment of God is plain:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex. 20:8-11.

A Change in Practice

But in general practice there has been a change—the first day is commonly observed instead of the seventh day, which the Lord declares he blessed and made holy. The Roman Catholic Church points exultingly to the fact that this change, so universally allowed today, has come about solely through church tradition without Scriptural authority. For instance, one Catholic writer says:

"You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer.

"You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered."—"Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don't You Keep the Holy Sabbath Day?" (Burns and Oates London), p. 3.

Every one who studies the question must recognize the fact that there is no change authorized in Scripture. As Canon Eyton, of the Church of England, says:

"There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday.... Into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters."—"The Ten Commandments" (Trübner & Co.), London.

Dr. Heylyn, of the Church of England, wrote:

"Take which you will, either the Fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord's day instituted by any apostolical mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week."—"History of the Sabbath," part 2, chap. 1.

Authorities, both Protestant and Catholic, freely acknowledge that there is no divine authority for Sunday keeping. There has been a change in practice and teaching, but with no Scriptural authority.

What the Papacy Claims

The prophecy of Daniel 7 forewarned all that the ecclesiastical power that was to rise upon the division of the Roman Empire would think to change the times and the laws of the Most High. The Papacy steps forward and claims boldly that the church has power to set aside Scripture, to institute holy times, and even to change the day made holy and commanded by the Almighty as the day of rest for His people.

In a Catholic work, "An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine," by Dr. Henry Turberville, page 61, we read:

"Question.—By whom was the change [of the Sabbath] made?

"Answer.—By the rulers of the church, the apostles who kept the Lord's day....

"Ques.—How do you prove that the church hath power to establish feasts and holy days?

"Ans.—By the very fact of changing the Sabbath to Sunday; this change Protestants allow; and therefore they contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.

"Ques.—How prove you that?

"Ans.—Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power to ordain feasts and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest commanded by her, they deny that she has power."

It is the doctrine taught in the standard catechisms of the Roman Church:

"Question.—Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?

"Answer.—Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."—Keenan's "Doctrinal Catechism," p. 174.

Thus the Papacy proclaims itself the power that has thought to change the precepts of the Most High.

On every count, the Roman Church is the counterpart of the little horn of Daniel 7. Before our eyes—in the common practice of Christendom—the commandment of God regarding sacred time is made void by the traditions of men.

The prophecy indicated that there would come a call for a reformation in this matter. Speaking of the warfare against the saints and the times and laws of the Most High, to be waged by the little-horn power, the angel said:

"They shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." Dan. 7:25.

In other words, when the 1260 years should expire, we should expect, according to the prophecy, to see a breaking of the Papacy's persecuting power over believers, a spreading abroad of the Holy Scriptures, and a work of reformation that would lift up the truths of God's Word, and call believers to keep once again the holy time and the holy law of the Most High.

The prophecy of Daniel 7 is one of God's special messages for all men in these last days, picturing the rise and history of the Papacy, and warning all against accepting its perversions of God's truth or recognizing its attempted change in the law of the Most High. Thank God for the "sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place." We are to follow the Lord and obey him, not this power that has risen up in opposition to him.

The angel's interpretation in this chapter does not leave the apostasy triumphant:

"The judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end."

Then the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of the Most High, "and all dominions shall serve and obey Him."

"O, how shall we stand that moment of searching,

When all our sins those books reveal?

When from that court, each case decided,

Shall be granted no appeal?"

 CHRIST AND THE SCRIBES
"In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt. 15:9.

“The Word was God” or “The Word was a god”?

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, and claim that John 1:1 merely calls him “a god,” but not full deity. They rest their case on three facts of Greek grammar:

1.There is no such word as “a” or “an” in Greek, so we sometimes have to add “a” to translate into English, (Acts 28:6).

2.The Greek word used here (theos) has two meanings: usually the supreme God revealed in Scripture, but sometimes lesser beings like the gods of Greek mythology.

3.The Greek word “the” is often attached to the word “God” or theos, but it does not appear in John 1:1. Hiding behind the Witness rendering of the verse is an unspoken equation: God + “the” (ho theos) = Jehovah, the Almighty God, God - “the” (theos) = a created being with divine qualities. Witnesses claim that the apostle John deliberately omitted a “the” in the final phrase to show the difference between God and the Word. As the New World Translation (p. 775) explains:

John's inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or the God, but is the Son of God, and hence is a god. That is why, at John 1:1,2, the apostle refers to God as the God and to the Word or Logos as a god, to show the difference between the Two.

Is this the proper translation?

No. The equation underlying the Witness rendering breaks down within a few verses. John 1:18 contains theos twice, without “the” either time. According to Watchtower assumptions, we would expect to translate both as “god” or “a god.” Instead, the New World Translation says “God” the first time and “god” the second time. The context overrules their rule.

Why did John choose not to put “the” on the word “God”?

1.To show which word was the subject of the sentence. In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here.

2.To conform to standard Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell demonstrated in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that it was normal practice to omit “the” in this type of sentence. John was simply using good grammar, and making it clear that he intended to say, “The Word was God” rather than “God was the Word,” a statement with some theological drawbacks. John constructed his sentence in the one way that would preserve proper grammar and sound doctrine, declaring that “the Word was God.”

THE DAWN OF A NEW ERA

 TAKING THE POPE PRISONER

This was accomplished by Berthier, the French general, in 1798.

THE END OF THE 1260 YEARS

As the generation in which the papal power rose to supremacy was a turning-point in the history of the world, so, too, was the generation in which the 1260 years of its supremacy came to an end.

This measuring line of prophecy does more than run from date to date. It connects two great crises in human history, the events of the first tending to establish the papal rule over men, the events of the second signalizing a breaking of those bands.

A Crisis in History

Papal supremacy came at that time of which Finlay says, "The changes of centuries passed in rapid succession before the eyes of one generation." The measuring line of 1260 years runs on through the centuries till, lo, its end touches another time of crisis,—Europe in the convulsions of the French Revolution, when again changes, ordinarily requiring centuries, were wrought out before the eyes of men within the space of a few years. Lamartine wrote of that time:

"These five years are five centuries for France."—"History of the Girondists," book 61, sec. 16 (Vol. III), p. 544.

And the events of these times proclaimed the prophetic period of papal supremacy ended at last.

Thus, in a.d. 533 came the notable decree of the Papacy's powerful supporter, recognizing its supremacy; and then the decisive stroke by the sword at Rome in a.d. 538, cleaving the way for the new order of popes—the rulers of state.

Exactly 1260 years later, in 1793, came the notable decree of the Papacy's once powerful supporter, France,—"the eldest son of the church,"—aiming to abolish church and religion, followed by a decisive stroke with the sword at Rome against the Papacy, in 1798.

Creation Celebration

Two different views in regard to the creation record of Genesis 1 have prevailed in the Adventist Church.
Editorial Note: While this paper, now in article form, is not one that was presented at any of the Faith and Science Conferences convened over the last three years, it is one that was presented in appropriate venues during this time period and has had its influence on the dialogue. We believe that it contributes to our self-understanding as Seventh-day Adventists when it comes to the issues of creation, evolution, faith, and science. It is therefore included in our Ministry Faith and Science series.

At its 1980 world session in Dallas, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists officially voted the church's statement of faith in terms of 27 fundamental beliefs.
Belief No. 6 states: "God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made 'the heaven and the earth' and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was 'very good,' declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3)."

This statement spells out that Seventh-day Adventists believe (a) that God created heaven and earth and all that is therein in six days, and (b) that the Sabbath is a continual reminder of the six-day creation.
On the basis of biblical chronology and some statements of Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventists have tradition ally believed that this creation took place about 6000 years ago.

Traditional creation models among Adventists

Two different views in regard to the creation record of Genesis 1 have prevailed in the Adventist Church.

1. The Adventist gap theory. This view understands Genesis 1:1 as a reference to the creation of the universe including the earth in its raw state billions of years ago. Several thousand years ago the Holy Spirit hovered above the waters and the six-day creation took place. This view was predominant among Adventist pioneers. M. C. Wilcox in 1898 wrote, "When did God create, or bring into existence, the heaven and the earth? 'In the beginning.' When this 'beginning' was, how long a period it covered, it is idle to conjecture; for it is not revealed. That it was a period which antedated the six days' work is evident." 1

The same view is found among Adventists today. For example, Clyde Webster, former associate director of the Geo-Science Research Institute, in his book The Earth writes, "There is no reference in Scripture within creation week that addresses the creation of water or the mineral content of dry land. . . . The only reference made to their creation is 'in the beginning.' It seems possible then that the elementary inorganic matter is not bound by a limited age as is the living matter."2

More recently, at the 2002 General Conference-sponsored Faith and Science Conference, Richard Davidson from Andrews University stated that "[T]he biblical text of Genesis 1 leaves room for either (a) young pre-fossil rock, created as part of the seven days of creation (with apparent old age), or (b) much older pre-fossil earth rock, with a long interval between the creation of the inanimate 'raw materials' on earth described in Genesis 1:1,2 and the seven days of Creation week described in Genesis 1:3ff (which I find the preferable interpretation)." 3

Contrary to the gap or ruin-restoration theory of the Scofield Bible, Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that life existed on earth prior to Genesis 1. Only nonfossil bearing rock can be billions of years old. While this is a possibility, Genesis 1:1-3 does not indicate that there is a gap between verses 1 and 2. Furthermore, Exodus 20:11 says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them." This text seems to say that with in six days God created everything connected with our earth. At any rate, the gap view does not really help us when it comes to the fossil bearing geologic column, since death can have occurred only after the Fall.

2. The original Creation account. This view sees the six-day Creation week beginning in verse 1, not in verse 3. In other words, "heaven and earth" in verse 1 refers only to our planetary system or our Milky Way and not to the universe as a whole. The reason is that in Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1 "heaven and earth" do not refer to a re-creation of the universe but only to that part of the uni verse contaminated by sin.

This was J. N. Andrews's view. He believed that the universe was created on day one. "If we could be placed back some 6,000 years in the past, and from that point survey the vast abyss of space now studded with the stars of heaven,what should we behold? Blank nothing. The host of heaven did not then exist. Our earth itself had not risen into being. The vast infinity of space was literally, as job expresses it, 'the empty place,' and that which filled it was 'nothing' Job 26:7. Utter and profound darkness rested upon the great void. Even the materials which subsequently formed the worlds had no existence."4

Ellen White wrote in 1904, in connection with the pantheism crisis, "The theory that God did not create matter when He brought the world into existence is without foundation. In the formation of our world, God was not indebted to pre-existing matter." 5

While this statement can be used by both positions, in view of all her other statements on creation, I believe she held the second view. Whatever the case, both positions hold to a six-day Creation and see the Creation account as the basis for the Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20.

Evolution and the Adventist church

Until the 1950s Adventists on the whole accepted one or the other of the two creation models. During the last few decades, however, some Adventists have begun introducing a third creation model theistic evolution. This is an attempt to harmonize evolutionary biology with the Christian faith.

In 1957 the General Conference established the Geoscience Research Institute, located today on the campus of Loma Linda University in California. "The institute focuses mainly on the bio logical, geological, and paleontological questions regarding the origin of life and the past history of our planet in the context of the Creation account given in the book of Genesis."6

During the first two decades of its work, tensions existed among the scientists of the institute because of different views on how to interpret the past. Some took the statements of Scripture and Ellen White seriously and attempted to interpret the facts of science accordingly. Others were willing to consider seriously "evidence from radioactive time clocks that placed 'Creation Week hundreds of millions of years ago' " 7 and searched for ways to interpret Scripture in the light of this view.

In time, all the so-called progressive scientists left the institute, and around 1980, when Ariel Roth became director of the institute, only scientists who accepted the Scriptural record as it reads were on the staff. In Adventist schools and universities, however, the picture was different. A number of science teachers tended to lean more and more toward theistic evolution.

The Geoscience Research Institute organized field conferences in North America, Europe, and Australia that informed the leadership of the church, teachers, and ministers about the prob lems of the evolutionary theory and offered a solution to the geologic column on the basis of the biblical flood.

On one of these tours in 1977 the General Conference president Robert Pierson realized that some of our scientists tended toward theistic evolution. He asked the vice presidents Duncan Eva, Willis Hackett, and Richard Hammill to formulate two doctrinal points, one about inspiration and the other about creation, which the scientists and Bible teachers in our schools should accept. "Their efforts on behalf of Pierson's 'creedal statement' prompted one cam pus theologian to confess that he could see no substantive difference between the actions of the General Conference president and those of the pope."8

About the same time that Ariel Roth became director of the Geoscience Research Institute, Gerhard Hasel became dean of the theological semi nary at Andrews. Through these appointments Elder Pierson hoped to contain the pluralism among the theologians and scientists.

The progressive or more liberal thinking scholars and scientists, however, were frustrated. They turned to Richard Ritland, who had retired in 1982, and asked him to organize a field conference for the Association of Adventist Forums. The conference took place in 1985 with about 100 participants. For ten days they studied the geological formations in Utah and Wyoming and another five days were spent at a study conference in Yellowstone Park. "Conference presenters dealt with three themes: earth history, the biblical record, and responses by Christians seeking to reconcile their faith with the evidence from science."9

A report of this field conference, published in Spectrum, stated, "The conference generated some feeling of apprehension, partly because not all the familiar answers seemed adequate to explain what we saw, and because participants were concerned that the issue of origins might be divisive for the Adventist Church."10

The concern was justified. At a Geoscience field conference in 1991, which newly elected General Conference president Robert Folkenberg attended, Ariel Roth informed the participants that a number of Adventist scientists had become theistic evolutionists. Then in the year 2000, the Association of Adventist Forums published the book Creation Reconsidered, which contains the 28 lectures given at the 1985 Yellowstone conference. A number of the contributors to this volume advocate theistic evolution.

Two views in the church today

Based on recent publications of Adventist theologians and scientists in regard to creation we can say that today there are basically two views in the Adventist Church. One sees creation extending over millions of years; the other holds to a six-day Creation several thousand years ago.

Representatives of theistic evolution. Richard M. Ritland (a retired biologist who taught at Loma Linda and Andrews). At the field conference in 1985, in his lecture on the geologic column, which seems to indicate that life on earth existed millions of years ago, he traced the development and the evidences for the geologic column. He concluded by saying, "Like a clock for organizing the day, the geologic column has become like a calendar for relating and organizing the vast body of information and theories that has become the essential core to which the records of earth history relate. It has become an indispensable tool, not only for general studies but also for those special areas related to the flow of energy and life throughout time, to origins, to time, to evolutionary change all of immediate concern to those probing the meaning of life, existence, and the governance of the cosmos."11

Richard ]. Bottomley (a geophysicist at the Canadian University College). At the same conference, he dealt with the topic of dating the rocks. After explaining the radioactive dating methods, he showed that fossil-bearing rocks have a certain sequence the bottom rock must have been laid down before the younger rock on top of it. Since the dates for the individual layers are spread over hundreds of millions of years, he concluded that the layers of rock "do represent long intervals of time and that the rocks involved could not have been deposited over a short period of time,"12 as most Adventists believe happened during the Flood.

Richard L. Hammill (former president of Andrews, General Conference vice president). After his retirement, Dr. Hammill studied scientific theories (plate tectonics, fossils, radioactive dating, etc.). After nine years of study he came to the conclusion that "animals were living on the earth . . . millions of years ago before these [continental] plates separated. And, moreover, as I got to looking into the geologic col umn, I had to recognize . . . that the geologic column is valid, that some forms of life were extinct before other forms of life came into existence. . . . The steadily accumulating evidence in the natural world has forced a reevaluation in the way I look and understand and interpret parts of the Bible."13 He called himself a progressive creationist.

Fritz Guy (a theologian at La Sierra University). At the Faith and Science Conference in 2002, Dr. Guy presented a lecture, "Interpreting Genesis One in the Twenty-First Century," that was later published in Spectrum. He interprets Genesis 1 theologically, i.e., he sees Genesis 1 "not as a literalistic description of a process, but as 'a spiritual interpretation of the universe's origin, nature, and destiny.'" 14 That means "read theologically, the explanation of creation in Genesis 1 is complementary also to a sci entific explanation of the history of the cosmos, the earth, life, and humanity. Taking the two explanations together 'yields an intellectually satisfying and spiritually illuminating account of creation.'" 15 As far as Ellen White is concerned, he believes that if she were living now, knowing what we know today about natural history, "she would undoubtedly avoid making a divisive issue of the interpretation of Genesis 1 ."16

Representatives of a six-day Creation. Jim Gibson (biologist and director of the Geoscience Research Institute). In 1998, at the European Geoscience field conference Jim Gibson stated that "the long-age viewpoint makes certain unfavorable implications about the character of God and the reliability of the Bible. Since I give epistemological primacy to the Scriptures, I accept the Genesis record as a matter of faith. Having adopted that position, I am encouraged that much of the evidence claimed to support long ages can be reinterpreted in the context of a short chronology." 17

Randall Younker (archaeologist at Andrews University with a background in biology). At Andrews University, he and John Baldwin teach the course "Issues in Origin" in which they present the traditional creationist viewpoint.Younker wrote the Sabbath School quarterly on creation for the fourth quarter of 1999. In the introduction to the lesson he states, "Seventh-day Adventists take Genesis 1-11 as an accurate historical account of origins of life on earth. We accept the biblical account's straightforward testimony that the creation of life on this planet and its various habitats occurred in six literal, 24-hour days. Based on the avail able biblical data, we also believe that the period of time since the Creation has been a short chronology of a few thousand years, as opposed to millions of years required by the general theory of evolution."18

Leonard Brand (biologist at Loma Linda University). In the introduction to his book Faith, Reason, and Earth History he writes that "a central thesis of this book is that a creationist can indeed be an effective scientist."19 He champions interventionism, a view of history that recognizes the important role of intelligent intervention in history. In the chapter on faith and science he says in regard to geology, "Science has proposed a theory that fossil-bearing geologic deposits have accumulated over hundreds of millions of years.... 1 conclude that the Bible indicates that current geological theory, in certain respects, is an incorrect interpretation of the data. Our task is to go back to the research lab and develop a more correct theory." 20

Richard Davidson (theologian at Andrews University). Davidson is a proponent of the Adventist gap theory, i.e., Genesis 1:1 speaks about the creation of the universe; only from verse 3 on is the creation week in view. In regard to the interpretation of Genesis 1 he says, "Based upon the testimony of the Genesis account and later intertextual allusions to this account, I must affirm the literal, historical nature of Genesis 1 and 2, with a literal Creation week consisting of six consecutive, contiguous, creative, natural 24-hour days, followed immediately by a literal 24-hour seventh day, during which God rested, blessed, and sanctified the Sabbath as a memorial of creation."21

The view of Jack Provonsha. In the face of scientific facts, a six-day Creation a few thousand years ago is no longer acceptable to many Adventist scholars and scientists. On the other hand, conservative Adventist scholars cannot accept any view that posits death before human beings lived on the earth, because Paul in Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (NK]V).

The Loma Linda physician and theologian Jack Provonsha, therefore, has proposed a different solution. He has suggested that Adventists consider the ruin-restoration theory as propounded by the Scofield Bible. According to this view, when Lucifer was cast out of heaven to the earth he was given a long time to work out his principles. "This included genetic experimentation resulting in the evolutionary process which ultimately led to the development of human-like apes. At some more recent time, Provonsha suggested, God stepped in and created the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve."22

Although this view combines the conservative view with the scientific data of death before Adam, it has received little support from either side.

Recent faith and science conferences

At the Annual Council in 2001 the General Conference Executive Committee organized a series of conferences on faith and science during the years 2002-2004. The first one in 2002 was an international conference in Ogden, Utah. More than 80 scientists, theologians, and church administrators from different parts of the world began dis cussing the interrelationship between faith and science. Topics ranged from the hominid fossil record to Ellen White's view of science. The conference revealed the seriousness and breadth of differences concerning questions of origin that are present in the Adventist community today.

During 2003 and the first half of 2004 most divisions held similar faith and science conferences in their territories. The formal discussions came to an end in August 2004 at the second international conference in Denver, Colorado. "The new element in this conference was a discussion on the ethics of dissent dealing with the ethical responsibility of those who differ in significant ways from the biblical position of the church on the topic of creation. The discussion was open, candid, and highly professional. It was obvious that a small number of individuals scientists and theologians did not support or felt uncomfortable with the biblical doctrine of creation in six literal, consecutive days as clearly revealed in Genesis I."23

There was no attempt on the part of church leaders to modify or change our fundamental belief on Creation. This was clearly stated by Elder Jan Paulsen, the General Conference president, before the discussions were initiated. However, such discussions cannot be avoided because the theory of evolution and the Adventist doctrine of creation represent two antagonistic and fundamentally diverse worldviews. Unfortunately, theistic evolution is one view that is being held and taught by a number of Seventh-day Adventists today.

Secondly, it is important for the church to be aware that neither evolutionists nor creationists have all the answers in the debate. These conferences provided a proper environment to discuss these questions while at the same time holding to our faith commitment.

The report of the International Faith and Science Conference Organizing Committee to the 2004 Autumn Council of the General Conference stated that while there is widespread affirmation of the Church's position on Creation, "[W]e recognize that some among us interpret the biblical record in ways that lead to sharply different conclusions."24

The Annual Council, after careful discussion, produced a response to the report in which the Council strongly endorsed the Church's historic, biblical position of belief in a literal, recent, six day creation. "We reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature." 25 The response also called upon all boards and teachers at our schools to uphold and advocate the Church's position on origins.

Conclusion

The last few years have shown that there are a number of views on creation within the Adventist Church. Not all of them can be right. Should theistic evolution become more and more accept ed, we will be in danger of losing the biblical foundation for the Sabbath and our understanding of salvation.

Without the Creation week the Sabbath becomes a Jewish institution, and if death existed long before the appearance of man, there was no Fall in Eden and therefore there is no need for salvation. Then Paul was in error when he wrote: "Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

1 M.C. Wilcox, "The Gospel in Genesis One," The Signs of the Times, 24.27 (July 7, 1898): 16.

2 Clyde E. Webster, The Earth (Silver Spring: Office of Education, NAD, 1989), 43.

3 Richard Davidson, "The Biblical Account of Origins." Paper presented at the Faith and Science Conference, August 23-29, 2002 in Ogden, Utah, 29.

4 J.N. Andrews, "The Memorial of Creation," Review and Herald 43.17 (April 7, 1874): 129.

5 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, 8 cols. (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1948), 8.258.

6 Seventh Day Adventist Encyclopedia, second rv. ed Commentary Reference Series, vol 10 (Hagerstown, MD Review and Herald, 1996), 599.

7 Ron Numbers, The Creationists (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1992), 292.

8 James L. Hayward, ed, Creation Reconsidered (Roseville, Calif. Association of Adventists Forums, 2000), 12.

9 _____, "The Many Faces of Adventist Creationism," Spectrum 25.3 (March 1996), 25.

10 Karen Bottomley, "Pilgrimage in the Rockies: The AAF Geology Tour," Spectrum 16.4 (1985), 26.

11 Richard M. Ritland, "The Geologic Column" in Hayward, ed. Creation Reconsidered, 34.

12 _____"Age Dating of Rocks" in Hayward, ed , Creation Reconwlerett, 75

13 Quoted in Hayward, Spettrttm 25 3 (1996). 27, 2B

14 Fritz Guy, "Interpreting Genesis One in the Twenty-First Century," Spectrum 31 2 (Spring 200J), 11,

15 Ibid, 12

16 Ibid, 13

17 Jim Gibson, "Why a Creation Conference" (Geoscience Research Institute, Unpublished manuscript), 19

18 Randall Younker, God's Creation, Sabbath School Study Guide for the third quarter 1999 (Silver Spring Genera! Conference!, 1999), 4

19 Leonard Brand, Faith, and Reason, Earth History (Berrien Springs, Mich.. Andrews University Press, 1997), viii

20 Ibid , 95

21 Richard M Davidson, "The Biblical Account of Origins" Unpublished paper presented at the International Faith and Science Conference 2002 at Ogden, Utah, 22

22 Hayward, Spectrum 25.3 (1996) 22

23 Angel M. Rodriguez, "Second international Faith and Science Conference A Report," Reflections 9 (Jan 2005) 2.

24 "An Affirmation of Creation," Report of the International Faith and Science Conference of Organizing Committee, 5.

25 "Response to an Affirmation of Creation," Annual Council 2004, 1.

>

Author: Gerhard Pfandl, Ph.D., associate director of the Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Mercies Every Morning

Photo:Carmen Cordelia
“It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not. They are new every morning; great is His faithfulness" (Lamentations 3:22,23).

Have you experienced God's mercy this morning? Think about it.

When my alarm went off this morning, I hit the snooze button. I thought... Just a few more minutes! But then, just then, I heard my little puppies beckoning me awake. They needed to go out! Fueled by the need not to feel guilt, I got out of the bed. I was greeted by the freshest morning air - wonderful and crisp. I breathed in the fragrance of the morning still wet from yesterday's rain. What a perfect way to meet the day!

Instead of taking my walk this morning, I felt the need to kneel down in my prayer corner and pray over the concerns of my heart. Despite my puny faith, my sometimes appalling lack of belief - HE NEVER FAILS ME. There are so many times that I do not expect my God to come through for me. I don't even expect anything. How horrible is that? And yet He is still faithful!

There is a wonderful story in the Bible of a father whose son had an evil spirit in him. The father, desperate for help, asked the disciples to see what they could do. However, they were not able to help him. So the father pleaded with Jesus, "Help him if you can!" Jesus replied, saying, "All things are possible to him who believes."

Help Me to Believe

Now right there we should say, "Wow!" I mean Jesus tells us all we need to do is believe! But unfortunately, much too often I am like the father who cried out, saying with tears, “Lord, I believe; help me to believe!" (Mark 9:24).

In other words, this man believed and yet was full of doubt. How often do you doubt the faithfulness of your Loving Savior? Do you ever feel like there is no way He would help you? Do ever feel like your problems are not God's concern or that He can't help you?

Sometimes life doesn't go the way we want or expect. Sometimes we have so much hurt and sorrow that we don't know what to do. Those are the times we most need our God. Turn to Him in your pain and sorrow, He is faithful to help you and you will learn much about HIM as well as yourself.

Psalm 119:71 says, "It is good for me that I have been afflicted, That I may learn Your statutes." We learn valuable lessons trough our trials. Be thankful and praise His name! God is faithful!"